|
MAY
1, 2001
DISCLAIMER
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING BUDGET POLICY WORKSHOP MAY 1, 5:30 P.M. FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ______________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: PUBLIC COMMENTS: REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. Budget Policy Issues for FY 2001-2002 and FY 2002-2003. (Evans)
2. 2001 Five-Year Financial Model. (McLean)
3. Budget Policy Issues Identified by City Council Members. (Evans)
4. City Council Goals. (Evans)
ADJOURNMENT: 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 MAY 1, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ______________________________________________________________________ 7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE:
RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of April 17 and April 21, 2001. (Purcell)
2. Contract Services for the Position of Deputy Director of Public Works. (Allison)
3. Acquisition of Vehicle for the Department of Public Works. (Allison)
4. Update to the Pavement Management Report. (Allison)
5. Award Contract for Construction of Bikeway Route Improvement Project. (Allison)
6. Register of Demands. (McLean.)
# # # # # # # # # # # # REGULAR BUSINESS: 7. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 6 (Ryan, 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East) (Fox)
8. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19 (Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive) (Fox)
RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes.) 9. Monument for Lauren Key at Inspiration Point. (Petru)
10. Invitation to Join as Parties to Litigation Filed by SCAG. (Evans)
11. Storm Drain Presentation. (Allison)
ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE BROWN ACT CHECKLIST BELOW. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting. CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Potential purchase of open space.
1. Minutes of April 17 and April 21, 2001. (Purcell)
2. Contract Services for the Position of Deputy Director of Public Works. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 1, 2001 SUBJECT: CONTRACT SERVICES FOR THE POSITION OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND The position of Deputy Director of Public Works has been vacant for approximately 12 months. Two recruitments were conducted and offers were made to two individuals, however, the City has not been successful in filling the position. The vacancy has been temporarily staffed with the services from two engineering firms. The rates for these services has been competitive but is significantly more expensive than if the position was filled with a direct city employee. The Department recently became aware of an opportunity to contract for the services of a qualified individual to fill the position of Deputy Director within the salary range established for that position. DISCUSSIONS A resume of the individual is attached. Mr. Noble has more than 25 years of Public Works experience and will be an asset to City. Under the terms of the contract Mr. Noble will receive compensation equal to the fully burdened top-step salary for the Deputy Director of Public Works. Some of details of the contract are as follows:
CONCLUSIONS Adopting the staff recommendations will award a contract for services to fill the position of Deputy Director of Public Works. Although it is the preference of the department to hire a direct City employee recruitment efforts have not been successful. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Continue to recruit for the position of Deputy Director of Public Works. Staff believes that given the response from past efforts, additional recruitment will not likely be productive. FISCAL IMPACTS Funding for the recommended actions is available in the adopted FY 2000 – 01 budget. The funding sources are the General Fund, the Gas Tax Fund, and the Proposition C Fund. Respectfully Submitted, Reviewed, Resume for Donald
Noble
3. Acquisition of Vehicle for the Department of Public Works. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 1, 2001 SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF VEHICLE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND The equipment replacement fund includes $25,000 for the acquisition of a new vehicle for the Public Works department. The new vehicle will replace an existing vehicle in the City’s fleet, a 1991 Ford Taurus. The 1991 vehicle is fully depreciated and will require significant maintenance to become operational. The Department recommends the purchase of a 2001 Ford Ranger 4x4. The vehicle will be used primarily by the department’s Maintenance Superintendent and will be particularly useful for off-road destinations. The vehicle currently used by the Maintenance Superintendent will be transferred to the City’s fleet. DISCUSSION A Notice Inviting Bids for the purchase of a 2001 Ford Ranger Edge 4x4 was published in the Daily Breeze in accordance with the purchasing process identified in Municipal Code Section 2.44. A subsequent request was posted on the Internet to certified dealerships. Under the terms of the purchase agreement the 1991 vehicle will be traded in. The following is a summary of bids:
The price from Worthington Ford reflects a public agency discount of $1,400. CONCLUSION Based on the bids received, staff recommends the acquisition of a new vehicle from Worthington Ford. The color of the new vehicle will be white to match the City’s existing vehicle fleet. ALTERNATIVES
FISCAL IMPACT Funding is available in the adopted FY 00-01 budget. Respectfully yours, Reviewed by:
4. Update to the Pavement Management Report. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 1, 2001 SUBJECT: UPDATE TO THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Engineering Services are required to update the City’s Pavement Management Report. The report will be updated to reflect recently completed construction, to update the condition of the City’s roadways, and to propose future construction. In addition the update is required to maintain eligibility for Proposition C funding. A single proposal was requested for the needed services from Berryman and Henigar Inc. This firm prepared the original report and each update. Their familiarity with the City will result in lower overall costs. CONCLUSIONS Adopting the staff recommendation will award a professional service contract to Berryman and Henigar Inc., for an update to the Pavement Management Report. ALTERNATE ACTION The alternative action is to request proposals from other firms for the needed services. This, however, will likely result in higher overall costs, since a new firm would not be familiar with the existing plan. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the recommended actions is available in the adopted FY 2000 – 01 budget. The funding source is the Proposition C Fund. Respectfully Submitted, Reviewed, Proposal from Berryman and Henigar, Inc
5. Award Contract for Construction of Bikeway Route Improvement Project. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MAY 1, 2001 SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BIKEWAY ROUTE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND The South Bay Council of Governments was awarded funding from the MTA for the design and construction of a bikeway throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Under the terms of this multi-jurisdictional project, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is the lead agency, and the majority of the improvements are within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Improvements include striped bikelanes and signage along Hawthorne Boulevard, Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South. A small portion of the project is located within the City of Rolling Hills Estates. Initially improvements were included along 25th Street and Western Avenue in the City of Los Angeles. After several unsuccessful attempts to receive approval of the plan with the City of Los Angeles, the MTA directed the City to eliminate the portion within the City of Los Angeles. In addition, due to on-street parking and width constraints, the portion of the project along Hawthorne Boulevard, from Dupree Drive to Vallon Drive near Ryan Park, will consist of signage only. See attached exhibit. DISCUSSION The project was advertised and sealed bids were received and opened at 10:00 AM Wednesday, March 28, 2001. Although twenty contractors were contacted directly and four contractors picked up bid packages for review, only one contractor, PCI, chose to submit a bid. Bid results are as follows:
ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the bid for construction and has determined that there are no apparent irregularities in the bid documents submitted. Background references for PCI have been contacted and have responded with positive feedback. References have indicated that PCI has a history of completing projects on time and within budget. In addition, the City has utilized the services of PCI in the past and has been very satisfied with services received on projects of similar size with similar aspects to those found in this project. Given that only one bid was received, staff reviewed unit costs for the project and is confident that the contract price is reasonable and competitive. CONCLUSIONS PCI Ltd. is the apparent lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the construction of this project and should be awarded the contract for the construction of the Bikeway Route Improvement Project. ALTERNATIVES
The alternative is to reject the bid submitted by PCI and re-advertise the project for construction. This would result in a significant delay of the project, which would cause the project to lose MTA funding. There is no apparent reason to reject this bid and as such, staff does not recommend this alternative. FISCAL IMPACT Funding is available in the adopted FY 2000 – 01 Budget. Funding sources are the MTA grant ($40,000) and City TDA funds ($15,000). Respectfully submitted, Reviewed, Attachment:
6. Register of Demands. (McLean.)
# # # # # # # # # # # # REGULAR BUSINESS:
7. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 6 (Ryan, 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East) (Fox)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: MAY 1, 2001 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL NONCONFORMITY STATEMENT NO. 6 (RYAN, 28328 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST)
Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner/Equestrian Committee Staff Liaison
RECOMMENDATION
Affirm Staff’s determination that the keeping of a maximum five (5) large domestic animals may be "grandfathered" for the property at 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East.
BACKGROUND
Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC) provides for the filing of nonconformity statements related to the keeping of large domestic animals in the City. Pursuant to this Code section, the final determination on these statements was to be made by Staff. However, in the course of reviewing the statements submitted to the City, it became clear that Staff’s determination on some of these statements might be disputed, either by the party who filed the statement or by another interested party. Therefore, in 1999 Staff sought direction from the City Council regarding the final disposition on any disputed nonconformity statements, and the Council determined that it would make the final determination on any disputed statements. Of the twenty-six (26) nonconformity statements submitted, Staff identified seven (7) that were likely to be disputed. This is the first of the disputed statements to be presented to the City Council for a final determination.
Staff has reviewed Nonconformity Statement No. 6, filed by Patrick and Madeline Ryan for the property at 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East. Based upon this statement and a site inspection, Staff determined that a maximum of five (5) large domestic animals could be kept on the property. Staff has also determined that the existing structures for the keeping of the animals (i.e., barn, corral, etc.) were legally established. The Ryans assert that up to eight (8) large domestic animals should be permitted, and they are disputing Staff’s determination on this aspect of Nonconformity Statement No. 6.
DISCUSSION
The Ryans’ property consists of a developed 30,060-square-foot lot and a vacant, contiguous 22,200-square-foot lot. Under the "old" provisions of the Development Code, up to six (6) animals could have been kept on the developed lot and up to five (5) animals could have been kept on the vacant, contiguous lot, for a total of eleven (11) animals on both lots combined. Under the current Development Code, a total of up to four (4) animals could be kept on both lots combined without the approval of a large domestic animal permit or conditional large domestic animal permit. RPVDC Section 17.46.080 begins as follows: Except as provided in this Section, all existing buildings, structures, fences, enclosures and uses of land, including the number of animals allowed by this Chapter, which do not conform to the provisions of this Chapter, but were existing as legal conforming uses or structures on February 1, 1997, shall be considered legal nonconforming uses and/or structures for purposes of this Chapter. The owner of a parcel or use which has been rendered nonconforming by the provisions of this Chapter shall file a written nonconformity statement with the Director in order to establish a record of the nonconforming use or structure. The written statement shall be filed with the Director by October 3, 1997. [emphasis added] According to Nonconformity Statement No. 6 (attached), there were four (4) large domestic animals kept on the Ryans’ property as of February 1, 1997. Five (5) animals were noted during a subsequent inspection of the property. Since the keeping to five (5) animals was permitted by right under the "old" Development Code provisions and this was the number of animals observed by Staff on the site, Staff determined this to be the number of animals "grandfathered" for the property. The Ryans assert that the property should be "grandfathered" based upon the number of animals that could have been kept by right under the "old" Development Code. Although the "old" Development Code would have allowed the keeping of up to eleven (11) animals, the Ryans are only requesting eight (8) animals. However, there is no evidence that more that five (5) animals were kept on the property as of February 1, 1997. Furthermore, the Development Code is very specific in its language, which sets for the number of animals existing legally on February 1, 1997 as the criteria for evaluating nonconformity statements, rather than the number of animals that could have been kept legally on that date. Therefore, Staff believes that its determination that five (5) animals be "grandfathered" for this property is consistent with the provisions of RPVDC Section 17.46.080. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The property owners have been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this matter. No other parties have expressed interest in the nonconformity statement for this property. Based upon the City Council’s determination, Staff will prepare a final nonconformity statement for recordation to the title of the Ryans’ property. It should also be noted that the City Council’s determination does not preclude the Ryans from applying for a large domestic animal permit in order to request permission to keep more than the number of animals that are ultimately "grandfathered" pursuant to Nonconformity Statement No. 6.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the available evidence, Staff concluded that there were five (5) animals kept on the subject property as of February 1, 1997. Since this number of animals was permitted by right under the "old" Development Code, Staff determined that this is the number of animals to be "grandfathered" for the property at 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East. Staff also determined that, based upon the available permit record, the existing structures for the keeping of the animals will also be "grandfathered."
FISCAL IMPACT
The subject matter of this item will have no fiscal impact upon the City, regardless of the action taken.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:
Respectfully submitted:
Reviewed by:
Attachments:
8. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19 (Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive) (Fox)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: MAY 1, 2001 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL NONCONFORMITY STATEMENT NO. 19 (DOWNHILL, 20 VANDERLIP DRIVE)
Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner/Equestrian Committee Staff Liaison
RECOMMENDATION
Affirm Staff’s determination that the keeping and/or boarding of a maximum six (6) large domestic animals may be "grandfathered" for the property at 20 Vanderlip Drive.
BACKGROUND
Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC) provides for the filing of nonconformity statements related to the keeping of large domestic animals in the City. Pursuant to this Code section, the final determination on these statements was to be made by Staff. However, in the course of reviewing the statements submitted to the City, it became clear that Staff’s determination on some of these statements might be disputed, either by the party who filed the statement or by another interested party. Therefore, in 1999 Staff sought direction from the City Council regarding the final disposition on any disputed nonconformity statements, and the Council determined that it would make the final determination on any disputed statements. Of the twenty-six (26) nonconformity statements submitted, Staff identified seven (7) that were likely to be disputed. This is the second of the disputed statements to be presented to the City Council for a final determination.
Staff has reviewed Nonconformity Statement No. 19, filed by Jack Downhill for the property at 20 Vanderlip Drive. Based upon this statement and a site inspection, Staff determined that a maximum of six (6) large domestic animals could be kept and boarded on the property. Staff has also determined that the existing structures for the keeping of the animals (i.e., barn, corral, etc.) were legally established. Mr. Downhill asserts that up to eleven (11) large domestic animals should be permitted, and he is disputing Staff’s determination on Nonconformity Statement No. 19.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Downhill’s property consists of a developed 6.94-acre lot. Under the "old" provisions of the Development Code, up to six (6) animals could have been kept on the lot. Any or all of these animals could have been "boarded," meaning that they are not owned and/or maintained by the property owner. Under the current Development Code, a total of up to four (4) animals could be kept and/or boarded on the lot without the approval of a large domestic animal permit or conditional large domestic animal permit. RPVDC Section 17.46.080 begins as follows: Except as provided in this Section, all existing buildings, structures, fences, enclosures and uses of land, including the number of animals allowed by this Chapter, which do not conform to the provisions of this Chapter, but were existing as legal conforming uses or structures on February 1, 1997, shall be considered legal nonconforming uses and/or structures for purposes of this Chapter. The owner of a parcel or use which has been rendered nonconforming by the provisions of this Chapter shall file a written nonconformity statement with the Director in order to establish a record of the nonconforming use or structure. The written statement shall be filed with the Director by October 3, 1997. [emphasis added] According to Nonconformity Statement No. 19 (attached), there were six (6) large domestic animals kept on Mr. Downhill’s property as of February 1, 1997. This was verified during a subsequent inspection of the property. All of these animals are boarded, based upon information provided by Mr. Downhill. Since the keeping of up to six (6) animals was permitted by right under the "old" Development Code provisions and this was the number of animals observed by Staff on the site, Staff determined that this would be the number of animals "grandfathered" for the property. In addition, Mr. Downhill has provided evidence that he owned and/or controlled the property prior to July 1, 1975, so the boarding of this number of animals is allowed to continue in perpetuity (pursuant to RPVDC Section 17.46.080(C)(3)). Mr. Downhill asserts that the property should be "grandfathered" for the number of animals that could have been kept by right under the County Code (i.e., up to eleven (11) animals according to Mr. Downhill). However, there is no evidence that more that six (6) animals were kept on the property as of February 1, 1997. Therefore, Staff believes that its determination that six (6) animals be "grandfathered" for this property is consistent with the provisions of RPVDC Section 17.46.080. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The property owner has been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this matter. No other parties have expressed interest in the nonconformity statement for this property. Based upon the City Council’s determination, Staff will prepare a final nonconformity statement for recordation to the title of Mr. Downhill’s property. It should also be noted that the City Council’s determination does not preclude Mr. Downhill from applying for a large domestic animal permit in order to request permission to keep more than the number of animals that are ultimately "grandfathered" pursuant to Nonconformity Statement No. 19.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the available evidence, Staff concluded that there were six (6) animals kept and/or boarded on the subject property as of February 1, 1997. Since this number of animals was permitted to be kept by right under the "old" Development Code and the property owner qualifies for the pre-1975 exemption to allow the boarding this number of animals in perpetuity, Staff determined that this is the number of animals to be "grandfathered" for the property at 20 Vanderlip Drive.
FISCAL IMPACT
The subject matter of this item will have no fiscal impact upon the City, regardless of the action taken.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:
Respectfully submitted:
Reviewed by:
Attachments:
RECESS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes.)
9. Monument for Lauren Key at Inspiration Point. (Petru)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 1, 2001 SUBJECT: MONUMENT FOR LAUREN KEY AT INSPIRATION POINT RECOMMENDATION Approve a request from Sarah Key-Marer to place a monument at Inspiration Point to honor the memory of her daughter, Lauren Key. DISCUSSION At the February 20, 2001 City Council meeting, Sarah Key-Marer addressed the Council regarding the death of her four-year old daughter, Lauren Key, at Inspiration Point on November 8, 2000. Ms. Key-Marer requested permission to place a monument to her daughter at Inspiration Point.
Like other monuments in the City, staff recommends that the plaque be affixed to a large rock to protect it from being removed or vandalized. Several large Palos Verdes Stone boulders were unearthed as part of the recent reconstruction project along Palos Verdes Drive South. Staff has identified one of these rocks as being large enough to accommodate a standard size plaque. In the photograph below, the suggested rock is the one on the right.
Because the access to Inspiration Point is very difficult due of the steep topography and active landslide conditions in the area, staff recommends that the monument be placed on the knoll located between Palos Verdes Drive South and Inspiration Point.
This spot affords a good view of the point and the surrounding area. The photograph below shows the view of Inspiration Point as seen from the knoll. In addition, the rock for the monument could be easily transported to the location by flatbed truck and/or skip loader, whereas there is no practical route to transport a large enough rock out to the point.
FISCAL IMPACT
At the February 20th meeting, Ms. Key-Marer indicated that she would be willing to pay for the cost of the plaque. This is consistent with the two other memorial plaques that have been placed in the City. Both the Bill Britton memorial at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center and the Perry Ehlig memorial at Point Vicente were paid for by the family or through private donations. Staff recommends that the City contribute the rock (available through a recent public works project) and the labor to install the monument at Inspiration Point, which would not exceed $300.
Respectfully submitted:
Reviewed,
10. Invitation to Join as Parties to Litigation Filed by SCAG. (Evans)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 1, 2001 SUBJECT: INVITATION TO JOIN AS PARTIES TO LITIGATION FILED BY SCAG RECOMMENDATION: Consider the invitation to join as a named plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) against the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). BACKGROUND: By State Law, every five years HCD notifies SCAG of the total Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) assigned to the SCAG region. The RHNA indicates how many housing units should be provided to meet the region's housing needs. SCAG then takes that total number from HCD and distributes it among the counties and local jurisdictions within the SCAG region based upon a number of models that they use to ensure each City gets their fair share. The current RHNA number assigned to the City is 53 units. Our Housing Element amendment, approved by the City Council on December 19, 2000, uses the Draft RHNA prepared by SCAG. The RHNA is Draft because SCAG is contesting the number of housing units HCD assigned to the SCAG region. However, in preparation of the Housing Element, HCD indicated to all cities within the SCAG region that it acknowledges the Draft RHNA prepared by SCAG, and that cities should use it as the basis for preparing their Housing Element amendments. The Rancho Palos Verdes Housing Element has not yet been approved by HCD. DISCUSSION: As explained in the April 16, 2001 letter from SCAG (attached), Rancho Palos Verdes has a stake in SCAG winning the lawsuit against HCD. If SCAG is not successful, 66,000 additional housing units will be distributed among cities in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties. The redistribution could increase our allocation by approximately 13%. FISCAL IMPACT: SCAG is not asking for any monetary contributions.
Respectfully submitted, Attachment: SCAG Letter
11. Storm Drain Presentation. (Allison)
ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.) RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE BROWN ACT CHECKLIST BELOW. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting. CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Potential purchase of open space.
AGENDA MAY 1, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER NEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2001-05 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Minutes of April 3, 2001. (Purcell)
B. Register of Demands. (McLean)
# # # # # # # # # # # # PUBLIC COMMENTS: This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda: each speaker is limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting. AGENDA MAY 1, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER: NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2001-05 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of April 3, 2001. (Purcell)
2. Register of Demands. (McLean)
# # # # # # # # # # # # PUBLIC COMMENTS: For items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting. |
