|
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL 6:30 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS. 7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOL. NO. 2000-69 NEXT ORD. NO. 361 RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.Award
of contract for services to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for
proposed improvements to Marymount College (30800 Palos Verdes Drive East).
(Mihranian)
4.Award
Contract for Roadway and Drainage Rehabilitation for Palos Verdes Drive
South at Portuguese Bend. (Allison)
############ PUBLIC HEARING: 7.Conditional
Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 (Applicant: Roger Grove, "Ride-to-
Fly", 50 Narcissa Drive). (Fox)
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.Establishment
of Stop Regulations at the Intersection of Avenida Aprenda and Avenida
Cuaderno. (Allison)
13.Revised
2000 Five-Year Financial Model and Consideration of Revising the Utility
User Tax Rate. (Burton)
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 (All
Statutory References are to California Government
. 1 (Number of Potential Cases) Based on receipt of a letter from Nick Green dated October 10, 2000. RANCHO
PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOL. NO. 2000-69 NEXT ORD. NO. 361 RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
TO:HONORABLE
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Approve Contract Addendum No. 3 to the Agreement for Consulting Services between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates for preparation of the Long Point Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, in the amount of $144,407.00. BACKGROUND: York Long Point Associates (applicant) submitted applications for a Specific Plan and related applications to the City on October 21, 1997, at which time the determination was made that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project. In light of this requirement, staff solicited requests for proposals, conducted interviews of environmental consulting firms, and ultimately selected Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (Consultant) to prepare the EIR. The City contracted directly with the Consultant in order to retain control over the document preparation. However, the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the document preparation. The applicant has established a trust deposit for the payment of preparation costs along with a 10% administrative fee assessed to cover City Staff’s management of the contract. A separate "Agreement to Pay Environmental Analysis Costs for a Proposed Specific Plan with Related Applications" was approved by the City Council and executed by the applicant to ensure that the City receives the necessary funds from the applicant. Although the applicant has since changed to Destination Development Corporation, York Long Point Associates as owner of the Long Point portion of the project site, continues to pay the EIR preparation costs. The applicants have modified the project significantly from that initially submitted, which has caused the EIR Consultant to revise the scope of its work as well. Since significant progress was made on the EIR for the prior project design, and since the early stages of the CEQA process had to be re-done, the cost of completing the environmental documentation has increased as have the project management costs resulting from the longer term of the consultant’s services. The additional cost proposed by Addendum No. 3 is $144,407.00, and therefore is brought forward for City Council consideration. The proposed increase is described in the Consultant’s Addendum proposal, and is in addition to the $262,250.00 amount previously approved. The amount takes into consideration the outstanding balance of $82,182 under the existing contract. The applicant has reviewed the increased amount, and has agreed to pay this amount. FISCAL IMPACT The Contract Addendum will have no fiscal impact on the City due to the obligation of the applicant to cover all costs for the preparation of environmental documentation, including a 10% administrative fee to cover the City’s contract management costs. CONCLUSION Staff and the applicant reviewed the proposed increase and find it appropriate given the changing circumstances associated with this complex project. Approval of Addendum No. 3 would result in no changes to the original contract other than the cost components discussed therein, and all other provisions of the contract would apply to the Addendum items. Therefore, and based on the discussion above, staff recommends that the City Council approve Addendum No. 3 as presented. The applicant has agreed to the increased cost, as indicated in the attached letter. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for consideration by the City Council:
Respectfully
submitted: ATTACHMENTS Contract Addendum No. 3 from RBF dated October 9, 2000
3.Award
of contract for services to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for
proposed improvements to Marymount College (30800 Palos Verdes Drive East).
(Mihranian)
RECOMMENDATION Authorize Staff to execute a professional services agreement for the Mayor’s signature in an amount not to exceed $96,000 with Envicom, to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. BACKGROUND On May 15, 2000, representatives from Marymount College submitted Environmental Assessment No. 726 to the Planning Department to initiate the required environmental review process for proposed improvements to the existing campus. According to the development applications submitted to the Planning Department, Marymount College proposes to demolish 12,600 square feet of existing floor area to accommodate the construction of approximately 152,550 square feet of new floor area, that will be in the form of new classrooms, a new library, a new gymnasium and student residence halls. Additionally, the college proposes to conduct 110,000 cubic yards of associated grading to accommodate the site improvements and reconfigure and reconstruct the parking lots. Based on potential impacts the proposed project may have on the surrounding neighborhood and environment, Staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be necessary to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a result, Staff began the process to select a qualified consultant to prepare the necessary EIR for the City. Staff is now seeking Council authorization to award the contract to the selected EIR consultant. DISCUSSION On June 21, 2000, Staff sent a Request For Proposal (RFP) to twenty-two (22) consulting firms within the greater Los Angeles area describing the "scope of work", "project description" and the "form of qualifications" needed to select a consultant for the preparation of an EIR for the proposed Marymount College project. In response to the RFP, the following six (6) firms submitted a proposal to the Planning Department:
As indicated above, the proposals to prepare an EIR for the proposed Marymount College project ranged between $63,185 and $132,875. After reviewing the proposals and considering the consultants’ level of experience with similar projects, understanding of the proposed project and its potential impacts, time schedule, and cost, Staff selected the top three candidates for a panel interview with representatives from the College and City Staff. On September 27, 2000, a panel interview was conducted by City Staff and the President of Marymount College, Dr. Thomas McFadden, with the consulting firms: RBF, Envicom, and EIP. While all three firms appeared highly qualified to prepare an EIR for the proposed project, it was determined that Envicom had the most experience, since it recently completed a similar EIR for Pepperdine University in Malibu. Furthermore, Envicom appeared to be the most readily available to initiate the environmental process (RBF is currently preparing the Long Point project EIR). Based on the attached proposal and the panel interview, Staff believes that Envicom is the most qualified firm to prepare the necessary EIR for the City. CONCLUSION: For the reasons noted above, Staff recommends that the Council authorize Staff to execute a professional services agreement for the Mayor’s signature in an amount not to exceed $96,000 with Envicom for preparation of the necessary EIR for the proposed Marymount College Facilities Expansion project. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION It should be noted that the project applications have not been deemed complete due missing information that is forthcoming. Once the applications are deemed complete, the formal review process will commence with preparation and public distribution of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) document. Staff anticipates that the IS/NOP will be ready for public distribution in early December. FISCAL IMPACT: The preparation of an EIR for the proposed improvements at Marymount College will not directly impact the City’s General Fund nor will it have a fiscal impact to the City in that all costs associated with the preparation of the EIR will be incurred by the project applicant, Marymount College. Respectfully
submitted: ATTACHMENTS Professional Services Agreement Proposal by Envicom AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is executed this 17th day of October, 2000 by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (hereinafter called "CITY"), and Envicom Corporation (hereinafter called ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the CITY received an application from Marymount College, requesting approval to construct approximately 152,550 square feet of new floor area in the form of new classrooms, a new library, a new gymnasium, and student residence halls. Additionally, the college proposes to conduct approximately 110,000 cubic yards of associated grading to accommodate the site improvements and reconfigure and reconstruct the parking lots on property located at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East. Said application will require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is described in detail in the City's Request for Proposal (RFP) dated June 21, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and CITY'S Local Guidelines require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project; and, WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that it is professionally qualified and able to prepare the necessary Environmental Documentation in compliance with the applicable state laws and state, local guidelines, and in a format consistent with CEQA requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: Section 1.CONSULTANT'S Services. Consultant shall perform professional services by preparing an Environmental Documentation for the proposed facilities expansion at Marymount College as set forth in the "Scope of Work", attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made part hereof by reference, including the following services: (a)CONSULTANT, shall prepare, under consultation with the CITY, the following for the proposed project; (1) an Initial Study, (2) a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR, (3) a Response to Comments on the Draft EIR, (4) a Final EIR, (5) a Mitigating Monitoring and Reporting Program, (6) a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and (7) a Notice of Determination. as specified in Exhibit "A". The EIR shall be prepared in compliance with the "Scope of Work" attached as Exhibit "A" and shall contain all items required by CEQA (as amended), the State Guidelines, and CITY'S Local CEQA Guidelines. (b)When requested, CONSULTANT shall attend and participate in meetings with CITY staff as well as Public Hearings, which are necessary for the preparation and completion of the EIR. For meetings which CONSULTANT is requested to attend by CITY, CONSULTANT shall be compensated based on the rates set forth in the "Cost Summary" contained in Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (c)CONSULTANT shall supply CITY with the deliverables described in the "Scope of Work" attached as Exhibit "A", including the following documents for the proposed project:
(d)All reports, information, data and exhibits prepared or assembled by CONSULTANT or any subconsultants in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public, and CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without prior written consent of the CITY prior to such release. All such reports, information, data and exhibits shall be delivered to CITY upon demand without additional cost or expense to CITY. All charts, tables, figures, and maps, which are prepared with computer-based mapping or spreadsheet programs, shall be provided to CITY in their original formats. (e)CONSULTANT shall respond to those comments raised by CITY staff's review of the documents in order to facilitate completion thereof. Consultant shall also respond to all comments from the public, responsible agencies, and/or other interested parties regarding the EIR. Letters identifying the response shall be sent to each commenting party. (f)This agreement and the scope of work to be performed by CONSULTANT may only be amended in a written document executed by both of the parties to this agreement. Section 2. Time of Performance. CONSULTANT shall timely perform the services described above as shown in the schedule within the attached Exhibit "C" Section 3.Compensation.CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT, and CONSULTANT agrees to accept in full satisfaction for the services provided for hereunder, a fixed fee not to exceed $96,000 for the EIR, which includes all labor and subconsultant costs, as described in the "Cost Summary" contained in attached Exhibit "B". In addition, this fixed fee shall include all expenses for printing, word processing, delivery, fax, phones, mileage, etc. Prior to printing of any documents, CONSULTANT shall verify with CITY the total number of documents to reproduce. Not included in this fixed fee are expenses incurred for attending meetings beyond those specified in Section 1.(b) of this contract; analysis of key issues in addition to those identified in attached Exhibit "A", changes in the project description, plans, or scope of work requiring additional work; and printing additional copies of any document beyond the number of copies specified in Exhibit "A". The actual costs of CONSULTANT'S services and expenses shall be itemized on the Invoice form, and CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for said undisputed services and expenses. Payments shall be made based upon Consultant's monthly invoices up to the maximum amounts set forth in the following schedule:
Any work approved pursuant to section 1(f) of this agreement shall be included in the appropriate segment of the foregoing schedule, as determined by the City, and the maximum billing amounts shall be adjusted accordingly. Five percent (5%) of each bill submitted by CONSULTANT shall be held by CITY in a retention account. The retained funds will be released to CONSULTANT when the environmental documentation project is successfully completed by the submittal of the final Notice of Determination/ Statement of Overriding Consideration (if necessary). If CONSULTANT is requested by CITY to revise or supplement the environmental documentation with additional data, information or analysis solely as a result of the CONSULTANT'S failure to comply with the requirements of CEQA, or the State or local CEQA Guidelines, CONSULTANT shall provide such revision or supplement at no additional cost to the CITY. If changes to existing laws, rules, regulations or policies of any state, federal or local governmental authority having jurisdiction over the project occur, new, unforeseen issues arise, or comments on the documents are received from attorneys other than the City Attorney during or following the circulation of the draft environmental document, during the term of this Agreement that require modification of the environmental documentation, CONSULTANT will perform such additional services on a time-and-materials basis, at the rates set forth in Exhibit "A". The CITY and CONSULTANT hereby acknowledge and agree that the terms of CONSULTANT'S compensation are not dependent upon the CITY'S final action on these Projects. Section 4.Independent Contractor.CONSULTANT will act hereunder as an independent contractor. This Agreement shall not and is not intended to constitute CONSULTANT as an agent, servant, or employee of the CITY and shall not and is not intended to create the relationship of partnership, joint venture or association between the CITY and CONSULTANT. Section 5.Assignment. This agreement may not be assigned in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of CITY. Section 6.Consultant.Responsible Principal and Project Manager. The CONSULTANT shall have a Responsible Principal and a Project Manager who shall be principally responsible for the CONSULTANT'S obligations under this Agreement and who shall serve as principal liaison between CITY and CONSULTANT. The name of the Responsible Principal is Joseph G. Johns; the name of the Direct as Laura Kaufman; and the name of the project manager is Scott Weinstock. Designation of another Responsible Principal or Project Manager by CONSULTANT shall not be made without the prior written consent of CITY. Section 7.Personnel.CONSULTANT represents that it has, or shall secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform CONSULTANT'S services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT may associate with or employ associates or subconsultants in the performance of its services under this Agreement, but at all times shall be responsible for their services. CONSULTANT may not employ additional subconsultants without prior written approval of CITY. Section 8.City: Liaison. CONSULTANT shall perform under the general supervision of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of CITY ("Director") or his or her designee, and all communications, instructions and directions on the part of the CITY shall be communicated exclusively through the Director or his or her designee. Any direct communication between CONSULTANT and the project proponent shall be appropriately authorized as determined by the Director. Section 9.Data and Services to be Furnished by CITY. All information, data, records, reports and maps as are in possession of CITY and necessary for the carrying out of this work shall be available to CONSULTANT without charge. Section 10.Interests of CONSULTANT.The CONSULTANT affirms that it presently has no interest and shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the services contemplated by this Agreement. No person having any such interest shall be employed by or be associated with the CONSULTANT or any subconsultant. The parties agree: (a)CITY has sole discretion to direct the work and evaluate the performance of CONSULTANT and CITY retains the right to terminate this Agreement or replace CONSULTANT at any time, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 herein.
CONSULTANT, in accordance with the provisions of this agreement. (c)CITY shall pay CONSULTANT from a CITY account under the exclusive control of CITY. Section 11.Insurance.CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY certificates indicating compliance with the following minimum insurance requirements, to be maintained during the term of this agreement, not less than one (1) day prior to the beginning of performance under this Agreement. 1.Worker's Compensation Insurance to cover its employees as required by the California Labor Code. The CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors similarly to provide such compensation insurance for their respective employees. 2.General liability protecting CONSULTANT in an amount no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Automobile liability protecting CONSULTANT in an amount not less than $500,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Employer's liability protecting CONSULTANT in an amount no less than $1,000,000 per accident, bodily injury or disease. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement professional errors and omissions insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim, and in the aggregate. Such policies of insurance shall: (a)Be issued by an insurance company which is admitted to conduct business in the State of California and which is rated in Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of A VII or better. (b)Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, name and list as additional insured the CITY, its officers and employees. (c)Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, such insurance policies shall be primary to any other similar insurance and shall name the CITY, its officers, agents and employees, as additional insureds. Each insurance policy shall contain a provision that prohibits cancellation, without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the CITY. The insurance certificates evidencing such insurance and endorsements naming the CITY, its officers, employees, and agents as additional insureds, shall be submitted to the CITY for review and thereafter the CITY shall have the right to approve or disapprove any insurance procured by CONSULTANT under the standards of this section. Procurement of insurance by CONSULTANT shall not be construed as a limitation of CONSULTANT'S liability or as full performance of CONSULTANT'S duties to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend under this Agreement. (d)Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, indemnify the CITY from liability from loss, damage or injury to persons or to property arising from CONSULTANT'S negligent acts in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement. (e)Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, include a severability of interests clause substantially similar to the following: "The insurance afforded by this policy applies separately to each insured against whom a claim or suit is made or suit it brought, except with respect to the limit of the insurer's liability." (f)Contain a clause substantially in the following words: "It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy shall not be canceled nor materially changed except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the CITY of such cancellation. (g)Cover the operations of CONSULTANT pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. (h)Acceptable to the City Attorney, and failure to comply with these insurance requirements shall be a material breach of the Agreement. 3.CONSULTANT shall not commence the performance of its services under this contract until the above insurance has been obtained and appropriate Certificates of Insurance have been filed with CITY. CONSULTANT further agrees that a clause substantially similar to this Section 11 will be included in any subcontract executed under this contract. Section 12.Indemnification. CONSULTANT agrees to defend and indemnify the City, its officers, employees, and agents against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations, liabilities, and costs, including but not limited to reasonable costs of defense, that may be claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision or other organization to the extent caused by the negligent acts or intentional tortious acts, errors or omission of CONSULTANT or those for whom CONSULTANT is legally responsible. However, if any information or data prepared or provided by consultant is misused by an agent of the City, consultant shall not be responsible for such misuse of data. Section 13.Termination. The executory provisions of this Agreement may be terminated by CITY upon five (5) days written notice to the CONSULTANT without further action by CITY. The executory provisions of this agreement may be terminated by the CONSULTANT upon thirty (30) days written notice to the CITY. In the event of such termination by the CITY, the CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT for work satisfactorily completed to date of such termination, but in no event to exceed the compensation described in Section 3 of this agreement, based on the percentage of completion of CONSULTANT's work on the date of termination, provided such work is in a form usable by CITY. Section 14.Notice.Any notice or materials required to be given to the CONSULTANT shall be deemed duly and properly given upon delivery, if sent to CONSULTANT postage prepaid to: Steve Weinstock Envicom Consultants 28328 Agoura Road Agoura Hills, CA 91301 or personally delivered to CONSULTANT at such address or other address specified to the CITY in writing by CONSULTANT. Any notice or materials required to be given to the CITY shall be deemed duly and properly given upon delivery, if sent to the CITY postage prepaid to: Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement c/o City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 or personally delivered to CITY at such address or other address specified to the CONSULTANT in writing by the CITY. Section 15. Entire Agreement.This agreement represents the entire integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT. Section 16.Litigation Costs.Should any dispute under this Agreement lead to litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees for the prosecution of the action. Section 17. Applicable Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action arising from this Agreement, including but not limited to matters concerning validity, construction, performance or enforcement shall be exclusively in the state of federal courts located in Los Angeles County. Section 18. Business License Required.Consultant shall obtain and maintain a City Business License prior to commencing preparation of the Environmental documentation as outlined in this agreement. Section 19. Merger Clause.This Agreement and its Exhibits are the entire understanding of the parties, and there are no other terms or conditions, written or oral, controlling this matter. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and any of its Exhibits, the provisions of this agreement shall prevail. Section 20. Provisions Cumulative.The foregoing are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the CITY. Section 21. Anti-Waiver Clause.None of the provisions contained herein shall be waived because of previous failure to insist upon strict performance, nor shall any provision be waived because any other provision has been waived in whole or in part. EXECUTED the day and year first stated above. "CITY"CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES By
Lee
Byrd, MAYOR
4.Award
Contract for Roadway and Drainage Rehabilitation for Palos Verdes Drive
South at Portuguese Bend. (Allison)
TO:HONORABLE
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS 1.Award a contract for the construction of roadway and drainage improvements for Palos Verdes Drive South at Portuguese Bend to Excel Paving Company for an amount not to exceed $887,325; plus authorize staff to spend an additional $92,675 for possible extra work, for a total authorization of $980,000, and 2.Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Excel Paving Company; and BACKGROUND This capital project will improve roadway and drainage conditions along Palos Verdes Drive South in the Portuguese Bend area. The project includes 3,000 feet of roadway rehabilitation, the construction of approximately 5,000 feet drainage improvements along the roadway, and a new 84" storm drain culvert at Portuguese Canyon. ANALYSIS The project was properly advertised and sealed bids were received and opened at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday October 3, 2000. Six bids were received ranging from a low of $887,325.00 to a high of $982,459.70. Bid results are as follows:
Staff has reviewed the bid of the lowest bidder, Excel Paving Company, and determined that their bid documents are in order. Background references for Excel Paving Company checked out and they have a history of completing projects on time and within budget. In addition, the City has utilized Excel Paving on prior projects and has been satisfied with their work. The total project costs are broken out between drainage and roadway improvements as follows: Drainage Improvements:60% Roadway Improvements40% CONCLUSION Excel Paving Company, as the apparent lowest responsive and responsible bidder, should be awarded the Palos Verdes Drive South at Portuguese Bend Roadway and Drainage Rehabilitation Project. ALTERNATIVE One alternative is to reject all bids, and re-advertise the project. It is not likely that a significant cost reduction would be achieved by re-advertising and it would take one and one-half to two months to be in a position to award a construction contract. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended action authorizes total expenditure of $980,000 and is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program. The funding breakdown is as follows:
Respectfully
submitted,
RECOMMENDATION Approve a revised Subdivision Agreement with Ocean Trails L.P. for Tract 50667 to revise the security requirements. BACKGROUND In September 1999 a subdivision agreement between the City and Ocean Trails L.P. was approved by the City Council. The agreement assures the timely construction of Public Works Improvements that are a part of Tract 50667. An important aspect of the agreement is security posted by the developer. After the agreement was approved by the City Council the developer submitted security, but raised questions over need for security for certain items of work. To date the agreement has not been executed. DISCUSSION The agreement as approved in September 1999 requires the following amounts for security:
At the time the subdivision agreement was brought to the City Council the developer had provided security as follows:
The total amount of security submitted by the developer provides adequate security for all items except for utility improvements. The utility Improvements included in the agreement are for gas, electrical, and cable television improvements. Security for such improvements is not necessary, and should not have been part of the original subdivision agreement. In general developers arrange for these improvements directly with the various utility companies. Utility companies may require security from the developer, however, the City is not a party to any such agreement. The recommended action eliminates the requirement for security for utility improvements. The agreement as now proposed is consistent with agreements executed for other developments in the City. CONCLUSIONS The recommended action revises the amount of required security required for the Tract 50667 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Do not approve the staff recommendation and require security for the utility improvements. FISCAL IMPACT Staff could identify no fiscal impacts to the recommended action. Respectfully
submitted, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT * * * * * * SUBDIVISION REFERENCE DATA * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THIS SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT ("Agreement" herein) is made and entered into by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a municipal corporation ("City" herein), and Ocean Trails, L.P. ("the Subdivider" herein), whose address is set forth above in the Subdivision Reference Data, as of September 7, 1999. RECITALS A.Two vesting tentative tract maps for the Subdivision previously were approved by City, subject to the City’s standard requirements and conditions of approval contained in the City Council’s Resolutions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Map No. 50666 and Vesting Tentative Map No. 50667, Conditional Use Permit No. 162 and Conditional Use Permit No.163, Grading Permit No. 1541 and Environmental Impact Report No. 36 (with addenda), copies of which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and which are incorporated herein by this reference. B.Subdivider now seeks City Council approval of a final tract map for Vesting Tentative Map No. 50667. C.The Subdivision Laws establish, as a condition precedent to the approval of a final map, that the Subdivider must comply with the City Council’s Resolutions of Approval regarding the Project and either: (i) complete, in compliance with City standards, certain improvements and land development work required by the City Council’s Resolutions of Approval; or (ii) enter into a secured agreement with the City to complete the improvements and land development work within a period of time specified by the City. D.Grading plans, improvement plans and related specifications, numbered as designated above in the Subdivision Reference Data, for the construction, installation and completion of the Improvements identified in Schedule A hereto, have been prepared by Subdivider, approved by the Director of Public Works, and are on file in the office of City’s Department of Public Works. Said grading plans, improvement plans and related specifications, are incorporated herein by this reference. E.City and Subdivider previously entered into a Grading Improvement Agreement, which was amended by the First Amendment thereto, regarding the performance of grading and the construction of certain improvements by Subdivider as specified therein. F.Subdivider and City acknowledge that the parties may enter into future agreements, including, without limitation, a subdivision agreement with respect to Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50666 for the Ocean Trails Development project (hereafter referred to as "Project" or "Subdivision") to address or amend topics that either are, or are not, addressed in this Agreement and that this Agreement may be replaced or amended, in whole or in part, by such future written agreement(s), as specified therein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants herein contained, Subdivider and City agree as follows:
1.SUBDIVIDER’S OBLIGATION TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS A.Subdivider shall, at its sole expense, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Laws, the Improvement Plans, and all applicable City standards, and in a good and workmanlike manner, furnish, construct, install and guarantee (as set forth in Section 3) the Improvements which have not yet been completed, as generally described in this Section 1, and more specifically described in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667, conditional use permits and grading permit and in the City Council’s Resolutions of Approval relating thereto (collectively, the "Improvements"). The general categories of Improvements, as more fully described in Schedule A, and the estimated costs thereof are as follows:
Bonds for certain of the above-listed improvements already have been submitted to City in connection with the approval of the Grading Improvement Agreement. However, pursuant to this Subdivision Agreement, security for the following has been required in addition to the security which Subdivider previously has provided: (i) the above-listed security for the maintenance of certain common area improvements, including, without limitation, open space areas and drainage facilities; (ii) security for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal Drive; and additional security in the amount of $700,000.00 for the street improvements which are to be constructed by Subdivider on Palos Verdes Drive South, for a total of $ 1,598,543.00; security for street construction within the Tract; security for the construction of the water lines; and security for the four storm drain facilities that are listed above.
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, if the Director reasonably determines that accelerated construction of the Improvements is essential in order to protect the public health, welfare and safety, including, without limitation, providing for the orderly development of the surrounding area, the Director shall give Subdivider not less than 15 days’ prior written notice to commence or accelerate installation and construction of the Improvements, or any portion thereof. The notice shall describe the work to be done by Subdivider and reasonable time periods within which the work will commence and be completed. All or any portions of said Improvements may be required to be constructed or completed at a specified time. If the Subdivider objects to the commencement or acceleration of the Improvements as specified by the Director, Subdivider may appeal the decision of the Director to the City Council. Any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after receipt by Subdivider of the written notice from the Director. Further, if any of the circumstances specified in Section 4 occur, the provisions of this paragraph shall not prevent Subdivider from requesting a time extension to perform said work, pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.
2.INSPECTION OF WORK AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE A.Subdivider shall at all times maintain proper facilities and safe access for inspection of grading and Improvements by the Director and other City personnel.
3.GUARANTEE AND WARRANTY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
4.TIME EXTENSIONS
5.IMPROVEMENT SECURITY A.Prior to City’s execution of this Agreement, Subdivider shall have provided as security to the City: 1.For Performance and Guarantee: Security in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Estimated Total Cost of the following Improvements:
With this security, the form of which shall be subject to City Attorney’s prior approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, Subdivider assures faithful performance under this Agreement and guarantees the Improvements for one year after the completion and acceptance by the City of the last of such Improvements, against any defective workmanship or materials or any unsatisfactory performance, pursuant to Section 3 hereof. The Subdivider shall automatically increase the amount of such security by an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the deposited security every year, subject to the provision that the City Manager may at any time reasonably determine that a greater increase in the amount of the security is necessary for the protection of the City. In such event, the Subdivider shall provide the additional security within ten (10) days after receiving a written demand therefor.
6.REDUCTION OR RELEASE OF IMPROVEMENT SECURITY A.Partial releases or reductions in the Subdivider’s improvement security may be authorized prior to the City’s approval or acceptance of all Improvements required hereunder, as provided in this Section 6. However, such requests for partial releases or reductions shall not occur more often than once in any twelve month period or upon completion of all Improvements required herein or except as provided in paragraphs B and C below. B.Upon acceptance of all or any specified category of the Improvements by the City Council, and upon request of the Subdivider, the improvement security may be reduced or released as follows: 1.Security for Performance and Guarantee: Unless Subdivider submits new or additional security, such as a maintenance bond, in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the Estimated Total Cost of the Improvements, the security for performance and guarantee shall not be reduced or released in an amount greater than ninety percent (90%) of the aggregate principal amount thereof prior to the expiration of the one-year guarantee and warranty period specified in Section 3.A., nor until any claims filed during the one-year warranty period have been settled. 2.Security for Payment: Security furnished to secure payment to contractors, subcontractors, and to persons providing labor, materials or equipment shall, six (6) months after acceptance of all of the Improvements, be reduced to an amount equal to the total amount claimed by all claimants for whom liens have been filed and of which notice has been given to the City, if any, plus an amount reasonably determined by the Director to be required to assure the performance of any other obligations secured by the security. The balance of the security shall be released upon settlement or release of all claims and obligations for which the security was given. C.If Subdivider’s obligations relating to any Improvements are subject to the approval of another governmental agency, the City shall not release the improvement security therefor until the obligations are performed to the satisfaction of such other governmental agency. Such agency shall have two (2) months after any request for final inspection by Subdivider or the Director to register its satisfaction or dissatisfaction. If at the end of that period it has not registered its satisfaction or dissatisfaction in writing, it shall be conclusively deemed that the Subdivider’s performance of the obligation was done to its satisfaction. However, nothing herein shall be deemed to extinguish any other obligation of Subdivider that is specified in another written agreement, such as, for example, the Amended Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Plan. D.Nothing in this Section 6 shall be construed as restricting City and Subdivider from entering into future written agreements that extend the time for the release or reduction of the security. 7.INDEMNIFICATION OF CITY BY SUBDIVIDER
8.INSURANCE
9.OWNERSHIP OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
10.DEFAULT AND BREACH BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND REMEDIES OF THE CITY
11.RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES Neither Subdivider, nor any of Subdivider’s contractors, employees or agents, are or shall be deemed to be, agents of the City in connection with the performance of Subdivider’s obligations under this Agreement. 12.ASSIGNMENT
13.NOTICES All notices required or provided for in this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or by mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
14.ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to its subject matter. All modifications, amendments, or waivers of any terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties. In the case of the City, the duly authorized representative, unless otherwise specified herein, shall be the City Manager. 15.SEVERABILITY The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 16.INCORPORATION OF SUBDIVISION REFERENCE DATA AND RECITALS The Subdivision Reference Data, the Recitals and Schedule A are incorporated into this Agreement. 17.GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 18.EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be and become effective as of the date of approval by the City Council of City of the Final Map for Tract 50667, September 7, 1999. The City shall insert the effective date in the Subdivision Reference Data in all counterparts of this Agreement and shall transmit a fully executed counterpart to the Subdivider. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers, thereunto duly authorized, as of the dates set forth below their respective signatures.
############ PUBLIC HEARING: 7.Conditional
Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 (Applicant: Roger Grove, "Ride-to-
Fly", 50 Narcissa Drive). (Fox)
Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner/Equestrian Committee Staff Liaison RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, accepting the Equestrian Committee’s recommendation and conditionally approving Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2. BACKGROUND Attached to this Staff report are E.C. Resolution No. 2000-02 and additional correspondence related to this application. Staff has provided the City Council with copies of the Staff report, correspondence and related materials for the Equestrian Committee meetings at which this project was considered (September 14, 2000). Also attached is a chronology that summarizes the City’s action on this application to date. DISCUSSION The Equestrian Committee recommended approval of the application for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 based upon its ability to make all of the required findings to approve the project. These findings are discussed in E.C. Resolution No. 2000-02 and in the Equestrian Committee Staff report of September 14, 2000. Briefly, the Equestrian Committee found that:
During the course of the public hearing, the Equestrian Committee clarified the permitted days and hours of operation for the therapeutic riding program. The original application for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 stated that the hours of operation would be Wednesdays from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM and Saturdays from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM. Based upon public testimony, the Equestrian Committee wanted to ensure that the program activities did not occur outside of the permitted days and hours. The Committee determined that the days and times would allow "Ride-to-Fly" to adequately provide its intended program. Therefore, the Equestrian Committee clarified the days and hours as follows: Wednesdays and Thursdays:10:00 AM to 7:00 PM or sunset (whichever is earlier) Saturdays:9:00 AM to 5:00 PM or sunset (whichever is earlier) The Equestrian Committee recommended no other changes. Prior to the Equestrian Committee’s review of this application, Staff had been made aware of community concerns regarding the parking of vehicles along Narcissa Drive and the condition of the perimeter fencing and landscape screening on the site. The Equestrian Committee has recommended the adoption of conditions of approval to address these concerns. Condition No. 13 of the draft Resolution would limit on-site parking to a maximum of ten (10) vehicles, which must all be parked fully out of the right-of-way of Narcissa Drive. Condition No. 11 would require improvements to the perimeter fencing, landscape screening and on-site parking area within six (6) months of the City Council’s approval of this application. Pursuant to Condition No. 7, at the end of the 6-month period, the City Council would review the project to assess the applicant’s compliance with the project conditions, determine if conditions of approval need to be added, deleted or modified, or revoke the permit if appropriate. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On September 27, 2000, public hearing notices for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 were mailed to the property owner, the applicant, the Portuguese Bend Community Association and forty other property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. On September 30, 2000, public notice of the October 17, 2000 City Council hearing for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. As of the date this Staff report was completed, Staff had received one item of correspondence in opposition to the permit, in addition to the letters previously submitted for the Equestrian Committee’s consideration. All letters are attached to this report for the City Council’s consideration. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing discussion and the Equestrian Committee’s action on September 14, 2000, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, thereby accepting the Equestrian Committee’s recommendation and conditionally approving Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2. FISCAL IMPACT Pursuant to Section 17.78.010(D)(5) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the $20.00 application fee for this permit was automatically waived. As such, the costs associated with the review of this application have been—and will continue to be—borne by the City’s General Fund. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:
Respectfully
submitted: Attachments: Resolution
No. 2000-__ RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2000, the applicant, "Ride-to-Fly," submitted an application for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 to allow the keeping of four (4) horses and the operation of a therapeutic riding program on a 1.16-acre property in the Portuguese Bend ‘Q’ District, commonly known as 50 Narcissa Drive or the "Five Corners" property; and, WHEREAS, on July 20, 2000, the application for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 was deemed complete by Staff; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15301); and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Equestrian Committee held a duly noticed public hearing on September 14, 2000 to consider Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on September 14, 2000, the Equestrian Committee adopted E.C. Resolution No. 2000-02, thereby recommending conditional approval of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 to the City Council, with modifications to the days and hours of operation for the therapeutic riding program; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 17, 2000 to consider the Equestrian Committee’s recommendation, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 for the keeping of four (4) horses and the operation of a therapeutic riding program on the subject property:
B.The permit, if issued, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare because the proposed project significantly exceeds the minimum 35-foot sanitary setback requirements for the keeping of horses; "soft" paving will be utilized in the parking area along Narcissa Drive to be compatible with the use of the abutting non-dedicated equestrian/pedestrian trail along Narcissa Drive; no more than ten (10) vehicles will be allowed in this parking area so that they do not infringe upon the roadway and fire lane; and the applicant will be required to complete the repairs to the perimeter fencing, plant additional landscape screening and install other site improvements within six (6) months of project approval or face possible revocation of the permit by the City Council. C.Any increase in the number of animals that would otherwise be allowed by the provisions of Chapter 17.46 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code to be kept or boarded on the property and/or the operation of an active outdoor recreational facility or program which provides a benefit to youth or the physically or mentally challenged or has a similar philanthropic purpose will not have significant adverse effects upon other properties in the vicinity of the site because the applicant does not propose to keep more animals on the property than would be otherwise allowed "by right" under the provisions of the Development Code; and the therapeutic riding program operates only three (3) days per week, the client sessions last approximately one-half hour, no more than two sessions are conducted at any one time, the sessions do not involve vigorous activity such as jumping or galloping, and the noise and dust associated with these sessions is minimal and of short duration. D.The cumulative impact, should the requested permit be issued, upon the properties in the vicinity of the site or the community as a whole, shall not, in the aggregate, constitute a significant adverse impact upon the area because the cumulative effects of the proposed project and the nearby Portuguese Bend Riding Club are only apparent during those hours on the three (3) days each week when "Ride-to-Fly" clients have therapeutic riding sessions; the individual impacts of the "Ride-to-Fly" sessions are limited and of short duration; and the physical separation of the two uses prevents traffic and other types of conflicts between the uses, even when there are activities at both the Riding Club and "Ride-to-Fly." Section 2:The City Council finds that the keeping of four (4) horses and the operation of a therapeutic riding program on the subject property is consistent with Equestrian Committee Policy No. 6, which calls upon the City to "ensure that the size and layout of the facility, the location of barns and corrals, the location of composting bins or material storage, and the height and type of fencing is appropriate for the site and compatible with surrounding residences." Section 3:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Section 4:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, E.C. Resolution No. 2000-02 and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 for the keeping of four (4) horses and the operation of the "Ride-to-Fly" therapeutic riding program on a 1.16-acre vacant, contiguous property in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District, located at 50 Narcissa Drive, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area. PASSED,
APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October 2000. ___________________________ ATTEST: STATE
OF CALIFORNIA ) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2000-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on October 17, 2000. _________________________________
EXHIBIT
'A'
Failure to complete these tasks may lead to the revocation of this permit during the 6-month review process by the City Council.
Wednesdays:10:00 AM to 7:00 PM or sunset, whichever is earlier Thursdays:10:00 AM to 7:00 PM or sunset, whichever is earlier Saturdays:9:00 AM to 5:00 PM or sunset, whichever is earlier Any proposal to change the days and/or hours of operation requires the review of the Equestrian Committee and the approval of the City Council.
TO:HONORABLE
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2000- ; approving the cable franchise renewal agreement with Cox Communications. BACKGROUND On December 3, 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 196 granting a 15-year franchise agreement for a cable television system to Times Mirror Television of Palos Verdes Peninsula, Inc. At some later point in time, the name of the franchised cable operator was changed to Dimension Cable Services. On October 18, 1994, the City Council approved a transfer of control of the cable television franchise from Times Mirror to Cox Communications Palos Verdes, Inc. In 1998, Cox Communications had a total of 30,450 subscribers on the Peninsula or a penetration rate of 66.5%. In Rancho Palos Verdes, Cox Communications had 12,585 subscribers in 1998, or a penetration rate of 77.6%. The City's current cable television franchise agreement with Cox Communications expires on December 14, 2000. The Cable Act provides a 6 month window, 36 to 30 months before the agreement expires, within which the cable operator may request a proceeding to identify the City's future cable-related needs and interests, and to review the cable operator's performance under the current franchise. Accordingly, on June 26, 1998, the City received a letter from Cox Communications requesting to initiate review and renewal proceedings with the City. Because Cox Communications requested both formal and informal review and renewal procedures, the City Attorney's office recommended that the City proceed with the informal process first, with an understanding that either side reserves the right to invoke formal procedures, if informal proceedings prove to be unworkable. Around this same time, the City of Rolling Hills Estates informed the City that it had extended its franchise agreement with Cox Communications so that it will expire at the same time as our agreement. Rolling Hills Estates expressed a desire to participate with Rancho Palos Verdes in the review and renewal process. On November 17, 1998, in response to the letter from Cox Communications and the request from the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the City Council:
On November 20, 1998, staff sent a letter to Cox Communications initiating informal negotiations. After the City of Rolling Hills Estates appointed two Councilmembers to serve on the committee in January 1999, the Cable Television Franchise Renewal Joint Committee held its first meeting on February 8, 1999. Representation on the Joint Committee included the following members: Rancho Palos Verdes: Lee
Byrd, Mayor Rolling Hills Estates: John
Addelman, Mayor Because the meetings involved Councilmembers from two jurisdictions, the Joint Committee was subject to the Brown Act and the meetings were open to the public. Notice of the meetings was posted as required by law and agenda packets were mailed to interested parties. As a result, all but one of the meetings (a site visit to Cox’s offices and studio on March 4, 1999) had one or two members of the public in attendance. Mr. William Rudell of the City Attorney’s Office prepared the first draft of the franchise renewal agreement, based on this extensive experience in preparing similar agreements for other municipalities in Southern California. The initial draft of the agreement was presented to the Joint Committee at its meeting on April 6, 1999. Over the course of the last year and a half, the Joint Committee held a total of nine meetings and made a variety of changes and refinements to the draft document. At its last meeting held on July 31, 2000, the Joint Committee voted to forward the revised draft Franchise Renewal Agreement to each jurisdiction’s full City Council for final review and approval. Since the draft agreement was last seen by the Joint Committee, staff has made additional refinements to Exhibit D, "Consumer Protection Standards," and Exhibit E, "Support of Local Cable Usage," which will be discussed in detail later in this report. DISCUSSION The Cable Act allows the City to enter into a non-exclusive franchise agreement with a cable television operator that allows the operator the right to install and maintain its facilities within the City’s public rights-of-way. In exchange for the right to use our streets, the cable operator pays the City a franchise fee equivalent to 5% of its gross revenues and provides support for public, educational and governmental programming on its cable network. Contrary to common belief, even though the Council approves the franchise agreement, the City does not have broad regulatory control over the cable operator. Instead, most of the regulatory control over the cable television industry regarding issues that are often of most concern to the consumer (fees and programming) are vested with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). What the City can regulate:
What the City cannot regulate:
The remainder of the Discussion section of this report is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the specific terms included in the body of the franchise renewal agreement and the second part deals with the exhibits to the agreement. FRANCHISE RENEWAL AGREEMENT The discussion below concerns those sections of the initial draft of the franchise renewal agreement that were discussed and/or modified by the Joint Committee. These areas tended to be of the greatest concern to the Committee members, staff or the public who provided input at the meetings. Duration (Pages 4 & 5, Section 1.8) Cox Communications initially requested that the term of the franchise renewal agreement be for 15 years. The reason cited for this length of time was to fully amortize the investment that the company has recently made to upgrade the cable network system from coaxial cable to fiber optic cable. The Joint Committee felt that 15 years was too long of a commitment, especially in light of the continuing rapid changes in the telecommunications industry. Therefore, the Joint Committee is recommending an initial term for the agreement of 10 years. However, the agreement may be extended for an additional 5 years if the cable operator successfully completes a performance review conducted by the City after the sixth anniversary date of the renewal agreement. The performance criteria that would be used to conduct the performance review are contained in Section 8 of the document. Franchise Fee (Pages 7 & 8, Section 2.2) Under the current agreement, the City receives 5% of Cox’s gross revenues as a franchise fee. Given that this is the maximum fee the City can collect by law, the same provisions are included in the draft franchise renewal agreement. The following chart summarizes the franchise fees paid to the City by Cox over the last three fiscal years:
In addition to fees charged for cable services, the franchise fee also includes revenues derived from such things as advertising, home shopping and the sale of program guides. Since the launch of its new Internet service, Cox@Home, the cable operator has also been including the revenue derived from this product in the calculation of their franchise fees. However, the City recently received notice from Cox that the court recently ruled in the AT&T v. City of Portland case that cable modem Internet access service is not a cable service. Therefore, beginning with its November billing, Cox will no longer collect franchise fees from its subscribers related to cable modem Internet access service. While this change will result in a small decrease in the amount of franchise fees collected by the City, it will also result in savings to the residents who subscribe to this service. Outlets for Public Buildings (Pages 13 & 14, Section 4.3) The draft agreement requires Cox Communications to provide both cable and Internet service to the following City facilities: Civic
Center The cable operator does not wish to provide service to Robert E. Ryan Park, citing costs of approximately $7,168.00 to provide the connection. Although the Committee and staff did not feel that the cost was excessive, the Committee felt that the current need for these services at this park facility was relatively low at this time. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the decision of whether or not to provide the same service to Ryan Park be deferred to the second scheduled performance review, which will take place within 90 days of the fourth anniversary date of the renewal agreement. Parental Control Devices (Page 15, Section 4.5) It has been the cable operator’s practice to provide parental control devices or "lockboxes" free of charge to customers upon the initial installation of their service, and with no monthly fee for this service. However, a $15 fee is charged if the device is installed at a later time in order to cover the cost of the additional service call. The cable operator has indicated that only one such device has been installed in its service area on the Peninsula. State law allows the City to include a requirement in the franchise that lockboxes shall be provided free of charge regardless of when the device is installed. However, the same section allows the cable operator to charge a monthly service fee for the lockbox. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the draft agreement require the cable operator to provide free initial installation, but with no monthly service fee. However, the cable operator could still charge a fee for later installation of a lockbox. Based on the low demand for these devices in the past, the Committee and staff felt that this language was appropriate. Discounts for Senior Citizens (Page 17, Section 5.2) As discussed in the Background section of this report, the City has no legal authority to control the rates and fees charged by the cable operator. However, the Joint Committee felt that it was important to encourage the cable operator to offer discounts to senior citizens. Under this section, the cable operator may offer senior citizens a percentage discount on basic cable service. A requirement was also added to Exhibit D, Consumer Protection Standards, requiring the cable operator to increase advertising of the "limited basic" package (currently $15.55 per month) as a more affordable alternative to senior citizens and low-income subscribers. Undergrounding of Cable (Page 21 & 22, Section 7.10) This section of the agreement initially required the cable operator to install its facilities underground within the public right-of-way. At the suggestion of staff, the language was expanded to also include public utility easements. This requirement would apply in areas where utilities are already underground or in the process of being moved underground. This language is consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code. Performance Audits (Pages 25 & 26, Section 8.1b & e) The Committee recommended that scheduled performance audits be conducted on three automatic anniversary dates, the second, fourth and sixth year of the renewal agreement. The third scheduled review (after year six) will coincide with consideration of the 5-year extension beyond the initial 10-year life of the agreement. However, the agreement still allows the City to conduct additional performance reviews at any time. Assignment, Transfer, Sale and Change of Control (Pages 36 & 37, Section 13.1) As originally drafted, this section of the agreement required prior written consent from the City Council for any merger, consolidation, reorganization, business combination or other transaction where 10% or more of the ownership interest would be affected and control of the franchise would change. Cox Communications initially requested that the percentage triggering the City consent be increased to 51%. The Joint Committee recommended that the percentage triggering City Council approval of an assignment, transfer, sale or change of control be specified as 20% or more. This section also stipulates that the cable operator will reimburse the City for the legal expenses incurred during such a transaction in an amount not to exceed $5,000. EXHIBITS Exhibit C, Construction of Cable System Upgrade (Page C-2) Typically, franchise renewal agreements include requirements for the cable operator to complete a substantial upgrade to its cable system following the renewal of the agreement for improved service to subscribers. In 1994, the previous cable operator, Dimension Cable, began the process of replacing most of its coaxial cable system with a fiber optic cable system throughout the Peninsula. Construction stopped when Dimension Cable was acquired by Cox Communications in 1995 and did not resume until late 1997. The build-out of the new system in Rancho Palos Verdes was finally completed in 1999. The improved cable network now consists of over 1,200 miles of fiber optic cable and 400 miles of coaxial cable serving over 30,000 customers on the Peninsula. In addition, the cable operator is currently working on an additional upgrade to the system to provide 750-megahertz capability (digital programming), which will be completed by December 31, 2000. Some of the features of the new hybrid fiber/coaxial system include:
In addition to expansion of the existing analog cable service (Cox Cable), the network upgrade has allowed Cox Communications to offer two new services to its customers:
In light of the significant upgrades that have recently been made to the cable system or that will be completed shortly, and the expansion of services available to subscribers, Cox Communications is not proposing any other upgrades at this time. The Joint Committee agreed that no additional upgrades should be required in the foreseeable future. However, recognizing that technology in this field has been experiencing rapid change in recent years, the Committee recommended that language be included in the agreement which would allow the City and the cable operator to negotiate further upgrades to the system in the future. Section 8.1(b) of the draft agreement (Performance Audits) requires Cox Communications to continue to operate its system with established, state-of-the-art technology that is comparable with other communities in the greater Los Angeles area. In addition, Cox must maintain parity with those communities having the most advanced cable and telecommunications services in the cable operator’s other franchise areas. Through the performance audit, the City can ensure that the best possible cable television and related services are available to the residents. Exhibit D, Consumer Protection Standards (Page D-1) In addition to sample notices that Cox sends to its subscribers (see Schedule 1), the full complement of federal and state consumer protection standards have been included in Exhibit D (see Schedules 2 through 7). These standards cover a wide variety of issues, including office hours and telephone availability, appointment windows, annual notifications to subscribers, billing procedures, compatibility with consumer electronics, privacy protection and dispute resolution procedures. In addition, the Cable Act allows the City broad authority to enact additional customer service protection standards, based on the particular needs and issues in the community. The additional requirements that the Joint Committee recommended be included in the renewal agreement are discussed in more detail later on in this section. It would be unreasonable to assume that all disgruntled customers call the City to complain. However, the number of calls the City receives each year from residents is a reasonable indicator of what issues are of concern to the community and provides a general idea of how well the cable operator is addressing customers’ complaints. The chart below summarizes the type and number of customer complaints the City has received over the last three years:
Given the total number of subscribers in Rancho Palos Verdes (12,585 in 1998), the total number of complaints the City receives each year from residents is relatively low. The largest number of complaints received over the last three years was regarding cable rate increases (nearly 30%), over which the City has no real control. There was a significant increase in the number of complaints received in 1999, due in large part to the fact that Cox completed the bulk of the cable system upgrade in the City during this time (13 of the calls received were in some way related to the construction). Most of the other calls received over the last three years were service complaints that were resolved within one or two days of the City staff receiving the call and contacting the cable operator. In many cases, the cable operator provided the customer with some free service or a discount as compensation for any inconvenience.
The Joint Committee recommended that some additional customer service obligations be imposed on the cable operator for the added protection of subscribers:
If the cable operator fails to comply with any of the customer service standards specified in Exhibit D, Section 11.4(b)4 of the franchise renewal agreement (Page 34) allows the City to impose a maximum penalty of $250 for each day that the situation has not been remedied. The Council also has the ability to adopt specific penalties for different types of violations, if it so chooses. The one exception is a violation of the 4-hour appointment window for service connections or repairs. In cases where the cable operator fails to meet the 4-hour appointment window, the subscriber can choose between a free service connection or repair, or a credit to their account in the amount of $20. As specified in Section 11.1 of the agreement, the City must give the cable operator written notice of any violation of the customer service standards and an opportunity to correct the problem. If the problem is not corrected within the specified time frame, the City Council must conduct a hearing before imposing any penalty. This procedure is required to protect the cable operator’s right of due process. Exhibit E, Support of Local Cable Usage (Page E-1) The Cable Act allows the City to require the cable operator to provide channel capacity and technical support for public, educational and governmental ("PEG") programming on the local cable network. Currently, Cox provides two PEG access channels on its system. Channel 3 is used for governmental access and Channel 33 is available for public access. Currently, there is no educational access channel. Support for each of these three uses in the franchise renewal agreement is discussed below: 1.Government Support a.Government Access Channel Typical programming on Channel 3 consists of live and taped broadcasts of City Council meetings, the Reader Board, Public Service Announcements (PSA’s) and City-produced programming, such as the annual "Whale of a Day" celebration and the City’s video on habitat restoration. Taped and live programs are normally broadcast each day between the hours of 5:00 PM and midnight. The Reader Board runs continuously during the remainder of the day. The City also shares Channel 3 with the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates, the Library Board and the School Board. The City of Rolling Hills does not contribute any programming to Channel 3. Occasionally, one of the participating agencies will authorize another entity to broadcast their programming on this channel, such as the nature walk videos produced by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. The Joint Committee recommended no changes to the current use of Channel 3. b.Broadcasting of City Council Meetings One of the most significant services that Cox Communications provides to the City through the franchise agreement is the live broadcasting and taped re-play of City Council meetings on Channel 33. Historically, Cox has provided the audio and video equipment for the live broadcast of the meetings, such as the cameras, monitors and mixing board. This equipment is kept at Fred Hesse Jr. Community Park. The cable operator has also provided technical support to repair or maintain the equipment. However, the City has provided the manpower to run the equipment. The producer is under contract to the City and the camera operators are volunteers from the local Amateur Radio Club. The poor and inconsistent quality of the meeting broadcasts, both audio and video, has been the subject of much internal debate over the last few years. The lack of quality has been variously attributed to the physical limitations of the Council Chambers, the quality of the equipment provided by the cable operator and the skill of the people setting up, repairing and operating the equipment. In an attempt to overcome these problems, several modifications have been made, such as installing high intensity television lighting, installing new microphones, adjusting the location of the cameras and having a technician from Cox present at each meeting to troubleshoot and adjust the equipment. Despite these efforts, however, the problems still persist. Staff believes that, so long as the City and cable operator share in the responsibility of producing the broadcasts, neither party can accept complete responsibility for the quality. In order to address this issue, Cox Communications has proposed the following:
The approach advocated by Cox Communications is reflected in the language included in the draft of Exhibit E. For the Council’s information, Cox is currently responsible for all aspects of the live broadcast of the City Council meetings for Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates. It is staff’s understanding that both cities intend to continue with this arrangement in the future. An alternative the Council may wish to consider would be for the City to take complete control of broadcasting the meetings. This would mean that the City would need to retain a the services of a specialist to select, purchase and install the new equipment, as well as make all the necessary repairs and adjustments to the equipment in the future. In addition, the City would continue to take responsibility for setting up and storing away the equipment for each meeting and providing the necessary manpower to produce the broadcasts. If the Council were to elect to take this approach, the City could negotiate further with the cable operator to provide a specified amount of money to purchase the equipment and perhaps to provide an annual amount to off-set the on-going production costs. Staff does not advocate this alternative for several reasons. In most franchise agreements, broadcasting the local meetings is the responsibility of the cable operator. It would add an additional burden to the City to recruit and retain a qualified specialist to assist the City when the cable operator already has this expertise in place. The City would have no control over the interface between the facilities at Hesse Park and the cable network head-end at Cox’s studio. In essence, responsibility for the quality of the broadcast would still be shared to an extent with the cable operator. And finally, the City may not be able to take advantage of the long-term storage options for the tapes of the meeting, which are discussed in more detail below. In addition to live broadcasting of the City Council meetings, Cox Communications has also agreed to the following:
Similar to the City’s recent donation of its surplus photocopiers to local community groups, the Joint Committee recommended the donation of the used equipment to a school or other non-profit organization. The ideas of broadcasting the Planning Commission meetings and storing the tapes of the City Council meetings on a more permanent medium only came up after the Joint Committee was disbanded in July 2000. Staff feels that both of these ideas have merit and recommends that the City Council include them in the franchise renewal agreement. c.City-Produced Programming In addition to broadcasting public meetings on Channel 33, Cox Communications also assists the City in producing a certain amount of original programming each calendar year. While the City’s Director of Administrative Services, sometimes with help from a part-time Cable Intern, develops the concepts, prepares scripts and selects shooting locations and cast, Cox is responsible for all technical aspects, including the expense, of filming, editing, mixing, titling, copying and broadcasting these programs. The programming includes the following:
City staff did not request and the Joint Committee did not recommend any changes to the level of City-produced programming and support provided by Cox Communications towards this effort. 2.Public Access Channel 33 is used for a variety of public access programming and the Community Bulletin Board, which includes announcements submitted by local civic, charitable and social organizations and clubs. Pre-recorded programs are normally broadcast each day between the hours of 2:30 PM and 10:00 PM. The Community Bulletin Board runs continuously during the remainder of the day. Over 95% of the programming shown on Channel 33 is produced outside the Peninsula area and is "bicycled in" for broadcast on our local system. For example, there is currently only one program being broadcast on Channel 33 that is produced locally. In addition, the City and the cable operator have very little control over the content of public access programs, as they are generally protected by the First Amendment. In the past, the City has promoted increased use of the public access channel through its participation in the Cable Television Advisory Committee. This Committee was made up of representatives from the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, and Los Angeles. However, interest from the community in producing local origination programming has historically been very low. As a result, the Advisory Committee was disbanded in March 2000. In light of these circumstances, the Joint Committee has recommended that Channel 33 be eliminated as a public access channel. However, the cable operator will still be required to provide adequate channel capacity for "local origination programming" and the Community Bulletin Board on the KCOX local channel. If the City Council agrees with this approach, staff will send letters to the Cities of Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills seeking their concurrence with the elimination of Channel 33 as a public access channel. 3.Educational Access As mentioned earlier in the report, there is no educational access channel on the local cable network. However, under the current franchise agreement, the cable operator provides the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District with free cable service at each of its school sites within the franchise service area and broadcasts its board meetings on Channel 33. The PVP School District has indicated to staff that they are satisfied with the current level of service from Cox and do not desire any changes or new services at this time (such as cable modem access to each school). Similarly, Marymount College has not indicated an interest in increased educational access. Nonetheless, language has been included in the franchise renewal agreement to allow for additional channel capacity for educational programming, if the need or desire for such services emerges in the future. CONCLUSION After conducting nine public meetings held over the last year and a half, the Cable Television Franchise Renewal Joint Committee completed its review of the draft franchise renewal agreement prepared by the City Attorney’s Office. After lengthy discussions with the staff and representatives of Cox Communications, input from the public and numerous modifications to the document, the Joint Committee has forwarded the Draft Franchise Renewal Agreement to the full City Council for final review and approval. FISCAL IMPACT With the renewal of the franchise agreement with Cox Communications, the City will continue to receive the 5% franchise fee from the cable operator for the use of the City’s right-of-ways. The City is requesting reimbursement from the cable operator for the legal expenses it has incurred in the processing the franchise renewal agreement. The costs included the Assistant City Attorney’s time to draft and revise the agreement, confer with City staff and attending the Joint Committee meetings. From February 1999 to September 2000, Mr. Rudell’s billings totaled approximately $10,000. This figure does not include any time spent during the month of October 2000, as this invoice has not yet been received from the City Attorney’s office. Staff has included a section in the draft resolution approving the franchise renewal agreement capping the amount of the reimbursement at $10,000 and Cox Communications has agreed to this amount. Respectfully
submitted: Attachment: Resolution No. 2000- RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE RENEWAL OF A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COX COM, INC., dba COX COMMUNICATIONS PALOS VERDES, INC. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FINDS, DECLARES AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:This resolution is adopted in consideration of the following facts and circumstances: A.CoxCom, Inc., dba Cox Communications Palos Verdes, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cox Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Franchisee"), is the duly authorized holder of a franchise ("Franchise") that authorizes the construction, operation, and maintenance of a cable television system within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("Franchise Authority"). B.By its terms, the Franchise will terminate in its entirety on December 14, 2000. C.Negotiations between the Franchise Authority and the Franchisee commenced in early 1999. In addition, public meetings were held for the purpose of evaluating the future cable-related community needs and interests and the cable operator's performance under the existing franchise. A new agreement has been negotiated entitled "An Agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and CoxCom, Inc., Renewing a Nonexclusive Franchise to Operate a Cable Television System in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Setting Forth Terms and Conditions Relating to the Renewal of the Franchise" ("Franchise Renewal Agreement"). A copy of the Franchise Renewal Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 to this resolution. D.The Franchise Authority has reviewed the present and future cable-related needs of the community and its residents, the Franchisee's record of service and its ability to carry out its obligations under the Franchise Renewal Agreement, and the Franchisee's financial, legal, and technical qualifications to hold and to operate a cable television franchise, and has determined that the public interest would be served by authorizing the Franchise Renewal Agreement. This determination is based upon the following findings: (1)The Franchisee has substantially complied with the material terms of the existing Franchise and with applicable law; (2)The quality of the Franchisee's service, including signal quality, response to consumer complaints, and billing practices, but without regard to the mix, quality, or level of cable services or other services provided over the system, has been reasonable in light of community needs; (3)The Franchisee has the financial, legal, and technical ability to provide the services, facilities, and equipment as set forth in the Franchise Renewal Agreement attached as Exhibit 1; and (4)The Franchisee's performance of the obligations set forth in the Franchise Renewal Agreement will reasonably meet the future cable-related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of meeting those needs and interests. Section 2:The Franchise Authority authorizes the renewal of a nonexclusive franchise with the Franchisee to construct, operate, and maintain a cable television system within the City. This authorization is made in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 13.12 of Title 13 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the applicable provisions of state and federal law, and the terms and conditions of that certain Franchise Renewal Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to this resolution. Section 3:Franchisee will reimburse the Franchise Authority for all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the Franchise Authority's staff in connection with the negotiation, drafting, and processing of the Franchise Renewal Agreement; provided, however, that those costs and expenses will not exceed the sum of $10,000 and will be set forth in an itemized statement transmitted by the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, within 30 days after the effective date of this resolution. Section 4:That certain Franchise Renewal Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to this resolution is authorized and approved, and the Mayor is authorized to execute that agreement on behalf of the Franchise Authority following its execution by the Franchisee. Section 5: The City Clerk is directed to certify to the adoption of this resolution and to transmit a certified copy to the following representative of the Franchise: General
Manager PASSED,
APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October 2000. ___________________________ ATTEST: STATE
OF CALIFORNIA ) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2000-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on October 17, 2000. _________________________________
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: Recommendation: To avoid the continued misunderstanding about meetings of City Council subcommittees, it is recommended that the Council either (1) disband the Council subcommittees, or (2) notice meetings of the subcommittees in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown. Act.
INTRODUCTION At the last City Council meeting, Mayor Byrd requested that advice be provided to the City Council about the issues that were raised recently by Mr. Green’s article in the Daily Breeze regarding the effect of the Ralph M. Brown Act ("the Act") on the City Council subcommittees. Coincidentally, the City received a letter from Mr. Green, dated October 10, 2000, demanding a cure of alleged violations of the Brown Act caused by meetings of the Council subcommittees. The purpose of this report is to address both issues. RECOMMENDATION To avoid the continued misunderstanding about meetings of City Council subcommittees, it is recommended that the Council either: (1) disband the Council subcommittees, or (2) notice meetings of the subcommittees in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Either of these options will ensure that Council subcommittees are in full compliance with the Act at all times, will eliminate the current confusion about the subcommittees, and also will respond to Mr. Green’s letter of October 10th. BACKGROUND For many years, City Council subcommittees, consisting of two Members of the City Council, have been appointed by each Mayor to address particular issues. Some of the subcommittees have been reappointed for several years by different Mayors. Other subcommittees have been discontinued. Some of the subcommittees that were discontinued by one Mayor were reactivated subsequently by another Mayor. Each of the subcommittees remains in existence for a maximum period of that year until the Council is reorganized and the new Mayor is selected. A copy of the list of the current Council subcommittees is attached to this report. None of the subcommittees has a fixed meeting time that was established by an action of the City Council. We have been advised that some of the subcommittees have met several times throughout the year; that at least one subcommittee never has met at all, and that frequently only one Member of a subcommittee has attended meetings of that subcommittee. Thus, each subcommittee is unique. Indeed, it is this lack of consistency that probably has contributed to the misconception that because the subcommittees were appointed by the Mayor, they necessarily are having regular meetings. Another common misconception is that the subcommittees are making decisions. That of course cannot occur, since only a quorum of the Members of the City Council, at a duly noticed public meeting, can make a decision on behalf of the City. LEGAL ISSUE The issue that has been raised by Mr. Green essentially is whether the City Council subcommittees are "standing" committees, which would be subject to the provisions of the Act, or whether they are ad hoc committees, which are not within the purview of the Act. DISCUSSION The Section of the Act that is relevant to this issue is Government Code Section 54952, which defines the term "legislative body" . This definition is important because it is meetings of "legislative bodies" of local agencies that are subject to the provisions of the Act. (See Government Code Section 54953.) Paragraph (b) of Section 54952 is the paragraph that is of particular importance to this analysis. It lists several different types of bodies that are "legislative bodies", which are subject to the Act, and also lists the exemption from the Act that is applicable to subcommittees composed of less than a quorum of members of one legislative body. It provides as follows: "As used in this Chapter, ‘legislative body’ means: "(b) A commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether permanent or temporary, decisionmaking or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body. However, advisory committees, composed solely of the members of the legislative body which are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not legislative bodies, except that standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter. " Because none of the Council subcommittees have a meeting time that was established by action of the City Council, the critical inquiry is whether any of the City Council subcommittees are standing committees that would be subject to the Act because they have "a continuing subject matter jurisdiction." The first problem with the Act and determining which Council subcommittees may or may not be subject to its provisions is the fact that "continuing subject matter jurisdiction" is a somewhat ambiguous phrase that is not further defined under the Act. In addition, there are very few opinions that have addressed this issue. The opinion that provides the most guidance on this point is a 1996 opinion by the State Attorney General, which concluded that meetings of a subcommittee of a water board were subject to the provisions of the Act. The subcommittee had been in place for a number of years, generally met monthly, but did not have a fixed meeting schedule. In establishing this administrative committee, the board had specifically stated that: "[t]his committee shall not exercise continuing subject matter jurisdiction. Its purpose shall be to advise the Board on administrative matters as appropriate. The Board of Directors shall not fix the meeting schedule fo this committee. The committee may meet on the call of the chair or as decided by the members. Action taken by the Administrative Committee shall be subject to final Board approval." (79 Ops.A.G. 69 (1996), emphasis in original.) The Attorney General relied on definitions in Webster’s Dictionary in concluding that the water board subcommittee was a standing committee that was subject to the Act: "We note that a ‘standing committee’ is commonly defined as ‘a committee to consider subjects of a particular class arising during a stated period; specif[ically] a permanent committee of a legislative body.’ (Webster’s Third New Internat. Dict. (1971) p. 2224.) ‘Permanent’ may be commonly defined as ‘to endure, remain.’ (Id. at p. 1683.) "As for the phrase ‘continuing subject matter jurisdiction,’ we find that ‘continuing’ means ‘needing no renewal’ (Webster’s, supra, at p. 493), ‘subject matter’ means ‘matter presented for consideration’ (id., at p. 2276), and ‘jurisdiction’ means ‘power, right, or authority to hear...a cause’ (id., at p. 1227)." (79 Ops.A.G. at 72.) Relying upon those definitions, the Attorney General concluded that the water board committee was a standing committee that was subject to the Act because: "this subcommittee does not have a limited term, and it is not an ad hoc committee charged with accomplishing a specific task in a short period of time." (Id. at 73.) Unlike the subcommittee that was analyzed by the Attorney General, the Rancho Palos Verdes subcommittees are created annually by the new Mayor. Indeed, some are reconstituted; sometimes new subcommittees are created, and others are discontinued. This distinction, however, may not be sufficient for a court to find that one or more of the City’s subcommittees are ad hoc committees rather than standing committees. In reviewing this issue, a court would have to make a determination about each subcommittee on a case by case basis. This is so because some of the subcommittees have not met at all during the last year, and some have met only infrequently and irregularly. Indeed, it should be noted that the Act only applies to meetings of a legislative body. (See Government Code Section 54953.) Thus, at least two members of a subcommittee would have to be present in order to create a meeting that is subject to the provisions of the Act. Correspondingly, a meeting that is attended by only one member of a council subcommittee would not be within the purview of the Act. (See Wilson v. San Francisco Municipal Railway, 29 Cal.App.3d 870, 876-880 (1973).) CONCLUSION To avoid confusion on the part of the public and the press about the status of the various Council subcommittees; to avoid allegations of violations of the Brown Act; and to respond to Mr. Green’s letter of October 10th, we recommend either that: (1) all of the current subcommittees be disbanded, or (2) meetings of the Council subcommittees be agendized and held in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If the first option is chosen, the Mayor still could appoint individual Council Members to address issues that previously were addressed by the Council subcommittees. The Council liaison then could advise the other Members of the City Council about the particular topic, either in writing, or orally at a duly noticed City Council meeting.1 This action also would not prevent the Council from appointing a particular subcommittee in the future, for a specified period of time, to accomplish a particular task, which would conform to the Attorney General’s analysis.
TO:HONORABLE
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Receive and file this report. BACKGROUND The Safe Neighborhood Parks Proposition of 1992 provides $540 million Countywide for park and open space improvement projects. The 1996 proposition adds $319 million in project funds and increases emphasis on youth employment. In 1992 voters also approved an assessment district for maintenance and servicing funds for cities to offset increased maintenance costs resulting from Proposition-funded projects. In July 1998, the City adopted a Youth Employment Plan as required by the County of Los Angeles for cities receiving Safe Neighborhood Parks, Proposition A funds. The City of RPV’s portion of these funds for construction/development/acquisition of open space total $11,572,958. This report provides an update to the City Council on the status of the City’s use of these funds. The Proposition A of 1992 and 1996 is also commonly known and referred to as Measure A. For the purposes of this staff report, these funds will be referred to as Measure A. DISCUSSION Funds for construction/development/acquisition of open space for the City have all been allocated. The City has begun maintenance of one of the completed grant funded projects and the City required employment of at risk youth on grant funded projects.
The City received County approval for Measure A grants for four projects:
The County has also set aside funds for a fifth project, acquisition of Open Space at Portuguese Bend. The City will apply for the funds once a specific parcel has been selected. There are three components to Measure A funds:
1. Construction and Development (C&D) Measure A funds can be used for the acquisition, development, improvement, rehabilitation and/or restoration of a park site. The City completed the acquisition of open space at Forrestal Drive, and has developed the lower portion of Hesse Park. The construction of PVIC is on hold until the abatement of the soil contaminated with lead is complete. The design of Abalone Cove Beach Improvements is in progress and is waiting on a hearing by the California Coastal Commission tentatively set for in mid November 2000. The City has not decided on any particular open space parcel in the Portuguese Bend area, however, funds have been earmarked only until June 30, 2003. Below is a summary of the projects:
* Expenditures recorded as of September 14, 2000 2. Maintenance and Servicing (M&S) On an annual basis, 15% of all proceeds of assessments levied and collected by the County will be set aside and designated as a maintenance and servicing amount. These funds will be collected and set aside during the 22-year life time of Measure A (ending FY 2018-2019) and are to be used towards any Measure A funded project, whether funds were for the acquisition of open space, or for development/construction in parks. Agencies are required to maintain projects in perpetuity, regardless of the availability of M&S monies. The City’s annual allocation of M&S funds is approximately $65,000. Cities have been accumulating M&S funds since FY 1993-94. The Los Angeles County Park and Open Space District (District) holds these reserves until requests for reimbursement are made. The City’s current reserve balance is approximately $447,530. Currently only the two completed projects, Forrestal Drive Open Space and Lower Hesse Park are eligible for M&S funding. The M&S funds can be used for any maintenance and servicing related cost of an open space acquisition (e.g. Forrestal Open Space), or a brand new construction/development such as Lower Hesse Park. However, the M&S funding can be used only for the incremental increase in costs due to measure A funded construction and/or development activity at existing park sites such as PVIC or Abalone Cove. The District requires that the difference between the costs before the improvements and after the improvements be calculated and then submitted for reimbursement. Any costs that the City previously incurred prior to using Measure A funds are not eligible. Staff has recently requested M&S funds for the Lower Hesse Park project. The estimated annual M&S expense for Lower Hesse Park eligible for Measure A funding is approximately $38,000. Given the large reserve balance, staff has contacted the District representative to inquire if any of the one time activities outlined in the Forrestal Management Plan is eligible for Measure A maintenance and servicing funding. Generally, such work is not considered normal M&S related expenses. The M&S guidelines allow funding requests for unanticipated/one time only maintenance. This would include major maintenance expenses occurring only infrequently or when cannot be anticipated in advance such as a natural calamity, gradual physical or functional deterioration and/or disasters. Staff plans to submit a request for funding to the District in November. The District will determine eligibility. As for regular trail maintenance at Forrestal Open Space, it will begin once the Forrestal Management Plan has been approved later in the year. 3. Employment of At-Risk Youth (ARY) The City is required to assure that at-risk youths (ARY) are employed as a condition for the Measure A funds it receives. The City adopted a Youth Employment Plan in July 1998 and is required to spend at least 10% of its C&D funds on employment of ARY. These funds can be used during the C&D and/or M&S of the projects. The City’s goal is to spend a total of $327,000 through FY 2018-2019. It is up to the discretion of the City to decide how and on what projects to utilize ARY. However, expenditures on ARY has to meet or exceed the goal of $327,000. To-date, the City has spent approximately $22,100, or fulfilled about 7% of its total goal towards employment of ARY. The City had planned to meet a large portion of the ARY goal during the construction of PVIC, which is currently on hold. Attached is a detail breakdown of the City’s ARY goals and actuals, including proposed changes to the City’s existing Youth Employment Plan which will more accurately reflect the project and level of employment of the youth during various projects. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. Respectfully
Submitted,
11.Establishment
of Stop Regulations at the Intersection of Avenida Aprenda and Avenida
Cuaderno. (Allison)
TO:HONORABLE
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution - , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes establishing stop regulations at the intersection of Avenida Aprenda and Avenida Cuaderno DISCUSSION The Public Works Department received a request from residents and the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners' Association to install stop signs on Avenida Aprenda at Avenida Cuaderno. The request was made based on concerns for traffic safety at the intersection and on the streets near the intersection. An exhibit of the intersection is attached. The City’s Consulting Traffic Engineer reviewed the request, and recommends denial. The rationale is that the intersection does not meet Caltrans warrants for stop signs. On September 25, 2000 the Traffic Committee considered the request, reviewed the traffic engineer’s report and received considerable testimony supporting the request. The Traffic Committee voted by a margin of 3-1 in support of establishing an all-way stop at the intersection. It is arguable as to if the stop signs will significantly increase safety. However, because the residents of the neighborhood - those most impacted by the new signs - have expressed their support for the request, and that the Traffic Committee voted in favor of the installation, staff has no objections to the installation of the stop signs. CONCLUSIONS Adopting the recommended action will authorize the installation of stop signs on Avenida Aprenda at Avenida Cuaderno as requested by the neighborhood and as recommended by the Traffic Committee. FISCAL
IMPACT Submitted
by,
Recommendation: Authorize Staff to increase the use of the radar trailer and secure additional services from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s to increase speed enforcement and improve public awareness of speeding on local roadways.
TO:HONORABLE
MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Authorize Staff to increase the use of the radar trailer and secure additional services from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s to increase speed enforcement and improve public awareness of speeding on local roadways. BACKGROUND On June 6, 2000 the City Council authorized the expenditure of $30,000 for additional traffic safety Enforcement by the Lomita Sheriff’s Station. The City Council further directed that of this $30,000, $10,000 should be used for increased use of the City’s radar trailer, and $20,000 for increased enforcement for a six-month period. DISCUSSION Representatives of the Public Works Department met with the Sheriff’s Department to prepare a plan of action for increasing enforcement of speed limits. One concern that consistently arises is the need for enforcement on some of the local streets within the City. Currently, resources for traffic enforcement are generally utilized at locations along the City’s arterial roadways, and more specifically, at locations where a recent accident has occurred and not on local residential and collector streets to meet the requests of residents. Therefore, the City is allocating additional resources to specifically target speeding issues on these streets. Increased used of the radar trailer Two radar boards are used in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Public Works Department sets up a City radar trailer two days a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The trailer is set up at approximately 8:00 am, and removed by 3:00 pm by the City’s maintenance contractor. Staff has devised a staffing plan that will allow the radar trailer to be deployed earlier in the morning and left on local streets overnight. This will help to provide full coverage of the peak traffic periods, which also correspond to the periods most residents cite as having the most speeding violations. By incorporating overnight deployment and expanding staff hours, it is anticipated that the number of hours of radar trailer use can be expanded from the existing 14 hours per week to 96 hours per week. Increased enforcement The Sheriff’s Department is proposing to extend the shift of one radar unit several times each week for the primary purpose of enforcing speed limits on certain roadways. The roadways to be included in this additional action will be as requested by residents at the Traffic Committee or through the Public Works Department. This basis of enforcement is somewhat different than the basis currently used by the Sheriff’s Department in which the location of injury accidents is the primary basis of deploying enforcement. Staff has presented a report on this issue to the Traffic Committee. At the September 25, 2000 meeting, the Traffic Committee unanimously supported the plan proposed by Staff. CONCLUSIONS Adopting the recommended action will authorize the expenditure of $30,000 through the expansion of radar speed enforcement and the use of the radar trailer on local residential and collector streets. Staff expects the expanded program to result in a significant increase in speed enforcement, particularly non-arterial roadways. FISCAL
IMPACT Submitted
by,
13.Revised
2000 Five-Year Financial Model and Consideration of Revising the Utility
User Tax Rate. (Burton)
TO:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: City Council Policy and Legislative Review The Five-Year Financial Model (the "Model") is a financial schedule prepared annually by the Finance Department under the supervision of the City Manager. The Model is prepared as a part of the City’s budget process in accordance with City Council Policy No. 18. Accordingly, the year 2000 Five-Year Financial Model (the "2000 Model") was previously reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to the adoption of the FY 2000-01 budget. Section 3.30.180 of the Municipal Code requires the City Manager to submit an analysis of revenues derived from the City’s Utility Users Tax (UUT) in connection with the preparation of the City’s annual budget. The 2000 Model, approved by the City Council at its meeting on May 5, 2000, included the projection of UUT revenue, as well as, all other revenues and expenditures for the City and its component units. Therefore, the submittal of the 2000 Model (inclusive of the UUT revenue trend) satisfied the requirements of Section 3.30.180 of the Municipal Code. The UUT rate has always been 3% since its inception during FY 93-94. The City Council may vote to decrease or eliminate the UUT rate at any time. In the event the rate is decreased, the City Council may elect to increase the rate at a later date, but not to exceed 3%. As a result of the 1996 municipal election, the UUT rate may be increased in excess of 3% only with the majority vote of the people. Purpose of the Revision of the 2000 Model and Review of the UUT Rate Since the time the 2000 Model was approved by the City Council, several capital projects that were not included in the original 2000 Model (or the FY 2000-01 adopted budget) have either been approved or will be considered by the City Council. These projects will have a significant impact on the financial condition of the City. The specific details of these new projects will be discussed in the "Significant Changes Since the Preparation of the 2000 Model" section of this report. Mayor Pro-Tem Lyon has requested that the City Council review the City’s UUT rate at tonight’s meeting. The City Council also requested that the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) review the revised 2000 Model and make a recommendation whether to reduce the current 3% UUT rate. Accordingly, at their meeting of October 10, 2000, the FAC reviewed the revised 2000 Model. The Committee’s findings and recommendations are summarized below. Findings and Recommendations by the Finance Advisory Committee Based on the review of the revised 2000 Model during its October 10, 2000, the FAC acted to recommend to the City Council not to reduce the UUT rate at this time. In making its recommendation to the City Council, the Committee cited:
The FAC also recommended the following to the City Council:
Format of the Revised 2000 Model The format of the revised 2000 Model is nearly identical to the original 2000 Model. The majority of the changes to the revised 2000 Model relate to just two years: FY 1999-00 and FY 2000-01. The original 2000 Model included projections for all FY 1999-00 revenues, expenditures and ending fund balances. However, the revised 2000 Model has been updated to include actual FY 1999-00 revenue, expenditures and ending fund balances for all funds. These figures are unaudited, but staff is confident no material changes will occur as a result of the audit by the City’s independent auditors. Additionally, the proposed budget for FY 2000-01 was the basis for the first year of the original 2000 Model. However, the first year of the revised Model includes amounts from the adopted budget (inclusive of any budget adjustments). The following four years of the revised 2000 Model are based upon the same assumptions considered in the original 2000 Model and are described later in the "Significant Assumptions" section. As with the original 2000 Model, the revised 2000 Model includes all funds of the City and its component units (i.e. Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority). The Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (prepared by the Director of Public Works) is an integral part of the 2000 Model. The Director of Public Works recently updated the Plan in conjunction with the revised 2000 Model. Most of the changes discussed below are a result of these revisions to the Plan. Significant Changes Since the Preparation of the Original 2000 Model: Additional Storm Drain Costs – PVDW near the City’s Border with the City of Palos Verdes Estates A major drainage deficiency exists just seaward of PVDW near the border between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Palos Verdes Estates. The area of instability affects property in both cities, and the two cities have agreed to equally share in funding the $1,470,000 project. The City Council approved a budget adjustment in the CIP fund for $735,000 at the meeting of October 3, 2000. The City’s full share of $735,000 will be funded with General fund monies. Additional Storm Drain Costs – PVDE at Bronco At the City Council meeting of October 3, 2000, Council approved allocating $375,000 in accumulated CIP reserves to provide for the completion of this storm drain project. The total cost of the project had increased substantially due to the identification of poor soil conditions at the project site. Due to large bedrock chunks, the soil was determined to be unsuitable to be used as backfill and would significantly slow the contractor’s productivity in installing the new pipeline. Therefore, the additional $375,000 is necessary to purchase new backfill soil and compensate the contractor for additional costs incurred as a result of the rocky soil. Additional Storm Drain Costs – San Ramon Storm Drain The Director of Public Works expects that Phase III of the San Ramon Storm Drain project will cost an additional $250,000. Phase II of the project used the remaining available balance of the $500,000 included in the FY 2000-01 budget for miscellaneous storm drain repairs. However, sufficient appropriations do not exist in the FY 2000-01 budget (or the original 2000 Model) to fund the final phase of the project. Staff expects Phase III to begin next spring, pending approval by the City Council. Proposed Forrestal Management Plan The Finance Advisory Committee is currently reviewing the Forrestal Management Plan regarding possible improvements to the open space land owned by the City. After completion of its review, the City Council, Recreation and Parks Committee and the Finance Advisory Committee will conduct a joint workshop to review the Plan. For purposes of the revised 2000 Model, staff has included an additional $675,000 of General fund monies for the construction of Forrestal improvements. The increase assumes the selection of alternative III, the most costly of the three alternatives. The original 2000 Model did not provide for any such improvements. Additional Storm Drain Costs – Annually FY 2001-02 through FY 2004-05 The original 2000 Model included $500,000 to $600,000 annually for storm drain repairs throughout the City. Based upon a recent analysis of the existing system, and in light of several significant structural failures, staff believes it is necessary to increase the annual allocation for storm drains improvements by approximately $500,000 per year for the final four years of the revised 2000 Model. The annual increase would help ensure that sufficient monies are available to address the aging storm drain system. The revised 2000 Model includes an allocation of approximately $1,000,000 to $1,100,000 annually for citywide storm drain improvements. The additional project costs included in the revised 2000 Model are summarized in the following table: Summary of Effect of the Significant Changes on the Revised 2000 Model As a result of the significant changes (described previously) included in the revised 2000 Model, the impact on the ending fund balances of the City’s three main operating funds (General fund, Gas Tax fund, and CIP fund) is significant. The total unreserved fund balances of the three funds decreased from $6.8 million (per the original 2000 Model) to $3.6 million (per the revised 2000 Model). Significant Assumptions Considered during the Preparation of the original and revised 2000 Model: The following assumptions were used in the preparation of the original 2000 Model and remain unchanged in the revised 2000 Model:
It should be noted that future economic activity, legislation and policy decisions, as well as any other unforeseen circumstances could affect the City's revenue stream and expenditures during any of the years presented in the revised 2000 Model. FISCAL IMPACT: Among other assumptions described above, the revised 2000 Model assumes the continuation of the 3.0% UUT through FY 2004-05. The revised 2000 Model indicates that total unreserved combined fund balance of the General fund, Gas Tax fund, and CIP fund will decrease from $6.8 million (per the original 2000 Model) to $3.6 million (per the revised 2000 Model) at the end of FY 04-05. Any reduction of the UUT rate will reduce fund reserves further. If the UUT rate is decreased 1%, fund reserves would be decreased an additional $2.1 Million through FY 04-05. Respectfully
submitted, 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 (All
Statutory References are to California Government CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Anticipated
Litigation:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
