|
APRIL
14, 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 APRIL 17, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD _____________________________________________________________________ 7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-31 NEXT ORD. NO. 363 CEREMONIAL MATTER: Presentation of Proclamation to Lt. Mike Grimaldi of the L. A. County Sheriff’s Department. RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.Minutes of March 24, April 3 and April 7, 2001. (Purcell)
2.Used Oil Recycling Block Grant for FY 2001-2002. (Ramezani)
3.Amendment to MOU for MAX Capital Reserve Fund. (Huey)
4.Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. (Huey)
5.Second Amendment to Employment Agreement. (Lynch)
6.Crossing guard services for 2001-2002 school year -Amendment No. 9 - All City Management Services, Inc. (Purcell)
7. Application for a Household Hazardous Waste Grant, Fiscal Year 2001-2002. (Ramezani)
8.Register of Demands. (McLean.)
############ PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.Six-Month Review of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 [Roger Grove, "Ride-to-Fly", 50 Narcissa Drive]. (Fox)
RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.) REGULAR BUSINESS: 10.Maintenance Contracts. (Allison)
11.Review of geologic/geotechnical data Zone II. (Evans)
12.Appointment of a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Study City Border Issues. (Evans)
13.Removal of Debris from a Canyon Outside City Right of Way. (Allison)
14.New Legislation Pertaining to Housing Elements – SB 910 (Dunn). (Lynch)
15.Aviation Element of Draft Regional Transportation Plan Prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (Park)
ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE BROWN ACT CHECKLIST BELOW. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Saturday, April 21, at 9:00 A.M. for a Budget Policy Workshop in the City Hall Community Room. 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 G.C. 54956.8 Potential purchase of open space. Property:Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029, 7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022 City Negotiators:City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Negotiating Parties:York Long Point Associates Under Negotiation:Price and Terms of Payment CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Anticipated Litigation: (G.C 54956.9(b) A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency.
1 Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation but which the City/Agency believes are not yet known to potential plaintiff or plaintiffs.
1.Minutes of March 24, April 3 and April 7, 2001. (Purcell)
2.Used Oil Recycling Block Grant for FY 2001-2002. (Ramezani)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 17, 2001 SUBJECT: USED OIL RECYCLING BLOCK GRANT FOR FY 2001-02 STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND The City implemented its first curbside used oil recycling program during FY 94-95. The curbside collection of oil filters was added in April of 1999. The City receives funds through the Used Oil Recycling Block Grant, awarded annually by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). To date, the used oil recycling program has accomplished the following tasks:
The program addresses a key problem. Some residents change their own motor oil from their cars and then they may improperly dispose of the oil in backyards, their trash, or in the storm drain system. By continuing the existing Used Oil Recycling Program, the City will continue to provide educational awareness about the City’s residential curbside used oil and oil filter recycling program and publicize the places where "do it yourselfers" can return oil for recycling. This will reduce liability for urban storm water run off problems and promote a healthier environment for citizens. The grant covers programs developed and implemented from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. The City is eligible to receive approximately $14,205 as a result of having the two privately operated certified used oil collection centers available for City residents. The application and Resolution No. 2001- __ must be submitted by May 10, 2001. The scope of work proposed to continue the used oil recycling program includes the following tasks:
The City’s residential solidwaste contracts with Waste Management of Los Angeles and Ivy Rubbish Disposal include the cost of collection and disposal of the used oil and oil filters. ALTERNATIVE The alternative would be to not apply for the FY 2001-02 Used Oil Recycling Block Grant. FISCAL IMPACT If authorized, the City will receive approximately $14,205 in FY 2001-02 in Used Oil Recycling Block Grant funds. No funding will be received if the alternative is approved. Respectfully Submitted: Attachment: Resolution No. 2001- ___ RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR A FY 2001/02 USED OIL RECYCLING BLOCK GRANT WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act that provides funds to cities and counties for establishing and maintaining local used oil collection programs that encourage recycling or appropriate disposal of used oil; 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 cities and counties under the program; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for implementation of a used oil collection program; BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: That the City Council authorizes the submittal of an application to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for a FY 2001-2002 Used Oil Recycling Block Grant. The Director of Public Works, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes all necessary applications, contracts, payment requests, agreements and amendments hereto for the purposes of securing grant funds and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in the grant application. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2001. _____________________ ___________________ State of California) 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 April 17, 2001. ______________________
3.Amendment to MOU for MAX Capital Reserve Fund. (Huey)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:APRIL 17, 2001 SUBJECT:AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) FOR MUNICIPAL AREA EXPRESS (MAX) CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Staff Coordinator: Judy Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Amended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to extend the term of the Proposition A & C Local Return Capital Reserve account for the replacement of Municipal Area Express (MAX) buses. BACKGROUND In July 1998, an MOU between MAX and the MTA was executed to establish a three-year Proposition A & C Local Return Capital Reserve fund for the purpose of establishing a capital reserve fund to finance the local share of the cost of replacing the MAX fleet of 14 buses. The Amended MOU will extend the period of the capital reserve fund from three to four years for the purpose of accumulating the necessary local share for the replacement of MAX buses in the year 2002. The proposed amendment does not revise any of the financial terms of the existing agreement. ANALYSIS In FY 2001-2002, MAX plans to purchase 14 buses to replace its aging fleet of buses which were placed into active service in April 1990. Federal funds will provide 80% of the financing, while 20% of the cost will be financed by MAX participant jurisdictions. A capital reserve account for bus replacement was established by MAX in July 1998 to begin accumulating money to pay the local share of the cost of the new buses. The City’s share is approximately $150,000, payable in annual payments spread over four years. The fourth and final payment of $37,000 will be made in FY 2001-2002. The City funds it contribution with Proposition A and Air Quality Management District funds. Due to policy set forth by the MTA Board of Directors, the MTA may only execute an MOU for a three-year term. The original MOU for the capital reserve fund was established for a three-year period with an understanding between MAX and the MTA that an Amended MOU would be necessary to add an additional year to the capital reserve fund. Approving the Amended MOU will allow MAX to accumulate the necessary local share of the total cost to replace the MAX fleet of buses. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact at this time. The Amendment to the MAX MOU is part of the City’s overall commitment of approximately $150,000 of Proposition A and Air Quality Management District monies allocated for the replacement of the MAX buses. Submitted by, Attachment:
4.Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. (Huey)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 17, 2001 SUBJECT: CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Staff Coordinator: Judy Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND In 1992, the City Council formed an assessment district designated "Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District" (the "Citywide District") pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq.) (the "1972 Act"). The purpose of forming the district was to insure adequate funding for the ongoing construction, operation, maintenance, median landscaping, trails, street trees, street lighting, and traffic signals. The Citywide District includes all of the assessable parcels in the City. The district is funded through assessments on properties citywide. Each parcel is assessed an amount, which is based on the benefit the parcel receives from district operation. The City assures a fair and equitable sharing of district costs by conducting an annual review of district operations, wherein the current year’s expenses are reviewed, the ensuing year’s expenses are budgeted, and assessments are determined. The 1972 Act requires that proceedings be undertaken on an annual basis for any year during which assessments will be levied and collected. The 1972 Act also requires preparation of an engineer’s report in connection with the annual levy of assessments. The City Council may approve the report as filed, or it may modify the report and approve it as modified. After approval of the report, the City Council may adopt a Resolution of Intention, which sets a public hearing on the proposed levy of assessments for the ensuing fiscal year. The district engineer, Harris & Associates, reviewed the proposed district budget, and filed with the City Clerk an engineer’s report which includes:
There are no increases in the assessments proposed for fiscal year 2001-2002, therefore the City may provide notice of the pubic hearing by publishing the Resolution of Intention one time at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. Resolution 2001-____ sets the Public Hearing for May 15, 2001. ANALYSIS For fiscal year 2001-2002 the estimate of total District expense, including Overhead and Administration, is $445,401. The total proposed assessment of $327,213 will fund most of these expenditures. Approximately $88,988 of accumulated reserves and $29,200 of Gas Tax funds will be used to cover district expenditures in excess of the annual assessment. The engineer’s report classified areas within the City into various zones which, by reason of variations in the nature, location and extent of the proposed maintenance activities and improvements, receive differing degrees of benefit from the operation of the district. Depending on which zone a parcel is in, the proposed assessment for a parcel with a single family home ranges from $8.23 to $45.79, and most parcels will receive an assessment of approximately $20.00 for fiscal year 2001-2002. In all seven zones within the City the proposed assessments for fiscal year 2001-2002 are the same as the assessments levied in fiscal year 2000-2001. CONCLUSION In order to levy assessments the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires the City Council to approve an engineer’s report and conduct a public hearing. Adopting staff recommendations will approve the engineer’s report and establish a date for the public hearing. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Direct staff to modify the engineer’s report and bring this matter back to Council. FISCAL IMPACT The full cost of this program is borne by the property owners within the Citywide District. Depending on which zone a parcel is in, the proposed assessment for a parcel with a single family home ranges from $8.23 to $45.79 for fiscal year 2001-2002. In all seven zones throughout the City, the proposed assessments for fiscal year 2001-2002 are the same as the assessments levied in fiscal year 2000-2001. The undesignated Gas Tax fund balance at June 30, 2001 is estimated to be $220,000. Respectfully submitted, Attachments: RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 AND ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEER'S REPORT PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the "Act"), the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes desires to initiate proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments against the assessable lots and parcels of property within an existing assessment district designated "Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District" (the "District") for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002, to pay for the costs and expenses of the improvements described in Section 3 hereof. Section 2. The boundaries of the District are coterminous with the boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Section 3. The proposed improvements are briefly described as follows: The maintenance and operation of public streets and sidewalks within the District, including the operation, maintenance and servicing of public lighting facilities, including safety lighting and traffic signals, landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass and other ornamental vegetation, and appurtenant facilities, including irrigation systems, located along public roadways, streets and rights-of-way within the boundaries of the City. Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the landscaping, public lighting facilities, and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, public lighting facilities, or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti. Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of the landscaping and the maintenance of any of the public lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for the public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of landscaping or appurtenant facilities. Section 4. Public property owned by any public agency and in use in the performance of a public function which is included within the boundaries of the District shall not be subject to assessment to be made under these proceedings to cover any of the costs and expenses of the improvements. Section 5. The City Council hereby designates Harris & Associates as the engineer for the purposes of these assessment proceedings (the "Engineer"). Section 6. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Engineer to prepare and file with the City Clerk a report for the District for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 in accordance with Article 4 (commencing with Section 22565) of Chapter 1 of the Act. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 2001. ______________________________ ATTEST: ____________________________ State of California) 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 April 17, 2001. ______________________________ RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, commencing with Section 22500 (the "Act"), by previous resolution initiated proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments against the assessable lots and parcels of land in the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (the "District") for fiscal year 2001-2002 and ordered the Engineer, Harris & Associates, to prepare and file a written report in accordance with Article 4 (commencing with Section 22565) of Chapter 1 of the Act. Section 2. In accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Act, the Engineer has prepared and filed such report (the "Engineer's Report") with the City Clerk and the City Clerk has presented the Engineer's Report to the City Council. Section 3. The Engineer's Report described in Section 2 hereof has been considered by the City Council and such Engineer's Report is hereby approved as filed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April 2001 ____________________________ ATTEST: _______________________________ State of California) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001-___ is duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 17, 2001. ______________________________ RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby declares its intention to levy and collect assessments against the assessable lots and parcels of property within an existing assessment district designated "Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District" (the "District") pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the "Act") for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002, to pay for the costs and expenses of the improvements described in Section 3 below. Section 2. The boundaries of the District are coterminous with the boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Section 3. The proposed improvements are briefly described as follows: The maintenance and operation of public streets and sidewalks within the District, including the operation, maintenance and servicing of public lighting facilities, including safety lighting and traffic signals, landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass and other ornamental vegetation, and appurtenant facilities, including irrigation systems, located along public roadways, streets and rights-of-way within the boundaries of the City. Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the landscaping, public lighting facilities, and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, public lighting facilities, or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti. Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of the landscaping and the maintenance of any of the public lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for the public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of landscaping or appurtenant facilities. Section 4. The assessments to be levied and collected against the assessable lots and parcels of property within the District for fiscal year 2001-2002 are not proposed to increase from the assessments levied and collected for fiscal year 2001-2002. Section 5. By previous resolution, the City Council ordered the Engineer, Harris & Associates, to prepare and file an engineer's report pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The Engineer has prepared and filed a written report with the City Clerk entitled "Engineer's Report for Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District, Fiscal Year 2001-02" (the "Engineer's Report") and by previous resolution the City Council approved the Engineer's Report as filed. Section 6. Reference is hereby made to the Engineer's Report on file in the office of the City Clerk and open to public inspection for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the District and the zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the District. The office of the City Clerk is located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275. Section 7. Public property owned by any public agency and in use in the performance of a public function which is included within the boundaries of the District shall not be subject to assessment to be made under these proceedings to pay for any of the costs and expenses of the improvements. Section 8. Notice is hereby given that the City Council appoints May 15, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, as the date, time and place for the hearing of protests or objections to the levy of the proposed assessments in connection with the District. All interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard. The City Council shall consider all oral statements and all written protests made or filed by any interested person. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any interested person may file a written protest with the City Clerk or, having previously filed a protest, may file a written withdrawal of that protest. A written protest shall state all grounds of objection. A protest by a property owner shall contain a description sufficient to identify the property owned by the signer thereof. Written protests may be delivered in person to the City Clerk or may be mailed to the City Clerk at City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275. Any written protest which is mailed must be received at City Hall at or prior to 4:30 p.m. on May 15, 2001. Section 9. The City Clerk shall give notice of the aforesaid date, time and place of hearing in accordance with law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 2001. _______________ ATTEST: _______________ State of California) 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 April 17, 2001. ___________________________
5.Second Amendment to Employment Agreement. (Lynch)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY ATTORNEY DATE:APRIL 17, 2000 SUBJECT:SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION Approve the Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement between the City and City Manager Les Evans. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION At a closed session on April 3, 2001 the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement reflecting a salary increase from $110,000 annually to $120,000 annually. In addition the term of the contract has been extended from June 30, 2001 until June 30, 2002. FISCAL IMPACT If the Amendment is approved, the FY 2001-2002 City budget will be revised to reflect the salary increase. Respectively submitted: Attachment:
6.Crossing guard services for 2001-2002 school year -Amendment No. 9 - All City Management Services, Inc. (Purcell)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE: APRIL 17, 2001 SUBJECT: CROSSING GUARD SERVICES FOR 2001-2002 SCHOOL YEAR -AMENDMENT NO. 9 - ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 9 to the agreement with All City Management Services, Inc. (All City), for an amount not to exceed $7,500 to provide crossing guard services at Miraleste Intermediate School for the 2001-2002 School Year. BACKGROUND Beginning with the 1991-92 school year, the City began providing a crossing guard and a traffic control officer at the Miraleste Intermediate School. The need for these services arose when the school converted from a high school to an intermediate school; this resulted in an increase in the student pedestrian traffic crossing Palos Verdes Drive East to get to the bus stop. The cost to the City for the Sheriff's Department traffic control officer is shared with the cities of Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates. The School District fully reimburses the City for the cost of the crossing guard services provided by All City. Starting with the 1992-93 school year, the City began contracting with All City to provide the crossing guard services. As indicated in the March 21st letter from All City, there will be no increase in the cost of their services. DISCUSSION All City Management proposes to continue providing crossing guard services at the rate of $13.49 per hour; this is the same rate they have been charging since 1994. The rate includes costs for training, supervision and any necessary back-up personnel. Based on a 180 day school year, the cost for the service is estimated not to exceed $7,500. FISCAL IMPACT The City is fully reimbursed for this service by the PVPUSD. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed: Att. Letter from All
City Management Services
7. Application for a Household Hazardous Waste Grant, Fiscal Year 2001-2002. (Ramezani)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:APRIL 17, 2001 SUBJECT:APPLICATION FOR A HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE GRANT, FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has funds available for qualified applicants in need of funding for the collection and management of household hazardous waste (HHW). The City of Rancho Palos Verdes proposes to be the lead agency, with the Cities of Palos Verdes Estates (PVE), Rolling Hills (RH), and Rolling Hills Estates (RHE) as other participants for the FY 2001-02 grant cycle. The deadline for the grant application is May 4, 2001. On March 20, 2001, the City Council approved applying for a similar grant for the FY 2000-01 grant cycle. That grant would cover the period of June 1, 2001 through March 31, 2003. If that grant application is approved, this FY 2001-02 grant application will then be withdrawn. However, if the grant application approved at the March 30, 2001 City Council meeting is denied, then this grant application will provide a second chance at funding. The deadline for the FY 2001-02 grant application is on May 4, 2001. The proposed terms and calculations of this grant are identical to the earlier grant application. The funds provided by this grant would be used to establish:
These proposed programs would be in addition to the annual roundups held at the City Yard. The addition of this mobile HHW collection increases the City’s achievement of the goals identified in its Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE). In 1998, the above four cities applied and received a HHW grant to utilize the City of Redondo Beach's permanent HHW facility. However, due to unresolved liability and indemnification issues, the program was never implemented and no funds were expended. In October 1999, the cities applied for a grant for the door-to-door collection of HHW, but that was not successful. In March 2001, the cities applied for a FY 2000/01 grant for the door-to-door collection of HHW. Staff will not know the status of that application until sometime in May 2001. However, the deadline for this grant application is May 4, 2001. DISCUSSION The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will act as the lead agency during the thirty-one month term of the grant (beginning September 1, 2001 and continuing through March 31, 2004). The term of this grant is longer than the previous fiscal year's grant. Apparently the reason is to emphasize the establishment of permanent HHW facilities. Even though the City's grant is for a mobile HHW collection (and not for a permanent HHW facility), a multi-jurisdictional application increases the chances of the grant approval since it meets one of the grant's priority objectives. Staff has met and received positive feedback in support of this grant application from the three peninsula cities. Support letters are required as part of the grant application package. The Cities of RHE, RH and PVE will either support this grant application with letters signed by their City Managers or by resolutions. All residential households (single family, townhomes and condominiums) are eligible for this program. However, special emphasis and public outreach will also be made towards informing and attracting area seniors, handicap/disabled, and residents relocating. The program will include a public educational element, informing residential households through billing inserts, City newsletter, and newspaper advertising of their eligibility for low cost HHW pick-up with a co-payment fee of $10. The co-payment is included in order to motivate residents to call when they have a large amount of HHW to dispose, instead of small quantities such as only 1-2 cans of paint. Items collected include antifreeze, car and household batteries, cleansers, fertilizers, paint, herbicides, pesticides, and pool chemicals. Staff proposes to utilize the firm of Curbside, Inc. (CI) as the contractor providing the HHW collection service in the grant application. This firm has significant experience with a door-to-door collection program. Staff believes that including an experienced firm will enhance our chances of being funded. This firm is successfully conducting similar HHW programs in several cities such as Palm Springs, Chula Vista, Costa Mesa, Santa Clarita, Norwalk and Lemon Grove. Staff also proposes to utilize the consulting firm of Huls Environmental Management, LLC (Huls) as the grant administrator/manager in this application. The firm has administered other HHW grants for various other cities such as Azusa, Monrovia and Diamond Bar. PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS:
Curbside Inc. is suggested as the contractor for the following reasons:
GRANT COST BREAKDOWN The grant will pay for 100% of the collection, public education and administration of the program during the 31-month grant period. The total grant amount requested is $217,275, which assumes approximately a 5% participation by the total number of households in this program.
* These numbers are from the CIWMB database. Only single-family numbers is used because CIWMB’s multi-family numbers include apartment units. Apartments are not included as part of the grant program. Apartments typically have no garden and any painting is done by the management company and not the renters. The Collection and Public Education (PE) costs are allocated based on each city’s total number of housing units. The PE costs are intended to alert the public to the service and motivate residents to properly participate. It includes newspaper ads, and vendor costs for printing and mailing direct mailers and postcards. The Administration cost includes staff time and city attorney time including the cost for preparing and processing a MOU between the four cities. The Administration costs for the cities were not distributed based on housing units because certain costs (such as staff time and City attorney review time) occur regardless of the size or population of each City. RPV’s allocation also includes the cost of the City’s consultant, approximately $14,400, that will be administering and managing this grant and contract for all cities for the duration of the grant. PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY The CIWMB grant intends to establish new programs, which are then sustained by the grantees. Therefore, it is important for the grant to address the issue of sustainability. Thus, as part of the grant package, each of the participating cities will provide a letter supporting the grant application and demonstrating the fiscal commitment to sustain the program within their community by documenting a funding commitment once the grant ends. The proposed future program budgets for the cities are as follows:
The future costs will be less than the initial costs of the program. Once the grant is over most of each city's total budget will go towards collection. There will be only nominal administration costs, as the grant requirements will not need to continue. Also, after the grant is over, it is anticipated that future public education costs will be negligible to the cities since the program would already have been established and known to residents. Each city is free to tailor the program requirements and change the budget to meet its own needs. ALTERNATIVES
FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the staff recommendation will be program costs after the grant has expired. Staff estimates program costs at $15,000 for FY 2004-2005. The Solid Waste Fund is the funding source for these costs. The estimated June 30, 2001 balance for the Solid Waste Fund is $680,000. Respectfully Submitted, Attachments: Resolution
01- ___ Attachment A COLLECTION FEES Fee Per Pick-up: The cost for the HHW Collection is:
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
NOTES:
CONTRACTOR REIMBURSEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- __ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING STAFF TO APPLY FOR A REGIONAL HHW GRANT WITH THE CITIES OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES, ROLLING HILLS, AND ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ACT AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THE REGIONAL PROGRAM WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Assembly Bill 1220 (Eastin, 1993) that provides grants to local governments to establish and implement waste diversion and separation programs to prevent disposal of hazardous waste, including household hazardous waste, in solid waste landfills; 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 cities and counties under the program; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for implementation of a regional project; BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes authorizes the submittal of a regional application on behalf of the Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for a Local Government Household Hazardous Waste Grant-Fiscal Year 2001/2002. The Public Works Director of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, or their designee, is hereby authorized and embowered to execute in the name of the above named cities all necessary applications, contracts, payment requests, agreements and amendments hereto for the purposes of securing grant funds and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in the grant application. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THIS 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2001. ________________________ ATTEST: ________________________ State of California) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001-___ was duly executed and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 17, 2001. _________________________ RESOLUTION NO. 2001- __ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING STAFF TO APPLY FOR A REGIONAL HHW GRANT WITH THE CITIES OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES, ROLLING HILLS, AND ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ACT AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THE REGIONAL PROGRAM WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Assembly Bill 1220 (Eastin, 1993) that provides grants to local governments to establish and implement waste diversion and separation programs to prevent disposal of hazardous waste, including household hazardous waste, in solid waste landfills; 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 cities and counties under the program; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for implementation of a regional project; BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes authorizes the submittal of a regional application on behalf of the Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for a Local Government Household Hazardous Waste Grant-Fiscal Year 2001/2002. The Public Works Director of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, or their designee, is hereby authorized and embowered to execute in the name of the above named cities all necessary applications, contracts, payment requests, agreements and amendments hereto for the purposes of securing grant funds and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in the grant application. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THIS 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2001. ________________________ ATTEST: ________________________ State of California) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001-___ was duly executed and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 17, 2001. _________________________ City Clerk
8.Register of Demands. (McLean.)
############ PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.Six-Month Review of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 [Roger Grove, "Ride-to-Fly", 50 Narcissa Drive]. (Fox)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: APRIL 17, 2001 SUBJECT: SIX-MONTH REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL PERMIT NO. 2 [APPLICANT: ROGER GROVE, "RIDE-TO-FLY", 50 NARCISSA DRIVE] Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner/Equestrian Committee Staff Liaison RECOMMENDATION Review the operation of the "Ride-to-Fly" therapeutic riding program for compliance with the conditions of approval for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2, and extend the performance review period for another six (6) months. BACKGROUND On October 17, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-70, thereby approving Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 for the operation of a therapeutic riding program by "Ride-to-Fly." Condition No. 7 of Resolution No. 2000-70 required the City Council to review this permit within six (6) months of its approval. Therefore, Staff has agendized this matter for the City Council’s review at tonight’s meeting. DISCUSSION The attached matrix summarizes the twenty-one (21) conditions of approval for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2. Most of these are either general conditions, or conditions related to the on-going maintenance and operation of the facility. In the six months since the City Council’s approval of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2, Staff has received no complaints about the applicant’s compliance with any of these general and/or operational conditions.
The applicant has repaired the corral fencing, and is currently completing the re-painting of all of the fences. The applicant is also installing native shrubs (mostly saltbush) around the perimeter fencing to screen and soften the appearance of the fencing. Staff has met with the applicant to identify appropriate locations for landscape screening that will not create traffic safety hazards at the "Five Corners" intersection. Due to on-going sewer construction in the area, the applicant has not yet installed "soft" paving along Narcissa Drive. However, he has made arrangements with the Portuguese Bend Community Association (PBCA) and the sewer contractor to spread gravel in this parking area as soon as the nearby sewer construction is complete. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On March 28, 2001, public hearing notices for the 6-month review of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 were mailed to the property owner, the applicant, the Portuguese Bend Community Association and forty other property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. On March 31, 2001, public notice of the April 17, 2001 City Council hearing for the 6-month review of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. As of the date this Staff report was completed, Staff had received no comments from any notified parties. Please note that, pursuant to Condition No. 7 of Resolution No. 2000-70, the approval of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 is valid until October 17, 2002, notwithstanding any action(s) by the applicant and/or property owner that would terminate the permit sooner. At the end of the initial 2-year permit period, the City Council will have another opportunity to review this permit and the applicant’s compliance with the conditions of approval. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff believes that the applicant has made substantial progress in fulfilling the conditions of approval for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 during the initial 6-month period. However, Staff will continue to work with the applicant to ensure the completion of the remaining site improvements required pursuant to Condition No. 11 of Resolution No. 2000-70. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council extend the performance review period and review the applicant’s progress again in another six (6) months. FISCAL IMPACT Pursuant to Section 17.78.010(D)(5) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the original application fee for this permit was waived. As such, the costs associated with the review of this application have been—and will continue to be—borne by the City’s General Fund. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:
Respectfully submitted: Attachments: Condition of Approval
matrix RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.) REGULAR BUSINESS:
10.Maintenance Contracts. (Allison)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:APRIL 17, 2001 SUBJECT:MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND The Public Works Department relies principally on private firms to deliver maintenance services. Currently the department has contracts for the following maintenance functions:
For each contract the Public Works Department advertised for bids, and signed multi-year contracts, generally with options to extend the contract each July 1 by mutual consent. It was the strategy of the department to enter into multi-year contracts to lock in attractive rates for the base years of each contract. The contracts have no provision for automatic price increases. To date there have been no requests for price adjustments. Over the past several months, however, the department has received requests from several contractors to increase rates effective July 1, 2001. ANALYSIS When considering the request for rate increases the City has three options:
Staff has reviewed the merits of each company’s proposal and developed the following information:
The Consumer Price Index is a measure of average change in price over time in the selling prices received by consumers. The Producer Price Index is a measure of average change in price over time in the selling price received by domestic producers of goods and services. Based on the financial data the requested increases to the five contracts are all reasonable. With respect to non-financial issues, in each case the contractor is doing a good job. Each firm has worked for the City for a number of years and each has developed considerable knowledge of the City and its special needs that relate to their area of expertise. For example R.F. Dickson, the city’s street sweeping contractor, has knowledge about our refuse schedule, and school areas. TruGreen Landcare has knowledge of our park and trail system. Hardy and Harper has knowledge about the landslide and particularly paving along Palos Verdes Drive South within the landslide. In addition, three of the firms, R.F. Dickson, TruGreen Landcare, and Peek Signal all work for other cities on the peninsula. This means that if we have the need for unscheduled service from these contractors, it is possible that these firms would have a representative in the area that could respond promptly. One additional piece of information, when the Roadway and Drainage Maintenance Contract was last advertised the second lowest bidder was 28% higher than Hardy and Harper, the City’s current contractor. For the other contacts the second lowest bidder was within ten percent of the current contractor. With regard to future price increases TrueCare Landscaping, Hardy and Harper, and Peek Signal Maintenance Company all indicate that they will not ask for any future price increases for the balance of the contract. R.F. Dickson could not make such a commitment, because of fuel price uncertainty. Staff recommendation number five requests an increase in the spending limit for trail maintenance from $7,200 to $20,000. This additional authorization is needed because a number of trails have been added to our trail system; Ocean Front Estates, Pacific Heritage, Tramonto, Forrestal, and because staff intends to increase the level of maintenance for the City’s trails. The authorization limit is provided for in the adopted budget. CONCLUSIONS Adopting the staff recommendation will grant an increase to five maintenance contracts. In each case the request is reasonable and there is a basis for the increase. FISCAL IMPACT Adopting the staff recommendation will increase costs for the maintenance contracts as follows:
If approved the increases will be effective July 1, 2001. The budget that will be presented to the City Council will reflect these increases. ALTERNATIVE ACTION One alternative action is to re-advertise one of more of the contracts rather than grant the increase. Staff recommends against this alternative because the increases are all reasonable and therefore re-advertising would not likely result in lower total costs. In addition there are costs associated with re-advertising. There would be a direct cost of approximately $3,000 to re-advertise a contract, as well as the indirect cost of additional staff time required to transition to a new service provider. Respectfully Submitted Attachments: Publication from the
U.S. Department of Labor on economic indexes for Los Angeles County
11.Review of geologic/geotechnical data Zone II. (Evans)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 17, 2001 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF GEOLOGIC/GEOTECHNICAL DATA ZONE II RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Cotton, Shires and Associates to review existing geologic and geotechnical documents to determine whether the data are sufficient to allow building on vacant lots in Zone II if the local factor of safely calculated for the lot is 1.5 or greater; and 2. Authorize the expenditure of up to $30,000 for the Cotton, Shires contract from Building and Safety Account 402.35 Technical and Professional Services. BACKGROUND At their March 6, 2001 meeting the City Council took the following action: (1) Authorized 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 is sufficient to support the conclusions of the Peer Review Group to allow development in Zone II under certain conditions. (2) Requested that staff give direction to the consultant as follows: (a) Review to include lots 8, 10, 22, and 98 Vanderlip Drive. (b) Review to determine if it is safe to build on lots with a localized safety factor of 1.5 assuming that the gross area factor is not that high and to determine any cumulative effect by development on the 40 vacant lots. The Council direction was a follow up to their action at a January 25, 1997 Workshop when they heard a presentation from City Staff and Dr. Perry Ehlig recommending conditions for development in Zone II. Dr. Ehlig believed the Zone II area could be developed under the following conditions:
After hearing the presentation by Dr. Ehlig and comments from the public, the City Council took no action pending completion of the negotiations (for removal of liens and refinancing of the Horan Settlement debt) with the County. Although the liens were removed in December 1997 a follow up meeting was never scheduled. In January 2001 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 bond negotiations with the County had been complete for over three years. 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 recommended that a review of existing geologic and geotechnical documents should be undertaken to determine whether the data are sufficient to support the 1997conclusions of the Dr. Perry Ehlig and the Peer Review Group. He estimated 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. DISCUSSION Cotton, Shires and Associates has submitted a proposal to perform the work authorized by Council at their March 6, 2001 meeting. The proposal and copies of the resumes of those who will analyze the data are attached. The work is projected to take six to eight weeks at a cost of $30,000. Subsequent to the March 6, 2001 City Council action, Mayor Lyon questioned whether the opinion of one geotechnical firm would be adequate to address the Zone II issues since six geologists and geotechnical engineers were involved in the 1997 reviews. She pointed out that typically the City has relied on a group of advisors rather than just one. Staff considered the Mayor’s concern and developed two alternative courses of action for the review of the Zone II issues. ALTERNATIVES
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. There are adequate funds to perform the study included in the Building and Safety budget under the Professional and Technical Services account. Respectfully submitted, Attachments: Cotton, Shires &
Associates Proposal
12. Appointment of a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Study City Border Issues. (Evans)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM:CITY MANAGER DATE:APRIL 17, 2001 SUBJECT:APPOINTMENT OF A CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE TO STUDY BORDER ISSUES RECOMMENDATION: Consider the request of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners’ Association to appoint a City council Ad Hoc Committee to Study Border Issues. BACKGROUND: Recently the City Council has heard concerns from residents living in the Eastview area of the City that development in the adjacent cities of Los Angeles and Rolling Hills Estates is creating adverse traffic impacts on Western Avenue. At the request of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners’ Association, Mayor Lyon attended the Association Board meeting last month. At the meeting the Mayor suggested that the City Council could become more involved in solutions to the Eastview problems by creating a committee of two Councilmembers to study the "border issues." The committee could determine whether or not the City Council should take positions on some of these proposed developments that may adversely affect the City. DISCUSSION: Don Shults, President of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association, has prepared a list of projects that are of concern to the Eastview residents. The list of projects and his transmittal letter are attached. The initial assignment of the committee would be to study these concerns, meet with Eastview residents and report back to the Council. The Ad Hoc Committee for Border Issues is not a standing committee of the Council, but will cease to exist after it has completed its work. No fixed meeting schedule will be established for the committee. Respectfully submitted,
13. Removal of Debris from a Canyon Outside City Right of Way. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 17, 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 precedence 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:
14.New Legislation Pertaining to Housing Elements – SB 910 (Dunn). (Lynch)
TO: Mayor Lyon and Members of the City Council FROM: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney DATE: April 6, 2001 SUBJECT: New Legislation Pertaining to Housing Elements – SB 910 (Dunn) INTRODUCTION Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart requested that a staff report be prepared to apprise the City Council and the public about proposed legislation related to housing elements, Senate Bill 910, which Senator Dunn (D-Santa Ana) introduced on February 23rd. The bill would affect litigation challenging the validity of housing elements, by creating a presumption of invalidity for housing elements disapproved by the Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"), and by imposing significant penalties on cities and counties with invalid housing elements. RECOMMENDATION That the City communicate its opposition to this bill to the City’s legislators in Sacramento. BACKGROUND As you are aware, existing law requires that the general plan of every city and county contain a housing element, which must undergo periodic updates. Gov’t Code §§ 65302, 65588. As a part of the update process, local governments must submit a draft of the updated housing element to HCD for a determination of whether the draft complies with state law. Gov’t Code § 65585. Should HCD certify that the updated element is in compliance with state law, either after an initial review or after the locality completes additional revisions, the statute creates a rebuttable presumption of the element’s validity in any subsequent litigation challenging the element. Gov’t Code § 65589.3. This presumption is a powerful deterrent to litigation and is a primary reason cities and counties strive to attain HCD certification of their housing elements. Existing law does not give the same legal force to a decision of HCD to refuse to certify an element. Instead, the statute authorizes a locality to "self-certify" the element by making findings as to why it rejects HCD’s conclusions. Gov’t Code § 65585(f). For many years, housing advocates have sought to obtain legislation to create this presumption and, for many years, cities and counties have convinced the Legislature that doing so would be an unacceptable incursion into local control of land use policy. Senator Dunn, it would seem, has opened the latest skirmish in this continuing battle. DISCUSSION The proposed bill would add a new paragraph to section 65589.3, providing that in the event HCD finds that a housing element does not substantially comply with state law, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of the invalidity of the element in any action challenging the element filed on or after January 1, 2002. This has potentially serious consequences for cities and developers, because without a valid housing element, a city is without a valid general plan. Without a valid general plan, a city’s power to make development decisions, such as the issuance of building permits, approval of subdivision maps, or adoption zoning ordinances, is subject to challenge. Gov’t Code § 65755; Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 123 Cal. App. 3d 334, 358-60 (1981); Save El Toro Ass’n v. Days, 74 Cal. App. 3d 64, 70-74 (1977). In addition, the bill provides that in the event a court finds a housing element does not substantially comply with state law, the court must award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiffs, and levy a penalty on the locality, with the maximum possible penalty set at $1,000 per unit in the locality’s regional housing needs assessment ("RHNA"). For example, given Rancho Palos Verdes’ RHNA of 53 units, it would face a potential penalty of $53,000, in addition to attorney’s fees and costs. Note also that the language is mandatory; if the court finds the element is not in substantial compliance, it must award attorney’s fees, costs, and a penalty. Given the presumption of invalidity that the other section of the bill imposes, courts will more frequently rule that housing elements do not substantially comply with state law than at present. Further, the bill was amended on March 27th to add an additional penalty. Under the revised bill, a jurisdiction that HCD finds to be out of compliance with the housing element laws would lose a portion of its monthly allocation of gas tax revenues, according to the following schedule:
The most recent statutory deadline, for cities in the 6-county SCAG region, was January 1, 2001. Funds withheld under this bill would be redistributed in the following month to jurisdictions with certified elements. As the bill is currently drafted, the gas tax revenue reduction would apply if HCD refused to certify an element, even if the city "self-certified" its element with findings rejecting HCD’s conclusions under § 65585(f). CONCLUSION This bill could adversely affect the City’s future development decisions, would weaken the City’s position in litigation challenging the housing element’s validity, and could result in significant penalties and a loss of gas tax revenue. Accordingly, we recommend that the City actively oppose this legislation through its representatives in Sacramento
15.Aviation Element of Draft Regional Transportation Plan Prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (Park)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST DATE: APRIL 17, 2001 SUBJECT: AVIATION ELEMENT OF THE DRAFT REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN PREPARED BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS RECOMMENDATION Consider aviation scenarios proposed by the Southern California Association of Governments and determine whether or not to support a scenario. BACKGROUND The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is preparing its 2001 update of the Regional Transportation Plan and the aviation policy component addresses the future of airports in the SCAG region. SCAG recognized that anticipated increases in air passenger and air cargo demand in the next 25 years in Southern California requires consideration of regional strategies and policies to decentralize aviation demand and provide an equitable distribution of regional aviation facilities. SCAG forecasts 164-172 million passengers arriving or departing the region annually in 2025 up from 80 million recorded in 1999. Air cargo demand is expected to reach 9.5 million tons, up from 2.6 million tons in 1997. Over a two year period beginning in 1998, SCAG defined and evaluated nine aviation system scenarios. In March, 2000, three scenarios were selected for further analysis in the RTP Environmental Impact Report, along with the 1998 RTP. A brief summary of the four scenarios is provided below. 1998 Regional Transportation Plan Scenario is a placeholder pending review of the RTP EIR and the selection of a preferred alternative. In this scenario all airports are unconstrained and assumed to be able to expand to meet demand. There are no high speed rail linkages between airports and no market incentives for Palmdale or Inland Empire Airports. The regional aviation demand is forecast to be 157 million annual passengers (MAP) in 2020 and 172 MAP in 2025. Scenario Two examines the question, "Can Ontario, El Toro, Palmdale and the Inland Empire airports meet the majority of future demand?" LAX is constrained to 70 MAP, Burbank, John Wayne and Long Beach are all constrained to their physical or legal capacity. High speed rail and market incentives for Palmdale and Inland Empire airports are assumed. The term "high speed rail" assumes linkages between airports along the corridor chosen by the Maglev Task Force. The term "market incentives" assumes free parking, free transit to airport from population centers, roadway improvements at Palmdale and Southern California Logistics and full awareness of airports as airport choice options by passengers. Regional aviation demand is estimated at 156 MAP in 2020 and 166 MAP in 2025. Scenario Eight is similar to Scenario Two except that LAX is constrained to its estimated physical capacity of 78 MAP. Regional demand is estimated at 156 MAP in 2020 and 167 MAP in 2025. Scenario Nine examines the impact of expanding LAX. In this scenario LAX is constrained to the physical capacity of the improvements estimated at 86 MAP, with no El Toro. Burbank, John Wayne and Long Beach are all constrained to their physical or legal capacity. High speed rail and market incentives for Palmdale and Inland Empire airports are assumed. Regional aviation demand in this scenario is estimated at 155 MAP in 2020 and 164 MAP in 2025. A comparative scenario overview in a table format is attached. DISCUSSION The Transportation and Communications Committee of SCAG recently approved recommending Scenario Eight to the Regional Council for consideration as the preferred aviation alternative in the Regional Transportation Plan. The Regional Council is anticipated to consider Scenario Eight as the preferred alternative in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) on April 12, 2001. At their meeting on March 22, 2001 the South Bay Cities Council of Governments voted to support Scenario Eight. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was represented by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart who was opposed to the SBCCOG action. Councilman McTaggart will discuss his concerns with Scenario Eight and the SBCCOG action at the Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT None associated with this report. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Attachments: 1. Comparative Table of Aviation System Scenarios ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE BROWN ACT CHECKLIST BELOW. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Saturday, April 21, at 9:00 A.M. for a Budget Policy Workshop in the City Hall Community Room. CLOSED
SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) CONFERENCE WITH
REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Potential purchase of open space. Property:Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029, 7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022 City Negotiators:City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Negotiating Parties:York Long Point Associates Under Negotiation:Price and Terms of Payment CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Anticipated Litigation: A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency.
1 Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation but which the City/Agency believes are not yet known to potential plaintiff or plaintiffs. |
