|
DISCLAIMER
BEGINNING
OF CITY COUNCIL 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 MAY 2, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD 6:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION. SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS. 7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 NEXT ORDINANCE NO. 357 CEREMONIAL MATTER: (1) Presentation of proclamation declaring the month of May as Veterans Appreciation Month. (2) Recognition of outgoing committee and commission members.
RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Motion to waive full reading.
2. Minutes of March 22 and April 4, 2000. (Purcell)
3. Ordinance No. 356 amending Section 17.86.050 (Enforcement) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code. (Mihranian)
4. Claim Against the City by Alvaro Gil-Gomez. (Purcell)
5. Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. (Continued from the April 18th meeting.) (Huey)
6. Appointment of member to the Klondike Canyon Geological Hazard Abatement District. (Purcell)
7. March 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
8. Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ REGULAR BUSINESS: 9. Appeal Of The Planning Commission Action Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "A", Sign Permit No. 720 Revision "B", And Environmental Assessment No. 716 (Applicant: Mr. William Myers; Appellant: Mr. Benjamin Peterson). (Louie)
10. Resolution Supporting School Bond Measure K. (Evans)
11. Appointment of members to the View Restoration Commission. (Purcell)
12. Peafowl Problems. (Park)
13. Pt. Vicente Interpretive Center. (Allison)
14. Storm Water Ordinance. (Allison)
RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (At approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)
ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section of the agenda is for oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to May 2, 2000 at 9:00 A.M. in the City Hall Community Room for a Budget Workshop. CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) Anticipated Litigation: (G.C. 54956.9(b) __X__ A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency based on OR __X_E. A statement made by Robert Zuckerman on 3/31/2000 (Name of Person) outside an open meeting of City/Agency regarding The Ocean Trails Project (State Nature of specific Matter) And a record of the statement was made: _X__ by Les Evans, City Manager (Name of official or employee)
prior to the meeting and is available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office.
STAFF
REPORTS
1. Motion to waive full reading.
2. Minutes of March 22 and April 4, 2000. (Purcell)
3. Ordinance No. 356 amending Section 17.86.050 (Enforcement) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code. (Mihranian)
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BLDG., & CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:CODE AMENDMENT NO. 48 – A CITY INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT REVISING SECTION 17.86.050 (ENFORCEMENT) OF TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Staff Coordinator:Ara Michael Mihranian, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No. 356, to enact amendments to Section 17.86.050 (Enforcement) of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code. DISCUSSION On April 18, 2000 the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 356 to approve Code Amendment No. 48 to amend Section 17.86.050, paragraphs A and C, of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code, to prohibit the filing or processing of a View restoration, View preservation, City Tree or other development or use applications by a property owner of a lot that is in violation of the City’s Municipal Code. The City Council conducted the first reading of ordinance No. 356 at the April 18th meeting and approved the amended language, as read into the record. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 356 to enact Code Amendment No. 48. Respectfully submitted Reviewed, Attachments:
4. Claim Against the City by Alvaro Gil-Gomez. (Purcell)
FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE: MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY ALVARO GIL-GOMEZ RECOMMENDATION Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant. BACKGROUND The claimant in this matter has submitted a claim alleging that roots from a City tree damaged the sewer line to his home in the amount of $2680. Carl Warren & Co. has investigated this matter and has advised that the City reject the claim. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed:
5. Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. (Continued from the April 18th meeting.) (Huey)
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Staff Coordinator: Judy Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION That the City Council
BACKGROUND This staff report was originally scheduled for the April 18, 2000 City Council meeting, but was continued to the May 2, 2000 Council meeting for approval. In 1992, the City Council formed an assessment district designated "Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District" (the "Citywide District") pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq.) (the "1972 Act"). The purpose of forming the district was to insure adequate funding for the ongoing construction, operation, maintenance, median landscaping, trails, street trees, street lighting, and traffic signals. The Citywide District includes all of the assessable parcels in the City. The district is funded through assessments on properties citywide. Each parcel is assessed an amount, which is based on the benefit the parcel receives from district operation. The City assures a fair and equitable sharing of district costs by conducting an annual review of district operations, wherein the current year’s expenses are reviewed, the ensuing year’s expenses are budgeted, and assessments are determined. The 1972 Act requires that proceedings be undertaken on an annual basis for any year during which assessments will be levied and collected. The 1972 Act also requires preparation of an engineer’s report in connection with the annual levy of assessments. The City Council may approve the report as filed, or it may modify the report and approve it as modified. After approval of the report, the City Council may adopt a Resolution of Intention, which sets a public hearing on the proposed levy of assessments for the ensuing fiscal year. The district engineer, Harris & Associates, reviewed the proposed district budget, and filed with the City Clerk an engineer’s report which includes:
There are no increases in the assessments proposed for fiscal year 2000-2001, therefore the City may provide notice of the pubic hearing by publishing the Resolution of Intention one time at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. Resolution 2000-____ sets the Public Hearing for June 6, 2000. ANALYSIS For fiscal year 2000-2001 the estimate of total District expense, including Overhead and Administration, is $441,342. The total proposed assessment of $327,795 will fund most of these expenditures. Approximately $53,242 of accumulated reserves and $60,305 of Gas Tax funds will be used to cover district expenditures in excess of the annual assessment. The estimated Gas Tax fund balance at June 30, 2000 is $618,861. The engineer’s report classified areas within the City into various zones which, by reason of variations in the nature, location and extent of the proposed maintenance activities and improvements, receive differing degrees of benefit from the operation of the district. Depending on which zone a parcel is in, the proposed assessment for a parcel with a single family home ranges from $8.23 to $46.05, and most parcels will receive an assessment of approximately $20.00 for fiscal year 2000-2001. In all seven zones within the City the proposed assessments for fiscal year 2000-2001 are the same as the assessments levied in fiscal year 1999-2000. CONCLUSION In order to levy assessments the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires the City Council to approve an engineer’s report and conduct a public hearing. Adopting staff recommendations will approve the engineer’s report and establish a date for the public hearing. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Direct staff to modify the engineer’s report and bring this matter back to Council. FISCAL IMPACT The full cost of this program is borne by the property owners within the Citywide District. Depending on which zone a parcel is in, the proposed assessment for a parcel with a single family home ranges from $8.23 to $46.05 for fiscal year 2000-2001. In all seven zones throughout the City, the proposed assessments for fiscal year 2000-2001 are the same as the assessments levied in fiscal year 1999-2000. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed, Attachments:
6. Appointment of member to the Klondike Canyon Geological Hazard Abatement District. (Purcell)
FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE:MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:APPOINTMENT TO KLONDIKE CANYON GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION Appoint Paul Gamsgaard to the Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District to serve until December 2003. INTRODUCTION Making this appointment will fill the vacancy on this Board and will give it a full complement of five members. BACKGROUND The City is in receipt of notification from the District that at their March 27th meeting the Board appointed Paul Gamsgaard to serve on that Board until December 2003. (See attached Exhibit "A".) Respectfully submitted, Reviewed,
7. March 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT: MARCH 2000 TREASURER’S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the March 2000 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. BACKGROUND 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 March 2000. ANALYSIS The City’s total cash balances increased by nearly $1,700,000 during March 2000, ending with an overall balance of $22,068,105. 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: Gas Tax Fund – The cash balance in the Gas Tax fund increased to $847,453 at March 31, 2000. The $72,000 increase is the result of receiving two months of the annual gas tax apportionment from the State. Subregion One Maintenance Fund – In accordance with the terms of the Subregion One development agreement, the City is to receive a total of $750,000 for the ongoing maintenance of the property that will be dedicated to the City. The agreement provides for three annual payments of $250,000 beginning in March 1999. The second $250,000 payment was received in March 2000. A separate fund has been created to account for both the revenues and eventual maintenance costs associated with the Subregion One property. CIP Fund – The City received approximately $379,000 of federal reimbursement from the State during March. This reimbursement is for eligible costs incurred in FY 1998-99 on the Palos Verdes Drive East reconstruction project. Aside from this large receipt, there was relatively little cash activity in the CIP fund during the month. Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fund – This fund was established by the City Council in 1997 pursuant to the City’s General Plan and Development Code. The in-lieu fee is charged to developers of large commercial and residential projects and will facilitate the development of affordable housing within the City. During March, the City received $596,500 of affordable housing in-lieu fees from the Subregion One development. Aside from interest earned on the accumulated cash balances, no additional amounts are expected to be received in FY 1999-00. Special Trusts Fund – The cash balance in the Special Trusts fund increased by over $136,500 in March. 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 March the City received several large deposits from developers, which accounted for the overall cash increase. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed:
8. Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ REGULAR BUSINESS:
9. Appeal Of The Planning Commission Action Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "A", Sign Permit No. 720 Revision "B", And Environmental Assessment No. 716 (Applicant: Mr. William Myers; Appellant: Mr. Benjamin Peterson). (Louie)
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BLDG., & CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 182 REVISION "A", SIGN PERMIT NO. 720 REVISION "B", AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 716 (APPLICANT: MR. WILLIAM MYERS; APPELLANT: MR. BENJAMIN PETERSON) Staff Coordinator:Lisa Louie, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION The following recommendations are before the City Council:
DISCUSSION On April 4, 2000, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to review the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action of approving Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "B", and Sign Permit No. 720 Revision "A", and Environmental Assessment No. 720 to allow a hand car wash/detailing operation at the existing Mobil Service Station. In reviewing the proposed project, the Council directed the applicant to coordinate with Staff to set up an on-site demonstration of the proposed project to address concerns raised during the public testimony, and continued the public hearing to the April 18, 2000 meeting to discuss the proposed demonstration plan and meeting date. In order to allow enough time to receive input from the involved parties and work out all the details of the demonstration plan, Staff recommended that the public hearing for this item be continued to the May 2, 2000 City Council meeting. However, on April 18, 2000, the City Council heard additional public testimony, as part of the continued public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present (evidence). After hearing the public testimony, the Council felt that the demonstration project could not be satisfactorily replicated and determined that: 1) the site has inadequate area to accommodate the new car wash use; 2) the proposed use will intensify the existing use on the subject site; and 3) there is a lack of parking spaces to accommodate the new use. Therefore, the Council upheld the appeal, and denied Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "B" and Sign Permit No. 720 Revision. Attached for adoption this evening is a Resolution upholding the appeal, thereby denying the applicant’s request for a hand car wash operation on the site. In accordance with Development Code Section 17.80.120, the $940.00 appeal fee paid by the appellant will be refunded since the appellant has been successful with this appeal. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION During previous testimony, the applicant noted that pursuant to a condition imposed on his original Conditional Use Permit, the rear parking lot area must be chained or otherwise secured to prevent access to the rear of the property after business hours. Mr. Myers has requested that this condition be deleted because he believes it creates an unsafe situation. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the City Council remand the applicant’s request to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, Attachments:
10. Resolution Supporting School Bond Measure K. (Evans)
FROM:CITY MANAGER DATE:MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SCHOOL BOND MEASURE K RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No _____Supporting School Bond Measure K and Urging Its Passage at the June 6, 2000 Special Election. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Three Councilmembers have individually contacted staff over the past few weeks and asked that an item supporting Measure K be added to the City Council Agenda. The Palos Verdes Peninsula School District Board of Education is placing before the voters a $46 million General Obligation Bond to help repair and renovate Peninsula schools. A summary of the ballot wording is attached along with information describing the use of the funds. Respectively submitted:
11. Appointment of members to the View Restoration Commission. (Purcell)
FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE: MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (1) Decide whether staff should proceed with the appointment process and arrange for the interview of the two candidates not previously interviewed by the Council; and, (2) Schedule the appointment of the View Restoration Commission for an upcoming City Council meeting. BACKGROUND Because Council desired to have a bigger pool of candidates for this Commission, at the March 8th meeting the decision was made to postponed appointments until the completion of the appointment process for all of the other advisory boards. (See March 8th minutes attached as Exhibit "A".) Those appointments were made at the April 4th meeting. Applicants not appointed on April 4th were advised that if they wished, they could apply for the View Restoration Commission; four of those applicants notified the City Clerk’s Office that they were interested in being considered. The City is now in receipt of sixteen applications for the Commission. With the exception of Messrs. Monks and Simmons, the Council during the interviews conducted in late February has interviewed all of the candidates listed on Exhibit "B". CONCLUSION The Council has delayed making appointments to the View Restoration Commission because they desired to have a bigger pool of candidates. The City Clerk’s Office is now in receipt of sixteen applications for the Commission and Council needs to determine whether to proceed with the appointment process. Appointment of members to this Commission will enable them to meet and confer on the two View Restoration permits presently awaiting disposition. Respectfully submitted,
12. Peafowl Problems. (Park)
FROM: SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST DATE: MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:PEAFOWL PROBLEMS RECOMMENDATION Consider the peafowl problems impacting some residential areas within the City and direct staff. BACKGROUND The existing peafowl population is believed to be the descendents from 6 Indian peafowl, which were introduced to the Palos Verdes Peninsula by community founder Frank Vanderlip in 1924. DISCUSSION Occasionally, the City receives citizen complaints regarding peafowl nuisance in areas of the City where 15-30 peafowl birds are roosting and nesting. Common complaints against peafowl include excessive noise, destruction of landscaped yards and flowerbeds, animal waste, and destruction of rooftops. Residents with peafowl problems generally express strongly that the City should take action to either control the peafowl population or get rid of them entirely. Over the years, the City’s practice has been to inform residents that the City’s unwritten policy and practice has been to leave the peafowl alone. Staff has encouraged residents to live peacefully with peafowl, since peafowl have inhabited the Peninsula for several decades and are considered not only part of the City’s natural environmental community, but for many residents peafowl have an honorary distinction within the City as a "protected" species. In actuality, peafowl are actually introduced wild species, not a protected species, because peafowl are not native animals to California. To assist residents in managing the presence of peafowl on their property and/or neighborhood, staff distributes helpful information on various methods to discourage peafowl from lingering on residential property. Some of the suggestions include: replace plant vegetation with plants peafowl do not eat, use lawn sprinklers intermittently as a negative reinforcement, keep a dog in yard to ward them off, and place mothballs or cat repellent around planting beds to repel peafowl. (Attached is a copy of the helpful tip sheet.) Residents are also advised not to feed peafowl, since peafowl tend to inhabit areas where there is a reliable, easily accessible food source, either directly from residents deliberately feeding them or indirectly by eating leaving leftover pet food or birdseed. In almost all cases, there seems to be at least one residence intentionally feeding peafowl in the neighborhood, where the City has received several reports of peafowl nuisance. Since peafowl have no natural predators on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the population has grown over the years and the present count is unknown. Several residents have expressed concern that their neighborhoods are becoming overpopulated with peafowl. In fact, some peafowl have adapted so well to living in a "suburban" environment that residents often claim that peafowl are not frightened by the presence of people or their pets. This adaptation seems to be a contributing factor in the "hit or miss" results that residents have experienced in implementing some of the previously mentioned suggestions to keep peafowl off residential property. Ideas Considered to Control the Peafowl Population Residents with peafowl problems constantly ask whether the City can do something to control the peafowl population. During the past few years, staff has investigated potential ideas from birth control, sterilization, and peafowl adoption by local zoos and wildlife agencies, etc. Staff has learned that birth control or sterilization would be cost prohibitive due to the labor-intensive process requiring veterinarians; the cost of either method would be approximately a few hundred dollars per peahen or peacock. Each peahen would have to be caught and weighed in order to determine the appropriate dosage for birth control. Sterilization is a surgical operation and the high costs associated with that are self-explanatory. When offering local zoos peafowl, the zoos expressed no interest. Apparently the zoos have had a difficult time managing their own peafowl. Killing or hunting of peafowl is not an option. It is illegal for an individual to deliberately torture, injure or kill a peacock/peahen under the California animal cruelty law. The City does not have an ordinance protecting peafowl or restricting the trapping/removal of peafowl. Residents may at their own expense hire a private animal trapper to trap and relocate the peafowl from private property, however identifying a willing private animal trapper is not an easy task. Some years ago, the SPCA (previous animal control service provider) did provide trapping and removal services of peafowl, however the SPCA discontinued the service due to increasing high costs. At this time, the City’s current animal service provider, Los Angeles County Animal Control does not deal with peafowl. The City may consider requesting the County to modify the service contract to include peafowl trapping and removal. The feasibility and cost are unknown at this time. Should the City and County approve the additional service provision of trapping peafowl, the County would humanely destroy all peafowl captured. Other Peninsula Cities’ Position on Peafowl The City of Rolling Hills Estates in the early 1990’s hired an Iowa peafowl farmer Dennis Fett to help alleviate the peafowl problems by providing suggestions to deter peafowl from visiting their property. This peafowl expert also conducted seminars with Home Owners’ Associations on how each HOA can organize itself to redirect peafowl flocks to open areas and monitor the population. In addition, the City of Rolling Hills Estates is the only city on the Peninsula with an ordinance protecting wild birds; no residents are permitted to shoot, trap, take, or injure any bird, egg or nest. The City of Palos Verdes Estates traps peafowl for removal only when the population has been determined to be excessive in number and if there’s a willing recipient located away from the Peninsula. The identification of recipients for peafowl has been an on-going problem. The City also relies on its residents to take preventative measures to discourage peafowl from private property. The City of Rolling Hills also relies upon preventive measures by its residents. Potential Solutions Based upon the peafowl information compiled to-date, staff has identified three potential pro-active ideas to help minimize the impact of peafowl on residents. Staff requests Council direction. 1. Investigate the cost and feasibility of Los Angeles County Animal Control to trap and remove peafowl. 2. Investigate the possibility of collaborating efforts with the City of Palos Verdes Estates to trap and relocate peafowl. 3. Investigate the feasibility of hiring Dennis Fett as a consultant to assist RPV residents in taking pro-active measures (similar to the City of Rolling Hills Estates) to monitor and control peafowl in the impacted areas. FISCAL IMPACT None associated with this report.
Attachment:
13. Pt. Vicente Interpretive Center. (Allison)
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND The Public Works Department continues to work towards the remediation of contaminated soil at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center. The next step in the process is to obtain approval for the investigation already completed regarding the extent and level of contamination at the site, as well as approval for the process the City will be following to select a remediation option. A work plan has been prepared for these two matters. The work plan must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Toxic Substance Control, (DTSC) before any action can take place. In addition to the Work Plan there are other reports and documents that the City must file with the DTSC prior to any site remediation. The DTSC requires that applicants pay for all costs associated with their role of reviewer and overseer. The attached Voluntary Cleanup Agreement provides for their cost recovery, and outlines the responsibilities of both the City and DTSC DISCUSSION The attached agreement is a standard agreement prepared by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The agreement provides a framework under which the City will operate in preparing reports as well as when the soil is remediated, if we choose to do so. The structure provided by agreement assures that regulations related to the remediation will be met. This structure and oversight will be beneficial to City if we choose to move forward with the site remediation and then later request reimbursement from the County of Los Angeles, and / or Federal Government. With regard the costs, the DTSC estimates their costs at $46,500. If the actual costs are greater they will request more funding, and if the costs are less a refund will be given. Staff expects approval of a remediation plan by September 15, 2000. CONCLUSION Adopting the staff recommendation will provide authorization and funding to enter into an agreement with the Department of Toxic Substance Control for the needed review of reports and oversight of activities related to the remediation of contaminated soil at Point Vicente Interpretive Center. FISCAL IMPACT The $46,500 expense was not anticipated in the adopted FY 1999 – 2000 budget, and a budget adjustment is necessary. The funding source is the general fund. The City will be requesting reimbursement from the County of Los Angeles, and the Federal Government for this and all expenses related to the soil remediation. Respectfully submitted,
Attachments:
14. Storm Water Ordinance. (Allison)
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:STORM WATER ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION Authorize staff to prepare a storm water ordinance to comply with new RWQCB storm water quality standards for private developments. DISCUSSION On January 26, 2000 the Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region approved a new Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The plan requires on-site detention or treatment of storm flows for several categories of private projects. The Board’s action requires each city in Los Angeles County to adopt a storm water ordinance and to amend their municipal code to impose new standards on several categories of private developments. The board’s action requires each city to adopt a new ordinance by September 8, 2000. On February 15, 2000 the City of Rancho Palos Verdes joined with several cities in an appeal of the Board’s decision. The appeal was in response to the process followed by the Board in reaching their decision – cities were not given the opportunity to review and respond to the new standards – as well as the product of the Board decision – the SUSMP standards appear to be onerous, and ambiguous. In addition, the requirement that some properties would be required to retain storm water on-site was particularly troubling given the geology of the peninsula. Thus far the Regional Water Quality Control Board has not responded to the appeal, and they are unlikely to do so prior to September 8, 2000. The inaction of the Board on the appeal, and the upcoming deadline of September 8, 2000 to adopt a storm water ordinance, presents a dilemma for cities. If a City waits for action from the board on the appeal before moving forward with a new ordinance, there will not be adequate time to adopt a new ordinance prior to the September 8, 2000 deadline. Given the process involved, the review time, and notice requirements work on preparing the ordinance needs to begin immediately to meet the deadline. Failure to enact an ordinance could result in the City being out of compliance with the Board’s January 26, 2000 action and would expose the City to legal action. It appears to be in the City’s best interest to begin work on a storm water ordinance in accordance with the Board’s January 26, 2000 action at this time. By acting in this strategic manner the City will be in compliance with the board’s action regardless of when or how the board responds to the appeal. The ordinance can be tailored to meet the unique requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes through a reasonable interpretation of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan. Since the February 15, 2000 action by the City Council staff has had the opportunity to review the proposed Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and has met with the board and learned the following:
In addition to these two clarifications that make the proposed SUSMPs less onerous than first understood, the staff members of the Board appear to be willing to negotiate other aspects of the plan, which originally caused some apprehension on the part of staff. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed
RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (At approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.) ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section of the agenda is for oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to May 2, 2000 at 9:00 A.M. in the City Hall Community Room for a Budget Workshop. CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) Anticipated Litigation: (G.C. 54956.9(b) __X__ A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency based on OR __X_E. A statement made by Robert Zuckerman on 3/31/2000 (Name of Person) outside an open meeting of City/Agency regarding The Ocean Trails Project (State Nature of specific Matter) And a record of the statement was made: _X__ by Les Evans, City Manager (Name of official or employee) prior to the meeting and is available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office.
AGENDA MAY 2, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Minutes of April 4, 2000. (Purcell)
B. March 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER DATE:MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:MARCH 2000 TREASURER’S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the March 2000 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency. 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 March 2000 for the Redevelopment Agency. ANALYSIS The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by approximately $809,000 during March, ending with an overall balance of $6,332,051. Monthly cash receipts were limited to approximately $2,200 of tax increment revenue deposited in the Agency’s Housing Set-Aside fund. Cash disbursements totaled slightly over $811,000, with $709,000 of Housing Set-Aside monies used for the acquisition of land for the proposed Senior Housing Project. Additionally, progress payments of $76,000 were made on behalf of the Portuguese Bend Club Homeowners Association (PBCHOA) to contractors for the construction of a sewer system. Through the end of March, the Agency had loaned the PBCHOA a total of $534,000 for this project. The $534,000 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, Reviewed:
C. Register of Demands. (McLean) 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. ############# PUBLIC COMMENTS: This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda: each speaker is limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular Redevelopment Agency meeting.
AGENDA MAY 2, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
CALL TO ORDER: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of April 4, 2000. (Purcell) Recommendation: Approve the minutes.
2. March 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton) Recommendation: Receive and file the March 2000 Treasurer’s Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.
FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER DATE:MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:MARCH 2000 TREASURER’S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the March 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 March 2000 for the Improvement Authority. ANALYSIS The cash balance of the Improvement Authority totaled $1,460,661 at March 31, 2000. This represents nearly a $2,000 decrease for the month. The cash activities of the Authority included the receipt of the monthly transfer in from the General fund of $7,917, while disbursements of $10,868 were for routine de-watering well monitoring and maintenance activities. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed:
3. Register of Demands. (McLean) 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. ###### REGULAR BUSINESS:
4. Agreement with the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) for Funding a Portion of the District’s Maintenance Costs. (Evans) Recommendation: Approve the Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority and the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District for funding a portion of the District’s Maintenance Costs.
FROM:CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DATE:MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT:AGREEMENT WITH THE ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT (ACLAD) FOR FUNDING A PORTION OF THE DISTRICT’S MAINTENANCE COSTS RECOMMENDATION Approve the Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority and the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District for funding a portion of the District’s Maintenance Costs. BACKGROUND The 1987 Reimbursement and Settlement Agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and the County of Los Angeles directed the creation of a Joint Powers Maintenance Authority (JPMA) to oversee the on-going maintenance of capital improvements constructed by the Redevelopment Agency with the bond proceeds. The Agreement further stipulated that $1 million of the bond proceeds be set aside in a separate maintenance trust fund. The accrued interest on this fund can be used only for maintenance purposes. The original principal amount of $1 million cannot be expended. The interest earnings are to be used to maintain the landslide abatement improvements constructed by the RDA pursuant to the Reimbursement and Settlement Agreement, with the exception of sewer systems. Sewer systems were specifically excluded from the use of maintenance funds in the Agreement. In addition, the funds generated by the maintenance trust fund may also be used, to the extent not otherwise used for the maintenance of improvements constructed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, to maintain public landslide abatement improvements that were not constructed with the proceeds of the assessment bonds. The relevant section of the Landslide Settlement Agreement is attached (Section 2. J). On September 19, 1996, the City Manager received the attached letter from Mr. David Whitmore, the chairman of the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD), requesting that the JPMA Board authorize the use of a portion of the investment earnings in the maintenance trust fund to assist in paying for the maintenance and utilities associated with the thirteen dewatering wells, pumps, and pipelines which were in existence prior to the Reimbursement and Settlement Agreement. Currently, ACLAD charges property owners an annual assessment for the operation and maintenance of these wells as well as for other ACLAD administrative costs. Some property owners within ACLAD believe that the operation and maintenance costs should be paid for by the JPMA, rather than through ACLAD assessments on their properties. ACLAD’s budget is approximately $140,000, of which approximately $60,000 is for the operation and maintenance costs associated with the wells. ACLAD’s request was considered by the Board at their November 25, 1996 meeting. According to the minutes of that meeting (attached), the Board approved the request in concept subject to being provided more detailed data. Apparently, due to changes in ACLAD leadership and City staff no additional data was ever provided and the request was never pursued. Recently, the new Chair of ACLAD, Mr. Robert Douglas, approached City staff and asked that the matter be reopened. The ACLAD Board is requesting that the JPMA Board consider their request that all, or a portion of, their $60,000 expenditures be reimbursed by the JPMA. The ACLAD Board recognizes that the JPMA may be able to reimburse only a portion of their total expenditures, and is appreciative of any assistance that may be possible. ANALYSIS The law firm of Richards, Watson, and Gershon serves as the legal advisor to ACLAD, as well as to the City, RDA, and JPMA. At ACLAD’s request, the firm provided the attached opinion regarding the possible use of the maintenance trust fund monies. Staff believes that it is important to note that, as indicated in the attorney’s letter, the maintenance funds MAY be used for the maintenance of improvements, which were not constructed with bond proceeds. However, the first sentences of Section 2.J. indicate that this may be done only if the funds are available AFTER maintaining the improvements, which were, constructed with bond proceeds. The ending balance in the maintenance trust fund on June 30, 1999, was $1,390,323, of which $1 million cannot be expended. The FY99-00 and FY 00-01 budgets for the maintenance trust fund includes income earnings of $75,000. It also includes expenditures of $45,600 for utility services, maintenance services, and professional services associated with the operation and maintenance of dewatering wells that have become operational in the past two years. The projected ending fund balance on June 30, 2001, is $1,426,614. No funds were budgeted for the operation or maintenance of the wells or improvements constructed in the past by ACLAD. Assuming additional improvements are constructed with the remaining bond proceeds, it is likely that the maintenance trust fund’s annual earnings will be required for the maintenance of these new improvements. New improvements may include major drainage facilities in Altamira Canyon. Other improvements may be constructed as well. The maintenance and operation of these improvements would likely require the use of additional maintenance trust fund earnings. Staff believes that there are currently adequate funds in the maintenance accounts to honor ACLAD’s request for a maximum allocation of $60,000 in FY 2000-01. During the budget period for FY 2001-02, the availability of funds in the maintenance accounts will be re-analyzed and an allocation for ACLAD considered. ACLAD has submitted their FY 1999-2000 Budget and monthly record of expenditures. This information is attached. Staff believes that ACLAD should not reduce their assessment to reflect financial contributions from the Improvement Authority. Once reduced, the assessment would be very difficult to increase and the City may find itself asked to subsidize ACLAD forever. ACLAD has assured the City that their intention is to utilize any unobligated ACLAD funds that may be available due to Improvement Authority participation, to construct additional dewatering facilities or other capital improvements. ALTERNATIVE Deny the request from the ACLAD Board for the use of investment earnings in the maintenance trust fund for the operation and maintenance of ACLAD dewatering wells and improvements. This would allow the maintenance trust fund to accumulate additional earnings for the eventual operation and maintenance of improvements constructed with bond proceeds. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact is contingent upon the amount the Board decides to establish as a reimbursement to ACLAD. As stated above, ACLAD’s operating and maintenance expenses are budgeted at approximately $60,000. Respectfully submitted, Attachments: PUBLIC COMMENTS: For items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT: |
