|
DISCLAIMER
BEGINNING
OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
This agenda has been prepared to provide for the orderly progression of City business. Detailed staff reports on specific items are posted in the hallway for public viewing. The City Council wants to hear your comments, however, to run the meeting efficiently, please observe the following rules when you participate in the meeting. Please try to submit your REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL form to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called at the appropriate time to make your remarks. For the sake of efficiency, the City Council agenda is divided into several sections: Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items which, unless a request has been received from the public, council or staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the City Council. If you wish to speak to any Consent Calendar item(s) you will be limited to three minutes. Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed hearings. Although the normal time limit is three minutes for each speaker, the Mayor may grant additional time to a representative speaking for an entire group; however, this should not discourage anyone from addressing the City Council individually. Regular Business: This section contains items of general business and you will be allowed three minutes to speak on any item. Public Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda. If you have submitted a request to speak, you will be called by the City Clerk at the appropriate time and you may speak for up to three minutes. Please limit your comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Public Comments. If action by the City Council is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda or referred to staff, as determined by Council. Please make your remarks at the lectern microphone and direct your comments to the City Council and not to the staff or the public. Conduct at the Council Meeting: The City Council has adopted a set of rules for conduct during City Council meetings. The following is an excerpt from those adopted Rules of Procedure: Section 6.3The Mayor shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person(s) who commits the following acts at a regular or special meeting of the City Council: 1.Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Council or any member thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. 2.A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. 3.Disobedience of any lawful order of the Mayor which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Council. 4.Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD 7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOL. NO. 2000-60 NEXT ORD. NO. 360 RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.Motion to waive full reading.
2.Minutes. (Purcell)
3.Request for Reduction of the Landscape Bond for Tract No. 46422 (Requestor: Silvana Schiappa, E.S. Development, Inc.) (Fox)
4.Weed Abatement/Control and Landscape Maintenance for City Street Rights-of-Way and Medians. (Still)
5.Professional Service Agreement for Environmental Services. (McBride)
6.Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.Height Variation No. 905, Grading Permit No. 2195, Minor Exception Permit No. 567, Site Plan Review No. 8839, Coastal Permit No. 164, and Zone Change No. 29. (42 Seacove Drive, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Carl). (Mihranian)
8.Appeals of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 (Applicants: James York and Natalie York, "Lower Filiorum" property. Appellants: (1) Betty Strauss to deny the permit and (2) James York to change the conditions of the permit. (Fox)
9.Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2 (Applicant: Palos Verdes Panorama Owners’ Association, Panorama Estates Community). (Fox)
RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.) REGULAR BUSINESS: 10.Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Diversion Program Additions. (Ramezani)
11.Appropriations and Agreements for Lawsuit Against the FAA and Purchase of Flight Tracking Equipment. (Petru)
12.Funding Opportunities for Abalone Cove Storm Drain. (Allison)
13.Cancellation of the October 7 Workshop. (Petru)
ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting. 
1.Motion to waive full reading.
2.Minutes. (Purcell)
3.Request for Reduction of the Landscape Bond for Tract No. 46422 (Requestor: Silvana Schiappa, E.S. Development, Inc.) (Fox)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF THE LANDSCAPE BOND FOR TRACT NO. 46422 [REQUESTOR: SILVANA SCHIAPPA, E.S. DEVELOPMENT, INC.] Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Reduce the balance of Bond No. 3SM 761 737 00 for Tract No. 46422 to $15,230.00. BACKGROUND Tract No. 46422 (Lunada Vista), a 7-lot single-family subdivision on the inland side of Palos Verdes Drive West at Alida Place, was originally approved by the City in 1988. As mitigation for the developer’s unauthorized removal of mature foliage on the property during rough grading in 1991, the City required the recordation of a landscape covenant on all the lots in the tract and required the tract’s original developer, E.S. Development, Inc., to post a landscape bond in the amount of $74,100.00 to ensure compliance with the covenant. The landscape covenant specifies the number and size of trees and shrubs that must be planted on each developed lot within ninety (90) days of the completion of each home. A copy of this covenant is attached to this report. On November 8, 1995, the City Council granted a request by the developer to reduce the balance of the landscape bond, based upon the completion (at that time) of four of the seven homes on Alida Place. The balance of the bond was reduced to $26,676.00. On May 20, 1999, the developer asked for the balance of bond to be further reduced to $8,892.00 (i.e., one third of the remaining balance). However, Staff reviewed this request and informed the developer that it would be inappropriate to reduce the bond balance further (at that time) since there were two homes yet to be built on Alida Place and there would be insufficient funds remaining to ensure compliance with the landscape covenant. Since May 1999, one of the two remaining homes on Alida Place has been completed and the other one is currently under construction. Therefore, on August 30, 2000, the developer again requested the reduction of the landscape bond balance. Staff has agendized this request for the City Council’s consideration at tonight’s meeting. DISCUSSION The original bond amount of $74,100.00 equated to approximately $1.47 per square foot of landscape area on each of the seven lots. As summarized in the table below, there is only one lot remaining to be landscaped (Lot 7 (7455 Alida Place)), upon completion of the house that is currently under construction.
Based upon the plans approved by the City in 1998, Lot 7 will have eight thousand six hundred thirty-four square feet (8,634 ft²) of landscaped area once the house is complete. At $1.47 per square foot, this equates to $12,692.00, and factoring in 2-percent inflation over the past decade yields a current estimate of $15,230.00 for Lot 7. The balance of the landscape bond is $26,676.00. Therefore, Staff recommends releasing $11,446.00 at this time and retaining a balance of $15,230.00, which should be adequate to ensure the landscaping of Lot 7 in compliance with the terms of the landscape covenant for the tract. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION E.S. Development, Inc. and the owners of all seven properties in the Lunada Vista community have been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this request at tonight’s meeting. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the developer’s request for a reduction in the balance of Bond No. 3SM 761 737 00 is warranted, and that the remaining balance will be sufficient to ensure Lot 7’s compliance with the landscape covenant for Tract No. 46422. Therefore, Staff recommends reducing the balance of Bond No. 3SM 761 737 00 to $15,230.00. FISCAL IMPACT Landscaping has been completed for six of the seven properties in the Vista Lunada community, and the remaining balance of $15,230.00 is sufficient to ensure the compliance of the last home with the provisions of the landscape covenant for Tract No. 46422. As such, the reduction in the balance of Bond 3SM 761 737 00 will have no fiscal impact upon the City. However, if the City Council elects to release the entire remaining balance of the bond now, then any future costs of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the landscape covenant for this last home would be borne by the City. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:
Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Bond reduction request from E.S. Development, Inc. (received August 30, 2000) Bond No. 3SM 761 737 00 Landscape Covenant for Tract No. 46422
4.Weed Abatement/Control and Landscape Maintenance for City StreetRights-of-Way and Medians. (Still)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT:WEED ABATEMENT/CONTROL & LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FOR CITY STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND MEDIANS STAFF CORDINATOR: LARRY STILL, MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDATION: 1.Award a three year contract for a not-to-exceed amount of $18,264, for Weed Abatement/Control for City Street Rights-of Way to Bemus Landscape Inc., for Fiscal Years 2000-2001, through FY 2002-2003, and; 2.Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Bemus Landscape Inc. 3.Award a three year contract for a not-to-exceed amount of $79,800, for Landscape Maintenance for Medians to Bennett Landscape Inc., for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 through FY 2002-2003. 4.Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Bennett Landscape Inc. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department uses contract services to maintain the City’s improved and unimproved Public Rights-of-way and medians. Services provided include: weed abatement/control, irrigation repairs, shrub pruning, litter removal, hardscape cleaning, turf mowing and edging, rodent/pest control, cultivation and mulching and for general maintenance purposes. The existing contracts for services expire on September 30, 2000. New specifications were prepared to improve the level of service for both the improved and unimproved landscape areas. The revised specifications include additional provisions for providing work schedules, increases in the frequencies for the completion of maintenance tasks and for providing additional customer service to respond to citizen concerns. The specifications were also prepared in a manner that provides the City the ability to award individual bid categories based on the qualified lowest bidder. Work Specifications were advertised, and a mandatory pre-bid conference was conducted on July 28, 2000. The bids were opened on August 15, 2000. DISCUSSIONS: Three firms submitted bids for the proposed work. The results are as follows:
Staff conducted a thorough background investigation of the two apparent low bidders. Staff visited current work sites maintained by both contractors and conducted a telephone survey to determine the level of service provided by the prospective Contractors. Both Contractors are qualified to perform the work outlined in the specifications. Bennett Landscape has performed similar maintenance services for the City and staff believes that both firms will provide a higher level of service than that currently performed. The term of the contract(s) will be for a period of three (3) years and include an option for the City to extend the contract for three (3) additional one-year periods. The prices are fixed for the first three-year period and may increase thereafter for each of the additional one-year periods based on the Consumer Price Index. CONCLUSION: Adopting the staff recommendations will award a three-year contract for Weed Abatement/Control to Bemus Landscape Inc., and a three-year contract for Median Landscape Maintenance to Bennett Landscape. Staff believes that the revised specifications will improve maintenance services. FISCAL IMPACT: The adopted FY 2000-2001 budget provides adequate funding for the staff recommendations. The funding sources for these contracts are the Gas Tax Fund, and the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District. Respectfully Submitted, Dean Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed, Les Evans, City Manager
5.Professional Service Agreement for Environmental Services. (McBride)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT:PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR 25th STREET Staff Coordinator:David McBride, Senior Engineer RECOMMENDATION Award a Professional Services Agreement with Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. in the amount of $24,500 for Professional Environmental Services associated with development of a habitat restoration plan and long-term monitoring reports of the restoration efforts for repairs to 25th Street and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement. BACKGROUND As outlined in previous reports to Council, three phases of repairs are planned to address settlement and cracks on Palos Verdes Drive South/25th Street from La Rotonda to the Easterly City Limit. Phase one improvements have been completed which included construction of a storm drain and installation of horizontal sub drains in the roadway embankment (i.e., slope). Phase two improvements are expected to begin construction in the middle of November and include the reconstruction of two deteriorated storm drains and construction on an eight-inch asphalt concrete berm to control drainage. Phase three involves the consideration of other possible geotechnical retaining methods to improve the long-term strength of the slope that is settling. The first two phases of the project impact small portions of a Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) restoration project undertaken within Shoreline Park as part of the environmental mitigation for the Ocean Trials Development Project. Phase one improvements were completed under an emergency exemption provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a portion of CSS habitat was impacted during its construction. Ultimately, both of the first two phases of the project will constitute a loss of CSS habitat that will need to be permitted and mitigated. Because of this, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been completed and a 4(d) habitat loss permit from State and Federal Regulatory Agencies is currently being processed. As part of the requirements of a 4(d) permit the City must prepare a habitat restoration plan for approval by the Resource Agencies to restore/revegetate approximately one acre of coastal sage scrub at on off-site location, implement the plan and meet monitoring and reporting requirements for the restored area for a period of five years. The recommended action will provide the professional services necessary to develop the restoration plan, coordinate approval of the plan through the Resource Agencies and provide required reporting over the five-year monitoring period. DISCUSSION The City has currently has three projects that classify as a, "take" of sensitive habitat (e.g., coastal sage scrub) and require section 4(d) permitting under the Endangered Species Act. The projects include the Palos Verdes Drive South/25th Street project, the Altamira Canyon Drainage improvement project, and the Abalone Cove beach Improvement project. Ultimately, these "takes" will require the City to restore/revegetate habitat taken in a ratio greater than original area of impact (e.g., 3:1 or 3 acres of restoration for 1 acre of impact). On some projects the restoration efforts can occur on the project site; however, with two of these projects there is insufficient on-site area and therefore off-site restoration is necessary. For the Palos Verdes Drive South/25th Street project, our 4(d) permit is being jointly processed with Ocean Trails permit because they are utilizing Shoreline Park in their restoration efforts. We anticipate the 4(d) to be approved in the middle of November at which time the construction will proceed. As part of the 4(d) and restoration plan the City will be required to accomplish the following: 1.Designate, with a conservation easement or as permanent open space, an off-site location to restore one-acre of coastal sage scrub. 2.Prepare a habitat restoration plan acceptable to the Resource Agencies. 3.Install, maintain and physically monitor the restoration effort for a period of five years. 4.Prepare quarterly and annual monitoring reports for the restoration effort over the five-year period. Items 1 and 2 have to be completed prior to the start of construction, and installation of the restoration has to occur within one year of the end of construction of the phase two improvements. Further, phase two work cannot occur during the Gnatcatcher breeding season from February 15 through August 15 of each year. Thus, it is critical to get phase two drainage improvements in as soon as possible or risk waiting until August 15, 2001 to begin construction. This means having an off-site restoration area chosen and having an approved restoration plan in place by mid November which is the anticipated date of the 4(d) permit approval and the planned start of construction. Staff requested a single source proposal from Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc., based on prior work the firm has done with similar projects in the City (e.g., the Abalone Cove Community Improvement Project – Sewer and Storm Drain). Their scope of services include preparation of habitat restoration plan, coordinating approval of the plan through the Resource Agencies and providing the monitoring reports over the five-year monitoring period. Vandermost has estimated costs for installation, maintenance and physical monitoring of the restoration effort for a five-year period to be $25,000 per acre. A lower per acre cost is possible with larger restoration areas (i.e., economies of scale). A higher per acre cost is possible for sites that are highly disturbed, have inappropriate soils or locations that are particularly difficult to access or have water supply obstacles. We anticipate proposing a restoration effort within the Forrestal Open Space to cover the impacts associated with this project and some of the other two projects mentioned earlier. Vandermost’s proposal is $24,500 for all of the identified tasks. Their scope of service is attached as Exhibit "A". Vandermost’s proposal is reasonable and competitive. In the event that the final restoration effort involves multiple projects and is significantly greater than one acre associated with restoration of Palos Verdes Drive South/25th Street, Vandermost’s fee will need to be increased slightly to account for the their additional reporting effort. CONCLUSION Vandermost has provided a reasonable cost and service proposal for the required professional environmental services. Moreover, they have considerable experience in the preparation of environmental documentation and in resource agency permitting requirements on City/Agency projects. Based in this, staff is recommending award of a professional service to Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. in the amount of $24,500. ALTERNATIVE One alternative is to send out a request for proposals (RFP's) for professional service providers. We do not anticipate this reducing the cost of the professional services, it will take 1-1/2 to 2 months to complete, and it could delay construction of phase two improvements. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended action will authorize the expenditure of $24,500 for professional services. There is currently $850,000 in budgeted funds, from Proposition C and Gas Tax revenues, for phase two and three of the Palos Verdes Drive South/25th Street project. It should be noted this is first restoration effort that the City has undertaken and the project budget for Palos Verdes Drive South/25th Street does not include expenditures for habitat restoration. Respectfully submitted: Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachment: Exhibit "A" – Vandermost’s scope of services and cost proposal
6.Register of Demands. (McLean)
############ PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.Height Variation No. 905, Grading Permit No. 2195, Minor Exception Permit No. 567, Site Plan Review No. 8839, Coastal Permit No. 164, and Zone Change No. 29. (42 Seacove Drive, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Carl). (Mihranian)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 905, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2195, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 567, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8839, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 164 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 29; 42 SEACOVE DRIVE (MR. AND MRS. RICHARD CARL). Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION 1) Introduce Ordinance No. , amending the City’s Official Zoning Map with the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff; 2) Conditionally approve Height Variation No. 905, Grading Permit No. 2195, Minor Exception Permit No. 567, Site Plan Review No. 8839, Coastal Permit No. 164 and Zone Change No. 29 to allow the demolition of an existing 5,283 square foot single-family residence for the construction and related grading, of a new 9,244 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, on property located at 42 Seacove Drive; and 3) Direct Staff to bring back a Resolution of approval to the next City Council meeting, to be adopted concurrently with the Ordinance’s second reading. BACKGROUND On March 16, 2000, applications for a Zone Change, Height Variation, Minor Exception Permit, Grading Permit, Site Plan Review and Coastal Permit were submitted to the Planning Department on behalf of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Carl, of 42 Seacove Drive. The development applications are to allow the demolition of the existing 5,283 square foot single-family residence and pool/spa and construction of a new single-family residence with a reconfigured pool and spa. The related Zone Change application is to accommodate the residence outside of the City’s Coastal Structure Setback Zone. Pursuant to the Development Code, all applications are being reviewed together as one application package. Since the Zone Change application requires a decision by the City Council, the entire application package is before the Council this evening for consideration. On June 6, 2000 the City Council initiated the applicants’ Zone Change request and referred the proposal to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendations. On June 27, 2000, the required public notices for the August 8th Planning Commission meeting were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on June 27, 2000. As a result of the public notices, 13 letters were submitted to the Planning Department expressing concerns with the proposed project. These concerns were discussed throughout the Planning Commission report (see attachment) and at the Commission meeting (see attached Planning Commission Minutes). After hearing public testimony and analyzing the applicants’ proposal, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending conditional approval of the proposed project, and forwarded its recommendation for consideration to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s recommendation had a vote of 3-2, with Commissioners Paulson and Long dissenting, and Vice-Chair Clark and Commissioner Meuller absent. On August 30, 2000, the required public notices for the September 19th City Council meeting were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property and interested parties, and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on September 2, 2000. As a result of the public notices, one (1) additional letter was submitted to the City expressing concerns with the proposed project. Furthermore, between the time the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project and tonight’s meeting, Staff, at the request of the Palos Verdes Bay Club’s Homeowners Association’s Board, made a presentation of the proposed project to the residents of the condominium complex at their monthly meeting on August 23, 2000. Staff was invited on behalf of the Board to raise awareness among the residents regarding the applicants’ proposal and the various applications requested. DISCUSSION Site Description The subject lot is located at 42 Seacove Drive and currently consists of a 5,283 square foot single-family residence with a pool and spa that was developed prior to the City’s incorporation, in 1955. The subject site is considered a bluff top property, located within Subregion 4 of the City’s designated Coastal District, bound between the mean high tide line and the first public road. According to the Coastal Specific Plan, the project site is located within the Coastal District’s "Appealable Area," which means that any decisions rendered by the City may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. From Seacove Drive, a gentle front yard slope descends to the building pad of the existing residence, while the swimming pool and spa are located within the rear yard that is essentially level with the residence and is separated from the sloping portion of the lot by an existing two to four foot high garden/retaining wall. The area seaward of the garden/retaining wall begins to gradually descend to the bluff, where the slope drops dramatically to the shoreline below. The subject lot is considered a "bluff top" property that contains a Coastal Setback Line towards the rear portion of the lot that was established by the City in 1978, as part of the adoption of the Coastal Specific Plan. The Coastal Setback Line was created by a comprehensive geologic study of the City’s coastal zone to address possible slope erosion and other geologic concerns, such as the Factor of Safety. The Coastal Setback Line was drawn on the City’s Zoning Map based on general geologic information, therefore making the location of the setback line on the subject property an estimate based on limited available information at the time. Project Description The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing residence and swimming pool/spa to accommodate the construction of a new 9,244 square foot, two-story, single-family residence (see attached plans). Of the 9,244 square feet, 7,893 square feet consists of habitable floor area and 1,351 square feet consists of non-habitable floor area in the form of a four (4) car garage. Of the 7,893 square feet of habitable floor area, 430 square feet consists of a cellar, which will be entirely under the building footprint and not visible from the exterior, 5,520 square feet consists of the lower (entry) level, and 1,943 square feet will be located on the upper level. As previously indicated, the applicants propose to remove the existing "L" shaped swimming pool/spa, to construct a new pool and spa in the same location, but in the shape of a rectangle. According to the Development Code, the subject property is considered a pad lot with a height limit of sixteen (16) feet, as measured from the highest grade elevation of the existing building pad covered by structure, and twenty (20) feet, from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade. As proposed, the residence will be constructed at a height of 24’-9", as measured from the lowest foundation that meets finished grade (196’) to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (220.75’) and 19’-9", as measured from the highest grade (201’) covered by structure to the top of the roof ridgeline. Since a portion of the proposed structure exceeds the 16’/20’ height limit and will consist of a second story, a Height Variation application is required. In addition to the Height Variation application, the applicants request a Grading Permit to allow 250 cubic yards of associated grading to prepare the site for development, a Minor Exception Permit to allow a 6’ combination fence/wall along the front property line off Seacove Drive, a Site Plan Review is to allow the proposed swimming pool/spa, 12’ patio trellis and other site improvements that require the analysis of such criteria as lot coverage, setbacks and parking. Since the subject property is located within the City’s designated "Appealable Area" of the Coastal District, a Coastal Permit is required, that is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. A decision on a development application involving a coastal Permit does not become final until the appeal process is exhausted with the California Coastal Commission. According to the City’s Zoning Map, the existing residence is partially located (approximately 9’) within the City’s designated Coastal Structure Setback Zone. According to the Development Code, the new residence would have to be constructed outside the Coastal Structure Setback Zone. Since the applicants would like to reconstruct the majority of the new residence within the same footprint of the existing residence, the applicants request a Zone Change to amend the City’s Zoning Map by moving the location of the Coastal Setback Line closer to the bluff. By adjusting the location of the Coastal Setback Line, the Coastal Structure Setback Line would be adjusted as well, since the Structure Setback Line is defined as being twenty-five (25) feet landward of the Coastal Setback Line. The applicants now request a Zone Change to adjust the Coastal Setback Line towards the coastal bluff top so that the proposed residence will conform with the setback requirements of the Development Code and the Coastal Specific Plan. According to the Section 17.88.010.D of the Development Code, any changes made to the City’s Zoning Map must be adopted by the City Council in the form of an ordinance. Code Analysis / Public Concerns Based on the project description stated in the above section and the analysis/discussion contained in the Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission (see attachment), Staff believes that the findings of facts necessary to render a decision of approval have been met, as recommended by the Planning Commission. A discussion of all the necessary findings, including issues raised by the public, are contained on pages 8 through 42 of the attached Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 8, 2000. As noted in the Planning Commission Staff Report, there has been much public input on the proposed project from adjacent residents. Much of the public input can be summarized into four subjects: view impacts, privacy, neighborhood compatibility, and geology. Although a thorough discussion of these issues is contained in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report, Staff thought it would be beneficial to the Council and the public to provide a brief summary of these four main issues.
As mentioned in the Planning Commission Staff Report, from the property immediately across the street from the subject property, at 31 Packet Road, Staff determined, and the Planning Commission agreed, that a project built to the Development Code’s permitted "by right" height limit of 16’/20’ would impair the limited ocean view that the residence currently enjoys. Therefore, the Planning Commission determined that the portion of the proposed project over sixteen (16) feet in height would not result in a significant additional view impact. It should be noted that the applicants propose removing all foliage on the subject site (excluding the Palm Trees), including the foliage located in the center of the neighbor’s viewing area. Additionally, the applicants have obtained written authorization from the property owners to the immediate east of the subject property (40 Seacove Drive) to remove additional foliage that may be currently creating further view impairment (see Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment). Therefore, although the project will result in some impairment of the limited unprotected view, the resident’s overall view will greatly improve as a result of the substantial amount of foliage removed by the applicants. The majority of the letters of concern pertaining to potential view impairment were from residents at the Palos Verdes Bay Club. In order to assess the potential view, Staff conducted several site visits to the Palos Verdes Bay Club. As described in detail in the Height Variation Section of the Planning Commission Staff Report (Page 11-18), Staff determined, and the Planning Commission agreed, that the proposed project does not create a significant view impairment. The Commission determined that although a view impairment may exist from some units in the 32735 Seagate Drive building, the impairment is not significant since the silhouette clearly indicates that the project built to the Development Code’s "by right" height limit of 16’/20’ would also impair a similar portion of their view. Furthermore, it was determined that the view impairment is not significant in that when viewing the proposed project in relation to the entire view frame, the impairment was limited to the far bottom corner of the view frame, impairing approximately 1-3% of the entire view frame. As part of the Commission’s discussion of the proposed project, a concern was raised as to whether the structure was designed to minimize impairment of a view. The original proposed design went through a series of revisions in order to minimize view impacts from surrounding properties and to address Staff concerns pertaining to mass and bulk. As a result, the currently proposed structure is designed to respect the lot’s unique topography, isolate the proposed upper level to one side, and reduce the lower level ceiling volume by lowering the overall structure’s height. At the August 8th Commission meeting, there was discussion to possibly relocate the upper level floor area towards the front of the existing residence. Eventually, the Commission agreed with Staff’s assessment that due to the project site’s unique topography, as development occurs closer towards the street, further impacts may occur to the property at 31 Packet Road. Although the Commission agreed that the residence at 31 Packet Road does not have a "protected view" that would be significantly impaired by the proposed project, the applicants have attempted to preserve an ocean view from their neighbors residence. Therefore, the Commission agreed that considering the architect’s design of the structure and the grade difference between the subject lot and the neighboring properties to the north, the proposed structure has been designed to minimize any potential view impairment.
To address privacy concerns from the Bay Club residents, the Planning Commission recommends that conditions be imposed on the project that would require three (3) of the four (4) windows along the west facing facade to be of opaque material and be raised a minimum of five (5) feet above the finished floor of the second story, in the form of clerestory. In order to assure privacy for both the property owners and the surrounding neighbors, the window located within the tub area of the master bathroom, has been conditioned to consist of opaque glass that limits visibility while providing light. To further protect privacy, an awning consisting of louvered frames will be situated over the entire bathroom window area to allow light to penetrate. Based on the above discussion and the discussion contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report, Staff and the Planning Commission believe that this concern has been adequately addressed and that the finding can be made.
The proposed project consists of a new 9,244 square foot, two-story, single-family residence that would be 3,961 square feet larger than the existing 5,283 square foot residence, which raised concerns pertaining to the character of the immediate neighborhood. The fifteen (15) residences located along the seaward side of Seacove Drive, range between 2,280 square feet and 7,298 square feet, with an average structure size of 4,059 square feet. According to Staff’s calculations, the proposed residence is significantly larger than the average structure size and will be 1,946 square feet larger than the largest home (7,298 sq. ft.) at 16 Seacove, within the defined neighborhood. Notwithstanding, the Planning Commission felt that the unique lot configuration and the design of the structure minimizes the impact the structure size may have on the surrounding neighborhood. Since a majority of the proposed floor area will be located on the lower level, and would not be visible from properties to the east and west, and that from the street’s vantage point the visibility of the street facing facade is limited due to a grade difference of approximately five (5) feet, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed structure is compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood.
A detailed discussion on the Zone Change request is included in the Planning Commission Staff Report (See Pages 36-42). The following is a brief overview of the issue. The Coastal Setback Line was established based on limited geologic information available in 1978 and was incorporated as part of the Coastal Specific Plan. In order to create an additional buffer to address possible slope erosion and other geologic concerns, such as the Factor of Safety, a Coastal Structure Setback Zone was established twenty-five (25) landward of the Coastal Setback Line. Since the Coastal Setback Line was established based on general information, the City’s General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan indicate that the Setback Line may be adjusted provided that geologic reports indicate that the adjustment of the setback line will not jeopardize human activity. Furthermore, the applicants’ geology reports indicate that the Coastal Setback Line on the subject property does not accurately demonstrate the geologic stability or buildability of the lot. Therefore, the applicants request an adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line up to the top of the bluff, with the Coastal Structure Setback Line situated twenty-five (25) feet landward from the Coastal Setback Line. The adjustment is based on a survey conducted by South Bay Engineering and the applicants’ geology reports stating that development is feasible up to the surveyed bluff top. The City’s Geologist has reviewed the applicants’ geology reports and concurs that the adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line towards the bluff top will not jeopardize human activity, provided that appropriate foundations are utilized. According to the above discussion and the fact that the Coastal Setback Line was established based on geologic conditions, the Planning Commission agreed that the geology report’s recommendations support granting the zone change and recommended that the City Council approve the request as such. It is also worth noting that the Planning Commission also considered other indirectly related impacts of moving the Coastal Setback Line as part of the development review process, such as impacts on view corridors, open space area, and sensitive habitat area, since the Coastal Setback Line serves as more than merely a geologic stability line. As such, the Commission agreed with Staff that the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line will not significantly impact view corridors from surrounding "bluff top" lots, since most of the existing structures already encroach into this area. However, since Staff determined that the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback line may result in future development that may significantly impair a view from the Bay Club Condominiums, the Planning Commission imposed a condition that prohibits any further expansion of the structure or future accessory structures closer to the bluff. To further enforce this condition, it is recommended that the City Council require the applicants record a deed restriction preventing such future development. To date, there have been two (2) prior applications submitted to the City requesting adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line locations, one of which was approved at 16 Seacove Drive (Zone Change No. 23), where the City Council adjusted the Coastal Setback Line 100’ seaward to accommodate the new construction of a single-family residence, and another at 27 Marguerite Drive (Zone Change No. 24), which was administratively withdrawn based solely on lack of information. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In compliance with the criteria of the Development Code, geology reports were submitted by the applicants to the City’s Geologist on October 18, 1999, with subsequent addendums submitted on November 17, 1999, December 16, 1999 and May 16, 2000. The initial geology reports were approved by the City’s Geologist prior to the applicants’ formal submittal of development plans to the Planning Department. Upon submittal to the Planning Department, a set of architectural plans were routed to the City’s Geologist for review and conceptual approval. As proposed, the applicants’ architectural plans were slightly different than what was originally reviewed by the City’s Geologist, thus requiring additional information. An addendum geology report was subsequently submitted addressing the City’s Geologist’s concerns. The addendum report was conceptually approved by the City Geologist on June 1, 2000. Further studies and reports will be required by the City Geologist upon the applicants’ submittal to Building and Safety for the "Plan Check" process. As previously indicated, the subject property is located within the "Appealable Area" of the City’s designated Coastal District, which means that development applications may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. Additionally, amendments to the City’s Zoning Map within the Coastal District, such as the applicants’ request, are routinely forwarded to the Coastal Commission for consideration by the Executive Director. Pursuant to Section 17.72.100 of the Development Code, an appeal of a development application may be filed with the California Coastal Commission ten (10) days after the City renders a final decision and all appeal opportunities have been exhausted. Since the proposed project consists of the introduction of an ordinance and the adoption of a resolution, in order to keep the effective dates consistent for any potential appeals to the Coastal Commission, Staff recommends that the City Council, if inclined to approve the project this evening, 1) close the public hearing; 2) introduce the ordinance; 3) conceptually approve the proposed development applications; and 4) move to adopt the development application’s resolution at the meeting date of the second reading of the ordinance. This would allow the subject resolution and ordinance to be forwarded to the Coastal Commission concurrently. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached 1) introduce the attached Ordinance, amending the City’s Official Zoning Map with the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff; 2) conditionally approve Height Variation No. 905, Grading Permit No. 2195, Minor Exception Permit No. 567, Site Plan Review No. 8839, Coastal Permit No. 164 and Zone Change 29 allowing the demolition of an existing 5,283 square foot single-family residence for the construction of a new 9,244 square foot, two-story, single-family residence within the designated Coastal District; and 3) direct Staff to bring back a Resolution of approval to the next City Council meeting, to be adopted concurrently with the Ordinance’s second reading. FISCAL IMPACT Staff believes that the proposed project will not impact the City’s General Fund, other than costs incurred by Staff to update the City’s Zoning Map if the Zone Change request is approved. However, Staff believes that the change to the City’s Official Zoning map may be completed at the time the City updates the entire Zoning Map to eliminate additional costs, that have otherwise not been budgeted. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration in addition to Staff’s recommendation:
Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager ATTACHMENTS:
ORDINANCE NO.___ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE CITY’S ZONING MAP BY A SEAWARD ADJUSTMENT OF THE COASTAL SETBACK LINE FROM ITS CURRENT LOCATION TO THE TOP OF THE BLUFF ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 42 SEACOVE DRIVE. WHEREAS, on March 16, 2000 Zone Change No. 29 and related development applications were submitted to the Planning Department by the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Carl, of 42 Seacove Drive, to amend the City’s Official Zoning Map with the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff; and, WHEREAS, on April 13, 2000 Staff conducted an initial review of the applications and the architectural drawings submitted to the Planning Department and deemed them incomplete for processing, identifying concerns with the proposed development as it relates to the size of the structure and its overall mass and bulk; and, WHEREAS, on May 31, 2000 the City’s Geotechnical Engineer reviewed and conditionally approved the applicants’ geotechnical reports and studies; and, WHEREAS, on June 8, 2000 the City Council initiated the applicants’ Zone Change request to consider amending the City’s Zoning map with the seaward adjustment of the existing Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff. The City Council referred the applicants’ Zone Change request, along with the related development applications, to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation; and, WHEREAS, after several meetings attended by Staff and the property owners and their architect, revised plans were submitted and deemed complete for processing on June 26, 2000; and, WHEREAS, on June 27, 2000, the required public notices for the August 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on June 27, 2000; and, WHEREAS, after notice was given pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 8, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the subject development applications and said amendment to the City’s Zoning Map as it pertains to the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et.seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the Planning Commission found no evidence that Height Variation No. 905, Grading Permit No. 2195, Minor Exception Permit No. 567, Site Plan Review No. 8839, Coastal Permit No. 164 and Zone Change No. 29, would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 3, Section 15303(a)); and, WHEREAS, at their August 8th meeting, after hearing public testimony the Planning Commission adopted a motion, with a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Paulson and Long dissenting, forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Council, as it pertains to the applicants’ Zone Change request and related development applications; and, WHEREAS, on August 30, 2000, the required notices were mailed out to property owners within a 500’ radius of the subject property informing them of the proposed project and the scheduled City Council public hearing on September 19, 2000. Furthermore, a notice was published in the Peninsula News on September 2, 2000; and, WHEREAS, after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:The City Council has reviewed and considered the applicants’ Zone Change request to adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff on property located at 42 Seacove Drive. Section 2:The City Council finds that the amendment to the City’s Official Zoning Map of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, because the zoning amendment procedures referred to therein have been followed. Section 3:The City Council finds that the Zone Change is consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan because it is not changing any land use on the property and instead is simply amending the City’s Official Zoning Map by adjusting the Coastal Setback Line on the subject property, based upon a thorough geotechnical review of the site. Section 5:The City Council has reviewed and considered the applicants’ Zone Change request and hereby amends the City’s Official Zoning Map with the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff, as described in detail in Exhibit "A" Section 6: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by having noted thereon the following information: "On _________, 2000, By Ordinance No. 2000-___ the following change was made on the Official Zoning Map: the Coastal Setback Line is hereby relocated to the top of the bluff on property located at 42 Seacove Drive." Section 8:The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of September, 2000. ________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk State of California) County of Los Angeles) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Ordinance No. ___ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on September 19, 2000. __________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 905, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2195, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 567, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8839, AND COASTAL PERMIT NO. 164 TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 5,283 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND SWIMMING POOL/SPA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, 9,244 SQUARE FOOT (GARAGE INCLUDED), TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT A HEIGHT OF 24’-9" AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST FINISHED GRADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE (196’) TO THE TOP OF THE HIGHEST ROOF RIDGELINE (220.75’), AND 19’-9" IN HEIGHT, AS MEASURED FROM THE HIGHEST NATURAL GRADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE (201’) TO THE TOP OF THE HIGHEST ROOF RIDGELINE (220.75’). ADDITIONALLY, SAID APPROVALS INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SWIMMING POOL/SPA, 12’ HIGH PATIO TRELLIS, 250 CUBIC YARDS OF ASSOCIATED GRADING, AND A NEW 6’ COMBINATION FENCE/WALL ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY’S DESIGNATED APPEALABLE COASTAL DISTRICT, AT 42 SEACOVE DRIVE. WHEREAS, on March 16, 2000 the subject applications, Height Variation No. 905, Grading Permit No. 2195, Minor Exception Permit No. 567, Site Plan Review No. 8839, Coastal Permit No. 164 and Zone Change No. 29, were submitted to the Planning Department by the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Carl, of 42 Seacove Drive, to allow the demolition of an existing 5,283 square foot single-family residence and swimming pool/spa for the construction of a new two-story, 9,244 square foot, single-family residence with a new pool/spa, 12’ high patio trellis, 250 cubic yards of associated grading, a 6’ high combination fence/wall along the front property line within the City’s designated Appealable Coastal District. Additionally the applicants request include a Zone Change to amend the City’s Zoning Map with the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff; and, WHEREAS, on April 13, 2000 Staff conducted an initial review of the applications and the architectural drawings submitted to the Planning Department and deemed them incomplete for processing, identifying concerns with the proposed development as it relates to the size of the structure and its overall mass and bulk; and, WHEREAS, on May 31, 2000 the City’s Geotechnical Engineer reviewed and conditionally approved the applicants’ geotechnical reports and studies; and, WHEREAS, after several meetings attended by Staff and the property owners and their architect, revised plans were submitted and deemed complete for processing on June 26, 2000; and, WHEREAS, on June 27, 2000, the required public notices for the August 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on June 27, 2000; and, WHEREAS, after notice was given pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 8, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the subject development applications and said amendment to the City’s Zoning Map as it pertains to the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et.seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Height Variation No. 905, Grading Permit No. 2195, Minor Exception Permit No. 567, Site Plan Review No. 8839, Coastal Permit No. 164 and Zone Change No. 29, would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 3, Section 15303(a)); and, WHEREAS, at their August 8th meeting, after hearing public testimony the Planning Commission adopted a motion, with a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Paulson and Long dissenting, forwarding a recommendation of approval, pursuant to Staff’s recommendation, to the City Council, as it pertains to the applicants’ Zone Change request and related development applications; and, WHEREAS, on August 30, 2000, the required notices were mailed out to property owners within a 500’ radius of the subject property informing them of the proposed project and the scheduled City Council public hearing on September 19, 2000. Furthermore, a notice was published in the Peninsula News on September 2, 2000; and, WHEREAS, after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved Zone Change No. 29 by adopting Ordinance No.__ on September 19, 2000, amending the City’s Official Zoning Map for the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council finds the following findings of fact for Height Variation No. 905:
Section 2:The City Council finds the following findings of fact for Grading Permit No. 2195:
Section 3:The City Council finds the following findings of fact for Minor Exception Permit No. 567:
Section 4:The City Council finds that the proposed project complies with the Residential Development Guidelines for the RS-2 zoning district in that the required setbacks for the front, rear and side yards are adhered to and that the proposed lot coverage, at 37%, is 3% less than the Development Code’s 40% maximum requirement. Additionally, the Development Code requires that structures with habitable floor area exceeding 5,000 square feet maintain a minimum of a three (3) car garage, and according to the plans, a four (4) car garage will be constructed. As proposed, the interior dimensions exceed the Development Code’s minimum 9’ x 20’ per stall requirement, at a 11’ x 30’. Therefore, based on the residential guidelines set forth in the Development Code for the RS-2 zoning district, the City Council finds that Site Plan Review No. 8839, which allows the construction of a new swimming pool/spa and 12’ high patio trellis, complies with the Development Code. Section 5:The City Council finds the following findings of fact for Coastal Permit No. 164:
Section 6:Any interested party may appeal this decision or any portion of this decision to the California Coastal Commission. Pursuant to Section 17.72.100 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed no later than ten (10) days following the final date of the City Council’s adoption of this resolution. Section 7:For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Height Variation No. 905, Grading permit No. 2195, Minor Exception Permit No. 567, Site Plan Review No. 8839, and Coastal Permit No. 164, thereby approving the demolition of an existing 5,283 square foot single-family residence and pool/spa for the construction of a new 9,244 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a pool/spa, at a proposed height of 24’-9", as measured from the lowest finished grade covered by structure (196’) to the top of the roof ridgeline (220.75’), and 19’-9" in height, as measured from the highest grade covered by structure (201’) to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (220.75’). Additionally, said approval allows 250 cubic yards of associated grading, a 12’ high patio trellis, and a 6’ combination fence/wall along the front property line, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A". Section 8:This Resolution shall not be effective until Ordinance No. __ becomes effective. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 2000. ________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk State of California) County of Los Angeles) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby certify that the above Resolution No. was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City council at regular meeting thereof held on October 3, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: __________________________ City Clerk
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL
HEIGHT VARIATION
GRADING
MINOR EXCEPTION
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Front Yard: 20'-0" minimum (proposed: 25’) Side Yard: 5’-0" minimum (proposed: 5’) Rear Yard: 15'-0" minimum (proposed: >15’)
COASTAL PERMIT
8.Appeals of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 (Applicants: James York and Natalie York, "Lower Filiorum" property. Appellants: (1) Betty Strauss to deny the permit and (2) James York to change the conditions of the permit. (Fox)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODEENFORCEMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT:APPEALS OF CONDITIONAL LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL PERMIT NO. 1 [APPLICANTS: JAMES YORK AND NATALIE YORK; APPELLANTS: BETTY STRAUSS, ET AL. AND JAMES YORK] Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner/Equestrian Committee Staff Liaison RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, denying both the Strauss Appeal and the York Appeal and upholding the Equestrian Committee’s decision to conditionally approve Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1. BACKGROUND Attached to this Staff report are the appellants’ appeal letters, E.C. Resolution No. 2000-01, and additional correspondence related to this appeal. Staff has provided the City Council with copies of the Staff reports, correspondence and related materials for the three Equestrian Committee meetings at which this project was considered (February 10, 2000, June 8, 2000 and July 13, 2000). Also attached is a chronology that summarizes the City’s action on this application to date. DISCUSSION The Equestrian Committee approved the application for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 based upon its ability to make all of the required findings to approve the project. These findings are discussed in E.C. Resolution No. 2000-01 and in the Equestrian Committee Staff reports of February 10, 2000, June 8, 2000 and July 13, 2000. Briefly, the Equestrian Committee found that:
The Strauss Appeal was filed on July 27, 2000 and requests that the City Council overturn the Equestrian Committee’s decision in its entirety. The York Appeal was filed on July 28, 2000 and requests that the City Council uphold the Equestrian Committee’s decision with modifications to Condition No. 9 (regarding the size, location and material of the goats’ enclosure) and No. 11 (regarding the requirement for direct access to Palos Verdes Drive South). Each of these appeals is discussed separately below. Strauss Appeal The Strauss Appeal states that the findings made by the Equestrian Committee in adopting E.C. Resolution No. 2000-01 were erroneous, but does not specify what errors were made by the Committee. However, the appeal letter was accompanied by a petition (dated July 6, 2000) wherein a large number of Portuguese Bend residents urged the City Council to prohibit the keeping of large domestic animals on undeveloped properties unless the property owner or lessor owns an adjacent, developed property. In adopting the 1997 Development Code revisions for the Equestrian Overlay (Q) districts, the Council specifically allowed for applications to keep large domestic animals on undeveloped properties, subject to the review and approval of a conditional large domestic animal permit (CLDAP) by the Equestrian Committee. The City Council imposed the higher level of scrutiny associated with the CLDAP process in direct response to community concerns about the keeping of animals on vacant properties. Mr. York’s application to keep goats on the "Lower Filiorum" property is consistent with these Development Code provisions, and the Equestrian Committee found—after six (6) public hearings—that the required findings to approve Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 could be made. The Strauss Appeal does not raise any specific issues with the instant application, but appears to take exception to the CLDAP process itself when applied to undeveloped, non-contiguous properties. As such, Staff believes that if the residents of Portuguese Bend wish to prohibit this type of application altogether, the proper approach is to ask the City Council to consider amending the Development Code rather than overturning the Equestrian Committee’s decision on this application, which was properly filed and processed pursuant to the Development Code provisions currently in effect. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council deny the Strauss Appeal and uphold the Equestrian Committee’s conditional approval of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 York Appeal The York Appeal asks the City Council to uphold the Equestrian Committee’s action with modifications to two of the conditions of approval. Condition No. 9 of E.C. Resolution No. 2000-01 reads as follows: The enclosure for the goats shall be one thousand square feet (1,000 ft²) in area. The enclosure shall be designed to resemble the typical 3-rail fencing that is common in the Portuguese Bend community, consistent with Section 17.46.060(A)(4) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The enclosure may also include V-mesh or a similar fence fabric on the inside face of the enclosure to help contain the animals. Within the enclosure shall be placed an 80-square-foot prefabricated shed/shelter for the goats. The maximum height of the shed/shelter shall be eight feet (8’0"). The goats shall be secured within the enclosure at all times, and shall not be allowed to roam freely on the property. Mr. York takes exception to the last sentence of this condition. He wishes to allow the goats to roam within a large fenced area of the property. The existing +20,000-square-foot fenced area extends much closer to nearby residences than the 1,000-square-foot enclosure would (approximately one hundred feet (100’)). Staff and the Equestrian Committee were also concerned that allowing the goats to forage on a larger area of the property could lead to environmental damage (i.e., overgrazing, erosion, etc.) and, since the 1,000-square-foot enclosure exceeds the minimum size required for the keeping of four goats, the Equestrian Committee adopted Condition No. 9 to restrict the goats to this area. Staff still believes that confining the goats to the 1,000-square-foot enclosure is appropriate, and recommends no change to Condition No. 9. Condition No. 11 of E.C. Resolution No. 2000-01 reads as follows: Prior to the commencement of the use permitted by this approval, the property owner shall provide vehicular access from Palos Verdes Drive South to the area where the goats will be kept. The access shall be subject to the City’s review and approval, and shall be designed and constructed to the City’s satisfaction prior to the construction of the goats’ enclosure and shed/shelter. The property owner shall be responsible for obtaining any and all necessary City approvals for the access, including (but not limited to) grading approval, landslide moratorium exception permit and encroachment permit. Mr. York takes exception with the requirement to provide direct vehicular access to Palos Verdes Drive South. He asserts that he has the right to use the private streets in the Portuguese Bend community to access the "Lower Filiorum" property. On June 19, 2000, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted a preliminary injunction in the case of Portuguese Bend Community Association vs. York. The injunction appears to restrict Mr. York’s use of the streets in the Portuguese Bend community, pending the outcome of a trial set for October 16, 2000. Mr. York asserts that he has the right to use the streets in the Portuguese Bend community by virtue of his recent purchase of a property on upper Cinnamon Lane. Although the ownership of this lot may convey rights of access to Mr. York related to his use of the Cinnamon Lane property, this is not the location where he proposes to keep the goats. Since this dispute does not involve the City, the City has tried not to be placed in a position of deciding the legality of Mr. York’s use of the Association’s streets. This will be a matter for the court to decide. Therefore, the Equestrian Committee adopted Condition No. 11 to ensure that there would be access to the site so that Mr. York could keep and maintain the goats on the property regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit with the Association. Given the fact that this litigation is still not resolved, Staff believes that it is appropriate to retain this condition of approval. Therefore, based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council deny the York Appeal and uphold the Equestrian Committee’s conditional approval of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1, as modified and conditioned by the Equestrian Committee. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On August 30, 2000, public hearing notices for the appeals of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 were mailed to the property owner, the applicants and appellants, the Portuguese Bend Community Association and its attorneys, two other affected homeowners’ associations (Upper Abalone Cove and West Portuguese Bend (aka Abalone Cove), ninety property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site and nine other interested parties who had previously provided written comments and/or oral testimony regarding this project. On September 2, 2000, public notice of the September 19, 2000 City Council hearing for the appeals of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. As of the date this Staff report was completed, Staff had received two items of additional correspondence in support of the Strauss Appeal and supplemental information from Mr. York in support of his appeal, all of which are attached to this report for the City Council’s consideration. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing discussion and the Equestrian Committee’s action on July 13, 2000, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, thereby denying both appeals and upholding the Equestrian Committee’s conditional approval of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1. FISCAL IMPACT The denial of the appeals will have no fiscal impact upon the City. If either appeal is upheld, the successful appellant will be entitled to a full or partial refund of the $700.00 appeal fee pursuant to Section 17.80.120 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. The costs associated with any such refund will be borne by the City’s General Fund. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:
Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 2000-__ Mrs. Strauss’ appeal letter (received July 27, 2000) Mr. York’s appeal letter (received July 28, 2000) E.C. Resolution No. 2000-01 Chronology of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 (as of July 28, 2000) E.C. Minutes of February 10, 2000 through July 13, 2000 (excerpts) E.C. Staff reports of February 10, 2000, June 8, 2000 and July 13, 2000 Additional correspondence RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DENYING BOTH THE STRAUSS APPEAL AND THE YORK APPEAL, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE EQUESTRIAN COMMITTEE’S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL PERMIT NO. 1 TO PERMIT THE KEEPING OF FOUR (4) GOATS ON AN 84.10-ACRE VACANT, NON-CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY IN THE PORTUGUESE BEND EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY (Q) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE WEST END OF NARCISSA DRIVE WHEREAS, on November 19, 1999, the applicants, Natalie York and James York, submitted an application for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No.1 to allow the keeping of four (4) goats on an 84.10-acre property in the Portuguese Bend ‘Q’ District; and, WHEREAS, on January 10, 2000, the application for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 was deemed complete by Staff; and, WHEREAS, on February 7, 2000, the applicants revised the application for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 by relocating and enlarging the proposed enclosure for the goats; and, WHEREAS, on February 23, 2000, the revised application for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 was deemed complete by Staff; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(e)); and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Equestrian Committee held a duly noticed public hearing on February 10, 2000, March 9, 2000, April 13, 2000, May 11, 2000, June 8, 2000 and July 13, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on July 13, 2000, the Equestrian Committee adopted E.C. Resolution No. 2000-01, thereby conditionally approving Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 with modifications; and, WHEREAS, on July 27, 2000, and within the 15-day appeal period prescribed by Section 17.76.115(B)(5) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Equestrian Committee’s action was appealed to the City Council by Betty Strauss, the owner of the property at 10 West Pomegranate Road; and, WHEREAS, on July 28, 2000, and within the 15-day appeal period prescribed by Section 17.76.115(B)(5) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Equestrian Committee’s action was also appealed to the City Council by James York, the project applicant and property owner; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No.1 for the keeping of four (4) goats on the subject property: A.No more than four (4) large domestic animals will be boarded on the subject property, where "boarding" is defined to mean the keeping or maintaining of large domestic animals that are not owned by the owners or lessees of the lot or parcel on which the animals are being kept or maintained. The goats are owned by the applicants and there are not more than four (4) of them proposed. Therefore, none of these animals meet the definition of "boarded." B.The issuance of this permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare because the proposed enclosure for the goats will be located more than two hundred feet (200’) from the nearest single-family residences at 1 Fruit Tree Road and 5 Fruit Tree Road; and more than thirty-five feet (35’) from the existing "Cook Shack" on the property, which is not a habitable structure. C.The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use without material detriment to the use, enjoyment or valuation of properties in the vicinity of the site because the 84.10-acre site significantly exceeds the minimum 15,000-square-foot lot area required for the keeping of large domestic animals; the proposed 1,000-square-foot enclosure exceeds the minimum 200-square-foot-per-animal requirement for such enclosures; the proposed enclosure will be adequate to secure the goats, prevent their escape from the site, and protect them from predation and vandals; and direct vehicular access to Palos Verdes Drive South is required to be provided. D.The requested use is an appropriate use of the site because the subject property is located within an established Equestrian Overlay (Q) district and has been used for many years as a riding facility; the applicants’ proposal to keep four (4) goats on the property is consistent with the history of large domestic animal use on the site; and the location of the proposed enclosure provides the ability for neighbors and passersby to informally monitor the goats’ condition from adjacent properties and streets when they are unattended. Section 2:The City Council finds that the keeping of four (4) goats on the subject property is consistent with Equestrian Committee Policy No. 6, which calls upon the Equestrian Committee to "ensure that the size and layout of the facility, the location of barns and corrals, the location of composting bins or material storage, and the height and type of fencing is appropriate for the site and compatible with surrounding residences." Section 3:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Section 4:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies both the Strauss Appeal and the York Appeal, thereby upholding the Equestrian Committee’s conditional approval of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 to permit the keeping of four (4) goats on an 84.10-acre vacant, non-contiguous property in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District, located at the west end of Narcissa Drive, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of September 2000. ___________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2000-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on September 19, 2000. __________________________ City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL PERMIT NO. 1 (West end of Narcissa Drive)
Any future relocation of the enclosure and shed/shelter shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or, at his/her discretion, the Equestrian Committee.
9.Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2 (Applicant: Palos Verdes Panorama Owners’ Association, Panorama Estates Community). (Fox)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT:TRACT NO. 33034-AMENDMENT NO. 2 [APPLICANT: PALOS VERDES PANORAMA OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION (PANORAMA ESTATES), SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF CALLE DE SUEÑOS] Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, approving Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2. BACKGROUND The City Council originally approved Tentative Tract Map No. 33034 for the subdivision of the Panorama Estates community on August 2, 1977. Panorama Estates is a residential planned development (RPD), consisting of eleven residential lots and one common open space lot, located at the southerly terminus of Calle de Sueños. Homes have been constructed on eight of the eleven residential lots and the common open space lot is improved with the private portion of Calle de Sueños. The site is surrounded by existing single-family residences to the north, south and west, and the Los Verdes Golf Course to the east. There have been several past requests to amend and revise the project approvals for Panorama Estates, which are discussed in the attached Planning Commission Staff report. Of particular concern to the Palos Verdes Panorama Owners’ Association (PVPOA) is the City’s 1989 action on its application for Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘A’. The request for Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘A’ was to permit a reduction in the common open space area of the community; the deletion of an emergency access easement located between the northerly tract boundary and the property at 30630 Calle de Sueños; and the installation of vehicular gates on Calle de Sueños at the northerly tract boundary. On May 9, 1989, the Planning Commission approved the reduction in common open space, changed the easement references from "emergency access easement" to "access easement for sanitary sewer purposes," imposed restrictions on fencing within the sewer access easement, and denied the request for gates. In denying the requested gates, the Planning Commission relied upon a determination by then-Director of Environmental Services Bob Benard and then-City Attorney Steve Dorsey that the private portion of Calle de Sueños had been offered for dedication to the public use and that this offer had "ripened" by May 1989. The Planning Commission’s decision was not appealed. PVPOA submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘B’ and Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2 on May 12, 2000 and June 26, 2000, respectively. These requests were for modifications to certain conditions of approval related to the private status of Calle de Sueños within the community, and sewer easements and the former emergency access easement on a portion of a former common open space lot located adjacent to the property at 30630 Calle de Sueños. The Planning Commission considered PVPOA’s requests on August 8, 2000 and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2000-27, thereby approving the proposed modifications under Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘B’ and recommending approval of the proposed modifications under Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2 to the City Council. DISCUSSION PVPOA’s applications
propose modifications to several conditions of approval for Conditional
Use Permit No. 24, Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘A’
and Tentative Tract Map No. 33034. The modifications to Conditional Use
Permit No. 24 and Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘A’
required only Planning Commission approval and were not appealed to the
City Council. The remaining requested modifications to Tentative Tract
Map No. 33034 include the following (additions underlined, deletions
1.Modify Condition No. 24 of Exhibit ‘A’ of Resolution No. 77-58 for Tentative Tract Map No. 33034 to read as follows: "Dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the construction of structures within all commonly owned areas, except for a tract entry gate and common recreational facilities, which may be allowed, subject to approval of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes." 2.Modify Condition No. 31 of Exhibit ‘A’ of Resolution No. 77-58 for Tentative Tract Map No. 33034 to read as follows: "That no vehicular access will be permitted onto Lot 12, except for the private portion of Calle de Sueños, which is for the explicit use of the members of the Association, their invitees and guests, and that this be made a part of the CC&Rs." 3.Delete the last sentence of the Owners’ Certificate on the title page of the recorded final map of Tract No. 33034 to read as follows: "We hereby offer to the public use the private street shown on said map which shall have ceased to remain closed or posted and shall have been opened to the public travel for a period of three months or more." PVPOA does not propose a tract entry gate at this time, although it wishes to leave that option open for a future application. No physical modifications to the Panorama Estates community are proposed as a part of this application. As discussed above, PVPOA has requested three modifications to Tract No. 33034 that are related to the private status of the street. On August 8, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended the approval of revisions to Condition Nos. 24 and 31 of Tentative Tract Map No. 33034, although the recommended revisions are slightly different than those requested by PVPOA. These recommended revisions are reflected in the draft Resolution attached to this report. The third requested modification is related to the notation in the Owners’ Certificate on the title page of the map, which reads as follows: We hereby offer to the public use the private street shown on said map which shall have ceased to remain closed or posted and shall have been opened to the public travel for a period of three months or more. This was apparently a common "boilerplate" notation appearing on final maps with private streets. It allowed private streets to remain closed to public use for so long as they were kept closed or posted and not opened to public use for three months or more. Once the streets were no longer posted or closed and the 3-month threshold was crossed, then the streets were automatically deemed to have been accepted for public use, even though their underlying ownership remained private. Aside from Condition No. 22 of Tentative Tract Map No. 33034—which required that the street be labeled private on the final tract map—there are no other conditions that would have required the inclusion of the above-mentioned notation in the Owners’ Certificate. In addition, Staff has found that the City’s 1977 Development Code prohibited the dedication of private streets for public use. In the course of reviewing PVPOA’s 1989 application for entry gates under Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘A’, then-City Attorney Steve Dorsey opined that, based upon the notation in the Owners’ Certificate, the public’s right to use the private portion of Calle de Sueños may have "ripened" because he had been told by then-Director of Environmental Services Bob Benard that "the road has been continuously open for public travel for many years." PVPOA asserts that this determination was based upon incomplete information—namely, that Mr. Dorsey did not know (or was not told by Mr. Benard) that Calle de Sueños was still posted private street-no trespassing in 1989. More importantly, however, Staff has recently discovered another notation on the title page of the final map of Tract No. 33034, which reads as follows: That the Calle de Sueños (private street) shown on said map and herein offered for dedication be and the same is hereby rejected. This notation, signed by the Deputy City Clerk and dated September 4, 1979, effectively "cancels out" the offer of dedication in the Owners’ Certificate (see attached copy). Staff has reviewed other tract maps that were approved and recorded at about the same time as Tract No. 33034, and found that many of them had these same two notations. Staff believes that it was common practice for a developer to offer the private streets in a development for public use, and for the City to then reject this offer based upon the prohibition against such offers in the City’s Development Code. As such, Staff believes that the City never accepted the offer to dedicate the private portion of Calle de Sueños for public use because the offer was explicitly rejected at the time that the final tract map was approved. Therefore, there is no need to delete the notation in the Owners’ Certificate. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On August 30, 2000, public hearing notices were mailed to the applicant and one hundred twenty-five other property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. On September 2, 2000, public notice of the September 19, 2000 City Council hearing for Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2 was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. As of the date this Staff report was completed, Staff had received additional correspondence from James and Charlotte Hume (30618 Calle de Sueños), which is attached to this report for the City Council’s consideration. The modifications reviewed by the Planning Commission included the sewer and former emergency access easements between 30618 and 30630 Calle de Sueños. With respect to the access easement, an emergency vehicle access road was never implemented because the County refused to grant an easement across Los Verdes Golf Course (see attached letter). Although the Planning Commission’s 1989 action changed the purpose of the easement to provide access to existing sewer easements, it was not necessary for the City to have a separate access easement in order to have repair and maintenance access to the sewer lines. In reviewing PVPOA’s current application, the Planning Commission found that the access easement no longer served a useful purpose and approved revisions to several conditional use permit conditions that referred to the access easement. However, if the affected property owners wish to remove this encumbrance from their respective properties, then they would need to request the vacation of the easement by the City. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing discussion and the Planning Commission’s action on August 8, 2000, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, thereby approving Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2. FISCAL IMPACT PVPOA requested a waiver of the application fee associated with this proposal, which was granted by the City Council on July 5, 2000. Since the portion of Calle de Sueños within the tract is a private street, the City has no financial responsibility for it. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:
Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 2000-__ P.C. Resolution No. 2000-27 P.C. Staff report of August 8, 2000 Excerpts from Tract Map No. 33034 Letter from County of Los Angeles regarding emergency access easement Additional correspondence RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING TRACT NO. 33034-AMENDMENT NO. 2, THEREBY APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE FINAL TRACT MAP FOR THE PANORAMA ESTATES COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF CALLE DE SUEÑOS WHEREAS, on July 12, 1977, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 77-14, thereby conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 24 for a residential planned development (RPD) consisting of eleven residential lots and a common open space lot at the southerly terminus of Calle de Sueños; and on August 2, 1977, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 77-58, thereby certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 7 and conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 33034 for the subdivision of the Panorama Estates community; and, WHEREAS, on January 27, 1989, the applicant, Palos Verdes Panorama Owners’ Association (PVPOA) submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘A’, requesting a reduction in the common open space area of the community, the deletion of an emergency access easement located between the northerly tract boundary and the property at 30630 Calle de Sueños, and the installation of vehicular gates on Calle de Sueños at the northerly tract boundary; and, WHEREAS, on May 9, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 89-25, which allowed the reduction in common open space, changed the easement references from "emergency access easement" to "access easement for sanitary sewer purposes," imposed new restrictions on fencing within the sewer access easement, and denied the request for vehicular gates; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s denial of the requested vehicular gates was based in part upon a determination by Planning Staff and the City Attorney that the private portion of Calle de Sueños located within the Panorama Estates community had been offered and accepted for public use, based upon a notation in the Owners’ Certificate on the title page of the final map for Tract No. 33034: and, WHEREAS, on May 12, 2000 and June 26, 2000, PVPOA submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘B’ and Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2 to allow modifications to certain conditions of approval related to the private status of Calle de Sueños within the community, and sewer easements and the former emergency access easement on a portion of a former common open space lot located adjacent to the property at 30630 Calle de Sueños; and, WHEREAS, on July 14, 2000, the applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘B’ and Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2 were deemed complete by Staff; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘B’ and Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15301); and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 8, 2000 to consider the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘B’ and Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on August 8, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2000-27, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘B’ and recommending approval of Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2 to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, on August 23, 2000, the 15-day appeal period expired for the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 24-Revision ‘B’ and no appeal was filed by any interested party; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 19, 2000 to consider the applicant’s request and the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval for Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:The request for modifications to the conditions regarding the status of the private portion of Calle de Sueños is appropriate because the notation on the Owners’ Certificate on the title page of the final map of Tract No. 33034, which reads as follows: We hereby offer to the public use the private street shown on said map which shall have ceased to remain closed or posted and shall have been opened to the public travel for a period of three months or more; should not have been included on the map because there were no conditions of approval for the final map that required such an offer of dedication. In fact, Section 91040(B)(1) the City’s 1977 Subdivision Code—the Code that was in effect at the time that the map was originally approved—specifically prohibited the offering of private streets for dedication to the public. For this reason, the title page of the final map of Tract No. 33034 also includes the following notation: That the Calle de Sueños (private street) shown on said map and herein offered for dedication be and the same is hereby rejected. This notation, signed by the Deputy City Clerk and dated September 4, 1979, rejects the offer of dedication in the Owners’ Certificate. Therefore, the City Council finds the City never accepted the offer to dedicate the private portion of Calle de Sueños for public use because the offer was explicitly rejected at the time that the final tract map was approved. Section 2:The application for Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2 does not propose vehicular gates on Calle de Sueños. In approving the instant application, the City in no way warrants or guarantees that any future request for such gates will be approved. Any future request for vehicular gates or other access controls for the Panorama Estates community will require, at a minimum, the approval of a conditional use permit revision by the Planning Commission. Section 3:The conditions of approval that were originally adopted on August 2, 1977 in conjunction with Resolution No. 77-58, and subsequently amended by Resolution No. 93-04, should be revised and superceded by the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit ‘A’ of this Resolution, which are attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. Section 4:Nothing stated in this Resolution shall affect any other existing easements located within Lot 12 of Tract No. 33034. Section 5:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Section 6:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Tract No. 33034-Amendment No. 2. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of September 2000. _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: ______________________ CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2000-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on September 19, 2000. __________________________ City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes
EXHIBIT ‘A’ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRACT NO. 33034-AMENDMENT NO. 2 (Panorama Estates)
34.Pathway reflected in Conditional Use Permit No. 24 shall be relocated at the request of the City to another location within the subdivision in the event of City’s ability to obtain access in another location. RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.) REGULAR BUSINESS:
10.Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Diversion Program Additions. (Ramezani)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT:FY 2000-01 DIVERSION PROGRAM ADDITIONS STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND In 1989, the California State legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 939, which calls for jurisdictions in California to divert 50% of solid waste from disposal by January 1, 2000. The law made local jurisdiction responsible for developing and implementing programs to achieve the mandated diversion level, and to report progress to the State. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) is responsible for assuming compliance with AB 939 and its amendments. Achievement of the diversion goal is backed by the potential for penalties including fines of up to $10,000 per day. The City’s diversion rates for 1995, 1996 and 1997 were 28%, 20% and 38% respectively. On the August 1, 2000 City Council meeting, staff discussed the different options for calculating the 1998 and 1999 diversion rates. Upon Council approval, Staff has requested CIWMB to establish 1999 as the City’s new base year. If approved by CIWMB, the City’s 1998 and 1999 diversion rates will be 44% and 42% respectively. DISCUSSION The City Council requested staff to report to them on the characteristics of the non-residential (NR) waste stream, and opportunities to improve diversion. In order to explore available opportunities to improve diversion, staff examined both the City’s residential (single and multi-family dwellings) and NR (businesses, City properties, contractors, self-haulers, landscapers, etc.) sectors. Residential- The City has exclusive agreements with Waste Management of Los Angeles and Ivy Rubbish for the residential sector of the City. Quarterly reports are submitted to the City by the two haulers and progress in the recycling programs are monitored. These reports indicate the tonnage disposed, the disposal site, the tonnage recycled/diverted, the material recycled, and the recycling site. One area of improvement is increasing green waste diversion. This will be discussed in more detail in the report. Non-Residential- The City has non-exclusive agreements with 14 licensed haulers for the NR sector of the City. NR haulers provide bin and rolloff services to businesses and to residents during remodeling and construction activities. The NR sector is the more challenging area leaving many questions unanswered. The main problem is lack of proper reporting of activities in the NR sector. The City receives quarterly reports from its licensed haulers, however, these reports do not include all the NR activities in the City. The City receives quarterly disposal reports (DRS) from different counties which are then submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The DRS shows the tonnage received by different landfills from each City. In 1999, the DRS showed 46,093 tons for RPV’s annual disposal tonnage. Theoretically, the DRS number should equal the City’s total tonnage as reported by its residential and NR haulers. However, there is a significant difference between the two numbers. Staff and the City consultant can not reconcile these two numbers. Huls Environmental Management, the City’s consultant, and Eugene Tseng Associates compiled data based on available information obtained from telephone surveys of specific generators, numerous site visits at waste generators, waste haulers, the County’s quarterly Disposal Reporting System (DRS), and area recyclers and disposal sites. They are attached in a summary sheet. In general:
Reported Disposal Out of the total 46,000 tons reported in 1999 by the DRS, the City has documentation for only 30,000 tons from both its residential and NR haulers.
For 1999, the City has no documentation for approximately 16,000 tons or 35% of the City’s total disposal. There are no answers to questions such as: who were the haulers, what was hauled away, when were they hauled away, and to which transfer station were they hauled? The different landfills reported that 46,000 tons of waste originating from RPV came to their landfill. This is the number to which the CIWMB holds the City accountable. This "unreported" waste tonnage varies significantly year to year. However, in 1999, the differential was the largest since the DRS was initiated in 1995. It is hard to guess how much of the unreported tonnage is from the residential and how much is from the NR sector. However, with a great amount of certainty one can assume that it is from the NR sector because of the following reasons:
Therefore, from the 1999 DRS data, one can assume that the unreported tonnage is from the NR sector. That means that our NR licensed haulers apparently collect only 25% of total NR waste and that 75% of NR waste is from unreported or unlicensed sources. More significantly, when the unreported tonnage is added to the reported NR tonnage, it seems that the City’s total waste was: 53% residential and 47% NR. It is hard to believe that in a community such as RPV, so much of the solid waste could be from non-residential sources. In the 1990 base year study, the non-residential sectors represented approximately 30% of the total waste. Assuming that the DRS report is accurate, what are these unreported sources, and who is not reporting to the City?
It is hard to determine which of the above groups contributes to what percent of the unknown waste. However, construction and demolition (C&D) debris hauled by the contractors is probably the major contributor. Diversion Residential sector: Almost 58% of the mixed recyclables are diverted while until two months ago only 30% of the green waste was diverted. In October 1996, Eugene Tseng Associates performed a waste characterization study that showed green wastes was about half of the total residential waste stream. This means that a significant portion of the green waste is being landfilled instead of recycled. The City implemented a green waste recycling program in 1997 and in June 2000 distributed green waste containers to every household and began recycling properly tagged bags of green waste. Staff has recently received green waste tonnage reports for the months of June and July 2000. Since the distribution of the containers the City has been collecting an additional 200 tons of green waste each month. This has increased the City’s green waste diversion from 30% to approximately 40%. This is a noticeable improvement, but there is still room for improvement. Mixed recyclables have a high rate of recovery; probably because most people handle their own recyclables, while gardeners and landscapers, who may or may not properly participate in the system, normally handle green waste. Therefore, green waste is an area that needs to be targeted. Non-Residential sector: It is hard to believe that 69% of the City’s total diversion is from the NR sector. The diversion rate is high because source reduction and C&D debris recycling are a major contributing factor. Source reduction includes grass cycling (at the golf course, cemetery, and schools), using electronic mail (at offices), re-using tree trimmings (chips used in trails, medians, etc), reuse of demolition material (use as road base) and composting (manure from horse stables). Additionally, many businesses recycle their cardboard and grocery stores send their food waste to composting facilities. Chandlers: Material disposed of at Chandlers landfill has no bearing on our diversion or disposal numbers. This is because Chandlers is classified as an inert landfill rather than a solid waste landfill. In 1999 Chandlers report that 3,768 tons of C&D debris recycled (used as road base), and 68,000 tons of C&D debris from RPV that was not recycled but simply used as inert fill at its site/pit. The significance of this tonnage is its magnitude. One question is what activities were going on in RPV in 1999 that caused 68,000 tons of inerts to be taken to Chandlers. The City is fortunate that these tons did not go to a landfill. Otherwise the DRS would report not 46,000 tons of solid waste but 114,000 tons of solid waste. That would have significantly reduced our diversion numbers. It is very important to implement programs to keep inert waste away from landfills and to investigate and see why the dirt, etc was not reused at the job site. What programs should be implemented this fiscal year? Based on the 1999 waste analysis, we have identified the following targets and options for diversion including costs and programming: RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Diversion Program Options Since June 2000, single family residents are provided with two 32-gallon containers for green waste. These containers and any tied bundle or properly tagged bagged green waste are picked up and recycled when left at the curb on the second collection day of the week. Currently if any green waste is left at the curb on the first day of the week, it is collected by the trash truck, and therefore not recycled. The current system is both misused (not everybody puts out their green waste on the right day), and under-utilized (gardeners and landscapers may not use the system). Some feasible options to improve diversion: Restrict the collection of green waste to only the second collection day of the week, and not collect green waste on the first collection day of the week. Recycling is a voluntary program in RPV. It is not mandatory. However, the City Council could decide to simply restrict the day for the collection of green waste to only the second collection day of the week. So green waste will be picked up, but only on one day of the week and not on both days. The possible results of that action:
At the City’s request, WM is investigating the possibility of re-labeling all the green waste and recyclable containers with the exact pick up day. Currently all containers have labels, however, the green containers indicate that pickup is on the second collection day of the week, without specifying if it is on a Thursday or Friday. The blue containers similarly indicate that pick up is on the first collection day of the week, without specifying if it is on a Monday or Tuesday. Collect green waste twice a week. To capture the green waste disposed of early in the week, the City can pickup green waste twice a week. Staff asked Waste Management to prepare a preliminary cost estimate.
As a third option, the City can enhance public education and instruct users on proper usage of the green waste recycling program. In addition, where collection is not feasible or desirable, then grass cycling and home composting must be encouraged by offering more home composting and grass cycling workshops, and other incentives to prevent waste. More public education could also improve recycling of Christmas trees and recyclables. The City can also utilize a new funding made available from the Department of Conservation to promote beverage container recycling.
Recommendations Staff recommends that the following options be implemented: Restrict the collection of green waste to the second pickup of the week. Cost: approximately $0-10,000 depending on the level of code enforcement activity Enhance public education for green waste, recyclables and Christmas tree recycling through mailers, advertisements and inserts. Provide more composting/ grass-cycling workshops. Cost: $15,000 has already been budgeted for this activity. No additional appropriation is needed at this time. Total additional needed appropriations: $0,000-$10,000 NON – RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Diversion Options There are several options for this sector. The goal of these options is to: improve reporting, decrease unauthorized activity in the City and reduce the number of unaccounted disposal tonnage. Currently in the non-residential sector there are no diversion requirements. Below are some options to improve diversion: Make NR hauling exclusive to 1 or 2 firms (similar to the residential service). Currently NR hauling can be provided by any firm that obtains a business license, provides insurance documentation and signs an agreement with the City. (see attached article)
If the City chooses to explore the option of granting an exclusive contract, state law requires that a five-year notice be given to the haulers informing them of the City’s intent to have them discontinue providing solid waste services in the City. Staff is in the process of confirming information in the files that in 1981, such a notice was given to the haulers that were providing commercial service in the City and the identity of those haulers. If the City Council is interested in pursuing the exclusive contract option, Staff will complete the review of the City’s files to determine which waste haulers did and did not receive the five-year notice and the approximate percentage of solid waste that is collected by each group of haulers. Depending upon the results of that research, the City could decide simply to send a new five-year notice to all of the current commercial haulers so that there will be no doubt about which haulers have received the required notice. Authorized haulers could be given the mandate of achieving 50% diversion (similar to that required of Waste Management and Ivy Rubbish). Haulers can achieve 50% diversion by either implementing recycling programs or documenting unreported diversion. If this option is selected, the City Council should decide whether to impose penalties for not reaching the 50% goal or not. Staff does not recommend this option at this time due to the following reasons:
Assess monetary penalties on non-licensed haulers caught operating in the City. The penalty will be on a sliding scale, i.e. 1st offense $200, 2nd offense $500, etc. Currently these haulers get a letter stating that they should either stop operating in the City or obtain a license and agreement. There is no penalty or fine to deter them from hauling illegally. Staff could refer these haulers to the City Attorney or District Attorney for legal action, but that is a time consuming and costly action.
Apprise contractors to take certain C&D material (inert waste such as rock, asphalt, concrete, tile and bricks) to Chandlers Inert Landfill. Attach a flier with Chandlers address, phone number and a list of the types of accepted material to B&S’s certification form.
Conduct waste audits targeted at the City’s highest waste generating businesses. The primary groups to focus on would be food stores and restaurants because, on the average, they produce the largest disposal tonnage per establishment. The secondary groups would be retailers and offices.
Combine NPDES on-site inspections with recycling inspections and public education. Train City inspectors to look for recycling possibilities while performing on-site stormwater related inspection activities. In addition our inspectors would encourage contractors to dispose of certain material at Chandlers rather than a solid waste landfill.
Mandate that any debris from construction and/or demolition work on a property be hauled away by a licensed hauler. Self-hauling of the debris by the contractor would not be permitted.
Increase public education at schools. The schools have been audited last year and not all schools have a recycling program. As an incentive to recycle, paper recycling should be required at the schools as one of the conditions of receiving a Beautification Grant.
Audit NR hauler records and receipts. Qualified waste consultants will audit haulers on a contingency basis (free of charge) in return for a percent of the recovered unreported revenues/fees. The City can expect to keep approximately 70% of any unreported revenues and give 30% to the auditor.
RECOMMENDATIONS - Non-Residential: Make non-residential hauling exclusive to one or two firms. Cost: If the City Council is interested in pursuing this option, staff will return to the City Council at a later date with more details regarding cost and the process to award of an exclusive contract(s). Assess monetary penalties on non-authorized haulers. Cost: revenues will offset any cost in staff time. Apprise contractors of Chandlers through the Building and Safety permit process. Cost: No cost Conduct 62 business audits and recycling implementation programs. Cost: approximately $50,000 Combine NPDES on-site inspections with recycling inspection and public education. Cost: approximately $5,000 Mandate removal of debris from C&D work to be done only by a licensed hauler. Cost: approximately $5,000 Increase public education at schools. Cost: No cost. Audit licensed NR haulers’ records on a contingency basis. Cost: Revenues will offset any cost in staff time for collection. Additional Needed appropriation: approximately $60,000 (does not include cost for recommendation #1) Many of these options can be implemented fairly easily and quickly. However, recommendation #1 requires more research. Staff will report back to Council with a more detailed cost breakdown of such items and an action plan, depending on which of the recommended items are selected by the City Council. Where needed, a resolution requesting increase in appropriations in the Solid Waste Fund will also be requested at that time. CONCLUSIONS This report looks into the details of the city’s residential and non-residential waste stream and makes recommendations on how to improve the diversion rate for each. With respect to the residential Sector the City has a very good understanding of its diversion numbers. This is because we utilize two exclusive residential haulers. Some conclusions regarding the residential sector: The diversion rate for mixed recyclables is almost 60% The diversion rate for greenwaste is approximately 30% Approximately 50% of the non-residential waste stream is greenwaste Based on this data our diversion efforts should be focussed on greenwaste. The recommendations listed above focus on that effort. Non-residential Sector For the non-residential waste stream there are still some unknowns. This is primarily because the city utilizes non-exclusive for its non-residential waste stream. Some conclusions regarding the non-residential sector 47 % of the City’s total waste stream is greenwaste. The diversion rate for non-residential waste stream is 51% Currently 35% of the total waste stream that ends up in landfills comes from unknown non-residential sources. Based on this data the recommendations listed above for the non-residential waste stream are focussed on identifying all sources of the non-residential waste stream that is going to the landfill. ALTERNATIVE The alternative would be to do nothing. This is not recommended, however, since the City’s diversion rated has not reached 50%. In addition, the City should monitor its good faith effort in implementing the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). FISCAL IMPACT As with any programs, there are potential costs, including direct and indirect costs, to residents and/or businesses. Funds for the implementing the recommended options could be expended from the Solid Waste Fund that has an estimated June 30, 2000 Fund balance of $633,300.
Respectfully Submitted: Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachment: Summary spreadsheet Article in "The Overview"
11.Appropriations and Agreements for Lawsuit Against the FAA and Purchase of Flight Tracking Equipment. (Petru) Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE FOR A JOINT LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND JOINT PURCHASE OF A RADAR FLIGHT TRACKING SYSTEM. (2) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Joint Purchase Agreement with the Cities of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach for acquisition, installation, operation and maintenance of an Airspace Monitoring System. (3) Authorize the City Manager to approve joint retainer agreements for legal counsel with Richards, Watson & Gershon and Chevalier, Allen & Lichman representing the three cities in potential litigation involving flights to and from Los Angeles International Airport.
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: APPROPRIATIONS AND AGREEMENTS FOR LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FAA AND PURCHASE OF FLIGHT TRACKING EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2000 - Appropriating funds from the General Fund Reserve for a joint-lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration and joint purchase of a radar flight tracking system. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Cities of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach for acquisition, installation, operation and maintenance of an Airspace Monitoring System. Authorize the City Manager to approve joint retainer agreements for legal counsel with Richards, Watson & Gershon and Chevalier, Allen & Lichman representing the three cities in potential litigation involving flights to and from Los Angeles International Airport. BACKGROUND At their July 5, 2000 meeting the City Council unanimously authorized the expenditure of funds for Richards, Watson and Gershon and Chevalier, Allen & Lichman to perform an investigation of relevant documents to determine whether there is a viable claim against the FAA on behalf of Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach. In addition the Council approved the purchase of radar equipment to monitor the flight of aircraft over the beach cities and the Peninsula. The Council directed staff to develop agreements that would distribute the cost of legal services and equipment purchase equally among the three agencies. DISCUSSION The investigation of the potential for filing a lawsuit against the FAA for negative impacts resulting from aircraft arrivals and departures from Los Angeles International Airport has been further defined over the past few weeks and is proposed as follows: Richards, Watson & Gershon will work with the law firm of Chevalier, Allen & Lichman in jointly representing the cities by providing legal services relating to the changes to flight tracks for arrivals and departures from Los Angeles International Airport and their resulting impacts, including, but not limited to: (1) development of appropriate legal strategies to remedy the impact of the changes; (2) consultation with cities designated representatives concerning airport noise statutes, FAA regulations, relevant environmental statues, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and all matters which the cities determine are properly related to the strategy developed for remedying impacts; (3) participation in the preparation and prosecution of related litigation, to the extent determined appropriate by the cities; and (4) interface with the FAA at both the regional level and in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of influencing its position with respect to the changes in a manner consistent with the goals and desires of the cities. Although the respective roles of Richards, Watson & Gershon and Chevalier, Allen & Lichman have not yet been fully defined, it is anticipated that CA&L will provide the general aviation law expertise, while R,W&G will be lead counsel if the matter proceeds to litigation. Prior to filing suit, RW&G will coordinate with CA&L in the initial factual and legal investigation. A Memorandum of Understanding describing the relationship of the three participating cities has been prepared by Richards, Watson & Gershon. Hermosa Beach will be the lead agency and will administer the installation and operation of the equipment. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of the radar equipment for airspace monitoring is $95,000. Operation and maintenance of the equipment will involve small additional periodic costs to the agencies. The cost of the legal services to investigate a potential lawsuit against the FAA is estimated at $125,000. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes one-third share of costs is $73,333 plus cost of operation and maintenance of the monitoring equipment. Staff is proposing an appropriation of $75,000 to be transferred from the General Fund Reserve. Adequate funds are available to accommodate this expense. Respectfully Submitted Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 2000 - MOU with attached Airspace Monitoring System Purchase Contract
12.Funding Opportunities for Abalone Cove Storm Drain. (Allison) Recommendation: Provide staff with direction regarding possible funding sources for the Abalone Cove storm drain improvements. TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT:FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ABALONE COVE STORM DRAIN RECOMMENDATION Provide staff with direction regarding possible funding sources for the Abalone Cove Storm Drain Improvements. BACKGROUND On August 1, 2000 the RDA Board of Directors awarded a project to construct sewer improvements in the Abalone Cove project area. A project to construct storm drain improvements was considered but not awarded, due to funding constraints. The Board did request staff to investigate other funding sources for the needed drainage improvements. This report presents some funding options. DISCUSSION Two drainage projects are proposed for the project area. Neighborhood storm drain improvements consisting of underground pipes and inlets, as well as a project to construct channel improvements in Alta Mira Canyon. Plans for the storm drain project have been completed, and bids have been received. Accurate costs for this project are known. Engineering for the Alta Mira Canyon Channel project, however, has not been completed and the estimate of costs is preliminary.
Submitted by, Dean E. Allison Director of Public Works Reviewed by, Les Evans, City Manager
13.Cancellation of the October 7 Workshop. (Petru) Recommendation: Cancel the workshop previously scheduled for October 7, 2000 to discuss the Forrestal Management Plan in order to allow adequate time for the Finance Advisory Committee to review the plan and provide input to the City Council.
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE:SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT:CANCELLATION OF THE OCTOBER 7TH WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATION Cancel the workshop previously scheduled for October 7, 2000 to discuss the Forrestal Management Plan in order to allow adequate time for the Finance Advisory Committee to review the plan and provide input to the City Council. DISCUSSION At the September 5, 2000 meeting, the Forrestal Management Plan was first presented to City Council. The Council requested that the Finance Advisory Committee review the plan first and that the City Council then conduct a joint workshop on the plan with the Finance Advisory Committee and the Recreation and Parks Committee on Saturday, October 7, 2000. The workshop would follow the Community Leaders Breakfast scheduled earlier that same day. The Finance Advisory Committee considered the draft management plan at its meeting on September 12, 2000. The Committee requested more information regarding the capital project cost estimates prepared by staff and decided to conduct a further review of the plan at a future meeting before making a recommendation to City Council. It is unlikely that this review could be completed before the October 7th workshop date. In addition, Councilwoman Ferraro has a scheduling conflict and will not be able to attend the workshop on October 7th. Therefore, staff recommends that the joint workshop be cancelled at this time. Once the Finance Advisory Committee has completed its review of the Forrestal Management Plan, staff will return to Council to schedule a new date for the workshop. Respectfully submitted: Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting. |
