|
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 BUDGET WORKSHOP ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2000 @ 6:00 P.M. HESSE PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: APPROVAL OF
AGENDA:  1. Additional Traffic Safety Enforcement by the Lomita Sheriff’s Station. (Evans)
2. City Council Expense Allowance. (Evans)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:CITY
COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE ALLOWANCE RECOMMENDATION Approve an increase of $50 a month for City Council miscellaneous expenses and an increase of $35 a month for the Mayor’s miscellaneous expenses. BACKGROUND In fiscal year 1991-92 the City Council established a $150 expense allowance for each City Councilmember. In fiscal year 1997-98 the expense allowance for the Mayor was increased to $300 per month. Since the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not provide automobiles for use by members of the City Council while they are on City business, the expense allowance was primarily intended to offset these costs. The additional amount authorized for the Mayor reflects his/her additional responsibilities in representing the City at official functions on the Peninsula and in the South Bay area. DISCUSSION In the nine years that have passed since the $150 expense allowance was established, the costs of owning and operating an automobile have increased significantly as have the number of activities and functions attended by City Councilmembers on behalf of the City. According to the American Automobile Association the cost per mile of owning and operating a mid-size current model American car with popular options was $0.373 per mile in 1991. In 1999, the cost of owning and operating a similar vehicle was $0.488 per mile. Data for the year 2000 is not yet available, but will probably be over $0.50 per mile. Based on this information alone a 33% increase in the expense allowance for a Councilmember is appropriate. Over the period 1997-1999 the ownership and operation cost of an automobile increased 9.0%. Using this data, and assuming a similar increase in cost for the year 2000, the Mayor’s expense allowance should be increased by approximately 12%. The proposed new allowance for miscellaneous expenses will compensate City Councilmembers for the amount of actual expenses that they necessarily incur when they use their automobiles in connection with the performance of their official duties as members of the City Council. Respectfully submitted:Les Evans, City Manager
3.Employee Compensation. (Evans)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:EMPLOYEE
COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATION Approve annual merit raises for City employees to reflect an average 6.0% rather than the present authorization of 4.5%. BACKGROUND In March 1996 the City Council replaced the step compensation system for employees with a merit pay plan. The step compensation plan is commonly utilized by public agencies. The plan assigns a salary range to each position. Within the salary range are five or more "steps," usually in 5% increments. Annually employees who receive a satisfactory performance rating advance to the next step until they are at the top of their range. In addition the salary ranges are normally adjusted for the effects of increases in the cost of living each year in July. The cost of living increase is added to each "step" within the salary range and employees are automatically awarded an annual cost of living increase. This system is utilized by virtually all the South Bay cities. The City’s merit pay plan also utilizes a salary range for each position but there are no "steps" and cost of living adjustments are applied to the salary range rather than to actual employee salaries. Employees are eligible to receive compensation increases based on their performance during the previous year. Each fiscal year the City Council establishes a specific amount for the merit pool from which the City Manager determines the percentage increase that will be granted for each level of performance over the next year. The merit pool established by the City Council for 1999-00 was 4.5% of the total annual payroll. A satisfactory performance rating generally results in a merit increase of 2%. In 1999-00 an "outstanding" rating could earn an increase of up to 6%. In addition, the Council established an "incentive award" pool equal to 1.3% of payroll for bonuses to employees who are recognized for exceptional accomplishment. The total merit
/bonus pool is therefore equal to 5.8% (4.5% + 1.3%) of payroll during
the current fiscal year. Subtracting the 2% cost of living increase,
the "average" employee received an effective 3.8% merit
increase this year. With the latest Department of Labor figure which
shows a 3.4% cost of living increase, the effective merit increase
of the average employee in fiscal year 2000-01 will be 2.4%. As shown
in the chart below, due to the steady increase in the cost of living
over the last three years, the net merit pool for City employees has
been declining.
DISCUSSION Most cities in our labor market such as Torrance, Redondo Beach and Palos Verdes Estates will be offering their employees annual step increases of about 5.0% plus a cost of living increase. A typical example
of a step plan is that of Palos Verdes Estates. PVE negotiated annual
cost of living increases of 2.5% annually for the three-year period
ending in 2000-01. The sum of the 5% merit raise granted to all PVE
employees performing satisfactorily (and not at the top of their salary
range) plus the 2.5% cost of living adjustment, less the actual increase
in the cost of living yield the effective annual increases shown in
the table below.
A step system automatically recognizes that employees tend to improve in skills and knowledge over the first five years of their employment and adjusts their compensation upward within a range. Unfortunately, the step system does not distinguish between a satisfactory performer and an outstanding one. The merit system allows for this distinction. The merit system has clear advantages over the step compensation system as long as the pool of funds available to recognize performance is equal to that which would be available under the step system. In order to achieve this equality the City’s Finance Director has indicated that an additional $10,282 should be added to the employee salary merit pool for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2000. This additional sum would allow the average employee to receive a 3.9% effective salary increase next year. The 3.9% figure is calculated by adding an average 6.0% merit increase to an average 1.3% bonus and subtracting the 3.4% increase in cost of living. Respectfully
submitted: 4.2000 Five Year Information Technology Plan. (McLean) Recommendation: Receive and file the Year 2000 Five-Year Information and Technology Plan (the "2000 IT Plan")
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT: YEAR 2000 FIVE-YEAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Year 2000 Five-Year Information Technology Plan ("2000 IT Plan"). BACKGROUND: The City’s Information Technology (IT) System includes:
1999 LAN Replacement The City’s LAN and accounting system were entirely replaced in 1999 at a cost of approximately $290,000. The network replacement included the following: Workstations The network replacement included a new primary file server using the Windows NT 4.0 operating system. Fifty-five workstations using PII 350MHZ processors with 64MB RAM are connected to the primary file server. Three workstations are located at three park sites to enable staff to send and receive email, as well as perform word processing. Three additional workstations are connected to the Internet (but not the LAN). In all, sixty-one workstations are used in the City’s IT system. The application software (including Word 97, Excel 97, Power Point 97, FARES parcel data base of RPV, ACT! 4.0 for contact management and Eudora for email) is installed on nearly every workstation. The HTE CitySoft accounting system is available to read accounting data at designated workstations in every department. Server Configuration The combination fax/email server, the fiber channel drive bay and the AS400 server (operating the HTE accounting system) are connected to the primary file server. Hence, the primary file server is the hub of the LAN operating at City Hall. In addition to receiving email, the fax/email server serves as a firewall between the Internet and the primary server. Therefore, it protects the rest of the network from intrusion by computer hackers over the Internet, while transferring email messages over the Internet. The fiber channel drive bay contains two identical 16GB storage drives, one drive which is used strictly for back-up of all data saved on the other drive. The fiber channel drive bay can be easily expanded to provide additional file storage capacity in future years. Additionally, with the installation of a fiber channel switch, the fiber channel drive bay could be used to maintain the data records of another system (i.e. a document imaging system operating on a separate server). A Virtual City Hall of the Future – Several Ideas To Consider Email, web-sites and electronic purchasing have become a part of our daily lives. Existing technology could be used to:
If the IT ideas were implemented, the cost would be as follows:
The technology described below is proven and is already in use at other California cities and agencies. A further description about each idea is offered below. Please note the reference to where the idea appears in the attached Schedules 1 and 2. Receiving Payments over the Internet (see Schedule 1, Section D, No. 35) Several simple electronic application forms could be developed and posted on the City’s web site. Upon completion, they could be submitted with credit card payment over the Internet. More than one-half of the cities in California either have this payment technology in use or are installing an e-commerce payment system. Providing this technology for filing applications for business licenses, solicitation permits, film permits and other permit applications would be a convenient alternative for the City’s residents and business community. PVNET, the City’s network consultant, estimates that the cost of developing the electronic applications for the first 2-3 forms would be approximately $5,200 (80 hours @ $65 per hour). No specialized software will be necessary. Transportation funds may be eligible to finance a portion of the cost of this proposed solution. Computer Assisted Presentation (see Schedule 1, Section D, No. 34) With the purchase of a portable projector attached to a laptop computer, presentations of visual images could be greatly improved at the meetings of the City Council, its committees and the public. The City Council (or any of its committees) and the public could more effectively view:
Staff could make presentations of staff reports using this visual technology. The display technology can also be used for presentations at community meetings (i.e. the Community Leaders Breakfast) as well as employee meetings. The laptop computer is already appropriated in the FY 1999-2000 budget. The estimated cost of a LCD projector is about $8,000. Installation of Graphical Software to View Parcel Information, Plans, Street, Sewer and Utility Data (see Schedule 1, Section D, No. 32 and No. 33) Graphical image software would be used for the following:
The scanning equipment described below in Document Imaging and Retrieval System (with an estimated cost of $25,000), would be necessary to establish a completely functional graphical database of the City. The large document scanner would be used to scan and archive images. A couple of examples include:
The cost of installing Adobe PhotoShop and ArcView GIS software on approximately ten workstations, including installation, data and training is approximately $35,000. Document Imaging and Retrieval System (see Schedule 1, Section D, No. 36) The acquisition of a document imaging system was first proposed to the City Council during the budget workshop in May 1999 with an estimated cost of $150,000. Staff recently discovered a solution that will cost approximately $80,000, including the multi-user license, a dedicated file server, two high-speed scanners, a large image scanner (i.e. for site plans) and a plotter printer. The total estimated cost of $80,000 includes about $25,000 of scanning and printing equipment that will be necessary to develop the GIS system and other graphical databases described above. It is anticipated that the annual software and hardware maintenance fees would be approximately $15,000. The acquisition and maintenance costs could be partially recovered with collection of a document processing charge (i.e. 4,000 applications annually @ $1.50 = $6,000). Additionally, the microfiche of accounting records, permanent records of the City Clerk and large plan drawings will no longer be necessary, saving at least $5,000 annually. Staff anticipates using the proposed scanning solution for document storage and retrieval of appropriate City document including:
The imaging software would reside on a dedicated document imaging file server. Once documents were scanned and digitized into files, they would be saved into file directories on the imaging server for archiving and retrieval. Workstation Access to the Internet (see Schedule 1, Section D, No. 37) Access to the Internet is not currently available at workstations at City Hall. The Internet is quickly becoming the most popular information and communication media. Certain important information is already being posted on the web sites of federal, state and local agencies, rather than distributed via the postal system. Some regulatory reports can only be filed electronically over the Internet (i.e. State Controllers Report). PVNET currently provides a T1 Internet connection to the City at a nominal cost of $2,400 per year. A T1 connection provides the fastest transfer of data over the Internet. The workstations attached to the primary server at City Hall could be connected to PVNET’s T1. But prior to doing so, firewall software must be installed on the primary server and every workstation to avoid intrusions by hackers. PVNET estimates that the cost of installing the firewall software will not exceed $30,000. Webcasting Public Meetings and Enabling Replay from the City’s Web Site Using the Internet (see Schedule 1, Section F) PVNET has offered to provide archived webcasting of recorded City Council meetings. PVNET already has the technology to convert video recordings to digital video streams that can be transferred over the Internet. All or even a portion of City Council meetings could be digitized and saved on the City’s Web Site for downloading and viewing over the Internet. A pilot study was conducted during 1999 whereby 6 Council Meetings were digitized and made available for Internet viewing on demand at www.palosverdes.com. Baseline labor requirements were established and procedures were developed during this pilot program. PVNET estimates that the cost of converting and posting the files of a City Council meeting would cost about $5,200 annually (10 hours x 28 meetings @ $10 per hour). An Intern could be trained to perform the conversion. Connection of the Planning High Speed Copier to the Network (see Schedule 1, Section D, No. 38) It is now possible to connect high-speed copiers to the LAN. Direct printing to the copier will speed the processing time for agendas, staff reports, minutes, follow up agendas and other multi-page documents. Staff would like to install this technology in the Planning department to save time while supporting the Planning and View Restoration Commissions and the Equestrian Committee. The Planning department probably reproduces more documents then the rest of City Hall combined. The cost of licensing the direct printing option from the copier vendor is approximately $10,000. Video-Conferencing (see Schedule 1, Section D, No. 39) If Internet connection were provided to the workstations at City Hall, adding video-conferencing would cost of less than $100 per workstation. The installation of approximately twenty (20) video cameras and software is proposed in the IT Plan. Merging of the Management of Telephone and Voice Systems with the Network Lucent Technologies has recently informed staff that they will discontinue supporting the existing phone system effective December 31, 2001. Though other third party vendors will provide support services, technology is quickly advancing to economically merge voice with data over computer networks. The technology already exists. If the phone system is replaced with a computer telephony solution, voice data (packets of digitized voice files containing what you say and what you hear) could be transferred over the internal phone lines or the network backbone. Voice and data can share the same lines. Necessary changes to the phone system (i.e. set-up of an extension for a new employee, set-up of a voice mail account) could be performed from any designated workstation. The City will likely migrate to this technology when the existing system is no longer supported, or it becomes economically and administratively advantageous. Ergonomic Study Most of the office furniture used at City Hall was acquired before the installation of the computer network. It was not designed for use with computer keyboards and monitors. The City was recently criticized for not maintaining a Repetitive Motion Injury Control (Ergonomic) Program in the Risk Management Evaluation report prepared by the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority. Staff recommends retaining a consultant to perform an ergonomic study of computer work areas. The cost of conducting a study should be less than $5,000 and could be paid from the Administrative Services program of the General fund budget during FY 99-00 or the following year. Revisiting Hardware and Software Included in the FY 00-01 Proposed Budget The ideas described in the previous paragraphs, titled "A Virtual City Hall of the Future – Several Ideas To Consider", and are not included in the proposed budget for FY 00-01. The proposed FY 00-01 budget does include two necessary computer upgrades: (1) to the Windows 2000 operating system and (2) Office 2000 (including Word, Excel, etc.). Microsoft will discontinue supporting the NT operating system and Office 97 application (currently used by the City) sometime in the future. Regardless of the timing of support discontinuance, significant performance and economic advantages would be derived from the upgrade as described below: Windows 2000 Operating System (see Schedule 1, Section B, No. 20) The primary server and workstations currently use the Windows NT 4.0 operating system. The successor operating system to Windows NT 4.0 (NT), Windows 2000, was released near the end of 1999. The optimal time to conduct the necessary upgrade to Windows 2000 will be during the December 2000 break, while City Hall is closed. A significant amount of time and cost will be saved with the installation of the Windows 2000 operating system on the server and all of the workstations, including:
The Budget Document for FY 00-01 includes $6,000 for a console management program. If Windows 2000 is installed, it appears as though the management program will not be necessary, saving $6,000.
Office 2000 (see Schedule 1, Section B, No. 22) Office 2000, including Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint and PhotoDraw was released in April 1999. Microsoft will discontinue supporting Office 97 in the future. No one really knows how soon this will occur. Therefore, staff would like to conduct the upgrade to Office during the December 2000 break, the same time the Windows 2000 upgrade is proposed. Office 2000 enhancements include the following:
Year 2000 IT Plan Overview of the Year 2000 IT Plan (See Schedules 1 and 2) The costs of new and replacement equipment are budgeted and accounted for in the Equipment Replacement fund. The City’s computer equipment is depreciated over a three-year term in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Therefore, the replacement of the computer equipment is funded over the same three-year term. Because most computer equipment is in service for more than three years, its replacement is generally funded long before its actual replacement. The funding is provided by transfers from the General fund to the Equipment Replacement fund in amounts equal to the annual depreciation. A further explanation about the how the Equipment Replacement fund works can be found on page 217 of the Two Year City Budget 1999-2000 & 2000-2001. The FY 99-00 budget and FY 00-01 proposed budget are the basis for the first two years of the IT Plan. The computer hardware and software proposed for FY 01-02 through FY 03-04 includes necessary hardware and software updates required to maintain the existing IT system and several of the concepts included in the "Several IT Ideas To Consider Implementing" section of this report. General Assumptions:
How Schedules 1, 2 and 3 are Organized Schedule 1 – Hardware & Software Section A – Adopted Budget FY 99-00 Section B – Proposed Budget FY 00-01 Section C – Proposed FY 01 through FY 03-04 (Required to maintain the IT System) Section D - Proposed FY 01 through FY 03-04 (to improve the IT System) Summary of TOTAL Hardware and Software Schedule 2 – Operating Costs Section E – Based Upon Adopted FY 99-00 Budget & Proposed FY 00-01 Budget Section F – Additional Operating Costs Resulting from Proposed Additions (to improve the IT System) FISCAL IMPACT: If the IT Plan is adopted:
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by: ADJOURNMENT:
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL JUNE 6, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ________________________________________________________________ 6:00 P.M.BUDGET WORKSHOP 6:50 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 RESOL. NO. 2000-29 NEXT ORD. NO. 368 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CEREMONIAL MATTERS: Presentation of City plaques to former View Restoration Commissioners Carole Black and Warren Sweetnam. RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.Motion to waive full reading.
2.Hawthorne Boulevard/Granvia Altamira/Ridgegate Drive Traffic Signal Modifications. (Doyle)
3.Construction and geotechnical engineering services for scenic turnouts. (Doyle)
4.Professional Services Agreement – Community Development Block Grant Administration. (Huey)
5.Professional Services Agreement – Home Improvement Program – Fiscal Year 2000-2001. (Huey)
6.Legal Costs for NPDES Petition. (Allison)
7.Notice of Completion for Palos Verdes Drive East Median Landscape Improvement Project. (Allison)
8.1999 Annual Report regarding the General Plan Implementation Status Report. (Schonborn)
9.Proposed revisions to the Equestrian Committee Guidelines. (Fox)
10.Claim Against the City by Tengli-Ann Lee. (Purcell)
11.Claim Against the City by Christine Marie Mendez. (Purcell)
12.Gifts for Parks. (Rosenfeld)
13.Annual Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2000-01. (Burton)
14.FY 2000-01 City Investment Policy. (Burton)
15.April 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
16.Purchase of Tax Defaulted Property. (Petru)
17.Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ PUBLIC HEARING: 18.Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. (Huey)
19.Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 (Applicant/Appellant: Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive). (Fox)
20.Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-01. (Petru)
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: 21.Periodic Review of Developer’s Compliance with the Ocean Trails Development Agreement and Current Conditions of Approval. (Lynch/Pfost)
22.Award Contract for Storm Drain Project for Palos Verdes Drive East and Bronco Drive. (McBride)
23.A Zone Change initiation request to consider a seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line based on a geologic study. Location: 42 Seacove Drive. (Mihranian)
24.Ordinance No. 357, Code Amendment No. 45, and Environmental Assessment No. 714 - Amendments to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits). (Fox)
HEREBY CERTIFYING THE DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED PURSUANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 714. (2) ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 357, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES THEREBY ENACTING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 45 FOR MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 15.20 (MORATORIUM ON LAND USE PERMITS) OF TITLE 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was introduced at the May 16th meeting.) 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. CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Anticipated Litigation: (G.C 54956.9(b) 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. (A)Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation but which the City/Agency believes are not yet known to potential plaintiff or plaintiffs. G.C. 54956.9b(A)
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL JUNE 6, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ________________________________________________________________ 6:00 P.M.BUDGET WORKSHOP 6:50 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 RESOL. NO. 2000-29 NEXT ORD. NO. 368 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CEREMONIAL MATTERS: Presentation of City plaques to former View Restoration Commissioners Carole Black and Warren Sweetnam. RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.Motion to waive full reading.
2.Hawthorne Boulevard/Granvia Altamira/Ridgegate Drive Traffic Signal Modifications. (Doyle)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD/GRANVIA ALTAMIRA/RIDGEGATE DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS Staff Coordinator:Marla Doyle, Deputy Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND The existing traffic signal at Hawthorne Boulevard/Granvia Altamira/Ridgegate Drive is served by "protective/permissive left turn" phasing for traffic on Hawthorne Boulevard. This type of operation provides an opportunity for motorists to complete a left turn with a green arrow (protected) as well as when there is a circular green (permissive). During the protected portion of the operation, left turns are made when all opposing traffic is stopped. During the permissive portion, left turns may be made when there is a sufficient gap in opposing through traffic. A review of the City's annual accident statistics for 1999 indicated that the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard/Granvia Altamira/Ridgegate Drive has had a relatively high number of traffic accidents. During the year, ten accidents occurred at this intersection, and a detailed analysis of the accident history was performed (see Table 1). An obvious pattern appeared during the analysis - both northbound and southbound left turning motorists were found to be at fault in eight of the ten accidents. ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION The number of left turn accidents at the intersection is key to determining the type of left turn phasing that should be provided. The State of California Traffic Manual guidelines for the use of left turn phasing indicate that an intersection that has five or more left turning accidents in a 12-month period in any direction is not a suitable location for the use of protected/permissive left turn phasing. Other factors, such as street alignment, visibility, and the number of opposing lanes that must be crossed by left turning vehicles should also be considered in selecting the appropriate type of left turn phasing. At this location, the relatively high number of accidents indicate that the left turn phasing may be confusing for motorists to determine if a safe gap in the opposing traffic is available to complete the turning movement safely. In addition, the horizontal and vertical curves in the roadway at this location may make it difficult for motorists to see opposing traffic far enough in advance to adequately determine the size of a gap in traffic and perceive the speed of approaching vehicles. Many of the left turning accidents may be susceptible to correction through modifying the northbound and southbound left turn phasing to provide protected only left turn phasing, thus eliminating the protected/permissive operation. In addition to this modification, other minor modifications to the traffic signal are recommended to improve overall traffic signal visibility for traffic approaching on Hawthorne Boulevard, such as upgrading all 8-inch traffic signal indications to 12-inch, and modifying the westbound left side lenses to provide left-turn arrows. The cost for the proposed traffic signal modifications is $5,500.00 for professional engineering services and $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 for construction of the modifications. The Traffic Committee considered this issue on April 26, 2000, and approved that a recommendation be forwarded to City Council for the construction of these traffic signal modifications. If the recommended action is approved, staff will prepare engineering plans for the traffic signal modification, advertise the project for construction bids, and return to the City Council with a recommendation regarding the award of a construction contract. ALTERNATE ACTION An alternative action would be to reject the recommendation and continue to monitor the intersection for accident activity; however, it is expected that a relatively high number of similar accidents would likely continue to occur at this intersection. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended action will require the expenditure of $5,500.00 for engineering services. Funding is available in the adopted FY 1999-2000 budget in the signal maintenance fund. It is estimated that the construction costs for the modifications will be approximately $50,000 to $60,000. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed, Attachment: Table 1 3.Construction and geotechnical engineering services for scenic turnouts. (Doyle)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:AWARD CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SCENIC TURNOUTS ON PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST AT RUE BEAUPRE AND PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH AT WAYFARERS CHAPEL Staff Coordinator:Marla Doyle, Deputy Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND The adopted FY 1999-2000 budget includes funding for the installation of two scenic turnouts. Federal funding to be paid on a reimbursement basis is approved and a Caltrans Authorization to Proceed with Construction has been issued for the project. One will be constructed along Palos Verdes Drive West near Rue Beaupre, the second will be constructed along Palos Verdes Drive South across from the Wayfarers Chapel. The construction will consist of grading, asphalt installation, concrete walkway installation, landscaping, and irrigation. The project has been properly advertised and sealed bids were received and opened at 10:00 AM Monday, May 8, 2000. Six bids for construction were received ranging in price from a low of $188,628.00 to a high of $326,623.00. Bid results are as follows:
The recommendation also includes awarding a contract to Rybak Geotechnical for services during the grading operations. This firm has provided pre-design and design geotechnical services throughout the project. ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the bids for construction and determined that there are no apparent irregularities in the bid documents. The City has an established goal of at least 10% DBE participation. Through its use of subcontractors, Alpha Engineering will exceed that goal. Background references for Alpha Engineering have been contacted and have responded with positive feedback. References indicated that Alpha Engineering has a history of completing projects on time and within budget. Staff has reviewed the proposal for geotechnical services. Rybak Geotechnical, Inc. has provided the preliminary and design geotechnical services for this project. Rybak’s fees and rates appear to be reasonable with the proposed scope of work. Rybak Geotechnical is qualified to provide the requested services and has an intimate familiarity with the scope and intent of the project as well as the City’s standard operations. CONCLUSIONS Alpha Engineering Company, Inc. is the apparent lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the construction of this project and should be awarded the contract for the construction of Scenic Turnouts on Palos Verdes Drive West at Rue Beaupre and Palos Verdes Drive South at Wayfarers Chapel. The bid is within 5% of the Engineer’s estimated cost of construction. Rybak Geotechnical should be awarded the contract to provide Geotechnical Engineering Services during construction of the Scenic Turnouts on Palos Verdes Drive West at Rue Beaupre and Palos Verdes Drive South at Wayfarers Chapel. The recommended not to exceed amount will adequately fund services throughout the duration of construction. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended actions authorize expenditures within the Capital Improvement Program budget. The primary funding source for this project is the Federal ISTEA program, however a local match is required. The funding breakdown is as follows:
In addition to the $17,000 allocated for Rybak Geotechnical Inc. in this Staff Report, Council has previously authorized funding for Transtech Engineering, the design-engineering firm, to provide necessary construction engineering services. The above listed Federal funding amounts are based on the Caltrans breakdown. Upon award of this contract and with the submittal of the award package to Caltrans, the City will likely reallocate up to 20% of the federal funding from the construction phase, which appears to be over funded to the design phase which appears to be under-funded. Local Match funds will be from the Recycling Fund, which has an estimated year-end balance of $212,122. The City Council has previously authorized $40,000 of Recycling funds towards this project. The recommended budget resolution provides for the additionally required Recycling funds. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed, Attachment:Professional Services Agreement Resolution 2000 - 4.Professional Services Agreement – Community Development Block Grant Administration. (Huey)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:June 6, 2000 SUBJECT:PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ADMINISTRATION
– FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 Staff Coordinator:
Judy Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION Approve the option to renew a professional services agreement with Diana Cho and Associates to continue providing Community Development Block Grant Program administration services for the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 for a not-to-exceed amount of $20,000 for FY 2000-01. BACKGROUND On June 3, 1998 the City Council approved an agreement with Diana Cho and Associates to provide administration services in FY 1998-99 and FY 1999-2000 for the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for a not-to-exceed amount of $20,000 each fiscal year. The current agreement will expire on June 30, 2000 and included an option to renew the agreement for FY 2000-01 at the City’s discretion. Staff is pleased with the quality of work and extensive services provided by Diana Cho and Associates. It is recommended that the City continue contracting with Diana Cho and Associates for FY 2000-01 to administer the CDBG program. The hourly rate of compensation for the firm’s services will remain the same. FISCAL IMPACT Approving the option to renew the professional services agreement will authorize the proposed budgeted expenditure of up to $20,000 for administration services of the CDBG program in FY 2000-01. Community Development Block Grant funds will be used to pay for this eligible CDBG expenditure. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed, Attachments: Agreement for Professional Services5.Professional Services Agreement – Home Improvement Program – Fiscal Year 2000-2001. (Huey) Recommendation: (1) Approve the option to renew a professional services agreement with MDG Associates to continue providing Home Improvement Program administration services for FY 2000-01, the period of July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001, for a not-to-exceed amount of $35,000. (2) Approve an option to renew the professional services agreement with MDG Associates to continue providing loan document preparation services in conjunction with the Home Improvement Program for FY 2000-01, the period of July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 for a not-to-exceed amount of $3,500.
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:June 6, 2000 SUBJECT:PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT – HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM – FISCAL YEAR
2000-01 Staff Coordinator: Judy Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve an option to renew the professional services agreement with MDG Associates to continue providing Home Improvement Program administration services for the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 for a not-to-exceed amount of $35,000 for FY 2000-01. 2.Approve an option to renew the professional services agreement with MDG Associates to continue providing loan document preparation services in conjunction with the Home Improvement Program for the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 for a not-to-exceed amount of $3,500 for FY 2000-01. BACKGROUND On February 15, 2000 the City Council approved an agreement with MDG Associates to provide administration services in FY 1999-2000 for the Home Improvement Program for a not-to-exceed amount of $35,000. The scope of the services included marketing the program, processing applications for assistance, conducting inspections of the project properties, processing and packaging project loan applications, providing project management services for homeowners and contractors, disbursing funds, and maintaining program files in compliance with HUD and CDC standards. The current agreement will expire on June 30, 2000 and included an option to renew the agreement for FY 2000-01 at the City’s discretion. On September 21, 1999 the City Council approved an agreement with MDG Associates to provide services to prepare loan documents for the Home Improvement Program. The Home Improvement Program offers grants of up to $5,000 and deferred loans of up to $10,000 for residential repairs to eligible owner occupied homes. Loan documents are needed in order to secure the deferred loans for repayment by the homeowners to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The customary forms provided as loan documents include but are not limited to the Deed of Trust, Promissory Note, Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement, Request for Notice of Default, and Notice of Right to Cancel. The current agreement will expire on June 30, 2000 and included an option to renew the agreement for FY 2000-01 at the City’s discretion. Staff is pleased with the quality of work and extensive services provided by MDG Associates. It is recommended that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes continue contracting with MDG Associates for FY 2000-01 for administration and loan document preparation services of the Home Improvement Program. The hourly rate of compensation for MDG services will remain the same. FISCAL IMPACT Approving the options to renew both of the professional services agreements will authorize the proposed budgeted expenditure of up to $35,000 for administration services and up to $3,500 for loan document preparation services in FY 2000-01. The Home Improvement Program is fully funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Consultant costs required for program administration and loan document preparation services are eligible CDBG expenditures. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed, Attachments: 6.Legal Costs for NPDES Petition. (Allison)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:LEGAL EXPENSES FOR NPDES PETITION RECOMMENDATION Authorize the expenditure of $2,000 for legal expenses related to a petition filed with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board appealing a January 26, 2000 action of the Regional Board. BACKGROUND On January 26, 2000 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region adopted new storm water regulations. These new regulations will require that several categories of projects retain and/or treat drainage before it is discharged into the local storm drain system. For the City of Rancho Palos Verdes the most far-reaching aspect of the new regulations is the fact that nearly the entire City is designated as an environmentally sensitive area. This designation appears to require most projects to retain and or treat storm water. On February 15, 2000, the City Council voted to join with 33 other Los Angeles County cities in an appeal of the Regional Board’s action. A petition was filed with the State Board seeking to revise the new regulations to make them less broad in scope. To effectively work with the State Board, the 34 petitioning cities formed a coalition, and obtained legal services. The coalition will be making a presentation on behalf of all 34 petitioning cities at the State Board’s Public Hearing scheduled for June 7, 2000. The total budget for legal services for the petition effort is $70,000. On May 10, 2000 the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was asked to contribute $2,000 towards legal expenses. See attached May 10, 2000 memorandum from Ken Farsing, City Manager City of Signal Hill. CONCLUSION Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the expenditure of $2,000 for legal expenses related to the petition process. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Deny the request for funding. This would require the remaining 33 Cities to contribute additional funding for legal costs. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the adopted FY 1999 – 2000 budget for the recommended action. The funding source is the General Fund. Submitted by, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by, Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: May 10, 2000 Memorandum from Ken Farsing 7.Notice of Completion for Palos Verdes Drive East Median Landscape Improvement Project. (Allison)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:NOTICE
OF COMPLETION FOR PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST MEDIAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, and upon the Contractor posting an acceptable warranty bond, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance bonds. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On December 21, 1999, City Council awarded a contract to S&M Landscape, Inc. for the installation of landscape improvements to the median in Palos Verdes Drive East near Crest Road. The project included the installation of an irrigation system, shrubbery, and cobble stone paving in the median. This work was completed on March 31, 2000. Final project Cost is as follows: Authorized Amount (contract + contingency)$60,000.00 Original Contract Amount$54,616.00 Contract Change Orders ($207.00) Final Contract Amount$54,409.00 There was one contract change order on the project. Certain electronic equipment was replaced with solar powered equipment for a cost saving to the City of $207.00. CONCLUSION S&M Landscaping has successfully completed all work in accordance with the plans and specifications. Therefore, the work should be accepted as complete and a Notice of Completion filed. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended
action will have no fiscal impact. Adequate funds were provided in
the adopted FY 1999-00 budget for completion of the project. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed, 8.1999 Annual Report regarding the General Plan Implementation Status Report. (Schonborn)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:1999 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES GENERAL PLAN. Staff Coordinator:Eduardo A. Schonborn, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION Direct Staff to forward the City’s Annual Report on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan to the State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and to the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the current status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during the 1999 calendar year. BACKGROUND The City’s General Plan is a statement by local citizens of what is in the best interest of their community. The General Plan has functioned, and continues to function, as a guide to the type of community they desire for their future, and provides the means by which the desired future can be obtained through specified goals and policies. Such goals and policies have been incorporated into the City’s General Plan and have been implemented in conjunction with the City’s Development Code. Therefore, to assess the progress of implementing the General Plan, Section 65400(b)(1) of the California State Government Code, requires that each city "provide an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the [general] plan and progress in its implementation." On May 23, 2000 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the attached 1999 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and directed Staff, via Minute Order, to forward the report to the City Council for review and consideration. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Section 65400 of the State Government Code, Staff has prepared the City’s Annual Report regarding the status of the General Plan. The Annual Report is attached for the City Council’s consideration. If acceptable to the City Council, the Report will be subsequently delivered to both the State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternative is available for the City Council’s consideration:
Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, Attachments
9.Proposed revisions to the Equestrian Committee Guidelines. (Fox)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE EQUESTRIAN COMMITTEE GUIDELINES Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner/Equestrian Committee Staff Liaison RECOMMENDATION Review and approve the proposed revisions to the Equestrian Committee Guidelines. BACKGROUND Among the first projects undertaken by the Equestrian Committee after its formation was the adoption of Equestrian Committee Guidelines. Through a series of meetings between March 1998 and August 1998, the Equestrian Committee developed guidelines for processing permits and dealing with code enforcement issues. The Equestrian Committee approved its recommended Guidelines on August 13, 1998 and forwarded them to the City Council for its consideration on September 1, 1998, where they were approved with additional modifications. With the City Council’s recent adoption of Ordinance No. 354, several Development Code sections related to the Equestrian Overlay (Q) Districts and the issuance of permits for large domestic animals were revised. As the City Council may recall, the purpose of these recently-adopted Code revisions was to establish a permit process for the operation of equestrian facilities and programs by non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations. Since many of these revised Code sections are also quoted in the Equestrian Committee Guidelines, Staff prepared revisions to the Guidelines in order to bring them into conformance with the current Development Code language. On March 9, 2000 the Equestrian Committee reviewed these proposed revisions and unanimously agreed to forward them to the City Council for its consideration. DISCUSSION The proposed Guideline
revisions are concentrated in Section III (pages 2 through 8). New
Development Code language and additional descriptive text is double-underlined
and deletions are ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The members of the Equestrian Committee have been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this matter at tonight’s meeting, as have representatives of the Pony Club and "Ride-to-Fly." CONCLUSION Staff and the Equestrian Committee believe that the proposed revisions to the Equestrian Committee Guidelines accurately reflect and incorporate the recent changes to the City’s Development Code and, therefore, recommend that the City Council approved the revised Guidelines as presented. FISCAL IMPACT None. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by: Attachments: Draft Revised Equestrian Committee Guidelines Equestrian Committee Minutes of March 9, 2000 (excerpt) 10.Claim Against the City by Tengli-Ann Lee. (Purcell)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY TENGLI-ANN LEE RECOMMENDATION Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant. BACKGROUND This claim is based upon view impairment to the property at 55 Oceanaire. The claimant has alleged (see attached claim form and Attachment 1) that the addition at 59 Oceanaire is "grossly oversized." Additionally, the claimant has alleged improper actions by the City, to wit: violation of the environmental impact review process; violation of the plan check review process; and, violation of the building and safety review process. The claimant is claiming a loss of $500,000. The City’s insurance administrators, Carl Warren & Co., have investigated this matter and they have notified the City to reject the claim. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed: 11.Claim Against the City by Walter Mendez. (Purcell)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:CLAIM
AGAINST THE CITY BY WALTER MENDEZ RECOMMENDATION Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant. BACKGROUND This claim stems from an accident that occurred on November 9, 1999 and involved a PV Transit bus. The accident occurred on Palos Verdes Drive South at Albero Court (please see attached Traffic Collision Report). The claimant does not cite any specific amount in monetary damages at this time. The City’s insurance administrators, Carl Warren & Co. have investigated this matter and they have notified the City to reject the claim. Respectfully submitted, Les Evans City Manager 12.Gifts for Parks. (Rosenfeld)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM:RON ROSENFELD, DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARKS DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:GIFTS FOR PARKS RECOMMENDATION That the City Council accept the Gifts for Parks donations and direct staff to prepare letters for the Mayor’s signature expressing the Council’s thanks and appreciation. INTRODUCTION The City’s Gifts for Parks program, established in 1982, provides a means by which interested individuals, organizations, and/or businesses may contribute funds, merchandise, or labor for the enhancement of the City’s Recreation and Parks’ facilities and programs. Donations, as prescribed by law, are tax deductible as charitable contributions. ANALYSIS The City has received the following donations designated for REACH, the City’s program for the developmentally disabled:
In addition, the
City has received the following donations designed for the twenty-fifth
annual July 4th celebration:
Additionally, the City received two donations for the upkeep of the Britton Memorial:
A donation to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center’s Exhibit Fund in the amount of $100 has been received from the South Bay Trojan League. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City accept these donations with thanks to all donors. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed, 13.Annual Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2000-01. (Burton)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT: ANNUAL APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2000- establishing the City's Appropriation Limit for FY 2000-01. BACKGROUND: The Gann Initiative of 1979 amended the State Constitution to require cities to adopt an annual limit on the amount of tax revenue that can be appropriated for spending each fiscal year. Annually, prior to the adoption of the budget, the City follows statewide guidelines in preparing the Gann appropriation limit calculation. The calculation of the appropriation limit for FY 2000-01 will be reviewed by the City's independent auditors in conjunction with the performance of the annual audit. The appropriation limit establishes a ceiling on the amount of tax revenue the City can receive and appropriate for spending each year. The appropriation limit is computed using a base year amount calculated for 1979-80. The base amount is then adjusted each year using inflationary and population growth statistics provided by the State Department of Finance. The appropriation limit calculated for FY 2000-01 is $14,971,838. Based upon the proposed budget, staff has determined that $8,047,400 of projected tax revenue is subject to the appropriation limit in FY 2000-01. As has historically been the case, the City has a very large margin between the projected tax revenue and the appropriation limit for FY 2000-01. Respectfully
submitted, Reviewed: 14.FY 2000-01 City Investment Policy. (Burton)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DENNIS McLEAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT: CITY INVESTMENT POLICY - FY 2000-01 Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt and file the FY 2000-01 investment policy for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. BACKGROUND: State law requires that public agencies adopt an investment policy annually. No significant changes to California law have occurred during FY 1999-00 that would require modification to the City's investment policy. As a result, the attached policy is essentially identical to the investment policy adopted for FY 1999-00. The policy continues to emphasize the practice of using the State's Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) for the City's investments. As criteria for selection of investments the policy maintains the use of the following factors (listed in order of priority): safety, liquidity, and yield. The policy continues to require the City Treasurer to submit a monthly report to the City Manager and City Council detailing the City's investment activity and policy compliance. Each year, as a part of the City's annual independent audit, there is a review of the City's Investment Policy regarding compliance with the Policy guidelines. These review procedures will be performed in conjunction with the internal control testing applied to City policies. Any discrepancies will be reported directly to the City Council in the auditor's management letter issued upon the completion of their examination. Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed: 15.April 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton) Recommendation: Receive and file the April 2000 Treasurer’s Report.
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT: APRIL 2000 TREASURER’S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the April 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 April 2000. ANALYSIS: The City’s total cash balances increased by approximately $1,787,000 during April 2000, ending with an overall balance of $23,364,593. While a large portion of the overall increase relates to General fund, there were significant fluctuations that impacted the cash balances of several other individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below by fund. General Fund – The General fund cash balances increased by $1,310,000 during the month. This increase is extremely large and a result of several factors. A portion of the increase is due to the receipt of $106,000 in quarterly interest revenue on accumulated cash balances. In addition, a large installment ($875,000) of property tax revenue was received from the County. This represents nearly 30% of the total property tax revenues projected for the year. The City also received the annual franchise fee from Southern California Edison ($193,200) during April. While revenues for the month were large, total General fund expenditures were slightly less than normal. The expenditure decrease was primarily from not having to pay the monthly Sheriff’s bill of $196,000. Due to unusual timing, two months worth of invoices were paid in the previous month. Gas Tax Fund – The cash balance in the Gas Tax fund decreased by approximately $41,000, ending April with a balance of $752,569. The decrease is the result of not receiving a monthly gas tax apportionment from the State. Two payments (March and April) were received last month, so the lack of revenue in April was anticipated. 1972 Act Fund and 1911 Act Fund – Like the General fund, both of these funds received a large installment of annual property tax/assessment monies collected by the County and subsequently remitted to the City. Historically, the County remits the two largest installments in December and April. The cash balances of the 1972 Act and the 1911 Act funds increased by nearly $80,000 and $66,000 respectively during the month. Proposition C Fund - The ending cash balance of $1,031,882 represents an $88,000 increase from March 31, 2000. The Proposition C fund received both the March and April apportionments (totaling $75,000) from the County, as well as $13,000 in quarterly interest revenue on accumulated cash balances. CIP Fund –
CIP fund cash increased by almost $162,000 during April, ending with
a balance of $4,799,725. In addition to the monthly transfer from
the General fund of $125,000, the fund also earned nearly $60,000
in quarterly interest on accumulated cash balances. There were very
few cash disbursements related to CIP projects during the month. These
two factors combined to cause the overall cash increase. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed: 16.Purchase of Tax Defaulted Property. (Petru)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:PURCHASE OF TAX DEFAULTED PROPERTY RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign an Agreement to Purchase Tax-Defaulted Property for a vacant lot located the northwest corner of Peppertree Drive and Sweetbay Road. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the State Revenue and Tax Code, properties that are determined to be in default for unpaid property taxes for five years or more are periodically put up for sale at public auction by the Los Angeles County Tax Collector. However, if it is determined that the parcel is needed for public purposes, the City may request to have the parcel removed from the auction and acquire title to the property. The cost of acquisition is the minimum bid for the property as approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. However, parcels may be subject to removal from the auction if the owner pays the defaulted taxes or enters into a legal process, such as bankruptcy. DISCUSSION Staff has received notice that two vacant parcels in the City will be offered at public auction on June 26 and 27, 2000. If the City determines that the properties are needed for public purposes, the City must file a written statement setting forth the purpose of the acquisition and the necessary agreement forms prior to June 5, 2000. The first property is 2.07 acres in size and located between Avenida Classica and Hawthorne Boulevard, just south of the Ralph’s Market. The minimum bid on this parcel is $3,345. The parcel was created in 1985 as a common open space lot for Tract No. 37060 and is owned by the Monte Verde Estates Homeowners Association. The lot is improved with ornamental landscaping and is surrounded by wrought iron fencing. Currently, the City maintains the Celestial Trail, which is a neighborhood pedestrian shortcut that runs through the property between Hawthorne Boulevard and Avenida Celestial. If the City were to acquire the property, it would be obligated to maintain all of the existing improvements. This would have the effect of relieving the homeowner’s association of its responsibility to maintaining its common open space by transforming the parcel into public parkland. Staff does not feel that City ownership would benefit the public at large, due to the location and configuration of this open space. Therefore, staff does not recommend that the City acquire this property. The second property is located at the northwest corner of Peppertree Drive and Sweetbay Road (both private streets) within the active Portuguese Bend Landslide area and the City’s Redevelopment Project Area (see attached map). This property is zoned OH (Open Space Hazard) and is approximately 36,530 square feet in size. The City’s Redevelopment Agency currently has a de-watering well and a discharge pipe installed on the property. The minimum bid on this parcel is $21,374. Staff feels that City ownership of this parcel would be of public benefit due to fact that the property already has landslide abatement improvements constructed on it. Maintenance of the existing and any future de-watering facilities is critical to the effectiveness of landslide abatement efforts in this area. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On February 1, 2000, the Council authorized staff to pursue acquisition of a vacant lot on Cherry Hill Lane in the active Portuguese Bend landslide area. The City submitted the necessary paperwork to the County Tax Assessor’s Office to purchase this property and is currently awaiting notification from the County to complete the transaction. CONCLUSION The Los Angeles County Tax Collector has notified the City that two vacant properties in the City will be offered for sale at a public auction on June 26th and 27th, 2000. The City has the opportunity to purchase either or both of these properties prior to the public sale, provided that the City files the necessary paperwork with the County prior to June 5, 2000 to establish that the property is needed for public purposes. Staff feels that the Peppertree Drive property would benefit the City’s landslide abatement efforts in the active Portuguese Bend Landslide area. Therefore, staff recommends that the City pursue purchasing the vacant lot on Peppertree Drive. FISCAL IMPACT The City would be required to purchase the subject parcel for the minimum bid amount, which is $21,374. The money for the purchase would come from the General Fund. Respectfully submitted: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Notice from the
County of Los Angeles dated April 28, 2000 17.Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ PUBLIC HEARING:18.Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. (Huey)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Staff Coordinator: Judy A. Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION 1.Conduct a public hearing on the proposed levy and collection of assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for fiscal year 2000-01 and the Engineer's Report prepared in connection therewith. 2.Adopt Resolution No. 2000-____, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes confirming a diagram and assessment for the 2000-01 fiscal year in connection with the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code. BACKGROUND 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"). Since 1992 the district has levied assessments to finance the operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, signal facilities, and appurtenant facilities. The Citywide District includes all of the assessable parcels in the City. 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 the preparation of an engineer's report in connection with the annual levy of assessments. On May 2, 2000 the City Council, by resolution, approved the fiscal year 2000-01 Engineer's Report, which establishes assessments and set this evening's public hearing on the proposed levy of assessments for fiscal year 2000-01. ANALYSIS The estimate of total District expense for fiscal year 2000-01 is $441,342. The proposed total assessment is $327,795. 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 approved 2000-01 Engineer's Report groups parcels in the City into various zones which receive differing degrees of benefit from the operation of the district as a result of variations in the nature, location and extent of the proposed maintenance activities and improvements. The proposed FY 2000-01 assessments for a single family parcel range from $8.23 to $ 46.05. For all parcels citywide the FY 2000-01 assessment is equal to or less than the FY 1999-2000 assessment. CONCLUSION To levy assessments for district operation, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution confirming the assessment. By adopting the staff recommendation Council will be assessing single family parcels between $8.23 to $46.05. The majority of single-family households will be assessed approximately $20.00 for fiscal year 2000-01. FISCAL IMPACT By adopting the staff recommendation Council will be approving total assessments of $327,795 to fund the operation of the district for the maintenance of street landscaping, street trees, median landscaping, traffic signals, safety lighting, and district administrative expenses. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed, Attachments: 19.Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 (Applicant/Appellant: Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive). (Fox)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207 [APPLICANT AND APPELLANT: MARK ABRAMS, 44 OCEANAIRE DRIVE] Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 207 with prejudice. BACKGROUND Staff has provided the City Council with copies of all of the Staff reports, correspondence and related materials for the two Planning Commission meetings at which this project was considered (April 25, 2000 and May 9, 2000) under separate cover. Attached to this Staff report are the applicant/appellant’s appeal letter of May 10, 2000, P.C. Resolution No. 2000-12, excerpts from the approved Minutes of the two Planning Commission meetings, copies of the project plans and antenna and transmitter summaries, and additional correspondence related to this appeal. Also attached is a chronology that summarizes the City’s action on this application to date. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission denied the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 based upon its inability to make all of the required findings to approve the project. These findings are discussed in P.C. Resolution No. 2000-12 and in the Planning Commission Staff reports of April 25, 2000 and May 9, 2000. Briefly, the Planning Commission found that:
Mr. Abrams’ appeal letter does not specify the particular grounds for his appeal of the Planning Commission’s action, although he has articulated his objections in previous correspondence and testimony before the Planning Commission. Therefore, based upon the foregoing discussion, the existing evidence in the record—including Staff reports, Minutes, correspondence and other testimony before the Planning Commission—and the lack of any specific grounds for the appeal by the applicant/appellant, Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision in this matter. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On May 17, 2000, public hearing notices for the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 were mailed to the applicant, his attorney, the Del Cerro homeowners’ association, thirty-nine property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site and thirty-one other interested parties who had previously provided written comments and/or oral testimony regarding this project. On May 20, 2000, public notice of the June 6, 2000 City Council hearing for the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. As of the date this Staff report was completed, Staff had received additional correspondence from Michael Cicoria (62 Oceanaire Drive), which is attached to this report for the City Council’s consideration. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing discussion and the Planning Commission’s action on May 9, 2000, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 207 with prejudice. FISCAL IMPACT The denial of the appeal will have no immediate fiscal impact upon the City. However, Staff anticipates that the denial of the appeal will result in litigation against the City by the applicant/appellant. The costs of such litigation are unknown and cannot be reliably estimated at this time. If the appeal is upheld and the Planning Commission’s decision is overturned, the applicant/appellant will be entitled to a full refund of the $940.00 appeal fee pursuant to Section 17.80.120 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. The costs associated with this refund will be borne by the City’s General Fund. However, Staff also expects that the approval of the project will result in litigation against the City by residents of the Del Cerro neighborhood. In addition, depending upon the types of conditions of approval and/or project modifications imposed by the City Council, the conditional approval of the project might trigger litigation against the City by the applicant/appellant. The costs of any and all such litigation are unknown and cannot be reliably estimated at this time. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by: Attachments: 20.Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-01. (Petru)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:ADOPTION OF THE CITY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 AND SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDATION After conducting a public hearing on the proposed FY 00-01 budget and after any further additions or deletions to the proposed budget: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2000- ; approving a budget appropriation and adopting the operating and capital improvement budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001; and, 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2000- ; establishing salary and hourly ranges for competitive and management employee job classifications. BACKGROUND In January 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 343 amending Municipal Code Chapter 3.32 to establish a two-year budget cycle. Starting in Fiscal Year 1999-2000, a budget document was produced during the first year of the two-year budget cycle that included the anticipated revenues and expenditures for the next two fiscal years. Annually, the City Council adopts the budget for the next fiscal year included in the budget document. For example, in June 1999, the City Council adopted the budget only for FY 99-00. This year, the City Council is considering the proposed budget for FY 00-01. The Council has the opportunity to make any changes to the proposed budget as it deems necessary due to circumstances that have arisen since the budget document was prepared a year ago. DISCUSSION 1.Adoption of the City Budget for FY 00-01 This year, the Council reviewed the proposed budget for FY 00-01 at a Budget Workshop held on May 8, 2000. During the course of the workshop, the Council directed staff to make several amendments to the revenues, expenditures and fund balances included in the proposed budget for FY 00-01. Based on the direction provided at the meeting, staff has prepared a draft budget resolution for the Council’s consideration. In addition, all of the changes to the proposed FY 00-01 budget are included in the attached summary of revisions. The City Budget for FY 00-01 is now being presented to the Council at a public hearing for review and adoption. Any changes from the June 6th work session can be read into the record during tonight’s budget hearing. 2.Recommended Salary Range Adjustments Among the issues discussed at the May 8, 2000 Budget Workshop, the Council considered recommendations concerning the City's current salary range schedule. As a result of those discussions, the Council authorized a 3.4% adjustment to the salary ranges based on the increase in the CPI over the prior twelve months. The draft salary resolution is attached for the Council's consideration. It is understood that an adjustment in the schedule will not generally result in automatic increases. In fact, the existing method of compensation, whereby the amount of any salary adjustment is based on an employee's annual performance evaluation, will remain in place. In addition, this resolution includes a continuation of the monthly car allowance for certain job classifications that the City Council established in 1999. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed, Attachments 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:21.Periodic Review of Developer’s Compliance with the Ocean Trails Development Agreement and Current Conditions of Approval. (Lynch/Pfost)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT: PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPER’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE OCEAN TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION Receive and file this report and find that the Developer of the Ocean Trails Project, Ocean Trails, L.L.P., ("Developer") is in substantial compliance with the terms of the Ocean Trails Development Agreement and the conditions of approval of the Ocean Trails Project. BACKGROUND State law and Section 17.82.080 of the Ranch Palos Verdes Municipal Code require periodic review of development agreements to determine whether the developer is in substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of the particular development agreement. Government Code Section 65865.1 provides, in relevant part, that a development agreement must be honored by the governmental entity which approved it, unless there is "substantial evidence that the applicant or successor in interest thereto has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of the agreement". Because the Ocean Trails Project ("Project") still is under construction, and because several amendments to the Project have been processed and approved by the City Council following the approval of the Development Agreement ("Agreement") in December, 1997, review of the Project by the City Council has been an ongoing process. This is so because the conditions of approval of the Project and the mitigation measures imposed by the EIR and the amendments thereto all are incorporated as conditions of the Agreement. Since Tract 50667 is now final, and the Developer is proposing certain amendments to the Project to address the repair of the landslide that occurred last year, it seemed that this would be an opportune occasion to conduct the formal review of the Developer’s compliance with the provisions of the Agreement and the conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were imposed by the City on the Project. DISCUSSION In contemplation of bringing this item to the City Council, Staff has reviewed all of the current conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were imposed by the City on the Project to determine the status of the Developer’s compliance. Since the Project still is being constructed, many of the mitigation measures and conditions of approval are in the process of being satisfied and have not yet been completed. In addition, compliance with some of the conditions of approval has not yet been started. This is particularly true of conditions that are tied to the development of Tract 50666. If the Developer is in the process of satisfying certain conditions of approval as part of the remaining construction activities, or if the time for commencement of compliance with a particular condition has not yet occurred, those conditions or mitigation measures are not discussed in this staff report. Instead, this report discusses: (a) only a few of the numerous conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were imposed on the Project, which should be addressed by the Developer in the near term, and (b) some issues that have been raised by members of the public about the Project’s compliance with certain requirements of the Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Plan regarding view impairment. Each of these issues is discussed in turn below. 1.Mitigation Measure No. 89 provides that to avoid noise impacts from activities that are conducted within the clubhouse, windows with a STC rating of 30 or higher shall be installed. The Building Official has advised Staff that the clubhouse windows currently do not satisfy this rating. Since a final certificate of occupancy has not been issued for the clubhouse, Staff has determined that the Developer either shall apply to the City for approval of a revision to that mitigation measure or shall replace the windows with windows that satisfy that mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. By so doing, the Developer will be in substantial conformance with the conditions of approval of the Project and with the Development Agreement. 2.Condition No. (B)(2) of Conditional Use Permit No. 162, Condition No. (S)(2) of Conditional Use Permit No. 163, and Condition (D)(4) of Grading Permit No. 154 all provide that within ninety days after the completion of grading for any workable phase of the Project, any scarified slopes shall be landscaped and irrigated. The purpose of this condition is to address erosion during the rainy season. With respect to Tract 50666, it is not yet time to comply with these conditions because grading activities still are occurring. With respect to Tract 50667, these conditions need to be satisfied. The Developer has not done so because the City’s geologists are reviewing the final as-built compaction report that was submitted recently by the Developer. Final approval of that report should occur prior to the installation of landscaping, in the event that additional compaction needs to be performed. Also, the City Council directed that further landscaping and irrigation should not be installed until the Developer submits and receives approval of the water control plan for the Project. Since that still has not occurred, the Developer cannot plant and irrigate the slopes along the lots in Tract 50667. Staff may bring this item back to the City Council at a future date, if the rainy season approaches prior to the completion and approval of these two remaining reports. 3.Several residents have raised issues about the impact of the Project on views from existing developed properties near the Project site and have asserted that the Development Agreement should be rescinded because of the Developer’s alleged failure to comply with policies set forth in the Coastal Specific Plan, the Municipal Code or conditions of approval of the Project (S.A.V.E. RPV petition submitted on March 8, 2000). However, it is Staff’s opinion that for the reasons discussed below, the Developer is in substantial compliance with the current conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were imposed upon the Project to address the impact on views. a.The Coastal Specific Plan. One of the principal documents that governed development of the Project is the City’s Local Coastal Specific Plan ("LCP"). Both the LCP and the Design Guidelines for Subregion 7 contemplate development along the coast and some degree of view impairment. Accordingly, the Guidelines discuss horizontal or panoramic views from the public streets and from established residential areas, which shall be preserved: "Horizontal views should be protected and maintained from existing public areas and established residential areas. No structures should obstruct these views. Plant materials should be selected and located so as not to disrupt these views." Coastal Development Design Guidelines, page 23. On the other hand, the Guidelines state that the downward, or "focal views", should be maintained and enhanced only from the vantage points identified in the Guidelines. To that end, view corridors were created in the Guidelines specifically for Subregion 7 (See, Guidelines, page 24.). Also, the LCP and the Guidelines both recognize the importance of preserving views over that Subregion from the public streets. (See LCP, pages C9-C12 and Coastal Development Design Guidelines, page 9.) In implementing these policies during the review of the Developer’s initial application, Staff required the Developer to analyze the horizontal or panoramic view over Subregion 7 from the adjacent major public street, Palos Verdes Drive South. Staff determined that if the ridgeline of any structure did not exceed the height of Palos Verdes Drive South, then there would be no significant view impairment. The view from that street right-of-way would be protected. Moreover, since the existing homes on the north side of Palos Verdes Drive South are located above that street at a higher elevation, Staff concluded that if the view from the street right-of-way was not impaired, then the view from the existing homes also would not be significantly impaired. This premise was used in evaluating the views across the site, as reflected in the computer simulations that were prepared by the Developer in 1994. Because this is the premise that was used in imposing conditions on the Project in connection with the various City approvals, it is part of the basis of the Developer’s vested right to develop the Project and cannot be revised now. Therefore, since there was no timely and successful judicial challenge to this analysis and the prior approvals that are based on that analysis, the courts and the City are precluded from reviewing or revising that analysis, the corresponding conditions and those decisions. b.Staff’s analysis of the Developer’s compliance with the conditions of approval that were imposed to preserve views over the Project. Staff has evaluated the Developer’s compliance with the various conditions of approval of the Project that relate to the issue of the preservation of views across the property. There are two project conditions concerning view protection that apply to the golf course. The first is EIR Mitigation Measure No. 70, which provides that: "The project proponent shall ensure that grading for the golf course will maintain the existing view corridors and the view from Palos Verdes Drive South." Staff has analyzed
the views from the existing alignment of Palos Verdes Drive South
after the grading of the golf course was completed. Staff found that
not only have the previously existing views been maintained, but they
have also been significantly improved in several locations due to
the removal of several tall mounds of dirt and dense vegetation that
previously existed along the seaward side of the roadway. In addition, the eventual relocation of Palos Verdes Drive South will further improve these views because the road will move seaward in several locations along the length of the right-of-way, thereby improving the angle of the view up and down the coastline. The second condition of approval that pertains to the golf course is Condition No. F1 of Conditional Use Permit No. 163, which provides: "The design and layout of the 18 hole golf course shall substantially conform to the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission, which are entitled "Site Plan for Conditional Use Permit Amended Map No. 2." Dated June 19, 1996, prepared by ESCO." Staff retained an engineering firm to compare the as-built grading plan for the golf course to the Phase I grading plan approved by the Planning Commission and Staff. The engineer found that some changes have been made to the golf course during construction. Most of the changes are insignificant, but there are places on the course where the finished contours are higher and lower than indicated on the approved plans. However, in the engineer’s opinion, field modifications such as those observed here are typical for new golf courses. Therefore, the engineer concluded that the as-built project is in substantial compliance with the approved plans. The City has received only one specific complaint from a property owner on Nautilus Drive (Mr. Douglas) about the adverse impact on his view caused by the grading of the golf course, and the height of the maintenance facility, the affordable housing complex and the entry wall. The engineer verified that although the mounds mentioned in the S.A.V.E. petition have been built in a different configuration from those shown on the approved plans, they are actually one to two feet lower in height. More importantly, however, is the fact the view claimed by Mr. Douglas is taken from a kitchen window, which is not from the primary viewing area of his residence. The primary viewing area is taken from the living room and is oriented to the southwest over Tract 50666. This is significant, because Section 17.02 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code only protects views from the "primary viewing area" of a structure. In addition, the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan do not identify this angle of view as a protected visual corridor. It also should be noted that Chapter 17.02 addresses only "significant" view impairments. The City has interpreted this to mean that the loss of a portion of a view solely of the ocean may not be a significant impairment in situations where some view of the ocean and views of major landmarks, such as Catalina Island, still are preserved. In this case, the ultimate determination of whether the Project would cause a significant view impairment was made by the City Council. When the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163 in June 1992, the Council specifically made a finding that the Project would not cause a significant view impairment. For these reasons, Staff has concluded that the Developer has constructed the golf course in substantial conformance with the two conditions that were imposed on the conditional use permit for the golf course. There also are two project conditions concerning view protection that apply to the residential lots. The first is EIR Mitigation Measure No. 69, which states: "The project proponent shall ensure that the residential areas located east of the intersection of Paseo del Mar and Palos Verdes Drive South be terraced such that structures shall not rise above the grade of Palos Verdes Drive South." Staff has reviewed the Phase I grading plans and confirmed that the ridge heights for all of the proposed residential structures will be below the grade of Palos Verde Drive South in the area immediately adjacent to the lot. Thus, this condition has been satisfied. Staff also has reviewed the maintenance facility and the affordable housing complex to determine whether they comply with this condition and found that the ridge heights of these structures also will not rise above Palos Verdes Drive South at the closest point. However, the ridgelines of the affordable housing units will be approximately six feet above the grade of the roadway at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal Drive. It should be noted that this issue specifically was discussed when the City Council approved the final design of Vista Catalina Park in November 1998. At that time, the City Council approved an entry wall that was the same height as the affordable housing units. As a result, these structures will not be visible behind the wall as viewed from this intersection. Based on the foregoing, Staff has concluded that the Developer is constructing the Project in substantial compliance with the amendment that was approved by the City Council in November 1998. The second condition of approval that pertains to views over the residential subdivisions is EIR Mitigation Measure No. 76, which states: "The project proponent shall demonstrate that the project is in compliance with the development policies for Subregions 7 and 8 contained in the Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan. These policies are applicable to all development within Subregions 7 and 8 and may require modification of roadways and residential lot arrangements." There are guidelines defined in the Visual Corridors section of the Coastal Specific Plan that apply to the Ocean Trails project. The first is the concept of "height zones" in specific visual corridors and the second is the "2º down arc" in areas outside of the identified corridors. It is critical to understand that the application of either guideline will not protect all of the views that can be seen prior to development. Instead, they balance preservation of significant views with the property owner’s right to develop the property. Because the "height zone" analysis is the more stringent of the two guidelines, Staff applied this guideline to the approved plans for Tract 50666. Staff determined that except for eight of the residential structures along "B" Street, the building heights for the residential structures fully comply with this standard. It should be noted that although the eight remaining lots do not fully comply with this standard, the City Council determined that no significant view impairment resulted from this deviation when the City Council approved the project in June 1992. Thus, the Developer is constructing the Project in conformance with the City’s approval. Finally, Staff also reviewed the finished floor elevations of the clubhouse, which are reflected on the Developer’s site plan and grading plan. These plans were presented to and approved by the City Council in 1994, in connection with a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 163. These documents demonstrate that the clubhouse has been constructed in accordance with that 1994 approval. 4.One final issue that has been raised in correspondence from the public is the setback along the western property line. The City Council specifically addressed this issue in September 1996. At that time, the Developer presented a plan to the City Council that reconfigured the street and certain of the trails in order to increase the distance between the existing residences to the West and the portions of the Project site that will be used by the public and the residents of Tract 50666. At that time, the City Council approved a required thirty-two foot setback, not a setback of fifty feet between the property line and the closest public trail. Staff’s recent review of the development demonstrates that the Developer is constructing the Project in accordance with that aspect of the plan, as approved by the City Council in 1996. CONCLUSION Staff has reviewed all of the current mitigation measures and conditions of approval of the Project to determine if the Developer is in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement. Staff found that many of the conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were imposed upon the Project still are in the process of being completed during the construction of Tract 50666, and that the time for compliance with other conditions of approval has not yet occurred. Of the numerous conditions and mitigation measures that were imposed, Staff’s review has only identified only a few conditions that need to be addressed by the Developer in the near future in order to be in complete compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement. Those conditions concern the windows in the clubhouse and the landscaping and irrigation of the slopes along the residential lots of Tract 50667. Since the Project substantially complies with the current conditions of approval of the Project, as amended by the City Council, Staff recommends that the City Council find that the Developer is demonstrating good faith compliance with the Development Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT The Council’s determination of whether the Developer is in substantial compliance with the Development Agreement will not have any immediate and direct fiscal impact upon the City, since the Developer is required to maintain trust deposits in amounts that are sufficient to reimburse the City for the review and processing of the Project. However, it is possible that any determination made by the City Council about this issue could lead to litigation against the City. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the City Council could:
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by: 22.Award Contract for Storm Drain Project for Palos Verdes Drive East and Bronco Drive. (McBride)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:AWARD CONTRACT FOR PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST AND BRONCO DRIVE STORM DRAIN PROJECT Staff Coordinator:David McBride, Senior Engineer RECOMMENDATION 1.Consent to the request for relief submitted by Southern California Underground Contractors, Inc. because of a mistake in their bid, and authorize the release of their bid bond. 2.Declare the bid submitted by EMSICO, Inc. to be non-responsive and reject the bid. 3.Award the contract for the Palos Verdes Drive East and Bronco Drive storm drain project to Excel Paving Company for an amount not to exceed $598,100; plus authorize staff to spend an additional $42,900 for possible extra work, for a total authorization of $641,000. BACKGROUND As outlined in previous reports to Council, the purpose of this project is to improve drainage in the area near Palos Verdes Drive East and Bronco Drive. The project involves the installation of over 2,600 linear feet of reinforced concrete pipe, 6 catch basin inlets, and 7 access holes. A diagram of the drainage system and the drainage boundaries is attached to this report as Exhibit "A". The project was properly advertised and sealed bids were opened at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 24, 2000. Eleven bids were received ranging from a low of $444,696 to a high of $1,218,521. Bid results are as follows:
Shortly after opening the bids, the apparent low bidder, Southern California Underground Contractors notified staff that a mistake was made in their bid that accounted for the large discrepancy between their bid and second lowest bidder (i.e., $140,184). On April 25, 2000, Southern California Underground Contractors delivered a letter explaining the mistake made in their bid and asked for relief from their bid. Their request letter is attached to this report as Exhibit "B". ANALYSIS Public Contract Code allows for relief of a bid because of a mistake made by the contractor, provided the following grounds for relief are established: a.A mistake was made; and b.He or she gave the public entity written notice within five days after the opening of the bids of the mistake, specifying on the notice in detail how the mistake occurred; and c.The mistake made the bid materially different than he or she intended it to be; and d.The mistake was made in filling out the bid and not due to error in judgement or to carelessness in inspecting the site of the work, or in reading the plans or specifications. Southern California Underground Contractors claims that a clerical error was made, noting that bid item 22 should have been $100,000 instead of the $1 figure submitted. Southern California Underground Contractors did provided a detailed written notice of the error within five days of the bid opening (see attached Exhibit "B"). Their error materially alters the bid by $99,999 from what the contractor intended the bid to be ($544,695). It appears that the mistake was not due to an error in judgement or to carelessness in inspecting the site of the work, or in reading the plans and specifications (i.e., a clerical error). Therefore, adequate grounds are available to relieve Southern California Underground Contractors, Inc. of their bid per Public Contract Code. Staff recommends consenting to Southern California Underground, Inc. request for relief. The second lowest bidder is EMSICO, Inc. with a bid of $584,880, an amount $40,185 greater than the amount which Southern California Underground Contractors, Inc., intended to bid. However, staff and the City Attorney’s office have concluded that EMSICO’s bid is non-responsive and recommends that it be rejected. First, EMSICO’s bid line item for Clearing and Grubbing was $120,000, far above the average of $65,235 for all bidders and, in the opinion of Public Works professional engineering staff, significantly in excess of the actual cost plus a reasonable profit for the element of work. Second, EMSICO’s bid for 2,059 linear feet of 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is only $205,900, far below the average of $330,675 for all bidders and, in the opinion of Public Works professional engineering staff, below the probable actual for this element of work. It therefore appears that EMSICO’s bid is mathematically unbalanced with an increased price for an early contract element and understated costs for a later, much more substantial contract element. A mathematically unbalanced bid can be rejected as non-responsive if it is materially unbalanced and there is reasonable doubt that it will not result in the lowest ultimate cost to the City. In this case the bidder would receive cash well in excess of cost early in the project and be responsible for substantial costs later in the project for which it be entitled to reimbursements which could be less than its actual costs. This would put the City in a much less secure position if the bidder is unable to handle the financial stresses caused by the unbalanced bid, and that would threaten the timely and successful completion of the project. This risk is particularly significant in this case since staff learned that EMSICO has recently been removed from a Southern California City’s public works project, and the bonding company has been required to engage another contractor to complete the project. Under these circumstances, staff believes that EMSICO’s bid is both mathematically and materially unbalanced, that there is reasonable doubt that it will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the City, and that it is therefore non-responsive and should be rejected. In addition, EMSICO listed one subcontractor for this project, The Asphalt Doctor, but failed to provide certain required information concerning this subcontractor; percentage of work it will accomplish, contractor’s license information, and contact telephone number. EMSICO also failed to provide the required notarized signatures on the proposal sheet, nor did they provide a corporate stamp on their bid proposal, bid bond and noncollusion affidavit. Each of these omissions is non-responsive to the requirements of the bid documents and/or state law. Staff again recommends that EMSICO’s bid be rejected as non-responsive to the requirements of the bid documents and state law. Staff has reviewed the bid of the third lowest bidder, Excel Paving Company, and determined that there are no apparent irregularities in the bid documents. Background references for Excel Paving Company checked out and they have a history of completing projects on time and within budget. CONCLUSION Southern California Underground Contractors, Inc. has met all the requirements of the Public Contract Code and should be relieved of their bid. The bid submitted by EMSICO, Inc., should be considered non-responsive and be rejected. Excel Paving Company as the apparent lowest responsive and responsible bidder, should be awarded the Palos Verdes Drive East and Bronco Drive Storm Drain Project. ALTERNATIVE An alternative is to reject all bids and go through the formal bidding procedure again. It is unlikely that a significant cost reduction would be achieved by rebidding the project and it would take one and one-half to two months to be back in a position to award a construction contract, which may potentially delay construction into the rainy season. It should be noted that Public Contract Code prohibits a contractor relieved of their bid from any further bidding on that specific project. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended
action authorizes expenditures within the Capital Improvements Program
budget. The FY 99-00 construction budget for this project is $471,600,
which leaves a shortfall of $169,400 from the $627,180 contract award
amount. Funding is available in the FY99-00 budget in the line item
for undefined drainage improvements. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by: Attachments: 23.A Zone Change initiation request to consider a seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line based on a geologic study. Location: 42 Seacove Drive. (Mihranian)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:A ZONE CHANGE INITIATION REQUEST BY AN APPLICANT TO CONSIDER A SEAWARD ADJUSTMENT OF THE COASTAL SETBACK LINE BASED ON A GEOLOGIC STUDY. (CARL, 42 SEACOVE DRIVE) Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to initiate the review process and the public hearing process before the Planning Commission to consider Zone Change No. 29, a request to consider a seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line, in conjunction with related development applications, on property located at 42 Seacove Drive. BACKGROUND On March 16, 2000, applications for a Zone Change, Height Variation, Minor Exception Permit, Grading Permit, Site Plan Review and Coastal Permit were submitted to the Planning Department on behalf of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Carl, of 42 Seacove Drive. The application request consists of the demolition of the existing 5,283 square foot single-family residence and pool/spa to allow the construction of a new single-family residence with a reconfigured pool and spa. According to the City’s Zoning Map, the existing residence is partially located (approximately 9’) within the City’s designated Coastal Structure Setback Zone. According to the Development Code, the new residence would have to be constructed outside the Coastal Structure Setback Zone. Since the applicants would like to reconstruct the majority of the new residence within the same footprint of the existing residence, the applicants request a Zone Change to amend the City’s Zoning Map by moving the location of the Coastal Setback Line closer to the bluff. By adjusting the location of the Coastal Setback Line, the Coastal Structure Setback Line would be adjusted as well, since the Structure Setback Line is located twenty-five (25) feet landward of the Coastal Setback Line. DISCUSSION The subject lot is located at 42 Seacove Drive and consists of a 5,283 square foot single-family residence with a pool and spa that was developed prior to the City’s incorporation, in 1955. The subject site is considered a bluff top property, bound between the mean high tide line and the first public road. The depth of the lot is approximately 429 feet, which includes a 140 foot high slope to the rocky beach below, and the lot width is 100 feet, with a lot area of approximately 31,747 square feet. From Seacove Drive, a gentle front yard slope descends to the building pad of the existing residence, while the swimming pool and spa are located within the rear yard that is essentially level with the residence and is separated from the sloping portion of the lot by an existing two to four foot high garden/retaining wall. The area seaward of the garden/retaining wall begins to gradually descend to the bluff, where the slope drops dramatically to the shoreline below. The subject property is located within Subregion 4 of the City’s designated Coastal District, which regulates development through the City’s Coastal Specific Plan. According to the Coastal Specific Plan, Subregion 4, also known as Abalone Cove, is predominantly developed with single-family dwelling units. According to the Coastal Specific Plan, Subregion 4 posses an average slope of less than 10% over most of the presently developed area. However, at the bluff, the slope begins to increase severely and descends to the ocean. Since recorded lots are located within the severe slope area, development becomes a concern. The bluff area of these properties is considered geologically sensitive and the proprietors of property seaward of Seacove Drive should be cognizant of this condition. In order to understand the potential geologic conditions of bluff top properties, the City’s Coastal Specific Plan identifies three significant geologic hazards within the City’s Coastal Zone; 1) Coastal Erosion, 2) Landslides, and 3) Erosion along intermittent stream channels. Coastal erosion and landslides are interrelated and are clearly a major concern with development. Coastal erosion is a continual process in which waves undercut and erode geologic materials exposed along the shoreline. As this process continues, the shoreline retreats, the vertical interval exposed to the sea increases and a sea cliff forms. The numerous promontories and coves along the shorelines of the Palos Verdes Peninsula have resulted from differing rates of erosion. The removal of support by wave erosion has been and will continue to be a major cause of coastal landslides. Landslides can also result from geotechnically unsound construction practices in and around the coastal regions. The combination of the aforementioned geologic factors imposes significant restrictions on land-use patterns within the City’s Coastal District. Although the geologic constraints are variable, some regions of the Coastal Zone are virtually free of geologic problems, while other areas are considered unsafe for practically any human activity. However, it would be safe to say that the severity of geologic restrictions generally decrease as the distance from the bluff top increases. As a means of assessing the geologic constraints within the Coastal District for development purposes, a classification system was established based on the suitability for existing and anticipated land uses. The category system, as described in the City’s Coastal Specific Plan, is used to determine land uses based on criteria that defines the types of structures compatible with the terrain, limits on excavation and grading, and ease and safety of access. The five categories are briefly described as follows:
The above classification system was based on the analysis of existing geologic data, both published and unpublished, for the City’s Coastal Specific Plan. However, some information was limited or non-existent, which is why Category 3 is considered a "gray zone." On the basis of the available geologic information, the Coastal Setback Zone was established in 1978, as part of the Coastal Specific Plan, that included all land within Category 1a, Category 1b, Category 2 and Category 3. This zone is delineated by the location of the Coastal Setback Line on the City’s Zoning Map. Land within Category 4 is sufficiently free of geologic constraints and is located outside the Coastal Setback Zone. This area may be developed based on the City’s criteria and current geologic information. Although Category 3 is located within the Coastal Setback Zone, the Coastal Specific Plan indicates that this area should not be excluded from possible development, provided that further geologic investigations demonstrate that development is suitable. Additionally, according to the Natural Environment Element of the City’s General Plan, a Sea Cliff Hazard Zone was identified as the area from the base of the ocean side cliff, extending inland to a point where a lined formed by a 20-degree angle from the horizontal plane at the base of a cliff or bluff would extend out to the surface (see attachment). This zone has been identified in this manner due to the fact that a soil mass, according to its composition, stabilizes at various angles of repose. Some structurally stable soils may have relative steep angles of repose, whereas other more unstable soils have very low angles of repose. In order to ensure that all varying conditions of sea cliff erosion are addressed, the Sea Cliff Hazard Zone was created using the lowest angle of repose. Within this hazard zone, the General Plan states that detailed engineering/geologic studies must be required with any proposed development to demonstrate the site’s stability and suitability for development. The General Plan also states that the development setback dimension from the sea cliff edge or bluff top in any given area of the Coastal District should take into account the local geologic conditions and should be judged on an individual basis. Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that the Coastal Setback Line was created by a comprehensive geologic study of the City’s coastal region. In order to create an additional buffer to address possible slope erosion and other geologic concerns, such as the Factor of Safety, a Coastal Structure Setback Zone was established twenty-five (25) landward of the Coastal Setback Line. The Coastal Structure Setback Zone is an area that limits development to minor structures such as, trash enclosures, storage sheds (less than 120 square feet), dog houses, enclosed water heaters, barbecues, garden walls, air conditioners, pool filters, vents and decking or ground covering less than six (6) inches in height. Any new permanent structures in this zone are prohibited including, but not limited to pools, spas, vertical support members and chimneys. However, pursuant to Section 17.72.040.C of the Development Code, within the Coastal Setback Zone, one (1) minor addition may be allowed to each residence that is partially or totally within this zone and was existing as of December 26, 1975, provided that:
Since a portion of the existing residence is located within the Coastal Structure Setback Zone and the entire swimming pool and spa are located within the Coastal Setback Zone, the applicants request to adjust the Coastal Setback Line closer to the bluff, to correct the non-conformity of the lot. Pursuant to the above criteria for development within the Coastal District, since the existing residence was constructed in 1955 and the proposed project involves the construction of a new residence with a reconfigured pool and spa, the applicants would not be permitted to construct the proposed residence within the existing building footprint, but would rather have to relocate the residence closer to the street. However, since the setback lines indicated in the above paragraphs are based on geologic studies that were used to demonstrate the geologic conditions for development and human activity, the applicants seek to adjust the location of the Coastal Setback Line on the subject property to reflect more current and site specific geology findings. Furthermore, Section 17.72.040.C of the Development Code, as previously stated, requires an applicant of a Coastal Permit to submit a current geology report that supports a proposal to develop within the Coastal Setback Zone. According to the applicant’s geology reports, development seaward of the Coastal Setback Line is geologically suitable, provided that an appropriate foundation system is constructed. However, aside from the recommendations of the geology reports, the applicants’ proposal is not permitted because the new residence must be located outside of the setback zones. In addition, the setback zone also takes into account the geological stability for human activity, such as the rear yard. As for the Coastal Setback Line, the applicants’ geology reports state that the setback line on the subject property does not accurately demonstrate the geologic stability or buildability of the lot. According to the City’s Geologist, the Coastal Setback Line was drawn on the City’s Zoning map based on available studies at the time, and the studies did not take into account specific conditions on every lot, therefore making the setback line an estimate based on limited available information. In order to accurately investigate the geologic stability of a lot, reports are required by the City that identify the Factor of Safety and any potential geologic hazard areas as "restricted use areas." The "restricted use areas" do not necessarily prohibit development, but rather provide guidance to the City, the applicant, the engineers and the builders of the structural integrity, such as foundation systems, needed to suit construction for human activity. Therefore, the applicant’s geology reports state that, technically speaking, the Coastal Setback Line may be adjusted seaward up to the top of the bluff, provided that the appropriate foundation system is implemented for any portion of the proposed structure located within the "restricted use area." The applicants request an adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line up to the top of the bluff, with the Coastal Structure Setback Line situated twenty-five (25) feet landward from the Coastal Setback Line. The adjustment is based on a survey conducted by South Bay Engineering and the applicant’s geology reports stating that development is feasible up to the surveyed bluff top. The City’s Geologist has reviewed the applicants’ geology reports and concurs that the adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line towards the bluff top will not jeopardize human activity, provided that appropriate foundations are utilized. According to the above discussion and the fact that the Coastal Setback Line was established based on geologic conditions, Staff believes that the geology report’s recommendations warrant the initiation of the zone change. Notwithstanding the geologic conclusions, if initiated, Staff will analyze other indirectly related impacts of moving the Coastal Setback Line as part of the development review process, such as impacts on view corridors, open space area, the buffer zone from sensitive habitat area and on-site drainage. Alternatively, the City could view the Coastal Setback Line as more than merely a geologic stability line. If the City Council opts to initiate the proposed Zone Change request, Staff will schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission to review the proposed zone change along with the related development applications. Upon completion of the review process by the Planning Commission, a recommendation for the zone change will be forwarded to the City Council, along with the related development application for final review. Based on this review process, the proposed site improvements will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, but ultimately require a final decision by the City Council. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In compliance with the criteria of the Development Code, geology reports were submitted by the applicants to the City’s Geologist on October 18, 1999, with subsequent addendums submitted on November 17, 1999, December 16, 1999 and May 16, 2000. The initial geology reports were approved by the City’s Geologist prior to the applicants’ formal submittal of development plans to the Planning Department. Upon submittal to the Planning Department, a set of architectural plans were routed to the City’s Geologist for review and conceptual approval. As proposed, the applicants’ architectural plans were slightly different than what was originally reviewed by the City’s Geologist, thus requiring additional information. An addendum geology report was subsequently submitted addressing the City’s Geologist’s concerns. The addendum report was conceptually approved by the City Geologist on June 1, 2000. Further studies and reports will be required by the City Geologist upon the applicants’ submittal to Building and Safety for the "Plan Check" process. To date, there have been two (2) prior applications submitted to the City requesting to adjust the Coastal Setback Lines, one of which was approved at 16 Seacove Drive (Zone Change No. 23), where the City Council adjusted the Coastal Setback Line 100’ seaward to accommodate the new construction of a single-family residence, and another at 27 Marguerite Drive (Zone Change No. 24), which was administratively withdrawn based solely on lack of information. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to initiate the zone change process as requested by the applicants allowing the Planning Commission to consider Zone Change No. 29 for a seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line and the Coastal Structure Setback Line, in conjunction with related development applications. FISCAL IMPACT Staff believes that the proposed Zone Change will not impact the City’s General Fund, other than costs incurred by Staff to prepare the appropriate staff reports for the Planning Commission and the City Council, and Staff’s attendance at the required public hearings. These costs will be covered by the application fees and a trust deposit. If the zone change is approved, the City’s Zoning Map will have to be updated. However, Staff believes that the zone change may be incorporated at the time the City updates the entire Zoning Map to eliminate additional costs, that have otherwise not been budgeted. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration in addition to Staff’s recommendation:
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed: ATTACHMENTS:
24.Ordinance No. 357, Code Amendment No. 45, and Environmental Assessment No. 714 - Amendments to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits). (Fox)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:JUNE 6, 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 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, thereby certifying the draft Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 714; and, 2) Adopt Ordinance No. 357, thereby enacting 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 At the meeting on May 16, 2000, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 357 with amendments. The Council also heard public testimony regarding the draft Negative Declaration. Staff has amended Ordinance No. 357 as directed and presents it now for the City Council’s second reading and adoption. Also, now that the 30-day comment period for the draft Negative Declaration has closed, Staff has prepared a draft Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration. DISCUSSION Code Amendment No. 45 Draft Ordinance No. 357 now incorporates the amendments to Sections 15.20.010(I), 15.20.040(H) and 15.20.040(I) which were suggested by Councilman Stern at the last meeting. Staff has also revised Section 15.20.050(B) to change "shall" to "may" at several locations, as suggested by Mayor Byrd. A copy of the revised draft Ordinance is attached to this report. Additional language suggested by the City Council is double underlined and deleted language is double struck out. Environmental Assessment No. 714 The 30-day comment period for the draft Negative Declaration ended on May 18, 2000. Comments on the draft Negative Declaration were received from the following parties: State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research (received May 1, 2000): The State Clearinghouse acknowledged receipt of the draft Negative Declaration and summarized the distribution of the document to other State agencies.
CALTRANS, District 7 (received May 9, 2000): CALTRANS indicated that they had no comments regarding the draft Negative Declaration.
Daphne Clarke, Portuguese Bend Community Association (oral testimony on May 16, 2000): Mrs. Clarke stated that the Portuguese Bend Community Association (PBCA)—of which she is the current president—had not received notice of the draft Negative Declaration.
Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road (oral testimony on May 16, 2000): Mrs. Larue stated that she had received notification of the project regarding "the sewers in Abalone Cove," and that Staff’s determination that the proposed project would have no significant environmental effects was "a big lie." She also stated that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared, rather than a Negative Declaration.
The proposed revisions to the City’s landslide moratorium regulations will not result directly in any physical changes to the environment. Although certain biological, historical, archeological and paleontological resources may be present on some of the undeveloped properties within the Landslide Moratorium Area, these undeveloped properties will not be exempted from the moratorium under the proposed revisions, nor will these revisions allow the development of undeveloped property within the Landslide Moratorium Area. 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. The proposed revisions will also require the connection of existing developed properties to new sanitary sewer systems, which will reduce the infiltration of wastewater into the active and inactive landslides, and improve gross soil stability within the entire Landslide Moratorium Area. Since the proposed revisions will not result directly in any physical changes to the environment, there will be no direct effects upon human beings, adverse or otherwise. Indirectly, however, the proposed revisions will have the effect of improving the quality of life for residents within the Landslide Moratorium Area by allowing for the limited, reasonable improvement of developed properties, requiring the connection of developed properties to sanitary sewer systems, continuing to prohibit the development of undeveloped properties, and improving the geological stability of the Landslide Moratorium Area. Therefore, since the proposed revisions to the City’s landslide moratorium regulations will have no significant adverse effect upon the environment, the adoption of a Negative Declaration is appropriate for this project, and is consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION Based upon the discussion in this and the previous Staff report, Staff believes that it is appropriate to certify the draft Negative Declaration and adopt the revised draft Ordinance to enact Code Amendment No. 45. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council 1) adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, thereby certifying the draft Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 714; and, 2) adopt Ordinance No. 357, thereby enacting 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. If adopted at tonight’s meeting, Ordinance No. 357 will be effective on July 6, 2000. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by: Attachments: 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. CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Anticipated Litigation: (G.C 54956.9(b) 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. (A)Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation but which the City/Agency believes are not yet known to potential plaintiff or plaintiffs. G.C. 54956.9b(A) RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JUNE 6, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: A.Minutes of May 2, 2000. (Purcell)
B.FY 2000-01 Redevelopment Agency Investment Policy. (Burton)
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY BOARD FROM: DENNIS McLEAN, AGENCY TREASURER DATE: JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INVESTMENT POLICY - FY 2000-01 Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt and file the FY 2000-01 investment policy for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency. BACKGROUND: State law requires that public agencies adopt an investment policy annually. No significant changes to state law have occurred during the past year which would require modification to the Agency's Investment Policy. As a result, the attached policy is essentially identical to the investment policy adopted for FY 1998-99. The policy continues to emphasize the practice of using the State's Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) for the Agency's investments. As criteria for selection of investments, the policy continues the use of the following factors in order of priority: safety, liquidity, and yield. The policy will continue to require the Agency Treasurer to submit a monthly report to the Executive Director and Agency Board detailing the Agency's investment activity and policy compliance. Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed:
C.April 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
TO:HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:APRIL 2000 TREASURER’S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the April 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. 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 April 2000 for the Redevelopment Agency. ANALYSIS: The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by approximately $36,000 during April, ending with an overall balance of $6,266,950. Monthly cash receipts included slightly over $104,000 in quarterly interest earnings on accumulated cash balances, and nearly $15,000 of tax increment revenue deposited in the Agency’s Housing Set-Aside fund. Cash disbursements totaled almost $157,000, approximately $61,000 of which related to progress payments made on behalf of the Portuguese Bend Club Homeowners Association (PBCHOA) to contractors for the construction of a sewer system. Through the end of April, the Agency had loaned the PBCHOA a total of $595,000 for this project. The full $595,000 has been recorded as a receivable in the Portuguese Bend fund and will be repaid to the Agency over the next several years. Additionally, a progress payment of $50,000 for the Shoreline Protection Feasibility Study was made from the Portuguese Bend fund. The remaining April disbursements were associated with the Abalone Cove Sewer Project. Respectfully
submitted, Les Evans, Executive Director D.Register of Demands. (McLean)
############# PUBLIC HEARING: E.Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. (Petru)
TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 RECOMMENDATION Adopt RDA Resolution No. 2000- ; adopting the operating and capital improvement budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001, which begins on July 1, 2000. DISCUSSION In 1999, the City prepared its first two-year budget covering fiscal years 99-00 and 00-01. On June 1, 1999, the Redevelopment Agency adopted the budget for FY 99-00 and the budget for FY 00-01 was shown in the budget document as "proposed." The budget for FY 00-01 is now being presented to the Redevelopment Agency at a public hearing for review and adoption. Staff is not recommending any changes to the figures that were shown as "proposed" in the two-year document. However, if necessary, any changes from the June 6th Budget Work Session can be read into the record during tonight’s budget hearing. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed, Attachment: 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. RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA JUNE 6, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of May 2, 2000. (Purcell)
2.FY 2000-01 Improvement Authority Investment Policy. (Burton)
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FROM: DENNIS McLEAN, AUTHORITY TREASURER DATE: JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT: IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY INVESTMENT POLICY - FY 2000-01 Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt and file the FY 2000-01 investment policy for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority. BACKGROUND: The Improvement Authority was created in September 1990 in accordance with the provisions of the Reimbursement and Settlement (Horan) Agreement, dated October 27, 1987. State law requires that all public agencies adopt an investment policy annually. The Authority's FY 2000-01 investment policy is essentially identical to the policy adopted for FY 1999-00. The policy continues to emphasize the practice of using the State's Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) for the Authority's investments. As criteria for selection of investments, the policy maintains the use of the following factors in order of priority: safety, liquidity, and yield. Additionally, the policy requires the Authority Treasurer to submit a monthly report to the Chair and Authority Board detailing the Authority's investment activity and policy compliance. Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed, Les
Evans,
3.April 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:APRIL 2000 TREASURER’S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the April 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. 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 April 2000 for the Improvement Authority. ANALYSIS: The Improvement Authority’s cash balances at April 30, 2000 totaled $1,478,838. This represents an increase of slightly over $23,000 for the month. The majority of this increase is attributable to the receipt of $21,000 in quarterly interest earnings on accumulated cash balances. Respectfully
submitted, Reviewed: 4.Register of Demands. (McLean)
###### PUBLIC HEARING: 5.Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. (Petru)
TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE JOINT POWERS IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE:JUNE 6, 2000 SUBJECT:ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 RECOMMENDATION Adopt IA Resolution No. 2000- ; adopting the operating and capital improvement budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001, which begins on July 1, 2000. DISCUSSION In 1999, the City prepared its first two-year budget covering fiscal years 99-00 and 00-01. On June 1, 1999, the Improvement Authority adopted the budget for FY 99-00 and the budget for FY 00-01 was shown in the budget document as "proposed." The budget for FY 00-01 is now being presented to the Improvement Authority at a public hearing for review and adoption. The only change in the figures shown as "proposed" in the two-year document is the addition of $60,000 to the maintenance services for Abalone Cove. This change reflects the Board’s approval on May 2, 2000 of an agreement with the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District to fund a portion of the District’s maintenance costs by using some of the interest earned from the Authority’s maintenance trust fund. If there are any other any changes resulting from the June 6th Budget Work Session, they can be read into the record during tonight’s budget hearing. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed, Attachment: PUBLIC COMMENTS: For items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT: |
