|
DECEMBER 19, 2000
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 AGENDA DECEMBER 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. 2000-87 NEXT ORD. NO. 362 PRESENTATION: Presentation by Ivan Stevenson regarding the Peninsula Emergency Response Team (PERT). RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of November 21, 2000. (Purcell)
2. Adopt a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for the Federal Fiscal Year 2000-2001. (Allison)
3. Professional Engineering Services for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Slurry Program and Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Overlay Program. (Allison)
4. Request for Waiver of the Application Fee for Conditional Use Permit No. 132-Revision ‘D’ (Requestor: Peninsula School of Performing Arts, 6245 via Cañada). (Fox)
5. Parkland Dedication Fees for Final Parcel Map No. 25706 (Landowner/Applicant: Richard Meine, 3340 Via Campesina) (Schonborn)
6. Gifts for Parks. (Rosenfeld)
7. Contracts for Whale of a Day Special Event. (Rosenfeld)
8. Non-Exclusive Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal Services Agreement Annual Renewal for 2001. (Ramezani)
9. Appeal of Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’ (Applicant/Appellant: Arik Abdalian, 30025 Cachan Place). (Fox)
10. Register of Demands. (McLean)
PUBLIC HEARINGS: 11. Code Enforcement Regarding Illegal Grading and Dumping at 1942 Caddington Drive (James Dao, Property Owner). (Snow)
12. Draft Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element. (Pfost)
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: 13. Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project. (McBride)
14. Resolution Supporting the Acquisition of Open Space lands within the Portuguese Bend area. (Rojas)
15. Acquisition of a Replacement Vehicle for the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement as budgeted for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. (Snow)
16. Requests for City Council Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision ‘C’, Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’, Encroachment Permit No. 32 and Sign Permit No. 1096 (Applicant: RPV Associates llc, Tract No. 46628 (Oceanfront); Appellants: Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, Councilman Stern). (Fox)
17. Altamira Canyon Channel Improvements. (Allison)
18. City Council Assignments for 2001. (Purcell)
19. Meeting Schedule for 2001. (Petru)
20. Request of Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to Investigate Cellular Service on the Peninsula. (Evans)
21. Purchase of Tax Defaulted Property. (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. Minutes of November 21, 2000. (Purcell)
2. Adopt a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for the Federal Fiscal Year 2000-2001. (Allison)
Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, adopting the City’s DBE Program for Federal Fiscal Year 2000/01 in conformance with the United States Department of Transportation Regulations. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ADOPTING A DISADVANTAGE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (hereinafter City) does receive Federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), administered by Caltrans, for construction of eligible projects, and WHEREAS, as a condition of receiving this assistance from the DOT, the City must comply with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, and WHEREAS, the City has submitted to Caltrans for review, and received conditional approval on, its FFY 00/01 DBE Program which outlines the City’s specific goals for DBE involvement as well as guidelines for award and administration of DOT-assisted construction contracts; BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: That the Council adopts the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in compliance with 49 CFR Part 26. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 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. 2000-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held December 19, 2000. ________________________ CITY CLERK
3. Professional Engineering Services for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Slurry Program and Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Overlay Program. (Allison)
1. Award a Professional Services Agreement to Willdan Associates, Inc. in an amount of $ 39,965, and authorize staff to spend an additional $ 5,035 for a total authorization of $ 45,000 for the design services for the FY 01/02 Slurry and FY 01/02 Overlay Programs.
4. Request for Waiver of the Application Fee for Conditional Use Permit No. 132-Revision ‘D’ (Requestor: Peninsula School of Performing Arts, 6245 via Cañada). (Fox)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE APPLICATION FEE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 132-REVISION ‘D’ [REQUESTOR: PENINSULA SCHOOL OF PERFORMING ARTS, 6245 VIA CAÑADA] Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Grant the requested fee waiver. BACKGROUND On November 27, 2000, Peninsula School of Performing Arts (PSPA) submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 132-Revision ‘D’ to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department. The purpose of the application is to renew the previous City approvals for the operation of a private dance school at the Miraleste Elementary School site, which has been in operation with City approval since 1987. PSPA has submitted an application fee of $600.00 for the conditional use permit (CUP) revision, but has also requested a waiver of this fee. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Section 17.78.010(B) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC), the City Council may grant a request to waive the fees associated with a development application if it finds that:
PSPA has requested the waiver of the $600.00 application fee on the grounds that its program is an educational activity that provides a substantial benefit to the City’s residents, particularly in the Miraleste and Eastview areas (see attached letter). These grounds are consistent with the criteria of RPVDC Section 17.78.010(B)(2). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PSPA has been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this request at tonight’s meeting. CONCLUSION Staff believes that PSPA’s request for a waiver of the application fee associated with Conditional Use Permit No. 132-Revision ‘D’ is warranted, based upon the required findings under RPVDC Section 17.78.010(B). Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council grant PSPA’s request. FISCAL IMPACT The denial of the requested fee waiver will result in the City retaining the $600.00 application fee that was paid by PSPA on November 27, 2000. If the application fee for Conditional Use Permit No. 132-Revision ‘D’ is waived, then the City’s costs associated with the processing of this application will be borne by the 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: Fee waiver request from Peninsula School of Performing Arts (dated November 27, 2000)
5. Parkland Dedication Fees for Final Parcel Map No. 25706 (Landowner/Applicant: Richard Meine, 3340 Via Campesina) (Schonborn)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES FOR FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 25706 (Applicant: Richard Meine). Staff Coordinator: Eduardo A. Schonborn, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION Accept the parkland dedication (Quimby) fee for Final Parcel Map No. 25706, pursuant to the City’s parkland dedication fee formula in the amount of $18,286.97. BACKGROUND On September 12, 2000, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 25706. As part of the conditions of approval, the applicant is required to pay the parkland dedication (Quimby) fees prior to approval of the final map. Pursuant to the City’s Development Code, the park dedication fee shall be determined by the City Council. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant received Planning Commission approval to subdivide an existing 41,606 square foot parcel with an average slope of 24-percent, that is currently improved with a single-family residential structure. Parcel 1 will be a vacant parcel containing a lot area of 20,009 square feet, and Parcel 2 will include the existing single-family residence and contain a lot area of 21,597 square feet. However, pursuant to the Development Code, only Parcel 1 is subject to the parkland dedication fee since Parcel 2 is developed with an existing single-family residence that will remain. CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS Pursuant to Section 16.20.100 of the City’s Municipal Code, as part of the final parcel map process, the applicant shall, in lieu of dedicating land as determined by the Planning Commission, pay a fee equal to the value of the land, based upon the "fair market value’. The amount shall be determined by the City Council using one of four alternative methods. These methods are: 1) tax assessor valuation; 2) sale price of land if sold within the last five years; 3) the sale of comparable properties; or 4) a land appraisal. The Planning Commission determined that payment of the fee was warranted in this case, rather than dedication of parkland. The applicant submitted an appraisal to determine the "fair market value’ of the subject property. According to the appraisal, the 20,009 square foot vacant lot has a market value of $600,000.00. Using this appraisal, Staff calculated the per-acre value of the property as $1,306,212.20 per acre. Based upon the market value, the calculation for the Quimby park fee for this project is as follows: Market Value of the subject property (per acre) $1,306,212.20 / acre Multiplied by: Parkland Dedication requirement 0.0140 acre per dwelling unit Multiplied by: Number of dwelling units: 1 dwelling unit Equals: $18,286.97 Thus, Staff recommends that the total amount of $18,286.97 be paid in lieu of land dedication since Staff believes that the dedication of 0.0140 acres of land in this area is not feasible. Staff consulted with the applicant regarding the fee and, although it is higher than he expected, he indicated that he will pay it prior to final map recordation. CONCLUSION Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the City Council accept the parkland dedication (Quimby) fee of $18,286.97. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for consideration by the City Council:
Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager
6. Gifts for Parks. (Rosenfeld)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: RON ROSENFELD, DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: GIFTS FOR PARKS RECOMMENDATION That the City Council accept the Gifts for Parks donations and direct staff to prepare letters for the Mayor’s signature expressing the Council’s thanks and appreciation. INTRODUCTION The City’s Gifts for Parks program, established in 1982, provides a means by which interested individuals, organizations, and/or businesses may contribute funds, merchandise, or labor for the enhancement of the City’s Recreation and Parks’ facilities and programs. Donations, as prescribed by law, are tax deductible as charitable contributions. ANALYSIS The City has received the following donation designated for REACH, the City’s program for the developmentally disabled:
The following donations have been designated for the Point Vicente Interpretive Center:
CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City accept these donations with thanks to all donors. Respectfully submitted, Ron Rosenfeld, Director, Recreation and Parks Reviewed, Les Evans, City Manager
7. Contracts for Whale of a Day Special Event. (Rosenfeld)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: RON ROSENFELD, DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: CONTRACTS FOR WHALE OF A DAY SPECIAL EVENT RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to sign the attached contracts associated with the City’s 17th Annual Whale of a Day celebration. BACKGROUND The annual Whale of a Day special event, held in celebration of the annual migration of the Pacific Gray whale, had been held on the grounds of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center for fifteen years. Last year, due to the closure of the Center, the event was held on the grounds of the United States Coast Guard’s Point Vicente Lighthouse. DISCUSSION Staff has contacted the United States Coast Guard to request their permission to hold the 17th Annual Whale of a Day celebration on the grounds of the Point Vicente Lighthouse. Permission was granted verbally and the Coast Guard submitted a contract to the City for signature. In addition, since public parking near or at this site is virtually non-existent, staff approached York Long Point Associates requesting permission for parking at the Long Point site. Again, permission was verbally granted and a contract for signature has been submitted to the City. Please see attached the two contracts requiring signatures. CONCLUSION Due to the closure of Point Vicente Interpretive Center, an alternate location to hold the annual Whale of a Day Celebration was needed. The U.S. Coast Guard agreed to allow the Point Vicente Lighthouse site to be used for this popular event. In addition, since there is little or no parking available at the Coast Guard site and shuttle service would be required, another location was needed for public parking. York Long Point Associates has agreed that the Long Point site could be used for this purpose and a contract has been submitted for signature. Respectfully Submitted: Ron Rosenfeld, Director, Recreation and Parks Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager
8. Non-Exclusive Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal Services Agreement Annual Renewal for 2001. (Ramezani)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: NON-EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ANNUAL RENEWAL FOR 2001 Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute non-exclusive commercial refuse collection and disposal services agreements with: A & A Waste & Roll Off, Ace Roll Off Rubbish Service, Inc., BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. (BFI), California Waste Services, Consolidated Disposal Services, LLC, Easy Roll Off Services, EDCO Disposal Corporation, HMD Waste Company, Integrated Waste Industries, Inc., Ivy Rubbish Disposal, L& S Disposal, OK Disposal Service, S & H Disposal Company, and Waste Management- Los Angeles District. BACKGROUND Since 1992 the City has entered into one year non-exclusive franchises for Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal with any firm that meets the agreement requirement. The City Council decided to use a non-exclusive franchise instead of an exclusive franchise following a series of townhall meetings where commercial business owners stated their preference for non-exclusive franchises. The Agreement was revised in December 1994 to include additional requirements pertaining to business sector recycling and penalty provisions for delinquent quarterly reports. The non-exclusive franchise allows the City to collect a five (5) percent franchise fee and a five (5) percent AB 939 fee from haulers doing business in the City. All haulers are required to submit payments on a quarterly basis along with a quarterly report, which provides refuse disposal and recycling information. Additionally, each hauler is required to annually obtain a City business license and submit proof of liability and workers compensation insurance. DISCUSSION On October 3, 2000, the City Council discussed the issuance of notices of non-extension to all non-residential haulers in order to reduce the amount of unreported tonnage and to gain a clearer understanding of the waste stream. The law requires a five-year transition period prior to the implementation of any changes. The notice of intent for exclusivity does not obligate the City to make any changes from non-exclusive to exclusive agreements. However, it will allow the City Council the option and the time to determine the best course of action in the future. That notice will be mailed in mid December, certified mail, return receipt requested. A copy of that notice is attached. Additionally, the City Attorney updated and revised the commercial hauling agreement. The previous agreement was last revised approximately 6 years ago. The new agreement emphasizes recycling and waste diversion efforts. FISCAL IMPACT The City received approximately $28,500 in franchise fees and $28,500 in AB 939 fees in 2000 from commercial haulers. AB 939 fees are accounted for in the Solid Waste fund and are used to develop and implement recycling programs to meet the AB 939 mandate. Franchise fees are accounted for in the General Fund. Respectfully Submitted: Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Copy of the Notice of Intent
9. Appeal of Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’ (Applicant/Appellant: Arik Abdalian, 30025 Cachan Place). (Fox)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF GRADING PERMIT NO. 1928-REVISION ‘B’ [APPLICANT/APPELLANT: ARIK ABDALIAN] Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s action on the application for Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’; and forward to the Planning Commission the additional project modifications proposed by the applicant/appellant as a new and separate revision to Grading Permit No. 1928. DISCUSSION On December 5, 2000, the City Council considered the appeal of Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’ and voted unanimously to deny the appeal, and to forward the applicant/appellant’s additional project revisions to the Planning Commission. Staff has prepared the attached draft Resolution to reflect the City Council’s direction. Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 2000-__ RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DENYING THE APPEAL AND THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF NINETY CUBIC YARDS (90 YD³) OF AFTER-THE-FACT GRADING AND A 6-FOOT-TALL RETAINING WALL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF GRADING PERMIT NO. 1928-REVISION ‘B’ FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AN UNDER-CONSTRUCTION SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE PALOS VERDES MONACO COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT 30025 CACHAN PLACE WHEREAS, on May 13, 1997, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Grading Permit No. 1928 for seventy-seven cubic yards (77 yd³) of grading to construct a 5,715-square-foot, 2-story single-family residence on a vacant lot in the Palos Verdes Monaco community; and, WHEREAS, on May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘A’ to allow the approved balconies on the rear of the house to be increased from four feet (4’0") to seven feet (7’0") in width; and, WHEREAS, on August 31, 2000, in response to complaints that the house was not being constructed in accordance with the approved plans, Staff verified that additional, non-permitted grading had occurred on the slope below the house; and, WHEREAS, on September 21, 2000, the applicant/appellant, Arik Abdalian, submitted an application for Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’ to allow fifty cubic yards (50 yd³) of additional grading within the footprint of the house in order to increase the living area by six hundred ninety-five square feet (695 ft²), and ninety cubic yards (90 yd³) of additional grading and a 6-foot-tall downslope retaining wall on the extreme slope below the house; and, WHEREAS, on September 25, 2000, the application for Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’ 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 Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’ 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 Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 10, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on October 10, 2000, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’ via Minute Order, but only for fifty cubic yards (50 yd³) of additional grading within the footprint of the house, not for the requested ninety cubic yards (90 yd³) of grading and 6-foot-tall downslope retaining wall on the extreme slope below the house; and, WHEREAS, on October 23, 2000, and within the 15-day appeal period prescribed by Section 17.76.040(H) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission’s denial of the grading and retaining wall on the extreme slope area was appealed to the City Council by Mr. Abdalian, the applicant and owner of the property at 30025 Cachan Place; and, WHEREAS, in conjunction with the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial, Mr. Abdalian requested further modifications to the approved project, which had not been presented to or considered by the Planning Commission as a part of its review of Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’; 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 December 5 and December 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 finds that the appeal is without merit, and that the request for ninety cubic yards (90 yd³) of grading and a 6-foot-tall retaining wall on the extreme slope area below the house should be denied for the following reasons:
Section 2: The City Council’s action to deny the appeal is taken without prejudice as to the applicant/appellant’s right to request future revisions to the approved project, including the project modifications proposed in conjunction with the appeal. Section 3: The City Council hereby affirms and upholds the Planning Commission’s action on the application for Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’, including all of the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit ‘A’ of this Resolution. Section 4: The City Council hereby forwards to the Planning Commission the additional project modifications that were requested in conjunction with the appeal of Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’. Said project modifications shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a new and separate revision to Grading Permit No. 1928, and the applicant/appellant shall be responsible for the payment of any applicable permit revision fee(s). 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 denies the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of ninety cubic yards (90 yd³) of after-the-fact grading and a 6-foot-tall retaining wall in conjunction with the approval of Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision ‘B’ for modifications to an under-construction single-family residence in the Palos Verdes Monaco community, located at 30025 Cachan Place. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December 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 December 19, 2000. _________________________________ City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR GRADING PERMIT NO. 1928-REVISION 'B' (30025 Cachan Place) 1. This approval is for an additional fifty cubic yards (50 yd³) of grading to convert the non-habitable crawlspaces on the lower level (i.e., adjacent to the rumpus/family room and the second master bedroom) to habitable living area. The proposal for an additional ninety cubic yards (90 yd³) of grading and a 6-foot-tall retaining wall on the extreme slope area behind and below the house is not approved.
10. Register of Demands. (McLean)
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11. Code Enforcement Regarding Illegal Grading and Dumping at 1942 Caddington Drive (James Dao, Property Owner). (Snow)
MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: ILLEGAL GRADING/DUMPING AT 1942 CADDINGTON DRIVE (Mr. James Dao, Property Owner) Staff Coordinator: Jan Neth, Senior Code Enforcement Officer RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No.________, declaring the un-permitted grading (excavation and dumping of material in a natural canyon) at 1942 Caddington Drive a public nuisance pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code § 8.24.070(B), and directing staff to proceed with enforcement actions. BACKGROUND: On November 22, 1999, City Staff received a complaint of illegal grading occurring at 1942 Caddington Drive. Planning and Building Department Staff subsequently conducted an inspection of the site. It was observed that an illegal cut of approximately eight feet in height had been made on the property at 1942 Caddington Drive along the westerly, side yard property line adjacent to the property at 1950 Caddington Drive and along the front of the property adjoining the public right-of-way (sidewalk). The material from the cut had been illegally dumped down the rear slope of the property at 1942 Caddington Drive into an adjoining canyon area. The property owner, Mr. Jim Dao, was contacted by City Staff, and advised of the violations occurring on his property. Staff issued Mr. Dao a "stop work" notice for the illegal grading and dumping on November 22, 1999. Mr. Dao was also provided a grading application with the information on the requirements for possible legalization of the violations. Over the next several months, Staff was in contact with Mr. Dao on numerous occasions by mail, telephone and personal contact. Standard code enforcement noticing occurred requesting a geology report from the property owner in order to begin the legalization process for a retaining wall to support the illegal cut. Based on review of the site, the City’s geology consultant concluded that a retaining wall is the best method for restoring stability to the upslope neighbor’s property. However, as a separate issue, Mr. Dao may be required to restore the slope to the pre-existing condition with the effect of burying the retaining wall needed to restore stability. After reaching no compliance with the property owner, an Administrative Hearing was conducted with the City Attorney, Mr. Dao and Staff on May 18, 2000, at City Hall. An agreement was reached that Mr. Dao would submit a letter to the City from a licensed geologist, stating that a report was being prepared for submittal to the City by June 19, 2000. As of June 29, 2000, Mr. Dao had not submitted the letter of intent as agreed upon in the Administrative Hearing, or the geology report Staff had previously requested. At this time, the City Attorney’s office contacted Mr. Dao by letter reiterating the agreement reached at the Administrative Hearing. Mr. Dao ultimately submitted a geology report, on September 5, 2000, after numerous contacts by letter and telephone. After a review of the geology report by Staff, a letter, including the City Geologist’s review, advised Mr. Dao, that revisions were necessary in order to continue the legalization process for a retaining wall. The City Geologist’s letter also indicates that the upslope property located at 1950 Caddington Drive could be in jeopardy due to the illegal cut made on Mr. Dao’s property. On September 29, 2000, Staff received a complaint from the upslope neighbor indicating that workers were undermining the illegal cut on the Dao property, violating the previously issued "stop work" notice. Staff inspected the property and observed three workers further undermining the illegal cut, removing rocks and dumping them down the rear slope of the property. Staff then contacted Mr. Dao and issued a second "stop work" notice. Mr. Dao was also advised at this time that a letter had been mailed requiring an October 25, 2000 deadline for submittal of the revised geology report. Mr. Dao indicated that he had received the letter, but had not read it, and understood the deadline. As of this date, Mr. Dao has not submitted the revised geology report. DISCUSSION The background chronology references a number of attachments including:
As the chronology indicates, all standard code enforcement notice requirements have advised Mr. Dao of the violations on his property. Although Mr. Dao has made some effort to move forward in an attempt to legalize the illegal grading, he continues to delay the submittal of geology reports required by Staff. The geology reports were discussed and agreed upon in the Administrative Hearing conducted at City Hall, by the City Attorney and Staff on May 18, 2000. Nuisance abatement proceedings typically are conducted at a staff level pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code § 8.24.070(A). However, Section 8.24.070(A) refers to the violations listed in § 8.24.060 in its abatement proceedings for property maintenance issues. Therefore, since the violation at 1942 Caddington Drive is not listed in § 8.24.060, City Council declaration of the property as a public nuisance is required pursuant to § 8.24.070(B). CONCLUSION: The Municipal Code allows Staff to take such legal action as may be necessary to assure compliance of code violations. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council declare this property a public nuisance due to the illegal grading and dumping that has occurred, and direct Staff to proceed with a Notice and Order to abatement the nuisance pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code § 8.24.070(B), and adopt the attached resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: Previously, there has been no discussion of compliance measures that would incur a fiscal impact on the City. Should compliance measures ultimately require City abatement, the Municipal Code allows the filing of a tax lien against the violator’s property for the cost of the abatement and all administrative costs. Therefore, the lien amount would likely be significantly higher than the costs of repair alone. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives to Staff’s recommendations are available for consideration by the City Council: 1. Direct staff to proceed in assisting Mr. Dao through the compliance process. 2. Provide Staff with other direction as deemed appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Resolution No._______ Stop Work notices Standard code enforcement notices and response letters Geology reports Photographs of the site
12. Draft Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element. (Pfost)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive comments from the public and City Council on the Draft Housing Element; and 2) Direct Staff to make any revisions to the Draft Housing Element based upon public and/or City Council comments, and forward the revised Draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development for their 45-day review period. BACKGROUND: The State of California requires every city and county to prepare and adopt a Housing Element as part of the city or county's General Plan. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is the State agency charged with administering state housing law, including the review of these Housing Elements. The State also requires that each local government periodically review and revise their Housing Element. Normally, local governments are required to update their Housing Elements every five years. However, in the region overseen by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the last Housing Element update was required in 1990. The delay from 1990 to 2000 was a result of the State's inability to fund SCAG in the preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which is a crucial first step that initiates the Housing Element update process. In 1998, SCAG was appropriated the necessary funds to complete the RHNA. Therefore, according to HCD, all local governments within the SCAG region are now required to revise their Housing Element by December 31, 2000. Shortly after incorporation, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted a General Plan, and consistent with State requirements, it included a Housing Element. The City's Housing Element was formally amended in 1990, as per State requirements, and partially amended in 1992 (the 1992 amendment was a minor amendment to address another State requirement). As such, the City's current Housing Element consists of both the 1990 and 1992 Amended Housing Elements. DISCUSSION: Contents of the Proposed Housing Element Amendment As noted above, State Law requires the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to update its Housing Element by December 31, 2000. Attached is a copy of the Preliminary Draft Housing Element as prepared by the City's Housing Consultant, Ralph Castaneda and Associates. The Preliminary Draft Housing Element is composed of 3 main sections. The first is an introductory section, Part 1, which provides an overall introduction of the Housing Element requirements according to State Law. The second section, Part 2, identifies the City's Housing Strategy. As part of the Housing Strategy, the Housing Element addresses the five program areas as required by State Law. These include:
Within each of these Program Categories, the Housing Element describes the goals, policies and objectives that guide the City in meeting the housing needs of the residents within the City, and assist in meeting the housing needs of the region. The third section, Appendix A, provides an assessment of the housing needs, and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs. This section includes the bulk of the information that is required to address each of the Program Categories found in Part 2 of the Housing Element. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and Affordable Housing As noted above, the RHNA is the first crucial step in initiating the Housing Element Amendment. Over the past two years, Staff has recognized that understanding the RHNA and its implications upon providing affordable housing in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes can be difficult. To that end, Staff has provided the following discussion in an effort to provide clarity as to what is actually required by the State in regards to affordable housing as pertaining to the RHNA. According to State Law, HCD notifies SCAG of the total Regional Housing Needs Assessment assigned to the SCAG region. The RHNA indicates how many housing units should be provided to meet the region's housing needs. SCAG then takes that total number from HCD and disagregates it amongst the counties and local jurisdictions within the SCAG region, based upon a number of models that they use to ensure each City gets their fair share. It was during this process that City Staff was able to get the City's RHNA reduced from 311 units to 53 units. As such, the current RHNA number assigned to the City is 53 units. What this means is that in the City's Housing Element, the City needs to show, through Goals, Policies and Programs, how the 53 units can be provided for in the City. It is important to understand that the City is not required to construct these 53 units, nor is the City penalized if the 53 units are not provided for over the planning period. At the end of the planning period, which is year 2005, if the 53 units were not provided for, then in the next Housing Element Amendment, the City just needs to show why the 53 units were not provided. It's important to note that Staff is not aware of the State or any other organization that can come into the City and disregard the City's Zoning Code and General Plan, to build units in the City if the City did not meet the RHNA established by SCAG. The attached Draft Housing Element utilizes the Draft RHNA prepared by SCAG. The RHNA is still in Draft form because SCAG is currently contesting the number of housing units HCD assigned to the SCAG region, based upon issues raised by San Bernardino and Riverside counties. However, in preparation of the Housing Element, HCD has indicated to all cities within the SCAG region that it acknowledges the Draft RHNA prepared by SCAG, and that cities should use this as the basis for preparing the housing element amendment. Another important aspect of the RHNA is that it is divided amongst 4 income categories; very low, low, moderate and above moderate. State Law requires this with the intent that housing units provided over the next 5 years will meet the needs of all income levels. For the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, SCAG has divided the 53 units into the following:
As shown in the attached Draft Housing Element, the 32 above moderate income units have already been satisfied through development activity over the past two years. The Draft Element also notes that the 8 moderate-income units will be addressed through the development of an estimated 8 second dwelling units (which our zoning code permits), and the 13 remaining low (5) and very low (8) income units may be satisfied through the proposed senior affordable housing project and the Ocean Trails project (which is required to construct or provide for 8 very low to low income units). It's important to remember that the housing element is only required to show where these units may be provided. The City is not penalized if these units are not developed. Using the senior affordable housing project in the Draft Housing Element is important as it shows how the City is attempting to satisfy the need by identifying a potential site that the City has already purchased for affordable housing purposes. If the affordable housing project does not get built, then in the City's next Housing Element Amendment (projected at 2005), the City would just indicate that the project was not completed. It is also worth noting that after the 8 very low to low income units from Ocean Trails are factored in, the affordable housing project may need to only contain 5 low income units if the City only chooses to meet the RHNA goal prior to 2005. It is also important to note, that according to HCD, the City would not get credit for the next planning period (2005-2010) if the City exceeds the number of units in any income category during this planning period (2000-2005). This is because each planning period uses entirely new sets of data in determining the needs for the next RHNA. Housing Element Review Process On November 28, 2000, Staff forwarded the Preliminary Draft Housing Element to the Planning Commission to allow the public and Planning Commission the opportunity to provide any comments on the Draft. Although public notice was provided to all homeowner's associations within the City, various state and local agencies, churches within the City, and published in the newspaper, no persons spoke on this matter at the Planning Commission meeting. However, the Planning Commission did ask questions of Staff and noted minor changes to the Draft pertaining to dates within the document. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Staff has made some additional minor changes to the Draft Housing Element. These include: 1) minor changes to the text for clarity; 2) changes to the discussion on Villa Capri to note that 3 of the 10 affordable units are no longer affordable; 3) inclusion of a vacant land survey; 4) discussion of natural physical constraints to housing development within the City; and 5) inclusion of a discussion of the City's fee schedule and impacts upon housing development. Once reviewed by the City Council, consistent with State Law, the Draft Housing Element will be sent to HCD for review. HCD must complete their review and provide any comments back to the City within 45 days of its receipt. Once HCD provides comments back to the City, the Housing Element will be taken back to the Planning Commission and City Council for any revisions and formal adoption. Although not formally adopted by the City prior to December 31, 2000, HCD has indicated that the City will be in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law by submitting the Draft Housing Element to HCD prior to December 31st. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: For the December 19, 2000 City Council meeting, an 1/8 page public hearing notice was posted in the Peninsula News, and mailed to all Homeowner's Associations within the City, various State Agencies, neighboring cities, and to various churches and other groups interested in housing issues. Additionally, copies of the Draft Housing Element have been made available for public review at City Hall, Miraleste Library, and Peninsula Center Library. At the time this Staff Report was prepared, Staff had not received any comments on the Draft Housing Element. CONCLUSION: Staff has worked with the Housing Consultant in the preparation of the attached Draft, and feels that it is consistent with State Law. As such, Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, receive comments from the public and direct Staff to revise the document, if necessary, and then forward the Draft Housing Element to HCD. FISCAL IMPACT: The current City budget has allocated $35,000 towards the preparation of the Housing Element Amendment. The cost of the consultant's services has already been appropriated and will be less than ½ of this amount. Because this project is a State mandate, costs attributed to the preparation of the Housing Element Amendment are being recovered through the City's contract with Cost Recovery Systems, Inc. Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager ATTACHMENT Draft Housing Element 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:
13. Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project. (McBride)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: ABALONE COVE BEACH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Staff Coordinator: David McBride, Senior Engineer RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND On July 5, 2000, the City Council denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and Coastal Permit for the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project. Shortly thereafter several residents appealed the City’s coastal permit to the California Coastal Commission (CCC). In their review the CCC found substantial project issues related to geology, marine resources, biological resources, and the operation plan. Ultimately the CCC will conduct a public hearing and act on the appeal. This report updates the City Council as to project status, outlines an action plan to address the issues raised by the CCC, and requests funding to continue processing the project with the CCC. DISCUSSION Revised Project Schedule The project was originally scheduled to be heard by the CCC in January. However, due to the complexity of the issues, staff requested the CCC to reschedule the hearing for the next hearing date in Southern California, which is June. This delay will likely not impact the start of construction since that date is controlled by the Gnatcatcher breeding season which prohibits construction until September. Issues raised by the Coastal Commission Based on their review the CCC staff is recommending that the CCC find substantial issue with the following items: 1. Geologic Hazards: CCC staff believes that additional geologic studies are required to demonstrate stability. Staff believes that the necessary studies have already been prepared and that it is a matter of properly presenting those reports to the CCC staff. 2. Vegetation: The project impacts 0.24 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS). The re-vegetation effort is briefly discussed in the project’s MND. The CCC staff believes additional detail is required regarding re-vegetation. Staff believes that with some effort an acceptable re-vegetation plan can be prepared to provide the CCC with the required details. It is noted that the most suitable off-site restoration location is upper Forrestal Canyon in conjunction with revegetation efforts for the 25th roadway repair project and/or Alta Mira Canyon drainage improvement project. One potential issue is that this location is outside the coastal zone and therefore not within the CCC’s purview. 3. Marine Resources CCC staff believes the use of the Sheriff’s Department for monitoring may not adequately protect marine resources and water quality. Staff believes that if the City commits to conducting periodic monitoring of marine life at the tide pools, and if informational kiosks and signage are incorporated into the project design the CCC will understand that the City is committed to protecting the marine life and water quality. 4. Access and Recreation Policies of the Coastal Act CCC staff believes that the project does not conform to Section 30210 of the Coastal Act, which requires maximum access to the shoreline, because the park closes at 4:00 p.m., thereby limiting access of working families and their children. Staff believes further discussion of this item with the CCC will be required for resolution. Action Plan To meet with the CCC, prepare a strategy to address their concerns and to determine a cost of the necessary project revisions additional professional services will be required. Staff anticipates that additional services of the project’s biologist, geologist, and civil engineer will be required. Staff recommendation number two authorizes the expenditure of $ 20,000 for the required services. A preliminary schedule of the action plan is as follows: 1. Meet with CCC Staff (January 2001): City staff, including our professional service providers, will meet with CCC staff to clarify the substantial issues and attempt to ascertain actually what the CCC expects in order to address the issues. 2. Work Plans and Detailed Cost Estimates (January to April 2001): Staff and our service providers will develop detailed work plans and cost estimates that resolve each substantial issue. 3. Present Work Plan & Estimates to Council (May 2001): Staff will return to Council prior to the June hearing to discuss the substantial issues and how the CCC’s issues might be addressed within the context of costs. Funding Funding for the needed professional services will come from a combination of General Funds and Measure A funds. A limit of $12,930 of Measure A funds are available for professional services. This is because Measure A guidelines permit a maximum of 25% of project costs for administration. The remaining $ 7,070 is proposed to be funded by general fund reserves. Staff recommendation number three approves the required budget adjustment. In the event that the project is abandoned the $12,930 will have to be reimbursed to the County of Los Angeles along with the $126,195 of Measure "A" funds already spent. A summary of project revenues and expenditures is presented below.
CONCLUSION The CCC staff believes that the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project is not in conformance with the City’s LCP and the policies of Coastal Act. Staff recommends allocating $20,000 in professional service fees to meet with CCC staff, develop plans and cost estimates to resolve the issues and return to the Council in May 2001. At the May meeting the City Council will have a more complete picture of what project revisions will be required and their cost implications. The City Council can then provide further direction to staff on how the City should respond to the CCC at the June public hearing. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Do not spend additional funding at this time and move forward with the current project. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended actions will authorize the expenditure of an additional $20,000 in professional services fees, of which $12,930 is from Measure "A" funds and $7,070 is from general fund reserves. In the event that the project is abandoned the City will be required to reimburse all Measure "A" funds spent on this project totaling $139,125 to the County of Los Angeles. Respectfully submitted: Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Attachment "A" – Budget Resolution No. 2000-__. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-___, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND. WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2000, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 00-34, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2000-2001 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, it is advantageous to the City to allocate additional funds to the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, a budget increase in the Capital Improvement Projects Fund is necessary to authorize the expenditure of additional funds for the project. BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: That the following adjustment be made to the following fund budget:
330-930.35 Professional/Technical Services 7,070 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 19th OF DECEMBER, 2000. ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2000-___ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December 19, 2000.
City Clerk Resolution No. 2000-___
14. Resolution Supporting the Acquisition of Open Space lands within the Portuguese Bend area. (Rojas)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ACQUISITION OF OPEN SPACE LANDS WITHIN THE PORTUGUESE BEND AREA RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2000 - __, supporting the acquisition of open space lands within the Portuguese Bend area and authorizing the Mayor to send a letter to this effect to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. DISCUSSION Last month, then Mayor Byrd received a letter from Keith Lenard, Executive Director of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Conservancy, dated November 3, 2000 (attached), regarding conservation of Portuguese Bend area open space. Specifically, the letter informed the Mayor about the Conservancy’s goal to preserve approximately 1000 acres of Portuguese Bend area open space within the next 24 months, by creating a funding package consisting of federal, state, local and private funds, and asking for a City Council resolution supporting preservation of the property. The Mayor responded that it is up to the entire City Council to decide in open session how the City’s funds are to be used and suggested that the discussion commence when the NCCP item is before the Council. At the December 5, 2000, City Council meeting, the Council discussed the status and direction of the City’s NCCP program. At that time, Mr. Lenard addressed the City Council (comments attached) and noted that with or without an NCCP, an essential step in obtaining open space acquisition funds, is open and public support of such efforts by the City and therefore requested a City Council resolution supporting the goal of establishing a nature preserve in the Portuguese Bend area. Given the opportunity that currently exists from the availability of State funds for the land acquisition, the Council supported the idea of adopting such a resolution. The resolution (attached) is now being presented for the Council’s adoption. Respectfully submitted, Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager
15. Acquisition of a Replacement Vehicle for the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement as budgeted for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. (Snow)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2000 SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF A REPLACEMENT VEHICLE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AS BUDGETED FOR THE 2000-2001 FISCAL YEAR Staff Coordinators: David Snow, Deputy Planning Director Marsha Zents, Staff Assistant II RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement to purchase the new departmental vehicle budgeted for the 2000-2001 fiscal year, awarding the bid to the Casa de Gonzales dealership, as the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of $21,145.06. BACKGROUND: The equipment replacement fund contained in the City’s current budget includes $22,000 in FY 00-01 for the acquisition of a replacement vehicle for the Department. This vehicle would replace the poorest conditioned truck in the Department’s fleet of fully-depreciated trucks, which is over 10 years old. The Department has typically purchased trucks for use as Departmental vehicles, however trucks are of limited usefulness when more than two people need to go to a site visit or an offsite meeting or conference. As a result, the Department seeks the purchase of a Jeep Cherokee. The proposed Jeep Cherokee will meet the full range of situations in which a Departmental vehicle is needed, and continues to provide the flexibility to transport equipment such as range poles for measuring height. After careful consideration, Staff believes the proposed vehicle to be appropriate for the Department’s needs. DISCUSSION: A public notice inviting bids to purchase a 2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News in accordance with the purchasing process identified in Municipal Code §2.44. A subsequent request was posted on the internet via "Get Connected!" to certified five star dealerships. The following is a summary of bids submitted to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement:
*Note: Bid amount is all inclusive (tax and license) CONCLUSION: Based on the three bids submitted, Staff recommends awarding the acquisition to Casa de Gonzales dealership. The total cost of the replacement vehicle would meet the equipment replacement fund budget of $22,000. The color of the new vehicle will be white to match the City’s existing vehicle fleet. ALTERNATIVES:
Respectfully submitted, Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager
16. Requests for City Council Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision ‘C’, Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’, Encroachment Permit No. 32 and Sign Permit No. 1096 (Applicant: RPV Associates llc, Tract No. 46628 (Oceanfront); Appellants: Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, Councilman Stern). (Fox)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: REQUESTS FOR CITY COUNCIL APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 158-REVISION ‘C’, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 94-REVISION ‘A’, ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 32 AND SIGN PERMIT NO. 1096 [APPLICANT: RPV ASSOCIATES llc, TRACT NO. 46628 (OCEANFRONT); APPELLANTS: MAYOR PRO TEM McTAGGART AND COUNCILMEMBER STERN] Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Consider the requests by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart and Councilmember Stern for a City Council appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision ‘C’, Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’, Encroachment Permit No. 32 and Sign Permit No. 1096. BACKGROUND On November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2000-41 (attached), thereby conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision ‘C’, Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’, Encroachment Permit No. 32 and Sign Permit No. 1096. These applications by the developer of the Oceanfront project were for modifications to the tract perimeter fencing requirements for improvements at the tract’s two entries on Palos Verdes Drive West, the approval of temporary and permanent tract entry identification signs for the community, and the placement of three (3) tract entry observation booths within the public rights-of-way of the interior streets of the tract (Paseo de la Luz, Via del Cielo and Calle Viento). On December 6, 2000, the Planning Commission’s action was appealed by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.80.130 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC). Councilmember Stern also requested City Council review of this matter on December 11, 2000. DISCUSSION RPVDC Section 17.80.130 provides for the direct appeal of Planning Commission decisions by the City Council in the following manner (RPVDC language is boldface, followed by Staff's analysis in normal type):
A. Any one City Council member may contact the City Manager and request that an item be placed on the next City Council agenda so that the entire City Council can consider whether to appeal a [Planning Commission] decision on an application. The request from the Council member must be made in writing within fifteen calendar days of the Commission's final decision on an application. Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart filed the attached written appeal on December 6, 2000 and Councilmember Stern e-mailed the City Manager with a similar request (see attachments) on December 11, 2000. Both of these requests were made within the standard 15-day appeal period for these applications. In response, this matter has been agendized for the City Council’s consideration on tonight’s agenda. B. If an appeal request from a Council member is received by the City Manager, the appeal period for the City Council shall be automatically extended by thirty additional calendar days. This extended appeal period shall apply only to City Council appeals in order for the City Council to determine whether to appeal the Commission's decision. The City Council’s appeal period for these applications has been automatically extended to January 12, 2000. This is the deadline by which that City Council must decide whether or not to appeal the Planning Commission’s action in this matter. If the City Council does not make a decision to proceed with an appeal by this date, then the Planning Commission’s action will be final. C. An applicant or any other interested person may file an appeal with the City before or after an appeal request has been made by a Council member, provided the appeal is filed within the standard fifteen day appeal period. An applicant or any other interested party may not file an appeal during the City's extended thirty day appeal period. The standard 15-day appeal period for these applications expired on December 13, 2000. Neither the project applicant nor any other interested party filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action within the 15-day appeal period. D. The City Council shall determine by a majority vote whether to appeal the Commission's decision. If a majority of the City Council does not wish to appeal the Planning Commission’s action in this matter, then the Planning Commission’s action will be final. If a majority of the City Council wishes to appeal the Planning Commission’s action, then Staff will agendize this appeal for City Council review on the first available agenda (probably for the regular meeting of January 16, 2001). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The project applicant has been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this request for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action. CONCLUSION Staff requests direction from the City Council whether it wishes to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision ‘C’, Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’, Encroachment Permit No. 32 and Sign Permit No. 1096. FISCAL IMPACT If the City Council decides not to appeal this matter, there will be no fiscal impact to the City. If the City Council decides to appeal this matter, the standard $940.00 appeal fee will not be collected and the costs associated with the processing of the appeal will be borne by the City’s General Fund. ALTERNATIVES 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: Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart’s request for appeal (received December 6, 2000) Councilmember Stern’s request for appeal (received December 11, 2000) P.C. Resolution No. 2000-41
17. Altamira Canyon Channel Improvements. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: ALTA MIRA CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND Channel improvements for the Alta Mira Canyon is a project recommended by the Geological Panel of Experts to reduce the amount of ground water entering the Abalone Cove slide plane. Work to date includes a pre-design report, a certified Environmental Impact Report, and the application for permits to the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. At this time the services of a civil engineering firm and geotechnical firm are required to prepare final project plans and specifications. DISCUSSIONS A single proposal from the firm RBF consultants was requested for civil engineering services. This firm was singled out due to their experience with the type of channel lining that is proposed. The proposed channel lining is a composite system consisting of an impermeable plastic liner overlain by an environmentally sensitive protective system. Such a system works well given the environmental setting. The Department of Fish and Wildlife and The Army Corps’ of Engineers think highly of the proposed system. The proposed contract for civil engineering services is a not to exceed contract for a defined scope of work. A single proposal from the firm Zeiser Kling Consulting Inc. was requested for the geotechnical services. This firm was singled out due to their familiarity with the Abalone Cove geologic conditions. The proposed contract for geotechnical service is a time and material contract for a not to exceed amount. The project schedule is as follows:
CONCLUSIONS Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the award of two professional service contracts needed to design final improvement plans for the Alta Mira Canyon Channel Project. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the adopted FY 2000-01 budget. The funding source for this project is the Community Development Block Grant Program Respectfully submitted, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by, Les Evans, City Manager Attachments Contract with RBFConsultants Contract with Zeiser Kling Consulting Inc.
18. City Council Assignments for 2001. (Purcell)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS RECOMMENDATION Make Council assignments. BACKGROUND City Council members represent the City at various organizations and associations that deal with public policy and legislation that directly affects the City. Presently there are fourteen such organizations. Assignment of Council representation to these organizations has traditionally been made upon the selection of a new mayor. Information regarding these assignments was distributed at the December 5th City Council meeting and Mayor Lyon requested that this matter be placed on this agenda. The following list shows the current Council assignments: ORGANIZATION DELEGATE/ALTERNATE City Selection Committee Lyon/Byrd League of Calif. Cities L.A. County Division Lyon/Ferraro So. Calif. Assoc. Of Governments (SCAG) McTaggart/Ferraro So. Bay Cities Council of Govts. (SBCOG) McTaggart/Ferraro San. Districts (Dist. No. 5 & So. Bay San. District) Byrd/Lyon Calif. Joint Powers Ins. Authority (CJPIA) Byrd/Lyon Contract Cities McTaggart/Byrd So. Bay Youth Project Lyon/Ferraro Chambers of Commerce Entire Council Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project Ferraro/Stern Palos Verdes Trans. Authority Byrd/Ferraro Max Policy Steering Committee McTaggart/Ferraro Pen. Regional Law Enforcement Lyon/Stern West Basin Water District McTaggart/Byrd AD HOC COMMITTEE City Beautification Lyon/McTaggart STANDING COMMITTEE Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) McTaggart/Byrd LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS LIAISON / ALTERNATE Council Liaison to Ocean Trails Byrd/Lyon Council Liaison to Western Avenue Corridor Task Force Lyon/Ferraro Council Liaison to LAX Expansion/Noise McTaggart/Ferraro Following is a brief summary of the background, duties and meeting schedule for each of the organizations for which the Council has delegate or alternate representation for the City. City Selection Committee: This committee is established by the State of California Government Code. Every mayor in the County of Los Angeles is represented on the committee. In the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Mayor Pro Tem has generally been the alternate in the Mayor's absence. The City Selection Committee meets as needed at the monthly League of California Cities Division meetings and selects city representatives to the following bodies: California Coastal Commission South Coast Air Quality Management District Metropolitan Transportation Authority Local Agency Formation Commission League of California Cities, L. A. County Division: League meetings are held on the first Thursday of each month at 6:30 PM in the City of Monterey Park. This is a dinner meeting. In addition to discussing matters of regional interest, the League Division annually authors a number of resolutions that are voted on at the Annual State League Conference to develop a League policy and Legislative agenda for the ensuing year. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): SCAG includes a six county region. Its policy work is largely done through a series of committees. All councilmembers are eligible to attend meetings and participate on committees. The meetings are held on the first Thursday morning of each month. Depending upon the committee on which our delegate serves, the meeting is at 9:00 AM or 10:00 AM and meets at 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles. The appointment of a City delegate and an alternate are for purposes of voting at the SCAG annual meeting held in April. South Bay Cities Council of Governments (COG): The COG is composed of elected representatives from 16 South Bay cities, the County of Los Angeles, and CalTrans. This organization meets on the fourth Thursday of every month at 7:00 PM at the Redondo Beach Library to discuss issues of interest to South Bay Cities. The COG is a legal agency formed through a Joint Powers Agreement to address regionally significant issues in the South Bay. The 16 member cities are:
Sanitation Districts: The City is a member of two of the sanitation districts; Sanitation District Number 5 and the South Bay Sanitation District. By law, the Mayor is the City's representative on the Sanitation District. Each City has an alternate who may be any councilmember, but by policy has traditionally been the Mayor Pro Tem. The Committee meets the third Wednesday of the month at 1:30 PM at Torrance City Hall, third Floor Assembly Room, 3031 Torrance Boulevard. The members receive a $150 per month stipend, paid by the District. Prior to the District meeting, it has been the custom for the four Peninsula mayors to meet for lunch as an informal Mayors' Committee to discuss both Sanitation District matters and issues of general interest to the Peninsula cities. (A representative from the School District also attends this informal meeting with the mayors.) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority: The CJPIA Board of Directors, comprised of one council member from each member city, meets once a year in July. The Executive Committee, which is selected by the Board of Directors, meets the fourth Wednesday of every month at the Authority’s headquarters in La Palma. The City is self-insured through an insurance pool administered by the CJPIA for general liability, property, special events, blanket bonding, and workers' compensation. California Contract Cities Association: This organization meets the third Wednesday of the month at 6:30 PM for a dinner meeting hosted by member cities (location varies). As the name suggests, issues addressed by the organization generally are narrower than the League of California Cities' issues in that they tend to impact only contract cities. In addition to monthly meetings, the Association has an annual Sacramento Legislative Conference in January and a Palm Springs Conference in May. South Bay Youth Project (Juvenile Diversion): Meets for lunch on a quarterly basis in Redondo Beach. This body serves as a counseling agency for at risk youth and their families. Chamber of Commerce: The City belongs to both the Peninsula Chamber of Commerce and the San Pedro/Peninsula Chamber of Commerce. Both Chambers have monthly mixers that are generally announced in the weekly Administrative Report calendar. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (Bay Watershed Council): This organization was created under the Federal National Estuary Act in 1988 to address growing concern regarding the protection of the ecological integrity of the Santa Monica Bay (from White's Point in the south to Malibu in the north). The Bay Watershed Council is made up of private corporations, federal, state and local governments and interested academic professionals. One councilmember serves as a Bay Watershed Council member with another councilmember serving as an alternate. Additionally, most Bay Watershed Council members serve on subcommittees of the organization. The Bay Watershed Council meets quarterly on varying days and times – usually on the last Thursday of the quarter with rotating locations in the Westchester and Santa Monica areas. RPV City representatives have not routinely attended these meetings. PV Transit Authority JPA: The cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates are members of this agency. Its charter is to manage both the Dial-A-Ride and the Palos Verdes Transit systems. The meetings are conducted every other month (on odd months) on the third Thursday at 9:15 AM at Rolling Hills Estates City Hall. MAX Policy Steering Committee: Seven agencies (Rancho Palos Verdes, Torrance, Lomita, Lawndale, El Segundo, and the City and County of Los Angeles) meet to provide policy direction to the MAX Transit System under an agency agreement. The City of Torrance is the lead agency for the system, which operates a commuter express transit system from South Bay cities to the various locations in the area known as the El Segundo Employment Center. The MAX Committee meets on alternate months on the first Monday at 5:00 PM at the City of Torrance City Hall, West Annex. The first meeting in 2001 will be on February 5th. Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Committee: Under a formally adopted agreement, the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills share sheriff's services and meet quarterly to monitor and advise the Sheriff's Department on police issues. Each city has two council representatives on this committee that meets quarterly at 8:00 AM at Rolling Hills City Hall. The chairmanship and responsibility of agenda preparation rotates between the three cities on an annual basis. The first meeting for 2001 will be held on February 8th and Rolling Hills will assume the chairmanship at that meeting. STANDING COMMITTEE Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP): Two Councilmembers attend the monthly working group meetings. The group meets on the third Tuesday of each month at 10:30 AM at Hesse Park. LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS Ocean Trails: Two members serve as a liaison to the developer of Ocean Trails and work with staff and consultants regarding the Ocean Trails project. Western Avenue Corridor: Two members serve as liaisons to the Western Avenue Task Force which is comprised of residents and business owners on and adjacent to Western Avenue. Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) Roundtable: Two councilmembers represent the City on this committee that is a forum to address excessive aircraft noise generated by LAX and related issues. CONCLUSION The City Council members represent the City on various committees that consider policy and legislation that directly impacts the City. These assignments have traditionally been made upon the annual selection of the mayor. Respectfully submitted, Jo Purcell Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager
19. Meeting Schedule for 2001. (Petru)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2001 RECOMMENDATION 1. Schedule a Joint Workshop with the Recreation and Parks Committee and Finance Advisory Committee to discuss the Draft Forrestal Management Plan on January 30, 2001 (fifth Tuesday). 2. Select two dates in April for the City Council budget policy issue workshops. 3. Select two dates in May for the City Council budget review workshops (only one date may be necessary). 4. Select two dates, one in spring and one in fall, for the Community Leaders' Breakfast meetings. 5. Select a date for the Neighborhood Watch Volunteer Appreciation Lunch. DISCUSSION Draft Forrestal Management Plan Joint Workshop The Recreation and Parks Committee and the Finance Advisory Committee have completed their respective reviews of the Draft Forrestal Management Plan. The City Council previously requested that once the Committee reviews were complete, that a Joint Workshop be held to discuss their recommendations. Staff suggests that the Joint Workshop be scheduled for January 30, 2001, which is a fifth Tuesday of the month. The Joint Workshop would be conducted at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park, in order to encourage the public to participate in the meeting. Budget Policy Issues Workshops As part of the budget preparation cycle, the City Council has traditionally conducted a Budget Policy Issues Workshop in April. In the past, staff has compiled the initial list of topics for this meeting and provided an analysis of each item. However, at last year’s workshop, Councilman McTaggart requested that the Council conduct two workshops in 2001. The first workshop would be a "brainstorming" session for the Council to identify budget issues of concern for the next two-year budget cycle. At the second workshop, staff would present an analysis of the policy items identified by the Council, as well as any additional items identified by staff. The input received at the two workshops will be incorporated into the draft two-year budget document. Below are suggested dates for the budget policy issues workshop (please select two dates): Monday, April 9, 2001 Thursday, April 12, 2001 Monday, April 16, 2001 Saturday, April 21, 2001 Wednesday, April 25, 2001 Saturday, April 28, 2001 Budget Review Sessions In addition to the budget policy issues workshops, two sessions should be scheduled in May to provide the City Council with an opportunity to review and comment on the entire proposed budget prior to the formal Public Hearing in June. The Council may complete its review of the draft budget at the first budget review session. If that is the case, then a second session will not be necessary. Below are proposed dates for the budget review sessions (please select two dates): Monday, May 7, 2001 Wednesday, May 9, 2001 Thursday, May 10, 2001 Saturday, May 12, 2001 Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Tuesday, May 29, 2001 (5th Tuesday) Depending on which dates the Council selects for the Budget Review Sessions, the proposed final Public Hearing date for the FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 Budget document is tentatively scheduled for the June 5 or June 19, 2001 City Council meetings. Community Leaders' Breakfast Meetings The City has been hosting two Community Leaders' Breakfast meetings per year to create more opportunities for communication with the residents and appointed officials of the City. Should the Council wish to continue these breakfast meetings in 2001, below is a list of proposed dates for both the spring and fall meetings: Spring: Saturday, April 7, 2001 Saturday, April 14, 2001 Saturday, April 28, 2001 Fall: Saturday, September 22, 2001 Saturday, October 6, 2001 Saturday, October 13, 2001 Neighborhood Watch Volunteer Appreciation Luncheon The City's Neighborhood Watch is a volunteer-based program that owes it success to the active participation of about 250 area coordinators and block captains. To show the City's appreciation for the work done by these volunteers, the City Council hosts an appreciation luncheon each year. The Neighborhood Watch Coordinator, Gail Lorenzen, has requested that next year’s event be held in February. However, staff is having some difficulty finding a suitable location for a Saturday luncheon. As an alternative, staff is currently coordinating with Ms. Lorenzen to see if the event can be held on a weekday evening in February. Staff will provide the Council with an update on potential dates at the meeting Tuesday night. CONCLUSION The City Council is being asked to schedule a number of special meetings in 2001. In order to coordinate the City Councilmembers’ schedules and minimize conflicts, staff suggests that the Council select some dates for the various meetings at this time. For the dates that are set later in the year, the Council still has the ability to adjust or cancel these dates as the time draws closer and each Council member's schedule becomes more firmly established. Respectfully submitted, Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager
20. Request of Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to Investigate Cellular Service on the Peninsula. (Evans)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: REQUEST OF MAYOR PRO TEM MCTAGGART TO INVESTIGATE CELLULAR SERVICE ON THE HILL RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff on whether or not to prepare a report on cellular service to the Peninsula and advise staff on what items should be included in the scope of work. BACKGROUND: Recently Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart purchased two cellular phones from a provider who advised him that the phones would provide service on the Peninsula. In attempting to utilize the new cellular phones, Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart discovered that the sales representative’s claims of service on the Hill were greatly exaggerated. He approached City staff and asked that the matter of poor service from cellular providers be agendized for City Council discussion and that providers making exaggerated claims be asked to appear before the City Council to explain themselves. DISCUSSION: There are many cellular service providers in the Los Angeles area including Nextel, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon and Pacific Bell Wireless. There may be others, but our random survey of local users yielded only these companies. It is not known which, if any, of these providers are claiming that they can provide a consistently good level of service on the Hill. Neither is it known, with reasonable assurance, if any do provide good service. Finally, just who speaks for each of these companies and should represent them before the City Council is not known to City staff. Therefore, there seem to be at least four questions that need to be answered before Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart’s concerns can be adequately addressed. They are:
In order to answer these questions with some degree of certainty surveys need to be conducted. If the City council wishes to pursue these surveys, staff suggests contracting with a qualified and knowledgeable firm to do so. If on the other hand, the Council is interested in pursuing the matter, but is willing to accept general impressions of quality of service and random surveys of sales representations, City staff is able to undertake a casual study. Whether or not the cellular providers will be interested in appearing before the City Council is not known. Respectfully submitted, Les Evans, City Manager
21. Purchase of Tax Defaulted Property. (Petru)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF TAX DEFAULTED PROPERTY RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign an Agreement to Purchase Tax-Defaulted Property for three vacant properties: 1) a vacant lot located the end of Pomegranate Road, 2) a vacant lot at the southeast corner of Tangerine Road and Peppertree Drive and 3) a vacant parcel in Windport Canyon. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the State Revenue and Tax Code, properties that are determined to be in default for unpaid property taxes for five years or more are periodically put up for sale at public auction by the Los Angeles County Tax Collector. However, if it is determined that the parcel is needed for public purposes, the City may request to have the parcel removed from the auction and acquire title to the property. The cost of acquisition is the minimum bid for the property as approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. However, parcels may be subject to removal from the auction if the owner pays the defaulted taxes or enters into a legal process, such as bankruptcy. DISCUSSION Staff has received notice that three vacant parcels in the City will be offered at public auction on February 12, 2001. If the City determines that the properties are needed for public purposes, the City must file a written statement setting forth the purpose of the acquisition and the necessary agreement forms prior to January 15, 2001. The first property is located at the southeast corner of Tangerine Road and Peppertree Drive (both private streets) within the active Portuguese Bend Landslide area and the City’s Redevelopment Project Area (see attached map). This property is zoned OH (Open Space Hazard) and is approximately 14,550 square feet in size. The minimum bid on this parcel is $917. Staff feels that City ownership of this parcel would be of public benefit due to fact that it could potentially be used for landslide abatement purposes, such as the placement of a de-watering well. The second property is located at the end of East Pomegranate Lane (a private street) also within the active Portuguese Bend Landslide area and the City’s Redevelopment Project Area (see attached map). This property is zoned OH (Open Space Hazard) and is approximately 35,070 square feet in size. The minimum bid on this parcel is $841. Similar to the first property, staff feels that City ownership of this parcel would be of public benefit due to fact that it could potentially be used for landslide abatement purposes, such as the placement of a de-watering well.. The third property is located in Windport Canyon, west of Hawthorne Boulevard, between Ocean Crest Drive on the south and Locklenna Lane on the north (see attached map). The property is zoned RS-A-5 (one unit per five acres) and is approximately 5.45 acres in size. The minimum bid price on this parcel is $68,818 or $12,627 per acre. The property was originally intended to be a common open space lot for the residential planned development project located immediately to the south (Sea Gate Villas). However, when the map for Tract No. 35045 was recorded in 1980, the developer kept the property in his name, but placed a use restriction on all 5.45 acres in order to comply with the tract conditions of approval that the property be maintained as open space. The property also has a 44 foot wide landscape easement to the Sea Gate Villas homeowners association along the length of Ocean Crest Drive that is irrigated and planted with ornamental landscaping. Because the property was not dedicated to the adjacent homeowners association, it has changed hands several times over the years, with each successive owner interested in removing the use restrictions and developing the property. Staff feels that acquisition of the Windport Canyon property would remove a controversial piece of property from the marketplace and preserve it as permanent open space, as it was originally intended. Furthermore, acquiring this property will assist the City in the completion of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. Although there is no native habitat currently on the site, the portion that is disked each year for fire control has high potential as a re-vegetation site because it is located adjacent to the larger Agua Armaga Canyon, which contains high quality habitat and supports nesting pairs of California gnatcatchers. There are three other properties included in the February 2001 public auction. Staff does not recommend City acquisition of any of these properties due to the fact that two of the lots are landlocked, remainder parcels located in established residential areas and the other is a single-family residence located on Via Rivera. Staff feels that City ownership of these properties would not serve any reasonable public purpose. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In February 2000, the Council authorized staff to pursue acquisition of a vacant lot on Cherry Hill Lane and in June 2000, the Council authorized staff to pursue acquisition of another vacant lot at the corner of Peppertree Drive and Sweetbay Road. Both properties are located in the active Portuguese Bend landslide area. The City submitted the necessary paperwork to the County Tax Assessor’s Office to purchase these properties and is still awaiting the County’s completion of the legal noticing requirements before finalizing the transaction. CONCLUSION The Los Angeles County Tax Collector has notified the City that six properties in the City will be offered for sale at a public auction on February 12, 2001. The City has the opportunity to purchase any of these properties prior to the public sale, provided that the City files the necessary paperwork with the County prior to January 15, 2001 to establish that the property is needed for public purposes. Staff feels that the two parcels located in the Portuguese Bend landslide area (Pomegranate Road and Tangerine Road) would benefit the City’s landslide abatement efforts by providing additional locations for de-watering wells. In addition, acquisition of the Windport Canyon property would assist in the completion of the City’s NCCP program by providing a land for native habitat re-vegetation. Therefore, staff recommends that the City pursue purchasing these three vacant parcels. FISCAL IMPACT The City would be required to purchase the subject parcel for the minimum bid amount, which is $70,576. The money for the purchase would come from the General Fund. The only on-going cost to the City of owning these properties would be the annual cost of clearing the non-native vegetation for fire control purposes. Respectfully submitted: Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager Reviewed, Les Evans, 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. AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2000 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER NEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2000-17 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Minutes of November 21 and December 5, 2000. (Purcell) Recommendation: Approve the Minutes.
B. Register of Demands. (McLean) Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION No. RDA 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID. REGULAR BUSINESS:
C. Exclusive Negotiating Agreement to Provide Affordable Housing. (Evans) Recommendation: Approve the proposed Negotiating Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, LP. TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FROM: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, LP. BACKGROUND: On November 21, 2000 the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) continued the matter of approving a new Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the RDA and Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, LP at the request of the developer. The developer’s request was based on testimony by Ann Shaw, President of the Peninsula Seniors, that her organization had some reservations about endorsing the incorporation of a Senior Center into the Senior Housing project. The deletion of the proposed 5500 square foot Senior Center from the proposed affordable housing project could have a significant effect on some of the issues raised by the Crestridge neighborhood at the November 21, 2000 City Council meeting. Project History The original ENA was entered into on January 18, 2000 and required the Developer to obtain project approvals by October 1, 2000. Due to design problems the developer was unable to meet the time deadlines and the ENA expired. The Developer has requested that a new ENA be approved by the RDA. The concept of a Senior Affordable Housing project was introduced to the City Council and Planning Commission in a joint workshop on August 28, 1999. At that time the Developer requested that the City contribute up to $1.9 million towards the development of the project. Also at the workshop, the City Council/Planning Commission gave some direction to the Developer, and indicated that the project had merit. The following is a chronology of significant events subsequent to the August meeting: 09/22/99 Developer submitted application for Environmental Assessment No. 73 to determine environmental review status. 10/06/99 Developer presented preliminary design to the Peninsula Seniors at their meeting. 10/19/99 City Council Meeting – City Staff sought direction from the City Council on the following four issues: 1) Impact of SCAG’s new RHNA numbers on the City’s requirements, 2) Does the Council wish the developer to redesign based upon the new RHNA?, 3) Should other peninsula cities be asked to participate in the project?, and 4) Should the City invite competition for its housing dollars rather than limiting consideration to one developer? Council formed a sub-committee (Mayor Byrd and Councilwoman Ferraro) to meet with the staff, the developer and the seniors group. 10/21/99 Letter to Developer from City (Greg Pfost, Senior Planner) – indicating that the project would require a Supplemental EIR and that additional information needed to be submitted by the developer. 12/08/99 Meeting between Developer and Peninsula Seniors representatives to discuss details of project. Mayor Byrd, Councilwoman Ferraro and City Staff in attendance. 12/21/99 City Council Meeting – City Council approved contracts for consulting services with PMW Associates (Marilyn Whisenand – Affordable Housing Consultant), Keyser Marston Associates (Financial Consultant) and R. P. Laurin and Associates (Appraisal Firm). Developer revises project from 84 units to 73 units. 01/06/00 Developer submits formal applications for the proposed project, which includes Conditional Use Permit No. 210 and Grading Permit No. 2163. 01/18/00 City Council Meeting – City enters into Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Developer to construct the project. ENA expires on 10/01/00, with allowance of 3-month extension by City Manager. 02/07/00 City enters into contract with Peri Muretta for Environmental Consulting Services in order to prepare the necessary environmental documents for the project. 03/08/00 City Council Meeting – City Council authorized the acquisition of property, which included the approval of various agreements. 03/09/00 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental EIR with Initial Study released for 45-day review period. 04/13/00 Developer submits Preliminary Grading Plan. 04/28/00 Developer submits Biology Report. 06/05/00 Letter to Developer from City (Greg Pfost, Senior Planner) acknowledging submittal of certain information, however expressing concern that all items have not been submitted. Project remains incomplete. 06/30/00 Developer submits revised application to address items noted in previous letters by Staff. Week of 07/17/00 Developer submits revised Grading Plan that depicts revised project as described in 06/30/00. Developer also submits report on moving the OH zone. 07/28/00 Letter to Developer from Pfost noting project still incomplete. Need grading plan revisions, building plan revisions, issues of concern, environmental documents. 08/01/00 City Council Meeting. Report presented to Council on revised concept proposal. 08/08/00 Memo from Developer to Pfost submitting revised colored grading plan showing extreme slopes - based upon revised project. 08/14/00 Memo from Developer to Pfost submitting revised site plan, building plans and grading plans to address 07/28/00 letter from Pfost. 08/30/00 Revised Biology Report submitted by Developer to Pfost. 09/06/00 Letter received from developer's Traffic Consultant responding to outstanding Traffic Issues. 09/14/00 Letter to Developer from Pfost, noting project complete (30 days from Developer submittal of revised plans on 08/14/00). However, still need to clarify items, submit Visual Analysis, obtain approval of Traffic Study, and address issues. 10/1/00 Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expires. City Manager determines a 90 day extension would not be adequate to complete terms of Agreement. Developer is advised that a new agreement must be approved by the City Council. 10/17/00 Request from Developer to continue processing development application while waiting for City Council to act on his request for a new ENA. 10/18/00 City resumes work on processing project application. Project Design As submitted on June 30, 2000, the preliminary project design consisted of a two-story, 76-unit mix of one and two bedroom rental units (68 one bedroom units and 8 two bedroom units), a 5,520 square foot Senior Center, 105 parking spaces (all located within a subterranean parking structure), and 10,773 cubic yards of grading. The proposed apartments would be leased at Very Low or Low rental rates (approximately $400 to $600 per month). At their November 21, 2000 meeting, the City Council heard numerous objections to the proposed project. The primary objections were related to the compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding residential uses, the appearance of the building, the density of the dwelling units and the traffic impacts associated with a Senior Center. With the deletion of a Senior Center, the project developer has indicated that he may consider a different mix of units, an adjustment in the number and size of units and a reduction in parking spaces. For instance, a design of 63 units with thirteen affordable units and 50 market rate units is an option. The final design, size and number of units and parking layout is not on the agenda tonight, but will be a matter for future consideration should the City Council continue its relationship with Indian Ridgecrest Gardens, LP. Staff has advised the Developer that the project description should be revised to reflect more closely his current thinking and the environmental documents changed accordingly. A revised project application will be required. The following is a tentative schedule for the processing of the project application should the City Council authorize a new Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. A detailed description of each element of the discretionary approval process is attached. January 8-11, 2001 Screencheck SEIR completed and distributed to City Staff, City Attorney and Applicant for review and comment. City Consultants shall review geology and Transportation sections. Additional information may need to be provided by Applicant's Consultants. January 15, 2001 Comments on Screencheck SEIR sent to EIR Consultant. January 18-22, 2001 Comments incorporated into document by EIR Consultant and Draft SEIR begins circulating for 45-day comment period. January 22, 2001 Traffic Committee meeting to discuss Traffic Report, Traffic Issues, and make a recommendation to City Council. March 6, 2001 45-day comment period ends. EIR Consultant prepares Response to Comments document. Geologic, Traffic, and/or Biological Consultant assistance may be needed from City and Applicant. To expedite process, comments can begin to be prepared during the 45-day circulation period, as comments are received. March 9, 2001 All information from City Staff, Applicant, and/or Consultants, necessary to address the comments are given to EIR Consultant for incorporation into the final document. March 20, 2001 City Staff sends Public Notice of April 10, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. March 21, 2001 Response to Comments document completed and mailed to commentors (at least 10 days prior to public hearing). April 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. May 1, 2001 City Council/RDA meeting (provided that the Planning Commission completes their review on the April 10th meeting). Earlier Efforts to Identify Housing Opportunities Since the Redevelopment Plan was first adopted in 1984, the Agency was required to set-aside twenty percent (20%) of the gross annual tax increment into the Agency’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The purpose of this Fund is to increase, improve and preserve the City’s supply of low and moderate-income housing. In carrying out the housing set-aside requirements, the Agency may expend these funds on a number of different programs, including acquiring real property. The current Fund balance is approximately $343,000. It was approximately $932,000 in March 2000 prior to the Agency purchasing the Crestridge property. State law generally imposes sanctions if the un-encumbered housing fund balance exceeds $1 million for a specified period of time. Those sanctions include preventing the RDA from using a portion of non-set aside redevelopment funds. However, the RDA has spent set-aside money to buy the site, so it is now in compliance and has five years from the time it spent the money for the land to build affordable housing on it. In addition, the Council, by resolution, can extend that time frame by another five years for a total of ten. At the end of the ten years, if the project still isn’t built, the RDA can exchange the site for another low-mod site, sell it and put the money in the low-mod fund and start over or reimburse the low-mod fund with general fund money and start over. Over the past two years Agency staff and Councilmembers have actively pursued alternatives for the use of the funds including contacts with experienced developers of affordable housing projects, attempts to purchase developable land, new construction of affordable units in proposed developments and conversion of existing apartments into affordable units. The Agency, as well as private interests were unable to find a willing seller of existing units or available land other than the properties along Crestridge Road. CITY/RDA and State to Provide Low and Moderate Income Housing One of the programs identified within the Agency’s 5-year Implementation Plan is to: "Preserve, improve and expand housing opportunities for low and moderate income residents. Typical examples include, but are not limited to: the replacement or repair of marginal or substandard dwelling units, providing financial subsidies to qualified low and moderate income households, and the implementation of financial assistance programs to reduce land, site development and/or construction costs to facilitate the development of low and moderate income housing." Additionally, one of the Plan’s five year Housing Goals is to "Meet the fair share regional affordable housing goals for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by improving public improvements and community facilities, removing and preventing blighting conditions and providing and/or preserving affordable housing resources." As you may know, by State Law, HCD notifies SCAG of the total Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) assigned to the SCAG region. The RHNA indicates how many housing units should be provided to meet the region's housing needs. SCAG then takes that total number from HCD and disaggregates it among the counties and local jurisdictions within the SCAG region based upon a number of models that they use to ensure each City gets their fair share. It was during this process that City Staff was able to get the City's RHNA reduced from 311 units to 53 units. As such, the current RHNA number assigned to the City is 53 units. What this means is that in the City's Housing Element, the City needs to show, through Goals, Policies and Programs, how the 53 units can be provided for in the City. It is important to understand that the City is not required to construct these 53 units, nor is the City penalized if the 53 units are not provided over the planning period. At the end of the planning period, which is year 2005, if the 53 units were not provided, then in the next Housing Element Amendment, the City just needs to show why the 53 units were not provided. As you are aware, City Staff has been working on a Housing Element Amendment. Every City in the SCAG region is required to submit an Amended Housing Element to HCD prior to December 31, 2000. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ Housing Element is before the City Council at tonight’s meeting. Normally, housing elements are to be amended every five years. Since SCAG did not have funds to produce the RHNA in 1995, cities and counties within the SCAG region have not amended their housing elements since 1990 (a minor amendment occurred in 1992 to address a different state housing law). As you can see, the RHNA is instrumental in the Housing Element Amendment process. Our housing element amendment currently uses the Draft RHNA prepared by SCAG. The RHNA is still Draft because SCAG is currently contesting the number of housing units HCD assigned to the SCAG region. However, in preparation of the Housing Element, HCD has indicated to all cities within the SCAG region that it acknowledges the Draft RHNA prepared by SCAG, and that cities should use this as the basis for preparing the housing element amendment. As you are also aware SCAG has divided the 53 units into four income categories - eight very low income, five low income, eight moderate income, and 32 above-moderate income. The Draft housing element presented to the Planning Commission and to the City Council notes that the 32 above-moderate units have already been satisfied through development activity over the past two years. It also notes that the eight moderate income units will be addressed through the development of an estimated eight second dwelling units (which our zoning code permits). The 13 remaining low (5) and very low (8) income units may be satisfied through the senior affordable housing project, and the Ocean Trails project which is required to construct or provide for eight very low to low income units. Again, its important to remember that the housing element merely shows where these units may be provided - we are not penalized if these units are not developed. Using the senior affordable housing project in our housing element is important as it shows how the City is attempting to satisfy the need by identifying a potential site that the City has already purchased for affordable housing purposes. If the affordable housing project does not get built then in our next housing element, we would indicate that it was not built - but we will not be penalized for not building it. It is also worth noting that after we factor in the eight very low to low income units from Ocean Trails, the affordable housing project may only need to contain five low income units if we only choose to meet the RHNA goal prior to 2005. The planning period is five years, from 2000-2005. The reference to seven years is because cities can use whatever development activity occurred in 1998-1999 towards meeting their RHNA, such as we have in meeting our above-moderate income units. This is because SCAG used demographic information from 1998-1999 to prepare the RHNA. The fulfillment of the Agency’s obligation to utilize 20% of its
tax increment income for the development of low to moderate income housing,
such as this proposed project, will support the General Plan Housing Element
Goals and assist in meeting the Regional Housing Needs allocated to the
City by SCAG. FISCAL IMPACT The combined amount of investment from the City and the Redevelopment Agency to support the new affordable housing project is currently unknown since the description of the affordable project is still undetermined. For instance, if the developer builds only thirteen affordable units, the City /RDA contribution to subsidize the rents may be only about $25,000 per unit. The RDA Set- aside funds available currently total approximately $343,000. The other source of funds available is the Housing In-Lieu account generated by developers who chose to contribute funds rather than homes to meet their low and moderate housing requirements. The current balance in the Housing In-lieu account is approximately $894,000. The total set-aside and in-lieu funds available are $1,237,000. The RDA also owns the Crestridge land which was purchased for about $700,000. The City/RDA funds are restricted and can be utilized only for projects offering housing for low and moderate-income persons. ALTERNATIVES The RDA Board may choose to decline to enter into a new Negotiating Agreement with Indian Ridgecrest Gardens, L.P. and instead request proposals from qualified developers (including Indian Ridgecrest Gardens, L.P.) to design, build and manage a senior affordable housing project on the Crestridge site. As a result of the expiration of the ENA, the Developer no longer has the option to repurchase the property from the RDA. A Request for Proposal could specify the density of development, unit size and mix and make the design more compatible with the concerns of the nearby neighborhoods. Competing development companies could submit proposals describing how they could meet the project constraints and how much participation they would require from the City/RDA in order to keep the project affordable. Respectfully submitted: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Project Processing Steps Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Letters from citizens PUBLIC COMMENTS: This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda: each speaker is limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular Redevelopment Agency meeting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
