|
MARCH
6, 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 MARCH 6, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD _____________________________________________________________________ 7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-22 NEXT ORD. NO. 363 CEREMONIAL MATTERS: Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to members of the to Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Academic Decathlon Team RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of January 30 and February 20, 2001. (Purcell)
2. Arterial Rehabilitation Program. (Allison)
3. Funding Request for Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Cleanup Activities FY 2000-2001. (Ramezani)
4. Professional Services Agreement with Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. (Petru)
5. January 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
6. Register of Demands. (McLean.)
# # # # # # # # # # # # REGULAR BUSINESS: 7. Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Comparison of Preserve Design Alternatives. (Rojas)
RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.) 8. Removal of Debris from a Canyon Outside the City Right-of-Way. (Allison)
9. Landslide Geology – Zone II. (Evans)
ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.
1. Minutes of January 30 and February 20, 2001. (Purcell)
2. Arterial Rehabilitation Program. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MARCH 6, 2001 SUBJECT: ARTERIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND Beginning in Fiscal Year 2001 – 02, the capital improvement program includes annual funding for an Arterial Rehabilitation Program. This multi-year program will improve the City’s arterial roadways in accordance with the pavement management program. As part of this program, engineering services are required to test pavement conditions. The results of the testing will be used to determine what construction activity should be used for a given roadway - slurry seal, overlay, or reconstruction – and will be used to determine the structural section for the roadways to be overlayed and/or reconstructed. To obtain the needed services, a request for proposal was submitted to two engineering firms capable of providing the needed services. The services include deflection testing, and core sampling. Staff requested testing for the roadways to be improved during the first two years of the program:
It is important to note that a significant portion of the funding for this item, as well as the entire FY 2001 – 02 Arterial Rehabilitation Program, was provided by the County of Los Angeles through the office of Supervisor Donald Knabe. DISCUSSION The following proposals were received:
The Public Works Department does not have experience working with Nichols Consulting Engineers. However references were contacted and all report satisfactory performance on similar projects. Staff has reviewed both proposals and is confident that the proposals include identical scopes of work. CONCLUSIONS Adopting the staff recommendations will award an engineering contract to Nichols Consulting Engineers Inc., for pavement testing services for the Arterial Rehabilitation Program. FISCAL IMPACT No funds are allocated in the adopted FY 2001 – 02 budget for these services. The attached budget resolution increases funding in the Capital Improvement Program for this work. The funding sources for this project are as follows:
Respectfully Submitted Attachments: RESOLUTION NO.
2001- __ WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the 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 Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2000-33, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2000-01 fiscal year: and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to allocate additional funds to provide funding for a capital improvement project; and WHEREAS, a budget increase in the Capital Improvement Projects Fund is necessary to authorize the expenditure of additional funds for the project. BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: The following adjustments be made to the following fund budgets: Increase in the Capital Improvement Fund
Proposition C Fund
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 6st DAY OF MARCH, 2001 ___________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: ______________________ 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 regular meeting thereof held on March 6, 2001. _____________________________ CITY CLERK
3. Funding Request for Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Cleanup Activities FY 2000-2001. (Ramezani)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MARCH 6, 2001 SUBJECT: FUNDING REQUEST FOR BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING AND LITTER CLEANUP ACTIVITIES FY 00-01 Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND Effective January 1, 2000, Senate Bill 332 mandated changes to the existing law governing the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Program, including an appropriation for $10.5 million to be expended annually as payments to cities and counties for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities. The Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Recycling, administers this new program. Funds are from deposits, California Redemption Value (CRV), collected from customers when purchasing beverage containers such as sport drinks, coffee and tea beverages, water, distilled spirit coolers, beer and malt beverages and fruit drinks. This is the second year of this annual block grant program. DISCUSSION Payments to cities are calculated on a per capita basis. The City’s share for FY 00-01 is $12,923. Funds are paid in advance for eligible activities from July 01, 2001 until June 30, 2002. The funding request form and Resolution No. 2001- ___ must be submitted within 90 days from the date the City received the grant forms (forms received in January 2001). The following are qualified eligible activities:
The city used its FY 99-00 funds to service and maintain the concrete recycling bins at various park sites, and to purchase and install picnic tables and park benches (made out of recycled plastic) at various park sites. These all offset previously budgeted General Fund expenditures. For the FY 00-01 allocation, staff proposes the following programs and activities:
ALTERNATIVE The alternative would be to not submit a request for funding for FY 2000-01. FISCAL IMPACT If authorized, the City will receive approximately $13,000 for FY 00-01. This will help fund existing programs and fund new activities promoting beverage container recycling. Respectfully Submitted: Attachment: Resolution 2001- ___ RESOLUTION 2001-
___ WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act that provides funds to cities and counties for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Recycling has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures for cities and counties or their designees under the program; and WHEREAS, per Section 14581 (a)(4) (E) of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, the eligible participant must submit the Funding Request Form by the due date and time in order to request funds from the Department of Conservation’s Division of Recycling. BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: That the Council authorizes the submittal of the Funding Request Form to the Department of Conservation’s Division of Recycling. The Director of Public Works, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes all necessary forms hereto for the purposes of securing payments and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in the Section 14581 (a)(4)(A) of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act and provide information regarding this program to the Division upon request. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 6th DAY OF MARCH, 2001. ___________________ ATTEST: MAYOR ___________________ 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. 2001- ___ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 6, 2001. __________________________ CITY CLERK
4. Professional Services Agreement with Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. (Petru)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 6, 2001 SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC. RECOMMENDATION Award a Professional Services Agreement to Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. in the amount of $33,700 to prepare the CEQA documentation and to obtain federal and state permits for the San Ramon Drainage Project, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. BACKGROUND In 1998, the debris basin inlet to the system failed during a heavy rainstorm near the 30600 block of Palos Verdes Drive East between San Ramon Drive and Calle Aventura. The portion of the system north of Palos Verdes Drive East was quickly reconstructed and upsized prior to the next rainy season. However, a significant portion of the system south of PVDE still needs to be upsized in the canyon. The initial obstacle to completing this was the questionable geology in the canyon (i.e. there was evidence of land movement). In March 2000, the lower portion of the drainage system overflowed and flooded two homes in a four home flag lot subdivision located south of PVDE. On September 5, 2000, the City Council awarded Professional Service Agreements to AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. and DMc Engineering to begin the design of the drainage and land stabilization improvements associated with the San Ramon drainage project. DMc Engineering has nearly completed the project plans for the new drainage system and AMEC will be drilling several investigative borings in the landslide mass this month to determine its geologic structure and the impact that information may have on the final design of the drainage improvements. DISCUSSION In addition to civil engineering and geology, the City also needs to complete the required environmental assessment for the project. Therefore, Helix Environmental Planning, one of the City’s "on-call" consultants, completed a biological survey of San Ramon Canyon last September. In addition to containing Coastal sage scrub habitat and a blue-line stream, two sensitive animal species, the coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, were observed on the site. Based on the results of the biological survey, Helix prepared a proposal (see attached) to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project ($25,100) and to obtain the required federal and state permits, i.e. 4d, 404, 410 and 1601 permits ($8,600). The time schedule including in the consultant’s proposal calls for 6.5 to 7.5 months to complete the CEQA documentation and an unspecified amount of additional time to secure the federal and state permits. It is important to get this work completed as quickly as possible so that construction of the project can take place after the completion of the California gnatcatcher breeding season in mid-August and before the beginning of the next rainy season. Therefore, staff is currently working with the consultant to refine the proposed schedule to streamline the work and shorten the time schedule. FISCAL IMPACT Helix Environmental Planning began work on the project by preparing the biological survey under the "on-call" procedures. However, the additional work of preparing the CEQA documentation and obtaining the federal and state permits puts the cumulative total of their work for a single project in the monetary range that requires Council approval of a separate Professional Service Agreement. There is $195,000 remaining in FY 00-01 budget allocation for the San Ramon Drainage Project. The environmental work associated with the San Ramon drainage project would reduce this amount by an estimated $33,700. Respectfully submitted: Attachment:
5. January 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
6. Register of Demands. (McLean.)
# # # # # # # # # # # # REGULAR BUSINESS:
7. Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Comparison of Preserve Design Alternatives. (Rojas)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: MARCH 6, 2001 SUBJECT: NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLANNING (NCCP) COMPARISON OF PRESERVE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDATION 1) Review and discuss the three draft alternative preserve designs, along with the information regarding implementation of the NCCP; and 2) Direct Staff to proceed with the NCCP Program by initiating a biological and economic analysis of the three draft alternatives. BACKGROUND On December 5, 2000, the latest draft preserve design (Alternative No. 5) was presented to the Council for review and discussion, along with other NCCP related issues. At that time, the Council requested a more detailed analysis and comparison of the three main preserve alternatives, along with more definitive answers to questions regarding implementation of the NCCP. Staff has been discussing these issues with the City’s NCCP consultant and Resource Agency representatives and is now presenting the information for the Council’s review and discussion. DISCUSSION Specifically, at the December 5, 2000 meeting the Council sought the following information:
A discussion of these items is provided below. 1) Comparison of the Three Main Alternatives At the December 5, 2000 meeting, Staff presented Draft Alternative No. 5 and also gave a brief background of how the five alternatives were formulated. At that time, the Council asked for a more detailed comparison of the alternatives. Therefore, to provide a more simplified comparative analysis, Staff proposes to eliminate certain alternatives from further discussion and re-categorize the three main alternatives as follows:
Provided below is a discussion of the three main preserve alternatives (A, B and C), which are attached. The discussion includes information on the amount of preserve that would be permitted under each alternative. A "Preserve Comparison Table" (attached) has been created that compares the amount of preserve proposed under each alternative and compares the amount of preserve proposed for key parcels owned by the City, York Long Point Associates and Palos Verdes Landholdings Company (Barry Hon). Also attached is a Preserve Design Alternative Comparison Table, that has been compiled by the City’s NCCP consultant, which compares the three alternatives in terms of biological resources (CSS habitat, target species) conserved. In addition, the current position of the major landowners, environmental groups and resource agencies on the alternatives is provided. Draft Preserve Alternative A (Formally Alternative No. 1) Draft Preserve Alternative A (attached) was developed in 1997 based on input from the NCCP Working Group participants, primarily environmental organization representatives. As shown on the attached Preserve Comparison Table, Alternative A proposes to include almost all of the City’s remaining open space in a habitat preserve, approximately 2,023 acres. Most or all of the area of the key open space parcels would be preserved, including 78% of Upper Pt. Vicente, 91% of Lower Pt. Vicente, 99% of the Hon Portuguese Bend parcel, 95% of Upper Filiorum and 71% of Lower Filiorum. From a biological perspective, proposed Alternative A would preserve 1,159 acres or about 94% of the City’s existing coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat and an average of 94% of the known target species locations. As previously noted, Alternative A was drafted primarily from input received from NCCP Planning Group members who are affiliated with the Endangered Habitats League, Native Plant Society, Sierra Club and Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. This alternative has been supported by these groups throughout the NCCP process as being the preferred preserve alternative. Based on comments made at previous Planning Group meetings, it is Staff’s belief that this alternative is supported by the groups mentioned above because of the amount of habitat preserved, the preserve design (less fragmentation) and the reliance on conservation as opposed to re-vegetation. From the landowner perspective, Staff believes that there is no support for Alternative A. This is based on comments made at previous Planning Group meetings and meetings with Staff, although the two major landowners have not been questioned lately about their formal position on Alternative A. Staff believes that the main landowner concern with Alternative A is that it does not meet one of the main NCCP goals, which is to "enable compatible economic growth to proceed during and after habitat planning." In other words, it places most of the remaining open space in a preserve, leaving very little area outside of the preserve for potential development. Although the resource agencies have not stated formally that they do not support Alternative A, they have expressed concern that Alternative A relies too heavily on outside monies for the acquisition and maintenance of habitat areas. The Resource Agencies have pointed out several times to the Planning Group that for an NCCP to be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), it must demonstrate adequate funding for plan implementation. Draft Preserve Alternative B (Formally Alternative No. 3) Draft Preserve Alternative B was developed in 1997 based on input from the two major landowners affected by the NCCP (Palos Verdes Landholdings Co. - Barry Hon and York Long Point Associates). Initially it was drafted as Alternative No. 2, but it became known as Alternative No. 3 after Staff modified a small portion of the preserve design in Upper Filiorum (Alternative No. 2 was subsequently dropped from consideration due to its similarity to Alternative No. 3). As shown on the attached Preserve Comparison Table, Alternative B proposes to include approximately 1,668 acres of the City’s remaining open space in a habitat preserve. Portions of the key privately held open space parcels would be preserved, including 70% of the Hon Portuguese Bend parcel, 75% of Upper Filiorum and 16% of Lower Filiorum, thus allowing development to potentially occur in non-preserve areas. With regards to key City properties, Alternative B proposes preserve on 27% of Lower Pt. Vicente and 47% of the Subregion 1 open space area, because when the alternative was drafted, it was thought that the 30 acres of pending revegetation at Subregion 1 could be transferred to the landslide area. The alternative also proposes no preserve on Upper Pt. Vicente, because again at that time, it was thought that there should be no preserve on upper Pt. Vicente so as to leave all options open to the City for any future passive or recreational use improvements. From a biological perspective, proposed Alternative B would preserve 1,097 acres or about 89% of the City’s existing coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat and an average of 89% of the known target species locations. As previously noted, Alternative B was drafted from input received from the two major landowners that have volunteered to participate in the City’s NCCP Program. Although the two major landowners have not been questioned lately about their formal position on Alternative B, Staff believes that the landowners still favor Alternative B because it allows compatible economic growth to proceed along with substantial habitat conservation. On the other hand, environmental organizations such as the Endangered Habitats League, Native Plant Society, Sierra Club and Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, have been very critical of Alternative B in Planning Group meetings and previous letters to Staff. Their main concerns have been over the omission of the City’s properties from the preserve (particularly the Pt. Vicente properties), poor preserve design that creates too much fragmentation of habitat, and a lack of adequate connectivity in and around Pt. Vicente, Lower Filiorum, the Portuguese Bend area and Shoreline Park. Although Resource Agency representatives have not commented formally on Alternative B, in the past, they have expressed the same concerns as the environmental organizations regarding the biological merits of the alternative. Draft Preserve Alternative C (Formally Alternative No. 5) Draft Preserve Alternative C was developed in 2000 by Staff and the City’s NCCP consultant in an attempt to create an improved compromise alternative. The City’s original compromise alternative was developed in 1999 and was referred to as Alternative No. 4. Since Alternative C is seen as an improvement over the previous compromise alternative (Alternative No. 4), it is proposed that Alternative No. 4 be eliminated from further discussion and analysis. As shown on the attached Preserve Comparison Table, Alternative C proposes to include approximately 1,642 acres of the City’s remaining open space in a habitat preserve. Alternative C also contains two post-development preserve areas or "bubble areas", one encompassing all of Lower Filiorum and the other a portion of the Hon Portuguese Bend property. Portions of these "bubble areas would be added to the preserve if and when a development or remedial grading application for these areas is ever approved by the City Council. A discussion of possible performance criteria for these "bubble areas" is discussed later in this Staff Report. At this time, for discussion purposes, Staff is proposing that 50% of the "bubble areas" be added to the preserve. Since the two post-development preserve areas total 295 acres, 147.5 acres or 50% of this area would eventually become preserve. Therefore, under this draft scenario, the total preserve area under Alternative C would be 1,789.5 acres (1,642+147.5). Under Alternative C, substantial portions of the key open space parcels would be preserved, including 49% of Upper Pt. Vicente, 32% of Lower Pt. Vicente, 73% of the Hon Portuguese Bend parcel (this includes 50% of the "bubble area"), 80% of Upper Filiorum and 50% of Lower Filiorum (50% of the "bubble area"). From a biological perspective, proposed Alternative C would preserve 1,086 acres or about 88% of the City’s existing coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat and an average of 89% of the known target species locations. As previously noted, Alternative C was developed by Staff to improve the original draft compromise alternative, which was formulated by Staff with input from the City Council’s NCCP sub-committee, in response to feedback obtained from the resource agencies, working group participants, and landowner representatives on Alternatives A and B. Alternative C was drafted in response to a number of comments raised by the resource agencies and environmental organizations regarding the City’s original compromise alternative. These comments included concerns with the entire preserve design, the proposed habitat connections across Hon’s Portuguese Bend property and between Abalone Cove and the main (landslide area) preserve, inconsistencies with the vegetation mapping, and the preserve design around Pt. Vicente, RPV City Hall and Subregion 1. Alternative C was presented to the Council on December 5, 2000. Based on public comments raised at that time, it appears that the Native Plant Society and Endangered Habitats League believe that Alternative C is an improvement over the City’s original compromise alternative but still needs to be improved further (comment letters attached). Save Our Coastline II has concerns about the alternative because it excludes portions of Upper Pt. Vicente from the preserve (comment letter attached). The resource agencies have expressed a number of concerns with Alternative C and have noted to Staff that it does not meet the preserve design tenets/species requirements necessary for an NCCP HCP permit to be issued. Based on a recent letter commenting on Alternative C (attached), the resource agencies are primarily concerned with the preserve design on the City’s Pt. Vicente property, the amount of non-preserve added to Upper Filiorum, the preserve design on Hon’s Portuguese Bend property, and the lack of preserve on the City’s coastal landslide property. From the landowner perspective, Jim York has expressed concern over the amount of upper Filiorum area that is proposed to be included in the Alternative C preserve, while Mike Walker, PVLHC’s representative, stated at the December 5, 2000 meeting that he would probably be able to support Alternative C. At this time, Staff is recommending that the City Council review and discuss the three draft alternative preserve designs, provide feedback to Staff regarding any possible modifications to the alternatives and direct Staff to proceed with a biological and economic analysis of the three draft alternatives. Once the analysis has been completed (in about 5 months), the results will be presented to the Council and a "preferred alternative" will be identified, which would then constitute the "project" that would be evaluated in the required environmental (CEQA/NEPA) analysis. 2. Draft performance criteria for the Alternative C "bubble areas" At the December 5, 2000 meeting, the Council asked Staff to develop draft performance criteria for the "bubble areas" proposed under Alternative C for discussion purposes. As currently proposed, Alternative C contains two post-development preserve areas or "bubble areas", one encompassing all of Lower Filiorum and the other a portion of the Hon Portuguese Bend property. The "bubble areas" are proposed because these two areas presently have unknown geologic conditions that require further study before any type of remedial grading project, development project or habitat preserve design can be implemented. Therefore, the "bubble areas" would be added to the preserve if and when a development or remedial grading application for these areas is ever approved by the City Council. Although the actual performance criteria for these "bubble areas" will ultimately need to be developed through coordination with the resource agencies and input from the NCCP Planning Group, Staff has identified the following draft performance criteria for discussion purposes.
Assuming these criteria are adopted and projects in both areas are approved, the resulting actions would remove approximately 66 acres of CSS habitat and result in a habitat preserve of approximately 148 acres of revegetated CSS habitat, within the "bubble areas". It should be noted that the resource agencies believe that the proposed criteria are "way too impactive of the sites" and instead propose criteria that allows up to 25% of each bubble to be developed, with the development being located in the least sensitive portion of the property. These issues would be addressed through future meetings with the resource agencies and landowners, with feedback from the Planning Group. 3. More definitive answers to NCCP implementation questions At the December 5, 2000 meeting, the Council asked for more definitive answers from the resource agencies to questions related to NCCP preserve implementation. Specifically, the Council sought clarification on: a) how to mitigate for habitat damaged during emergency repairs to facilities due to land failures or natural disasters; b) the criteria and procedure for removing habitat from an adopted preserve; c) the revegetation obligation that comes with adoption of a preserve; and d) whether we can use land in a preserve to mitigate for a future project. These issues are discussed below.
According to the resource agencies, procedures for dealing with emergency repairs or facility maintenance activities can be specifically addressed in the plan and the required mitigation for impacts stated as a policy of the plan. To accomplish this, the City would need to assess the potential emergency needs upfront in areas that may be prone to landslide, flooding or other natural hazards. Then the potential habitat impacts of these emergency needs would have to be calculated and factored into the plan. By doing this, if, and when, an emergency project occurs in the preserve that impacts habitat, the mitigation could be 1:1, as opposed to the standard 3:1 mitigation ratio. According to the resource agencies, the specific ratio would be determined as we negotiate the final details in the NCCP. If the loss is temporary, then perhaps 1:1 is fine. However; if the loss is permanent, then the ratio may be 2:1. Therefore, with the Council’s authorization, Staff will work with the resource agencies to ensure that provisions for emergency repairs or facility maintenance activities in all preserve areas are incorporated into the plan. Notwithstanding, Staff is proposing that the City’s coastal Portuguese Bend property not be placed into a preserve at this time, since this is the most active portion of the landslide and no habitat can be reasonably preserved in this area until the slide movement in that area is stopped or substantially reduced. The exclusion of this area from the preserve is reflected in draft Alternative C. An approved NCCP will provide the City with a permit from the USFWS that gives the City the authority to allow a take of an endangered species covered by the NCCP. This permit would be granted by the resource agencies to the City with the expectation that the approved preserve design will remain as approved and no habitat will be removed from the preserve. Therefore, according to the resource agencies, removal of habitat from the committed preserve areas is not allowed unless the City has a specifically acknowledged amount of take of habitat (which would be based on the City's overall commitment of habitat to the preserve and recognized needs, such as public infrastructure needs, etc.). However, the City's take of habitat would only be acceptable when its commitment to the conservation is identified and determined to be sufficient; and when the mitigation for take is known. This could be based on commitments of new acquisition to be contributed to the preserve, specific mitigations related to City activities, or something similar. The City cannot rely upon existing conserved open space to offset future impacts. Also, the location and general amount of take will need to be determined for inclusion in the plan. Any subsequent changes to the preserve design proposed after the preserve is approved will require approval from the resource agencies. According to the resource agencies, minor boundary adjustments, that result in no net change to the preserve acreage, may be approved by the City, with concurrence by the resource agencies, upon a finding that the adjustment is minor. Any other adjustments to the preserve design would be considered major amendments by the resource agencies, and would require an amendment to the City’s NCCP permit and additional environmental (CEQA/NEPA) analysis. According to the resource agencies, habitat restoration will be an important element of the City’s NCCP. Although, at this time, they do not know how much restoration will be necessary to issue the City its take permit. The pending biological analysis should reveal how much conservation is necessary to maintain the current populations of gnatcatchers and adequately conserve covered plant species, which conversely should reveal the amount of needed restoration. If the resource agencies approve the NCCP with a determination that a revegetation component is necessary, the City, as lead agency, would be responsible for ensuring that the revegetation occurs. However, the City’s revegetation responsibilities would be passed onto private developers by either requiring them to revegetate land within the preserve or pay into a revegetation fund, when project mitigation becomes necessary. According to the resource agencies, if the City has an approved NCCP preserve and a project outside the preserve results in a mitigation need, the mitigation could occur on land within the preserve, provided the land has not yet been set aside for conservation. If land is placed in an NCCP preserve, it does not necessarily mean that the land is being conserved. True conservation to the resource agencies only occurs if and when a property owner establishes a conservation easement or some other legal mechanism to guarantee that the land will be preserved in perpetuity. Therefore, mitigation could occur on "unconserved" land within a preserve in the form of a land purchase or habitat restoration or a combination of both, provided a conservation easement is subsequently established over the entire mitigation area. If at a point all the land in the City’s preserve becomes conserved, only at that time would land in the preserve not be available for project mitigation. The resource agencies point out that merely showing a parcel within a proposed preserve does not mean it cannot be developed. For example, if a preserve design is approved that leaves the entire Lower Filiorum in a "bubble area" and the "bubble area" criteria allows 25% development, then the property owner could choose to sell the developable portion and have it included into the preserve. Unless the City and agencies had determined that we didn't want that "bubble area" in the preserve, its acquisition and inclusion into the preserve would be considered a benefit to the plan. 4.Sample NCCP Implementing AgreementAt the December 5, 2000 meeting, the Council asked if it was possible to obtain a copy of an approved NCCP Planning Agreement for another NCCP jurisdiction that is similar to one that would eventually be entered into by the City and the Resource Agencies. City Council members have each been provided with a copy of the Implementation Agreement for the Central/Coastal Orange County NCCP, which was approved in May 1996. FISCAL IMPACT Thus far, the City has expended the following amount on the NCCP program:
The City has also received state and federal funding to assist in preparing the NCCP. Thus far, the City has received the following funding:
Since the federal grant requires a dollar for dollar match by the City, the revenue is recognized at a rate of 50% of total expenditures. The State grant does not have a matching requirement and can be used to match the federal funding. Thus, the total cost of the NCCP program, thus far, has been divided as follows:
The City’s current budget contains a balance of $153,650 for completion of the NCCP Program. Staff believes that this amount is sufficient to finish Phases II and III of the NCCP. Therefore, unless additional state grants are secured or the 50% matching requirement is waived by the Federal government, Staff estimates that the total cost of the NCCP program, when completed, will be divided as follows:
CONCLUSION The City’s NCCP program has been underway since February 1997 and as a result of the effort, three draft preserve alternatives have been identified for review and discussion. Pursuant to Council direction received on December 5, 2000, a more detailed analysis and comparison of the three main preserve alternatives, along with more definitive answers to questions regarding implementation of the NCCP have been provided to the Council. At this time, Staff is recommending that the City Council review and discuss the three draft alternative preserve designs, provide feedback to Staff regarding any possible modifications to the alternatives and direct Staff to proceed with a biological and economic analysis of the three draft alternatives. Once the analysis has been completed, the results will be presented to the City Council in approximately five months and a "preferred alternative" will then be identified. Respectfully submitted, Attachments:
1 - "Natural
Habitat" includes all sage scrub, grassland, riparian scrub, exotic woodland,
and ruderal habitats. RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)
8. Removal of Debris from a Canyon Outside the City Right-of-Way. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MARCH 6, 2001 SUBJECT: REMOVAL OF DEBRIS FROM A CANYON OUTSIDE CITY RIGHT OF WAY RECOMMENDATION Authorize the expenditure of up to $ 750 to remove debris from a canyon on property owned by the Miraleste Parks and Recreation District. DISCUSSION Dawn Henry, representing the Miraleste Parks and Recreation District is requesting that the City contribute funds towards removing debris from a canyon on district property. Ms Henry states that the rationale for the request is that storm water and therefore debris from various parts of the City, drains into the canyons. The specific request is for the City to pay half of the costs to clear a canyon adjacent to Via Colinita Drive. See attached Exhibit A. The City does not typically remove debris from canyons on private property. Throughout the city there are a number of private canyons that are maintained by the individual property owners. The location of this specific request, however, is immediately upstream of a city storm drain and it is in the City’s best interest if the debris is removed from the canyon. If this item is approved by the City Council, a district contractor will perform the work and the City will be invoiced for half the price of the clean up. Staff estimates the City’s cost at $750. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of this request is minimal, however, this expenditure could set a precedent for greater expenditures in the future. The funding source is the General Fund. Adequate funds are available for this action. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Deny the request. The Miraleste Parks and Recreation District has the ability to place assessment on properties for the proposed work. Respectfully Submitted Attachments:
9. Landslide Geology – Zone II. (Evans)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 6, 2001 SUBJECT: LANDSLIDE GEOLOGY – ZONE II RECOMMENDATION Consider authorizing the expenditure of $30,000 of general fund reserves for a review by Cotton, Shires and Associates of existing geologic and geotechnical documents to determine whether the data are sufficient to support the conclusions of the Peer Review Group to allow development in Zone II under certain conditions. BACKGROUND On January 25, 1997 the City Council met in Workshop session to consider directing staff to take actions that would allow development in Zone II of the landslide moratorium area. The discussion was a continuation of action taken at the June 1, 1993 meeting of the City Council. At that meeting, City staff presented a May 26, 1993 memorandum prepared by Dr. Perry Ehlig that divided the landslide moratorium area into eight zones and suggested guidelines for permitting development. After considering the Ehlig memorandum, the City Council directed staff to perform any necessary environmental work that would be required to support a proposal for development in the moratorium area. Subsequently, in August 1993, given the high cost of preparing a comprehensive environmental analysis for all eight zones, the Council directed staff to focus the environmental review on the establishment of development standards for Zone II only. In February 1994 Staff presented the estimated cost of Zone II environmental documents to the Council as well as funding options for the Council’s consideration. At that time the Council decided to table the matter until after the discussion of the proposed Abalone Cove Sewer System project scheduled for a pending Town Hall meeting. It was thought that the RDA may wish to expand the sewer system EIR to include an analysis of Zone II development. The Town Hall meeting was eventually held on April 18, 1994 and the RDA Board directed staff to prepare the necessary environmental documentation for the proposed Abalone Cove Sewer System project without comment on whether or not to include a Zone II analysis. At their February 21, 1995 meeting the City Council approved the preparation of separate environmental documents for Zone II utilizing City general funds. Since the most significant environmental issue in Zone II was geology, the City Council authorized staff to utilize the services of a Peer Review Group of consulting geologists and geotechnical engineers to review Dr. Ehlig’s work and previous geotechnical studies that related to Zone II. The Redevelopment Agency approved five peer review consultants on March 7, 1995. The consultants were Glen A. Brown, John F. Mann, Jr., Art Keene, Monte E. Ray and Patrick O. Shires. The five consultants reviewed available materials, made site visits and discussed their observations and opinions. The reports that were reviewed by the Peer Review Group consultants were studies prepared for the nearby Filiorum property and the Peacock Hill property. Other than the base maps, water table maps, aerial photos and field visits, no site-specific documentation was available for Zone II. Basically the consultants felt comfortable with the stability of Zone II based on their review of reports on the adjacent properties and because the geology of the area was sufficiently known and was presently stable and had been grossly stable for a long period. The consultants believed the Zone II area could be developed under the following conditions:
The above list was discussed and agreed on at a March 7, 1996 meeting of the Peer Review Group. Each of the Peer Review Group consultants signed the list of recommended conditions for development. The Peer Group’s recommended conditions for development in Zone II and an Initial Study (environmental document) were presented to the City Council at the January 25, 1997 Workshop. After hearing presentations by City staff and Dr. Ehlig and comments from the public the City Council consensus was to schedule another meeting to discuss the installation of the sewers upon completion of the negotiations (for removal of liens and refinancing of the Horan Settlement debt) with the County. On December 2, 1997 the negotiations with the County of Los Angeles resulted in removal of the liens and restructuring of the Horan settlement debt. On January 20, 2000 the City Council received a letter from Mr. John C. Monks who owns an undeveloped lot in the Zone II area. Mr. Monks feels that City staff is unreasonably denying him the opportunity to obtain a landslide exclusion moratorium permit for building a home on his lot. A copy of that letter is attached. As a result of the letter from Mr. Monks (and several follow-up letters from him and other lot owners in Zone II), Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart inquired of staff how the matter of Zone II development should be brought back to the Council since the completion of negotiations with the County had been complete for over three years. DISCUSSION In responding to the question from Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart staff reviewed the material from the January 25, 1997 workshop. Staff agreed that the Workshop minutes clearly indicated the Zone II matter was to be brought back to the City Council for discussion after the bond restructuring negotiations with the County were complete. However, since 1997, Dr. Ehlig had passed away taking with him an irreplaceable knowledge of the landslides. In addition, Dr. Mann, a Peer Review Group member had also passed away. In view of these losses staff asked for the advice of Bill Cotton, of Cotton, Shires and Associates, who is providing geotechnical review services for Ocean Trails. Mr. Cotton met with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, the City Attorney and several staff members to discuss the issue of development in Zone II. Mr. Cotton feels that a review of existing geologic and geotechnical documents should be undertaken to determine whether the data are sufficient to support the conclusions of the Peer Review Group. He estimates this work would take four to six weeks and cost $20,000 to $30,000. Should the data be deemed "not sufficient," Mr. Cotton would propose a detailed geologic and geotechnical investigation. Such an investigation could cost between $400,000 and $600,000. Before the recommendation of Mr. Cotton could be brought to the City Council for discussion, Mr. Monks wrote a letter to Mayor Lyon that stated that a failure of the City Council to act favorably in considering the rights of lot owners in Zone II would result in placing the resolution of the matter in the courts. In a closed session, prior to their regular meeting of February 20, 2001, the City Council discussed the threat of litigation made by Mr. Monks. As a result of the closed session the Council voted 4-1, with Councilman Stern dissenting, to place an item to consider some development in Zone 2 (including geologist reports as part of the process) on the agenda for the March 6, 2001 meeting. FISCAL IMPACT Since the investigation into the feasibility of developing in Zone II of the moratorium area has been previously determined to be a development-related issue rather than a landslide mitigation issue, Abalone Cove bond funds may not be utilized for this study. If the City Council decides to proceed with the geologic review recommended by Mr. Cotton, an appropriation from the general fund reserve will be required. As an alternative to using City general funds, private funds could be used. There are 38 lots in Zone II that have been previously subdivided but never built upon. The City could require that the owners of these properties form an Association to fund the geological investigations recommended by Cotton, Shires and Associates. CONCLUSION In order to adequately address the suitability for limited development in Zone II of the landslide moratorium staff believes a thorough review of the existing geologic and geotechnical documents by a qualified firm is the first step to be taken. Respectfully submitted, Attachments: ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from council members who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting. AGENDA MARCH 6, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER NEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2001-03 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Minutes of February 6, 2001. (Purcell)
B. January 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
C. Register of Demands. (McLean)
# # # # # # # # # # # # REGULAR BUSINESS:
D. Engineering Services for Sewer Maintenance Charge. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MARCH 6, 2001 SUBJECT: ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SEWER MAINTENANCE CHARGE RECOMMENDATION Authorize the expenditure of up to $25,000 for engineering services to establish a sewer maintenance charge for maintenance of the Abalone Cove Sewer System. DISCUSSION The maintenance of the Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements will be the responsibility of property owners connected to the system. In this regard, the agency intends to adopt an ordinance which imposes fees. Engineering services will be required for this effort. Staff intends to utilize the firm Consoer Townsend who designed the sewer system, as well as Harris and Associates, the City’s assessment district engineer. Both of these firms have existing contracts with the Agency. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended action will result in the expenditure of up to $25,000 for the recommended action. Funding is available in the adopted FY 2000 – 01 budget. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Utilize staff for the necessary services, however, this would significantly delay the process. Respectfully Submitted 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 meeting. AGENDA FEBRUARY 6, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER: NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2001-03 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of February 6, 2001. (Purcell)
2. January 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (Burton)
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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
