|
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 16, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ________________________________________________________________ 6:45 P.M.INTERVIEW OF VIEW RESTORATION APPLICANTS 7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOL. NO. 2000-25 NEXT ORD. NO. 357 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Motion to waive full reading.
2. Minutes of April 1, April 18, and May 2, 2000. (Purcell)
3. Funding Request for Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Cleanup Activities. (Ramezani)
4. Pavement Management Program. (Doyle)
5. Cooperative Agreement for Installation of Catch Basin Inlet Filters. (Ramezani)
6. Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ PUBLIC HEARING: 7. Code Amendment No. 45 and Environmental Assessment No. 714 - A proposal for miscellaneous amendments to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the Municipal Code. (Fox)
8. Revision K to the Ocean Trails Project for an Amendment to the Public Amenities Plan. (Pfost)
RECESS: 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: 9. Appointment of members to the View Restoration Commission. (Purcell)
10. Ocean Trails – Geologic Presentation of Landslide C Repair Plan, (Pfost)
11. Ocean Trails – Extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666. (Pfost)
12. Professional Services Agreement for Financial Analysis of the Long Point Golf Course Proposal. (Evans)
13. Award of Contact for Building and Safety Services. (Petru)
14. Community Leaders’ Breakfast – Fall Meeting. (Purcell)
15. Rescheduling of the June 20, 2000 City Council Meeting. (Evans)
16. Oral report from Councilman McTaggart regarding Installation of Storm Drain on Western Avenue. CLOSED SESSION REPORT: 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. STAFF
REPORTS
1. Motion to waive full reading.
2. Minutes of April 1, April 18, and May 2, 2000. (Purcell)
3. Funding Request for Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Cleanup Activities. (Ramezani)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT:FUNDING REQUEST FOR BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING AND LITTER CLEANUP ACTIVITIES Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND Effective January 1, 2000, Senate Bill 332 mandated changes to the existing law governing the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Program, including an appropriation for $10.5 million to be expended annually as payments to cities and counties for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities. The Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling (DOR), administers this new program. Funds are from deposits, California Redemption Value (CRV), collected from customers when purchasing different beverage containers such as sport drinks, coffee and tea beverages, water, distilled spirit coolers, beer and malt beverages and fruit drinks at stores. DISCUSSION Payments to cities are calculated on a per capita basis. The City’s share for FY 1999-2000 is $12,964. Since this is a new funding source and program, initially the funds are for eligible activities from January 1, 2000 until June 30, 2001 (18 months), while subsequent funds will be for a 12-month period. The funding request form and Resolution No. 2000- ___ must be submitted by May 31, 2000. The following are qualifying eligible activities:
Staff proposes to use the funds for these programs and activities:
Staff has discussed these proposed activities with the DOR staff and has received preliminary approval. Unfortunately, some of the City’s other existing programs such as the Recycler of Month, Beautification Grants and litter cleanup at park sites, right-of-way and trails are not considered eligible activities. ALTERNATIVE The alternative would be to not submit a request for funding for FY 1999-2000. FISCAL IMPACT If authorized, the City will receive approximately $13,000 each year. This will help fund existing programs and fund new activities promoting recycling. No funding will be received if the alternative is approved. Respectfully Submitted: Reviewed by: Attachment: Resolution 2000- ___
4. Pavement Management Program. (Doyle)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT:PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Staff Coordinator:Marla Doyle, Deputy Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND In 1993 the City implemented a Pavement Management Program. The primary goal of the program was to establish a multi-year expenditure strategy which effectively allocates limited resources between a Capital Improvement Program (Overlay), which improves deteriorated roadways, and a Maintenance Program (Slurry), which preserves the quality of those roadways in relatively good condition. As part of this program, a visual survey of roadway condition was conducted. A report was prepared in which an inventory of roadway conditions was presented, and a ten-year plan of street maintenance and capital improvement expenditures was proposed. Since 1993 this report and its updates has been the primary resource for selecting streets to include in the City's annual Overlay and Slurry Seal Programs. The Pavement Management Program is not only useful as a planning tool, but is necessary for the City to maintain it's eligibility for Proposition 111 and Proposition C funding. In May, 1999, City Council authorized the most recent update to the 1993 Program that included an update of the database of maintenance and improvement history as well as the multi-year projection for street maintenance and capital improvement expenditures. Completion of the 1999 report update meets LACMTA C guidelines that require that the Pavement Management Program be updated biennially. DISCUSSION The 1999 update of the Pavement Management Program reports that the quality of roadways citywide continues to improve. The current average Pavement Condition Index for the overall street network is 88.3, which is Excellent, and 1999 is the first year the average pavement condition has been in the Excellent range. In contrast, the 1998 and 1997 average Pavement Condition Index for the overall street network was 87 and 80 respectively, which was in the Very Good range. The City currently budgets approximately $1.8 million annually for roadway rehabilitation and maintenance. The report concludes that costs will continue at their current level through FY 2002-2003, after which costs will drop due to the high quality of the street network. However, the report further concludes that the costs will remain low for approximately three to four years but then steadily increase and reach back to their current levels by FY 2012-2013. ALTERNATE ACTION Staff could identify no reasonable alternative action. Approval of the report and submitting certification to LACMTA is required to maintain Proposition 111 and Proposition C funding. FISCAL IMPACT By following the recommendation and submitting a Pavement Management Certification to LACMTA the City will maintain its eligibility for Proposition 111 and Proposition C funding. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed, Attachment: Pavement Management Report
5. Cooperative Agreement for Installation of Catch Basin Inlet Filters. (Ramezani)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF CATCH BASIN INLET FILTERS STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Cooperative Agreement with the cities of Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach for the installation of catch basin inlet filters. BACKGROUND On December 1, 1998, the City Council approved a joint application with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works for 1996 Proposition A Funds for the installation of catch basin inlet filters (inserts) at a number of locations throughout the City. The inserts will help us to meet our responsibilities under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The City was recently notified that the application has been approved and $30,000 is available. The grant requires a $4,500 local match. DISCUSSION Because the grant was awarded to three Cities, it will be helpful to enter into a Cooperative Agreement to clarify how the project will be implemented. The City of Hermosa Beach is the lead agency and has prepared plans and specifications. The City of Hermosa Beach has requested that each City award and execute a separate agreement with the contractor. Under such an arrangement each City will be responsible for inspecting the work and making direct payment to the contractor for the work within their City. It is estimated that the City can install approximately 24 filters with these funds. The filters will be installed in commercial or high traffic areas, such as on Silver Spur Road, Hawthorne Boulevard, Miraleste Plaza, Western Avenue, and in existing catch basins at the parking lots in the City parks. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Cooperative Agreement and draft agreement with the contractor. It is anticipated that the construction will be completed by September 2000. ALTERNATIVE The alternative would be to not sign the Cooperative Agreement and not install the filters. FISCAL IMPACT The total cost of the portion of the project within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is estimated at $34,500, of which $4,500 is the responsibility of the City. The adopted FY 1999 – 2000 budget provides adequate funding for the project. It estimated that the annual cost to maintain the inserts will be $6,000 in 2000 dollars. Adequate maintenance funds have been budgeted in both the FY 1999 – 2000, and FY 2000 – 2001 budgets. The funding source for the City’s portion of the project will be the Gas Tax Fund, for those inserts within the street right of way, and the general fund for those within the parks. Respectfully Submitted: Reviewed by: Attachment: Cooperative Agreement
6. Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ PUBLIC HEARING: 7. Code Amendment No. 45 and Environmental Assessment No. 714 - A proposal for miscellaneous amendments to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the Municipal Code. (Fox)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT:CODE AMENDMENT NO. 45 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 714 (LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM AREA, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES) Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Conduct a public hearing to 1) accept public comments on the draft Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 714; and 2) introduce Ordinance No. ___ to enact Code Amendment No. 45 for miscellaneous amendments to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. BACKGROUND As the City Council is aware, two sanitary sewer systems are in the process of being designed and/or built within the Landslide Moratorium Area: the system in the Portuguese Bend Club community is nearly complete, and construction of the system in the Abalone Cove area of the Portuguese Bend community should begin later this year. In order for these sanitary sewer systems to accomplish the goal of reducing the infiltration of water into the landslide plane(s), it is vitally important that existing structures with functional plumbing fixtures—and which have access to these sewer lines—be connected to the sanitary sewer systems once they become operational. Therefore, on February 15, 2000 the City Council gave direction to Staff and the City Attorney to promulgate an amendment to the City’s landslide moratorium regulations to require the connection of existing developed properties to sanitary sewer systems. Also, on September 21, 1999 the City Council directed Staff to formulate revisions to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) in order to clarify the City’s landslide moratorium regulations as they apply to accessory structures and uses on developed properties within the Landslide Moratorium Area. In response to both of these directions from the City Council, Staff and the City Attorney have initiated Code Amendment No. 45 and Environmental Assessment No. 7141 to amend Chapter 15.20 of the Municipal Code in order to reflect the imminent completion and availability of sanitary sewer systems in certain portions of the Landslide Moratorium Area, and to make minor clarifications and modifications to the City’s landslide moratorium regulations for accessory structures and uses on developed properties. The proposed revisions will not "lift" the existing moratorium, nor will they alter the current constraints on the development of undeveloped properties within the Landslide Moratorium Area without the approval of a moratorium exclusion permit by the City. DISCUSSION Code Amendment No. 45 Code Amendment No.
45 is comprised of miscellaneous proposed amendments to Chapter 15.20
of the RPVMC. The specific amendments proposed for each Code section are
described briefly below. Please note that proposed additional Code language
is underlined and proposed deletions are Section 15.20.010 Subsection (I) would be added to Section 15.20.010 to define "permanent detached accessory structure." Currently, the only detached accessory structures permitted in the Landslide Moratorium Area are detached garages up to six hundred square feet (600 s.f.) in area, or minor temporary structures less than one hundred twenty square feet (120 s.f.) in area. This new definition would accompany proposed revisions to Section 15.20.040 (discussed below) to allow other types of permanent detached accessory structures—including workshops, guest rooms and other similar structures—only on properties that are already developed with an existing residential or other permanent, habitable structure. Subsection (J) would be added to Section 15.20.010 to define the conditions under which a property is determined to be "served by a sanitary sewer system." This definition would accompany proposed revisions to Sections 15.20.040, 15.20 050 and 15.20.060, and the proposed addition of Section 15.20.110 (discussed below). Please note that this definition is also consistent with the definition of "served by a sanitary sewer system" in the Uniform Plumbing Code.
Section 15.20.040 Subsection (E) of Section 15.20.040 would be revised to exempt any project undertaken by the City or the RDA to mitigate land movement or otherwise enhance public safety from the moratorium restrictions. Currently, only City and RDA projects "to mitigate the potential for landslide" are exempt. The purpose of this revision would be to allow for other types of non-landslide-related City and RDA projects to occur in the Landslide Moratorium Area, such as street improvements to address public safety issues (i.e., widening, realignment, etc.) that are not related to or the direct result of landslide movement. Similarly, Subsection (F) of Section 15.20.040 would be revised to expand the allowance for remedial grading to include the repair of soil conditions that are not related to or the result of landslide movement, such as grading to correct non-landslide-related surface drainage problems. Subsection (H) of Section 15.20.040 is proposed to contain two main revisions. First, the exception category that allows for additions to existing structures and construction of a detached garage on an existing developed site would be expanded to include both residential and non-residential uses. The purpose of this revision would be to clarify that existing, legal non-residential uses within the Landslide Moratorium Area (such as Wayfarers’ Chapel, the Portuguese Bend Riding Club and the Abalone Cove preschool) may propose additions to existing developed sites through the landslide moratorium exception (LME) permit process. Although such additions and projects have been processed with LME’s in the past, currently non-residential uses are not specifically addressed in the moratorium at all. Second, the prohibition against plumbing fixtures in a detached garage is proposed to be waived if the property is served by and connected to a sanitary sewer system. Subsection (I) of Section 15.20.040 would be revised to clarify that temporary minor nonresidential structures are those that are not required to be erected on a fixed, permanent foundation. This clarification would allow Staff and residents to more easily identify what is meant by "temporary" and, thus, distinguish between minor structures such as prefabricated storage sheds and other small but more solidly-constructed structures that would not qualify for this exemption. Similar to the discussion of detached garages above, Staff suggests waiving the prohibition against additional plumbing fixtures or water use for properties that are served by and connected to a sanitary sewer system. Subsection (L) would be added to Section 15.20.040 to provide an exception category for permanent detached accessory structures (such as workshops and guest rooms) on existing developed properties, subject to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception (LME) permit. Currently, these types of habitable accessory structures are not specifically addressed by the moratorium. As such, in the past Staff and the City Council have reviewed these types of structures according to the standards for non-habitable structures (i.e., detached garages), pursuant to Section 15.20.050(H). The proposed revisions would establish a specific exception category for permanent detached accessory structures on existing developed lots, but would be based on the current exception process and criteria for the review of additions and garages under Section 15.20.040(H). The proposed standards would still impose a cumulative project area threshold of six hundred square feet (600 s.f.) per parcel for Staff review of the LME, with projects exceeding the 600-square-foot threshold still requiring City Council review and approval of the LME. Subsection (M) would be added to Section 15.20.040 to exempt a variety of discretionary permit processes that have no potential to adversely affect soil stability. Currently, Section 15.20.020 prohibits the issuance of "building, grading or other permits, environmental assessments, environmental impact reports, conditional use permits, tentative maps or parcel maps…unless expressly allowed by Section 15.20.040 of [Chapter 15.20]." Many other discretionary permits—some of which did not exist at the time that Chapter 15.20 was last revised—are not explicitly included on this list, including special use permits, fence, wall and hedge permits, and large domestic and exotic animal permits. Many of these permits are for minor, temporary, accessory or other low-intensity uses of property, and their omission from the moratorium leaves an unanswered question as to whether or not these types of permits are subject to the moratorium restrictions. In addition, some of the permit types that are explicitly listed in Section 15.20.020 may be for projects that have no potential to adversely affect the landslide. An example would be a conditional use permit for an activity that requires little or no modification to the existing structure or site in order to accommodate the proposed use, such as the existing Archery Club facility. For these types of applications, Staff suggests establishing a new exemption category, based upon a case-by-case determination by the City’s geotechnical staff that the particular project will not adversely affect the landslide. Subsection (N) would be added to Section 15.20.040 to exempt minor improvements on developed properties from the moratorium. Examples include projects such as skylights, garden windows, air conditioning units and roof pitch modifications, which are subject to the approval of a site plan review application for minor construction. Currently, Staff exempts these types of very minor projects as a matter of policy, and the proposed addition of this Subsection would codify this exemption. Subsection (O) would be added to Section 15.20.040 to reflect the requirement for the connection of developed properties to a sanitary sewer system if it is available. This subsection complements the proposed addition of Section 15.20.110, as discussed below. Section 15.20.050 Subsection (B) of Section 15.20.050 would be revised to provide an exemption from the holding tank requirement for properties that are served by and connected to a sanitary sewer system. These proposed revisions would also include language that allows for a waiver of the holding tank requirement if the sanitary sewer system is approved and/or under construction but not yet operational, conditioned upon the requirement for connection to the sewer system once it is operational. Properties that are not served by a sanitary sewer system would not be exempted from the holding tank requirement, and would still be required to execute the covenants specified in Subsections (E) and (F). The only other proposed changes to this Section are to reflect the inclusion of the new landslide moratorium exception permit category proposed under Section 15.20.040(L) and to provide uniform references to the definition of "served by a sanitary sewer system" proposed under Section 15.20.010(J), as discussed above. Section 15.20.060 Subsection (A)(2) of Section 15.20.060 is proposed to revise the application requirements for a landslide moratorium exception permit to state that project plans should depict the location of existing or proposed sanitary sewer systems. The only other proposed changes to this Section are to reflect the inclusion of the new landslide moratorium exception permit category proposed under Section 15.20.040(L), as discussed above. Section 15.20.110 Section 15.20.110 would be added to Chapter 15.20 to require the connection of existing structures with operational plumbing fixtures to a sanitary sewer system within six (6) months of the time that the sewer system commences operation. This requirement would apply to developed properties that are served by a sanitary sewer system, as that phrase is defined in the proposed Section 15.20.010(J) discussed above. Environmental Assessment No. 714 The proposed project is a City-initiated proposal for miscellaneous amendments to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to reflect the imminent completion and availability of sanitary sewer systems in certain portions of the Landslide Moratorium Area, and to make minor clarifications and modifications to the City’s landslide moratorium regulations for the accessory structures and uses on developed properties within the Landslide Moratorium Area. No physical change to the environment will result directly from the proposed revisions to the City’s Municipal Code. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff prepared an Initial Study of the project's environmental impacts (see attached). As a result of this study, Staff determined that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a draft Negative Declaration was prepared. The draft Negative Declaration was circulated to the County Recorder and State Clearinghouse on April 13, 2000 for a posting and comment period of at least thirty days (as required by CEQA). Additional public notice was provided as described below under additional information. The State Clearinghouse assigned a 30-day review period to the draft Negative Declaration, which will not end until May 18, 2000 (see attached notice). As of the date this report was completed, the only comment regarding the draft Negative Declaration received by Staff was a "no comment" letter from Caltrans (see attached). However, since there are still two days left in the public comment period, Staff recommends that the City Council accept public comments regarding the draft Negative Declaration at tonight’s meeting, but take no action to certify the draft Negative Declaration until the second reading of the attached draft Ordinance. At that time, Staff will address any comments received and will prepare a draft Resolution certifying the draft Negative Declaration for the City Council’s consideration. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On April 13, 2000, public notices were mailed to seventeen homeowners’ associations located in or adjacent to the Landslide Moratorium Area, representatives of the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District and the Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District, thirty-seven interested parties (based upon an interested parties list from the 1995 moratorium revisions), and forty-three other agencies, departments and public service providers with a potential interest in the project. On April 15, 2000, public notice of the draft Negative Declaration and public hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. The public comment period for the draft Negative Declaration will end on May 18, 2000, but thus far no substantive comments have been received as of the date this report was completed. CONCLUSION Staff and the City Attorney prepared Code Amendment No. 45 to reflect the previous direction given by the City Council. Staff believes that the proposed revisions will allow for limited, reasonable use of developed properties within the Landslide Moratorium Area, without jeopardizing the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff also believes that the proposed revisions requiring the connection of existing developed properties to new sanitary sewer systems as they are completed will reduce the infiltration of wastewater into the active and inactive landslides, and improve gross soil stability within the entire Landslide Moratorium Area. The proposed revisions will not "lift" the moratorium or otherwise alter the current constraints imposed upon the development of undeveloped property within the Landslide Moratorium Area. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. ___ to adopt Code Amendment No. 45 for miscellaneous revisions to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the City’s Municipal Code. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed revisions to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) will have no additional fiscal impact upon the City because they provide for clarification and expansion of the scope of an existing discretionary permit process (i.e., the Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit), and will have little or no adverse effect upon the City’s permit revenues. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by: Attachments: Ordinance No. ___ 8. Revision K to the Ocean Trails Project for an Amendment to the Public Amenities Plan. (Pfost)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT: OCEAN TRAILS REVISION K – TEMPORARY OPENING OF GOLF COURSE (OCEAN TRAILS LP) Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, approving Addendum No. 10 to EIR No. 36 for Revision K, and Resolution No. 2000-__, approving Revision K to the Ocean Trails Project that would amend the Public Amenities Plan and allow the golf course to temporarily open to the general public prior to the completion of certain trails and a park. BACKGROUND In 1992, the City Council adopted resolutions approving the Ocean Trails project. From 1992 to the present day, the City Council approved various amendments to the project, including the adoption of Resolution No. 96-94 in 1996, which approved the Final Public Amenities Plan for the Ocean Trails project. As shown in the attached copy of Resolution No. 96-94, the Public Amenities Plan established a four stage phasing plan for the construction and completion of various public amenities at the project site. The requirements of these stages are briefly described as follows: Stage One: Required the completion of certain trails and parks prior to the opening of the golf course for play. Stage Two: (Same as Stage One) Required the completion of certain trails and parks prior to the opening of the golf course for play. Stage Three: Required the opening of certain trails and parks prior to the issuance of the first building permit for an individual residence within Tract No. 50666. Stage Four: Required the construction of certain trails and parks to begin immediately following the realignment and reconstruction of Palos Verdes Drive South. Also required that these trails and parks be completed prior to City acceptance of these roadway improvements as completed. On July 20, 1999, the City Council approved Amendment J to the Ocean Trails project thereby approving a delay in the construction and completion of two specific trails within Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 (VTTM 50666) from the Second Stage to the Third Stage of phasing. This amendment was granted because these two specific trails are near the residential lots of VTTM 50666, and it made more sense to construct these trails after the rough grading of the residential lots within VTTM 50666 had been completed. After grading the golf course and the residential lots within Tract 50667, the developer constructed and opened to the public some of the required trails and overlooks, and completed one of the parks. Unfortunately, on June 2, 1999, a major landslide (Landslide C) affected the 18th hole of the Ocean Trails golf course, public trails, sensitive habitat, and Ocean Trails Park. Since June 2nd, the developer has been working on a repair plan that would restore the area to a usable condition. The proposed repair plan will require City Council approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Ocean Trails project. A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the proposed repair plan has been released to the public for a 45-day review period, starting on April 21st and ending on June 5th. Staff anticipates that this project may be heard before the City Council as early as June 20th. If approved, a Coastal Commission hearing may follow in July. Due to the impacts related to the landslide, some of the trails and Ocean Trails Park will not be able to be completed until the completion of the landslide repair project. Subsequently, in order to make full use of the completed golf course that was unaffected by the landslide and open the course for public use in accordance with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Ocean Trails has requested to modify the Public Amenities Plan to delay the completion of certain trails and a park to a later date when the landslide repair has been completed. The developer submitted this request on February 23, 2000. DISCUSSION Attached is a table noting each of project’s trails and parks, as required under Stage One and Stage Two of the Public Amenities Plan, its current status and whether or not it is currently open to the public. As shown in the table, most of the trails within Stage One and Two, with the exception of those affected by Landslide C, have been completed, are currently open to the public, but do not have final review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and the Director of Public Works. The main reason that final approval has not been granted is because Ocean Trails still needs to install trail signage and have the City’s consultant complete a final walk-thorough inspection. Ocean Trails has indicated to Staff that this will occur within the next two months and therefore these trails should be completed prior to the requested temporary opening of the golf course, which according to the developer is anticipated this August. As noted above, the developer is requesting to delay the completion of certain trails in Stages One and Two until the repair of Landslide C has been completed. This would allow the developer to open the golf course to the public. The developer has indicated that he would like to open up all of the holes except holes #12, #18 and a portion of #9. Although the developer is not yet sure how the remaining holes would be played (i.e. there may be a 9-hole course open or there may be a 15-hole course open), he would like the flexibility to design the play of the course on any of the available holes. In reviewing the developer’s request, Staff has identified three concerns that need to be brought to the Council’s attention. These concerns are related to traffic, geology/site safety, and the assurance that these trails and parks are completed in the future. Below, Staff has provided a discussion of each of these issues. Traffic: Although not directly related to the opening of trails and parks, Staff was initially concerned regarding opening the golf course to the public without the completion of the Palos Verdes Drive South roadway improvements required of the developer. Specifically, Staff was concerned that the additional traffic that would be associated with the opening of the golf course could cause traffic impacts to those traveling on Palos Verdes Drive South while it is in its current unimproved condition. However, after reviewing the conditions of approval and mitigation measures for the project, there are no requirements that specifically state when the roadway improvements are to be completed. As such, even if the developer completed all of the trails within Stages One and Two, the golf course could still open prior to the completion of these roadway improvements. It is important to note that this is no different than when the developer first planned to open the golf course in July 1999, but did not due to the failure of Landslide C. To ensure that these roadway improvements would be completed, prior to issuance of Grading Permits for the project, the City obtained the necessary roadway improvement bonds from the developer. Additionally, the developer has indicated that he anticipates that the bankruptcy court will free up funds to begin work and complete the roadway improvements. The developer has submitted the roadway improvement plans to the Public Works department, which is close to issuing permits. The developer has indicated that construction of the roadway improvements is anticipated to begin within the next 6 months. Although it seems hopeful that the roadway improvements will be installed relatively soon, Staff is still concerned regarding the opening of the golf course and what types of unknown traffic related impacts may occur. Therefore, although Staff is supporting the developer’s request to delay the installation of certain trails and permit the golf course to open, Staff is recommending approval of the Public Amenities Plan amendment based upon the condition that the developer obtain a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the golf course opening. The SUP would provide a mechanism for the City to monitor the traffic, identify any traffic impacts, and require the developer to address those impacts or risk revocation of the SUP. This condition would also address the two remaining issues identified below. Geology/Site Safety: Since portions of golf holes #10 and #11 are located on Landslide A, Staff was concerned about allowing the public to access this area of the site without having more knowledge of the existing conditions and preventive measures that need to be taken to prevent the area from becoming active. In the past, the developer has held special events that have included the use of holes #10 and #11. Prior to the issuance of Special Use Permits for these events, Staff has required the developer to submit a report from their geologist addressing the condition of Landslide A and how public safety could be maintained. These geology reports were reviewed and approved prior to the start of these events. To address the safety issue, Staff has again required the developer to submit the attached geological report addressing the use of holes #10 and #11 for public play (see attached report). The City’s geologist has reviewed the report and has verbally recommended to Staff that the golf course be open to the public, but only based upon the completion of certain conditions to guarantee public safety. As shown in the report, the developer would be responsible for submitting information addressing periodic inspections of the sewer line which is located near Landslide A, and continued monitoring of survey monument information, inclinometer readings and groundwater monitoring data to ensure that the site remains safe for public access. Staff was also concerned regarding opening the golf course to the public and the potential conflicts with future construction efforts geared towards repairing Landslide C. As shown in the attached geologic report, the developer would address this concern by the installation of screened fencing with locked gates that would create a "no public access area", posting of security guards, closure of the beaches below the slide area, warning signage, construction safety observers and a traffic control plan. The requirements and conditions noted in the developer’s geologist’s report along with any conditions from the City geologist would be folded into the future approval of a SUP as discussed under the Traffic section above. A more detailed discussion of the exact changes to the Public Amenities Plan and the issuance of the SUP are discussed in the Conclusion section of this report. Future Opening of Trails and Parks: In addition to the concerns noted above, Staff wanted to make sure that the City would be assured that the specific trails and park which the developer is requesting to delay completion of, will be completed at a later date, when the repair of Landslide C is completed. To address this concern, the developer will be required to submit an application for and obtain approval of a SUP, which would allow a portion of the golf course to open to the public prior to completion of all the required trails and park. The SUP would be valid for a maximum period of six months or until the repair of Landslide C has been completed including all of the trails that were to have been completed prior to the opening of the golf course, whichever occurs first. After the initial six month period is over, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement could issue subsequent SUP’s. This would also allow the City the ability to discontinue the public use of the golf course if any of the conditions addressing the issues noted above have not been complied with or if the developer fails to complete these trails. Subsequently, by permitting the golf course to open based upon the approval of a SUP, Staff feels that the City has the ability to ensure that these trails are completed in a timely fashion. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On May 5, 2000, Staff received the attached letter from the President of the Seacliff Hills Homeowners Association. The President notes that the Association is supportive of the developer’s request with the provision that "the Palos Verdes Drive South realignment is first completed". The Association indicates that their concern is that Palos Verdes Drive South in its present unfinished condition will not accommodate the expected increase in traffic On May 11, 2000, Staff also received the attached two letters from Mr. and Mrs. Casaburi and Mr. and Mrs. Solari. Both letters express opposition to the requested action. As noted in the Traffic issues section above, unfortunately the conditions of approval or mitigation measures do not specify when the roadway improvements are to be completed. Since the conditions of approval for the Ocean Trails project allow the golf course to open as long as the Stage One and Stage Two trails and parks are completed, and since certain trails cannot be opened based upon the repair of Landslide C, Staff would still recommend that the developer be allowed to open the golf course on a temporary basis. Ocean Trails has complied with all other conditions that are required to be completed based upon the status of the project. Staff feels that the Special Use Permit procedure, as discussed above, will allow the City to monitor the traffic on Palos Verdes Drive South, require the developer to address any unsafe conditions related to the repair of Landslide C, and require the developer to address any other issues that may arise from use of the trails and the temporary opening of the golf course. In addition to the City’s review and approval of this request, the developer will also need to obtain approval from the Coastal Commission prior to opening the golf course, as proposed. CONCLUSION The developer has estimated that it will take at least 6-8 months to repair Landslide C and complete the trails and park within the vicinity of Landslide C. Since there are currently 15 golf holes that can now be used by the general public, and all of the issues which Staff has identified can be addressed through the issuance of a SUP, and if Landslide C did not fail the developer would be able to open the golf course now, Staff feels that the request to temporarily open the golf course through the issuance of a SUP can be approved. The actual change
to Stage One and Stage Two of the Public Amenities Plan would be as follows
(bold underline noting new language and First Stage The following trail
improvements, interpretive signs and trail fencing shall be installed
and open for use by the public prior to commencement of play on
the golf course. (See attached Resolution for list of parks and trails applicable to Stage One – no changes to list) In regards to the Half Way Point Park Beach Access Pedestrian Trail and the portion of the Bluff Top Activity Corridor Pedestrian Trail that traverses Landslide C, the developer may delay the completion of these trails until the repair of Landslide C has been completed. In the interim, the developer may open the golf course to the public on a temporary basis until the repair of Landslide C and these trails have been completed, provided that the developer obtains approval of a Special Use Permit from the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to the opening of the golf course. The Special Use Permit shall address issues such as, but not limited to, traffic, geology, public safety, and the status of trails. The Special Use Permit shall allow the developer to keep the golf course open to the public on a temporary basis for the time period set forth in the Special Use Permit, or when the repair of Landslide C and these trails have been completed, whichever occurs first. Second Stage With the exception
of Halfway Point Park (Ocean Trails Park), the Halfway Point Park Pedestrian
Loop Trail, the Sewer Easement Pedestrian Trail, and the portion of the
Bluff Top Activity Corridor Combined Bicycle Path and Pedestrian Trail
that traverses Landslide C, which are addressed below, (See attached Resolution for list of parks and trails applicable to Stage Two – no changes to list) In regards to Halfway Point Park (Ocean Trails Park), the Halfway Point Park Pedestrian Loop Trail, Sewer Easement Pedestrian Trail, and the portion of the Bluff Top Activity Corridor Combined Bicycle Path and Pedestrian Trail that traverses Landslide C, the developer may delay the completion of these trails until the repair of Landslide C has been completed. In the interim, the developer may open the golf course to the public on a temporary basis until these trails have been completed, provided that the developer obtains approval of a Special Use Permit from the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to the opening of the golf course. The Special Use Permit shall address issues such as, but not limited to, traffic, geology, public safety, and the status of trails. The Special Use Permit shall allow the developer to keep the golf course open to the public on a temporary basis for the time period set forth in the Special Use Permit, or when the repair of Landslide C and these trails have been completed, whichever occurs first. As such for the reasons as noted in this report, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution No. 2000-__, approving Addendum No. 10 to EIR No. 36 for Revision "K", and Resolution No. 2000-__, which revises the Public Amenities Plan with the language noted above. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives: 1.Deny the applicant’s request. 2.Identify any issues of concern with the applicant’s request, provide Staff and/or the applicant with any direction, and continue the item to a date certain. FISCAL IMPACT There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision, with the exception that if this project is approved, the City will begin taking in funds related to the golf tax applied to this use. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed, ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2000-__,
for Addendum No. 10 to EIR No. 36 RECESS: 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: 9. Appointment of members to the View Restoration Commission. (Purcell)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE:MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT:APPOINTMENT OF VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (1) Appoint ten members to the View Restoration Commission (seven regular and three alternates) to a term of office until April 2002. (2) Appoint a Commission chair to serve until April 2001. INTRODUCTION Appointment of members to this Commission will empower them to meet and confer on the View Restoration Permits that are currently awaiting a determination by the City. BACKGROUND At the May 2nd meeting the City Council directed staff to schedule the interview of the two candidates (Messrs. Monk and Simmons) that had not previously been interviewed by the Council. Additionally, staff was directed to schedule the appointment of this ten-member Commission for this meeting. Under separate cover the City Council has received the resumes of the eighteen candidates that have applied for appointment to this Commission. Attached as Exhibit "A" to this memorandum is a tally sheet for the Council voting on this matter. CONCLUSION Eighteen candidates have indicated a willingness to serve on the View Restoration Commission. Permits are awaiting City action; the appointment of members to this Commission will empower them to take action on these permits and any other business that comes before them. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed: Atts. Exhibit "A" 10. Ocean Trails – Geologic Presentation of Landslide C Repair Plan, (Pfost)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT: GEOLOGIC PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED REPAIR OF LANDSLIDE C AT OCEAN TRAILS (OCEAN TRAILS LP) Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Receive a presentation from Ocean Trails that focuses upon the geology of the proposed Landslide C Repair Plan, and ask questions and/or provide comments to Ocean Trails Staff and/or City Staff regarding the presentation. BACKGROUND On June 2, 1999, a major landslide (Landslide C) affected the 18th hole of the Ocean Trails golf course, public trails, sensitive habitat, and Ocean Trails Park. Since June 2nd, the developer has been working on a repair plan that would restore the area to a usable condition. Towards the end of 1999, the developer obtained approval for a Landslide Winterization Plan, which allowed the developer to conduct minor grading within the landslide area with the purpose of creating positive drainage to direct rainfall out of the landslide area. The Winterization Plan also included the clearing and grubbing of vegetation and filling of cracks and fissures that were created by the landslide. DISCUSSION The preparation of the proposed repair plan has been a very long and complicated process. It began with a geological investigation of the site to determine the actual geologic conditions of Landslide C and the immediate surrounding area. During this investigation period, the developer’s geologist, Converse Consultants, met periodically with the City’s geologist, Cotton Shires Associates, to present their investigation results and obtain agreement on the basic geologic conditions. On March 17, 2000, the developer formally submitted a four volume set of the comprehensive geology report for the proposed repair plan. Cotton Shires has reviewed the report and generally concurs with its findings and direction, subject to the developer addressing certain specific issues in a final repair plan. The proposed repair plan will require City Council approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Ocean Trails project. A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR), which includes the full four volume geology report as an attachment, has been released to the public for a 45-day review period, starting on April 21st and ending on June 5th. Staff anticipates that this project may be heard before the City Council as early as June 20th. If approved, a Coastal Commission hearing may follow in July. In addition to Cotton Shires’ review of the proposed repair plan, City Staff enlisted the assistance of three other geologists (Bing Yen, Glenn Brown and Monte Ray) to act as a Peer Review Group. The Peer Review Group has been charged with overseeing the geologic review by Cotton Shires. The Peer Review Group has met periodically and provided guidance to both Cotton Shires and Converse. City Staff expects to have the Peer Review Group’s endorsement of the proposed repair plan prior to the plan being submitted to the City Council for formal approval. Given the length and complexity of the four volume geologic report, Staff felt that it would be beneficial to have the developer’s geologist provide the City Council with a geologic presentation of the proposed repair plan at the May 16th Council meeting. In addition to the presentation by Converse, both the developer’s geologist and the City’s geologist will be available to address any questions and/or comments by the City Council. Although this meeting is not a public hearing, if members of the public speak on this item, Staff recommends that the Council direct the public to submit their comments in writing as part of the DSEIR comment period that ends on June 5th. This method will provide for a more effective "response to comments", which is required as part of the Final Supplemental EIR that will be presented to the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this presentation. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed, 11. Ocean Trails – Extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666. (Pfost)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50666 (OCEAN TRAILS LP) Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Extend the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 for the Ocean Trails project for one (1) year, until April 15, 2001. BACKGROUND On January 25, 2000, the City received the attached letter from Ocean Trails requesting a one-year time extension to approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 (VTTM 50666). The Conditions of Approval for VTTM 50666 state,
The Ocean Trails project was originally approved by the California Coastal Commission on April 15, 1993. Therefore, the City’s approval would have expired on April 15, 1995. However, on September 13, 1993, the State enacted an automatic 24-month extension for all approved maps in the State of California, thereby automatically extending the expiration date of VTTM 50666 to April 15, 1997. Then, on May 15, 1996, the state enacted an automatic 12 month extension to all approved maps. Therefore, the map would have expired on April 15, 1998. On April 7, 1998, the City Council approved a time extension request from Ocean Trails to extend the map for one year, until April 15, 1999. Then, on April 20, 1999, the City Council approved another time extension to extend the map for one year, until April 15, 2000. The automatic extensions granted by the State and the subsequent Council approved extensions are all consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. As a result of these extensions, the current expiration date for VTTM 50666 is April 15, 2000. Since the developer had submitted a request for extension of VTTM 50666 on January 25, 2000, the map has been temporarily extended until the Council’s action on this request. Additionally, since the project was approved in 1993, the State amended the Subdivision Map Act to increase the maximum time extension from three years to five years. Since two extensions have already been granted by the City, pursuant to the new State law, the project would be eligible for a maximum of three more extensions. Each of these three extensions would be for up to one year each, beyond the April 15, 2000 date, or until April 15, 2003. These extensions would need to be requested in writing prior to each expiration date and would need to be approved by the City Council. DISCUSSION Currently, Phase I Grading, which is composed of the golf course and all of Tract No. 50667, including the residential lots located on the east side of the Ocean Trails project, is nearing completion. Additionally, since Tract 50667 has been finaled, the developer can begin selling residential lots from that tract. Phase II grading, which encompasses the housing portion of VTTM 50666 is currently under construction. As the Council is aware, on June 2, 1999, a major landslide (Landslide C) significantly impacted a portion of the golf course, Ocean Trails Park, and public trails. Additionally, the developer has submitted a plan for repairing Landslide C, and a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) has been released to the public addressing the repair plan. Both, the repair plan and the DSEIR will ultimately need to be approved by the City Council. Landslide C is located within the boundaries of VTTM 50666. Any changes to existing lot lines or easements established through the original approval of VTTM 50666, to address the repair of Landslide C, will need to be approved by the City Council prior to approval of the Final Map for Tract 50666. Since the City has a process to evaluate any further changes to VTTM 50666 as a result of Landslide C, Staff does not feel that the repair of Landslide C should have any bearing on this extension request. Additionally, an existing ancient landslide (Landslide A) is also located within the boundaries of VTTM 50666. A portion of the golf course is located on Landslide A. Additionally, the County’s existing main trunk sewer line runs close to the edge or within the boundaries of Landslide A (the exact location of Landslide A and its proximity to the sewer line has not yet been confirmed). Staff has informed the developer that a detailed geological investigation of Landslide A will need to be completed prior to City Council approval of the Final Map for Tract 50666. Similar to Landslide C, since the City has a process to evaluate any further changes to VTTM 50666 as a result of the investigations into Landslide A, Staff does not feel that any potential issues related to Landslide A should have any bearing on this extension request. The developer has submitted an application and filed the necessary fees to process Final Map No. 50666. The application is being reviewed by City Staff and the City Engineer and is currently incomplete. As noted above, the geological issues pertaining to Landslide C and A will need to be addressed prior to City Council approval of the Final Map. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion presented in this report, Staff feels that the applicant is making substantial progress towards the completion of the Ocean Trails Project. Additionally, any remaining geological issues pertaining to Landslide C or A will need to be addressed prior to the Final of Map 50666. As such, for the reasons noted above, Staff feels that the approval of the time extension request for VTTM 50666 should be granted. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives: 1.Decline to extend VTTM 50666 beyond its current expiration date. 2.Identify any issues of concern with the extension request, provide Staff and/or the applicant with any direction, and continue the item to a date certain. Since the request for extension was submitted prior to the deadline, the approvals will remain valid until the Council takes action on the requests. FISCAL IMPACT There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed, ATTACHMENT: Letter dated received on January 25, 2000 12. Professional Services Agreement for Financial Analysis of the Long Point Golf Course Proposal. (Evans)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DATE:MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT:PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE LONG POINT GOLF COURSE PROPOSAL RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND: On March 2, 1999 staff requested that the City Council approve an Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. for financial analysis and negotiation assistance related to the Long Point project. After a thorough discussion, the City Council determined that the project was not yet ready for this type of analysis. The matter was tabled. On April 26, 2000 Destination Development Corporation submitted a proposal to construct a 400 room hotel, 50 casitas and 35 resort villas on Long Point property. In addition to other public recreation amenities Destination Development is also proposing constructing a nine hole golf course and a driving range. The driving range and four of the golf holes are proposed to be constructed on City property. A financial plan for the portion of the project to be constructed on civic center property has not yet been submitted, but should be available later this month. DISCUSSION: The development and evaluation of a financial study of the proposed Long Point golf course will require the assistance of a specialist in the real estate advisory practice. Long Point Associates has agreed to provide financial data to the City, however the analysis of this data is beyond the expertise of City staff. In order to evaluate the financial information provided, and to prepare the required report, City staff would like to add the services of Keyser Marston Associates to those of PMW Associates as a member of our consultant team. Keyser Marston is a highly qualified real estate advisory firm which has provided similar services to public agencies throughout the State and has specific experience with projects which include golf courses. The contract document is attached. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff has estimated the time required for this and future analyses at approximately 100 hours. Therefore, the amount of this contract would be $17,000. The funds for the work will be provided through a Trust Deposit from York Long Point Associates. Respectively submitted: Attachment: 13. Award of Contact for Building and Safety Services. (Petru)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT: CONTRACT FOR BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES RECOMMENDATION Award the contract for Building and Safety Services to Charles Abbott Associates for the expanded level of service and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the three year contract beginning with Fiscal Year 2000-2001. BACKGROUND From the City’s incorporation in 1973 until 1984, the City contracted with the County of Los Angeles for building and safety services. In 1984, the City awarded the contract for these services to a private consulting firm, Charles Abbott and Associates (CAA). CAA has continued to provide building and safety services for the City to the present day. Since the contract was originally awarded to CAA in 1984, it appears from City records that the contract has been put out to bid twice, once in 1990 and again in 1994. Although the City elected to renew its contract with CAA both times, the 1994 contract was never fully executed. The building and safety services currently being provided to the City include, but are not limited to, enforcement of the Uniform Building, Electrical, Plumbing, and Mechanical Codes; plan check review; issuance of City building and grading permits; and inspections of new construction and additions. The Building and Safety Division is part of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and consists largely of CAA employees. Staffing levels include one part-time Building Official, two to three full-time building inspectors (which varies based on workload) and one part-time structural engineer. However, the two permit clerks are City employees. Geotechnical services are provided by separate contracts with Zeiser Kling Consultants and Bing Yen and Associates. On January 6, 2000, staff sent a Request for Proposals (RFP) to nine (9) consulting firms. To assure that additional firms not specifically identified by staff were also made aware of the RFP, staff posted a notice with a private clearinghouse, h/mt Project Information Services. By the February 4, 2000 deadline, staff had received responses from the following three (3) firms:
DISCUSSION Staff compared the three proposals based on the scope of services and requirements included in the RFP. Staff found that all three firms have the experience and professional qualifications to provide the scope of services requested in the RFP. All three firms can also comply with the City’s insurance and other miscellaneous requirements. In addition, each of the firms can provide the various levels services described in the RFP. The major differences between the three proposals are: 1) familiarity with the community; 2) the ability to provide a smooth transition in services for the public; and, 3) compensation. Each of these issues is discussed below. 1.Familiarity with the Community CAA is the most familiar with the community because this firm has been providing building and safety services for the City for the last sixteen years. In addition, CAA’s home office, which is located in Torrance, is the closest to City Hall among the three firms. However, although not for building and safety services, Willdan has successfully provided a variety of planning and engineering services to the City for many years. In addition, Willdan does have experience in providing building and safety services in a community with similar topography and geology as they have worked extensively in the City of Malibu. RKA was the only firm with which the City has had no prior experience. Furthermore, the cities that currently contract with RKA (Walnut, La Verne and La Habra Heights) do not have the same geologic constraints that are prevalent in our community. Therefore, staff’s conclusion was that CAA was clearly the superior firm in this category. 2.Transition Transition periods can be complicated and costly if not handled properly. Both RKA and Willdan indicated that the individuals that would be assigned to the City have special expertise in handling transitional services. However, regardless of how well executed, with any transition there will be disruptive and will result in intangible costs to both the staff and our residents. With CAA, there would be no radical transition period, even though the City would require a review period to evaluate any change in the level of service being provided. As a result, the proposal submitted by CAA would be the most beneficial proposal for the City in this category. 3.Compensation Current Level of Service Under the current arrangement, CAA receives compensation for its services equal to 65% of all permit and plan check fees collected by the City. In its current proposal, CAA is not proposing to change this percentage to provide the same level of service that it is currently providing to the City. To provide the equivalent level of service, both Willdan and RKA propose to use a sliding fee scale based on the amount of revenue taken in each month (see attachments). Staff has looked at building and safety revenues over the last five fiscal years and identified FY 95-96 as an example of year with low gross revenues and FY 97-98 as a year with high gross revenues. Staff then compared how much the City would have paid each consultant during these two fiscal years using the fee schedules proposed to continue the current level of service. The chart below summarizes the results of this analysis: FEES FOR THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
As indicated in the chart, when building and safety revenues were low in FY 95-96, CAA would have had the lowest fees, Willdan was in the middle and RKA would have charged the highest fees. When revenues were high in FY 97-98, CAA still had the lowest fee, but Willdan would have the highest fees and RKA would have been in the middle. Therefore, if the City chooses to maintain the current level of building and safety services, CAA would charge the lowest fees to the City both in lean years and when building activity is high. Expanded Level of Service The most frequent complaints that the City receives about its current building and safety services center on a desire in the community to have greater access to these services. With the new contract, the City has an opportunity to address this issue and determine whether providing an expanded level of service to the public would be cost effective. The chart below contains a comparison of the current level of service and the proposed expanded level of service based on the requests that the City receives most frequently from the public:
Later this year, the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department will expand its public counter hours to be open from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM Monday through Thursday and from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM on Friday. With opening of the public counter all day in the near future, the City may want to consider expanding the level of building and safety services currently available to the public. Therefore, the consultants were asked to provide cost estimates to provide service at the City current level and at an expanded level. All three firms proposed to use a sliding fee schedule for the expanded level of service. Staff again used FY 95-96 as an example of year with low gross revenues and FY 97-98 as a year with high gross revenues. Staff compared how much the City would have paid each consultant during these two fiscal years using the fee schedules proposed to provide an expanded level of service. The chart below summarizes the results of this analysis: FEES FOR AN EXPANDED LEVEL OF SERVICE
As indicated in the chart, when building and safety revenues were low in FY 95-96, CAA would have had the lowest fees, RKA was in the middle and Willdan would have charged the highest fees. When revenues were high in FY 97-98, RKA would have had the lowest fees, CAA would have been in the middle and again Willdan would have had the highest fees. Therefore, CAA would charge a fair price regardless of fluctuations in the level of building activity. CONCLUSION In order to recommend a different building and safety services provider, the City would either have to be dissatisfied with the current consultant or the cost savings of changing consultants would have to be significant. Over the past sixteen years, CAA has provided the City with good, reliable service at a reasonable cost. While staff believes that all three firms could provide more than adequate service for the City and community, based upon past experience and their current proposal, staff has concluded that CAA can best meet the future needs of City. In addition, staff recommends that the contract with CAA include the expanded level of service described in this report. The additional cost for these services would not be significant (approximately 7%) compared to the significant improvement in customer service. As mentioned previously, the proposed expansion in service is in direct response to the requests that the City receives most frequently from the public. ALTERNATIVES 1.Direct staff to negotiate a contract with one of the other two firms that responded to the RFP. 2.Reject all firms that responded to the RFP and authorize staff to re-solicit proposals for the contract. Staff does not recommend this alternative because superior responses or lower costs are not anticipated. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Regardless of the firm selected, staff recommends that the City enter into a minimum three-year agreement. A three-year term is recommended to ensure continuity of service and due to the fact that costs of going through a proposal process each year are not outweighed by any prospective savings. It is often difficult to make accommodations for dramatic swings in personnel and service levels in front-line services such as those provided by the Building and Safety Division. In addition, the potential impact of changing consultants from year to year has a detrimental effect on customer service and community services, as opposed to a project-oriented service, such as a construction project. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the contract would be dependent upon which firm is selected and the outcome of the subsequent contract negotiations. However, the RFP dictated a fee structure that, regardless of which firm is chosen, will allow the City to adequately cover the cost of providing Building and Safety services to the community. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed, Attachments: 14. Community Leaders’ Breakfast – Fall Meeting. (Purcell)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE:MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT:COMMUNITY LEADERS’ BREAKFAST - FALL MEETING RECOMMENDATION Select a new date for the fall Community Leaders’ Breakfast. BACKGROUND At the April 18th meeting the City Council picked October 7th as the date for the fall Community Leaders’ Breakfast. That meeting was scheduled to be held at Marymount College. Staff has since been notified that due to unforeseen circumstances, Marymount is not available on that date. Staff has been unable to find another location to hold the meeting on October 7th. Hesse Park is available on the following dates: September 23 and 30th November 4, 11 and 18th CONCLUSION Due to unforeseen circumstances, it is necessary to change the date of the fall Community Leaders’ Breakfast. Hesse Park is available on certain dates to hold the meeting at that facility. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by: 15. Rescheduling of the June 20, 2000 City Council Meeting. (Evans)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DATE:MAY 16, 2000 SUBJECT:RESCHEDULE OF THE JUNE 20, 2000 COUNCIL MEETING RECOMMENDATION Consider rescheduling of the June 20, 2000 City Council meeting to another date. BACKGROUND Tuesday, June 20, 2000 is a regular City Council meeting date. However, two of the City Council members will be attending the CMANC conference in Sacramento during this time. They have requested that the meeting be rescheduled. DISCUSSION Suggested dates for a rescheduled City Council meeting are as follows: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 Thursday, June 22, 2000 Monday, June 26, 2000 There are no conflicting events scheduled at the Community Center on June 22nd. On June 26th we would have to relocate a class to accommodate a Council meeting. On June 21st we would have to cancel a class to accommodate a Council meeting. As a further note, the July 4, 2000 meeting will be rescheduled to Wednesday, July 5, 2000. Respectfully submitted: 16. Oral report from Councilman McTaggart regarding Installation of Storm Drain on Western Avenue. CLOSED SESSION REPORT: 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. |
