|
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 SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ________________________________________________________________ 6:00 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. 2000-54 NEXT ORD. NO. 360 CEREMONIAL MATTERS: Presentation of proclamation to Peninsula Education Foundation proclaiming October "Support Your School" month. RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.Motion to waive full reading.
2.Minutes. (Purcell)
3.Professional Services Agreement with Aon Consulting for Financial Analysis of CalPERS Actuarial. (Petru)
4.FY 2000-20001 Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. (Allison)
5.Appointment of Miraleste Recreation and Park District Board Member. (Purcell)
6.July 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
7.FY 1990-2000 Budget Adjustments. (Burton)
8.Register of Demands. (Mc Lean)
############ PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.Revision "N" to the Ocean Trails Project to Amend Conditional Use Permit No. 163 to Allow Drainage into Forrestal Canyon (Ocean Trails LP). (Pfost)
10.Revision "O" to the Ocean Trails Project to Amend Conditional Use Permit No. 162 to Clarify Homeowner Association Membership (Ocean Trails LP). (Pfost)
RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.) REGULAR BUSINESS: 11.Pilot Program of Speed Humps on Basswood Avenue. (Allison)
12.Review of Forrestal Management Plan. (Snow/Mihranian)
13.Memorandum of Understanding – St. John Fisher Church. (Evans)
14.Appropriation and Agreement for Lawsuit Against the FAA and Purchase of Flight Tracking Equipment. (Evans)
15.Ocean Trails – Licensing Agreement for the Use of the Lower Portion of Shoreline Park. (Pfost)
16.Ordinance 359 - NPDES Regulations. (Allison)
17.Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Diversion Program Additions. (Ramezani)
18.Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Recycling Revenue Grant Awards (Cycle 11). (Ramezani)
19.Proposed Acquisition of the Tidemark Solutions Permit Tracking System. (Snow)
20.San Ramon Drainage. (McBride)
21.Funding Plan for Abalone Cove Storm Drain. (Allison)
22.Request to Explore Reducing the Utility Users Tax. (Mayor Pro Tem Lyon) 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 Code Sections)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Existing Litigation: G.C. 54956.9(a) Name of Case: Paul & Terri McCaul vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Case No. or Claim No. YC036222
Name of Case: Mark Abrams vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Case No. or Claim No. CV 00-09071
Anticipated Litigation: (G.C 54956.9(b) Based on a threat of litigation in reference to the claim the City received by James Tyler XX 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.
Initiation of Litigation: G.C. 54956.9(c) 1 (Number of Potential Cases) Consider whether to initiate litigation against either Los Angeles County or the Federal Government in reference to PVIC (State Underlying Facts and Circumstances)
1.Motion to waive full reading. Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title. 
2.Minutes. (Purcell)
3.Professional Services Agreement with Aon Consulting for Financial Analysis of CalPERS Actuarial. (Petru)
FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AON CONSULTING FOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF CALPERS ACTUARIAL RECOMMENDATION 1.Approve an Agreement with Aon Consulting for financial analysis of the CalPERS actuarial for the 2% @ 55 and one-year final compensation employee retirement formula. 2.Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. BACKGROUND The City currently contracts with CalPERS for the 2% @ 60 employee retirement formula. An alternative formula offered by CalPERS that is becoming very popular with local cities is the "2% @ 55" formula. In addition, the City’s current contract with CalPERS uses the 36 highest paid consecutive months to arrive at employee’s final compensation rate. However, CalPERS also allows cities to amend their contracts to use the employee’s 12 highest paid consecutive months to determine rate of final compensation. At the Budget Workshop held on May 8, 2000, the Council authorized staff to request an actuarial valuation study from CalPERS to determine the fiscal impact of the 2% @ 55 retirement formula and the one-year final compensation factor. In July, staff requested an actuarial report form CalPERS for these two proposed enhancements to our employee retirement benefit. DISCUSSION After reviewing the actuarial recently received from CalPERS, staff feels that the analysis of this data is beyond the expertise of City staff. Therefore, staff believes that the City requires the assistance of third-party specialist in the employee benefits consulting field to review the report and provide recommendations. In order to evaluate the financial information provided and to prepare the required report, City staff would like to engage the services of Mr. John Bartel of Aon Consulting. Mr. Bartel is a highly qualified consultant with over 26 years of employee benefits experience, primarily in pension consulting services in both the public and private sectors. The draft contract document is attached. FISCAL IMPACT The consultant has estimated that the time required for this analysis would not exceed 12 hours. Therefore, the amount of this contract would be $3,200. The funds for the work would be provided from the $6,000 available in the Personnel Program’s Professional/Technical Services Fund (Account # 121.35). Respectfully submitted: Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager
4.FY 2000-20001 Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. (Allison)
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:FY 2000 – 01 OVERLAY AND SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND Each year the City implements a slurry seal and overlay program. The streets included in the program are selected in accordance with the pavement management program. A list of streets and an exhibit showing the streets selected for this year’s program are attached. ANALYSIS
Bids for construction were opened on August 8, 2000. Silvia Construction, Inc., submitted the lowest of the three bids received. The following table summarizes the bids received:
The City has previously worked with Silvia Construction, Inc. Their work was satisfactory. In addition, references were contacted and all reported satisfactory or above performance on similar projects. The bid documents and bonds are in order and their contractor’s license is current.
Staff submitted a request for proposal to three firms, Willdan Associates Inc., Berryman and Henigar, and SA Associates. Only Willdan Associates, Inc. submitted a proposal. The two other firms indicated that they did not currently have the required personnel to service this contract. Staff did not attempt to get additional proposals because it would have unnecessarily delayed the project, and because the proposal submitted by Willdan and Associates is fair and competitive. The proposal from Willdan and Associates is based on time and material for part time construction management services, and full time inspection services. The hourly rates for the Construction Manager and Inspector are $110 per hour, and $72 per hour respectively. Staff is familiar with Willdan and Associates as well as the team they propose to utilize for this project. This firm has successfully provided Construction Management and Inspection Services for previous Overlay and Slurry Seal programs, and staff is satisfied with their performance. ALTERNATIVES An alternative is to reject all construction bids and re-advertise the construction project. This alternative would take approximately 2 months to complete and lower bids are not anticipated. CONCLUSION Adopting the staff recommendations will award a construction contract to Silvia Construction, Inc., for the FY 2000 –01 Overlay and Slurry Seal Program, and a contract for Willdan Associates, Inc. for construction management and inspection services. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the program comes from several sources. The overlay project is a Capital expense and is funded with a combination of General, Proposition C, and Bikeway funds. The Slurry Seal Project is a street maintenance activity and is funded with Gas Tax and Proposition C Funds. The breakdown is as follows:
The spending authorizations recommended are within the limits in the adopted FY 2000 – 01 Budget. The FY 2000 – 01 Budget authorizes the expenditure of $1,688,400 The proposed funding plan, however, is different than the budgeted funding plan. The proposed funding plan utilizes additional Proposition C funds and less Gas Tax funds than originally budgeted. This change is proposed because more streets in the project are Proposition C eligible than originally anticipated. The attached resolution transfers additional Proposition C funds into the Capital Improvement Projects Fund. Respectively submitted, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by, Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Resolution 2000 - Map of streets receiving overlay and slurry seal List of streets receiving overlay and slurry seal Agreement with Willdan and Associates Complete Funding Plan NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
5.Appointment of Miraleste Recreation and Park District Board Member. (Purcell)
FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:APPOINTMENT TO THE MIRALESTE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDATION Appoint Keith Harter to the Miraleste Recreation and Park District Board of Directors to serve in said capacity until December 2003. INTRODUCTION This past June, George Picciotto resigned from the Miraleste Board of Directors. Making this appointment will bring membership on the Board back up to its full complement of five members. BACKGROUND The Miraleste Recreation and Park District is responsible for maintaining certain parklands within its jurisdiction. This District has a five-member elected board of directors that conducts the business of the district; members are elected at large for a four-year term of office. Keith Harter is a 22 year resident of the District and has volunteered to serve on the Board. Attached is Mr. Harter’s Application for Appointment. CONCLUSION The Miraleste Board of Directors currently has a vacancy and Keith Harter has volunteered to serve on the Board. Respectfully submitted, Jo Purcell, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager
6.July 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT: JULY 2000 TREASURER’S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the July 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 July 2000. ANALYSIS: The City’s overall cash balances totaled $23,809,172 at July 31, 2000. This represents a $465,500 increase from the previous month and is a result of several individual funds experiencing significant fluctuations. The specific details causing the changes are discussed below. General Fund – While the overall cash balance in the General fund remained constant, there were a few material transactions impacting cash. First, the General fund transferred $152,000 to the Building Replacement fund to finance future costs incurred on City buildings. Additionally, the General fund is transferring $291,667 per month to the CIP fund to cover costs associated with FY 2000-01 projects. However, the transfers were offset by the receipt of several large, fourth quarter revenues - the most significant of which related to quarterly interest ($128,400) and quarterly franchise fees (approximately $150,000). Gas Tax Fund – The cash balance in the Gas Tax fund decreased by nearly $45,000 during the month. The City did not receive a monthly gas tax apportionment during July, but will receive two payments in August. The fund’s overall decrease was also partially caused by paying several routine street maintenance invoices for work that is generally performed during the summer months. Proposition A Fund – The City paid $188,587 to PV Transit for the first half of the FY 2000-01 contribution for area bus services. This large cash outlay caused the Proposition A fund cash balance to decrease to $20,941 at July 31, 2000. CIP Fund – Cash in the CIP fund increased by over $310,000 during July, ending with a balance of $5,976,208. The FY 2000-01 monthly transfer from the General fund of $291,667, combined with quarterly interest earnings of $72,879, caused the large cash increase. While the month’s receipts were large, disbursements were limited to several small dollar payments for various ongoing CIP projects. Measure A Fund – The City received $77,625 in Measure A reimbursement for costs incurred to date on the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement project. This money will be forwarded to the CIP fund where the actual project costs were incurred. Building Replacement Fund – Cash increased to $977,289 at July 31, 2000. Annually in July, the General fund transfers the amount budgeted to the Building Replacement fund to finance future building costs. The FY 2000-01 budget provided for a transfer of $152,000, which along with quarterly interest earnings of $12,387, comprised the overall increase. Respectfully submitted, Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager
7.FY 1990-2000 Budget Adjustments. (Burton)
FROM:DENNIS MCLEAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:FY 1999-00 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2000- , amending Resolution 99-41, the budget appropriation for FY 1999-00, to increase budgeted appropriations in the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) fund and Measure A fund. BACKGROUND: Chapter 3.32 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code sets forth the guidelines related to the City's budget administration. Section 3.32.070 of the Code requires that all expenditures in excess of a program/function's budgeted allocation must be approved by supplemental appropriation by the City Council. While compiling the FY 1999-00 expenditures for the City, it was determined that two programs within two funds (CIP and Measure A) had expenditures that exceeded the amount budgeted. Therefore, a supplemental appropriation in both of these programs will be necessary to satisfy budgetary compliance. A discussion of the requested adjustments to the two programs follows: During the FY 1999-00 midyear budget review, the City Council approved the transfer of $504,000 from the General fund to the CIP fund. The transfer provided a funding source for past project costs deemed ineligible for Measure A reimbursement. While the $504,000 transfer was approved in February 2000, staff neglected to request a budget adjustment for the appropriation increase in the CIP fund. Therefore, a budget adjustment of $504,000 is requested in the CIP fund at this time to assure budgetary compliance. Additionally, approximately $400,000 of costs incurred on the PVIC expansion project were recorded in the Measure A fund as a receivable at June 30, 1999. However, only $334,600 was subsequently reimbursed by Measure A. The remaining balance of $65,400 ($400,000 recorded as a receivable less the $334,600 actual reimbursement) are attributable to costs that are not eligible for Measure A reimbursement. While the $65,400 was included in the $504,000 transfer from the General fund to the CIP fund discussed earlier, it is now necessary to transfer $65,400 to the Measure A fund from the CIP fund and record an expenditure for $65,400 in the Measure A fund. Staff requests that a budget adjustment be made in the Measure A fund to allow for budgetary compliance. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed recommendation will have no effect on the ending fund balances of either fund since these expenditures were previously incurred in FY 1999-00. The additional expenditures in the CIP and Measure A funds have been previously authorized by Council. The appropriation increases merely provide official approval for bookkeeping purposes and are prepared only to assure budgetary compliance. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed:
8.Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.Revision "N" to the Ocean Trails Project to Amend Conditional Use Permit No. 163 to Allow Drainage into Forrestal Canyon (Ocean Trails LP). (Pfost)
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT: REVISION "N" TO THE OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 163 TO ALLOW DRAINAGE INTO FORRESTAL CANYON (OCEAN TRAILS LP) Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__ approving Conditional Use Permit No. 163 - Revision "N", thereby permitting a change to the design of the western portion of the Ocean Trails drainage facilities from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site Forrestal Canyon. BACKGROUND In December 1992, the City Council approved the Ocean Trails project, which included an 18-hole golf course and a total of 75 single-family lots. As part of the overall approval, the Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 for single family lots located on the western side of the project site and the golf course, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 for the single family residential lots located on the eastern side of the project site. Also, associated with this subdivision was Conditional Use Permit No. 162 and No. 163, which approved the Residential Planned Development (RPD) and the Golf Course. Final Map No. 50667 has been approved by the City Council, recorded and the developer may begin selling lots within this tract. Grading of Phase I (golf course and Tract No. 50667) is nearing completion, while Phase II grading (VTTM No. 50666) is currently under construction. The approved storm drain system, as addressed in the project’s original EIR, consists of a buried conduit system to provide conveyance of urban and storm water runoff. Under the approved project, runoff would have been conveyed through two ocean outlets. These outlets consisted of steep storm drains that would have been vertically drilled to the base of the ocean cliffs. A concrete impact basin would have been installed to dissipate the associated energy of the storm drainage system. Low flow "nuisance" runoff and storm water runoff of up to a two year storm event would have remained directed (via storm drain outlets) into the three existing on-site canyons [Forestall Canyon, La Rotonda Canyon, and unnamed canyon (a.k.a. Condo Canyon)]. On May 4, 1999, the City Council approved Revision "I" to the Ocean Trails project that changed the drainage system on the eastern portion of the project site from a tunneled pipe system to La Rotonda Canyon and eliminating all drainage through the unnamed canyon (a.k.a. Condo Canyon). These improvements have been completed. DISCUSSION Project Description: As shown in the attached March 17, 1998 letter from Ken Zuckerman, it is the developer’s intent to modify the approved storm drain system to eliminate the ocean bluff tunnels and the associated concrete impact basins, and redirect storm water runoff into the three on-site canyons. Briefly, the developer’s reasons for making these changes are that;
At this time, the specific proposed project before the Council only covers the storm drain system on the west side of the Ocean Trails site, namely Forrestal Canyon. As noted in the Background section above, on May 4, 1999, the City Council approved a similar request for the east side of the project, which allowed drainage to be directed to La Rotonda Canyon instead of the tunneled storm drain system. It is important to note that these two plans can be considered separately based upon the unique nature of the site - the drainage on the east side, which is associated with the graded golf course and graded tract (VTTM 50667) is linked to La Rotonda Canyon, while the drainage associated with the improvements (VTTM 50666) on the west side of the project site is linked to Forrestal Canyon, and these two canyons are entirely separate from each other. In 1998, the developer applied to the Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game to make a change from the approved drainage system (tunnels) to the proposed drainage system involving the existing on-site canyons. Each of these agencies conditionally granted the developer a permit and/or approval to make the necessary change. The Coastal Commission approved the change provided that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approves of such a change and the canyons will not be significantly altered (more than 15%) with additional concrete used for channeling or outlet structures. Subsequently, the developer submitted plans to the City for the proposed changes. Upon reviewing the developer’s first proposal for improvements to Forrestal Canyon, Staff had a concern in regards to the increase in water flow through Forrestal Canyon and its potential erosion impacts upon the yet to be developed subdivision (VTTM 50666) located adjacent to the canyon walls. Staff’s concern was that any significant erosion related to these improvements might cause impacts to the slopes adjacent to the residential lots and subsequently cause damage to the new lots or homes. Lining or channeling of the canyon would have been an alternative to reduce the potential impacts related to potential erosion of the slopes. However, as noted above, the Coastal Commission would have only allowed a 15% increase in alterations using channeling. Additionally, a concrete channel would most likely have resulted in the potential for substantial impacts to wildlife resources and aesthetics. To address these concerns, the developer revised the project by relocating the new outlet structures to a location south of the residential lots [see "Appendix B" of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for site location]. The developer’s current proposal is to install three new outlet structures into Forrestal Canyon. One of these new structures (see "Figure 4/Page 2 of 3" and "Appendix B" of the attached MND for graphic exhibit), located at the head of the upper end of Forrestal Canyon, along with an existing outlet structure, located at the head of the eastern fork of Forrestal Canyon (see "Appendix B" of MND), were both part of the original drainage plan that included the tunneled storm drain system. These two outlet structures (proposed and existing) support the two-year storm flow that was needed for Forrestal Canyon as originally approved (see 2nd paragraph in Background section above). Subsequently, Staff’s review is focused on the new storm drain outlet structures to be located towards the lower portion of Forrestal Canyon, as shown in "Figure 4/Page 1 of 3" and "Appendix B" of the MND. To construct these improvements approximately 2,239 cubic yards of soil would be graded. As shown in "Appendix B" of the MND, the anticipated storm water flows through the canyon (from north to south), after construction of the proposed project, are as follows:
Briefly, as shown in the exhibit, "Appendix B" of the MND, and as summarized in the table above, the proposed project deviates from the approved EIR storm drain system in two ways. First, the amount of water that would have gone through the upper and middle reaches of Forrestal Canyon will be reduced from the required two-year storm flow that the EIR anticipated. The purpose of this deviation is two-fold; one, to reduce the potential for erosion on the residential properties located adjacent to Forrestal Canyon which may have suffered from erosion impacts related to a two-year storm flow, and two, to reduce the flow and allow for more opportunity to enhance and maintain the biological resources within this portion of the canyon. Secondly, the proposed project deviates from the approved EIR by routing water that might occur in a greater than 2-year storm, from the tunneled storm drain system to the two new outlet structures located in the lower reaches of Forrestal Canyon. The purposes for this deviation, according to Mr. Zuckerman, are outlined in the attached March 17, 1998 letter, and summarized in the "Background" section above. While analyzing the developer’s request, Staff considered three main issues; the potential geologic/erosion impacts of the proposed improvements to Forrestal Canyon, visual impacts of the proposed two new outlet structures to be installed at the lower reaches of Forrestal Canyon, and potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species as a result of the proposed project. Each of these issues is discussed below. Geology/Erosion Issue:
As shown in the attached geotechnical analysis (Appendix C of the MND), the developer’s geologist, Converse Consultants, has conditionally approved the proposed improvements and has indicated that there will not be any adverse geologic impacts to the project site with respect to geologic stability, groundwater conditions, canyon erosion and Landslides A and B, provided that the conditions as stated in their report are properly implemented. As shown in Appendix E of the MND, the City’s geological consultant (Cotton Shires Associates) concurs. Although the project has been approved by the City Geologist, based upon storm activity earlier this year, Staff was still concerned regarding the potential for erosion impacts. Specifically, as the Council may recall, after the La Rotonda storm drain outlet was constructed, and during storm activity that occurred on March 5 and 6, 2000, which was the same storm that caused damage to 25th street in San Pedro near the City border, damage to some residential properties located in the eastern portion of the City, and caused erosion to the slope between Palos Verdes Drive South and Shoreline Park, erosion impacts occurred to La Rotonda Canyon that resulted in the exposure of the main sewer line. Following the storm, on or about the next day, the Sanitation District took immediate action to provide protection to their exposed sewer line. Shortly after that, Staff sent Ocean Trails a letter requesting them to comply with the conditions of approval for Revision "I" to the Ocean Trails project for the La Rotonda Canyon storm drain project. Two main points of the condition state, "The golf course operator shall have any failed or eroded portions of the canyons immediately repaired to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works". , and "The golf course operator shall have the canyons inspected annually during and immediately following the rainy season, in accordance with the standards and schedule which have been established by the Director of Public Works, and at any other time deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works". After receiving Staff’s letter, Ocean Trails submitted a report, prepared by their geologist, dated April 12, 2000, addressing the impacts to their site from this storm. Their report recommends various measures to mitigate the potential for future erosion. Currently, Ocean Trails is working with the Sanitation District and the City in regards to what additional work will need to be completed to repair La Rotonda Canyon. In regards to Forrestal Canyon, Staff does not believe that there are any guarantees that the canyon will not suffer from some future erosion impacts unless the entire canyon is channelized. In fact, erosion may have occurred as a result of a two-year storm that was approved to go through Forrestal Canyon under the original EIR. However, similar to the approved project under the EIR, there are measures that can be taken to reduce the potential impacts of erosion. These have been included into the project’s mitigation measures. Additionally, similar to La Rotonda Canyon, Staff proposes that the same condition as noted above be added to ensure that the golf course operator understands that they are responsible for repairing any failed or eroded portions of the canyon. Additionally, it’s important to note that, as shown in the table above, after construction of the proposed project, there could be approximately 600 cubic feet per second more water flowing through the lower reaches of the canyon (south of the two proposed outlet structures), during a 50-year storm, than what may have occurred at this point if the tunneled storm drain system was constructed as approved in the EIR. However, in the original project, the additional 600 cubic feet per second would have been discharged to the beach, where impacts to tidal resources and the sandy beach may have occurred. Staff believes that it is also important to recognize that, as a result of this project, the increase in water flow only occurs in the lower reaches of Forrestal Canyon. As shown in the table above, the difference between the amount of water that will flow through the lower reaches after completion of the proposed project (approximately 1,087 cfs during a 50-year storm) is only 8.7% of an increase than what is currently flowing through the lower reaches of Forrestal Canyon today (approximately 1,000 cfs during a 50-year storm). Because more water is being diverted to the lower reaches of the canyon, reducing the amount of water that currently flows through the upper and middle portions of the canyon today, and reducing the amount that would have flowed through the upper and middle reaches of the canyon under the approved EIR, any potential erosion impacts to the residential lots located adjacent to the canyon would be reduced. Any erosion impacts to areas south of the two new outlet structures would mainly effect the golf course. However, because the increase in the amount of water is only 8.7% over the existing flow, Staff does not anticipate any significant impacts other than what the site has currently been experiencing. Additionally, because these impacts may affect only the golf course, the golf course operator would have a vested interest in making any needed repairs quickly. As such, based upon the City geologist review, the preceding discussion, and the inclusion of the attached conditions and mitigation measures, Staff does not feel that there will be any significant geological/erosion impacts associated with the proposed project. The City’s geologist and the City’s consulting engineer that reviewed this project will be at the September 5th Council meeting to address any specific detailed questions regarding geology and erosion. Aesthetics: In regards to potential impacts regarding the aesthetics of installing the two outlet structures, Staff evaluated the proposed outlet structure as compared to the outlet structure that was to be located at the base of the bluff (on the beach) as part of the tunneled drain system (see Figure 5 of MND). Staff did not evaluate the outlet structure located at the head of Forrestal Canyon, as this was part of the original approval to support the required two-year flow. The proposed outlet structures would be visible from two locations, a golf cart bridge located to the south (seaward) of the outlet structure, and from a pedestrian bridge located to the north (landward) of the proposed outlet structure. In Figure 6 (pages 1, 2, and 3) of the MND, there are photographs taken of the site that depict before and after conditions, with the proposed outlet structure super-imposed upon the "after" photograph. Although the structure will be visible from both bridges, Staff feels that as additional vegetation grows around the structure, and the color and texture of the structure are made to blend in with the surrounding landscape and canyon, that the structure will not pose any significant aesthetic impacts. Additionally, the golf cart bridge will be utilized by golfers traveling at higher speeds over the bridge, which may not see the structure. Therefore, Staff does not anticipate any significant visual impacts of the project. Staff feels that the structure would be an improvement over the structure that was to be placed on the beach (with the tunneled storm drain system), as it is smaller and would be less noticeable. Sensitive Habitat: In regards to any potential impacts to sensitive species, the developer’s biological consultant has submitted the attached reports indicating that there will be approximately 0.03 acres impacted by the proposed improvements. Of these 0.03 acres, 0.01 acres consists of riparian habitat, 0.01 acres consists of Coastal Sage Scrub, and 0.01 acres consists of unvegetated channel. As shown in the MND, the upper reaches of Forrestal Canyon have been occupied by coastal California gnatcatchers. According to the project biologist, this is one of the reasons for diverting some of the 2-year flow from the middle and upper reaches of the canyon to the lower portion of the canyon – to better enhance and maintain the habitat in the upper reaches that are currently occupied. Since there is no significant loss of habitat from this project revision, the revision is within the scope of the approved Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and is exempt from the 4d-permit process. Staff has added a condition of approval to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 which requires that the developer obtain U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s approval, as well as all other resource agencies that have jurisdiction in this area, prior to the City issuing a permit for construction of the two outlet structures. It is standard for some of these agencies to require the developer to comply with certain conditions related to the issuance of the permit and/or approval. Environmental Analysis: The proposed project involves a change to the project that was previously analyzed under Environmental Impact Report No. 36 (EIR No. 36) for the Ocean Trails Project. Since there are no changes to the mitigation measures of EIR No. 36, and the proposed change in the storm water drainage system will not create any significant adverse impacts, a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. In compliance with CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared on August 1, 2000. The document was sent to the State Clearinghouse and to various other agencies (including the Sanitation District) for review and comment. A notice was also sent to all property owners within a 500’ radius of the Ocean Trails site. As of the preparation of this Staff Report, Staff had received four comment letters (attached) from: 1) State Clearinghouse, 2) Southern California Association of Governments, 3) California Department of Transportation – District 7 (Caltrans), and 4) County of Los Angeles Fire Department. Only the Caltrans letter included a comment. Caltrans recommended that any related truck trips on State highways be limited to off-peak commute periods. Because this project is minor in regard to the generation of truck trips and will be required to comply with all other conditions related to construction, Staff feels that this recommendation has already been addressed through the project as approved and no additional conditions have been proposed. Any additional letters received will be forwarded to the City Council at the September 5, 2000 meeting. As shown in the attached Initial Study, as mitigated, the project will not result in or create any significant impacts to Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Geologic Problems, Water, Air Quality, Transportation and Circulation, Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, or Recreation. As such, Staff has concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be approved for the project. CONCLUSION As discussed above, Staff has evaluated the proposed project’s effects upon existing geologic conditions, aesthetic conditions and sensitive habitat. Based upon the information noted above, Staff feels that the applicant’s request to change the drainage system from the originally approved tunneled storm drain system to drainage into Forrestal Canyon can be approved.
As such, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution No. 2000-__, approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and adopt the attached Resolution No. 2000-__, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 163 - Revision "N". ALTERNATIVES In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives: 1.Deny the requested revisions to the project and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions for the next meeting. 2.Provide the landowner and staff with direction on the issues of concern to the Council and continue this matter to a date certain. FISCAL IMPACT There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision. Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed By: Les Evans, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2000-__; (MND) Note: The MND was distributed to the City Council on August 4, 2000. Copies are not included in the Staff Report packet given the size of the MND. Copies are available to check-out, review or purchase (at cost of reproduction) from the Planning Department front counter. Resolution No. 2000-__; (Conditional Use Permit No. 163 - Rev. ‘N’) Letter from Ken Zuckerman, dated March 17, 1998 Bio analysis by Dudek and Associates, dated March 11, 1998 and October 29, 1999 Siting Recommendations for Storm Drain Outfalls at Beach by Alan Miller Ph.D.
10.Revision "O" to the Ocean Trails Project to Amend Conditional Use Permit No. 162 to Clarify Homeowner Association Membership (Ocean Trails LP). (Pfost)
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:REVISION "O" TO THE OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 162 TO CLARIFY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP (OCEAN TRAILS LP) Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Continue this item to the September 19, 2000 City Council Meeting. DISCUSSION The applicant has submitted a request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 162 so as to clarify that the future residential property owners within Ocean Trails would not be subject to mandatory membership in a homeowner’s association. After the public hearing notice was mailed, and during the preparation of the Staff Report, upon further investigation and analysis into the applicant’s request, it was determined that additional investigation and analysis into the purposes of this request, the legal ramifications associated with it, and the potential impacts to the future homeowners and the City were necessary. Subsequently, Staff recommends that this item be continued to the September 19, 2000 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed By: Les Evans, City Manager
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:
11.Pilot Program of Speed Humps on Basswood Avenue. (Allison)
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:PILOT PROGRAM OF SPEED HUMPS ON BASSWOOD AVENUE RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND On May 4, 1999 the City Council approved the installation of speed humps along Basswood Avenue as a six-month pilot program. This action came to the City Council as a result of requests from the Upper Basswood Homeowners’ Association and after approval by the City’s Traffic Committee. In approving the matter, the City Council requested staff to report back to the City Council within six months on the effectiveness of speed humps. The following is a brief chronology of project events since the May 4, 1999 approval: August 1999 Preliminary Plans for speed humps completed September 1999 Speed and volume measurements taken for ‘before’ condition November 1999 Installation of Speed Humps complete May 2000 Speed and volume measurements taken for ‘after’ condition May 2000 Traffic Committee reviews matter and requests that additional ‘after’ measurements be taken June 2000 Speed and volume measurements taken for ‘after’ condition July 2000 Traffic Committee reviewed studies and voted 6-1 to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the speed humps were successful along Basswood Avenue, and should be considered to be an effective traffic calming measure DISCUSSION The goal of installing the speed humps was to reduce vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic along Basswood Avenue. At the May 4, 2000 City Council meeting there was testimony against the installation of speed humps expressing concern that the speed humps would delay emergency vehicles, as well as testimony that the speed humps would result in significantly higher traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways. The following is a brief summary of the data collected both before and after the speed humps were installed.
From this data it is concluded that the speed humps have reduced vehicle speeds and volumes along Basswood Avenue, without significantly impacting either speeds or volumes on the surrounding streets. In addition to this empirical data the following additional facts should be considered in determining the effectiveness of the speed humps along Basswood Avenue:
Based on this data staff has concluded that the speed hump pilot program has been successful. Staff also believes that there may be certain other locations where the installation of speed humps may also be successful. CONCLUSIONS Based on the before and after studies the installation of speed humps on Basswood Avenue have been effective and successful in achieving the goals of traffic calming. FISCAL IMPACT Staff could identify no fiscal impacts to the recommended actions. The construction cost to install the speed humps was $13,300. Respectfully submitted, Dean E. Allison Director of Public Works Reviewed, Les Evans City Manager Attachments: July 31, 2000 Traffic Committee Agenda Report July 20, 2000 Before and After Study Notification Letter to residents
12.Review of Forrestal Management Plan. (Snow/Mihranian)
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:FORRESTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Staff Coordinator:David Snow, Planning Administrator Ara Michael Mihranian, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review and adopt the attached Forrestal Management Plan and provide Staff with direction pertaining to the implementation and administration of the Plan. BACKGROUND
On February 10, 1999, the Recreation and Parks Committee appointed a Sub-Committee comprised of members from the Recreation and Parks Committee, the Equestrian Committee, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, and Los Serenos de Pointe Vicente (Docent) members. The Sub-Committee’s responsibility was to create a draft Management Plan for the Forrestal property that would guide the maintenance of the property toward the preservation and recreational goals envisioned when the property was acquired by the City, and to enhance the property as a valuable asset to the public for habitat and passive recreational purposes. Once a draft Management Plan was created, the sub- committee was required to forward the document to the Recreation and Parks Committee, which reviewed the plan prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. On March 29, 1999 the Sub-Committee met for the first time to discuss their responsibility to create a Management Plan that addressed the critical issues needed to successfully maintain the Forrestal Property. Thereafter, the sub-committee, consisting of six (6) members, along with representatives from the Planning Department, the Recreation and Parks Department and the Department of Public Works, met on a monthly basis for approximately one year preparing and reviewing material for the Management Plan. On March 27, 2000 the Sub-committee reviewed the final draft version of the Management Plan and forwarded the document to the Recreation and Parks Committee. On May 25, 2000 the Recreation and Parks Committee conducted a public meeting, that was noticed in the Peninsula News, to discuss the Forrestal Management Plan. At the meeting, Staff informed the Committee members of new information verbally obtained after the Sub-Committee’s review of the document, from a site visit conducted by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer, who identified a geologic concern with two trail segments on the subject property. Although it was not determined at that point what action the City was going to take regarding the new geologic information, since further written information from the City’s Geotechnical Engineer and the City Attorney were pending, Staff informed the Committee members that the Management Plan may be modified with respect to the new issues of concern. After hearing public testimony, the Recreation and Parks Committee indicated that the Management Plan prepared by the Sub-Committee represented a comprehensive overview of the Forrestal property. However, the Recreation and Parks Committee expressed concern that the Management Plan did not adequately address the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. Although the Committee was aware that many attempts to connect the Forrestal property with the Palos Verdes Loop Trail were proven unsuccessful by the Sub-Committee, they felt that an extension of the Ganado Trail (A-16) segment to the Palos Verdes Loop Trail should continue to be researched and should be reflected as such in the Management Plan. Therefore, the Committee members forwarded a recommendation of adoption, to the City Council for their consideration, provided that the Management Plan address the Palos Verdes Loop Trail accordingly (see Trails Section 7 of the Management Plan). After the Recreation and Parks Committee reviewed the Management Plan and Staff made the appropriate changes to the Trail Section, the City’s Geotechnical Engineer provided Staff with a letter dated April 21, 2000 (see attachment) that contained several recommendations for controlling access to certain areas of the property, including that two trail segments be closed for safety reasons. Since the Docents used the trail segments in question on a regular basis, Staff informed the Docents that they should curtail the use of the Fossil Trail (L-1) segment and the inner loop of the Stalwart Trail (A-14) segment until further notice. In order to physically identify these areas, Staff met with the Docents at the Forrestal property. While identifying the trail segments that should be avoided, the Docents and Staff identified a network of existing trails that were not included in the Draft Management Plan that could be used to meet the Docent’s needs. Furthermore, in response to the Recreation and Parks Committee’s concern pertaining to the Management Plan, Staff, along with public assistance, was able to identify a possible connection between the Forrestal property and the Palos Verde Loop Trail via an existing pathway that traverses the privately owned lot off Cool Heights Drive and extends up to the City boundary line with the City of Rolling Hills. Since these new proposed trail routes/segments were not identified in the Management Plan when it was reviewed by the Sub-Committee and the Recreation and Parks Committee, Staff modified the plan accordingly and informed the Committee and Sub-committee members of the changes via a memo (see attachment). The changes made by Staff were to items 1,6,7 and 10 of the Trail Section 7.3 of the Management Plan. In addition to the above changes, Staff also revised the Sign Section 9 of the Management Plan in response to recommendations made by the City Attorney in a memorandum dated July 28, 2000 that was prepared in light of the City’s Geotechnical Engineer’s previous letter (see attachment). The changes pertain to the precautionary "warning signs" for the trail areas identified in the Management Plan as being geologically unstable. The Sign Section was revised to include a discussion on the "warning signs" in regards to design standards, language and location. The Plan designates the placement of signs at the immediate hazard areas, and at the entrance to the Forrestal Property. In order to determine the exact location of all "warning signs", it is recommended that the Director of Public Works and the City’s Geotechnical Engineer collectively identify the site specific locations. The above discussion encompasses the revisions made to the Management Plan by Staff after the Recreation and Parks Committee’s review. Therefore, the attached Management Plan for consideration by the City Council at tonight’s meeting, includes the changes recently identified by Staff, along with the recommendations made by the Sub-committee and Recreation and Parks Committee members. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has determined that the preparation of the Forrestal Management Plan qualifies as a categorically exemption under Class 7. Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources; therefore, no further environmental review is required. Class 7 exempts projects that consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by State law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. As proposed, the Forrestal Management Plan is intended to guide the management of the property towards the preservation and recreational goals envisioned by the City Council when the property was acquired and to enhance the property as a valuable public asset for habitat and passive recreational purposes. Based on the purpose of the Management Plan, it has been determined that the proposed project, under the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act, qualifies as a Class 7 Categorical Exemption. DISCUSSION The attached Draft Forrestal Management Plan includes a comprehensive overview of the areas of concern identified by Sub-Committee members when drafting the Management Plan. The areas of concern were categorized according to the appropriate heading and are discussed in detail within the text of the document. The following is an outline of the areas of concern identified in the Management Plan as individual sections (see the Management Plan’s Table of Contents):
The general principals of the Management Plan, based on the Goals and Objectives Section, were included in the plan relating to the preservation of significant habitat, while permitting passive recreational opportunities. Implementation and Administration As part of the Goals and Objectives section, sub-sections were created for the Implementation Measures and the Administration Process of the Management Plan. These two sub-sections include only general information because of decisions that need to be addressed by the City Council. In order to address these two sections, Staff has identified the following alternatives for consideration by the City Council pertaining to the implementation and management of the Forrestal property and the Management Plan:
The Implementation and Administrations sections under the Goals and Objectives Section of the Management Plan will be finalized when these management decisions are made. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration in addition to Staff’s recommendation:
FISCAL IMPACT Implementation of the Forrestal Management Plan by the City will result in fiscal impacts. Staff conducted a preliminary cost analysis considering all elements needed to repair areas of hazardous concern, preserve the natural habitat, and provide passive recreational opportunities to the public. The costs, which are broken down in the attached exhibit fall into two categories: Initial Costs and Ongoing Annual Costs. The following matrix shows the summary of these costs:
* Includes optional $50,000.00 for fence removal. The "Total Initial Costs" indicated in the above table represent the estimated costs to implement the various components of the complete Forrestal Management Plan. As broken down in the attached table, the bulk of the costs are related to addressing hydrologic or geologic concerns. The items listed in the attached table represent the minimum improvements recommended by the City’s Consulting Geologist and Engineer to improve the existing hydrologic and geologic conditions of the property. The cost of these minimum improvements is $206,250.00. However, according to the City’s Consulting Geologist and Engineer, optimal improvements could also be undertaken that would better address slope stability and drainage concerns but at a significantly increased cost. The total cost of the optimal improvements would be approximately $531,250.00 (see footnote 2, 3 and 4 of the attached Cost Summary). The additional $325,000 in cost would involve improvements such as the reconstruction of the 1.5:1 slopes to 2:1 slopes along Forrestal Drive, the removal of gunite and a staircase along Forrestal Drive, and the removal of existing drainage devices and the reconstruction of 1.5:1 slopes to 2:1 slopes along Intrepid Drive (see footnote 2 and 3 of the attached Cost Summary). The City Council could treat the recommended minimum improvements as all that is necessary to improve the site or direct that the minimum improvements be completed immediately, with the optimal improvements implemented in the future as funds become available. Therefore, if the City Council opts to be the responsible agency of the Management Plan, future budgets will be prepared accordingly to provide the necessary funding for the implementation of the Plan. Additionally, grants could be sought to underwrite the City’s costs. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council review and adopt the attached Forrestal Management Plan, and provide Staff with direction pertaining to the management and administration of the Plan. Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed, Les Evans, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Public Comments
13.Memorandum of Understanding – St. John Fisher Church. (Evans)
FROM:CITY MANAGER DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ST JOHN FISHER RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Memorandum of Understanding with St John Fisher for Processing Applications for a Bell Tower/Commercial Antenna on the Church Property BACKGROUND: On June 21, 2000 City antenna consultants and City staff met with Monsignor Sork and Greg Poiry (St John Fisher Executive Director) at St. John Fisher to discuss the possibility of utilizing a portion of the St John Fisher property to accommodate commercial radio antennas. We were informed that the church had previously considered a similar idea that would have incorporated antennas into a bell tower. The idea was rejected because the church felt that the noise from bells might be unpopular with their neighbors. After talking to the Monsignor and Mr. Poiry, along with our antenna consultants it appeared that the St John Fisher campus might be suitable for the location of two antennas. The location the Monsignor prefers is adjacent to the church where a bell tower could be constructed incorporating antennas into the tower structure. In addition, our consultants feel that a second site is feasible in the maintenance area adjacent to the apartments for the Sisters at the extreme southeast corner of the site. As a result of our conversation the Monsignor agreed that our consultants could study the two locations on the St John Fisher property to determine more definitive information about specific antenna locations, height, coverage, etc. The tests revealed that the St. John Fisher property is well suited for the location of commercial antennas and could be an alternative to Mr. Abrams residential site. DISCUSSION At their August 15, 2000 meeting the City Council authorized staff to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding describing a process for pursuing the antenna project. The issues addressed in the MOU include:
The proposed MOU is attached. St John Fisher representatives have not yet had the opportunity to fully review and comment on the document. However, staff felt that the City Council may wish to comment prior to receiving St John Fisher comments.
FISCAL IMPACT In order to implement the City responsibilities outlined in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding funds would have to be committed to preparation of site plans and preliminary designs for antenna structures, preparation and processing of environmental documents, processing of CUPs, preparation of a financial study and perhaps some special studies related to view, radiation, noise (from a bell tower), aesthetics, etc. Staff feels that a $100,000 appropriation would be the minimum necessary to carry the project through the planning process. Respectfully submitted, Les Evans, City Manager Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding
14.Appropriation and Agreement for Lawsuit Against the FAA and Purchase of Flight Tracking Equipment. (Evans)
FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT: APPROPRIATIONS AND AGREEMENTS FOR LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FAA AND PURCHASE OF FLIGHT TRACKING EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND At their July 5, 2000 meeting the City Council unanimously authorized the expenditure of funds for Richards, Watson and Gershon and Chevalier, Allen & Lichman to perform an investigation of relevant documents to determine whether there is a viable claim against the FAA on behalf of Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach. In addition the Council approved the purchase of radar equipment to monitor the flight of aircraft over the beach cities and the Peninsula. The Council directed staff to develop agreements that would distribute the cost of legal services and equipment purchase equally among the three agencies.
DISCUSSION The investigation of the potential for filing a lawsuit against the FAA for negative impacts resulting from aircraft arrivals and departures from Los Angeles International Airport has been further defined over the past few weeks and is proposed as follows: Richards, Watson & Gershon will work with the law firm of Chevalier, Allen & Lichman in jointly representing the cities by providing legal services relating to the changes to flight tracks for arrivals and departures from Los Angeles International Airport and their resulting impacts, including, but not limited to: (1) development of appropriate legal strategies to remedy the impact of the changes; (2) consultation with cities designated representatives concerning airport noise statutes, FAA regulations, relevant environmental statues, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and all matters which the cities determine are properly related to the strategy developed for remedying impacts; (3) participation in the preparation and prosecution of related litigation, to the extent determined appropriate by the cities; and (4) interface with the FAA at both the regional level and in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of influencing its position with respect to the changes in a manner consistent with the goals and desires of the cities. Although the respective roles of Richards, Watson & Gershon and Chevalier, Allen & Lichman have not yet been fully defined, however, it is anticipated that CA&L will provide the general aviation law expertise, while R,W&G will be lead counsel if the matter proceeds to litigation. Prior to filing suit, RW&G will coordinate with CA&L in the initial factual and legal investigation.
FISCAL IMPACT The cost of the radar equipment for airspace monitoring is $95,000. Operation and maintenance of the equipment will involve small additional periodic costs to the agencies. The cost of the legal services to investigate a potential lawsuit against the FAA is estimated at $125,000. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes one-third share of costs is $73,333 plus cost of operation and maintenance of the monitoring equipment. Staff is proposing an appropriation of $75,000 to be transferred from the General Fund Reserve. Adequate funds are available to accommodate this expense. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Les Evans, City Manager Attachments:Resolution No. 2000 - Airspace Monitoring System Purchase Contract (to be provided later) Retainer Agreement – Richards, Watson & Gershon Retainer Agreement – Chevalier, Allen & Lichman (to be provided later)
15.Ocean Trails – Licensing Agreement for the Use of the Lower Portion of `Shoreline Park. (Pfost)
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT: LICENSING AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF LOWER SHORELINE PARK (OCEAN TRAILS LP) Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached Licensing Agreement with Ocean Trails for the use of lower Shoreline Park. BACKGROUND As part of the original 1992 approval of the Ocean Trails project, the developer was required and has obtained approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and associated Implementing Agreement by the City, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). In addition to the coastal California gnatcatcher, the project’s approved HCP serves as a conservation plan for the cactus wren as well as six sensitive plant species. The City currently holds a bond to guarantee implementation of the HCP. On June 2, 1999, a major landslide (Landslide C) impacted approximately 18 acres of the Ocean Trails site, including a large portion of the Ocean Trails golf course (mainly the 18th hole), public trails, Ocean Trails Park, and sensitive habitat identified in the approved HCP. On June 21, 2000, the City Council approved a proposed landslide repair plan. As part of the repair plan, the developer is required to obtain approval from the City, USFWS and CDFG for an amendment to the HCP in order to consider the loss of habitat that occurred as a result of the landslide. On July 18, 2000, the City Council approved Revision "M" to the Ocean Trails project for an amendment to the HCP and Implementing Agreement to consider the impacts related to the landslide. In addition to addressing the landslide, the amendment also addressed the following;
DISCUSSION The originally approved HCP provided for two off-site mitigation areas; Shoreline Park and the "Switchbacks". Based upon concerns expressed by City Staff of irrigation within the "Switchbacks" parcel, Ocean Trails reached an agreement with the Resource Agencies to relocate 10 acres of revegetation from the "Switchbacks" to lower Shoreline Park. At the July 18, 2000 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a Conservation Easement that allows Ocean Trails to use the lower portion of Shoreline Park for the relocation of the 10 acres. The Conservation Easement also allows Ocean Trails to use the lower portion of Shoreline Park for the required 11.14 acres of habitat restoration for mitigation related to the landslide. Similar to the requirement that the developer pay a fee for use of the conservation easement over the "Switchbacks", on July 18th, the City Council also determined that the developer should pay a fee to utilize the conservation easement on the lower portion of Shoreline Park for mitigation related to the landslide. Specifically, the amended HCP includes the following statement, "The Ocean Trails Project shall pay a fee to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as payment for the use of 11.14 acres of the Shoreline Park property for landslide mitigation, said fee to be determined before any work on those properties is initiated". A fee for the use of the lower Shoreline Park conservation easement covering the relocated 10 acres from the "Switchbacks" is not required because a fee was already paid to the City in 1997 for the use of the "Switchbacks" property. On August 14, 2000, Staff received the attached letter from Ocean Trails proposing to pay $87,527 for the use of the lower portion of Shoreline Park for the 11.14 acre mitigation related to the landslide. As noted in the letter, Ocean Trails is also proposing to split up the fee into two payments; 50% to be paid upon approval of the Revegetation Plan for the area, and 50% when the 18-hole golf course opens. Staff recommends that the City Council approve this proposal, as this amount is consistent with the fee per acre amount ($7,857/acre) that was charged to Ocean Trails for the use of the "Switchbacks" property in 1997 (the total fee that the City received for the use of the "Switchbacks" property was $165,000 for 21 acres). Additionally, in the August 14, 2000 letter, Ocean Trails has indicated that they would like to deduct $7,500 for the cost of installing picnic/park amenities in the lower portion of the park. Ocean Trails submitted the attached rough sketch of what items would be included within the picnic area. Public Works Staff reviewed the sketch and felt that Ocean Trails’ estimated cost of $7,500 is too high, and that it could be done for $5,000. Subsequently, Ocean Trails has agreed to revise their proposed deduction to $5,000 instead of $7,500 – making the total fee $82,527. CONCLUSION Staff feels that Ocean Trails’ proposal is consistent with the fees accepted in the past for the use of public land for habitat revegetation purposes. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council accept this proposal and approve the attached Licensing Agreement. The fee, payment plan, and installation of the picnic area are all included within the attached Licensing Agreement. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives: 1.Decline the applicant’s proposal. 2.Identify any issues of concern, provide Staff and/or the applicant with any direction, and continue the item to a date certain. FISCAL IMPACT There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision. The City will obtain $82,527. Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed, Les Evans, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Licensing Agreement Letter from Ocean Trails dated received on August 14, 2000 Sketch of Picnic Area for Lower Shoreline Park
16.Ordinance 359 - NPDES Regulations. (Allison)
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:NPDES REGULATIONS RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance , amending Chapter 13.10 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to incorporate the new State Mandated SUSUMP requirements. BACKGROUND This ordinance was introduced at the August 15, 2000 City Council meeting. On January 26, 2000 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region adopted new storm water regulations. The new regulations require cities to revise their Municipal Code to require that certain private projects include a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) as part of their development. The Board has required that the new regulations must take effect no later than October 8, 2000. A SUSMP is a plan that accompanies a plan of development to assure that the project design achieves the following:
The categories of project that will require a SUSMP are:
For projects in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the most far-reaching aspect of the new requirement relates to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas. This is because, according to the Regional Board’s definition promulgated in January 2000, most of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is within an Environmentally Sensitive Area. The requirement for certain new projects to detain or treat the first 3/4inch of rainfall has the potential to be the most costly new requirement for developments. Shortly after the Board’s decision the City of Rancho Palos Verdes joined with 31 other Cities in an appeal of the Regional Board’s decision. The State Board conducted a Public Hearing on the appeal but has not announced a decision. For this reason, it is possible that the State Board will make a ruling at any time that would modify the current regulations. Nevertheless cities have a duty to adopt an ordinance which complies with the Regional Board’s January 26, 2000 regulations, and have it operational by October 8, 2000. In an effort to better understand the new regulations staff met with representatives of the Board. Two important issues came out of those discussions which staff has incorporated into the attached ordinance:
When questioned about the definition of an Environmentally Sensitive Area, staff from the Board indicated that they would consider a re-definition if a basis could be established. Staff and the City Attorney reviewed the General Plan and determined that the areas with the greatest potential to be impacted by storm water are the coastline and several canyons that drain to the ocean. The General Plan also recognizes these areas as needing special protection by designating the areas as Resource Management Districts 2, 6 and 7. On this basis staff has re-defined the defined the environmentally sensitive areas to include these areas. This definition of an environmentally sensitive area is a narrower, but more an accurate definition than the regional board promulgated in January. Attached are copies of the Environmentally sensitive area as defined by the regional board and by the proposed ordinance.
As promulgated by the regional board, if a new project falls into one of the eight categories of project listed above, there is no threshold of project size to require a SUSMP. For the most part this is reasonable for the simple reason that if a new project falls into one of the eight categories it is by definition a fairly large project; for example a parking lot with 25 or more spaces. The one exception to this is a new project that is within an environmentally sensitive area. For such a new project, because the category of project does not infer a size, even a very small project will trigger a SUSMP. This means that a new driveway approach or the installation of a mailbox if it is within an environmentally sensitive area triggers a SUSMP. When questioned on this matter, staff of the board indicated that it was not their intention to require very small projects to meet the requirement of a SUSMP. Based on this staff has included in the ordinance a project size threshold of 1,000 square feet for new projects. A copy of the ordinance is attached. Some of the more important aspects of the ordinance are:
To be subject to the proposed ordinance a project must fall into one of the categories of projects and meet certain size requirements. Eight categories of projects:
4. Retail Gasoline Outlets; 5. Free standing Restaurants; 6. Greater than 9 unit home subdivision; 7. Projects located within or discharging directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area; 8. Parking lots of five thousand (5,000) square feet or more or with twenty-five (25) or more parking spaces and potentially exposed to storm water runoff. Size Requirement If the project is a new development, the size of the project – total project footprint – must be greater than 1000 square feet for a SUSMP to be required. If the project is a modification to an existing project it is a re-development project. A Redevelopment project meets the size test if it results in the creation or addition of at least five thousand (5,000) square feet of impervious surfaces, or the creation or addition of fifty (50%) percent or more of impervious surfaces, or the making of improvements to fifty (50%) percent or more of the existing structure. Redevelopment includes, but is not limited to, the following activities that meet the minimum standards set forth in this definition: (1) the expansion of a building footprint or addition or replacement of a structure; (2) structural development, including an increase in gross floor area and/or exterior construction or remodeling; (3) replacement of impervious surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity and (4) land disturbing activities related to structural or impervious surfaces of an existing site which meets certain size requirements.
The Director of Public Works shall have the authority to grant a waiver to a Development or Redevelopment Project from the requirements of the SUSMP, if impracticability for a specific property can be established by the project applicant. A waiver of impracticability may be granted only when all Structural or Treatment Control BMP’s have been considered and rejected as infeasible. Recognized situations of impracticability are limited to the following, unless approved by the Regional Board: 1.Extreme limitations of space for treatment on a Redevelopment project;
If a waiver is granted the Board has required that the applicant must pay the amount that they would have expended for the SUSMP to the City, and the City must use these funds to promote regional or alternative solutions for storm water pollution prevention. CONCLUSION Staff has worked closely with the Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region to prepare the attached ordinance. Adopting the staff recommendation will incorporate the new storm water requirements into the City’s Municipal Code as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region. This ordinance is subject to revision by actions of the Regional Board or the State Water Board. The ordinance was prepared based on staff’s understanding of the Board’s January 26, 2000 action. It is also possible that revisions to the ordinance will be required once the State Water Board announces a decision on the appeal filed by the collation of Cities. FISCAL IMPACT This ordinance will have a limited fiscal impact on the City, the regulations apply to private developments. Costs associated with the additional staff time to review project will be the responsibility of the applicant. The ordinance will have a fiscal impact on new private projects. There will be higher development costs to comply with the ordinance although a precise amount is difficult to determine at this time. Submitted by, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by, Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Exhibit of Environmentally sensitive areas Ordinance No.
17.Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Diversion Program Additions. (Ramezani)
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT: FY 2000-01 DIVERSION PROGRAM ADDITIONS STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST RECOMMENDATION 1.Consider the recommendations proposed by staff to improve residential solid waste diversion by implementing these programs:
2.Consider the recommendations proposed by staff to improve non-residential solid waste diversion by implementing these programs:
3.Authorize the Director of Public Works to carry out the programs in the fiscal year 2000-01. BACKGROUND
In 1989, the California State legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 939, which calls for jurisdictions in California to divert 50% of solid waste from disposal by January 1, 2000. The law made local jurisdiction 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 assuming 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. The City’s diversion rates for 1995, 1996 and 1997 were 28%, 20% and 38% respectively. In a separate staff report that went before City Council on August 1, 2000, staff discussed the different options for calculating the 1998 and 1999 diversion rates. DISCUSSION The City Council requested staff to report to them on the characteristics of the non-residential (NR) waste stream, and opportunities to improve diversion. In order to explore available opportunities to improve diversion, staff examined both the City’s residential (single and multi-family dwellings) and NR (businesses, City properties, contractors, self-haulers, landscapers, etc.) sectors. Residential- The City has exclusive agreements with Waste Management of Los Angeles and Ivy Rubbish for the residential sector of the City. Quarterly reports are submitted to the City by the two haulers and progress in the recycling programs are monitored. These reports indicate the tonnage disposed, the disposal site, the tonnage recycled/diverted, the material recycled, and the recycling site. One area of improvement is increasing green waste diversion. This will be discussed in more detail in the report. Non-Residential- The City has non-exclusive agreements with 14 licensed haulers for the NR sector of the City. NR haulers provide bin and rolloff services to businesses and to residents during remodeling and construction activities. The NR sector is the more challenging area leaving many questions unanswered. The main problem is lack of proper reporting of activities in the NR sector. The City receives quarterly reports from its licensed haulers, however, these reports do not include all the NR activities in the City. The City receives quarterly disposal reports (DRS) from different counties which are then submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The DRS shows the tonnage received by different landfills from each City. In 1999, the DRS showed 46,093 tons for RPV’s annual disposal tonnage. Theoretically, the DRS number should equal the City’s total tonnage as reported by its residential and NR haulers. However, there is a significant difference between the two numbers. Staff and the City consultant can not reconcile these two numbers. Huls Environmental Management, the City’s consultant, and Eugene Tseng Associates compiled data based on available information obtained from telephone surveys of specific generators, numerous site visits at waste generators, waste haulers, the County’s quarterly Disposal Reporting System (DRS), and area recyclers and disposal sites. They are attached in a summary sheet. In general:
Out of the total 46,000 tons reported in 1999 by the DRS, the City has documentation for only 30,000 tons from both its residential and NR haulers.
For 1999, the City has no documentation for approximately 16,000 tons or 35% of the City’s total disposal. There are no answers to questions such as: who were the haulers, what was hauled away, when were they hauled away, and to which transfer station were they hauled? The different landfills reported that 46,000 tons of waste originating from RPV came to their landfill. This is the number to which the CIWMB holds the City accountable. This "unreported" waste tonnage varies significantly year to year. However, in 1999, the differential was the largest since the DRS was initiated in 1995. It is hard to guess how much of the unreported tonnage is from the residential and how much is from the NR sector. However, with a great amount of certainty one can assume that it is from the NR sector because of the following reasons:
Therefore, from the 1999 DRS data, one can assume that the unreported tonnage is from the NR sector. That means that our NR licensed haulers apparently collect only 25% of total NR waste and that 75% of NR waste is from unreported or unlicensed sources. More significantly, when the unreported tonnage is added to the reported NR tonnage, it seems that the City’s total waste was: 53% residential and 47% NR. It is hard to believe that in a community such as RPV, so much of the solid waste could be from non-residential sources. In the 1990 base year study, the non-residential sectors represented approximately 30% of the total waste. Assuming that the DRS report is accurate, what are these unreported sources, and who is not reporting to the City?
It is hard to determine which of the above groups contributes to what percent of the unknown waste. However, construction and demolition (C&D) debris hauled by the contractors is probably the major contributor.
Residential sector: Almost 58% of the mixed recyclables are diverted while until two months ago only 30% of the green waste was diverted. In October 1996, Eugene Tseng Associates performed a waste characterization study that showed green wastes was about half of the total residential waste stream. This means that a significant portion of the green waste is being landfilled instead of recycled. The City implemented a green waste recycling program in 1997 and in June 2000 distributed green waste containers to every household and began recycling properly tagged bags of green waste. Staff has recently received green waste tonnage reports for the months of June and July 2000. Since the distribution of the containers the City has been collecting an additional 200 tons of green waste each month. This has increased the City’s green waste diversion from 30% to approximately 40%. This is a noticeable improvement, but there is still room for improvement. Mixed recyclables have a high rate of recovery; probably because most people handle their own recyclables, while gardeners and landscapers, who may or may not properly participate in the system, normally handle green waste. Therefore, green waste is an area that needs to be targeted.
Non-Residential sector: It is hard to believe that 69% of the City’s total diversion is from the NR sector. The diversion rate is high because source reduction and C&D debris recycling are a major contributing factor. Source reduction includes grass cycling (at the golf course, cemetery, and schools), using electronic mail (at offices), re-using tree trimmings (chips used in trails, medians, etc), reuse of demolition material (use as road base) and composting (manure from horse stables). Additionally, many businesses recycle their cardboard and grocery stores send their food waste to composting facilities. Chandlers: Material disposed of at Chandlers landfill has no bearing on our diversion or disposal numbers. This is because Chandlers is classified as an inert landfill rather than a solid waste landfill. In 1999 Chandlers report that 3,768 tons of C&D debris recycled (used as road base), and 68,000 tons of C&D debris from RPV that was not recycled but simply used as inert fill at its site/pit. The significance of this tonnage is its magnitude. One question is what activities were going on in RPV in 1999 that caused 68,000 tons of inerts to be taken to Chandlers. The City is fortunate that these tons did not go to a landfill. Otherwise the DRS would report not 46,000 tons of solid waste but 114,000 tons of solid waste. That would have significantly reduced our diversion numbers. It is very important to implement programs to keep inert waste away from landfills and to investigate and see why the dirt, etc was not reused at the job site. What programs should be implemented this fiscal year? Based on the 1999 waste analysis, we have identified the following targets and options for diversion including costs and programming: RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Diversion Program Options Since June 2000, single family residents are provided with two 32-gallon containers for green waste. These containers and any tied bundle or properly tagged bagged green waste are picked up and recycled when left at the curb on the second collection day of the week. Currently if any green waste is left at the curb on the first day of the week, it is collected by the trash truck, and therefore not recycled. The current system is both misused (not everybody puts out their green waste on the right day), and under-utilized (gardeners and landscapers may not use the system). Some feasible options to improve diversion: Restrict the collection of green waste to only the second collection day of the week, and not collect green waste on the first collection day of the week. Recycling is a voluntary program in RPV. It is not mandatory. However, the City Council could decide to simply restrict the day for the collection of green waste to only the second collection day of the week. So green waste will be picked up, but only on one day and not both days. The possible results of that action:
Collect green waste twice a week. To capture the green waste disposed of early in the week, the City can pickup green waste twice a week. Staff asked Waste Management to prepare a preliminary cost estimate.
As a third option, if the City increases public education and instruct users on proper usage of the green waste recycling program. In addition, where collection is not feasible or desirable, then grass cycling and home composting must be encouraged by offering more home composting and grass cycling workshops, and other incentives to prevent waste. More public education could also improve recycling of Christmas trees and recyclables.
Recommendations Staff recommends that the following options be implemented: Restrict the collection of green waste to the second pickup of the week. Cost: approximately $0-10,000 depending on the level of code enforcement activity Increase public education for green waste, recyclables and Christmas tree recycling through mailers, advertisements and inserts. Provide more composting/ grass-cycling workshops. Cost: $15,000 has already been budgeted for this activity. No additional appropriation is needed at this time. Total additional needed appropriations: $0,000-$10,000 NON – RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Diversion Options There are several options for this sector. The goal of these options is to: improve reporting, decrease unauthorized activity in the City and reduce the number of unaccounted disposal tonnage. Currently in the non-residential sector there are no diversion requirements. Below are some options to improve diversion: Make NR hauling exclusive to 1 or 2 firms (similar to the residential service). Currently NR hauling can be provided by any firm that obtains a business license, provides insurance documentation and signs an agreement with the City. (see attached article)
Authorized haulers could be given the mandate of achieving 50% diversion (similar to that required of Waste Management and Ivy Rubbish). Haulers can achieve 50% diversion by either implementing recycling programs or documenting unreported diversion. If this option is selected, the City Council should decide whether to impose penalties for not reaching the 50% goal or not.
Assess monetary penalties on non-licensed haulers caught operating in the City. The penalty will be on a sliding scale, i.e. 1st offense $200, 2nd offense $500, etc. Currently these haulers get a letter stating that they should either stop operating in the City or obtain a license and agreement. There is no penalty or fine to deter them from hauling illegally. Staff could refer these haulers to the City Attorney or District Attorney for legal action, but that is a time consuming and costly action.
Apprise contractors to take certain C&D material (inert waste such as rock, asphalt, concrete, tile and bricks) to Chandlers Inert Landfill. Attach a flier with Chandlers address, phone number and a list of the types of accepted material to B&S’s certification form.
Conduct waste audits targeted at the City’s highest waste generating businesses. The primary groups to focus on would be food stores and restaurants because, on the average, they produce the largest disposal tonnage per establishment. The secondary groups would be retailers and offices.
Combine NPDES on-site inspections with recycling inspections and public education. Train City inspectors to look for recycling possibilities while performing on-site stormwater related inspection activities. In addition our inspectors would encourage contractors to dispose of certain material at Chandlers rather than a solid waste landfill.
Mandate that any debris from construction and/or demolition work on a property be hauled away by a licensed hauler. Self-hauling of the debris by the contractor would not be permitted.
Increase public education at schools. The schools have been audited last year and not all schools have a recycling program. As an incentive to recycle, paper recycling should be required at the schools as one of the conditions of receiving a Beautification Grant.
Audit NR hauler records and receipts. Qualified waste consultants will audit haulers on a contingency basis (free of charge) in return for a percent of the recovered unreported revenues/fees. The City can expect to keep approximately 70% of any unreported revenues and give 30% to the auditor.
RECOMMENDATIONS - Non-Residential: Make NR hauling exclusive to one or two firms. Cost: If the City Council is interested in pursuing this option, staff will return to the City Council at a later date with more details regarding cost and the process to award of an exclusive contract(s). Assess monetary penalties on non-authorized haulers. Cost: revenues will offset any cost in staff time. Apprise contractors of Chandlers through their permit process. Cost: No cost Audit licensed NR haulers’ records on a contingency basis. Cost: Revenues will offset any cost in staff time for collection. Combine NPDES on-site inspections with recycling inspection and public education. Cost: $5,000 Mandate removal of debris from C&D work to be done only by a licensed hauler. Cost: $5,000 Increase public education at schools. Cost: No cost. Conduct 62 business audits and recycling implementation programs. Cost: $50,000 Additional Needed appropriation: $60,000 (does not include cost for item #1) Many of these options can be implemented fairly easily. However, option #1 requires more research. Depending on which of the recommended items are selected by the City Council, Staff will return to Council with a more detailed cost breakdown of those items and an action plan. A resolution requesting increase in appropriations in the Solid Waste Fund will also be requested at that time. CONCLUSIONS This report looks into the details of the city’s residential and non-residential waste stream and makes recommendations on how to improve the diversion rate for each. With respect to the residential Sector the City has a very good understanding of its diversion numbers. This is because we utilize two exclusive residential haulers. Some conclusions regarding the residential sector: The diversion rate for mixed recyclables is almost 60% The diversion rate for greenwaste is approximately 30% Approximately 50% of the non-residential waste stream is greenwaste Based on this data our diversion efforts should be focussed on greenwaste. The recommendations listed above focus on that effort. Non-residential Sector For the non-residential waste stream there are still some unknowns. This is primarily because the city utilizes non-exclusive for its non-residential waste stream. Some conclusions regarding the non-residential sector 47 % of the City’s total waste stream is greenwaste. The diversion rate for non-residential waste stream is 51% 35% of the total waste stream that ends up in landfills comes from unknown non-residential sources. Based on this data the recommendations listed above for the non-residential waste stream are focussed on identifying all sources of the non-residential waste stream that is going to the landfill. ALTERNATIVE The alternative would be to do nothing. This is not recommended, however, since the City’s diversion rated has not reached 50%. In addition, the City should monitor its good faith effort in implementing the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). FISCAL IMPACT As with any programs, there are potential costs, including direct and indirect costs, to residents and/or businesses. Funds for the implementing the recommended options could be expended from the Solid Waste Fund that has an estimated June 30, 2000 Fund balance of $633,300.
Respectfully Submitted: Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachment: Spreadsheet Article in "The Overview"
18.Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Recycling Revenue Grant Awards (Cycle 11). (Ramezani) Recommendation: (1) Award 38 recycling grant totaling $85,589.85, for Recycling Grant Cycle 11, as shown on Exhibit "A". (2) Defer the request for a beautification grant from the Miraleste Homeowners Association to the September 19, 2000 City Council meeting. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 99-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 TO INCREASE BUDGETED APPROPRIATIONS IN THE RECYCLING FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,600. (4) Revise the program guidelines for the Recycling Revenue Grant Awards by reducing the grant amount from its current limit of $2,500 to $2,000.
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:FY 1999-2000 RECYCLING REVENUE GRANT AWARDS (CYCLE 11) Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION Award 38 recycling grants totaling $85,589.85, for Recycling Grant Cycle 11, as shown in Exhibit "A". Defer the request for a beautification grant from the Miraleste Homeowners Association (HOA) and discuss it as a separate item on the City Council agenda. Adopt Resolution No. 2000- , amending Resolution 99-41, the budget appropriation for FY 99-00, to increase budgeted appropriations in the Recycling Fund in the amount of $10,600. Revise the program guidelines for the Recycling Revenue Grant Awards by reducing the grant amount from its current limit of $2,500 to $2,000. BACKGROUND The City has awarded recycling/beautification grants each year since Fall of 1989. The grant program is funded with revenues from the City’s curbside recycling program. Over $448,000 has been awarded since the program began. DISCUSSION On January 24, 2000, the Public Works Department sent letters and applications to all Homeowners Associations, the Miraleste Library, and all Palos Verdes Peninsula and Los Angeles Unified School District sites within the City. By March 31, 2000, the closing date for applications, 41 applications had been received. These applicants are listed in Exhibit "A". Staff from both the Public Works and the Planning Department have reviewed all of the applications and 38 applications meet the grant guidelines and are recommended for award. The most common grant request is for landscape improvements along the street right of way. However, grants are also requested for other improvements such as entry signs, new irrigation systems, and new lighting. Three grants are not recommended for award. They are as follows: Freeport Road Neighborhood Watch requested funding for de-rusting, preparing and painting four Edison light poles. Southern California Edison (SCE) was contacted and SCE has informed staff and the Freeport Road Neighborhood Watch that the SCE will be repainting all the light poles in that area starting October 1, 2000. El Prado HOA requested funding to remove trees on private property that present safety or view problems. The affected homeowner would provide a 200% match. Removal of trees on private property for view restoration purposes are not within the grant guidelines. The Miraleste HOA has requested funding for installation of paving stones across Miraleste on PVDE at several locations. The HOA has requested that their application be considered as a separate item on the City Council agenda. Of the 41 applications, 33 are from HOAs, six are from schools, one from a school Parent Teacher Association group, and one from a church. This is the second year that schools and libraries within RPV are eligible to receive grants. The program guidelines require a 50% matching contribution from the schools and the library. All grant awards are contingent upon receipt of formal estimates and invoices from the contractors, and meeting City codes and/or permit requirements. From the 38 recommended applications, 18 requested signs, walls, lighting or improvements within the public right-of way that require a permit from the Public Works and/or Planning and Building Departments. Exhibit "A" includes a list of the needed permits. Funding Starting July 1, 2000, the City will receive fixed annual recycling revenues in the amount of $80,000 from the residential waste haulers. Additionally, the City receives approximately $30,000 in cash-back incentives from the Department of Conservation’s Recycling Division. These two revenue sources, totaling $110,000, are deposited in the Recycling Fund to fund the City’s Beautification grants, Recycler of Month awards and median improvements. The City’s projected fund balance for June 30, 2001 is $200,000. For the past two years, the City’s annual budgeted expenditures has exceeded the annual revenues in the Recycling Fund to fund median improvements and the beautification grants. Therefore, it is predicted that within the next 3-4 years, the Recycling Fund balance will be completely exhausted. Staff recommends reducing the maximum request for each grant from the current $2,500 to a reduced $2,000 cap in order to allow needed funds for continuing the City’s median improvements and the beautification grants. ALTERNATIVE Do not award the 38 grants at this time. Do not approve the additional appropriation request and limit each of the current grant requests to $2,000. Keep the City’s maximum grant amount at $2,500 per grant, however accept only 30 grant applications a year. Keep the City’s maximum grant amount at $2,500 per grant, without restricting the number of grant applications each year, and when needed utilize other funding sources to help supplement funding of the median projects. FISCAL IMPACT The funding source for the program is the Recycling Fund. The adopted FY 99-00 budget provided $75,000 in funding for this project. This amount will be available through continued appropriations. Adopting the attached Resolution 2000- ___ will increase the appropriation in the Recycling Fund by $10,600 to be able to fully fund all 38 grant requests. The projected fund balance in the Recycling Fund for June 30, 2001 is $200,000. Respectfully Submitted: Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Resolution 2000- ___ Exhibit "A"
19.Proposed Acquisition of the Tidemark Solutions Permit Tracking System. (Snow) Recommendation: (1) Proceed with the acquisition of the Tidemark Solutions permit tracking system. (2) Postpone historical permit input, treating it as a separate, future work effort. (3) Implement a $3.00 data processing fee on all permits. (4) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the necessary License and Services agreement.
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF THE TIDEMARK SOLUTIONS PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM Staff Coordinator: David M. Snow, Planning Administrator RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to: 1) proceed with the acquisition of the Tidemark Solutions permit tracking system; and 2) postpone historical permit input treating it as a separate, future work effort; 3) implement a $3.00 data processing fee on all permits; 4) authorize the City Manager to negotiate final contract terms; and, 5) authorize the Mayor to execute the finalized License and Services agreement. BACKGROUND: The Department of Planning Building and Code Enforcement currently tracks the applications for permits manually, or with the assistance of basic computer spreadsheets. This method of tracking has been adequate since the City’s inception, however the Department’s management staff recommends implementation of a computerized tracking system designed specifically for the activities of the Department. Purpose of a Permit Tracking System: The main purpose, and a significant motivating factor for purchasing a tracking system, is enhanced activity management and improved response to public inquiries based on the readily available status and progress on specific projects, and on each individual’s work load. These goals are achieved through the following: Collection of various data related to the application, applicant and/or property owner Quick and easy access to project status information for the public, applicants, and staff Automatic calculation of fees, and tracking of payments (including by budget or trust deposit account number) Processing deadline tracking to ensure compliance with State law and local ordinances Permit progress tracking and case management to ensure that all applications, activities or complaints are appropriately processed through completion Routing Controls – to restrict permit issuance until all appropriate clearances have been made Flagging of parcels with unique conditions or outstanding violations (such as the Landslide Moratorium area or property with code violations that preclude issuance of new permits) Analysis and Reporting functions such as: Summary reports of permits at given stages of the process (ie: pending Planning Commission, a given notice stage in Code Enforcement, or a specific inspection stage for building permits) Number of Permits issued for a certain time frame Fees Collected Summary of certain types of permits and associated Fees Financial reports for budgetary purposes and projections Each of these functions can be applied to the following ongoing departmental activities: Planning Department Applications Building Permits Plan Checking Expiration of Permits View Restoration and Preservation Permits Code Enforcement Activities and complaints For planning applications, critical points in the review process would be identified and tracked including submittal date, date deemed complete and ready for processing, dates of Planning Commission and/or City Council action. For building permits, Inspection dates and expiration dates can be tracked. Additionally, information such as the responsible staff person, applicant and/or representatives, property owners, fees paid or due, description of project, zoning, general plan designations, and property information would be retained. Included in this proposal is a cashiering module for implementation in the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement department to allow for one-stop permit issuance. Currently, the public must first submit an application, go to the cashier at the main reception area in the Administration building, and return to the Planning building to turn in the receipt to verify payment. Finally, a computerized tracking system is a first step in creating an electronic data source for integration with a future Geographical Information System, which is discussed in more detail below. Process Undertaken to Identify the Preferred System: Staff began researching permit tracking systems in 1997, and identified a number of vendors. Proposals were solicited from the three that most closely matched the needs as identified by staff, and as discussed above. Staff also saw demonstrations of two of the systems that had the desired features. These two systems were Sierra Permits and the Tidemark Solutions system. In addition, staff reviewed extensively the tracking system available in conjunction with the H.T.E. finance software package, including several demonstrations. It was the consensus of the staff members that participated in these demonstrations that the Tidemark product was the best for the department’s needs including the Building and Safety contract staff. This conclusion was based on the significantly greater flexibility than was available with the H.T.E. product, and that the Tidemark solution was less expensive than the more comparable Sierra Permit system. The flexibility offered by Tidemark would allow the City to modify the setup, the calculations, and the information captured and tracked to a much greater degree than the very structured setup of the H.T.E. software. This flexibility allows for the broader application of the system to the unique types of applications processed in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. A matrix summarizing the systems considered, capabilities, and costs is attached for further background on the comparison process. Finally, the Tidemark Solutions system was demonstrated for the City Council at a workshop on July 28, 2000. Implementation Issues: Base Parcel Information Base parcel, address and property owner information is necessary for implementation of the system. This information is available from the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office. The City is eligible to receive this information quarterly at no cost as part of an information sharing arrangement wherein the County receives the City’s information regarding permits issued, and the City in return gets the assessors information. The information is tabular, and does not contain any shape files or parcel attributes suitable for using as a base for a Geographic Information System. Staff will establish the sharing agreement during implementation of the system. Historical Permits As discussed above the main focus of the permit tracking system is to track the activities associated with active permits and to be able to ascertain the current status of the application for use by Staff and the general public. Once a permit file is closed out, the information will remain in the database so that in the future, staff or the public will be able to access the information to obtain a quick reference to the permit history of the application. The information kept in the database is not intended to replace the current information maintained in the address files, and hard copies of such new permits and records will be retained in the address files. Staff considered the possibility of inputting the historical permit information currently retained in the Department’s paper address file system into the permit tracking systems electronic database. Although the Tidemark Solutions system can accommodate this, the effort would require a significant amount of staff time. The City has approximately 15,000 parcels most of which have some associated permit activity. Staff estimates that the average number of permits on a given property is two. This estimate is based on the fact that a number of the properties have a single permit for the original construction of the residence, and that over time, additional permits are typically issued for maintenance issues (such as re-roofs) or modifications.
One implementation strategy for input of this historical data is to enter the historical permits into the electronic system whenever an application is made for an additional permit on that property. Implementation in this manner would not result in a complete history for all properties for a number of years. Based on 15,000 parcels, issuance of permits to approximately 2,160 properties each year, permits for all parcels could be completed in seven years. The actual time would be longer than seven years, as this calculation assumes a different 2,160 properties each year for the seven consecutive years, which would not occur in practice. Staff proposes the acquisition of the Tidemark system with the primary goal of improving active permit tracking and monitoring to assist in the efficient processing of permits and other City activities. The potential for an all inclusive computerized permit history is viewed as an ancillary benefit that should be undertaken as a separate work effort, if such a history is desired. After a period of a year or so of working with the system, staff could come forward with a proposal to take the additional step of inputting the historical records, if desired at that time. Ideally such an effort would occur in conjunction with the implementation of a GIS system. A separate work effort is also advisable due to the need for close monitoring for quality control of the data and the associated verification process required to ensure accuracy. Until such an all inclusive computerized permit history is undertaken, some properties will have permit histories in both the address file and the electronic system. Although the complete history will always reside in the address file, to ensure that staff members do not rely solely on the electronic system, a note will be inserted on the appropriate tracking system screens indicating that the system does not contain permit information from before the date of system implementation. Data Processing Fee: Other agencies have adopted data processing fees to help to offset the costs incurred by implementing a permit tracking system like the Tidemark Solutions system. The estimated annual maintenance costs are approximately $9,400.00. These costs could be offset by the implementation of such a fee. A total of approximately 3,470 permits (Planning and Building) are issued each year. Total annual maintenance costs spread out over the yearly permits would require a fee of approximately $2.70. Including administrative costs of approximately 10% of the fee to cover staff time for system management would result in a fee of $3.00. Staff recommends implementation of this fee. Additionally, if archival information input is desired, the fee could be increased to cover the costs of that separate effort. Nonetheless, staff recommends separate consideration of this work program in the future. Future Integration with Geographical Information Systems (GIS) As referenced earlier in the report, the Tidemark Solutions system is compatible with GIS systems, and particularly the ESRI AcrView GIS system that the Southern California Associations of Government (SCAG) and the local Councils of Government (COG’s) have established as the base for a regional information sharing system. In the future, when the City acquires a parcel database with the shapes and dimensions of all of the lots and streets in the City, all data compiled in the permit tracking system can be related to the GIS parcel base, and therefore viewable within that system. However, full implementation of the GIS system is not proposed within this project. Security Issues: The Tidemark Solutions system includes security levels and controls to ensure that only authorized users can issue permits or approvals. As an example, only Building Division employees would be authorized to issue building permits and only Planning Department staff would be able to issue planning permits and clearances. However, the information could be viewed by all employees. Additionally security levels would be utilized to ensure that such sensitive components of the program like fees are only modified by a system administrator. Building and Safety Division Considerations: The City’s contract Building Division staff support the implementation of the Tidemark System due to the flexibility discussed above. In addition, Charles Abbott Associates (CAA) has committed $25,000 toward the cost of this system, as it will allow their staff to learn the system, thereby gaining experience that may be valuable to their other municipal clients. The $25,000 amount was included in the recent contract for Building Services between the City and CAA. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The attached licensing and service agreements has been reviewed by the City Attorney and the City’s computer system administrator respect to the contractual components and warranties. Staff has found the contracts to be generally acceptable in the form as attached to this report, which incorporates significant changes requested by the City. Nonetheless, a small number of language clarifications remain. Therefore, in the event that acquisition of the system is approved, staff requests authorization to complete the final negotiations of these terms prior to execution of the agreements by the Mayor. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of this project would entail incurring the following costs
The following table summarizes the ongoing costs and potential future costs related to the permit tracking system:
The 1998-1999 budget included funds for a permit tracking system in the amount of $60,000 from the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement budget. These allocations have been carried over as continuing appropriations, and remain available. Additionally, Charles Abbott Associates, through the recently negotiated building service contract, has agreed to provide $25,000.00 toward acquisition of this system. The remaining funding sources include the Planning Department training budget and the Internal Services Fund which included funds for maintenance costs. The following table identifies the funds to be allocated to the system, and further demonstrates that the system cost falls within the existing budget. No adjustments to the budget are necessary.
To assist the City in meeting the budgeting constraints, Tidemark Solutions has agreed to cover time and business expenses at a fixed cost of $5,500 although the actual cost will be significantly higher. Additionally, as noted above, Palos Verdes on the Net has generously offered to provide the file server and associated equipment necessary to implement the system at no cost to the City. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, staff recommends: Authorization for staff to proceed with acquisition of the system; Postponement of inputting historical permit data as a separate, future work effort; Implementation of a $3.00 data processing fee on all departmental permits; Authorization for the City Manager to negotiate final contract terms; and, Execution of the Final License Agreement and Services Agreement. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for consideration by the City Council: Direct Staff to complete additional research on specific topics, and continue this item to a date specific. Deny the request for authorization to purchase a permit tracking system. Respectfully Submitted, Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager ATTACHMENTS DRAFT Tidemark Solutions Licensing and Services Agreement 2)Comparison Matrix of the systems considered
20.San Ramon Drainage. (McBride) Recommendation: (1) Award a Professional Services Agreement with AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. in the amount of $35,160 for Professional Geology and Geotechnical Services and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2) Award a Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $51,950 for Professional Engineering Services and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (3) Authorize staff to move forward with the emergency interim Phase II drainage and land stabilization improvements associated with the San Ramon drainage project and to develop the necessary methods to construct these improvements before the end of the year.
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:SAN RAMON DRAINAGE Staff Coordinator:David McBride, Senior Engineer RECOMMENDATION: Award a Professional Services Agreement with AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. in the amount of $35,160 for Professional Geology and Geotechnical Services and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement; and Award a Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $51,950 for Professional Engineering Services and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. Authorize staff to move forward with the emergency interim Phase II drainage and land stabilization improvements associated with the San Ramon drainage project and to develop the necessary methods to construct these improvements before the end of the year; and BACKGROUND: In August of 1998, a construction contract was awarded to replace a failed portion of a debris basin inlet near the 30600 block of Palos Verdes Drive East between San Ramon Drive and Calle Aventura. While the inlet was being replaced it became apparent that the portion of the downstream drainage system under Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) was close to failure and needed to be immediately replaced. In October of 1998, Council approved a change order to replace the 250-foot section of the drainage system under PVDE. The section replaced is labeled as, "Phase I Improvements" on the plan attached to this report as Exhibit "A". The remaining section of the drainage system, while structurally sound, lacked sufficient hydrologic capacity to convey it’s tributary area (undersized). However, it was inadvisable, in October of 1998, with the rainy season fast approaching to try to undertake replacement of the rest of drainage system because of a lack of information on the underground utilities in the area (e.g., electric, gas, telephone, cable and sewer), and because of the adverse topographical and geology constraints at the outlet of the system. Furthermore, the downstream portion of the existing system was routed close to existing homes, making construction of the replacement challenging. Approximately one month after completion of the Phase I drainage improvements (January 1999) evidence of slope erosion was discovered. This erosion area is located just to the east of the outlet of the drainage system, shown and labeled on Exhibit "A’" as, "approximate area of slope erosion". This eroded area is of concern because of potential that, if left unchecked, the slope may become unstable. This area of erosion presented a formidable challenge to upsizing the existing drainage system, as any drainage improvement option considered would have to be extended well beyond the existing outlet and effectively eliminate erosion and address the issue of the long-term stability. On March 5, 2000, a rainfall event that produced a large amount of water in a short period of time overtaxed the drainage system. The storm runoff resulted in flooding at the point where the Phase I improvements ended, causing water to backup into two of the four homes in the subdivision located between PVDE and the canyon. The water backup also caused erosion damage on the southeastern slope of this four home development, which descends to the canyon (see Exhibit "A"). In response to the flooding, staff retained one of our "on-call" engineering firms to prepare plans to replace the remaining undersized portions of the existing drainage system. However, these plans can not be implemented until a clear understanding of the geology in the canyon is obtained. Since March of 2000, staff been working to resolve the rehabilitation of the damages from the spring storm event and the associated geology issues with the City’s insurance provider, the Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The City’s geologist and a geologist hired by the City’s insurance provider are in agreement that the area is marginally stable and needs to be improved prior to this year’s rainy season. We are now at a point to consider an interim emergency plan (i.e., Phase II) to stabilize the area of slope erosion and to control drainage prior to this year’s rainy season, which would be followed by a final Phase III plan to be undertaken in the summer of 2001. ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION: In the long-term, there are essentially three interrelated rehabilitation components to effectively controlling drainage in this area, as follows: 1.Upsizing of the Existing Drainage System: This involves the continuing of Phase I replacement of the existing drainage system with a larger and more durable reinforced concrete pipe to the canyon. This replacement must also extend past area of slope erosion and be compatible with any land stabilization efforts. 2.Resolving the Area of Slope Erosion to the East of the Outlet:This involves taking geologic measures to insure that the drainage system will not affect or be effected by this slope erosion and long term stability of the area is addressed. To adequately address these issues, a geologic investigation and stability analysis of the area needs to be undertaken and corrective land stabilization measures incorporated into the drainage improvement project as needed. 3.Repairing Flood/Erosion Damage to the Existing Slope: The existing 1.5 to 1 slope (33.7 degrees) of the four home subdivision does not meet the current code standard of 2 to 1 (26.5 degrees) for slopes of this magnitude. Further, the slope was partially eroded by the spring rain event and must be of sufficient strength and stability to incorporate the extension of the long-term drainage solution. A geologic investigation is recommended to assess the stability and strength of the slope and incorporate stability measures into Phase III drainage improvements. Our immediate concern is to stabilize of the area of slope erosion and adjust the capacity of the existing drainage system prior to this year’s rainy season as an emergency item (Phase II). The proposed Phase II emergency work involves constructing 140 feet of permanent storm drain pipe, a permanent energy dissipater and 50 feet of temporary pipe in the canyon to eliminate erosion and to fill the canyon along the areas of slope erosion to buttress the land mass with approximately 4,000 cubic yards of imported soil. Most of the improvements are permanent and will be integrated into the final phase of the project. A preliminary cost estimate for the Phase II improvements is $115,000. Phase III improvements will involve replacing the unfinished and temporary sections of the drainage system and making the necessary improvements to the slope from the subdivision. In order to complete these emergency improvements prior to the commencement of the rainy season, it will be necessary for the City Council to declare these actions an emergency in order to obtain environmental clearance and to streamline bidding procedures in accordance with State Contracting Law. Otherwise the project will not be constructed prior the onset of the rainy season. If there is significant precipitation this winter prior to the Phase II improvements, the slope could become unstable which could cause significant property damage. Staff intends to bring the necessary emergency documentation and bidding options for Council consideration at the meeting of September 19, 2000. Staff recommends approving a professional service agreement with Agra Earth & Environmental, Inc. in the amount of $35,160 to perform the needed geological investigation of the area. In addition, staff is recommending approval of a professional service agreement with DMc Engineering in the amount of $51,950.00 to prepare the plans and specifications for Phase II and III improvements. It is important to note that DMc has begun work on Phase III improvements under "on-call" procedures but that the additional work of Phase II puts the cumulative total of their work for a single project in a monetary range that requires Council approval of a separate professional service agreement. It is important to point out that the original drainage system, the area slope erosion, and the four home subdivision’s slope were not approved or authorized by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as these improvements were constructed prior to the City’s incorporation. The City upon incorporation inherited the drainage system and therefore the responsibility for its protection. However, as outlined above, the replacement of the drainage system can not be separated from, and needs to be resolved in conjunction with, the two areas of potential land instability. In addition, staff will immediately begin the process of obtaining, "Permission to Enter/License Agreements" from the impacted property owners. Also, the City will need to acquire permanent easements for long term maintenance of the extended storm drain system. ALTERNATIVE: One alternative is to abandon plans to construct the 4,000 cubic yard land stabilization buttress and/or interim drainage improvements prior to the end of the year. Staff is not recommending abandoning either the buttress or interim drainage improvements because the success of each improvement is dependent on the other. For example, extending the drainage system without buttress stabilization could potentially allow erosion to destroy the drainage extension. Another alternative is to do nothing before the end of the year. Staff is not recommending this alternative because of the potential that the area of slope erosion becoming unstable which may cause significant damage and result in much higher remediation costs. FISCAL IMPACT: The emergency interim Phase II improvements are estimated to cost $115,000 to construct. The recommended actions will authorize expenditures of $87,110 in professional service costs. Staff proposes to utilize the $257,950 continuing appropriation funds allocated for unspecified drainage improvements for the Phase II work. Respectfully submitted, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed, Les Evans, City Manager
21.Funding Plan for Abalone Cove Storm Drain. (Allison) Recommendation: Provide staff with direction regarding funding for storm drain improvements in Abalone Cove.
FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ABALONE COVE STORM DRAIN RECOMMENDATION Provide staff with direction regarding possible funding sources for the Abalone Cove Storm Drain Improvements. BACKGROUND On August 1, 2000 the RDA Board of Directors awarded a project to construct sewer improvements in the Abalone Cove project area. A project to construct storm drain improvements was considered but not awarded, due to funding constraints. The Board did request staff to investigate other funding sources for the needed drainage improvements. This report presents some funding options. DISCUSSION Two drainage projects are proposed for the project area. Neighborhood storm drain improvements consisting of underground pipes and inlets, as well as a project to construct channel improvements in Alta Mira Canyon. Plans for the storm drain project have been completed, and bids have been received. Accurate costs for this project are known. Engineering for the Alta Mira Canyon Channel project, however, has not been completed and the estimate of costs is preliminary.
Submitted by, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by, Les Evans, City Manager
22.Request to Explore Reducing the Utility Users Tax. (Mayor Pro Tem Lyon) 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 Code Sections)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Existing Litigation: G.C. 54956.9(a) Name of Case: Paul & Terri McCaul vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Case No. or Claim No. YC036222
Name of Case: Mark Abrams vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Case No. or Claim No. CV 00-09071
Anticipated Litigation: (G.C 54956.9(b) Based on a threat of litigation in reference to the claim the City received by James Tyler XX 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.
Initiation of Litigation: G.C. 54956.9(c) 1 (Number of Potential Cases) Consider whether to initiate litigation against either Los Angeles County or the Federal Government in reference to PVIC (State Underlying Facts and Circumstances)
AGENDA SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
A.Minutes of August 1, 2000. (Purcell) Recommendation: Approve the minutes.
B.Continuing Appropriations and Budget Reductions. (Burton) Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2000-07, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 2000-2001, TO CONTINUE CERTAIN EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS FROM FY 1900-2000. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2000-10, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 1900-2000, TO REDUCE THE BUDGET FOR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS.
FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS AND BUDGET REDUCTIONS Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: 1)Adopt Resolution No. RDA 2000- , amending Resolution No. RDA 2000-07, the budget appropriation for FY 2000-01, to continue certain expenditure appropriations from FY 1999-00. 2)Adopt Resolution No. RDA 99- , amending Resolution No. RDA 99-10, the budget appropriation for FY 1999-00, to reduce the budget for continuing appropriations. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION REGARDING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS: At the end of each fiscal year it is necessary to prepare a summary of budgeted appropriations that must be carried over to the next fiscal year as continuing appropriations. The attached list of continuing appropriations (Exhibit A) includes projects which were included in the FY 1999-00 RDA budget, but were not completed by the end of the fiscal year. The current year list of continuing appropriations is for an amount in excess of the amounts carried over in previous years due to the RDA converting to a two-year budget document for FY 1999-00 and FY 2000-01. In years past, staff would rebudget all ongoing projects in conjunction with the preparation of the annual budget document. However, because this is the second year of the two-year budget document, it is necessary to carryover unfinished projects as continuing appropriations rather than as a rebudgeted project in the budget document. The continuing appropriation items relate to large, ongoing projects that may take several years to complete (i.e. Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project). City staff anticipates that the majority of additional expenditures related to these projects will be incurred during FY 2000-01. However, in some instances it is possible that completion will not occur until after June 30, 2001. In these instances it will probably be necessary to carry over amounts to FY 2001-02 as a part of next year’s continuing appropriations or in conjunction with the preparation of the FY 2001-02 budget document. Staff recently reviewed FY 1999-00 expenditures and determined that some amounts previously budgeted in FY 1999-00 were not expended prior to June 30, 2000. Staff expects to proceed with these projects and expend these amounts in FY 2000-01, therefore to ensure budgetary compliance for the RDA, the appropriations must be carried over to FY 2000-01 as continuing appropriations. The estimated beginning fund balance figures shown in the FY 2000-01 budget have already been reduced by the amount of the proposed continuing appropriations. Therefore, the approval of these continuing appropriations will not change estimated (budgeted) ending fund balances at June 30, 2001. The attached list of FY 1999-00 continuing appropriations (Exhibit A) itemizes each project for which staff recommends a continuation of the appropriation into FY 2000-01. A description of each item is provided below. Approval of the proposed resolution will allow staff to prepare the necessary budget adjustments to provide for the completion of these projects in FY 2000-01. DISCUSSION OF CONTINUING APPROPRIATION ITEMS: Abalone Cove Fund: Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer System and Abalone Cove Drainage Improvements At the meeting of August 1, 2000, the RDA Board approved contracts totaling $5,380,000 for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sewer System and related professional services. The total cost to construct the sewer system will significantly exceed the engineer’s original estimate. As a result, it was necessary to use the appropriations included in the budget for the Abalone Cove Storm Drain Improvement Project to complete the sanitary sewer project. Based on current estimates, there will probably not be sufficient funds available to proceed with either the Abalone Cove Storm Drain Improvements or the Altamira Canyon Drainage Improvements. However, staff intends on addressing the feasibility of these two projects after the completion of the sewer project. Altamira Canyon Drainage Improvements This project involves the design and construction of improvements to reduce erosion and the amount of channel flow entering the ground water within Altamira Canyon. As discussed earlier, the feasibility and scope of the project will be determined after the construction of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer project. Staff requests that the full amount budgeted and unexpended in FY 1999-00 be carried over to FY 2000-01 in the event the project commences. A portion of this project has been approved for funding with federal monies (CDBG). The CDBG portion of the project has previously been continued to FY 2000-01 as part of the City staff report on FY 1999-00 continuing appropriations. DISCUSSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 BUDGET REDUCTIONS Staff recommends reducing the FY 1999-00 budget for all the projects carried forward as continuing appropriations to FY 2000-2001. The proposed resolution to decrease the FY 1999-00 budget for the continuing appropriation items summarizes by account line item all amounts approved in the FY 1999-00 budget that will be carried over and completed in FY 2000-01. The approval of the budget reductions for FY 1999-00 will have no effect on the estimated (budgeted) ending fund balances of any RDA fund. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed recommendation will have no impact on the estimated (budgeted) fund balance at June 30, 2001 for any funds of the RDA. The first resolution merely authorizes increasing the expenditure line items in the FY 2000-01 budget for each of the continuing appropriations discussed above. The second resolution authorizes decreasing the FY 1999-00 budget for the same continuing appropriation items. Respectfully submitted, Dennis McLean, Finance Director Reviewed: Les Evans, Executive Director
C.July 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton) Recommendation: Receive and file.
FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:JULY 2000 TREASURER’S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the July 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 July 2000 for the Redevelopment Agency. ANALYSIS: The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency increased by nearly $80,000 during the month, ending with a balance of $6,507,798 at July 31, 2000. The overall increase is primarily the result of receiving approximately $97,600 in quarterly interest earned on the Agency’s idle cash balances. Other cash receipts for the month totaled only $4,250 and related to tax increment revenue received from the County and deposited in the Agency’s Housing Set-Aside fund. The Agency disbursed slightly more than $22,700 in cash during July. The majority of the cash outlays related to routine progress payments made to consultants for work on the Abalone Cove Sewer and Storm Drain Project. The balance of the month’s disbursements were for legal fees. Respectfully submitted, Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Agency Treasurer Reviewed: Les Evans, Executive Director
D.Register of Demands. (McLean) Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION No. RDA 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID. #############
REGULAR BUSINESS:
E.Groundwater Analysis in Abalone Cove and Portuguese Bend. (Allison) Recommendation: (1) Receive an update on the on-going groundwater investigation in the Abalone Cove and Portuguese Bend project areas. (2) Authorize the expenditure of up to $3,000 for studies to measure storm flows in Altamira Canyon. FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS IN ABALONE COVE AND PORTUGUESE BEND RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND Christi Hill, a Ph.D. candidate in Geology at the University of Southern California is conducting research into the Abalone Cove and Portuguese Bend landslides. The focus of research is the analysis of groundwater to determine:
The research is being performed under the supervision of Dr. Robert Douglas a Professor of Earth Sciences at USC, and Chairman of the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District. A summary of the research being conducted is attached. The RDA Board has previously contributed $6,5000 towards this research to offset the costs for chemical analyses. DISCUSSION One area of research that is about to be conducted is of particular interest to the Agency. This research will focus on storm flows in Alta Mira Canyon Channel. The research will attempt to determine the amount of canyon storm water that seeps into the ground and identify where along the canyon it occurs. This information will be helpful to the Agency to determine where along Alta Mira Canyon channel improvements would be most helpful. The research will measure storm flows this winter at certain points along the canyon. The funding request is for the labor and material required for measurements. CONCLUSION Adopting the staff recommendation will fund research that will be very helpful to the Agency regarding channel improvements for Alta Mira Canyon. FISCAL IMPACT Funding is available in the Adopted Budget for Abalone Cove in the Engineering function. Respectfully Submitted, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed, Les Evans, Executive Director Attachment: Abstract of Investigation
F.Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Restoration Project. (Evans) Recommendation: Approve the concept of an environmental restoration project along the shoreline of Portuguese Bend, request the Army Corps of Engineers to hold in abeyance the Draft Feasibility Study until the issues of most beneficial location of a protective structure and source of funding can be further studied; and, authorize the Mayor to sign a letter indicating this action.
FROM:CITY MANAGER DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT RECOMMENDATION Approve the concept of an environmental restoration project along the shoreline of Portuguese Bend, request the Army Corps of Engineers to hold in abeyance the Draft Feasibility Study until the issues of most beneficial location of a protective structure and source of funding can be further studied and authorize the Mayor to sign a letter indicating this action. BACKGROUND The Rancho Palos Verdes Feasibility Study was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 and the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1990. WRDA 1986 stated: "The Secretary is authorized to study the feasibility of constructing shoreline erosion mitigation measures along the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline and in the City of Rolling Hills, California for the purpose of providing additional stabilization for the Portuguese Bend landslide area and adjacent landslide areas…" WRDA 1990 stated: "The Secretary shall:
A reconnaissance study was initiated in October 1988, and completed in 1990 with a recommendation to proceed to a feasibility study based on a plan to help stabilize the landslide. Unfortunately, a decision by the Assistant Secretary of the Army in a letter dated October 28, 1991 determined that "Landslide stabilization is outside the purview of the Army Civil Works program." No further study was recommended at that time. It was over the next few years that the focus of the study changed from landslide stabilization to restoration of marine habitat. In the 1994 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act Congress provided funds for a project plan focusing on restoring marine habitat. In December, 1995 a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was signed and the Feasibility Study was initiated. The first public workshop to present the purpose and scope of the project was held in Rancho Palos Verdes on April 26, 1995. Many of the same concerns that are being voiced now were raised at that meeting. The concerns seem to focus on three significant questions:
The simple answer to all three questions is "yes." The geologists studying the Portuguese Bend landslide have continually advised the RDA that providing protection along the shoreline and stopping or reducing the erosion of the toe of the landslide will help stabilize the slide mass. The City/RDA has continually pushed for a structure at the shoreline which would stop the erosion, be relatively unobtrusive, preserve the entire marine habitat and be considerably less expensive. The project the Corps is proposing is not the project that the City visualized when it embarked on this project fourteen years ago, nor what was discussed as late as six months ago. STATUS OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY The Army Corps of Engineers has completed the Environmental Restoration Feasibility Study and environmental reports and released them for public review on July 7, 2000. Copies of these reports have previously been provided to the City Council. Attached to this staff report is a brief description of the project (Exhibit A). As part of the public review process a public hearing was held in Rancho Palos Verdes on August 10, 2000. A copy of the transcript of that meeting is attached to this staff report (Exhibit B). In response to complaints that there was inadequate time to comment on the project, the Army Corps extended the public review period to Friday, September 1, 2000 for those who asked for additional time. The California Coastal Commission has scheduled consideration of the Environmental Restoration project at their September 14-15, 2000 meeting in Eureka. The State Department of Fish and Game and National Marine Fisheries have commented on the project and recognize the benefits of the project. The Fish and Wildlife Service has not yet submitted final comments, but has not been supportive in the past. The Environmental Protection Agency has expressed concerns about the project. All the comment letters that were available to staff on August 30, 2000 are attached to this staff report. If the RDA and the Coastal Commission indicate support for the project and the mandatory environmental processing is completed, the Feasibility Report will be submitted, by the Army Corps District Engineer, for final approval by the Chief of Engineers and then on to Congress for project funding. The construction authorization legislation is the FY 2000 WRDA Bill (Water Resources Development Act). WRDA bills are usually submitted to Congress in alternate years. The authorization process is such that if the report is delayed it may be several years before a new authorization bill is proposed that could include the project. The Army Corps has recommended that we continue to complete the process and propose congressional authorization rather than hold the project in abeyance. Once the project is in an authorization bill then any further action on design or construction could be delayed until the City (RDA) has assurances that funding sources for the project are available and the design is to its satisfaction. DISCUSSION The District Engineer has asked the City to provide a letter of intent indicating the City (RDA) is willing to proceed with implementation of the proposed plan for Environmental Restoration along the coastline. The City must indicate that it will be able to provide the non-Federal requirements for the project including construction funds as well as operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation for the life of the structure. The total estimated cost of the project is $27,440,000 to be shared 65% Federal and 35% non-Federal. The average annual cost of operation is estimated to be $117,700 (for potential repair of the dike after major storms and to make sure material does not impact the structure), all of which is a non-Federal responsibility. The City (RDA) may be able to raise project funds through mitigation credits required for harbor dredging and other projects that will be required to restore marine habitat for permanent and temporal losses caused by their construction activity. The disadvantage of this source of funding is that mitigation credits will offset total project cost and not simply non-Federal costs. Therefore, mitigation credits must be found to fund the entire project rather than just the local share. There are several State sources that can also be pursued to implement the project. These include Coastal Conservancy bond funds, oil revenue sharing funds and the State Fish and Game and coastal restoration funds that are being considered at the State level. Operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation costs could be funded by the City through loans to the Redevelopment Agency or through tax increment funds generated from the Agency as road maintenance and landslide maintenance is currently funded. If the City decides to proceed with the project the next step by the Army Corps is final design of the project. Funds for design will be provided by the Army Corps (75%) and the RDA (25%). The City will work with the Corps during the design phase to see if adjustments can be made to the structure including moving the structure nearer the shore and reducing the height of the structure. The structure could also be made suitable for recreational use by placing walkways and railings to allow fishing and sightseeing form the dike. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of a letter of intent will not obligate the RDA to make any further expenditure on the project. However, implicit in approval of a letter is a commitment on the part of the RDA to continue to pursue funding for the project through outside funding sources. ALTERNATIVES The RDA may decline to submit a letter of intent and advise the Army Corps of Engineers that it wishes to terminate the environmental restoration project. The RDA may approve a letter of intent approving the project and indicating that the RDA will fund its share of the project and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter on behalf of the RDA. This alternative would allow the Feasibility Report to be approved by the Army Corps Chief of Engineers and the project to be included in the Water Resources Development Act for future funding. Respectfully submitted, Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Proposed Letter to Army Corps Placing Project on Hold Alternative letter to Army Corps Approving the Project Project Description (Syllabus) Transcript of August 10, 2000 Public Hearing Letter from National Marine Fisheries Service Letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Letter from Department of Fish and Game Other Comment Letters 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 SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
CALL TO ORDER:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.Minutes of August 1, 2000. (Purcell) Recommendation: Approve the minutes.
2.July 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton) Recommendation: Receive and file.
FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER DATE:SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT:JULY 2000 TREASURER’S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the July 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 July 2000 for the Improvement Authority. ANALYSIS: The Improvement Authority’s cash balances increased by approximately $32,500 during July 2000, ending with an overall balance of $1,517,322. In addition to the $7,917 monthly transfer from the City’s General fund to the Portuguese Bend fund, the Authority received $22,500 in quarterly interest revenue. Also contributing to the overall increase was the fact there were no disbursements during the month for routine dewatering well maintenance activities. Respectfully submitted, Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer Reviewed: Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer
3.Register of Demands. (McLean) Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. IA 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID. ###### 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
