Agenda 02/05/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 02/05/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda February 5, 2002
February 5, 2002

DISCLAIMER

The following City Council agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the City Council at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual City Council meeting. The City Council may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the City Council Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the Reception area at City Hall.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS
**CLICK HERE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA


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

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 5, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-08NEXT ORD. NO. 373

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Motion to waive full reading.
Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all council members after the reading of the title.


2. Minutes of January 12, 2002. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


3. Award Contract for Services to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Construction of a New Single-Family Residence. (Mihranian)
Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional services agreement in an amount not to exceed $18,380 with RBF Consulting to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for proposed construction of a new single-family residence on vacant property located at 3787 Coolheights Drive.


4. Agreement for Professional Services with Geotechnical Review Panel Members. (Pfost)
Recommendation: Approve agreements for professional services with Ben Yen, Glenn Brown and Monte Ray.


5. December 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)
Recommendation: Receive and file.


6. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


REGULAR BUSINESS:



7. Beautification Grant Funding and Program Options. (Ramezani)
Recommendation: Provide direction to staff regarding the characteristics of the neighborhood beautification grant program.


8. Traffic Calming on Via Rivera. (Allison)
Recommendation: (1) Approve the installation of a series of speed humps along Via Rivera Avenue between Rue De La Pierre and Via Del Mar in accordance with the City’s Traffic Calming Program. (2) Authorize the expenditure of up to $40,000 for the engineering and construction of speed humps, signs and pavement markings along Via Rivera. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLITION 2001-43, THE BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.


9. Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts – Proposed Assessment Deferral Loans. (McLean)

Recommendation: Consider the Finance Advisory Committee’s recommendations as listed on Page 7 of their report.


PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)


(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)



10. Ordinance establishing new regulations applicable to the issuance of business permits and the regulation of massage establishments and massage technicians operating in the City. (Evans)
Recommendation: (1) Adopt, by reference, Los Angeles County’s current regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians. (2) Adopt Los Angeles County’s licensing procedures in addition to the regulations for massage establishments and massage technicians. (3) Introduce Ordinance No. ____, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 (GENERAL LICENSING PROCEDURES) AND CHAPTER 7.54 OF DIVISION 2 OF TITLE 7 (MASSAGE) OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CODE. (4) Enter into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office to license massage establishments and massage technicians within the City. (5) Modify the City’s agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to perform background investigations of applicants for business permits for massage establishments and massage technicians within the City.


11. Border Issues Status Report. (Rojas)
Recommendation: Review the current status of border issues and provide direction.


12. Interview Schedule for Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee Applicants. (Purcell)
Recommendation: (1) Approve the interview schedule for applicants for the Planning Commission who have indicated this commission as their first through sixth choice. (2) Approve the interview schedule for applicants for the Finance Advisory Committee who have indicated this committee as their first through sixth choice.


13. Modification of City Council Rules of Procedure. (Stern)

Recommendation: Consider the suggestion of Mayor Pro Tem Stern to add a new item 5 to Rules 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure, which shall read:
5. Prior to hearing public testimony or comments Councilmembers are encouraged to raise questions or articulate issues of concern which they may have which may assist members of the public to focus comments upon those questions or issues.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers to report on Council assignments.)



CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Saturday, February 9, at 9:00 A.M. in the Fireside Room at Hesse Park to interview Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee applicants.



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, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

Property: APN 7564-005-001, 7572-001-001 TO 004, 06 AND 07, 7581-023-011

City Negotiators: City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment



RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 5, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-08NEXT ORD. NO. 373

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:





1. Motion to waive full reading.

Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all council members after the reading of the title.



2. Minutes of January 12, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Mayor McTaggart at Ladera Linda Community Center, 32201 Forrestal Drive, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

After the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call was answered as follows:

PRESENT: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
ABSENT: None

Also present were City Manager Les Evans; Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Director of Recreation and Parks Ron Rosenfeld; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.


RECYCLING DRAWING:


Three winners were announced. Mr. Shuji Nozawa, Mrs. U. von Geczy, and Mr. John Childerhose, each of whom who will receive a check for $250, which represents a year of free refuse service. Another card was selected.

Dick Stark, president of Ladera Linda Homeowners Association, welcomed everyone to the neighborhood.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to approve the agenda, as presented. Motion carried.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


Minutes changes were suggested by Mayor McTaggart, Councilman Clerk, and Mayor Pro Tem Stern. Consensus of the Council was to make these changes.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows:

Motion to waive full reading

Adopted a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all council members after the reading of the title.

Minutes of December 4, 2001

Approved the minutes, as amended.

Contracts for Whale of a Day Special Event

Authorized the City Manager to sign the proposed contracts associated with the City’s 18th Annual Whale of a Day celebration on March 2, 2002.

Adoption of Ordinance No. 372 – Mobile Vendors

ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 372, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MOBILE VENDORS WHO PARK ON CITY STREETS, AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was introduced on December 18, 2001.)

Resol. No. 2002-01 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-01, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

The motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:   Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
NOES:   None


REGULAR BUSINESS:


Policy for Recruitment and Selection of Members for the City’s Advisory Boards

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of January 12, 2002 and the recommendation to adopt a policy for recruitment and selection of City Advisory Board Members and Board Chairs. He stated that Council direction from the December 4 meeting was slightly revised at the December 18 meeting to hold interviews in February for Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee applicants since those two groups would be participating in a joint meeting soon. At that meeting, there was also a suggestion to blend the View Restoration Commission into the Planning Commission, or make it more of a mediation group, and to possibly add another committee to address emergency preparedness.

Councilman Clark mentioned ongoing work with Councilman Gardiner to present a proposal relative to formation of a new committee.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked about the View Restoration Commission’s recent work load and Director Rojas replied that the Commission is meeting regularly again after a period of only about five or six meetings last year with more mediation.

Councilman Clark inquired about the number of cases before the Commission in 2001 and 2000 and Director Rojas replied that in 2001 there were about three or four cases on which the Commission took action and about the same in 2000, with many more cases being resolved by mediation in pre-application meetings.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern noted that in his two years on the Council there had been no appeals from View Restoration Commission decisions.

Councilwoman Ferraro stated that the lack of appeals was because View Restoration Commissioners were meeting with the residents involved in view cases through the mediation process and that, although not having as many cases handled at View Restoration Commission meetings, they were still performing an important function to save Council and staff time.

Councilman Clark asked how many cases were heard by the View Restoration Commission prior to the mediation process being instituted and Director Rojas said there were usually 10 to 15 cases annually.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked about the current workload for the View Restoration Commission and Director Rojas replied that there were13 cases from July through December and all were resolved through mediation except for two or three which went to the View Restoration Commission.

Councilman Gardiner felt that the View Restoration Commission should be continued as the members have gained expertise on how these matters can best be handled.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern agreed that a change was not necessary but thought that data from staff would be helpful to justify keeping the full Commission.

Councilman Clark appreciated the mediation work being done and agreed that more information would be helpful, especially when the Council is appointing members to the View Restoration Commission. Since the nature of the work they are performing has changed, the Council might be looking for different qualities in a View Restoration Commissioner and applicants might be interested to know about the shift to more mediation.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that the issue of changes to the View Restoration Commission be postponed at this time.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern preferred the term of "advisory boards" which referred to all the commissions and committees.

Councilman Clark suggested that even the term "advisory" did not apply to the Planning and View Restoration Commissions

Mayor McTaggart suggested just calling them "Boards".

Councilwoman Ferraro thought that "City Boards" was more descriptive.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern suggested that for these first appointments for staggered terms, half (plus one) of the terms will be four years and half (less one) of the terms will be two years. He also asked if the Chair had not been appointed for one year in the past.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that it was normally a one-year assignment but sometimes the same Chair was re-appointed for another year.

Councilman Clark liked that concept to increase flexibility and to provide an opportunity for more members to serve as Chair.

Councilman Gardiner agreed that it provided the Council an opportunity to review the Chairs annually.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern raised the issue of a meeting being held before the Council has appointed a new Chair, and there is no continuing Chair.

The consensus was to have the Mayor designate an interim Chair for that meeting, rather than have a continuing Vice Chair preside.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that the policy state that the members of the Board select the Vice Chair on an annual basis.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern suggested that the policy state that Board appointments be made as reasonably soon as possible after the seating of a new Council.

Although not to be included in the policy, Councilman Gardiner suggested that for this first term only when staggered terms were being established, that applicants could state a preference for a four-year or two-year term.

Councilman Clark felt that the policy should state that Council interviews should be held with three or fewer applicants.

Councilwoman Ferraro felt that including this in the policy would limit flexibility.

Councilman Clark felt that the policy should be silent on the duration of each interview but suggested three minutes for each applicant and then an opportunity for each applicant to meet alone with the Council for a short time.

City Clerk Purcell indicated that the format used in the past included a three-minute opening statement by each applicant.

Councilman Clark felt that an applicant meeting alone with the Council for three minutes would be helpful.

Councilwoman Ferraro expressed concern about lengthening the schedule and said that since these were public meetings, anyone could ask to be present during the portion of the interview when the applicant was alone with the Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern suggested that interviewing three to five applicants in about a half hour, not including time alone with the Council, although not every applicant may take advantage of the opportunity to meet alone with the Council.

Councilman Gardiner thought it was optimistic to think 30 minutes would be enough.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that this could be tried for the first set of interviews.

Councilwoman Ferraro noted that sometimes interviews don’t go as planned and applicants need to be rescheduled because of illness or other reasons.

Councilman Clark was concerned that a longer interview time and an opportunity to meet alone with the Council would encourage more residents to apply.

City Manager Evans said that he would revise the policy and bring it back for Council review.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern raised the issue of the importance of Board members being briefed on legal responsibilities (such as meeting findings), not just the Brown Act and conflict of interest issues.

City Attorney Lynch said that there is usually a one or two-hour session in which members are usually educated on the ordinance they are charged to enforce, as well as standards of review and that during that session, comments and questions are encouraged.

Councilwoman Ferraro noted that during discussion of a specific item, staff often indicated findings which were required to be met.

Councilman Clark added that there were usually written forms of guidance provided as well.

Mayor McTaggart felt it was important to inform applicants that if appointed they might be requested to provide personal income information.

City Attorney Lynch agreed that applicants who do not wish to complete the Fair Political Practices Commission forms should not serve.

Councilman Clark suggested that information could be provided on the City website

Mayor McTaggart said that information could provide a link to the League of California Cities for more information.

City Clerk Purcell stated that financial disclosure requirements could be mentioned in the application packet.

Councilman Clark agreed that this was an important point and suggested also that when applicants download the application from the website, attention be drawn to that requirement.

City Council Committee Assignments

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of January 12, 2002 and the recommendation to make Council assignments.

The following assignments were made:

Organization Delegate/Alternate
  City Selection Committee McTaggart/Stern
  League of CA Cities, L.A. County Division: McTaggart/Stern
  Southern CA Assn. of Governments (SCAG) McTaggart
  So. Bay Cities Council of Govts. (SBCOG) McTaggart/Clark
  San. Districts (Dist. No. 5 & So. Bay San. District) McTaggart/Stern
  CA Joint Powers Ins. Authority (CJPIA) McTaggart/Stern
  CA Contract Cities McTaggart/Gardiner
  So. Bay Youth Project Ferraro/Stern
  Chambers of Commerce Entire Council
  Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project Clark/Stern
  Palos Verdes Transit Authority Gardiner/Ferraro
  Max Policy Steering Committee McTaggart/Ferraro
  Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Stern/McTaggart
  West Basin Water District Gardiner/Ferraro
  CA Coastal Coalition McTaggart/Clark
     
 

Ad Hoc Committees

 
 

Open Space Acquisition

Stern/Clark
 

Neighborhood Compatibility

Clark/Gardiner
     
 

Standing Committees

 
 

Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)

McTaggart/Gardiner
 

Ocean Trails/Long Point

Stern/Clark
     
 

Liaison Assignments

 
 

Western Ave. Corridor Task Force

Stern/Gardiner
 

LAX Expansion/Noise

McTaggart/Ferraro
 

L.A. Airport Community Roundtable

McTaggart/Gardiner

Changes to list of assignments were made as follows: (1) Long Point was included in the Ocean Trails Standing Committee. (2) L.A. Airport Community Roundtable was added a new liaison assignment. (3) The City Beautification and Border Issues ad hoc committees were disbanded. (4) Border Issues to be handled by establishing ad hoc committees as needed for a specific border issues.


Beautification Grant Program Award History

Director Allison presented the staff report of January 12, 2002 and the recommendation to provide direction to staff regarding the future of the neighborhood beautification grant program.

Mayor McTaggart wondered if a State beautification grant could fund the Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification Program or maybe if part of the beautification program acted as traffic calming, there might be a source of funds related to traffic calming. He suggested that the South Bay COG be consulted.

Councilwoman Ferraro noted that at one time the program required that Homeowners Associations match funds but that associations did not always apply for the maximum of $2500.

Councilman Gardiner asked what commitments had been made to spend recycling funds on the Hawthorne Beautification Program.

Director Allison said that the design had begun but there was a 30-day cancellation clause. He estimated that 10% of the work was complete on this contract cost of about $55,000 and estimated that the City would lose $5,000 to $6,000 if the work were stopped.

Lois Karp, 31115 Ganado Drive, a past Homeowners Association president, spoke in favor of beautification grant program and listed the benefits as community involvement, encouragement to recycle, and spreading the beautification to all parts of the City rather than one, as in the case of the Hawthorne Beautification Program.

John L. Beringer, 3412 Seaglen Drive, President of Mediterranean Homeowners Association and Treasurer of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations urged the Council to re-institute the beautification grant program. He detailed projects built by recycling grants his association received over the years. He echoed the previous speaker’s sentiment about spreading the beautification over different parts of the City.

Don Shults, 2129 Velez Drive, encouraged the Council to re-institute the Recycling Beautification Grant Program and he noted that the grants encouraging recycling and that the City would be subject to large fines if recycling decreased below mandated levels.

Vic Quirarte, 24369 Quailwood, Vice President of the Mesa Homeowners Association, speaking for President Ray Mathys, who could not attend, spoke about past projects funded by grants received by his association and about future projects for which it was hoped grants would be available.

Brian Campbell, 6477 Chartes Drive, President of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations, saw the real value in these recycling grants as the spark they provided to encourage neighborhood interaction and volunteerism. He cited neighborhood barbeques at which suggestions for projects were discussed and residents supplying labor to help complete the projects. He felt the process and the community pride was much more than important than the actual funds received.

Bill Dytrt, 6420 Sattes Drive, had worked with the City on two grants and found the experience very satisfying and he stated that much money was saved by using volunteer help within the neighborhood.

Diane Weinberger, 4206 Exultant Drive, representing the Seaview Homeowners Association, spoke in favor of the recycling grants and against the mandatory matching of funds. She agreed that community talent should be used to save money and she said that she had a design degree and would welcome the opportunity to help with City beautification projects.

Councilman Clark expressed appreciation for the community comments and supported the reinstatement of the recycling grants program, which he felt was innovative and worthwhile. He agreed that alternate funding for the Hawthorne Beautification should be sought and that Phase One of the project should be studied again and community help encouraged.

Councilman Gardiner was impressed with the spark of neighbor interaction which these grants have produced.

Councilman Gardiner moved to (1) Restore use of recycling funds for grants available to Homeowners Associations for neighborhood beautification and to encourage the use of community talent wherever possible to lower cost of projects. (2) Increase funding, if possible, for the beautification grant program based on data to be collected by staff. (3) Stop all work on the Hawthorne beautification program in order to revisit the Council’s approach to goals and alternate funding, including using community talent to lower the cost of this project.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern wondered if it would be possible to increase the total funding as well as the amount of the individual grants.

Councilman Gardiner thought staff research was necessary before a decision could be made.

Councilman Clark, as the seconder of the motion, motion proposed that the motion include a fourth element. He suggested re-publicizing the availability of these grants and request that the Council of Homeowners Associations encourage homeowners associations to take advantage of this program, particularly those groups which have not already received grants.

The motion carried.

Border Issues Status Report

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of January 12, 2002 and the recommendation to review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.

Regarding the Harbor Hills Community Center, City Manager Evans distributed a letter from L.A. County Supervisor Don Knabe listing modifications to the development. (Said letter is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.) He noted that the project is now involved in the planning process through the City of Lomita because of a size reduction of the parking lot. He suggested that a representative attend the Lomita Planning Commission meeting to speak in support of the smaller parking lot when the issues comes before that body.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that a member of the former Border Issues ad hoc committee attend this meeting.

Regarding the Garden Village Shopping Center, and specifically the Albertson’s Grocery Store, City Manager Evans distributed a letter from geotechnical consultants Leighton and Associates regarding the integrity of onsite underground private and public sewer and storm drain pipelines. Repairs are needed and a representative of the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety has said that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until repairs are made and approved. He also distributed a draft report on the Garden Village Revitalization Project from the City of Los Angeles. (Both items distributed are on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

Regarding other border issues, City Manager Evans reported that there was nothing to report on the Rolling Hills Covenant Church project or the golf course in Rolling Hills Estates but these developments would continue to be monitored.

He asked if the Council wanted to appoint ad hoc committees for any specific border issues at this time.

Council consensus was to postpone appointments at this time.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern suggested that the format of the monthly border issues status report to indicate new information in bold print or some other means to highlight facts not included in previous reports.

Don Shults, 2129 Velez Drive, asked to be placed on the mailing list for receiving border issues status reports. He mentioned other issues, such as the Park Plaza Shopping Center, which he understood had been purchased by the owners of the Garden Village Shopping Center and which included a Von’s Market which is rumored to be expanded. He also mentioned a bad configuration for traffic at Peck Park and a nearby bank and a senior housing high-rise apartment building which had difficult fire engine access.

Mayor McTaggart said the ad hoc committee’s experience taught that Rancho Palos Verdes needed to get involved early in a project to be effective.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern assured Don Shults that his Homeowners Association would be kept informed and he asked him to keep the Council or City Manager Evans informed if there were issues which were not being appropriately addressed.

Councilman Clark asked if the border issues status reports could be on the City’s website.

City Manager Evans said that the report is on the website once a month, each time this item is on the agenda.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern suggested this could be an additional List Serve subject.

April Sandell, 28026 Pontevedra Road, was concerned that withholding a Certificate of Occupancy would not take care of the problems at the Garden Village Shopping Center. She said that after no activity in about six week, truck started moving again a couple of days ago and she was concerned that construction would be completed regardless of underground issues.

Councilman Gardiner asked if a map of Western Avenue could be provided to indicate exactly which areas were Los Angeles and which areas were Rancho Palos Verdes.


RECESS & RECONVENE:


At 11:56 A.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess for lunch. The meeting reconvened at 12:42 P.M.

Citywide Stop Sign Installation Policy

Director Allison presented the staff report of January 12, 2002 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution adopting regulations regarding the installation of stop signs.

Bill Schurmer, 32468 Searaven Drive, a member of the Traffic Committee, clarified that stop signs are not intended for control of speed but for control of right-of-way; that other cities were contacted and Garden Grove was the only city to have this type of policy; that CalTrans standards applied to arterials but that neighborhood streets would never meet these standards so a City policy was required. He said that the Garden Grove policy was adapted by a Traffic Committee ad hoc committee which received input from the public.

Mayor McTaggart noted that the schools in Rancho Palos Verdes had each been assigned a traffic committee member to address traffic problems and that the need for a stop sign could be part of improving safety conditions. (A copy of these Traffic Committee school assignments is on file with the City Clerk’s Department.)

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-02, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING REGULATIONS REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS. Motion carried.

Addition of Traffic Calming signs to the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program

Director Allison presented the staff report of January 12, 2002 and the recommendation to adopt revisions to the City’s Traffic Calming Program, as recommended by the Traffic Committee, to add signs as a traffic-calming tool. He Allison showed a sample to illustrate the actual size and color of signs and indicated that there were three different versions of wording shown in the staff report; that all three would be used throughout the City and that other messages would probably evolve over time.

Councilman Gardiner asked if the colors and size of letters met national traffic safety standards and Director Allison said that the colors matched the street signs; the letters would be no smaller than two inches in size; and, the intent was to provide attractive signs to avoid sign pollution.

Mayor McTaggart inquired as the source of the funding and Director Allison replied that the Gas Tax Fund was being used.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to adopt revisions to the City’s Traffic Calming Program, as recommended by the Traffic Committee, to add signs as a traffic-calming tool. Motion carried.

Don Shuts, 2129 Velez Drive, was grateful for the Traffic Committee’s work on this policy; mentioned a speed problem and heavy traffic near Dodson School; suggested that additional speed limit signs were needed in the neighborhood away from the school; suggested that the location of the traffic calming signs be changed periodically so familiarity does not cause them to become unnoticeable; and, felt that traffic calming measures in the City were beginning to make a difference.

Master Plan Updates

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of January 12, 2002 and the recommendation to provide direction to staff on a planning process for updating the General Plan and other plans.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern noted that it was important to place a priority on state mandated plans.

City Manager Evans replied that he had told the State that the item would be on the Council’s agenda. He listed the department heads who would be responsible for the various plans and suggested that the Council discuss whether the plans should be updated and a process to achieve this goal. He said that Director Rojas had marked up the General Plan and had some ideas about how to approach updating this document.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that consultants would be needed and someone to coordinate all the update efforts.

Councilman Clark agreed that a coordinator would be necessary and suggested that a community-wide task force be established in order to use local talent as when the City was incorporated. He felt this task force could update the General Plan under staff guidance and not only would save the City money but also provide an impetus to re-energize the community.

Councilman Gardiner echoed Councilman Clark’s thoughts and recommended a maximum use of info technology, specifically with the documents available and editable online to watch as the process evolved. He said that City Manager Evans had indicated the cost to update each document was estimated at $250,000 and he wondered how this would break down per project.

City Manager Evans replied that this would depend on the degree to which each document was updated and he stated that technical assistance would be required for graphics.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that PV on the Net be utilized.

Councilman Gardiner wondered if the work-study program at the high school might provide assistance.

Councilman Gardiner likened the General Plan to a tree, stating that twigs change a lot, branches change a little, and the trunk hardly at all. He said that the twigs of the General Plan should not be considered, as they will always be changing.

City Manager Evans agreed and that 175 policies had been identified in the General Plan and these (the tree trunk) should be considered first.

Councilman Gardiner thought this sounded like too many policies and maybe the wrong level of detail. He suggested that the City hire someone with expertise in these matters.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern saw two aspects – an update to reflect the present situation and to make corrections – and a more forward thinking vision of the community which would evolve through the work of the community-wide task force. He wondered how the EIR would fit into the update.

City Attorney Lynch replied that for major land use changes, an EIR might be required but the EIR would not drive the changes, but reflect them. She said possibly only an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration might be necessary.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern and Councilman Gardiner supposed that principles which remain unchanged could be simply reaffirmed.

Councilman Clark noted that the Council should not assume that the General Plan does not need a dynamic update and assume that correcting inaccuracies and deleting out-of-date or inappropriate policies would be enough.

Councilman Gardiner gave an example of an increased demand for recreation and that that there is no implementation in the General Plan to match needs to resources.

City Manager Evans said that the General Plan does talk about evolving needs and that that there are 175 policies in the General Plan and these could be reviewed first.

Mayor McTaggart mentioned a noise element to deal with aircraft noise for example.

City Manager Evans said a safety element for emergency preparedness could be put together by a citizen’s group but if there were too much change, an EIR would be required.

Councilman Gardiner stressed that in updating the General Plan there should be an attitude of strategic versus operational – the long term versus the short term. He asked which plan would study the matching of recreational needs with City-owned property.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern replied that this would be the Parks Master Plan.

Councilman Clark agreed that it was important to consider strategic vs. tactical and that updating the technical aspects could be accomplished in phases.

Councilman Gardiner wondered how the move is made from strategic to improving recreation by possibly using the Civic Center property.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern suggested that as a start, staff be directed to bring the General Plan statements mentioned by City Manager Evans to the Council for the initial focus and to provide an opportunity for public input. He said that another first step would be to update the factual aspect.

Councilman Clark added that the community-wide task force would help the Council sort it out. He inquired if staff was aware of cities which have approached revisions online.

Director Rojas said that he was not aware of any.

City Attorney Lynch cautioned that even though the Council had a lot of license to write the General Plan there were mandatory elements such as goals and objectives.

Councilman Clerk moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to (1) Provide documents on the City website. (2) Establish a Community-Wide Task Force. (3) Encourage the use of local talent. (4) Bring back to Council list of policies from General Plan. (4) Update in phases, with state-mandated documents first. (5) Direction of update to include: correction inaccuracies, elimination of policies which no longer apply, and re-affirmation of incorporation principles. Motion carried.

City Manager Evans suggested that the City contract with someone to concert the General Plan into a Word document rather than scanning.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:


Councilwoman Ferraro thanked the Council and staff for the plant she and her mother received upon the death of her father.

Councilman Gardiner passed on a concern received in a resident’s letter about a problem with vehicles parking on this resident’s private street and wondered in what manner these types of problems were addressed.

City Manager Evans said that he too had seen the letter and would have staff investigate. He wondered why the Homeowners Association was not getting involved.

Mayor McTaggart said that it was his understanding that the Sheriff’s Department would provide enforcement if requested by the Homeowners Association.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern reported that he and Councilman Clerk had met for an hour on Saturday, January 5, with Kurt Nelson, Jack Cameron, Greg Delgado, representing JCC Homes, regarding the potential development at the California Water Service site. He said they walked the site and JCC advised them of modifications they intended to propose. (A copy of Mayor Pro Tem Stern’ disclosure is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.

Councilman Clark added that JCC said that they had contacted other members of the Council and staff members to explore the conceptual revisions to the project.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that Councilmembers could meet individually with developers to hear about a project, if they cautioned the developer that meaningful discussion had to take place at a duly noticed public hearing at a City Council meeting.  She said that this procedure was acceptable as long as disclosure about any facts learned from the developer, which were not presented as part of the public hearing, were disclosed at the hearing and were made a part of the public record, and Councilmembers did not make any commitments or decisions during a discussion with a developer.

Councilman Clark confirmed that he and Mayor Pro Tem Stern did not discuss what their decision might be and only received input from the developer of proposed conceptual changes.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern added that there was little reaction from him or Councilman Clark and they suggested that JCC Homes seek input from residents before the matter appeared again on a Council agenda.

Councilman Clark asked if JCC Homes had contacted staff and City Manager Evans and Director Rojas said that they were unaware of any contact with staff.

Mayor McTaggart stated that he had not been contacted.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:


There were no requests to speak.


RECESS, RECONVENE, AND ADJOURNMENT:


At 1:50 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess to the Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority, and Closed Session meetings. The regular Council meeting reconvened at 2:30 P.M. and, after a closed session report from City Attorney Lynch in which she reported no action was taken on either of the two items, the meeting was immediately adjourned to Monday, January 14, at 3:30 P.M. at Assemblymember Lowenthal’s office in Sacramento.


____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________
CITY CLERK






3. Award Contract for Services to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Construction of a New Single-Family Residence. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional services agreement in an amount not to exceed $18,380 with RBF Consulting to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for proposed construction of a new single-family residence on vacant property located at 3787 Coolheights Drive.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO PREPARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.

Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional services agreement in an amount not to exceed $18,380 with RBF Consulting, to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for proposed construction of a new single-family residence on vacant property located at 3787 Coolheights Drive

BACKGROUND

The subject applications, Height Variation No. 899, Grading Permit No. 2151 and Minor Exception Permit No. 575 were originally scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission at its November 14, 2000 meeting. During the public noticing period, Staff received several comment letters from surrounding property owners expressing concerns with the proposed development. The concerns raised pertain to potential view impairment, trail access, brush clearance, habitat impacts, and road improvements. As such, Staff determined that further investigation and additional studies were required to provide the Commission with sufficient information needed to render a decision on the proposed project. Therefore, at the November 14th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled the public hearing to a uncertain date.

In response to additional investigation conducted by Staff to address the concerns raised by the public, it was determined that the Fire Department’s brush clearance requirement for the proposed project would remove Coastal Sage Scrub habitat, which is considered protected habitat. Therefore, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project could no longer be considered a categorical exemption, thus requiring the preparation of an Initial Study to determine the level of significance with the disturbance of protected habitat along with any mitigation that may be required.

Based on potential impacts the proposed project may have on the surrounding neighborhood and environment, Staff determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be necessary to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a result, Staff began the process to select a qualified consultant to prepare the required environmental documents. Staff is now seeking Council authorization to award the contract to the selected environmental consultant.

DISCUSSION

On September 20, 2001, Staff sent a Request For Proposal (RFP) to seven (7) consulting firms within the greater Los Angeles area describing the "scope of work", "project description" and the "form of qualifications" needed to select a consultant for the preparation of the required environmental documents. In response to the RFP, the following two (2) firms submitted a proposal to the Planning Department (see attachment):

  • P & D Environmental Services - $18,055.00
  • RBF Consulting - $18,380.00

After reviewing the two proposals, with respect to the consultants’ level of experience with similar projects, understanding of the proposed project and its potential impacts, and time schedule, it appeared that both firms were highly qualified to prepare the required environmental documents. Notwithstanding, Staff selected RBF Consulting because this firm recently prepared the Environmental Impact Report for the Long Point project and is familiar with the City’s policy on habitat protection and the City’s involvement with the Resource Agencies. Therefore, based on RBF’s familiarity with the City’s procedures pertaining to habitat protection and preservation, Staff believes that RBF Consulting is the appropriate consultant to complete the required environmental documents.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

With respect to processing the project applications as well as the required environmental documents, upon the completion of the Initial Study (mid-February), which identifies the potential environmental impacts caused by the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. The Mitigated Negative Declaration along with the Initial Study will be distributed to Local and State Agencies as well as interested parties inviting comments on the prepared environmental documents. Furthermore, the Planning Commission will conduct a duly noticed public hearing to consider the merits of the project applications as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff anticipates the public hearing to occur in late March.

CONCLUSION

Staff recommends that the Council authorize Staff to execute a professional services agreement, for the Mayor’s signature, in an amount not to exceed $18,380.00 with RBF Consulting for preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for proposed construction of a new single-family residence.

FISCAL IMPACT

The preparation of the required environmental documents for the proposed residential construction will not directly impact the City’s General Fund nor will it have a fiscal impact to the City in that all costs associated with the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be incurred by the project applicant, Mr. Joe Nassiri.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

  • Professional Services Agreement
  • Proposal by RBF Consulting
  • P & D Environmental Services Proposal


AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES

THIS AGREEMENT is executed this 5th day of February, 2002 by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (hereinafter called "CITY"), and RBF Consulting (hereinafter called ("CONSULTANT").

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the CITY received a development application from Mr. Joe Nassiri, requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence on a vacant parcel located at 3787 Coolheights Drive. The subject lot is located in an area designated by the CITY’S Zoning Map as a RS-1 (Single-Family residential) zoning district, as well as the City’s Natural and Urban Overlay Control Districts, which allow the use of a single-family residence with the review of the appropriate development applications. Said project will require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is described in the City's Request for Proposal (RFP) dated September 29, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and CITY'S Local Guidelines require the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) related to the proposed project; and,

WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that it is professionally qualified and able to prepare the necessary MND in compliance with the applicable state laws and state, local guidelines, and in a format consistent with CEQA requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

Section 1. CONSULTANT'S Services. Consultant shall perform professional services by preparing the proposed Environmental Documentation for the project as set forth in the "Scope of Work", attached hereto as Section II of Exhibit "A" and made part hereof by reference, including the following services:

(a) CONSULTANT, shall prepare and provide the CITY with the following documents: (1) An Initial Study Checklist; (2) a Notice of Preparation of a Draft MND, (3) a Final MND including revisions per responses, (4) a Mitigating Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (5) a Notice of Determination, as specified in Section II of Exhibit "A".

The environmental documentation shall be prepared in compliance with the "Scope of Work" attached as Section II of Exhibit "A" and shall contain all items required by CEQA (as amended), the State Guidelines, and CITY'S Local CEQA Guidelines.

(b) When requested, CONSULTANT shall attend and participate in meetings with CITY staff as well as Public Hearings, which are necessary for the preparation and completion of the environmental documentation. For which CONSULTANT is requested to attend by CITY beyond the number of meetings identified in Section II of Exhibit ‘A’, CONSULTANT shall be compensated on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Budget" contained in Section VII of Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

(c) CONSULTANT shall supply CITY with the deliverables described in the "Scope of Work" attached as Section II of Exhibit "A", including the following documents for the proposed project:

    1. Administrative Draft and final Initial Study (IS)/Notice of Preparation (NOP)

    2. Administrative Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND)

    3. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with revisions per comments

    4. Mitigation Monitoring Program

    5. Notice of Determination

    6. Computer files for all documentation, with processing documents in a format useable by Microsoft Word.

(d) All reports, information, data and exhibits prepared or assembled by CONSULTANT or any subconsultants in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public, and CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without prior written consent of the CITY prior to such release. All such reports, information, data and exhibits shall be delivered to CITY upon demand without additional cost or expense to CITY. All charts, tables, figures, and maps, which are prepared with computer-based mapping or spreadsheet programs, shall be provided to CITY in their original formats.

(e) CONSULTANT shall respond to those comments raised by CITY staff's review of the documents in order to facilitate completion thereof.

(f) This agreement and the scope of work to be performed by CONSULTANT may only be amended in a written document executed by both of the parties to this agreement.

Section 2. Time of Performance. CONSULTANT shall timely perform the services described above as shown in the schedule within the attached Section III of Exhibit "A".

Section 3. Compensation. CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT, and CONSULTANT agrees to accept in full satisfaction for the services provided for hereunder, a fixed fee not to exceed $18,380.00 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which includes all labor and subconsultant costs, as described in the "Budget" contained in attached Section VII of Exhibit "A". In addition, this fixed fee shall include all expenses for printing, word processing, delivery, fax, phones, mileage, etc. Prior to printing of any documents, CONSULTANT shall verify with CITY the total number of documents to reproduce.

Not included in this fixed fee are expenses incurred for attending meetings beyond those specified in Section 1.(b) of this contract; analysis of key issues in addition to those identified in attached Section II of Exhibit "A", changes in the project description, plans, or scope of work requiring additional work; and printing additional copies of any document beyond the number of copies specified in Section II of Exhibit "A".

The actual costs of CONSULTANT'S services and expenses shall be itemized on the Invoice form, and CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for said undisputed services and expenses. Payments shall be made based upon Consultant's monthly invoices up to the maximum amounts set forth in the following schedule:

MND

Benchmark Item

Maximum Amount of Payments*

Initial Study/Notice of Preparation

$6,670.00

Response to Comments on Draft MND

$10,670.00

Preparation of Mitigation Monitoring Program/Final MND

$12,810.00

Notice of Determination

$18,380.00

*The maximum amount of payments serves as a cap on payments until the correlated benchmark item is completed, therefore completion of one benchmark item allows for billing up to the maximum identified for the following benchmark item. All amounts of payments shall be less the 5% retention.

Any work approved pursuant to section 1(f) of this agreement shall be included in the appropriate segment of the foregoing schedule, as determined by the City, and the maximum billing amounts shall be adjusted accordingly.

Five percent (5%) of each bill submitted by CONSULTANT shall be held by CITY in a retention account. The retained funds will be released to CONSULTANT when the environmental documentation project is successfully completed by the submittal of the final Notice of Determination.

If CONSULTANT is requested by CITY to revise or supplement the environmental documentation with additional data, information or analysis solely as a result of the CONSULTANT'S failure to comply with the requirements of CEQA, or the State or local CEQA Guidelines, CONSULTANT shall provide such revision or supplement at no additional cost to the CITY.

If changes to existing laws, rules, regulations or policies of any state, federal or local governmental authority having jurisdiction over the project occur, new, unforeseen issues arise, or comments on the documents are received from attorneys other than the City Attorney during or following the circulation of the draft environmental document, during the term of this Agreement that require modification of the environmental documentation, CONSULTANT will perform such additional services on a time-and-materials basis, at the rates set forth in Section VII of Exhibit "A".

The CITY and CONSULTANT hereby acknowledge and agree that the terms of CONSULTANT'S compensation are not dependent upon the CITY'S final action on the Project.

Section 4. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT will act hereunder as an independent contractor. This Agreement shall not and is not intended to constitute CONSULTANT as an agent, servant, or employee of the CITY and shall not and is not intended to create the relationship of partnership, joint venture or association between the CITY and CONSULTANT.

Section 5. Assignment. This agreement may not be assigned in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of CITY.

Section 6. Consultant. Responsible Principal and Project Manager. The CONSULTANT shall have a Responsible Principal and a Project Manager who shall be principally responsible for the CONSULTANT'S obligations under this Agreement and who shall serve as principal liaison between CITY and CONSULTANT. The name of the responsible project manager is Glenn Lajoie. Designation of another Responsible Principal or Project Manager by CONSULTANT shall not be made without the prior written consent of CITY.

Section 7. Personnel. CONSULTANT represents that it has, or shall secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform CONSULTANT'S services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT may associate with or employ associates or subconsultants in the performance of its services under this Agreement, but at all times shall be responsible for their services. CONSULTANT may not employ additional subconsultants without prior written approval of CITY. Provisions of this agreement set forth in section 1 (d) above shall be incorporated into any and all subcontracts.

Section 8. City: Liaison. CONSULTANT shall perform under the general supervision of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of CITY ("Director") or his or her designee, and all communications, instructions and directions on the part of the CITY shall be communicated exclusively through the Director or his or her designee. Any direct communication between CONSULTANT and the project proponent shall be appropriately authorized as determined by the Director.

Section 9. Data and Services to be Furnished by CITY. All information, data, records, reports and maps as are in possession of CITY and necessary for the carrying out of this work shall be available to CONSULTANT without charge.

Section 10. Interests of CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT affirms that it presently has no interest and shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the services contemplated by this Agreement. No person having any such interest shall be employed by or be associated with the CONSULTANT or any subconsultant.

The parties agree:

(a) CITY has sole discretion to direct the work and evaluate the performance of CONSULTANT and CITY retains the right to terminate this Agreement or replace CONSULTANT at any time, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 herein.

(b) CITY has sole discretion to determine the amount of compensation paid to CONSULTANT, in accordance with the provisions of this agreement.

(c) CITY shall pay CONSULTANT from a CITY account under the exclusive control of CITY.

Section 11. Insurance.CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY certificates indicating compliance with the following minimum insurance requirements, to be maintained during the term of this agreement, not less than one (1) day prior to the beginning of performance under this Agreement.

1. Worker's Compensation Insurance to cover its employees as required by the California Labor Code.

The CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors similarly to provide such compensation insurance for their respective employees.

2. General liability protecting CONSULTANT in an amount no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Automobile liability protecting CONSULTANT in an amount not less than $500,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Employer's liability protecting CONSULTANT in an amount no less than $1,000,000 per accident, bodily injury or disease. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement professional errors and omissions insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim, and in the aggregate. Such policies of insurance shall:

(a) Be issued by an insurance company which is admitted to conduct business in the State of California and which is rated in Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of A VII or better.

(b) Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, name and list as additional insured the CITY, its officers and employees.

(c) Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, such insurance policies shall be primary to any other similar insurance and shall name the CITY, its officers, agents and employees, as additional insureds. Each insurance policy shall contain a provision that prohibits cancellation, without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the CITY. The insurance certificates evidencing such insurance and endorsements naming the CITY, its officers, employees, and agents as additional insureds, shall be submitted to the CITY for review and thereafter the CITY shall have the right to approve or disapprove any insurance procured by CONSULTANT under the standards of this section.

Procurement of insurance by CONSULTANT shall not be construed as a limitation of CONSULTANT'S liability or as full performance of CONSULTANT'S duties to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend under this Agreement.

(d) Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, indemnify the CITY from liability from loss, damage or injury to persons or to property arising from CONSULTANT'S negligent acts in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.

(e) Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, include a severability of interests clause substantially similar to the following: "The insurance afforded by this policy applies separately to each insured against whom a claim or suit is made or suit it brought, except with respect to the limit of the insurer's liability."

(f) Contain a clause substantially in the following words: "It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy shall not be canceled nor materially changed except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the CITY of such cancellation.

(g) Cover the operations of CONSULTANT pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

(h) Acceptable to the City Attorney, and failure to comply with these insurance requirements shall be a material breach of the Agreement.

3. CONSULTANT shall not commence the performance of its services under this contract until the above insurance has been obtained and appropriate Certificates of Insurance have been filed with CITY. CONSULTANT further agrees that a clause substantially similar to this Section 11 will be included in any subcontract executed under this contract.

Section 12. Indemnification. CONSULTANT agrees to defend and indemnify the City, its officers, employees, and agents against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations, liabilities, and costs, including but not limited to reasonable costs of defense, that may be claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision or other organization to the extent caused by the negligent acts or intentional tortious acts, errors or omission of CONSULTANT or those for whom CONSULTANT is legally responsible. However, if any information or data prepared or provided by consultant is misused by an agent of the City, consultant shall not be responsible for such misuse of data.

Section 13. Termination. The executory provisions of this Agreement may be terminated by CITY upon five (5) days written notice to the CONSULTANT without further action by CITY. The executory provisions of this agreement may be terminated by the CONSULTANT upon thirty (30) days written notice to the CITY. In the event of such termination by the CITY, the CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT for work satisfactorily completed to date of such termination, but in no event to exceed the compensation described in Section 3 of this agreement, based on the percentage of completion of CONSULTANT's work on the date of termination, provided such work is in a form usable by CITY.

Section 14. Notice. Any notice or materials required to be given to the CONSULTANT shall be deemed duly and properly given upon delivery, if sent to CONSULTANT postage prepaid to:

Glenn Lajoie, AICP
RBF Consulting
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618

or personally delivered to CONSULTANT at such address or other address specified to the CITY in writing by CONSULTANT.

Any notice or materials required to be given to the CITY shall be deemed duly and properly given upon delivery, if sent to the CITY postage prepaid to:

Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
c/o City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

or personally delivered to CITY at such address or other address specified to the CONSULTANT in writing by the CITY.

Section 15. Entire Agreement. This agreement represents the entire integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.

Section 16. Litigation Costs. Should any dispute under this Agreement lead to litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees for the prosecution of the action.

Section 17. Applicable Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action arising from this Agreement, including but not limited to matters concerning validity, construction, performance or enforcement shall be exclusively in the state or federal courts located in Los Angeles County.

Section 18. Merger Clause. This Agreement and its Exhibits are the entire understanding of the parties, and there are no other terms or conditions, written or oral, controlling this matter. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and any of its Exhibits, the provisions of this agreement shall prevail.

Section 19. Provisions Cumulative. The foregoing are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the CITY.

Section 20. Anti-Waiver Clause. None of the provisions contained herein shall be waived because of previous failure to insist upon strict performance, nor shall any provision be waived because any other provision has been waived in whole or in part.

EXECUTED the day and year first stated above.

"CITY"
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

By _____________________________________
John McTaggart, Mayor

"CONSULTANT"
RBF Consulting

By______________________________________


_________________________ ___
(Name/Title)

Exhibits:

Proposal to Prepare Environmental Documents





4. Agreement for Professional Services with Geotechnical Review Panel Members. (Pfost)

Recommendation: Approve agreements for professional services with Ben Yen, Glenn Brown and Monte Ray.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: AGREEMENTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Deputy Planning Director

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed Agreements for Professional Services between the City and Bing Yen, the City and Glenn Brown, and the City and Monte Ray.

BACKGROUND

From time to time, the City has retained one or more geologic and/or geotechnical experts to review determinations made by other experts in those fields. Frequently, several experts from different disciplines have been retained by the City and comprise a "panel of experts." Sometimes experts have been used to corroborate determinations or recommendations that have been made to the City, and on other occasions, one or more experts have been used to settle a dispute between a project expert and an expert that has been retained by the City to review the project expert’s work. In both instances, having other experts available to the City has been helpful in successfully resolving the issue.

Because these additional experts are not retained by a developer or by the City as its own expert, they usually do not collect data or prepare studies. Instead, they review studies or data that have been collected and analyzed by others. As such, they do not issue permits; they do not function as the City’s primary reviewer of technical information, and they have a limited role. Because the role of these experts is limited, they may not be employees of large companies and might not have the same professional liability insurance and financial resources available to them in case of litigation relating to their decisions.

On December 18, 2001, the City Council directed Staff to prepare agreements with members of geotechnical review panels that would indemnify and defend panel members from litigation relating to their decisions.

DISCUSSION

Cotton Shires Associates is the City's geotechnical consultant responsible for reviewing geotechnical issues pertaining to the Ocean Trails project. Shortly after the failure of Landslide C, which occurred on June 2, 1999, the City engaged the assistance of a "panel of experts" to provide additional third-party geotechnical review over the complexities surrounding the landslide repair efforts. The "panel of experts" includes Bing Yen, Glenn Brown and Monte Ray. In addition to reviewing the landslide repair, the "panel" has also been involved in the review of other geotechnical issues pertaining to Ocean Trails, such as the condition of the clay cap and the location of the foundation setback line in the proximity of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50666. The "panel" does not issue permits; they do not function as the City’s primary reviewer of technical information, and they have a limited role related to their review of the Ocean Trails project. Because the role of these experts is limited, they are not employees of large companies and do not have the same professional liability insurance and financial resources available to them in case of litigation relating to their decisions, an agreement with the City that would indemnify and defend the panel members from litigation relating to their decisions is warranted. Attached are three agreements for professional services - one for each panel member. The only difference between the agreements is the name/address of the panel member and their respective fee for service.

CONCLUSION

The attached agreements are consistent with City Council direction from the December 18, 2001 City Council meeting. For the reasons noted in this report, Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed agreements.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives:

1. Decline to execute an agreement with the panel members.

2. Identify any issues of concern with the agreements, provide Staff with any direction, and continue the item to a date certain.

FISCAL IMPACT

Each of the agreements contains a fee for service to be paid to the Consultant by the City. However, there are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision, as all fees paid to the Consultants by the City are through a Trust Deposit Account replenished by the developer.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:
Agreement with Bing Yen
Agreement with Glenn Brown
Agreement with Monte Ray



AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this ____ day of __________, 200__, by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a municipal corporation, hereinafter designated as "City", and Bing C. Yen, an individual, hereinafter designated "Consultant."

RECITALS

A.City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide City with independent third-party review of certain geological and/or geotechnical data for particular projects when requested by City in writing to do so;

B.Consultant is qualified to perform such services by virtue of his experience, training, education and expertise.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Services.

1.1 Scope and Level of Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant has been requested to provide independent third-party review of the geological and/or geotechnical data in connection with tasks of a project commonly known as Ocean Trails.

1.2 City Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, the City Representative shall be the Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, or such other person designated in writing by the Director (the "City Representative").

1.3 Time for Performance. Consultant shall commence the services under this Agreement immediately upon receipt of a written request for such services from the City Representative and shall perform all services with reasonable diligence.

2. Term

This Agreement shall be retroactive to July 15, 1999, and shall continue until terminated by either of the parties hereto in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of this Agreement.

3. Compensation. City shall pay Consultant at a rate of $200.00 per hour for all services provided under this Agreement. City shall not withhold applicable federal or state payroll or other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from each payment made to the Consultant.

4. Method of Payment.

4.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit to City invoices for all services performed pursuant to this Agreement during the preceding month. The invoices shall describe the services rendered during the period and shall show the number of hours worked, and the services that were performed.

4.2 City shall review such invoices and shall notify Consultant in writing of any disputed amounts. City shall pay all undisputed portions of the invoice within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of the invoice.

5. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances.

6. Status as Independent Contractor. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that he or any of his agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on payments City makes to Consultant for services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers’ compensation law regarding Consultant and Consultant’s employees. Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable workers’ compensation laws.

7. Ownership of Work Product. All reports, documents or other material developed or discovered by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use. Such material shall not be the subject of a copyright application by Consultant.

8.Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to financial, accounting, and statistical data of private individuals and employees of City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant’s covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

9. Conflict of Interest. Consultant and his employees, associates and sub-consultants, if any, will comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant’s services under this agreement, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000, et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and sub-consultants shall not, without the prior written approval of the City Manager, perform work for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing work that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or sub-consultants to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute.

10. Indemnification. City agrees to indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from and against any and all liability or financial loss, including legal expenses and costs of expert witnesses and consultants, resulting from any suits, claims, losses or actions brought by any person or persons, based upon the professional services provided to City by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. City agrees that City’s indemnification provided to Consultant under this Section 10 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

11. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant’s performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation that City might require. The time required from the Consultant to assist the City shall be remunerated by the City in accordance with Section 3.

12. Termination. City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason on fifteen (15) calendar day’s written notice to Consultant.  Consultant shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason on thirty (30) calendar day’s written notice to City. Consultant shall be paid for services satisfactorily rendered to the last working day the Agreement is in effect, and Consultant shall have no other claim against City by reason of such termination.

13. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports authorized or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during Consultant’s and City’s regular business hours or by facsimile before Consultant’s regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this section.

If to City:

City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275

If to Consultant:

Bing C. Yen
31132 Ceanothus Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651

14. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation.

15. Non-Assignability; Subcontracting. Consultant shall not assign or subcontract all or any portion of this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment or sub-contracting by Consultant shall be null, void and of no effect.

16. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations.

17. Non-Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default.

18. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

19. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain in effect automobile insurance in accordance with the requirements of California State law.

20. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Consultant and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement.

21. Section Headings. The section and subsection headings used herein are for reference and convenience only and shall not be used in any manner in the interpretation hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

By: _____________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:


By: ________________________
City Clerk

CONSULTANT


By: __________________________
Bing
C. Yen, PH.D., P.E., G.E.
Geotechnical Engineer



AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this ____ day of __________, 200__, by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a municipal corporation, hereinafter designated as "City", and Glenn A. Brown, an individual, hereinafter designated "Consultant."

RECITALS

A.City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide City with independent third-party review of certain geological and/or geotechnical data for particular projects when requested by City in writing to do so;

B.Consultant is qualified to perform such services by virtue of his experience, training, education and expertise.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1.Services.

1.1 Scope and Level of Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant has been requested to provide independent third-party review of the geological and/or geotechnical data in connection with tasks of a project commonly known as Ocean Trails.

1.2 City Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, the City Representative shall be the Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, or such other person designated in writing by the Director (the "City Representative").

1.3 Time for Performance. Consultant shall commence the services under this Agreement immediately upon receipt of a written request for such services from the City Representative and shall perform all services with reasonable diligence.

2.Term

This Agreement shall be retroactive to July 15, 1999, and shall continue until terminated by either of the parties hereto in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of this Agreement.

3. Compensation. City shall pay Consultant at a rate of $125.00 per hour for all services provided under this Agreement. City shall not withhold applicable federal or state payroll or other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from each payment made to the Consultant.

4. Method of Payment.

4.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit to City invoices for all services performed pursuant to this Agreement during the preceding month. The invoices shall describe the services rendered during the period and shall show the number of hours worked, and the services that were performed.

4.2 City shall review such invoices and shall notify Consultant in writing of any disputed amounts. City shall pay all undisputed portions of the invoice within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of the invoice.

5. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances.

6. Status as Independent Contractor. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that he or any of his agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on payments City makes to Consultant for services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers’ compensation law regarding Consultant and Consultant’s employees. Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable workers’ compensation laws.

7. Ownership of Work Product. All reports, documents or other material developed or discovered by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use. Such material shall not be the subject of a copyright application by Consultant.

8. Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to financial, accounting, and statistical data of private individuals and employees of City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant’s covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

9. Conflict of Interest. Consultant and his employees, associates and sub-consultants, if any, will comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant’s services under this agreement, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000, et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and sub-consultants shall not, without the prior written approval of the City Manager, perform work for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing work that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or sub-consultants to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute.

10. Indemnification. City agrees to indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from and against any and all liability or financial loss, including legal expenses and costs of expert witnesses and consultants, resulting from any suits, claims, losses or actions brought by any person or persons, based upon the professional services provided to City by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. City agrees that City’s indemnification provided to Consultant under this Section 10 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

11. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant’s performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation that City might require. The time required from the Consultant to assist the City shall be remunerated by the City in accordance with Section 3.

12. Termination. City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason on fifteen (15) calendar day’s written notice to Consultant.  Consultant shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason on thirty (30) calendar day’s written notice to City. Consultant shall be paid for services satisfactorily rendered to the last working day the Agreement is in effect, and Consultant shall have no other claim against City by reason of such termination.

13. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports authorized or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during Consultant’s and City’s regular business hours or by facsimile before Consultant’s regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this section.

If to City:

City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275

If to Consultant:

Glenn A. Brown
3212 Whitney Lane
Burbank, CA 91504

14. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation.

15. Non-Assignability; Subcontracting. Consultant shall not assign or subcontract all or any portion of this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment or sub-contracting by Consultant shall be null, void and of no effect.

16. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations.

17. Non-Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default.

18. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

19. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain in effect automobile insurance in accordance with the requirements of California State law.

20. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Consultant and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement.

21. Section Headings. The section and subsection headings used herein are for reference and convenience only and shall not be used in any manner in the interpretation hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES


By: _____________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:


By: ________________________
City Clerk

CONSULTANT

 

By: __________________________
Glenn A. Brown
Consulting Geologist

 



AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this ____ day of __________, 200__, by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a municipal corporation, hereinafter designated as "City", and Monte E. Ray, an individual, hereinafter designated "Consultant."

RECITALS

A.City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide City with independent third-party review of certain geological and/or geotechnical data for particular projects when requested by City in writing to do so;

B.Consultant is qualified to perform such services by virtue of his experience, training, education and expertise.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1.Services.

1.1 Scope and Level of Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant has been requested to provide independent third-party review of the geological and/or geotechnical data in connection with tasks of a project commonly known as Ocean Trails.

1.2 City Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, the City Representative shall be the Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, or such other person designated in writing by the Director (the "City Representative").

1.3 Time for Performance. Consultant shall commence the services under this Agreement immediately upon receipt of a written request for such services from the City Representative and shall perform all services with reasonable diligence.

2.Term

This Agreement shall be retroactive to July 15, 1999, and shall continue until terminated by either of the parties hereto in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of this Agreement.

3. Compensation. City shall pay Consultant at a rate of $100.00 per hour for all services provided under this Agreement. City shall not withhold applicable federal or state payroll or other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from each payment made to the Consultant.

4. Method of Payment.

4.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit to City invoices for all services performed pursuant to this Agreement during the preceding month. The invoices shall describe the services rendered during the period and shall show the number of hours worked, and the services that were performed.

4.2 City shall review such invoices and shall notify Consultant in writing of any disputed amounts. City shall pay all undisputed portions of the invoice within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of the invoice.

5. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances.

6. Status as Independent Contractor. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that he or any of his agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on payments City makes to Consultant for services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers’ compensation law regarding Consultant and Consultant’s employees. Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable workers’ compensation laws.

7. Ownership of Work Product. All reports, documents or other material developed or discovered by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use. Such material shall not be the subject of a copyright application by Consultant.

8. Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to financial, accounting, and statistical data of private individuals and employees of City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant’s covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

9. Conflict of Interest. Consultant and his employees, associates and sub-consultants, if any, will comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant’s services under this agreement, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000, et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and sub-consultants shall not, without the prior written approval of the City Manager, perform work for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing work that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or sub-consultants to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute.

10. Indemnification. City agrees to indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from and against any and all liability or financial loss, including legal expenses and costs of expert witnesses and consultants, resulting from any suits, claims, losses or actions brought by any person or persons, based upon the professional services provided to City by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. City agrees that City’s indemnification provided to Consultant under this Section 10 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

11. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant’s performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation that City might require. The time required from the Consultant to assist the City shall be remunerated by the City in accordance with Section 3.

12. Termination. City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason on fifteen (15) calendar day’s written notice to Consultant.  Consultant shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason on thirty (30) calendar day’s written notice to City. Consultant shall be paid for services satisfactorily rendered to the last working day the Agreement is in effect, and Consultant shall have no other claim against City by reason of such termination.

13. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports authorized or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during Consultant’s and City’s regular business hours or by facsimile before Consultant’s regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this section.

If to City:

City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275

If to Consultant:

Monte E. Ray
29461 Green Grass Ct.
Agoura Hills, CA 91301

14. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation.

15. Non-Assignability; Subcontracting. Consultant shall not assign or subcontract all or any portion of this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment or sub-contracting by Consultant shall be null, void and of no effect.

16. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations.

17. Non-Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default.

18. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

19. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain in effect automobile insurance in accordance with the requirements of California State law.

20. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Consultant and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement.

21. Section Headings. The section and subsection headings used herein are for reference and convenience only and shall not be used in any manner in the interpretation hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES


By: _____________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:


By: ________________________
City Clerk

CONSULTANT


By: __________________________
Monte E. Ray
Engineering Geologist





5. December 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: DECEMBER 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the December 2001 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit an investment report to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. The City has elected to submit a treasurer’s report to the Council for review each month. This report summarizes the cash activity associated with all funds of the City. A separate treasurer’s report is prepared monthly for both the Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority and is presented under separate cover before their respective governing bodies. The attached treasurer's report includes the cash activities of the City for the month of December 2001.

ANALYSIS:

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $26,573,174 at December 31, 2001. This represents a $1,219,601 increase during the month. The overall increase is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

General Fund – The cash balance in the General fund increased by over $1,270,000 during the month of December. This increase was primarily due to the receipt of the December property tax apportionment of approximately $1,260,000. Property taxes are due in December and April; therefore, the City receives the largest apportionment payments of the year in those months.

Gas Tax Fund – The cash balance in the Gas Tax fund decreased by over $107,000 during the month of December. The decrease was primarily comprised of two non-recurring disbursements: $35,101 to Hardy & Harper for right-of-way debris basin maintenance and $46,946 to Damon Construction for Sidewalk Repairs.

1972 Act Fund – During December, fund cash increased by over $120,000. The increase was primarily due to the receipt of December property tax apportionment of approximately $128,000.

1911 Act Fund – During December, fund cash increased by over $80,000. The increase was primarily due to the receipt of December property tax apportionment of approximately $110,000. There was a routine disbursement of approximately $22,000 to Southern California Edison for November street light maintenance and electricity.

Special Trusts Fund – The cash balance in this fund decreased by almost $64,000 during the month. Cash fluctuations in the Special Trusts fund are caused by timing differences of payments to and from the City for various services including engineering and inspections. The December decrease was primarily due to a disbursement of approximately $41,000 to Cotton, Shires & Associates on behalf of Ocean Trails.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



6. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


REGULAR BUSINESS:





7. Beautification Grant Funding and Program Options. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: Provide direction to staff regarding the characteristics of the neighborhood beautification grant program.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: BEAUTIFICATION GRANT FUNDING AND PROGRAM OPTIONS

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

Provide direction to staff regarding the characteristics of the neighborhood beautification grant program.

BACKGROUND

Following the September 18, 2001 City Council meeting, the funding for the neighborhood beautification grant was redirected toward the Hawthorne Boulevard beautification project. However, at the January 12, 2002 City Council meeting, the funding for the grant program was once again reinstated and staff was directed to increase the grant funding. Meanwhile, the Hawthorne Boulevard project was stopped pending further studies.

DISCUSSION

Funding for the beautification grants comes from City’s Recycling Fund. The primary sources of funding are the California Redemption Value (CRV) of recycled beverage containers from the residential curbside program and the fixed annual amount received from the residential haulers. The Recycling Fund receives annual revenues as follows:

A fixed amount from its residential haulers (as part of the Collector Fee)

**$ 80,000

Gross receipts from beverage containers redeemed from the residential curbside program (CRV)

* $120,000

The City’s share of State Curbside Supplemental Payments

* $ 40,000

State Beverage Container Recycling Block Grant

$ 13,000

Total Revenues

$ 253,000


*These amounts fluctuate slightly from year to year and are not a fixed annual amount

** This amount can change at the direction of the City Council, effective July 2002.

In addition to funding the beautification grant program, the City has traditionally used it’s Recycling Fund for the Recycler of the Month Program, litter pickup along the City’s right-of-way areas, servicing recycling bins at parks, and designing and constructing various median improvements such as on PVDW and PVDE.

The adopted fiscal year 2001-02 budget identifies the following expenses for the Recycling Fund:

Annual Neighborhood Beautification Grant Program

$ 82,000*

Recycler of the Month program

$ 7,000

Litter pickup along the City’s arterial roadways

$ 10,000

Servicing recycling bins at City parks and trails

$ 3,000

Median design and construction

$100,000

Personal Services, Administrative and Overhead

$ 15,000

Total

$ 217,000


* This is the program budget prior to any changes.

Not appropriated Annual Recycling Fund Revenue (Approx.) $36,000
(This amount can be used towards any of the above listed programs)

Note: The estimated FY 01-02 ending fund balance is $431,000.

ALTERNATIVES

Staff is providing the following options for the neighborhood beautification grant program for consideration by the City Council:

  1. The City increases the grant maximum from $2,500 per grant to $3,000 per grant, without requiring any match from the HOA. That is a $500, or 20% increase per grant. This will increase the grant program expenditures by approximately $15,000 a year.

  2. The City increases the grant maximum from $2,500 per grant to $3,500 per grant, without requiring any match from the HOA. This is a $1,000, or 40% increase per grant. This will increase the grant program expenditures by approximately $30,000 a year.

  3. The City will continue to offer grants up to $2,500 without requiring any match from the HOA. Grant requests greater than $2,500 will require an equal dollar-to-dollar match up to a maximum grant amount of $4,000. This would allow the HOA to construct a project equal to $5,500.

  4. The City will offer grants up to $3,000 without requiring any match from the HOA. Grant requests greater than $3,000 will require an equal dollar-to-dollar match up to a maximum grant amount of $4,000. This would allow the HOA to construct a project equal to $5,000.

  5. Any other option that the City Council approves.

Schools and Library: The City requires a dollar-to-dollar match from the City schools and library. That requirement will not change. However, staff recommends that the current grant maximum of $2,500, change (if needed) so that the schools and the library continue to have the same grant maximum that will be offered to the HOAs.

Notification: Staff will continue to notify all known HOAs, the City schools and library about the program by mailing notices/letters, and placing a notice/article in the City newsletter. Staff will additionally use the City website and the Reader Board to increase public awareness of this program.

OPTION

MAXIMUM
CITY GRANT PAYMENT

REQUIRED MATCH from HOA

GRANT plus MATCH
TOTAL

TOTAL INCREASE IN PROGRAM (based on 30 applications a year)

% Increase in current $2,500 individual grant amount maximum

1

$3,000

$ 0

$3,000

$15,000 increase

20%

2

$3,500

$ 0

$3,500

$30,000 increase

40%

3

$2,500 - $4,000

$0 -
$1,500
(dollar-to-dollar match for any request exceeding $2,500)

$2,500- $5,500

$0 -
$45,000 increase

0% -
60%

4

$3,000 - $4,000

$0 -
$1,000
(dollar-to-dollar match for any request exceeding $3,000)

$3,000-$5,000

$15,000 - $45,000 increase

20% -
60%

 

FISCAL IMPACT

The Recycling Fund funds the Neighborhood Beautification Grant program. Any increase in the grant amounts will be paid for from the Recycling Fund. There is approximately $36,000 annual revenue in the Recycling Fund that is currently not appropriated to any specific project. Therefore, options 1 and 2 can be fully funded without using the Recycling Fund balance. A portion of Options 3 and 4 can also be

funded without using the Fund balance. However, depending on the number of applicants, the Recycling Fund balance may be needed. The Recycling Fund's anticipated FY 01-02 ending balance is $431,000. Listed below is a summary of the needed funding:

Option

Additional Cost (annually)

Use of Current Revenues (annually)

Use of Fund Balance (annually)

1

$15,000

$15,000

$0

2

$30,000

$30,000

$0

3

$0 -
$45,000

$0 -
$36,000

$0 -
$9,000

4

$15,000 -
$45,000

$15,000 -
$36,000

$0 -
$9,000

 

Respectfully Submitted:
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager




8.Traffic Calming on Via Rivera. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Approve the installation of a series of speed humps along Via Rivera Avenue between Rue De La Pierre and Via Del Mar in accordance with the City’s Traffic Calming Program. (2) Authorize the expenditure of up to $40,000 for the engineering and construction of speed humps, signs and pavement markings along Via Rivera. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLITION 2001-43, THE BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CALMING ON VIA RIVERA

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Approve the installation of a series of speed humps along Via Rivera between Rue de la Pierre and Via Del Mar in accordance with the City’s Traffic Calming Program.

  2. Authorize the expenditure of up to $ 40,000 for the engineering and construction of speed humps, signs and pavement markings along Via Rivera.

  3. Adopt Resolution 2002- xx, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Amending Resolution 2001- 43. The Budget Resolution for fiscal Year 2001-02, for a budget adjustment to the City’s General Fund

BACKGROUND

On May 19, 1998 the City Council adopted the Citywide Traffic Calming Program. The objective of the program is to improve the livability of neighborhoods and to minimize adverse impacts of vehicular traffic along impacted residential roadways. The program identifies a procedure for the evaluation of neighborhood traffic concerns and implementation of control measures. Attached is a flow chart outlining the steps in the program.

In early 1999, property owners along Via Rivera submitted a petition to the Department of Public Works asking for a traffic investigation. The neighborhood is impacted by traffic from the Point Vicente Elementary School, which is located on the interior of the tract. See attached. A traffic investigation began but was placed on hold pending the outcome of a pilot program for speed humps on Basswood Avenue. In September 2000, the City Council determined that the Basswood Avenue project was successful, and that speed humps would be considered elsewhere in the city.

In January 2001 the City resumed the traffic investigation along Via Rivera. Traffic count data and radar speed survey data was collected. Accident information was reviewed. The investigation observed and concluded the following:

    • Via Rivera provides the primary access to the neighborhood and the Point Vicente Elementary School
    • The 85th percentile vehicle speed on Via Rivera is 35-36 MPH.
    • There have been six reported accidents in the neighborhood; three on Via Rivera between Rue La Fleur and Via Borica and three on Via Borica near Via Rivera. None of these accidents occurred in the segment of Via Rivera being recommended for speed humps.

An important aspect of the traffic-calming program is that it establishes thresholds for both traffic volumes and vehicle speeds for a roadway before traffic calming may be considered. The measured traffic characteristics on Via Rivera meet these thresholds:

CRITERIA

REQUIREMENT

OBSERVED DATA

Average Traffic Volumes:
Daily /Hourly

1500 vehicles per day
150 vehicles per hour

2281 vehicles per day
366-321 vehicles per hour

Percent of Vehicles
Exceeding 25mph

67 Percent

91 Percent


Attempts were made to reduce vehicle speeds through a program of increased enforcement, however, reduced vehicle speeds were short lived. As a result of these findings, the City’s Traffic Engineer worked with the neighborhood to propose traffic calming measures for the neighborhood. The following traffic calming measures were considered:

    1. Entrance Treatments - Entrance treatments are designed to discourage cut through traffic, they are not effective in reducing vehicle speeds. Cut through traffic is not the issue on Via Rivera, since most motorists on the roadway have a destination within the tract.

    2. Speed Humps – Speed humps have proven to be effective in reducing vehicle speeds. To a lesser degree speed humps reduce the volume of cut through traffic.


    3. Curb Extensions or Chokers - Curb extensions will likely reduce vehicle speeds, however, they have not proven to be as successful as speed humps. Construction of curb extensions will also eliminate on-street parking, which is undesirable.

    4. Traffic Circles – There is no logical location for this alternative.

    5. Roundabouts - Roundabouts are generally used on higher volume roadways and would not be appropriate as a traffic calming measure on Via Rivera.

    6. Diagonal, Diverters, Semi-Diverters or Half Closures – These devices are designed to discourage cut through traffic by creating a longer path for vehicle using a roadway as a cut through. As discussed above, cut through traffic is not the issue on Via Rivera.

After considering these and other measures, the Traffic Engineer recommended that speed humps be installed on Via Rivera from Rue de la Pierre to Via Del Mar. The recommendation was presented at the October 22, 2001 Traffic Committee Meeting. Property owners in the entire neighborhood were given notice of the meeting. After considerable testimony, the Traffic Committee unanimously agreed with the Traffic Engineer’s recommendation. Attached is a map showing the notification area.

In accordance with the Traffic Calming Program a new petition was next circulated in November 2001 to property owners in the segment of Via Rivera where speed humps are proposed. The petition stated that speed humps are proposed but since a final design has not been prepared, it did not state exact locations of the speed humps. In November 2001 the neighborhood returned petitions signed by 94 percent of property owners.

During the course of the several Traffic Committee meetings, the City received written letters, e-mails and phone calls from seven individuals in opposition to the speed humps. Those in opposition state traffic delays, personal inconvenience, and damage to vehicles as the principal reasons for their opposition.

CONCLUSIONS

The property owners along Via Rivera submitted a petition requesting that a traffic study be conducted in their neighborhood. The study concluded that the neighborhood is impacted by traffic and meets the requirements of the City’s Traffic Calming Program. After consideration of various traffic calming measures, the City’s Traffic Engineer and Traffic Committee recommend the installation of speed humps on Via Rivera from Rue de la Pierre to Via Del Mar. Ninety four percent of the property owners signed a petition in support of speed humps.

Adopting the staff recommendation will approve the installation of a series of speed humps and provide the required funds to do so. With this funding, plans for speed humps will be prepared and presented to the Traffic Committee. Once approved by the committee, the construction project will be advertised and brought to the City Council for award.

ALTERNATIVES

Deny the request for speed humps, and request staff, the Traffic Committee, and the Via Rivera property owners, to work together to determine if an alternate solution can be worked out which addresses the needs of the neighborhood.

FISCAL IMPACT

The estimated total cost to install the speed humps is $ 40,000.

Installation of humps

$ 24,000

Installation of signs pavement markings

$ 10,000

Engineering, Inspection, and Administration

$ 6,000

Total

$ 40,000


Funding for this project is not included in the adopted FY 2001-02 Budget. The attached resolution provides the necessary funding using General Funds.

A history of past budget adjustments which impact the General Fund is attached.

Submitted by,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Resolution 2002-__
Past General Fund Adjustments
Location Map
Flow Chart of Traffic Calming Process
Map of notification area
Petition
Copies of Letters and E-Mails



9. Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts – Proposed Assessment Deferral Loans. (McLean)

Recommendation: Consider the Finance Advisory Committee’s recommendations as listed on Page 7 of their report.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: EARL BUTLER, CHAIR, FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS –

PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL LOANS

Staff Coordinators:
Dennis McLean, Finance Director
Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

BACKGROUND

During its November 7th discussion of utility undergrounding assessment districts (hereafter referred to as "UUAD’s"), the City Council assigned the Finance Advisory Committee (the "FAC") with the following task:

"To investigate a structure that creates a revolving fund to allow people who meet criteria to delay fees, including the $5,000 connection fee, with a lien placed on the home and funds repaid when house is sold, possibly funded initially by a securitized bond."

During the December 12th meeting of the FAC, the Deputy City Attorney and the Public Works Director presented a broad overview about UUAD’s and assessment deferrals. During the January 17th FAC meeting, Finance Staff and the Deputy City Attorney presented additional information to the FAC including an overview of (1) deferral alternatives; (2) pro-forma cost computations based upon different eligibility scenarios; and (3) identification of several planning issues. Though a copy of the staff report to the FAC, dated January 17, 2002, is attached to this report, most of the same information has been incorporated into this staff report for your convenience.

DISCUSSION

Assessment Deferral Alternatives:

As you may recall, the City Attorney’s Memorandum, dated October 29, 2001 (attached to this report), referred to several assessment deferral alternatives.

  • The State Controller’s Office Property Tax Postponement Program;
  • An assessment deferral loan program pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the "1913 Act"); and
  • Using moneys in the Low and Moderate-Income Housing fund of the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency to establish a loan or grant program;

The FAC quickly discovered the limitations of both the State Controller’s Office Property Tax Postponement Program and the use of monies in its RDA Low and Moderate-Income Housing fund due to the following reasons:

  1. The State Controller’s Office Property Tax Postponement Program has limited use for the proposed UUAD assessment deferrals. Eligibility is limited to senior citizens and the disabled with household incomes of less than $24,000.
  2. Recent changes to the redevelopment law effectively eliminated the ability for the Agency to finance a UUAD (except possibly for the private connection portion). Therefore, the Deputy City Attorney has recommended eliminating further investigation of the option to use RDA funding for UUAD’s.

Therefore, an assessment deferral loan program pursuant to the 1913 Act quickly became the primary assistance method for consideration by the FAC. There are two alternatives to provide assessment deferral loans in accordance with the 1913 Act:

  • "Annual Deferral Agreement" option: Each year the City would pay the UUAD assessment on behalf of eligible property owners utilizing reserves from the City’s General fund. The commitment would continue to be in effect until the City exercises an option to cancel the agreement to pay all future assessments.
  • "Deferral Fund" option: The City would use General fund reserves to provide assessment payments on behalf of eligible property owners for the entire term of the assessment district bond schedule. In order to choose this option, the City must deposit funds equivalent to the entire stream of principal and interest assessment payments into a Deferral Fund during the first year of UUAD on behalf of each eligible property owner.

Assessment Deferral Loan Provisions:

Regardless whether the City Council chooses the Assessment Deferral Agreement option or the Deferral Fund option under the 1913 Act, the documentation of loans to eligible property owners would be the same. The eligible property owner and the City would enter into a secured loan agreement. The loan balance owed the City would be increased with every annual assessment payment made by the City on behalf of the eligible property owner. The loan would be secured by the assessed property, but subordinate to any previous security interest recorded against the property (e.g. first and second mortgages). The loan would require repayment to the City upon transfer of the property or complete payment of UUAD bond indebtedness (probably based upon a 20 year bond term), as well as all assessments associated with it. The City Council may choose for the assessment deferral loans to be interest-free or subject to interest.

Cost Considerations of the Proposed UUAD Assessment Deferral Loans:

The City’s cost of providing UUAD assessment deferral loans would be affected by the following:

  • The frequency that proposed UUAD’s are established (e.g. an average of one each year vs. three each year);
  • The size of any proposed UUAD (e.g. number of parcels); and
  • Engineering factors (hillside terrain) that affect the cost of the UUAD project;

There are several significant factors that will affect the City’s cost of providing UUAD assessment deferral loans that would be relatively within the City’s control, including the following:

  • The City’s ability to provide UUAD assessment deferral loans based upon the availability of fund reserves, economic conditions and other budgetary priorities;
  • Establishing definitions of eligibility for assessment deferral loans (e.g. age, disability, income threshold); and
  • The cost differences between choosing either the Annual Deferral Agreement option or the Deferral Fund option.

Pro-Forma Computations of Cost Comparisons – Annual Deferral Agreement vs. Deferral Fund:

During the City Council’s discussion regarding assessment deferral programs on November 7, 2001, several Council members expressed concerns regarding the ability of seniors, disabled and low-income resident’s ability to pay UUAD assessments. Accordingly, Finance Staff proceeded to prepare pro-forma cost computations based upon several different income and age scenarios. Staff was unable to find any 2000 census data to support the number of disabled property owners within the City. Therefore, the presentation of the estimated eligible households presented below does not include a provision for disabled property owners.

Finance Staff prepared the following pro-forma cost comparisons for both the Annual Deferral Agreement and the Deferral Fund options. A summary follows the cost comparison tables. The method utilized to calculate the pro-forma financial impact was not performed scientifically, but rather an estimation of likely factors. Finance Staff used the following assumptions provided by the Director of Public Works and the Deputy City Attorney:

  • The estimated connection fee for each property is $5,000.
  • The estimated construction assessment for each property is an additional $20,000.
  • The estimated cost of bond issuance is $3,000 for each property.
  • The estimated debt service reserve deposit required as security with the issuance of the assessment debt is $2,500 for each property.
  • The term of the assessment bonds is assumed to be 20 years.
  • The assessment bond interest rate is conservatively presented at 7% for purposes of the calculation.

Based on these assumptions, Finance Staff calculated an average annual assessment of $2,821 per property within a UUAD for the pro-forma computations that follows.

Finance Staff utilized census data to extrapolate the estimated number of households potentially eligible for assessment deferral loans based upon age and household income. Using the simple extrapolation method and assuming an average assessment district size of 20 homes, the estimated number of households eligible for deferral is presented below. The estimated eligible households are multiplied by the calculated average annual assessment of $2,821 to determine the estimated annual assessment deferral loan.

Pro-Forma

Annual

 Age/Income

Eligible

Assessment

Category

Households

to Fund

All < $35,000

3

$ 8,463

All < $50,000

4

$ 11,284

55+ < $35,000

1

$ 2,821

55+ < $50,000

2

$ 5,642

65+ < $35,000

1

$ 2,821

65+ < $50,000

1

$ 2,821


Note: Staff was unable to find any 2000 census data to support the number of disabled property owners within the City. Therefore, the presentation of the eligible households presented above does not include a provision for disabled property owners.

The following assumptions were considered while preparing the following tables:

  • The Public Works Director has suggested that the formation of one UUAD could begin each year, and would require 3 years to complete. Based upon discussion with both the Director of Public Works and the City Manager, UUAD’s may be formed in varying frequencies (e.g. 2 or even 3 could be formed during one year or one every 4 or 5 years). The financial impact presented below assumes that one UUAD is formed each year. Obviously, if one UUAD were formed every 3 years, the financial impact would be one-third of the amounts presented below.
  • Repayment of the total assessment deferral loan owed the City would be required when either the property is transferred (regardless whether by sale or otherwise) or at the end of the 20-year bond term, whichever occurs first. Current average life expectancy (for all races and both genders) is 77 years of age. For purposes of the following computation, with respect to the 65+ categories, Finance Staff has assumed that repayment will take place when the eligible property owner (the borrower) reaches 77 years of age. For the all-age and 55+ categories, staff has assumed repayment will occur at the end of the 20-year bond term.

The annual pro-forma financial impact using the Annual Deferral Agreement option is presented below, assuming one UUAD is formed each year. If proceeds received from future assessment deferral loan repayments are used to fund new assessment deferral loans, the deferral fund becomes self-sufficient after the first repayment. For the 65+ categories, this is assumed to occur after 12 years and after 20 years for the All (no age threshold) and 55+ categories.

Annual Pro-Forma Financial Impact
Annual Deferral Agreement Option
(Based Upon the Assumptions Described Above, Including 20 Homes Per UUAD)

 

All

All

55+

55+

65+

65+

Year

< $35,000

< $50,000

< $35,000

< $50,000

< $35,000

< $50,000

1

8,463

11,285

2,821

5,642

2,821

2,821

2

16,927

22,569

5,642

11,285

5,642

5,642

3

25,390

33,854

8,463

16,927

8,463

8,463

4

33,854

45,138

11,285

22,569

11,285

11,285

5

42,317

56,423

14,106

28,211

14,106

14,106

6

50,780

67,707

16,927

33,854

16,927

16,927

7

59,244

78,992

19,748

39,496

19,748

19,748

8

67,707

90,276

22,569

45,138

22,569

22,569

9

76,171

101,561

25,390

50,780

25,390

25,390

10

84,634

112,845

28,211

56,423

28,211

28,211

11

93,098

124,130

31,033

62,065

31,033

31,033

12

101,561

135,415

33,854

67,707

33,854

33,854

13

110,024

146,699

36,675

73,350

0

0

14

118,488

157,984

39,496

78,992

0

0

15

126,951

169,268

42,317

84,634

0

0

16

135,415

180,553

45,138

90,276

0

0

17

143,878

191,837

47,959

95,919

0

0

18

152,341

203,122

50,780

101,561

0

0

19

160,805

214,406

53,602

107,203

0

0

20

169,268

225,691

56,423

112,845

0

0


Annual Pro-Forma Financial Impact
Deferral Fund option (see following Note)
(Based Upon the Assumptions Described Above, Including 20 Homes Per UUAD)

 

Estimated

General Fund

 

Eligible

"Up-Front"

Category

Households

Commitment

All < $35,000

3

$ 169,268

All < $50,000

4

$ 225,691

55+ < $35,000

1

$ 56,423

55+ < $50,000

2

$ 112,845

65+ < $35,000

1

$ 56,423

65+ < $50,000

1

$ 56,423


Note: Deposited monies will continue to earn interest, which in turn will contribute to future debt service payments. For purposes of this example calculation, the actual required deposit cannot be estimated due to market uncertainties. Therefore, the required principal and interest have been included in the "up-front" commitment calculation for conservatism.

Assuming that one UUAD is begun each year, the Annual Deferral Agreement option requires significantly less cash outlay during the first year (and most every year thereafter) compared with the Deferral Fund option. A cost comparison based upon establishing One UUAD Every Year compared with One UUAD Every Three Years follows:


RECOMMENDATION

In the event the City Council chooses to provide assistance to property owners for the payment of UUAD assessments, the FAC recommends the following:

  • Use the 1913 Act UUAD deferral loan program.
  • Staff should provide property owners with information about the State Controller’s Office Property Tax Postponement Program. Of course the State Program is available only to senior citizens and the disabled with household income less than $24,000 annually. Additionally, the Program requires participants to file annual applications with the State.
  • The City’s proposed assessment deferral loan policy should enable the City Council to choose either the Act 1913 Annual Deferral Agreement or Deferral Fund option when each UUAD is under formation. The choice will enable the City Council (now and in the future) to elect either alternative based upon the City’s (a) funds availability; (b) ratio of eligible property owners compared with non-eligible property owners in a proposed UUAD; (c) size of the proposed UUAD; and (d) other relevant economic factors.
  • The City’s proposed assessment deferral loan policy should enable the City Council to establish eligibility criteria (e.g. income, age, disability, or combinations thereof) either annually or during consideration of any proposed UUAD to provide the City Council with flexibility.
  • In accordance with the proposed UUAD petition process, a group of property owners would notify the City of intent to form a district via an informal petition. The informal petition could include a condition for participation in the UUAD based on the property owner’s eligibility to participate in an assessment deferral loan program. As such, this may be a useful planning tool to help determine whether or not one or more property owners would participate in an assessment deferral loan program, and the resulting cost to the City of providing assessment deferral loans for each UUAD.
  • In the event the City Council consistently elects the Deferral Fund option, upon repayment of assessment deferral loans, the monies should be used to fund future assessment deferral loans.
  • Before each UUAD is formed, other sources of construction funding should be investigated (e.g. state and county programs established hereafter).
  • Use of appropriate discretion while processing applications leading to approval of the deferral loans (e.g. avoid unnecessary public disclosure).
  • The approval of UUAD deferral loans applications should be subject to the adequate available unsecured equity of an eligible property owner.
  • Prior to the renewal of any cable franchise the City should investigate the legal and economic feasibility of requiring the cable company to commit to undergrounding their facilities.

The following additional information is offered by the FAC for the City Council’s consideration while contemplating UUAD deferral loans:

  • There is currently only one UUAD in the City. The FAC recognizes that formation of a UUAD is a complex procedure, which may ultimately result in the formation of only a small number of districts. The FAC has also learned that although issuance of 1913 Act debt to finance utility undergrounding and other public improvements is relatively common, 1913 Act deferral programs are not frequently offered in connection with utility undergrounding assessment districts. 1913 Act deferral programs are commonly provided during the formation of assessment districts that benefit all of the property owners and enhance public health and safety (e.g. sewers).
  • If the City selects the Annual Deferral Agreement option, property owners may be reluctant to participate in the deferral program because it does not provide them the security that accompanies the City’s commitment to pay the assessment for the entire term of the assessment district bond schedule. Depending on the ratio of potentially eligible property owners within the proposed UUAD, the lack of a long-term commitment by the City may impair an affirmative vote to form a district.

Public Comments During the FAC’s Consideration of UUAD Deferral Loans:

During the January 17th FAC meeting, Michael Kendel, 5809 Flambeau Road, addressed the FAC and stated that there is no need for a UUAD in his neighborhood, because utility wires reside behind homes and are generally blocked by trees and other vegetation. He also expressed his opinion that only residents who vote affirmatively for UUAD’s, should be required to pay the UUAD assessments. Mr. Kendel also expressed concern regarding the fact that UUAD deferral loan application information would become public information. He stated that it would be embarrassing for an applicant with financial hardship to be forced to apply for help from the City.

The members of the FAC wish to thank the members of the City Council for delegating this assignment. The FAC stands ready to answer any questions the City Council may have and perform any further assignments regarding the investigation of an assessment deferral loan program.

Respectfully Submitted,
Earl Butler, Chair, Finance Advisory Committee

Reviewed,
Les Evans

Attachments

Finance Staff report to FAC, dated January 17, 2002, Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts – Assessment deferral Loans Provided By City

Finance Staff report to FAC, dated December 12, 2001, Assessment Deferrals for undergrounding Districts (including City Attorney Memorandum, dated October 29, 2001, Assessment Deferrals for Senior Citizens, the Disabled and Persons With Limited Income)


PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)


(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)






10. Ordinance establishing new regulations applicable to the issuance of business permits and the regulation of massage establishments and massage technicians operating in the City. (Evans)

Recommendation: (1) Adopt, by reference, Los Angeles County’s current regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians. (2) Adopt Los Angeles County’s licensing procedures in addition to the regulations for massage establishments and massage technicians. (3) Introduce Ordinance No. ____, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 (GENERAL LICENSING PROCEDURES) AND CHAPTER 7.54 OF DIVISION 2 OF TITLE 7 (MASSAGE) OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CODE. (4) Enter into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office to license massage establishments and massage technicians within the City. (5) Modify the City’s agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to perform background investigations of applicants for business permits for massage establishments and massage technicians within the City.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS PERMITS AND THE REGULATION OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE TECHNICIANS OPERATING IN THE CITY

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Adopt Los Angeles County’s current regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians by reference.
  2. Adopt Los Angeles County’s licensing procedures in addition to the regulations for massage establishments and massage technicians.
  3. Read Ordinance No. ___ "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 (GENERAL LICENSING PROCEDURES) AND CHAPTER 7.54 OF DIVISION 2 OF TITLE 7 (MASSAGE) OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE" by title only, waive further reading, and introduce the ordinance.
  4. Enter into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office (the "Treasurer/Tax Collector") to license massage establishments and massage technicians within the City.
  5. Modify the City’s agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to perform background investigations of applicant’s for business permits for massage establishments and massage technicians within the City.

BACKGROUND

Chapter 5.08 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") contains the City’s current regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians. These regulations consist of the provisions set forth in County of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 5860 ("Ordinance No. 5860") as amended and in effect on September 7, 1973. The City adopted Ordinance No. 5860 by reference after it incorporated in 1973. Although the County subsequently amended its regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians, the City has neither adopted these amendments nor modified the regulations. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 5860 is no longer an effective tool for regulating massage establishments and lacks many of the provisions necessary to adequately address the unique concerns presented by these types of businesses.

In addition to the outdated regulatory scheme contained in Ordinance No. 5860, the Municipal Code lacks a procedure to issue regulatory business permits. Unlike business licenses, which are a means to tax businesses operating within the City to raise revenue, business permits provide a process for regulating certain types of businesses so that they will not have an adverse impact upon the City and its residents. Historically, the City has relied on the County of Los Angeles (the "County") to issue a regulatory permit for massage establishments and technicians before the City issues a City business license pursuant to Chapter 5.04 of the Municipal Code. However, the City has never delegated this authority to the County.

The County’s licensing authority extends only to unincorporated areas, and the County will no longer issue massage establishment or massage technician licenses to businesses located within the incorporated boundaries of the City. In order to continue regulating massage establishments and massage technicians, the City must adopt its own regulatory scheme and licensing procedures. The City can accomplish this purpose by either adopting County ordinances and procedures or adopting its own ordinance that will establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme to govern various businesses within the City, including massage establishments and massage technicians. The advantages and disadvantages of each approach are discussed in the following section.

DISCUSSION

New City Ordinance. Government Code Section 51030 et seq. allows cities to enact regulatory licensing requirements for massage establishments and persons who provide massage services. The courts have unanimously concluded that operation of a massage establishment is not a fundamental right and may be regulated by laws that are rationally related to permissible government goals. A new City ordinance would establish comprehensive regulations for massage establishments and massage technicians in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare by: (i) imposing certain operating requirements to ensure that massage establishments maintain a clean and safe environment for providing massage services, and (ii) providing minimum standards for the education, training, and conduct of massage technicians. Compliance with the proposed regulations will reduce any potential negative impacts to the public health, safety and welfare that may result from unregulated individuals engaging in the operation of massage establishments.

The new City ordinance would repeal the provisions of Ordinance No. 5860 (County Ordinance) relating to massage establishments and massage technicians and in their place add a new chapter to the Municipal Code. The new chapter would establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme applicable to all massage establishments and massage technicians doing business within the City. The new regulations would require a permit for all massage establishments, set forth specific application requirements (including mandatory background investigations and fingerprinting requirements), and impose operating requirements designed to ensure that all massage establishments operate and maintain a clean environment for providing massage services, limit their hours of operation to reduce potential impacts on neighboring properties, prohibit the sale of food and beverages on site, and employ qualified personnel to provide massage services. The new chapter would further require a permit for all persons employed as massage technicians and establish minimum training and education requirements for massage technicians, prescribe acceptable attire, and prohibit physical contact between massage technicians and clients except for contact that meets the definition of massage services. The new ordinance would protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that massage establishments will not conduct activities that fall within the definition of adult entertainment to further protect the public health, safety and welfare.

In addition to the regulatory provisions, the new ordinance would add a second new chapter to the Municipal Code establishing a procedure for issuing regulatory business permits. This procedure is separate from the business licensing requirements set forth in Chapter 5.04 that were adopted solely to raise revenue for municipal purposes. The measures contained in the proposed new chapter are designed to regulate only those businesses subject to the provisions of the chapter. Under the procedures proposed in the new ordinance, the finance department staff would issue business permits.

Neither the City Finance Department nor the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Building and Code Enforcement Department are trained and staffed to administer a new City ordinance regulating massage establishments and massage technicians. In addition, the number of these establishments is relatively small in number and may not justify an effort by the City to administer a new program.

Adopt County Ordinance and Licensing Procedures. Alternatively, the City could adopt the County’s current regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians by reference. While adoption by reference is certainly efficient, the County’s regulatory scheme is not as comprehensive as the scheme described above for a City ordinance. Further, the City would also have to adopt the County’s licensing procedures in addition to the regulations for massage establishments and massage technicians. However, the City could modify the County’s regulations to meet Rancho Palos Verdes’ unique needs.

Additionally, adoption of the County regulations does not delegate the administration of those regulations to the County. If the City wishes the County to license massage establishments and massage technicians, the City must enter into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office (the "Treasurer/Tax Collector") delegating this function to the Treasurer/Tax Collector.

Staff has explored the possibility of entering such an agreement with the Treasurer/Tax Collector. However, the Director of the Treasurer/Tax Collector’s licensing division indicated that such an agreement might not be in the City’s best interest. The Treasurer/Tax Collector does not perform background investigations on applicants. The City’s main concern is to ensure that massage establishments operate as legitimate business and not as fronts for illicit activities. The County, on the other hand, concentrates on operating conditions and health code issues. As previously noted, the City could modify the County’s regulations to require that mandatory background investigations and fingerprinting be performed as part of the application procedure. The Treasurer’s office indicated to staff that although it lacks the personnel and the citation authority to enforce such regulatory provisions, it can refer the application to the Los Angeles County Sheriff (the "Sheriff") to perform the background investigations and issue citations to enforce the regulations, or the City could make this arrangement directly with the Sheriff.

Finally, the County’s Business License Commission must review all regulatory business permit applications. Since the Business License Commission meets only once a month, the application process can often drag on for several months, which will result in the delay of issuance of permits for businesses to operate in the City.

CONCLUSION

It appears that the City’s efforts to regulate massage establishments and massage technicians would best be met by: (i) adopting, by reference, the County’s regulations and procedures, and (ii) utilizing the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, License Detail Division to perform background checks on applicants.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager
Carol Lynch, City Attorney

Attachments:
Draft Ordinance



ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 (GENERAL LICENSING PROCEDURES) AND CHAPTER 7.54 OF DIVISION 2 OF TITLE 7 (MASSAGE) OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.050 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.050. Sections 591 through 599, inclusive, of Article 11 of Chapter II repealed. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.010, Sections 591, 591.1, 591.2, 591.3, 591.4, 591.5, 591.6, 591.7, 591.8, 591.9, 592, 592.1, 592.2, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, and 599 of the Licensing Ordinance are repealed."

Section 2. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.060 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.060. Los Angeles County licensing procedures adopted.

    1. Except as hereinafter provided, Division 1 of Title 7 (General Licensing Procedures) of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended and in effect on January 1, 2002, is hereby adopted by reference as the Business Permit Ordinance of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and may be cited as such.

    2. A copy of the Regulatory Business Permit Ordinance, as amended and in effect on January 1, 2002, has been deposited in the office of the city clerk of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and shall, at all times, be maintained by the clerk for use and examination by the public."

Section 3. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.070 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.070. Section 7.06.020 of Business Permit Ordinance amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.060, Section 7.06.020 of the Business Permit Ordinance is hereby amended by adding new subsection (F) to read as follows:

‘(F) Where fingerprinting and photo identification is required by an application for a particular business permit, the rules and regulations governing the procedure for such fingerprinting and photo identification shall be established by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, License Detail."

Section 4.Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.080 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.080. Los Angeles County massage regulations adopted.

    1. Except as hereinafter provided, Chapter 7.54 of Division 2 of Title 7 (Massage) of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended and in effect on January 1, 2002, is hereby adopted by reference as the Massage Regulation Ordinance of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and may be cited as such.
    2. A copy of the Massage Regulation Ordinance, as amended and in effect on January 1, 2002, has been deposited in the office of the city clerk of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and shall, at all times, be maintained by the clerk for use and examination by the public."

Section 5. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.090 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.090. Section 7.54.010 of Massage Ordinance amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, Section 7.54.010 of the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following definitions thereto:

"‘Recognized school of massage’ means any school or institution of learning which teaches the theory, ethics, practice, profession, or work of massage, which has been approved pursuant to the California Education Code. A school offering a correspondence course not requiring attendance shall not be deemed a recognized school. The city shall have a right to confirm that the applicant has actually attended class in a recognized school.

‘Specified anatomical areas’ means the following:

(1) Less than completely and opaquely covered human (i) genitals or pubic region; (ii) buttocks; and (iii) female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola;

(2) Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered;

(3) Any device, costume or covering that simulates any of the body parts included in subparagraphs (1) or (2) above."

Section 6. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.100 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.100. Section 7.54.025 added to Massage Ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding Section 7.54.025 thereto to read as follows:

‘Section 7.54.025. License – Information required in application.

In addition to the requirements of Section 7.06.020, an application for a license required by this Part 1 shall also provide the information set forth in Section 7.54.230 of Part 2 of this Chapter .’"

Section 7. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.110 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.110. Section 7.54.040 of Massage Ordinance amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by amending Section 7.54.040 thereof to read as follows:

‘Section 7.54.040. Exceptions to chapter applicability.

This Part 1 does not apply to any of the following:

(a)Physicians, surgeons, chiropractors, osteopaths, physical therapists who are duly licensed to practice their respective professions in the state.

(b) Nurses registered under the laws of the state.

(c)Persons who are licensed to practice any healing art under the applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code of the state of California or any other statute of this state who provide any treatment administered in good faith.

(d)Barbers, cosmetologists and electrolysists who are duly licensed under the laws of the state while engaging in practice within the scope of their licenses, except that this exemption shall apply solely to the massaging of the neck, face, and/or scalp of the customer or client.

(e)Hospitals, nursing homes, sanatoriums, or other health care facilities duly licensed by the state.

(f)Accredited high schools, junior colleges, and colleges or universities whose coaches and trainers are acting within the scope of their employment.

(g)Trainers of amateur, semi-professional or professional athletes or athletic teams.

(h)Any business duly licensed as a health club, provided only one massage table is used at such location and provided such use is incidental to the operation of the health club.’"

Section 8. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.120 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.120. Section 7.54.160 of Massage Ordinance amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by amending Section 7.54.160 thereof to read as follows:

‘Section 7.54.160. Hours of operation.

The licensee shall not conduct or operate a massage parlor between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any day, and shall exclude all customers, patrons and visitors therefrom between those hours.’"

Section 9. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.130 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.130. Section 7.54.195 added to Massage Ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding Section 7.54.195 thereto to read as follows:

‘Section 7.54.195. Physical contact prohibited.

No massage parlor shall permit any massage technician, in the course of administering any massage service, to expose his or her specified anatomical areas or buttocks or to make physical contact with the specified anatomical areas of any client. No massage parlor shall allow any client, in the course of receiving any massage service, to expose to view of other persons his or her specified anatomical areas or to make physical contact with the specified anatomical areas or buttocks of any massage technician or any other person.’"

Section 10. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.140 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.140. Section 7.54.230(J) of Massage Ordinance redesignated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by redesignating subsection (J) of Section 7.54.230 as subsection (L)."

Section 11. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.150 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.150. New Section 7.54.230(J) added to Massage Ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding new subsection (J) to Section 7.54.230 to read as follows:

(J) All convictions for any crime, except for minor traffic violations, and the reasons therefore.’"

Section 12. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.160 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.160. Section 7.54.230(K) of Massage Ordinance amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by amending subsection (K) of Section 7.54.230 to read as follows:

(K) The applicant’s fingerprints in the manner prescribed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Any fees for the fingerprinting shall be paid by the applicant’"

Section 13. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.170 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.170. Section 7.54.265 added to Massage Ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding new Section 7.54.265 to read as follows:

Section 7.54.265. Permit limitations – Off-premises massage prohibited. No massage technician permitted pursuant to this Part 2 may perform any massage or massage services in any location other than the location or locations specified in the permit."

Section 14. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.180 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.180. Section 7.54.275 added to Massage Ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding new Section 7.54.265 to read as follows:

Section 7.54.275. Prohibited conduct – Physical contact. No massage technician shall, in the course of administering any massage service, expose his or her specified anatomical areas or buttocks or make physical contact with the specified anatomical areas of any client. Nor shall any massage technician allow any client, in the course of receiving any massage service, to expose to view of other persons his or her specified anatomical areas or buttocks or to make physical contact with the specified anatomical areas or buttocks of the massage technician or any other person."

Section 15. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.

Section 16. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _______ day of _______________, 2002.


_____________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:


___________________________
City Clerk



11. Border Issues Status Report. (Rojas)

Recommendation: Review the current status of border issues and provide direction.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Review the current status of border issues, and provide direction to the City Council Committee and Staff.

BACKGROUND

At their meeting of April 17, 2001 the City Council established an ad hoc committee for dealing with "border issues." The committee is charged with monitoring the activities of neighboring jurisdictions to determine whether or not the City Council should take positions on developments, events or special uses proposed for approval in adjacent communities that may impact the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes At their September 4, 2001 meeting, the City Council adopted a policy on how to process "border issues."

DISCUSSION

Since the border issues were last discussed on January 12, 2002, there has been little change in status. Minor updates on the Harbor Hills project status and on the Garden Village project are included in the attached report. Added to the list is the proposed de-annexation of the harbor area from the City of Los Angeles. Otherwise the information in the report is largely unchanged since January 12, 2002. Please note that new information is underlined in the attached status report.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp,Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment
Border Issues Status Report



BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT
Revised February 5, 2002

CONSTRUCTION OF A RECREATION FACILITY AT HARBOR HILLS (COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND CITY OF LOMITA)

The County has proposed construction of a 12,650 square foot recreation facility for the Harbor Hills Housing area. The $2.3 million project will consist of a gym, two multi-purpose rooms, a recreation office, sports equipment storage, a child care area for 36 pre-school children, a sheriff’s patrol office, a full service kitchen, restrooms and locker rooms. It will also include a 75-space parking lot.

Homeowners in Peninsula Verde were not offered adequate opportunity to comment on the project and have turned to the City to intercede on their behalf. A community meeting took place at the Harbor Hills Community Center on August 27, 2001 and was attended by Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart as well as homeowners from Peninsula Verde. In addition to strong objections to the County’s notification process for the project, the homeowners expressed concerns about lighting intensity, times of operation, children crossing PVDN, traffic, unsavory activities near the Lomita water tower and location of the recreation facility. A second meeting took place on September 12, 2001 to allow the County Regional Planning Department to go over the environmental approval process conducted for this project. The Mayor represented the City at this meeting. Issues raised by the homeowners included concerns about the notification process, environmental clearances and parking and grading on the hillside adjacent to their homes.

In response to concerns from Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, Supervisor Knabe became involved in the matter. At their meeting on September 25, 2001, the County awarded the construction contract for the community center. However, in response to the concerns of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, Supervisor Knabe, at the October 9, 2001 Board meeting received approval of his motion to: "Extend the time period for the Executive Director of the Housing Authority to report back to the Board from 30 days to 60 days regarding the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Lomita’s specific concerns related to the planned construction of a community center and childcare center at the Harbor Hills Public Housing Development; and instruct the Executive Director of the Community Development Commission to postpone commencement of any construction until the Board further review the matter."

On Monday, October 22, 2001 Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart joined five or six Peninsula Verde residents and an equal number of Harbor Hills residents to discuss possible modifications to the Community Center plans. County Community development staff made the presentations, but Supervisor Knabe’s office was represented as well as County Counsel and the County Geologist. Harbor Hills’ staff was also in attendance. The County is proposing relocating the 75-space parking lot away from the Peninsula Verde homes. In addition, they are proposing reduced lighting in the parking lot. Our residents were pleased with these changes, but disappointed that the Community Center building could not be relocated further from the property line.

The City Attorney reported on her research into the environmental process in closed session at the November 7, 2001 City Council meeting. The City geologist also provided his comments on the project grading at the November 7, 2001 meeting. The City Council directed the City Manager to prepare a letter to Supervisor Knabe pointing out that the 60-day period within which the Board is expected to receive a report from the Housing Authority expires on November 22, 2001. Prior to the expiration of the 60-day period the Council asked for assurances from the Supervisor, in writing, regarding design and operational changes. The letter, signed by former Mayor Lyon went out on November 12, 2001. So far there has been no response, although Dick Simmons, of the Supervisor’s office, has indicated that a letter is forthcoming. In addition, at the request of Dick Bruner (Peninsula Verde HOA) staff discussed the project with the City Manager of Lomita in mid December. Mr. Odom is aware of the project and says the proposed parking lot revisions are being reviewed by the Lomita Planning Department. He was not aware of any special interest in the project on the part of his Council or citizens groups.

On January 10, 2002, the City received the promised letter from Supervisor Knabe regarding design and operational changes to the project (see attached letter). These changes include relocation of the parking areas, the use of shorter lighting fixtures and lower illumination levels in the parking areas, limitations of the days and hours of operation for special events and child care services, dedication of two Sheriff’s deputies to the on-site field office, and adjustments to the building roof form and landscaping plans to reduce the impact of the project upon views from City residents in the Peninsula Verde community.

RE-VITALIZATION OF THE GARDEN VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ON WESTERN AVENUE AT WESTMONT DRIVE (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

The Garden Village revitalization project was approved by the Los Angeles City Council on June 8, 2001. The project, located on Western Avenue north of Westmont, will add 2000 square feet of retail space to a reconfigured shopping center to be anchored by a "super" Albertson’s.

The Border Issues Committee was particularly concerned about the underlying soils and drainage conditions in the project area that includes both the City of Los Angeles and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore, at the meeting of June 16, 2001 the ad hoc committee recommended that the City Council authorize a study of these geologic conditions and whether or not the Gardens Village revitalization project will have any adverse impacts on existing properties in our City. The Council authorized the study and funding of $10,000. In addition, City Staff researched the issue of the adequacy of the environmental process for the project.

The statute of limitations has run on the environmental documentation prepared for the Garden Village project. The City Attorney advises us that we have no recourse from that avenue. Bill Cotton, the geologist who is reviewing the geology and soils information provided as part of the project design, has completed his review of the geotechnical reports associated with the Garden Village project. Mr. Cotton is concerned that there are inadequate long-term geotechnical measures to mitigate the impacts of future settlement on existing storm drain and sewer lines on the Village Garden’s property. Mr. Cotton’s concerns were also voiced by the developer’s geologist during the project planning phase.

City staff, has attempted to find out which Department or person in the City of Los Angeles hierarchy has been assigned the responsibility for inspection and monitoring conditions of the development related to settlement and possible storm drain damage. Although we have talked with many City of Los Angeles employees and have been treated courteously, no one has accepted the responsibility. Accordingly, Staff has prepared letters to:

Andrew Adelman, General Manager
Department of Building and Safety

Vitaly B. Troyan, City Engineer

Con Howe, Director
Department of Planning

The letters are all similar in that they express the City’s concern over the repair and inspection of the storm drains and ask who is responsible for insuring that the lines are properly monitored. Should we not receive an appropriate response we will recommend that the City Attorney take up the matter. The letters were mailed on November 29, 2001. We did receive a telephone call from Tom Stevens from the office of the General Manager of Building and Safety on December 19, 2001 offering assistance. A follow-up call to Mr. Stevens on January 2, 2002 was made in which we were assured that he was still working on a response to our inquiry.

In addition, staff has maintained contact with the San Pedro Office Manager of the Department of Building and Safety and the Plan Checker for the Albertson’s Market. No building permit for the market has been issued, although the plan checker has approved the plans.

On January 16, 2002, the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, Grading Section required that the developer of the Garden Village Shopping Center agree to the following condition in order to proceed with placing caissons:

Prior to commencement of structural framing, all underground utilities located within or adjoining the site shall be inspected, repaired or replaced, and sealed to prevent infiltration, as recommended.

Before proceeding with the caisson work the developer was required to sign an Affidavit guaranteeing the maintenance of the Albertson’s building site. The Affidavit (attached) states:

I am (We are) fully aware of Settlement and Cracking may occur in the parking lot and hardscape areas due to underlying fill and alluvial deposits and assume full responsibility for periodic inspection, maintenance and repair.

The Shopping Center developer also agreed (attached letter) that he/they would inspect, or arrange for the inspection, of the public storm drain and sewer line on the property during the course of construction. The developer does not agree to assume responsibility for any repair of these utilities. Prior to commencement of structural framing, all underground utilities located within or adjoining the site shall be inspected, repaired or replaced, and sealed to prevent infiltration, as recommended.

According to Mr. Richard Fortner, Senior Building Inspector for Special Projects, the developer has completed the inspection, however, the report has not yet been submitted. It is Mr. Fortner’s position that any deficiencies in the subsurface utilities will have to be repaired either by the City or by the developer prior to occupancy of the new market.

EXPANSION OF THE COVENANT CHURCH ON PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

The project is still in the informational gathering phase. According to our information, the applicant has been making changes to the project so the exact proposal has not been finalized. Generally, the project involves the construction of a new sanctuary building that would accommodate 2,050 seats, along with a new 3-5 level parking structure with 500 parking spaces. The Church also proposes to convert the existing sanctuary to a gymnasium/multi-purpose room for events such as wedding receptions. The preparation of the Initial Study is still underway which will determine whether the project will necessitate an EIR or Negative Declaration. We will receive a notice when either document is prepared and circulated to the public.

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52666, 3200 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (MARSHALL ESFAHANI AND THE CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES)

City staff has been in contact with the City of Palos Verdes Estates to discuss the construction traffic that will be generated from the newly approved residential tract on Palos Verdes Drive West at the border of our City. The City of Palos Verdes Estates indicates that they will allow construction traffic related to grading to enter their city since the disposal site for the project will be within the City of Palos Verdes Estates. However, any other construction traffic leaving the site will not be permitted to travel through the City. The City of Palos Verdes Estates is insisting that a cut be made in the median to accommodate the construction traffic. Mr. Esfahani seems confident that he can negotiate more reasonable terms from Palos Verdes Estates. So far he has apparently not been able to do so.

PALOS VERDES GOLF COURSE EIR (COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

On November 26, 2001, Planning Staff attended an environmental impact report (EIR) scoping meeting for the proposed Palos Verdes Golf Course in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The County’s Parks and Recreation Department is the lead agency for the EIR, with the actual document preparation being handled by the consulting firm, ESA. The project proponent is a development consortium, headed by Rob Katherman, which has a 2-year contract with the County to complete the land use entitlement process for the golf course.

The project site is the 160-acre former landfill located between Crenshaw Boulevard and Hawthorne Boulevard. Existing activities on the site include a co-generation and recycling facility for the old landfill, as well as the City of Rolling Hills Estates’ equestrian center. The developers propose an 18-hole, par-72 golf course and a 29,000-square-foot clubhouse. The contract with the County also requires the developer to provide a 7,000-square-foot area for an equestrian center in the immediate area surrounding the golf course, although the exact location of the new equestrian center has not been determined.

A major issue of concern raised by the ±150 people in attendance was the disposition of the existing equestrian center and trails on the site. Additional issues of concern included drainage problems for downslope properties in the City of Torrance; geologic concerns about the stability of the old landfill; health concerns regarding toxic materials and methane gas from the old landfill; concerns about the operation of the golf course such as noise, lighting, traffic and security; and construction-related impacts such as air quality, noise, vibration and truck traffic.

The developer’s consultant, ESA, anticipates that the Initial Study (IS) will be complete in early December 2001 and that a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR will be released at that time. The 30-day comment period for the NOP would end in early-to mid-January 2002, with expected public release of the draft EIR in late Spring 2002 and possible action by the County in Summer 2002. It was Staff’s impression that the November 26th scoping meeting was somewhat premature since the IS was not complete and the NOP had not been released. Staff also believes that this schedule may be overly optimistic, given the level of public concern expressed at the scoping meeting, and that it is more likely that the County will make no decision until some time next fall. As of the end of January 2002, Staff had yet to receive a copy of the NOP for this project.

NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR AN EIR FOR THE PROPOSED SPECIAL REORGANIZATION OF THE HARBOR AREA (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

On January 31, 2002, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the County of Los Angeles conducted a public scoping meeting on the EIR for the proposed "special reorganization" (i.e., de-annexation) of the harbor area of the City of Los Angeles. The project area abuts the easterly boundary of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and includes all portions of the City of Los Angeles located south of Lomita Boulevard, encompassing the communities of Wilmington, Harbor City and San Pedro. Potential environmental effects identified in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) include impacts to public services, traffic and transportation, utilities and service systems, and the cumulative effects of this proposal with other pending special reorganizations in the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood areas of the City of Los Angeles. The project applicant, Harbor Study Foundation, Inc., is proposing that the election on the question of the special reorganization be held November 5, 2002.

Public comments on the NOP are due to LAFCO by February 19, 2002. Since the City Council has requested that Staff investigate the possibility of adjusting the City boundary along Western Avenue, Staff intends to forward comments to LAFCO requesting that these boundary issues and/or adjustments be considered in conjunction with any future special reorganization of the harbor area. Staff would also appreciate input from the Border Issues subcommittee and/or the full City Council regarding other appropriate comments on the NOP for this project.



12. Interview Schedule for Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee Applicants. (Purcell)

Recommendation: (1) Approve the interview schedule for applicants for the Planning Commission who have indicated this commission as their first through sixth choice. (2) Approve the interview schedule for applicants for the Finance Advisory Committee who have indicated this committee as their first through sixth choice.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICANTS

RECOMMENDATION

(1) Approve the interview schedule for applicants for the Planning Commission who have indicated this commission as their first through sixth choice: (2) Approve the interview schedule for applicants for the Finance Advisory Committee who have indicated this committee as their first through sixth choice.

BACKGROUND

Recruitment for the City’s advisory boards started in early December 2001. As of this writing 47 applications have been received. The next step is to interview those applicants in accordance with the policy set by the Council at the January 12th meeting, to wit:

  1. Interviews of applicants for Advisory Boards will be conducted by the City Council in small groups on a schedule to be established by the Council.

  2. The City Clerk will notify applicants of their interview times and advise them of their status during the selection process.

  3. The City Clerk will advise successful applicants of the opportunity to be interviewed for Chair if they so desire. The City Clerk will notify applicants for Chair of their interview times and advise them of their status in the selection process.

  4. The City Clerk will provide new Advisory Board members a copy of the Commission and Committee Handbook and Statement of Economic Interest forms if applicable to their Board appointment.

  5. The City Attorney will brief new Advisory Board members of their responsibilities under the Brown Act and Conflict of Interest Laws and other legal obligations mandated by their appointment.

At the January 12th meeting, it was the consensus that the applicants would be interviewed in groups consisting of no more than five people; that the interview session for each group would last from approximately 30 to 45 minutes; and, that at the end of the group interview, each individual applicant could meet with the Council as a whole for as long as one to five minutes. It was, however, recognized that because this was the first time for using this interview format, it might be necessary to make some adjustment to the process after the first set of interviews.

Using the 45-minute time block for the group interview and the five-minute individual interview sessions, the schedule for the February 9th would be as follows:

Time

Advisory Board

No. Of Interviewees

9:00 AM – 10:00 AM

Planning Commission

*5

10:00 AM – 11:00 AM

" "

*5 (all incumbents)

11:00 AM – Noon

" "

*5

12:00 – 12:30 PM

Lunch Break

 

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM

Finance Advisory

**5 (all incumbents)

1:30 PM – 2:30 PM

" "

**4

     


* All applicants have listed Planning Commission as first choice for appointment.

**All applicants have listed Finance Advisory Committee as first choice for appointment.

Should Council want to interview some of these applicants a second time on that day relative to their secondary and lesser preferences, then those interviews could be conducted as follows:

Time

Advisory Board

No. Of Interviewees

2:30 PM – 3:30 PM

Traffic

4

3:30 PM – 4:30 PM

Parks & Rec.

3

4:30 PM – 5:30 PM

View Restoration

3

5:30 PM – 6:30 PM

Equestrian

3


CONCLUSION

The City has conducted the recruitment process for the City’s advisory boards and Council can now conduct the interviews.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans



13. Modification of City Council Rules of Procedure. (Stern)

Recommendation: Consider the suggestion of Mayor Pro Tem Stern to add a new item 5 to Rules 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure, which shall read:
5. Prior to hearing public testimony or comments Councilmembers are encouraged to raise questions or articulate issues of concern which they may have which may assist members of the public to focus comments upon those questions or issues.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DOUGLAS W. STERN

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE

RECOMMENDATION

Consider the suggestion of Mayor Pro Tem Stern to add a new item 5 to Rule 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure which shall read:

5. Prior to hearing public testimony or comments Council members are encouraged to raise questions or articulate issues of concern which they may have which may assist members of the public to focus comments upon those questions or issues.

DISCUSSION

Rules 8.2 and 8.3 address the Public Hearings procedure. I believe we can improve the process and obtain better, more helpful public input by adding the rule noted above.

The reason I suggest this is to both assist us in obtaining input on and reaction to ideas that we put forth, and to assist the public in understanding the concerns or issues which may be important to council members. By having such a policy, we maximize the likelihood that the Council will be provided information to allow the Council to more effectively evaluate and understand matters of concern to the Council members, and to tailor decisions and ordinances to those matters.

This is not intended to stifle the input that the public desires to provide to the Council. On the contrary, it is designed to assist the public so that it can both provide the input that the public desires, and also enlighten the Council on questions and issues that the Council members may have as well.

I recognize that this suggestion will not get all the issues out for public comment. Indeed, on many occasions the public comments will themselves generate issues. I understand that our deliberations will always generate new ideas and may raise questions that may require additional questioning of the public, or information gathering. But we should attempt to put forth in advance those matters that we have already seen as issues or questions, so that we can obtain the public input and fully understand the impact of proposed changes.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers to report on Council assignments.)



CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Saturday, February 9, at 9:00 A.M. in the Fireside Room at Hesse Park to interview Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee applicants.



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, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

Property: APN 7564-005-001, 7572-001-001 TO 004, 06 AND 07, 7581-023-011

City Negotiators: City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment



RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


CALL TO ORDERNEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2002-02

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:




A. Minutes of December 18, 2001, January 2, and January 12, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

DECEMBER 18, 2001

The meeting was called to order at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by Agency Secretary Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to January 2, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.


_______________________
CHAIR

ATTEST:


______________________
AGENCY SECRETARY



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

JANUARY 2, 2002

The meeting was called to order at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by Agency Secretary Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to January 12, 2002 at 9:00 A.M.


_______________________
CHAIR

ATTEST:


______________________
AGENCY SECRETARY



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

JANUARY 12, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 1:50 P.M. by Chair McTaggart at Ladera Linda Community Center, 32201 Forrestal Drive, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

PRESENT: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
ABSENT: None

Also present were Executive Director Les Evans; Assistant Executive Director Carolynn Petru; Agency Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Director of Recreation and Parks Ron Rosenfeld; Agency Secretary Jo Purcell; and, Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Member Ferraro moved, seconded by Member Stern, to approve the Agenda. Motion carried.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Member Ferraro moved, seconded by Member Stern, to approve the Consent Calendar.

Minutes of December 4, 2001

The minutes were approved as presented.

Resol. No. RDA 2002-01 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-16, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

The motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
NOES: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

There were no requests to speak.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 1:52 P.M. on the motion of Member Stern.


__________________
Chair

ATTEST:


_________________________
Agency Secretary




B. November and December 2001 Treasurer’s Reports. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT:NOVEMBER 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator:Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the November 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of November 2001 for the Redevelopment Agency.

ANALYSIS:

The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by $254,964 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $1,529,363 at November 30, 2001. The majority of the month’s expenditures were related to ongoing progress payments for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. It is expected that the Agency will continue to experience large monthly decreases in cash until the completion of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Agency Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Executive Director

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: DECEMBER 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator:Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the December 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of December 2001 for the Redevelopment Agency.

ANALYSIS:

The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by $78,882 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $1,450,480 at December 31, 2001. The majority of the month’s expenditures were related to ongoing progress payments for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. It is expected that the Agency will continue to experience large monthly decreases in cash until the completion of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Agency Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Executive Director


C. Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Midyear Financial Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

FROM: DENNIS McLEAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: FY 2001-2002 MIDYEAR FINANCIAL REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Receive and file the attached midyear financial report, inclusive of the annual tax increment study in accordance with Resolution No. RDA 90-24; and
  2. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002- , AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-07, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 2001-2002, TO INCREASE CERTAIN EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE DEBT SERVICE FUND OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.

INTRODUCTION

Midyear Budget Review

The Municipal Code requires that a midyear review of the Redevelopment Agency’s (RDA) annual budget be presented to the RDA Board. In general, staff anticipates projected fund balances at June 30, 2002 will be equal to or greater than the original FY 2001-2002 budget estimates. The following report presents an overview of staff's findings regarding anticipated revenues and expenditures of the RDA for FY 2001-02.

It is important to understand that the FY 2001-2002 projections are based upon staff's analysis using trend comparisons with previous years, reports provided by the County and other agencies, and direct conversations with representatives of those agencies.

In the following paragraphs, you will find discussion and analysis about revenues and expenditures of the RDA. If no mention is made of certain revenue sources or program expenditures, it merely indicates that there is nothing significant to report at this time and that anticipated results are not expected to materially deviate from the FY 2001-2002 budget.

County Bond Debt and Annual Tax Increment Study

In 1987, the City and RDA entered into the Horan Settlement Agreement with the County of Los Angeles and various property owners. The Agreement required issuance of $10,000,000 in County bond debt to finance landslide abatement activities in the Abalone Cove area of the Agency. Soon after the bond issuance, the Agency Board approved Resolution No. RDA 90-24. The resolution requires an annual tax increment study to review the adequacy of tax increment revenues to satisfy any County debt obligations. In accordance with the 1990 Board resolution, staff has performed the FY 2001-2002 annual tax increment analysis.

In 1997, the RDA Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to restructure the $10,000,000 County bond. At that time, the RDA made a lump sum payment of $4,545,000 and issued tax increment bonds for the balance of $5,455,000. Of the $4,545,000 paid, $2,000,000 was provided from tax increment revenue accumulated in the Debt Service fund for retirement of the $10,00,000 County bond debt. The balance of the payment was provided by a $1,545,000 loan to the Abalone Cove fund from the General fund of the City and the use of $1,000,000 in Abalone Cove fund balance reserves.

The terms of the MOU require the RDA to make scheduled tax increment bond principal and interest payments through the year 2028. The MOU payment schedule requires interest only payments totaling $272,750 annually through FY 2003-04. Semi-annual graduated principal payments will begin during FY 2004-05. The payments will increase an average of 2.5% each year until the scheduled payments are made in full. These debt payments will be paid solely from the tax increment received by the RDA.

Any accumulated excess of tax increment revenue over the bond principal and interest due will eventually be used to repay the $3,111,400 of deferred interest attributable to the original County bonds paid off as part of the 1997 restructuring. The County and RDA have agreed to allow the County to intercept (escrow) the available tax increment revenue until the entire obligation (tax increment bonds and deferred interest) owed the County is satisfied. In the event the deferred interest obligation is satisfied prior to the end of the legislated life of the Agency, any excess tax increment revenue over the tax increment bond payment obligation will be available for repayment of loans made to the RDA by the City.

The $1,545,000 loaned from the City to the Abalone Cove fund as part of the 1997 bond restructuring had reached $2,084,956 ($1,545,000 principal plus accrued interest of $539,956) at June 30, 2001. It is estimated that an additional $135,500 of interest will accrue on the loan balance during FY 2001-2002. Therefore, the loan balance owed the City for Abalone Cove activities is expected to be $2,220,456 ($1,545,000 principal plus accrued interest of $675,456) at June 30, 2002.

Since approval of the MOU, tax increment revenues have been sufficient to cover the scheduled interest payments on the tax increment bonds. Based on the FY 2001-2002 tax increment estimates discussed later in the midyear budget review, staff is confident that tax increment revenue will exceed budget and fully satisfy the interest payments due the County in the coming year. Tax increment revenue increased at an annual rate of 8.5% from FY 1999-2000 to FY 2000-2001 and is projected to increase 6.3% from FY 2000-2001 to FY 2001-2002. If this recent trend of tax increment revenue continues in the future, adequate monies will be available to pay all scheduled principal and interest on the $5,455,000 bond as they come due.

Additionally, the County has applied $170,692 of tax increment in excess of annual payments to the $3,111,400 deferred interest component.

MIDYEAR FINANCIAL REPORT AND MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

PORTUGUESE BEND FUND

Background

The Portuguese Bend landslide area projects are financed by loans from the General fund of the City. The loans have always been made with the knowledge that the available RDA tax increment revenue may not be sufficient to pay both the County bond debt and the City loans funding Portuguese Bend landslide projects. However, a loan accounting is maintained in order to provide a mechanism for the City to receive some repayment should the available tax increment some day exceed the scheduled debt payments to the County. Failure to advance project funds in the form of a loan, rather than fund transfers, would subject the Board and staff to legitimate criticism should monies later become available to repay the loans. Even if the loan mechanism did not exist, it would be necessary to finance these projects with General fund monies.

The Portuguese Bend loan balance owed the City as of July 1, 2001 was $8,133,964 ($4,320,552 plus accrued interest of $3,813,412). No additional loans were required in FY 2001-2002, since operating activities for the Portuguese Bend fund are being financed with the carryover of unreserved fund balance amounts from FY 2000-2001 and prior. However, it is estimated that an additional $528,700 of interest will accrue on the loan balance during FY 2001-2002. As a result, the loan balance owed the City by the Agency for Portuguese Bend activities is expected to be $8,662,664 ($4,320,552 principal plus accrued interest of $4,342,112) as of June 30, 2002.

Expenditures

Below is a summary of Portuguese Bend fund expenditures by program with explanations regarding the status of significant budgeted projects:

Projected

Budget

Projected

Budget

Actual

FY 2001-2002

FY 2001-2002

Variance

FY 2000-2001


Administration (720)

$

49,810

49,810

0

20,806

RDA Engineering (721)

45,000

45,000

0

15,405

Agency Attorney (722)

10,000

10,000

0

0

Capital Projects (725)

35,200

35,200

0

0

Total Expenditures

$

140,010

140,010

0

36,211

Construct Replacement Wall at Figuora Site ($35,000 Budgeted FY 2001-2002)

This budget amount provides for construction of a new well in Portuguese Bend. The initial site identified for the new well was near an existing well located on property owned by the Figuroa. Public Works staff is currently working with representatives of the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) to locate a better location for the new well.

Projected Portuguese Bend Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

The ending unreserved fund balance in the Portuguese Bend fund is projected as follows:

Unreserved Fund balance, July 1, 2001

$

402,698

Projected revenue, FY 2001-2002

22,300

Projected expenditures, FY 2001-2002

(140,010)

Projected unreserved fund balance, June 30, 2002

$

284,988

The FY 2001-2002 budget originally projected the ending fund balance to be $123,087. The difference is primarily due to the final loan disbursement to the Portuguese Bend Club Homeowners Association in the amount of $137,718. The final disbursement was presented as a reduction of fund balance in the budget document to illustrate the use of available funds. The actual accounting for this note receivable does not reduce the fund balance; but instead reserves a portion of fund balance equal to the balance of the Note Receivable.

ABALONE COVE FUND

Revenue

Interest earnings are on pace to reach $75,000 and far exceed the $10,000 budget. The excess interest income is a result of the Agency maintaining a larger than anticipated cash balance due to expenditure delays associated with the major capital projects budgeted for construction in FY 2000-2001 and FY 2001-2002. As discussed below, staff does not expect the majority of these project expenditures to be incurred until the second half of FY 2001-2002.

Expenditures

The following is a summary of Abalone Cove fund expenditures. Any significant budget variances, as well as the status of major capital projects, are discussed in detail after the expenditure summary:

Projected

Budget

Projected

Budget

Actual

FY 2001-2002

FY 2001-2002

Variance

FY 2000-2001


Administration (730)

$

18,250

18,250

0

1,865

RDA Engineering (731)

14,000

14,000

0

4,684

Agency Attorney (732)

30,000

30,000

0

34,315

Capital Projects (735)

1,938,075

2,088,075

(150,000)

3,761,265

Total Expenditures

$

2,000,325

2,150,325

(150,000)

3,802,129

Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer System ($1,938,075 Budgeted FY 2001-2002)

Construction of the sewer system will be substantially complete during February 2002. Remaining construction activities include site clean up and restoration work. At the September 4, 2001 meeting of the Board, the authorization limit for the Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements contract was increased by $150,000. Staff requests a budget adjustment to formalize the authorized increase. Costs for this project are expected to consume all remaining appropriations in the Abalone Cove capital improvement program.

Abalone Cove Drainage Improvements ($0 Budgeted FY 2001-2002)

This drainage improvement project, recommended by the Panel of Experts to reduce the infiltration of groundwater into the landslide area, is currently on hold due to the lack of funding. The construction of sewer improvements has consumed all remaining landslide settlement funds. There has not been a new funding source identified for this project.

Altamira Canyon Drainage Improvements ($0 Budgeted FY 2001-2002)

The goal of this project is to reduce the amount of channel flow entering the groundwater and slowing channel erosion within Altamira Canyon. The budget originally provided for two funding sources for this project: Abalone Cove fund reserves and CDBG grant reimbursement. However, construction of sewer improvements has consumed most all of the remaining landslide settlement funds. As a result, all revenues and expenditures associated with the Altamira Canyon Drainage project will be recorded in the CDBG fund of the City. Upon completion of the sewer system, any remaining Abalone Cove fund reserves will likely be reallocated to the Altamira Canyon Drainage project.

Projected Abalone Cove Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

It is projected that the Abalone Cove fund balance will be as follows:

Fund balance, July 1, 2001

$

2,108,418

Projected revenue, FY 2001-2002

75,000

Projected expenditures, FY 2001-2002

(2,150,325)

Projected fund balance, June 30, 2002

$

33,093

The FY 2001-2002 budget originally projected the ending Abalone Cove fund balance to $60,661. The projection did not include the increased sewer system authorization of $150,000, savings of approximately $54,000 during FY 2000-2001, and the projected additional interest earnings for FY 2001-2002 in the amount of $65,000.

DEBT SERVICE FUND

Background

The Debt Service fund is used to account for the accumulation of tax increment revenue dedicated for the repayment of principal and interest. Prior to the restructuring of the County bond debt at the end of 1997, the RDA had accumulated approximately $2,000,000 of tax increment revenue and interest earnings in the Debt Service fund. The full $2,000,000 was paid to the County upon restructuring the bond debt.

As discussed previously, the tax increment bonds and deferred interest will be repaid solely from the tax increment revenue received by the RDA. The County and RDA have agreed to allow the County to intercept (escrow) the tax increment revenue until the semi-annual tax increment bond principal and interest and the deferred interest owed the County is paid in full. Though the custody of future tax increment revenue will remain with the County using the intercept procedures, the funds remain the property of the RDA until paid in accordance with the terms of the MOU. Therefore, tax increment revenue earned and used to pay the interest and principal on the tax increment bonds and the accumulated deferred interest continues to be reported in the Debt Service Fund. The Debt Service fund also acts as a pass through entity for recording accrued (unpaid) interest on the loans between the RDA and the City.

Revenues

Recent County estimates project the Agency’s FY 2001-2002 gross tax increment revenue will exceed the budget by over $50,000 and reach $614,000. Approximately $491,000 (80%) will be recorded as revenue in the Debt Service fund, while the remaining 123,000 (20%) is required to be recorded in the RDA Housing Set Aside fund. Of the total FY 2001-2002 allocation, $104,400 (17%) will be directed to the County Fire District. Therefore, approximately $386,600 of net tax increment revenue will be intercepted by the County and applied against the Agency’s indebtedness during FY 2001-2002.

Expenditures

In accordance with the terms of an agreement with the Los Angeles County Fire Protection District, the Agency is required to pay 17% of its gross tax increment to the Fire District. While these pass-thru monies are remitted directly by the County to the Fire District, the Agency is required to recognize both the tax increment revenue and expenditure in its accounting records. Each year that the Agency’s tax increment exceeds budget, the corresponding expenditure for the 17% pass-thru amount will also exceed the budget. Based on current projections, total Debt Service fund expenditures are projected to exceed the budget for pass-thru expenditures. Staff requests that a budget adjustment be made in the Debt Service fund to assure budgetary compliance.

Projected Debt Service Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

As discussed later in this report, staff expects tax increment revenues to exceed interest expenditures on the debt with the County. Any remaining fund balance at June 30, 2002 will be available to make future interest payments to the County on the 1997 RDA bonds.

RDA HOUSING SET-ASIDE FUND

Revenue

California Redevelopment law requires 20% of all gross tax increment be segregated in a "housing set-aside" fund for the development of low and moderate income housing. Total tax increment revenues are expected to exceed budget during FY 2001-2002, with the portion attributable to the RDA Housing Set-Aside fund projected to reach $123,000. The estimated excess is nearly $10,000 more than budget. Additionally, interest income for the year will be less than the $28,000 budgeted by at least $10,000. The decreased interest income is a result of declining investment interest rates. At the time of budget preparation, the Agency’s invested cash was earning approximately 5.8%. Interest rates have since fallen to approximately 3.5%.

Expenditures

In FY 1999-2000, the RDA purchased land with $702,392 of Housing Set-Aside monies and entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) for the development of a multifamily senior apartment project. It was anticipated that this project would satisfy the City’s low and moderate-income housing requirements. At the August 21, 2001 RDA meeting, the Board decided not to extend the ENA in order to analyze other potential alternatives, including an affordable housing project, for the subject site. A workshop is proposed to occur in early spring 2002 to discuss the alternatives.

Until the workshop is completed, it remains unclear as to whether an affordable housing project will be developed on the land purchased by the Agency. In the event the property is not used to construct low-mod housing, the General fund will need to reimburse the Housing Set-Aside fund for the purchase price of the land. Of the $50,000 current year budgeted expenditures, only approximately $1,400 has been spent for Housing Set-Aside consulting. Although it is important to note that staff does not expect any additional expenditures prior to June 30, 2002, these monies will likely need to be re-budgeted in FY 2002-2003.

It is expected that the City’s Affordable "In-Lieu Fund" will contribute as much as $1,000,000 to fund the remainder of the project, if one is developed. The Affordable "In-Lieu Fund" accumulates "in-lieu" fees paid by developers for projects within the City and is a fund of the City, not the RDA. Assuming the project is approved, these monies (like the remaining RDA funds) will not likely be expended until next fiscal year.

Projected Housing Set Aside Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

It is projected that the RDA Housing Set-Aside unreserved fund balance will be as follows:

Fund balance, July 1, 2001

$

487,134

Projected revenue, FY 2001-2002

141,000

Projected expenditures, FY 2001-2002

(1,400)

Projected fund balance, June 30, 2002

$

626,734

The FY 2001-2002 budget originally projected the ending RDA Housing Set-Aside unreserved fund balance to be $539,105. The large remaining fund balance is a result of slowed progress on a low and moderate-income housing project.

RECOMMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS

Abalone Cove Fund

FY 2001-2002 Abalone Cove Fund Expenditure Increase:

Capital Projects #380-735-82 Capital Outlay $150,000


Debt Service Fund

FY 2001-2002 Debt Service Fund Expenditure Increase:

Debt Service #210-610-92 Pass Thru to LA Co. Fire $ 8,500


CONCLUSION

Except as discussed previously in this report, projected revenues should approximate budget and estimated expenditures should be equal to or less than the FY 2001-2002 budget in all funds of the RDA.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed,
Les Evans, Executive Director



RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AMENDING RESOLUTION RDA 2001-07, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR AN ADDITIONAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION TO THE AGENCY'S ABALONE COVE FUND AND DEBT SERVICE FUND

WHEREAS, Section 3.32.070 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the Board of the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency; and

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the Agency Board adopted Resolution 2001-07, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2001-2002 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, certain 2001-2002 fiscal year expenditures, as described below, are expected to exceed the amount budgeted; and

WHEREAS, the Board desires that the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget appropriation in the Abalone Cove fund and Debt Service fund be increased as follows:

#380-735-82 Capital Outlay $150,000
#210-610-92 Pass-thru to other Agencies $ 8,500


BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY:

The following increase be made to the fiscal year 2001-2002 RDA budget:

#380-735-82 Capital Outlay $150,000
#210-610-92 Pass-thru to other Agencies $ 8,500

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2002.


___________________________
AGENCY CHAIR

ATTEST:


______________________
AGENCY SECRETARY

State of California)
County of Los Angeles)ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

I, JO PURCELL, Secretary of the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. RDA 2002- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said Board at regular meeting thereof held on February 5, 2002.

_____________________________
AGENCY SECRETARY


D. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


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.




RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUHORITY
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


CALL TO ORDER: NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2002-02

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1. Minutes of December 18, 2001, January 2, and January 12, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

DECEMBER 18, 2001

The meeting was called to order at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by Commission Secretary Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to January 2, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.

_______________________
CHAIR

ATTEST:


_________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

REGULAR MEETING

JANUARY 2, 2002

The meeting was called to order at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by Commission Secretary Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to January 12, 2002 at 9:00 A.M.

 

_______________________
CHAIR

ATTEST:


_________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

JANUARY 12, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 1:52 P.M. by Chair McTaggart at Ladera Linda Community Center, 32201 Forrestal Drive, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

PRESENT: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
ABSENT: None

Also present were Chief Administrative Officer Les Evans; Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Carolynn Petru, Commission Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Director of Recreation and Parks Ron Rosenfeld; Commission Secretary Jo Purcell; and, Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Commissioner Ferraro moved, seconded by Commissioner Stern, to approve the Agenda. Motion carried.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Commissioner Ferraro moved, seconded by Commissioner Clerk, to approve the Consent Calendar.

Minutes of December 4, 2001.

The minutes were approved as presented.

Resol. No. IA 2002-01 - Register of Demands

ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. IA 2002-01, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

The motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
NOES: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

There were no requests to speak.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 1:53 P.M. on the motion of Chair McTaggart.


________________
Chair

Attest:


______________________

Commission Secretary




2. November and December 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the November 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of November 2001 for the Improvement Authority.

ANALYSIS:

The Improvement Authority’s cash decreased by $458 during the past month; ending with an overall balance of $1,583,340 at November 30, 2001. Cash activity during November 2001 included a $6,000 disbursement for Abalone Cove Landslide maintenance costs. This disbursement was partially offset by receipt of the monthly General fund transfer of $7,917.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: DECEMBER 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the December 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of December 2001 for the Improvement Authority.

ANALYSIS:

The Improvement Authority’s cash decreased by $22,317 during the past month; ending with an overall balance of $1,561,024 at December 31, 2001. Cash activity during December 2001 included a $30,000 disbursement to Hardy & Harper for Portuguese Bend Canyon debris basin maintenance costs. This disbursement was partially offset by receipt of the monthly General fund transfer of $7,917.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer


3. Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Midyear Financial Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION MEMBERS

FROM: DENNIS McLEAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2002

SUBJECT: FY 2001-2002 MIDYEAR FINANCIAL REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION

Receive and file the attached midyear financial report.

INTRODUCTION

On September 4, 1990, the City Council approved a Joint Powers Agreement between the City and Redevelopment Agency (the Agency). The Agreement requires separate accounting of repair and maintenance activities of the improvements constructed (i.e. de-watering wells) within the Abalone Cove and Portuguese Bend landslide project areas. While the improvements were under construction, repair and maintenance expenditures were budgeted and accounted for by both the Agency and the City. Beginning in FY 1997-98 the accounting for the activities of the Authority were separated from the City and Agency. Since that time an operating budget has been adopted annually by the Improvement Authority Commission.

The Improvement Authority is separated into two funds - the Abalone Cove Maintenance Fund and the Portuguese Bend Maintenance Fund. In accordance with the Reimbursement and Settlement Agreement (Horan Agreement), the repair and maintenance costs associated with the Abalone Cove landslide improvements are recorded in the Abalone Cove Maintenance Fund and are paid from the accumulated interest earned on $1,000,000 of County bond proceeds received in 1991. Annual transfers from the City's General fund are required to finance the repair and maintenance expenditures for Portuguese Bend landslide abatement improvements accounted for in the Portuguese Bend Maintenance Fund.

PORTUGUESE BEND FUND

Revenues and Transfers In

A General fund transfer of $95,000 is the primary financing source for Portuguese Bend maintenance activities during FY 2001-02. Interest earned on accumulated cash balances, projected to be about $4,200, is the only other source of revenue expected for FY 2001-02.

Expenditures

The costs associated with drainage and erosion control repairs and maintenance varies from year-to-year, depending on land movement, storm-water levels and the overall age of the drainage system. Currently, total expenditures are estimated to reach the FY 2001-02 budget of $99,100.

Projected Portuguese Bend Maintenance Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

The ending unreserved fund balance in the Portuguese Bend fund of the Improvement Authority is projected as follows:

Fund balance, July 1, 2001

$

126,101

Projected revenue, FY 2001-02

4,200

Projected transfers in, FY 2001-02

95,000

Projected expenditures, FY 2001-02

(99,100)

Projected fund balance, June 30, 2002

$

126,201

The FY 2001-02 budget originally projected the ending fund balance to be $123,052. The excess fund balance amount is a result of actual savings in FY 2000-01. The carry forward balance will be used to finance repair and maintenance activities in future periods.

ABALONE COVE FUND

Revenue

Interest earnings are expected to be less than the $68,000 budget estimate by about $19,000 due to the decrease in interest rates over the past year. The RDA was earning approximately 5.8% on idle cash at the time the budget was prepared. The interest calculated during budget preparation was conservatively based on 5%. In recent months, this figure has decreased to approximately 3.5%.

Expenditures

Total repair and maintenance costs are expected to reach the budgeted amount of $103,700.

Projected Abalone Cove Maintenance Unreserved Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

It is projected that the Abalone Cove unreserved fund balance will be as follows:

Fund balance, July 1, 2001

$

470,052

Projected revenue, FY 2001-02

49,000

Projected expenditures, FY 2001-02

(103,700)

Projected fund balance, June 30, 2002

$

415,352

The FY 2001-02 budget originally projected the ending unreserved fund balance to be $397,712. The excess unreserved fund balance resulted from annual budget savings from FY 1998-99 through FY 2000-01. Assuming the Authority continues to fund ACLAD activities in future years, annual expenditures will likely exceed annual revenues. As a result, the projected accumulated unreserved fund balance of $415,352 will gradually be depleted.

CONCLUSION

As discussed earlier in this report, current trends indicate projected fund balances in both funds of the Authority will be comparable with the FY 2001-02 budget.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed,
Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer


4. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. IA 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


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.