|
NOVEMBER
21, 2000
DISCLAIMER
BEGINNING
OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
This agenda has been prepared to provide for the orderly progression of City business. Detailed staff reports on specific items are posted in the hallway for public viewing. The City Council wants to hear your comments, however, to run the meeting efficiently, please observe the following rules when you participate in the meeting. Please try to submit your REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL form to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called at the appropriate time to make your remarks. For the sake of efficiency, the City Council agenda is divided into several sections: Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items which, unless a request has been received from the public, council or staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the City Council. If you wish to speak to any Consent Calendar item(s) you will be limited to three minutes. Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed hearings. Although the normal time limit is three minutes for each speaker, the Mayor may grant additional time to a representative speaking for an entire group; however, this should not discourage anyone from addressing the City Council individually. Regular Business: This section contains items of general business and you will be allowed three minutes to speak on any item. Public Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda. If you have submitted a request to speak, you will be called by the City Clerk at the appropriate time and you may speak for up to three minutes. Please limit your comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Public Comments. If action by the City Council is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda or referred to staff, as determined by Council. Please make your remarks at the lectern microphone and direct your comments to the City Council and not to the staff or the public. Conduct at the Council Meeting: The City Council has adopted a set of rules for conduct during City Council meetings. The following is an excerpt from those adopted Rules of Procedure: Section 6.3The Mayor shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person(s) who commits the following acts at a regular or special meeting of the City Council: 1.Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Council or any member thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. 2.A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. 3.Disobedience of any lawful order of the Mayor which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Council. 4.Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting. RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 21, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD 6:00 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. 2000-75 NEXT ORD. NO. 361 RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Motion to waive full reading.
3. Transfer of Proposition ‘A’ Funds from the City of Rolling Hills. (Ramezani)
4. Trees for the Millennium Grant Program. (Still)
5. Contract Renewal for Geotechnical Consulting Services. (Rojas)
6. Register of Demands. (McLean)
PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7. Amendments to the Current Fee Schedule (Resolution No. 92-68) for specific planning applications and building permits. (Mihranian)
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: 8. NPDES Regulations. (Allison)
9. Installation of a Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Crest Road and Highridge Road. (Allison)
10. FY 1999-2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Audit Management Letter and Independent Auditors’ report on Compliance and Internal Control. (Burton)
11. Point Vicente Interpretive Center. (Evans)
12. Request for Constitutional Amendment Calling for the Direct Election of President. (Stern)
13. Request from the View Restoration Commission for Payment of Travel Expenses to Attend the Annual Planners Institute in Monterey. (Royce Ursu)
14. Request for a Joint Meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission. (Snow)
15. Cancellation of January 2, 2001 City Council Meeting.
16. Discussion of Habitat Removal From Upper Filiorum Property.
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. AMENDED
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Initiation
of Litigation:
1. Motion to waive full reading.
3. Transfer of Proposition ‘A’ Funds from the City of Rolling Hills. (Ramezani)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEAN ALLISON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF PROPOSITION A FUNDS FROM THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND In July 2000, in response to a request from the City of Rolling Hills, staff requested that the City of Rolling Hills consider transferring a portion of their Safe Neighborhood Parks Per Parcel Discretionary funds to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) to help fund the expansion of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center (PVIC). In September 2000, the City of Rolling Hills approved transferring $11,829 of its 1996 Per Parcel Discretionary funds to the City of RPV. Additionally, the City of RPV can also receive a portion of the City of Rolling Hills' maintenance and servicing funds for the long-term care of the proposition A funded project. The Proposition A of 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 The Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District administers measure A funds. The City of RPV has received funds from the Safe Neighborhood Parks Propositions of 1992 and 1996. The City has funding approval in the amount of $2,480,000 for the construction and development of PVIC. These additional funds will increase the City’s grant funding by $11,829. The additional funds from Rolling Hills will change the PVIC measure A grant total to $2,491,829. 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 lifetime of Measure A (ending FY 2018-2019) and are to be used towards any Measure A funded project. An attached Resolution will enable the City to receive a portion of the City of Rolling Hills’ M&S funds to be used to offset some of the future maintenance expenses. Additionally, the City has been notified that it has $232 in uncommitted 1992 Per Parcel Discretionary funds that can be claimed for any project. The attached resolution requests these funds for the Abalone Cove Beach Improvements project. Finally, the additional funds increase the City's Youth Employment Goal for At-Risk Youth by $1,206 (10% of the additional funds) to a new total of $328,502. FISCAL IMPACT If approved, the recommended actions will increase the City’s Measure A funds for construction and development of PVIC in the amount of $11,829, and Abalone Cove Beach Improvements project in the amount of $232. Respectfully Submitted, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Resolution 2000- ___ for Per Parcel Allocation Resolution 2000- ___ for Maintenance and Servicing Funds Resolution 2000- ___ for Grant Application- PVIC Resolution 2000- ___ for Grant Application- Abalone Cove 4. Trees for the Millennium Grant Program. (Still)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: TREES FOR THE MILLENNIUM GRANT PROGRAM Staff Coordinator: Larry Still, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATIONS
DISCUSSION Funding from the State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is available for the installation of new trees. Under the program "Trees for the Millennium" grants up to $50,000 are available. If the grant is approved it will be used to install new trees within the City’s street right of way. Tree species will be selected based on environmental conditioning and tolerances, those that are long-lived and require little maintenance, and those that have a low hazard or nuisance potential. Trees planted in this program will be carefully selected and located to minimize impact to views. CONCLUSION Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the application of a state grant of $50,000 for the installation of new trees. ALTERNATIVE Do not apply for the "Trees for the Millennium" grant and utilize alternative funding to purchase the trees and incidentals. FISCAL IMPACT If authorized, the City could receive up to $50,000. The cost for staff and consultant time to apply for and administer the grant is available in adopted budget. The installation of additional trees will slightly increase the cost to maintain the City’s Tree inventory. Respectfully submitted, Dean Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed Les Evans, City Manager Attachment: 5. Contract Renewal for Geotechnical Consulting Services. (Rojas)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed agreements with Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. and Bing Yen and Associates, Inc. to provide geology and geotechnical engineering consulting services on an as-needed basis to the City. BACKGROUND Due to the complex and potentially unstable soils and geology of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes contracts on an as-needed basis for the professional services of licensed geologists and soils engineers. In 1997, staff prepared and distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) which was provided to twenty-eight potential consulting firms. The City reviewed the eleven responses to the RFP, and after interviewing the top six candidates, selected Bing Yen and Associates, and Zeiser Kling Consultants. Contracts with these two firms were approved by the City Council on October 7, 1997 for a term continuing through October 31, 1998. On November 17, 1998, the City Council authorized one-year extensions to both contracts to November 17, 1999. On November 16, 1999, the City Council authorized one-year extensions to both contracts to November 17, 2000. This agenda item is to consider renewing both contracts for an additional year. DISCUSSION During the RFP process in 1997 the City opted to contract with two firms in order to provide greater flexibility in project assignment, as well as the ability to obtain an in-house, third party opinion regarding any particularly complex and/or controversial projects. The two firms selected were both able to provide liability insurance in the amounts required by the City, and have provided competent and responsive service to the City over the last three years. Zeiser Kling Consultants With the renewal of their contract in 1998, Zeiser King Consultants received a 3% increase in their fee schedule. With last year’s renewal there was an overall decrease of 1.34% to their fee schedule. No changes to the current fee schedule are proposed for the coming year. Bing Yen and Associates With the renewal of their contract in 1998, Bing Yen and Associates received an average 2.8% increase. The firm did not propose a change to its fee schedule with last year’s renewal. No changes to the current fee schedule are proposed for the coming year. CONCLUSION Both firms are highly qualified, with extensive experience and professional credentials, and are familiar with the unique geologic conditions found on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. This experience has been enhanced through the work completed on behalf of the City over the last three years. The review services provided have met staff's needs and expectations. As such, staff supports continuing the contracts with these firms for an additional year with no proposed changes. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for consideration by the City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with only one of the firms. 2. Direct Staff to issue a new Request for Proposals. FISCAL IMPACT Renewal of the contracts would not result in any additional fiscal impacts as the budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 includes $12,000 for geotechnical consulting services for the review of privately initiated project geotechnical reports and $5,000 for other, as needed, geotechnical consulting services. The consultants' compensation depends on the demand for consulting services and the nature of the investigations or review. Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager 6. Register of Demands. (McLean)
PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7. Amendments to the Current Fee Schedule (Resolution No. 92-68) for specific planning applications and building permits. (Mihranian)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE FOR SPECIFIC PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMITS Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, amending Resolution No. 92-68 (the City’s Fee Resolution) to: 1) establish a new fee for the Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis; 2) establish a data processing fee for the permit tracking system; 3) reduce the fee for Minor Site Plan Review applications; 4) eliminate the minimum fee for Minor Building Permits; 5) establish a fixed fee for geotechnical/geology review services; and 6) eliminate the associated fees for reviewing address files, geology files, and tract/parcel map files and clarify the document and printing services fee. BACKGROUND The fees collected by the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement require approval by Resolution of the City Council. The current fee Resolution was adopted in 1992, under Resolution No. 92-68, and last amended in 1997 to establish new or revised fees for various Planning, Building and Code Enforcement applications, based on a comprehensive update of the Development Code. The City Council recently approved several amendments to the Development Code, including the elimination of the Maximum Structure Size requirement for residential structures and replacing it with the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis. Furthermore, the Council also recently approved the purchase and installation of a permit tracking system and authorized the collection of a fee to construct an electronic permit history of development applications and building permits for properties. Staff believes that these recent actions by the City Council necessitate revisions to the current fee schedule to offset projected increases in Staff time and costs. Staff also believes that an opportunity exists for the Council to consider reducing fees for some applications and permits. Specifically, Staff believes that the fees associated with the Minor Site Plan Review application and certain minor building permits can be reduced to more closely match the processing costs incurred by City Staff. Furthermore, Staff believes there is an opportunity for the City Council to consider establishing a fixed fee for geotechnical and geology review services to replace the current trust deposit system, clarify the document and printing services fee, and eliminating the current fees associated with public review of address files, geology files, and tract/parcel map files. DISCUSSION The following discussion will encompass Staff’s analysis for each recommended change to the current fee schedule: Neighborhood Compatibility In 1994, the City Council updated the Development Code requiring that the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis apply to development applications consisting of a new single-family residence and construction where 50% or more of the original interior or exterior walls are demolished. As such, the filing fees were adjusted accordingly. In 1999, the City Council amended the Development Code requiring that the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis also apply to all residential additions exceeding 25% of the original structure size, to replace the previously imposed Maximum Structure Size requirement. This additional threshold for triggering the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis has subsequently required additional Staff time to review projects which previously were routinely approved "over-the-counter." As a result of the additional Staff time necessary to conduct the additional analysis, Staff recommends that the Council consider adopting a fee for the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis to recover additional costs incurred by Staff. Staff recommends that the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis fee be assessed at $175.00, which is based on an average fully-burdened rate for Planning employees, including administrative personnel. As part of the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis, Staff is required to conduct a site visit, review the address files for surrounding properties, circulate a public notice and generate a Staff Report. Based on an average Staff time of 5 hours at an average fully-burdened rate of $35.00, involved to complete the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis, Staff believes that the recommended fee of $175.00 will adequately recover City costs. It should be noted, that Staff does not recommend that the proposed "Neighborhood Compatibility" fee be applied to those development applications that already require such an analysis as part of the findings of fact, since the filing fees for those applications, such as a Height Variation and Major Grading permit, have already been adjusted to offset City costs. Therefore, Staff recommends that the filing fee for the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis be applied to Planning applications as an individual fee, in addition to all other related filing fees, provided that multiple Planning applications (i.e. Height Variation, Site Plan Review and Grading applications) requested by an applicant do not already require the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis. Data Processing Fee On October 3, 2000, the City Council approved the acquisition of the Tidemark system with the primary goal of improving active permit tracking and monitoring to assist in the efficient processing of permits and other City activities. According to the Staff Report presented to the Council on October 3, 2000, the estimated annual costs were determined to be approximately $9,400.00, which Staff recommended could be offset with the establishment of a processing fee. In approving the acquisition of the permit tracking system, the Council authorized the establishment of a data processing fee. Staff has estimated that a total of approximately 3,470 permits (Planning and Building) are issued each year. To offset the annual maintenance cost of the permit tracking system, a fee of approximately $2.70 would need to established per permit. In addition, Staff believes that there should be a 10% administrative fee included to cover the cost of Staff time for system management. This would require the payment of a $3.00 fee for every planning application and building permit processed. Furthermore, to create a complete electronic file history, as authorized by the Council, Staff believes that a one-time fee of $13.00 should be imposed for planning applications or building permits issued where no electronic permit history exists on a property. This fee is based on the average fully burdened rate of $35.00 for Planning employees, including administrative personnel, at approximately 20 minutes, which is the estimated time it would take a Staff person to input permit history. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the implementation of a $3.00 fee that would be assessed on every planning application and every building permit issued and a one time $13.00 fee to create the electronic file history, that would be assessed per property when a planning application or building permit is issued where no electronic permit history exists on a property. This fee will not be assessed until the permit tracking system is operational in the first quarter of 2001. Minor Site Plan Review In 1992, a "Minor Site Plan Review Application" was established by the Planning Department to streamline the planning review process for minor residential improvements. Improvements that qualify for a Minor Site Plan Review include requests to install skylights, air conditioning units, bay and garden windows, decks less than 30" above grade and other improvements not involving habitable floor area, a gathering space, a viewing area or lot coverage. The existing filing fee of $65 currently applies to both Major and Minor Site Plan Review applications. Given this opportunity to amend certain fees, Staff believes that the fee for the more streamlined review process could be reduced to more adequately reflect the reduced Staff processing time. Based on Staff’s analysis of a Major and Minor Site Plan Review application, Staff does not believe that the current general fee of $65.00 accurately represents the current costs incurred for a Minor Site Plan Review. According to Staff’s calculations, a Major Site Plan Review application routinely requires more Staff time than a Minor Site Plan Review because of the need of additional review time and the drafting of conditions of approval. Therefore, based on an average of 1.25 hours of Staff time (planning review and clerical processing) involved in reviewing a Minor Site Plan Review application, which typically does not involve conditions of approval, at an average fully-burden rate of $35.00, the approximate cost is $45.00. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council reduce the filing fee from $65.00 to $45.00. Staff believes that the recommended fee reduction will adequately recover Staff and administrative costs incurred in processing Minor Site Plan Review applications. Minor Building Permits According to the City’s current fee schedule, the minimum building permit fee assessed by the Division of Building and Safety for the issuance of a miscellaneous permit is $50.00. As a result, permits for minor improvements, such as skylights, solar tubes, air conditioning units, garbage disposals, water heaters, and other minor structural improvements, require the payment of a $50 permit fee and the applicable permit issuance fee. For example, although the permit issuance fee (based on an assessed value) of a water heater would require a $32 fee, the applicant would actually be charged $50.00, since it is the minimum required fee. Over the past year, Staff has received complaints from some residents about the relatively high permit fee charged for minor improvements. Staff believes there is an opportunity to correct this situation by eliminating the minimum permit fee and recovering Staff costs through the applicable permit issuance fee. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Council consider eliminating the minimum building permit fee of $50.00 and base the fee on the actual permit issuance cost. Geology Fees The City currently contracts with the consultant, Zeiser Kling, to conduct the City’s geology and geotechnical review services. In order to initiate the geology review process with the City, an applicant is currently required to establish a trust deposit to recover costs incurred by the consultant. By utilizing the trust deposit system to recover costs, City Staff is required to review and process multiple billings for a single project or to track a trust deposit account. Often, applicants are asked to augment their trust deposit balances for additional review and administrative costs are assessed for every charge made against each trust deposit. Over the years, Staff has received periodic complaints from applicants regarding this process. Therefore, in order to provide the highest quality of customer service with the lowest cost, Staff recommends that the City Council consider amending the current fee structure for geologic review from a trust deposit to a fixed fee. The following table provides a summary of the proposed fixed fee charges broken down into 4 categories based on the work performed for single lot developments:
* This portion of the fixed fee is to cover City administration costs. Staff believes that by incorporating the above fixed fees for geotechnical/geology review services, the applicant is provided with more definitive geology review fees and the ability to pay for the review process up front with generally no additional charges. Furthermore, the tracking of overruns on trust deposit accounts or the need to collect additional funds would be eliminated. Additionally, a fee schedule will be generated and provided to the public that describes the project thresholds that trigger the appropriate fixed fee. It should be noted that the current Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department budget does not account for revenue or expenditures associated with fixed fees for geotechnical review services since individual trust deposit system accounts recover all costs. However, with the proposed amendment to eliminate the trust deposit and incorporate a fixed fee, the budget will need to be adjusted to account for the revenue and expenditures related to geology and geotechnical review services. Therefore, if the Council is inclined to approve this proposed fee amendment, Staff believes an adjustment of the Department’s budget could be made at the time of the City’s mid-year review in January 2001. Furthermore, Staff believes that the proposed fee change will not affect the budget in that the fixed fees collected by the City will offset all related costs, including administrative processing costs. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Council consider adopting the above fixed fees. File Review Fees In 1992, the City Council amended the City’s fee schedule to include the establishment of fees for the review of public files in order to offset Staff costs. At that time, the fees established for review public files consisted of: 1) Address File - $10.00, 2) Geology File - $3.00 and 3) Tract/Parcel Map File - $3.00. These fees were imposed to the general public, including, but not limited to, property owners, architects/engineers and realtors. According to the City Attorney, the collection of fees for the review of said public documents is not allowed as a result of a court decision that occurred after the Fee Schedule was adopted by the City Council. Therefore, Staff proposes elimination of these specific fees. Staff believes that eliminating such fees will enable the general public to research City documents and files to obtain the most accurate information Staff utilizes in reviewing proposed projects. Furthermore, based on the City Attorney’s recommendation, Staff has already eliminated the implementation of these fees. Additionally, the current fee schedule stipulates that for document and printing services, a fee of $0.20 per page is applied for copies made by Staff and $0.10 per page for copies made by the public. As advised by the City Attorney, Staff recommends that the City Council amend the current Fee Schedule item for document and printing service so that one fee is assessed. Staff recommends that a fee of $0.15 per page be charged for copies made by either Staff or the public. This fee is based on taking the average of the two copying fees noted in the original Fee Schedule. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The amendments to the fee schedule, as set forth in the attached Resolution, will formally establish the fees necessary to offset the costs associated with the applications/permits described herein. The proposed fee schedule is attached to the Resolution for the Council’s consideration. If approved, the new fees would become effective sixty (60) days after the City Council adopts the Resolution. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution and fee schedule amending Resolution No. 92-68, by assessing new fees for the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis, establishing a data processing fee for the permit tracking system, reducing the Minor Site Plan Review fee, eliminating the minimum building permit fee, establishing a fixed fee for geotechnical/geology review service, and eliminating the associated fees to review the City’s public files. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed Fee Resolution amendment is intended to achieve cost recovery for applications/permits processed by the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Should the revisions be adopted by the Council, cost recovery for the applications/permits described herein will be achieved. Any potential burden on the City’s General Fund from the recommended changes would thereby be averted. However, if after incorporating the following fee changes, Staff finds that the processing costs incurred by the City typically exceed the required fees, further amendments to the Fee Resolution will be brought forward for Council consideration. As previously indicated, Staff believes that the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement budget will require an adjustment to account for the revenue and expenditures related to a fixed fee for geology and geotechnical review services. Although a budget adjustment is necessary, Staff does not believe that the proposed fee amendment will alter the budget since all offset costs have been incorporated into the fixed fee. Therefore, Staff believes that the net effect on the budget will be insignificant. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:
Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager ATTACHMENTS:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-68 (THE CITY’S FEE RESOLUTION) TO ESTABLISH A NEW FEE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS; ESTABLISH A DATA PROCESSING FEE FOR THE PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM; REDUCE THE FEE FOR MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS; ELIMINATE THE MINIMUM BUILDING PERMIT FEE; ESTABLISH A FIXED FEE FOR GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGY REVIEW SERVICES; AND ELIMINATE THE ASSOCIATED FEES FOR REVIEWING ADDRESS FILES, GEOLOGY FILES AND TRACT/PARCEL MAP FILES. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes previously conducted an analysis of its services in 1992 and determined the costs reasonably borne by the City in providing those services, the beneficiaries of those services, and the revenue produced by those paying fees and charges for services; and, WHEREAS, the City wishes to comply with both the letter and the spirit of Article XIII of the California Constitution and limit the growth of taxes; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to establish a policy or recovering the full costs reasonably borne of providing special services of a voluntary and limited nature, such that general taxes are not diverted from general services of a broad nature and thereby utilized to subsidize unfairly and inequitably such special services; and, WHEREAS, on July 7, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-67 establishing its policy as to recovery of costs and, more particularly, the percentage of costs reasonably borne to be recovered from users of City services and directing Staff as to the methodology for implementing said Resolution; and, WHEREAS, on July 2, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-68 establishing a schedule of fees and charges for City Services; and, WHEREAS, the City Council amended the schedule of fees and charges on November 25, 1996 by adoption of Resolution No. 96-100, on April 1, 1997 by adoption of resolution No. 97-26; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a recent code amendment requiring the analysis of the "Neighborhood Compatibility" finding for projects that consist of an expansion of 25% or more of the original structure size; and, WHEREAS, in the course of reviewing development applications requiring the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis, exclusive of development applications that currently require such an analysis as part of the findings of fact, Staff is required to conduct site visits, research permits for surrounding properties, issue public notices and prepare appropriate Staff Reports; and, WHEREAS, currently there is no fee for Staff time involved in processing development applications that only require the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis; and, WHEREAS, the proposed fee for the "Neighborhood Compatibility" analysis has been formulated to offset actual costs associated with processing such applications; and, WHEREAS, with the City Council’s approval of the purchase and installation of a permit tracking system, it is determined that a processing fee should be assessed to offset costs for data entry and the City’s costs to create an electronic history file for each property and any subsequent updates. Such fees shall be collected for all development applications; and, WHEREAS, based on the Staff time involved to review and process a Minor Site Plan Review application, to accurately recover all true costs incurred, based on hourly rates, a proposed fee amendment requires a reduction in the current fee from $65.00 to $45.00; and, WHEREAS, the current minimum building permit fee of $50.00 does not accurately offset costs incurred by Staff; and, WHEREAS, based on offset costs, the building permit fees for minor improvements shall be based on the permit issuance costs already established by Resolution 92-68; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined that a fixed fee for geology and geotechnical review services will provide higher quality customer service and prevent Staff from reviewing and processing multiple billings for a single project or track trust deposit accounts; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66018, the specific fees to be charged for services must be adopted by the City Council by Resolution, after providing notice and holding a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for establishment of the aforementioned fees has been provided per Government Code Section 66016(a) and 6062(a); and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on November 21, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Based on the Staff Report submitted to the City Council for their November 21, 2000 meeting, the Schedule of Fees and Charges shall be amended to set forth the following fees to be computed, applied, and charged by the Planning Division, and to be collected by the City Finance Department for such service: Applications: Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis…………………………………$175.00 Electronic History File Fee (per property)...……………………………$13.00 Data Processing Fee (Permit Tracking)………………………………....$3.00 Minor Site Plan Review…………………………………………………..$45.00 Geology: Category 1……………………………………………………………….$125.00 Category 2……………………………………………………………. $1,200.00 Category 3……………………………………………………………..$1,350.00 Category 4……………………………………………………………….$300.00 Category 5…based on current trust deposit criteria (Resolution No. 92-68) Miscellaneous: Document and Printing Services (per page)……………………………$0.15 Section 2: The Schedule of Fees and Charges shall be amended to eliminate the following fees: Minor Building Permit…………………………………………………….$50.00 Public File Review Address Files……………………………………………………..$10.00 Geology and Tract/Parcel Files………………………………….$3.00 Document and Printing Services ……………………$0.20 per copy by Staff ………………….$0.10 per copy by public Section 3: Interpretation. This Resolution may be interpreted with more than one City department head in consultation with the City Manager. Should there be a conflict between two fees, then the lower dollar amount of the two shall be applied. Section 4: Constitutionality. If any portion of this Resolution is declared invalid or unconstitutional, then it is the intention of the City Council to have passed the entire Resolution and all its component parts, and all other sections of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5: The attached fee schedule (Exhibit A) is hereby amended and sets forth the new and revised fee described herein. Section 6: Effective Date. This Resolution shall go into full force and effect 60 days after the City Council adoption, and shall be subject to the terms and conditions of Resolution No. 92-67 which sets forth policy with respect to recovery of costs. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of November, 2000. ________________________________ Lee Byrd, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Jo Purcell, City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 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 November 21, 2000. __________________________ City Clerk 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: 8. NPDES Regulations. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: NPDES REGULATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS Introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Chapter 13.10 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to incorporate the new State Mandated SUSMP requirements. BACKGROUND On January 26, 2000 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region (Regional Board) adopted new storm water regulations. The new regulations required cities to amend their Municipal Code to require that certain categories of private projects include a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) as part of their development. A SUSMP is a plan that accompanies a plan of development to assure that the project design:
When the new regulations were released, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes joined with 31 other California cities to appeal the new regulations. The primary reason that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes joined in the appeal was that nearly the entire City of Rancho Palos was within an Environmentally Sensitive Area, and all projects within an ESA – regardless of size – required a SUSMP. On June 7 and 8, 2000 The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) heard the appeal. Councilmember Ferraro, attended the hearing and testified on behalf of the City. On August 24, 2000 the State Water Board directed the Regional Board to revise their regulations. The principal revisions directed by the State Board are:
The revised categories of project requiring SUSMPs are:
With this background staff prepared the attached ordinance to meet the requirements established by the Board. Some of the more important aspects of the ordinance are:
The proposed ordinance will require an additional review process for applications submitted to the Planning Department. The initial review to determine if a SUSMP is required will be completed by members of the Planning Department. If a SUSMP is required the review will be performed by the City’s National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) consultant. The cost for additional staff time to complete the initial review will be borne by the City’s General Fund. If, however, a SUSMP is required the applicant will be responsible for review costs.
To be subject to the ordinance a project must be: A New Development, or a Redevelopment project that falls into one of the seven categories listed above. The size threshold for a redevelopment project is the addition of at least five thousand square feet of impervious surfaces or the creation or addition of fifty percent or more of impervious surfaces or the making of improvements to fifty percent or more of the existing structure.
The Director of Public Works shall have the authority to grant a waiver to a Development or Redevelopment Project from the requirements of the SUSMP, if impracticability can be established by the project applicant. A waiver of impracticability may be granted only when all Structural or Treatment Control Best Management Practices have been considered and rejected as infeasible. Recognized situations of impracticability are limited to the following, unless approved by the Regional Board:
CONCLUSION Adopting the staff recommendation will incorporate the new storm water requirements into the City’s Municipal Code as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region. FISCAL IMPACT This ordinance will have a limited fiscal impact on the City. There will be some minor additional costs for staff to make the initial project review to determine if a SUSMP is required. The costs associated with reviewing a SUSMP by the City’s NPDES consultant will be the responsibility of the applicant. This ordinance will have a fiscal impact on new projects. There will be higher development costs to comply with the ordinance although a precise amount is difficult to determine at this time. Submitted by, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by, Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Ordinance No. 9. Installation of a Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Crest Road and Highridge Road. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF CREST ROAD AND HIGHRIDGE ROAD RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution - , A resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes establishing traffic signal control at the intersection of Crest Road and Highridge Road. Adopt Resolution - , A resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes establishing stop regulations at the intersection of Crest Road and Highridge Road. Adopt Resolution 00 - , A resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, amending Resolution 2000-33, the budget appropriation for fiscal year 2000 – 01, for a budget adjustment to the City’s Capital Project Fund. Authorize the expenditure of up to $15,000 for engineering services to design, administer, and inspect the construction of signal improvements on Crest Road at Highridge Road. Authorize the Director of Public Works to collect payment of $40,000 from the developers of Tract 46651, and $40,000 from the developers of City of Rolling Hills Estates Tract 52016. Authorize staff to negotiate the purchase of the signal poles and mast arms in accordance with Section 2.44.14 of the Municipal Code. BACKGROUND In response to requests from the public as well as from the Palos Verdes Unified School District, the Public Works Department conducted a traffic investigation for the intersection of Crest Road and Highridge Road. A report prepared by the City’s consulting Traffic Engineer determined that a new signal is justified. It is likely that the recent re-opening of Ridgecrest School was a contributing factor. DISCUSSION On October 23, 2000 the Traffic Committee considered the Traffic Engineer’s report, and received considerable testimony supporting the request. The Traffic Committee unanimously supported the Traffic Engineer’s recommendation. The report concluded that the intersection satisfies three of eleven warrants for traffic signal installation. A copy of the report as well as the October 23, 2000 Traffic Committee staff report is attached. The new signal will provide the following benefits: Improve safety for motorists exiting Highridge Road onto Crest Road. Improve safety for pedestrians crossing Crest Road. Reduce delays to motorists exiting Highridge Road onto Crest Road. Highridge Road north of Crest Road is under the jurisdiction of the City of Rolling Hills Estates. Staff worked closely with staff from the City of Rolling Hills Estates. On October 26, 2000 their Traffic Committee supported the installation of a traffic signal. Staff recommendation number one approves the installation of traffic signal control for the intersection of Crest Road and Highridge Road. An important aspect of the Traffic Engineer’s report is that it recommends that all way stop control (a four way stop) be established at this intersection until the traffic signal is operational. The new signal will not be operational for approximately 6 months. Staff recommendation number two approves the temporary all way stop control for this intersection. The estimated cost to install the new traffic signal is $150,000; $130,000 for the construction and $20,000 for engineering. These costs were not considered when the FY 2000 – 01 budget was adopted. Staff recommendation number three approves a budget adjustment. Staff recommendation number four authorizes the expenditure of $15,000 for engineering services. Funding for the new traffic signal will come from several sources. Primarily the signal will be paid for out of developer fees. The Pacific Heritage Tract (tract 46651), and the Caymen Tract (City of Rolling Hills Estates Tract 52016) each are required to contribute up to $40,000 towards a new traffic signal that is required on Crest Road at either Highridge Road or at County Meadow Drive. In addition staff contacted staff from the City of Rolling Hills Estates regarding their share of the costs. Based on the fact that they have jurisdiction for one of the four roadways at the intersection, they intend to recommend to their Council that they contribute 25% of the cost of the signal not covered by developer fees. Based on this the proposed funding plan is as follows:
Staff recommendation number five authorizes staff to collect the developer fees from the developers of Tract 46651, and City of Rolling Hills Estates Tract 52016. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to negotiate for the purchase of the signal poles and mast arms directly with the manufacturer rather than include these items with the project that is advertised. The basis for this recommendation is that there is only one supplier of poles and mast arms in Southern California, and it is unlikely that advertising for these items will result in lower costs. Section 2.44.140 of the Municipal Code allows for this exception to the bidding process. This method of purchase was used successfully when the new signal was installed at the intersection of Basswood Avenue and Silver Spur Road. This method of purchase will also likely expedite the installation of the signal since it will allow staff to order the signal pole and mast arms before the contract for the balance of the work is awarded. CONCLUSIONS Adopting the staff recommendations will authorize and fund the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Crest Road and Highridge Road. If approved staff will move forward with the installation of the stop signs, the design of the traffic signal and the purchase of the signal poles and mast arms. The contract for the installation of the traffic signal will be advertised and brought back to the City Council for award of contract. FISCAL IMPACT The staff recommendations authorize the expenditure of $150,000 of which $52,500 will be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. As part of the staff recommendation $52,500 will be transferred from the Gas Tax Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund. Upon this transfer the estimated fund balance in the Gas Tax Fund will be $117,000. The new signal will increase maintenance costs. The annual maintenance cost of a signal is estimated at $5,000. This includes contract services for maintenance as well as power costs. This additional cost will be borne by the Landscaping and Lighting District, which is funded with a combination of assessments and gas tax funds. Staff intends to bring back to the City Council a cost sharing proposal with the City of Rolling Hills Estates for the long term maintenance of the new signal. Submitted by, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by, Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Resolution 00- Resolution 00- Resolution 00 - October 23, 2000 Traffic Committee Report October 16, 2000 Traffic Engineer Report 10. FY 1999-2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Audit Management Letter and Independent Auditors’ report on Compliance and Internal Control. (Burton)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: FY 1999-00 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT , AUDIT MANAGEMENT LETTER AND INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND INTERNAL CONTROL Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the following: (1) the 1999-00 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, (2) the attached management letter, and (3) the attached FY 1999-00 report on compliance and internal control. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Each City Council Member has received a copy of the FY 1999-00 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Finance Department has both prepared the CAFR document and gathered the information contained within it. The CAFR includes a written summary of the City’s accomplishments during the past year, the financial statements and statistical information of the City and its component units (Redevelopment Agency and Joint Powers Improvement Authority). A separate set of financial statements for both of the City’s component units (inclusive of a separate audit opinion for each) will be presented to their respective governing boards in December 2000. A copy of the CAFR is currently available for review by the public in the reception area at City Hall The City’s auditors, Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP, have reviewed the CAFR in its entirety. Staff believes that the FY 1999-00 CAFR meets the standards and requirements established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) for presentation of financial data, note disclosure and statistical information. The CAFR includes the audited financial statements and accompanying notes for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2000. The scope of the audit examination is always limited to the general purpose financial statements and the accompanying notes, beginning on page 5 of the CAFR. Based upon their independent audit, Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP have issued an unqualified opinion (clean opinion). The opinion letter is presented on page 3 of the CAFR. Management Letter The attached management letter, dated September 22, 2000, is intended to call attention to matters involving the internal (accounting) control system of the City. The recommendations included in the auditor’s management letter provide suggestions for improving the internal controls and efficiency of the City's financial systems. The auditors noted such matters during the course of performing their annual audit procedures. These procedures included discussions with staff about the internal control system and the general operating affairs of the City for the past fiscal year, tests of the internal control system, as well as many other audit procedures deemed necessary prior to rendering an opinion on the City’s financial statements. The auditors have offered a single management comment regarding the City’s internal control. The auditors have reviewed this item with City staff and staff has already implemented the recommendation. The management finding is reprinted below, followed by a summary of staff’s response to the comment. It may be helpful to first read the attached auditor’s management letter to better understand the issue to which staff has responded. "The escrow deposits for the City’s home improvement program have not been reconciled to the year-end statements provided by the City’s escrow company." The comment relates to the City’s Home Improvement Program (HIP) which is funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies. The HIP was a new program in FY 1999-00 and is administered by an outside consultant. When a HIP project is approved, the City transfers money into an escrow account that will periodically disburse funds to the contractor as work on the project is completed and approved. During FY 1999-00, the monthly statement of escrow activity was received directly by the consultant and not forwarded to City staff for review. Staff has recently discussed this issue with the consultant, and the consultant has agreed to provide a copy of all escrow statements to the City on a timely basis. By so doing, staff will be able to promptly reconcile all escrow activity to the City’s financial system. Compliance Letter The auditors have also issued the attached letter on compliance entitled Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and on Internal Control over Financial Reporting Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards. Generally this letter would be included as a part of the annual Single Audit of Federal Financial Assistance; however, such audits are only required when cities spend more than $300,000 in federally reimbursable monies during the fiscal year. During FY 1999-00 the City had less than $300,000 in federal expenditures, therefore, the City was not required to undergo a Single Audit. As noted in the letter, there were no instances of noncompliance noted or material weaknesses in the City’s internal control structure. Respectfully submitted, Dennis McLean, Finance Director Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager 11. Point Vicente Interpretive Center. (Evans)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS Direct staff to simultaneously (1) Continue pursuing permits through the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) for the clean-up of the lead-contaminated soil at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center; (2) Work with the Army Corps of Engineers to achieve funding for site clean up through the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) or Potential Responsible Party (PRP) programs; (3) Negotiate with the County of Los Angeles to take on a portion of the financial responsibility for clean up. BACKGROUND On May 18, 1999 the City awarded a construction contract for the expansion of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center. Shortly after construction was underway lead contaminated soil was discovered at the site. It was later determined that the lead probably originated from the operation of a rifle range on the PVIC site. The rifle range was apparently part of the Army installation that served the Nike Missile site and was constructed between 1953 and 1956. The property we know as PVIC was acquired by the County of Los Angeles in 1978 and leased to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as a park site in 1979. Development of the property by the City began in 1983. Approximately 2,500 tons of material that was excavated and stockpiled at the site has been moved to a hazardous waste landfill. Approximately 6,000 tons of material that was disposed of at Chandler’s landfill has been excavated and transported to a hazardous waste landfill. And finally the contract for the building expansion has been terminated, and a settlement agreement was negotiated with the contractor. Approximately 21,000 tons of potentially contaminated soil remains at the site. It appears that the cost to remediate the remaining soil at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center site could be as much as $2,000,000. On January 18, 2000 the City Council authorized staff to file a claim with both the County of Los Angeles, and the Federal Government for the City’s costs of clean up and any future cost it may incur. This action was necessary to preserve the City’s legal rights, should discussions with either the County or the Federal Government be unproductive. At this time City staff is pursuing several options for the clean up of the contaminated soil at the PVIC site. Alternative plans for the clean up have been developed and the City entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) in August. DTSC has requested more information from the City in order to make a decision on our clean up proposal. We do not anticipate a DTSC action on our permit until next year. Through the efforts of Congressman Kuykendall’s office, the Army Corps of Engineers has investigated the PVIC site and is considering it for eligibility under the FUDS or PRP programs. The Army Corps estimates that it will take another year to finalize their investigation and render a decision. The County of Los Angeles has been content to wait for the federal government to act and does not appear to be inclined to spend funds on remediation since they are not reimbursable through the FUDS (or PRP) program. DISCUSSION In analyzing the options open to the City for the clean up of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center site it is important to have some understanding of the following programs and processes. Department of Toxic Substance Control DTSC is a State agency that is responsible for regulating hazardous waste facilities and overseeing the cleanup of hazardous waste sites in California. According to DTSC, thousands of properties throughout the State – including former industrial plants, military bases, small businesses and landfills – are contaminated with some level of toxic substances. DTSC is the supervising agency under the Voluntary Cleanup Program that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has signed as part of the City’s plan for the clean up of the PVIC site. Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act (CERCLA) In 1980, CERCLA, also commonly referred to as Superfund, was enacted. The main purpose of CERCLA was to provide authorities the ability to respond to uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances from inactive hazardous waste sites that might endanger public health and the environment. CERCLA established regulations concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, addressed liability of parties responsible for releases of hazardous waste at such sites and established a trust fund to pay for clean up when no responsible party could be identified. If the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (and the County of Los Angeles) proceed with clean-up using their own funds, CERCLA and other federal statutes, may provide a basis of a lawsuit against the federal government. Defense Environmental Restoration Program - Formerly Used Defense Sites (DERP -FUDS) After the passage of CERLA in December 1980, the President delegated to the Department of Defense (DOD) the authority to clean up hazardous substances released from active and formerly used DOD properties. In 1984 execution of the program was delegated to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Properties eligible under the DERP-FUDS include all properties for which real property accountability previously rested with DOD irrespective of current ownership or current responsibility for accountability within the federal government. Eligibility of a DERP-FUDS property is determined upon completion of an Inventory Project Report (INPR). For DERP-FUDS projects, the Army Corps normally performs the clean-up work. The level of clean up will take into consideration the expected use of the property. The Army Corps has completed a preliminary assessment of the PVIC site, but has not yet determined whether or not there is another party who is involved in the site contamination problem. Potential Responsible Party (PRP) PRP projects are those where DOD may share potential CERCLA responsibility for the hazardous condition on the eligible FUDS with another entity. PRPs may include current and former owners or operators and persons who may be accountable for having generated onsite hazardous substances or were involved in the transport, treatment or disposal of hazardous substances. For PRP projects, the general policy is to "cash out" rather than perform the clean-up work. In pursuing alternatives for funding the clean up of the lead-contaminated soil several ideas have been raised. None of these ideas have achieved the status of a proposal and are presented here for the purpose of discussion only. The Council may choose to reject any or all of these ideas, reformulate some of them or add new ideas for later discussion. If the City Council is interested in pursuing any of these ideas staff will return with more detailed information and advice from the City Attorney concerning the legal feasibility of the idea. The City may choose to cancel the remaining 29 years of its fifty-year lease of the Point Vicente property and return the land and facilities to the property owner – the County of Los Angeles. In doing so the City could turn over responsibility for clean up and re-opening of the park and Interpretive Center to the County. Since there has been no particular sense of urgency on the part of the County to pursue site remediation and re-opening the park this alternative would probably result in no action for many years while the County awaited action by the federal government. The City may try to turn over all responsibility for soil remediation to the Army Corps of Engineers and refrain from any further involvement in the clean up. In essence this alternative is the same as the first alternative. The only difference is the City would still be the lead agency and spend staff time and funds working with the DERP - FUDS on a remediation strategy. Again, the Army Corps of Engineers has stated that its investigation process will take at least a year and has advised the City that any expenditure of funds by the City for remediation will not be reimbursable through this program. The City may wish to try to negotiate an agreement with the County of Los Angeles to share the costs of clean up now and try to recover funds from the federal government through legal action later. Although the County has not been anxious to commit funds for this purpose, they have suggested a proposal through which the 1996 Proposition A bond money designated for the "acquisition of critical natural lands and wildlife habitat in the vicinity of Portuguese Bend for preservation as open space" would be re-designated for use in clean-up of the PVIC site. Taking this approach will divert money already allocated to the City to fund what should be the County’s share of remediation of their property. However, it may be the only way to obtain funds for the clean up now other than using City general funds and pursuing legal action against the federal government and the County of Los Angeles to recover their share of the cost later. The City may want to continue to insist that the County make a commitment of their own funds to bring the property back to full use as a regional educational facility within the next few years. By committing their own funds, to remediate their property, the County would be taking the same risk of recovery through legal action against the federal government, as would the City. The City may wish to move ahead with remediation as soon as DTSC issues a permit for the work. Staff anticipates the permit will be approved before the Army Corps completes its investigation and renders a decision on DERP-FUDS. In taking this approach the City will be able to recoup its investment only through successful lawsuits against the federal government and the County of Los Angeles. FISCAL IMPACT To date the City has spent nearly $1,000,000 for engineering and clean up. The cost of the work required to make the site suitable for re-opening as a park and Interpretive Center may be as much as $2,000,000. The cost of constructing the Interpretive Center expansion is projected at $2.6 million. Approximately $2 million of Proposition A funds have been set aside for construction. The shortfalls in funding would have to be made up either by City General Funds or funds from outside sources such as the County of Los Angeles CONCLUSION Taking legal action against the federal government (and County of Los Angeles) before the DERP-FUDS process is completed could have an adverse impact on the City’s ability to receive funds under the FUDS program. On the other hand the Army Corps has already advised us that it will take at least a year to complete the process of making its determination as to whether the PVIC clean up is eligible for federal funding. Thus, the City Council should determine whether the timing of the completion of the PVIC project and the re-opening of the facility or the reimbursement of costs relating to clean up of the site is the issue of paramount concern to the City Respectfully submitted, Les Evans, City Manager 12. Request for Constitutional Amendment Calling for the Direct Election of President. (Stern)
To: Mayor Byrd and City Council Members From: Councilman Douglas W. Stern Date: November 21, 2000 Subject: Request for Constitutional Amendment Calling for the Direct Election of President Recommendation Request that our United States Senators and Congressperson introduced a constitutional amendment calling for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States by popular vote. Report The United States Constitution, Article II provides: Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
The evolution of our ideals of democracy dictate that we modify the manner in which we elect our President and Vice President so that they are elected by the popular vote of the citizens. Over the course of our nation’s history our notions of democracy have evolved to recognize the importance of the concept of "one-man, one-vote." It is a value deeply held by our citizens. Yet it is a value that is not reflected in our present Electoral College system. Our history has seen changes in our concept of that which best serves our Republic when it comes to the election of our President and other federal officials. We have adopted a constitutional amendment to limit the President to two terms. (22nd Amendment) We have granted to all our citizens, no matter their race, gender, or ethnicity the right to vote, even though this most basic of rights was denied them by the Foundering Fathers. (15th Amendment - race, color; 19th Amendment - sex.) We have granted to the residents of the District of Columbia the right to participate in the selection of the President and Vice President, although our Founding Fathers did not do so. (23rd Amendment.) We have protected the right of the people to vote, by eliminating the poll tax. (24th Amendment.) And we have granted citizens the right to vote at age 18, rather than at a more advanced age. (25th Amendment.) We have modified the manner in which we elect Senators, taking their selection away from the state legislatures, and placing the selection in the hands of the public, with direct popular election of Senators. It is now time to recognize the virtue and basic fairness of each citizen’s vote counting equally. This is not presently the case. Once a candidate has won the majority of the votes in a state, additional votes for that candidate do not influence the ultimate outcome of the election. Those additional voters are essentially disenfranchised. Hence, thousands or millions of voters can essentially have no impact on the selection of the President and Vice President. Further, because of the manner in which candidates campaign as a result of the Electoral College system, the recognition that a state is essentially in one candidate’s column leads to the candidates substantially ignoring the voters in that state. Instead, they tend to focus upon the states that are up for grabs, rather than the voters who are up for grabs, no matter where they reside. As we are now witnessing, a few votes in one state can make a difference, given the manner in which the Electoral College works. Hence, a few hundred or thousand votes in one state can have a disproportionate impact upon the selection of the President. Historical arguments that may have justified the Electoral College when our nation was formed, and the electorate was not as educated as now do not justify the continuation of the present Electoral College system. A system created at a time when citizens viewed themselves as citizens of a particular state first, and of the United States second no longer justify the used of this system for selection of President. We are, and regard ourselves as citizens of the United States first. Further, concerns for the protection of federalism similarly do not justify the continuation of the Electoral College. Our states are more than adequately protected in the constitutional framework by the selection of Senators and Representatives. Both are elected by the citizens of a particular state. They can, and do, represent their citizens. The Presidency is different. It is the one and only office in our nation for which all citizens are able to cast a vote. It is important that we strengthen our democracy, and modify our system of election of President so that it truly reflects our most basic democratic notion of "one-man, one vote" and the will of the governed in the selection of this most powerful of positions. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION LAWS Provisions of the Constitution and United States Code relating to Presidential Elections This information has been compiled and published in pamphlet form by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, for use by the Executives and Electors of the several States in the performance of their duties in connection with Presidential Elections. THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive
Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together
with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. Twelfth Amendment The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. . . . The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States. Fourteenth Amendment Section 3. No person shall be . . . elector of President and Vice President . . . who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Fifteenth Amendment Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Nineteenth Amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Twentieth Amendment Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them. Twenty-Second Amendment Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. Twenty-Third Amendment Section 1. The District
constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint
in such manner as the Congress may direct: Twenty-Fourth Amendment Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Twenty-Fifth Amendment Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. Section 4. Whenever
the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law
provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President
is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President
shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting
President. Twenty-Sixth Amendment Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. UNITED STATES CODE The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended): TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies Section Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies Time of appointing electors | 3 USC Ch. 1, Table of Contents | §§ 1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President. Failure to make choice on prescribed day §§ 2. Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct. Number of electors §§ 3. The number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are by law entitled at the time when the President and Vice President to be chosen come into office; except, that where no apportionment of Representatives has been made after any enumeration, at the time of choosing electors, the number of electors shall be according to the then existing apportionment of Senators and Representatives. Vacancies in electoral college §§ 4. Each State may, by law, provide for the filling of any vacancies which may occur in its college of electors when such college meets to give its electoral vote. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors §§ 5. If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned. Credentials of electors; transmission to archivist of the united states and to congress; public inspection §§ 6. It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United States shall be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and every such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration. Meeting and vote of electors §§ 7. The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct. Manner of voting §§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution. Certificates of votes for president and vice president §§ 9. The electors shall make and sign six certificates of all the votes given by them, each of which certificates shall contain two distinct lists, one of the votes for President and the other of the votes for Vice President, and shall annex to each of the certificates one of the lists of the electors which shall have been furnished to them by direction of the executive of the State. Sealing and endorsing certificates §§ 10. The electors shall seal up the certificates so made by them, and certify upon each that the lists of all the votes of such State given for President, and of all the votes given for Vice President, are contained therein. Disposition of certificates | 3 USC Ch. 1, Table of Contents | §§ 11. The electors
shall dispose of the certificates so made by them and the lists attached
thereto in the following manner: Failure of certificates of electors to reach president of the senate or archivist of the united states; demand on state for certificate §§ 12. When no certificate of vote and list mentioned in sections 9 and 11 and of this title from any State shall have been received by the President of the Senate or by the Archivist of the United States by the fourth Wednesday in December, after the meeting of the electors shall have been held, the President of the Senate or, if he be absent from the seat of government, the Archivist of the United States shall request, by the most expeditious method available, the secretary of state of the State to send up the certificate and list lodged with him by the electors of such State; and it shall be his duty upon receipt of such request immediately to transmit same by registered mail to the President of the Senate at the seat of government. Same; demand on district judge for certificate §§ 13. When no certificates of votes from any State shall have been received at the seat of government on the fourth Wednesday in December, after the meeting of the electors shall have been held, the President of the Senate or, if he be absent from the seat of government, the Archivist of the United States shall send a special messenger to the district judge in whose custody one certificate of votes from that State has been lodged, and such judge shall forthwith transmit that list by the hand of such messenger to the seat of government. Forfeiture for messenger's neglect of duty §§ 14. Every person who, having been appointed, pursuant to section 13 of this title, to deliver the certificates of the votes of the electors to the President of the Senate, and having accepted such appointment, shall neglect to perform the services required from him, shall forfeit the sum of $1,000. Counting electoral votes in congress §§ 15. Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of. Same; seats for officers and members of two houses in joint meeting §§ 16. At such joint meeting of the two Houses seats shall be provided as follows: For the President of the Senate, the Speaker's chair; for the Speaker, immediately upon his left; the Senators, in the body of the Hall upon the right of the presiding officer; for the Representatives, in the body of the Hall not provided for the Senators; for the tellers, Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the House of Representatives, at the Clerk's desk; for the other officers of the two Houses, in front of the Clerk's desk and upon each side of the Speaker's platform. Such joint meeting shall not be dissolved until the count of electoral votes shall be completed and the result declared; and no recess shall be taken unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any such votes, or otherwise under this subchapter, in which case it shall be competent for either House, acting separately, in the manner hereinbefore provided, to direct a recess of such House not beyond the next calendar day, Sunday excepted, at the hour of 10 o'clock in the forenoon. But if the counting of the electoral votes and the declaration of the result shall not have been completed before the fifth calendar day next after such first meeting of the two Houses, no further or other recess shall be taken by either House. Same; limit of debate in each house §§ 17. When the two Houses separate to decide upon an objection that may have been made to the counting of any electoral vote or votes from any State, or other question arising in the matter, each Senator and Representative may speak to such objection or question five minutes, and not more than once; but after such debate shall have lasted two hours it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate. Same; parliamentary procedure at joint meeting §§ 18. While the two Houses shall be in meeting as provided in this chapter, the President of the Senate shall have power to preserve order; and no debate shall be allowed and no question shall be put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to withdraw. Vacancy in offices of both president and vice president; officers eligible to act §§ 19. (a) (1) If,
by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure
to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge
the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of
the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and
as Representative in Congress, act as President. Resignation or refusal of office §§ 20. The only evidence of a refusal to accept, or of a resignation of the office of President or Vice President, shall be an instrument in writing, declaring the same, and subscribed by the person refusing to accept or resigning, as the case may be, and delivered into the office of the Secretary of State. Definitions §§ 21. As used in
this chapter the term - The functions of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia are now performed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia. (Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967, Section 401, 81 Stat. 948: Pub. L. 93-198, Sections 422 and 711, 87 Stat. 790, 818.) 13. Request from the View Restoration Commission for Payment of Travel Expenses to Attend the Annual Planners Institute in Monterey. (Royce Ursu)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM THE VRC FOR PAYMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL PLANNERS INSTITUTE IN MONTEREY Staff Coordinator: Royce Ursu, Assistant View Restoration Coordinator RECOMMENDATION Review and discuss the View Restoration Commission's request and provide Staff with direction. BACKGROUND At their October 5, 2000 meeting, the View Restoration Commission unanimously approved the contents of a Memorandum dated October 5, 2000 to the City Council requesting authorization and reimbursement for attending the annual Planners Institute conference held in Monterey, California. Based on information provided by Staff after October 5, 2000 regarding the total costs of sending Commissioners to the conference, the VRC has modified their request to reflect the total cost of Commissioner attendance. DISCUSSION As explained in the attached Memorandum from the View Restoration Commission, the VRC would like to attend the annual Planners Institute in order to have the information necessary to keep updated on current issues and policies that will help them better serve the City as View Restoration Commissioners. As a result, the VRC is requesting a reimbursement of expenses of up to $ 1,000.00 for each Commissioner who attends. The average cost for Planning Commissioners to attend the conference has been approximately $1,000.00 per Commissioner (travel, hotel, registration, etc.). Also attached is a letter from VRC Chairman Gil Alberio that explains the perceived benefit of the VRC attending the Monterey conference. Furthermore, the Conference program from this year's conference is also attached. FISCAL IMPACT If all ten Commissioners were to attend the Planners Institute every year, (although currently there are only 8 Commissioners) this would result in a maximum annual cost of $10,000.00. Since this expenditure is currently not allocated in the City's current budget, Council approval of the VRC's request would necessitate a budget adjustment by the City Council. This annual expenditure would be borne by the City's General Fund. ALTERNATIVE Should the City Council choose not to fund attendance of the Planners Institute for all the Commissioners, they may wish to authorize funding for only the Chair and Vice Chair's attendance at the conference. These officials could report back to the remainder of the VRC on issues relevant to their Commission's responsibilities. Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building, and code Enforcement Reviewed By: Les Evans, City Manager 14. Request for a Joint Meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission. (Snow)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Coordinator: David Snow, Deputy Planning Director RECOMMENDATION: Consider the Planning Commission’s request for a joint meeting with the City Council and provide Staff with direction. BACKGROUND: At its October 10, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the idea of requesting a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss miscellaneous topics of mutual interest. As described in the attached minutes from the meeting, the Commission identified specific topics for discussion and asked that this item be placed on a future City Council agenda for consideration. Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s request, Staff seeks the City Council’s consideration of the request, discussion regarding potential topics for the meeting, and direction regarding potential dates for a possible joint meeting. DISCUSSION Potential Topics of Discussion The Planning Commission, at the October 10, 2000 meeting, identified the following three topics that could be discussed at a joint meeting: Neighborhood Compatibility Policy and procedure issues related to the Long Point Resort proposal (by a 4-3 vote, with Commissioners Mueller, Vannorsdall, and Chairman Lyon dissenting) A potential update of the City’s Coastal Specific Plan Staff seeks further input from the City Council regarding these topics or any additional discussion topics for the joint meeting. Potential Meeting Dates The Commission indicated the desire to hold the requested joint meeting sometime during the first quarter of 2001. Therefore, Staff seeks input from the City Council regarding potential dates for a joint meeting. One option is January 30, 2001, as this is the fifth Tuesday of the month, and neither the City Council nor the Planning Commission would hold a regularly scheduled meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: The joint meeting will have no fiscal impact. Respectfully submitted, Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager 15. Cancellation of January 2, 2001 City Council Meeting.
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: CANCELLATION OF JANUARY 2, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECOMMENDATION Cancel the January 2, 2001 regular City Council meeting. DISCUSSION The Mayor has requested that the City Council cancel the first regular meeting of 2001, which is Tuesday, January 2, 2001. City Hall will be closed the week prior to this meeting, from Monday, December 25, 2000 through Monday January 1, 2001. Therefore, the agenda packet for this meeting would need to be prepared and sent out to the City Council on December 21, 2000, only two days following the City Council meeting of December 19, 2000. Because of the short turn-around, staff would not have adequate time to prepare the agenda and would be unavailable to assist the public regarding the agenda items prior to the day of the meeting. Staff is not aware of any urgent items that cannot be rescheduled for the following regular meeting, which would be held on January 16, 2001. Respectfully submitted: Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager Reviewed, Les Evans, City Manager 16. Discussion of Habitat Removal From Upper Filiorum Property.
ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting. CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Initiation
of Litigation:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
CALL TO ORDER NEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2000-16 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Minutes of November 8, 2000. (Purcell)
REGULAR BUSINESS: B. Senior Affordable Housing Proposal. (Evans)
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FROM: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, LP. BACKGROUND: On August 28, 1999, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to review the concept of a proposed Senior Affordable Housing project presented by a non-profit affordable housing Developer. The Developer requested that the City contribute up to $1.9 million towards the development of the project. At the workshop, the City Council/Planning Commission gave some direction to the Developer, and indicated that the project had some merit. The following is a chronology subsequent to that meeting: 09/22/99 Developer submitted application for Environmental Assessment No. 73 to determine environmental review status. 10/06/99 Developer presented preliminary design to the Peninsula Seniors at their meeting. 10/19/99 City Council Meeting – City Staff sought direction from the City Council on the following four issues: 1) Impact of SCAG’s new RHNA numbers on the City’s requirements, 2) Does the Council wish the developer to redesign based upon the new RHNA?, 3) Should other peninsula cities be asked to participate in the project?, and 4) Should the City invite competition for its housing dollars rather than limiting consideration to one developer? Council formed a sub-committee (Mayor Byrd and Councilwoman Ferraro) to meet with the staff, the developer and the seniors group. 10/21/99 Letter to Developer from City (Greg Pfost, Senior Planner) – indicating that the project would require a Supplemental EIR and that additional information needed to be submitted by the developer. 12/08/99 Meeting between Developer and Peninsula Seniors representatives to discuss details of project. Mayor Byrd, Councilwoman Ferraro and City Staff in attendance. 12/21/99 City Council Meeting – City Council approved contracts for consulting services with PMW Associates (Marilyn Whisenand – Affordable Housing Consultant), Keyser Marston Associates (Financial Consultant) and R. P. Laurin and Associates (Appraisal Firm). Developer revises project from 84 units to 73 units. 01/06/00 Developer submits formal applications for the proposed project, which includes Conditional Use Permit No. 210 and Grading Permit No. 2163. 01/18/00 City Council Meeting – City enters into Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Developer to construct the project. ENA expires on 10/01/00, with allowance of 3-month extension by City Manager. 02/07/00 City enters into contract with Peri Muretta for Environmental Consulting Services in order to prepare the necessary environmental documents for the project. 03/08/00 City Council Meeting – City Council authorized the acquisition of property, which included the approval of various agreements. 03/09/00 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental EIR with Initial Study released for 45-day review period. 04/13/00 Developer submits Preliminary Grading Plan. 04/28/00 Developer submits Biology Report. 06/05/00 Letter to Developer from City (Greg Pfost, Senior Planner) acknowledging submittal of certain information, however expressing concern that all items have not been submitted. Project remains incomplete. 06/30/00 Developer submits revised application to address items noted in previous letters by Staff. Week of 07/17/00 Developer submits revised Grading Plan that depicts revised project as described in 06/30/00. Developer also submits report on moving the OH zone. 07/28/00 Letter to Developer from Pfost noting project still incomplete. Need grading plan revisions, building plan revisions, issues of concern, environmental documents. 08/01/00 City Council Meeting. Report presented to Council on revised concept proposal. 08/08/00 Memo from Developer to Pfost submitting revised colored grading plan showing extreme slopes - based upon revised project. 08/14/00 Memo from Developer to Pfost submitting revised site plan, building plans and grading plans to address 07/28/00 letter from Pfost. 08/30/00 Revised Biology Report submitted by Developer to Pfost. 09/06/00 Letter received from developer's Traffic Consultant responding to outstanding Traffic Issues. 09/14/00 Letter to Developer from Pfost, noting project complete (30 days from Developer submittal of revised plans on 08/14/00). However, still need to clarify items, submit Visual Analysis, obtain approval of Traffic Study, and address issues. 09/29/00 Letter to Developer from Evans noting that ENA has not been extended. 10/1/00 Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expires. City Manager determines a 90 day extension would not be adequate to complete terms of Agreement. Developer is advised that a new agreement must be approved by the City Council. 10/17/00 Request from Developer to continue processing development application while waiting for City Council to act on his request for a new ENA. 10/18/00 City resumes work on processing project application. CURRENT PROJECT DESIGN In response to issues brought to the Developer by Staff, the Developer has revised the project since the initial proposal. Currently, as submitted on June 30, 2000, the preliminary project design, consists of a two-story, 76-unit mix of one and two bedroom rental units (68 one bedroom units and 8 two bedroom units), a 5,520 square foot Senior Center, 91 parking spaces (all located within a subterranean parking structure), and 10,773 cubic yards of grading. The proposed apartments will be leased at a Very Low or Low rental rates (approximately $400 to $600 per month). As a result of efforts on the part of the developer to meet with the nearby residents to describe the proposed project, numerous negative comments have been received. Attached are copies of the letters sent to the City offering opinions on the project. The primary objections are related to the compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding residential uses, the appearance of the building, the density of the dwelling units and the traffic impacts associated with a Senior Center. The project design, including number of units and inclusion of a 5000 square foot senior center, is not mandated by the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and was not intended to be discussed tonight. These design parameters remain to be determined through the Supplemental EIR and discretionary project approval process through public hearings before the Planning Commission and then the City Council. The following is a tentative schedule for the processing of the project application should the City Council authorize a new Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. November 27-30, 2000 Screencheck SEIR completed and distributed to City Staff, City Attorney and Applicant for review and comment. City Consultants shall review geology and Transportation sections. Additional information may need to be provided by Applicant's Consultants. December 4, 2000 Comments on Screencheck SEIR sent to EIR Consultant. December 7-11, 2000 Comments incorporated into document by EIR Consultant and Draft SEIR begins circulating for 45-day comment period. December 11, 2000 Traffic Committee meeting to discuss Traffic Report, Traffic Issues, and make a recommendation to City Council. January 24, 2001 45-day comment period ends. EIR Consultant prepares Response to Comments document. Geologic, Traffic, and/or Biological Consultant assistance may be needed from City and Applicant. To expedite process, comments can begin to be prepared during the 45-day circulation period, as comments are received. January 29, 2001 All information from City Staff, Applicant, and/or Consultants, necessary to address the comments are given to EIR Consultant for incorporation into the final document. February 7, 2001 City Staff sends Public Notice of February 27, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. February 9, 2001 Response to Comments document completed and mailed to commentors (at least 10 days prior to public hearing). February 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. March 21, 2000 City Council meeting (provided that the Planning Commission completes their review on the February 27th meeting). EARLIER EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES Since the Redevelopment Plan was first adopted in 1984, the Agency was required to set-aside twenty percent (20%) of the gross annual tax increment into the Agency’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The purpose of this Fund is to increase, improve and preserve the City’s supply of low and moderate-income housing. In carrying out the housing set-aside requirements, the Agency may expend these funds on a number of different programs, including acquiring real property. The current Fund balance is approximately $343,000. It was approximately $932,000 in March 2000 prior to the Agency purchasing the Crestridge property. State law generally imposes sanctions if the un-encumbered housing fund balance exceeds $1 million for a specified period of time. Over the past two years Agency staff and Councilmembers have actively pursued alternatives for the use of the funds including contacts with experienced developers of affordable housing projects, attempts to purchase developable land, new construction of affordable units in proposed developments and conversion of existing apartments into affordable units. The Agency, as well as private interests were unable to find a willing seller of existing units or available land other than the properties along Crestridge Road. CITY/RDA AND STATE TO PROVIDE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING One of the programs identified within the Agency’s 5-year Implementation Plan is to: "Preserve, improve and expand housing opportunities for low and moderate income residents. Typical examples include, but are not limited to: the replacement or repair of marginal or substandard dwelling units, providing financial subsidies to qualified low and moderate income households, and the implementation of financial assistance programs to reduce land, site development and/or construction costs to facilitate the development of low and moderate income housing." Additionally, one of the Plan’s five year Housing Goals is to "Meet the fair share regional affordable housing goals for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by improving public improvements and community facilities, removing and preventing blighting conditions and providing and/or preserving affordable housing resources." The 1999 Regional Housing Needs Assessment provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), for the next 5 years, calls for 8 very low income housing units, 5 low income housing units, 8 moderate income housing units and 31 above-moderate income housing units for a total of 53 new housing units to be constructed in the City. The fulfillment of the Agency’s obligation to utilize 20% of its tax increment income for the development of low to moderate income housing, such as this proposed project, will support the General Plan Housing Element Goals and assist in meeting the Regional Housing Needs allocated to the City by SCAG.
The proposed project is a joint effort that includes the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency, the non-profit Developer, the County and other financial contributors. The combined amount of investment from the City and the Redevelopment Agency is proposed to be approximately $1.9 million. The RDA Set- aside funds to be utilized currently total approximately $932,000. The other source of funds is the Housing In-Lieu account generated by developers who chose to contribute funds rather than homes to meet their low and moderate housing requirements. The current balance in the Housing In-lieu account is approximately $894,000. The total set-aside and in-lieu funds available are $1,826,000. Staff will not recommend that the City/RDA contribute any other funds even if they are not able to provide the entire $1.9 million that was originally estimated. The City funds are restricted and can be utilized only for projects offering housing for low and moderate-income persons. ALTERNATIVES The RDA Board may choose to decline to enter into a new Negotiating Agreement with Indian Ridgecrest Gardens, L.P. and instead request proposals from qualified developers (including Indian Ridgecrest Gardens, L.P.) to design, build and manage a senior affordable housing project on the Crestridge site. As a result of the expiration of the ENA, the Developer no longer has the option to repurchase the property from the RDA. A Request for Proposal could reduce the density of development, specify unit size and mix and modify the present Senior Center design to be more compatible with the concerns of the nearby neighborhoods. Competing development companies could submit proposals describing how they could meet the project constraints and how much participation they would require from the City/RDA in order to keep the project affordable. Respectfully submitted: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Letters from citizens EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (this Agreement) is made and entered into as of November 21, 2000, by and between the RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic, hereinafter referred to as Agency, and INDIAN RIDGE CREST GARDENS, L.P., a California limited partnership, hereinafter referred to as Developer. Recitals A. The subject matter of this Agreement is that certain parcel of real property described as Lot 2 of Parcel Map No. 25271, located at Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, California (the Property). The Property is approximately 19.54 acres in area. It is proposed that the Developer shall construct on the Property a multifamily apartment project with approximately 76 units (the Project), some of which are to be restricted to rental by low income households. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting the ability of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City") to approve a smaller project or a different configuration of the proposed Project. B. Developer and Agency previously entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement, dated February 1, 2000, which has expired. By execution of this Agreement, Developer and Agency expressly acknowledge that the prior agreement is no longer of any force or effect. Developer and Agency are willing to enter into this new Agreement setting forth the terms pursuant to which: (i) the parties shall negotiate, for a period commencing on the date hereof and ending on May1, 2001 (the ENA Period) (which may be extended as hereinafter provided), the terms of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with respect to the Project, and (ii) the amount and nature of financial assistance to the Project, if any, to be provided by Agency. C. Agency anticipates that following execution of this Agreement, during the ENA Period, the staff, consultants and attorneys of the Agency will devote substantial time and effort in reviewing plans, meeting with financial institutions and investors, and providing other aid and assistance to Developer in connection with the proposed Project, and in negotiating and preparing a DDA. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date hereof and shall terminate at the end of the ENA Period, as appropriate. The ENA Period may be extended by the mutual written consent of the parties for up to one (1) additional period of 3 months (the "Extended ENA Period"). Such extension may be granted or withheld by the Executive Director of the Agency, as follows: prior to granting any such extension, the Executive Director shall determine, in his or her reasonable and good faith discretion, whether Developer has: (i) obtained the necessary letters of intent from construction and take-out lenders, investors, and other sources of equity, for the Project, (ii) diligently proceeded with developing plans and specifications for the Project that are satisfactory to Agency and the City, (iii) prepared an application for tax credits to the extent required for the Project, (iv) been diligent in seeking entitlements and in complying with the California Environmental Quality Act, (v) performed Developer’s other obligations described in this Agreement during the initial ENA Period, and (vi) has been negotiating in good faith and working cooperatively with representatives of the Agency. If Agency’s Executive Director has determined that such obligations have been performed by Developer in all material respects by May 1, 2001, then Agency’s Executive Director may grant the extension for and on behalf of the Agency. 2. During the ENA Period (and the Extended ENA Period, if applicable): (i) Agency shall negotiate in good faith with the Developer with respect to a DDA concerning the disposition of the Property and the development of the Project on the Property, and (ii) Agency shall not negotiate with any person or entity, other than Developer, regarding a DDA for the development of the Project on the Property. It is anticipated that Developer and Agency’s staff shall conclude such negotiations prior to April 1, 2001, which is prior to the expiration of the ENA period. Throughout the ENA Period (and the Extended ENA Period, if applicable), Agency’s staff shall be available to meet with Developer to discuss the Project, the site plans and architectural renderings, and other DDA issues. 3. Developer agrees that Agency shall have the right to approve the architect for the Project, which approval shall not unreasonably be withheld. 4. Developer and Agency, as the case may be, shall perform the following actions by the dates specified herein:
5. Developer shall: (i) work cooperatively with Agency and its staff and (ii) report to the Agency regarding the status of the Project on a monthly basis. 6. Developer shall hold neighborhood meetings to provide information about the Project to, and to receive comments from, the residents of the neighborhood of the Project. 7. Developer shall be responsible for all studies and evaluations concerning the physical condition of the Property and provide copies thereof to Agency. 8. Developer shall bear all costs incurred by Developer with respect to the Project. Developer shall, in good faith, expeditiously initiate and complete all studies, plans and other activities which are either required by this Agreement to be performed by Developer or which Developer otherwise deems necessary. 9. Developer and Agency understand and agree that neither party is obligated to enter into any DDA; however, Developer and Agency shall negotiate in good faith with respect to the DDA for the Property. 10. This Agreement may not be assigned without the expressed written consent of Agency, which consent is subject to the sole and absolute discretion of Agency. 11. Neither the submission of this Agreement by Agency to Developer, nor the execution of this Agreement by either party, shall constitute a commitment by Agency to expend any financial resources on the Project, it being intended hereby that Agency’s obligations shall become effective only following a public hearing as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33433, and the approval and execution of the DDA by Agency. 12. Agency may terminate this Agreement if Developer should fail to comply with and perform in a timely manner to the sole satisfaction of Agency all provisions hereof on Developer’s part to be performed, or if progress is not being made in negotiations hereunder to Agency’s sole satisfaction. Agency shall provide 30 days written notice to Developer which specifies any dissatisfaction or belief, and Agency shall not terminate this Agreement if Developer cures the deficiencies specified by Agency to the sole satisfaction of Agency within such 30-day period. 13. Any notice, request, approval or other communication to be provided by one party to the other shall be in writing and provided by personal service or a form of express mail or service and addressed as follows: If to Developer: If to Agency: 14. Each of the parties hereto assumes the risk of entering into this Agreement. In no event will Agency be responsible for Developer’s loss of profits or for any special, indirect, consequential or incidental damages, however caused, even if Developer has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 15. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. There are no agreements or understandings between the parties and no representations by either party to the other as an inducement to enter into this Agreement, except as expressly set forth herein. All prior negotiations between the parties are superseded by this Agreement. This Agreement may not be altered, amended or modified except by a writing executed by both parties. Notwithstanding anything provided herein to the contrary, whether express or implied, Agency shall have no obligation to enter into an DDA with Developer, and neither the Agency nor its officers, members, staff or agents have made any promises to Developer other than to exclusively negotiate with Developer during the ENA Period (and the Extended ENA Period, if applicable), and no statements of Agency or its officers, members, staff or agents as to future obligations shall be binding upon Agency until a full DDA is adopted by Agency and then duly executed by Agency’s chairperson. 16. If either party should bring any legal proceeding relating to this Agreement, or to enforce any provision hereof, the party in whose favor judgment is rendered shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses of litigation from the other. 17. Both Agency and Developer have reviewed the foregoing terms and conditions of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and are in full agreement with it.
C. Klondike Canyon Drainage Vandalism. (Petru)
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE RDA BOARD FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000 SUBJECT: KLONDIKE CANYON DRAINAGE VANDALISM RECOMMENDATION Authorize an award of up to $5,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of persons vandalizing the drainage system in Klondike Canyon or related systems. BACKGROUND In 1996, representatives of the Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District (KCGHAD) contacted the City regarding severe and continuing damage to the drainage facilities installed to prevent water from entering the landslide. The Klondike Canyon District initially funded these facilities, with assistance from the City’s Redevelopment Agency. The difficulty in accessing the damaged pipeline and the repeated vandalism after repairs are made, all indicated that that these were not random acts, but deliberate and continuing attempts to disrupt the drainage system. Some conjectured that it was the work of adults rather than random juvenile vandalism. In response, on August 20, 1996, the City Council authorized $5,000 towards an award for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone responsible for the vandalism. DISCUSSION In the four years since the City Council authorized the award no arrests or convictions have been made, but the vandalism to the drainage system has continued. On October 24, 2000, Mayor Byrd received a letter from the KCGHAD describing recent vandalism to the pipeline and requesting the City’s assistance in the addressing the situation. The Mayor has asked that this item be agendized to discuss reconfirming the reward that was previously established in 1996. Because the KCGHAD has continued to spend considerable money on repeated repairs to the facilities, staff suggests that the RDA provide for the reward, as was done in 1996. FISCAL IMPACT A budget adjustment in the amount of $5,000 would be necessary to provide funds for the reward. Respectfully submitted: Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager PUBLIC COMMENTS: This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda: each speaker is limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular Redevelopment Agency meeting. |
