|
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 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, August 5, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ________________________________________________________________ 7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOL. NO. 2000-46 NEXT ORD. NO. 359 RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Motion to waive full reading.
2. Minutes. (Purcell)
3. Commercial Refuse and Collection Agreement with A&A Waste & Rolloff Services, Inc. (Ramezani)
4. ORDINANCE NO. 358 - 1959 SURVIVOR BENEFITS. (Petru)
5. Claim Against the City by Donald C. Leonard. (Purcell)
6. July 4th Independence Day Celebration. (Rosenfeld)
7. Gifts for Parks. (Rosenfeld)
8. June 2000 Treasurer's Report. (Burton)
9. Register of Demands. (McLean)
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: 10. Proposed Amendment to the Agreement for Government Access (Channel 3) Reader Board Services. (Petru)
11. AB 939 Annual Reports for 1998 and 1999. (Ramezani)
12. Support for Biosolids Land Application. (Evans)
13. Senior Affordable Housing. (Pfost)
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.
 
1. Motion to waive full reading.
2. Minutes. (Purcell)
3. Commercial Refuse and Collection Agreement with A&A Waste & Rolloff Services, Inc. (Ramezani)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: AUGUST 1, 2000 SUBJECT:COMMERCIAL REFUSE AND COLLECTION AGREEMENT WITH A&A WASTE & ROLLOFF SERVICES, INC. STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Nonexclusive Franchise Agreement for Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal Services with A&A Waste & Rolloff Services, Inc. to be effective through December 31, 2000. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS A&A Waste & Rolloff Services, Inc. has requested a business license to provide commercial and industrial roll-off and recycling services. As required since 1992, they must enter into a Nonexclusive Franchise Agreement and meet those requirements to perform this type of service in the City. A&A Waste & Rolloff Services, Inc. has agreed to meet the requirements of the agreement, which include providing source reduction and recycling reports, submitting franchise and AB 939 fees, and submitting required insurance documentation. The addition of A&A Waste & Rolloff Services, Inc. would authorize a total of 14 firms to conduct commercial refuse service in the City. FISCAL IMPACT The City will receive five percent in franchise fees and five percent in AB 939 fees, although the actual amount of revenue cannot be determined at this time. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
4. ORDINANCE NO. 358 - 1959 SURVIVOR BENEFITS. (Petru)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE:AUGUST 1, 2000 SUBJECT:1959 SURVIVOR BENEFITS RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No. 358, thereby authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System for 1959 Survivor Benefits. DISCUSSION On July 5, 1999, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 358 for first reading. The purpose of this ordinance to authorize an amendment to the City's contract with CalPERS to increase the 1959 Survivor Benefits from Level 1 to Level 4. If adopted tonight after the second reading, the ordinance will go into effect in 30 days (September 2, 2000). Respectfully submitted: Reviewed: Attachment:
5. Claim Against the City by Donald C. Leonard. (Purcell)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 1, 2000 SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY DONALD C. LEONARD
RECOMMENDATION Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant. BACKGROUND The claimant in this matter alleges that while riding his bicycle along Via Vicente in the Oceanfront Estates development he skidded in an area covered with sand and consequently lost control of his bicycle. This fall resulted in injury to Mr. Leonard and he has incurred medical expenses for treatment of said injuries. Carl Warren & Co. has visited the site and investigated this matter and has advised the City to reject the claim. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed:
6. July 4th Independence Day Celebration. (Rosenfeld)
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL RON ROSENFELD, DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARKS AUGUST 1, 2000 JULY 4TH INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION
RECOMMENDATION Authorize payment to Conte Productions for the production of the July 4th, 2000, Independence Day Celebration. BACKGROUND The City has provided an annual July 4th Independence Day Celebration for the community since 1976. In 1992 the Council elected to privatize the event and the City entered into an agreement with Conte Productions to manage and produce the celebration. The management agreement has been renewed twice, and the contract currently is to not exceed $8,000 per year. ANALYSIS The City's July 4th Independence Day Celebration has become an annual tradition for the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Peninsula. Although it is a goal to make this event self-sustaining, in the effort to make the celebration even bigger and better each year and with Council's decision to reduce the price of the rides, it has required some City subsidy. For the past four years, to help reduce the subsidy, the Recreation and Parks Committee has solicited cash donations and prizes for the games. This year they collected $2,300 in cash sponsorship donations and approximately $600 in prize and game merchandise. In addition, Waste Management provided the portable toilets, sinks, trash boxes/bags, and roll-offs, (a savings of $2,000), and Coach USA/California Charter donated approximately $750 in services, (one bus and driver for shuttle service and a reduced price for the second bus and driver). FISCAL IMPACT The cost of the 2000 celebration remained under the production company's contractual fee of $8,000. Cost to the City for 2000 is $6,570.02. A total payment of $8,870.02 is due Conte Productions for the event. This includes City costs of $6,570.02 and a reimbursement to Conte Productions of $2,300, the amount of sponsorship donation checks that were made payable to the City and deposited in the City's account. Listed below are costs incurred by the City for the years since privatization, 1992-2000:
CONCLUSION Conte Productions provided a safe and successful community event on July 4th and remained within the terms of their agreement with the City. They are now requesting payment for their services. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed,
7. Gifts for Parks. (Rosenfeld)
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL RON ROSENFELD, DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARKS AUGUST 1, 2000 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. BACKGROUND 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 to those
listed last month, the following donations were designated for the twenty-fifth
annual July 4th celebration:
Two donations have been received for the upkeep of the Britton Memorial:
And, a donation to the Discovery Room, located at the Ladera Linda Community Center, in the amount of $1,000 has been received from Las Candalistas. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City accept these donations with thanks to all donors. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed,
8. June 2000 Treasurer's Report. (Burton)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 1, 2000 SUBJECT: JUNE 2000 TREASURER'S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the June 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 June 2000. ANALYSIS: The City's overall cash balances increased by nearly $115,000 during the month, ending with a total balance of $23,343,631 at June 30, 2000. While the net increase to the City was not large, there were a few individual funds that experienced significant fluctuations. The specific factors impacting the cash positions of such funds are briefly discussed below. General Fund - The General fund cash balances decreased by almost $150,000 during June. A portion of the decrease can be attributed to June being a month when the City does not receive an installment of property tax revenue from the County. As a result, tax revenues for the month were significantly less than most other months. However, this decrease was partially offset by the City receiving $125,000 more in building and safety permit fees than in a typical month. The increase in building and safety revenues is largely attributed to receiving a large sum from the developer of the Subregion One project. Proposition C and Proposition A Funds - Both funds received the final payment of FY 1999-00 tax revenue during June. As a result, the cash balances in these two funds increased by $45,170 and $51,950 respectively during the month. For FY 1999-00, both the Proposition C and Propositon A funds experienced a positive budget variance of approximately $20,000 in tax revenues. CIP Fund - Cash in the CIP fund increased by nearly $58,000 during June, ending with a balance of $4,836,185. The monthly transfer from the General fund of $125,000 was partially offset by the disbursement of $72,700 in progress payments to vendors. Some of the projects incurring expenditures during the month included the Peninsula Bikeways project, the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement project, and various roadway improvement projects. EET Fund - The City received nearly $72,000 in EET fees during June. As a result, the cash balance in the EET fund increased to $561,415 at June 30, 2000. Approximately $67,000 of the increase relates to fees paid by the developer of the Subregion One housing development. Special Trusts Fund - The cash balance in the Special Trusts fund increased by over $104,000 during June. As mentioned in previous months, it is typical for cash in this fund to fluctuate from month to month. These variances are caused by changes in the timing of payments to and from the City. During June the City received a large payment from Ocean Trails, which helped account for the overall cash increase.
Respectfully submitted, Reviewed:
9. Register of Demands. (McLean)
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:sultants, dated March 4, 1999
10. Proposed Amendment to the Agreement for Government Access (Channel 3) Reader Board Services. (Petru)
Provide staff with direction regarding whether to amend the current agreement with Earl Weinstein for cable television reader board services. TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE:AUGUST 1, 2000 SUBJECT:PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR GOVERNMENT ACCESS (CHANNEL 3) READER BOARD SERVICESRECOMMENDATION Provide staff with direction regarding whether to amend the current agreement with Earl Weinstein for cable television reader board services. BACKGROUND Since June 1988, the City has employed the services of Earl Weinstein to provide reader board services for the City. The service entails a scrolling text display on cable television government access Channel 3 of the City Council and Commission/Committee agendas, as well as special meeting notices and other miscellaneous items submitted by the City. Although the City subsidized the reader board service for the local Library and School Districts from 1988 to 1992, compensation for service provided specifically for the City's has been $650.00 per month, or $7,800.00 per year, since the beginning of the contract. DISCUSSION On July 19, 2000, the City received a letter from Mr. Weinstein requesting an increase in the amount of compensation he receives for providing the reader board service for the City. The new rate requested is $1,000 per month or $12,000.00 per year (see attached letter), which is approximately a 35% increase over the current rate. For comparison purposes, the City currently pays Palos Verdes on the Net $12,000 per year to maintain the City's website and budgets $5,460 per year for Bob Linkrom to provide live broadcast and videotaping of the City Council meetings. In the past, Cox Communications has offered to provide reader board services and to broadcast City Council meetings for free, as it currently does for the City of Rolling Hills Estates. Cox recently reconfirmed this offer to staff during discussions regarding the pending renewal of the City's cable television franchise agreement. In addition to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Mr. Weinstein currently has separate agreements to provide reader board services for the City of Palos Verdes Estates, the PVP Library District and the PVP Unified School District. The chart presented on the next page compares the level of service and the fees between the City and these three other agencies:
1 In addition to the agendas, the reader board service also includes posting special meeting notices and press releases from time to time. 2 Current rate for Rancho Palos Verdes. 3 Proposed increased rate for Rancho Palos Verdes. 4 Prior to 1992, this amount was subsidized by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 5 Since 1992, each year the School District has provided a cost of living increase based on the CPI. ALTERNATIVES 1.Increase the amount of compensation to $1,000 per month. 2.Increase the compensation by an amount determined by the City Council. 3.Deny the proposed increase in compensation. 4.Discontinue the agreement with Beta Data and request that Cox Communication provide this service to the City.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by,
11. AB 939 Annual Reports for 1998 and 1999. (Ramezani)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: AUGUST 1, 2000 SUBJECT:AB 939 ANNUAL REPORTS FOR 1998 AND 1999 STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
In 1989, the California State legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 939, which calls for jurisdictions of California to divert 50% of solid waste from disposal by January 1, 2000. The law made local jurisdictions responsible for developing and implementing programs to achieve the mandated diversion level, and to report progress to the State. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) is responsible for assuring compliance with AB 939 and its amendments. Achievement of the diversion goal is backed by the potential for penalties including fines of up to $10,000 per day. One of the difficulties with the legislation is compliance measurement. All measurements of compliance are based upon the City's benchmark total waste generation measurement of 49,467 tons in 1990. This number was estimated and is based on surveys of haulers and recyclers rather than actual weigh receipts from landfills or transfer stations. At that time estimation instead of actual numbers was used, because the landfills and haulers did not keep such records by jurisdiction. Today, the measurements are much more comprehensive and each jurisdiction receives quarterly disposal reports (DRS) from different counties. The DRS shows the tonnage received by different landfills from each jurisdiction. However, these tonnage are not compiled daily, rather they are measured only during one "survey week" each quarter, which is then statistically extrapolated to reflect the whole quarter. Therefore, the annual disposal tonnage reported in the DRS actually reflects tonnage from only four weeks during the year. The use of survey weeks in estimating disposal tonnage has the potential to inaccurately determine a jurisdiction's actual disposal tonnage. This is particularly true for smaller Cities such as Rancho Palos Verdes. Inaccurate reporting is primarily the result having no checks and balances to the reporting system. Drivers are solely responsible for submitting accurate reports. Meanwhile the disposal site operators receive numerous deliveries each day and it is easy to misreport a load from "Palos Verdes" as RPV when it should have been Palos Verdes Estates or Rolling Hills Estates. This all has significance particularly if it is occurring during a survey week. For these reasons, it is not surprising that the City's DRS reports for each of the years 1995 through 1999 show a wide disparity in disposal tonnage:
Disposal in 1998 was unusually low, which helped the City's diversion. However, there is a sharp increase in disposal tonnage for 1999 which if no action is taken affects the city's diversion negatively. It is counterintuitive to believe that the disposal tonnage could increase by 65% from 1998 to 1999. For the balance of discussions in this report, it is perhaps useful to define the various parameters used by the CIWMB:
With this background the data for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes since 1990 is shown as Exhibit A. DISCUSSION The issue before the City is that the Integrated Waste Management Board is currently calculating the City's 1999 diversion rate at 11%, which is well short of the goal of 50%. Staff, however, believes that the City's actual diversion rate is much higher, and that the low number results from the method of calculation rather than the recycling habits of our residents and merchants. The Board has established several ways to correct disposal or generation numbers. Each will yield a different diversion rate. Staff has looked at all methods and is proposing the one which most accurately calculates our diversion rate.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, working with Waste Management has recently completed a waste study for 1998 and updated it for 1999. If the CIWMB approves the study the City can utilize the study to establish a new base year for either 1998 or 1999. A summary of the available options and their affect on the City's diversion rate is discussed below.
OPTION 1- Accept the CIWMB's 1998 and 1999 Default Diversion Rates Under this option, the City will have a 44% diversion rate for 1998 and an 11% diversion rate for 1999. This number was derived by simply plugging our raw disposal statistics into the CIWMB's base year adjustment methodology to calculate current diversion rates. If the City accepts these numbers, we are accepting the CIWMB's default diversion rates. If the City does not accept the numbers, then justification and documentation needs to be provided to CIWMB showing how a different diversion rate is calculated. The CIWMB is currently in the process of evaluating the City's biennial review of the 1997 and 1998 annual reports based on the default diversion rates of 38% and 44% respectively. Fortunately, the City can accept the 1998 default diversion rate and at the same time reject the 1999 default numbers because each year is treated separately. This will not hinder the biennial review process because the review does not include 1999. Finally, if the City accepts the 1998 default numbers, it has to withdraw its LA Fix request because the City can either have a 44% or a 58% diversion rate for 1998, but not both. OPTION 2- Re-Submit the City's Request for LA Fix for 1998 Under this option, the City would resubmit documents in support of its request for the "LA Fix". In January 1999, the City sent CIWMB a letter requesting allocation of the LA Fix tonnages to the City. Unfortunately, since the City had completed its 1995/96 biennial review, the CIWMB postponed making a decision on the allocation until later and told staff to re-submit a request with the 1998 annual report. Cities that had not completed the biennial review received priority for the LA Fix requests. Then in August 1999 as part of its 1998 AB 939 annual report, the City formally requested the LA Fix, which shows a 1998 diversion rate of 58%. By September 1999, the climate at CIWMB had changed. This change was due to the on pour of requests from various cities in LA County for the LA Fix, and CIWMB's perception was that Cities were using the LA Fix as an easy way to comply with the 50% diversion mandate. Therefore, late in 1999 CIWMB requested supporting documentation from the City that would justify the use of the LA Fix. The principle reason for their request was that use of the LA Fix bumped up the City's 1998 diversion rate from the default 44% to 58%. The CIWMB was interested in what programming implemented by the City justified the increase. The City anticipated the request and embarked upon a study to attempt to link the LA Fix to the 1998 diversion rate created by the LA Fix. The City's supporting documents included a waste generation study by two consultants, Huls Environmental (under contract with the City) and Eugene Tseng Associates (under the auspices of Waste Management). The City collected information by conducting approximately 45 on-site business audits, and telephone surveys of the commercial and residential sector haulers and generators that together showed a diversion of 56% which was close to, but not exact, to the LA Fix rate. The complete study was submitted to the CIWMB on March 31, 2000, however in late June CIWMB staff returned our LA Fix request and supporting documentation citing the need for the City to address issues with the documentation. In the CIWMB's staff view, our documentation failed to show the linkage between the LA Fix diversion rate, the 1990 base year, and the current year. The linkage was to show exact correlation between the programs enacted by the City and the enhanced diversion rate. There are some remaining issues, mainly:
OPTION 3- Establish a New 1998 Base Year Under this option, the new base year will be established for 1998, which will increase our 1998 diversion to 56%. The City will submit a waste generation study that was completed for 1998 and request CIWMB to accept and establish 1998 generation numbers as the new benchmark for future comparisons. The 1990 benchmark generation tonnage would no longer be used for calculating 1998, 1999 and 2000 diversion rates. An ideal new base year is a year with a high disposal tonnage because chances are that disposal tonnages from future years are more likely to be lower, therefore showing increased diversion. The year 1998 is not ideal because it had unusually low disposal tonnage. As a result, the City's high 1999 disposal tonnage reduces the 1999 diversion rate to 30%. This 25% drop in diversion is likely to prompt the CIWMB to ask the City to do another waste study for 1999 in order to explain the reduced diversion in 1999. Therefore, it makes no sense to request two base year changes in two years.
OPTION 4- Establish a New 1999 Base Year Informally the CIWMB staff has indicated that they would welcome a 1999 AB 939 annual report that re-packaged the 1998 study in support of the LA Fix as a 1999 waste generation study requesting a new 1999 base year. This option allows the City to accept the 44% 1998 default diversion rate and submit a new base year for 1999. The City will have an accurate picture of solid waste disposal and diversion within the City for 1999 because the study has identified current and potential targets of diversion, and will increase the overall generation tonnage to 79,141 tons. This new tonnage which can greatly benefit the City in future calculations using the Base Year Adjustment Methodology. Oddly enough the significant increase in disposal in 1999 will be beneficial if the City requests a 1999 base year change. This high tonnage figure will set a new benchmark for what future years diversions are compared to. A new 1999 base year will increase our diversion from the inaccurate 11% to a more accurate 42% in 1999. Additionally, assuming similar disposal characteristics and tonnage for 2000, due to utilizing the Southeast Resource recovery Facility (SERRF) at Long Beach, we can claim an additional 10% diversion. (Please note that transformation credit cannot be claimed until year 2000.) The City's 1st quarter 2000 DRS report had disposal tonnage of approximately 11,000 tons. Early projections may put the City's year 2000 annual disposal tonnage between 40,000 and 45,000. So the City can anticipate a diversion rate in the low 40's. Adding SERRF's 10% would raise our apparent year 2000 diversion rate to the low 50's. This new base year waste generation study will not cost the City additional funds in FY 2000/01 since in February 2000 the City Council approved additional funding for Huls Environmental, the City's consultant, to complete the study. The 1999 waste generation study is already complete and can be included in the annual report, which has an August 1, 2000 submission deadline. Similar waste generation studies completed by our consultant have been approved by CIWMB and the method used in our study meets all of the CIWMB's criteria. Staff has contacted CIWMB and has informed them that the City's report will be mailed following the City Council's decision and approval. CONCLUSION Staff recommends Option 4, to accept the 1998 default number for the 1998 annual report and to submit a new 1999 base year with the 1999 annual report. This option will give the City the highest consecutive diversion rates for 1998 and 1999 of 44% and 42%, respectively. Additionally, the higher disposal tonnage sets the City in the best possible position for calculating diversion for year 2000, which is a critical year. This option seems to give the City the best chance for reaching the 50% goal. Additionally, the City can also request from CIWMB a Time Extension under SB 1066 in meeting the 50% diversion requirement. So in the event that RPV does not meet the 50% goal next year, this time extension will give the City a couple of more years in order to reach 50% without facing penalties. Extensions may be requested anytime by a jurisdiction until June 2001. Time Extensions may only be effective in the years from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2006. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact for submitting the new 1999 base year request. The waste generation study has already been funded and is complete. Not meeting the 50% diversion goal may lead to a daily $10,000 fine.
Respectively
submitted,
Reviewed
by,
Attachment: Exhibit A
12. Support for Biosolids Land Application. (Evans)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM:CITY MANAGER
DATE:AUGUST 1, 2000 SUBJECT:SUPPORT FOR BIOSOLIDS LAND APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in support of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Draft Environmental Impact Report and General Order Covering General Waste Discharge Requirements for Biosolids Land Application. BACKGROUND Due to increased pressure for recycling of waste materials by sanitation districts and other waste treatment agencies, the State has recently completed the development of uniform requirements for the application of biosolids to agricultural lands. The study is based on scientific research and has taken into account both public health and the environment. As the City representative to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Mayor Byrd has asked that the City Council support the State program for biosolids land application. The proposal is described in more detail in the attached information provided by the County Sanitation Districts. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS The Council may have read a recent article in the Los Angeles TIMES describing the increasing opposition by California's Central Valley to the import of treated sewage solids (biosolids) from Southern California for spreading on their agricultural lands. As the population of the State increases and the use of landfills for disposal of solid waste decreases, recycling of materials, including sewage sludge, must be emphasized. Opposition by local government to the application of biosolids on agricultural lands could create severe problems for Sanitation Districts throughout the State. Although the State has concluded that there are no health issues related to the land application of biosolids, there continues to be a perception on the part of some local jurisdictions that use of this material creates a negative image. The City of Chino Hills has recently objected to the spreading of biosolids on agricultural property adjacent to its new $11 million sports complex. Chino Hills feels that the potential odors and the stigma attached to the use of the property for spreading the biosolids will have a negative impact on their new project. The State has not issued any new permits for land application sites over the past two years while the environmental impact report and uniform regulations were in preparation. The Sanitation Districts are anxious to expand their program of recycling under the new regulations.
Respectfully submitted:
13. Senior Affordable Housing. (Pfost)
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: AUGUST 1, 2000 SUBJECT: SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a report on the revised concept for the proposed Senior Affordable Housing Project. BACKGROUND: On August 28, 1999, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to review the concept of a proposed Senior Affordable Housing project presented by a non-profit affordable housing Developer. The Developer requested that the City contribute up to $1.9 million towards the development of the project. At the workshop, the City Council/Planning Commission gave some direction to the Developer, and indicated that the project had some merit. The following is a chronology subsequent to that meeting: 09/22/99Developer submitted application for Environmental Assessment No. 713 to determine environmental review status. 10/06/99Developer presented preliminary design to the Peninsula Seniors at their meeting. 10/19/99City Council Meeting - City Staff sought direction from the City Council on the following four issues: 1) Impact of SCAG's new RHNA numbers on the City's requirements, 2) Does the Council wish the developer to redesign based upon the new RHNA?, 3) Should other peninsula cities be asked to participate in the project?, and 4) Should the City invite competition for its housing dollars rather than limiting consideration to one developer? Council formed a sub-committee (Mayor Byrd and Councilwoman Ferraro) to meet with the staff, the developer and the seniors group. 10/21/99Letter to Developer from City (Greg Pfost, Senior Planner) - indicating that the project would require a Supplemental EIR and that additional information needed to be submitted by the developer. 12/08/99Meeting between Developer and Peninsula Seniors representatives to discuss details of project. Mayor Byrd, Councilwoman Ferraro and City Staff in attendance. 12/21/99City Council Meeting - City Council approved contracts for consulting services with PMW Associates (Marilyn Whisenand - Affordable Housing Consultant), Keyser Marston Associates (Financial Consultant) and R. P. Laurin and Associates (Appraisal Firm). Developer revises project from 84 units to 73 units. 01/06/00Developer submits formal applications for the proposed project, which includes Conditional Use Permit No. 210 and Grading Permit No. 2163. 01/18/00City Council Meeting - City enters into Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Developer to construct the project. ENA expires on 10/01/00, with allowance of 3-month extension by City Manager. 02/04/00Letter to Developer from City (Greg Pfost, Senior Planner), indicating that project as submitted is incomplete, pending the submittal of additional information and reports. 02/07/00City enters into contract with Peri Muretta for Environmental Consulting Services in order to prepare the necessary environmental documents for the project. 03/08/00City Council Meeting - City Council authorized the acquisition of property, which included the approval of various agreements. 03/09/00Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental EIR with Initial Study released for 45-day review period. 04/06/00Letter to Developer from City (Greg Pfost, Senior Planner) expressing concern on not receiving a response to February 4, 2000 letter of incomplete. 04/13/00Developer submits Preliminary Grading Plan. 04/28/00Developer submits Biology Report. 05/03/00Letter to Developer from City (Greg Pfost, Senior Planner) expressing concern on still not receiving many of the items as noted in February 4, 2000 letter and previous letters. Project remains incomplete. 05/10/00Developer submits letter noting some responses to February 4, 2000 and April 26, 2000 letters. 06/05/00Letter to Developer from City (Greg Pfost, Senior Planner) acknowledging submittal of certain information, however expressing concern that all items from February 4, 2000 have not been submitted. Project remains incomplete. 06/30/00Developer submits revised application to address items noted in previous letters by Staff. Application is currently under review by City Staff. DISCUSSION: Current Project Design During Staff's review of the proposed project, Staff has noted many issues that should be resolved prior to the project being presented to the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to those issues, the Developer has revised the project. Currently, as submitted on June 30, 2000, the preliminary project design, consists of a two-story, 76-unit mix of one and two bedroom rental units (68 one bedroom units and 8 two bedroom units), a 5,520 square foot Senior Center, 91 parking spaces (all located within a subterranean parking structure), and 10,773 cubic yards of grading. The proposed apartments will be leased at a Very Low or Low rental rates (approximately $400 to $600 per month). Project Participants The proposed project is a joint effort that includes the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency, the non-profit Developer, the County and other financial contributors. The combined amount of investment from the City and the Redevelopment Agency is proposed to be approximately $1.9 million. It is expected that other funds will be obtained from the County and other sources. Earlier Efforts to Identify Housing Opportunities Since the Redevelopment Plan was first adopted in 1984, the Agency was required to set-aside twenty percent (20%) of the gross annual tax increment into the Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The purpose of this Fund is to increase, improve and preserve the City's supply of low and moderate-income housing. In carrying out the housing set-aside requirements, the Agency may expend these funds on a number of different programs, including acquiring real property. The current Fund balance is approximately $932,000. State law does not allow the housing fund balance to exceed $1 million unless the Agency has an adopted plan for its use. Over the past two years Agency staff and Councilmembers have actively pursued alternatives for the use of the funds including contacts with experienced developers of affordable housing projects, attempts to purchase developable land, new construction of affordable units in proposed developments and conversion of existing apartments into affordable units. The Agency, as well as private interests were unable to find a willing seller of existing units or available land other than the properties along Crestridge Road. State Mandate to Provide Low and Moderate Income Housing The 1999 Regional
Housing Needs Assessment provided by the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG), for the next 5 years, calls for 8 very low income
housing units, 5 low income housing units, 8 moderate income housing units
and 31 high income housing units for a total of 53 new housing units to
be constructed in the City. The fulfillment of the Agency's obligation
to utilize 20% of its tax increment income for the development of low
to moderate income housing, such as this proposed project, will support
the General Plan Housing Element Goals and assist in meeting the Regional
Housing Needs allocated to the City by SCAG. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Processing a project, which involves the use of various public funds, is quite complicated. Staff foresees the process as such:
Timing of this process is also very complicated and may be quite lengthy. There are two periods within each year for the State to accept applications for Tax Credits. The Developer has advised Staff that it cannot apply for the Tax Credits until the entitlements and DDA have been secured. Since the project will most likely include the preparation of at least a Supplement to the existing Environmental Impact Report for the 1991 Marriott project, Staff would expect the processing of this document and the other entitlements to take at least until October 2000. Since the State has not indicated when the dates of the application periods for the Tax Credits will be, at this time, the Developer advises Staff that it is not sure that it will be able to obtain Tax Credits within the year 2000. CONCLUSION: As noted above, to address potential Issues brought to the Developer by City Staff, the Developer has revised the initial design concept for the proposed Senior Affordable Housing Project. The purpose of this report is to inform the Council that there is a revised concept. Staff recommends that the Council receive and file this report.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed: ATTACHMENT: Revised Plans 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.
AGENDA AUGUST 1, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Minutes of July 5, 2000. (Purcell)
B. June 2000 Treasurer's Report. (Burton)
TO:HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER DATE:AUGUST 1, 2000 SUBJECT:JUNE 2000 TREASURER'S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the June 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 June 2000 for the Redevelopment Agency. ANALYSIS: The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency totaled $6,428,645 at June 30, 2000. This represents a decrease of slightly more than $44,000 for the month. Only about $500 in cash was received by the Agency during June. These nominal receipts relate to tax increment revenue received from the County and deposited in the Agency's Housing Set-Aside fund. Cash outlays of the Agency totaled nearly $45,000 during June. Approximately $20,000 of this total was for progress payments made to consultants for work on the Abalone Cove Sewer and Storm Drain Project, while another $16,300 related to 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 June, the Agency had loaned the PBCHOA a total of $611,285 for this project. The full $611,285 has been recorded as a receivable in the Portuguese Bend fund and will be repaid to the Agency over the next several years. The remainder of June disbursements were for legal fees and Portuguese Bend GPS monitoring costs. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed: C. Register of Demands. (McLean)
REGULAR BUSINESS: D. Abalone Cove Sewer and Storm Drain Project. (Allison)
PUBLIC COMMENTS: This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda: each speaker is limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular Redevelopment Agency meeting.
AGENDA August 1, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of July 5 2000. (Purcell)
2. May 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER DATE:AUGUST 1, 2000 SUBJECT:JUNE 2000 TREASURER'S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the June 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 June 2000 for the Improvement Authority.
ANALYSIS: The Improvement Authority's cash balances increased by nearly $1,700 during June 2000, ending with an overall balance of $1,484,711. The only cash receipts in June related to the $7,917 monthly transfer from the City's General fund to the Portuguese Bend fund of the Authority. As is usually the case, disbursements for the month were for routine dewatering well monitoring and maintenance activities.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed:
3. Register of Demands. (McLean)
PUBLIC COMMENTS: For items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting. |
