The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20160202 01- Storm Drain User FeeCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PUBLIC HEARING Date: February 2, 2016 Subject: Consideration and Possible Action to Renew the Storm Drain User Fee Subject Property: Citywide 1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 2. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Dyda 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Director of Finance Cullen Director of Public Works Throne 4. Public Testimony: Appellant: N/A Applicant: N/A 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Council Deliberation: 8. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Dyda 9. Council Action: 1 CITY OF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DEBORAH CULLEN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE � MICHAEL THRONE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2016 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RENEW THE STORM DRAIN USER FEE (SUPPORTS 2014 CITY COUNCIL GOAL NO. 21 PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE) REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER P14' RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive public testimony related to the proposed extension for 10 years for the Storm Drain User Fee; and, 2. Direct Staff to conduct a mail -ballot election of affected property owners; or, 3. Alternatively, discuss and take some other action related to this item. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City's Storm Drain User Fee (Fee) was established in 2005, and is paid by 12,306 of property owners (or approximately 80% of all property owners in the City). In 2007, the City's voters imposed a 10 -year sunset on the Fee, and FY15-16 is the last year of collection. The City collects approximately $1.3 million annually from the Fee with a median rate of $96.85 per parcel, which is restricted to expenditures for the storm drain system. Municipal Code Chapter 3.44 Storm Drain User Fee (Attachment A) outlines the collection and use of the Fee and, based upon the Engineer's Report from Harris and Associates (Attachment B), the assumptions, methodology, and structure to assess and collect it are still valid and compliant with law. It is recommended the City consider conducting a mail -ballot election of property owners to determine whether the Fee should be extended for another 10 years. There are no other proposed changes to the Fee. The 2 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RENEW THE STORM DRAIN USER FEE February 2, 2016 Page 2 of 5 City Council may also consider discontinuing the Fee or request staff to investigate other methods to fund stormwater work. BACKGROUND Accomplishments and Expenditures to Date Public Works has designed and constructed many stormwater projects in the last 10 years, which are described in detail in Attachment C. In addition, catch basin inserts to filter loose debris from entering the system and polluting the runoff that ultimately discharges into Santa Monica Bay have been traditionally installed utilizing the Fee. Below is a summary of the expenditures and revenues through FY15-16. See Attachment C for a detailed accounting of all revenues and expenditures from FY 2005 through 2016. At the end of FY15-16 (June 30, 2016) the total program expenses are expected to total $42.1 million. Spent through FY13-14 $34,245,934 Spent FY14-15 3,394,327 Budget FY15-16 (includes carryovers from FY14-15) 4,457,021 Total Program Expenses $42,097,282 Through FY15-16, total program resources are expected to total $44.4 million. Fee revenue (10 years, includingFY15-16 estimate) $12,983,468 Grant Revenue 9,464,727 Interest Earnings (including FY15-16 estimate) 562,057 General Fund Contributions 21,355,734 Total Program Resources $44,365,986 Estimated Ending Fund Balance June 30, 2016 2,268,704 Total Program Expenses $42,097,282 As illustrated above, the program's ending fund balance at June 30, 2016 is estimated to be $2,268,704 of excess General Fund transfers. DISCUSSION Proposed New Stormwater Protects 2016-2027 The estimated cost of flood protection and rehabilitation projects over the next 10 years is $39,507,000 as outlined in the summary table below, which includes the recommendations from the 2015 Master Plan of Drainage to correct hydrologic and hydraulic deficiencies in the City's storm drain system; the relining of over 18,000 linear feet of culvert; and work in local canyons. 9 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RENEW THE STORM DRAIN USER FEE February 2, 2016 Page 3 of 5 Summary of Proposed Storm Drain System Expenditures 2016- 2026 Proposed New Flood Protection/Rehab Projects Per Master Plan of Drainage $17,614,000 Proposed New Canyon Drainage Projects 11,893,000 Proposed Culvert Relining 10,000,000 Estimated Total Costs Excluding Stormwater Quality $39,507,000 The estimated cost shown above, when spread over a 10 -year program, results in a spending plan of about $4 million annually (excluding ongoing maintenance). There is an additional estimated need of $48,500,000 of stormwater quality work expected to be needed in the next 10 years (see Attachment D) that includes catch basin screens. The City's participation in improving stormwater quality is mandated by State and Federal regulation, and a detailed summary of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) regulations and legal issues involved in compliance and non-compliance are included in Attachments E and F. It is possible that a regional solution will be created in the future to cover some or much of the new MS4 requirements. Citywide Capital Improvements 2016-2021 (Non-Stormwater) The 2015 capital improvement program for all non-stormwater related improvements to public buildings, trails, streets, the Portuguese Bend landslide area, and sanitary sewer system work totals $63,428,807. Funded projects total over the next 5 years $43,168,307 and unfunded projects over the next 5 years total $20,260,500. A summary of these projects is included with Attachment D. A long-term resolution of the land movement in the Portuguese Bend area has not been factored into the capital improvement program. The FY15-16 budget includes an allocation of $75,000 to develop a strategic plan to articulate the City's short -and long- term goals related to groundwater pumping, public safety, emergency response, and roadway maintenance/replacement. City Council Advisory Committee Review The background information contained in this report was presented to the Storm Drain Oversight Committee on October 29, 2015, the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) on November 9, 2015, and the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) on December 10, 2015, January 14, 2016 and January 28, 2016. To summarize, the Oversight Committee recognized the scope of the City's storm drain needs but two members were opposed or undecided about extending the Fee; the FAC recommended setting tonight's public hearing; and the IMAC, which meets January 28, 2016 will submit comments as late correspondence. The details of their advisory input to the City Council is included in Attachment G. El CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RENEW THE STORM DRAIN USER FEE February 2, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Process to Extend the Fee The required proceedings for an extension of the Fee are very similar to the proceedings undertaken by the City in 2005 to establish the Fee. An election is required and the City Council has the option of holding a registered -voter election or conducting a mailed -ballot election of the affected property owners. The extension of the Fee must be approved by a two-thirds vote if the election is by the registered voters, and by a majority vote if the election is by the property owners. Conducting a property owner mailed -ballot election, as was done in connection with the approval of the existing Fee, is consistent with past practice because the property owners pay the Fee. The process to extend the Fee via a mail -ballot election in Spring 2016 can be summarized as follows. • City Council considers directing Staff to conduct a mail -ballot election — tonight's agenda item. • Mail Notices of Public Hearing — December 2015 (already done). • Conduct Public Hearing — February 2016. • If the City Council does direct Staff to conduct the mail -ballot election, the ballot period would be February through March 2016. • The ballots are received and City Council adopts the results of the election in April 2016; if the results are favorable, the City Council would consider amending the ordinance to extend the Fee. Summary of Transient Occunancv Tax Revenue Because there has been extensive discussion about the City's TOT and its relation to the storm drain financial requirements of the City, we thought it would be important to include some basic information about the City's TOT. The City's Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue transferred to the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund averages approximately $5 million annually. The adopted TOT rate is 10%, which is paid by each visitor staying at resorts and hotels in the City. Typically, a 1 % increase in the rate results in a gross increase in TOT revenue of approximately $500,000. Therefore, a 2% increase is approximately $1,000,000, a 3% increase is approximately $1,500,000 and a 4% increase is approximately $2,000,000. The City has accumulated reserves, which include about $15.2 million in the General Fund and $13.3 million in the CIP Fund at June 30, 2015 (unaudited). CONCLUSION The accomplishments of the first ten years of the program and the anticipated flood protection and culvert rehabilitation need for the next ten years is the basis of the recommendation to extend the Fee for another ten years. However, as described below, the City Council may consider alternative actions or programs to fund these programs in the future. 5 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RENEW THE STORM DRAIN USER FEE February 2, 2016 Page 5 of 5 ALTERNATIVES The City Council may elect to proceed with the recommendation included with this report or consider the following alternatives: A. Reject Recommendation 2 and allow the Fee to sunset on June 30, 2016. B. Reject Recommendation 2 and, per Recommendation 3, direct Staff to investigate other possible funding sources and return with options for City Council consideration during the annual budget process. C. Reject Recommendation 2 and, per Recommendation 3, provide other direction to Staff. Attachments A. Municipal Code Chapter 3.44 Storm Drain User Fee (A-1) B. Engineer's Report by Harris & Associates (B-1) C. Project Revenue/Expenditure History --projects completed from 2005 through 2016 (C-1) D. Summary of known capital improvement projects (stormwater and non- stormwater) from 2016 through 2027 (D-1) E. Summary of MS4 regulations and the City's participation in future PV Peninsula stormwater quality projects (E-1) F. Summary of legal issues related to stormwater quality regulatory compliance (F-1) G. Summary of Fee review by City Council advisory committees (G-1) H. Storm Drain User Fee protest letters (H-1) Al • Municode Pageel ofc5 ATTACHMENT A Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Code of Ordinances >> Title 3 - REVENUE AND FINANCE >> Chapter 3.44 STORM DRAIN USER FEE >> Chapter 3.44 STORM DRAIN USER FEE Sections: 3.44.010 Purpose. 3.44.020 Fee levied. 3.44.030 Method of collection of fee. 3.44.040 Annual review of fee. 3.44.050 Appeals process for property owners. 3.44.060 Deposit of fee revenues. 3.44.070 Duration. 3.44.080 Storm drain user fee oversight committee. 3.44.010 Purpose. This chapter establishes an annual storm drain user fee for all parcels of real property in the city that drain into city -maintained storm drain infrastructure, including pipes, inlets, outlets and natural drainage courses (the city's storm drain system). (Ord. 418 § 2 (part), 2005) 3.44.020 Fee levied. A. Commencing with fiscal year 2006-2007, an annual storm drain user fee is levied upon each parcel of real property in the city that drains into the city's storm drain system. The amount of use of the city's storm drain system attributed to each parcel is measured by the amount of storm runoff contributed by the parcel to the city's storm drain system. The amount of contributed storm runoff is directly proportional to the amount of impervious area (impervious percentage) on the parcel (such as buildings and concrete), with greater impervious area equal to greater storm runoff generated. The amount of the storm drain user fee shall be computed annually for each identified parcel as follows: 1. (Parcel Area) x (Impervious Percentage) = Drainage units 2• (Drainage Units) _ (0.118) = Equivalent residential units (ERUs) 3• (ERUs) x (the annual rate per ERU) = the annual storm drain user fee. The storm drain user fee will not be deemed to be increased in the event the actual payment from a person in any given year is higher due to an increase in the amount of the impervious area of the subject parcel caused by new development. B. Table 1 shows the estimated percentage of impervious area (impervious percentage) assigned to single-family residential (SFR) parcels of various size ranges. Table 1 - SFR Impervious Percentages SFR Size Ranges A-1 http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=16571 &HTMRequest=http%3a%2f .. 2/21/2014 Municode Pagee2 ofc5 ATTACHMENT A Landl Impervious Use lPercentages SFR174.0% 0.01-0.16 acres (-1 sf--7,012 sf) SFR258.0% 0.161-0.20 acres (-7,013 sf--8,755 sf) SFR348.5% 0.201-0.28 acres (-8,756 sf--12,239 sf) SFR 41.0% 0.281-0.54 acres -12,240 sf--23,565 sf SFR534.5% 0.541-2.99 acres -23,566 sf--130,680 sf SFR6N/a* 13.0 acres and greater The actual impervious percentage is used for each parcel. The impervious percentages assigned to condominiums and non -SFR properties, which include multifamily residential, institutional (such as churches and private schools) and government- owned properties, are based on the actual impervious area of each such parcel. C. The parcel areas for condominiums are calculated by dividing the total area of the condominium complex (which includes the common area) by the number of condominium units, and the total imperviousness of the entire complex is attributed to each individual condominium parcel in the complex. (This divides the runoff of the entire complex to each of the individual units.) Because the condominium common areas are taken into consideration in this manner, they are exempt from the fee. D. Vacant, unimproved parcels are still in their natural states and do not contribute any additional runoff to burden the city's storm drain system. Therefore, the storm drain user fee is not applicable to these parcels. E. Eighty-six dollars is the maximum annual storm drain user fee rate per ERU for fiscal year 2006-2007. F. Such maximum annual rate per ERU shall be increased annually commencing with fiscal year 2007-2008, by an amount equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles, Riverside and Orange County areas (the "CPI"), including all items as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 1 of each year, not to exceed a maximum increase of two percent per year. G. Notwithstanding Section 9217 of the California Elections Code, without a vote of the property owners, in any year the city council may do any and all of the following: (i) repeal this Chapter 3.44; (ii) reduce the rate per ERU for the storm drain user fee below the maximum rate; or (iii) increase the rate per ERU for the storm drain user fee up to or below the maximum rate if it has been previously set below such rate. In no event shall the city council increase the storm drain user rate per ERU in excess of the maximum rate without approval by a majority vote of the property owners subject to the storm drain user fee. (Ord. 418 § 2 (part), 2005) 3.44.030 Method of collection of fee. Commencing with fiscal year 2006-2007, for each year, the storm drain user fee is collected, the storm drain user fee shall be collected on the county of Los Angeles tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes of the city; provided, however, in any year the city council may, by resolution, provide for an alternative procedure for collection of the storm drain user fee. For any fiscal year in which A-2 http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=16571 &HTMRequest=http%3a%2f .. 2/21/2014 Municode PageO ofc5 ATTACHMENT A the storm drain user fee is authorized but not collected on the tax roll, the city may collect all or a portion of the storm drain user fee for such year on the tax roll in the following fiscal year or years. (Ord. 418 § 2 (part), 2005) 3.44.040 Annual review of fee. Each fiscal year, commencing with fiscal year 2007-2008, the city council shall, following a public hearing, determine whether to collect the storm drain user fee for that year, and if so, the rate per ERU for that year. In making its determinations, the city council shall take into account the current and projected revenues of the city for such fiscal year, including, but not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes and transient occupancy taxes; the current and projected expenditures of the city for such fiscal year, including, but not limited to, proposed expenditures in connection with the city's storm drain system; the balance, if any, in the water quality and flood protection program enterprise fund; and the current and projected general fund reserves. In no event shall the annual rate per ERU be set in excess of the maximum rate without approval by a majority vote of the property owners subject to the storm drain user fee. (Ord. 418 § 2 (part), 2005) 3.44.050 Appeals process for property owners. If a property owner disagrees with the calculation of his or her storm drain user fee, based on the parcel area and/or impervious percentage assigned to the property, then the property owner may appeal the calculation as follows: A. The property owner must provide written documentation explaining the reason why the storm drain user fee should be changed. This documentation must include: 1 The name, telephone number, mailing address, and email address, if available, of the property owner; 2• The Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) of the property in question; 3. To -scale drawings of the property in question and the impervious areas located on it with accompanying calculations. The to -scale drawings shall include the square footage and labels for each impervious area (i.e., house, garage, driveway, patio, tool shed, carport, etc.). B. If additional documentation is required or insufficient documentation was submitted, a representative of the public works department or his or her designee (staff) will notify the property owner in writing within two weeks of receipt of the appeal. C. Once the staff has determined that sufficient documentation has been submitted, the staff will perform the initial review. The staff will notify the property owner in writing within four weeks from the time sufficient documentation was submitted as to whether or not the fee amount will be changed. If the determination is to change the fee amount, then the new fee amount will be documented within the city's fee database. 2• If the determination is that the fee should not be changed, the property owner can appeal the staffs decision to the director of public works (director). The appeal must be made in writing and returned no later than four weeks from the date of mailing of the staffs initial review decision. The director will notify the property owner in writing within four weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal as to whether or not the fee amount will be changed. A-3 http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=16571&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f .. 2/21/2014 Municode Pageol ofc5 ATTACHMENT A 3. If the director's determination is that the fee should not be changed, the property owner can appeal this decision to the city council. The appeal must be made in writing and returned no later than four weeks from the date of mailing of the director's appeal decision. The city clerk shall fix a time and place for hearing the appeal and shall give notice in writing to the appellant in the manner prescribed in Section 3.16.090 of this title for service of notice of hearing. The city council's determination on the appeal shall be final. Appeals will be accepted annually up until June 30 for inclusion on the following fiscal year's property tax roll submittal. However, if an appeal is granted by the staff, the director or the city council that does not permit inclusion for the following fiscal year's property tax roll submittal, a reimbursement will be provided to the property owner by the city. Any action brought against the city pursuant to this section shall be subject to the provisions of Government Code Sections 945.6 and 946. Compliance with these provisions shall be a prerequisite to a suit thereon. (Ord. 418 § 2 (part), 2005) 3.44.060 Deposit of fee revenues. Upon receipt of moneys representing storm drain user fees, the city treasurer shall deposit the moneys in the city treasury to the credit of the water quality and flood protection program enterprise fund and the moneys shall only be expended for facilities and services furnished by the city in connection with its storm drain system. (Ord. 418 § 2 (part), 2005) 3.44.070 Duration. Unless repealed previously by the city council pursuant to Section 3.44.020(G)(i), the storm drain user fee imposed by this chapter shall expire on June 30, 2016, and shall not be levied by the city during any subsequent fiscal year. (Ord. 467 § 1, 2007: Ord. 418 § 2 (part), 2005) 3.44.080 Storm drain user fee oversight committee. A. An oversight committee ("committee") is created and established. The committee shall hold at least one public hearing and issue a report, on at least an annual basis, to inform city residents and the city council regarding how storm drain user fee revenues are being spent and to make recommendations to the city council regarding future expenditures of the storm drain user fee revenues. In addition, the oversight committee shall make a recommendation to the city council regarding whether to collect the storm drain user fee for the upcoming fiscal year, and, if so, the rate per ERU for that fiscal year. In making its recommendation to the city council, the oversight committee shall consider the current and projected revenues of the city for the upcoming fiscal year, including but not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes and transient occupancy taxes; the current and projected expenditures of the city for the fiscal year, including, but not limited to, proposed expenditures in connection with the city's storm drain system; the balance, if any, in the water quality and flood protection program enterprise fund, and the current and projected general fund reserves. The oversight committee shall forward its report and recommendations to the city council prior to the annual public hearing on the storm drain user fee that will be conducted by the city council. A-4 http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=16571 &HTMRequest=http%3a%2f .. 2/21/2014 Municode Pagec5 ofc5 ATTACHMENT A The oversight committee also shall perform other assignments regarding the water quality and flood protection program, as directed by the city council or upon request by staff. B. The oversight committee shall consist of five residents of the city who shall be appointed by, and shall serve at the pleasure of, the city council. The term of office for three members of the oversight committee shall be four years, and the initial term of office for two members of the oversight committee shall be two years. After the initial term, all members of the oversight committee shall have four-year terms. The terms of office shall expire on the date of the second regular city council meeting in January of even years, or until a successor is appointed. (Ord. 467 § 2, 2007) A-5 http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=16571 &HTMRequest=http%3a%2f .. 2/21/2014 CITY OF MEMORANDUM r_11ir_T41:IT,14�11a 1 ��'ANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DEBORAH CULLEN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE MICHAEL THRONE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2015 SUBJECT: MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR STORM DRAIN USER FEE 2016 RENEWAL REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER l/l/) Staff Coordinators: Kathryn Downs, Deputy Director of Finance Andy Winje, PE, Senior EngineerQ RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive and file a summary of the 2015 Master Plan of Drainage (on the City's website since October 1, 2015), and the Draft Preliminary Report for the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee, 2016 Renewal (attachment A). 2. Schedule a public hearing for January 19, 2016; to consider whether the City should conduct a mail -ballot election of affected property owners, for a 10 -year extension of the storm drain user fee with the same fee structure and methodology. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City's Storm Drain User Fee (Fee) was established in 2005, and is paid by about 80% of property owners. In 2007, the City's voters imposed a 10 -year sunset on the Fee, and FY15-16 is the last year of collection. The City collects about $1.3 million annually from the Fee, which is restricted to the storm drain system. Staff is recommending the City conduct a mail -ballot election of property owners to determine whether the Fee should be extended for another 10 years. After reviewing the Rate Engineer's Report indicating the Fee assumptions, methodology and structure are still valid and compliant with law, Staff proposes no changes to the structure of the Fee. B-1 r_11ir_T41:I T,14�:ir 1 MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR STORM DRAIN USER FEE RENEWAL November 17, 2015 Page 2 of 6 The information in this report was presented to the Storm Drain Oversight Committee on October 29th, the Finance Advisory Committee on November 9th, and the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee on November 12th Storm Drain Oversight Committee A straw vote indicated that 3 members supported Staff's recommendation to move forward with a mail -ballot election (Kim, Lyon and Sala), 1 member opposed at this time (Rodich), and 1 member was undecided (Johnson). All members appeared to recognize the scope of the City's storm drain needs. Members in support of a mail -ballot election noted the quantified storm drain need, a desire to balance the City's available resources with other infrastructure needs, and the range of potential expenditures for water quality compliance. Noting the City's fund balances, Member Rodich opined the City has accumulated enough General Fund money for the first 4-5 years of the program; and depending on its financial condition at the end of that period, the City could consider asking the voters for another user fee. Member Johnson was in favor of a dedicated revenue source for storm drains; but unsure if the user fee is the most appropriate choice. Member Johnson indicated that storm drains will compete with other demands for the City's limited resources (e.g. MS4 permit compliance, landslide management, other infrastructure); but noted the other demands have not been fully quantified. Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) The FAC provided excellent feedback regarding presentation of information to the public, and unanimously approved the following statement prepared by the Committee. "Considering the potential costs of storm drain needs, absent a dedicated revenue source, the ability to continue to fund the City's ongoing infrastructure needs would be in jeopardy. The FAC recommends the City Council set the public hearing for February 2016. " The FAC discussed risk associated with the storm drain program, noting the consequences of a failed storm drain may be much more significant than the consequences of a failed roadway. The FAC considered whether the City should bear the potential risk of storm drain failure without having asked the voters. Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) Due to the timing of the IMAC meeting and City Council agenda distribution, a summary of the IMAC discussion and any recommendations will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence. BACKGROUND The City's storm drain program results include: 2 B-2 MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR STORM DRAIN USER FEE RENEWAL November 17, 2015 Page 3 of 6 • Completion of San Ramon Canyon stabilization and McCarrell Canyon drainage improvements; • Completion of: drainage projects at Sunnyside Ridge, PVDE and La Vista Verde, the PVDE Switchbacks, Via Colinita, Miraleste Plaza, Seacove, Palos Verdes Bay Club, and Mossbank; • Rehabilitating and lining of more than 15,000 linear feet of corrugated metal pipe (through 2015 for a cost of about $4.8 million), extending the life of those pipes for another 25 years; and • Performing cleaning and video inspection of all accessible and known City -owned storm drains. Some locations received multiple cleanings and inspections. Through FY15-16, total program expenses are expected to total $42.1 million. Spent through FY13-14 Spent FY14-15 $ 34, 245, 934 3,394,327 Budget FY15-16 (includes carryovers from FY14-15) 4,457,021 Total Program Expenses $42,097,282 Through FY15-16, total program resources are expected to total $44.4 million. Fee revenue (10years, including FY15-16 estimate) $12,983,468 Grant Revenue 9,464,727 Interest Earnings (including FY15-16 estimate) 562,057 General Fund Contributions 21,355,734 Total Program Resources $44,365,986 Estimated Ending Fund Balance lune 30, 2016 2,268,704 Total Program Expenses $42,097,282 As illustrated above, the program's ending fund balance at June 30, 2016 is estimated to be $2,268,704. INT44Il�li re -V Master Plan of Drainage & Condition Assessment On October 1, 2013 the City Council awarded a contract to RBF Consulting (now Michael Baker International) to develop a Master Plan of Drainage for the storm water drainage system in the City. This effort involved desk top and field studies to inventory the city's storm drain system, develop a GIS layer based on all known data, and model the system under prescribed rainfall events to determine where capacity deficiencies in the system may be present. The deficient areas are further studied to develop a conceptual level "project" that would correct the deficiency. The costs for these conceptual projects are estimated using rough, industry -wide, unit costs to determine an order of magnitude 3 B-3 I►_11ir_T41:I T,14�: MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR STORM DRAIN USER FEE RENEWAL November 17, 2015 Page 4 of 6 estimate to correct all the capacity deficiencies in the City. To conclude the master plan, a prioritization scheme is developed, based on risk, to determine an implementation program and schedule for implementation of the conceptual projects. The 2015 Master Plan of Drainage has been completed and posted to the City's website (as of October 1, 2015 at htt ://www.r vca, ov/901 /Master-Plan-of-Draina e). The Plan includes recommendations to correct hydrologic (direction of movement) and hydraulic (flow capacity) deficiencies in the City's storm drain system. Estimated project costs total $17,614,000 (in 2015 dollars). This list does not include projects for new infrastructure (e.g. San Ramon Canyon stabilization was new infrastructure). The $17.6 million estimate does not include additional work that may be necessary due to the unique characteristics of the City (e.g. geotechnical studies and utility surveying), nor does it include storm drain lining. The 2014-15 closed circuit television condition assessment of the City's entire storm drain pipeline indicates that 18,352 of pipe is in "urgent" need of lining (average through severe defects of corrugated metal pipe), at an estimated cost of about $10 million. Storm drain improvements over the last ten years are considered to be in good condition, and are not are not a part of these estimated costs. Proposed New Infrastructure — Unfunded The 2015 Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan identified storm drain projects for new infrastructure, but did not identify funding. These projects were identified by Staff based on the age of the existing infrastructure, landslide area and requirements relating to the Municipal Storm Sewer System National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MS4 Permit). Estimates of minimum and maximum project costs are listed below. Project Minimum Maximum Midpoint Altamira Canyon Drainage $ 1,600,000 $ 5,350,000 $ 3,475,000 Paintbrush Canyon Drainage 2,568,000 2,568,000 2,568,000 Miraleste Canyon Drainage 2,500,000 3,200,000 2,850,000 San Pedro Canyon & Averill Canyon Drainage 2,700,000 3,300,000 3,000,000 Catch Basin Screen Installation 600,000 900,000 750,000 Totals $ 9,968,000 $ 1.5,318,000 $ 12,643,000 Summary of Storm Drain System Needs Correct Storm Drain Deficiencies $ 17,614,000 Unfunded New Storm Drains (midpoint) 12,643,000 Storm Drain Lining 10,000,000 Estimated Total Costs $ 40,257,000 El B-4 ATTACHMENT B MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR STORM DRAIN USER FEE RENEWAL November 17, 2015 Page 5 of 6 The $40.3 million estimated cost spread over a 10 -year program results in a spending plan of about $4 million annually (excluding ongoing maintenance). The City's transient occupancy tax revenue transferred to the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund is about $5 million annually. The City has accumulated reserves, which include about $15.2 million in the General Fund and $13.3 million in the CIP Fund at June 30, 2015 (unaudited). However, the City has other demands on its resources. The City must comply with new federal and state mandates for clean storm -water runoff. Information presented in May 2015 to the Regional Water Quality Control Board indicates that the City may be responsible for $36 million to $58.5 million of projects to achieve storm water quality compliance. Detailed information is posted on the City's website. The City must balance the use of its resources. In addition to unfunded storm drain improvements, there are many other recommended infrastructure projects identified in the 2015 Capital Improvement Plan with estimated costs ranging from a total of $20 million to $27 million that remain unfunded. Many of these projects address safety and access issues; and include improvements in the public right-of-way, City park sites, and City -owned buildings. Detailed information is posted on the City's website, and is an appendix of the City's FY15-16 Budget Document. As we all know, there is also an active landslide in the City; and the impacts of that landslide must be managed. The City Council has funded a series of new dewatering wells, and has planned for relocation of the roadway back into the City's right-of-way,- however, ight-of-way;however, more infrastructure projects may be needed to protect human safety and regional access. The FY15-16 budget includes an allocation of $75,000 to develop a strategic plan to articulate the City's short and long-term goals related to groundwater pumping, public safety, emergency response, and roadway maintenance/replacement. If we combine the estimated storm drain needs with other demands for City resources, as illustrated below, it becomes clear that the City's $5 million revenue stream and accumulated reserves can pay for some of the City's needs, but not all. 5 B-5 Annual Estimated storm drain needs, spread over 10 years $ 4,025,700 Estimated other infrastructure funded with General Fund money, per 2015 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): Residential street rehabilitation 1,720,000 Other infrastructure (Landslide, Park Impr, Roadways, etc.) 3,049,406 Midpoint of estimated water quality compliance, spread over 10 years 4,725,000 Midpoint of other unfunded infrastructure (per 2015 CIP), spread over 10 years 2,350,000 Potential Infrastructure Demands on General Fund $ 15,$70,106' 5 B-5 I►_11ir_T41:I T,14i,: MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR STORM DRAIN USER FEE RENEWAL November 17, 2015 Page 6 of 6 CONCLUSION The success of the first ten years of the program, along with the information presented above, is the basis for Staff's recommendation to extend the Fee for another ten years. Process to Extend the Fee The required proceedings for an extension of the Fee are very similar to the proceedings undertaken by the City in 2005 to establish the Fee. An election is required, and the City Council has the option of holding a registered voter election or conducting a mailed ballot election of the affected property owners. The extension of the Fee must be approved by a two-thirds vote if the election is by the registered voters, and by a majority vote if the election is by the property owners. Staff recommends that the City conduct a property owner mailed ballot election as was done in connection with the approval of the existing Fee, because the property owners pay the Fee. On June 2, 2015, the City Council authorized the Fee Rate Engineer to analyze the Fee structure and methodology to ensure assumptions are still valid and compliant with changes in the law over the last ten years. The Rate Engineer's analysis has been completed, and the attached report indicates that assumptions are still valid and compliant with the law. The process to extend the Fee via a mail -ballot election in spring 2016 can be summarized as follows. • City Council decision whether to conduct a public hearing in February — tonight's agenda item. • Mail Notices of Public Hearing — December 2015. • Conduct Public Hearing — February 2016. • Ballot Period — February -March 2016. City Council adopts results of election; and, if the results are favorable, considers ordinance to extend the Fee — April 2016. Attachment A — Draft Preliminary Report for the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee (2016 Renewal) — page 7 C M Preliminary Report forthe Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee (2016 Renewal) Forthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles County, California October 21, 2015 7 B-7 Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Certificates................................................................. Pg. 1 Introduction............................................................... Pg. 2 Cost Estimates............................................................ Pg. 5 Annual Fee Rate Calculations .................................... Pg. 6 Sample Calculations ................................. Pg. 10 Approval Process Flow Chart ............................... Exhibit A Assessment Roll ..............................Under Separate Cover Harris & Associates M. M r_11aETM :IT,14�III a ] Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Page 1 Preliminary Report City of Rancho Palos Verdes Storm Drain User Fee The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as directed by the City Council. DATED: October 21, 2015 BY: K. Dennis Klingelhofer R.C.E. No. 50255 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment Roll thereto attached, was filed with me on the day of /2015. Carla Morreale, City Clerk, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles County, California By I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment Roll thereto attached was finally adopted and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, on the day of 12015. Carla Morreale, City Clerk, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles County, California By Harris & Associates E M Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Pace 2 INTRODUCTION To ensure dedicated funding for the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes established a user fee in September 2005. Fiscal Year 2015-16 was the final year of the original fee, however with the additional projects as recommended by the update to the Master Plan of Drainage it is necessary to consider continuing the fee. The purpose of this report is to: • Review the requirements of Article XIIID of the State Constitution (Proposition 218) relating to requirements for apportioning the costs associated with the storm drain system. • Ensure that the fee rate structure established is fair and equitable for the levying of the costs of the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program. • Identify changes in impervious factors for residential properties that were previously capped in the original fee. • Outline the process to continue the Fee based on Proposition 218. Proposition 218 Requirements All fees must comply with the provisions of Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218). Section 6.b of Proposition 218 has the following requirements for all "new, extended, imposed or increased" fees and charges: 1) "Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property -related service." 2) "Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed." 3) "The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel." 4) "No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future use of service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with [the assessment section of this code]." 5) "No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners." Harris & Associates 10 B-10 r_11ir_T41:I►T,r4�III ] Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Page 3 There have been a number of court cases related to property -related fees in the last few years; however they have all focused on water rates or groundwater charges. The only substantive part of these cases that related to storm water fees is the requirement that the fees be based on the cost of service and that they must be proportional. The City's current rate structure complies with this requirement. Rate Structure Analysis Within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes there are many separate watersheds of various terrain and with inlets, pipes and channels made of various materials and in various conditions. Some of these watersheds flow directly to the ocean and others flow through other cities or into the unincorporated county areas. All parcels draining into City -maintained drainage infrastructure are proposed to be charged the same user fee rate per ERU for storm drain renewal and maintenance. The Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee is proposed to be extended for an additional ten years and the storm drain improvement program that is being funded is anticipated to upgrade the entire City's storm drain system to a uniform level of maintenance needs in the future. Parcels within the City that have runoff flowing out of the City without going through any City - maintained drainage infrastructure are not included in this fee. There are also a number of County - maintained pipes within the City. If properties drain exclusively to these pipes and the pipe system does not include any City -maintained infrastructure, then they are not included in the fee. The current Hydrology Manual and adopted impervious percentages have been reviewed for consistency with current case law and Proposition 218 requirements. There were not any changes that would have significant bearing on the current methodology. Impervious Factor Changes At the time of the original formation, one of the changes incorporated from the early appeals and property owner concerns during the balloting timeframe was for the properties larger than 0.75 acres. It was determined those properties would be reviewed for actual imperviousness because there was a greater potential for a portion of the property to consist of slopes therefore limiting the amount of buildable area and therefore impervious area. That review resulted in several properties having a reduced impervious percentage and fee. Going forward, the properties that were capped in the original SFRS category were reviewed to confirm their actual impervious percentage and are now included in the SFR6 category which has been changed to include all SFR properties 0.75 acres and greater. Approval Process The Article XIII D of the California Constitution requires that the proposed Fee must go through a two-step approval process. The first step is a Public Hearing, and the second step is a property owner election. Harris & Associates 11 B-11 Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Page 4 Public Hearing All property owners subject to the proposed Fee will be given the opportunity to protest the Fee at the Public Hearing scheduled for January 19, 2016. If at the conclusion of the Public Hearing, written protests against the proposed Fee have been filed (and not withdrawn) by the owners of a majority of the parcels subject to the Fee, then the process will stop and the Fee will not be imposed. A written protest must identify the property and be signed. The City cannot accept electronic protests, such as email or texting. In order to be counted in determining whether there is a majority protest, written protests must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing. Written protests may be delivered to the City Clerk at the Public Hearing or mailed or delivered to the City Clerk at City Hall at the address shown on the front of this notice. Protests which are mailed or delivered to City Hall must arrive at City Hall by 3:00 p.m. on January 19, 2016 to be counted. Only one written protest will be counted per parcel. Property Owner Election If there is an absence of a majority protest, the City Council may order an election on the proposed Fee. One ballot will be provided for each parcel subject to the proposed Fee. Ballots will be mailed to the record owner(s) of the parcels and property owners will be given 45 days to return their ballot. Property owners will be informed of the date and time tabulation of the ballots will occur and they will have the opportunity to view the tabulation process. The results will be presented to the City Council at the next regular Council Meeting following the completion of the tabulation and the Council may impose the Fee if the Fee is approved by the majority of the returned ballots. If approved, the fee will be collected on the annual County Property Tax Bills for ten years commencing with FY 2016-17. The mailed ballot election is expected to occur in spring of 2016. A flowchart of the Approval Process is provided in Exhibit A. Harris & Associates 12 B-12 r_11ir_T41:IIT, 14�Ill a ] Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Page 5 COST ESTIMATE The estimated annual costs to fund the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program are provided below in Table 1. Table 1— Estimated Annual Costs The ending fund balance constitutes a Reserve for Future Projects. Harris & Associates 13 B-13 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (7/1/15) $863,848 ESTIMATED REVENUES Annual Fee Levy $1,439,785 Interest Earnings $7,800 $1,447,585 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES Point Repairs $900,000 Pipe Lining $340,836 Miscellaneous Repairs & Maintenance_ $245,544 Reserve for Anticipated Additional Costs Administration (contract/staff engineer) $79,736 $1,566,116 ESTIMATED ENDING FUND BALANCE (6/30/16) $745,317 The ending fund balance constitutes a Reserve for Future Projects. Harris & Associates 13 B-13 r_11ir_T41:I T,14�Ill a 1 Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Page 6 ANNUAL FEE RATE CALCULATIONS By definition, all properties that drain into the City's storm drain system use the storm drain system. The amount of use attributed to each parcel is measurable by the amount of storm runoff contributed by the property, which is directly proportional to the amount of impervious area on a parcel (such as buildings and concrete). The more impervious area on a property, the more storm runoff the property generates. Vacant, unimproved parcels are still in their natural states and do not contribute any additional runoff to burden the system, therefore these parcels are not charged a storm drain fee. Table 2 shows the estimated Impervious Percentages for single-family residential (SFR) properties of various size ranges. These Impervious Percentages are the estimated percent impervious cover on a property based on a ten percent data sampling of SFR parcels within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes when the fee was initially adopted. For the renewal process we reviewed all the appeals that have been filed since the district was formed. Of the 75 appeals that were received, 65 were approved. Because the percentages of appeals compared to the total number of parcels for each land use was small, the only trend identified was for SFRs on larger lots. The lots 0.75 acres and greater were moved to the SFR6 category and actual impervious area was calculated for each. Looking at the aerials of the properties where multiple appeals were in the same tract verified the appealed properties were the anomalies in that tract. Because of the variations in condominiums and non -SFR properties, which include: multi -family residential, institutional (such as churches and private schools) and government-owned properties, these properties are reviewed individually using the GIS and Aerial photography to determine the actual Impervious cover for each parcel. Table 2 — SFR Impervious Percentages Land Use SFR1 Impervious Percentage 74.0% SFR Size Ranges 0.01 - 0.16 acres (-1 sf - —7,012 sf) SFR2 58.0% 0.161 - 0.20 acres (7,013 sf - 8,755 sf) SFR3 SFR4 48.5% 41.0% 0.201 - 0.28 acres (8,756 sf - 12,239 sf) 0.281 - 0.54 acres (12,240 sf - 23,565 sf) SFR5 34.5% 0.541 - 0.74 acres (23,566 sf - 32,669 sf) SFR6 n/a* 0.75 acres and greater * the actual impervious percentage is used for each parcel. The amount each parcel uses the storm drain system is computed by the following formula: (Parcel Area) x (Impervious Percentage) = Drainage Units The more Drainage Units a parcel has, the more storm run-off it generates, and the more it uses the storm drain system. It is often convenient to relate other land uses to a developed single family home, instead of working exclusively with Drainage Units. Since 83% of the parcels within the City are designated as Harris & Associates 14 B-14 r_11aETM :IT,14�III a ] Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Page 7 Single Family Residential (SFR) parcels, and the median number of Drainage Units is 0.118 for all SFR parcels, it makes sense to relate all parcels to this median residential property. Therefore, 0.118 Drainage Units is set equal to one Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). Parcels within the City that have runoff flowing out of the City without going through any City - maintained drainage infrastructure are not included in this fee. There are also a number of County - maintained pipes within the City. If properties drain exclusively to these pipes and the pipe system does not include any City -maintained infrastructure, then they are not included in the fee. These areas, which consist of approximately 3,047 parcels, are excluded from the Storm Drain User Fee. For the purposes of this report, City -maintained infrastructure includes pipes, inlets, outlets, and natural drainage courses, and is also referred to as the "City's storm drain system." Inventory of Parcels Table 3, below, provides a summary of parcels by land use and shows the current estimated Drainage Units compared to the FY 2015-16 final roll. Table 3 - Drainage Unit Comparison Table Land Use SFR1 Parcels 1,114 Acreage 162,569 Imperv. Percent 74.0% Current Drainage Units 120.055 Prior Drain Units 120.055 Percent Changein Drain over Prior Yr 0.00% SFR2 1,899 349.683 58.0% 202.669 202.669 0.00% SFR3 3,097 736.832 48.5% 357.420 357.420 0.00% SFR4 2,811 1,108.431 41.0% 451.424 451.424 0.00% SFR5 587 366.114 34.5% 123.705 123.705 0.00% SFR6 376 430.965 actual* 100.612 94.956 5.96% CNDO 1,845 139.458 actual* 95.708 95.708 0.00% MFR 39 53.690 actual* 41.736 41.736 0.00% COM 47 144.935 actual" 75.717 75.717 0.00% INST 20 114.240 actual" 64.669 64.669 0.00% GOV 48 490.258 actual* 120.473 120.473 0.000/( 11,883 4,097.175 1,754.188 1,745.225 0.51% Table 4 provides a summary of ERU for each land use based on the current Drainage Units. Harris & Associates an 15 B-15 Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes FIRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Page 8 Table 4 - ERU Summary Table Use SF171 Parcels 1,114 Acreage 162.569 ERU 1,017.4233 DescriptionLand Land Use SFR: 0.01 - 0.16 acres (-0 sf --7, sf) SFR2 SFR3 1,899 3,097 349.683 736.832 1,717.5829 3,029.0239 SFR: 0 161 - 0,20 acres (-7,013 sf-8,755A SFR: 0.201 - 0.28 acres (8,756 sf - 12,239 s SFR4 2,811 1,108.431 3,825.6320 SFR: 0.281 - 0.54 acres (12,240 sf - 23,565 sD SFR5 587 366.114 1,048.3478 SFR: 0.541 - 0.749 acres (23,566 sf - 32,669 sf SFR6 376 430.965 852.6445 SFR: 0.75 acres and greater CNDO MFR 1,845 39 139.458 53.690 811.1116 353.6949 Condominiums Multi -Family Residential COM 47 144.935 641.6693 Commercial INST 20 114.240 548.0422 Churches, Private Schools, Institutions GOV 48 490.258 1,020.9573 Government-owned parcels 11,883 4,097.175 14,866.1297 The parcel areas for condominiums are calculated by dividing the total area of the condominium complex (which includes the common area) by the number of condominium units, and the total imperviousness of the entire complex is attributed to each individual condo parcel in the complex. (This divides the runoff of the entire complex to each of the individual units.) Because the condominium common areas are taken into consideration in this manner, they are exempt from the charge. Harris & Associates in B-16 Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Page 9 Annual Fee Rate Table 5 provides the calculation of the Maximum Annual Fee Rate for the first ten years of the program. Table 5 -Annual Fee Rate Base Year - FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 CPI Increase 3.8% CPI Rate $89.27 2% Rate $87.72 Max. Rate $86.00 $87.72 Actual Rate $86.00 $87.72 FY 2008-09 3.3% $90.61 $89.47 $89.47 $89.47 FY 2009-10 0.0% $89.47 $91.26 $89.47 $89.47 FY 2010-11 1.4% $90.72 $91.26 $90.72 $90.72 FY 2011-12 2.3% $92.81 $92.53 $92.53 $92.53 FY 2012-13 2.1% $94.47 $94.38 $94.38 $92.53 FY 2013-14 2.2% $96.46 $96.27 $96.27 $96.27 FY 2014-15 0.5% $96.75 $98.20 $96.75 $96.75 FY 2015-16 0.1% $96.85 $98.69 $96.85 $96.85 The proposed extension of the Fee will provide for the maximum rate to increase automatically on an annual basis by an amount equal to the annual change in Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI) for the Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange County Areas including all items as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 1 of each year (12 months ended February), not to exceed a maximum increase of two percent (2%) per year. The actual rate to be levied each year will be as approved by the City Council at a public hearing, after they consider an Annual Fee Report outlining the estimated annual costs of the program. Table 6 provides sample fee calculations for various land uses and parcel sizes based on the proposed Actual Fee Rate. Harris & Associates 17 B-17 r_11aETM :IT,14�: a ] Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Page 10 Table 6 - Sample Calculations Land Use Designation Parcel Parcel Est. Imperv. Drainage FY 15-16 Annual Fee Rate/ERU SFR1 3,500 0.08 x 0.740 = 0.059 / 0.118 = 0.5000 $48.43 SFR2 7,400 0.17 x 0.580 = 0.099 / 0.118 = 0.8390 $81.26 SFR2 8,300 0.19 x 0.580 = 0.110 / 0.118 = 0.9322 $90.28 SFR3 9,200 0.21 x 0.485 = 0.102 / 0.118 = 0.8644 $83.72 SFR3 10,000 0.23 x 0.485 = 0.112 J 0.118 = 0.9492 $91.93 SFR3 11,300 0.26 x 0.485 = 0.126 / 0.118 = 1.0678 $103.42 SFR4 13,500 0.31 x 0.410 = 0.127 / 0.118 = 1.0763 $104.24 SFR4 17,000 0.39 x 0.410 = 0.160 / 0.118 = 1.3559 $131.32 SFR4 21,400 0.49 x 0.410 = 0.201 / 0.118 = 1.7034 $164.97 SFRS 30,500 0.70 x 0.345 = 0.242 / 0.118 = 2.0508 $198.62 CNDO* 1,307 0.03 x 0.800 = 0.024 / 0.118 = 0.2034 $19.70 CNDO* Non -SFR 3,049 13,068 0.07 0.30 x x 0.850 0.820 = 0.060 / 0.246 / 0.118 = 0.118 = 0.5085 2.0847 $49.25 $201.90 Non -SFR 13,068 0.30 x 0.700 = 0.210 J 0.118 = 1.7797 $172.36 Non -SFR 29,185 0.67 x 0.350 = 0.235 / 0.118 = 1.9915 $192.88 Non -SFR 29,185 0.67 x 0.700 = 0.469 / 0.118 = 3.9746 $384.94 Non -SFR 71,874 1.65 x 0.650 = 1.073 / 0.118 = 9.0932 $880.68 Non -SFR 71,874 1.65 x 0.850 = 1.403 / 0.118 = 11.8898 $1,151.53 Non-5FR 135,907 3.12 x 0.400 = 1.248 / 0.118 = 10.5763 $1,024.31 Non -SFR 135,907 3.12 x 0.600 = 1.872 / 0.118 = 15.8644 $1,536.47 0.118 = Drainage Units per median SFR ERU = Equivalent Residential Unit * Condominium parcel areas = the area of the entire complex divided by the total number of units in the complex. Appeals Process If a property owner disagrees with the calculation of his or her fee, based on the parcel area and estimated impervious percentage assigned to the property, then the property owner may appeal the calculation as follows: 1. Property owner must provide written documentation explaining the reason why the charge should be changed. This documentation must include: a. The name, phone number, mailing address, and email address, if available, of the property owner. Harris & Associates im B-18 r_11aETM :IT,14�III a ] Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Page 11 b. The Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) of the property in question. c. To -scale drawings of the property in question and the impervious areas located on it with accompanying calculations. The to -scale drawings shall include the square footage and labels for each impervious area (i.e. house, garage, driveway, patio, tool shed, carport, etc.). 2. If additional documentation is required or insufficient documentation was submitted, a representative of the Public Works Department or his or her designee (Staff) will notify the property owner in writing within two (2) weeks of receipt of the appeal. 3. Once Staff has determined that sufficient documentation has been submitted, Staff will perform the initial review. Staff will notify the property owner in writing within four (4) weeks from the time sufficient documentation was submitted as to whether or not the fee amount will be changed. a. If the determination is to change the fee amount, then the new fee amount will be documented within the City's fee database. b. If the determination is that the fee should not be changed, the property owner can appeal Staff's decision to the Director of Public Works (Director). The appeal must be made in writing and returned no later than four (4) weeks from the date of mailing of Staff's initial review decision. The Director will notify the property owner in writing within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal as to whether or not the fee amount will be changed. If the Director's determination is that the fee should not be changed, the property owner can appeal this decision to the City Council. The appeal must be made in writing and returned no later than four (4) weeks from the date of mailing of the Director's appeal decision. The City Clerk shall fix a time and place for hearing the appeal and shall give notice in writing to the appellant in the manner prescribed in Section 3.16.090 for service of notice of hearing. The City Council's determination on the appeal shall be final. Appeals will be accepted annually up until June 30 for inclusion on the following fiscal year's property tax roll submittal. However, if an appeal is granted by Staff, the Director or the City Council that does not permit inclusion for the following fiscal year's property tax roll submittal, a reimbursement will be provided to the property owner by the City. Harris & Associates 19 B-19 Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT October 21, 2015 Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report EXHIBIT A Rate Structure Analysis Report ..................... ..........I.............. Public Education & Community Outreach Set Public Hearing Mail Notice of Public Hearing to each Property Owner ......................................... at least 45 days prior to Protest Hearing Conducted If Majority Protest, If No Majority Protest* Abandon Proceedings or lo received, Property Owner " Protest is counted on a per balloting is required parcel basis, based on written protest received. ....................................... ........................................ i at least 45 days _...:::..:::::.:.:...........:..............:_.....:.:::............: :.............................................: If Majority of Ballots **An assessment balloting is ** Or If Majority of Ballots are not allowed for this process. are Against Against**, Confirm Fees Abandon Proceedings Harris & Associates Ka I 20 B-20 City of RPV Project Name Backbone Projects McCarrell Canyon Project Decription 66 -inch pipeline to route flow from McCarrel Canyon through Seacove neighborhood following flooding in 2005. McCarrell Canyon, Tarragon Land area required to build inlet Property Acquisition structure and overflow system to McCarrell project Sunnyside Ridge replacement of failed storm drain pipe and construction of new outlet structure at east end of SSR Lower San Ramon Canyon 54 -inch by 4,000 -foot drainage Stabilization diversion pipe from San Ramon Canyon around Tarapaca landslide Barkentine/Seacove area to ocean PVDE Miraleste Canyon System Various smaller drains discharging to Miraleste Canyon drainage PVDE San Pedro Canyon System Various smaller drains discharging to San Pedro Canyon drainage Altamira Canyon Drainage Study Erosion of natural canyon in Ab Cove n'hood that conveys flows, in part, from public ROW. No easement Paintbrush Canyon Drainage Erosion of natural canyon in preserve Study contributes to landslide instability Arterial Drainage at PVDE Pipe Lining Storm Drain Lining Repair or reestablishment of culverts and pipes crossing PVDE. Typically included in point repair project or the PVDE Arterial project Installation of liner in existing pipes in an effort to extend their service like and appurtenance work to complete integrity of system Capacity & Secondary System Via Colinita & Roan Projects Improvements to failing CMP drains on or near PVDE and Via Colinita Hawthorne Blvd. (closed FY10- No project 11, re -allocated to the San Pedro Canyon Storm Drain Project) PVDE Lower Switchbacks rehabilitation of inlets culverts and South HawthomeNia Frascati Middlecrest Road Project PVDS (East of Barkentine) PVDS at Sacred Cove Filtration Systems Catch Basin Filtration Devices outlet drainage on Switchbacks. Project wrapped into San Ramon project to use state grant funding no project no project improvements to drains crossing and south of PVDS at Seacove due to undersizing, corrosion and flooding issues. improvements to drain crossing PVDS dues to land movement Installation of CB screens in existing basins for water quality regulations Storm Drain User Fee Water Quality Flood Protection Program FYOS-06 FY06-07 FYOT-O6 Paltl Paltl Palo ' 263,556 Design (Harris & 1,005,197 Design (Harris $213,605); Assoc) Permitting (various agencies $11,292); CM Svc (Simplus Mgmt $49,526); Constr. (Cedro Constr. $730,775) 903,500 Legal and proprty Svcs $8,493 (the Souce Group, RWG) land purchase $9001, (LA County Sup Ct) 20,035 Environmental permitting (Helix Env Planners, Inc) 1,329,492 rehab and lining of Westem Ave, Pontevedra, Tarapaca (Psomas $36,951, Hardy & Harper $98,280, Sancon Technologies $923,930, Peterson/Chase $257,791, other minor amts) 500,000 property acquisition from Carmiel Cohen 19,660 Prelim engineering and Design (RBF, Group Delta) 377,666 Constr. (GCI Construction $351,059); CM&Insp (CBM $26,608) 174,723 Lining Monero 470,262 Liner Installation (Wesco ($163,931 Sancon, $434,832, Sancon $15,990); $10,792 Charles Abbot CM & Insp (Charles Abbott Inc) $19,440) 111,410 Prelim Engineering & Design (NBCE, Inc.) 320,000 Installation of -200 (SMB Watershed Group) Spending History FY08-09 Paid 6,139,888 Constr. (Cedro Construction $5,618,864, So Cal Ed $2,128, Ocean Blue Env. $3,195) Eng/Surv/Geo/Env (Harris & Assoc $16,757, KDM Meridian $2,925, Kleinfelder $208,604, SFC $4,995) CM & Insp (Simplus Mgmt $241,974); Easement (St. Peter's $25,000); Landscape Design (Swamp Pink LD $14,665) 10,980 Geo Tech Engr (AMEC $1,870, Zeisler Kling $9,110) 652,716 Lining Installation (RePipe-CA $596,036) CM & Insp (CBM $48,180) Survey (KDM Meridian $6,500) 7,490 Replace filter inserts (JLHA) 30502 PVDW Catch Basin rebuilding of damaged catch basin 8,600 Other Projects McCarrell Canyon Interim, Interim project to protect against 135,000 Barkentine/Seacove flooding of private proprty while McCarrel Cyn project was completed McCarrell Canyon Interim, Related to above, stabilization of 119,213 Gabion & Timber Walls drainage way and debris retention Palos Verdes Bay Club Interim related to above, temporary pipe over 185,000 Improvements bluff top to address flooding prior to completion to McCarrel project PVDS Salvation Army Outlet rehabilitation of outlet at PVDS near 26,000 Crestmont Ln Bronco Drive replacement of catch basins and inlets 66,000 in Bronco at PVDE Noble View Canyon 27,000 Citywide Interim, Other 7,400 Alida Place Storm Drain 98,480 Relocation Tarapaca Landslide Study related to San Ramon project 6,377 PVDE Engineering Reserve 20,360 PVDE Inlets Mossbank Storm Drain Emergency (finding of CC on 08-21- 245,885 Constr. (Hardy & Harper Rehabilitation 07) repair to 36 -in and 42 -in storm $237,000, H&S Constr. drain off Mossbank near Basswood. $6,500) ; Insp (Charles Abbott Replacement of pipe and construction $1,920); tree removal (WCA of outlet structure. $465) PVDS @ Altamim Canyon 120 -inch CMP crossing under PVDE Via Canada Addition of curb inlets and pipe to prevetn flooding at east end of Via Canada Marguerite Open Channel Erosion control project in Peukert Canyon to protect adjacent properties and bluff top Point Repair Projects Several sites discovered during 2012 Lining project where pipes were collapsed and could not be lined. Project will replace collapsed section or provide alternate drainage solution at these sites Miscellaneous Repairs & Maintenance Miscellaneous Repairs minor repairs to pipes, inlet, outlets, 75,000 25,880 CB Repairs (Hardy & Harper 44,590 Repair to line on Via Colinita: Constr. erosion control, etc. $9,600); Design (CBM (Hardy & Harper $24,458) Equipment/ $12,720); Mat'Is (American Repair (Laxson Equip. Inc. $18,500) City Pipe $1,060) purohasd mat'Is ($1,137) Storm Drain/Filtration pipe video inspection and cleaning 137,075 Hardy & Harper 56,178 Video Inspection and 216,890 $115,739 for ER Repair to Alta Mira Maintenance (includes $101,174; Pert. clenaing (Pert. Pipeline Tech PVDS Crossing: Invert Repair (Pert. Hawthorne, Montemalaga & Pipeline Tech. $18,540; $36,178, Hardy & Harper Pipeline $106,526) Insp (Charles Abbott Video Inspection/Cleaning) Adv Sewer Tech $20,000) $9,213); $101,151 for Video Inspection $16,536, other minor and Cleaning (Pert. Pipeline Tech) amts) Subtotal Project & Maintenance I-. 2,908,244 1,645,637 2,181,068 7,072,554 Purchase of Push Camera 11,813 Administration (contract/staff 78,868 160,827 242,074 engineer) Drainage Master Plan Program Storm Water Enterprise Asset Registry Asset Maintenance Management System Hydrologic, Hydraulic & Pollutant Analysis & Prioritizing of Deficiencies Capital Improvement Programming Land Acquisition C-1 SDUF Project Payment History.xlsx Page 1 of 3 printed 1/25/2016 City of RPV rehabilitation of inlets, culverts and 616,144 Storm Drain User Fee Catch Basin Filtration Devices Project wrapped into San Ramon Spending History project to use state grant funding South Hawthome/Via Frascati no project Water Quality Flood Protection Program no project PVDS (East of Barkentine) improvements to drains crossing and Insp (Charles Abbott FY09-101WI FY70-11 FY71-12' * FY12-13 issues. Project Name Project Decription Paid _ Paid Paid Paid Backbone Projects MCCarrell Canyon Interim, Interim project to protect against Citywide Interim, Other Sarkentine/Seacove flooding of private proprty while McCarrell Canyon 66 -inch pipeline to route flow from 79,075 CM & Insp (CBM $25,500); McCarrell Canyon Interim, Related to above, stabilization of McCarrel Canyon through Seacove Constr (Cedro Constr. $6,987, drainage way and debris retention Palos Verdes Bay Club Interim neighborhood following flooding in Feb Next G $2,820, SoCal Ed Improvements bluff top to address flooding prior to PVDE Engineering Reserve Programming 2005. $41,268); Env Mon (SFC PVDE Inlets I Total Program Costs 1 561,490 Mossbank Storm Drain Consult $2,500) McCarrell Canyon, Tarragon Land area required to build inlet 07) repair to 36 -in and 42 -in storm Property Acquisition structure and overflow system to Replacement of pipe and construction McCarrell project of outlet structure. Sunnyside Ridge replacement of failed storm drain pipe PVDS @ Altamira Canyon 120 -inch CMP crossing under PVDE and construction of new outlet Via Canada Addition of curb inlets and pipe to 17,533 Eng/Design (Merit Civil 71,801 Constr. (HYM Engineering structure at east end of SSR prevetn flooding at east end of Via Eng) $45,732 All American Asphalt Lower San Ramon Canyon 54 -inch by 4,000 -foot drainage 118,102 Project Mgmt Svcs (CBM 517,425 Project Mgmt Svcs (CBM 675,708 Proj Mgmt Svcs (CBM $33,070); 4,067,702 Grant Mgmt (Blais $6,783); Proj Mgmt & CM Stabilization diversion pipe from San Ramon $38,784) Prelim Engr (Harris & $48,365); Prelim Engr. Prelim Eng / Design (Harris & Mgmt (CBM $197,435); Engr Desgn ( Harris & Erosion control project in Peukert Canyon around Tarapaca landslide Assoc $72,298) Geotech (Harris & Assoc Assoc $628,965); Geotech (Kling Assoc $67,002, KDM $2,000, Kennedy Jenks area to ocean (Zeisler Kling $6,928) $463,130); Geotech Consulting $7,590); Permits / and bluff top $4,260, Kling $990; Merit CE $4,498, Ninyo (Zeisler Kling $4,226); Other ($6,083 various agencies) Moore $78,439, SFC Consult $45,875) Constr Other Misc $1,704 (LH Woods $3,652,156) PVDE Miraleste Canyon System Various smaller drains discharging to collapsed and could not be lined. Miraleste Canyon drainage PVDE San Pedro Canyon System Various smaller drains discharging to 14,560 PVDE at Via Subida 237,318 Miraleste Plaza Const: Constr (MG Enterprises San Pedro Canyon drainage Improvements Design (CBM $209,433); Eng Desgn (Merit CE $23,080); Insp Maintenance $14,560) (CBM $4,730) Altamira Canyon Drainage Study Erosion of natural canyon in Ab Cove Miscellaneous Repairs minor repairs to pipes, inlet, outlets, n'hood that conveys flows, in part, erosion control, etc. Storm Drain/Filtration from public ROW. No easement 111,253 CB cleanout and Maint (Hardy 41,468 Video Insp (Pert Pipeline 42,750 ER Storm Drain Fix (RePipe-CA 149,183 Mossbank V -Ditch (Varies $33,185); Salvation Maintenance (includes Paintbrush Canyon Drainage Erosion of natural canyon in preserve Tech $39,939); Drainage $20,750); Hydrology Mossbank V Army Outlet Impr (Various $80,152), Misc Others Hawthorne, Montemalaga & Study contributes to landslide instability Ditch (Merit CE $1,400); Storm $35,845 Video Inspection/Cleaning) $83,084) Arterial Drainage at PVDE Repair or reestablishment of culverts $20,600) and pipes crossing PVDE. Typically included in point repair project or the PVDE Arterial project Pipe Lining Storm Drain Lining Installation of liner in existing pipes in 20,000 Liner Install Settlement (Wesco 12,474 Repair Pipe Seg (RePipe- 147,675 Installation of Liner (Sanson 904,787 Installation of Liner (Sancon Tech $848,119, an effort to extend their service like $20,000) CA $12,474) Tech $119,276); Insp (CBM Vence $9,600); Insp (CBM $40,962); GIS and appurtenance work to complete $11,190); GIS Mapping (John M Mapping (John M Cruikshank Consult $6,107) integrity of system Cruikshank Consult $17,209) Capacity & Secondary System Via Colinita & Roan Projects Improvements to failing CMP drains 92,818 Via Colinita / Vickery Road on or near PVDE and Via Colinita CB's CM & Insp (CBM $24,416); Constr ($68,402 SP Pazargrad Eng Constr. Co.) Hawthorne Blvd. (closed FY10- No project 11, re -allocated to the San Pedro Canyon Storm Drain Project) PVDE Lower Switchbacks rehabilitation of inlets, culverts and 616,144 outlet drainage on Switchbacks. Catch Basin Filtration Devices Project wrapped into San Ramon 27,244 Install CB screens (West project to use state grant funding South Hawthome/Via Frascati no project Middlecrest Road Project no project PVDS (East of Barkentine) improvements to drains crossing and Insp (Charles Abbott south of PVDS at Seacove due to Drainage Master Plan Program undersizing, corrosion and flooding $3,740) issues. PVDS at Sacred Cove improvements to drain crossing PVDS (RBF) dues to land movement Filtration Systems rehabilitation of outlet at PVDS near 616,144 1,010,015 5,378,990 Catch Basin Filtration Devices Installation of CB screens in existing 27,244 Install CB screens (West 63,521 Miraleste Plaza Reconstruction: 20,000 Constr Permit (LA County FCD) Administration (contract/staff basins for water quality regulations Coast Storm $23,504); Constr. (CJ Concrete Constr Bronco Drive replacement of catch basins and inlets Insp (Charles Abbott $29,757) Design (Merit CE Drainage Master Plan Program $3,740) $33,764) 30502 PVDW Catch Basin rebuilding of damaged catch basin (RBF) Other Projects MCCarrell Canyon Interim, Interim project to protect against Citywide Interim, Other Sarkentine/Seacove flooding of private proprty while Aide Place Storm Drain McCarrel Cyn project was completed McCarrell Canyon Interim, Related to above, stabilization of Relocation Gabler & Timber Walls drainage way and debris retention Palos Verdes Bay Club Interim related to above, temporary pipe over Improvements bluff top to address flooding prior to PVDE Engineering Reserve Programming completion to McCarrel project PVDS Salvation Army Outlet rehabilitation of outlet at PVDS near 616,144 1,010,015 5,378,990 Purchase of Push Camera Crestmont Ln Administration (contract/staff 140,242 145,533 143,409 164,286 Bronco Drive replacement of catch basins and inlets Drainage Master Plan Program 22,211 Master Plan Prelim Stdy in Bronco at PVDE (RBF) Noble View Canyon Registry Citywide Interim, Other Asset Maintenance Management Aide Place Storm Drain Hydrologic, Hydraulic & Pollutant Relocation Analysis & Prioritizing of Tarapaca Landslide Study related to San Ramon project Capital Improvement PVDE Engineering Reserve Programming PVDE Inlets Total Program Costs 1 561,490 Mossbank Storm Drain Emergency (finding of CC on 08 -21 - Rehabilitation 07) repair to 36 -in and 42 -in storm drain off Mossbank near Basswood. Replacement of pipe and construction of outlet structure. PVDS @ Altamira Canyon 120 -inch CMP crossing under PVDE Via Canada Addition of curb inlets and pipe to 17,533 Eng/Design (Merit Civil 71,801 Constr. (HYM Engineering prevetn flooding at east end of Via Eng) $45,732 All American Asphalt Canada. $4,800); Insp & CM (Merit CE $21,269); Marguerite Open Channel Erosion control project in Peukert Canyon to protect adjacent properties and bluff top Point Repair Projects Several sites discovered during 2012 Lining project where pipes were collapsed and could not be lined. Project will replace collapsed section or provide alternate drainage solution at these sites Miscellaneous Repairs & Maintenance Miscellaneous Repairs minor repairs to pipes, inlet, outlets, erosion control, etc. Storm Drain/Filtration pipe video inspection and cleaning 111,253 CB cleanout and Maint (Hardy 41,468 Video Insp (Pert Pipeline 42,750 ER Storm Drain Fix (RePipe-CA 149,183 Mossbank V -Ditch (Varies $33,185); Salvation Maintenance (includes & Harper $28,169); Video Insp Tech $39,939); Drainage $20,750); Hydrology Mossbank V Army Outlet Impr (Various $80,152), Misc Others Hawthorne, Montemalaga & and Clean (Pert Pipeline Tech Basni Clean (Hardy & Ditch (Merit CE $1,400); Storm $35,845 Video Inspection/Cleaning) $83,084) Harper $1,530) Drain Repair (Hardy & Harper $20,600) Subtotal Project & Maintenance Costs 421,248 616,144 1,010,015 5,378,990 Purchase of Push Camera Administration (contract/staff 140,242 145,533 143,409 164,286 engineer) Drainage Master Plan Program 22,211 Master Plan Prelim Stdy (RBF) Storm Water Enterprise Asset Registry Asset Maintenance Management System Hydrologic, Hydraulic & Pollutant Analysis & Prioritizing of Deficiencies Capital Improvement Programming Land Acquisition Total Program Costs 1 561,490 783,888 1,159,424 5,543,276 C-2 SDUF Project Payment History.xlsx Page 2 of 3 printed 1/25/2016 City of RPV Storm Drain User Fee Water Quality Flood Protection Program FY13.14 Project Name Project Decription Paid Backbone Projects _ McCarroll Canyon 66 -inch pipeline to route flow from 533,395 Relining of Steel Pipe: Insallation (Industrial McCarrel Canyon through Seacove Coating & FP $496,995); CM (KOA $11,900); PW neighborhood following flooding in Feb Insp (Vali Cooper $500); Special Insp (West 2005. Coast Coating Consult $24,000) McCarrel) Canyon, Tarragon Land area required to build inlet Property Acquisition structure and overflow system to McCarrel) Canyon Interim, McCarroll project Sunnyside Ridge replacement of failed storm drain pipe South Hawthorne/Via Frascati and construction of new outlet Middlecrest Road Project structure at east end of SSR Lower San Ramon Canyon 54 -inch by 4,000 -foot drainage Stabilization diversion pipe from San Ramon Improvements Canyon around Tarapaca landslide Storm Water Enterprise Asset area to ocean PVDE Miraleste Canyon System Various smaller drains discharging to Miraleste Canyon drainage PVDE San Pedro Canyon System Various smaller drains discharging to San Pedro Canyon drainage Altamira Canyon Drainage Study Erosion of natural canyon in Ab Cove -'hood that conveys flows, in part, from public ROW. No easement Paintbrush Canyon Drainage Erosion of natural canyon in preserve Study contributes to landslide instability Arterial Drainage at PVDE Repair or reestablishment of culverts and pipes crossing PVDE. Typically included in point repair project or the PVDE Arterial project Pipe Lining Storm Drain Lining Installation of liner in existing pipes in an effort to extend their service like and appurtenance work to complete integrity of system Capacity & Secondary System Via Colinita & Roan Projects Improvements to failing CMP drains on or near PVDE and Via Colinita Hawthorne Blvd. (closed FY10- No project 11, re -allocated to the San Pedro Canyon Storm Drain Project) PVDE Lower Switchbacks rehabilitation of inlets, culverts and Other Projects outlet drainage on Switchbacks. McCarrel) Canyon Interim, Project wrapped into San Ramon Barkentine/Seacove project to use state grant funding South Hawthorne/Via Frascati no project Middlecrest Road Project no project PVDS (East of Barkentine) improvements to drains crossing and Palos Verdes Bay Club Interim south of PVDS at Seacove due to Improvements undersizing, corrosion and flooding Storm Water Enterprise Asset issues. PVDS at Sacred Cove improvements to drain crossing PVDS 4,690,284 dues to land movement Filtration Systems replacement of catch basins and inlets Catch Basin Filtration Devices Installation of CB screens in existing Noble View Canyon basins for water quality regulations 30502 PVDW Catch Basin rebuilding of damaged catch basin Other Projects Purchase of Push Camera McCarrel) Canyon Interim, Interim project to protect against Barkentine/Seacove flooding of private proprty while 167,736 McCarrel Cyn project was completed McCarrel) Canyon Interim, Related to above, stabilization of Gabion & Timber Walls drainage way and debris retention Palos Verdes Bay Club Interim related to above, temporary pipe over Improvements bluff top to address flooding prior to Storm Water Enterprise Asset completion to McCarrel project PVDS Salvation Army Outlet rehabilitation of outlet at PVDS near 4,690,284 Crestmont Ln Bronco Drive replacement of catch basins and inlets 3,065,125 in Bronco at PVDE Noble View Canyon 12,653,005 Citywide Interim, Other - Alida Place Storm Drain Analysis & Prioritizing of Relocation Tarapaca Landslide Study related to San Ramon project PVDE Engineering Reserve Capital Improvement PVDE Inlets Mossbank Storm Drain Emergency (finding of CC on 08 -21 - Rehabilitation 07) repair to 36 -in and 42 -in storm 19.750 drain off Mossbank near Basswood. Replacement of pipe and construction TOTAL Exp of outlet structure. PVDS @ Altamira Canyon 120 -inch CMP crossing under PVDE Via Canada Addition of curb inlets and pipe to prevetn flooding at east end of Via Canada Marguerite Open Channel Erosion control project in Peukert Canyon to protect adjacent properties and bluff top Point Repair Projects Several sites discovered during 2012 Lining project where pipes were collapsed and could not be lined. Project will replace collapsed section or provide alternate drainage solution at these sites Miscellaneous Repairs & Maintenance 11,116,002 Grant Mgmt (Biala $8,736); CM & Aerial (CBM $559,471, Louis Bruhnke $4,288 ); Engr Desgn (Harris & Assoc $2,355, Kling $206; Merit CE $3,152, Ninyo Moore $169,378, SFC Consult $37,188) Constr (LH Woods $10,225,481; Perf Pipeline 42,266); Misc other $2,914 284,567 Installation of Liner (Sancon Tech $280,211); Insp (CBM $4,356) 6,101 Roadway repair following storm drain repair (VSs Int'I, Inc $6,101) 19,575 Design Service for Switchback Improvements included in San Ramon Project 64,040 Feasibility Study for Erosion Control Options at Marguerite Cyn and PVDS East of Barkentine - same contract (KPFF) 1,701,201 Grant Mgmt (Blais $6,002); CM "Aerial (CBM $84,697, Louis Bruhnke $1,398 ); Err Support (Harris & Assoc $11,680, Geosyntec $7,172; Melendrez $2,040, Ninyo Moore $4,167, SFC Consult $12,488); Constr (LH Woods $1,571,558) 362,360 Pipe reconstruction at PVDE @ Via Subida and PVDE @ Crownview, built as part of the PVDE Arterial Project to save repaving costs 16,345 Feasibility Study for Erosion Control Options at Marguerite Cyn and Lower Barkentine Canyon - same contract (KPFF) Miscellaneous Repairs minor repairs to pipes, inlet, outlets, erosion control, etc. Storm Drain/Filtration pipe video inspection and cleaning 30,356 Misc repairs (Various $19,928); Video & Insp 359,076 Video Inspection, Cleaning & Invert Repair (Pert Maintenance (includes (Ped Pipeline $10,428) Pipeline Tech $ Hawthorne, Montemalaga & Video Inspection/Cleaning) Prior Years' Paid FY05-06 Thru FY14-15 8,021,111 1,403,500 417,361 18,207,120 614,2381 3,996;696 210,3291 438,2551 8,600 135,000 119,213 185,000 26,000 66,000 27,000 7,400 98,480 6,377 20,360 245,885 89,334 80,385 145,4701 1,144,229 1 Spending History FYI 5-1 Budget 500,000 Study underway, -$440,000 encumbered 1,052,306 Due to be awarded on Feb 16 231,095 Roan Road project design completed, construction nearly completed 450,000 Geotehcnical investigation underway 760,340 Not yet started 1,050,000 Design in Progress, $150,000 encumbered 245,544 Grayslake project awarded, construction to being Jan 2016. -$135,000 encumbered; Ryan Park SO improvments -$20,000 Subtotal Project & Maintenance 11,520,641 2,972,377 Costs 35,732,918 4,289,285 Purchase of Push Camera 11,813 FYI 5-16 (Est) 1,384,096 Administration (contract/staff 152,207 147,529 1,374,975 167,736 engineer) 554,257 Drainage Master Plan Program 204,173 Master Plan (RBF $203,813); GIS prep (PV on 274,422 Master Plan (RBF $256,634); GIS prep (PV on 500,806 Grant Revenue the Net $360) the Net $17,788) 1,212,995 Storm Water Enterprise Asset - 9,464,727 Registry 4,690,284 1,082,862 Asset Maintenance Management - 3,065,125 System Funding Total 12,653,005 Hydrologic, Hydraulic & Pollutant - 39,908,965 Analysis & Prioritizing of - Deficiencies Capital Improvement - Programming Land Acquisition 19.750 19.750 TOTAL Exp Total Program Costs 11,896,771 3,394,328 37,640,262 4,457,021 1 42,097,283 Funding Storm Drain User Fee FYI 3-14 1,836,783 FY14-15 1,844,446 Totals FY05-06 Thru FY14-15 11,599,372 FYI 5-16 (Est) 1,384,096 Total Funding FY0506 to FYI 516 12,983,468 Interest Revenue 10,982 10,260 554,257 7,800 562,057 Grant Revenue 6,114,956 1,212,995 9,464,727 9,464,727 General Fund 4,690,284 1,082,862 18,290,609 3,065,125 21,355,734 Funding Total 12,653,005 4150 563 39,908,965 4,457,021 44,365 986 General Fund Balance 2,268,703 C-3 SDUF Project Payment History.xlsx Page 3 of 3 printed 1/25/2016 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�kaI] ATTACHMENT D SUMMARY OF KNOWN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (2016-2027) D-1 Page Intentionally Blank r_11aCTM :IT,14�kaC D-2 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�kaI] EXHIBIT 1 SUMMARY TABLE OF KNOWN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS D-3 Page Intentionally Blank r_11aCTM :IT,14�kaC D-4 Known Infrastructure Projects Rev 5.xlsx ATTACHMENT D Infrastructure Category Project Name Status Total Estimated Cost Begin Construction STORMWATER WORK (FLOOD PROTECTION/REHABILITATION) 2016 - 2027 Projects Under Construction or in Design (Funded) SW Roan Rd Drainage $ 231,095 C 2015 SW Reline Storm Drain Culverts $ 1,738,489 D 2016 SW Storm Drain Point Repairs $ 900,000 D 2016 SW Reline Storm Drain Culverts (Storm Drain Lining) $ 799,470 D 2016 SW Storm Drain Sys - Design of Point Repairs $ 150,000 D 2016 SW Altamira Cyn Drainage Project Study Report $ 500,000 D NS SW PVDS Drainage Improv at Sacred Cove $ 450,000 Q 2016 SW Marguerite Open Channel Erosion/Barkentine Improv $ 760,340 Q 2017 SW Paintbrush Cyn Project Study Report $ 120,000 Q 2020 Total Correct H/H Deficiencies Yr 1 Priority 1 (Western Av, Santa Rena Dr/Western Dr, Montemalaga Dr/Ironwood St, Ironwood St, Granvia Altamira/Monero Dr) Correct H/H Deficiencies Yr 2 Priority 1 (PVDS/Peppertree Dr, Hawthorne Blvd/Hawkhurst Dr) Correct H/H Deficiencies Yr 3 Priority 1 (Hawthorne Blvd, Via de la Vis/Shadow Wood, Amber Sky Dr, Middlecrest Rd, Oceanaire Dr, Rue la Fleur, PVDS, Casilina Dr/Hawksmoor Dr, Via Colinita, Vista Mesa Dr, Via Colinita/Kingsridge Rd) Correct H/H Deficiencies Yr 4 Priority 1 (Crestridge Rd, Lightfoot PI, Via Colinita, Knoll View Dr, Deluna Dr, Schooner Dr, Via Cambron/PVDW, N Western Av, PVDS) Correct H/H Deficiencies Yr 5 Priority 2 (Golden Spur Ln, Crownview Dr, Montemalaga Dr, Dianora Dr/Crest Rd, Crest Rd, PVDE, Hawthorne Blvd) $ 5,649,394 Future Projects (Unfunded) SW $ 1,769,000 NS 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SW $ 2,229,000 NS SW $ 1,729,000 NS SW SW $ 2,629,000 $ 1,798,000 NS NS SW Correct H/H Deficiencies Yr 6 Priority 2 (PVDS/Terranea Wy, PVDE) $ 668,000 NS 2023 SW Correct H/H Deficiencies Yr 6 Priority 3 (Tarapaca Rd, Dauntless Dr) $ 803,000 NS 2023 Prepared by RPV Public Works 1/26/2016 Known Infrastructure Projects Rev 5.xlsx ATTACHMENT D —F Infrastructure Category SW Project Name Correct H/H Deficiencies Yr 7 Priority 3 (Schooner Dr, Berry Hill Dr, Seawall Rd, Via Canada, Arrowroot Ln, Browndeer Ln, Via Borica, Alta Vista Dr) Total Estimated Status Cost $ 1,988,000 NS Begin Construction 2024 SW Correct H/H Deficiencies Yr 8 Priority 3 (Browndeer Ln, Rocking Horse Rd, Ironwood St, Beecham Dr, Crownview Dr, Grandpoint Ln/Highpoint Rd, PVDE, Via Siena) Correct H/H Deficiencies Yr 9 Priority 3 (N Enrose Av, Eddinghill Dr, Homeworth Dr, Via Canada) Correct H/H Deficiencies Yr 10 Priority 3 (Ganado Dr, Maritime Rd, Terranea Wy, Woodfern Dr, N Enrose Av, Via Canada, Santa Luna Dr) Altamira Cyn Paintbrush Cyn PVDE Miraleste Cyn $ 1,243,000 NS 2025 2026 SW $ 1,507,000 NS SW $ 1,251,000 NS 2027 SW $ 3,475,000 NS NS SW $ 2,568,000 NS NS SW $ 2,850,000 NS NS SW San Pedro & Averill Cyns $ 3,000,000 NS NS SW Reline Storm Drain Culverts (Storm Drain Lining) (18,352 LF city wide) $ 10,000,000 NS 2021 Total $ 39,507,000 STORMWATER WORK (WATER QUALITY) 2016 - 2026 Future Projects (Unfunded) SW Stormwater Quality Improv Pgm $ 500,000 NS 2016 SW Catch Basin Screens $ 750,000 NS 2020 SW Storm Water Runoff Quality Compliance $ 47,250,000 NS NS Total $ 48,500,000 Prepared by RPV Public Works 1/26/2016 Known Infrastructure Projects Rev 5.xlsx ATTACHMENT D Infrastructure Category Project Name Status Total Estimated Cost Begin Construction NON-STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2016 - 2020 Projects Under Construction or In Design (Funded) PB Hesse Pk/Ryan Pk Fiber Optic Cabling $ 320,000 D 2016 PS ADA Transition Plan Prj $ 610,137 D 2016 PS Lower Hesse Pk Improv $ 487,575 D 2016 PB Ladera Linda Community Cntr Improv $ 4,000,000 D 2019 PVDS LS LS Dewatering Well Pgm $ 360,000 D 2016 PVDS—LS LS Dewatering Well Pgm $ 1,440,000 D 2016 PVDS LS PVDS Realignment - East End $ 458,672 D 2016 R/W Residential St Rehab - FY14-15 Streets $ 2,229,400 C 2016 R/W Hawthorne Blvd Corridor Beautification $ 150,000 D 2016 R/W Hawthorne Blvd Pedestrian Improv $ 1,240,351 D 2016 R/W Hawthorne Blvd Traffic Signal Sync $ 683,628 D 2016 R/W PVDE Safety Improv - Guardrails $ 268,794 D 2016 R/W PVDW Median Improv $ 473,690 D 2016 T Sunnyside Segment Trail $ 396,436 C 2015 R/W Residential St Rehab Zone 5 $ 2,182,000 D 2019 AC SS Rehab Collection System $ 2,000,000 Q 2017 PB Citywide ADA Transition Plan Implementation $ 800,000 Q 2016 PB Solar Power System - Hesse Pk $ 385,000 Q 2017 PB Solar Power System - PVIC $ 410,000 Q 2018 PB PVIC Exhibits PVIC Building Sign & Screening Wall AbCove Beach Access Rd $ 455,000 Q 2016 PS PS $ 110,000 $ 100,000 Q Q 2016 2017 PS Grandview Pk Improv (Phase 1) $ 635,000 Q 2019 PVDS LS PVDS Realignment - Design Full Length PVDS Rdwy Realignment Arterial St Rehab - Miraleste Pavement Mgt Pgr Updates PWDS ADA Access Improv Residential St Rehab Zone 7 $ 264,422 Q 2016 PVDS LS $ 3,060,000 Q 2019 R/W $ 2,534,562 Q 2016 R/W $ 240,000 Q 2016 R/W $ 174,957 Q 2016 R/W $ 2,282,000 Q 2016 Prepared by RPV Public Works 1/26/2016 Known Infrastructure Projects Rev 5.xlsx ATTACHMENT D Infrastructure Category R/W Project Name Traffic Safety Improv - PVDE at Bronco Arterial Rehab - Crenshaw Blvd PVDE Safety Improv - Bikeways Residential St Rehab Zone 8 Western Av Traffic Improv Status Total Estimated Cost Begin Construction $ 500,300 Q 2016 R/W $ 2,800,000 Q 2017 R/W $ 779,975 Q 2017 R/W $ 2,200,000 Q 2017 R/W $ 3,200,000 Q 2017 R/W Residential St Rehab Zone 3 & 4 $ 2,100,000 Q 2018 R/W Arterial Rehab - Indian Pk Rd $ 1,800,000 Q 2019 SS Capacity Projects $ 465,000 Q 2017 SS Malaga Cyn $ 407,000 Q 2017 T ADA Improv - Del Cerro Rd/Burma Rd $ 164,408 Q 2016 Total $ 43,168,307 Future Projects (Unfunded) PB Citywide ADA Transition Plan Implementation $ 4,520,000 NS NS PB PVIC Community Cntr $ 5,500,000 NS NS PB Corp Yd Relocation $ 300,000 NS NS PS Civic Cntr Skate Plaza & Tennis Ct $ 850,000 NS NS PS Coast Vision Plan - Trailhead/Overlook/Vista Pt $ 920,000 NS NS PS Concrete Stairs at Ladera Linda $ 160,000 NS NS PS Lower Pt Vicente Pk Improv $ 2,400,000 NS NS PS Restroom at Del Cerro Pk $ 275,000 NS NS PVDS LS Landslide Early Warning System $ 300,000 NS NS R/W Crenshaw Blvd Extn Pking Improv Hawthorne Blvd Bike Lane Gap Closure Hawthorne Blvd Median Improv $ 137,500 NS NS R/W R/W $ 1,350,000 $ 250,000 NS NS NS NS R/W Hawthorne Blvd R/W Improv $ 2,400,000 NS NS R/W Lower Pt Vicente Pk Access Modification $ 275,000 NS NS R/W Traffic Safety Improv - PVDE at Miraleste Dr $ 250,000 NS NS T California Coastal Tr Improv Preserve Trail Plan Total $ 223,000 NS NS T $ 150,000 NS NS $ 20,260,500 Prepared by RPV Public Works 1/26/2016 Page84 Known Infrastructure Projects Rev 5.xlsx ATTACHMENT D Infrastructure Category Project Name Status Total Estimated Cost Begin Construction NOTES Only projects with value >=$100,000 are shown per CIP policy Some projects may be listed twice, which is due to being funded in the 2015 CIP and having funding from prior years (the continuing Unfunded projects are shown with midpoint of estimated cost ABBREVIATIONS AC SS Abalone Cove Sewer System PB Public Buildings PS Park Sites PVDS LS PVDS Landslide R/W Right -of -Way and Traffic Control Devices SS Citywide Sewer System SW Stormwater System T Trails 2015CIP F FY15-16 City Budget/Appendix CIP pg 11 - Funded Projects 2015CIP U FY15-16 City Budget/Appendix CIP pg 48 - Unfunded Projects 2015MDOD 2015 Master Plan of Drainage Nov 17, 2015 CC Mtg ; Staff Rpt Pg 4 & 5 2015CA Sept 15, 2015 CC Mgt - Continuing Appropriations; Staff Rpt pgs 6 - 9 20141 RC 2014 Infrastructure Report Card Presentation May 14, 2014 U Unfunded F Funded G CIP SDUF Grant CIP Reserves Storm Drain User Fee GF General Fund O Other funding sources = Yes = No In Design In Construction Not scheduled 1 2 D C NS Prepared by RPV Public Works 1/26/2016 Page95 Known Infrastructure Projects Rev 5.xlsx ATTACHMENT D Infrastructure Category Q Project Name In the 5 -YR CIP queue Flood Protection Water Quality Rehabilitation of existing drainage asset Hydologic and/or hydraulic Status Total Estimated Cost Begin Construction FP WQ R H/H Prepared by RPV Public Works 1/26/2016 P6 66 Known Infrastructure Projects Rev 5.xlsx ATTACHMENT D Infrastructure Project Name Category EXCLUDED PROJECTS PB Improve Condition from D to A PS Improve Condition from B to A PVDS LS Improve Condition from D to A Total Estimated Cost Status Begin Construction $ 27,639,000 NS NS $ 3,469,000 NS NS $ 11,479,000 NS NS R/W Improve Condition from A to A $ - NS NS R/W Utility Undergrounding - Crenshaw Blvd $ 1,600,000 NS NS R/W Utility Undergrounding - PVDS $ 1,250,000 NS NS R/W Utility Undergrounding - PVIC $ 175,000 NS NS R/W Utility Undergrounding - Terranea Wy $ 175,000 NS NS SS Improve Condition from D to A $ 2,418,000 NS NS SW Improve Condition from C to A $ 17,350,000 NS NS T Improve Condition from A to A $ - NS NS Prepared by RPV Public Works 1/26/2016 g-17 P6 Page Intentionally Blank r_11aCTM :IT,14�kaC D-12 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�kaI] EXHIBIT 2 CHAPTER 13 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AND CIP SCHEDULE 2015 MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE D-13 ATTACHMENT D 13 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AND CIP SCHEDULE 13.1 Prioritization Criteria A priority ranking was developed in conjunction with the City for all proposed facilities. The goal of the priority ranking system is to determine the projects of greatest importance and determine which projects should be constructed first when funding becomes available. The three priorities are summarized below: Priority 1 o Existing Broken Storm Drains: Existing storm drain systems classified as being in severe, heavy, or average defect condition per CCTV 2015 and 2012 inspections, or when calculated flooding depth or velocity will inundate structures or create a threat to human life. o Arterial Street: Existing storm drain systems for which the recommended size is 12 inches or more than the existing storm drain size. o Private Property: Existing storm drain systems in which the upstream collects runoff water from an existing arterial street with access to main public facilities, and the recommended size is 12 inches or more than the existing storm drain size. o Other: Streets for which there is a deficient storm drain, and a street improvement project is scheduled. Priority 2 o Existing Broken Storm Drains: Existing storm drain systems classified as moderate or minor defect condition per CCTV 2015 and 2012 inspection. o Arterial Street: Existing storm drain systems for which a size increase is recommended. o Private Property: Storm drain systems in which the upstream collects runoff water from an existing arterial street, and a size increase is recommended. Priority 3 o Local Streets: Existing storm drain systems for which a size increase is recommended. Table 13-1 summarizes the priorities assigned to each storm drain segment for which a recommended improvement was proposed and/or the system was found to be in a defect condition per the CCTV 2014-2015 and 2012 inspections. Appendix C-1 and C-2 include the tables completed by the City for the CCTV condition assessment. The priority type column explains the priority reasoning: EX = Existing Broken Storm Drains ART = Arterial Street PP = Private Property OTHER LS = Local Streets D-14 ATTACHMENT D Table 13-1: Prioritization Pipes to be Improved System Upstream Structure ID Downstream Structure ID Pipe ID Atlas Map Existing Size (in) Proposed Size (in) Street Priority Priority Type CCN Condition Ocean South South 1 CB0973 CB0972 SD0309 13C 18 24 Amber Sky Drive 1 EX Severe CB0972 MC0971 SD0315 18 24 2 CB0977 OS0976 SD0316 13D 18 24 Oceanaire Drive 1 EX Severe 3 CB3456 GB3458 SD2466 24C 24 30 Palos Verdes Drive South atPepertree Drive 1 EX -ART Heavy GB3458 TS19313 SD13126 30 36 TS19313 JS4019 SD18731 24 36 JS4019 I OS19712 SD3824] 1 24 1 36 4 IS54000 I JS54001SD52000 24C 24 Palos Verdes Drive South 1 ART 1554001 0554002 SD52001 24 Ocean South South - CCN 5 JS03292 M H00996 1S03291 JS03292 13C 30 Crenshaw Boulevard 1 EX Severe 30 6 CB00990 GB02204 GB02204 M H00996 13C 18 Crenshaw Boulevard 1 EX Heavy 18 Ocean South East A 1 TS7317 M H1912 SD3035 25C 42 48 Dauntless Drive 3 LS M H1912 GB1913 SD0741 36 48 GB1913 GB1911 SD0740 36 48 GB1911 M H0507 SD0738 36 48 MH0507 GB1910 SD0737 36 48 GB1910 JS3425 SD2414 36 48 JS3425 GB1909 SD2415 36 48 GB1909 M H0516 SD0736 36 48 2 GB1919 GB0517 SD0753 25C 30 36 Schooner Drive 3 LS Good GB0517 JS1918 SD0754 30 36 JS1918 M H0516 SD0750 30 36 3 JS1947 JS1948 SD0783 28A 45 60 Schooner Drive 1 ART JS1948 JS3614 SD3422 45 60 153614 TS0514 SD0784 45 60 TS0514 M H0489 SD0755 48 60 M H0489 OS0513 SD0530 48 60 4 GB2648 GB2649 SD1685 25D 18 24 Ganado Drive 3 LS GB2649 JS2650 SD1686 18 24 JS2650 GB0418 SD1688 18 24 GB0418 OSO417 SD1687 18 24 5 CB3134 GB3135 SD2128 28A 18 24 Maritime Road 3 LS GB3135 GB3137 SD2129 18 24 GB3137 GB3136 SD2130 18 24 GB3136 OS3138 SD2131 18 24 6 GB4914 OS4031 SD3830 24D 48 60 Seawall Road 3 LS 7 CB0389 CB0411 SD3038 26C 21 30 Casilina Drive and Hawksmoor Drive 2 EX Light CB0411 GB0410 SD3039 25D 21 30 1 EX Severe GB0410 GB2375 SD1332 18 30 GB2375 MH0409 SD1333 18 30 M H0409 M H2371 SD1326 27 30 D-15 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�ka•1] Table 13-1: Prioritization Pipes to be Improved System Upstream Structure ID Downstream Structure ID Pipe ID Atlas Map Existing Size (in) Proposed Size (in) Street Priority Priority Type CCN Condition Ocean South East B 1 IS0095 CB0093 SD0443 26A 18 24 Crest Road 2 PP CB0093 M H0094 SD2616 18 24 M H0094 M H0092 SD0448 18 24 MH0092 OS3564 SD2617 2 x 1.2 4 x 2 2 GB34124 M H0075 SD0473 26C 21 30 Dian Crest Road Drive and Cre 2 ART-PP Good M H0075 JS0076 SD0474 21 30 JS0076 M H0074 SD0476 21 30 M H0074 GB34125 SD32740 21 30 GB34125 GB34126 SD32741 21 30 GB34126 GB34127 SD0479 21 30 GB34127 M H0073 SD32742 24 30 M H0073 CB0067 SD0480 24 36 CB0067 OS0072 SD32732 24 36 3 IS0967 GB0333 SD0540 27A 18 24 Palos Verdes Drive East 2 ART GB0333 SD2322 SD1257 21 24 SD2322 TS2321 SD1256 21 24 TS2321 M H0332 SD1261 21 24 4 CB36128 CB36129 SD35141 27A 18 24 Tarapaca Road 3 LS Ocean South East - CCN 1 CB0369 150392 28A 18 Seadiff Drive 1 EX Severe 2 IS2436 TS3466 30 30 25A & C 30 30 Forrestal Drive 1 EX Severe TS3466 JS2437 JS2437 JS2438 JS2438 M H2439 3 IS0519 TS3468 30 30 25A & C 30 30 Forrestral Drive 1 EX Average TS3468 JS2434 JS2434 JS2435 JS2435 M H3467 4 CB0296 GB0297 24 27A 24 24 Tarapaca Road 1 EX Average GB0297 GB1906 GB1906 OS0298 5 CB3198 CB3199 25A 24 Intrepid Drive 1 EX Moderate 6 CB0085 CB0084 26C 18 Lucania Drive 1 EX Moderate 7 CB0079 MH0082 26C 18 Deluna Drive 1 EX Moderate 8 CB0300 M H0301 24 27A 24 24 San Ramon Drive 1 EX Moderate MH0301 GB3429 GB3429 OS0302 9 MH3521 MH3467 25A & C 30 Forrestal Drive 1 EX Heavy 10 CB0080 CB0079 26C 18 Deluna Drive 2 EX Light 11 IS43325 IS43324 24 24 26C 24 24 24 Crestridge Road 2 EX-ART Light IS0064 IS34136 MH0066 JS34137 JS34137 CB34138 CB34138 150065 12 CB3199 JS3200 25A 24 Intrepid Drive 2 EX Light D-16 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�III a•] Table 13-1: Prioritization Pipes to be Improved System Upstream Structure ID Downstream Structure ID Pipe ID Atlas Map Existing Size (in) Proposed Size (in) Street Priority Priority Type CCN Condition Ocean South West 1 GB1743 IS0549 SD3266 22B 30 42 Palos Verdes Drive South 1 ART - IS0549 MH41325 SD3002 24 42 MH41325 MH13709 SD2999 24 42 2 MH0675 GB0674 5D0745 23B 36 48 Arrowroot Lane 3 LS Good GB0674 OS0673 SD0426 36 48 CB0552 MH0554 SD2994 18 24 MH0554 MH0553 SD3001 18 24 22B MH0553 MH25729 SD42740 18 24 MH25729 MH36518 SD35532 18 24 3 Palos Verdes Drive South Terranea Way 2 ART MH36518 MH36519 SD35533 18 24 MH36519 MH25741 SD25547 18 24 22D MH25741 MH36520 SD25560 18 24 MH36520 MH25730 SD35534 18 24 IS40930 JS25771 SD39944 18 24 JS25771 MH36522 SD35535 18 24 MH36522 MH36523 SD35536 18 24 4 22D Terranea Way 3 LS MH36523 MH36521 SD25589 18 24 MH36521 MH25770 SD35537 18 24 5 CB1065 CB1064 SD1729 12D 24 30 Crest Road 2 ART CB1064 CB1063 SD1730 24 30 Ocean South West - CCN 6 CB0679 JS3538 23A 18 Seacove Drive 1 EX Severe CB2911 GB2913 18 GB2913 GB2914 7 GB2914 GB2915 18 19A 18 Rhone Drive 1 EX Severe GB2915 MH2910 18 MH1619 GB1900 24 GB1900 GB1899 24 GB1899 GB1897 8 GB1897 GB1898 24 19C 24 Marne Drive 1 EX Severe GB1898 GB1896 24 GB1896 OS0720 24 9 CB0739 MH0741 20B 24 Alta Vista Drive 1 EX Average 10 CB3552 MH3550 23A 18 Palos Verdes Drive South 1 EX -ART Average 11 MH0680 MH0689 23A 54 Palos Verdes Drive South 1 EX -ART Average 12 CB0657 OS0659 23A 21 Sea Gate Drive 1 EX Average 13 CB0747 MH0759 19A 30 Cartier Drive 1 EX Average 14 CB0592 CB0587 22B 30 Hawthorne Boulevard 1 EX -ART Average 15 CB2819 JS2820 20D 8 Via La Cresta 1 EX Average 16 CB2863 GB2864 GB2864 OS2865 23A 18 18 Via Pacifica 1 EX Moderate 17 JS2868 GB2870 GB2870 OS2869 23A 18 18 Via Baron 1 EX Moderate 18 CB2817 JS2816 20D 18 La Cresta Road 1 EX Moderate 19 IS2805 CB2804 22B 18 Hawthorne Boulevard 1 EX -ART Moderate 20 CB1059 OS1058 12D 21 Sunmist Drive 1 EX Heavy 21 CB0740 CB0739 20B 18 Alta Vista Drive 1 EX Heavy 22 CB0745 JS0742 20B 36 Hawthorne Boulevard 1 EX -ART Heavy D-17 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�III a•] Table 13-1: Prioritization Pipes to be Improved System Upstream Structure ID Downstream Structure ID Pipe ID Atlas Map Existing Size (in) Proposed Size (in) Street Priority Priority Type CCN Condition 23 CB2823 CB2824 20D 8 Via La Cresta 1 EX Heavy 24 CB0725 CB0728 19C 18 Hawthorne Boulevard 1 EX -ART Heavy 25 M H3532 JS3535 23A 18 Barkentine Road 1 EX Heavy JS3535 JS3538 18 JS3538 JS3533 18 JS3533 M H3528 18 26 M H2632 GB2634 196 30 Sea View Avenue 2 EX Light GB2634 TS2635 30 TS2635 GB2636 30 GB2636 OS2633 30 27 CB0724 JS0727 20C 18 Palos Verdes Drive West 2 EX -ART Light 28 CB0721 OS0726 19C 48 Hawthorne Boulevard 2 EX -ART Light 29 CB3541 MH3539 23A 18 Sea Gate Drive 2 EX Light 30 CB0587 OS0591 22B 30 Hawthorne Boulevard 2 EX -ART Light 31 CB0746 CB0745 20B 18 Hawthorne Boulevard 2 EX -ART Light Ocean West GB1207 SD1236 11C 21 30 Borica 3 LS E10 7 GB2309 SD1235 21 3009 GB2308 SD1234 21 30Via 08 M H2306 5D1233 30 42 2 MH1191 GB32121 SD31535 11C 36 42 Berry Hill Drive 3 LS 3 CB1189 JS1186 SD0291 11C 18 36 Via Cam bron 3 LS 4 JS2675 GB46942 SD45156 11C 39 48 Via Cambron Palos Verdes Drive West 1 ART Good GB46942 MH1185 SD0301 39 48 MH1185 GB46943 SD45157 30 48 GB46943 OS1184 SD0305 30 54 5 GB3310 JS3303 SD2294 11C 18 24 Rue La Fleur 1 EX -LS Severe 6 IS0632 CB0735 SD0362 20B 24 36 Alta Vista Drive 3 LS Ocean West - CCN CB1096 JS48132 7 JS48132 M H1101 12C 36 Hawthorne Boulevard 1 EX -ART Severe 36 8 MH0629 MH0628 20B 36 Camino Porvernir 1 EX Severe GB1179 CB2216 9 MH1141 GB1179 11D 36 Camino Porvenir 1 EX Average 36 1 EX Average 10 151156 MH1157 11D 18 Avenida Selecta 1 EX Average 11 CB3128 CB1245 11C 18 Alicia Place 1 EX Moderate 12 CB1249 CB1248 11C 18 - Palos Verdes Drive West 1 EX -ART Moderate 13 MH1247 CB3076 11C 18 _ Palos Verdes Drive West 1 EX -ART Moderate 14 CB0583 CB0584 20D 18 _ Hawthorne Boulevard 1 EX -ART Moderate 15 CB1115 CB1154 20B 36 _ Hawthorne Boulevard 1 EX -ART Heavy 16 IS1683 CB1682 20B 15 - Via Del Cielo 1 EX Heavy 17 MH3129 MH3131 11C & 11A 24 - Alida Place 1 EX Heavy CB1133 GB2315 18 GB2315 CB1134 11C 21 - Via Victoria 1 EX Heavy 21 19 CB3302 GB3304 20A & 11C 30 Rue Langlois 1 EX Heavy D-18 r_11ir_T41:IT,14Z! III a•] D-19 Table 13-1: Prioritization Pipes to be Improved System Upstream Structure ID Downstream Structure ID Pipe ID Atlas Map Existing Size (in) Proposed Size (in) Street Priority Priority Type CCN Condition GB3304 JS3307 30 JS3307 GB3308 30 GB3308 GB3309 30 GB3309 GB3310 30 GB3310 JS3303 30 20 CB1628 CB0613 20A 18 Palos Verdes Drive West 1 EX -ART Heavy 21 IS2843 MH2845 20D 42 Via Del Mar 1 EX Heavy 22 CB2837 GB2838 20D 18 Via Del Mar 1 EX Heavy GB2838 MH2835 LINK 23 CB1096 JS48132 12C 18 Hawthorne Boulevard 2 EX -ART Light 24 CB1695 GB1696 20C 18 Via Vicente 2 EX Light GB1696 M H1694 18 25 153601 MH3600 22A 24 Palos Verdes Drive West 2 EX -ART Light Los Angeles Harbor South 1 CB0124 CB0123 SD3099 26C 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Deluna Drive 1 EX Average CB0123 JS34128 SD32743 3 LS Good JS34128 GB34131 SD32744 GB34131 GB34132 SD32745 GB34132 JS34133 SD32749 JS34133 GB34129 SD0454 GB34129 GB34130 SD32746 GB34130 OS0125 SD32747 2 CB0058 OS0059 SD3027 26C 18 24 Palos Verdes Drive East 2 ART - 3 CB0053 CB0054 SD0487 26C 18 18 18 18 18 24 24 24 24 24 Santa Luna Drive 3 LS Good CB0054 GB1904 SD0730 GB1904 GB1902 SD0727 GB1902 GB1903 SD0729 GB1903 OS0055 SD0728 4* CB0294 CB0293 SD0519 26D 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Vista Mesa Drive 3 LS Good CB0293 GB0292 SD0731 1 EX Severe GB0292 GB1905 SD0732 GB1905 GB42524 SD0733 5 CB0254 CB0253 SD2980 26B 12 12 12 18 18 18 Via Colinita 1 EX Heavy CB0253 CB0252 SD2979 CB0252 OS0251 SD2985 6 CB0247 CB0250 SD2964 26B 12 12 12 18 18 18 Via Colinita Kingsridge Road 1 EX Heavy CB0250 CB0249 SD2965 CB0249 OS0248 SD2966 7 CB0785 152704 SD0383 16C 21 24 30 30 Grandpoint Lane at Highpoint Road 1 3 LS Good 152704 050783 SD0385 8 CB0814 CB0815 SD0387 16C 18 18 24 24 Crownview Drive 3 LS Good CB0815 GB3110 SD2105 GB3110 GB3111 SD2106 18 24 16D 18 24 18 24 18 24 GB3111 GB3113 SD2107 GB3113 GB3112 SD2108 GB3112 OS0816 SD0391 9 GB0819 CB0820 SD2912 24 16C & 16D 24 36 36 Knoll View Drive 1 EX Average CB0820 CB0818 SD2910 D-19 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�III a•] Table 13-1: Prioritization Pipes to be Improved System Upstream Downstream Pipe Structure Structure ID ID ID Atlas Map Existing Size (in) Proposed Size (in) Street Priority Priority Type CCN Condition CB0818 OS0817 SD0402 30 36 10 CB0834 CB0833 SD2909 16D 12 18 Via Siena 3 LS CB0833 CB0832 SD2911 12 18 CB0832 OS0831 SD2915 12 18 11 150235 OS0232 SD2939 26B 30 48 Via Colinita 3 LS Los Angeles Harbor South - CCN 12 CB0228 OS0227 26B 12 Corsini Place 1 EX Severe 13 CB0051 OS0052 26B 12 Via Colinita 1 EX Severe 14 MH3565 OS0098 26A 18 Starline Drive 1 EX Average CB0099 MH3565 18 15 CB0124 CB0123 26A 18 Deluna Drive 1 EX Average 16 CB0257 OS0258 26B 12 Via Colinita 1 EX Heavy 17 CB0822 CB0821 16C 18 Grandpoint Lane 2 EX Light 18 CB0111 OS0112 26B 12 Palos Verdes Drive East 2 EX -ART Light 19 CB0119 OS0120 26B 24 Palos Verdes Drive East 1 EX -ART Severe Los Angeles Harbor East 1 CB1908 M H3210 SD40739 33C 24 30 Santa Rena Drive Western Drive 1 EX -ART Heavy MH3210 GB3211 SD2216 24 30 GB3211 JS3212 SD2206 24 30 2 150876 CB0877 SD1733 16A 12 30 Palos Verdes Drive East 3 LS Good CB0877 CB0875 SD2841 12 30 CB0875 OS0872 SD2840 12 30 3 CB3272 CB3271 SD2260 15D 18 24 Golden Spur Lane 2 EX Light 4 CB0851 TS0852 SD2386 16B 12 18 Via Canada 3 LS - 5 IS0858 GB3403 SD2384 16B 21 24 Via Canada 3 LS GB3403 M H0857 SD2385 21 24 M H0857 GB3401 SD2381 21 24 GB3401 CB0856 SD2382 15 24 CB0856 GB0855 SD0355 24 - GB0855 GB0854 SD0354 21 24 GB0854 OS3402 SD2383 24 - 6 CB0127 CB0128 SD2832 34A 18 24 Beecham Drive 3 LS CB0128 GB52139 SD2829 18 24 GB52139 GB52140 SD50773 33C 18 24 GB52140 GBO129 SD50774 18 24 7 M H1914 JS45732 SD2826 33C 36 60 Western Avenue 1 EX -ART Severe JS45732 JS45733 SD2825 36 60 JS45733 M H2941 SD2823 42 60 8 CB0864 JS0865 SD2857 16B 12 18 Via Canada 3 LS JS0865 OS0866 SD2853 12 18 9 IS0915 OS0916 SD2787 15D 18 24 Rocking Horse Road 3 LS 10 IS0029 GB3414 SD2397 16D 18 24 North Enrose Avenue 3 LS Good GB3414 JS34133 SD2398 18 24 JS34133 GB3415 SD2399 1X1.083 4X2 GB3415 OS0028 SD2400 IXI.0841 4X2 11 JS3411 JS34128 SD2395 16D 1X1.083 4X2 North Enrose Avenue 3 LS JS34128 OS0024 SD2396 1X1.083 4X2 12 IS0027 JS3410 SD2393 16D 1X1.083 4X2 North Enrose Avenue 3 LS JS3410 050026 SD2392 1X1.083 4X2 13 CB0786 CB0787 SD0382 16C 18 24 Crownview Drive 3 LS Good CB0787 GB3118 SD0381 18 24 2 EX Moderate D-20 r_11ir_T41:IIT, 14ZkaC Table 13-1: Prioritization Pipes to be Improved System Upstream Downstream Pipe Structure Structure ID ID ID Atlas Map Existing Size (in) Proposed Size (in) Street Priority Priority Type CCN Condition GB3118 GB3120 SD2113 18 24 GB3120 GB3119 SD2115 18 24 GB3119 OS0788 SD2114 18 24 14 JS3419 M H46528 SD14729 34C 24 48 North Western Avenue 1 ART Good M H46528 M H0012 SD43943 34A 30 48 M H0012 M H46131 SD43945 24 48 15 CB0007 GB41729 SD40747 34A 18 24 Homeworth Drive 3 LS Good GB41729 GB41730 SD40748 18 24 GB41730 OS0008 SD2859 18 24 Los Angeles Harbor East — CCTV 17 CB0156 CB0158 33C 18 Santa Rena Drive 1 EX Average 18 CB0838 CB0837 16D 12 Via Siena 1 EX Average 19 CB0015 CB0014 34C 18 MacArthur Street 1 EX Moderate 20 CB0839 CB0838 16D 12 Via Siena 1 EX Moderate 21 CB0021 CB0022 34C 24 Bayend Drive 2 EX Light 22 CB0020 CB0022 34C 24 Noble View Drive 2 EX Light 23 CB3420 GB14907 34C 18 Upland Street 2 EX Light 24 CB0005 GB0004 34C 30 General Street 2 EX Light GB0004 GB1922 30 GB1922 151927 30 JS1927 M H1926 30 25 MH1926 GB0001 34C 36 Summerland Street 2 EX Light GB0001 M H1928 36 26 CB0837 CB0836 16D 12 Miraleste 2 EX -ART Light 27 CB0166 CB0167 SD3331 33A 18 Western Avenue 1 EX -ART i Average Los Angeles Harbor North Los Angeles Harbor North - CCTV 1 CB0213 GB0212 32C 24 Western Avenue 1 EX -ART Severe M H0223 TS14135 2 TS14135 TS0222 TS0222 OS0221 32A 30 Peninsula Verde Drive 1 EX Average 30 30 M H0190 GB1956 3 GB1956 OS0189 33A 96 Western Avenue 1 EX ART Average 96 4 CB0882 OS3202 15A 24 Martingale Drive 1 EX Moderate 5 IS0214 CB021S 32A 18 Peninsula Verde Drive 2 EX Light 6 IS0164 OS0166 15D 27 Santa Rena Drive 1 EX Severe 7 IS0027 050026 150027 JS3410 16D 12 Enrose Avenue 1 EX Severe 12 Palos Verdes Estates North CB1569 GB2093 SD0953 4B 18 24 Woodfern Drive 3 LS 1 GB2093 MC3436 SD2437 18 24 MC3436 M H1568 SD2436 18 24 2 CB1570 MH1566 SD0024 4B 24 36 Lightfoot Place 1 EX Average 3 CB1591 MH1592 SD0014 2D 18 24 Montemalaga Drive 1 EX -ART Heavy GB48129 JS2089 SD46742 4B 21 30 Montemalaga Drive Ironwood Street 2 ART - JS2089 CB1588 SD3365 21 30 CB1588 CB1589 SD2666 2D 24 36 1 EX ART Severe 4 CB1589 MH1590 SD0018 30 42 M H1590 M H1592 SD0016 30 42 Heavy M H1592 JS3559 SD0015 36 42 Severe 5 TS3560 051596 SD0007 2D 30 42 Ironwood Street 1 EX Heavy 6 CB1563 CB48134 SD3329 4B 24 30 Montemalaga Drive 2 EX -ART Moderate D-21 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�III a•] Table 13-1: Prioritization Pipes to be Improved System Upstream Structure ID Downstream Structure ID Pipe ID Atlas Map Existing Size (in) Proposed Size (in) Street Priority Priority Type CCN Condition Palos Verdes Estates North - CCN 7 CB1552 CB1559 5A 24 Montemalaga Drive 1 EX -ART Heavy 8 CB2751 CB2750 4D 24 Basswood Avenue 1 EX Moderate 9 CB2754 CB2755 5C 24 Basswood Avenue 1 EX Moderate Palos Verdes Estates West ir 1 PC1250 Node2106 SD -108 96 18 Eddinghill Drive 3 LS Node2106 CB1273 ST -03 - 18 2 TS2931 MH1582 SD2682 4C 30 42 Granvia Altamira at Monero Drive 1 EX -ART Severe MH1582 MH1583 SD2673 30 36 MH1583 MH2907 SD2671 30 36 MH2907 GB3037 SD3410 30 36 Palos Verdes Estates West - CCTV 5 CB1338 JS28915 JS28915 MH1345 8C 36 36 Hawthorne Boulevard 1 EX -ART Severe 6 CB1339 GB2446 MH1345 GB2446 8C 36 36 Hawthorne Boulevard 1 EX -ART Average 7 CB2713 TS2714 TS2714 OS2715 8D 18 18 Via Costa Verde 1 EX Average 8 CB2728 JS2730 8D 24 Via Porto Grande 1 EX Moderate 9 CB1431 JS28515 12A 18 Hawthorne Boulevard 1 EX -ART Moderate 10 CB1251 PC1250 9B 18 Plainfield Drive 1 EX Heavy CB1424 GB2483 11 GB2483 MH2522 18 8C 18 Parklynn Drive 1 EX Heavy 12 JS2725 MH2726 MH2733 JS2725 8D 24 24 Via Malona 2 EX Light MH2731 MH2733 13 GB2732 MH2731 JS2730 GB2732 24 8D 24 24 Via Malona 2 EX Light 14 CB2729 JS2730 8D 18 Via Porto Grande 2 EX Light 15 CB1372 OS1373 16C 18 Lomo Drive 2 EX Light 16 CB1430 MH1434 12A 24 Hawthorne Boulevard 2 EX -ART Light IL Rolling Hills Estate 1 GB3487 JS3488 SD2519 13A 39 48 Crestridge Road 1 EX Good JS3488 MH3489 SD2517 39 48 MH3489 OS1015 SD2520 36 48 1 EX Heavy 2 IS1014 JS2683 SD2736 13A 24 48 Middlecrest Road 3 LS Good JS2683 JS2684 SD2734 24 48 JS2684 051013 SD2731 24 48 3 JS2686 MH1489 SD2687 7A 21 24 Hawthorne Boulevard Hawkhurst Drive 2 ART Good MH1489 JS48136 SD2674 5C 21 24 1 EX -ART Average JS48136 MH1521 SD46770 21 30 MH1521 GB2490 SD1495 24 30 GB2490 MH1513 SD1496 27 36 MH1513 MH1514 SD0039 24 36 MH1514 JS2492 SD1498 24 36 JS2492 MH1515 SD1499 24 36 MH1515 MH1516 SD0038 24 36 MH1516 GB2493 SD1500 24 36 GB2493 T51522 SD1501 24 36 TS1522 MH1523 I SD0035 30 36 4 CB1452 I JS3297 I SD27051 8B 1 24 1 6X2 I Hawthorne 2 ART - D-22 ATTACHMENT D 13.2 Capital Improvement Projects Schedule The recommended Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) were scheduled for the storm drain systems that were found to be deficient per the hydraulic analysis, using the criteria defined below. 1. Identified all projects within each priority classification: 1, 2 or 3. 2. Differentiated between two different types of projects: a. Type I: storm drain systems that were classified as deficient systems per this MPD (capacity deficient). b. Type II: storm drain systems that have capacity deficiencies and that have condition deficiencies per the CCTV inspection. 3. Type II projects were scheduled first. D-23 Table 13-1: Prioritization Pipes to be Improved System Upstream Structure ID Downstream Structure ID Pipe ID Atlas Map Existing Proposed Size (in) Size (in) Street Priority Priority Type CCN Condition JS3297 MH3293 SD2279 24 6X2 Boulevard MH3293 JS3295 SD2280 24 6X2 TS3146 CB3143 SD2136 5C 18 24 Via de la Vis Shadow Wood 1 EX -PP Severe CB3143 CB3144 SD2137 18 24 5 CB3144 CB3145 SD2138 18 24 CB3145 OS1536 SD2139 18 24 M C3434 GB3435 SD2434 5C 24 30 Hawthorne Boulevard 1 EX ART Severe 6 GB3435 OS1538 SD2435 24 30 CB1465 CB1467 SD0090 7B 18 30 Browndeer Lane 3 LS CB1467 CB1470 SD0088 21 30 CB1470 GB2385 SD1344 27 30 7 GB2385 JS2389 SD1348 27 30 JS2389 GB1469 SD1349 27 30 GB1469 051468 SD1352 27 30 JS2685 GB1482 SD2438 7B 24 30 Browndeer Lane 3 LS GB1482 GB3437 SD2439 24 36 GB3437 GB3438 SD2440 18 36 8 GB3438 GB3439 SD2441 18 36 GB3439 GB3440 SD2442 18 36 GB3440 GB3441 SD2443 18 36 GB3441 OS1481 SD2444 18 36 M H1553 M H1558 SD0021 5A 24 30 Ironwood Street 3 LS Good 9 TS1557 OS1556 SD0023 24 30 Rolling Hills Estates - CCN 10 CB3447 MH3399 13A 18 Crenshaw Boulevard 1 EX -ART Severe 11 JS48534 MH1006 13A 30 Crenshaw Boulevard 1 EX -ART Average 153399 JS48534 30 12 CB1463 M H3473 7D 24 Longhill Drive 2 EX Light MH3473 GB3474 24 GB3474 OS1464 24 13 CB1459 CB1458 7D 18 Golden Arrow Drive 2 EX Light 14 CB1458 M C3470 7D 18 Golden Arrow Drive 2 EX Light MC3470 GB3471 18 G63471 GB3472 18 GB3472 OS1457 18 15 CB1017 MH3489 13A 24 Crestridge Road 2 EX -ART Light 13.2 Capital Improvement Projects Schedule The recommended Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) were scheduled for the storm drain systems that were found to be deficient per the hydraulic analysis, using the criteria defined below. 1. Identified all projects within each priority classification: 1, 2 or 3. 2. Differentiated between two different types of projects: a. Type I: storm drain systems that were classified as deficient systems per this MPD (capacity deficient). b. Type II: storm drain systems that have capacity deficiencies and that have condition deficiencies per the CCTV inspection. 3. Type II projects were scheduled first. D-23 ATTACHMENT D 4. Recognized the following project characteristics for risk assessment: a. Located under an arterial street. b. Calculated total tributary area to storm drain system. c. Identified if there was a downstream deficient system. 5. Scheduled the project depending on the risk assessment criteria. According to the City, collections from a storm drain user fee contribute around $1.3 million annually. This fee expires in June of 2016. However, for this MPD, it is assumed the fee will be renewed. Using $1.3 million per year as the fee revenue cap, the years highlighted in red will require identification of additional funding sources. Table 13-2 summarizes the CIP schedule cost per year and the priority ranks for storm drain systems to be improved in the given year. Recommended improvement projects priority 2 and 3 that are located downstream of a priority 1 project were schedule first. Table 13-2: CIP Schedule Summary Year Cost Priority 1 $1,769,000.00 1 & 2 2 $2,229,000.00 1 & 2 3 $1,729,000.00 1,2 & 3 4 $2,629,000.00 1 & 3 5 $1,798,000.00 2 & 3 6 $1,471,000.00 2 & 3 7 $1,988,000.00 3 8 $1,243,000.00 3 9 $1,507,000.00 3 10 $1,251,000.00 3 Total $17,614,000.00 Tables 13-3, 13-4, and 13-5 summarize the schedule for projects considered priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively. D-24 ATTACHMENT D Table 13-3: CIP Schedule Priority 1 Projects Drainage Area System Upstream Downstream Structure ID Structure ID Atlas Map Street Priority Project Cost Year Schedule LAE 7 MH1914 JS45732 33C Western Avenue 1 $163,000.00 JS45732 JS45733 JS45733 MH2941 LAE 1 CB1908 MH3210 33C Santa Rena Drive Western Drive 1 $181,000.00 MH3210 GB3211 GB3211 JS3212 PVN 3 CB1591 MH1592 2D Montemalaga Drive Ironwood Street 1 $681,000.00 4 GB48129 JS2089 4B 2* JS2089 CB1588 CB1588 CB1589 2D 1 CB1589 MH1590 MH1590 MH1592 MH1592 JS3559 5 TS3560 OS1596 2D Ironwood Street 1 PVW 2 TS2931 MH1582 4C Granvia Altamira at Monero Drive 1 $744,000.00 MH1582 MH1583 MH1583 MH2907 MH2907 GB3037 TOTAL $1,769,000.00 1 OSS 3 CB3456 GB3458 24C Palos Verdes Drive South at Pepertree Drive 1 $811,000.00 GB3458 TS19313 TS19313 JS4019 JS4019 OS19712 RHE 3 JS2686 MH1489 5C& 7A Hawthorne Boulevard Hawkhurst Drive 2* $1,418,000.00 MH1489 JS48136 1 JS48136 MH1521 MH1521 GB2490 GB2490 MH1513 MH1513 MH1514 MH1514 JS2492 JS2492 MH1515 MH1515 MH1516 MH1516 GB2493 GB2493 TS1522 TS1522 MH1523 TOTAL $2,229,000.00 2 RHE 6 MC3434 GB3435 5C Hawthorne Boulevard 1 $52,000.00 GB3435 OS1538 RHE 5 TS3146 CB3143 5C Via de la Vis Shadow Wood 1 $188,000.00 CB3143 CB3144 CB3144 CB3145 CB3145 OS1536 OSS 1 CB0973 CB0972 13C Amber Sky Drive 1 $90,000.00 CB0972 MC0971 D-25 ATTACHMENT D Table 13-3: CIP Schedule Priority 1 Projects Drainage Area System Upstream Downstream Structure ID Structure ID Atlas Map Street Priority Project Cost Year Schedule RHE 2 1S1014 JS2683 13A Middlecrest Road 3* $87,000.00 JS2683 JS2684 JS2684 OS1013 OSS 2 CB0977 OS0976 13D Oceanaire Drive 1 $68,000.00 OWW 5 GB3310 JS3303 11C Rue La Fleur 1 $20,000.00 OSS 4 IS54000 JS54001 24C Palos Verdes Drive South 1 $344,000.00 JS54001 OS54002 OSEA 7 CB0389 CB0411 25D & 26C Casilina Drive and Hawksmoor Drive 2* $293,000.00 CB0411 GB0410 1 GB0410 GB2375 GB2375 MH0409 MH0409 MH2371 LAS 5 CB0254 CB0253 26B Via Colinita 1 $236,000.00 CB0253 CB0252 CB0252 OS0251 LAS 4 CB0294 CB0293 26D Vista Mesa Drive 3* $103,000.00 CB0293 GB0292 1 GB0292 GB1905 GB1905 GB42524 LAS 6 CB0247 CB0250 26B Via Colinita Kingsridge Road 1 $248,000.00 CB0250 CB0249 CB0249 OS0248 TOTAL $1,729,000.00 3 RHE 1 GB3487 JS3488 13A Creoad dge Road 1 $270,000.00 JS3488 MH3489 MH3489 OS1015 PVN 2 CB1570 MH1566 4B Lightfoot Place 1 $111,000.00 LAS 11 IS0235 OS0232 26B Via Colinita 3* $126,000.00 LAS 9 GB0819 CB0820 16 &16D Knoll View Drive 1 $411,000.00 CB0820 CB0818 CB0818 OS0817 LAS 1 CB0124 CB0123 26C Deluna Drive 1 $156,000.00 CB0123 JS34128 3* JS34128 GB34131 GB34131 GB34132 GB34132 JS34133 JS34133 GB34129 GB34129 GB34130 GB34130 OS0125 OSEA 3 JS1947 JS1948 28A Schooner Drive 1 $451,000.00 JS1948 JS3614 JS3614 TS0514 TS0514 MH0489 MH0489 OS0513 OWW 3 CB1189 JS1186 11C Via Cambron Palos Verdes Drive West 3* $303,000.00 4 JS2675 GB46942 11C 1 GB46942 MH1185 MH1185 GB46943 D-26 ATTACHMENT D Table 13-3: CIP Schedule Priority 1 Projects Drainage Area System Upstream Downstream Structure ID Structure ID Atlas Map Street Priority Project Cost Year Schedule LAE 3 GB46943 OS1184 15D Golden Spur Lane 2 $24,000.00 LAE 14 JS3419 MH46528 34C North Western Avenue 1 $532,000.00 MH46528 MH0012 34A MH0012 MH46131 OSW 1 G B 1743 150549 22B Palos Verdes Drive South 1 $269,000.00 2 150549 MH41325 MH41325 I MH13709 TOTAL $2,629,000.00 4 *Projects scheduled first, because an upstream system is considered priority 1. Table 13-4: CIP Schedule Priority 2 Projects Drainage Area System Upstream Downstream Structure ID Structure ID Atlas Map Street Priority Project Cost Year Schedule LAE 3 CB3272 CB3271 15D Golden Spur Lane 2 $24,000.00 LAE 13 CB0786 CB0787 16C Crownview Drive 3 $145,000.00 CB0787 GB3118 2 GB3118 GB3120 GB3120 GB3119 GB3119 OS0788 PVN 6 CB1563 CB48134 4B Montemalaga Drive 2 $201,000.00 OSEB 2 GB34124 MH0075 26C Dianora Drive and Crest Road 2 $274,000.00 MH0075 JS0076 150076 MH0074 MH0074 GB34125 GB34125 GB34126 GB34126 GB34127 GB34127 MH0073 MH0073 CB0067 CB0067 OS0072 OSW 5 CB1065 CB1064 12D Crest Road 2 $41,000.00 CB1064 CB1063 OSEB 1 150095 CB0093 26A Crest Road 2 $186,000.00 CB0093 MH0094 MH0094 MH0092 MH0092 OS3564 OSEB 3 150967 GB0333 27A Palos Verdes Drive East 2 $93,000.00 GB0333 SD2322 SD2322 TS2321 TS2321 MH0332 RHE 4 CB1452 JS3297 8B Hawthorne Boulevard 2 $834,000.00 JS3297 MH3293 MH3293 JS3295 TOTAL $1,798,000.00 5 D-27 ATTACHMENT D Table 13-4: CIP Schedule Priority 2 Projects Drainage Area System Upstream Structure ID Downstream Structure ID Atlas Map Street Priority Project Cost Year Schedule 4 CB36128 CB36129 CB0552 MH0554 3 $60,000.00 MH0554 MH0553 MH1912 GB1913 22B GB1913 GB1911 MH0553 MH25729 GB1911 MH0507 Palos Verdes Drive 1 25C Dauntless Drive MH25729 MH36518 OSW 3 South Terranea 2 MH0507 GB1910 GB1910 JS3425 MH36518 MH36519 Way JS3425 GB1909 MH36519 MH25741 GB1909 MH0516 22D $743,000.00 TOTAL $803,000.00 TOTAL YEAR 6 (Priority 2 and 3) $1,471,000.00 6 MH25741 MH36520 MH36520 MH25730 25C Schooner Drive 3 $619,000.00 JS1918 MH0516 LAS 2 CB0058 OS0059 26C Palos Verdes Drive East 2 $49,000.00 Berry Hill Drive TOTAL $668,000.00 6 Table 13-5: CIP Schedule Priority 3 Projects Drainage Area System Upstream Downstream Structure ID Structure ID Atlas Map Street Priority Project Cost Year Schedule OSEB 4 CB36128 CB36129 27A Tarapaca Road 3 $60,000.00 TS7317 MH1912 MH1912 GB1913 GB1913 GB1911 GB1911 MH0507 OSEA 1 25C Dauntless Drive 3 MH0507 GB1910 GB1910 JS3425 JS3425 GB1909 GB1909 MH0516 $743,000.00 TOTAL $803,000.00 TOTAL YEAR 6 (Priority 2 and 3) $1,471,000.00 6 GB1919 GB0517 OSEA 2 GB0517 JS1918 25C Schooner Drive 3 JS1918 MH0516 $311,000.00 OWW 2 MH1191 GB32121 11C Berry Hill Drive 3 $92,000.00 OSEA 6 GB4914 OS4031 24D Seawall Road 3 $253,000.00 IS0858 GB3403 GB3403 MH0857 MH0857 GB3401 LAE 5 GB3401 CB0856 16B Via Canada 3 CB0856 GB0855 GB0855 GB0854 GB0854 OS3402 $229,000.00 OSW 2 MH0675 GB0674 GB0674 OS0673 23B Arrowroot Lane 3 $281,000.00 JS2685 GB1482 GB1482 GB3437 RHE GB3437 GB3438 8 GB3438 GB3439 7B Browndeer Lane 3 GB3439 GB3440 GB3440 GB3441 $222,000.00 D-28 ATTACHMENT D Table 13-5: CIP Schedule Priority 3 Projects Drainage Area System Upstream Downstream Structure ID Structure ID Atlas Map Street Priority Project Cost Year Schedule JS34133 GB3415 GB3415 OS0028 GB3441 OS1481 12 IS0027 JS3410 16D North Enrose Avenue 3 OWW 1 GB2310 GB1207 11C Via Borica 3 $127,000.00 Eddinghill Drive GB1207 GB2309 GB2309 GB2308 GB2308 MH2306 OWW 6 IS0632 CB0735 20B Alta Vista Drive 3 $473,000.00 $93,000.00 TOTAL $1,988,000.00 7 RHE 7 CB1465 CB1467 76 Browndeer Lane 3 $145,000.00 CB1467 CB1470 CB1470 GB2385 GB2385 JS2389 JS2389 GB1469 GB1469 OS1468 LAE 9 IS0915 OS0916 15D Rocking Horse Road 3 $61,000.00 RHE 9 MH1553 MH1558 5A Ironwood Street 3 $344,000.00 TS1557 OS1556 LAE 6 CB0127 CB0128 34A Beecham Drive 3 $162,000.00 CB0128 GB52139 GB52139 GB52140 33C GB52140 GBO129 LAS g CB0814 CB0815 16C Crownview Drive 3 $205,000.00 CB0815 GB3110 GB3110 GB3111 16D GB3111 GB3113 GB3113 GB3112 GB3112 OS0816 LAS 7 CB0785 JS2704 16C Grandpoint Lane at Highpoint Road 3 $102,000.00 JS2704 OS0783 LAE 2 150876 CB0877 16A Palos Verdes Drive East 3 $109,000.00 CB0877 CB0875 CB0875 OS0872 LAS 10 CB0834 CB0833 16D Via Siena 3 $115,000.00 CB0833 CB0832 CB0832 OS0831 TOTALI $1,243,000.00 8 LAE 10 IS0029 GB3414 16D North Enrose Avenue 3 $548,000.00 GB3414 JS34133 JS34133 GB3415 GB3415 OS0028 LAE 12 IS0027 JS3410 16D North Enrose Avenue 3 $399,000.00 JS3410 OS0026 PVW 1 PC1250 Node2106 9B Eddinghill Drive 3 $286,000.00 Node2106 CB1273 LAE 15 CB0007 GB41729 34A Homeworth Drive 3 $93,000.00 GB41729 GB41730 GB41730 OS0008 D-29 ATTACHMENT D Table 13-5: CIP Schedule Priority 3 Projects 4 Drainage Area System Upstream Downstream Structure ID Structure ID Atlas Map Street Priority Project Cost Year Schedule LAE 8 CB0864 JS0865 16B Via Canada 3 $181,000.00 $89,000.00 JS0865 OS0866 TOTAL 1 $1,507,000.00 1 9 OSEA 4 GB2648 GB2649 25D Ganado Drive 3 $107,000.00 GB2649 JS2650 JS2650 GB0418 GB0418 OSO417 OSEA 5 CB3134 GB3135 28A Maritime Road 3 $89,000.00 GB3135 GB3137 GB3137 GB3136 GB3136 OS3138 OSW 4 IS40930 JS25771 22D Terranea Way 3 $288,000.00 JS25771 MH36522 MH36522 MH36523 MH36523 MH36521 MH36521 MH25770 PVN 1 CB1569 GB2093 4B Wo Drive ern iv r 3 $80,000.00 GB2093 MC3436 MC3436 MH1568 LAE 11 JS3411 JS34128 16D North Enrose Avenue 3 $502,000.00 JS34128 OS0024 LAE 4 CB0851 TS0852 16B Via Canada 3 $55,000.00 LAS 3 CB0053 CB0054 26C Santa Luna Drive 3 $130,000.00 CB0054 GB1904 GB1904 GB1902 GB1902 GB1903 GB1903 OS0055 TOTAL $1,251,000.00 10 D-30 ATTACHMENT D 13.3 Future Considerations Master Plan of Drainage studies are planning -level documents focused on identifying a citywide storm drainage system to reduce flooding risk. Implementation of any facility identified in this document as deficient should be supplemented with detailed hydrology and hydraulic calculations during the final design process. Additional studies that should be performed during final design include detailed geotechnical investigations, utility surveying, catch basin design, and utility relocation. In this MPD, the entire storm drain system located within the City's jurisdiction was analyzed. The most updated storm drain information was used in conjunction with a coupled hydrology and hydraulics model in XP-SWMM. The comprehensive model's basis of GIS data, integrated with the Michael Baker Model Builder, makes the XP-SWMM model a valuable tool for future design projects. The models are divided by drainage area to facilitate updates. The City would have to purchase an XP-SWMM license and have staff trained in the use of the program to maintain the model in house. The model will require knowledge of the County of Los Angeles hydrology and hydraulic methods to efficiently model future improvements. One of the main goals of this comprehensive model was to provide the City with a living document and model that could be revised as significant changes in the storm drain system are completed. These changes include but are not limited to roadway improvements, tract developments, and storm drain improvements. Generally, the MPD for any city should be updated every ten years, and Michael Baker recommends that the City review this MPD in ten years. However, the approach used in this MPD allows the City to continuously revise the models, which could result in lower overall costs to produce future master plans. Future revisions to consider include addition of currently missing or incomplete storm drain infrastructure data, analysis of current recommended Capital Improvement Projects as they are design and constructed, other storm drain improvements, updates to rainfall data by the County of Los Angeles, and changes in County of Los Angeles hydrology and hydraulic methods. D-31 Page Intentionally Blank r_11aCTM :IT,14�kaC D-32 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�kaI] EXHIBIT 3 FY 14/15 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS AND CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING D-33 r_11ir_T41:I►T,14�III aC CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DEBORAH CULLEN, FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 SUBJECT: FY14-15 FISCAL YEAR-END BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS AND CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER O'er Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Deputy Finance Director RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2015- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2014-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY14-15, TO REDUCE THE BUDGET FOR THE APPROVED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2015- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2015-47, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY15-16, TO INCREASE THE BUDGET FOR THE APPROVED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2015- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2014-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY14-15, TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN VARIOUS FUNDS OF THE CITY. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 2015- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2015-47, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY15-16, TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN VARIOUS FUNDS OF THE CITY. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the Proposed Continuing Appropriations. The 1 D-34 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�11a•] FY14-15 FISCAL YEAR-END BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS AND CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS September 15, 2015 Page 2 of 4 estimated June 30, 2016 fund balances presented during the 2015 budget process includes the expenditure of these appropriations; and continuing them from one year to the next has no impact on the estimated fund balances. Staff is requesting a number of FY14-15 adjustments to ensure budgetary compliance, and to provide for additional transfers between funds. Staff is also requesting several adjustments to correct the FY15-16 budget. The net fiscal impact of all requested General Fund adjustments is an $11,070 increase to the estimated General Fund Reserve at June 30, 2016. Revised Fund Balance Estimates at June 30, 2016: General Fund Reserve: $11,111,712 ($375,007 in excess of Policy Threshold) Equipment Replacement Fund: $ 1,854,767 ($130,885 in excess of Policy Threshold) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Continuing Appropriations At the end of each fiscal year, Staff prepares a list of budgeted appropriations recommended for carryover into the next fiscal year. The list of Proposed Continuing Appropriations (Attachment A) identifies projects that were included in the FY14-15 budget, but were not completed by June 30, 2015. The majority of the continuing appropriation requests relate to ongoing Public Works projects. Many of these projects require a multi-year effort, must wait for approval from outside agencies, or require extensive planning and/or citizen engagement before commencing; and have, therefore, been carried over from year to year. Staff added an informational column to the list, noting the first year each project was appropriated. As discussed during the 2015 budget process, Public Works Staff recommended a minimal number of new projects for FY15-16; with the goal of completing many of the projects that had already been appropriated for FY14-15, or continued from prior years. There are at least two different ways that funds may legally be committed for capital projects: 1. Budget the full amount of the project (appropriate it); or 2. "Commit" the project via resolution by June 30th of each year. The "Commitment" would be reported as part of the CIP fund balance in the annual financial statements. Once the City is ready to begin the project (e.g. approval/funding from an outside agency was obtained), then that project may be budgeted from the "Committed" fund balance. The City has a long history of appropriating funding to capital projects by budgeting the funding (method #1 above), and carrying over the unspent appropriation year to year. D-35 r_11ir_T41:I►T,14�III ir•] FY14-15 FISCAL YEAR-END BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS AND CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS September 15, 2015 Page 3 of 4 With the 2016 budget process, Finance Staff will recommend "committing" funds by resolution for projects that are not likely to begin during FY16-17 (method #2 above). By taking this step, during the annual budget process City Council would have the opportunity to review the committed projects and determine if priorities or funding has changed. This step should be able to reduce the number of continuing appropriations each year; and the annually adopted budget will reflect the true annual expenditures for the City. Staff presented all budgeted appropriations for FY14-15, including the amounts requested for carryover, in the FY14-15 column of the 2015 Five -Year Financial Model that was prepared in conjunction with the FY15-16 budget. Therefore, estimated beginning fund balances presented with the FY15-16 budget were already reduced by the amount of the proposed continuing appropriations. Approval of these continuing appropriations will not change estimated ending fund balances at June 30, 2016. FYI 4-15 & FYI 5-16 Budget Adjustments Chapter 3.32 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code sets forth guidelines related to the City's budget administration. Section 3.32.070 of the Code requires that all expenditures in excess of a program/function's budgeted allocation must be approved by supplemental appropriation by the City Council. A list of Proposed Budget Adjustments (Attachment B) has been prepared, and includes a brief description of each item. The impact to the General Fund is summarized below. FY14-15 Revenue Increase $180,000 FY14-15 Net Expenditure Increase 99,550 FY15-16 Net Expenditure Increase 69,380 Net Increase of General Fund Reserve $ 11;070 This report also includes proposed adjustments for activity related to the Utility User Tax (UUT) Claim Account, as summarized below. Claim Account Balance at June 30, 2014 $593,301 Additional Telecommunications UUT collected during FY14-15 120,167 FY14-15 Disbursements from Claim Account (190,467) Current Claim Account Balance $523,001 Staff requests the following transfers between funds, with no net fiscal impact: 1. Close the Building Replacement Fund and transfer the balance to the CIP Reserve, based upon City Council direction during the 2015 budget process; 2. Increase the budgeted transfer of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the CIP Reserve, based upon actual FY14-15 TOT revenue; and K, D-36 ATTACHMENT D FY14-15 FISCAL YEAR-END BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS AND CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS September 15, 2015 Page 4 of 4 3. Increase the budgeted transfer of Proposition C to the CIP Fund for the PVDE arterial rehabilitation project, based upon amounts approved by Metro. Finally, there are $20,000 of requests to increase Equipment Replacement Fund appropriations. Staff expects that the Equipment Replacement Fund will have about $150,000 of FY14-15 expenditure savings, which is more than sufficient to provide for the $20,000 of requests. Attachments A — Proposed Continuing Appropriations from FY14-15 to FY15-16 (page 5) B — Proposed Budget Adjustments FY14-15 & FY15-16 (page 11) Resolution No. 2015- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2014-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY14-15, TO REDUCE THE BUDGET FOR THE APPROVED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS (page 16) Resolution No. 2015- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2015-47, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY15-16, TO INCREASE THE BUDGET FOR THE APPROVED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS (page 19) Resolution No. 2015- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2014-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY14-15, TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN VARIOUS FUNDS OF THE CITY (page 22) Resolution No. 2015- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2015-47, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY15-16, TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN VARIOUS FUNDS OF THE CITY (page 24) ii D-37 ATTACHMENT D Attachment A PROPOSED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FROM FY14-15 TO FY15-16 Program First Appropriated Account ` BudgetSpent Available r' Request Description Staff requests a carryover of unused budget for various furniture purchases in Administration, to provide for recent City Manager Professional Services FY14-15 101-1002-411-32-00 125,000 45,074 79,926 $ 20,000 (staffing changes. Purchases of tax -defaulted parcels at 41 and 37 Cherryhill City Manager Land Purchase FY13-14 & FY14-15 '101-1002-411-71-00 115,000 12,223 102,777 102,777 (Lane are expected to be completed during FY15-16. Peafowl trapping to be completed by December 2015, based upon the Peafowl Management Plan adopted by City Council Animal Control Professional Services FY14-15 101-1025-421-32-00 111,515 81,180 30,335. 30,335 :on August 4, 2015. Continuity of Operations Plan ($25,000), and Replenish Supply Emergency Preparedness ',Caches ($8,000). Both projects were initiated during FY14-15, Professional Services FY13-14 & FY14-15 '101-1026-421-32-00 118,983 25,132 93,851 33,000 and will be completed in FY15-16. Information Technology Minor Data storage $20,000, and 3 laptops $6,000. Purchases were Equipment FY14-15 101-2030-41I-61-00 45,000 14,957 30,043 23,000 :delayed due to transition to a new IT Services provider- i Telephone handsets and other system equipment. Purchases Telephone Maintenance FY14-15 101-2035-411-43-00 12,000 - 12,000 10,000 !were delayed due to transition to a new IT Services provider. Traffic engineering studies for Sea Bluff & Hawthorne Blvd Traffic Management Professional Frontage Road and four intersections began late in FY14-15, Services FY14-15 101-3006-431-32-00 j 124,000 89,079 34,921 15,000 'and will be completed during FY15-16. i Development of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) implementation, the Enhanced Watershed :Management Program (EWMP), and the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) have been an ongoing multi-year process. Extensive review by the Los Angeles Storm Water Quality Professional I Regional Water Quality Control Board has caused project Services FY13-14 ;101-3007-431-32-00 552,495 236,199 316,296 50,000 'delays. Staff anticipates completion by June 2016. !Staff requests carryover of unspent funds to complete the Sewer Maintenance Professional sewer system GIS layer, and sewer capacity study during FY15- Services FY14-15 101-3026-431-32-00 r 58,000 21,504 36,496 35,000 11116. :General Plan Update $20,000 - expected presentation to City !Council November 2015. Zone 2 EIR $23,500 - carryover request based upon recent City Council interest to reconsider FY02-03 (General certifying the Zone 2 EIR. Coast Vision Plan $2,000 - update Plan), FY09-10 per City Council direction on July 18, 2015. GIS Services (Zone2 EIR), and 11$10,000 - updates to the Zoning Map and Trails Network Plan, Planning Professional Services FY14-15 (Other) 101-4001-441-32-00 125,171 70,136 55,035 55,500 Ito be completed in FY15-16. D-38 ATTACHMENT D Attachment A PROPOSED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FROM FY14-15 TO FY15-16 Program FirstAppropriated Account Budget; Spent Available Request Description Printing of the General Plan update and Zoning Code $15,000 - kexpected during FY15-16, pending finalization of the i documents. Printing new business cards for staff and Planning 'Commission members due to new City domain address !$5,000. Budgetary compliance is by program; and although this Printing line item does not have sufficient funds for the entire $20,000 carryover, the Planning program as a whole Planning Printing FY09-10 101-4001-441-55-00 21,000 5,415 15,585 20,000 has sufficient availability for this request. Geotechnical Reviews $22,100 - several of the Monks case plaintiffs have not yet completed the planning/building permit process. Laserfiche & GIS scanning $25,000 -building plans FY09-10 (Monks), will be scanned into the City's systems during FY15-16. FY10-11 (Scanning), Geologic Review for General Plan $15,000 - review of the and FY12-13 open space hazard zoning areas related to updating the Building & Safety Professional (Geologic for General Plan and Zoning Map, to be completed during FY15- Services General Plan) 101-4002-441-32-00 197,877 96,050 101,827 62,100 16. Changes have been made to the NCCP document as a result of Natural Communities Conservation !recent parcel acquisitions and changes to the Nature Plan (NCCP) Professional Services FY97-98 1101-4005-441-32-00 I'I 75,053 75,053 75,053 Preserve. Staff expects to complete the document in FY15-16. SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 531,765 This appropriation was for the Abalone Cove Landslide ''Abatement District (ACLAD) to drill 2 dewatering wells. ACLAD has been reimbursed for one well. The carryover Landslide Dewatering Wells FY13-14 330-3030-461-73-00 170,000 59,575 110,425 85,000 '',would provide for the other well. This appropriation was for the City to drill 4 dewatering wells. The City is utilizing a hydrogeologist to determine the most is beneficial locations for the wells. Staff expects that drilling Landslide Dewatering Wells FY14-15 330-3043-461-73-00 360,000 360,000 360,000 (will be completed in summer 2016. Miraleste Arterial Street (Staff anticipates advertising for bids by December 2015, with Rehabilitation FY14-15 330-3031-461-73-00 j 2,570,000_ 35,438 2,534,562 2,534,562 ;construction scheduled for completion by June 2016. _ Residential Street Rehabilitation - _ _ FY10-11 through The combined project is underway; and construction is Prior Years' Programs FY13-14 ,330-3031-461-73-00 11 3,511,032 2,720,075 790,957 790,957 nearing completion, anticipated December 2015. j Staff anticipates to advertise bids for design services in Residential street Rehabilitation - IDecember 2015, with project completion scheduled for June FY14-15 Program FY14-15 ;330-3031-461-73-00 j' 2,229,400 2;229,400 2,229,400 ;2016. 0 • ATTACHMENT D Attachment A PROPOSED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FROM FY14-15 TO FY15-16 Program First Appropriated Account Budget Spent Available Request Description ` ,The design has been completed, and bids will be advertised in Hawthorne Blvd Traffic Signal ;September 2015. Project award is scheduled for October Synchronization FY11-12 330-3031-461-73-00 708,312 24,684 683,628 683,628 12015, with project completion in January 2016. This project will be completed after the fiber optic conduits lfrom the Traffic Signal Synchronization project have been installed (scheduled for November 2015). Construction of the Hawthorne Blvd Pedestrian street improvements should last about 6 months, with Improvements FY10-11 330-3031-461-73-00 1,246,190 5,839 1,240,351 1,240,351 lcompletion in August 2016. PVDE Safety Improvements - Construction bids will be advertised by the end of September Guardrails FY08-09 330-3031-461-73-00 268,794 268,794 268,794 '2015, with project completion scheduled for December 2015. This remaining appropriation will be combined with the PVDE !Safety Improvements - Bronco Drive project budgeted in FY15- PVDE Safety Improvements - 16; which is currently in the design phase. Staff expects to Headland Drive FY13-14 330-3031-461-73-00 I!. 38,222 11,427 26,795 26,795 !complete the project during FY15-16. 'This project is being reprogrammed in the State Transportation Improvement Program, then must be approved by the LA County Metropolitan Transportation PVDS Safety Improvements - lAuthority. Construction can begin upon receiving approval, Bikeways FY09-10 330-3031-461-73-00 779,975 - 779,975 779,975 'anticipated July 2016. iPlans and specs are being revised to comply with new drought 1330-3031-461-73-00 mandates. Project construction is expected to begin in PVDW Median Improvements FY09-10 & FY10-11 473,690 473,690 473,690 December 2015, with completion by March 2016. This is an interim project to address the S-curve at the east end of the landslide area roadway. The project has been PVDS Realignment - East End FY13-14 1330-3031-461-73-00 4.5.8,672 - 4_58_,672 458,672 delayed by the need to perform an environmental study. 'Project design has begun, and is expected to be completed PVDS Realignment - Design Full 'll 2016. Construction of the realignment is currently Length FY13-14 330-3031-461-73-00 272,485 8,063 264,422 (January 264,422 planned for FY18-19 (per the 2015 Capital Improvement Plan). The update is currently being finalized. The consultant will facilitate integration of the updated Pavement Management Pavement Management Plan Update FY11-12 1330-3031-461-32-00 I 69,600 69,600 69,600 System to the City's GIS, to be completed by June 2016. This project was delayed due to competing priorities. The 'design and construction should be completed in FY15-16, Eastview Dog Park FY14-15 330-3033-461-73-00 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 ; pending the Parks Use Master Plan. 7 D-40 ATTACHMENT D Attachment A PROPOSED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FROM FY14-15 TO FY15-16 Program First Appropriated Account Budget Spent Available '- Request- Description Staffexpects to advertise bids in October 2015 for preparation Ladera Linda Master Plan I FY11-12 330-3033-461-32-00 100,000 6,278 93,722 93,722 of the Ladera Linda Master Plan. Public review of the project is still in process. Construction of Lower Hesse Park Improvements FY14-15 ;330-3033-461-73-00 500,000 12,425 487,575 487,575 ':the improvements is scheduled for spring 2016. Due to competing priorities, the project was delayed. Design PVIC Building Sign & Screening Wall FY14-15 330-3033-461-73-00 110,000 - 110,000 110,000 and construction can be completed in FY15-16. The project was not completed in FY14-15 due to additional citizen engagement efforts. The project can be completed in Sunnyside Segment Trail FY14-15 1330-3033-461-7.3-00 465,000 68,564 396,436 396,436,FY15-16. The first phase of the project has been completed, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) second phase is currently in design. Project completion is Transition Plan Projects FY13-14 & FY14-15 '330-3036-461-73-00 707,336 97,199 610,137 610,137 :expected in FY15-16. -�- John C. McTaggart Memorial Hall & _ ----- - _ _-- -I -- -__- _ ---____- _-__---___--_ City Council Chambers ,Much ofthe project was completed in FY14-15. Installation of Improvements FY13-14 1330-3036-461-73-00 225,556 131,314 94,242 94,242 new broadcast equipment will be completed in FY15-16. Staff is currently working on project planning, and anticipates (that additional funding will be required to complete Hesse Park & Ryan Park Fiber Optic I construction during FY15-16. A report to City Council is Cabling FY14-15 330-3036-461-73-00 320,000 320,000 320,000 (forthcoming for this project. Restroom improvements have been completed. Design for the remainder of improvements will be completed in September 2015, with construction to begin shortly RPVty Building Improvements FY13-14 & FY14-15 '.330-3036-461-73_-_00_ j 141,416 46,621 94,795 94,795 'thereafter. Project completion is expected spring 2016. Due to competing priorities, the project was delayed. Design Recognition Wall of Honor FY13-14 1330-3036-461-73-00 40,000 40,000 i 40,000 ;and construction can be completed in FY15-16. Staff is requesting a carryover of only $50,000 of this i appropriation to design the project. Once the design is completed, Staff will present a recommendation to City Council to re -budget the project in a future year. There have been delays associated with state reviews of the Enhanced !Watershed Management Program; however, Staff expects to Drainage Area Monitoring System FY13-14 & FY14-15 1330-3037-461-73-00 500,000 500,000 50,000 !,complete the design work in FY15-16. SUBTOTALCIPFUND $ 12,612;753 Storm Drain System -Desig n of Point I Design work is underway, and should be completed by the Repairs FY14-15 501-3052-431-32-00 150,000 150,000 150,000 lend of the year. Altamira Canyon Drainage - Project An RFP has been issued for a design firm. Staff expects to Study Report FY14-15 1501-3052-431-32-00 1 500,000 - 500,000 500,000 present a recommendation to City Council by the end of 2015. M D-41 ATTACHMENT D Attachment A PROPOSED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FROM FY14-15 TO FY15-16 Program First Appropriated Account Budget Spent Available Request Description Marguerite Open Channel Erosion & Other PVDS Drainage Improvements Due to competing priorities, the project was delayed. The East of BarkenUne FY13-14 501-3052-431 73 00 776,685 16,345 � 760,340 760,340 project can be completed in FY15-16. Tr_ _2255. 52.43_ T-_--_ T ::The project scope has changed, and now requires geotechnical engineering to determine if placing lightweight PVDS Drainage Improvements at fill in the roadway will be detrimental to the landslide. Sacred Cove FY14-15 501-3052-431-73-00 450,000 450,000 450,000 :Construction is scheduled for completion in spring 2016. 11The design for this project was completed in FY13-14. Competing priorities have impacted delivery. Construction is Roan Drainage System (Via Colinita & ,scheduled to begin in fall 2015, with completion by December Vickery Canyon) FY11-12 501-3052-431-73-00 231,095 231,095 231,095'2015. ,The project was postponed to be combined with the FY15-16 :appropriation, for a more cost-effective project (economies of Storm Drain Lining FY13-14 & FY14-15 1111501-3052-431-73-00 799,470 799,470 799,470 Iscale). The project can be completed in FY15-16. SUBTOTAL WATER QUALITY FLOOD PROTECTION (STORM DRAIN) FUND $ 2,890,905 !This project has been combined with the Hawthorne Blvd Traffic Signal Synchronization project to minimize the impact on the community. The $90,000 appropriation is for all traffic signals in the City, which will be done in conjunction with the Hawthorne Blvd project. The project is in the design phase, sand is expected to begin fall 2015, with completion in April 12016 (after completion of the Synchronization project in Traffic Signal Battery Back -Up FY11-12 202-3004-431-73-00 90,000 90,000 90,000 '':January 2016). j 'This appropriation included $50,000 requested with the FY14- 15 Midyear Budget Review for replacement of grinder pumps. Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance FY14-15 225-3025-431-43-00 132,000 88,983 43,017 43,017 11Staff expects to complete the replacement in FY15-16. Design of the PVIC Phase II Exhibit Concept Plan was Donor Restricted Contributions completed in August 2015. The carryover request will provide 1228-5028-451-32-00 Professional Services FY14-15 24,000 17,500 6,500 6,500 '11funding for work performed in July and August 2015. !The project plans have been completed, and bids will be CDBG - PVDW ADA Access ladvertised in September 2015. Construction completion is improvements FY14-15 1310-3093-461-73-00 197,687 22,730 174,957 174,957 :expected December 2015. CDBG - Mira Catalina ADA Access _ improvements FY13-14 ;310-3097-461-73-00 68,190 3,440 64,750 64,750 ',This project is scheduled to be completed in September 2015. fl D-42 PROPOSED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FROM FY14-15 TO FY15-16 Program First Appropriated Account Budget I Equipment Replacement Minor Computer Equipment FY14-15 681-2082-499-61-00 ; 209,500 I Equipment Replacement Capital Computer Equipment FY09-10 681-2082-499-75-20 1,218,950 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ATTACHMENT D Attachment A Spent Available - Request Description 15 Desktop replacements $30,000, Networking Equipment $20,000, Data Storage upgrade $30,000, GIS layer $10,000, and Desktop UPS devices $5,000. These purchases were delayed due to the transition to a new IT Services provider. 108,032 101,468 95,000 Purchases will be completed in FY15-16. Cityworks (Public Works system) implementation $60,000 - the purchase was approved in FY14-15, and implementation has begun. Permit & Planning system $285,000 -the RFP will be released in fall 2015, with a contract recommendation presented to City Council during FY15-16. Financial System $550,000 - a purchase recommendation is expected to be 256,635 962,315 895,000 ,'presented during FY15-16. $ 1,369,224 10 D-43 ATTACHMENT D Attachment B PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FY14-15 & FY15-16 Fiscal Year Description- Account Amount Justification State Mandated CostThe state unexpectedly released funds to cities for state - Reimbursements & Vehicle License 101-6000-369-20-00 mandated cost reimbursements during FY14-15 ($162,000), as FY14-15 Fees 101-6000-335-10-00 180,000 well as a residual vehicle license fee payment ($18,000). The City Clerk's Office advertised more Committee Member recruitments than anticipated during FY14-15 (e.g. FY14-15 City Clerk Advertising 101-1004-411-54-00 1,000 Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee). Additional professional service hours were necessary to meet FY14-15 �RPVty Professional Services 101-1006-411-32-00 12,000 service level demands during FY14-15.. The FY14-15 Sheriff contract approved by City Council on June 17, 2014 was $4,334,281. This included a liability trust fund contribution of $166,703; which was based on 4% of the contract. Effective January 1, 2015, the liability trust fund contribution increased to 5%, bringing the total contract to $4,355,119. Actual billings were $4,345,828. The original budget estimate of $4,306,900 was not increased for the FY14-15 Sheriff Professional Services 101-1021-421-32-00 39,000 actual contract cost. Staff requests an adjustment accordingly. The FY14-15 budget, in error, did not include an allocation for School Crossing Guards. The FY15-16 budget has been corrected, and includes the $10,000 allocation necessary to Public Safety Special Programs fund this program. A year-end adjustment is requested to FY14-15 Professional Services 101-1024-421-32-00 10,000 fund the FY14-15 services. 1� D-44 ATTACHMENT D Attachment B PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FY14-15 & FY15-16 Fiscal Year Description Account Amount Justification Due to staffing vacancies, additional part-time help was used to support routine accounting processes. Staff was also 'required to work overtime to keep up with deadlines. Finally, temporary professional accounting services were utilized for 4 months. At Midyear, the budget was reduced to claim staff Finance Part -Time Wages, Over -Time vacancy savings, which did not take into account the additional FY14-15 Wages, and Professional Services 101 -2020 -411 -XX -00 23,000 costs necessary to keep up with the workload. Due to new financial reporting standards, the City ordered special reports from CalPERS to facilitate preparation of required financial statement disclosures for the employee FY14-15 Finance Professional Services 101-2020-411-32-00 2,550 pension plans. The City's customers have increased use of credit cards to pay for permits and other transactions, resulting in merchant FY14-15 Finance Misc Expenditures 101-2020-411-69-00 10,000 credit card processing fees in excess of budget. Due to staffing turnover, additional equipment and furniture FY14-15 Public Works Minor Equipment 101-3001-431-61-00 2,000 was purchased to facilitate re -organization of work space. Staffing changes resulted in a shift of full-time wage allocations from the Planning Program to the View Restoration Program. This adjustment simply shifts budgeted funding from one FY14-15 Planning Full -Time Wages 101-4001-441-11-00 (6,000) program to another, with no net fiscal impact. FY14-15 View Restoration Full -Time Wages 101-4004-441-11-00 6,000 See above. NET FY14-15 IMPACTTO`GENERAL FUND RESERVE 80,450 IN D-45 ATTACHMENT D Attachment B PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FY14-15 & FY15-16 Fiscal Year Description Account Amount Justification As reported previously, there was a period during which the City's telecommunications providers continued to collect UUT until the transition in their billing systems was complete. Staff requests an adjustment to add this additional revenue to the FY14-15 Utility User Tax (UUT) Revenue 101 -6000 -315 -XX -00 120,167 UUT Claim Account. A total of $713,468 has been set-aside in the General Fund for UUT Claims ($593,301 set aside for FY13-14, plus $120,167 collected during FY14-15). During FY14-15, claims administration expense of $72,961 (capped at $80,000 per the City Council approved contract), and $3,570 of language translation costs were incurred. In addition, $113,936 of refunds were distributed. Staff requests an adjustment to provide for FY14-15 expenditure of the funds set aside. Once Misc Expenditures for the final claims distribution is made in FY15-16, staff will Telecommunications UUT Claims & request a FY15-16 adjustment for the additional disbursement FY14-15 iAdministration 101-6000-411-69-00 190,467 from the UUT Claim Account. NET FY14.15 IMPACT TO UUT CLAIM ACCOUNT` (70,300) The City's fleet of vehicles required more maintenance than FY14-15 Vehicle Maintenance Expense 681-3081-499-43-00 5,000 anticipated. As directed by City Council during the 2015 budget process, the Building Replacement Fund will be closed and the fund Transfer Building Replacement Fund balance transferred to the CIP Reserve. This adjustment FY14-15 Balance to CIP 686-3086-491-91-00 940,000 provides for the fiscal year-end transfer between funds. Transfer Building Replacement Fund FY14-15 Balance to CIP 330-3030-391-10-00 1 940,000 See above. 13 D-46 ATTACHMENT D Attachment B PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FY14-15 & FY15-16 Fiscal Year Description Account Amount Justification Actual FY14-15 TOT revenue was $4.8 million, compared to the Transfer amount equal to Transient budgeted amount of $4.7 million. The adjustment will allow FY14-15 Occupancy Tax to CIP 101-6000-491-91-00 140,000 for a transfer of the full amount of TOT received for FY14-15. Transfer amount equal to Transient I FY14-15 Occupancy Tax to CIP 330-3030-391-10-00 140,000 See above. Additional Proposition C funding is available for the PVDE Transfer Proposition C to CIP for ! arterial rehabilitation project. This adjustment will allow for FY14-15 PVDE Improvements 215-3015-491-91-00 271,976 the additional transfer before the FY14-15 books are closed. Transfer Proposition C to CIP for FY14-15 PVDE Improvements 330-3031-391-10-00 271,976 See above. NET FY1445 IMPACT OF;, OTHER FUND" ADJUSTMENTS (5,000} As part of the 2015 budget process, the RPVty program went through numerous revisions to provide additional staff hours for increased service, as well as changes in hourly rates. As a result of the revisions, an error was made, and the final adopted FY15-16 budget for professional services was insufficient. In addition, the budget anticipated continuation of part-time employee staffing; which has since been shifted to consulting services. The net appropriation increase due to these corrections is $69,380. The FY15-16 revised program budget will be $213,700 ($144,320 adopted + $69,380 requested). As a comparison, total FY14-15 actual program FY15-16 RPVty Professional Services 101-1006-411-32-00 97,100 expenditures were $180,445. FY15-16 RPVty Part -Time Wages 101-1006-411-12-00 (25,750) See above. FY15-16 RPVty Part -Time Benefits 101-1006-411-29-00 (1,970) See above. NET FY2S-16 IMPACT TO GENERAL FUND (69,3$0) 14 D-47 PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FY14-15 & FY15-16 IFY15-16 (Vehicle Purchases ATTACHMENT D Attachment B Amount Justification Purchase of a Cargo Trailer, as a portable public outreach station for the Recreation & Parks Department, was originally budgeted in FY14-15 for $10,000. However, the program budget was consumed with additional vehicle maintenance, as well as equipment necessary to outfit the new truck purchased' by Public Works. Staff requests to re -budget the purchase of the Cargo Trailer in FY15-16, with a more realistic estimate based on initial bidding results. The trailer will also be used for 681-3081-499-76-00 I 15,000 Isupply storage, for the monthly volunteer events. 15 D-48 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�11111aI] RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2014-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY14-15, TO REDUCE THE BUDGET FOR THE APPROVED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council: and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2014-41, approving a spending plan and appropriating the budget for FY14-15: and WHEREAS, certain projects included in the FY14-15 budget will be carried over as continuing appropriations to FY15-16; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the FY14-15 budget be reduced for each of the continuing appropriations carried over to FY15-16. BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: The following adjustments are made to the FY14-15 budget: Decrease the General Fund budaet as follows: Account Description Account Number Request City Manager Professional Services 101-1002-411-32-00 $ 20,000 City Manager Land Purchase 101-1002-411-71-00 102,777 Animal Control Professional Services 101-1025-421-32-00 30,335 Emergency Preparedness Professional Services 101-1026-421-32-00 33,000 Information Technology Minor Equipment 101-2030-411-61-00 23,000 Telephone Maintenance 101-2035-411-43-00 10,000 Traffic Management Professional Services 101-3006-431-32-00 15,000 Storm Water Quality Professional Services 101-3007-431-32-00 50,000 Sewer Maintenance Professional Services 101-3026-431-32-00 35,000 Planning Professional Services 101-4001-441-32-00 55,500 Planning Printing 101-4001-441-55-00 20,000 Building & Safety Professional Services 101-4002-441-32-00 62,100 Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) Pro Services 101-4005-441-32-00 75,053 Decrease the Street Maintenan Traffic Signal Improvements 202-3004-431-73-00 90,000 16 D-49 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�1111aC jecrease the Abalone Cove Sewer Ulstrlct 1-und budget as tollows: Account Description Account Number Request' Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance 225-3025-431-43-00 43,017 Decrease the Donor Restricted Contributions Fund budget as follows: Account Description Account Number Request Donor Restricted Contributions Professional Services 228-5028-451-32-00 6,500 Uecrease the Uommunity Uevelopment biocKyrant Fund budget as tollows: Account Description Account Number Request CDBG ADA Improvements 310-3093-461-73-00 174,957 CDBG ADA Improvements 310-3097-461-73-00 64,750 Account Description Infrastructure Admin Improvements Landslide Improvements Street Improvements Pro Services Street Improvements Park Improvements Pro Services Park Improvements Building Improvements Water Quality Improvements Decrease the Water Qualitv Flood P 330-3030-461-73-00 85,000 330-3043-461-73-00 360,000 330-3031-461-32-00 69,600 330-3031-461-73-00 9,751,246 330-3033-461-32-00 93,722 330-3033-461-73-00 1,044,011 330-3036-461-73-00 1,159,174 330-3037-461-73-00 50,000 FP) Fund budaet as fo Water Quality Flood Protection Pro Services 501-3052-431-32-00 650,000 Water Quality Flood Protection Improvements 501-3052-431-73-00 2,240,905 Decrease the Eauiament Rel,lacement Fund budaet as follows: Account Description Account Number Request' Equipment Replacement Minor Computer Equipment 681-2082-499-61-00 95,000 Equipment Replacement Capital Computer Equipment 681-2082-499-75-20 895,000 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015. I•_rl[MO MAYOR 17 D-50 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�11a•] CITY CLERK State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2015- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on September 15, 2015. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES W-0 D-51 ATTACHMENT D RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2015-47, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY15-16, TO INCREASE THE BUDGET FOR THE APPROVED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council: and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2015-47, approving a spending plan and appropriating a budget for FY15-16: and WHEREAS, certain projects included in the FY14-15 budget will be carried over as continuing appropriations to FY15-16; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the FY15-16 budget be increased for each of the continuing appropriations carried over from FY14-15. BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: The following adjustments are made to the FY15-16 budget: Increase the General Fund budaet as follows: Account Description Account Number Request City Manager Professional Services 101-1002-411-32-00 $ 20,000 City Manager Land Purchase 101-1002-411-71-00 102,777 Animal Control Professional Services 101-1025-421-32-00 30,335 Emergency Preparedness Professional Services 101-1026-421-32-00 33,000 Information Technology Minor Equipment 101-2030-411-61-00 23,000 Telephone Maintenance 101-2035-411-43-00 10,000 Traffic Management Professional Services 101-3006-431-32-00 15,000 Storm Water Quality Professional Services 101-3007-431-32-00 50,000 Sewer Maintenance Professional Services 101-3026-431-32-00 35,000 Planning Professional Services 101-4001-441-32-00 55,500 Planning Printing 101-4001-441-55-00 20,000 Building & Safety Professional Services 101-4002-441-32-00 62,100 Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) Pro Services 101-4005-441-32-00 75,053 Increase the Street Maintenance Fund budaet as fol Traffic Signal Improvements 202-3004-431-73-00 90,000 19 D-52 Cove Sewer Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance u ATTACHMENT D 225-3025-431-43-00 ` 43,017 Increase the Donor Restricted Contributions Fund budget as follows: Account Description Account Number Request Donor Restricted Contributions Professional Services 228-5028-451-32-00 6,500 Increase the Community Development Block Grant Fun Account Description CDBG ADA Improvements CDBG ADA Improvements Increase the Capital Im Infrastructure Admin Improvements Landslide Improvements Street Improvements Pro Services Street Improvements Park Improvements Pro Services Park Improvements Building Improvements Wate r Qual ity Improvements nt Proiects Fund bu as fol 310-3093-461-73-00 174,957 310-3097-461-73-00 64,750 follows: 330-3030-461-73-00 85,000 330-3043-461-73-00 360,000 330-3031-461-32-00 69,600 330-3031-461-73-00 9,751,246 330-3033-461-32-00 93,722 330-3033-461-73-00 1,044,011 330-3036-461-73-00 1,159,174 330-3037-461-73-00 50,000 Increase the Water Quality Flood Protection (WQFP) Fund budget as follows: Account Description Account Number Request Water Quality Flood Protection Pro Services 501-3052-431-32-00 650,000 Water Quality Flood Protection Improvements 501-3052-431-73-00 2,240,905 Increase the Equipment Replacement Fund budget as follows: AccountDescription Account Number Request Equipment Replacement Minor Computer Equipment 681-2082-499-61-00 95,000 Equipment Replacement Capital Computer Equipment 681-2082-499-75-20 895,000 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015. ATTEST: 411 D-53 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�11a•] CITY CLERK State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2015- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on September 15, 2015. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 21 D-54 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�III a•] RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2014-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY14-15, TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN VARIOUS FUNDS OF THE CITY WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council: and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2014-41, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for FY14-15: and WHEREAS, certain programs included in the FY14-15 budget will have revenue and expenditures which vary from the adjusted budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the FY14-15 budget be adjusted for each of these programs to assure budgetary compliance. BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: The following adjustments are made to the FY14-15 budget: Adjust the General Fund Revenue budget as follows: Account Description Account Number Amount State Mandated Cost Reimbursements 101-6000-369-20-00 162,000 Vehicle License Fees 101-6000-335-10-00 18,000 Utility User Tax (UUT) Revenue 101 -6000 -315 -XX -00 120,167 Adjust the General Fund Expenditure budget as follows: Account Description Account Number Amount City Clerk Advertising 101-1004-411-54-00 1,000 RPVty Professional Services 101-1006-411-32-00 12,000 Sheriff Professional Services Public Safety Special Programs Professional Services Finance Part -Time Wages, Over -Time Wages, & Pro Services Finance Professional Services Finance Misc Expenditures Public Works Minor Equipment Planning Full -Time Wages View Restoration Full -Time Wages Misc Exp forTelecommUUT Claims & Admin 101-1021-421-32-00 39,000 101-1024-421-32-00 10,000 101 -2020 -411 -XX -00 23,000 101-2020-411-32-00 2,550 101-2020-411-69-00 10,000 101-3001-431-61-00 2,000 101-4001-441-11-00 (6,000) 101-4004-441-11-00 6,000 101-6000-411-69-00 190,467 22 D-55 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�III a•] Adjust the General Fund Transfers budget as follows: Account Description Account Number Amount Transfer amount equal to Transient Occupancy Tax to CIP 101-6000-491-91-00 140,000 Transfer Proposition C to CIP for PVDE Improvements 215-3015-491-91-00 271,976 Proiects Fund budaet as fol Account Description Account Number Amount Transfer Building Replacement Fund Balance to CIP 330-3030-391-10-00 940,000 Transfer amount equal to Transient Occupancy Tax to CIP 330-3030-391-10-00 140,000 Transfer Proposition C to CIP for PVDE Improvements 330-3031-391-10-00 271,976 Adjust the Equipment Replacement Fund budget as follows: Account Description Account Number Amount Vehicle Maintenance Expense 681-3081-499-43-00 5,000 Adjust the Building Replacement Fund budget as fol Transfer Building Replacement Fund Balance to CIP 686-3086-491-91-00 940,000 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015. MAYOR �r_:&3j CITY CLERK State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2015- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on September 15, 2015. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 23 D-56 ATTACHMENT D RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2015-47, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY15-16, TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN VARIOUS FUNDS OF THE CITY WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council: and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2015-47, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for FY15-16: and WHEREAS, certain programs included in the FY15-16 budget will have expenditures which vary from the adjusted budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the FY15-16 budget be adjusted for each of these programs to assure budgetary compliance. BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: The following adjustments are made to the FY15-16 budget: Adiust the General Fund Expenditure budaet as follows: Account Description Account Number Amount RPVty Professional Services 101-1006-411-32-00 97,100 RPVty Part -Time Wages 101-1006-411-12-00 (25,750) RPVty Part -Time Benefits 101-1006-411-29-00 (1,970) Adjust the Equipment Replacement Fund budget as follows: Account Description Account Number Amount Vehicle Purchases 681-3081-499-76-00 15,000 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015. ATTEST: CITY CLERK State of California ) MAYOR ME D-57 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�11a•] County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2015- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on September 15, 2015. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 25 D-58 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�kaI] EXHIBIT 4 2015 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STAFF REPORT AND EXCERPTS JUNE 16, 2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING D-59 F-111aED] :IT,14�kaI] MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DEBORAH CULLEN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: JUNE 16, 2015 SUBJECT: 2015 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER Project Manager: Allan Kaufman, Senior Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION Approve the 2015 Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The CIP is a guide for the efficient and effective provision of resources for improving and maintaining public infrastructure and facilities. The CIP is segregated into both Funded and Unfunded projects and includes detailed "project sheets" that provide a project description, project type (e.g. Roadway Infrastructure), location, department responsible, estimates of cost, and the justification (e.g. safety, City Council goal, outside funding available). The CIP document does not include any projects with estimated costs below the infrastructure capitalization threshold of $100,000. Although the CIP document presents project funding for five years, the City Council approves CIP projects for the upcoming fiscal year only. This gives the City Council the ability to shift priorities when needed, while at the same time identify future projects and potential funding mechanisms. Projects are generally added to the "Funded" list as available funding sources are identified. Projects are usually funded first from restricted funds, to be conservative in allocating General Fund monies only when necessary. Staff recommends planning for use of the CIP Reserve (funded with General Fund money equivalent to transient occupancy tax revenue and prior year favorable General Fund expenditure variance in accordance with City Council Policy No. 41 — Reserve Policies). ii D-60 ATTACHMENT D 2015 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN June 16, 2015 Page 2 of 3 On May 26, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the CIP Document and adopted P.C. Resolution 2015-10, finding it to be consistent with the General Plan. Based on City Council direction on June 2, 2016, the following changes have been made to the 2015 CIP: • Civic Center Tennis Court and Skate Plaza projects were combined and moved to the Unfunded list; • ADA Improvement Project at Del Cerro and Burma Road was removed from the CIP; • Fiber Optic Cabling at Abalone Cove Sewer Lift Stations, Abalone Shoreline Park, and Ladera Linda Community Center was removed from the CIP; and • Funding for the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Beautification Study was moved from year 5 to year 1 The CIP list of "funded" projects (totaling $34.9 million) has been integrated into the 2015 Five -Year Financial Model. Projects listed in Year 1 of the CIP (table below), totaling $3.2 million have been included in the proposed FY15-16 budget, which is also on the June 16, 2015 agenda for City Council consideration. Projects Page FY15-16 Landslide Dewatering Well Program 15 $ 450,000 Citywide ADA Transition Plan Implementation 20 200,000 PVIC Exhibits 24 455,000 'Traffic Safety Improvements - PVDE at Bronco 32 500,300 Hawthorne Blvd Corridor Beautification Study (Phase 1) 35 150,000 Pavement Management Program Update 36 120,000 Regional Storm Water Quality Project 44 100,000 Subtotal Capital Improvement Projects Fund $ 1,975,300 Storm Drain Lining 41 $ 340,836 Storm Drain Point Repairs 42 900,000 Subtotal Water Quality Flood Protection Fund $ 1;240,836 Total Capital Spending $ 3,216,136 Note: The Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan includes only projects with cost estimates of $100,000 or more. Summary of Resources Used for Funding Capital Spending; FY15-16 Use of CIP & General Fund resources $ 1,020,030 Use of restricted funds and revenue 2,196,106 Total Resources Used to fund Capital Spending $ 3,216,136 K D-61 F-111 r_[41:I T,14 i 11 a I] 2015 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN June 16, 2015 Page 3 of 3 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Programming capital facilities and improvements over time can promote better use of the City's limited financial resources, reduce costs and assist in the coordination of public and private development. Based on guidelines of the framework and those set forth by the City Council, Staff developed an inventory of capital projects. This inventory was compiled through a comprehensive review of existing reports, infrastructure plans, community input and the City Council's direction, goals and priorities. Some of these plans include the following: the Pavement Management System, Vision Plan, Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, Public Use Master Plan, Trails Network Plan, Storm Drain Master Plan and the General Plan. Staff evaluated every project quantified during the establishment and update of the CIP and established Criteria justifications that are reflected on each project sheet. These justification categories include: safety, support of essential City services, support of Council plan goals, economy and efficiency, outside funding, and community quality/sustainability. The Criteria justifications and the availability of restricted (non - General Fund) monies, are utilized to establish the priority level of CIP projects. Staff has included columns on the Funded and Unfunded lists (pages 11 & 68 of the document) to indicate whether the project supports public safety or another City Council priority. Expected Additions to Future CIP Documents Staff anticipates there will be future factors in 2015 and 2016 that will drive additional projects to the CIP, namely: 1. Completion of the Storm Drain Master Plan is expected in 2015, 2. Draft Parks Master Plan will be presented to the City Council on June 30, 2015; and 3. Update of the City's General Plan is expected to be finalized in FY15-16. Attachment: 2015 Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (page 4) 3 D-62 r_11aETM :IT,14�kaC C. �JRANCHO PALOS VERDE] 2015 Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan 0 D-63 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�kaI] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 FUNDED PROJECTS 10 FIVE YEAR CIP FUNDED LIST 11 ABALONE COVE SEWER DISTRICT REHABILITATION 12 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH LANDSLIDE 14 PARK SITES 16 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 19 RIGHT OF WAY 25 SANITARY SEWERS 37 STORM WATER SYSTEM 40 UNFUNDED PROJECTS 45 UNFUNDED LIST 46 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH LANDSLIDE 47 PARK SITES 49 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 55 RIGHT OF WAY 59 STORM WATER SYSTEM 70 TRAILS 76 KA 5 D-64 /_11ir_[41:IT,14�III aI] INTRODUCTION A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a guide toward the efficient and effective provision of public infrastructure and facilities. Programming capital facilities and improvements over time can promote better use of the City's limited financial resources, reduce costs, and assist in the coordination of public and private development. In addition, the planning process is valuable as a means of coordinating and taking advantage of joint planning and development of facilities and infrastructure where possible. Careful management of these assets keeps the City poised for flexible and responsive strategic planning that allows the City to proactively prepare the groundwork for capital projects so that when funding opportunities arise, a plan is ready to be implemented. By looking beyond year-to-year budgeting and projecting what, where, when and how capital investments should be made, capital planning enables public organizations to maintain an effective level of service for the present and future population. THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) The result of this continuing planning process is the CIP, which is the City's mid-term plan for infrastructure projects. The CIP addresses the City's needs relating to the acquisition, expansion, and rehabilitation of facilities and infrastructure. The CIP serves as a planning instrument, in conjunction with the City's General Plan and the City Council's Goals, to identify needed capital projects and coordinate the financing and timing of improvements in a way that maximizes the return to the public. It provides a planned systematic approach to utilizing the City's limited financial resources in the most responsive and efficient manner to meet its service and infrastructure needs. It serves as the "blueprint" for the future of the community and is a management and planning tool, rather than a binding document. The underlying strategy of the CIP is to plan for necessary land acquisition, construction and maintenance of public facilities necessary for the safe and efficient provision of public services in accordance with City policies and objectives adopted in the City's General Plan. A critical element of a balanced CIP is the provision of funds to both preserve or enhance existing facilities and provide new assets to respond to changing needs and community growth. While the program serves as a mid-term plan, it is reviewed and revised annually in conjunction with the budget. Priorities may be changed due to funding opportunities or circumstances that propel a project to a higher level of importance. Along the way, projects may be revised for significant cost variances. The CIP is primarily a document that assists in addressing the City's mid-term needs. As such, the projects and their scopes are subject to change from year-to-year as the needs of the community become more defined and projects move closer to final implementation. The adoption of the CIP is neither a commitment to a particular project nor a limitation to a particular cost. As a basic tool for scheduling anticipated capital projects, it is also a key element in controlling future capital financing. For this reason, the CIP includes some "unfunded" projects in which needs have been identified and quantified, but specific solutions and funding sources have not been determined. When adopted, the CIP provides the framework for the City's management team and the City Council with respect to investment planning, project planning, and the managing of any City debt. This document is independent of the City Council's goals and is intended to serve as a mid-term planning document. An integrated infrastructure management plan (IMP) is scheduled to be developed in FY15-16 to determine the impact of different funding strategies/scenarios and prioritization on project delivery over the course of multiple planning decades. The IMP will consider the maintenance level required and the useful life for each public asset and will focus particularly on the community's current and future needs (including public safety and regulatory mandates) and community expectations. The City is currently engaged in updating the General Plan, the 1989 Parks Master Plan and the 2004 Storm Drainage Master Plan, which are expected to be adopted in FY15-16. These three master plans will heavily influence the scheduling of projects during the CIP process. 3 10 D-65 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�III aI] A City Council -appointed Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) was formed in FY14-15 to assist in the implementation of the IMP and the use of the infrastructure planning tool. THE CIP PROCESS The capital improvement plan and budget is the result of an ongoing infrastructure planning process. Infrastructure planning decisions must be made with regard to both existing and new facilities and equipment. For existing facilities, the planning process addresses appropriate capital renewal strategies and repair -versus -replacement of facilities. New service demands are also considered, since they often affect capital facility requirements. Planning for the five-year CIP period and subsequent years, includes linking the General Plan to the capital plan requirements, conducting needs assessments and allowing for flexibility to take advantage of opportunities for capital investment. The FY15-16 through FY19-20 CIP is developed through input from professional staff, citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes, and elected or appointed City officials. CIP REVIEW TEAM A CIP Review Team is responsible for annually reviewing capital project requests and providing recommendations to the City Manager. This team is comprised of staff from the Office of the City Manager, Finance, Public Works, Community Development, and Recreation and Parks Departments, and the City Attorney. This team conducts an in-depth analysis of the impact of the CIP on present and future cash flows and financial obligations, as well as the City's ability to finance, process, design, and ultimately maintain projects. The Team will also analyze the fiscal impact for each individual project; including future maintenance and replacement costs, associated monetary benefits (e.g. future maintenance savings), as well as any applicable future revenue opportunities. The Team meets periodically throughout the year to evaluate the progress of projects, and examine future needs of the City. The overall goal of the CIP Review Team is to develop CIP recommendations that: ■ Preserve the past by investing in the continued upgrade of City assets and infrastructure; ■ Protect the present with improvements to City facilities and infrastructure; and ■ Plan for the future. Projects are identified by staff, professional consultants, residents and/or elected officials. There are typically more proposals than can be funded in the five-year CIP period, so the team conducts an internal project ranking process. The criteria used in this internal ranking includes, but is not limited to, safety, support of essential City services, support of City Council's goals, economy and efficiency, outside funding committed (or eligible for), and community quality/sustainability. Projects are prioritized based on the criteria outlined in this plan in the following section. If a project receives a lower ranking, it just means that other projects in that period of time are more critical for the City to address. While ratings are important in determining recommended projects, the realities of the City's financial situation are critical to all decisions. CIP CRITERIA Safety: Enhance or improve the overall safety of the City and delivery of services. Protect the health and welfare of residents. Supports Essential City Services: Maintenance and development of existing or new facilities and infrastructure which allows the City to deliver essential services to residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. Supports City Council Goals: Supports the goals established annually by the City Council. Meets citywide long-term goals and is in compliance with the City's General Plan. Economy and Efficiency: Maintain and enhance the economy and efficiency of providing services in Rancho Palos Verdes. This criterion would include projects which improve business processes and overall efficiency while also evaluating environmental impacts. Il 7 M. r_11ir_T41:I►T,r4�Ill aI] Outside Funding Committed or Eligible: Support a project for which outside funding has been committed to or may be obtained through restricted revenue sources. Community Quality/Sustainability: Maintain and enhance the infrastructure and services which support our residential and business community. This criterion would include projects which preserve and enhance the overall quality of life in Rancho Palos Verdes and projects which ensure economic viability to support the community. THE CIP CALENDAR October -December Departments prepare CIP requests January CIP Review Team reviews requests February -May Recommendations developed to be included in the Five -Year Model and Draft Budget May -June Planning Commission Review May -June Recommendations presented to the City Council for approval Additional forms and methods of public outreach will be conducted as directed by the City Council. PROJECT LISTS The CIP includes a comprehensive listing of all projects contained in the Five -Year Plan and also projects beyond the five-year period. Detailed project sheets are contained in the Plan for all projects included in the CIP. Another list of unfunded projects is also contained in the Plan to highlight quantified projects beyond the five-year period. Projects which are included in the CIP were evaluated based on the criteria approved by the City Council and are in compliance with the goals set forth in the City's General Plan. Application of these criteria ensures that each project recommended for Council consideration does indeed support the policy objectives of the City's long-term planning documents and identifies a basis for scheduling and allocation of resources. Cost estimates have been developed for each project based on preliminary project descriptions, and include all estimated costs for land acquisition, permits and inspections, project management and project engineering, consultant design work, construction, utilities, information technology infrastructure and other associated project costs. Estimates are based on today's dollars. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICIES The Finance Department, in cooperation with all other City Departments and the City Attorney, shall produce a working document designed to identify capital needs annually in conjunction with the budget process. This Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is submitted to the City Council to utilize in reviewing and prioritizing capital projects. After adoption by the City Council during the budget process, the CIP becomes the City's plan for capital improvements for the next five years, with annual adjustments as needed. Type of Project Definitions Capital asset: An asset with a cost in excess of $5,000 and an expected useful life of more than one year, such as automobiles, equipment, and furniture. These items will continue to be included in the operating budget. Items such as automobiles, minor equipment, and furniture will continue 5 • D-67 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�kaC to be accounted for and funded using the Equipment Replacement Fund and are not included in the capital improvement plan. Capital project: A project expected to have a useful life greater than ten years and an estimated cost of $100,000 or more. Capital projects include the construction, acquisition, or major renovation of buildings, roadways, utility systems, or other structures, purchase of land, and major landscaping projects. Projects meeting the above definition will be included in the CIP document in addition to the City's budget document. The information will be tied to the capital budget and totals for each project in the CIP will be included in the capital budget. Selecting the Projects for the CIP The comprehensive capital project planning process has the following essential components: ■ The General Plan (Long-term Plan - 10 Years) ■ The Capital Improvement Plan (Mid-term Plan - 5 Years) ■ The Capital Budget (Short-term Plan - 1 Year) ■ City Council Goals (Long-term and Short-term evaluated each year) All projects selected for the CIP should be consistent with the goals identified by the City Council or as outlined in the City's General Plan. The project selection process strives to achieve a balanced plan for the community to include all necessary and high priority projects, while also enhancing City services and facilities. Operating Budget Impact Identified in the CIP The operating impact of proposed capital projects, including personnel, operating expenditures, capital outlay, and debt service, as applicable, will be identified in the CIP document and considered in preparing the annual operating budget and Five -Year Financial Model. Moving Projects from the CIP to the Capital Budget All projects approved in the annual capital budget are appropriated at the estimated cost to complete the project. At the end of each fiscal year, the remaining appropriation for uncompleted portions of the project will be carried forward to subsequent fiscal years. Staff will identify the estimated costs, potential funding sources, operating impact, and project schedule for each capital project proposal before it is submitted to the City Council. Staff will coordinate development of the capital improvement budget with the development of the operating budget. All costs for internal professional services needed to implement the CIP will be included in the capital budget as part of the budget document for the years the CIP is to be implemented. Cost tracking for components of the capital improvement program will be updated semi-annually to ensure project completion against budget and established time lines. Funding of the CIP Reserve Fund City Council Policy No. 41 regarding the City's Reserves provides for a minimum CIP Reserve level of $3,000,000 for emergency projects, the transfer of the total annual Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue into the CIP Reserve, and the transfer of any prior year General Fund favorable expenditure variance to the CIP Reserve. The TOT revenue for FY15-16 is estimated to be about $5.0 million. Definition of Capital Budget Year A capital budget year runs concurrent to the operating budget fiscal year beginning July 1St and ending June 301h n. N OJ M: r_11ir_T41:IT,14�kaC Types of Financing The nature and cost of the project generally determines the financing options as do projected revenue. The following financing instruments could be used in the following preferred order: ■ Outside funding that does not require repayment, including grants, federal, state and county restricted funding (i.e. transportation funding), and donations; ■ Developer Fees; ■ City restricted revenue imposed by voters (i.e. environmental excise tax, storm drain user fee); ■ Accumulated Fund Balances in Restricted Funds; ■ General Fund; ■ Debt Secured by a Restricted Revenue Source; and ■ General Obligation Debt. Application of Restricted Funding Sources It is the City's policy to apply restricted funding sources after a project is completed and final cost is identified, or at the close of each fiscal year, whichever occurs first. Evaluation of Capital Projects Capital project and program reviews are to monitor existing project performance and to update the Five -Year CIP. Each project must be actively managed and semi-annual reports on the physical and fiscal status of each project should be made available to the City Council in conjunction with the budget adoption and Mid -Year Financial Review. Green Building Standards The City of Rancho Palos Verdes requires the incorporation of green building principles and practices into the design, construction, and operation of all City facilities, and to evaluate all land purchases for future development on the basis of reducing environmental impacts whenever feasible. Standards for Maintenance It is important to have standards in place for the various infrastructure systems throughout the City to maintain this investment and be positioned to provide adequate services for the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. Staff will develop maintenance standards and schedules as appropriate. Contingency Policy The need for contingencies will be evaluated with each project and be included in the CIP on a case-by-case basis. Project Change Orders Project change orders will be made in accordance with the policy stated in Section 02.44 of the Municipal Code. GENERAL PLAN GOALS The goals stated below are included in the City's General Plan which serves as the City's long-term strategic planning tool. All CIP projects should contribute to fulfilling one or more of the goals listed below. Natural Environment Element ■ It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to conserve, protect, and enhance its natural resources, beauty, and open space for the benefit and enjoyment of its residents and the residents of the entire region. Future development shall recognize the sensitivity of the natural environmental and be accomplished in such a manner as to maximize the protection of it. 7 AM r_11aETM :IT,14�III aC Socio/Cultural Element ■ It is the goal of the City to preserve and protect its cultural resources and to promote programs to meet the social needs of its citizens. Cultural Resources ■ The City shall strive to protect and preserve all significant archaeological, paleontological and historical resources within the City. Current Social, Service, and Cultural Organizations ■ Work toward a coordinated program to aid in matching the facility needs of the many and diverse groups in the community with existing and future facility resources throughout the City. Social Services ■ Encourage programs for community involvement, participation, and action to minimize the sense of isolation and powerlessness felt by many individuals in the community. ■ Encourage programs for recreation, social services, and cultural and educational achievement. ■ Encourage a framework for interaction among the four cities on the peninsula and between the peninsula and its surrounding communities to solve common problems. Urban Environment Element ■ It is the goal of the City to carefully control and direct future growth towards making a positive contribution to all elements of the community. Growth in Rancho Palos Verdes should be a cautious, evolutionary process that follows a well -conceived set of general guidelines, which respond to both holding capacity limitations for the region and environmental factors on the peninsula. Activity Areas ■ It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment; to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods; and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community. ■ The City shall discourage industrial and major commercial activities due to the terrain and environmental characteristics of the City. Commercial development shall be carefully and strictly controlled and limited to consideration of convenience or neighborhood service facilities. ■ The City shall encourage the development of institutional facilities to serve the political, social, and cultural needs of its citizens. ■ The City shall endeavor to provide, develop, and maintain recreational facilities and programs of various types to provide a variety of activities for persons of all age groups and in all areas of the community. ■ Agricultural uses within the City shall be encouraged, since they are desirable for resource management and open space. Infrastructure ■ It shall be a goal of the City to ensure adequate public utilities and communications services to all residents, while maintaining the quality of the environment. R 11 D-70 r_11aETM :IT,14�kaC ■ It shall be a goal of the City to provide residents with a safe and efficient system of roads, trails, and paths. ■ It shall be a goal of the City to encourage the increased mobility of residents through the development of an adequate public transportation system. Safety ■ It shall be a goal of the City to provide for the protection of life and property from both natural and man-made hazards within the community. • It shall be a goal of the City to provide for the protection of the public through effective law enforcement and fire protection programs. ■ It shall be a goal of the City to develop and enforce health and sanitation, emergency communications, and disaster preparedness programs to ensure the overall health and safety of all residents. ■ It shall be a goal of the City to protect life and property and reduce adverse economic, environmental, and social impacts resulting from any geologic activity. Sensory Environment ■ It shall be the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, through proper land use planning and regulations, to provide for a quiet and serene residential community with a minimum amount of restriction on citizen activity. Palos Verdes peninsula is graced with views and vistas of the surrounding Los Angeles basin and coastal region. Because of its unique geographic form and coastal resources, these views and vistas are a significant resource to residents and visitors, as they provide a rare means of experiencing the beauty of the peninsula and the Los Angeles region. It is the responsibility of the City to preserve these views and vistas for the public benefit and, where appropriate, the City should strive to enhance and restore these resources, the visual character of the City, and provide and maintain access for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. Land Use Plan ■ It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to provide for land uses which will be sensitive to and enhance the natural environment and character of the community, supply appropriate facilities to serve residents and visitors, promote a range of housing types, promote fiscal balance, and protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. Fiscal Element • It shall be a goal of the City to hold the property tax to a minimum and to continually explore and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of alternate or new sources of revenue. ■ It shall be a goal of the City to explore cooperative financing strategies that might be undertaken in association with other jurisdictions. ■ It shall be a goal of the City to take maximum advantage of regulatory legislation to obtain contributions, dedications, and reservations (i.e., easements). ■ It shall be a goal of the City to ascertain that all revenues generated by growth are sufficient to cover costs related to growth. • It shall be a goal of the City to thoroughly evaluate capital acquisition and operating expenditures and their impacts before implementation of programs. p 12 D-71 FUNDED PROJECTS The following projects are those which have been identified as capital needs through various planning processes along with a proposed funding source. Because the City Council approves CIP projects for the upcoming year, proposed funding sources could change in subsequent years. 13 D-72 r_11ir_T411:IT,14ZkaC Palos Verdes Five Year Capital Safety Council Identified Funding umentPlan- Funded Projects Page Goal Priority FYIS-16 FY16.17 FY17.18 FY18.19 FY19.20 Source Abalone Cove Sewer District Rehabilitation 13 X X $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 CIP Reserve Palos Verdes Drive South Landslide X X $ 407,000 CIP Reserve Storm Water System' Landslide Dewatering Well Program 15 X X $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 CIP Reserve Park Sites WQFP User Fees/CIP Storm Drain Lining 41 X X Abalone Cove Beach Access Road 17 X Reserve Paintbrush Canyon Drainage Project Study Report $ 100,000 X X CIPReserve Grandview Parklmprovements (Phase 1) 18 CIP Reserve X 43 X X $ 635,000 CIPReserve Public Buildings WQFP User Fees Storm Water Quality Improvement Program 44 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Ctyw ide ADA Transition Plan Implementation 20 X $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 EEfICIPReserve Ladera Linda Community Center Improvements 21 X $ 4,000,000 CIPReserve Solar Power System Hesse Park 22 $ 385,000 Energy Savings Grant Solar Power System PVIC 23 $ 410,000 Energy Savings Grant Restricted Donations PVIC Exhibits 24 $ 455,000 Fund Right of Way General Fund, TDA Residential Street Rehabilitation Zone 7 26 X X $2,282,000 Article 3 funds Residential Street Rehabilitation Zone 8 27 X X $ 2,200,000 General Fund Residential Street Rehabilitation Zone 3 & 4 28 X X $ 2,100,000 General Fund General Fund, TDA Residential Street Rehabilitation Zone 5 29 X X $2,182,000 Article 3 funds Measure R, Prop A, Prop C, STPL, CIP Arterial Rehabilitation - Crenshaw Boulevard 30 X X $ 200,000 $ 2,600,000 Reserve Measure R, Prop A, Prop C, STPD, CIP Arterial Rehabilitation - IndianPeakRoad 31 X X $ 200,000 $1,600,000 Reserve HSIP 90%, CIP Reserve Traffic Safety Improvements - PVDEat Bronco 32 X X $ 500,300 10% PVDS Road Way Realignment and Drainage Project 33 X X $ 3,060,000 CIPReserve 50/50 Inter -Agency Cost Western Avenue Traffic Improvements 34 X X $3,200,000 Share/CIPReserve Hawthorne Blvd Corridor Beautification Study (Phase 1) 35 X X $ 150,000 CIPReserve Pavement Management Program Update 36 X X $ 120,000 $ 120,000 CIPReserve Sanitary Sewer Sewer Capacity Project- Other Locations 38 X X $ 465,000 CIP Reserve Malaga Canyon - Sew er Improvement 39 X X $ 407,000 CIP Reserve Storm Water System' WQFP User Fees/CIP Storm Drain Lining 41 X X $ 340,836 $ 347,653 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Reserve Paintbrush Canyon Drainage Project Study Report 42 X X $ 120,000 CIP Reserve Storm Drain Point Repairs 43 X X $ 900,000 WQFP User Fees Storm Water Quality Improvement Program 44 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 CIPReserve Totals ! $3,216,136 -$8,686,653 $,6,490,000 $11,396,000 .$6,182,000 11 M D-73 r_11ir_T41:IT,14�11a•] UNFUNDED PROJECTS The following projects are those which have been identified as capital needs through various planning processes, but currently there are no identified financial resources to complete the projects. As funding becomes available and the City Council prioritizes and approves projects, they may be moved into the funded Five - Year CIP schedule. Additional projects will be identified in 2015 and 2016, through the development of the Infrastructure Management Plan (IMP), involvement of the Infrastructure Management Committee (IMAC), and completion of the Storm Drain Master Plan, General Plan and Parks Master Plan. aim H; D-74 ATTACHMENT D RPV Capital Improvement Plan - Unfunded Projects Potential Safety City Council Cost Range Proiect Paae Fundina Goal Prioritv Minimum Maximum Palos Verdes Drive South Landslide Landslide Early Warning System 48 x x 300,000 300,000 Park Sites Restroom at Del Cerro Park 50 250,000 300,000 Lower Point Vicente Park Improvement Promect 51 x 2,400,000 2400000 Civic Center Skate Plaza & Tennis Court 52 x x x 850,000 850,000 Coast Vision Plan - Trailhead/Ovedook/Vista Point Development 53 x 800,000 11040,000 Concrete Stairs at Ladera Linda & Hesse 54 x 140,000 180,000 Public Buildings Citywide ADA Transition Plan Implementation 56 x x 4,520 000 41520,000 Point Vicente Park Community Center 57 x 31000,000 8 000 000 Corporation Storage Yard Relocation 58 300,000 300,000 Right of Way Hawthorne Blvd. Median Improvements is Rivera to City Hall 60 250,000 250,000 Lower Point Vicente Park Access Modification Pro'ect PVDW at PVIC 61 x x x 250,000 300,000 Crenshaw Blvd Extension Parking Improvements 62 x 125,000 150,000 Hawthorne Blvd. Right of Way Beautification Phase 2 63 x x 2,200,000 2600000 Hawthorne Blvd. Bike Lane Gap Closure 64 x x 1,200,000 1,500 000 Traffic Safety Improvements - PVDE at Miraleste Drive 65 x x x 200,000 300,000 Utility Undergrounding Crenshaw 66 x x 1,200,000 2000 000 Utility Undergrounding along PVDS La Rotonda and City Limits 67 x x 1,000,000 1 500000 Utility Undergrounding at Entrance to PVIC 68 x x 150,000 200,000 Utility Undergrounding at PVDS and Terranea Wav 69 x x 150,000 200,000 Storm Water System Altamira Canyon 71 x x 11600,000 5 350 000 Paintbrush Canyon Drainage 72 x x 2 568,000 2 568 000 PVDE - Miraleste Canyon 73 x x 2,500 000 3 200 000 San Pedro & Averill Canyons 74 x x 2 700 000 3,300,000 Catch Basin Screen Installation 75 x x 600,000 900,000 Trails Preserve Trail Plan - New Trail Implementation 77 x x 150,000 150,000 California Coastal Trail Improvements 78 x 223,000 223,000 Totals Min, and Max. $ 29,626,000 $ 42,581,000 .n. 51 0 D-75 Page Intentionally Blank r_11aCTM :IT,14�kaC D-76 ATTACHMENT E SUMMARY OF MS4 REGULATIONS AND THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN FUTURE PENINSULA WATER QUALITY PROJECTS Public Works prepared the following summary on the topics of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and our participation in regional water quality projects. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program is mandated by the EPA and administered by the State in response to the Federal Clean Water Act, which has a goal of reducing pollution from entering our nation's waterways, aquifers and oceans from storm drains. The City operates a drainage system within its boundaries and is subject to MS4 water quality regulations as promulgated by the State's local agent, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board. The City has certain responsibilities to enforce these regulations within its boundaries as well as actively improve its infrastructure to improve the quality of urban runoff occurring in both dry and wet weather. The regulations are becoming more strict and costly to implement as scientists discover the increasing impacts of pollutants on human populations and the environment and as technology to address the pollution improves. The City's current MS4 Permit requires an order of magnitude (or more) in increasing stormwater quality from what was done before, notably the requirement to construct treatment facilities if pollution cannot be reduced in other ways to prescribed levels. Peninsula Cities Stormwater Quality Projects As described above, the current MS4 Permit requires the City to treat polluted stormwater before leaving the City if it cannot prevent excessive pollution levels from occurring. The City has partnered with other Peninsula cities and the County to form the Peninsula Watershed Management Group (WMG). This group has developed an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) that describes the efforts the agencies will make to monitor storm water quality at the Peninsula's outfalls, the efforts to reduce pollution from entering runoff in the first place, and the potential treatment projects to be developed to reduce pollution if it cannot be reduced with "non-structural" means. The EWMP identifies two large projects in the Machado Lake watershed that may be required. They are the Palos Verdes Landfill Regional Best Management Practices (BMP) project (cost estimates range from $57,800,000 to $86,400,000) and the Valmonte Regional BMP project ($19,400,000 to $26,500,000). While these projects are outside of the City, we responsible for an estimated 50% of the costs based on our contribution of runoff to these locations. A third potential project is located at Eastview Park ($12,800,000 to $16,600,000 estimate) would be within City limits. The cost to build these treatment facilities is high and may be responsible per discussions with the Water Board for costs between $38,000,000 and $58,500,000 (with a mid -point of $47,250,000). These projects are unlike any project the City has undertaken in scope and cost. The WMG is continuing to look for less expensive alternatives and to seek grant funding and partnerships with other agencies to reduce the burden. However compliance deadlines for the earliest of these projects is estimated to be no more than 10 -years away and potentially within 3 to 5 years. E-1 ATTACHMENT F SUMMARY OF LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO STORMWATER QUALITY REGULATORY COMPLIANCE The City Attorney has prepared the following summary of the issues and impacts related to compliance with state and federal stormwater quality regulations. City Attorney Summary: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is a Permittee subject to the Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS004001 (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R4-2012-0175 as amended by State Water Board Order WQ 2015-0075) ("LA MS4 Permit"). The City is subject to the waste discharge requirements of the LA MS4 Permit and must comply with the regulatory requirements set forth in the Federal Clean Water Act and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The City is required to develop and implement a stormwater program and ensure compliance with the program and the LA MS4 Permit. Failure to comply with the provisions or requirements of the LA MS4 Permit may subject a Permittee to administrative or civil liabilities, criminal penalties, and other enforcement remedies. Additionally, certain violations may subject a Permittee to civil or criminal enforcement from appropriate local, state, or federal law enforcement entities. The California Water Code provides that any person who violates a waste discharge requirement or a provision of the California Water Code is subject to civil penalties of up to $5,000 per day, $10,000 per day, or $25,000 per day of violation, or when the violation involves the discharge of pollutants, is subject to civil penalties of up to $10 per gallon per day or $25 per gallon per day of violation, or some combination thereof, depending on the violation(s). In fact, California Water Code section 13385(h)(1) requires the Regional Water Board to assess a mandatory minimum penalty of three -thousand dollars ($3,000) for each serious violation. California Water Code section 13385(1) requires the Regional Water Board to assess a mandatory minimum penalty of three -thousand dollars ($3,000) for each violation whenever a person violates a waste discharge requirement effluent limitation in any period of six consecutive months, except that the requirement to assess the mandatory minimum penalty shall not be applicable to the first three violations within that time period. Therefore, the City could face large penalties for failure to develop and implement an adequate stormwater quality program. Several public entities have faced large fines from the State of California for failing to adequately comply with stormwater quality requirements and implement necessary programs. For example, in January 2013, a Regional Water Board threatened an enforcement action against the City of San Diego because several private and public development sites lacked appropriate mechanisms to treat stormwater prior to discharge. The series of potential violations recently settled in December 2015, with the settlement resulting in a $949,634 fine levied on the city. Of that amount, $492,734 will go to a State account for cleanup projects. The remaining $456,900 will be forgiven if the city completes an "enhanced compliance action." Additionally, in June 2015, the City of Encinitas had to pay a $430,000 fine for twice allowing sediment -filled stormwater flow off a city park construction site into a local lagoon due to faulty drainage controls. For these reasons, it is imperative that the City has adequate funds to develop and implement its stormwater quality programs in order to comply with Federal and State regulatory requirements, and to prevent illicit discharges to local waterbodies. F-1 ATTACHMENT G SUMMARY OF STORM DRAIN USER FEE REVIEW BY CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEES The information in the staff report was presented to the Storm Drain Oversight Committee on October 29th, the Finance Advisory Committee on November 9th, and the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee on December 10, 2015 and January 14 and 28, 2016. Each committee's inputs is described below. Storm Drain Oversight Committee A straw vote indicated that 3 members supported Staff's recommendation to move forward with a mail -ballot election (Kim, Lyon and Sala), 1 member opposed at this time (Rodich), and 1 member was undecided (Johnson). All members appeared to recognize the scope of the City's storm drain needs. Members in support of a mail -ballot election noted the quantified storm drain need, a desire to balance the City's available resources with other infrastructure needs, and the range of potential expenditures for water quality compliance. Noting the City's fund balances, Member Rodich opined the City has accumulated enough General Fund money for the first 4-5 years of the program; and depending on its financial condition at the end of that period, the City could consider asking the voters for another user fee. Member Johnson was in favor of a dedicated revenue source for storm drains; but unsure if the user fee is the most appropriate choice. Member Johnson indicated that storm drains will compete with other demands for the City's limited resources (e.g. MS4 permit compliance, landslide management, other infrastructure); but noted the other demands have not been fully quantified. Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) The FAC provided excellent feedback regarding presentation of information to the public, and unanimously approved the following statement prepared by the Committee. "Considering the potential costs of storm drain needs, absent a dedicated revenue source, the ability to continue to fund the City's ongoing infrastructure needs would be in jeopardy. The FAC recommends the City Council set the public hearing for February 2016. " The FAC discussed risk associated with the storm drain program, noting the consequences of a failed storm drain may be much more significant than the consequences of a failed roadway. The FAC considered whether the City should bear the potential risk of storm drain failure without having asked the voters. Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) Due to the timing of the IMAC meeting and City Council agenda distribution, a summary of the IMAC discussion and any recommendations will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence. The Committee, however, has dedicated many hours over the course of three meetings to delve into the future anticipated projects and has provided important and constructive comments to Public Works related to project data and presentation. G-1 Assessor's Parcel Number: 7587-006-04 Address: 28159 Ridgecove CT S. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Owner Names: Xugiang Bali, Lin L r_ Owner signature:Xu �� Date: 12/06/2015 Protestina Statement: We question the necessaries of "Storm Drain User Fee". Citv should consider conducting this project under the current tax income. We even question very much where and how the current tax goes. Also the fee proposed to increase is good enough for every household to install a high quality drinking water filter system at home. Moreover, the project is also to prevent flood. Did you get flood disaster here in the past 50 years? Why are you predicting we will have riood here in next 50 years? We strongly disagree City to impose this fee to tax payers. H-1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd RECEIVED in connection with the Proposed Rancho Palos Verdes, CA NT 5OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Storm Drain User Fee DEC 0 J 2015 Assessor's Parcel Number: 7587-006-041 _ Property Address: 28159 Ridgecove Ct S `.CITY CLERKS C- ICE Land Use Designation: CNDO Parcel Area (acres): 0.12 0003842 000007 -5-DIGIT 90275 Impervious Percentage (%): 43.0% BAI, XUQIANG AND LIN, LIN ERUs: 0.4407 28159 RIDGECOVE CT S RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-3396 Proposed Max. FY 16-17 Annual Fee Amount: $42.68 (Approx. monthly Fee Amount: $3.56 ) NOTICE This Notice informs you, as a record owner of property within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, that on December 1, 2015, the City Council adopted a Resolution scheduling a Public Hearing to consider an election to renew the Storm Drain User Fee (the "Fee") for an additional 10 year period. On April 19, 2005, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 418 imposing the Fee for each parcel draining into City -maintained drainage infrastructure starting FY 2006-07. The proposed Fee for each parcel is computed in conformity with the methodology approved in 2005 and the renewal of the Fee will allow for the collection of the Fee starting FY 2016-17 through FY 2025 -26. The Public Hearing will be held during a regular meeting of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on January 19, 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in McTaggart Hall, at Fred Hesse Jr. Community Park, located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. All interested persons are invited to attend the Public Hearing and express opinions about the proposed Fee, and the written report. The written report and Procedures for the conduct of the Public Hearing are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection. The written report for the renewal is also available for public inspection. These documents may also be viewed on the City's website at: http://www.rpvca.gov/154/water-quality-flood-protection-program. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED FEE 1. Purpose of the Fee: The City is proposing to renew the annual Storm Drain User Fee for the purpose of funding construction and maintenance of the City's storm drain system pursuant to the City's Water Quality and Flood Protection Program (the "Program"). The revenue generated over the next 10 years will be used to fund storm drain construction and replacement projects, over 18,000 linear feet of storm drain lining, as well as the installation of filtration devices in catch basins around the City in compliance with federal pollution reduction requirements. The City has developed certain capital improvement plans, including the 2015 Master Plan of Drainage and the City's 2015 Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan. In addition, the City has conducted studies, including a conditions assessment of 100% of existing storm drains within the City to determine the overall condition and necessity for repairs and additional infrastructure to storm drain facilities. Extending the Fee is necessary to meet the goals set forth in these various plans, including repairing existing infrastructure, constructing stabilizing infrastructure to manage storm waters in the presence of canyons and other conditions within the City, as well as to repair the lining within existing storm drains. The City utilized these studies and proposed improvements to calculate the amount to be raised by the Fee, and amounts raised by the Fee will only be used for the purpose of financing projects relating to the City's storm drain system. Further information on the method of calculating the fee can be found on the City's website at http://www.rpvca.ciov/154/water-quality-flood-protection-program. 2. If approved, the proposed maximum annual Storm Drain User Fee rate for FY 2016-17 will be $96.85 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) which equates to $8.07 per ERU per month. Commencing with FY 2017-18, the maximum rate per ERU will increase by the amount of the increase of the CPI, but not to exceed 2 percent each year. However, each year the City Council will hold a public hearing and determine the actual rate per ERU that will be charged, which can be any amount up to the maximum rate. 01203.0006/276093.1 Page 1 of 2 H-2 The proposed Fee amount for FY 2016-17 for your parcel, as well as the parcel area, land use designation and impervious percentage used to calculate the Fee, is shown on the front of this notice on the upper right-hand side. Information on how the Fee is calculated is provided in the detailed explanation fact sheet at the City website located at http://www.rpvca.gov/1541water- quality-flood-protection-program. If you think that the area or impervious percentage for your parcel is incorrect, please contact Mr. Andy Winje (andyw@)rpvca.gov, see additional contact information below), and the City will provide you with information on how to appeal your User Fee amount. 3. The California Constitution requires that the proposed Fee must go through a two-step approval process. The first step is a Public Hearing, and the second step is a property owner election. Public Hearing All property owners subject to the proposed Fee will be given the opportunity to protest the Fee at the Public Hearing. If at the conclusion of the Public Hearing, written protests against the proposed Fee have been filed (and not withdrawn) by the owners of a majority of the parcels subject to the Fee, then the process will stop and the Fee will not be imposed. A written protest must identify the property and be signed, as further described below in Section 4. The City will not accept protests by email. In order to be counted in determining whether there is a majority protest, written protests must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing. Written protests may be delivered to the City Clerk at the Public Hearing or mailed or delivered to the City Clerk at City Hall at the address shown on the front of this notice. Protests which are mailed or delivered to City Hall must arrive at City Hall by 4:30 p.m. on January 19, 2016 to be counted. Only one written protest will be counted per parcel. Property Owner Election In the absence of a majority protest, the City Council may order an election on the proposed Fee, One ballot will be provided for each parcel subject to the proposed Fee. Ballots will be mailed to the record owner(s) of the parcels. The City Council may impose the Fee if the Fee is approved by the majority of the returned ballots. If approved, the fee will be collected on the annual County Property Tax Bills commencing with FY 2016-2017. 4. Protest Procedure: Owners of real property subject to the Fee (and renters of such property who actually pay the Fee) in the City, who wish to protest the extension of the Fee, can send in a written protest to the City Clerk at the address below and/or attend the public hearing on the Fee to register their written protest at the hearing. Only one written protest per residential parcel in the city's service area (i.e. address/assessor parcel number) will be counted. Written protests must be received by the City Clerk prior to or during the public hearing on December 1, 2015. Any written protests received following the close of the public hearing will not be counted. All written protests must (at a minimum) include the following information to be counted: (a) address or assessor parcel numbers of - - property subject to the Fee, (b) name and signature of protester and whether the protester is a property owner or renter and (c) a clear statement protesting the fee pursuant to this notice. Written protests by electronic mail will not be accepted. This protest hearing is being conducted in accordance with Article XIIID of the Constitution. The City Council will not implement the procedures to authorize the Fee should a majority protest against the Fee be received on all identified residential parcels in the City's service area. Persons wishing to protest must submit such protests to the City Clerk at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 before the public hearing or appear at the public hearing and submit their written protests at the hearing. If you challenge this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you, or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this Public Hearing Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to the Public Hearing. 5. For more information, or if you have questions, contact: Deborah Cullen, Director of Finance, or Michael Throne, Director of Public Works, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Telephone: 310-377-0360 Fax: 310-544-5291 email: dcullenorpvca.gov or michaelt@rpvca.gov. 01203.0006/276093.1 Page 2 of 2 H-3 W1 December 7, 2015 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES City Clerk, Rancho Palos Verdes DEC O 9 2015 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Cil° CLERIC'S OFFICE Pursuant to the Notice of Public Hearing, Rancho Palos Verdes, in connection with the Proposed Storm Drain User Fee: The purpose of this letter is to protest the renewal and ten-year extension of the storm drain user fee. I am the owner of the below -referenced property: 6364 Chartres Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 14 David Jankoki (on behalf of Jankowski family trust) Owner M" The proposed Fee amount for FY 2016-17 for your parcel, as well as the parcel area, land use designation and impervious percentage used to calculate the Fee, is shown on the front of this notice on the upper right-hand side. Information on how the Fee is calculated is provided in the detailed explanation fact sheet at the City website located at hUp://www.rpvca.gov/154/water- quality-flood-protection-program. If you think that the area or impervious percentage for your parcel is incorrect, please contact Mr. Andy Winje (andywOrpvca.gov, see additional contact information below), and the City will provide you with information on how to appeal your User Fee amount. 3. The California Constitution requires that the proposed Fee must go through a two-step approval process. The first step is a Public Hearing, and the second step is a property owner election. Public Hearing All property owners subject to the proposed Fee will be given the opportunity to protest the Fee at the Public Hearing. If at the conclusion of the Public Hearing, written protests against the proposed Fee have been filed (and not withdrawn) by the owners of a majority of the parcels subject to the Fee, then the process will stop and the Fee will not be imposed. A written protest must identify the property and be signed, as further described below in Section 4. The City will not accept protests by email. In order to be counted in determining whether there is a majority protest, written protests must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing. Written protests may be delivered to the City Clerk at the Public Hearing or mailed or delivered to the City Clerk at City Hall at the address shown on the front of this notice. Protests which are mailed or delivered to City Hall must arrive at City Hall by 4:30 p.m. on January 19, 2016 to be counted. Only one written protest will be counted per parcel. Property Owner Election In the absence of a majority protest, the City Council may order an election on the proposed Fee. One ballot will be provided for each parcel subject to the proposed Fee. Ballots will be mailed to the record owner(s) of the parcels. The City Council may impose the Fee if the Fee is approved by the majority of the returned ballots. If approved, the fee will be collected on the annual County Pr IIs commencing with FY 2016-2017. 4. rotest Procedure: Owners of r operty subject to the Fee (and renters of such property who actually pay the Fee) in the City, who wish to protest the ex on of the Fee, can send in a written protest to the City Clerk at the address below and/or attend the public hearing on the Fee to register their written protest at the hearing. Only one written protest per residential parcel in the city's service area (i.e. address/assessor parcel number) will be counted. Written protests must be received by the City Clerk prior to or during the public hearing on December 1, 2015, Any written protests received following the close of the public hearing will not be counted. All written protests must (at a minimum) include the following information to be counted: (a) address or assessor parcel numbers of property subject to the Fee, (b) name and signature of protester and whether the protester is a property owner or renter and (c) a clear statement protesting the fee pursuant to this notice. Written protests by electronic mail will not be accepted. This protest hearing is being conducted in accordance with Article XIIID of the Constitution, The City Council will not implement the procedures to authorize the Fee should a majority protest against the Fee be received on all identified residential parcels in the City's service area. Persons wishing to protest must submit such protests to the City Clerk at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 before the public hearing or appear at the public hearing and submit their written protests at the hearing. If you challenge this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you, or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this Public Hearing Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to the Public Hearing. 5. For more information, or if you have questions, contact: Deborah Cullen, Director of Finance, or Michael Throne, Director of Public Works, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Telephone: 310-377-0360 Fax: 310-544-5291 email: dcullengrpvca.gov or michaelt@rpvca.gov. 01203.0006/276093.1 Page 2 of 2 H-5 Illy 3a 40 12" GA 'D- oZ7 s - 6ct Attv,s. 'b -,,r, C k 5 a z7s `) ec. `7 , `-Lo I s e : A-SSe SSws PA r -cd No: 7 - O'Ll- 03s Tvmp d. 3:kt.treA Sz iw Sftl"" .1 LLS <4 't-4_& . RECENED CIN OF RkNCHa pALos VERaps DEC 10 2015 Cl -n( CLERK'S or -;:ICE we Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes RECEIVED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Y CITY OF R4WCHO �p!_C;c City Clerk v t9W8f Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvdin connection with the Proposed Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 DEC 16 201 Storm Drain User Fee `f Assessor's Parcel Number: 7546-026-005 Property Address: 26185 Barkstone Land Use Designation: SFR3 Parcel Area (acres): 0.23 0012113 000024 --SINGLE-PIECE 92799 Impervious Percentage (%): 48.5% MBA 1 CHAR PO BOX 2636 ERUs: 0.9492 RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 Proposed Max. FY 16-17 Annual Fee Amount: $91.93 (Approx. monthly Fee Amount: $7.66 ) NOTICE This Notice informs you, as a record owner of property within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, that on December 1, 2015, the City Council adopted a Resolution scheduling a Public Hearing to consider an election to renew the Storm Drain User Fee (the "Fee") for an additional 10 year period. On April 19, 2005, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 418 imposing the Fee for each parcel draining into City -maintained drainage infrastructure starting FY 2006-07. The proposed Fee for each parcel is computed in conformity with the methodology approved in 2005 and the renewal of the Fee will allow for the collection of the Fee starting FY 2016-17 through FY 2025 -26. The Public Hearing will be held during a regular meeting of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on January 19, 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in McTaggart Hall, at Fred Hesse Jr. Community Park, located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. All interested persons are invited to attend the Public Hearing and express opinions about the proposed Fee, and the written report. The written report and Procedures for the conduct of the Public Hearing are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection. The written report for the renewal is also available for public inspection. These documents may also be viewed on the City's website at: http://www.rpvca.gov/154/water-quality-flood-protection-program. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED FEE 1. Purpose of the Fee: The City is proposing to renew the annual Storm Drain User Fee for the purpose of funding construction and maintenance of the City's storm drain system pursuant to the City's Water Quality and Flood Protection Program (the "Program"). The revenue generated over the next 10 years will be used to fund storm drain construction and replacement projects, over 18,000 linear feet of storm drain lining, as well as the installation of filtration devices in catch basins around the City in compliance with federal pollution reduction requirements. The City has developed certain capital improvement plans, including the 2015 Master Plan of Drainage and the City's 2015 Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan. In addition, the City has conducted studies, including a conditions assessment of 100% of existing storm drains within the City to determine the overall condition and necessity for repairs and additional infrastructure to storm drain facilities. Extending the Fee is necessary to meet the goals set forth in these various plans, including repairing existing infrastructure, constructing stabilizing infrastructure to manage storm waters in the presence of canyons and other conditions within the City, as well as to repair the lining within existing storm drains. The City utilized these studies and proposed improvements to calculate the amount to be raised by the Fee, and amounts raised by the Fee will only be used for the purpose of financing projects relating to the City's storm drain system. Further information on the method of calculating the fee can be found on the City's website at http://www.rpvca.gov/154/water-quality-flood-protection-program. 2. If approved, the proposed maximum annual Storm Drain User Fee rate for FY 2016-17 will be $96.85 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) which equates to $8.07 per ERU per month. Commencing with FY 2017-18, the maximum rate per ERU will increase by the amount of the increase of the CPI, but not to exceed 2 percent each year. However, each year the City Council will hold a public hearing and determine the actual rate per ERU that will be charged, which can be any amount up to the maximum rate. 01203.0006/276093.1 Page 1 of 2 H-7 The proposed Fee amount for FY 2016-17 for your parcel, as well as the parcel area, land use designation and impervious percentage used to calculate the Fee, is shown on the front of this notice on the upper right-hand side. Information on how the Fee is calculated is provided in the detailed explanation fact sheet at the City website located at http://www.rpvca.gov/1 54/water- quality-flood -protection- program. If you think that the area or impervious percentage for your parcel is incorrect, please contact Mr. Andy Winje (andyworpvca.gov, see additional contact information below), and the City will provide you with information on how to appeal your User Fee amount. The California Constitution requires that the proposed Fee must go through a two-step approval process. The first step is a Public Hearing, and the second step is a property owner election. Public Hearino All property owners subject to the proposed Fee will be given the opportunity to protest the Fee at the Public Hearing. If at the conclusion of the Public Hearing, written protests against the proposed Fee have been filed (and not withdrawn) by the owners of a majority of the parcels subject to the Fee, then the process will stop and the Fee will not be imposed. A written protest must identify the property and be signed, as further described below in Section 4. The City will not accept protests by email. In order to be counted in determining whether there is a majority protest, written protests must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing. Written protests may be delivered to the City Clerk at the Public Hearing or mailed or delivered to the City Clerk at City Hall at the address shown on the front of this notice. Protests which are mailed or delivered to City Hall must arrive at City Hall by 4:30 p.m. on January 19, 2016 to be counted. Only one written protest will be counted per parcel. Property Owner Election In the absence of a majority protest, the City Council may order an election on the proposed Fee. One ballot will be provided for each parcel subject to the proposed Fee. Ballots will be mailed to the record owner(s) of the parcels. The City Council may impose the Fee if the Fee is approved by the majority of the returned ballots. If approved, the fee will be collected on the annual County Property Tax Bills commencing with FY 2016-2017. Protest Procedure: Owners of real property subject to the Fee (and renters of such property who actually pay the Fee) in the City, who wish to protest the extension of the Fee, can send in a written protest to the City Clerk at the address below and/or attend the public hearing on the Fee to register their written protest at the hearing. Only one written protest per residential parcel in the city's service area (i.e. address/assessor parcel number) will be counted. Written protests must be received by the City Clerk prior to or during the public hearing on December 1, 2015. Any written protests received following the close of the public hearing will not be counted. All written protests must (at a minimum) include the following information to be counted: (a) address or assessor parcel numbers of property subject to the Fee, (b) name and signature of protester and whether the protester is a property owner or renter and (c) a clear statement protesting the fee pursuant to this notice. Written protests by electronic mail will not be accepted. This protest hearing is being conducted in accordance with Article XIIID of the Constitution. The City Council will not implement the procedures to authorize the Fee should a majority protest against the Fee be received on all identified residential parcels in the City's service area. Persons wishing to protest must submit such protests to the City Clerk at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 before the public hearing or appear at the public hearing and submit their written protests at the hearing. If you challenge this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you, or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this Public Hearing Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to the Public Hearing. For more information, or if you have questions, contact: Deborah Cullen, Director of Finance, or Michael Throne, Director of Public Works, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Telephone: 310-377-0360 Fax: 310-544-5291 email: dcullenorpvca.gov or michaeltorpvca.gov. 01203.0006/276093.1 Page 2 of 2 H-8 City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DEC 2 2 2015 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Statement of Protest Regarding the Rancho Palos Verdes Proposed Storm Drain User Fee A) Parcel Number: 7578-014-014 B) Protester: S. Smith, Renter This written statement is to protest the Proposed Storm Drain User Fee that would affect the above referenced parcel in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes starting FY 2016 through 2026. tZ-7-.73 Me December 22, 2015 City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Protest Storm Drain User Fee Assessor's Parcel Number: 7557-031-013 29403 S. Western Ave., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA SMBD Investments, LP 2716 Via Elevado Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Phone: 424-327-2088 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES JAN 0 4 2016 CITY CLERK'S O We are the property owners and we hereby protest the Storm Drain User Fee for the proposed additional 10 year period pursuant to this notice. Sincerely; A, A,�,D �-- JW F. D'Angelo General Partner H-10 December 22, 2015 City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 SMBD Investments, LP 2716 Via Elevado Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Phone: 424-327-2088 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO r-'� _Oc VFRDES Re: Protest Storm Drain User Fee Assessor's Parcel Number: 7557-039-018 29529 S. Western Ave., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA JAN 0 4 2016 CITY CLERK'S Gi=10E We are the property owners and we hereby protest the Storm Drain User Fee for the proposed additional 10 year period pursuant to this notice. Sincerely; 4C 0r k—� m . D A elo Ge eral Partner H-11 City Clerk of Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Protest of renewal of the Storm Drain Fee 12/21/15 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Assessors Parcel Number:7556-004-008 Property Address: 20 Saddle Road Land Use Designation: SFR5 Parcel Area (acreage): 1.03 ac Impervious Percentage (%): 19.0 % ERUs: 1.661 Proposed Annual Fee: $160.87 Owners: Craig E. and Lauren D. Magnusen Dear City Clerk, We, as owners of the property at 20 Saddle Road, protest the proposed extension of the annual Storm Drain Fee, for the following reasons: 1) as residents of the Rockinghorse Community Association we pay for the maintenance of roads and storm drains within our association, currently $550.00 annually, receiving no support from the city. 2) the storm drain servicing the cul de sac of Saddle Road discharges to a natural creek (Miraleste Creek) southwest of,upslope, and adjacent to Dodson Middle School, where storm water encounters the first reinforced concrete culvert at county maintained station PD0146-line A. As stated in Ordinance No. 418, storm water discharging to county maintained drainage is exempt. 3) only the driveway apron and a one fourth "pie cut" of the cul de sac drain into the storm drain. The rest of the property (house and hardscapes) is upslope of our vacant and unimproved land. This area, considered for the city's calculations, drains into this vacant land and never encounters any storm drains, rather runoff percolates into the vacant, unimproved land downslope of the house and hardscapes. Vacant and unimproved land is exempt (Ordinance No. 418). 4) points 2 and 3 are grounds for fee exemption, however if found insufficient by the city, the only area serviced by any storm drain results in the following calculations: X=ZY Z=X/Y where X=square footage of impervious area(sgft) Y=acres(ac) RECEIVED Z=impervious percentage(%) CITY OF RANCHO, P^' -OR VERDES Z=784sgft/1.03ac=.021 %=.021 % impervious area --Drainage Units Drainage Units / 0.021 JAN 0 4 21116 Median Drainage Units = 0.118 Equivalent Residential Units(ERUs) 0.17 ERUs ERUs X Rate per ERU = 0.17X96.85= $16.91 annually CITY CLERK'S 6- i C E We do not question the impervious percentage calculations of the city, rather the premise of 1) having to pay a fee twice, (2) storm water discharged to county maintained drainage has no impact on the city's infrastructure, and (3) the areas the city finds eligible for this calculation drain to vacant and unimproved land and never encounter any storm drain . We contend we are exempt from any fee. However, if the city ignores exemptions of Ordinance No. 418, the only_ area draining into any storm drain is the driveway apron and section of the road, resulting in the annual fee of $16.91. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Craig E. and Lauren D. Xgnusen H-12 RANCHO PALOS VERDES Storm Drain User Fee Appeal Application For Adjustment To The Following Property Tax Bill THE APPEAL PROCESS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE LOCATED ON THE BACK OF THIS DOCUMENT. REQUIRED INFORMATION - COMPLETE ALL APPLICABLE CONTACT INFORMATION: Name Parcel Address (must match APN) Street Mailing Address Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) ,J / q , (if different) Street City Phone Home Cellular Email Address State Zip Complete Shaded Areas City Calculation Your Estimate Appeal Review (From Notice of Public Hearing or Mail Ballot) (From Back Of This Form) (Staff Use Only) Acreage (1 acre = 43,560 sq. ft.) 1, US (. 0 Impervious Percentage X 1.- 0 % X a ( % X % Drainage Units = p ; (r1(o Divide By Median Drainage Units / 0.118 / 0.118 / 0.118 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) _ I, k, = 0, t = Rate Per ERU X 1i: ;1)".$wee- * Xr(6; .i,; o X $86.00 Storm Drain User Fee = 160,V = ,q 1 = $ I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LA WS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVID D ON THIS APPLICATION IS CORRECT. igna!y a Dal Staff Use Only Fee After Comments: 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Storm Drain User Fee Information (310) 544-5377 Fax (310) 544-5291 www.palosverdes.com/rpv 1 � f ' V�SrL,urreh , (�—Or,^ (ov��l vee I►�5�rruc ct7ri o V'(5_ )t iWeb5�ke H-13 RANCHO PALOS VERDES Storm Drain User Fee Appeal Process If a property owner disagrees with the calculation of his or her fee, based on the parcel area and/ot estimated impervious percentage assigned to the property, then the property owner may appeal the calculation as follows: Step 1 The property owner must submit a complete appeal that contains: A) This appeal application completed in it: entirety; and B) A drawing with dimensions of the property in question, including identification of the impervious areas (e.g. house, garage, driveway, patio, shed, pool etc.), accompanying calculations, and square footage estimates. The application should be submitted to City Hall via mail or hand delivery (address on the reverse side of this form). Lot Size 60' X 100'= 6,000 sq.ft. Shed 8'X 10 = 80 sq. ft Garage 15'X 15' = 225 sq. ft. 17 House 35'X 35' = 1,225 sq. ft. Driveway Walk 55' X 8' 15'X 4'= = 440 sq. ft. 60 sq. ft. Step 2 If additional documentation is required to complete the appeal application, City Staff (Staff) will provide written notification to the property owner within two (2) weeks of application receipt. Once sufficient documentation to complete the application is received, Staff will provide written notification to the property owner within four (4) weeks as to whether or not the fee will be adjusted. Step 3 If Staff determines the fee should not be adjusted, the property owner may appeal Staff's decision to the Director of Public Works (Director). The appeal to the Director must be submitted in writing within four (4) weeks from the date of Staff's written notification to deny a fee adjustment. The Director will provide written notification to the property owner within four (4) weeks as to whether or not the fee will be adjusted. Step 4 If the Director determines the fee should not be adjusted, the property owner may appeal the Director's decision to the City Council. The appeal to the City Council must be submitted in writing within four (4) weeks from the date of the Director's written notification to deny a fee adjustment. Step 5 The City Clerk will schedule a time and place for the appeal hearing and will provide written notification to the property owner. The City Council's decision is final. H-14 Sample Your Calculation Calculation Shed 80 Garage 225 Patio 330 House 1,225 t Driveway 440 Walk 60 Pool Hot Tub Other Other - r, Total Impervious Sq. Ft. 2,360 Divide By Lot Sq. Ft. 6,000 r Impervious Percentage 39% `. Step 2 If additional documentation is required to complete the appeal application, City Staff (Staff) will provide written notification to the property owner within two (2) weeks of application receipt. Once sufficient documentation to complete the application is received, Staff will provide written notification to the property owner within four (4) weeks as to whether or not the fee will be adjusted. Step 3 If Staff determines the fee should not be adjusted, the property owner may appeal Staff's decision to the Director of Public Works (Director). The appeal to the Director must be submitted in writing within four (4) weeks from the date of Staff's written notification to deny a fee adjustment. The Director will provide written notification to the property owner within four (4) weeks as to whether or not the fee will be adjusted. Step 4 If the Director determines the fee should not be adjusted, the property owner may appeal the Director's decision to the City Council. The appeal to the City Council must be submitted in writing within four (4) weeks from the date of the Director's written notification to deny a fee adjustment. Step 5 The City Clerk will schedule a time and place for the appeal hearing and will provide written notification to the property owner. The City Council's decision is final. H-14 H-15 City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Clerk, 3368 Crownview Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 December 23, 2015 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALLS VERDES JAN 0 4 2016 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE We are the owners of the property at 3368 Crownview Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. We are writing to protest the renewal of the Storm Drain User Fee for an additional 10 year period. Thank you. Sincerely, n Helene and Mark Chinowsky H-16 Mary Lou Xenos and Kevan Bunting 62 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Protest the Storm Drain User Fee Dear City Clerk and City Council Members; December 23, 2015 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES JAN 0 4 2016 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE We have two reasons why we are protesting another Storm Drain User Fee, for parcel owners in Rancho Palos Verdes until 2026 - 2027. First, our property taxes that we already pay should be applied toward the storm drain maintenance and infrastructure. The city knew in 2005, that upgrading the storm drains was needed. The city should have implement a plan to budget for future construction and maintenance. Perhaps with the added income to the city from Terranea, this could have been accomplished. Second, not all parcels are equal. An equal share in a flat fee for each parcel, increase it by two percent, for ten years, is not fair. We live in a communal complex where we share limited and common space. Our parcel space certainly does not compare with most Rancho Palos Verdes parcels. Again, in protest toward the Storm Drain User Fee, we think that the city needs to use our property taxes and other revenue to better budget for upgrading and maintaining our infrastructure. If our city can't afford to do this then cuts need to be implemented. Sincerely, Mary Lou Xenos and Kevan Bunting H-17 r RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALLS VERDES JAN 0 4 2016 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 52 W4 I mi; LQ c er en .✓ 'o S' e---5 r Co 3 S> v ,2 IMM City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING City of Rancho Palos Verdes in connection with the Proposed Storm Drain User Fee PUBLIC HEARING DATE CHANGE Assessor's Parcel Number: 7581-002-009 Property Address: 6380 Chartres Dr Land Use Designation: SFR5 liIIIIII T'111-11111111.11111111.1111-lili Parcel Area (acres): 0.65 0007973/T000016/P000002/"'""5-DIGIT 90275 Impervious Percentage (%): 34.5% SANG, SALVATORE A AND BEVEN D 6380 CHARTRES DR EROS: 1.8983 RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5724 Proposed Max. FY 16-17 Annual Fee Amount: $183.85 (Approx. monthly Fee ,Amount: $15.32 ) H-19 YaftkA a Xebe* 4324 Via Frascati Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310-962-1564) 1-4-16 City Clerk of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. 90275 Dear Sir: AECEIVED CITYOFRANC14r, JAI r� CIS ` I wish to protest the extension of the parcel tax storm drain user fee under consideration as per city council resolution 2015-107. I am the owner and pay the tax for the property located at 4324 Via Frascati, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275. (Assessor's Parcel Number 7566-006-036) Sincerely Patrick A. Kelsey RECEIVED CITY OF RA N ; _ - - . ')S VERDES JAN C �) 2016 CIiY TICE �� :� +- H-20 December 27, 2015 City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES JAN 0 4 2016 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Ref: Protest of City of RPV proposal to renew the annual Storm Drain User Fee Dear City Clerk of Rancho Palos Verdes: This letter is to protest the renewal of the annual Storm Drain User Fee in Rancho Palos Verdes. The city of Rancho Palos Verdes receives over $5,000,000 from Terranea alone. We suggest some of the funds from Terranea but set aside for storm drain repairs and additional infrastructure to storm drain facilities. ` J _-may Pappo and Philip Z. Pappo 2762 Vista Mesa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-6324 H-21 Yahick (L Nebe* 4324 Via Frascati Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310-962-1564) 1-4-16 City Clerk of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd- Rancho lvdRancho Palos Verdes, Calif. 90275 Dear Sir: RECEIVEm C1iYOFFIANCHrl, . "=RDES 'JAN 06 116 CITY J I wish to protest the extension of the parcel tax storm drain user fee under consideration as per city council resolution 2015-107. I am the owner and pay the tax for the property located at 2122 General St., Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275. (Assessor's Parcel Number 7557-015-002) Sincerely Patrick A. Kelsey H-22 To: City Clerk R P V Date Jan 5, 2016. Subj:" Storm Drain User Fee " Property: 7572 002 024 20 Vanderlip Dr. RPV' Owner Jack E. Downhill cin, of RECEIVED RANCHO PALOS VERpES JAN 08 2016 CITY CLERK'SF' C I hereby Protest the Extension of the current Storm Drain User Fee Or any variation thereof. Signed Jack E. Downhill, roperty Owner. H-23 January 6, 2016 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDFg JAN 08 2016 CITY CLERK'S r,); �IaICF`- This is to register my protest to the proposed 10 -year extension of the Storm Drain Ordinance. This action by the Council is simply a way to avoid having to explain to the affected property owners why the original plan did not accomplish the necessary work. Either this, or to cover-up their intent to deliberately under estimate the work required, knowing that if the actual cost were known, it would have never originally been approved by a note of the residents Respectfully, Milton J. Norsworthy x02-3 H-24 LAW OFFICES OWEN A. SILVERMAN, INC. OWEN A SILVERMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION POST OFFICE BOX 2268 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA, CALIFORNIA 90274 January 7, 2016 City Clerk of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 530-3990 FAX (310) 377-9715 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES JAN 112016 CITY CLERK'S ORF-PICE PROTEST TO PROPOSED RENEWAL OF THE ANNUAL STORM DRAIN USER FEE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10 YEARS (SEE ORDINANCE NO.418 APPROVED APRIL 19, 2005 BY CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL) The Property is a single family residence and property owned and occupied by Owen A. Silverman and Evelyn P. Silverman also trustees of the Silverman Family Trust. The parties have continuously resided at said premises since 1973. The property address is 30428 Camino Porvenir, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-4535. The Assessors parcel number is 7588 009 020. This protest is based on the following: 1. Proposition 13 added to California State Constitution, Article XIII as Article XIIIA in 1975 (Howard Jarvis Amendment). This fee will pose a tax burden upon the property in question for another 10 years. 2. California Constitution Article 1, Section 1 "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness and privacy. " Renewal of this 10 year "fee" by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA will violate the property rights of the property owners. 3. Amendments XIV to the United States Constitution is violated as such action by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes renewing this 10 year old "fee" will violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth Amendment. Respectfully Submitted: OWEN A. SILVERMAN SILVERMAN FAMILY TRUST PROPERTY OWNERS SINCE 1973 EVELYN P. SILVERMAN SILVERMAN FAMILY TRUST Cc: Deborah Cullen Director of Finance and Michael Throne Director of Public Works H-25 =nuary 7`".2016 To: City Clerk % : Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes. C - Re: James & Janet Zupke, Trust, # 7564-004-029 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES JAN 112016 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Please let this letter be official notice of our protest to the proposed extension of the cities property owners Storm Drain User's Fee, for the following reasons. Cirst of all we. property owners, need to know 1) the exact amount of fees collected during the prior fee period, 2) How much of those fees were spent on the storm drain projects, 3) total amount needed now and for what projects. Need clear and specific the amount of annual fees and the exact percentage amounts for each years fee increases per property owner. Our notice listing of such was confusing and contradictory at best. At the top of our notice it states $ 107.52 for the 16-17 fee period. However, item # 2 at the bottom or the page states $ 96.85 for the same period. Why the 10% difference. Again, with the listing for the ree period of 17-18, this states fees not to increase each year by more than 2%. This extension also gives the City the power to increase this few each of the 9 remaining years up to the "maximum rate". which is a big question. We do not, nor do we believe that any other property owners effected by this want to give any government agency this kind of uncontrolled taxing power. Sincerely, )mes R. Zupke 4315 Exultant Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA., 90275 H-26 January 9, 2016 Norbert Nastanski 2951 3 Baycrest Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Assessor's Parcel Number 7583-026-008 Subject: Protest to proposed renewal of Storm Drain Users Fee RECEIVED CRY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES JAN 13 2016 CITY CLERK'S OFMCE This letter is sent to protest the proposed renewal of Storm Drain Users Fee. The original storm drain users fee had a sunset clause for good reason. At the time the city's finances were not in sufficient condition to handle the cost to fix an emergency situation with regards to the storm drains. This crisis has passed and this "emergency" storm drain situation has been mitigated. The city's finances have improved significantly. Future storm drain repairs should be funded by ongoing normal revenues and not buy a special assessment. Thank you, Norbert Nastanski (property owner) H-27 (�---� n I � t O.C) 0 � n S+ 4 L'- �1��'J `' RECEIVE® CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VFRDER JAN 13 2016 City of Rancho Palos Verdes NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING City Clerk RECEIVED City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd � p �_;in, -Ction with the Proposed Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 9O27SITY OF RANCIC p Storm Drain User Fee JAN 13 2010 Assessor's Parcel Number: 7552-013-022 CIS CLERK'S OF V 11C Property Address: 1926 Redondela Dr Land Use Designation: SFR3 Itt�tltl�tll��t�llllt��i�tt��tttt�s��lttttl�llttt�ttttl�ttltltt Parcel Area (acres): 0.28 0000599 000002 -5-DIGIT 90275 Impervious Percentage (%): 48.5% LA FOREST, JOHN AND ROSETTA TRS ERUs: 1.1525 1926 REDONDELA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-1028 Proposed Max. FY 16-17 Annual Fee Amount: $111.62 (Approx. monthly Fee Amount: $9.30 ) This Notice informs you, as a record owner of property within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, that on December 1, 2015, the City Council adopted a Resolution scheduling a Public Hearing to consider an election to renew the Storm Drain User Fee (the "Fee") for an additional 10 year period. On April 19, 2005, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 418 imposing the Fee for each parcel draining into City -maintained drainage infrastructure starting FY 2006-07. The proposed Fee for each parcel is computed in conformity with the methodology approved in 2005 and the renewal of the Fee will allow for the collection of the Fee starting FY 2016-17 through FY 2025 -26. The Public Hearing will be held during a regular meeting of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on January 19, 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in McTaggart Hall, at Fred Hesse Jr. Community Park, located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. All interested persons are invited to attend the Public Hearing and express opinions about the proposed Fee, and the written report. The written report and Procedures for the conduct of the Public Hearing are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection. The written report for the renewal is also available for public inspection. These documents may also be viewed on the City's website at: http://www.rpvca.gov/154/water-quality-flood-protection-program. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED FEE 1. Purpose of the Fee: The City is proposing to renew the annual Storm Drain User Fee for the purpose of funding construction and maintenance of the City's storm drain system pursuant to the City's Water Quality and Flood Protection Program (the "Program"). The revenue generated over the next 10 years will be used to fund storm drain construction and replacement projects, over 18,000 linear feet of storm drain lining, as well as the installation of filtration devices in catch basins around the City in compliance with federal pollution reduction requirements. The City has developed certain capital improvement plans, including the 2015 Master Plan of Drainage and the City's 2015 Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan. In addition, the City has conducted studies, including a conditions assessment of 100% of existing storm drains within the City to determine the overall condition and necessity for repairs and additional infrastructure to storm drain facilities. Extending the Fee is necessary to meet the goals set forth in these various plans, including repairing existing infrastructure, constructing stabilizing infrastructure to manage storm waters in the presence of canyons and other conditions within the City, as well as to repair the lining within existing storm drains. The City utilized these studies and proposed improvements to calculate the amount to be raised by the Fee, and amounts raised by the Fee will only be used for the purpose of financing projects relating to the City's storm drain system. Further information on the method of calculating the fee can be found on the City's website at hftp://www.rpvca.gov/1 54/water-quality-flood-protection-program. 2. If approved, the proposed maximum annual Storm Drain User Fee rate for FY 2016-17 will be $96.85 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) which equates to $8.07 per ERU per month. Commencing with FY 2017-18, the maximum rate per ERU will increase by the amount of the increase of the CPI, but not to exceed 2 percent each year. However, each year the City Council will hold a public hearing and determine the actual rate per ERU that will be charged, which can be any amount up to the maximum rate. 01203.0006/276093.1 Page 1 of 2 H-29 The proposed Fee amount for FY 2016-17 for your parcel, as well as the parcel area, land use designation and impervious percentage used to calculate the Fee, is shown on the front of this notice on the upper right-hand side. Information on how the Fee is calculated is provided in the detailed explanation fact sheet at the City website located at http://www.rpvca.gov/154/water- quality-flood-protection-program. If you think that the area or impervious percentage for your parcel is incorrect, please contact Mr. Andy Winje (andyworpvca.gov, see additional contact information below), and the City will provide you with information on how to appeal your User Fee amount. 3. The California Constitution requires that the proposed Fee must go through a two-step approval process. The first step is a Public Hearing, and the second step is a property owner election. Public Hearing All property owners subject to the proposed Fee will be given the opportunity to protest the Fee at the Public Hearing. If at the conclusion of the Public Hearing, written protests against the proposed Fee have been filed (and not withdrawn) by the owners of a majority of the parcels subject to the Fee, then the process will stop and the Fee will not be imposed. A written protest must identify the property and be signed, as further described below in Section 4. The City will not accept protests by email. In order to be counted in determining whether there is a majority protest, written protests must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing. Written protests may be delivered to the City Clerk at the Public Hearing or mailed or delivered to the City Clerk at City Hall at the address shown on the front of this notice. Protests which are mailed or delivered to City Hall must arrive at City Hall by 4:30 p.m. on January 19, 2016 to be counted. Only one written protest will be counted per parcel. Property Owner Election In the absence of a majority protest, the City Council may order an election on the proposed Fee. One ballot will be provided for each parcel subject to the proposed Fee. Ballots will be mailed to the record owner(s) of the parcels. The City Council may impose the Fee if the Fee is approved by the majority of the returned ballots. If approved, the fee will be collected on the annual County Property Tax Bills commencing with FY 2016-2017. 4. Protest Procedure: Owners of real property subject to the Fee (and renters of such property who actually pay the Fee) in the City, who wish to protest the extension of the Fee, can send in a written protest to the City Clerk at the address below and/or attend the public hearing on the Fee to register their written protest at the hearing. Only one written protest per residential parcel in the city's service area (i.e. address/assessor parcel number) will be counted. Written protests must be received by the City Clerk prior to or during the public hearing on December 1, 2015. Any written protests received following the close of the public hearing will not be counted. All written protests must (at a minimum) include the following information to be counted: Oraddress or assessor parcel numbers of property subject to the Fee, (b) name and signature of protester and whether the protester is a property owner or renter and (c) a clear statement protesting the fee pursuant to this notice. Written protests by electronic mail will not be accepted. This protest hearing is being conducted in accordance with Article XIIID of the Constitution. The City Council will not implement the procedures to authorize the Fee should a majority protest against the Fee be received on all identified residential parcels in the City's service area. Persons wishing to protest must submit such protests to the City Clerk at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 before the public hearing or appear at the public hearing and submit their written protests at the hearing. If you challenge this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you, or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this Public Hearing Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to the Public Hearing. For more information, or if you have questions, contact: Deborah Cullen, Director of Finance, or Michael Throne, Director of Public Works, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Telephone: 310-377-0360 Fax: 310-544-5291 email: dcullengrpvca.gov or michaelt@rpvca.gov. 01203.0006/276093.1 Page 2 of 2 H-30 Carol McKinniss 3274 Crownview Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 December 21, 2015 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Proposed Storm Drain User Fee RECEIVED CITY OF RtaKICPQ PALOS VERDES JAN 14 2016 G I Y C'LERK'S rD The proposed Storm Drain User Fee is not fair, because not every parcel in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is taxed. I am the owner of parcel #7566-013-025 located on a private drive off of Crownview. The parcels on my side of the drive are taxed, but the parcels on the other side of the driveway are not, because those parcels are supposedly not draining into city sewers. However when it rains, the run-off all goes down into the same storm drains. When the residents of the untaxed parcels wash their cars, etc., the water flows down the driveway into city sewers. When they drain their pools, they extend a drain hose into the common driveway and the water flows into the city sewers. I own the flag lot, so the common drive used by owners on both side of the drive is recorded on my deed. So I pay the additional tax on this area used by all residents and guests on both sides of the drive. This is not fair to the many owners of flag lot parcels in the City of RPV. Please consider fair and equitable in this tax proposal. Please be very certain that owners of parcels in the City that are not taxed, are not privileged to vote on the tax. Sincerely yours, �� "'o__ Carol McKinniss H-31 January 12, 2016 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Storm Drain Users Fee Property Address: 30138 Via Victoria Assessor's' Parcel Number: 7582-017-005 Dear City Clerk, RvCEL1fF-.D v��oEs of RANCHO PAI -08 JAN202�16 CON My name is David Hilton and I am the owner of the property listed above. I wish to make it clear that I am opposed to the Storm Drain Users Fee and hereby protest the imposition of said fee. l David Hilton H-32 MICHAEL J. & LIDDI KENDEL 5809 FLAMBEAU ROAD RANCHO2�s $cv90275-2154 Cv� uERpsS (31041026 E -mail: nhs54@i1.cgo Pos OF January 15, 2016 ,AN 2 p 2016 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ��GE Rancho Palos Verdes City Council �R�'cJ 30940 Hawthorne BLVD Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attention: City Clerk Inre: Our PROTEST regarding the proposed extension of the annual Fee imposition on property owners for the maintenance of the storm drain system pursuant to the City's Water Quality and Flood Protection Program. *********************************************************************************** Dear Honorable Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: We are in receipt of the city's Notice of Public gearing which is scheduled on February 2, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Hesse Community Park. Because it is unlikely that we will be able to attend the hearing, we are writing to you now to express our TOTAL OPPOSITION TO ANY EXTENSION OF THE ANNUAL STORM DRAIN USER FEE beyond its current June 30, 2016 expiration date. The "Fee" is actually a property tax that has been imposed on property owners despite the provisions and spirit of Proposition 13. The tax discriminates unfairly because only 80% of Rancho Palos Verdes residents are unfairly required to pay the "User Fee". We have also been informed by reliable sources that almost $20.000.000.00 still remains available for storm drain maintenance from collections of this unfair tax during the past ten years. A continuation of this Unfair Rroperty tax is not needed by the city at this time for it's stated pMpose. Pursuant to your Notice of Public Hearing, as per your instructions, Im hereby state that we are the joint owners lthrouQh our revocable family trust L and the resident occuflanta of our home located at 5809 Flambeau Road. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. The Assessor's ID number of our home is: 7578 013 010 15 000 Sincerely yours, Michael J. Bendel Liddi Bendel H-33 Deanna Kolbas 66 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Renew storm Drain User Fee CIN OF PANCHC• As an Owner of the above address for the last 28 years, I, Deanna Kolbas, is formally protesting the renewal of the Storm Drain user fee. As the city had knowledge of the future upgrading storm drains were needed back in 2005, the city should have implemented a plan to budget for future construction and maintenance. I also believe that part of the property taxes should be applied toward the renewal of the storm drain system. I also don't agree on the two percent increase for the next 10 years, it is not fair that everyone have to pay a flat rate since we are limited on common areas. If the city can't afford to do this upgrading with the property taxes money, then cuts need to be implemented in other areas. Sincerely; Deanna Kolbas H-34 Angus M & Gail Y Lorenzen 15 Diamonte Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED January 18, 2016 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES City of Rancho Palos Verdes JAN 21 2016 City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Blvd CIT1( CLERK'S OFFICE Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 PROTEST OF PROPOSED STORM DRAIN USER FEE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 7566-004-012 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 15 Diamonte Ln LAND USE DESIGNATION: SFR4 We the undersigned property owners protest the proposed extension of the storm drain user fee for the following reasons: 1. The original ballot for the storm drain user fee was illegitimate because it was not a secret ballot. The ballots were counted by the City Clerk and other City staff and City Council had access to how individual property owners voted. 2. The City's publicity falsly stated the fee would only be $150 annually for most homes. Ours is $324 for a 2500 sq. ft. (average size) house. 3. 20% of property owners in the City are excused from paying the storm drain fee. That means they also do not pay a fair share of the storm water mitigation from the City's hardscape — roads, parks, buildings, parking lots, etc. which they use. 80% of the property owners pay 100% of the cost to control storm water from City property. 4. The City now has a major stream of income from the Terranea Resort which it did not have in the past and therefore doesn't need added income from a parcel tax, especially one that is not equally distributed across all properties. 5. The proposed assessment is called a "fee". In actuality it is a tax and under State law requires passage by 2/3 of all voters in the City. This is proven by the contention that the City will hold an "election" to pass this tax assessment. Signed by the following protesting property owners. Angus M. Lorenzen ,,�a y- �7 .el� Gail Y. Lorenzen H-35 SHARON YARBER 6012 Sandbrook Drive Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 Telephone(s) — 213/712-8066 Email: momofyago(a),gmail.com January 18, 2016 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Storm Drain User Fee Dear City Clerk: RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS uFPDr JAN 2 2 2016 CITY CLERIC'S OF: This letter is my written protest to the continuation of the Storm Drain User Fee as described in the Notices received from the City and for which a public hearing will be held on February 2, 2016. I am the owner of the property located at 6012 Sandbrook Drive, RPV, APN 7578- 021-026. While there is no requirement that I articulate the grounds upon which I make this protest, I would like to inform you of such grounds. It is clear to me that funds raised and set aside for storm drain purposes have been applied to projects that are outside the scope of the purposes for which the fees have been collected and instead used in some instances for general storm water management purposes that benefit all residents and not just those upon whom the fee has been imposed. This "fee" is, in fact, a tax, and should be paid, if at all, by all property owners. As such, the tax should be the subject of a vote that requires a 2/3rds majority rather than.a simple majority ursuant4o Proposition 218. H-36 January 19, 2016 Sophia Leung, Property Owner 14 Oceanaire Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members, RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES JAN 2 2 2016 CITY CLERK'S CFRCE I hearby protest the institution of the proposed Storm Drain User Fee. Sincerely, t Sophia Le g H-37 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Clerk 30940 Hawthorn Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 re: Protest of renewal of Storm Drain User Fee Dear Sirs: 6374 Chartres Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 January 8, 2016 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES JAN 2 5 2016 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter is to formally protest the renewal of the Storm Drain User Fee. At the time of this fee's inception the city indicated that after ten years the revenues derived from the Terranea Resort would be used to fund storm drain maintenance and new projects. The resort has been providing many millions of dollars in revenue above the initial projections. There is no need to obtain additional funds from property owners. Our parcel # is 7581-002-008 Alexander Garcia III 3dith G. Garcia • Heath A Wood, And Mercedes Michel Wood 28652 Roan Rd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone #: 8053417040 Assessor's Parcel Number: 755-018-011 To: City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 January 21, 2016 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERCW�-, JAN 2 6 2016 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Notice of Storm Drain Fee Protest and Calculation of Storm Drain Fee Protest This letter is to inform the City Clerk that Heath A Wood and Mercedes Michel Wood are the owners and occupiers of the property identified by the Assessor's Parcel Number 7554-018-011, and address of 28652 Roan Rd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. It also informs you that we do not feel the Storm Drain Fee is justified as detailed below so we are filling a protest of this fee: You have been collecting this fee for 10 years as originally agreed to and there is no need to continue with a supplemental fee. This should come out of our regular property tax. The property that we occupy absorbs all rainfall. The driveway and home occupy about 20% of the parcel and the rest is covered by vegetation and mulch that absorbs all the water that falls on it. In all the time that we have occupied this house there has not been any runoff from our property. Even with the heavy rain last week there was no runoff. Also there is no canyon for the water to run into as the bottom of our lot is flat and the land behind our lot is flat. For some reason you are showing the property as being 41 % impervious. Assuming this means that you calculate our lot is 41% covered by impervious materials, this is completely wrong. If you are going to force us to pay this unfair fee; it should be based on no more than 20% impervious. Are all your assessments double the actual number? Please see the attached Google Maps photo. Sincerely, Heath A Wood Mercedes Michel Wood H-39 F t� _ s ` F t�