|
FEB.
20, 2001
DISCLAIMER
BEGINNING
OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
This agenda has been prepared to provide for the orderly progression of City business. Detailed staff reports on specific items are posted in the hallway for public viewing. The City Council wants to hear your comments, however, to run the meeting efficiently, please observe the following rules when you participate in the meeting. Please try to submit your REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL form to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called at the appropriate time to make your remarks. For the sake of efficiency, the City Council agenda is divided into several sections: Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items which, unless a request has been received from the public, council or staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the City Council. If you wish to speak to any Consent Calendar item(s) you will be limited to three minutes. Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed hearings. Although the normal time limit is three minutes for each speaker, the Mayor may grant additional time to a representative speaking for an entire group; however, this should not discourage anyone from addressing the City Council individually. Regular Business: This section contains items of general business and you will be allowed three minutes to speak on any item. Public Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda. If you have submitted a request to speak, you will be called by the City Clerk at the appropriate time and you may speak for up to three minutes. Please limit your comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Public Comments. If action by the City Council is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda or referred to staff, as determined by Council. Please make your remarks at the lectern microphone and direct your comments to the City Council and not to the staff or the public. Conduct at the Council Meeting: The City Council has adopted a set of rules for conduct during City Council meetings. The following is an excerpt from those adopted Rules of Procedure: Section 6.3 The Mayor shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person(s) who commits the following acts at a regular or special meeting of the City Council: 1.Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Council or any member thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. 2.A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. 3.Disobedience of any lawful order of the Mayor which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Council. 4.Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting. RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FEBRUARY 20, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD _____________________________________________________________________ 6:00 P.M.CLOSED SESSION 7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-09 NEXT ORD. NO. 362 RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.Minutes of February 12, 2001. (Purcell)
2.C.O.R.E Deputies – Attendance at Crime Conference. (Purcell)
3.Apply for Re-use Assistance Grant. (Ramezani)
4.Household Hazardous Waste Round-up Siting Liability Agreement with Los Angeles County. (Ramezani)
5.Register of Demands. (McLean.)
############ PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6.Ocean Trails – A proposed revision to the Conditions of Approval regarding the re-construction of Palos Verdes Drive South. (Allison)
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: 7.Ocean Trails – A proposed revision to the Conditions of Approval regarding the project’s affordable housing requirements. (Pfost)
8.Peafowl Population Assessment and Recommendations. (Park)
9.Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Midyear Financial Report. (Burton)
10.Lease Extension for Former Cable Studio Building at City Hall. (Petru)
11.Amendment of Retirement Formula to 2% @ 55 and One-Year Final Compensation Benefit Factor. (Petru)
12.Purchase of the Barkentine Open Space Property. (Petru)
13.Grant Application for Acquisition of Open Space. (Ramezani)
CLOSED SESSION REPORT: ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to February 28th at 7:00 P.M. at Ladera for a pre-budget public discussion. CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Anticipated Litigation: (G.C 54956.9(b) Based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, the City Council/Agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed session is authorized. 1 (Number of Potential Cases) (E) Letter written by John Monks dated February 6, 2001 sent to Mayor Marilyn Lyon regarding Landslide Moratorium Zone 2 a copy of which is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR G.C. 54956.8 Potential purchase of open space Property: Agua Armaga Parcels 7583-022-008, 7583-022-011; Parcel 4 7573-003-017; Filiorum 7581-023-29, 7581-023-30; Portuguese Bend 7572-001-001 through 007. City Negotiators:City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Negotiating Parties:Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Holdings and York Long Point Associates
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment 
1.Minutes of February 12, 2001. (Purcell)
2.C.O.R.E Deputies – Attendance at Crime Conference. (Purcell)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE:FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT:C.O.R.E DEPUTIES – ATTENDANCE AT CRIME CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION Approve the request from Capt. Hitchcock, Commander of the Lomita Sheriff’s Station for financial support for the C.O.R.E. Policing Team to attend the 23rd International Asian Organized Crime Conference. BACKGROUND The City has received a request from the Sheriff’s Department to provide financial support for the attendance of our C.O.R.E. Policing Team at the "23rd International Asian Organized Crime Conference" to be held in Las Vegas on April 2nd through April 6th. As cited in the January 12th letter from Capt. Hitchcock, during this past year the Lomita Station has called on the Sheriff’s Department Asian Crime Task Force on at least three occasions for assistance in crimes committed against the Asian community on the Peninsula. These crimes included assault, witness intimidation, follow-home-robbery, and a major credit card scam. In his letter, Capt. Hitchcock states that this training would assist the Lomita Station personnel in the preliminary stages of investigations and would help them work more effectively when assisting the Task Force. This request for funding was considered by the Regional Law Enforcement Committee (Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rolling Hills) at their meeting held on February 8th and was unanimously approved by all of the representatives in attendance. Funding for this expense will come from the grants received from both the State of California through the COPS program and from the Federal government through the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program; furthermore, the cost will be shared on a 60/30/10 basis between the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills. FISCAL IMPACT Expenses for attendance at this conference by the C.O.R.E. Policing Team (Sergeant David Rozas, Deputies Brandon Epp, Cory Johnson, and Randy Oviedo) is estimated to cost between $3,600 and $3,660. CONCLUSION A request has been received from the Commander of the Lomita Sheriff’s Station that the City help pay for attendance of the C.O.R.E Policing Team at the 23rd International Asian Organized Crime Conference. Funding will come from State and Federal grants received by the City and the cost will be shared with the other two cities in the region. Respectfully submitted, Jo Purcell Reviewed: Les Evans, City Manager
3.Apply for Re-use Assistance Grant. (Ramezani)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT:APPLY FOR REUSE ASSISTANCE GRANT Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 2001- ___ authorizing the application for Reuse Assistance Grant funds from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). BACKGROUND AB 939 established a hierarchy for solid waste management with the most preferred option being source reduction, which includes materials reuse. Reuse is defined, as using a material over again in its current form without any significant processing that would alter its material structure. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has provided funding allocation for a major reuse initiative including funding for encouraging California public agencies to promote and apply the concept of reuse. DISCUSSION This grant application will be a joint effort with the cities of Torrance, Redondo Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) and Lomita. The City of Lomita will be the lead agency and Huls Environmental Management will be the consultant managing and administering the grant project for the cities. These cities intend to work closely with Food Finders, a nonprofit organization established in 1989 that is dedicated to feeding those in need. Food Finders collects and distributes food along with other essential items to over 160 service agencies such as missions, shelters, treatment centers, senior centers and children's homes in both Los Angeles and Orange Counties at no cost to recipients. To date, Food Finders has diverted over 13 million pounds of food to the needy, that otherwise would have ended up in landfills. The deadline for the grant application is March 9, 2001. The grant is for a two-year period beginning May 1, 2001 and ending May 1, 2003. The maximum grant amount is $50,000 with a required $50,000 match from the participating cities. Food Finders initial target will be the large supermarkets in the four cities, followed by restaurants and smaller food establishments. Since RPV only has a few supermarkets, RPV's suggested match for the grant is one-fifth of the total match required or $10,000 ($5,000 for FY 01-02 and $5,000 for FY 02-03). How does the program work? Food Finders finds businesses such as grocery stores, supermarkets, bakeries and restaurants that are willing to donate their unused food items like baked goods, dairy products, vegetables, meats and poultry. These food items get donated because either the food establishment needs shelf space for their fresh food, or the items have reached their expiration date. Although the food item can not be sold, it may still be consumed for up to a week after the expiration date. Food Finder has drivers and volunteers that go to food establishments, pick up the donated food items, and deliver the items to a shelter or another such organization. The program has many benefits:
Staff proposes to use the funds for the following activities:
ALTERNATIVE The alternative would be to not submit a grant application. FISCAL IMPACT If authorized, the City will provide a $5,000 funding match for FY 01-02 and a $5,000 match for FY 02-03. Providing a matching fund is a condition of the grant and will be paid from the Solid Waste Fund. The Solid Waste Fund has an estimated FY 00-01 year-end fund balance of $670,000. Respectfully Submitted: Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachment: Resolution 2001- ___ RESOLUTION 2001-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING STAFF TO APPLY FOR A REUSE ASSISTANCE GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 42000 authorizes the California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board) to conduct market development activities to strengthen demand by manufacturers and end-use consumers for recyclable materials collected by municipalities, non profit organizations, and private entities: and WHEREAS, the concept of reuse is an integrated approach which encompasses integrated waste management objectives such as building materials efficiency, construction and demolition waste reduction, and maximization of reused- and recycled-content building and landscaping materials; and WHEREAS, on December 12-13, 2000, the Board approved the Evaluation Process, Scoring Criteria, and Preference Criteria for the Reuse Assistance Grants; and BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: That the City Council authorizes the submittal of an application to the Board for a Reuse Assistance Grant. The Director of Public Works, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes all necessary applications, contracts, payment requests, agreements, and amendments hereto for the purposes of securing grant funds and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in the grant application. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2001. _______________________ 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. 2001- __ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on February 20, 2001. __________________________ CITY CLERK
4.Household Hazardous Waste Round-up siting Liability Agreement with Los Angeles County. (Ramezani)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT:HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ROUND-UP SITING LIABILITY AGREEMENT WITH LOS ANGELES COUNTY Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program Siting Liability Agreement with the County of Los Angeles and County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On May 5, 2001, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) will be co-hosting its free annual Household Hazardous Waste Round-Up at the City Hall/City Yards facility with the Los Angeles County Public Works and the County Sanitation District No. 2. Since 1996, these City-held round-ups have been an excellent and convenient opportunity for residents of RPV and neighboring cities to properly dispose of household hazardous waste material. The attached agreement will hold-harmless the City of RPV against any liability claims that may result from the hazardous waste round-up activities taking place on City-owned property, and shifts the liability to the County of Los Angeles. The agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s office. FISCAL IMPACT There will be a cost of approximately $1,000 of City staff time to organize this event. Respectfully Submitted: Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager
5.Register of Demands. (McLean.)
############ PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6.Ocean Trails – A proposed revision to the Conditions of Approval regarding the re-construction of Palos Verdes Drive South. (Allison)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT:CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACTS 50666 AND 50667 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2001 - , approving Addendum 12 to EIR 36 for Revision Q; and Resolution No. 2001 - , approving Revision Q to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666; and Resolution No. 2001 - , approving Revision Q to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50667, revising the conditions of approval to require the developer to reconstruct La Rotonda Drive, rather than resurfacing a portion of Palos Verdes Drive South from La Rotonda Drive to the eastern City boundary. Background At the February 6, 2001 meeting, the Council considered proposed revisions to the Conditions of Approval for EIR 16 and Vesting Tentative Tracts 50666 and 50667 related to roadway improvements. Staff proposed that Ocean Trails be required to reconstruct La Rotonda Drive rather than resurface both La Rotonda Drive and Palos Verdes Drive South easterly of La Rotonda. The City Council agreed in principle to proposed revision, however, staff was requested to revise the proposed Resolutions to clarify potential future responsibility that Ocean Trails may have regarding damage to Palos Verdes Drive South from La Rotonda Drive to the easterly city limits which resulted in that roadway settling. The attached resolution provides that clarity. Specifically the portion of the proposed resolution related to this responsibility states: Nothing in this Condition I-3 shall preclude the City from requiring the Developer to contribute to the cost of reconstructing Palos Verdes Drive South (25th Street) from La Rotonda Drive to the eastern City limits pursuant to Condition I-5 of this approval, if based on a geologic and/or engineering study the City determines that construction of the Ocean Trails project has damaged this street segment. However, if the City finds that Condition I-5 is applicable, and the Developer is required to make a financial contribution toward said reconstruction cost, the Developer shall receive a credit against that cost, due to the additional amount being incurred by the Developer to reconstruct La Rotonda Drive in accordance with this amended Condition I-3. The amount of the credit, which shall be determined by the Director of Public Works, shall be equal to the difference between 1) the cost of resurfacing 25th Street from La Rotonda Drive to the easterly City limits plus the cost of resurfacing La Rotonda Drive from Palos Verdes Drive South to the Fire Access Road, and 2) the cost of reconstructing La Rotonda Drive from Palos Verdes Drive South to the Fire Access Road. Conclusion Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the revision to the Conditions of Approval for the Ocean Trails project to require the developer to reconstruct La Rotonda Drive rather than resurface La Rotonda Drive and Palos Verdes Drive South from La Rotonda Drive to the eastern city limits. Alternative Actions Provide staff with additional direction. Fiscal Impact The recommended action will have a positive fiscal impact. This is because the value of the construction as revised, is greater than the current obligation. Submitted by, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by, Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Resolutions Cost Estimates Exhibit February 6, 2001 Staff Report 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:
7.Ocean Trails – A proposed revision to the Conditions of Approval regarding the project’s affordable housing requirements. (Pfost)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT: REVISION "P" TO THE OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 163 ET AL - A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS REQUIRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OCEAN TRAILS LP) Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2001-__, approving Addendum No. 11 to EIR No. 36 for Revision P, and Resolution No. 2001-__, approving Revision "P" to Conditional Use Permit No. 162; and Resolution No. 2001-__, approving Revision "P" to Conditional Use Permit No. 163; and Resolution No. 2001-__, approving Revision "P" to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666; and Resolution No. 2001-__, approving Revision "P" to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667, for a revision to the timing of providing 4 on-site affordable housing units at the Ocean Trails site. DISCUSSION At the February 6, 2001 City Council meeting, the City Council denied the developer's request to pay a fee in-lieu of providing 4 off-site and 4 on-site affordable housing units in conjunction with the Ocean Trails project. The Council also denied any alternatives for providing these units, as discussed in the February 6, 2001 Staff Report to the City Council. The Council's decision was based on the developer's in-ability to provide sufficient evidence that providing 4 on-site affordable housing units at the Ocean Trails site was not feasible. However, the Council did approve an amendment that would allow the developer to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units for rent "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course" instead of "within one year of the opening of the clubhouse" (as originally conditioned). The City Council directed Staff to prepare Resolutions of approval depicting this change and bring the Resolutions back to the City Council for adoption at the February 20, 2001 City Council meeting. For these reasons, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolutions approving Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, thereby allowing an extension to the deadline for providing the 4 on-site affordable housing units for rent. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives: 1.Deny the requested revisions to the project and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions for the next meeting. 2.Provide the landowner and staff with direction on the issues of concern to the Council and continue this matter to a date certain. FISCAL IMPACT There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision. Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed By: Les Evans, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2001-__, (Addendum No. 11 - Rev. P) Resolution No. 2001-__, (Conditional Use Permit No. 162 - Rev. P) Resolution No. 2001-__; (Conditional Use Permit No. 163 - Rev. P) Resolution No. 2001-__, (VTTM No. 50666) Resolution No. 2001-__, (VTTM No. 50667) RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 11 TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 36 IN CONNECTION WITH REVISION "P" TO THE OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT FOR A 75 LOT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, AND 18-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE WITH RELATED FACILITIES LOCATED IN COASTAL SUBREGIONS 7 AND 8 WHEREAS, an application package was filed by the Zuckerman Building Company and Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company requesting approval of tentative parcel maps, vesting tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, a coastal permit and a grading permit to allow the construction of a Residential Planned Development of 120 single family dwelling units and for development of an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse and parking facilities on a 258 acre site bounded by Palos Verdes Drive South on the north, Portuguese Bend Club and Community Association on the west, the Pacific Ocean on the south and Los Angeles County Shoreline Park on the east; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and circulated for 45 days from June 7, 1991 through July 22, 1991 in order to receive written comments on the adequacy of the document from responsible agencies and the public; and, WHEREAS, subsequent to the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and preparation of written responses, the applicant revised the scope of the project and reduced the number of proposed single family residences to 40 units in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 and 43 in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667, and an 18 hole golf course with related facilities within the boundaries of both Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and, due to the changes in the project, an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (ADEIR) was prepared; and, WHEREAS, based on review of the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the City determined that the information submitted in the AEIR cited potential additional significant environmental impacts that would be caused by the revised project, and directed preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The SEIR, which incorporates information and findings set forth in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, was prepared and circulated for 45 days from March 19, 1992 through May 4, 1992, during which time all interested parties were notified of the circulation period and invited to present written comments to the information contained in the SEIR, in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, on June 1, 1992 the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-53 certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103, and Grading Permit No. 1541 for an 83 lot Residential Planned Development, public open space, and an 18 hole public golf course with clubhouse and related facilities on 261.4 acres in Coastal Subregions 7 and 8; and, WHEREAS, on December 7, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-115 approving an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with approving Revisions to the Ocean Trails project applications described above, in order to address concerns expressed by the California Coastal Commission with regard to adequate provisions for public open space, public access and habitat preservation; and, WHEREAS, on October 5, 1993, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 93-89 approving a second Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with re-approval of the Ocean Trails project applications described above, in order to comply with a Court mandate to provide affordable housing in conjunction with the project, pursuant to Government Code Section 65590; and, WHEREAS, on September 6, 1994, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 94-71 approving a third Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with approval of Revision "A" to the Ocean Trails project applications described above, in order to incorporate changes to the project made by the California Coastal Commission in April 1993, and (based on additional geologic information) relocate the golf course clubhouse, reduce the number of single family lots from 83 to 75 and approve a location for the golf course maintenance facility and on-site affordable housing units; and, WHEREAS, on March 11, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-15 approving the fourth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with approval of Revision "B" to the Ocean Trails project applications described above, in order to incorporate changes to the project made by the California Coastal Commission in January 1995 regarding the relocation of the golf course clubhouse, Paseo Del Mar roadway and public trails to accommodate a reconfiguration of the public parking facilities, as well as additional modifications to the public trails in order to provide clarification or to be consistent with the California Coastal Commission's approval and to include an 8.5 acre vacant property owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District into the golf course. WHEREAS, on September 3, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-72 approving the fifth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with approval of Revision "C" to the Ocean Trails project applications described above, in order to relocate two single family residential lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 from the end of Street "A" to the end of Street "C," revise the boundaries of open space Lots B, C, G and H, convert the split-level lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 to single-level lots, revise the golf course layout, revise the public trail system, combine parallel trail easements, construct a paved fire access road west of the Ocean Terraces Condominiums and modify several amendments to the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures to change the required timing for compliance; and, WHEREAS, on August 18, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-76 approving Addendum No. 6 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "G" to the Ocean Trails project, which included: 1) an 18% increase in the size of the clubhouse from 27,000 square feet to 32,927 square feet; 2) an increase in the size of the maintenance facility from 6,000 square feet to 9,504 square feet; 3) a two foot increase in the upslope height of the maintenance facility building; and, 4) relocation of the maintenance building and reconfiguration of the maintenance facility parking lot. WHEREAS, on February 2, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-10 approving Addendum No. 7 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "H" to the Ocean Trails project, which included: changing 6 of the residential lots within VTTM 50667 from flat pad lots to split level lots, lowering the overall pad elevation for each lot, and lowering Street 'B' within the subdivision, and lowering the pad elevation for 6 other lots within the subdivision. Additionally, the approval included the modification of the project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval to allow the permitted construction hours for the entire Ocean Trails project to be expanded to include Sundays through March 21, 1999. WHEREAS, on May 4, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-29 approving Addendum No. 8 to Environmental Impact Report No. 35 and the proposed Revision "I" to the Ocean Trails project, which included a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "I" only amended the drainage for the east side of the Ocean Trails project, involving La Rotonda canyon; and, WHEREAS, on July 20, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-55 approving Addendum No. 9 to Environmental Impact Report No. 35 and the proposed Revision "J" to the Ocean Trails project, which included 1), the conditions requiring the establishment of a maintenance district be revised by eliminating the maintenance district and having the golf course owner be the sole responsible entity for maintenance thereby excluding the future residential homeowners; 2) withdrawn by applicant; 3), the timing of the installation of ornamental fencing on each residential lot be delayed until prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; 4), delay the construction of two trails within VTTM 50666 from the Second Stage to the Third Stage of phasing within the Public Amenities Plan; 5), lower the approved residential building pad elevations and create split-level pads in VTTM No. 50666; 6), delay the payment of traffic impact fees to prior to Final Map No. 50666; 7), allow an increase in total building area of the clubhouse by permitting a basement space; 8), withdrawn by applicant; and 9), revise the hours permitted for golf course landscape gardening; and, WHEREAS, on May 16, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-27 approving Addendum No. 10 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "K" to the Ocean Trails project, which allowed a portion of the golf course to open for play before all of the required public amenities have been completed due to delays caused by the failure of Landslide C on June 2, 1999; and, WHEREAS, on June 21, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-38 certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the proposed Revision "L" to the Ocean Trails project, for the repair of Landslide C at Ocean Trails; and, WHEREAS, on July 18, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision M to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving an amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), an amendment to the HCP Implementing Agreement, and approval of a Conservation Easement over the lower portion of Shoreline Park; and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision N to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and amending the project to accommodate a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "N" only amended the drainage for the west side of the Ocean Trails project, involving Forrestal Canyon; and, WHEREAS, on April 4, 2000, Ocean Trails, L.P., submitted a letter to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requesting approval for Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project to revise the Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 162, CUP No. 163, VTTM No. 50666 and VTTM No. 50667, so as to provide the Ocean Trails project other options in meeting its affordable housing requirements, and convert the existing vacant affordable housing site (Lot No. 37 of Tract No. 50667) to a parking lot; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65952.5(e) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), on February 1, 2001, copies of the draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 were distributed to the City Council and prior to taking action on the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in Addendum No. 11 to EIR No. 36; and, WHEREAS, on February 6, 2001, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Development Code, the City Council held a public hearing to consider draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: As approved, amendment P to the Ocean Trails project, only allows for an extension of time to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units for rent; from "one year after the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course. The developer's request that the City allow Ocean Trails to pay a fee in-lieu of providing the 4 on-site affordable housing units, or that the City allow the developer other alternatives to choose from in meeting their affordable housing requirements, and allow Ocean Trails to construct a parking lot at the existing vacant affordable housing lot (Lot No. 37 of Tract No. 50667), was denied by the City Council as the developer did not provide sufficient evidence that it was not feasible to construct the 4 on-site units at the Ocean Trails site. The changes to the project, which only include an extension of time to provide the on-site units, is located in areas of the subject property which were previously identified as part of the developed portion of the project. Therefore, pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, approval of Addendum No. 11 to the previously certified EIR, rather than the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, is appropriate for the consideration of the proposed revisions to the Ocean Trails project, based on the following findings: 1.That a subsequent change proposed to the project does not require important revisions to the previous EIR, since there are no new significant environmental impacts that have been identified, which were not considered in the previous EIR. This is so, since the proposed change identified in Section 2 and attached Exhibit "A" would not result in any new or increased impacts to the environment that are not already analyzed within EIR No. 36, because it merely extends the deadline to provide these units, while still meeting the need of having affordable housing units available for rent for employees of the project. 2.That substantial changes to the project would not occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which would require important revisions to the previous EIR, since, as noted in #1 above, there are no new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the previous EIR, Supplement and previous Addenda thereto, and the project is only to change the deadline to provide the 4 on-site affordable units. 3.That there is no new information of substantial importance to the project which indicates that these proposed changes will have one or more significant effects not discussed previously in the EIR; that significant effects previously examined will not be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; that no mitigation measures or alternatives, previously found not to be feasible, would now in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; or that no mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previously considered in the EIR, would now substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the environment, because this project is only a change in the deadline to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units. Section 2: In approving Addendum No. 10 to EIR No. 36, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum No. 11 document, attached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit "A". Section 3: The Addendum No. 10 to EIR No. 36 identifies no new potential significant adverse environmental impacts to the areas listed below, beyond those already identified in the Final EIR No. 36, the Supplement, Second Supplement, and Addenda Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 to EIR No. 36, as a result of the proposed revision to the Ocean Trails project: 1.Landform, Geology, and Soils 2.Hydrology and Drainage 3.Biological Resources 4.Cultural and Scientific Resources 5.Aesthetics 6.Land Use and Relevant Planning 7.Circulation and Traffic 8.Air Resources 9.Noise 10.Public Services and Utilities 11.Population, Employment and Housing 12.Fiscal Impacts Section 4: That implementation of the proposed change to the project would not require additional mitigation measures or significant deletions/modifications to the mitigation measures included in the Final EIR, as well as the Supplemental, Second Supplemental, and Addends Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 to EIR No. 36. Section 5: While the implementation of mitigation measures as discussed in Final EIR No. 36 and the Supplemental, and the Second Supplemental, and Addenda EIR Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 to EIR 36 will further reduce these impacts, it is not possible to entirely eliminate cumulative impacts to the areas of concern listed in Section 1, above. Therefore, the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, as provided in Final EIR No. 36, are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 6: All findings, attachments and Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Resolution Nos. 92-53, 92-115, 93-89, 94-71 and 96-15, as adopted by the City Council on June 1, 1992, December 7, 1992, October 5, 1993, September 6, 1994, March 11, 1996 and September 3, 1996, respectively, are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings contained in the staff reports, minutes, and evidence presented at the public hearings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, based on the City Council’s determination that the document was completed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State and local guidelines with respect thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of February 2001. _________________________ 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. 2001-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on February 20, 2000. _______________________________ Jo Purcell, City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No. 2001- Exhibit "A" ADDENDUM NO. 11 TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 36 The City Council has reviewed the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, which would allow Ocean Trails a time extension to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units for rent from "prior to one year of the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course". The Council denied the developer's initial request to pay a fee in-lieu of providing the affordable housing units, or allow various alternatives to choose from in meeting the affordable housing requirements, and allowing Ocean Trails to construct a parking lot at the existing affordable housing site (Lot No. 37 of Tract No. 50667), because the developer could not provide sufficient evidence that it was not feasible to construct the affordable housing units at the Ocean Trails site. The City Council has reviewed Revision "P" in conjunction with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as State and Local CEQA Guidelines, and find as follows: The proposed change to the conditions of approval found within Conditional Use Permit No. 162, Conditional Use Permit No. 163, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667, to allow Ocean Trails an extension of time to provide 4 on-site affordable housing units for rent from "prior to one year of the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course", would not result in any new or increased impacts to the environment that are not already analyzed within EIR No. 36, because 1) the change will still provide for the timely construction of the originally approved 4 on-site affordable housing units, 2) the extension is warranted as the Ocean Trails project was subjected to severe impacts associated with the June 2, 1999 landslide, and 3) the timing of the installation of these units, which is prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course, will still, as originally approved, co-inside with the timing of development of uses on the site that generate employees.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING REVISIONS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 162 FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN CONNECTION WITH REVISION "P" TO THE OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT LOCATED IN COASTAL SUBREGIONS 7 AND 8 WHEREAS, an application package was filed by the Zuckerman Building Company and Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company requesting approval of tentative parcel maps, vesting tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, a coastal permit and a grading permit to allow the construction of a Residential Planned Development of 120 single family dwelling units and for development of an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse and parking facilities on a 258 acre site bounded by Palos Verdes Drive South on the north, Portuguese Bend Club and Community Association on the west, the Pacific Ocean on the south and Los Angeles County Shoreline Park on the east; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and circulated for 45 days from June 7, 1991 through July 22, 1991 in order to receive written comments on the adequacy of the document from responsible agencies and the public; and, WHEREAS, subsequent to the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and preparation of written responses, the applicant revised the scope of the project and reduced the number of proposed single family residences to 40 units in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 and 43 in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667, and an 18 hole golf course with related facilities within the boundaries of both Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and, due to the changes in the project, an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (ADEIR) was prepared; and, WHEREAS, based on review of the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the City determined that the information submitted in the AEIR cited potential additional significant environmental impacts that would be caused by the revised project, and directed preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The SEIR, which incorporates information and findings set forth in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, was prepared and circulated for 45 days from March 19, 1992 through May 4, 1992, during which time all interested parties were notified of the circulation period and invited to present written comments to the information contained in the SEIR, in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, on June 1, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-53, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 92-54, 92-55, 92-56 and 92-57, respectively approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103 and Grading Permit No. 1541 for a Residential Planned Development consisting of a total of eighty-three (83) single family dwelling units, an 18 hole public golf course and public open space on 261.4 acres in Coastal Subregion Nos. 7 and 8; and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 1992, after finding that an appeal of the City's approval of the project raised a substantial issue, the California Coastal Commission denied Coastal Permit No. 103, directed the landowners to redesign the project to address the concerns raised by the Coastal Commission Staff and remanded the project back to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for reconsideration; and, WHEREAS, on December 7, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-115 approving the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 92-116, 92-117, 92-118 and 92-119 approving Revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103, and Grading Permit No. 1541 in order to address concerns raised by the Coastal Commission with regard to adequate provisions for public open space, public access and habitat preservation; and, WHEREAS, on April 15, 1993, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-5 (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), subject to additional conditions of approval. WHEREAS, on October 5, 1993, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 93-89 approving a second Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 93-90, 93-91, 93-92 and 93-93 respectively re-approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, and Grading Permit No. 1541 in order to comply with a Court mandate to provide affordable housing in conjunction with the project, pursuant to Government Code Section 65590; and, WHEREAS, on November 5, 1993, the California Coastal Commission adopted revised and expanded findings in conjunction with the project; and, WHEREAS, on September 6, 1994, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 94-71 approving a third Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 94-72, 94-73, 94-74, 94-75, 94-76 and 94-77, respectively, approving Revision "A" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, relocation of the golf course clubhouse from the area southwest of the School District property to an area north of Half Way Point, locating the golf course maintenance facility and four (4) affordable housing units southeast of the corner of Palos Verdes Drive South and Paseo Del Mar, reducing the number of single family residential lots from eighty-three (83) to seventy-five (75) and increasing the height of the golf course clubhouse from thirty (30) feet to forty-eight (48) feet; and, WHEREAS, on January 12, 1995, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its first amendment to the permit, subject to revised conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, on September 27, 1995, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its second amendment to the permit; and, WHEREAS, on February 1, 1996, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its third amendment to the permit; and, WHEREAS, on March 11, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-15 approving a fourth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 96-16, and 96-17, respectively, approving Revision "B" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, modifying the approved alignment of Paseo del Mar ("A" Street/"J" Bluff Road), revising the Conditions of Approval regarding several public trails, and relocating the golf course clubhouse approximately 80 feet to the west of its previously approved location; and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 1996, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its fourth amendment to the permit, subject to revised conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, on September 3, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-72 approving a fifth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 96-73, 96-74, 96-75, 96-76 and 96-77, respectively, approving Revision "C" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, relocation of two single family residential lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 from the end of Street "A" to the end of Street "C", revisions to the boundaries of open space Lots B, C, G and H, conversion the split-level lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 to single-level lots, revisions to the golf course layout, revisions the public trail system, combination of parallel trails easements, construction of a paved fire access road west of the Ocean Terraces Condominiums and amendments to several Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures to modify the required timing for compliance; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted P.C. Resolution No. 97-44 approving Revision "D" to the Ocean Trails project, which involved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 162 (Residential Planned Development) to modify the minimum rear yard setbacks on Lot Nos. 6 through 9 to provide an adequate buffer between the proposed residences and the potential brush fires that may occur on the adjacent habitat area; and, WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-32 approving Revision "E" to the Ocean Trails project, which involved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 (Golf Course) to modify the bonding requirements for the golf course improvements; and, WHEREAS, on June 16, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-59, approving Revision "F" to the Ocean Trails project, which involved, modifying the configuration of Streets "C" and "D" and Lot Nos. 1 through 13 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 to accommodate the final location of the Foundation Setback Line, and a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 162 (Residential Planned Development) to address maximum building height; and, WHEREAS, on February 2, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-10 approving Addendum No. 7 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "H" to the Ocean Trails project, which included: changing 6 of the residential lots within VTTM 50667 from flat pad lots to split level lots, lowering the overall pad elevation for each lot, and lowering Street 'B' within the subdivision, and lowering the pad elevation for 6 other lots within the subdivision. Additionally, the approval included the modification of the project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval to allow the permitted construction hours for the entire Ocean Trails project to be expanded to include Sundays through March 21, 1999; and, WHEREAS, on May 4, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-29 approving Addendum No. 8 to Environmental Impact Report No. 35 and the proposed Revision "I" to the Ocean Trails project, which included a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "I" only amended the drainage for the east side of the Ocean Trails project, involving La Rotonda Canyon; and, WHEREAS, on June 2, 1999, Landslide C at the Ocean Trails site was re-activated; and, WHEREAS, on July 20, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-55 approving Addendum No. 9 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "J" to the Ocean Trails project, which included 1), the conditions requiring the establishment of a maintenance district be revised by eliminating the maintenance district and having the golf course owner be the sole responsible entity for maintenance thereby excluding the future residential homeowners; 2) withdrawn by applicant; 3), the timing of the installation of ornamental fencing on each residential lot be delayed until prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; 4), delay the construction of two trails within VTTM 50666 from the Second Stage to the Third Stage of phasing within the Public Amenities Plan; 5), lower the approved residential building pad elevations and create split-level pads in VTTM No. 50666; 6), delay the payment of traffic impact fees to prior to Final Map No. 50666; 7), allow an increase in total building area of the clubhouse by permitting a basement space; 8), withdrawn by applicant; and 9), revise the hours permitted for golf course landscape gardening; and, WHEREAS, on May 16, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-27 approving Addendum No. 10 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "K" to the Ocean Trails project, which allowed a portion of the golf course to open for play before all of the required public amenities have been completed due to delays caused by the failure of Landslide C on June 2, 1999; and, WHEREAS, on June 21, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-38 certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the proposed Revision "L" to the Ocean Trails project, for the repair of Landslide C at Ocean Trails; and, WHEREAS, on July 18, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision M to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving an amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), an amendment to the HCP Implementing Agreement, and approval of a Conservation Easement over the lower portion of Shoreline Park; and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision N to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and amending the project to accommodate a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "N" only amended the drainage for the west side of the Ocean Trails project, involving Forrestal Canyon; and, WHEREAS, on April 4, 2000, Ocean Trails, L.P., submitted a letter to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requesting approval for Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project to revise the Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 162, CUP No. 163, VTTM No. 50666 and VTTM No. 50667, so as to provide the Ocean Trails project other options in meeting its affordable housing requirements, and convert the existing vacant affordable housing site (Lot No. 37 of Tract No. 50667) to a parking lot; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65952.5(e) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), on February 1, 2001, copies of the draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 were distributed to the City Council and prior to taking action on the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in Addendum No. 11 to EIR No. 36; and, WHEREAS, on February 6, 2001, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Development Code, the City Council held a public hearing to consider draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: As approved by the City Council, this application permits Amendment P to Conditional Use Permit No. 162, allowing Ocean Trails an extension of time to provide for rent the 4 on-site affordable housing units, from "prior to one year from the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course". The City Council denied the developer's request to pay a fee in-lieu of providing the required affordable housing units, or other alternatives to meet the affordable housing requirements, and to allow Ocean Trails to construct a parking lot at the existing vacant affordable housing lot (Lot No. 37 of Tract No. 50667), as the developer could not provide sufficient evidence that it was not feasible to provide the 4 on-site affordable units at the Ocean Trails site. Section 2: In considering the proposed revisions to the project, the City Council has determined that the preparation of Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 is appropriate, since the subsequent changes in the project will not result in any new significant environmental impacts which were not previously identified and analyzed in Environmental Impact Report No. 36, that the subsequent changes will not result in an increase in any previously identified significant environmental impacts, that the Addendum does not contain new information of substantial importance to the project and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make Environmental Impact Report adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is so, since 1) the change will still provide for the timely construction of the originally approved 4 on-site affordable housing units, 2) the extension is warranted as the Ocean Trails project was subjected to severe impacts associated with the June 2, 1999 landslide, and 3) the timing of the installation of these units, which is prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course, will still, as originally approved, co-inside with the timing of development of uses on the site that generate employees. Therefore, based on the review of Draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 prepared in association with the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, as conditioned, the City Council finds that the project still mitigates, or reduces to the extent feasible, significant adverse effects to adjacent properties or the permitted uses thereof. In approving the revised project, the City Council finds that social, recreational, and other benefits of the project continue to outweigh any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that may occur and that due to overriding benefits and considerations, any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the project are acceptable. Accordingly, the City Council incorporated, by reference, the Final EIR No. 36, the Supplemental EIR, the second Supplemental EIR, Addenda Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and Resolution No. 92-115 (which includes, without limitation, the detailed statement of overriding considerations set forth therein). Section 3: Pursuant to Section 17.56.060 of the Development Code, in approving Revision "P" to Conditional Use Permit No. 162, the City Council finds as follows: A.That the golf course and related uses are consistent with the General Plan and its objectives. The General Plan land use map designates almost the entire project site as residential, with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre, and shows the coastal bluffs as hazard areas. The General Plan provides for additional commercial recreational uses within the City as appropriate to a particular location, including golf, equestrian, tennis and other recreational activities, and designates the City's entire coastal area as a specific plan district. Further, that the project complies with the criteria set forth in the General Plan for the Natural, Socio/Cultural and Urban Overlay Control Districts on the site. As conditioned, the project preserves natural drainage courses and significant geologic, biologic and hydrologic features in compliance with the Natural Overlay Control District, protects areas that have significant historical, archeological or cultural importance in compliance with the Socio/Cultural District and preserves, protects and enhances public views and vistas in compliance with the Urban Overlay Control District. Additionally, the proposed project will be consistent with the General Plan Housing Element, and Draft Housing Element currently under review by HCD, as the proposed project ensures that the Ocean Trails project shall still provide for 8 affordable housing units, 4 of which will be located on-site (as originally approved). B.That the proposed golf course use is consistent with the City's Development Code as a conditionally permitted use in any district when deemed to be necessary or desirable for the public convenience or welfare and when the use is not contrary to the General Plan or its objectives or contrary to the Coastal Specific Plan or its objectives and requirements. Public recreational uses, such as a golf course, are encouraged by policies of the Coastal Specific Plan and General Plan. A public golf course is necessary and desirable in that it will provide a cash surplus to the City, it will add to the views from adjacent properties and from Palos Verdes Drive South, it will permit expanded public access to the coast. Further, as current demand for golf tee times greatly exceeds supply for existing public golf courses on the Peninsula, many peninsula and City residents must travel great distances to golf. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed golf course is necessary and desirable for the public convenience and welfare and, as set forth in sections 2(A) & (B) above, it is not contrary to either the General Plan or the Coastal Specific Plan. C.That given the adjacent land uses and the project's location and design, as modified herein, and recommended conditions imposed through this permit, the 261.4 acre site is adequate in size and configuration to accommodate the proposed uses including a Residential Planned Development and golf course. D.That given the adjacent land uses and the project's location and design, as modified herein, and the recommended conditions imposed by Conditional Use Permit No. 162 Revision P, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", the site is adequate in lot size and configuration to accommodate the golf course, clubhouse, four affordable housing units and other related facilities. E.That the site is served by Palos Verdes Drive South which is an improved street designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project. F.That, given the site location, project design, and recommended conditions imposed through this permit and attached hereto as Exhibit "A", including setbacks, heights, lighting, landscaping, fencing, hours of operation, and other recommended conditions, the proposed use will not significantly adversely affect the peace, health, safety, or general welfare of the area, nor will it be materially detrimental to property values, jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, and welfare of persons in the surrounding area. G.That the proposed project, as conditioned, mitigates or reduces significant adverse effects to adjacent properties or the permitted uses thereof. In recommending approval, the City Council finds that the social, recreational, and other benefits of the project outweigh any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that may occur. The project provides visitor-serving uses in the coastal zone and, as a floating commercial use, the proposed golf course complies with permitted uses in the RS-1/RPD and zone as shown in the Official Zoning Map, and with permitted single family residential uses as designated in the General Plan, and Coastal Specific Plan, while preserving and enhancing habitat areas and providing passive and active recreational uses with a bluff road, public parking, trails, and vista points that will provide public recreational opportunities and preserve public vistas. Section 4: That the proposed amendment is consistent with Government Code Section 65590, as the proposed project only amends the deadline to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units from "prior to the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course", but still provides for 4 on-site and 4 off-site affordable housing units that will be provided for in the City, either in the Coastal Zone or within 3 miles of the Coastal Zone. Section 5: That the City Council has determined that pursuant to Government Code Section 65590(d) and 65590(g)(3), the developer has not provided sufficient evidence to show that it is not feasible to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units at the Ocean Trails project site. Subsequently, the City Council has denied the developer's request to provide a fee or other alternative in-lieu of providing the on-site affordable housing units. Section 6: The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Programs contained in Resolution No. 96-72, Resolution No. 2000-38, and Resolution No. 2000-58, as adopted by the City Council on September 3, 1996, June 21, 2000, and September 5, 2000, respectively, are hereby incorporated by reference into the Conditions of Approval for the revisions to Conditional Use Permit No. 162. Section 7: 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. Section 8: For the forgoing reasons, and based on information and findings contained in the public record, including staff reports, minutes, records of proceedings, and evidence presented at the public hearings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Revision "P" to Conditional Use Permit No. 162, amending condition D-1 by extending the deadline for providing affordable units from "prior to one year from opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course", as shown in the attached Exhibit "A", which is necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. All other conditions of approval that have been imposed on this project shall remain in effect and are incorporated herein. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of February 2001 _________________________ 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. 2001-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on February 20, 2001. ___________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__ EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 162 - REVISION "P" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following condition shall be revised to read as follows:
1.The developer shall provide a minimum of four (4) dwelling units on-site as rental housing, which shall be affordable to very low to low income households. These units shall be provided on-site in conjunction with development of the golf course. Each unit shall contain at least 850 square foot of living space and two bedrooms. A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided for each unit. The units shall be available for rent prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course. A covenant which guarantees that the affordable units shall not revert to market rate for a minimum period of thirty years shall be recorded no later than the date of recordation of the final map. Project management, including tenant selection and income monitoring, shall be provided in a manner to be approved by the City. First priority for the units shall be given to very low to low income employees of the Ocean Trails project. Second priority shall be given to persons within very low to low income levels working within four miles of the City’s coastal zone. Third priority shall be given to persons within very low to low income levels, regardless of the location of employment (if employed). RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A REVISION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 163 FOR AN 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVISION "P" TO THE OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT LOCATED IN COASTAL SUBREGION 7 AND 8 WHEREAS, an application package was filed by the Zuckerman Building Company and Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company requesting approval of tentative parcel maps, vesting tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, a coastal permit and a grading permit to allow the construction of a Residential Planned Development of 120 single family dwelling units and for development of an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse and parking facilities on a 258 acre site bounded by Palos Verdes Drive South on the north, Portuguese Bend Club and Community Association on the west, the Pacific Ocean on the south and Los Angeles County Shoreline Park on the east; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and circulated for 45 days from June 7, 1991 through July 22, 1991 in order to receive written comments on the adequacy of the document from responsible agencies and the public; and, WHEREAS, subsequent to the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and preparation of written responses, the applicant revised the scope of the project and reduced the number of proposed single family residences to 40 units in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 and 43 in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667, and an 18 hole golf course with related facilities within the boundaries of both Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and, due to the changes in the project, an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (ADEIR) was prepared; and, WHEREAS, based on review of the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the City determined that the information submitted in the AEIR cited potential additional significant environmental impacts that would be caused by the revised project, and directed preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The SEIR, which incorporates information and findings set forth in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, was prepared and circulated for 45 days from March 19, 1992 through May 4, 1992, during which time all interested parties were notified of the circulation period and invited to present written comments to the information contained in the SEIR, in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, on June 1, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-53, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 92-54, 92-55, 92-56 and 92-57, respectively approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103 and Grading Permit No. 1541 for a Residential Planned Development consisting of a total of eighty-three (83) single family dwelling units, an 18 hole public golf course and public open space on 261.4 acres in Coastal Subregion Nos. 7 and 8; and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 1992, after finding that an appeal of the City's approval of the project raised a substantial issue, the California Coastal Commission denied Coastal Permit No. 103, directed the landowners to redesign the project to address the concerns raised by the Coastal Commission Staff and remanded the project back to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for reconsideration; and, WHEREAS, on December 7, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-115 approving the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 92-116, 92-117, 92-118 and 92-119 approving Revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103, and Grading Permit No. 1541 in order to address concerns raised by the Coastal Commission with regard to adequate provisions for public open space, public access and habitat preservation; and, WHEREAS, on April 15, 1993, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-5 (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), subject to additional conditions of approval. WHEREAS, on October 5, 1993, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 93-89 approving a second Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 93-90, 93-91, 93-92 and 93-93 respectively re-approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, and Grading Permit No. 1541 in order to comply with a Court mandate to provide affordable housing in conjunction with the project, pursuant to Government Code Section 65590; and, WHEREAS, on November 5, 1993, the California Coastal Commission adopted revised and expanded findings in conjunction with the project; and, WHEREAS, on September 6, 1994, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 94-71 approving a third Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 94-72, 94-73, 94-74, 94-75, 94-76 and 94-77, respectively, approving Revision "A" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, relocation of the golf course clubhouse from the area southwest of the School District property to an area north of Half Way Point, locating the golf course maintenance facility and four (4) affordable housing units southeast of the corner of Palos Verdes Drive South and Paseo Del Mar, reducing the number of single family residential lots from eighty-three (83) to seventy-five (75) and increasing the height of the golf course clubhouse from thirty (30) feet to forty-eight (48) feet; and, WHEREAS, on January 12, 1995, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its first amendment to the permit, subject to revised conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, on September 27, 1995, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its second amendment to the permit; and, WHEREAS, on February 1, 1996, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its third amendment to the permit; and, WHEREAS, on March 11, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-15 approving a fourth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 96-16, and 96-17, respectively, approving Revision "B" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, modifying the approved alignment of Paseo del Mar ("A" Street/"J" Bluff Road), revising the Conditions of Approval regarding several public trails, and relocating the golf course clubhouse approximately 80 feet to the west of its previously approved location; and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 1996, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its fourth amendment to the permit, subject to revised conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, on September 3, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-72 approving a fifth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 96-73, 96-74, 96-75, 96-76 and 96-77, respectively, approving Revision "C" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, relocation of two single family residential lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 from the end of Street "A" to the end of Street "C", revisions to the boundaries of open space Lots B, C, G and H, conversion the split-level lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 to single-level lots, revisions to the golf course layout, revisions the public trail system, combination of parallel trails easements, construction of a paved fire access road west of the Ocean Terraces Condominiums and amendments to several Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures to modify the required timing for compliance; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted P.C. Resolution No. 97-44 approving Revision "D" to the Ocean Trails project, which involved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 162 (Residential Planned Development) to modify the minimum rear yard setbacks on Lot Nos. 6 through 9 to provide an adequate buffer between the proposed residences and the potential brush fires that may occur on the adjacent habitat area; and, WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-32 approving Revision "E" to the Ocean Trails project, which involved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 (Golf Course) to modify the bonding requirements for the golf course improvements; and, WHEREAS, on June 16, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-59, approving Revision "F" to the Ocean Trails project, which involved, modifying the configuration of Streets "C" and "D" and Lot Nos. 1 through 13 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 to accommodate the final location of the Foundation Setback Line, and a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 162 (Residential Planned Development) to address maximum building height; and, WHEREAS, on July 14, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution Nos. 98-26 and 98-27, thereby recommending approval of Addendum No. 6 to EIR No. 36 and Revision "G" to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, on August 18, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-76 approving Addendum No. 6 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "G" to the Ocean Trails project, which included: 1) an 18% increase in the size of the clubhouse from 27,000 square feet to 32,927 square feet; 2) an increase in the size of the maintenance facility from 6,000 square feet to 9,504 square feet; 3) a two foot increase in the upslope height of the maintenance facility building; and, 4) relocation of the maintenance building and reconfiguration of the maintenance facility parking lot; and, WHEREAS, on February 2, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-10 approving Addendum No. 7 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "H" to the Ocean Trails project, which included: changing 6 of the residential lots within VTTM 50667 from flat pad lots to split level lots, lowering the overall pad elevation for each lot, and lowering Street 'B' within the subdivision, and lowering the pad elevation for 6 other lots within the subdivision. Additionally, the approval included the modification of the project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval to allow the permitted construction hours for the entire Ocean Trails project to be expanded to include Sundays through March 21, 1999; and, WHEREAS, on May 4, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-29 approving Addendum No. 8 to Environmental Impact Report No. 35 and the proposed Revision "I" to the Ocean Trails project, which included a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "I" only amended the drainage for the east side of the Ocean Trails project, involving La Rotonda Canyon; and, WHEREAS, on June 2, 1999, Landslide C at the Ocean Trails site was re-activated; and, WHEREAS, on July 20, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-55 approving Addendum No. 9 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "J" to the Ocean Trails project, which included 1), the conditions requiring the establishment of a maintenance district be revised by eliminating the maintenance district and having the golf course owner be the sole responsible entity for maintenance thereby excluding the future residential homeowners; 2) withdrawn by applicant; 3), the timing of the installation of ornamental fencing on each residential lot be delayed until prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; 4), delay the construction of two trails within VTTM 50666 from the Second Stage to the Third Stage of phasing within the Public Amenities Plan; 5), lower the approved residential building pad elevations and create split-level pads in VTTM No. 50666; 6), delay the payment of traffic impact fees to prior to Final Map No. 50666; 7), allow an increase in total building area of the clubhouse by permitting a basement space; 8), withdrawn by applicant; and 9), revise the hours permitted for golf course landscape gardening; and, WHEREAS, on May 16, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-27 approving Addendum No. 10 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "K" to the Ocean Trails project, which allowed a portion of the golf course to open for play before all of the required public amenities have been completed due to delays caused by the failure of Landslide C on June 2, 1999; and, WHEREAS, on June 21, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-38 certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the proposed Revision "L" to the Ocean Trails project, for the repair of Landslide C at Ocean Trails; and, WHEREAS, on July 18, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision M to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving an amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), an amendment to the HCP Implementing Agreement, and approval of a Conservation Easement over the lower portion of Shoreline Park; and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision N to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and amending the project to accommodate a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "N" only amended the drainage for the west side of the Ocean Trails project, involving Forrestal Canyon; and, WHEREAS, on April 4, 2000, Ocean Trails, L.P., submitted a letter to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requesting approval for Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project to revise the Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 162, CUP No. 163, VTTM No. 50666 and VTTM No. 50667, so as to provide the Ocean Trails project other options in meeting its affordable housing requirements, and convert the existing vacant affordable housing site (Lot No. 37 of Tract No. 50667) to a parking lot; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65952.5(e) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), on February 1, 2001, copies of the draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 were distributed to the City Council and prior to taking action on the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in Addendum No. 11 to EIR No. 36; and, WHEREAS, on February 6, 2001, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Development Code, the City Council held a public hearing to consider draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: As approved by the City Council, this application permits Amendment P to Conditional Use Permit No. 163, allowing Ocean Trails an extension of time to provide for rent the 4 on-site affordable housing units, from "prior to one year from the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course". The City Council denied the developer's request to pay a fee in-lieu of providing the required affordable housing units, or other alternatives to meet the affordable housing requirements, and to allow Ocean Trails to construct a parking lot at the existing vacant affordable housing lot (Lot No. 37 of Tract No. 50667), as the developer could not provide sufficient evidence that it was not feasible to provide the 4 on-site affordable units at the Ocean Trails site. Section 2: In considering the proposed revisions to the project, the City Council has determined that the preparation of Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 is appropriate, since the subsequent changes in the project will not result in any new significant environmental impacts which were not previously identified and analyzed in Environmental Impact Report No. 36, that the subsequent changes will not result in an increase in any previously identified significant environmental impacts, that the Addendum does not contain new information of substantial importance to the project and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make Environmental Impact Report adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is so, since 1) the change will still provide for the timely construction of the originally approved 4 on-site affordable housing units, 2) the extension is warranted as the Ocean Trails project was subjected to severe impacts associated with the June 2, 1999 landslide, and 3) the timing of the installation of these units, which is prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course, will still, as originally approved, co-inside with the timing of development of uses on the site that generate employees. Therefore, based on the review of Draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 prepared in association with the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, as conditioned, the City Council finds that the project still mitigates, or reduces to the extent feasible, significant adverse effects to adjacent properties or the permitted uses thereof. In approving the revised project, the City Council finds that social, recreational, and other benefits of the project continue to outweigh any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that may occur and that due to overriding benefits and considerations, any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the project are acceptable. Accordingly, the City Council incorporated, by reference, the Final EIR No. 36, the Supplemental EIR, the second Supplemental EIR, Addenda Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and Resolution No. 92-115 (which includes, without limitation, the detailed statement of overriding considerations set forth therein). Section 3: Pursuant to Section 17.56.060 of the Development Code, in approving Revision "P" to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 for the public golf course and related uses, the City Council finds as follows: A.That the golf course and related uses are consistent with the General Plan and its objectives. The General Plan land use map designates almost the entire project site as residential, with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre, and shows the coastal bluffs as hazard areas. The General Plan provides for additional commercial recreational uses within the City as appropriate to a particular location, including golf, equestrian, tennis and other recreational activities, and designates the City's entire coastal area as a specific plan district. Further, that the project complies with the criteria set forth in the General Plan for the Natural, Socio/Cultural and Urban Overlay Control Districts on the site. As conditioned, the project preserves natural drainage courses and significant geologic, biologic and hydrologic features in compliance with the Natural Overlay Control District, protects areas that have significant historical, archeological or cultural importance in compliance with the Socio/Cultural District and preserves, protects and enhances public views and vistas in compliance with the Urban Overlay Control District. Additionally, the proposed project will be consistent with the General Plan Housing Element, and Draft Housing Element currently under review by HCD, as the proposed project ensures that the Ocean Trails project shall still provide for 8 affordable housing units, 4 of which will be located on-site (as originally approved). B.That the proposed golf course use is consistent with the City's Development Code as a conditionally permitted use in any district when deemed to be necessary or desirable for the public convenience or welfare and when the use is not contrary to the General Plan or its objectives or contrary to the Coastal Specific Plan or its objectives and requirements. Public recreational uses, such as a golf course, are encouraged by policies of the Coastal Specific Plan and General Plan. A public golf course is necessary and desirable in that it will provide a cash surplus to the City, it will add to the views from adjacent properties and from Palos Verdes Drive South, it will permit expanded public access to the coast. Further, as current demand for golf tee times greatly exceeds supply for existing public golf courses on the Peninsula, many peninsula and City residents must travel great distances to golf. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed golf course is necessary and desirable for the public convenience and welfare and, as set forth in sections 2(A) & (B) above, it is not contrary to either the General Plan or the Coastal Specific Plan. C.That given the adjacent land uses and the project's location and design, as modified herein, and recommended conditions imposed through this permit, the 261.4 acre site is adequate in size and configuration to accommodate the proposed uses including a Residential Planned Development and golf course. D.That given the adjacent land uses and the project's location and design, as modified herein, and the recommended conditions imposed by Conditional Use Permit No. 163 Revision P, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", the site is adequate in lot size and configuration to accommodate the golf course, clubhouse, four affordable housing units and other related facilities. E.That the site is served by Palos Verdes Drive South which is an improved street designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project. F.That, given the site location, project design, and recommended conditions imposed through this permit and attached hereto as Exhibit "A", including setbacks, heights, lighting, landscaping, fencing, hours of operation, and other recommended conditions, the proposed use will not significantly adversely affect the peace, health, safety, or general welfare of the area, nor will it be materially detrimental to property values, jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, and welfare of persons in the surrounding area. G.That the proposed project, as conditioned, mitigates or reduces significant adverse effects to adjacent properties or the permitted uses thereof. In recommending approval, the City Council finds that the social, recreational, and other benefits of the project outweigh any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that may occur. The project provides visitor-serving uses in the coastal zone and, as a floating commercial use, the proposed golf course complies with permitted uses in the RS-1/RPD and zone as shown in the Official Zoning Map, and with permitted single family residential uses as designated in the General Plan, and Coastal Specific Plan, while preserving and enhancing habitat areas and providing passive and active recreational uses with a bluff road, public parking, trails, and vista points that will provide public recreational opportunities and preserve public vistas. Section 4: That the proposed amendment is consistent with Government Code Section 65590, as the proposed project only amends the deadline to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units from "prior to the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course", but still provides for 4 on-site and 4 off-site affordable housing units that will be provided for within the City, either in the Coastal Zone or within 3 miles of the Coastal Zone. Section 5: That the City Council has determined that pursuant to Government Code Section 65590(d) and 65590(g)(3), the developer has not provided sufficient evidence to show that it is not feasible to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units at the Ocean Trails project site. Subsequently, the City Council has denied the developer's request to provide a fee or other alternative in-lieu of providing the on-site affordable housing units. Section 6: The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Programs contained in Resolution No. 96-72, Resolution No. 2000-38, and Resolution No. 2000-58, as adopted by the City Council on September 3, 1996, June 21, 2000, and September 5, 2000, respectively, are hereby incorporated by reference into the Conditions of Approval for the revisions to Conditional Use Permit No. 163. Section 7: 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. Section 8: For the forgoing reasons, and based on information and findings contained in the public record, including staff reports, minutes, records of proceedings, and evidence presented at the public hearings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Revision "P" to Conditional Use Permit No. 163, amending condition D-1 by extending the deadline for providing affordable units from "prior to one year from opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course", as shown in the attached Exhibit "A", which is necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. All other conditions of approval that have been imposed on this project shall remain in effect and are incorporated herein. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of February 2001. _________________________ 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. 2001- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on February 20, 2001. ___________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 163 - REVISION "P" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following condition shall be revised to read as follows: D.AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Project management, including tenant selection and income monitoring, shall be provided in a manner to be approved by the City. First priority for the units shall be given to very low to low income employees of the Ocean Trails project. Second priority shall be given to persons within very low to low income levels working within four miles of the City’s coastal zone. Third priority shall be given to persons within very low to low income levels, regardless of the location of employment (if employed). RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING REVISIONS TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50666 FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON A 153.9 ACRE SITE WITH THIRTY-NINE (39) SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, A PUBLIC GOLF COURSE, AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IN CONNECTION WITH REVISION "P" TO THE OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT LOCATED IN COASTAL SUBREGIONS 7 AND 8 WHEREAS, an application package was filed by the Zuckerman Building Company and Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company requesting approval of tentative parcel maps, vesting tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, a coastal permit and a grading permit to allow the construction of a Residential Planned Development of 120 single family dwelling units and for development of an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse and parking facilities on a 258 acre site bounded by Palos Verdes Drive South on the north, Portuguese Bend Club and Community Association on the west, the Pacific Ocean on the south and Los Angeles County Shoreline Park on the east; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and circulated for 45 days from June 7, 1991 through July 22, 1991 in order to receive written comments on the adequacy of the document from responsible agencies and the public; and, WHEREAS, subsequent to the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and preparation of written responses, the applicant revised the scope of the project and reduced the number of proposed single family residences to 40 units in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 and 43 in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667, and an 18 hole golf course with related facilities within the boundaries of both Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and, due to the changes in the project, an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (ADEIR) was prepared; and, WHEREAS, based on review of the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the City determined that the information submitted in the AEIR cited potential additional significant environmental impacts that would be caused by the revised project, and directed preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The SEIR, which incorporates information and findings set forth in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, was prepared and circulated for 45 days from March 19, 1992 through May 4, 1992, during which time all interested parties were notified of the circulation period and invited to present written comments to the information contained in the SEIR, in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, on June 1, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-53, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 92-54, 92-55, 92-56 and 92-57, respectively approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103 and Grading Permit No. 1541 for a Residential Planned Development consisting of a total of eighty-three (83) single family dwelling units, an 18 hole public golf course and public open space on 261.4 acres in Coastal Subregion Nos. 7 and 8; and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 1992, after finding that an appeal of the City's approval of the project raised substantial issue, the California Coastal Commission denied Coastal Permit No. 103, directed the landowners to redesign the project to address the concerns raised by the Coastal Commission Staff and remanded the project back to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for reconsideration; and, WHEREAS, on December 7, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-115 approving the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 92-116, 92-117, 92-118 and 92-119 approving Revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103, and Grading Permit No. 1541 in order to address concerns raised by the Coastal Commission with regard to adequate provisions for public open space, public access and habitat preservation; and, WHEREAS, on April 15, 1993, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-5 (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), subject to additional conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, on October 5, 1993, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 93-89 approving a second Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 93-90, 93-91, 93-92 and 93-93 respectively re-approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, and Grading Permit No. 1541 in order to comply with a Court mandate to provide affordable housing in conjunction with the project, pursuant to Government Code Section 65590; and, WHEREAS, on November 5, 1993, the California Coastal Commission adopted revised and expanded findings in conjunction with the project; and, WHEREAS, on September 6, 1994, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 94-71 approving a third Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 94-72, 94-73, 94-74, 94-75, 94-76 and 94-77, respectively, approving Revision "A" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, relocation of the golf course clubhouse from the area southwest of the School District property to an area north of Half Way Point, locating the golf course maintenance facility and four (4) affordable housing units southeast of the corner of Palos Verdes Drive South and Paseo Del Mar, reducing the number of single family residential lots from eighty-three (83) to seventy-five (75) and increasing the height of the golf course clubhouse from thirty (30) feet to forty-eight (48) feet; and, WHEREAS, on January 12, 1995, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its first amendment to the permit, subject to revised conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, on September 27, 1995, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its second amendment to the permit; and, WHEREAS, on February 1, 1996, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its third amendment to the permit; and, WHEREAS, on March 11, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-15 approving a fourth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 96-16, and 96-17, respectively, approving Revision "B" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, modifying the approved alignment of Paseo del Mar ("A" Street/"J" Bluff Road), revising the Conditions of Approval regarding several public trails, and relocating the golf course clubhouse approximately 80 feet to the west of its previously approved location; and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 1996, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its fourth amendment to the permit, subject to revised conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, on September 3, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-72 approving a fifth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 96-73, 96-74, 96-75, 96-76 and 96-77, respectively, approving Revision "C" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, relocation of two single family residential lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 from the end of Street "A" to the end of Street "C", revisions to the boundaries of open space Lots B, C, G and H, conversion the split-level lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 to single-level lots, revisions to the golf course layout, revisions the public trail system, combination of parallel trails easements, construction of a paved fire access road west of the Ocean Terraces Condominiums and amendments to several Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures to modify the required timing for compliance; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted P.C. Resolution No. 97-44 approving Revision "D" to the Ocean Trails project, which involved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 162 (Residential Planned Development) to modify the minimum rear yard setbacks on Lot Nos. 6 through 9 to provide an adequate buffer between the proposed residences and the potential brush fires that may occur on the adjacent habitat area; and, WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-32 approving Revision "E" to the Ocean Trails project, which involved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 (Golf Course) to modify the bonding requirements for the golf course improvements; and, WHEREAS, on June 16, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-58 approving Revision "F" to the Ocean Trails project which involved and amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 to modify the configuration of Streets "C" and "D" and Lot Nos. 1 through 13 to accommodate the final location of the Foundation Setback Line; and, WHEREAS, on July 14, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution Nos. 98-26 and 98-27, thereby recommending approval of Addendum No. 6 to EIR No. 36 and Revision "G" to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, on August 18, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-76 approving Addendum No. 6 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "G" to the Ocean Trails project, which included: 1) an 18% increase in the size of the clubhouse from 27,000 square feet to 32,927 square feet; 2) an increase in the size of the maintenance facility from 6,000 square feet to 9,504 square feet; 3) a two foot increase in the upslope height of the maintenance facility building; and, 4) relocation of the maintenance building and reconfiguration of the maintenance facility parking lot; and, WHEREAS, on February 2, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-10 approving Addendum No. 7 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "H" to the Ocean Trails project, which included: changing 6 of the residential lots within VTTM 50667 from flat pad lots to split level lots, lowering the overall pad elevation for each lot, and lowering Street 'B' within the subdivision, and lowering the pad elevation for 6 other lots within the subdivision. Additionally, the approval included the modification of the project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval to allow the permitted construction hours for the entire Ocean Trails project to be expanded to include Sundays through March 21, 1999; and, WHEREAS, on May 4, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-29 approving Addendum No. 8 to Environmental Impact Report No. 35 and the proposed Revision "I" to the Ocean Trails project, which included a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "I" only amended the drainage for the east side of the Ocean Trails project, involving La Rotonda Canyon; and, WHEREAS, on June 2, 1999, Landslide C at the Ocean Trails site was re-activated; and, WHEREAS, on July 20, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-55 approving Addendum No. 9 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "J" to the Ocean Trails project, which included 1), the conditions requiring the establishment of a maintenance district be revised by eliminating the maintenance district and having the golf course owner be the sole responsible entity for maintenance thereby excluding the future residential homeowners; 2) withdrawn by applicant; 3), the timing of the installation of ornamental fencing on each residential lot be delayed until prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; 4), delay the construction of two trails within VTTM 50666 from the Second Stage to the Third Stage of phasing within the Public Amenities Plan; 5), lower the approved residential building pad elevations and create split-level pads in VTTM No. 50666; 6), delay the payment of traffic impact fees to prior to Final Map No. 50666; 7), allow an increase in total building area of the clubhouse by permitting a basement space; 8), withdrawn by applicant; and 9), revise the hours permitted for golf course landscape gardening; and, WHEREAS, on May 16, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-27 approving Addendum No. 10 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "K" to the Ocean Trails project, which allowed a portion of the golf course to open for play before all of the required public amenities have been completed due to delays caused by the failure of Landslide C on June 2, 1999; and, WHEREAS, on June 21, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-38 certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the proposed Revision "L" to the Ocean Trails project, for the repair of Landslide C at Ocean Trails; and, WHEREAS, on July 18, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision M to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving an amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), an amendment to the HCP Implementing Agreement, and approval of a Conservation Easement over the lower portion of Shoreline Park; and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision N to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and amending the project to accommodate a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "N" only amended the drainage for the west side of the Ocean Trails project, involving Forrestal Canyon; and, WHEREAS, on April 4, 2000, Ocean Trails, L.P., submitted a letter to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requesting approval for Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project to revise the Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 162, CUP No. 163, VTTM No. 50666 and VTTM No. 50667, so as to provide the Ocean Trails project other options in meeting its affordable housing requirements, and convert the existing vacant affordable housing site (Lot No. 37 of Tract No. 50667) to a parking lot; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65952.5(e) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), on February 1, 2001, copies of the draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 were distributed to the City Council and prior to taking action on the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in Addendum No. 11 to EIR No. 36; and, WHEREAS, on February 6, 2001, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Development Code, the City Council held a public hearing to consider draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: As approved by the City Council, this application permits Amendment P to VTTM No. 50666, allowing Ocean Trails an extension of time to provide for rent the 4 on-site affordable housing units, from "prior to one year from the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course". The City Council denied the developer's request to pay a fee in-lieu of providing the required affordable housing units, or other alternatives to meet the affordable housing requirements, and to allow Ocean Trails to construct a parking lot at the existing vacant affordable housing lot (Lot No. 37 of Tract No. 50667), as the developer could not provide sufficient evidence that it was not feasible to provide the 4 on-site affordable units at the Ocean Trails site. Section 2: In considering the proposed revisions to the project, the City Council has determined that the preparation of Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 is appropriate, since the subsequent changes in the project will not result in any new significant environmental impacts which were not previously identified and analyzed in Environmental Impact Report No. 36, that the subsequent changes will not result in an increase in any previously identified significant environmental impacts, that the Addendum does not contain new information of substantial importance to the project and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make Environmental Impact Report adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is so, since 1) the change will still provide for the timely construction of the originally approved 4 on-site affordable housing units, 2) the extension is warranted as the Ocean Trails project was subjected to severe impacts associated with the June 2, 1999 landslide, and 3) the timing of the installation of these units, which is prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course, will still, as originally approved, co-inside with the timing of development of uses on the site that generate employees. Therefore, based on the review of Draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 prepared in association with the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, as conditioned, the City Council finds that the project still mitigates, or reduces to the extent feasible, significant adverse effects to adjacent properties or the permitted uses thereof. In approving the revised project, the City Council finds that social, recreational, and other benefits of the project continue to outweigh any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that may occur and that due to overriding benefits and considerations, any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the project are acceptable. Accordingly, the City Council incorporate, by reference, the Final EIR No. 36, the Supplemental EIR, the second Supplemental EIR, Addenda Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and Resolution No. 92-115 (which includes, without limitation, the detailed statement of overriding considerations set forth therein). Section 3: That the creation of thirty-nine (39) single-family residential lots, four on-site affordable housing units, golf course with related improvements and public open space, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. The General Plan land use map designates almost the entire project site as Residential, with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre, and designates the coastal bluffs as hazard areas. The General Plan provides for additional commercial recreational uses within the City as appropriate to a particular location, including golf, equestrian, tennis and other recreational activities, and designates the City's entire coastal area as a specific plan district. The Coastal Specific Plan land use map shows the following general uses for the project site: (a) Residential (with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre) for the vast majority of the property, (b) Hazard areas along the bluffs and in the westerly natural drainage course, (c) a floating Retail Commercial area, and (d) Recreational parking. The text of the Coastal Specific Plan expressly permits visitor-serving uses, such as a golf course, subject to satisfaction of the requirements for granting a conditional use permit under the Development Code. With 39 residential units on approximately 39.6 acres, the density is slightly below one dwelling unit per acre and, therefore, consistent with the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. Section 4: That the creation of thirty-nine (39) single-family residential lots, common open space, a public golf course, and public open space, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's Development Code for projects within the RS-1 zoning district under a Residential Planned Development. In addition, a minimum of 30 percent of the site will be maintained within the residential development as common open space, exclusive of the golf course. The 39-Lot Revised Site Plan does not contemplate construction of any structures on land currently zoned as Open Space Hazard. The majority of the subject property is zoned RS-1 (Residential Planned Development) with the bluff face and the southwesterly natural drainage course (commonly known as Forrestal Canyon) being zoned as Open Space Hazard (OH). In compliance with the requirements of the OH zoning district, the applicant will not construct any permanent habitable structures on land that is zoned Open Space Hazard. The RS-1 (RPD) zone requires a conditional use permit for any type of development (§ 17.06.050) and expressly permits single-family residential development and any other uses permitted under Chapter 17.02, including conditionally-permitted uses under Chapter 17.56, such as golf courses (§ 17.06.030). Accordingly, under Chapter 17.06 and Section 17.56.020 of the Development Code, residential development and a golf course and related facilities are permissible uses, subject to a conditional use permit. The necessary findings with respect to the conditional use permits required in connection with the Residential Planned Development and golf course are contained in Resolutions Nos. 96-75 and 96-76, respectively. Furthermore, the residential portion of the project provides in excess of thirty percent of the Residential Planned Development as common open space, which open space is sited in a manner that is accessible for viewing and access by the general public from public roads and walkways and preserves views to the coast. Section 5: That the provision of a continuous bluff road as provided in the Coastal Specific Plan and depicted on Figure 24 of the Coastal Specific Plan is infeasible due to geologic and geotechnical constraints affecting the property and because such a road would require substantial alteration to the natural canyon area on the western portion of the property commonly known as "Forrestal Canyon". The City geologist and geotechnical engineer have each concluded that the land upon which such a road would be built has not demonstrated sufficient stability to warrant the construction of a permanent road in that location. As an alternative, the project features the realignment of Paseo Del Mar as a bluff road cul-de-sac taking access from Palos Verdes Drive South and the vacation of the central portion of Paseo del Mar. There will be no dwelling units located seaward of this bluff road. The combination of the vacation of the central portion of Paseo del Mar, the realignment of Paseo Del Mar as a bluff road cul-de-sac taking access from Palos Verdes Drive South, and a public access easement over the clubhouse driveway and parking facilities to Forrestal Canyon, as provided in the revised applications and conditions of approval, is consistent with Coastal Specific Plan, Subregion 7, Policy No. 16 which states that "Paseo del Mar shall be improved to provide access to residential development and consideration shall be given to relocating Paseo del Mar southward or exchanging it for another access route closer to the bluff edge." The intent of Coastal Specific Plan, Subregion 7, Policy 19 is satisfied by the provision of an 8.9 acre Bluff Top Public Access Corridor with a minimum width of one hundred (100) feet located along the bluff top between Half Way Point Park and Shoreline Park. This Bluff Top Public Access Corridor contains a public pedestrian trail along the entire length of the corridor and an off-road bicycle trail through the central portion of the site. The City Council finds that the Bluff Top Public Access Corridor is similar in average width and area to any coastal bluff road which would otherwise be constructed, if geologically feasible, pursuant to Coastal Specific Plan, Subregion 7, Policy 19. The City Council further finds that there shall be no road seaward of the last row of dwelling units in the residential area located on the far western portion of the property because the adverse impacts of such a road outweigh its potential benefits. A road seaward of the last row of dwelling units in this area should not be connected to the proposed bluff road because such a connection would result in substantial alteration and damage to Forrestal Canyon and the significant biological resources located therein. Without such a connection, the City Council finds that such a road is unnecessary to provide vehicular access to the coast and the coastal bluff, adequate vehicular access having already been provided by the bluff road cul-de-sac and public access to the clubhouse driveway and parking facilities, as described above. Section 6: That the golf course and related uses are consistent with Coastal Specific Plan, Subregion 7, Policy 7 which states: "Ensure that any proposed commercial activity responds to the needs of the coastal residents and shall not be of an intensity which would purposefully generate a service area external of the coastal region." The City Council finds that the intent of the above policy is to limit traditional commercial development (such as retail and office uses) so as not to create a service area external to the coastal region and that such policy is not intended to apply to commercial recreational uses, which are encouraged by the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. The City Council's interpretation of this policy is consistent with other policies in the Coastal Specific Plan and with Resolution No. 82-24, which adopted Coastal Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 and specifically authorized visitor-serving uses, such as golf, in Subregion 7. Section 7: That the trails plan as shown in the revised "Site Plan for Conditional Use Permit Amendment Map No. 2" (dated June 19, 1996) submitted by the applicant, including the Class I Pedestrian and Bike Trail segment in the area seaward of the western residential area, is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan requirements relating to trails. The precise alignment of this particular trail segment varies between its description in the Coastal Specific Plan, its display on Access Corridors map in the Coastal Specific Plan (Figure 24) and its location on the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Map. Because of these slightly different configurations, City Council finds that these descriptions and maps in the Coastal Specific Plan are intended to provide a generalized location for this trail segment. The City Council has considered these different alignments and found that the alignment of this segment as shown in the "Site Plan for Conditional Use Permit Amendment Map No. 2" (dated June 19, 1996) provides comparable public access, minimizes incompatibility with the active public recreational uses and, when connected to the bluff road cul-de-sac via a bridge over Forrestal Canyon, provides linkage to the bluff road, bluff top areas and the remainder of the site. The City Council finds that in the absence of a road seaward of the last row of dwelling units in the western residential area (as described in Section 5 hereof), this trail segment should be located as shown in the revised "Site Plan for Conditional Use Permit Amendment Map No. 2" (date June 19, 1996). Section 8: That the golf course and related uses are consistent with Coastal Specific Plan policy and Section 17.06.040.C.8 of the Development Code, which require the area seaward of corridor improvements to be improved and either dedicated or permanently maintained through deed restriction for public use. Section 17.06.040.C.6 of the Development Code permits the preservation of open space by dedication, deed restriction or other appropriate methods approved by the City. In compliance with these provisions and policies, the East and West Bluff Preserves, Half Way Point Park, Half Way Point Preserve, the Bluff Top Public Access Corridor, the Bluff Top Wildlife Corridor (located between the West Bluff Preserve and Half Way Point Park) and the public paths, trails, parking and recreational areas associated with these public open space areas will be improved by the applicants and offered to the City for dedication. Furthermore, the golf course area will be improved by the applicants and permanently maintained through deed restriction for public use. The City Council specifically finds that the deed restriction on the golf course land constitutes permanently maintained public open space. Neither the Coastal Specific Plan nor Development Code expressly prohibit active public recreational uses, or require only passive public uses, for the area seaward of the conceptual bluff road. Section 9: For purposes of the Subdivision Map Act, the design of the subdivision, golf course, and the related improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat based on compliance with the City's Development Code, General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan and consideration of information contained in Draft, Supplemental, and Addenda to Environmental Impact Report No. 36. The City Council acknowledges that there is the difference between the term "significant impact" under CEQA and the term "substantial environmental damage" under the Subdivision Map Act. Draft EIR No. 36, Supplement to EIR No. 36, Second Supplement to EIR No. 36, Addenda Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 to EIR No. 36 are required to base environmental findings on a "worst case" basis. As a result, the Final EIR and Addendum No. 1 conclude that significant impacts to biological resources remain after mitigation because of the loss of raptor foraging area and because of the temporal loss of Coastal Sage Scrub. Even with the 2:1 replacement of existing viable Coastal Sage Scrub and the other mitigation measures contained in the Final and Addendum No. 1 to EIR No. 36, the temporal loss of Coastal Sage Scrub, which serves as natural habitat for the California gnatcatcher, is considered significant due to the uncertainty that this species will be able to re-occupy the site after replacement of the Coastal Sage Scrub. These environmental findings are primarily the result of grading for the golf course, which itself has already been minimized through its links-type design. These specific findings and a corresponding statement of overriding considerations are contained in Resolution No. 92-115, which is hereby incorporated by reference. With the mitigation measures adopted by the City pursuant to Resolution No. 92-115, and revised pursuant to Resolution No. 96-72, the project will not result in substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat under the Subdivision Map Act. However, even assuming that the project did result in substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, such damage or injury would be caused primarily by grading for the golf course. The elimination of the golf course is not feasible because it would not satisfy an important objective of the project: to provide visitor-serving public recreational uses, which objective is encouraged by policies in the Coastal Specific Plan. For this reason, this alternative or mitigation measure has been rejected by the City Council. Pursuant to Resolution No. 92-115, the City has made a finding of infeasibility with respect to elimination of the golf course. Section 10: That the subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666, as conditioned, in terms of design and density. Section 11: That the creation of the lots, single family residential dwelling units, golf course, public open space, and related improvements will not be materially detrimental to property values, nor will it jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the surrounding areas, since physical improvements, dedications and maintenance agreements are required. Section 12: The City Council has considered the effect of the revised tract map on the housing needs of the region as set forth in the City's Housing Element, and balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and against available fiscal and environmental resources, and finds that the revised tract map helps to achieve those housing needs without unreasonably burdening the public service needs of existing residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Section 13: The City Council has considered the requirements of Government Code Section 65590, which requires new housing developments located in the coastal zone to provide, where feasible, housing units for persons and families of low or moderate incomes, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The Government Code further requires that where it is not feasible to provide these housing units in a proposed new housing development, the local government shall require the developer to provide such housing, if feasible to do so, at another location within the City, either within the coastal zone or within three miles thereof. Based on the information, analysis and findings included in Environmental Impact Report No. 36, and the subsequent conditions of approval placed on the project by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the California Coastal Commission, the City Council finds that the Ocean Trails project site has certain physical and environmental constraints, including geotechnical factors, topographic conditions and requirements for open space, public parks, a trails network and native habitat areas, which limit the amount of land available on-site for the construction of affordable housing units. In addition, based on information that was gathered by the City with regard to the average number of persons within the low to moderate income ranges that would be expected to be employed on the project site, including employees associated with the golf course and the residential lots, the City Council finds that the project will generate a need for affordable housing units. Therefore, taking into the account the physical constraints, yet recognizing the employment generated housing needs, the City Council finds that a requirement of 10% (currently 8 units) of affordable housing (based on the final total number of buildable lots) is a feasible requirement that would satisfy the intent of Government Code Section 65590. However, the City Council's finding is in no way intended to preclude future residents or tenants of the project site from providing additional affordable housing opportunities. Additionally, as pertaining to Revision "P" specifically, the proposed amendment (Revision "P") is consistent with Government Code Section 65590, as the proposed project only amends the deadline to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units from "prior to the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course", but still provides for 4 on-site and 4 off-site affordable housing units that will be provided for within the City, either in the Coastal Zone or within 3 miles of the Coastal Zone. Further, the City Council has determined that pursuant to Government Code Section 65590(d) and 65590(g)(3), the developer has not provided sufficient evidence to show that it is no longer feasible to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units at the Ocean Trails project site. Accordingly, the City Council has denied the developer's request to provide for a fee or other alternatives in-lieu of providing the on-site affordable housing units. Section 14: That the division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract. Section 15: That the discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). Section 16: That the design of the residential subdivision, golf course, and associated improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Section 17: That the design of the residential subdivision, golf course, and the type of improvements associated with them, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. Further, public trail easements which are consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan are required as a condition of this approval. Section 18: That the design of the revised vesting tentative tract map provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. Section 19: That the revised vesting tentative tract map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. Section 20: That dedications required by local ordinance are shown on the tentative map and/or are set forth in the conditions of approval attached hereto in Exhibit "A". Section 21: That the City considered the effect of approval of the residential subdivision on the housing needs of the region in which the City is situated and balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Section 22: 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. Section 23: The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Programs contained in Resolution No. 96-72, Resolution No. 2000-38, and Resolution No. 2000-58, as adopted by the City Council on September 3, 1996, June 21, 2000, and September 5, 2000, respectively, are hereby incorporated by reference into the Conditions of Approval for the revisions to VTTM No. 50666. Section 24: 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. Section 25: For the forgoing reasons, and based on information and findings contained in the public record, including staff reports, minutes, records of proceedings, and evidence presented at the public hearings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Revision "P" to VTTM No. 50666, amending condition A-8 by extending the deadline for providing affordable units from "one year of the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course", as shown in the attached Exhibit "A", which is necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. All other conditions of approval that have been imposed on this project shall remain in effect and are incorporated herein.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of February 2001. _________________________ 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. 2001-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on February 20, 2001. ___________________________ Jo Purcell, City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes RESOLUTION NO. 2001- EXHIBIT "A" VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50666 - REVISION "P" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following condition shall be revised to read as follows:
8.In conjunction with Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666, the developer shall provide a minimum of four (4) dwelling units on-site as rental housing, which shall be affordable to very low to low income households. These units shall be provided on-site in conjunction with development of the golf course. Each unit shall contain at least 850 square foot of living space and two bedrooms. A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided for each unit. The units shall be available for rent prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course. A covenant which guarantees that the affordable units shall not revert to market rate for a minimum period of thirty years shall be recorded no later than the date of recordation of the final map. Project management, including tenant selection and income monitoring, shall be provided in a manner to be approved by the City. First priority for the units shall be given to very low to low income employees of the Ocean Trails project. Second priority shall be given to persons within very low to low income levels working within four miles of the City’s coastal zone. Third priority shall be given to persons within very low to low income levels, regardless of the location of employment (if employed). RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING REVISIONS TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50667 FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON A 107.5 ACRE SITE WITH THIRTY-SIX (36) SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, A PUBLIC GOLF COURSE, AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IN CONNECTION WITH REVISION "P" TO THE OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT LOCATED IN COASTAL SUBREGIONS 7 AND 8 WHEREAS, an application package was filed by the Zuckerman Building Company and Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company requesting approval of tentative parcel maps, vesting tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, a coastal permit and a grading permit to allow the construction of a Residential Planned Development of 120 single family dwelling units and for development of an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse and parking facilities on a 258 acre site bounded by Palos Verdes Drive South on the north, Portuguese Bend Club and Community Association on the west, the Pacific Ocean on the south and Los Angeles County Shoreline Park on the east; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and circulated for 45 days from June 7, 1991 through July 22, 1991 in order to receive written comments on the adequacy of the document from responsible agencies and the public; and, WHEREAS, subsequent to the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and preparation of written responses, the applicant revised the scope of the project and reduced the number of proposed single family residences to 40 units in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 and 43 in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667, and an 18 hole golf course with related facilities within the boundaries of both Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and, due to the changes in the project, an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (ADEIR) was prepared; and, WHEREAS, based on review of the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the City determined that the information submitted in the AEIR cited potential additional significant environmental impacts that would be caused by the revised project, and directed preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The SEIR, which incorporates information and findings set forth in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, was prepared and circulated for 45 days from March 19, 1992 through May 4, 1992, during which time all interested parties were notified of the circulation period and invited to present written comments to the information contained in the SEIR, in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, on June 1, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-53, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 92-54, 92-55, 92-56 and 92-57, respectively approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103 and Grading Permit No. 1541 for a Residential Planned Development consisting of a total of eighty-three (83) single family dwelling units, an 18 hole public golf course and public open space on 261.4 acres in Coastal Subregion Nos. 7 and 8; and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 1992, after finding that an appeal of the City's approval of the project raised substantial issue, the California Coastal Commission denied Coastal Permit No. 103, directed the landowners to redesign the project to address the concerns raised by the Coastal Commission Staff and remanded the project back to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for reconsideration; and, WHEREAS, on December 7, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-115 approving the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 92-116, 92-117, 92-118 and 92-119 approving Revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103, and Grading Permit No. 1541 in order to address concerns raised by the Coastal Commission with regard to adequate provisions for public open space, public access and habitat preservation; and, WHEREAS, on April 15, 1993, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-5 (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), subject to additional conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, on October 5, 1993, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 93-89 approving a second Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 93-90, 93-91, 93-92 and 93-93 respectively re-approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, and Grading Permit No. 1541 in order to comply with a Court mandate to provide affordable housing in conjunction with the project, pursuant to Government Code Section 65590; and, WHEREAS, on November 5, 1993, the California Coastal Commission adopted revised and expanded findings in conjunction with the project; and, WHEREAS, on September 6, 1994, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 94-71 approving a third Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 94-72, 94-73, 94-74, 94-75, 94-76 and 94-77, respectively, approving Revision "A" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, relocation of the golf course clubhouse from the area southwest of the School District property to an area north of Half Way Point, locating the golf course maintenance facility and four (4) affordable housing units southeast of the corner of Palos Verdes Drive South and Paseo Del Mar, reducing the number of single family residential lots from eighty-three (83) to seventy-five (75) and increasing the height of the golf course clubhouse from thirty (30) feet to forty-eight (48) feet; and, WHEREAS, on January 12, 1995, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its first amendment to the permit, subject to revised conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, on September 27, 1995, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its second amendment to the permit; and, WHEREAS, on February 1, 1996, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its third amendment to the permit; and, WHEREAS, on March 11, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-15 approving a fourth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 96-16, and 96-17, respectively, approving Revision "B" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, modifying the approved alignment of Paseo del Mar ("A" Street/"J" Bluff Road), revising the Conditions of Approval regarding several public trails, and relocating the golf course clubhouse approximately 80 feet to the west of its previously approved location; and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 1996, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), thereby approving its fourth amendment to the permit, subject to revised conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, on September 3, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-72 approving a fifth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 96-73, 96-74, 96-75, 96-76 and 96-77, respectively, approving Revision "C" to the approved Ocean Trails project, including, but not limited to, relocation of two single family residential lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 from the end of Street "A" to the end of Street "C", revisions to the boundaries of open space Lots B, C, G and H, conversion the split-level lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 to single-level lots, revisions to the golf course layout, revisions the public trail system, combination of parallel trails easements, construction of a paved fire access road west of the Ocean Terraces Condominiums and amendments to several Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures to modify the required timing for compliance; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted P.C. Resolution No. 97-44 approving Revision "D" to the Ocean Trails project, which involved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 162 (Residential Planned Development) to modify the minimum rear yard setbacks on Lot Nos. 6 through 9 to provide an adequate buffer between the proposed residences and the potential brush fires that may occur on the adjacent habitat area; and, WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-32 approving Revision "E" to the Ocean Trails project, which involved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 (Golf Course) to modify the bonding requirements for the golf course improvements; and, WHEREAS, on June 16, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-58 approving Revision "F" to the Ocean Trails project which involved and amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 to modify the configuration of Streets "C" and "D" and Lot Nos. 1 through 13 to accommodate the final location of the Foundation Setback Line; and, WHEREAS, on July 14, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution Nos. 98-26 and 98-27, thereby recommending approval of Addendum No. 6 to EIR No. 36 and Revision "G" to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, on August 18, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-76 approving Addendum No. 6 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "G" to the Ocean Trails project, which included: 1) an 18% increase in the size of the clubhouse from 27,000 square feet to 32,927 square feet; 2) an increase in the size of the maintenance facility from 6,000 square feet to 9,504 square feet; 3) a two foot increase in the upslope height of the maintenance facility building; and, 4) relocation of the maintenance building and reconfiguration of the maintenance facility parking lot; and, WHEREAS, on February 2, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-10 approving Addendum No. 7 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "H" to the Ocean Trails project, which included: changing 6 of the residential lots within VTTM 50667 from flat pad lots to split level lots, lowering the overall pad elevation for each lot, and lowering Street 'B' within the subdivision, and lowering the pad elevation for 6 other lots within the subdivision. Additionally, the approval included the modification of the project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval to allow the permitted construction hours for the entire Ocean Trails project to be expanded to include Sundays through March 21, 1999; and, WHEREAS, on May 4, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-29 approving Addendum No. 8 to Environmental Impact Report No. 35 and the proposed Revision "I" to the Ocean Trails project, which included a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "I" only amended the drainage for the east side of the Ocean Trails project, involving La Rotonda Canyon; and, WHEREAS, on June 2, 1999, Landslide C at the Ocean Trails site was re-activated; and, WHEREAS, on July 20, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-55 approving Addendum No. 9 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "J" to the Ocean Trails project, which included 1), the conditions requiring the establishment of a maintenance district be revised by eliminating the maintenance district and having the golf course owner be the sole responsible entity for maintenance thereby excluding the future residential homeowners; 2) withdrawn by applicant; 3), the timing of the installation of ornamental fencing on each residential lot be delayed until prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; 4), delay the construction of two trails within VTTM 50666 from the Second Stage to the Third Stage of phasing within the Public Amenities Plan; 5), lower the approved residential building pad elevations and create split-level pads in VTTM No. 50666; 6), delay the payment of traffic impact fees to prior to Final Map No. 50666; 7), allow an increase in total building area of the clubhouse by permitting a basement space; 8), withdrawn by applicant; and 9), revise the hours permitted for golf course landscape gardening; and, WHEREAS, on October 12, 1999, Final Map No. 50667 was recorded with the County of Los Angeles; and, WHEREAS, on May 16, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-27 approving Addendum No. 10 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "K" to the Ocean Trails project, which allowed a portion of the golf course to open for play before all of the required public amenities have been completed due to delays caused by the failure of Landslide C on June 2, 1999; and, WHEREAS, on June 21, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-38 certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the proposed Revision "L" to the Ocean Trails project, for the repair of Landslide C at Ocean Trails; and, WHEREAS, on July 18, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision M to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving an amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), an amendment to the HCP Implementing Agreement, and approval of a Conservation Easement over the lower portion of Shoreline Park; and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision N to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and amending the project to accommodate a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "N" only amended the drainage for the west side of the Ocean Trails project, involving Forrestal Canyon; and, WHEREAS, on April 4, 2000, Ocean Trails, L.P., submitted a letter to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requesting approval for Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project to revise the Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 162, CUP No. 163, VTTM No. 50666 and VTTM No. 50667, so as to provide the Ocean Trails project other options in meeting its affordable housing requirements, and convert the existing vacant affordable housing site (Lot No. 37 of Tract No. 50667) to a parking lot; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65952.5(e) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), on February 1, 2001, copies of the draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 were distributed to the City Council and prior to taking action on the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in Addendum No. 11 to EIR No. 36; and, WHEREAS, on February 6, 2001, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Development Code, the City Council held a public hearing to consider draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: As approved by the City Council, this application permits Amendment P to VTTM No. 50667, allowing Ocean Trails an extension of time to provide for rent the 4 on-site affordable housing units, from "prior to one year from the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course". The City Council denied the developer's request to pay a fee in-lieu of providing the required affordable housing units, or other alternatives to meet the affordable housing requirements, and to allow Ocean Trails to construct a parking lot at the existing vacant affordable housing lot (Lot No. 37 of Tract No. 50667), as the developer could not provide sufficient evidence that it was not feasible to provide the 4 on-site affordable units at the Ocean Trails site. Section 2: In considering the proposed revisions to the project, the City Council has determined that the preparation of Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 is appropriate, since the subsequent changes in the project will not result in any new significant environmental impacts which were not previously identified and analyzed in Environmental Impact Report No. 36, that the subsequent changes will not result in an increase in any previously identified significant environmental impacts, that the Addendum does not contain new information of substantial importance to the project and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make Environmental Impact Report adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is so, since 1) the change will still provide for the timely construction of the originally approved 4 on-site affordable housing units, 2) the extension is warranted as the Ocean Trails project was subjected to severe impacts associated with the June 2, 1999 landslide, and 3) the timing of the installation of these units, which is prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course, will still, as originally approved, co-inside with the timing of development of uses on the site that generate employees. Therefore, based on the review of Draft Addendum No. 11 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 prepared in association with the proposed Revision "P" to the Ocean Trails project, as conditioned, the City Council finds that the project still mitigates, or reduces to the extent feasible, significant adverse effects to adjacent properties or the permitted uses thereof. In approving the revised project, the City Council finds that social, recreational, and other benefits of the project continue to outweigh any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that may occur and that due to overriding benefits and considerations, any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the project are acceptable. Accordingly, the City Council incorporate, by reference, the Final EIR No. 36, the Supplemental EIR, the second Supplemental EIR, Addenda Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and Resolution No. 92-115 (which includes, without limitation, the detailed statement of overriding considerations set forth therein). Section 3: That the creation of thirty-six (36) single-family residential lots, 4 on-site affordable housing units, golf course with related improvements and public open space, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. The General Plan land use map designates almost the entire project site as residential, with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre, and designates the coastal bluffs as hazard areas. The General Plan provides for additional commercial recreational uses within the City as appropriate to a particular location, including golf, equestrian, tennis and other recreational activities, and designates the City's entire coastal area as a specific plan district. The Coastal Specific Plan land use map shows the following general uses for the project site: (a) Residential (with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre) for the vast majority of the property, (b) Hazard areas along the bluffs, the natural drainage course and in certain portions north of Paseo del Mar with extreme slopes (greater than 35% in steepness), (c) a floating Retail Commercial area, and (d) Recreational parking. The text of the Coastal Specific Plan expressly permits visitor-serving uses, such as a golf course, subject to satisfaction of the requirements for granting a conditional use permit under the Development Code. With 36 residential units on approximately 37.6 acres, the density is slightly below one dwelling unit per acre and, therefore, consistent with the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. Section 4: That the creation of thirty-six (36) single-family residential lots, common open space, a public golf course, and public open space, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's Development Code for projects within the RS-1 zoning district under a Residential Planned Development. In addition, a minimum of 30 percent of the site will be maintained within the residential development as common open space, exclusive of the golf course. The 36-Lot Revised Site Plan does not contemplate construction of any structures on land with slopes in excess of 35%, or on land currently zoned Open Space Hazard. The majority of the subject property is zoned RS-1 (Residential Planned Development) with the bluff face and the natural drainage course and certain areas north of Paseo del Mar being zoned as Open Space Hazard (OH). In compliance with the requirements of the OH zoning district, the applicant will not construct any permanent habitable structures on land that is zoned Open Space Hazard. The RS-1 (RPD) zone requires a conditional use permit for any type of development (§ 17.06.050) and expressly permits single-family residential development and any other uses permitted under Chapter 17.02, including conditionally-permitted uses under Chapter 17.56, such as golf courses. (§ 17.06.030). Accordingly, under Chapter 17.06 and Section 17.56.020 of the Development Code, residential development and a golf course and related facilities are permissible uses, subject to a conditional use permit. The necessary findings with respect to the conditional use permits required in connection with the Residential Planned Development and golf course are contained in Resolutions Nos. 96-75 and 96-76 and amendments thereto, respectively. Furthermore, the residential portion of the project provides in excess of thirty percent of the Residential Planned Development as common open space, which open space is sited in a manner that is accessible for viewing and access by the general public from public roads and walkways and preserves views to the coast. Section 5: That the combination of the vacation of the central portion of Paseo del Mar and the realignment of Paseo Del Mar as a long bluff road cul-de-sac taking access off of Palos Verdes Drive South as provided in related applications is consistent with Coastal Specific Plan Subregion 7 Policy No. 16, which states that "Paseo del Mar shall be improved to provide access to residential development and consideration shall be given to relocating Paseo del Mar southward or exchanging it for another access route closer to the bluff edge." The intent of Coastal Specific Plan, Subregion 7, Policy 19 is further satisfied by the provision of an 8.9 acre Bluff Top Public Access Corridor with a minimum width of one hundred (100) feet located along the bluff top between Half Way Point Park and Shoreline Park. The City Council finds that the Bluff Top Public Access Corridor is similar in average width and area to any coastal bluff road which would otherwise be constructed, if geologically feasible, pursuant to Coastal Specific Plan, Subregion 7, Policy 19. Section 6: That the golf course and related uses are consistent with Coastal Specific Plan, Subregion 7, Policy 7 which states: "Ensure that any proposed commercial activity responds to the needs of the coastal residents and shall not be of an intensity which would purposefully generate a service area external of the coastal region." The City Council finds that the intent of the above policy is to limit traditional commercial development (such as retail and office uses) so as not to create a service area external to the coastal region and that such policy is not intended to apply to commercial recreational uses, which are encouraged by the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. The City Council's interpretation of this policy is consistent with other policies in the Coastal Specific Plan and with Resolution No. 82-24, which adopted Coastal Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 and specifically authorized visitor-serving uses, such as golf, in Subregion 7. Section 7: That the trails plan as shown in the revised "Site Plan for Conditional Use Permit Amendment Map No. 2" (dated June 19, 1996) submitted by the applicants is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan requirements relating to trails. Section 8: That the golf course and related uses are consistent with Coastal Specific Plan policy and Section 17.06.040.C.8 of the Development Code, which require the area seaward of corridor improvements to be improved and either dedicated or permanently maintained through deed restriction for public use. Section 17.06.040.C.6 of the Development Code permits the preservation of open space by dedication, deed restriction or other appropriate methods approved by the City. In compliance with these provisions and policies, the East and West Bluff Preserves, Half Way Point Park, Half Way Point Preserve, the Bluff Top Public Access Corridor, the Bluff Top Wildlife Corridor (located between the West Bluff Preserve and Half Way Point Park) and the public paths, trails, parking and recreational areas associated with these public open space areas will be improved by the applicants and offered to the City for dedication. Furthermore, the golf course area will be improved by the applicants and permanently maintained through deed restriction for public use. The City Council specifically finds that the deed restriction on the golf course land constitutes permanently maintained public open space. Neither the Coastal Specific Plan nor Development Code expressly prohibit active public recreational uses, or require only passive public uses, for the area seaward of the conceptual bluff road. Section 9: For purposes of the Subdivision Map Act, the design of the subdivision, golf course, or the related improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat based on compliance with the City's Development Code, General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan and consideration of information contained in Draft, Supplemental, and Addenda of Environmental Impact Report No. 36. The City Council acknowledges that there is the difference between the term "significant impact" under CEQA and the term "substantial environmental damage" under the Subdivision Map Act. Draft EIR No. 36, Supplement to EIR No. 36, Second Supplement to EIR No. 36, and Addendum Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 to EIR No. 36 are required to base environmental findings on "worst case" basis. As a result, the Final EIR and Addendum No. 1 EIR conclude that significant impacts to biological resources remain after mitigation because of the loss of raptor foraging area and because of the temporal loss of Coastal Sage Scrub. Even with the 2:1 replacement of existing viable Coastal Sage Scrub and the other mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR and Addendum no. 1 to EIR No. 36, the temporal loss of Coastal Sage Scrub, which serves as natural habitat for the California gnatcatcher, is considered significant due to the uncertainty that this species will be able to re-occupy the site after replacement of the Coastal Sage Scrub. These environmental findings are primarily the result of grading for the golf course, which itself has already been minimized through its links-type design. These specific findings and a corresponding statement of overriding considerations are contained in Resolution No. 92-115, which is hereby incorporated by reference. With the mitigation measures adopted by the City pursuant to Resolution No. 92-115, and recommended to be revised pursuant to Resolution No. 96-72, the project will not result in substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat under the Subdivision Map Act. However, even assuming that the project did result in substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, such damage or injury would be caused primarily by grading for the golf course. The elimination of the golf course is not feasible because it would not satisfy an important objective of the project: to provide visitor-serving public recreational uses, which objective is encouraged by policies in the Coastal Specific Plan. For this reason, this alternative or mitigation measure has been rejected by the City Council. Pursuant to Resolution No. 92-115, the City has made a finding of infeasibility with respect to elimination of the golf course. Section 10: That the subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667, as conditioned, in terms of design and density. Section 11: That the creation of the lots, single family residential dwelling units, golf course, public open space, and related improvements will not be materially detrimental to property values, nor will it jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the surrounding areas, since physical improvements, dedications and maintenance agreements are required. Section 12: The City Council has considered the effect of the revised tract map on the housing needs of the region as set forth in the City's Housing Element, and balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and against available fiscal and environmental resources, and finds that the revised tract map help to achieve those housing needs without unreasonably burdening the public service needs of existing residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Section 13: The City Council has considered the requirements of Government Code Section 65590, which requires new housing developments located in the coastal zone to provide, where feasible, housing units for persons and families of low or moderate incomes, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The Government Code further requires that where it is not feasible to provide these housing units in a proposed new housing development, the local government shall require the developer to provide such housing, if feasible to do so, at another location within the City, either within the coastal zone or within three miles thereof. Based on the information, analysis and findings included in Environmental Impact Report No. 36, and the subsequent conditions of approval placed on the project by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the California Coastal Commission, the City Council finds that the Ocean Trails project site has certain physical and environmental constraints, including geotechnical factors, topographic conditions and requirements for open space, public parks, a trails network and native habitat areas, which limit the amount of land available on-site for the construction of affordable housing units. In addition, based on information that was gathered by the City with regard to the average number of persons within the low to moderate income ranges that would be expected to be employed on the project site, including employees associated with the golf course and the residential lots, the City Council finds that the project will generate a need for affordable housing units. Therefore, taking into the account the physical constraints, yet recognizing the employment generated housing needs, the City Council finds that a requirement of 10% (currently 8 units) of affordable housing (based on the final total number of buildable lots) is a feasible requirement that would satisfy the intent of Government Code Section 65590. However, the City Council's finding is in no way intended to preclude future residents or tenants of the project site from providing additional affordable housing opportunities. Additionally, as pertaining to Revision "P" specifically, the proposed amendment (Revision "P") is consistent with Government Code Section 65590, as the proposed project only amends the deadline to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units from "prior to the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course", but still provides for 4 on-site and 4 off-site affordable housing units that will be provided for within the City, either in the Coastal Zone or within 3 miles of the Coastal Zone. Further, the City Council has determined that pursuant to Government Code Section 65590(d) and 65590(g)(3), the developer has not provided sufficient evidence to show that it is no longer feasible to provide the 4 on-site affordable housing units at the Ocean Trails project site. Accordingly, the City Council has denied the developer's request to provide for a fee or other alternatives in-lieu of providing the on-site affordable housing units. Section 14: That the division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract. Section 15: That the discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). Section 16: That the design of the residential subdivision, golf course and associated improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Section 17: That the design of the residential subdivision, golf course, and the type of improvements associated with them, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. Further, public trail easements which are consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan are required as a condition of this approval. Section 18: That the design of the revised vesting tentative tract map provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. Section 19: That the revised vesting tentative tract map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. Section 20: That dedications required by local ordinance are shown on the tentative map and/or are set forth in the conditions of approval as previously approved. Section 21: That the City considered the effect of approval of the residential subdivision on the housing needs of the region in which the City is situated and balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Section 22: That as a result of the proposed modifications to the conditions of approval shown in the attached Exhibit A, as approved by the City Council through Revision "P", there are changes in circumstances to the project which make the current conditions of VTTM No. 50667 no longer appropriate or necessary. These modifications do not impose any additional burden on the present fee owner of the property, nor do they alter any right, title or interest in the real property reflected on the recorded Map No. 50667. Section 23: The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Programs contained in Resolution No. 96-72, Resolution No. 2000-38, and Resolution No. 2000-58, as adopted by the City Council on September 3, 1996, June 21, 2000, and September 5, 2000, respectively, are hereby incorporated by reference into the Conditions of Approval for the revisions to VTTM No. 50667. Section 24: 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. Section 25: For the forgoing reasons, and based on information and findings contained in the public record, including staff reports, minutes, records of proceedings, and evidence presented at the public hearings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Revision "P" to VTTM No. 50667, amending condition A-8 by extending the deadline for providing affordable units from "one year of the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course, as shown in the attached Exhibit "A", which is necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. All other conditions of approval that have been imposed on this project shall remain in effect and are incorporated herein. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of February 2001. _________________________ 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. 2001-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on February 20, 2001. ___________________________ Jo Purcell, City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes RESOLUTION NO. 2001- EXHIBIT "A" VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50667 - REVISION "P" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following condition shall be revised to read as follows: 8.In conjunction with Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50667, the developer shall provide a minimum of four (4) dwelling units on-site as rental housing, which shall be affordable to very low to low income households. These units shall be provided on-site in conjunction with development of the golf course. Each unit shall contain at least 850 square foot of living space and two bedrooms. A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided for each unit. The units shall be available for rent prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course. A covenant which guarantees that the affordable units shall not revert to market rate for a minimum period of thirty years shall be recorded no later than the date of recordation of the final map. Project management, including tenant selection and income monitoring, shall be provided in a manner to be approved by the City. First priority for the units shall be given to very low to low income employees of the Ocean Trails project. Second priority shall be given to persons within very low to low income levels working within four miles of the City’s coastal zone. Third priority shall be given to persons within very low to low income levels, regardless of the location of employment (if employed).
8.Peafowl Population Assessment and Recommendations. (Park)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT: PEAFOWL POPULATION ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION (1) Consider peafowl study findings and recommendations of Dr. Francine Bradley; (2) Adopt peafowl management plan to reduce peafowl population; (3) Execute a professional service agreement with the University of California Davis for Dr. Francine Bradley, poultry specialist, to implement demonstration trapping and relocation program and (4) Allocate $3,000 from the Animal Control Service Budget for the peafowl demonstration project. BACKGROUND In recent years, City Hall has received an increasing number of peafowl related complaints from residents concerned with and agitated by the steadily growing peafowl population. Common complaints consist of excessive noise due to bird calls, birds walking on roof tops, damage to private yards and gardens, excessive animal waste and damage to rooftops. Although the City has no formal policy concerning peafowl, the City discourages residents from feeding peafowl and other wildlife. In an attempt to assist residents, City Hall provides information on helpful suggestions to discourage peafowl from visiting private property. These suggestions range from types of plants to avoid for landscaping or for garden planting to the use of known peafowl-deterrents such as lawn sprinklers and presence of dogs. Many residents have pointed out the futility of these measures due to the overabundant number of peafowl in their area. On May 2, 2000 the City Council received a report on residents’ complaints of peafowl overpopulation and directed staff to further investigate potential measures to minimize the peafowl impact upon residents’ quality of life. The general consensus of the City Council was to find a way to assist residents living in close proximity to large numbers of peafowl. On July 18, 2000 the City Council allocated $5,000 from the Animal Control Service Program Budget to hire a peafowl consultant. On October 10, 2000 the City Council entered into a contract with the University of California Davis for Dr. Francine Bradley, poultry specialist, to study the peafowl population in the City and to provide recommendations to manage the population. Dr. Bradley began her work in October. The City held two public meetings and mailed a questionnaire to residents living in neighborhoods known for peafowl to gather public opinion. Based upon over 100 resident responses, Dr. Bradley and/or her assistant visited several neighborhoods in the Portuguese Bend, Ridgecrest and Vista Grande communities to verify the presence of peafowl, observe peafowl flock behavior and conduct a population count. Dr. Bradley presented her report findings and recommendations to the public at three meetings held on December 18, 2000 and January 29, 2001 at Hesse Park. (Meeting notices were disseminated via local papers, City web site, ListServ e-mail service, Cox reader board, and direct mailings to residents living in the general area of originating peafowl complaints.) The public was invited to hear Dr. Bradley’s report, ask questions and offer comments. A list of some frequently asked questions and copies of written comments from the public are also attached. A copy of the report text was mailed to the Portuguese Bend and Ridgecrest HomeOwners Association Presidents and a copy of the text was placed on the City website. DISCUSSION Dr. Francine Bradley, poultry specialist with the Animal Science Department at the University of California, Davis, will present a brief summary of her peafowl population assessment report and recommendation. A copy of her full report text is attached for the Council’s review. Peafowl Management Plan Given the magnitude of the peafowl population, existing conditions, and history of peafowl on the Peninsula, staff concurs with Dr. Bradley’s recommendation to reduce flock size in the Ridgecrest, Portuguese Bend and Vista Grande communities starting with the four largest flocks. According to the peafowl population estimates, the four largest flocks identified by Dr. Bradley are located in the Vista Grande area at Eddinghill and Trailriders (24 birds), in the Ridgecrest community on Middlecrest (28) and in the Portuguese Bend area at Clovetree and Cinnamon Lane (34) as well as on Sweetbay (19). Based upon written and verbal comments received from residents, the majority of residents complaining of the overabundant peafowl population live within the four largest peafowl flock territories spanning a block or more. Not all, but the majority of respondents who are ambivalent or very fond of the presence of peafowl live further away, where the impact or presence of peafowl is significantly less. These peafowl established territories share some common characteristics, such as the availability of ample food sources and thick vegetation. There was evidence observed of indirect feed sources for peafowl in the form of livestock feed spillage, open feed storage areas, bird feeders and leftover pet food. Many suspicions of other residents deliberately feeding peafowl on a regular basis have been more or less confirmed. Overtime, peafowl have been conditioned to live in close proximity to these residences that provide feed. The peafowl study highly recommends residents’ cooperation by not feeding peafowl for the long-term benefit of the community. According to Dr. Bradley, if the indirect and direct food sources were minimized or eliminated, the peafowl flocks would likely scatter in smaller numbers instead of the existing high concentration of birds limited to a particular area. Thick vegetation along steep hillsides, ravines, water drainage areas, and open fields or backyards is another common factor. The thick vegetation provides ideal hiding, roosting and nesting areas for the birds. Some residents have already drastically trimmed tall sturdy trees or brush to deter peafowl from visiting their property. Staff proposes to hire Dr. Bradley to conduct a one-time, City sponsored demonstration project to trap and relocate up to 50 peafowl on the same day. Dr. Bradley and her team will be responsible for constructing a customized peafowl trap on selected private properties. The traps will be large enough to hold up to 12 freestanding birds or the desired number at one time. Each resident with a trap will be required to set out food in the trap to lure peafowl. The trap will not be activated until the day of actual trapping. Dr. Bradley and her team will return to each private property and the trap will be in use for approximately 15 minutes. A veterinarian will also be on-site during the trapping process. Once the designated number of peafowl are "trapped", Dr. Bradley and her team will prepare the birds for relocation. The peafowl will be transported on the same day of trapping to their new homes in molded bird carriers or cardboard boxes (metal cages are not appropriate for transporting birds). The demonstration project will not begin until homes for relocated peafowl (50) have been investigated and confirmed by Dr. Bradley. Dr. Bradley has already identified in her study potential homes for some peafowl, the Wildlife Way Station in the Angeles National Forest and a peafowl farm in Riverside County. Both of these facilities can accommodate at least 50 birds. In the past, Dr. Bradley has placed peafowl with 4-H poultry families in California and anticipates this will be another resource for additional homes. If Dr. Bradley is hired for the demonstration project, Dr. Bradley will investigate and confirm all homes and provide adoption papers for all peafowl to be relocated. This project is intended to provide a unique learning opportunity for residents to observe the process in order to replicate it as needed in the future. Dr. Bradley and her team will demonstrate how to construct the customized peafowl trap and how to correctly handle peafowl. Staff envisions creating a team of volunteers to assist residents with too many peafowl on their property. City staff would assist in coordinating trapping and relocation efforts as needed. Some residents have already volunteered their yards for trapping or their assistance. Should Council approve the demonstration project, staff anticipates the project may begin as early as April or at the end of summer. Dr. Bradley recommends trapping and relocating peafowl before or after summer to avoid the breeding season. Some of the advantages to hiring Dr. Bradley for the demonstration project are: -Residents can observe how to humanely trap and catch peafowl for future reference -A veterinarian would be on-site -Peafowl would not need housing, they would be directly transported to their destination -Records of peafowl relocation -Traps are customized for peafowl -Up to 50 birds may be relocated outside the Peninsula At least one resident in Portuguese Bend has suggested relocating some peafowl to his/her property. This suggestion is reasonable and the City would be agreeable if the resident assumed ownership of the bird(s) and therefore would be responsible for the bird(s) in accordance to animal care regulations. The bird(s) would be required to be completely confined in appropriate flight pens or within the private property boundaries by other appropriate methods. The City Council may consider inviting the other Peninsula Cities to consider reviewing the peafowl study and adopting a similar population management plan. The City staff of Palos Verdes Estates has expressed some interest in the RPV peafowl study, but PVE staff has not confirmed anything at this time. Regardless of whether the other Peninsula Cities participate in similar trapping and relocation programs, City staff recommends that the City Council consider moving forward with the peafowl demonstration project. The peafowl population will continue to grow in numbers and expand its territory into new neighborhoods. ALTERNATIVES Adopt a City Ordinance prohibiting residents from deliberately feeding the peafowl or indirectly feeding peafowl by leaving food sources outside the home unattended. No action by the City. Continue hands-off practice. FISCAL IMPACT Staff requests $3,000 to be allocated from the current fiscal year’s Animal Control Service Budget for the demonstration project. The professional service agreement with the University of California Davis for Dr. Bradley’s services is estimated to be $2,500. The remaining $500 will be for miscellaneous expenses, such as trap materials and vehicle rentals, if necessary. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Gina Park, Senior Administrative Analyst REVIEWED Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Peafowl Population Assessment Report text Sampling of questions and answers from the public meetings Written comments from residents Professional Service Agreement Ordinance prohibiting feeding of peafowl City map indicating peafowl flocks
Peafowl Population Assessment Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Francine A. Bradley, Ph.D. Extension Poultry Specialist University of California, Davis Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the citizens and staff of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, and San Pedro. So many individuals generously shared information and insight. The patient and thorough field work of Avian Sciences senior, Claire Gallagher, is gratefully acknowledged. Table of Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Historical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Background from city staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Summary of site visits - concerns expressed by residents . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Summary of public meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Assessment of peafowl population numbers, territories, and "hot spots" 7 Spread of peafowl on the Palos Verdes Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Communication with staff at adjacent municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Peafowl’s current impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Availability of adoptive homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Management plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 I. Appropriate flock size for each community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 II. Procedures for immediate reduction of peafowl numbers . . . . .16 III. Long term management plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Appendix A - Photographs Appendix B - Maps Introduction The Blue or Indian Peacock (Pavo cristatus) is native to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and southern Nepal. None of the species and subspecies of peafowl are native to the Americas (Woodard, Vohra, and Denton, 1993). Visitors to the world’s great museums, palaces, and estates will find peafowl. The birds may be depicted in tapestries, paintings, and sculptures or they may be truly life-life, wandering the grounds. Both forms of the bird, live and depicted, are found in such exclusive sites because of their historic association with mortals of prominence and with immortal deities. The peafowl’s presence is no less limited in the great books, starting with the Bible (Bergmann, 1980). While many may be familiar with the peafowl in art and legend, fewer may realize that in their native lands, peafowl have often been seen as sport animals or as a nuisance due to their overabundance (Wright, 1920). Thanks to the culinary introduction by Hortensius the orator, young peacocks became prized banquet fare in the Roman period (Goldsmith, 1866). Historical Background Locals have differing opinions as to the advent of peafowl on the Peninsula. It is generally agreed that the Vanderlip Family owned the first peafowl. At least two stories are told as to the source of those original birds. One version is that east coast friends of the Vanderlips sent the birds west. A second version holds that the first peninsula peafowl came from the peafowl flock that Elias "Lucky" Baldwin kept at his Rancho Santa Anita in what is now Arcadia. This opinion seems to be supported by references made to a letter written by Frank Vanderlip, Jr. in 1979 to the Las Candalistas charitable organization. In that letter he is said to have written that he recalled his father lunching with Lucky Baldwin in 1924 and his father complaining that Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) was too quiet. Baldwin said he could fix that and the next day sent 6 peafowl from his ranch. The definitive answer was provided by Mrs. John Vanderlip. Her father-in-law, Frank Vanderlip bought 365 acres on the peninsula around 1912. According to peninsula historian Fink (1966), Vanderlip organized a syndicate to develop the peninsula and the negotiations were finalized in the fall of 1913. He built the first house on the peninsula (the house where Mrs. Vanderlip continues to reside) in 1916. Mr. Vanderlip made trips to Santa Catalina and the Wrigley Family. Wrigley’s daughter became quite fond of Frank. On one of his birthdays, she gifted him with 16 peafowl (Vanderlip, 2000). So, the source of the birds was not from the east, neither eastern Los Angeles County (Arcadia), nor the eastern United States. Rather the peafowl came from the west, across the sea from Santa Catalina. Historians report that Mr. Vanderlip was a passionate aviculturalist and that he maintained 500 avian varieties in runs (flight pens) that covered 4 acres of his property. It is further reported that in later years, all of Mr. Vanderlip’s collection was gifted to the Wrigley family, forming the breeding stock for their bird farm on Catalina. It is noted, however, that the only birds not given to the Wrigleys, were the peafowl (Fink, 1966). This would make sense if the original peafowl came from Wrigleys and Catalina. The Wrigleys would have no need for peafowl stock and Mr. Vanderlip might have feared offending the family by returning what he had received as a gift from them in the first place. Background from City Staff Senior Administrative Analyst reported that in 1998 her office received just a few calls related to the peafowl. She said the calls escalated dramatically in 1999. Staff members have identified five regions within the city as peafowl population centers. These regions are:
Portuguese Bend Vista Grande Crestridge/Ridgescrest (hereafter referred to as Crestridge) Grandview Marymount College area Of the five regions known to have peafowl, most complaints are received from Portuguese Bend, Vista Grande and Crestridge. Summary of Site Visits and Concerns Expressed by Residents Site visits - Portuguese Bend, October 20, November 12 and 26, 2000 Residents of Portuguese Bend are representative of most RPV citizens in terms of their opinion of the peafowl. Of the residents interviewed, more considered the number of birds to be a negative, rather than positive, aspect of the community. Several individuals had high levels of frustration with the birds. One individual has purchased a dog for the sole purpose of chasing the peafowl. While a number of individuals said they had dogs to keep away the birds, all of those with large dogs admitted that after a week, the dogs gave up trying to chase the peafowl. The only resident whose dog remained very aggressive to the peafowl, was an individual with a small, feisty, and "yappy" canine. Many residents were not at home during our visits, but there were indications in their yards that they were attempting to discourage the birds (tarped fountains, spikes on patio railings, etc.). A smaller number of residents favored the status quo. These individuals enjoy the birds and do not see them as a nuisance. There is a great deal of open space in this area. Open fields, private lanes, backyards and lots not visible from the street, all provide hiding and nesting areas for the birds. The presence of other livestock, especially horses, provides for feed spillage and open feed storage areas that provide "stolen" nutrient supplies for the peafowl. Site visits - Vista Grande, October 20 and November 25, 2000 The residents we spoke with universally agreed that the birds were too numerous and supported relocation of some, if not all of the birds. They were frustrated with the destruction caused to their roofs, plants, and walkways. Over and over we heard of the need to replace roofs and we observed ravaged yards and walkways permanently stained and/or discolored. Homeowners have utilized a variety of techniques to discourage the birds, including yard sprinklers timed to go on during birds’ peak feeding times, dogs, roof sprinklers, and shortening tree height in an attempt to reduce roosting spots. Numerous residents reported their suspicions that the birds were being fed at the corner of Eddinghill and Trailriders.
While basically a typical suburban neighborhood, the terraced nature of many of the Vista Grande properties offers a good deal of peafowl habitat. In attempts to prevent soil erosion, property owners have planted the steep hillsides with vegetation that has become quite thick. While these slopes are not easy for humans to navigate, they provide no obstacle to the peafowl in search of a nesting or hiding area.
Site visits - Crestridge, October 21, November 10 and 25, 2000 Everyone we spoke with viewed the peafowl as a problem. Methods used to discourage the birds included the aforementioned techniques, plus throwing anything and everything at the birds. We actually saw two vehicles purposefully attempt to hit peafowl crossing the road. While interviewing one citizen, we counted 28 peafowl in three pine trees in the individual’s yard (5360 Middlecrest). Although the lots in this region are significantly smaller than in Portuguese Bend, there are numerous protected "open spaces." That is, ravines and water drainage areas, with lush habitat. Summary of Public Meetings The meeting held on October 19, 2000 for the residents in the Portuguese Bend region was educational and civilized. Participants included recent (late 1990s) and long term (1950s) residents. Several of the latter group were able to recall when the peafowl were restricted to the Vanderlip Estate. Residents complained that the birds scream between April and September, destroy new plant growth and new plantings, break tile roofs, soil roofs with droppings, preclude seeding lawns (must by more expensive sod instead), make sleeping at night impossible due to birds landing on roof and screaming), prevent families from having their children play on lawn due to profuse droppings, and necessitate radical tree pruning and removal in attempts to eliminate roosting sites. Many pointed out that the City’s list of suitable plants was not useful. They agreed that the peafowl might not "enjoy" certain plants, but said they would greedily "sample" most anything until they found it was not to their liking. Residents were clearly distressed by the number of birds. One individual declared she would prefer having skunks to the peafowl. She said she was forced to run her air conditioning all night, to drown out the peafowl screams. Only one couple in attendance were pro-peafowl. They said they had actually moved to RPV because of the presence of the peafowl and of wildlife such as skunks and squirrels. While these individuals said they found the birds "amusing," they admitted that the birds were a legitimate nuisance to others. Unfortunately the meeting held on October 20, 2000 in the Silver Spur area had a very different and negative tenor. The citizens who attended this meeting were predominantly Crestridge and Vista Grande homeowners. Of the twenty plus in attendance, two individuals and one couple were very pro-peafowl. One resident said she purchased her home because of the peafowl and hates to see them thinned. Another said he likes the birds and volunteered to help with relocating some of the birds to the Wildlife Waystation. The wife in the pro-peafowl couple said she loves the birds, but thinks thinning the population is acceptable since currently people are killing them. Her husband attributed the problem to a lack of open space. The remainder of the crowd felt there were too many birds and favored thinning to complete removal. Their complaints included: noise, droppings, agitation of pets, potential for health problems, destruction of ornamentals and vegetables, birds walking into homes, people who feed the birds, and the hostility created between neighbors because of the birds (including threats of physical harm). Those disturbed by the birds have tried a variety of deterrents, including water guns with 50 feet trajectory, deer repellants, and bamboo stakes with white string around plantings. These same individuals had ideas about other solutions and wanted to know about the feasibility and efficacy of: collecting the eggs, egg auction, and caponization of peacocks. Assessment of Peafowl Population Numbers, Territories, and Hot Spots Portuguese Bend The populations were surveyed on November 12 and 26, 2000. Four distinct flocks were identified and described. The potential for a fifth flock exists. The largest flock is Clovetree Place/Cinnamon Lane. The 34 birds roost in the pines at 11 Cinnamon Lane, at the juncture of Clovetree Place and Cinnamon Lane (see Figures A1,2,3, 4,5,6, and 7 in Appendix A). The resident at 11 Cinnamon stocks feeders with chicken feed for the peafowl. During the morning hours the birds feed in an open pasture and at 3 Clovetree (see Fig. A8), on their way to 6 Clovetree (Fig. A9&10). At 6 Clovetree they preen on the back patio of the residence. The flock at Sweetbay Rd. is the second largest. At anyone time 19 fowl were observed near 30 and 31 Sweetbay Fig. A 11,12, &13). A few of these birds may be strays from Clovetree/Cinnamon, but at least 15 reside predominantly along Sweetbay. Daytime activity for the birds includes rather random dispersal along Sweetbay towards Peppertree Lane. The birds return down Sweetbay in an equally random fashion during the afternoon. The birds roost in the large pines at 32 Sweetbay (Fig. A14&15). Approximately 10 birds make up the flock on Limetree Lane. It was difficult to survey the birds in this region due to the steep hills, thick underbrush, and limited views of residences Fig. A16&17). No preferred roosting site was observed. The flock at Thyme Place is made up of 8 birds. Thyme Place begins at the juncture with 5 Cinnamon Lane. Birds were seen roosting in the large pines at 5 Cinnamon. They roost in the eucalyptus behind the terminus of Thyme Place (Fig. A18&19) . The residents at 8 Thyme Place (Fig. A20) do not specifically feed peafowl, but feed songbirds. They admitted that the peafowl find plenty to eat in their yard. A total of 9 birds was observed feeding in a pasture at Vanderlip and Narcissa (Fig. A21) during the first count. The birds could not be found during the second count and it was suspected that they were up Vanderlip Rd., a private road to which we did not have access. The Portuguese Bend flocks tended to stay in their own sections of the region. The counts made on the two dates were nearly identical, differing by one or two birds. Not including the numbers for the presumed Vanderlip Rd flock, we counted 67 birds. Given the abundant habitat present for hiding and the areas we could not enter, it is our opinion that there are 70-80 birds or more in Portuguese Bend. Vista Grande The populations were surveyed on November 25, 2000. Two main flocks were observed. The larger flock, estimated at 24 , centers its activity around Eddinghill and Trailriders. The birds in this flock roost in the large pines along Trailriders Drive. More precisely, they roost at the property line of 28310 and 28318 Trailriders (see pines on the right hand side of Fig. A22), near the intersection of Trailriders and Ambergate Drives. During the day they move down the hill, divide into smaller flocks, and then reassemble at dusk. The birds frequent the residences along Ambergate, Larkvale, Hedgewood (Fig. A23), Eddinghill, Trailriders, Blythewood, and Golden Meadow Drives. The most activity centers around Eddinghill and Trailriders. The suspicion of residents that there are feeding stations at Eddinghill and Trailriders is probably accurate. The birds seem more attached to this spot, for no apparent reason, than any other part of the neighborhood. The smaller flock of approximately 5 peafowl, roosts in the large pines on Brookford Drive (see pines at rear of Fig. A24). During the morning the birds make their way down Brookford Drive, perching on roofs and balconies (Fig. A25&26). The birds spend the rest of the day up the hill in the backyards of Braidwood Drive homes. Crestridge The populations were surveyed on November 10 and 25, 2000. The largest flock in this neighborhood consists of 28 birds that roost in 3 pine trees at 5360 Middlecrest (see pines at rear of Fig. A27). In the morning the birds leave the roosting area and meander down the hill. They either head directly down the road or cross the ravine and follow the crest of the hill. Most morning activity is centered around 5350 Middlecrest (Fig. A28,29, & 30) until 9:30 AM. After that the birds move (Fig. A31,32, & 33) to 5330 Middlecrest (Fig. A34). After 11 AM the number of observable peafowl decreases. They are probably preening and sleeping in area backyards. A vehicular survey revealed that this flock divides into three during the day. These smaller groupings consisted of 13 peafowl at 5350 Middlecrest (driveway, roof, and landscaping); 9 peafowl at 5417 Middlecrest (front yard); and 2 peafowl on roof admiring their reflections in the windows of 28879 Crestridge (Fig. A35 & 36). In the late afternoon (~3:35 - 4:35 PM) 18 birds can be observed in yard of 5350 Middlecrest (patio, fountain, vegetation, roof, front door). By 4:45 PM the three groups have merged back into one large , loose flock of 29 located between 5330 and 5350 Middlecrest. Several residents reported that the birds are being fed at 5330 Middlecrest. In addition, there are two peacocks in the Middlecrest area that remain separate from the large flock in the day and appear to roost at a different location. There is a flock of 8 birds in the Scotwood Drive area. In all, 38 birds were counted in Crestridge. Grandview No site visits were made to the Grandview area. Only one complaint about peafowl in this area has been registered with City Staff. That one resident on Lightfoot Place reported seeing birds for a few years, but has seen more since August 2000. Marymount College area No site visits were made to the Marymount College area. Again, only one resident registered a complaint about peafowl. The resident is from Seaclaire Drive.
Spread of Peafowl on the Palos Verdes Peninsula Pre-1913 there is no evidence that any peafowl were on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Peafowl are not native to this continent, so there would have been no indigenous birds and there is no documentation of any being kept by the area’s early residents. The period between 1913 and 1937 encompasses the time that Frank A. Vanderlip was involved with the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Sometime in this period, he became the owner of the area’s first peafowl. Long term residents of Portuguese Bend indicate that in 1960 the only peafowl on the Peninsula were at the Vanderlip Estate. Residents of equal tenure in the Crestridge area, report that in 1960 there were peafowl at what they refer to as the cut flower farm at the Shultz Ranch. Mr. Stephen Shultz (2000) has indicated that the flower farm was actually operated by tenants, the first of those being the Yoshioka Family. Mr. Shultz points out that neither his family, nor the tenants, "kept peafowl," but rather that the flower farm provided a "walk through breakfast and lunch" for the birds coming down Johns Canyon Road. One Portuguese Bend resident recalled that sometime after 1960, the Mayor of PVE, Roessler, wanted to have peafowl in his city. H.F.B. Roessler was Mayor of PVE from1940-1965 (Heslenfeld, 2000), so it can be assumed that the peafowls’ advent to PVE occurred between 1960 and 1965. By 1976 the peafowl were in the Portuguese Bend Community. Vista Grande residents remember no peafowl in their region in the 1960s, but many remember the advent of a few peafowl by 1985-90. One resident remembers seeing the occasional bird in 1974.
In 2000 San Pedro residents, in the area northeast of Palos Verdes Shores Golf Course and southeast of San Pedro Park, report that there is a flock of 12 peafowl on Grandeur Drive. They indicate that birds are seen in the canyon above Mermaid Drive. A three year resident on Grenadier in the South Shores area of San Pedro says peafowl were present when he arrived. He feels the numbers have increased recently. From the little written history on the topic of the peafowl, supplemented with the oral history we were able to collect, our theory as to the spread of peafowl on the Peninsula is as follows. Prior to Frank A. Vanderlip’s arrival on the Peninsula in 1913, the area had no peafowl. Sometime between 1913 and 1927, Vanderlip acquired the peafowl. An accomplished aviculturalist, Mr. Vanderlip managed all his birds. It is recorded that he had acres of flight pens on his property. Before his death, he sent his avian collection, all but the peafowl, to the Wrigleys on Santa Catalina. Undoubtedly his heirs had less interest in the birds than did Vanderlip. It was probably after his death, that the birds started to roam. The birds’ territory first appears to have expanded into Johns Canyon (circa. 1960). It is alleged that PVE Mayor Roessler wanted to have peafowl in his city; we guess that he had some peafowl physically moved to PVE in the 1960-65 period. From PVE the birds had an easy trip to Vista Grande, where they were first seen ~ 1974. Long term residents of Portuguese Bend, report that aside from the peafowl at the Vanderlips, they did not see any birds until 1978. Those birds most likely came directly down from the Vanderlip estate. Why did it take so long for the birds to make the short trip? Our only thought is that their leaving the estate might have coincided with a decrease in attention by the caretaker(s) at the Estate (possibly, a case of aging and decrease in activity). After 1988 the birds arrived in Crestridge; this was probably an expansion of the birds that had taken up residence in the Johns Canyon area. Peafowl are now in the South Shores region of San Pedro. It seems most likely that they spread from Portuguese Bend.
Communications with Staff at Adjacent Municipalities In the late 1970s/early 1980s the City of Palos Verdes Estates (PVE) realized that they had a peafowl problem. The City Council held numerous meetings on the subject and decided to zone two areas for peafowl. Those two regions are Lunada Bay and Malaga Cove. The number of peafowl to reside in each area was set at 22 birds, with no minimum number specified. The specific document was drafted by former City Manager, Gordon Seaburg around 1982. Originally PVE contracted with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to annually canvas the populations. If an area’s population exceeded the maximum number, the city would trap birds on city property. They used cage traps with cat food and relocated the birds to a hill in PV. PVE staff eventually found a couple of reputable recipients, ranchers in Hemet and Paso Robles. They can relocate somewhere under 100 birds to these locations. One current problem for PVE is that the SPCA no longer offers field services to count animals. County Animal Control has that charge, but lacks the resources to do it. PVE is considering having the Boy Scouts count the birds. No counts have been done in four years. PVE residents estimate that there are currently 60 birds in Lunada Bay and 40 in Malaga Cove. Staff verified 30 birds in one resident’s yard. PVE police officers currently do the trapping, still using wire cage traps and cat food. They report that it is slow and inefficient. They are constantly trapping and trap 2-3 birds per week. PVE police have trouble with some residents disrupting the trapping process. They let birds out of the traps or scare birds away from the traps. City reports numerous law suits over the years that have revolved around the birds (Dreiling, 2000). Lynn Carlin with the San Pedro District Office of the City of Los Angeles, confirms that at least one resident has called to complain about peafowl in 2000. This is the first complaint received, at least in the last three years (2000). Peninsula residents and RPV staff believe that peafowl are protected in Rolling Hills Estates (RHE). I reviewed a document provided by their Community Services Director, Andy Clark, to RPV staff. Highlighted in the RHE Municipal Code was 9.04.060 Wild birds - Protection. I am puzzled if this is actually the basis used for the "hands off" attitude with respect to the peafowl in RHE. As repeatedly stated in this report, peafowl are NOT wild birds. In my opinion, the wording of this municipal code does not apply to peafowl. I was unable to speak with Mr. Clark, as he was on holiday. The City of Rolling Hills (RH) does not have any ordinance protecting the peafowl. However, residents are encouraged not to interact with the birds and the City circulates materials intended to help residents who do not like the birds, to discourage the birds from visiting their property. I was unable to discuss the matter with the RH City Manager, but he did communicate with RPV City Manager Evans and indicated that they do not think they have a peafowl problem. Peafowl’s Current Impact Property damage attributed to the peafowl includes: roofs, vegetation, autos, and pavers/brick walkways. We observed countless yards where plantings were decimated and some where all landscaping had been killed. We also saw the permanent stains and discoloration on walkways and brick paths. Peafowl were frequently seen on roofs and we heard report after report of residents having to replace roofs. We were also told of damage to auto paint jobs. It is common knowledge that the birds can destroy roofs and their penchant for gazing at their reflection in a windshield is also well known. We have no reason to doubt residents’ claims of roof and auto damage. Erosion is a well known problem along the Southern California coast. We saw significant evidence in Crestridge and Portuguese Bend of erosion caused by the birds. Erosion was common in areas that they used as "trails," or in areas where they scavenged for food. Nuisance complaints revolved around noise, fecal material, and emotional distress. Peafowl gained popularity on estates and ranchos, not only for their plumage, but for the early warning call they gave when strangers approached. Unfortunately, their scream is made throughout the breeding season, whether or not human intruders are present. Peafowl are large birds and consequently, their droppings are large. Organic evidence of the birds was seen all over RPV - on roofs, patios, decks, lawns, and walkways. The emotional distress that the birds cause some residents is real. Traffic disruption definitely occurs because of the birds crossing public roadways. Traffic stoppage at the Eddinghill and Trailriders intersection is not uncommon.
Several residents reported that the presence of peafowl in a neighborhood, decreases the property value in that neighborhood. We were unable to speak to any real estate agents who could confirm that for us. Certainly for a homeowner who does not like the birds, what s/he feels is the value of the property would decline if peafowl are present. We did hear of residents who sold their homes, accepting defeat in their battles with the birds. However, we also heard directly from residents who said they specifically bought in RPV because of the presence of peafowl and other animal life. We heard numerous accounts of renters leaving RPV because they could not cope with the peafowl. We have no reason to doubt these accounts. If actual property owners sell and move because of the birds, there would be even more reason for someone without equity in the property to relocate. The presence of the birds definitely contributes to neighborhood discord. Unfortunately, we were first hand witnesses to most acrimonious behavior when neighbors on opposite sides of the issue were in the same area. Homeowners frequently were reluctant to express their opinions, for fear of retribution from neighbors with opposing views. Availability of Adoptive Homes At one of the community meetings, several residents showed support for relocating trapped peafowl to the Wildlife Waystation. Located at 14831 Little Tujunga Canyon Rd. in the Angeles National Forest, Wildlife Waystation has provided homes for lions, tigers, primates, bears, foxes, exotic birds, raptors, wolves, llamas, coyotes, native wildlife, and other animals. In researching the facility, I found out that the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) temporarily closed Wildlife Waystation on April 8, 2000. Several violations were alleged and the facility was prohibited from taking in any new animals. On December 7, 2000 I visited with Lt. Marvin Ehee of CDF&G. He told me that the Waystation had numerous problems, but that the more serious problems have been corrected. Evidently, the main violation was discharging animal waste into a canyon and stream. Lt. Ehee felt that within the next 2 weeks, that would no longer be a problem. He anticipated that the Waystation would get their Conditional Rehabilitation Permit back on January 1, 2001. When I questioned him about the Waystation’s ability to provide homes for the peafowl, he replied that the Waystation did not need any special permits for the peafowl since they are domestic animals. He said the only concern would be the contribution to overall numbers and the accompanying waste production. On December 13, 2000 I spoke with Martine Collette, the founder of Wildlife Waystation. She said they had taken birds from the Peninsula before when Los Angeles County SPCA did the trapping. She reported that the Waystation is still under a cease and desist order. When that is lifted, they would have no problem taking the birds. In addition, we located a poultry fancier in Riverside County who currently breeds peafowl. She has empty flight pens and would be willing to provide homes for more birds. We also have entree to 4-H poultry families in Southern California who are able to provide homes for additional birds. When working with other municipalities, we have experienced success in locating suitable adoptive homes, by running advertisements in certain publications. Those responding are interviewed to ascertain their bird experience and ability to adopt the fowl we are relocating. Management Plan Our actual bird counts were 67 (Portuguese Bend), plus 29 (Vista Grande), plus 38 (Crestridge), for a total of 134 peafowl. We estimate that there are probably 70-80 in Portuguese Bend. Although we did not count in Grandview or Marymount College area, to have complaints, we would estimate that there are a minimum of 5 birds in each area. Including those birds likely to exist, but not actually counted, the total increases to 157. This should still be seen as a conservative estimate. As mentioned before, the Peninsula is rich in habitat that provides excellent hiding spaces. In addition, some birds may never have emerged from private backyards during the periods of our visits and therefore, were never counted. Usually a much stronger term than "nuisance" is used to describe the peafowl. However, the legal definition of nuisance, an activity causing unreasonable and substantial interference with another’s quiet use and enjoyment of property (Hamilton, 1992), seems to describe the birds’ relationship with many residents of RPV. It should be noted that according to the Los Angeles County Code - Animals, it is a misdemeanor for the owner of an animal to fail to control his/her animal. That includes allowing the animal to run at large on any street, public place, etc. and allowing the animal to enter in and remain on the private property of another (see Title 10.32.040). Therefore, if anyone claimed ownership of the peafowl on the Peninsula, that individual would be in violation of the County Code and would be required to properly control the birds on his/her property. It is peculiar, that just because no one claims ownership of the birds, RPV property owners have inflicted upon their property damages that they would normally be protected against. Why is there a problem? There are several answers. The first is that no one is responsible for the birds and no one can nor attempts to control their movements. In addition, most of the areas where complaints are common, are neighborhoods where all property is either private homes or public thoroughfares. Therefore, since the birds belong to no one, they are constantly trespassing. As mentioned in the Historical Background section of this report, peafowl have traditionally been maintained by the wealthy with large estates upon which the birds can wander. In their native lands, overpopulation of the birds has been addressed by hunting. Residents’ suggestions to control the population by use of the following methods would be ill advised and/or illegal. Caponization of the peacocks would involve a surgical procedure to remove the testes of each male. In addition to being labor intensive, this would result in males that no longer have male plumage. Addition of a male sterilant to feed should not be considered. It would be impossible to control what creatures consumed the feed and what predators consumed the subsequently feminized peacocks. This tactic could have disastrous consequences relative to other animals in the food chain. At least one resident has offered to have the peafowl relocated to her/his property. Due to the birds’ penchant for wandering, this would not be an appropriate plan, unless that individual has vast, completely confined flight pens. What is an appropriate number of birds for RPV? In terms of bird welfare and private property rights, the peafowl should not be wandering at will. It is recognized that a good number of RPV residents view the birds as a community attribute and would be adamantly opposed to their removal. If complete removal were approved, could it be achieved? It would take a tremendous outlay of funds and people power to attempt complete removal of the birds. Given that most complaints come from Portuguese Bend, Vista Grande, and Crestridge, reduction in flock size in all three areas should be pursued. Specifically the largest flocks at Clovetee Place/Cinnamon Lane (34 birds) and Sweetbay (19) in Portuguese Bend, the flock at Eddinghill and Trailriders (24 birds) in Vista Grande, and the Middlecrest flock (28 birds) in Crestridge should be targeted (Appendix B). Recognizing that 1 unwanted peafowl in a private yard is a legitimate nuisance, removal of as many birds as can be trapped and relocated is advised. Preference should be given to removal of the peahens. Since one peahen can lay 30 eggs per season, the potential for one pair of peafowl to quickly repopulate an area is great. Some residents expressed concerns about the legality of trapping the birds. Again, these are not native birds. They are domestic fowl. The appropriate authorities have been contacted and there are no statutes that would apply. We have successfully trapped and relocated numerous peafowl in the past, with no harm to the birds. Any having concerns relative to this issue should be referred to California Penal Code, Sec. 597b - General Animal Cruelty. Excellent trapping sites have been located in all three areas with large peafowl populations. Residents have volunteered their yards as trapping sites. Trapping should begin as soon as possible, preferably before the spring breeding season. Prior to trapping any birds, adoptive homes would need to be confirmed. Any new adoptive homes would need to be investigated. It is suggested that all those accepting birds, fill out an "adoption form" that the City can keep on file. This will help address the concerns of residents who feel the birds will be trapped and killed. A long term management plan for the Palos Verdes Peninsula peafowl must include several components. All residents need to cooperate in terms of removing items that will attract the birds. These include, but are not limited to, pet food left outside, bird feeders, and exposed livestock feed. Any efforts to locate nests and render eggs unhatchable would have positive population control results. Eggs should not merely be removed from the nests, as this will only encourage the peahen to lay additional eggs. Rather, the hatchability of the eggs should be reduced to zero. This can be achieved by inserting a long nail into the egg, addling contents, removing nail and returning egg to the nest. There is no question that routine trapping will be required. We suggest that the city sponsor the construction of the first traps and trapping. Neighbors can observe the proper way to humanely trap and catch birds. Birds should be relocated to approved adoptive homes. Residents whose neighborhoods are not selected for initial trapping, may construct their own traps. This demonstration model technique is the typical training method used by University of California Cooperative Extension to introduce new practices. Finally, all municipalities on the Peninsula must work together. It is futile for one city to attempt to reduce bird numbers, if an adjacent municipality does not also have a complementary plan. References Bergmann, Josef, 1980. The Peafowl of the World. Surrey, England: Saiga Publishing, Ltd. Carlin, Lynn, 2000. Personal communication. Los Angeles City Council, District Office, San Pedro. Dreiling, Commander Dan, 2000. Personal communication. Palos Verdes Estates Police Department. Goldsmith, Oliver, 1866. A History of the Earth and Animated Nature. London. Hamilton, Neil D., 1992. A Livestock Producer’s Legal Guide to: Nuisance, Land Use Control, and Environmental Law. Des Moines, Iowa: Drake University Law School. Heslenfeld, Marion, 2000. Personal Communication. Public Library, Malaga Cove. Fink, A., 1966. Time and the terraced land. Berkeley: Howell North Books. Shultz, Stephen, 2000. Personal communication. Vanderlip, Mrs. John, 2000. Personal communication. Rancho Palos Verdes. Woodard, A., Vern Denton, and Pran Vohra, 1993. Commercial and ornamental game bird breeders handbook. Blaine, Washington: Hancock Publishers Ltd. Wright, Lewis, 1920. Illustrated Book of Poultry. London. Typical Questions Asked of Dr. Bradley at Public Meetings Q: How will the birds be housed during the trapping and relocating process? A:No housing for the birds will be necessary. All birds trapped will be relocated on the same day. The traps will be "in effect" for approximately 15 minutes; birds be placed into carriers and loaded into vehicles ready to be driven to adoptive homes. Q:Are there any interim solutions to keep peafowl off rooftops in a humane manner? A:None known. Dr. Bradley is investigating some experimental methods. Q:What will happen to one or more birds that are regular visitors and familiar to family members? A:If the family wishes to, they can check the peafowl traps on the day of trapping to identify the bird they wish to exclude for relocation. Q:Would it be more effective to trap all male birds or all female birds? A:It is not realistic to try to trap all peafowl or all one gender. Since the reproductive capability is high, all you need is one pair to begin repopulating the City. If only peacocks remained, cannibalism would result. Q:What is the lifespan of a Peahen/cock? A:About 20 years. Q:If peafowl were given to Peafowl breeders or 4-H families, what do they do with them? A:Breeders sell the birds to individuals interested in owning peafowl and 4-H families raise them for competition and possibly for breeding projects. Q:If no action were taken, what would be the population growth rate? A:The population growth rate is dependent upon various factors, length of breeding season, availability of food resources, presence of predators, etc. Peafowl have a high capability to reproduce given good conditions. Q:What types of traps would be set? A:Customized traps designed to safely enclose up to 15 birds and for a person to hand-capture the "trapped" birds. Traps will not be commercial, metal traps, commonly associated with dog or mammal traps. Q:Do 4-H families sell what they raise for slaughter? A:4-H families in CA. in poultry science care/raise birds for competition and possibly for breeding projects. Currently, there is no class or market for peafowl consumption. Q:How many chicks do Peahens raise? A:The number depends upon several variables, nutrients, predators, season, fertility of eggs, etc. Q:How many eggs do Peahens lay? A:Within one year, approximately 30 eggs, not at one time. Peahens are can lay eggs multiple times sometimes up to 3 clutches in one breeding season. Q:How long is incubation of the eggs? A:Approximately one month. Q:How long do chicks need to be with the mother? A:Approximately 6 weeks. Q:Would lights be a deterrent to the birds roosting in trees? A:Mostly likely not. Q:Are there any natural predators? A:Yes, coyotes and sometimes raccoons will attack adult birds. Raccoons, snakes, foxes, hawks may prey on the eggs and baby chicks. Q:If residents were not permitted to feed the birds, would that help disperse the flocks? A:Yes Q:If peafowl are non-native animals, would the Department of Fish and Game be interested in removing them as a threat to native species? A:If Fish and Game determined the animals are a threat to native habitat and native species, they would kill peafowl. This has been done in Northern California, where the peafowl were immediately shot because they were competing with native quail. Q: If peafowl had access to food in one location all the time, would the peafowl stay put? A:No, peafowl are wandering creatures. Q:Any health concerns or diseases due to overabundant presence of peafowl or animal waste? A:Very few diseases can be linked between birds and humans. The level of health risk from peafowl is minimal. Q: Can you inhibit peafowl from flying? A: Yes, by surgically removing a particular tendon in the wing, partially clipping one wing or physically dressing the bird to band the wings. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 20th day of February 2001, by and between CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION hereafter referred to as "CONSULTANT". IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1Project Description DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR PEAFOWL TRAPPING AND RELOCATION 1.2Description of Services CONSULTANT shall perform the following services:
1.3Schedule of Work Upon receipt of written Notice to Proceed from the CITY, CONSULTANT shall perform with due diligence the services requested by the CITY, as set forth above. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall CONSULTANT be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of CITY to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove CONSULTANT'S work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by CITY, other contractors, or governmental agencies, or any other delays beyond CONSULTANT'S control or without CONSULTANT'S fault. ARTICLE 2 COMPENSATION 2.1Fee (a)CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for the peafowl demonstration project as indicated. The total fee amount including expenses associated with travel, lodging and meals, is not to exceed the amount of $2,500 unless approved in advance, in writing, by the City Manager. (b)CITY may request additional specified work for additional cost under this agreement. All such work must be authorized in writing by the City Manager prior to commencement. 2.2 Payment Address All payments due CONSULTANT shall be paid to: University of California, Davis Department of Animal Science One Shields Avenue Davis, CA., 95616 2.3 Terms of Compensation CONSULTANT will submit invoices monthly for the percentage of work completed in the previous month. CITY agrees to pay all undisputed invoice amounts within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. CITY agrees to use its best efforts to notify CONSULTANT of any disputed invoice amounts or claimed completion percentages within ten (10) days of the receipt of each invoice. However, CITY's failure to timely notify CONSULTANT of a disputed amount of claimed completion percentage shall not be deemed a waiver of CITY's right to challenge such amount or percentage. Additionally, in the event CITY fails to pay any undisputed amounts due CONSULTANT within forty-five (45) days after invoices are received by CITY then CITY agrees that CONSULTANT shall have the right to consider said default a total breach of this Agreement and be terminated by CONSULTANT without liability to CONSULTANT immediately. ARTICLE 3 INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE 3.1 Indemnification See Attachment A. 3.2 General Liability CONSULTANT shall at all times during the term of the Agreement carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, a policy or policies of Commercial General Liability Insurance, with minimum limits of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence and in the aggregate, combined single limit, against any personal injury, death, loss or damage resulting from the wrongful or negligent acts of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT is self-insured under State law. 3.3Worker's Compensation CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in force at all times during the performance of work under this Agreement worker's compensation insurance as required by California law. CONSULTANT shall require any subcontractor similarly to provide such compensation insurance for their respective employees. 3.4 Notice of Cancellation A.All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be canceled by the insurance carrier without thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY. CONSULTANT agrees that it will not cancel or reduce said insurance coverage. B.CONSULTANT agrees that if it does not keep the aforesaid insurance in full force and effect, CITY may either immediately terminate this Agreement. 3.5Certificate of Insurance At all times during the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall maintain on file with the CITY Clerk a certificate of insurance showing that the aforesaid policies are in effect in the required amounts. The commercial general liability policy shall contain endorsements naming the CITY, its officers, agents and employees as additional insured. 3.6Primary Coverage The insurance provided by CONSULTANT shall be primary to any coverage available to CITY. The insurance policies (other than workers' compensation) shall include provisions for waiver of subrogation. ARTICLE 4 TERMINATION 4.1 Termination of Agreement (a)This Agreement may be terminated at any time, with or without cause, by either party upon sixty (60) days prior written notice. Notice shall be deemed served upon deposit in the United States Mail of a certified or registered letter, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the other party, or upon personal service of such notice to the other party, at the address set forth in Article 6.10. (b)In the event of termination or cancellation of this Agreement by CONSULTANT or CITY, due to no fault or failure of performance by CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall be paid compensation for all services performed by CONSULTANT, in an amount to be determined as follows: for work done in accordance with all of the terms and provisions of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be paid an amount equal to the percentage of services performed prior to the effective date of termination or cancellation in accordance with the work items; provided, in no event shall the amount of money paid under the foregoing provisions of this paragraph exceed the amount which would have been paid to CONSULTANT for the full performance of the services described in Article 2.1. ARTICLE 5 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 5.1 Ownership of Documents and Work Product All plans, specifications, reports and other design documents prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service which shall be deemed the property of the CITY. CITY acknowledges and agrees that all plans, specifications, reports and other design documents prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall be used exclusively on this Project and shall not be used for any other work without the written consent of CONSULTANT. In the event CITY and CONSULTANT permit the reuse or other use of the plans, specifications, reports or other design documents, CITY shall require the party using them to indemnify and hold harmless CITY and CONSULTANT regarding such reuse or other use, and upon request CITY shall require the party using them to eliminate any and all references to CONSULTANT from the plans, specifications, reports and other design documents. If a document is prepared by CONSULTANT on a computer, CONSULTANT shall prepare such document in a Microsoft® Word 97 SR-2 or lower format; in addition, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with said document both in a printed format and on a three and one-half inch (3 1/2") floppy diskette. See Attachment A. ARTICLE 6 GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1 Representation A CITY representative shall be designated by the City Manager and a CONSULTANT representative shall be designated by CONSULTANT as the primary contact person for each party regarding performance of this Agreement. 6.2 Fair Employment Practices/Equal Opportunity Acts In the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Fair Employment Practices Act (California Government Code Sections 12940-48) and the applicable equal employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 200e-217), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. § 11200, et seq.). 6.3Personnel CONSULTANT represents that it has, or shall secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform CONSULTANT's services under this Agreement. Dr. Francine Bradley is the individual who is designated by CONSULTANT to perform its duties under this agreement. CONSULTANT may associate with or employ associates or subconsultants in the performance of its services under this Agreement, but at all times shall be responsible for their services. 6.4Conflicts of Interest CONSULTANT agrees not to accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement or within twelve (12) months after completion of the work under this Agreement which is or may likely make CONSULTANT "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code Section 1090 and 87100) in any decisions made by CITY on any matter in connection with which CONSULTANT has been retained pursuant to this Agreement. 6.5Legal Action (a)Should either party to this Agreement bring legal action against the other, the case shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in California, and the party prevailing in such action shall be entitled to recover its costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fee which shall be fixed by the judge hearing the case and such fee shall be included in the judgment. (b)Should any legal action about the Project between CITY and a party other than CONSULTANT require the testimony of CONSULTANT when there is no allegation that CONSULTANT was negligent, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for its testimony and preparation to testify at the hourly rates in effect at the time of such testimony. 6.6 Assignment This Agreement shall not be assignable by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. CONSULTANT'S use of subcontractors for additional services shall not be unreasonably restricted by the CITY provided CONSULTANT notifies the CITY in advance. 6.7Independent Contractor CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain, as to the CITY, a wholly independent CONTRACTOR. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of CONSULTANT or any of the CONSULTANT's employees, except as herein set forth. CONSULTANT expressly warrants not to, at any time or in any manner, represent that it, or any of its agents, servants or employees, are in any manner agents, servants or employees of CITY, it being distinctly understood that CONSULTANT is, and shall at all times remain to CITY, a wholly independent contractor and CONSULTANT's obligations to CITY are solely such as are prescribed by this Agreement. 6.8 Titles The titles used in this Agreement are for general reference only and are not part of the Agreement. 6.9 Extent of Agreement This Agreement represents the entire and integrated Agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed by both parties. 6.10Notices All notices pertaining to this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed as follows: If to CONSULTANT: Business Contracts University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue Davis, CA., 95616-8800 If to CITY: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attn: Gina Park 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA., 90275 Attachment A is incorporated by reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. Dated: _______________________________ BY:
Title Dated: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES A Municipal Corporation BY: MAYOR City of Rancho Palos Verdes ATTEST:
CITY CLERK ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PROHIBITING THE FEEDING OF PEAFOWL AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 8.24.060 A of Chapter 8.24 of Title 8 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new subparagraph 13 thereto to read as follows: "13. To leave or deposit food for peafowl." Section 2: Title 8 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Chapter 8.32 thereto to read as follows: "Chapter 8.32 Peafowl Sections: 8.32.010 Feeding of peafowl – Prohibited. 8.32.020 Violation –Penalty. 8.32.010 Feeding of peafowl- Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to feed peafowl or to leave or deposit food for peafowl on any public or private property. 8.32.020 Violation – Penalty. A violation of this chapter shall be an infraction and punishable as provided in subsection B of Section 1.08.010 of this Code." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of February 2001. _________________ Mayor ATTEST:
__________________ City Clerk
9.Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Midyear Financial Report. (Burton)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE:FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT:FY 2000-01 MIDYEAR FINANCIAL REPORT Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION 1) Receive and file the midyear financial report; and 2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001- , AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-33, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 2000-01, TO INCREASE EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GENERAL FUND, STREET MAINTENANCE (GAS TAX) FUND, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) FUND. INTRODUCTION The Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requires that a midyear review of the annual budget be presented to the City Council. Based upon staff’s analysis of the financial activities of the City during the first half of FY 2000-01, it appears revenues and expenditures will generally be in line with the budget. Based on our analysis, staff anticipates projected fund balances as of June 30, 2001 will, in most instances, be equal to or greater than the original FY 2000-01 budget estimates. Staff has prepared the Summary Schedule of General Fund Revenue presented on the following page. Revenue projections for several other funds of the City have been included later in the report. It is important to understand that these revenue projections are based upon staff's analysis using trend comparisons with previous years, reports provided by state, county and local agencies, as well as direct conversations with these agencies. It should be noted that future economic activity, legislation and policy decisions, as well as any other unforeseen circumstances could affect the City's revenue stream for the remainder of FY 2000-01. The midyear financial report also includes discussion and analysis about anticipated expenditures, the status of major projects, and any other relevant developments related to the FY 2000-01 budget. If no mention is made of a particular fund, department or program, it means there is nothing significant to report and that revenues, expenditures and ending fund balance amounts are not expected to materially deviate from the amounts budgeted. Throughout the midyear financial report, staff has recommended several budget adjustments that will be necessary to assure budgetary compliance. FINANCIAL REPORT AND MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: GENERAL FUND General Fund Revenue It is difficult to estimate future revenue from sources like sales and use tax, some franchise taxes, business licenses and other permits. Many of these types of revenues are predicated on conditions outside the control of the City. As an example, planning and building permit revenue tend to fluctuate based on the economy as well as other conditions (i.e. weather). Additionally, several significant franchise tax revenues are received annually after the preparation of the midyear report. With these types of revenues, staff has either reported FY 2000-01 projected revenues as the budgeted amount or a conservative figure based on the amount of information currently available. Assuming existing economic conditions and trends continue, General fund revenues should exceed the FY 2000-01 budget of $10,785,100 by $1,515,800. SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE:
In the following paragraphs, you will find discussion and analysis about General fund revenues. If no mention is made of a particular revenue source, it means that there has been nothing significant to report and that anticipated revenues are expected to approximate the FY 2000-01 budget. Property Taxes Based upon projection information provided by the County, property tax revenues are expected to reach $3,375,000 for FY 2000-01. This represents nearly a $400,000 excess over the current year budget and a 4% increase over the actual amount received in the prior year. The large budget variance can be attributed to the steady increase in the property tax base over the past several years due to the continued strength in the local real estate market. The original budget was conservatively prepared assuming a much smaller growth rate. Sales and Use Tax Based on an analysis prepared by the City’s consultant, sales tax revenue paid to the City from the State of California appears to be on pace to exceed the $800,000 budget by about $85,000. The amounts received from the City of Rolling Hills Estates under the 8.6% revenue sharing agreement have increased from the prior year as a result of the opening of the Avenue of the Peninsula. Recent discussions with staff from Rolling Hills Estates indicate that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will receive approximately $16,500 more than was included in the FY 2000-01 budget. Property Transfer Tax Although the strong local real estate market may be slowing down, current trends indicate property transfer tax revenues should still exceed the $200,000 budget by at least $25,000. However, the revenue stream so far this year indicates that FY 2000-01 property transfer taxes will likely fall short of the prior year total. Franchise Taxes Franchise taxes from the Gas Company, Southern California Edison, and California Water are received annually in March. These three revenue sources account for nearly half of total FY 2000-01 franchise tax revenue. While it is difficult to project these revenues at the time this report is prepared, we are all aware of the rising energy costs. Based on recent conversations with Gas Company representatives, franchise fees for gas are estimated to increase nearly 20% to 30% over the prior year. Any rate increases associated with Southern California Edison are not expected to take effect until later this fiscal year, resulting in any significant franchise tax increase not being realized until FY 2001-02. Additionally, preliminary estimates indicate that the fees from California Water will approximate the amount budgeted this year. The amounts received during the first six months of FY 2000-01 from the other large payers of franchise fees (most notably cable and refuse) indicate that revenues will exceed both the current year budget and the amounts collected in FY 1999-00. Building and Safety Permits The budget was prepared assuming a 10% decrease in building and safety fees from the amount budgeted in FY 1999-00. Revenues for the first half of the year indicate permit fees are about 20% under budget. Assuming the downturn in local construction activity continues through June 2001, staff estimates building and safety permit revenue will only reach $600,000, which is $138,000 less than the FY 2000-01 budget. The City Council recently approved amending the fee structure in the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department. As part of this fee restructuring, the City now charges a flat fee for geology reviews rather than using the trust deposit system previously in place. As a result, the City expects to receive approximately $60,000 in geology fee revenues prior to fiscal year-end that would have been accounted for under the trust deposit system. While there is an unbudgeted increase in revenue, there will also be an offsetting increase in General fund expenditures for $60,000. The appropriation increase is discussed later in the General fund expenditure section of this report. Golf Fees The City’s Municipal Code requires any new golf course to pay the City a "golf fee" based upon 10% of gross revenues (i.e. green fees, driving range charges). There were no golf fees included in the FY 2000-01 adopted budget due to the uncertainty surrounding the opening of the Ocean Trails golf course. However, a portion of the Ocean Trails course opened for public use in November. Staff has spoken with Ocean Trails officials and current estimates indicate that approximately $30,000 of golf tax was generated through January 31, 2001. Assuming the number of patrons using the golf course remain steady through the end of the year, staff estimates receiving approximately $90,000 prior to June 30, 2001. Fines and Forfeitures The current trend indicates that FY 2000-01 revenues will exceed budget by approximately $40,000 and approximate last year’s total. The budget excess is primarily the result of AB 233, which returned the base fines associated with moving violation directly to cities. The impact of AB233 on the City was not known until after preparation of the City’s two-year budget. Rental and Fee Revenues Rental and fee revenue will be nearly $140,000 less than budget due to the closure of the PVIC facility. The decreased revenue sources at PVIC include site rentals, the gift shop and admissions to the Center. As discussed later, City expenditures related to PVIC will also decrease by approximately the same amount as the revenue decrease. Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees Based upon the State Controller's Annual Estimate of Shared Revenues prepared in the Spring of 2000, projected motor vehicle in-lieu fees will reach $2,325,000 during FY 2000-01. The Controller’s report was prepared in the spring of 2000 after the City's budget had been completed, resulting in a budget figure much lower than the State estimates. Based upon a strong revenue stream in the first half of FY 2000-01, motor vehicle in-lieu fees are on pace to reach the State Controller’s estimate and exceed the actual amount received in FY 1999-00. While not an immediate concern in FY 2000-01, it should be noted that motor vehicle fees are being back-filled by the State and any economic downturn could jeopardize this City revenue source in future periods. Other Revenue Other revenues of the General fund have historically totaled between $50,000 and $100,000 annually. However, during FY 2000-01 the City has already received $225,000 of other revenues. The majority of this total relates to $131,000 of AB 1396 monies received from the State. Approved as part of the State budget process, AB 1396 returns a portion of Educational Revenue Augmentation Relief (ERAF) monies to cities based on population. Additionally, the current year trust deposit activity, for which the City receives a 10% administration fee, is on pace to generate in excess of $80,000. While the current year amount of other revenues is above average, the total is not expected to come close to the amount generated in FY 1999-00. The abnormally high prior year total resulted from the sale of Transit (Proposition A) monies to the City of Torrance for $560,300 of unrestricted General fund monies. General Fund Expenditures Based on a historical analysis of prior years, total General fund expenditures for the first six months of the fiscal year should not generally exceed a range between 42% and 45% of budget in order to be on track with budgeted limits. Total General fund expenditures through December 31, 2000 were about 38% of budget; therefore, it appears projected expenditures for FY 2000-01 are well on pace to be within the total General fund budget. However, there are a few individual programs that are expected to vary from budget. These programs are discussed below. City Clerk The City’s general liability insurance is administered through the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). Membership in the CJPIA provides the City with the ability to pool its risk with over 80 other cities. Annual deposits are paid by member cities and are adjusted retrospectively to cover costs. The actual costs incurred by the CJPIA have increased significantly each of the past two years, which have in turn been passed through to the member cities. The City’s FY 2000-01 annual deposit of $209,000 was nearly $50,000 more than the prior year deposit. Even after the year-end retrospective adjustments, it is estimated that insurance costs will approach $200,000 for FY 2000-01. This estimate is $80,000 more than the amount budgeted. Staff requests that a midyear budget adjustment be made to provide for these additional insurance costs. Planning and Code Enforcement View Restoration/Preservation The FY 2000-01 budget includes $323,000 for the cost of view restoration/preservation consultants. As a result of City Council’s revisions to the view restoration guidelines last year, many cases are now being resolved in the pre-application mediation process prior to going before the View Restoration Commission. This change continues to yield a significant decrease in the amount of time required by the consultants to process individual cases and prepare staff reports. Staff expects that FY 2000-01 consultant fees will equal the total expended during the prior year and result in budget savings of approximately $123,000 this fiscal year. Natural Community Conservation Plan The City’s NCCP program was on hold for the first half of FY 2000-01 while staff worked with the resource agencies on modifying its preferred preserve design alternative. In November 2000, the program was reactivated and the City’s NCCP consultant began to make modifications to the draft preserve design. Total program expenditures for the fiscal year, half of which are funded with federal monies, are expected to fall significantly below the $153,650 budgeted. If the City ultimately decides to continue and finish the NCCP program, adoption of the final Plan would not occur until FY 2001-02. Therefore, the unexpended budget amount remaining at year-end would need to be carried over and re-budgeted to the next fiscal year. Meetings and Conferences On November 21, 2000, the City Council approved a request from the View Restoration Commission (VRC) to attend the Annual Planners Institute Conference. The estimated cost for each Commissioner to attend the conference is approximately $1,000 and a maximum of 10 Commissioners have the option to attend. Therefore, staff requests that the Planning Department’s budget be increased by $10,000 to provided for these costs not included in the original budget. Building and Safety Consultant Services The FY 2000-01 budget includes $485,000 for building and safety consultant services. As discussed previously in the General fund revenue section, building permit revenues are approximately 20% below budget for the first half of the year. Since building and safety consultant fees are based on a percentage of the overall building permit fees collected, expenditures for the first half of FY 2000-01 are also below budget. Assuming these trends continue, building and safety consultant fees will approximate $400,000 for the year. Geotechnical Consultant As discussed earlier in the General fund revenue section, the City is no longer using trust deposit accounting for most geology reviews. When the fee restructuring was presented to the City Council, the staff report noted that any necessary budget adjustments resulting from the fee amendments would be addressed during the midyear budget review. The new fee restructuring accounts for these geology reviews as building and safety permit revenue in the General fund, with an offsetting expenditure for the City’s geology consultant also recorded in the General fund. At this time, it appears that the anticipated $85,000 of budget savings for building and safety consultant services should be enough to cover the additional $60,000 expected to be paid for geology reviews prior to June 30, 2001. Recreation and Parks The closure of PVIC for the full year will result in nearly a $140,000 decrease in expenditures for PVIC gift shop inventory items and part-time staffing. The expenditure decrease is offset by an equal decrease in revenues related to PVIC. Therefore, the closure of the PVIC facility will not cause a negative impact to the City’s General fund. Projected General Fund Balance, June 30, 2001 The ending unreserved fund balance in the General fund is projected as follows: Unreserved fund balance, July 1, 2000$ 6,791,056 Projected revenue, FY 2000-01 12,300,900 Projected expenditures, FY 2000-01 (8,722,700) Projected fund transfers (net), FY 2000-01 (4,442,000) Additional fund balance reserve, FY 2000-01 (605,000) Projected unreserved fund balance, June 30, 2001$ 5,322,256 The additional fund balance reserve denoted above relates to the pending purchase of property within the City in need of extensive drainage improvements. It is the City’s intent to purchase the property, perform the necessary drainage improvements, and then resell the property. The fund balance of the General fund will need to be reserved for the full purchase price of the property for the period that the City owns the property, since these amounts will not be available to finance current operating activities. When the FY 2000-01 budget was adopted last June, the projected General fund unreserved fund balance at June 30, 2001 was estimated to be about $3,750,000. The reason for the large fund balance excess is a result of strong revenue streams and under-budget expenditures each of the past two years. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS FUNDS Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund Revenue and Transfers In Portions of CIP road construction costs are reimbursed after project completion by granting agencies such as MTA and STIP, while other project costs may be reimbursed with transfers from restricted funds of the City (i.e. Proposition C, Quimby and EET). The amount of FY 2000-01 revenues or transfers from other funds depends upon the percentage of project completion at year-end. Current year revenues and transfers in will be less than budget proportionate to the projected decrease in year-end project expenditures. Such grant revenues and transfers will then likely be carried over and re-budgeted to FY 2001-02 to match the period in which actual project expenditures will be incurred. Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund Expenditures Twenty-four projects, with total costs of over $12,900,000, are budgeted in FY 2000-01. As has historically been the case, several projects will not proceed through to completion prior to fiscal year end and will need to be re-budgeted to next fiscal year. An update of several projects is included below. If no mention is made of a particular CIP fund project, it merely indicates that the project has been completed or that staff expects to complete the project within budget prior to June 30, 2001. Point Vicente Interpretive Center Expansion ($3,205,375 Budgeted) The Point Vicente Interpretive Center expansion project has been delayed approximately 18 months due to the discovery of contaminated soil at the site. No construction costs will be incurred until after the clean up of the soil is complete. This will occur sometime after June 30, 2001. Therefore, the full $3,205,375 budgeted for the expansion project will need to be carried over and rebudgeted to FY 2001-02. Any unexpended amounts will continue to be annually carried over and rebudgeted until the expansion is completed. Point Vicente Interpretive Center Soil Remediation ($2,000,000 Budgeted) For both budgeting and accounting purposes, Staff has set-up a separate project to capture the costs associated with the PVIC soil remediation. During FY 2000-01, the Council approved a $2,000,000 transfer from the General fund to cover the cost of additional soil remediation. A report of existing soil conditions and a plan of remediation is currently being reviewed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Staff is hopeful the remediation plan will be approved by September 2001. Staff estimates that only $80,000 will be expended prior to June 30, 2001. The remaining balance will need to be rebudgeted to FY 2001-02 so work can proceed once the remediation plan has been approved. While staff is hopeful that some or all of these costs will eventually be recovered from federal, state or local sources, nothing is certain at this time. FY 2000-01 and FY 2001-02 Citywide Residential Street Overlay Program ($1,427,950 and $30,000 Budgeted Respectively) The total cost for the FY 2000-01 overlay project is estimated to be about $65,000 less than the $1,427,950 budget. The budget savings resulted from receiving a more favorable bid than originally estimated. Staff expects to begin the design phase for the FY 2001-02 overlay project and expend the full $30,000 budgeted in FY 2000-01. Forrestal Quarry Trail and Drainage ($92,700 Budgeted) The purpose of this appropriation is to consider and provide necessary trail and drainage improvements within the Forrestal Quarry. At a joint meeting with the Finance Advisory Committee and Recreation and Parks Committee on January 30, 2001, the City Council approved going forward with preliminary design and engineering work associated with the improvements included in the Forrestal Management Plan. Based upon the timing and scope of the design and engineering work, it may be necessary to rebudget a portion of current year allocation to FY 2001-02. Point Vicente Interpretive Center Storm Drain ($207,000 Budgeted) These drainage improvements will be installed in conjunction with the construction of the PVIC expansion. Due to the discovery of contaminated soil, the actual construction of the facility (and storm drain) has been deferred. Staff anticipates that these monies will be carried over and rebudgeted annually until project expansion is reinitiated. CPH Slant Drain ($192,100 Budgeted) This project involves the construction of a storm drain by the developer (CPH) of the Subregion One development immediately adjacent to the PVIC facility. In accordance with CPH’s development agreement, the City has agreed to pay a portion of the construction cost for the drain. The improvements associated with this project have been completed. City staff is currently negotiating with CPH to determine the City’s final cost. Staff expects these negotiations to be completed prior to fiscal year end. PVDS Reconstruction and Drainage Improvements ($1,056,600 Budgeted) This project is currently under construction, and is scheduled for completion in March 2001. The project consists of the resurfacing and reconstructing of approximately one mile of Palos Verdes Drive South within the Portuguese Bend Landslide area. The project also includes the construction of a new surface drainage system along the roadway, and the installation of a new 84" roadway culvert at Portuguese Canyon. Total project costs were originally funded with Proposition C monies ($421,600), a STIP grant ($315,000), and General fund drainage monies ($320,000). Early in FY 2000-01, the City received $320,273 of AB 2928 transportation monies. Under this State of California bill, local governments will receive $400 million in funds for maintenance and repair of local streets and roads in the first year and a share of sales tax on gasoline the following five years. These new monies must only be used for street and highway pavement maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction of necessary associated facilities such as drainage. The City has recorded these monies in the Gas Tax fund and staff requests that these funds be budgeted for transfer to the CIP fund for use on the PVDS overlay project. This will replace the $320,000 of General fund monies previously allocated to the project and "free up" these General fund monies for future drainage projects. 25th Street Settlement Roadway Repairs – Phases II and III ($910,700 Budgeted) This multi-phased project is funded with Gas Tax and Proposition C monies and addresses roadway settlement first identified in 1999. Phase I consisted of various drainage improvements and was completed in FY 1999-00. Phase II is currently on hold in accordance with environmental constraints placed upon the project. The construction of the additional drainage improvements associated with Phase II are scheduled to begin in Summer 2001 after the gnatcatcher breeding season. As a result, a majority of costs budgeted for the current year will need to be carried over and rebudgeted to FY 2001-02. Peninsula Bikeways Project ($172,500 Budgeted) The design of this multi jurisdictional signing/striping project has been finalized. A new agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA) was recently approved. In accordance with the new agreement, the project has been redesigned and reduced in scope to include 16 miles of bike lanes along Hawthorne Boulevard, PVDS and PVDW. Construction is slated to begin in July 2001; therefore, the entire $153,000 budgeted for construction will need to be re-budgeted to FY 2001-02. San Ramon Drainage Improvements ($279,250 Budgeted) This drainage improvement project will extend a partially completed drainage system and repair two slopes that were damaged by a rainstorm in March 2000. A geological study is currently underway and staff has initiated discussions with the resource agencies regarding the necessary permits required to proceed with the project. Construction is scheduled to begin in August 2001, with any unexpended amounts being carried forward and re-budgeted to FY 2001-02. Joint Drainage Project with the City of Palos Verdes Estates ($735,000 Budgeted) In October 2000, the City Council approved partially funding this drainage project along the boundary between Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates. The City of Palos Verdes Estates is the lead agency for this project, and current estimates indicate that the project will be about halfway completed by June 30, 2001. Any unexpended portion of the $735,000 budget will need to be re-budgeted to FY 2001-02 Abalone Cove Beach Improvement ($494,105 Budgeted) The improvement project consists of rehabilitating two existing structures, rehabilitating the access roadway, and constructing a 15-space parking lot at the beach elevation. The California Coastal Commission is currently reviewing this project. A June 2001 hearing date is scheduled. Staff expects to spend the entire amount budgeted for design and engineering services prior to June 30, 2001. However, the construction portion of the project will not begin until after the Coastal Commission review is complete. Therefore, the full amount provided for construction will need to be re-budgeted to FY 2001-02. Various Median Improvements ($226,200 Budgeted) The budget provides for several median improvement projects funded with Recycling fund monies. Three of these proposed median projects are located along Hawthorne Boulevard. However no construction work will take place this fiscal year. Instead, a study will be conducted to propose standard landscape designs for the stretch of medians along Hawthorne Boulevard within the City. Work on the study has begun and it is scheduled for presentation before the ad-hoc committee in March and the City Council in April. Projected Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund Balance, June 30, 2001 As discussed earlier, the CIP fund annually receives transfers from several funds of the City. The majority of anticipated FY 2000-01 transfers in from other funds are from the General Fund ($4,435,000) and the Street Improvement/Transit (Proposition C) fund ($568,850). A significant number of additional transfers were budgeted in FY 2000-01, but will need to be carried over and rebudgeted due to project delays (i.e. Measure A monies for PVIC Expansion). It is projected that the CIP fund balance will be as follows: Fund balance, July 1, 2000$ 5,913,723 Projected revenue, FY 2000-01 1,201,500 Projected expenditures, FY 2000-01 (5,035,000) Projected fund transfers in, FY 2000-01 5,314,000 Projected fund balance, June 30, 2001$ 7,394,223 The FY 2000-01 budget adopted in June 2000 projected the ending CIP fund balance to be $4,246,412. As summarized above, the projected fund balance at June 30, 2001 is expected to reach $7,394,223 and exceed the original projection by $3,150,000. The majority of the excess ending fund balance is "encumbered" for previously budgeted projects that will be rebudgeted to FY 2001-02. First, the General fund transferred $2,000,000 in FY 2000-01 for PVIC soil remediation while only about $80,000 of project costs were incurred prior to June 30, 2001. Additionally, the General fund transferred $735,000 during the year to the CIP fund for the joint storm drain project with the City of Palos Verdes Estates. Only about $340,000 of expenditures will occur prior to fiscal year end. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Revenue CDBG fund revenue is received from the Community Development Commission (CDC) as reimbursement for eligible expenditures approved by CDC. As discussed in the CDBG Fund expenditure section, not all of the budgeted projects will be completed by June 30, 2001. Therefore, projected revenue from CDC reimbursements will be less than budget and proportionate to the decrease in actual expenditures. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Expenditures Alta Mira Canyon Storm Drain ($500,000 Budgeted FY 2000-01) The project includes the extension of an existing underground pipeline, installation of concrete to stabilize the streambed above the pipeline, and the construction of rock-toe berms to provide protection along the banks of Alta Mira Canyon located in the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) project area. There were originally two funding sources for this project: RDA (Abalone Cove) monies and CDBG grant reimbursement. However due to the total costs of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer project greatly exceeding original estimates, no monies are expected to be left in the Abalone Cove fund to finance the Alta Mira Canyon drainage project. Staff anticipates expending $105,000 on design and engineering prior to fiscal year end, with the remaining unexpended funds carried over and re-budgeted to FY 2001-02. Home Improvement Program ($242,510 Budgeted FY 2000-01) The Home Improvement Program has approved eight grants and three loans to date during FY 2000-01. The new grants and loans total approximately $70,000. By fiscal year end, staff expects to complete an additional five grants and three loans. Total program costs (inclusive of HIP administration, escrow fees, loan documentation fees, loan and grant outlays) are projected to reach $172,000 by June 30, 2001. Staff expects that any unexpended amounts will be re-budgeted and applied to the FY 2001-02 Home Improvement Program. ADA Improvements ($87,500 Budgeted FY 2000-01) The budget includes $87,500 for improvements to various parks in accordance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). These improvements include the installation of an elevator at the Civic Center facility. Consultants have been retained to review the soil conditions around the Civic Center. Any improvements are on hold pending the outcome of these soil tests. Therefore, staff does not expect to spend any significant amounts prior to June 30, 2001. These unexpended amounts will need to be carried over and re-budgeted in FY 2001-02. Projected CDBG Fund Balance, June 30, 2001 The CDBG program is maintained under the assumption that all costs incurred will be approved by, and reimbursed by, the Community Development Commission. Therefore, the CDBG fund is operated with annual revenues equal to annual expenditures. This results in beginning and ending fund balances of zero. Affordable Housing Set-Aside Fund Revenues and Expenditures The FY 2000-01 budget assumed two new development projects would be approved and the City would receive developer fees totaling $580,000. To date neither of these projects have been approved, nor does staff foresee approval prior to June 30, 2001. Therefore, no developer fees are expected to be received in FY 2000-01. Interest revenue on accumulated cash balances is expected to reach the budgeted amount of $55,000. The City has considered using a portion of these monies (in combination with approximately $1,000,000 of RDA housing set-aside funds) for the development of a senior housing development. However, the project specifications have not been finalized and any possible project payments will not occur in the immediate future. Therefore no expenditures are budgeted or anticipated in FY 2000-01. Projected Affordable Housing Set-Aside Fund Balance, June 30, 2001 It is projected that the Affordable Housing fund balance will be as follows: Fund balance, July 1, 2000$ 893,960 Projected revenue, FY 2000-01 50,000 Projected fund balance, June 30, 2001$ 943,960 The FY 2000-01 budget had estimated the Affordable Housing Set-Aside fund balance to be $1,501,286. Park Development (Quimby) and Development Impact Mitigation (EET) Funds A large portion of the available fund balances in both the Quimby and EET funds have been encumbered to finance a portion of the PVIC expansion project. However due to finding contaminated soil at the construction site, the expansion project has been delayed indefinitely pending soil remediation efforts. While these monies will still be allocated to the expansion project when construction proceeds, both of these funds will have ending fund balances at June 30, 2001 far in excess of budget estimates due to the project delays. However, the ending available fund balance (net of the amounts earmarked for PVIC) should be in line with budget. SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund Revenues As discussed earlier in the CIP project update section of this report, the City received $320,273 of AB 2928 transportation monies in October 2000. The City did not budget these monies in FY 2000-01 and has recorded the revenue in the Gas Tax fund. Staff recommends using these funds on the Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS) overlay project to replace $320,000 of General fund monies previously allocated to the project. As a result, staff requests a budget adjustment to provide for a transfer from the Gas Tax fund to the CIP fund to cover a portion of the PVDS overlay costs. Interest earning will also exceed budget estimates by $60,000 due to several of the road projects funded with Gas Tax monies being delayed past the original completion date. These delays result in higher than expected cash balances that earn quarterly interest. Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund Expenditures Street Maintenance (#302) Staff estimates total Street Maintenance costs will be approximately $100,000 less than budget due to savings on the annual Slurry Seal and the sidewalk repair programs. The fiscal year-end expenditures for slurry seal activities will be approximately $30,000 under budget because fewer streets were in need of slurrying than originally estimated. Sidewalk repair expenditures will be approximately $70,000 less than budget because the majority of the damaged sidewalks will be repaired using a less expensive grinding method rather than removing sections of the sidewalk and laying new concrete. The grinding method of sidewalk repair costs a fraction of what it costs for complete removal and repair. Projected Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund Balance, June 30, 2001 It is projected that the Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) fund balance will be as follows: Fund balance, July 1, 2000$ 1,014,441 Projected revenue, FY 2000-01 1,186,000 Projected expenditures, FY 2000-01 (1,664,750) Projected fund transfers in, FY 2000-01 510,380 Projected fund transfers out, FY 2000-01 (372,773) Projected fund balance, June 30, 2001$ 673,298 As discussed above, staff recommends an additional transfer of $320,273 (which is included in the above fund balance analysis) from the Gas Tax fund to fund a portion of the PVDS road project. The FY 2000-01 budget originally projected the ending Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) fund balance to be $92,167. A large portion ($479,000) of the excess remaining fund balance will be carried over and re-budgeted for the completion of the 25th Street Settlement Roadway project. Street Improvement/Transit Fund Revenues (Proposition C) Interest earnings should exceed budget by $50,000 during FY 2000-01. Several large dollar projects funded with Proposition C monies will not be completed prior to June 30, 2001, resulting in a larger cash balance at year end and higher interest earnings during the current year. Street Improvement/Transit Fund Expenditures and Transfers Out (Proposition C) It is anticipated that the 25th Street Settlement Roadway project, funded with $389,500 of Proposition C monies and budgeted in the CIP fund, will not be completed by June 30, 2001. As a result, actual transfers out during FY 2000-01 will be significantly less than budget. However, staff expects these funds to be transferred to the CIP fund in FY 2001-02 when the projects proceed through to completion. Projected Street Impr./Transit Fund Balance, June 30, 2001 (Proposition C) It is projected that the FY 2000-01 Transit (Proposition C) fund balance will be as follows: Fund balance, July 1, 2000$ 824,948 Projected revenue, FY 2000-01 513,000 Projected expenditures, FY 2000-01 (2,440) Projected transfers out FY 2000-01 (787,550) Projected fund balance, June 30, 2001$ 552,838 The original budget document projected the estimated ending fund balance would be nearly depleted at June 30, 2001. The majority of the remaining fund balance is encumbered for the completion of the 25th Street Settlement Roadway project. RECOMMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS General Fund Staff recommends General fund budget adjustments as follows: FY 2000-01 General Fund Expenditures Increases: City Clerk#001-104-74Insurance$ 80,000 Planning#001-401-71Meetings/conferences$ 10,000 Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund Staff recommends the following budget adjustments to the Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) fund and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) fund: FY 2000-01 Expenditure Increases: CIP#330-930-82Impr other than Bldgs.$ 320,273 FY 2000-01 Transfer Adjustments: Street Maintenance#102-391.20Transfer out$ 320,273 CIP (PVDS)#330-391.10Transfer in$ 320,273 CONCLUSION Except as discussed in this report, projected revenues are expected to approximate budget and estimated expenditures should be slightly less than budget in all funds of the City for FY 2000-01. Respectfully submitted, Dennis McLean, Finance Director Reviewed, Les Evans, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2000-33, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01, FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND, STREET MAINTENANCE (GAS TAX) FUND AND CIP FUND WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council: and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2000-33, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2000-01 fiscal year: and WHEREAS, certain 2000-01 fiscal year program and/or department expenditures and transfers to other funds, as described below, are expected to exceed the amount budgeted; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the fiscal year 2000-01 budget appropriation for expenditures and transfers be increased as follows: General Fund: City Clerk#001-104-74Insurance$ 80,000 Planning#001-401-71Meeting/conferences$ 10,000 Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund: Transfer out#102-391.20Transfer to CIP fund$ 320,273 Capital Improvement Projects Fund: CIP#330-930.82Impr. Other than Buildings$ 320,273 CIP#330-391.10Transfer in from Gas Tax fund$ 320,273 BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: The following adjustments be made to the fiscal year 2000-01 General fund budget as follows: General Fund: City Clerk#001-104-74Insurance$ 80,000 Planning#001-401-71Meeting/conferences$ 10,000 The following increases be made to the fiscal year 1999-00 Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) fund budget: Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund: Transfer out#102-391.20Transfer to CIP fund$ 320,273 The following increase be made to the fiscal year 1999-00 CIP fund budget: Capital Improvement Projects Fund: CIP#330-930.82Impr. Other than Buildings$ 320,273 CIP#330-391.10Transfer in from Gas Tax fund$ 320,273 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2001. ___________________________ 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. 2001- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on February 20, 2001. _____________________________ CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
10.Lease Extension for Former Cable Studio Building at City Hall. (Petru)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE:FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT:LEASE EXTENSION FOR FORMER CABLE STUDIO BUILDING AT CITY HALL RECOMMENDATION Authorize the extension of the lease agreement with Cox Communications for the use of the former cable studio building at City Hall until March 15, 2002. BACKGROUND In January 1994, the City Council approved a two-year lease agreement with Dimension Cable (now known as Cox Communications) for its use of the former cable studio building and adjacent storage area located at City Hall. Cox Communications uses this location as its construction offices as well as a storage site for the installation of a new fiber optic cable system. The lease has been extended four times: in January 1996 for an additional two-year period; and for one additional year in February 1998, March 1999 and February 2000. Unless the City Council grants a further extension, the lease will expire on March 15, 2001. Dimension Cable began the process of installing a fiber optic cable system throughout the Peninsula in 1994. However, construction stopped when Dimension Cable was acquired by Cox Communications in 1995. Construction activity did not resume until late 1997. The build-out of the new system in Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates was completed in 1999 and completed in Palos Verdes Estates in 2000. However, Cox requested an additional on year extension to the lease in order to complete two undergrounding projects (Crenshaw Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive North), as well as complete several refinements to the new fiber optic system in various locations scattered around the peninsula. DISCUSSION As previously indicated, the current lease agreement is due to expire on March 15, 2001. On February 1, 2001, Cox Communications submitted a request to extend the lease for an additional period of one year (see attached letter). The discussion below explores the various issues associated with this extension request: Annual Rent Increase The lease agreement allows the rent to be adjusted annually to the amount equal to the twelve month Consumer Price Index (CPI). The current lease rate is $1,656.00 per month and was last adjusted in March 2000. The CPI for the twelve month period ending in December 2000 is equal to 3.7%. Therefore, if the Council extends the lease agreement, staff will notify Cox Communications that, effective March 15, 2001, the adjusted rent for the site will be $1,717.00 per month. Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Club In October 1999, members of the Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Club’s Don Wallace Museum Committee contacted staff regarding the future use of the former Cable Television Studio building. The Committee has expressed a desire to use the entire building as the site for the Don Wallace Museum. The original site for the museum was intended to be on three lots that are part of the Wallace Ranch residential development at the southwest corner of Highridge Road and Armaga Springs Road. Use of this site was later abandoned due to financial constraints and potential opposition from the adjacent residents. At that time, the Committee showed staff a conceptual model for the possible reuse of the Cable Television Studio building as a museum, community room and classroom space. Staff has provided the club with notice of this hearing and a copy of the staff report. FISCAL IMPACT An extended lease agreement with Cox Cable for the former cable studio building will generate approximately $20,604.00 in General Fund revenue during the term of the lease extension. Respectfully submitted: Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager Reviewed, Les Evans, City Manager AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND COX COMMUNICATIONS FOR OFFICE AND STORAGE SPACE The CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, hereinafter referred to as the "Landlord," and Cox Communications, located at 43 Peninsula Center, Rolling Hills Estates, hereinafter referred to as "Tenant," mutually agree to amend the existing Lease Agreement, as follows:
All other terms and conditions of the original lease agreement and amendments shall remain the same. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDESCOX COMMUNICATIONS By:___________________________By:___________________ Mayor Date:_________________________Date:_________________ ATTEST:
11.Amendment of Retirement Formula to 2% @ 55 and One-Year Final Compensation Benefit Factor. (Petru)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE:FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT:2% @ 55 RETIREMENT FORMULA AND ONE-YEAR FINAL COMPENSATION BENEFIT FACTOR RECOMMENDATION 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2001- ; a resolution of intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employee’s Retirement System and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the 2% @ 55 retirement benefit formula and one-year final compensation factor and, 2) Introduce Ordinance No. authorizing an amendment to the contract between CalPERS and the City for these changes. BACKGROUND At the May 8, 2000 Budget Workshop, Council directed staff to investigate the fiscal impact of the changing from the current 2% @ 60 employee retirement benefit formula with a three-year final compensation factor to the 2% @ 55 formula with a one-year final compensation factor. On September 5, 2000, Council authorized staff to contract with Aon Consulting to prepare a financial analysis of the proposed changes based on the annual actuarial reports prepared for the City by CalPERS over the last several years. John Bartel with Aon Consulting recently completed the financial analysis of the proposed benefit enhancements using the CalPERS actuarial reports prepared for the City over the last five fiscal years (June 30, 1995 through June 30, 1999). The results of the study are summarized in the Fiscal Impact section of this report. DISCUSSION Like most cities in California, instead of participating in Social Security, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes contracts with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to provide retirement benefits for its eligible employees. The City currently has 69 active members participating in its retirement system. When an employee is eligible to retire, their retirement benefit is based upon a formula, which includes four factors:
Local agencies can contract with CalPERS for different retirement benefit formulas for its employees. Adjustments made to one or more of the factors listed above effect the amount an employee will ultimately receive in retirement benefits. The formula that the City currently uses to calculate retirement benefits for its eligible employees is the "2% @ 60/highest 3 years final compensation" formula. Under the current formula, the retirement benefit for a Rancho Palos Verdes employee who is 60 years old with 15 years in the CalPERS system would be 30% of the average of their highest 36 consecutive month’s salary. The 30% factor is derived from multiplying the benefit factor (2%) by the number of years of service credit (15). The amount of final compensation is typically derived from the employee’s final three years of employment, since this is usually the time when they received the highest rate of pay. Therefore, if the employee’s final rate of compensation were $50,000 per year, their retirement benefit would be 30% of this amount or $15,000 annually. The first proposed change to the City’s retirement benefits is changing from the 2% @ 60 formula to the 2% @ 55 formula. Under both formulas, an employee is eligible to retire at age 50 with 5 years of service credit and the benefit factor maximum is the same (2.418%) at age 63. The main difference between the two formulas is that with 2% @ 55, the employee receives a better benefit factor for an employee if they retire between the ages of 50 and 62. The chart below compares the two benefit factors:
The trade-off for the 2% @ 55 formula is that, by retiring earlier, an employee does not add in as many years of service as they could have and thereby reduces the amount of their retirement benefit. For this reason, statewide averages indicate that the modification in benefit does not result in significantly more retirements. It does however, provide a better retirement for those employees who can not work any longer due to physical disabilities or other problems. Since CalPERS began offering 2% @ 55 in 1990, the majority of California cities have switched to this formula. Besides Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills is the only other South Bay city that continues to use the 2% @ 60 formula. Because so many other public employers have already switched to the 2% @ 55 formula, the City is at a competitive disadvantage in hiring and retaining employees compared with other cities. The City’s average employee tenure is 4 to 5 years, which is low compared to other California cities where employees typically stay 9 to 10 years. In addition to the salary increases that were implemented in 1999, improvements in benefits will help the City to remain competitive in recruiting and retaining qualified employees. The second proposed change in the City’s retirement benefits is using a one-year final compensation factor instead of the current three-year final compensation benefit factor. In addition to the number of years of service credit and their age at retirement, the amount of final compensation a retiree will receive is based on their highest salary earned during their career. Currently, the amount is an average of an employee’s three highest years of earnings. It’s of benefit to an employee to be able to use their one-year of highest earnings, rather than having to average their earnings over a three year period, when their salary would be expected to change due to merit increases or cost of living adjustments. Besides Rancho Palos Verdes, the only other South Bay cities that continue to use the 3 year final compensation benefit factor are Carson (for employees hired before 1996), Lomita, Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates. FISCAL IMPACT Under CalPERS, there are two types of retirement accounts. The first are individual employee accounts into which payments are made equal to 7% of each employee’s salary. The second is the City’s account into which payments are made based on an annual actuarial study. Because CalPERS investments have done extremely well over the past several years, many cities have continued to pay the 7% employee’s contribution to the program, but have not been required to pay the corresponding employer’s contribution. This has been the situation in Rancho Palos Verdes for the last two years. In the prior six years to this time, the City’s employer contribution averaged approximately 5.431% of gross payroll. Because of the City’s current favorable funding status, if no changes were made to the City’s employee retirement plan, the period of zero employer contributions would continue for 62 years. If the City amends its contract to include 2% @ 55 and one-year final compensation, the period of zero contribution would be reduced from 62 years to 11 years. After 11 years, the contribution rate would increase to 6.4% of payroll. These estimates, of course, are absent any gains/losses or additional participation, plan or assumption changes. ALTERNATIVES 1.Implement only the 2% @ 55 retirement benefit enhancement. This alternative would reduce the period of time of zero contribution from 62 years to 15 years. After 15 years, the contribution rate would increase to 5.8%. 2.Implement only the one-year final compensation benefit enhancement. This alternative would reduce the period of time of zero contribution from 62 years to 35 years. After 35 years, the contribution rate would increase to 4.7% 3.Do not make any retirement benefits improvements at this time. CONCLUSION The City is currently in an advantageous position to improve its employee retirement benefits. If the City amended its contract to provide 2% @ 55 and one-year final compensation, the City would continue to pay no employer’s contribution for the next 11 years. The contribution rate at the end of 11 years would be 6.4% of payroll, compared to the City’s previous 5.4% employer contribution rate. These benefit enhancements would help the City to remain competitive with other local agencies and improve the City’s ability to recruit and retain qualified skilled employees in a tight labor market. For the Council’s information, John Bartel from Aon Consulting will be present at the meeting to answer any questions the Council may have regarding his analysis. Respectfully submitted: Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager Reviewed, Les Evans, City Manager ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE’S RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR 2% @ 55 RETIREMENT FORMULA AND ONE-YEAR FINAL COMPENSATION BENEFIT FACTOR WHEREAS, at a Budget Workshop held on May 8, 2000, the City Council considered potential improvements to the City’s current employee retirement program and directed staff to investigate an amendment to increase the benefit level to 2% @ 55 with a one-year final compensation benefit factor; and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, Council authorized staff to contract with Aon Consulting to prepare a financial analysis of the proposed changes based on the annual actuarial reports prepared for the City by CalPERS over the last several years; and, WHEREAS, staff requested and received the necessary documents to amend the contract from the California Public Employee’s Retirement System. WHEREAS, on February 20, 2001, the City Council considered the proposed amendments at a public meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council hereby authorizes an amendment to the contract between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employee’s Retirement System, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked "Exhibit", and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full. Section 2: The Mayor of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute said amendment for and on the behalf of said Agency. Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. Section 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of April 2001. ______________________ 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 whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. passed first reading on February 20, 2001, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on March 6, 2001 and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _______________________ CITY CLERK
12.Purchase of the Barkentine Open Space Property. (Petru)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE:FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT:PURCHASE OF THE BARKENTINE OPEN SPACE PROPERTY RECOMMENDATION 1.Approve the Purchase Agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Land Holding Company for the purchase of approximately 98 acres of open space land known as Parcel 4 or the Barkentine property. 2.Authorize staff to spend up to $5,000 during the first 60 days of the Purchase Agreement to complete the City’s "due diligence" examination of the subject property. BACKGROUND At their meeting of October 3, 2000, the City Council reviewed City-authorized appraisals of properties owned by York Long Point Associates and by Palos Verdes Land Holding Company. The properties appraised included approximately 396 acres known as the Portuguese Bend landslide and approximately 98 acres known as Parcel 4 or the Barkentine property, both owned by Palos Verdes Land Holding Company, and approximately 254 acres known as Upper Filiorum owned by York Long Point Associates. The Council also reviewed appraisals of the same properties that were prepared by the landowners. A comparison of the appraisals indicated that the $39,000 per acre value of the open space land established by the City’s appraiser was far below the values determined by the property owner’s appraisers with the exception of Parcel 4, where the values were similar. The City Council unanimously directed staff to pursue the possibility of purchasing property for open space by commencing negotiations with Palos Verdes Land Holding Company for the Barkentine property. DISCUSSION As a result of the negotiation with Palos Verdes Land Holding Company the property owner and the City staff have agreed to the following terms:
In performing a "due diligence" examination of the property, the City has received the following documents from the property owner:
The City staff and our consultants are currently reviewing the materials listed above. In addition, several staff members and our geotechnical consultant conducted a field visit to the property on February 8, 2001. Although no obvious physical hazards were noted during the site visit, staff identified the following items that need to be completed during the "due diligence" period:
The cost of the studies listed above will be eligible for reimbursement from Proposition A funds. Staff will report the results of the "due diligence" examination to the City Council within the first 60 days of the Purchase Agreement. The Council will have an opportunity at that time to consider the information and decide whether or not to proceed with the purchase. In addition to completing the "due diligence" examination during the next few months City staff and Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy staff also will attempt to obtain State matching funds for this open space purchase. Whether staff will need the full six months or only a few weeks to resolve the possibility of leveraging these alternative funding sources is unknown at this time. Staff is also seeking authorization from Council as a separate item on tonight’s agenda to initiate the grant application with the County to secure Proposition A funds for this purchase. CONCLUSION The City has an opportunity to purchase approximately 98 acres of open space in the Portuguese Bend area from the Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company. The Purchase Agreement with the property owner is structured in such manner as to allow the City up to three months to complete a "due diligence" examination of the property and to secure grant funding for the purchase. However, staff intends to bring back the results of the "due diligence" examination to the Council within the first 60 days of the Agreement, so that the City’s future obligations in acquiring the property will be known before interest begins to accrue and before the purchase transaction is completed. FISCAL IMPACT Four million dollars of Proposition A funds have been granted by the County to the City to purchase open space land in the Portuguese Bend area. The funds may be spent for the land purchase as well as any costs of the purchase including surveys, escrow fees, legal fees, etc. Since the purchase price is $3,833,934, the sum of $166,066 remains for the costs of sale and any escalation in the price after 90 days. However, if the city does not choose to purchase the property until the final day of the six-month period, the cost of the land will have risen to $4,217,327, which exceeds the funds available through Proposition A by $217,327. Respectfully Submitted, Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager Reviewed, Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Purchase Agreement Aerial photograph of the Barkentine property PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS ("Agreement") is made as of February __, 2001 (the "Effective Date"), by and between PALOS VERDES PORTUGUESE BEND, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Seller"), and THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ("Buyer"), as follows: 1.Purchase and Sale . Upon all the terms and conditions contained herein, Buyer hereby agrees to purchase from Seller and Seller agrees to sell to Buyer that certain real property (the "Land") described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and consisting of 98.306 acres. 2.Opening of Escrow . Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, Seller and Buyer shall open an escrow (the "Escrow") with First American Title Insurance Company at 520 N. Central Avenue, Glendale, California 91203, Attn: Cindy Young (the "Escrow Holder") by delivering a fully executed copy of this Agreement to Escrow Holder. Escrow Holder will execute copies of this Agreement and return fully executed copies hereof to Buyer and Seller when Escrow has opened. Escrow shall be deemed open upon Escrow Holder’s execution hereof. In addition, the parties agree to be bound by the standard escrow General Provisions attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of any discrepancy between this Agreement and such General Provisions, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. 3.Closing of Escrow . The closing (the "Closing") of the purchase and sale of the Land shall take place through Escrow ten (10) business days after request by Buyer that the Closing occur, provided that in no event shall the Closing occur later than August 20, 2001 (the "Closing Date"). 4.Purchase Price . Provided the Closing occurs on or before the earlier to occur of ninety (90) days after the Effective Date or May 21, 2001 (such earlier date being hereinafter referred to as the "Interest Accrual Date"), the purchase price for the Land (the "Purchase Price") shall be Three Million Eight Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Four and 00/100 Dollars ($3,833,934.00). If the Closing does not occur on or before the Interest Accrual Date, then the Purchase Price shall be increased by an amount equal to ten percent (10%) per annum, computed on a daily basis based upon a year of three hundred sixty-five (365) days, commencing as of the first day after the Interest Accrual Date and continuing to and including the Closing. The Purchase Price shall be payable as follows: (a) Deposit. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, Buyer shall deposit into Escrow cash in the amount of Ten Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($10,000.00). (b) Cash at Closing. The remainder of the Purchase Price shall be deposited into Escrow, in cash or by wire transfer of immediately available federal funds, by Buyer at or prior to Closing. 5.Costs and Prorations. (a)Escrow and Title Fees. Buyer and Seller shall each pay one-half (1/2) of the Escrow fees. Seller shall bear the cost of (i) all documentary transfer taxes, (ii) the premium which would be required for an ALTA Standard Coverage Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance with regional exceptions if issued by the Title Company (as defined below) insuring Buyer in the amount of the Purchase Price and (iii) the cost of recording the Grant Deed (as defined below). Buyer shall bear the cost of any increased premium attributable to endorsements and the delivery of an extended coverage, ALTA Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance and any survey costs in connection therewith. All other costs or expenses not otherwise provided for in this Agreement shall be apportioned or allocated between Buyer and Seller in the manner customary in Los Angeles County, California. (b)Taxes and Assessments. All current real property taxes and all payments on general and special bonds and assessments on the Land shall be prorated through Escrow between Buyer and Seller as of Closing based upon the latest available tax information, using the customary escrow procedures. 6.Title. (a)Preliminary Report. Within fifteen (15) business days after opening of the Escrow, Escrow Holder shall provide to Buyer a Preliminary Title Report (the Preliminary Report") for the Land issued by First American Title Insurance Company (the "Title Company"), including all schedules and exhibits thereto and together with the true and correct copies of all instruments giving rise to any exceptions to title to the Land. Buyer shall have sixty (60) days following the delivery of the Preliminary Report (the "Title Inspection Period") to review the Preliminary Report and otherwise examine the status of title to the Land. Buyer shall notify Seller in writing (the "Title Notice") prior to the expiration of the Title Inspection Period which exceptions to title, if any, will not be accepted by Buyer. If Buyer fails to notify Seller in writing of any exceptions to title by the expiration of the Title Inspection Period, then Buyer shall be deemed to have approved the condition of title to the Property, except as provided in Section 6(b) below. If Buyer notifies Seller in writing that Buyer objects to any exceptions to title, then Seller shall have five (5) days after receipt of the Title Notice to notify Buyer in writing (i) that Seller will remove such objectionable exceptions from title on or before the Closing; or (ii) that Seller elects not to cause such exceptions to be removed. If Seller fails to notify Buyer in writing of its election within said five (5) day period, then Seller shall be deemed to have elected not to cause such exceptions to be removed. The procurement by Seller of a commitment for the issuance of the Title Policy (as defined in Section 8(b) hereof) or an endorsement thereto satisfactory to Buyer and insuring Buyer against any title exception which was disapproved pursuant to this Section 6(a) shall be deemed a cure by Seller of such disapproval. If Seller gives Buyer notice under clause (ii) above (or is deemed to have made an election under clause (ii) above), then Buyer shall have five (5) days within which to notify Seller in writing that Buyer will waive Buyer’s objections to such exceptions, or that Buyer will terminate this Agreement. If Buyer fails to notify Seller in writing of its election within said five (5) day period, then Buyer shall be deemed to have elected to terminate this Agreement. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, then neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder (except for any indemnity obligations of either party pursuant to the other provisions of this Agreement and except as set forth in Section 12 below), the entire deposit pursuant to Section 4(a) and any accrued interest thereon shall be returned to Buyer and each party shall bear its own costs incurred hereunder. (b)Pre-Closing "Gap" Title Defects. Buyer may, at or prior to Closing, notify Seller in writing (the "Gap Notice") of any objections to title (i) raised by the Title Company between the expiration of the Title Inspection Period and the Closing and (ii) not disclosed by the Title Company or otherwise known to Buyer prior to the expiration of the Title Inspection Period. Buyer must notify Seller of such objection to title within ten (10) days of being made aware of the existence of such exception. If Buyer sends a Gap Notice to Seller, then Buyer and Seller shall have the same rights and obligations with respect to such notice as apply to a Title Notice under Section 6(a) hereof. 7.Property Studies. Buyer shall have until 5:00 p.m. local time on the Interest Accrual Date (the "Due Diligence Period") to enter upon the Land, at reasonable times after the giving of at least forty-eight (48) hours’ notice to Seller, for the purpose of conducting such tests and studies as Buyer may deem necessary and desirable, and to undertake such other investigations and studies as Buyer may deem necessary and desirable, all at Buyer’s sole cost, including, but not limited to obtaining and reviewing a Phase I Environmental Report and investigating sources of financing for the purchase under this Agreement. Immediately after performing such tests and studies, Buyer shall restore the Land to the same condition as prior to performing such tests and studies, including, without limitation, recompaction or removal of any disrupted soil or material as Seller may reasonably direct. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Buyer shall not conduct any drilling on the Land or otherwise disturb any soil on the Land without Seller’s prior written consent, which consent will not be unreasonably denied or delayed. If Buyer determines that Buyer is unwilling to consummate the purchase of the Land, whether based on dissatisfaction with the results of any such tests or studies or for any other reason or for no reason, and Buyer gives written notice to Seller and to Escrow Holder of its determination prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate concurrently with the giving of such notice to Seller. Buyer’s failure to give such notice of determination in writing prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period shall be deemed to constitute Buyer’s election to proceed with the purchase. Buyer hereby indemnifies, defends and holds Seller harmless from any and all losses, damages, costs, liabilities and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees (and those fees incurred upon any appeals) and court costs incurred or suffered by Seller, whether directly or proximately, by the act or omission of Buyer or Buyer’s representatives during their inspections of the Land. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, then neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder (except for any indemnity obligations of either party pursuant to this paragraph or the other provisions of this Agreement and except as set forth in Section 12 below), the entire deposit pursuant to Section 4(a) and any accrued interest thereon shall be returned to Buyer and each party shall bear its own costs incurred hereunder. 8.Documents at Closing. (a)Transfer and Possession. Seller shall deliver through Escrow an executed and recordable Grant Deed in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C (the "Grant Deed") sufficient to convey good title to Buyer. When all required funds and instruments have been deposited into Escrow by the appropriate parties and when all other conditions to Closing have been fulfilled, Escrow Holder shall record the Grant Deed. Seller shall deliver possession of the Land to Buyer concurrently with the Closing. Buyer shall not be entitled to possession of the Land until the Grant Deed has been so recorded. (b)Title. Seller shall cause the Title Company to be prepared or committed to deliver to Buyer an ALTA Standard Coverage Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance dated as of Closing. If Buyer requires an extended coverage ALTA Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance or endorsements, Buyer shall notify Escrow Holder of such requirement and deliver to Escrow Holder, at Buyer’s sole cost and expense and in a timely manner so as to not delay the Closing, an ALTA survey adequate for the issuance of such ALTA extended coverage policy. The title policy shall insure Buyer in an amount equal to the Purchase Price, and show title vested in Buyer subject only to: (i)The usual printed Title Company exceptions; (ii)All other exceptions approved by Buyer pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement (whether by failure to object or by waiver of Buyer’s objection); and (iii)All other exceptions approved in writing by Buyer. Pending Closing, Buyer shall not, without the prior written consent of Seller, which consent may be withheld in Seller’s sole discretion, record this Agreement or a short form or memorandum hereof, or take any other action which would materially and adversely affect the marketability of Seller’s title to the Land. 9.Assignment. Seller may assign its rights and interests under this Agreement without Buyer’s consent. Buyer shall not assign its rights or interests hereunder without Seller’s prior written consent, which consent may be withheld by Seller in its sole discretion. Any attempted assignment made in violation of this Section shall be null and void. 10.Time of Essence.. Time is of the essence of every provision of this Agreement in which time is an element. Failure by one party to perform any obligation within the time and on the terms and conditions required hereunder shall discharge the other party’s duties and obligations to perform hereunder upon written notice or demand from the other party. However, if Escrow is not in a condition to close by the agreed Closing Date, Escrow Holder shall continue to comply with the instructions contained herein until a written demand has been made by a party entitled to do so for the cancellation of Escrow, as described below. Escrow Holder shall notify the other party of any such demand, and shall immediately cancel Escrow without any further instructions from any party. 11.Liquidated Damages. IF ESCROW DOES NOT CLOSE DUE TO BUYER’S HAVING COMMITTED ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT, THEN SELLER SHALL RETAIN ALL SUMS THEN HELD BY ESCROW HOLDER OR SELLER PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST EARNED THEREON, AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, WHICH AMOUNT IS THE BEST ESTIMATE BY THE PARTIES OF THE DAMAGES SELLER WOULD SUFFER FROM SUCH BREACH, IT BEING AGREED THAT IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE AND IMPRACTICABLE, TO FIX THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DAMAGE WHICH WOULD BE INCURRED BY SELLER AS A RESULT OF SUCH DEFAULT BY BUYER. THEREUPON ESCROW SHALL BE CANCELLED AS PROVIDED ABOVE, ALL INSTRUMENTS SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES WHO DEPOSITED SAME, THE PARTIES SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 12 BELOW AND BUYER SHALL PAY ALL TITLE AND ESCROW CANCELLATION CHARGES. IN ADDITION, IF ALL OR ANY PORTION OF SUCH SUMS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED INTO ESCROW BY EITHER BUYER OR SELLER, ESCROW HOLDER IS HEREBY IRREVOCABLY INSTRUCTED BY BUYER AND SELLER TO DISBURSE TO SELLER ALL SUCH SUMS UPON DEMAND OF SELLER ALONE AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR BUYER’S BREACH, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1671 ET. SEQ.
Seller’s Initials 12.Further Documents and Acts. Each of the parties hereto agrees to cooperate in good faith with each other, and to execute and deliver such further documents and perform such other acts as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to consummate and carry into effect the transactions contemplated under this Agreement. If this Agreement is terminated for any reason, Buyer shall return to Seller any studies, reports or other documents previously supplied to Buyer by Seller, and shall deliver to Seller without charge any and all such documents which Buyer shall have obtained with respect to the Land at any time prior to such termination. 13.Representations, Warranties and Covenants of Buyer. (a)Sole Reliance. Prior to the Closing, Buyer shall conduct all inspections, investigations and analyses with respect to the Land as Buyer deems appropriate. Except as expressly set forth herein, Buyer shall rely solely upon its own inspection, investigation and analyses of the Land in purchasing the Land and shall not rely in any way upon any representations, statements, agreements, warranties, studies, reports, descriptions, guidelines or other information or material furnished by Seller or its representatives, whether oral or written, express or implied, of any nature whatsoever regarding any of the foregoing matters. (b)As Is, Where Is. Except as expressly set forth herein, Buyer represents and warrants that it is acquiring the Land "AS IS, WHERE IS" without representation by Seller, and that no patent or latent condition affecting the Land in any way, whether or not known or discoverable or hereafter discovered, shall affect Buyer’s obligations contained in this Agreement, nor shall any such condition give rise to any right of damages, rescission or otherwise against Seller. (c)Defaults. Buyer represents and warrants that the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby will not result in any breach of the terms of, conditions of, or constitute a default under, any instrument or obligation by which Buyer is bound, or violate any order, writ, injunction or decree of any court in any litigation to which Buyer is a party. (d)Survival. All the representations, warranties, covenants, agreements and indemnities of Buyer set forth herein and elsewhere in this Agreement shall be true upon the execution of this Agreement, and shall be deemed to be repeated at and as of Closing and shall survive Closing. Additionally, all indemnities by Buyer of Seller set forth in this Agreement shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 14.Representations, Warranties and Covenants of Seller. (a)Defaults. Seller represents and warrants that the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby will not result in any breach of the terms of, conditions of, or constitute a default under, any instrument or obligation by which Seller is bound, or violate any order, writ, injunction or decree of any court in any litigation to which Seller is a party. (b)Survival. All the representations, warranties, covenants, agreements and indemnities of Seller set forth herein and elsewhere in this Agreement shall be true upon the execution of this Agreement, and shall be deemed to be repeated at and as of Closing and shall survive Closing. Additionally, all indemnities by Seller of Buyer set forth in this Agreement shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 15.Broker’s Commission. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer and Buyer represents and warrants to Seller that no broker or finder has been engaged by Seller or Buyer, respectively, in connection with any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, and that no broker or finder is in any way connected with any of such transactions. In the event of any claim for broker’s or finder’s fees or commissions in connection with the negotiation, execution or consummation of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby, Buyer shall indemnify, save harmless and defend Seller from and against such claim if it shall be based upon any statement or representation or agreement made by Buyer, and Seller shall indemnify, save harmless and defend Buyer from and against such claim if it shall be based upon any statement, representation or agreement made by Seller. 16.Waiver, Consent and Remedies. Each provision of this Agreement to be performed by either party shall be deemed both a covenant and a condition and shall be a material consideration for the other party’s performance hereunder, and any breach thereof by either party shall be deemed a material default hereunder. Either party may specifically and expressly waive in writing any portion of this Agreement or any breach thereof, but no such waiver shall constitute a further or continuing waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other provision. A waiving party may at any time thereafter require further compliance by the other party with any breach or provision so waived. The consent by one party to any act by the other for which such consent was required shall not be deemed to imply consent or waiver of the necessity of obtaining such consent for the same or any similar acts in the future. No waiver or consent shall be implied from silence or any failure of a party to act, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All rights, remedies, undertakings, obligations, options, covenants, conditions and agreements contained in this Agreement shall be cumulative and no one of them shall be exclusive of any other. Except as otherwise specified herein, either party may pursue any one or more of its rights, options or remedies hereunder or may seek damages in the event of the other party’s breach hereunder, or may pursue any other remedy at law or equity, whether or not stated in this Agreement. 17.Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of any action or proceeding instituted between Seller, Buyer and/or Escrow Holder in connection with this Agreement, then as between Buyer and Seller the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party all of its costs and expenses, including, without limitation, court costs, all costs of appeals and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 18.Notices. Any notice, request, demand, consent, approval or other communication required or permitted hereunder or by law shall be validly given or made only if in writing and delivered in person to an officer or duly authorized representative of the other party or deposited in the United States mail, duly certified or registered (return receipt requested), postage prepaid, and addressed to the party for whom intended, as follows: If to Seller:Palos Verdes Portuguese Bend, LLC25200 La Paz Road, Suite 210 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Attn: Mike Walker Telephone: (949) 586-4400 Facsimile: (949) 586-3305 If to Buyer:The City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attn: Les Evans, City Manager Telephone: (310) 377-0360 Facsimile: (310) 377-9868 If to Escrow Holder:First American Title Insurance Company 520 N. Central Avenue Glendale, CA 91203 Attn: Cindy Young Phone: (818) 242-5800 Ext. 5108 Facsimile: (818) 240-5994 Any party may from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a different address which shall be substituted for that specified above. If any notice or other document is sent by mail as aforesaid, the same shall be deemed fully delivered and received forty-eight (48) hours after mailing as provided above. 19.Gender and Number. In this Agreement (unless the context requires otherwise), the masculine, feminine and neuter genders and the singular and the plural shall be deemed to include one another, as appropriate. 20.Entire Agreement. This Agreement and its exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and the final, complete and exclusive expression of the terms and conditions thereof. All prior agreements, representations, negotiations and understandings of the parties hereto, oral or written, express or implied, are hereby superseded and merged herein. 21.Captions. The captions used herein are for convenience only and are not a part of this Agreement and do not in any way limit or amplify the terms and provisions hereof. 22.Governing Law. This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto have been negotiated and executed in the State of California and shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California. 23.Invalidity of Provision. If any provision of this Agreement as applied to either party or to any circumstance shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void or unenforceable for any reason, the same shall in no way affect (to the maximum extent permissible by law) any other provision of this Agreement, the application of any such provision under circumstances different from those adjudicated by the court, or the validity or enforceability of this Agreement as a whole. 24.Amendments. No addition to or modification of any provision contained in this Agreement shall be effective unless fully set forth in writing by both Buyer and Seller. 25.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 26.Binding Agreement. Subject to the restrictions on assignment set forth herein, this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. 27.Construction. The parties acknowledge that each party and its counsel have reviewed and approved this Agreement and that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits hereto. 28.Funding Contingency. Buyer intends to obtain the cash in order to consummate the purchase of the Land from the County of Los Angeles, California, through proceeds available as a result of open space funds from Proposition A. Buyer covenants to use its best efforts in order to obtain the necessary funds as soon as reasonably possible after the Effective Date. If, despite using such best efforts, Buyer is unable to secure such funds prior to the Closing Date, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate, neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder (except for any indemnity obligations of either party pursuant to the other provisions of this Agreement and except as set forth in Section 12 above), the entire deposit pursuant to Section 4(a) and any accrued interest thereon shall be returned to Buyer and each party shall bear its own costs incurred hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written and such date shall be deemed the date of this Agreement. SELLER: PALOS VERDES PORTUGUESE
BEND, LLC, By:HON MANAGEMENT G, LLC, a California limited liability company, member By:HON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation, Manager By: BUYER: THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES By: By: Escrow Holder hereby certifies that Escrow opened as of the ____ day of February, 2001 as Escrow Number ____________________. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY By: LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT ALAND EXHIBIT BESCROW INSTRUCTIONS EXHIBIT CGRANT DEED EXHIBIT c TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS RECORDING REQUESTED BY: WHEN RECORDED, MAIL
THIS DEED AND, Attention: (Space Above Line for Recorder’s Use Only) Parcel No. ______________ GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR DECLARES: DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $0 - EXEMPT UNDER R&T CODE SECTION 11922 Computed on full value of property conveyed; Computed on full value less the value of liens or encumbrances thereon remaining at time of sale. FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, PALOS VERDES PORTUGUESE BEND, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Grantor"), hereby GRANTS to THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ("Grantee"), the following described real property (the "Property") in the County of Los Angeles, State of California: See Exhibit 1 attached hereto. MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO PARTY SHOWN ON FOLLOWING LINE; IF NO PARTY SO SHOWN, MAIL AS DIRECTED ABOVE. NameStreet AddressCity and State SUBJECT TO: 1.Current real property taxes and all unpaid general and special bonds or assessments. 2.All covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights, rights-of-way and easements of record. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this document as of the day and year indicated. Dated: PALOS VERDES
PORTUGUESE BEND, LLC, By:HON MANAGEMENT G, LLC, a California limited liability company, member By:HON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation, Manager By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ____________) On ___________________________ before me, __________________________, a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared ________________________________ and _______________________________, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal)
13.Grant Application for Acquisition of Open Space. (Ramezani)
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT:GRANT APPLICATION FOR ACQUISITION OF OPEN SPACE STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 2001- ___ authorizing the application for grant funds from the County of Los Angeles Regional Park and Open Space District for 1996 Specified Grant funds in the amount of $4,000,000 for the acquisition of critical natural lands and wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the Portuguese Bend for preservation as open space. BACKGROUND The Safe Neighborhood Parks Proposition of 1992 provides $540 million Countywide for park and open space improvement projects. In November 5, 1996, voters of Los Angeles County approved the 1996 Proposition A funds. The 1996 Proposition added $319 million in project funds and increases emphasis on youth employment. In 1992 voters also approved an assessment district for maintenance and servicing funds for cities to offset increased maintenance costs resulting from Proposition-funded projects. The Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District administers Proposition A funds. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has received approval and funding for the following projects:
In 1996, the County had also set aside funds for a fifth project, acquisition of Open Space at Portuguese Bend. DISCUSSION The property proposed for acquisition by the City is known locally as Parcel 4 or the Barkentine property and is currently owned by the Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company, a California limited partnership. The unimproved property approximately 98 acres in size and is located on the southern slope of the Palos Verdes Hills, between McCarrell’s Canyon on the west and Barkentine Canyon on the east. The property also abuts two residential neighborhoods, the Sea Crest tract (Ocean Terrace Drive) on the north and Upper Abalone Cove (Tarragon Road and Barkentine Road) to the south. Staff and the City Attorney have met with the property owner and have made a tentative offer. These are some of the relevant deal points:
Typically, the City is required to assure that at-risk youths (ARY) are employed as a condition for the Proposition A funds it receives. The City adopted a Youth Employment Plan in July 1998. However, acquisition of open space is an exception to the rule and the City is not required to employ At Risk Youth as a condition of receipt of these funds. FISCAL IMPACT If approved, the recommended action will provide the City funds for the acquisition of open space utilizing previously set-aside Measure A funds in the amount of $4,000,000. Respectfully Submitted, Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachment:Resolution 2001- ___ for Grant Application ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to February 28th at 7:00 P.M. at Ladera for a pre-budget public discussion. CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Anticipated Litigation: (G.C 54956.9(b) Based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, the City Council/Agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed session is authorized. 1 (Number of Potential Cases) (E) Letter written by John Monks dated February 6, 2001 sent to Mayor Marilyn Lyon regarding Landslide Moratorium Zone 2 a copy of which is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR G.C. 54956.8 Potential purchase of open space Property: Agua Armaga Parcels 7583-022-008, 7583-022-011; Parcel 4 7573-003-017; Filiorum 7581-023-29, 7581-023-30; Portuguese Bend 7572-001-001 through 007. City Negotiators:City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Negotiating Parties:Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Holdings and York Long Point Associates
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
