DISCLAIMER

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 AGENDA

** CLICK HERE FOR RDA AGENDA

** CLICK HERE FOR IA AGENDA

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 item(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 Public 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 to the staff or the public.

Conduct at the Council Meeting: The City Council has adopted a set of rules for conduct during City Council meetings. 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 commits the following acts at 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.

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

APRIL 4, 2000

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes.

RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DECLARING EACH DAY DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL 2000 AS ARBOR DAY.

RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOL. NO. 99-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 1999-2000, TO INCREASE BUDGETED APPROPRIATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM OF THE GENERAL FUND.

RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOL. NO. 99-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND AND GAS TAX FUND.

RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 8 to the agreement with All City Management Services, Inc. (All City), for an amount not to exceed $7,500 to provide crossing guard services at Miraleste Intermediate School for the 2000-2001 school year.

RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOL. NO. 99-71, AND CREATING A SALARY RANGE FOR THE POSITION OF MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT.

RECOMMENDATION: (1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to record 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 Carpet Manor 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.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve a covenant agreement for the property at 19 Marguerite Drive regarding the construction and maintenance of a storm drain system within the street right of way.

RECOMMENDATION: (1) Award a Professional Services Contract to Willdan in an amount not to exceed $65,300 for professional design services and project management during bidding for the FY 2000-2001 Street Overlay and Slurry Seal Programs, and authorize the expenditure of an additional $4,700 for possible extra services for a total expenditure authorization of $70,000. (2) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Willdan.

RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter in support of AB 1939 to the authors said legislation and to the Los Angeles County Legislative Delegation.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the February 2000 Treasurer’s Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

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.

RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, DENYING THE APPEAL, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 182 REVISION "B", AND SIGN PERMIT NO. 720 REVISION "A" TO ALLOW A HAND CAR WASH/DETAILING OPERATION AT THE EXISTING MOBIL SERVICE STATION, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

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

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

REGULAR BUSINESS:

RECOMMENDATION: Make appointments to the following advisory boards for a two-year term of office until April 2002. (1) Seven members to the Planning Commission; (2) Seven members to the Traffic Committee; (3) Seven members to the Recreation & Parks Committee; (4) Five Members to the Finance Advisory Committee; (5) As many as nine members to the Equestrian Committee; and, (7) Appoint a chairperson to each of these advisory boards to serve in such capacity until April 3, 2001.

RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to obtain appraisals, at a cost not to exceed $15,000, for: (1) the approximately 228-acre property known as "Upper Filiorum" which is owned by York Long Point Associates; and (2) the approximately 422-acre property in the Portuguese Bend area which is owned by Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company (Hon).

RECOMMENDATION: Determine what action the City Council should take as a result of the Mitre Study.

RECOMMENDATION: Consider the request of the West Basin Association to support AB 1794 to reform the Water Replenishment District of Southern California.

RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Director of Public Works to notify the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (COG) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes wishes to withdraw as the lead agency for the Peninsula Bikeway Project.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the minutes.

ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DECLARING EACH DAY DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL 2000 AS ARBOR DAY.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE:APRIL 4, 2000

RECOMMEDATIONS

Adopt Resolution 2000 - , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes declaring each day during the month of April 2000 as Arbor Day.

DISCUSSION

On November 3, 1999 the City Council authorized the Department of Public Works to apply for an Urban Forestry Grant under the Trees for the Millennium Program. If approved a grant of up to $50,000 may be awarded to plant new trees throughout the community. One of the grant requirements is for the City to declare every day in the month of April as Arbor Day. The attached resolution makes this declaration.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will declare every day in the Month of April as Arbor Day, thereby fulfilling a requirement of the Trees for the Millennium Grant Program.

ALTERNATE ACTIONS

Do not adopt the resolution, but this would invalidate the City application for funding.

FISCAL IMPACT

If the recommendation is approved, and the grant is awarded, the City could receive funding of up to $50,000.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed

Les Evans. City Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOL. NO. 99-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 1999-2000, TO INCREASE BUDGETED APPROPRIATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM OF THE GENERAL FUND.

RECOMMENDATION:

 BACKGROUND:

At the meeting of March 8, 2000, the City Council approved the donation of $10,000 to the Friends of Friendship Park to help defray the costs of legal fees incurred challenging the Los Angeles County plan for the development of Friendship Park. The March 8, 2000 staff report mentioned that a resolution authorizing a budget adjustment for the amount of the approved donation would be presented at the next City Council meeting. In accordance with the action previously taken by Council, the attached resolution merely approves the additional expenditure of $10,000 in the Community Outreach program of the General fund.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed:

Les Evans.

City Manager

ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOL. NO. 99-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND AND GAS TAX FUND.

DATE:APRIL 4, 2000

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Adopt Resolution 2000 - , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes amending Resolution No 99-41, the budget appropriation for fiscal year 1999 – 2000, for a budget adjustment to the City’s General Fund, and Gas Tax Fund.

BACKGROUND

On March 13, 2000 the City’s Maintenance Supervisor voluntarily ended his employment with the City. To continue the current level of maintenance services, contract employees will fill this key position on an interim basis. The adopted budget does not provide adequate funding for these services, and a budget increase of $12,000 is required.

DISCUSSION

Two individuals from two different firms will fill the vacancy. Both individuals currently provide on-call services to the City, and both are familiar with the City and its operations. It is anticipated services totaling 40 hours per week will be required through July 1, 2000, when permanent staff can be hired. The cost for these services is estimated at $39,000, the salary saving by the current, and a past vacancy in the Public Works Department is approximately $ 27,000. The recommended budget increase of $12,000 provides for the funding shortfall.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will provide funding for the position of Maintenance Supervisor on a contract basis until permanent City staff can be hired.

ALTERNATE ACTIONS

Approve a budget adjustment for a portion of the requested amount. This will require a reduction in the level of service currently provided.

FISCAL IMPACT

The Budget Adjustment will increase the funding level for both Public Works Administration, and Public Works Gas Tax Fund. Funds are available in the General Fund Reserve and the Gas Tax Reserve.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed

Les Evans, City Manager

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 8 to the agreement with All City Management Services, Inc. (All City), for an amount not to exceed $7,500 to provide crossing guard services at Miraleste Intermediate School for the 2000-2001 school year.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE:APRIL 4, 2000

SUBJECT:CROSSING GUARD SERVICES FOR 1999-2000 SCHOOL YEAR -AMENDMENT NO. 8 - ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 8 to the agreement with All City Management Services, Inc. (All City), for an amount not to exceed $7,500 to provide crossing guard services at Miraleste Intermediate School for the 2000-2001 School Year.

BACKGROUND

Beginning with the 1991-92 school year, the City began providing a crossing guard and a traffic control officer at the Miraleste Intermediate School. The need for these services arose when the school converted from a high school to an intermediate school; this resulted in an increase in the student pedestrian traffic crossing Palos Verdes Drive East to get to the bus stop. The cost to the City for the Sheriff's Department traffic control officer is shared with the cities of Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates. The School District fully reimburses the City for the cost of the crossing guard services provided by All City. Starting with the 1992-93 school year, the City began contracting with All City to provide the crossing guard services.

As indicated in the March 8^th letter from All City, there will be no increase in the cost of their services.

DISCUSSION

All City Management proposes to continue providing crossing guard services at the rate of $13.49 per hour; this is the same rate they have been charging since 1994. The rate includes costs for training, supervision and any necessary back-up personnel. Based on a 180-day school year, the cost for the service is estimated not to exceed $7,500.

FISCAL IMPACT

The City is fully reimbursed for this service by the PVPUSD.

Respectfully submitted,

Jo Purcell

Reviewed:

Les Evans, City Manager

Att. Letter from All City Management Services

Amendment to Agreement

RECOMMENDATION:

ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOL. NO. 99-71, AND CREATING A SALARY RANGE FOR THE POSITION OF MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT.

Adopt Resolution No. 2000- ; amending Resolution No. 99-71 and creating a salary range for the position of Maintenance Superintendent.

The recent vacancy of the Maintenance Supervisor in the Public Works Department has provided the City an opportunity to re-assess the job requirements and responsibilities in relation to the needs of the department. The Public Works Department has determined that the current position would be more beneficial to the organization if the position was upgraded in responsibility and pay. Staff proposes that the Maintenance Supervisor position be reclassified as Maintenance Superintendent. The Maintenance Superintendent would be responsible for additional complex duties and higher-level responsibilities such as, contract administration, project management, and Council report preparation. Hiring an individual with greater experience and qualifications will enable the Public Works Department to proactively seek ways to improve the maintenance and upkeep of City parklands, buildings, streets and other public facilities, while monitoring the City’s maintenance contracts and services more closely.

The proposed salary range for the Maintenance Superintendent is $3,891 - $5,054 per month or $46,692 - $60,648 annually. This salary range is 10% above the existing Maintenance Supervisor salary range and comparable to the Associate Engineer position. Should Council approve the upgraded position of Maintenance Superintendent and its salary range, it will be necessary to adopt the Resolution amending the Salary Schedule.

Staff anticipates that there will be no net increase over the amount budgeted in the fiscal year 1999-2000 budget for salaries as a result of the proposed salary amendment. The current budget allows for an individual to be hired up to the mid-range proposed for the Maintenance Superintendent without making a budget adjustment. The salary range proposed for Maintenance Superintendent is $3,891 - $5,054 per month or $46,692 - $60,648 annually.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Gina Park, Senior Administrative Analyst

REVIEWED

Les Evans, City Manager

(1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to record 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 Carpet Manor 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.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

RECOMMENDATIONS:

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 Carpet Manor 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 17, 1999, City Council awarded a contract to Carpet Manor for the installation of flooring in areas of the Main City Hall Building, the Planning Building, and the PV on the Net Building. This work was completed on March 4, 2000.

There was one contract change order on the project. In response to the City’s request, carpet padding was added in the Planning Offices.

Carpet Manor 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 1998-99 budget for completion of the project and funds were carried forward into the current year.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,

Les Evans, City Manager

Approve a covenant agreement for the property at 19 Marguerite Drive regarding the construction and maintenance of a storm drain system within the street right of way.

DATE:APRIL 4, 2000

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve as to form a covenant agreement for the property at 19 Marguerite Drive regarding the construction and maintenance of a storm drain system within the street right of way.

BACKGROUND

On March 6, 2000 the City Council conditionally approved the installation of a private drainage facility within the public right of way of Marguerite Drive to provide drainage for a private property. The approval required the applicant – the property owner at 19 Marguerite – to maintain the facility, and to construct the pipe in such a manner to avoid the current and proposed driveway on a neighboring property.

DISCUSSION

The attached covenant prepared by the City Attorney addresses maintenance of the system. The agreement requires the current and future property owners at 19 Marguerite Drive to maintain the drainage facility in a manner acceptable to the Director of Public Works. Once the agreement is approved by the City Council it will be forwarded to the property owner at 19 Marguerite Drive for execution. Once executed the applicant can submit an application for an encroachment permit.

It will be during the review of the permit application that those additional concerns expressed by the City Council will be addressed. These concerns consist of the pipe material, construction methods, and assurance that the location of the pipe considered the current and future location of a neighbor’s driveway. Once these issues are properly addressed a permit will be issued.

FISCAL IMPACT

Staff could identify no fiscal impacts. The property owner at 19 Marguerite Drive will be responsibility for the maintenance of the facility.

Respectfully submitted

Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Covenant Agreement

RECOMMENDATION:

(1) Award a Professional Services Contract to Willdan in an amount not to exceed $65,300 for professional design services and project management during bidding for the FY 2000-2001 Street Overlay and Slurry Seal Programs, and authorize the expenditure of an additional $4,700 for possible extra services for a total expenditure authorization of $70,000. (2) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Willdan.

DATE:APRIL 4, 2000

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve as to form a covenant agreement for the property at 19 Marguerite Drive regarding the construction and maintenance of a storm drain system within the street right of way.

BACKGROUND

On March 6, 2000 the City Council conditionally approved the installation of a private drainage facility within the public right of way of Marguerite Drive to provide drainage for a private property. The approval required the applicant – the property owner at 19 Marguerite – to maintain the facility, and to construct the pipe in such a manner to avoid the current and proposed driveway on a neighboring property.

DISCUSSION

The attached covenant prepared by the City Attorney addresses maintenance of the system. The agreement requires the current and future property owners at 19 Marguerite Drive to maintain the drainage facility in a manner acceptable to the Director of Public Works. Once the agreement is approved by the City Council it will be forwarded to the property owner at 19 Marguerite Drive for execution. Once executed the applicant can submit an application for an encroachment permit.

It will be during the review of the permit application that those additional concerns expressed by the City Council will be addressed. These concerns consist of the pipe material, construction methods, and assurance that the location of the pipe considered the current and future location of a neighbor’s driveway. Once these issues are properly addressed a permit will be issued.

FISCAL IMPACT

Staff could identify no fiscal impacts. The property owner at 19 Marguerite Drive will be responsibility for the maintenance of the facility.

Respectfully submitted

Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Covenant Agreement

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the Mayor to send a letter in support of AB 1939 to the authors said legislation and to the Los Angeles County Legislative Delegation.

STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST

Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in support of Solid Waste Diversion Requirements and Compliance Measurement (AB 1939), to the authors of AB 1939 and the Los Angeles County Legislative Delegation.

BACKGROUND

In 1989, the California State legislature passed Assembly Bill 939, which calls for residents of California to divert 25 percent of its solid waste from landfills by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. The bill made local jurisdictions responsible for developing and implementing programs to achieve the mandated diversion levels. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) is responsible for assuring compliance with AB 939 and its amendments.

Jurisdictions are facing an impending year 2000 deadline of meeting the numerical goal of 50% diversion of solid waste. Jurisdictions may face penalties of up to $10,000 per day, if these diversion goals are not achieved. The City’s reported diversion rate for 1995, 1996, 1997 and estimated 1998 rate are 28%, 20%, 38% and 44%, respectively.

This matter is brought before the City Council at the request of Councilmember McTaggart who recommends that the City Council take a position in favor of the legislation.

DISCUSSION

The Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force (Task Force) recommends that jurisdictions support the proposed State Legislative Bill 1939, which impacts the Solid waste diversion requirements and compliance measurement as follows:

For many years, jurisdictions have expressed concerns about the difficulties with "accurately" accounting for the waste originating within their boundaries for the purpose of measuring compliance with the State’s 50 percent waste reduction mandate. It is extremely difficult to accurately track all the waste generated within each jurisdiction from the point of origin, through various intermediate processing points, and to the ultimate point of diversion and/or disposal. For example it is very easy for the driver of a trash truck or roll-off dumpster to confuse a pickup(s) from RPV, Palos Verdes Estates and/or Rolling Hills Estates.

Staff has reviewed the suggested support letter and accompanying information, which is attached to this staff report for Council review. Staff finds the information to be consistent with our City’s concerns and interests.

Update on City of RPV’s Efforts to Meet the AB 939 Goals:

In August of 1999, the City submitted its 1998 AB 939 Annual Report to the CIWMB. The reported diversion using the simple Board approved base year adjustment methodology (AB 2494) was 44%. An alternative 1998 diversion utilizing the so-called "LA Fix" was also submitted which indicated the City’s diversion rate at 58%. Utilizing the "LA Fix" is a way of delegating approximately 4 million tons of disposal among different cities based on population. The tonnage when allocated increases the 1990 base year disposal quantities, therefore, improves the current disposal versus recycling ratio.

In the past several months, staff has gathered documentation to justify the higher diversion rate. Huls Environmental Management, the City’s solid waste consultant has conducted surveys from the area’s golf courses, landfills, stables and electric company to verify diversion activities such as grass cycling, composting, use of tree trimmings, etc. In addition, Waste Management of Los Angeles has provided the City with a consultant that has performed approximately 40 waste audits of the City’s businesses, schools and the City Hall.

The preliminary tonnage figures indicate a 1998 diversion rate of about 55.5%. The supporting documentation for the "LA Fix" will be submitted to the Board on March 31, 2000. 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. Staff believes that the documentation is adequate. However, if that request is denied, the City may utilize the information obtained through the audits and surveys to request a new 1998 or 1999 base year.

Do not send the support letter to the State legislature. However, staff does not see a reason not to support AB 1939.

There is no fiscal impact to the recommended actions. However, the City may face a fine of up to $10,000 a day if it does not reach its mandated diversion goal.

Respectively submitted,

Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,

Les Evans, City Manager

Receive and file the February 2000 Treasurer’s Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Receive and file the February 2000 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Government Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit an investment report to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. The City has elected to submit a treasurer’s report to the Council for review each month. This report summarizes the cash activity associated with all funds of the City. A separate treasurer’s report is prepared monthly for both the Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority and is presented under separate cover before their respective governing bodies. The attached treasurer's report includes the cash activities of the City for the month of February 2000.

The City’s total cash balances increased by nearly $720,000 during February 2000, ending with an overall balance of $20,370,198. The large increase is a result of the cash balances in several individual funds of the City experiencing significant fluctuations during the month. An analysis of these funds follows:

General Fund – Total General fund cash increased by $263,000 in February. The increase is attributable to receiving several large installments of recurring revenues such as property tax revenues, quarterly franchise fees and motor vehicle in-lieu fees.

1972 Act Fund – The cash balance in the 1972 Act fund increased to $427,543 at February 29, 2000. The City received approximately $37,500 of annual property assessment monies that are collected by the County and subsequently remitted to the City.

CDBG Fund – The City was reimbursed nearly $46,000 for expenditures recorded in the CDBG fund. The majority of these reimbursements relate to Home Improvement Program project expenditures disbursed out of escrow accounts. However, there is still a large negative cash balance in the fund that will continue until all amounts are expended out of escrow and reimbursed to the City.

Proposition C and Proposition A Funds - These two funds received two months of apportionments (January and February) from the County. The ending cash balances of the Proposition C and Proposition A funds increased by $69,100 and $63,700 respectively.

CIP Fund – While cash increased by nearly $70,000 during the month, February was a month with relatively little CIP activity. Cash receipts were limited to the receipt of the $125,000 monthly transfer from the General fund, while disbursements totaled only about $55,000. These disbursements related primarily to PVIC soil remediation costs and engineering fees associated with the 25^th Street road project.

Special Trusts Fund – The cash balance in the Special Trusts fund increased by approximately $114,000 in February. As noted in previous months, it is typical for the cash balances in this fund to vary from month to month. These variances are caused by changes in the timing of payments to and from the City. During February the City received an additional deposit from Ocean Trails, which helped account for the overall cash increase.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis McLean,Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:

Les Evans, City Manager

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:

RECOMMENDATION:

ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, DENYING THE APPEAL, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 182 REVISION "B", AND SIGN PERMIT NO. 720 REVISION "A" TO ALLOW A HAND CAR WASH/DETAILING OPERATION AT THE EXISTING MOBIL SERVICE STATION, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

Adopt Resolution No. 2000-___, denying the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "B", and Sign Permit No. 720 Revision "A" to allow a hand car wash/detailing operation at the existing Mobil Service Station, subject to conditions.

On May 2, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95-41, upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to conditionally approve Conditional Use Permit No. 182, for the construction of a 1,463 square foot addition to the pre-existing service station building for the operation of a convenience store on the project site. Based on public testimony presented at the appeal hearing, the City Council imposed specific conditions of approval to further reduce impacts associated with the convenience store project. The conditions specifically precluded the sale of alcoholic beverages, operation of a car wash, and operation of a propane fuel tank in connection with the approval of CUP No. 182. According to the City Council Resolution 95-41 (attached), "those uses would only be allowed if a separate Conditional Use Permit is first approved by the City".

In October of 1998, the applicant submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "A" to allow the sale of beer and wine as part of the previously approved convenience store. This request was proposed in accordance with Conditional Use Permit No. 182 condition no. 6 (attached) which states that "any new use or expansion to an existing use proposed on the property shall be subject to review and approval of a revision to the Conditional Use Permit". On December 8, 1998, after conducting a fully noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "A" to allow the sale of beer and wine.

On September 24, 1999, Mr. Bill Myers submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "B", Sign Permit No. 720 Revision "A", and Environmental Assessment No. 716 to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department. The applications sought approval to: 1) establish a 665 square foot hand car wash/vacuum area, which includes the installation of a 450 square foot canopy over the hand car wash area; 2) the installation of a 600 square foot trellis for the seating area located along the northern side of the existing building; 3) the installation of a 180 square foot detail canopy at the rear of the property; and 4) the installation of a new 9 square foot car wash sign that will be attached to the side of the existing monument sign.

On January 25, 2000, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence (minutes attached). After reviewing the proposed applications, including an Environmental Assessment prepared by Staff, the Commission conditionally approved the proposed project, but directed Staff to incorporate additional conditions of approval to address concerns that were raised during the public testimony and return with the resolutions for adoption at the February 8, 2000 meeting. On February 8, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2000-03 (attached), adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration making certain environmental findings in association with Environmental Assessment No. 716, and P.C. Resolution No. 2000-04 (attached) approving Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "B" and Sign Permit No. 720 Revision "A", subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A".

The three new conditions that were added by the Planning Commission to Exhibit "A" are:

1) a requirement that water reclamation for the hand car wash meet all existing government requirements and industry standards (refer to condition no. 24);

2) a requirement that noise generated by the hand car wash not exceed a noise level of 65 decibels, as measured from any affected residences (refer to condition no. 27); and

3) a requirement that the applicant work with affected neighbors to mitigate any visual or noise impacts generated by the car wash/detailing use (refer to condition no. 26).

The vote on this action was 5-1 for approval, with Commissioner Alberio dissenting (minutes attached). On February 21, 2000, within the prescribed 15-day appeal period, the Planning Commission’s approval of this project was appealed to the City Council by Mr. Benjamin Peterson (see attached appeal letter), property owner at 28067 Santona Drive. The previous staff report (which includes a complete project description), minutes, project plans, related correspondence and other information are attached to this report.

The subject property is a 41,867 square foot (.96 acre) corner lot located on the northwest corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Altamira Granvia. The lot has an existing 3,592 square foot one-story building with three automobile service bays, convenience store and a small office and storage area. There are also four fueling dispensers located under an existing 1,500 square foot, 18'10" high canopy.

The underlying zoning district of the lot is RS-4 (Single Family Residential). However, since this lot is in the City's automotive service station overlay control district (OC-4), the use is considered a legal conforming use, regardless of the base zoning district. The Development Code requires that the City’s Automotive Service Station Overlay Control District (OC-4) guidelines be applied to this project, as opposed to the City’s automotive service station standards. A copy of the OC-4 Code Section is attached.

As shown on the attached plans, the applicant requests approval to utilize the area behind the existing building for a hand car wash operation. To facilitate this use, the applicant proposes to designate approximately 1,570 square feet of area along the rear of the existing service station building as a vacuum area, wash area and drying area. A 124 square foot vacuum area will be established adjacent to the existing equipment room which will contain two vacuum lines, located on either side of the vehicles. The actual vacuum equipment will be located within the existing enclosed sound insulated equipment room. Immediately adjacent to the vacuum area will be a 450 square foot wash area. Within the wash area will be two water hoses, which will be used to wash the vehicles. An underground 3-stage water clarifier will also be installed at the wash area to capture the discharge from the vehicle wash bay. Approximately 20% of the water from the third stage of the clarifier will be recycled to the soap dispenser, and the remaining 80% will discharge to a local sewer line. Adjacent to the car wash area there will be a 1,006 square foot drying area which will accommodate four (4) vehicles. A drainage grate will be installed around the drying area to capture any runoff from the vehicles.

The applicant also requests approval to install a 180 square foot detail canopy at the north-western end of the property between two parking spaces, and construct a new 600 square foot trellis over the existing seating area that will abut the northern side of the existing building. Furthermore, a new 9 (1’6" x 6’3") square foot illuminated car wash sign is proposed to be attached to the existing monument sign. The additional sign face will be attached to the side of the existing sign and will not exceed the height of the current freestanding sign. The proposed car wash/detailing hours of operation will be from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. everyday.

According to the Development Code, the automotive overlay control district development guidelines shall be used to review automotive service uses within the OC-4 district when a Conditional Use Permit is required by the Code for a specific development project.

Development Code Section 17.60.050 requires the consideration of six findings for approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and Development Code Section 17.76.050(B) requires the consideration of eight findings for approval of the Sign Permit. These findings are discussed in detail in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 25, 2000. The Planning Commission was able to make all the necessary findings to conditionally approved the proposed project, for reasons discussed in the January 25, 2000 Staff Report. In addition, the attached Staff Report explains in detail the analysis dealing with the following issues: 1) hours of operation; 2) employees; 3) parking; 4) traffic circulation; 5) drainage; and 6) noise.

The project site has been identified as a "Hazardous Waste and Substance Site" by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL/EPA). As such, the proposed project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared on December 16, 1999 for the proposed hand car wash facility pursuant to Guidelines Section 15371, Pub. Res. Code Section 21092.6(a), and the document was sent to the all the affected agencies.

As shown in the attached Initial Study, as mitigated, the project will not result in or create any significant impacts to Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Geology, Water, Air Quality, Transportation and Circulation, Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, or Recreation. However, the Initial Study did identify potential significant impacts to: 1) Water (4(a) drainage patterns); 2) Water (m-j storm water system discharge); 3) Transportation 6(a); and 4) Noise 10(a) which could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 25, 2000 explains in detail the analysis dealing with these following issues. The Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2000-03 (attached) finding that the project, as conditioned, would not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment.

In appealing the planning Commission’s decision, the appellant, Mr. Peterson, raised 11 issues (shown in italics) and 1 comment that relate to the proposed project (see attached appeal letter). A discussion of the issues and comment follows.

1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has no right to expose the citizens to a reduced quality of life by knowingly approving an environment that could generate more noise and congestion.

With respect to congestion, the proposed project was thoroughly reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department and the City’s Traffic Engineer to assess the traffic impacts. As discussed in more detail in the January 25, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report, the City’s Traffic Engineer determined that a hand car wash of this type would generate between 20 to 40 vehicle trips during a typical peak business period, which is from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. everyday, although it may vary depending on the season. Based on this expected trip generation the City’s Traffic Engineer determined that even though the proposed hand car wash will generate additional traffic to the existing Mobil service station site, the impacts of this traffic to the public roadways are not anticipated to be significant based on the existing roadway configuration and operations at the intersection. The car wash will also result in increased vehicle congestion within the site, especially at the rear of the building. The Traffic Engineer believes that while this congestion may limit circulation around the building and reduce access to certain areas, this congestion is not expected to impact any off-site operations. Therefore, the City’s Traffic Engineer concluded that it appears that the site will be adequate in size to accommodate the operation without any further modifications.

With respect to noise, it is Staff’s opinion that the project would not result in a significant increase in noise levels. This is based on the fact that the vacuum equipment will be located in a sound insulated equipment room and the car wash use will be limited to daytime hours (9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). As a result, noises emitted from the car wash use would not be significantly higher than the ambient noise levels that exist on the site due to the existing auto repair use and nearby intersection.

The issue regarding the increase of noise levels was raised before the Planning Commission. As a result, to ensure that no significant noise impacts would result from the proposed car wash use, the Planning Commission added a new condition that prohibited noise levels generated by the car wash/detailing use to exceed a maximum level of 65 decibels, as measured from the affected residences (please refer to condition no. 27 of Exhibit "A"). Also, the Planning Commission incorporated other conditions that prohibit the honking of horns to signal the completion of a car wash and prohibit amplified sound (please refer to conditions no. 25 and no. 28 of Exhibit "A"). The proposed project is also subject to a 6-month review by the Planning Commission. If noise levels generated by the proposed car wash exceed 65 decibels during the 6-month review, the Planning Commission has the authority to incorporate additional design elements to further minimize noise impacts.

For these reasons, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to traffic or noise, and thus adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration that finds that the project would not result in any significant impacts on the environment.

2. There are existing problems associated with this station that are already unacceptable and unresolved over the last 3 years. This car wash project will merely add to, and impact the residential area that covers over 99 percent of the adjacent properties. Findings of the planning commission are supposed to set forth the conditions deemed necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood and in the community as a whole.

Staff is not aware of any problems with the existing service station that remain unresolved or unacceptable to the City over the last 3 years. On May 13, 1997, the 6-month review hearing for the convenience store use was conducted by the Planning Commission. At that time, the Planning Commission determined the project to be in full compliance with the conditions of approval and adopted some modifications to the project to further reduce certain impacts. To further reduce noise impacts, the Commission required the installation of signage, modified the noise standards to require that mechanical equipment noise not create significant adverse impacts upon adjacent residents, and required the applicant to install a solid block wall surrounding the mechanical equipment. In addition, in order to reduce visual impacts, the Commission required modifications to some of the exterior lighting and relocated the loading zone and public telephones. All of these modifications were subsequently reviewed and verified by Staff to have been completed in accordance with the conditions of approval of the 6-month review.

In the end, the Planning Commission felt that the proposed project was designed in a manner that would not cause an impact to the health, safety, and general welfare of the site or the surrounding properties (refer to page 13 of the January 25, 2000 Staff Report). Furthermore, specific conditions of approval were added to this project regarding noise, water reclamation, and visual impacts to minimize or avoid any further impacts to the surrounding properties. For these reasons, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed project will not adversely impact the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.

3. This car wash will greatly reduce the property value of adjacent and nearby residences, specifically related to noise pollution for neighboring homes from vacuums, buffer machines, car doors, and vehicle alarms.

The required findings for the Conditional Use Permit and Sign Permit applications do not require the City to analyze or address impacts to property values. Nevertheless, no evidence has been presented to the Planning Commission or new evidence to the City Council to indicate that the proposed hand car wash would greatly reduce the property value of the adjacent and nearby residences, particularly given the existing use on the site.

For reasons described in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report, the Commission determined that project impacts such as noise to the surrounding properties, were adequately mitigated through the project conditions of approval.

4. We fear the large amount of water potentially wasted with reduced water supplies being projected.

The issue of water usage and whether the proposed car wash facility should be mandated to recycle 100% of the water used for car washing was raised before the Planning Commission. At the hearing, a resident submitted a letter from California Water Service Company stating a concern that the proposed car wash facility does not have recycle capability, as stated in the Guidelines of a Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) between the State Department of Water Resources and local water agencies. However, the Planning Commission felt that since the M.O.U did not appear to require water reclamation for a non-conveyor car wash of this type, the proposed hand car wash facility would not be a mechanical car wash, and the applicant proposed to install a water clarifier system that would reclaim approximately 20% of the water used for washing vehicles, it was not necessary to mandate water reclamation for the proposed car wash use. However, the Planning Commission was sympathetic to the residents concerns, and therefore added a condition that required water reclamation for the hand car wash to meet all existing government requirements and industry standards (refer to condition no. 24 of Exhibit "A", dated February 8, 2000). A subsequent review of the M.O.U by the City’s NPDES Consultant concluded that water recycling systems would not be required for the proposed hand car wash. This determination was confirmed by an official at the West Basin Municipal Water District.

5. Not enough parking on the site as at present and most of the parking is being used. Deviated requirement of minimum 30 parking spaces does not seem possible.

The Planning Commission determined that the subject site is currently over parked since there is currently 37 parking spaces on the site, and under Conditional Use Permit No. 182 only 28 parking spaces are required for the existing service station/convenience store use (please refer to pages 5-7 of the January 25, 2000 Staff Report). Notwithstanding the CUP requirement for 28 parking spaces, according to the parking requirements of the current Development Code, the current use on the site only requires 22 parking spaces. As a result, a majority of the parking spaces at the rear of the property are rarely, if ever used.

The Development Code requires 18 parking spaces for the proposed car wash use. This would mean that a total of 40 parking spaces would be needed on the site, per the Development Code, to accommodate all of the proposed uses on the site. However, the proposed car wash use will eliminate 7 existing parking spaces, leaving 30 spaces available for the proposed project.

As discussed in detail on pages 5-7 of the January 25, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report, the Planning Commission felt that the 30 spaces that will be provided on site are adequate to handle the proposed car wash use and that the applicant need not provide the additional 10 parking spaces that the Development Code requires due to: 1) the Code required car wash parking standards are usually intended to apply to a primary use and since the car wash is an ancillary use to the existing service station, there will be a joint use of existing parking spaces; and 2) the parking standards appear to be quite high given the operating nature of a car wash as evidenced by the fact that the City’s Traffic Engineer expects a maximum of 10 vehicle trips an hour during the peak periods.

6. No thorough investigation has been done by professional consultants for noise, safety, traffic circulation inside and outside, and devaluation in the value of residential properties.

As reflected in the Staff Report and Minutes of the January 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission felt that it would not be necessary to conduct a noise study for the proposed hand car wash since the use would not be in operation, and the Commission was satisfied that noise impacts would not substantially increase on the site due to limitations on the hours of the car wash and the proposal to keep the vacuum equipment in a sound insulated room. Furthermore, the current CUP for the convenience store does not establish acceptable noise levels for the site. However, once the car wash and detailing area is in operation, the applicant will be required to have a noise study conducted by a Certified Noise Consultant to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 65 decibels from any affected residences.

The Planning Commission felt that with the mitigation measures and specific conditions placed on the project to minimize or avoid impacts to the surrounding properties, the proposed project would not cause any further impacts to safety. In addition, as noted previously, the on-site and off-site traffic circulation was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Consultant firm, J.R. Engineering (please refer to the attached letter). As indicated earlier in this report the requirements for the Conditional Use Permit and Sign Permit applications do not include specific findings regarding impact to property values, therefore the City would not undertake an in depth outside analysis.

7. On December 5, 1995, the City Council established that no alcoholic beverages and no car wash would be allowed. On December 18, 1998, the Planning Commission allowed the sale of beer and wine over the protests of the nearby residents. Now the applicant seeks to overturn the restriction on a car wash.

When Conditional Use Permit No. 182 for the convenience store was approved in 1995, the City Council imposed specific conditions of approval that precluded the sale of alcoholic beverages, operation of a car wash, and operation of a propane fuel tank in connection with the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 182 (refer to page 2 of the January 25, 2000 Staff Report). Staff believes that the purpose of this action was to be explicitly clear to the applicant that such uses were not a part of the final approval (since they were contemplated by the appellant at some point early in the application process) and that such uses would require a separate hearing and analysis (since the applicant may have thought they would be allowed without the City’s discretionary review). As a result, language was inserted into the Council resolution which states that, "those uses would only be allowed if a separate Conditional Use Permit is first approved by the City".

With respect to the sale of beer and wine request, in October of 1998, the applicant submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "A" to allow the sale of beer and wine. This request was determined to be consistent with Conditional Use Permit No. 182 condition no. 6 which stated that "any new use or expansion to an existing use proposed on the property shall be subject to review and approval of a revision to the Conditional Use Permit". When the Notice of the beer and wine application was mailed out, Staff received only one letter of concern and a total of 4 residents presented their testimony, of which 3 were against the proposed project. Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s approval, a 6-month review was held, at which time the Planning Commission determined the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit Revision were being adhered to and that there were no other problems associated with the sales of beer and wine. With respect to the car wash use, a letter was sent to the applicant on April of 1997 by the former City Manager, Paul Bussey, clarifying the City’s review process for a potential car wash on the site (attached). The letter does not preclude a car wash on the site, but rather explains that a CUP Revision application for a car wash (mechanical or hand) will require Planning Commission review and approval through the public hearing process.

8. The majority of the commission did not even look at the affected residential area and hence have no understanding to the noise pollution for neighboring homes from vacuum, buffer machines, car doors, and alarm.

Planning Commissioners are not required to perform site visits related to a proposed application, but nevertheless, some do visit the site and neighboring properties. The Commission did listen to extensive public testimony related to the noise impacts of the project. As a result, to address the concerns regarding noise, the Planning Commission added a condition which requires that noise generated by the hand car wash not exceed a noise level of 65 decibels, as measured from affected residences. In addition, the Planning Commission established a 6-month review to assess noise levels, and if the level of noise exceeds 65 decibels, the applicant must either: 1) incorporate design elements into the layout of the car wash area that buffer the noise levels; or 2) request that the maximum decibel level be amended, subject to review and approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit through a public hearing by the Planning Commission. Furthermore, to help ensure that the imposed noise level is met, the Planning Commission incorporated another condition that prohibits the honking of horns to indicate the cars are ready.

9. The Commission chose to rely on their own "expertise" and set 65 decibels as a level to be met. The CUP was also modified to permit future increased noise levels, if required. Over and above the 65 decibel level initially proposed (which in itself is 100x above the normal residential standards).

Although the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not have a Noise Element, the Planning Commission in the past has relied on the State Office of Noise Control guidelines to set noise level standards. The State Office of Noise Control has determined that 65 decibels is the approximate level at which ambient noise begins to interfere with the ability to conduct a conversation in a normal tone of voice. For these reasons, the Planning Commission felt that 65 decibels was an acceptable standard for outdoor uses. Although, the City does not have a Noise Element, the City’s standards would likely be very close in compliance with the guidelines promulgated by the State of California.

10. The present car wash installation, as a whole, does not blend into residential surroundings and would present a jarring visual impact.

The issue regarding visual impact was raised before the Planning Commission, and the Commission felt no significant impacts would result since the car wash and vacuum area will be located behind the current service station building. Likewise, the car wash operation would not be readily visible from most surrounding residences. However, as reflected in the Staff Report and Minutes of the January 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission was sympathetic to the resident’s concerns. As a result, the Commission incorporated a new condition to the project that requires the applicant to work with affected neighbors to mitigate any visual or noise impacts associated with the car wash/detailing area (refer to condition no. 26 of Exhibit "A", dated February 8, 2000).

11. Regardless of a hand or mechanical car wash, the rules and regulations regarding environmental and waste management has the same impact.

The proposed project was reviewed by the City’s NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) consultant firm, John Hunter and Associates regarding the drainage patterns, surface runoff, and the storm water discharge (refer to the attached letter dated January 12, 2000). On January 4, 2000, John Hunter determined that the proposed project complies with NPDES and recommended four conditions to the project to ensure that there will be no significant drainage impacts to the environment (refer to page 9 of the January 25, 2000 Staff Report). Also, one of the conditions requires that the County Industrial Waste Department review and approve the clarifier at the car wash area to confirm that it complies with waste management requirements.

Furthermore, to address the concerns raised during the public testimony regarding impacts to the environment, the Planning Commission incorporated an additional condition requiring that the "water reclamation for the car wash must meet all existing government requirements and established industry standards" (refer to condition no. 24 of Exhibit "A", dated February 8, 2000). The applicant has also proposed installation of a drainage grate along the drying area to avoid any runoff onto the city’s public right-of-way (refer to the site plan). For these reasons, the Planning Commission find that the proposed project complies with the environmental and waste management regulations.

It should also be noted, that the appellant felt that the Commission exhibited overpowering bias in favor of the applicant, even though the Commission added several new conditions to address concerns that were raised during the public testimony.

The required 15-day notice regarding this appeal hearing was sent on March 14, 2000 to the property owners within the 500’ radius and all interested parties. Staff received a total of 12 letters, 10 of which are in favor of the proposed project and 2 letters are in opposition to the project. Staff also received a 32-page petition in which the applicant obtained 640 signatures from individuals in favor of the proposed project.

The Public Hearing notice for this hearing was published in the Peninsula News on March 18, 2000 advertising the April 4, 2000 hearing. Staff has reviewed the letters and noted responses to the objection within the body of the staff report.

Based upon the discussion above and the Director’s previous findings, conditions and approval, Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "B", Sign Permit No. 720 Revision "A", and Environmental Assessment No. 716, subject to conditions of approval in Exhibit "A".

If the appeal is upheld and the project thereby denied, a refund of $940.00 appeal feel to the appellants would result. The processing costs for the appeal would then be borne by the General Fund. Approval of the project would be fiscally neutral to the City since the application and appeal fees paid will have already been expended in processing the applications.

Respectfully submitted,

Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by,

Les Evans, City Manager

Make appointments to the following advisory boards for a two-year term of office until April 2002. (1) Seven members to the Planning Commission; (2) Seven members to the Traffic Committee; (3) Seven members to the Recreation & Parks Committee; (4) Five Members to the Finance Advisory Committee; (5) As many as nine members to the Equestrian Committee; and, (7) Appoint a chairperson to each of these advisory boards to serve in such capacity until April 3, 2001.

Make appointments to the following advisory boards for a two-year term of office until April 2002. (1) Seven members to the Planning Commission; (2) Seven members to the Traffic Committee; (3) Seven members to the Recreation & Parks Committee: (4) Five members to the Finance Advisory Committee; (5) As many as nine members to the Equestrian Committee; and, (7) Appoint a chairperson to each of these advisory boards to serve in such capacity until April 3, 2001.

Appointment of the members to these advisory boards will enable them to meet and confer as soon as necessary.

On February 28^th and 29^th,the City Council interviewed all of the candidates for the City’s various advisory boards. A supplemental interview was conducted on March 8^th for those candidates unable to interview during February. These interviews resulted from a recruitment process that began last December; approximately 75 applications were received by the City Clerk’s Office.

The attached ballots are by committee/commission and indicate if the applicant is an incumbent and their ranking of preference for appointment.

The City Council has completed the interview process for the City’s advisory boards and can now make the appointments.

Respectfully submitted,Reviewed:

Jo PurcellLes Evans, City Manager

Authorize the City Manager to obtain appraisals, at a cost not to exceed $15,000, for: (1) the approximately 228-acre property known as "Upper Filiorum" which is owned by York Long Point Associates; and (2) the approximately 422-acre property in the Portuguese Bend area which is owned by Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company (Hon).

Authorize the City Manager to obtain appraisals, at a cost not to exceed $ 15,000, for: 1) the approximately 228 acre property known as "Upper Filiorum" which is owned by York Long Point Associates; and 2) the approximately 422 acre property in the Portuguese Bend area which is owned by Palos Verdes Landholdings Company (Hon).

Since 1997, the City has been working with the State and Federal Resource Agencies on the preparation of a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Subarea (Rancho Palos Verdes). The objective of the NCCP is to establish a habitat preserve system to safeguard sensitive that will be compatible with economic growth. In the end, the preserve system will be made up of publicly owned lands, as well as privately held parcels. As a result of the City’s NCCP work thus far, the basic framework for the preserve has emerged and properties that are critical to the preserve have been identified.

On March 9, 2000, California voters approved Proposition 12 (AB 18/1147 The "Park Bond") and Proposition 13 (AB1584 The "Water Bond"). These bonds contain $4 billion in public funding for water, flood control, parks and open space. According to the NCCP 5-County Funding Group, which lobbied and campaigned heavily for these bonds and which the City of RPV is a member of, approximately $150 million of these funds are earmarked for the Southern California NCCP Program, with an additional $150 million potentially available to habitat conservation programs in the region.

In light of the City’s NCCP efforts and the passage of these two bond measures, Staff believes that it would be prudent to obtain appraisals for the following two privately owned properties that have been identified as being essential to the City’s NCCP habitat preserve system:

1) Upper Filiorum parcel

This parcel is approximately 228 acres in size and is located generally between Plumtree Road and Ocean Terrace Drive. The parcel contains approximately 91 acres of coastal sage scrub (css) habitat, 106 acres of grassland, 20 acres of other natural vegetation and 11 acres of non-vegetation. Based on the City’s latest draft version of the proposed NCCP preserve design, approximately 225 acres (98%) of this parcel is proposed to be included in the City’s NCCP preserve.

2) Portuguese Bend Landslide Area parcel

This parcel is approximately 422 acres in size and is located generally between the terminus of Crenshaw Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive South. The parcel contains approximately 192 acres of coastal sage scrub (css) habitat, 149 acres of grassland, 71 acres of other natural vegetation and 10 acres of non-vegetation. Based on the City’s latest draft version of the proposed NCCP preserve design, approximately 307 acres (73%) of this parcel is proposed to be included in the City’s NCCP preserve

The total cost of the appraisal work will not exceed a cost of $15,000. Since the appraisal information is necessary for the implementation of the City’s NCCP, the cost of the appraisal will be paid from the City’s current NCCP budget. The City’s current budget contains a remaining balance of approximately $200,000 for completion of the NCCP Program. In addition, the City has been awarded $375,000 thus far in federal (matching) grants for completion of the City’s NCCP. As a result, the City’s actual cost of the appraisal would be reduced by 50%.

Respectfully submitted,

Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:

Les Evans, City Manager

Determine what action the City Council should take as a result of the Mitre Study.

Determine what action the City Council should take as a result of the Mitre Study.

The Mitre Study was commissioned by the Federal Aviation Administration to further analyze the proposed Palos Verdes Peninsula Demonstration Project to move southbound LAX departure flights offshore. The Study reported that air and ground delays at LAX would be significant, resulting in congestion and gridlock, if the Project was implemented. The Federal Aviation Administration decided to cancel the demonstration project as a result of these findings.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Gina Park, Senior Administrative Analyst

REVIEWED

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:Mitre Study Summary

Consider the request of the West Basin Association to support AB 1794 to reform the Water Replenishment District of Southern California.

Consider the request of the West Basin Water Association to support AB 1794 to reform the Water Replenishment District of Southern California.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Mayor Byrd requested that the issue of support of AB 1794 be placed on the City Council Agenda. We have received a request from the West Basin Water Association over the signature of its President, Don Jensen, requesting that the City Council support AB 1794 to Reform the Water Replenishment District. Mr. Jensen is also the General Manager of the Southern California Water Service Company that provides water service to the City. In addition, the Cities of Downey, Cerritos, Artesia, Lakewood, Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera and Signal Hill have made the same request. Material in support of the requests is attached.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact to the City from supporting AB 1794. Should the bill pass, there may be a reduction in water rates for Southern California Water Service Company customers.

Respectively submitted:

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:

Letter from West Basin Water Association

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the Director of Public Works to notify the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (COG) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes wishes to withdraw as the lead agency for the Peninsula Bikeway Project.

DATE:APRIL 4, 2000

RECOMMEDATIONS:

Authorize the Director of Public Works to notify the Southbay Cities COG, and the MTA that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes wishes to withdraw as the lead agency for the Peninsula Bikeway Project.

BACKGROUND

In January 1996 the Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA) awarded a grant to the Southbay Cities Council of Governments (SoBay COG) to design and construct a bikeway project within the Cities of Los Angeles, Lomita, Torrance, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rancho Palos Verdes. The project consists of two distinct portions, a Tri-Cities portion, within the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates, Torrance and Lomita, and the Peninsula portion, within the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Los Angeles. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is the lead on the peninsula portion.

When the Memorandum of Understanding was executed, it was anticipated that the cost for the peninsula portion of the project would be $153,000, which would be funded by an MTA grant of $ 123,000 and matching funds by the City totaling $30,000. To date the City has awarded contracts for the preliminary and final engineering totaling $70,000. Once the final engineering plans were completed, the engineer’s estimate determined that the project is underfunded by approximately $90,000. The principal reason for the funding shortfall is the high cost to sand blast existing striping and to re-stripe existing roadways to accommodate the new bikeway. The Memorandum of Understanding states that funding shortfalls shall be the responsibility of the lead agency, which in this case is the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

DISCUSSION

There are two options available at this time.

1. Proceed with the project, which will require the contribution of an additional $90,000.
2. Withdraw as the lead agency for the project

Staff recommends Option Two. This would likely terminate the project and will likely require the City to be responsible for costs to date, which total approximately $70,000.

While it is difficult to take financial responsibility for the work completed, the work completed to date does have value to the City, and there are some rewards for our efforts. The City will have a bikeway plan for a large portion of the City. The plan can be implemented on an incremental basis over a long period of time whenever certain roadways are overlayed or slurry sealed. Under this plan, the costs to install the bike lanes will be relatively minor because sand blasting will not be required and the re-striping will already be required because of the slurry seal or overlay.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation results in the termination of our agreement with the SoBay COG and MTA to act as lead agency for the Peninsula Bikeway Project. It will also require the City to take financial responsibility for the work completed to date that totals $70,000.

ALTERNATE ACTIONS

Proceed with the bikeway project as designed. Under this option the City would continue operate as the lead agency. We would need to request an extension of time, and be willing to fund the $90,000 funding shortfall. Possible funding sources available for this effort would be General Fund and the Gas Tax Fund.

FISCAL IMPACT

Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the expenditure of $70,000. Of the total of $70,000, $63,000 will be paid for by TDA funds that are relatively restricted funds that can be used for bikeway projects. Approximately $7,000 in Proposition C Funds will be expended.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed

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 a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5

(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)

PERSONNEL

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

G.C. 54957

Title: City Manager

APRIL 4, 2000

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

CALL TO ORDER

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the minutes.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

Receive and file.

The Public Works Department continues to prepare to advertise and construct the sewer and storm drain improvements for the Abalone Cove Project Area. Currently staff is finalizing the contract documents and finalizing the design of several house connections on properties whose owners have recently executed their easement documents or requested revisions.

Outlined below is the status of the project schedule, project budget, permit process, and easement acquisition process.

Project Schedule

Begin Advertising:April 24, 2000

Mandatory Pre- bid walk:May 24, 2000

Open Bids:June 9, 2000

Award Project:June 20, 2000

Execute Contract:June 27, 2000

Begin Construction:July 6, 2000

End Construction:March 1, 2001

Project Budget

Sewer Improvements:$ 3,300,000

Storm Drain Improvements:$ 1,800,000

Construction and Administration:$ 250,000

Total$ 5,350,000

Total Landslide Settlement Funding Available:

$5,600,000

Total CBBG funding Available:

$800,000

It is anticipated that any remaining funds will be used to design and construct the Alta Mira Canyon Improvements.

Permit Process

The current project will construct only a portion of storm drain since some of the storm drain – the portion within Alta Mira Canyon – requires the City to obtain a permit from the Army Corps. Staff has recently received correspondence from the Fish and Wildlife Service indicating that they will require at least an additional 90 days to review our submittal. It is therefore unlikely that permits will be received prior to award of the project, however, it is possible that permits can be obtained during the construction process to enable the City to move forward with the full storm drain project.

Easement Acquisition Process:

The Agency continues to receive dedications of easements.

The current status of easements is as follows:

The next step in the acquisition process is for the City Attorney’s office to file the eminent domain lawsuits against those property owners who have not signed their easement documents with respect to the eight remaining in-street easements, and the one remaining sewer cross-lot easement. The filing of the lawsuit is scheduled for the first week in May, which will enable the City to acquire the necessary rights of way prior to the beginning of construction.

Receive and file the February 2000 Treasurer’s Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager

Receive and file the February 2000 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. Each of the three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of February 2000 for the Redevelopment Agency.

Total Redevelopment Agency cash decreased by $195,600 during February, ending with an overall balance of $7,141,045. Cash receipts during February were limited to approximately $18,800 of tax increment revenue deposited in the Agency’s Housing Set-Aside fund. Cash disbursements totaled slightly over $214,000, nearly $204,000 of which consisted of payments made on behalf of the Portuguese Bend Club Homeowners Association (PBCHOA) to contractors for the construction of a sewer system. Through the end of February, the City had loaned the PBCHOA a total of $457,000 for the project. This amount has been recorded as a receivable in the Portuguese Bend fund and will be repaid to the Agency over the next several years.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean
Finance Director/Agency Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans
Executive Director

RECOMMENDATION:

ADOPT RESOLUTION No. RDA 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Assignment Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

Approve the Assignment Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

On April 5, 1994 the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) entered into an agreement with the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) under which the RDA was permitted to connect several of its dewatering wells to the discharge collection system owned and maintained by ACLAD. In exchange for permission to connect, the RDA agreed to provide a share of the maintenance costs of the discharge system.

In 1996, an Improvement Authority was established which is responsible for all maintenance activities of eligible landslide abatement facilities in Abalone Cove. The Improvement Authority is funded by the interest on the $1,000,000 of the original bond proceeds from the 1987 Landslide Settlement Agreement between the City, the County and the RDA.

Since the creation of the Improvement Authority all maintenance costs for eligible landslide abatement facilities in Abalone Cove have been charged to the Improvement Authority. It is appropriate that the April 5, 1994 Maintenance Agreement between the RDA and ACLAD be assigned to the Improvement Authority since there are no funds in the RDA budget for facility maintenance.

There is no fiscal impact since maintenance activities under the April 5, 1994 Agreement are already charged to the Improvement Authority.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the minutes.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the February 2000 Treasurer’s Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

DATE:APRIL 4, 2000

SUBJECT:FEBRUARY 2000 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the February 2000 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. Each of the three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of February 2000 for the Improvement Authority.

ANALYSIS:

The total cash balance of the Improvement Authority increased by slightly over $7,000 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $1,463,613 at February 29, 2000. The cash activities of the Authority included the receipt of the monthly transfer in from the General fund of $7,917, while disbursements were limited to paying about $600 for routine de-watering well maintenance services.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis McLean

Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

Reviewed:

Les Evans

Chief Administrative Officer

RECOMMENDATION:

ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. IA 2000- , A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Assignment Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

TO:CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

FROM:CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

DATE:APRIL 4, 2000

SUBJECT:ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Assignment Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

BACKGROUND:

On April 5, 1994 the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) entered into an agreement with the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) under which the RDA was permitted to connect several of its dewatering wells to the discharge collection system owned and maintained by ACLAD. In exchange for permission to connect, the RDA agreed to provide a share of the maintenance costs of the discharge system.

In 1996, an Improvement Authority was established which is responsible for all maintenance activities of eligible landslide abatement facilities in Abalone Cove. The Improvement Authority is funded by the interest on the $1,000,000 of the original bond proceeds from the 1987 Landslide Settlement Agreement between the City, the County and the RDA.

ANALYSIS:

Since the creation of the Improvement Authority all maintenance costs for eligible landslide abatement facilities in Abalone Cove have been charged to the Improvement Authority. It is appropriate that the April 5, 1994 Maintenance Agreement between the RDA and ACLAD be assigned to the Improvement Authority since there are no funds in the RDA budget for facility maintenance.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact since maintenance activities under the April 5, 1994 Agreement are already charged to the Improvement Authority.

Respectfully submitted,

Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer

######

PUBLIC COMMENTS: For items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes.

ADJOURNMENT: