|
JANUARY
16, 2001
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 6.3 The 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 AGENDA JANUARY 16, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD 6:30 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS. 7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-01 NEXT ORD. NO. 362 CEREMONIAL MATTERS: Proclamations for Robert Linkroum, Producer of the live cablecasts of City Council meetings, and for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Amateur Radio Club. RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.Minutes of December 5, December 19, 2000 and January 2, 2001. (Purcell)
2.Notice of Completion for Construction of Catch Basin Inlet Filters. (Ramezani)
3.Application for Grant Funds for Park Playground Accessibility and Recycling Grant Program. (Still)
4.Signal Modifications on Hawthorne Boulevard at Granvia Altamira/ Ridgegate Drive. (Allison)
5.Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 195 et al. (Pfost)
6.Service Contract for Phase II Assessment of City Hall. (Park)
7.November 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
8.Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ PUBLIC
HEARINGS
9.Appeal of Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’ and Encroachment Permit No. 32 (Applicant: RPV Associates llc, Tract No. 46628 (Oceanfront); Appellant: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council). (Fox)
RECESS
PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.) 10.Proposal for the Use of Upper Point Vicente Park.
11.Staff Assistance in the Public Works Department. (Allison)
12.Authorization to File Conditional Use Permit Applications for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities on City Property. (Petru)
13.Long Point Resort Project Proposal. (Stern)
ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to January 30 at 7:00 P.M. for a joint workshop with the City Council, Finance Committee, and the Recreation & Parks Committee. CLOSED
SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST
Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORG.C. 54956.8 Property:30678 Palos Verdes Drive East City Negotiators:City Manager, Assistant City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Public Works Negotiating Parties:Jim and Diane Tyler
Under Negotiation:Price and Terms of Payment CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL The City Council/Agency finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation. Existing Litigation: G.C. 54956.9(a) Name of Case: Jon Echevarrieta vs. the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (LASC No. YS006446, Appellate Case No. B138366) City Attorney to update City Council on the status of this case and discussion of request for publication.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 16, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD 6:30 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS. 7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-01 NEXT ORD. NO. 362 CEREMONIAL MATTERS: Proclamations for Robert Linkroum, Producer of the live cablecasts of City Council meetings, and for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Amateur Radio Club. RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL
OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.Minutes of December 5, December 19, 2000 and January 2, 2001. (Purcell)
2.Notice of Completion for Construction of Catch Basin Inlet Filters. (Ramezani)
TO:HONORABLE
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT:NOTICE
OF COMPLETION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CATCH BASIN INLET FILTERS RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On August 15, 2000, City Council awarded a contract to United Storm Water, Inc. for the construction of 24 catch basin inlet filters in several commercial or high traffic areas such as on Hawthorne Boulevard, Western Avenue, and in existing catch basin at the parking lots in the City parks. The construction of the inlet filters/inserts helps the City meet some of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. This project was partially funded by Los Angeles County 1996 Proposition A funds and the City will be reimbursed for 85% of the construction cost. The City is responsible for the remaining 15% match. This work was completed in November 2000. (See attached location list) Final project cost is as follows:
CONCLUSION United Storm Water, Inc. has successfully completed all work in accordance with the plans and specifications. Therefore, the work should be accepted as complete and a Notice of Completion filed. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended action will have no fiscal impact. Adequate funds were provided in the adopted FY 1999-00 budget for completion of the project and adequate funds were carried over to the current year. Respectfully
submitted, Attachment: List of Locations
3.Application for Grant Funds for Park Playground Accessibility and Recycling Grant Program. (Still)
TO:HONORABLE
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT:APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR PARK PLAYGROUND ACCESSIBILITY AND RECYCLING GRANT PROGRAM STAFF COORDINATOR: Larry D. Still, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND As proposed by Assembly Bill 18 (Villaraigosa) and Senate Bill 1147 (Keeley) the voters of California approved the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 (Villaraigosa-Keeley Act). The Act authorizes the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to administer a grant program to upgrade existing public playgrounds using recycled-content materials and to assist them in meeting state and federal accessibility standards relating to public playgrounds. The Legislature appropriated $2.6 million to the CIWMB to fund grants for this program in the fiscal year 2000 – 01 grant cycle. Grants of up to $50,000 are available. The funding may be used for upgrading, repairing, refurbishing, installing or replacing public playground facilities. DISCUSSION Over the past several years the City has upgraded the play equipment at Hesse, Eastview, and Ladera Linda parks. The Public Works Department will be considering upgrades to the equipment at Ryan Park over the next several years. This grant program provides a funding opportunity. Some of the terms of the grant program are:
In order to apply for the funding, the City only needs to identify the intended park site at this time. The exact nature of the upgrade and replacement can be determined at a later date, through the City’s normal review process with the Recreation & Parks Department and City Council. ALTERNATIVE The alternative would be to not apply for the Park Playground Accessibility and Recycling Grant Program. Future funding for improvements at Ryan Park would have to come from other grant programs (if available) or City funds FISCAL IMPACT The recommended action will have a positive fiscal impact. If approved the City would receive a grant of up to $50,000. Submitted
by, Attachments: RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING
THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM Park
Playground Accessibility and Recycling Grant Program WHEREAS, The voters of California passed the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 (Villaraigosa-Keeley Act). This act authorized the California Integrated Waste Management Board to establish a grant program to: 1. Assist local agencies in meeting the state and federal accessibility standards relating to public playgrounds; and 2. Conserve resources and develop markets for recycled-content materials and equipment; and WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Board has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies, businesses and non-profit organization under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board require the applicant to certify by resolution approval of the application before submission of said application to the State; and WHEREAS, if awarded the grant, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for development of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES authorizes the submittal of an application to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for 00/01 Park Playground Accessibility and Recycling Grant Program. The City Manager of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes all necessary applications, contracts, agreements, amendments and payment requests hereto for the purposes of securing grant funds and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in the grant application. The foregoing resolution is passed by the City Council this sixteenth day of January 2001.
4.Signal Modifications on Hawthorne Boulevard at Granvia Altamira/ Ridgegate Drive. (Allison)
TO:HONORABLE
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS ON HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD AT GRANVIA ALTAMIRA / RIDGEGATE DRIVE Staff Coordinator:Bruce D. Mattern, PE, TE /Contract City Traffic Engineer RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND On April 26,2000 an engineer’s report to the Traffic Committee recommended that the traffic signal on Hawthorne Boulevard at Granvia Altamira/Ridgegate Drive be modified from protected/permissive left turn phasing to protected only left-turn phasing. The Traffic Committee approved the report and forwarded the report to the City Council. On June 6, 2000 the City Council reviewed the report and authorized staff to proceed with the engineering design and to advertise the project for construction bids. On November 16, 2000 bids were opened. DISCUSSION Three companies requested plans and specifications, however only one firm submitted a bid to perform the work. Bid results are as follows:
Background references for Steiny have been contacted and have responded with positive feedback. Steiny has worked for the City previously and has a history of completing projects on time and within budget. Staff recommendations two and three awards a construction contract to Steiny and Company, Inc. As part of the improvements, new signal poles and mast arms are required. Staff recommendation four authorizes 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 been used successfully on a previous signal modification project. Engineering Services are required for construction inspection and administration. Staff recommendation number five authorizes the expenditure of up to $5,000 for these services. Staff intends to utilize a firm already under contract for on-call services for the required services. The recommended actions authorize the expenditure of up to $38,000. This project was not identified in the adopted budget and therefore a budget adjustment is required. Staff recommendation number six approves the required budget adjustment. CONCLUSIONS Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the construction of the signal modifications approved by the Traffic Committee and the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended actions authorize expenditures of up to $38,000. This project was not identified in the adopted FY 2000 – 01 Budget, however, funding is available to be transferred in from the Gas Tax Fund. The revised estimated remaining fund balance in the year-end Gas Tax Fund is $135,000. Respectfully
submitted, Attachment:Resolution 2001 -
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
That the following adjustment be made to the following fund budgets: Increase in the Capital Improvement Fund
Decrease in the Gas Tax Fund
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 16th DAY OF January 2001. MAYOR
5.Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 195 et al. (Pfost)
DATE: JANUARY 16, 2001 AL (MARRIOTT BRIGHTON GARDENS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY) Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Extend the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 195 et al, for the Marriott Brighton Gardens Assisted Living Facility for one (1) year, until February 2, 2002. BACKGROUND On February 2, 1999, the City Council adopted resolutions conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 195, Grading Permit No. 1903, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24655, Sign Permit No. 842, and certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Marriott Brighton Gardens Assisted Living Facility. The approved project includes the construction of a new 122 unit assisted living facility (97 assisted living units and 25 Alzheimer patient units) within a three-story, 74,744 square foot building on a 4.57 acre parcel. The approved project also includes a carport structure, gazebo, fountain, landscaping, hardscaping, private outdoor areas, trash enclosure, signage, on-site parking and a loading area. Grading for the project was approved for 80,000 cubic yards of cut and 80,000 cubic yards of fill to be balanced on site (no import or export).
Shortly after the City Council approval of the project, a Petition for Writ of Mandate was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles by a resident opposing the approved project. However, on November 5, 1999, judgement in this case was granted in favor of the approved project. Given that the City approvals were set to expire on February 2, 2001, on December 7, 2000, the City received the attached letter from Marriott Senior Living Services requesting a one-year time extension to the approved project. DISCUSSION As shown in the attached letter, the Applicant has indicated that in the past few years, many of the markets that Marriott had built new assisted living facilities in were showing signs of overbuilding, and that many of the new facilities (including Marriott's and its competitors) were taking longer to lease up than originally expected. Consequently, lending sources for new project financing began to withdraw from the market. Subsequently, Marriott has put a number of its assisted living projects on hold, including the project in Rancho Palos Verdes, until an alternative financing source is identified. The Applicant has also indicated that Marriott closed escrow on the subject property in March of 2000. Since then, the Applicant has been working with various developers who would acquire the land from Marriott and build the Brighton Gardens project, with Marriott Senior Living Services entering into a long term management agreement to operate the facility. The Applicant believes that this may occur as early as March 2001 and that grading may commence in November 2001. CONCLUSION In addition to Condition #4 (see Background section above), Development Code Section 17.60.070, permits a one year extension to Conditional Use Permits "upon a showing of substantial hardship, delays beyond the control of the applicant, or other good cause." Based upon the reasons discussed above, which include the lawsuit and current market conditions, Staff believes that there is good cause for extending the project entitlements for an additional year. As such, for the reasons noted above, Staff feels that the approval of the time extension request should be granted. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives: 1.Decline to extend the entitlements beyond their current expiration date. 2.Identify any issues of concern with the extension request, provide Staff and/or the applicant with any direction, and continue the item to a date certain. Since the request for extension was submitted prior to the deadline, the approvals will remain valid until the Council takes action on the requests. FISCAL IMPACT There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision. Respectfully
submitted: Reviewed, ATTACHMENT: Letter dated received on December 7, 2000.
6.Service Contract for Phase II Assessment of City Hall. (Park)
SUBJECT: SERVICE CONTRACT FOR PHASE II ASSESSMENT OF CITY HALL RECOMMENDATION Approve execution of the professional service contract with The Source Group for a Phase II assessment of City Hall grounds. DISCUSSION During the FY 2000-2001 budget process, the City Council approved conducting a soil assessment of the City Hall grounds before considering any facility improvements that may require grading or alterations to the property. The Phase II assessment will cover the grass area between the existing City Hall buildings, the pocket grass area west of the buildings, the parking areas east and west of the City Hall buildings and along the access road on the south side of City Hall. An assessment report will be provided to document the methodologies used for data collection, analytical results, waste disposition and the findings of the investigation. Selected soil samples from 16 borings will be analyzed for total Hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile compounds, pesticides and PCB’s, Perchlorate, nitrates and Title 22 metals. The attached project cost estimate of $23,000 has been divided into two parts, level 1 at $10,169 and level 2 at $12,457. Level 1 field work will focus on five soil borings between the City Hall buildings and level 2 field work will focus on 11 soil borings in the parking areas, access road and remaining green pocket areas adjacent to the City Hall buildings. The level 2 assumes work would be done in conjunction with level 1 scope of work and this would allow some cost savings. Staff selected The Source Group as the consultant based upon their qualifications and current soil analysis contract work for the Point Vicente Interpretative Center. FISCAL IMPACT Up to $23,000 will be allocated from the General Fund. RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED REVIEWED Attachment: Contract
7.November 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 2000 TREASURER’S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the November 2000 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit an investment report to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. The City has elected to submit a treasurer’s report to the Council for review each month. This report summarizes the cash activity associated with all funds of the City. A separate treasurer’s report is prepared monthly for both the Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority and is presented under separate cover before their respective governing bodies. The attached treasurer's report includes the cash activities of the City for the month of November 2000. ANALYSIS: The City’s overall cash balances totaled $24,017,998 at November 30, 2000. This represents over a $1,336,500 decrease for the month. The large overall decrease is a result of several individual funds experiencing significant fluctuations. The cash activities during the month that caused these changes are discussed in detail below. General Fund – General fund cash decreased by $790,000 during the month. November is historically a month with minimal revenue receipts, and this past November was no exception. Aside from the recurring monthly revenue sources, no major sources of General fund revenues were received. The cash decrease is also partially attributable to a timing issue that was discussed with the October treasurer’s report. The City did not make a payment (approximately $200,000) to the Los Angeles County Sheriff for monthly policing services in October. However, two payments were made to the Sheriff during November 2000. Gas Tax Fund – In addition to receiving the monthly gas tax apportionment from the State, the City expended approximately $172,500 on various street maintenance activities (i.e. median maintenance, street patching, etc.). Recycling Fund – The cash balance in the Recycling fund increased by nearly $37,000. In accordance with the refuse contract entered into during the past year, the City received the first quarter of FY 2000-01 curbside recycling fees which accounted for the majority of the increase in cash. Proposition C Fund – The City received both the October and November Proposition C allocation from the County of Los Angeles during the month. The two payments totaled slightly over $70,500 and caused the fund’s ending cash balance to increase to $1,028,110 at November 30, 2000. The majority of the accumulated cash balances have been earmarked to fund several current-year CIP projects. Proposition A Fund – The ending cash balance at November 30, 2000 decreased by approximately $122,500 as a result of two factors. First, the City received the October and November Proposition C allocations (totaling nearly $85,000) from the County of Los Angeles during the month. In addition, the fund disbursed over $200,000 to Municipal Area Express and Palos Verdes Transit to cover the second half of the City’s FY 2000-01 contributions. CIP Fund – The CIP fund recognized a decrease in cash of $60,000 during the month. While the net decrease was not large, the fund did have significant cash inflows and outflows during November. In addition to the FY 2000-01 monthly transfer from the General fund of $291,667, the CIP fund was reimbursed $44,600 from MTA for costs incurred on the Tri-Cities Bikeways project. Total cash disbursements for the month nearly reached $400,000, and related primarily to making progress payments on the PVDE/Bronco Storm Drain project and the PVDS Scenic Turnouts project. Special Trusts Fund – The cash balance in the Special Trusts fund decreased by over $220,000 during November. As mentioned in prior months, it is typical for cash in this fund to fluctuate from month to month. These variances are caused by changes in the timing of payments to and from the City. The City made several large dollar disbursements on behalf of developers during the month that helped account for the overall cash decrease. Respectfully
submitted, Reviewed:
8.Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.Appeal of Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’ and Encroachment Permit No. 32 (Applicant: RPV Associates llc, Tract No. 46628 (Oceanfront); Appellant: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council). (Fox)
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF COASTAL PERMIT NO. 94-REVISION ‘A’ AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 32 [APPLICANT: RPV ASSOCIATES llc, TRACT NO. 46628 (OCEANFRONT); APPELLANT: RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL] Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Review the Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’ and Encroachment Permit No. 32. BACKGROUND On November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision ‘C’, Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’, Encroachment Permit No. 32 and Sign Permit No. 1096. These applications by the developer of the Oceanfront project were for modifications to the tract perimeter fencing requirements for improvements at the tract’s two entries on Palos Verdes Drive West, the approval of temporary and permanent tract entry identification signs for the community, and the placement of three (3) manned tract entry observation booths within the public rights-of-way of the interior streets of the tract. On December 16, 2000, Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart and Councilmember Stern asked the City Council to consider an appeal of this action, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.80.130 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC). A majority of the City Council agreed to review the Planning Commission’s action, but only that portion related to the tract entry observation booths. Staff has provided the City Council with copies of the Staff reports, correspondence and related materials for the October 24, 2000, November 14, 2000 and November 28, 2000 Planning Commission meetings. DISCUSSION The three (3) manned tract entry observation booths required the approval of Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’ and Encroachment Permit No. 32. The review process and development standards for tract entry observation booths are established by City Council Policy No. 31 (attached). In approving Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’ and Encroachment Permit No. 32, the Planning Commission was able to make all of the required findings of fact for approval. Briefly, the Planning Commission found that:
The original applications for Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’ and Encroachment Permit No. 32 proposed two (2) manned tract entry observation booths to be placed in the medians of Via Vicente and Calle Entradero at the entry points to the tract. Each of these booths was proposed to be fourteen feet (14’0") tall and one hundred eighty-four square feet (184 ft²) in area, with decorative, non-functional vehicles gate in a fixed, open position. Staff found these booths to be inconsistent with the required findings for the coastal permit revision and encroachment permit because they would:
The Planning Commission agreed with Staff’s assessment of the original application for the booths, and directed the developer to consider alternative designs and/or locations for them. In response, the developer proposed two alternative design schemes. The first design scheme involved reducing the height of the original booths to twelve feet (12’0") and moving them back further from Palos Verdes Drive West. The Planning Commission found that this scheme resulted in no appreciable improvement over the original application. The second alternative design scheme proposed by the developer was for three (3) booths, located at the entries to the interior streets of the tract rather than at the main tract entries on Palos Verdes Drive West. The height of the booths was increased to fifteen feet (15’0") with the addition of a cupola, and the size of the booths was increased to three hundred twenty-nine square feet (329 ft²) in area. The relocation of the booths to the interior streets eliminated view impairment and reduced the psychological barrier to entry, but the booths were still significantly taller and larger than allowed under City Council Policy No. 31. As a result, Staff still could not recommend approval of the relocated booths. Therefore, the Planning Commission required the developer to reduce the height of the booths to twelve feet (12’0") and size of the booths to two hundred fifty square feet (250 ft²) in area. The Planning Commission also required the developer to provide signage to advise the public of the availability of coastal access. The conditions of approval for Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’ and Encroachment Permit No. 32 are summarized in P.C. Resolution No. 2000-41, which is attached to this report. The grounds for the City Council’s appeal of this project are articulated in the letter from Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, dated December 6, 2000. The main issue raised is that the developer should not be allowed to do anything that will prevent the general public from using the public amenities within the Oceanfront project, particularly those intended to provide access to coastal resources:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On December 22, 2000, public notices were mailed to the applicant, the property owner, one hundred eighty-eight property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site and thirty-nine other interested parties who had previously provided written comments and/or oral testimony in this matter. On December 30, 2000, public notice of the January 16, 2001 public hearing for the appeal of Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’ and Encroachment Permit No. 32 was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. As of the date this report was completed, Staff had received three additional public comments (attached) regarding the City Council’s appeal of this approval. The bulk of the public comments on this project was addressed to the Planning Commission and is included in the Planning Commission Staff reports that are attached to this report. The Oceanfront project lies within the appealable portion of the City’s coastal zone. As such, the California Coastal Commission retains final jurisdiction over the application for Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’. Once the City Council’s decision on this appeal is final, Staff will forward a "Notice of Final Decision" to the Coastal Commission to begin the Commission’s 10-day appeal period. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff requests direction from the City Council regarding the Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’ and Encroachment Permit No. 32. FISCAL IMPACT Since this application has been appealed by City Council, no appeal fee has been collected and the cost of the processing of the appeal is being borne by the City’s General Fund. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:
Respectfully
submitted: Reviewed
by: Attachments: Appeal
letters from Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart and Councilmember Stern RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)
10.Proposal for the Use of Upper Point Vicente Park.
Save
Our Coastline II SOC II is offering to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council an alternative concept for the improvement of Point Vicente Park Our concept is the same as the original proposal, made 25 years ago, that convinced the National Park Service to turn over the federal Nike missile site to the new City of RPV. The "needed open space", cited in the original proposal, is even more valuable now for the unique ambience that keeps our property values so high. The level, easily accessible areas up by the City Hall could be beneficially utilized for active recreation, gradually merging into more passive recreation areas near the bluffs. Most of the land could be preserved or restored as native habitat with the participation of community groups. A series of trails could be designed to provide access to areas for solitary contemplation of the beautiful view sheds of coastline and ocean or for more social activities. Well-planned landscaping could enhance the attractiveness of City Hall and conceal the maintenance yard. Under the direction of the City Council, and utilizing citizen input, the Recreation and Parks Committee should develop a plan that would preserve this community asset for all of us. We already own the land. It only needs the attention and protection it deserves.
Point Vicente Park Enhancement
11.Staff Assistance in the Public Works Department. (Allison)
SUBJECT:STAFF ASSISTANCE IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
DISCUSSIONS The Department’s Senior Engineer has recently resigned and moved out of the Southern California area. His last day of work with the City was January 7, 2001. In addition a second vacancy continues at the position of Deputy Director. The Deputy Director position has been vacant since June 23, 2000. Staff has completed two recruitments for the deputy position and is underway with a third. An offer was recently made but was rejected. To maintain the current level of services until permanent staff is hired, engineering services from the private sector are required. It is proposed that the two positions (Deputy Director and Senior Engineer) be filled with two individuals working a total of sixty hours per week. Staff has identified one person thus far. The individual has worked on several City projects, is therefore familiar with the City and the workings of the Public Works Department. A second individual has not yet been identified; however, staff is meeting with several firms in this regard. Given the length of time it is taking to fill the Deputy Director position it is difficult to estimate how long the two vacancies will exist. However, for budgeting purposes it is anticipated that the services will be required through July 1, 2001. If either one or both positions can be filled prior to July 1, 2001 there will be cost savings. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed contract services were not anticipated in the adopted budget. The cost of the services will be greater than the salary savings, and additional funding is therefore required. The amount required is as follows:
A budget adjustment necessary in the amount of $60,000 to fund temporary services for the two vacant positions is. Staff recommendation number two approves the required budget adjustment. CONCLUSION Adopting the staff recommendations will authorize staff to obtain engineering services to maintain the current level of service in the Public Works Department. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Do not approve staff recommendations, or approve a lower funding authorization. This, however, will result in a reduction of services, which will delay certain capital projects and reduce response time to requests from the public. Respectfully
submitted, Reviewed, Attachment:Resolution 2001- RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2000 the City of the Rancho Palos Verdes adopted resolution 2000-33, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2000 – 2001 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to allocate additional funds of $60,000 to provide funding for engineering services for the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, a budget increase in the Capital Improvement Fund is necessary to authorize the expenditure of additional funds for the contract services. BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: That the following adjustment be made to the following fund budgets: Increase in Public Works Administration
Increase in the Gas Tax Fund
Increase in CIP Fund
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 16th DAY OF January 2001. ATTEST:
12.Authorization to File Conditional Use Permit Applications for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities on City Property. (Petru)
SUBJECT:AUTHORIZATION TO FILE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES ON CITY PROPERTY RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to sign two applications for Conditional Use Permits on behalf of the City for proposed wireless telecommunications facilities at Ladera Linda Community Center (Verizon) and City Hall (Metricom), thereby allowing these applications to proceed through the required permit review process. BACKGROUND From time to time, the City receives requests from private telecommunications companies to place their facilities and equipment on City property. The most familiar example is the monopole structure that was erected at City Hall in 1989 by L.A. Cellular and is currently operated by Spectrasite. Although the City has a separate policy for facilities placed in the public-right-of-way, the Municipal Code requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for installations on all other types of property, including those placed on property owned by the City. One of the requirements for filing a complete CUP application is the landowner’s signature on the application. With these two requests, the property owner is the City. Therefore, staff is seeking authorization from the City Council to allow these two applications to proceed through the normal CUP application and public hearing process. The first request is from Whalen & Company (representing Verizon Wireless) to install a maximum 30-foot high monopole and associated equipment enclosure at Ladera Linda Community Center (see attached letter). The facility is proposed to be located on the pad area located between the Community Center buildings and the soccer fields. Existing improvements on this portion of the site include a large unpaved parking area located closest to the driveway, a paddle tennis court near the center of the pad area and a lawn area adjacent to the top of the slope overlooking the ocean. Verizon Wireless is proposing to is use a 600 square foot area (20 feet by 30 feet in dimension) located in the southeast corner of the lawn area to accommodate the monopole and equipment enclosure (see attached plans). The proposal also includes a self-contained ground mounted equipment cabinet (12 feet high, 12 feet wide and 20 feet long) that would be located along side the monopole. A 6 foot high fence would surround the monopole and equipment enclosure. The second request is from Wireless Facilities Inc. (WFI) representing Metricom (see attached letter). The company is proposing to install two panel antenna arrays on the north and east elevations of the two-story Administration Building at City Hall. The antenna arrays would consist of four panels each (the panels are 38 inches high by 11 inches wide) that would be mounted flush to the wall and painted to match the building (see attached plan detail). The antennas and support structures would not extend above the parapet of the building. The proposal also includes a self-contained ground mounted equipment cabinet (6 foot high, 3 feet wide and 3 feet deep) that can be located either inside or outside of the building. CONCLUSION The City has received requests from two different telecommunications companies to install wireless telephone antennas on City-owned property. In order to proceed through the required Conditional Use Permit application process, the City must first agree to sign the application forms as the landowner. Each application will then be subject to a noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission, with the possibility of appeal to the City Council. Notice of the public hearing would be mailed to all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the exterior boundary of the Ladera Linda Community Center property. If the City ultimately approves either or both of the Conditional Use Permit requests, staff would then return to the Council with the necessary lease agreements. ALTERNATIVE Allowing the applicants to go through the permit process does not obligate the City in any way to approve either project. However, if the City Council is opposed to allowing this type of equipment to be placed on City property, the Council can deny the requested authorization to proceed. This action would prevent the applications from being filed with the City. The applicants would then have to seek other sites in the City, most likely on private property, to accommodate their equipment. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with allowing the Conditional Use Permit applications to be filed and processed. However, if either or both applications are eventually approved, the City will then negotiate lease agreements with each company. The lease payments will result in new General Fund revenue to the City, however, the amount of the payments will be negotiated only after a final decision has been made on the CUP application. Respectfully
submitted: Reviewed:
13.Long Point Resort Project Proposal. (Stern) Recommendation: Withdraw permission previously granted to York Long Point Associates to submit a plan using City owned property for the Long Point Resort Project so long as the Long Point Resort Project does not maximize utilization of its privately owned property for golf and continues to allocate Long Point land for use of (1) Resort Villas (2) West Casitas (3) Parking at West Casitas (4) East Casitas (5) Bungalows, and (6) Exterior Parking.
SUBJECT:LONG POINT PROJECT PROPOSAL
(1) Withdraw permission previously granted to York Long Point Associates to submit a plan using City owned property for the Long Point Resort Project so long as the Long Point Resort Project does not maximize utilization of its privately owned property for golf and continues to allocate Long Point land for use for (1) Resort Villas, (2) West Casitas, (3) Parking at West Casitas, (4) East Casitas, (5) Bungalows and (5) exterior parking. (2 Direct City Staff and the Planning Commission that they shall not accept a design of the Long Point Resort Project that fails to maximize the use of the Long Point property to the fullest extent possible for the hotel and golf course, and instead uses the acreage for Resort Villas and Casitas, exterior parking and other uses that minimize the ability of the developer to site the maximum number of golf holes on its privately owned property. A primary goal to be achieved by the City Staff and the Planning Commission is to configure the Long Point Resort Project so that the developer substantially reduces or eliminates its need for city owned property in order to have a nine-hole golf course. (3) Direct the Finance Advisory Committee to undertake an analysis of the of financial implications to the Long Point Resort Project of scaling back the Long Point Resort Project to not include the Resort Villas, Casitas, and other facilities which use acreage on the Long Point privately owned property, and thereby increase the "need" of the developer for use of city owned property. The Finance Advisory Committee should seek to evaluate the financial implication of eliminating Resort Villas, Casitas, and other facilities that use acreage. (4) Request that the developer of the Long Point Resort provide to the city a detailed plan of operation for its proposed golf course so that the City Council may begin to obtain public input and evaluate whether the plan is consistent with the city’s desires and the requirements of the grant deed that the city hall property be used for recreational purposes for the general public. (5) The City Council should solicit public input and provide direction to the city committees and commissions that are addressing various aspects of this project. There are significant policy determinations that must be made. The City Council is the only body that should be addressing those issues. The City Council is the only elected body, answerable to the residents for the decisions we make. INTRODUCTION It is beneficial for me to explain the purpose for putting forth the suggestions contained in this report. The Long Point Resort Project is perceived by some as having attraction to the City for certain benefits that it might bring to the city. These are generally perceived to be tax revenue. Also, the addition of a high quality facility with restaurant and ballroom facilities are viewed as a benefit to the community. Others in the community, myself included, view the use of publicly owned open space, particularly with the views and location of the city hall and Point Vicente Park as property that should remain for the use and enjoyment by all the residents, not just those who desire to play golf at the Long Point Resort. The purpose of the suggestions contained in this report are an attempt to achieve these goals which I believe are not mutually exclusive, desires. I state this, as I believe that the city can reap the expected benefits of the Long Point Resort, without giving up the use of city owned property. I believe that proper direction from this Council regarding these issues can assist the various committees addressing this project in designing a project that attains the city’s desired goals, and eliminates or dramatically reduces the claimed need to use city property for the Long Point Resort golf course. I believe that this can be achieved by making the decisions set forth in the recommendations. These directives will aid the city in achieving the best possible result of obtaining the tax revenues from a resort hotel, the facilities such as restaurants and ballrooms, while eliminating or reducing the perceived need of the developer for use of the city owned property. I would hope that the fact that this proposal comes from me, rather than staff, is not an impediment to the constructive discussion of the ideas set forth herein.
DISCUSSION Withdraw Permission to Use Public Property for Long Point Project The developer of the Long Point Resort project has asserted that in order for the Long Point Resort Project to be economically viable, it must have a nine-hole golf course. The developer has therefore included in its present conceptual plan substantial portions of some of the only city owned property near the coastline, the Point Vicente Park and city hall property. As a result, the developer submitted a conceptual plan in April 2000 which contains a number of elements, including use of the Point Vicente Park and city hall property for five holes of golf and a driving range. (The developer previously claimed that the project required an 18-hole golf course. That assertion appears to have been abandoned, since, as stated, the most recent iteration of the project now includes only nine holes of golf.) Nonetheless, the developer has proposed to use significant portions of its privately owned land on Long Point for uses other than the main hotel facility and golf course. These other uses include (1) Resort Villas, (2) West Casita Village, and (3) East Casita (4) Village, (5) Resort Bungalows and exterior parking. It does not appear that the use of the Long Point property for these uses is essential to make the Long Point Hotel Resort viable economically. The developer has made no such claim. The residents of Rancho Palos Verdes have both historically and presently made it clear that they wish to maximize the public ownership and preservation of open space. Many in the community oppose the use of presently owned public open space for the Long Point Hotel Resort golf course. Therefore, the city should not permit the continued processing by the city of a Long Point conceptual plan which uses Long Point land for elements which reduce the ability of the developer to site its golf course on its privately own property, and instead use city owned open space for that purpose. The property on Long Point that is devoted to uses other than golf and the hotel proper are:
The Council should direct that the city will no longer consider allowing the use of the Point Vicente Park and City Hall property for the Long Point Resort so long as the above noted elements are included in the plan. On the contrary, the developer should be directed to maximize its use of its own property for the golf course. This should include the undergrounding of virtually all its parking, so as to maximize the useable Long Point land for golf (I have been advised that the Ritz Carlton Aviara in Northern San Diego County has underground parking.) A clearly beneficial aspect of such a direction would be the reduction of the developer’s need for city owned land in order to have a nine-hole golf course. Additional and significant benefits of such a direction would be:
Design to Maximize Golf on Long Point, Eliminating Casitas, Villas, and Exterior Parking City Staff and the Planning Commission should be provided direction from the City Council with regard to the significant public policy decisions that must be made with regard to this project. In that regard, the City Council should direct City Staff and the Planning Commission that they shall not accept a design for the Long Point Resort Project that fails to maximize the use of the Long Point property to the fullest extent possible for the golf course and primary hotel facility. This means that the Long Point property shall not be used for ancillary purposes such as Resort Villas and Casitas, exterior parking and other elements which use the land, and reduce ability of the developer to site the maximum number of golf holes upon its privately owned property. A primary goal to be achieved by the City Staff and the Planning Commission is to configure the Long Point Resort Project so that the developer substantially reduces or eliminates its claimed need for city owned property in order to have a nine-hole golf course. This goal is consistent with that already addressed. The community is far better off with a project that minimizes the use of publicly owned property. It is appropriate to direct staff and the Planning Commission that they shall evaluate the various elements of the project with a primary goal to maximize the amount of acreage that can be used on Long Point for the golf course. Finance Advisory Committee Evaluation of Impact of Eliminating Casitas, Villas, Exterior Parking The City Council has already directed the Finance Advisory Committee to evaluate the Long Point Resort Project. Hence, it has familiarity with the project. There are differing views by the residents of the wisdom of use of city owned property for a private resort venture. However, the main argument put forth by proponents for the use of public property for the Long Point Resort Project is that the Long Point Resort will generate substantial tax revenues for the city. Whatever the merits of that argument, it seems likely that proponents would prefer to have a viable project that both generates the anticipated benefits for the city (tax revenues) with the minimum use of publicly owned property. Therefore, if the city can generate nearly all (or all) of the anticipate tax revenue benefits, and configure the project so that it reduces or eliminates the use by the developer of the Point Vicente Park and city hall properties, the result is far preferable than that which requires substantial use of city owned property. The Finance Advisory Committee can play a valuable role in assisting the city to evaluate the impact of directing the developer to reduce the use of acreage on Long Point for uses other than golf. The Finance Advisory Committee should be directed to conduct a financial evaluation of the consequences of various scenarios that involve the reduced use of Long Point acreage for elements such as the Resort Villas, Casitas, and other facilities which use acreage on the Long Point privately owned property, and instead involve the increased use of Long Point for the golf course. Evaluation of the Golf Course Plan of Operation for Consistency with City Desires and Deed Restrictions The City Council should evaluate the plan of operation that the developer will propose for the Long Point Resort. There must be at least two levels of analysis that the City Council should undertake. First, any use of the Point Vicente Park and City Hall property, at a minimum, raises questions of whether the plan of operation proposed by the developer for the public property is consistent with the deed restrictions imposed on the city when it acquired the property from the federal government. That December 6, 1979 deed states that the property is provided "for and in consideration of the PERPETUAL USE . . . AS AND FOR PUBLIC PARK AND PUBLIC RECREATION AREA PURPOSES, . . ." "This property shall be used and maintained FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSES for which it was conveyed in perpetuity . . ." The deed restrictions state "The [city] shall . . . erect and maintain a permanent sign . . . indicating that THE PROPERTY IS A PARK OR RECREATION AREA AND HAS BEEN ACQUIRED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR USE BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC." "The property SHALL NOT BE SOLD, LEASED, . . . except to another . . . governmental agency [for] the continued use and maintenance of the property for public park or public recreational purposes . . ." In order for the city to evaluate whether it believes that the plan of operation of the developer is consistent with these restrictions, and the goals and desires of the city and its residents, the city should require that the developer provide a detailed plan of operation, including information on (1) greens fees, (2) reservation system and availability of the golf course to the public on a non-discriminatory basis, (3) methods of allocating tee times, (4) existence of reserved or preferred times for hotel guests, (5) hours of operation and impact upon other public activities at the site, (6) other details that are germane to both the public nature of the facility and the private interests of the resort operator. Yet another analysis must be undertaken to evaluate whether the proposal meets the best interests of the community, and the goals and desires of the residents. While some of the same considerations come into play, the City Council should provide direction to staff regarding the interests of the community that should be protected and advanced in this process. These should include analysis of the impact that the plan of operation has upon the use of the property by the residents for alternative uses, such as hiking and enjoying the views that the property affords. It would be beneficial at this point to obtain public input on these issues and articulate those interests so that in the event that this City Council moves forward with the Long Point Resort Project, it is planned in a manner consistent with the best interests of the residents. Obtain Public Input on Uses of the City Owned Property The City Council should take a more active role in the determination of city policy toward this project that seeks to use city owned property. It is the prerogative of the City Council, not other non-elected city committees or commissions to address and determine the question of the use of city owned property. This policy decision belongs before the City Council. The Planning Commission has already sought a joint meeting to address issues related to Long Point and obtain direction from the City Council. The City Council should conduct such a meeting to learn of the concerns of the Planning Commission and provide it direction. (While the minutes of the Planning Commission indicate that Chairman Lyons felt he had direction from the City Council, there has been no direction given by the full council to date, and any perception to the contrary by Chairman Lyons appears to be based upon unofficial direction given by one or more council members. Further, the entire Planning Commission is entitled to guidance from the entire City Council.) CONCLUSION There is no doubt that the policy questions raised by the Long Point Resort project will be hotly debated in the community. The City Council should conduct an appropriate forum for the purpose of obtaining as much community input as possible so that it can provide direction as this project moves forward. It is incumbent upon the City Council to maximize the opportunity of the public to have input before the City Council on these policy decisions. Further, it is important that these decisions be made by the City Council before the outcome is essentially determined by the various committees and commissions what will evaluate various portions of the project. Further, in shaping the policies of this city with respect to the use of city owned property the City Council should take a more pro-active role. Rather than waiting for a private developer to tell the city how it believes the property can best be used for its private interest, the City Council should seek input from the residents as to their desires with regard to the use of public property. Respectfully
submitted, ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to January 30 at 7:00 P.M. for a joint workshop with the City Council, Finance Committee, and the Recreation & Parks Committee.
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) CONFERENCE
WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
City Attorney to update City Council on the status of this case and discussion of request for publication. AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDERNEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2001-01 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: A.Minutes of December 19, 2000 and January 2, 2001. (Purcell)
B.November 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
TO:HONORABLE
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the November 2000 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency. BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of November 2000 for the Redevelopment Agency. ANALYSIS: The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by approximately $141,500 during November, ending the month with a balance of $6,413,152. The overall decrease is the result of two factors. First, the Agency’s only cash receipts for the month related to $2,800 in tax increment revenues. Additionally, the Agency expended over $144,000 during the month. The bulk of the November expenditures related to progress payments on the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. It is expected that the Agency’s cash outlays will continue to increase in the coming months as progress payments are made on the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. Respectfully
submitted, Reviewed: C.Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ REGULAR
BUSINESS
PUBLIC COMMENTS: This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda: each speaker is limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular Redevelopment Agency meeting. AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
CALL TO ORDER:NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2001-01
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.Minutes of December 5, 2000 and January 2, 2001. (Purcell)
2.November 2000 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
TO:HONORABLE
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the November 2000 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority. BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of November 2000 for the Improvement Authority. ANALYSIS: The Improvement Authority’s cash balances increased by approximately $2,400 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $1,506,863 at November 30, 2000. In addition to the $7,917 monthly transfer from the City’s General fund to the Portuguese Bend fund, the Authority expended nearly $5,500 for routine dewatering well maintenance activities. Respectfully
submitted, Reviewed: 3.Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ PUBLIC COMMENTS: For items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
