|
MAY
15, 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 MAY 15, 2001 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD _____________________________________________________________________ 6:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS. 7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: FLAG SALUTE: NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-38 NEXT ORD. NO. 363 CEREMONIAL MATTERS: Presentation of a proclamation to Lorraine Donovan, Outstanding Crossing Guard of the Year. RECYCLE DRAWING: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of May 1, 2001, Budget Policy Workshop and Regular Meeting. (Purcell)
2. Request for Exoneration of the Landscape Bond for Tract No. 46422 (Requestor: Silvana Schiappa, E.S. Development, Inc.) (Fox)
3. Ocean Trails – Extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666. (Pfost)
4. Approval of Temporary Lease Extension Between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes. (Rosenfeld)
5. Gifts for Parks. (Rosenfeld)
6. March 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)
7. Register of Demands. (McLean.)
# # # # # # # # # # # # PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8. Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. (Huey)
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.) REGULAR BUSINESS: 9. Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 40 (Landowner: Laurie Younggren, 4362, Exultant Drive) (Schonborn)
10. Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project. (Petru)
11. Parkland Dedication Fees for Final Parcel Map No. 24679 (Applicant: Ron Florance) (Mihranian)
12. Purchase of the Barkentine Open Space Property. (Petru)
13. Comment Letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. (Allison)
15. Guidelines for Residential Undergrounding Districts. (Allison)
16. Change of Minutes. (Purcell)
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 a Budget Workshop on Wednesday, May 23, at 6:00 P.M. in the City Hall Community Room. 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 G.C. 54956.8 Potential purchase of open space. Property: Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029, 7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022 City Negotiators: City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Existing Litigation: G.C. 54956.9(a) Name of Case: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al v. Los Angeles Word Airports) Case No: BC247857 View the agenda at www.palosverdes.com/RPV or A full copy of the agenda package is at the counter at Hesse Park.
1. Minutes of May 1, 2001, Budget Policy Workshop and Regular Meeting. (Purcell)
2. Request for Exoneration of the Landscape Bond for Tract No. 46422 (Requestor: Silvana Schiappa, E.S. Development, Inc.) (Fox)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EXONERATION OF THE LANDSCAPE BOND FOR TRACT NO. 46422 [REQUESTOR: SILVANA SCHIAPPA, E.S. DEVELOPMENT, INC.] Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Release the remaining balance of Bond No. 3SM 761 737 00 for Tract No. 46422. BACKGROUND Tract No. 46422 (Vista Lunada), a 7-lot single-family subdivision located on the inland side of Palos Verdes Drive West at Alida Place, was originally approved by the City in 1988. As mitigation for the developer’s unauthorized removal of mature foliage on the property during rough grading, the City required the recordation of a landscape covenant on each of the lots in the tract and required the tract’s original developer, E.S. Development, Inc., to post a $74,100.00 landscape bond to ensure compliance with these covenants. The landscape covenants specify the number and size of trees and shrubs that must be planted on each developed lot. A copy of the covenant is attached to this report. As summarized in the table below, the City Council has twice reduced the bond amount for this tract, based upon the partial "build-out" of the neighborhood.
Recently, the last home on Alida Place was completed. Therefore, on April 26, 2001, the developer requested the release of the remaining balance of the landscape bond. DISCUSSION As summarized in the table below, the landscaping has been installed and verified for all seven lots in the Vista Lunada community.
Therefore, Staff recommends releasing the remaining balance of the bond. It should be noted that, notwithstanding the exoneration of Bond No. 3SM 761 737 00, the landscape covenants will remain in effect. The current and future owners of these homes will be obligated to maintain their landscaping in accordance with the terms of the covenants. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION E.S. Development, Inc. and the owners of all seven properties in the Vista Lunada community have been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this request at tonight’s meeting. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the developer’s request for the release of the remaining balance of Bond No. 3SM 761 737 00 is warranted and, therefore, recommends exonerating the bond and releasing the remaining balance of $15,230.00. FISCAL IMPACT Since landscaping has been completed for all seven properties in the Vista Lunada community, there is no further need for the landscape bond. As such, the release of the balance of Bond 3SM 761 737 00 will have no fiscal impact upon the City. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by: Attachments: Bond release request
from E.S. Development, Inc. (received April 26, 2001)
3. Ocean Trails – Extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666. (Pfost)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50666 (OCEAN TRAILS LP) Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Acting Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION Extend the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 for the Ocean Trails project for one (1) year, until April 15, 2002. BACKGROUND On April 5, 2001, the City received the attached letter from Ocean Trails requesting a one-year time extension to approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 (VTTM 50666). The Conditions of Approval for VTTM 50666 state, "Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.76.090, this approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date that the Coastal Permit associated with this Vesting Tentative Tract Map is approved by the last responsible agency, unless the Final Map has been recorded. Three extensions of up to one (1) year each may be granted by the City Council, if requested in writing prior to expiration." The Ocean Trails project was originally approved by the California Coastal Commission on April 15, 1993. Therefore, the City’s approval would have expired on April 15, 1995. However, on September 13, 1993, the State enacted an automatic 24-month extension for all approved maps in the State of California, thereby automatically extending the expiration date of VTTM 50666 to April 15, 1997. Then, on May 15, 1996, the state enacted an automatic 12 month extension to all approved maps. Therefore, the map would have expired on April 15, 1998. On April 7, 1998, the City Council approved a time extension request from Ocean Trails to extend the map for one year, until April 15, 1999. On April 20, 1999, the City Council approved another time extension to extend the map for one year, until April 15, 2000. Then, on May 16, 2000, the City Council approved another time extension to extend the map for one year, until April 15, 2001. The automatic extensions granted by the State and the subsequent Council approved extensions are all consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. As a result of these extensions, the current expiration date for VTTM 50666 is April 15, 2001. Since the developer had submitted a request for extension of VTTM 50666 on April 5, 2001, the map has been temporarily extended until the Council’s action on this request. Additionally, after the project was initially approved in 1993, the State amended the Subdivision Map Act to increase the maximum number of time extensions from three 1-year extensions to five 1-year extensions. Since three extensions have already been granted by the City, pursuant to the new State law, the project would be eligible for a maximum of two more extensions. Each of these two extensions would be for up to one year each, beyond the April 15, 2001 date, or until April 15, 2003. These extensions would need to be requested in writing prior to each expiration date and would need to be approved by the City Council. DISCUSSION Currently, Phase I Grading, which is composed of the golf course and all of Tract No. 50667, including the residential lots located on the east side of the Ocean Trails project, is nearing completion. Additionally, since Tract 50667 has been finaled, and the grading for the residential lots within Tract No. 50667 has been completed, the developer can begin selling/building residential lots/units from that tract. Phase II grading, which encompasses the housing portion of VTTM 50666 is currently under construction. As the Council is aware, on June 2, 1999, a major landslide (Landslide C) significantly impacted a portion of the golf course, Ocean Trails Park, and public trails. In June and July the developer received approval from the City Council and Coastal Commission for the repair of Landslide C. Construction on the repair has begun, and according to the developer, is expected to be completed this fall. Landslide C is located within the boundaries of VTTM 50666. Any changes to existing lot lines or easements established through the original approval of VTTM 50666, to address the repair of Landslide C, will need to be approved by the City Council prior to approval of the Final Map for Tract 50666. Since the City has a process to evaluate any further changes to VTTM 50666 as a result of Landslide C, Staff does not feel that the repair of Landslide C should have any bearing on this extension request. Additionally, an existing ancient landslide (Landslide A) is also located within the boundaries of VTTM 50666. A portion of the golf course is located on Landslide A. The County’s existing main trunk sewer line runs close to the edge or within the boundaries of Landslide A (the exact location of Landslide A and its proximity to the sewer line has not yet been confirmed). Staff has informed the developer that a detailed geological investigation of Landslide A will need to be completed prior to City Council approval of the Final Map for Tract 50666. Similar to Landslide C, since the City has a process to evaluate any further changes to VTTM 50666 as a result of the investigations into Landslide A, Staff does not feel that any potential issues related to Landslide A should have any bearing on this extension request. The developer has submitted an application and filed the necessary fees to process Final Map No. 50666. The application is being reviewed by City Staff and the City Engineer and is currently incomplete. As noted above, the geological issues pertaining to Landslide C and A will need to be addressed prior to City Council approval of the Final Map. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion presented in this report, Staff feels that the applicant is making substantial progress towards the completion of the Ocean Trails Project. Additionally, any remaining geological issues pertaining to Landslide C or A will need to be addressed prior to the Final of Map 50666. As such, for the reasons noted above, Staff feels that the approval of the time extension request for VTTM 50666 should be granted. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives:
FISCAL IMPACT There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed, ATTACHMENT: Letter dated received on April 5, 2001
4. Approval of Temporary Lease Extension Between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes. (Rosenfeld)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: RON ROSENFELD, DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY LEASE EXTENSION BETWEEN THE CITY AND MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDATION Extend the current lease agreement between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes on a month-by-month basis until their Conditional Use Permit renewal is reviewed. BACKGROUND On September 7, 1993, the City entered into an agreement with Montessori School of Manhattan Beach, Inc., to lease space at the Ladera Linda Community Center to form the Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes. In May of 1996 the Council approved their current lease which expires on May 21, 2001. The Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes has requested a five-year extension of their current lease. DISCUSSION The Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes has applied for a renewal of their Conditional Use Permit. Their request is now going through the formal review process. During this review process, Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes would operate under the terms of their current lease on a month-by-month basis. Additionally, City staff has been recently notified that another school may submit a request for the use of Ladera Linda Community Center. If such a request is received, staff will bring the issue back to Council at a future date. Respectfully Submitted, Reviewed,
5. Gifts for Parks. (Rosenfeld)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: RON ROSENFELD, DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: GIFTS FOR PARKS RECOMMENDATION That the City Council accept the Gifts for Parks donations and direct staff to prepare letters for the Mayor’s signature expressing the Council’s thanks and appreciation. BACKGROUND The City’s Gifts for Parks program, established in 1982, provides a means by which interested individuals, organizations, and/or businesses may contribute funds, merchandise, or labor for the enhancement of the City’s Recreation and Parks facilities and programs. Donations, as prescribed by law, are tax deductible as charitable contributions. ANALYSIS The City has received the following donations designated for: REACH:
26TH ANNUAL
JULY 4TH CELEBRATION:
POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER EXHIBIT FUND:
POINT VICENTE DONATED ITEMS
Watch, and snowglobe donated by Joan Dox HESSE PARK:
GENERAL:
CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City accept these donations with thanks to all donors. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed,
6. March 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: MARCH 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT Staff Coordinator: Dennis McLean, Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the March 2001 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. BACKGROUND: Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit an investment report to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. The City has elected to submit a treasurer’s report to the Council for review each month. This report summarizes the cash activity associated with all funds of the City. A separate treasurer’s report is prepared monthly for both the Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority and is presented under separate cover before their respective governing bodies. The attached treasurer's report includes the cash activities of the City for the month of March 2001. ANALYSIS: The overall cash balances of the City totaled $25,660,704 at March 31, 2001. This represents a $471,335 increase during the month. The overall increase is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a significant fluctuation. Gas Tax Fund – The Gas Tax fund’s cash balance increased by nearly $45,000 during the month. The increase resulted from receipt of both February and March installments of Gas Tax monies during the month of March. Proposition A Fund – The Proposition fund cash balance increased by approximately $100,000. The City received both February and March Proposition A allocations during March. CIP Fund – The cash balance in the CIP fund increased by almost $238,000 during the month. The CIP fund received the recurring $291,667 monthly transfer from the General fund, while project expenditures for the month were less than $55,000. Special Trusts Fund – The cash balance in the Special Trusts fund increased by almost $68,000 during March. As discussed in previous months, it is typical for cash in this fund to fluctuate from month to month. These variances are caused by changes in the timing of payments to and from the City. During the past month, Ocean Trails made a large trust deposit, which accounts for the overall increase. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed:
7. Register of Demands. (McLean.)
# # # # # # # # # # # # PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8. Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. (Huey)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Staff Coordinator: Judy A. Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed levy and collection of assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for fiscal year 2001-02 and the Engineer's Report prepared in connection therewith. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2001-____, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes confirming a diagram and assessment for the 2001-02 fiscal year in connection with the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code. BACKGROUND In 1992 the City Council formed an assessment district designated "Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District" (the "Citywide District") pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq.) (the "1972 Act"). Since 1992 the district has levied assessments to finance the operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, signal facilities, and appurtenant facilities. The Citywide District includes all of the assessable parcels in the City. The 1972 Act requires that proceedings be undertaken on an annual basis for any year during which assessments will be levied and collected. The 1972 Act also requires the preparation of an engineer's report in connection with the annual levy of assessments. On April 17, 2001 the City Council, by resolution, approved the fiscal year 2001-02 Engineer's Report, which establishes assessments and set this evening's public hearing on the proposed levy of assessments for fiscal year 2001-02. ANALYSIS The estimate of total District expense for fiscal year 2001-02 is $445,401. The proposed total assessment is $327,213. Approximately $88,988 of accumulated reserves and $29,200 of Gas Tax funds will be used to cover district expenditures in excess of the annual assessment. The approved 2001-02 Engineer's Report groups parcels in the City into various zones which receive differing degrees of benefit from the operation of the district as a result of variations in the nature, location and extent of the proposed maintenance activities and improvements. The proposed FY 2001-02 assessments for a single family parcel range from $8.23 to $ 45.79. For all parcels citywide the FY 2001-02 assessment is equal to or less than the FY 2000-01 assessment. CONCLUSION To levy assessments for district operation, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution confirming the assessment. By adopting the staff recommendation Council will be assessing single family parcels between $8.23 to $45.79. The majority of single-family households will be assessed approximately $20.00 for fiscal year 2001-02. FISCAL IMPACT By adopting the staff recommendation Council will be approving total assessments of $327,213 to fund the operation of the district for the maintenance of street landscaping, street trees, median landscaping, traffic signals, safety lighting, and district administrative expenses. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed, Attachments: Resolution 2001- 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.) REGULAR BUSINESS:
9. Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 40 (Landowner: Laurie Younggren, 4362, Exultant Drive) (Schonborn)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 40 (Address: 4362 Exultant Drive; Applicant: Laurie Younggren). Staff Coordinator: Eduardo A. Schonborn, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION Approve Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 40, thereby allowing the landowner to proceed with the appropriate applications to request approval for a 597 square foot garage, 474 square foot first story addition, and a 1,251 square foot second story addition, for property located at 4362 Exultant Drive. BACKGROUND On February 26, 2001, the applicant submitted an application for Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 40 to allow the necessary applications to be submitted for approval of a project that includes the following: a) construction of a 597 square foot garage; b) construction of a 474 square foot one story addition; and c) construction of a 1,251 square foot second story addition. The Landslide Moratorium Exception application was deemed incomplete on March 23, 2001, pending the submittal of additional information and plans, and verification of approval of the geological statement indicating that the additions will not aggravate the existing landslide situation. Upon submittal of the necessary information, the application was deemed complete on April 30, 2001. Pursuant to the City’s Landslide Moratorium Ordinance, a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for a project in excess of 600 square feet of additional residential area must be acted upon by the City Council. Given the scope of the proposed project, Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 40 requires City Council consideration. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at 4362 Exultant Drive, within the City’s Landslide Moratorium area. The parcel is located at the southwest corner of Dauntless and Exultant Drives, within the Seaview Tract. The parcel is essentially square in shape, and contains 12,000 square feet of lot area. The lot is currently improved with a one-story single-family residence, with a detached garage, and contains a structure size of 2,628 square feet. Due to the location and configuration of the residential structure on the lot, the property line along Exultant Drive has been determined to be the front property line, while the property line along Dauntless Drive has been determined to be the street-side property line. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct 2,322 square feet of additions to the existing residential structure. Specifically, the applicant proposes to add a new 597 square foot garage closer to the front property line, convert the existing garage to habitable area, and add 474 square feet to the existing structure, thereby creating a residence with an attached garage. Further, the applicant proposes to construct a 1,251 square foot second story addition over the new garage and the converted garage area. The resulting structure will measure 5,066 square feet. Lastly, the resulting height will measure 19’11" as measured from the highest point covered by the structure to ridgeline, and an overall height of 22’5" as measured from the lowest finish grade to ridgeline. CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS The City has established a moratorium prohibiting the filing, processing and approval of building, grading and other permits within the Landslide Moratorium Area. However, Section 15.20.040 of the Municipal Code establishes categories with specific exemption criteria that allow certain projects to qualify as exceptions to the moratorium. Although the subject property is located within the Seaview Tract area, which is in the Landslide Moratorium area "outlined in blue", the 2,322 square foot addition qualifies as an exemption under Moratorium Exception Category (H). This category allows for minor projects that involve additions to existing residential structures. Staff believes that the moratorium exception permit may be granted for the additions to the existing residence because the improvements will comply with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 of the Development Code. Further, the geology/soils information submitted to the City thus far has been approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant, demonstrating that the project will not aggravate the existing landslide situation; however, additional geotechnical information that is project specific must be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Approval of the Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit by the City Council does not constitute planning approval of the proposed project. Rather, it allows the applicant to submit the appropriate planning applications for approval of the specific project. Based on the current proposal, the applicant will need to submit a Height Variation application for the two-story addition, and a Site Plan Review application for the one-story additions to the residence. The processing of the applications will be a discretionary process, entailing Planning Commission review of the applications and plans to ensure that the proposed project does not significantly impair views, will not result in infringement of privacy, and is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Although approval of a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit does not guarantee approval of any subsequent applications required by the City, Staff has identified a potential concern with the proposed structure size, as it may be significantly larger than the existing structure sizes evident in the immediate neighborhood. Nonetheless, as part of the neighborhood compatibility analysis of the Height Variation application, the resulting structure size, in addition to the appearance of the structure, will be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure that the project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. CONCLUSION Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the City Council approve Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 40 to allow the applicant to submit the appropriate applications to request approval for a 597 square foot garage, 474 square foot first story addition, and a 1,251 square foot second story addition, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A". ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:
Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by: Attachments Exhibit "A"
– Conditions of Approval
10. Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project. (Petru)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: ABALONE COVE BEACH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the project update. BACKGROUND In July 2000, the City Council approved the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project. That decision was appealed to the California Coastal Commission by several residents. On November 14, 2000, the California Coastal Commission continued the hearing on the finding of substantial issue, but the staff report identified concerns about the project related to geology, biological resources, marine resources and the operation plan. Due to the complexity of the issues, the project was tentatively scheduled for June 2001 in Long Beach to conduct both a substantial issue and a de novo hearing. The last update staff provided to the Council on this project was on December 19, 2000. At that time, staff requested an allocation of $20,000 in professional service fees to meet with the Coastal Commission staff, develop plans and cost estimates to resolve the identified issues and return to the City Council in May 2001 with an update. To date, the only additional professional services have been provided by Group Delta, the City’s geotechnical consultant on the project. In-house staff has been used to perform the other work related to the project. DISCUSSION Since the last time the City Council was briefed on the project, the following work has been completed: 1. Geology On January 16, 2001, staff forwarded a supplemental geology report prepared by Group Delta to the Coastal Commission staff which examined the stability of the proposed 35 foot high cut slope along the access road, west of the lower parking lot. However, Coastal Commission staff also expressed concern regarding the removal of the mound (pressure ridge) where the unpaved parking lot and parking attendant’s kiosk is proposed to be located and it’s impact on the overall on the stability of the Abalone Cove Landslide. Group Delta prepared a supplemental letter addressing this specific issue, which is attached for the Council’s information. The City’s consultant concluded that removal of the mound would not increase the instability of the Abalone Cove Landslide. However, because land movement would continue seaward of Palos Verdes Drive South, the mound would slowly re-establish itself over time. It is important to reiterate that this is not a stability issue, but an on-going maintenance issue for the City. Fortunately, the parking area is proposed to be unpaved, which will make it easier for the City to review the amount of movement on an annual basis and to re-grade the parking area and access road, as necessary, using small equipment, 2. Biological Resources The project will impact 0.24 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat. Assuming a 3:1 replacement ratio, the City will be required to replace this loss with 0.72 acres of new habitat. Although the City’s proposed re-vegetation effort was briefly described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, the Coastal Commission staff requested additional detail regarding the plan. In the December 2000 report, staff indicated that the most suitable location for the re-vegetation effort was off-site at the Forrestal property in conjunction with the re-vegetation required for the 25th Street roadway repair project. However, the Coastal Commission staff was not enthusiastic about this proposed location because it is outside the coastal zone and therefore, not within the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction. In response, staff identified an area within Abalone Cove Shoreline Park that is located east of the upper parking lot and seaward of the new scenic turnout on Palos Verdes Drive South (see attached aerial photograph). This site is advantageous for several reasons:
On March 6, 2001, staff accompanied Mary Beth Woulfe from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bill Tippets from the California Department of Fish and Game to the proposed re-vegetation area. Both Ms. Woulfe and Mr. Tippets verbally approved of the proposed location. However, because the City owns the property, they indicated that a deed restriction would be required (rather than a conservation easement) for the re-vegetation area. This is similar to what was done for the additional habitat restoration area that was recently added to Shoreline Park. 3. Marine Resources Coastal Commission staff does not feel that solely relying on the Sheriff’s Department for monitoring will adequately protect the marine resources and water quality. To address this concern, staff has prepared the attached Tide Pool and Parking Lot Management Program, which includes the following elements:
4. Hours of Operation Coastal Commission staff believes that the current 4:00 PM closing time limits access to the park for working families and their children and have indicated that they would like the park hours extended to dusk. The City currently spends approximately $18,000 per year to staff the existing upper parking lot. The same amount will be required to provide a second staff person to attend the lower parking lot. Extending the park hours from 4:00 p.m. to dusk would increase the cost of each attendant by approximately $7,000 or a total of $14,000 per year for the two positions. The additional amount of staff time required for the extended hours would be relatively minor and would make the park’s hours of operation consistent with the City’s other staffed park sites, such as Hesse Park and Ryan Park. An alternative to having two staff members at the park site would be to install an automated parking lot entry system at the upper parking lot. This type of device can accept money from visitors (usually in bill form) and automatically lift the entry gate. The estimated cost of such a system would be $15,000, with a $1,500 annual service contract. CONCLUSION The appeal of the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project is tentatively scheduled for the Coastal Commission hearings in June 2001, which will take place in Long Beach. In anticipation of the hearing, staff has been working with the Coastal Commission staff over the last five months to address their concerns about the project. Although the Coastal Commission staff report will not be available until after May 16th, this report is intended to provide the Council with an update of staff’s current understanding of the issues and the possible conditions of approval that may be imposed on the project by the Coastal Commission. FISCAL IMPACT To date, the Coastal Commission staff is contemplating two new additions to the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project. The first is to require the City to hire a marine biologist to prepare a baseline study of the tide pools and to monitor the health of the tide pools on an annual basis for five years thereafter. The additional cost of this condition is estimated to be $15,000 during the first year and $5,000 each year thereafter. The second is to extend the park hours from the current closing time of 4:00 p.m. to dusk. The estimated cost of this condition is $14,000 per year in additional staff time. Therefore, the potential new requirements would increase the City’s cost to operate the park by approximately $29,000 during the first year and $19,000 each year thereafter. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed: Attachments: Letter from Group
Delta dated May 2001 ABALONE COVE BEACH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROPOSED TIDE POOL AND PARKING LOT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM May 9, 2001 Tide Pool Management This management plan sets forth measures to protect the marine resources and tide pools at Abalone Cove Beach, along with provisions for public access to and along the beach. These measures will assess and determine existing conditions, provide a monitoring program, and add signage and other measures to protect the tide pools as follows: 1. The City will hire a qualified marine biologist to perform a baseline survey of the marine life at the site and to continue to monitor and provide updates once a year for five years. After five years, the need and schedule for continuing the surveys will be reexamined. If at any time the tide pools appear to be declining due to beach patrons, the City will consider reducing the hours of operation or closing all or a portion of the beach until the tide pools recover. 2. City staff working at the park site will receive specialized training on tide pool biology and management. A trained staff member will patrol the tide pools at low tides that occur during regular park hours and as dictated by anticipated level of attendance at the park. The staff person will have access to a telephone and will be able to notify the Lomita Sheriff’s Station and the area Fish and Game representative of possible infractions, so violators can be deterred or cited. In general, the designated staff person will come from off-site to patrol the tide pools. Occasionally, one of the on-site staff members attending the parking lots may be required to perform this duty. On these occasions, the staff person will close the entrance to their parking lot and post a sign indicating their approximate return time. During the attendant’s absence, cars will not be able to enter the respective parking lot, although parked cars will still be able exit the lot. Although this may result in some temporary delays or inconvenience to the public, the City will make every effort to use off-site staff to conduct the patrols during the periods of heaviest park patronage. 3. Although any Sheriff’s Deputy can enforce the Fish and Game Code, three deputies, provided through the Community Resource (CORE) program, have been specifically trained and certified to cite violations of the Fish and Game Code. During the fall and winter months when the tide pools are the most vulnerable to damage and/or poaching, the CORE deputies will patrol the tide pools during low tides that occur during daylight hours. Patrols will not take place in inclement weather. The CORE Deputies patrol schedule during the spring and summer will correspond to the level of anticipated attendance at the park. 4. To increase public awareness of tide pool sensitivity, kiosk signage, in English and Spanish, will be constructed at various location within the park to provide educational information, restrictions and penalties for violations, and will encourage community assistance in alerting the City staff, Lifeguard and/or Sheriff should violations occur. 5. The City will investigate the installation of a pay telephone near the "ruins" tide pool area to assist the public in alerting the City staff, Lifeguard and/or Sheriff of infractions, as well as for emergency assistance. 6. The area Fish and Game official, whose office is located nearby, has agreed to work closely with City staff to provide education and cite offenders. Existing Upper Entry Gate/Parking Lot The entry gate of the existing upper parking lot, with an attendant on duty, currently closes at 4:00 p.m. daily. With the addition of the lower parking lot and drop-off area, the upper lot will on the following schedule, either with an attendant on duty or on some type of automated entry system:
Signage at the entrance to the upper lot will list the hours of operation. If all cars have left the parking lots at closing time, the entry and exit gates will be secured. If cars remain in the lots at closing time, the exit for each lot (which has metal "teeth" that damages tires should cars try to use it as an entrance) will remain open. In these situations, the Sheriff will be contacted to patrol the area and to secure the exit gate on the upper lot once all cars have departed. New Lower Entry Gate/Parking Lot The entry gate to the lower parking lot, with an attendant on duty, will operate in the same manner and on the same schedule as the upper lot (see above). Staff, with prior notice, currently provides beach access for disabled individuals during those hours the upper lot is currently open. With the addition of the lower parking lot, prior arrangements for beach access will no longer be needed for these individuals.
11. Parkland Dedication Fees for Final Parcel Map No. 24679 (Applicant: Ron Florance) (Mihranian)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES FOR FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 24679 (APPLICANT: RON FLORANCE) Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Acting Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Approve the acceptance of parkland dedication (Quimby) fees for Final Parcel Map No. 24679, pursuant to the City’s parkland dedication fee formula, in the amount of $18,243.97. BACKGROUND On December 6, 2000, the applicant, Ron Florance, submitted Final Parcel Map No. 24679 to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for approval. As part of the Conditions of Approval of the final map, the applicant must pay the parkland dedication (Quimby) fees prior to approval of the final map (see attached Condition No. 23 of Resolution No. 99-68). Pursuant to the City’s Development Code, the parkland dedication fee shall be determined by the City Council. SITE PROJECT AND DESCRIPTION On August 17, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-68, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 24679 to allow a division of land subject to conditions of approval. The applicant’s approval allows a 65,394 square foot lot located at 5251 Rolling Ridge Road to be split into two lots. Lot 1 will be 43,440 square feet and Lot 2 will be 21,954 square feet. Since the subject lot is undeveloped, both lots will be subject to the parkland dedication fee. CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS Pursuant to Chapter 16.20.100 of the City’s Municipal Code (see attachment), as a condition of approval of a tentative tract or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes. However, if there is no park or recreational facility designated in the General Plan to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall in lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of land dedication, the amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required to be dedicated. The fair market value of land shall be determined by the City Council using one of four alternative methods. These methods are: 1) the assessed market valuation established by the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor, if the land has been assessed within the last calendar year; 2) the sale price of land if sold within the last five years plus the inflation rate and any contingencies at the time of sale; 3) the sale of comparable properties within the last year; or 4) a land appraisal prepared by a member of the appraisal institute. The applicant submitted a copy of the escrow documents with the final sale price of the property (see attachment). According to the escrow documents, the subject lot was sold for $865,000.00 in August of 1996. In order to accurately assess the subject property’s current "fair market value", the Consumer Price Index (C.P.I.) for each year subsequent to the sale of the lot was added to the final sale price. According to the C.P.I. for Los Angeles County, as established by the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 1.50 acre lot is currently valued at $977,356.00, based on the following calculation: 1996 $865,000.00 x 2.57% (C.P.I.) = $887,230.50 1997 $887,230.50 x 2.00% (C.P.I.) = $904,975.11 1998 $904,975.11 x 2.00% (C.P.I.) = $923,074.61 1999 $923,074.61 x 2.30% (C.P.I.) = $944,305.32 2000 $944,305.32 x 3.50% (C.P.I.) = $977,356.00 As such, Staff calculated the per/acre value of the subject property at $651,570.66. Based upon the current market value, the calculation for the Quimby park fee is as follows:
As a result, Staff recommends that the total amount of $18,243.97 be paid in lieu of land dedication since Staff believes that the dedication of .028 acres of land in this area is not feasible for the applicant or the City, and such a dedication would not serve any realistic recreational purpose in that the General Plan does not designate a park or recreational facility in whole or in part in this area. Furthermore, Section 16.20.100(G)(5) of the Municipal Code states that only payment of fees shall be required in subdivisions containing fifty (50) parcels or less. CONCLUSION Based upon the above discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the parkland dedication (Quimby) fee of $18,243.97. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives is available to the City Council: 1. Identify any issues or concerns with the proposed calculations, provide Staff and/or applicant with directions in using an alternate method in determining the "fair market value", and continuing this item to a future agenda. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed, ATTACHMENTS: Chapter 16.20.100
of the RPV Municpal Code
12. Purchase of the Barkentine Open Space Property. (Petru)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF THE BARKENTINE OPEN SPACE PROPERTY RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2001- ; authorizing staff to proceed with the purchase of the Barkentine property. BACKGROUND On February 20, 2001, the City Council entered into a Purchase Agreement with Palos Verdes Portuguese Bend LLC for the purchase of approximately 98 acres of open space land known as the Barkentine property. Part of the Agreement allowed the City 120 days to complete it’s "due diligence" examination of the subject property. To that end, staff was authorized to spend up to $5,000 to complete this review. DISCUSSION In the February 20, 2001 staff report, staff indicated that the City had received the following documents from the property owner:
Since that time, City staff and our consultants have examined the following issues:
Each of the five issues listed above are discussed in more detail below: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Study The Source Group, Inc. (TSG) conducted a Phase I study of the Barkentine property, including a site reconnaissance, a review of available records and interviews with the current owner’s representative. The resulting Phase I Report dated February 28, 2001 (see attached) identifies the following "Recognized Environmental Conditions" (RECs) on the site:
In addition to the RECs identified above, The Source Group identified with following additional concerns about the site:
The three Recognized Environmental Conditions and the potential radon in the site’s subsurface would only become an issue if the property were mass graded or developed for residential use. Because the intended use of the property is for natural open space and passive recreation, these types of activities would not take place on the property. Therefore, staff does not recommend further environmental testing of the property. Geologic Hazard Assessment Zeiser Kling Consultants (ZKC) conducted a geologic review of the Barkentine property, including a site reconnaissance and a review of available records, and prepared a letter dated February 12, 2001 summarizing their findings and recommendations (see attached). ZKC identified three potential geologic hazards on the property, which are discussed below. 1. Landslide Movement The property contains a remnant ancient landslide mass located in the north-central portion of the property, a younger landslide mass called the "Fox Canyon Landslide" on the southwestern corner of the site and several smaller landslides and debris flows on the steeper slopes bordering the canyons within the site. ZKC concluded that the likelihood of reactivation of the larger ancient landslide is low and would most likely not affect off-site properties. However, several of the smaller landslides on the steeper slopes could activate and fall into the canyons, particularly during periods of heavy rainfall. The effect of this condition is discussed in more detail below. 2. Mud and Debris Flow The smaller landslides and slump features on the steeper slopes of the property have the potential is becoming saturated and flowing downhill into the canyon bottoms during periods of intense or prolonged rainfall. The probability of this happening would also increase following a brush fire or other event that would remove the vegetation on the property. In severe cases, it is possible that the existing fences may not be large enough to contain the debris flows that could be generated under these conditions. If the debris fences become overwhelmed, there is a potential for flooding to occur downstream of their locations. 3. Rock Fall In the steeper canyon areas, ZKC identified several areas with loose rock outcroppings that could potentially endanger persons climbing or walking below them. The consultant suggested that the City might want to consider "scaling" the areas of loose rock that are in proximity to trails or other areas of public access. In addition, ZKC suggested placing signage at access points and adjacent to potential geologic hazards to advise the public of the risks and hazards within the Barkentine property. Because the potential for reactivation of the ancient landslide is low and would not be expected to affect off-site properties, staff does not recommend any further geologic investigation or testing of the property. However, if the City acquires the property, fire breaks should be maintained and the City should avoid removing large areas of vegetation prior to the rainy season to minimize the risk of mud and debris flows from occurring on the property. Like the Forrestal property, the goal of acquiring the Barkentine property is to preserve it as a natural open space area. However, unlike the Forrestal property, which was used as a rock quarry for many years, the landform of the Barkentine property has not been as significantly altered by past human activities. The rock outcroppings that exist on the property are natural and are not located adjacent to roadways and developed park facilities. Therefore, staff does not recommend scaling back the areas of loose rock on the property. In addition to being very expensive, such an undertaking is likely to alter and damage the natural beauty of the property. Additionally, because the site is undeveloped, the City is under no legal obligation to remove any natural hazards that exist on the property. However, staff agrees with the consultant that warning signage similar to what has been placed at the Forrestal property should be installed on the Barkentine property. The consultant also recommended that the City conduct a hydrologic study of the property to determine if the existing drainage improvements are adequate to control drainage and debris in a severe storm situation. Such a study has been prepared and is discussed below in the Drainage Constraints Assessment section of this report. Drainage Constraints Assessment On April 6, 2001, RBF Consulting prepared a Drainage Constraints Assessment of the Barkentine property (see attached). The report identified two major drainage courses and a small one on the property, with two additional canyons acting as the western and eastern boundaries of the property, McCarrell’s Canyon (also known as Fox Canyon) and Barkentine Canyon, respectively. Los Angeles County Public Works installed the three existing wooden debris fence barriers at the downstream edge of each of the drainage courses. The debris fences were built after a severe fire removed much of the natural vegetation on the property several years ago, which increased the potential for debris to wash down the canyons during the rainy season. Although the County did not obtain access easements to these facilities, they have been maintaining them in the years since their installation. The debris barriers and wooden planks all appear to be in very good condition at the present time. Flow that exits the debris barriers continues downstream until it is incepted by a storm drain inlet, which have sloping steel debris racks at their entrances. These concrete inlets are County-owned and maintained. The RBF report breaks the drainage patterns on the property down into the five "watersheds" shown in the chart below. The characteristics of each watershed are described in detail in the attached report.
The consultant recommends the following drainage maintenance program: 1. Debris Barrier Maintenance and Sediment Removal Conduct inspections of the debris barriers before and after each storm season. Removal of accumulated debris, as necessary. Repair and replacement of the wooden planks, as required. Inspection for erosion or scour hole formation immediately downstream of the debris barriers or any signs of lateral bank erosion or flanking of the barrier. 2. Storm Drain Entrance and Debris Rack Conduct inspections of the storm drain entrance after each storm and removal of any accumulated debris on the rack bars. 3. Debris and Sediment Removal on Tarragon Road and Barkentine Road Remove any eroded sediment deposited from the property on the adjacent roads following storm events. The County of Los Angeles currently performs the three annual drainage maintenance activities suggested by the consultant. Therefore, the City would not assume this responsibility if it were to acquire the property. The consultant also identified several potential future drainage improvements that could be made to the property, which are described in the attached report. Because the intended use of the property is for natural open space and passive recreation, staff does not recommend implementation of the consultant’s additional suggestions at this time. However, the City may want to consider these items again if the intensity of use changes on the property in the future. Trail and Access Suitability There are numerous existing trails that cross the Barkentine property. Some are wide enough to drive an off-road vehicle on, while others are narrow footpaths barely one foot wide. The City’s Conceptual Trails Plan, which assumed that the property would be eventually developed for residential purposes, identifies the following three trails that should be preserved on the property:
As shown in the chart, all three trails are described in the Plan as being Category II trails. The CTP defines a Category II trail as: "Proposed trails which cross undeveloped privately-owned land that is zoned as being developable. These trails and trail segments should be implemented when the respective parcels of land are developed." The three proposed trails were intended to consolidate and replace the numerous smaller trails that currently cross the property. However, if the City acquires the Barkentine property, the land will not be developed and will instead be preserved in a natural condition. Therefore, staff recommends that the City preserve as many of the existing trails on the property as possible. This issue can be examined as part of any future update to the City's Conceptual Trails Plan. Such an update would include public input and review by the Recreation and Parks Committee and City Council. Both the City’s geotechnical and hydrology consultants included recommendations in their reports concerning the existing trails on the property. Zeiser Kling Consultants, the geotechnical consultant, recommended that the City:
RBF Consulting, the hydrology consultant, recommended that the City:
Staff essentially agrees with the recommendations put forth by the geotechnical and hydrology consultants. However, staff feels that "low-tech" solutions should be favored concerning the maintenance and improvement of the trails on the property. For example, trail treads should be dirt rather than paved, erosion should be controlled through the placement of rocks, water bars and small earthen berms, and signage should be used sparingly and designed to blend with the natural surroundings. Subsequent to the acquisition of the property, a trail specialist could be retained to inspect the trails and make specific recommendations on improvements and required maintenance. In addition to considering the on-site trails, the City must also take into consideration the connections between these trails and other adjacent trail systems. There are four trail connections to consider: 1. McCarrell’s Canyon Crossing The Peninsula Pointe residential development is located immediately to the west of the Barkentine property. As part of the construction of this tract, the developer installed a multipurpose trail along the length of the project’s frontage, parallel to Palos Verdes Drive South. The CTP identities this trail as Seahill Loop Trail Segment (A7), which is intended to connect to the Three Sisters Loop Trail Segment (A6) in McCarrell’s Canyon just above the Edison substation. However, the improved Seahill Trail ends just above the new residence that has been recently completed at the project’s eastern boundary, although a small footpath continues from this point to the Edison substation. It is apparent that hikers are scrambling through Edison’s concrete debris basin just above the substation and picking up another small footpath on the other side that continues onto the Barkentine property. This existing crossing point is dangerous and difficult for all but the most experienced hikers. Staff examined the possibility of placing the trail crossing further north above the Edison property. However, this would be extremely difficult from both an engineering and environmental standpoint because the canyon narrows significantly just above the Edison substation. In addition, staff feels that placing the crossing further up the canyon would be too much of a detour from the trail’s current alignment and would not be inviting to hikers who will continue to try to use the more direct route between the two properties. Staff visited the property with Scott Gobble of Southern California Edison to discuss the possibility of routing the trail through the Edison property and constructing a bridge just north of the debris basin. After viewing the proposed location for the bridge, Mr. Gobble indicated that Edison would be willing to grant the City a license agreement to use a portion of their property located just above their debris basin for the crossing. This location provides for the most direct connection between the two trail segments while minimizing disturbance to the drainage course. The estimated cost to construct a bridge over the drainage course in McCarrell’s canyon is approximately $15,000. Staff based this figure on information obtained from Ocean Trails regarding the bridges on similar size constructed in conjunction with the golf course. Although the tract conditions for Peninsula Pointe required the developer to construct the trail to the tract’s eastern boundary and provide a crossing at McCarrell’s Canyon, the City released the common area improvement bonds for this tract in 1997. Fortunately, the developer has indicated to staff that they are still willing to extend the trail to the project’s eastern boundary and participate with the City in the cost of constructing a bridge to cross the drainage course. 2. Barkentine Road Connection There are two access points onto the subject property available from Barkentine Road. The first is from a small strip of land located between 6311Tarragon Road and 3213 Barkentine Road and the second is at the terminus of the street adjacent to 3136 Barkentine Road. The access available from the end of Barkentine Road is currently the most heavily used by the local residents. However, when the vacant lot at the end of Tarragon Road is eventually developed, neighborhood access to the property from the western end of this neighborhood will need to be rerouted to the strip at the corner of Tarragon Road and Barkentine Road. This piece of the Barkentine property is currently overgrown and is gated at the top of the hill, although there is room for a pedestrian to squeeze around the gatepost. At the present time, staff recommends annual removal of the weeds and overgrown vegetation from this area. In the future, the City may wish to make further improvements to the access area, such as constructing a defined trail and posting trail signage. 3. Filiorum Connection The Filiorum property is located immediately to the east of the Barkentine property. The property owner, Jim York, has fenced most the property to deter trespassing. As a result, a connection between the Three Sisters Loop Trail Segment (A8) to the Vanderlip Loop Trail Segment (A9) located on the Filiorum property is not possible at the present time. If the property owner is able to move forward with plans to develop the Filiorum property, the City can require the trail connection at that time. Alternatively, if the upper portion of the property is obtained as public open space, it may be possible to reroute the loop trail through the upper portion of the Filiorum property. 4. McBride Trail Connection The CTP calls for the McCarrell’s Canyon Trail (H1) to connect the Three Sisters Loop Trail Segment to the McBride Trail (B2). The McBride Trail runs around the southern edge of the Sea Crest tract (Ocean Terrace Drive) and overlooks the Barkentine property. There is a well-used trail that currently provides access from the McBride Trail into the Barkentine property. However, there is a small finger of land that is part of the Filiorum property that separates the McBride Trail from the Barkentine parcel. Although Mr. York has not fenced off the existing connection, this could become an issue in the future. However, if it becomes necessary, it may be possible to reroute the trail connection onto the adjacent common area of the Seabreeze tract and avoid the Filiorum property altogether. Habitat Restoration Potential The vegetation on the subject property was previously mapped by the City’s consultant, URS Corporation, as part of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) effort. Because the vegetation mapping prepared for the NCCP is based on "polygons" of a specific size, the actual area mapped is 112.7 acres, which is slightly larger than the actual 98 acres on the property. However, the NCCP mapping provides a ballpark figure for determining the revegetation potential of the property.
As shown in the chart above, there is approximately 75 acres of native habitat on the property, most of which is occupied by the California gnatcatcher according to the City’s NCCP consultant. There is also approximately 36 acres of non-native vegetation (or a third of the site) that could be revegetated and restored to native habitat. Because of the relatively isolated location of the property, the best areas to concentrate any initial efforts would probably be on the upper portion of the property, where vehicular access and a water supply are available at the end of the Ocean Terrace Drive. Revegetation and enhancement activities could be performed either by the City or through an agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. Cost estimates for habitat restoration run approximately $30,000 per acre during the first five years of the restoration effort. CONCLUSION The City has entered into a Purchase Agreement with Palos Verdes Portuguese Bend LLC to acquire approximately 98 acres of open space in the Portuguese Bend area know as the Barkentine property. The Purchase Agreement with the property owner is structured in such manner to allow the City up to four months (120 days) to complete a "due diligence" examination of the property. Accordingly, staff has completed the "due diligence" examination of the property and has defined the City’s future obligations in acquiring the property. Based on the results of this examination, staff recommends that the City proceed with the purchase of the Barkentine property. FISCAL IMPACT Initial improvements that staff recommends should be made to the property include minor trail improvements, trail signage and the bridge over McCarrell’s Canyon. The total cost of these improvements is estimated to cost approximately $30,000. This estimate does not include scaling the rock outcroppings on the property. If the City Council were interested in having this work done on the property, a separate cost estimate would need to be prepared and brought back to the Council for consideration.
The Public Works Department has prepared an annual maintenance cost estimate for the Barkentine property. The amounts shown in the chart below are included in the proposed Budget for FY 01-02 and FY 02-03. The proposed funding source is the Measure A Maintenance Fund. The costs will be eligible for reimbursement from this fund, so long as the City acquires the property with Measure A funds.
1. Drainage Facilities The two storm drain facilities on the property are County-owned facilities. The County currently maintains these facilities and will continue to do so in the future. As discussed in earlier in this report, there are debris fences at the entrance to each of the storm drain facilities. The County installed the debris fencing under a permit from the property owner just after a fire in the watershed to protect the storm drain facilities from anticipated increased debris flows. The County intends to maintain the fencing so long as the use of the property does not change. Therefore, the City would have no maintenance costs associated with the drainage facilities on the Barkentine property. 2. Trail and Signage Maintenance of the trails and associated signage on the property would consist of periodic weed control, erosion control and sign replacement. In addition, it is assumed that given the steep topography of the site, there will be periodic need to re-establish trails due to erosion. It is assumed that the trails will remain in their current unimproved condition, i.e. unpaved. 3. Weed Control for Fire Suppression The City will annually harvest weeds in the vicinity of the adjacent residences in accordance with County Fire regulations. Respectfully Submitted, Reviewed, Attachment: Resolution No. 2001- ; RESOLUTION NO. 2001 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACQUIRE APPROXIMATELY 98 ACRES OF PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES KNOWN AS THE BARKENTINE PROPERTY FROM PALOS VERDES PORTUGUESE BEND LLC WHEREAS, the people of the County of Los Angeles on November 3, 1992 enacted Los Angeles County Proposition A, Safe Neighborhood Parks, Gang Prevention, Tree-Planting, Senior and Youth Recreation, Beaches and Wildlife Protection (the 1992 Proposition) and on November 5, 1996, enacted Los Angeles County Safe Neighborhood Parks Act (the 1996 Act); and, WHEREAS, the 1996 Act included funds to purchase open space property in the Portuguese Bend area of Rancho Palos Verdes; and, WHEREAS, on February 20, 2001, the City entered into a purchase agreement with Palos Verdes Portuguese Bend LLC for the acquisition of approximately 98 acres of vacant property generally located on the southern slope of the Palos Verdes Hills, between McCarrell’s Canyon on the west and Barkentine Canyon on the east in the West Portuguese Bend area of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the City completed its "due diligence" review of the property within the first 120 days of the Agreement and determined that the City has, or will have, sufficient funds to operate and maintain the subject property in perpetuity. Section 2: The City Council authorizes the City Manager to act as the agent of the City to conduct all negotiations, and to execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so forth, which may be necessary for the completion of the purchase of the aforementioned property. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of May 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 thereof held on May 15, 2001. ___________________________ CITY CLERK
13. Comment Letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: COMMENT LETTER TO THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND The current storm water permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) will expire in June 2001. On April 13, 2001 the Regional Board issued a draft of the proposed new permit, and requested comments by May 16, 2001. Upon review of the draft permit, staff has several concerns that warrant a response. On June 6, 2000, the City Council authorized the expenditure of $2,000 for legal expenses related to a petition filed with the Regional Board. The petition was filed by the Coalition for Practical Regulations on behalf of 33 cities throughout Los Angeles County. The petition was filed in response to the Board’s addition of new Standard Urban Stormwater Quality Management Program (SUSMP) requirements to the existing permit. The petition was successful in that the new regulations were revised by the State Water Board and are less onerous. At this time the Coalition for Practical Regulations is requesting an additional $5,000 for legal fees related to the new permit. As a reminder, a SUSMP is a plan that accompanies a plan of development to assure that the project design:
DISCUSSION Staff has concerns with the following aspects of the draft permit: Environmentally Sensitive Areas are included as a project category requiring a SUSMP Under the terms of the new permit a project greater than 2500 square foot in size which is either within, or drains directly into, an environmentally sensitive area will require a SUSMP. While the proposed regulation is an improvement over past proposals it remains seriously flawed because nearly the entire City of Rancho Palos Verdes has been defined as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). See attached exhibit. The proposed regulation will be costly for new private developments and City projects. It is difficult to estimate total costs but there would be a one-time cost meet the SUSMP requirements, and an annual cost for maintenance. Staff can support the requirement that certain projects which discharge storm flows directly into an environmentally sensitive canyon should meet the SUSMP requirements as part of their plan of development. Quite frankly it appears that this is what the board is attempting to achieve, however, the manner in which the board defines the term Environmentally Sensitive Area is too expansive and therefore far too many projects will require a SUSMP. Commercial and Industrial Inspections The new permit requires the City to conduct inspections for all commercial and industrial sites. The current permit allows the City to review businesses and inspect those with the potential to pollute. The new permit starts from the assumption that all industrial and commercial businesses – including insurance offices, shoe stores, etc – are polluters and need to be inspected. Staff estimates a cost of $300 per business. It is unclear how the city can recover costs for the inspections from existing businesses. Additional Street Sweeping The new permit will require the City to sweep residential streets twice per month rather than once per month as is currently the case. This regulation appears to be a one size fits all type of requirement. Clearly the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has less of a need to sweep streets than an area with more pedestrians such as Los Angeles or West Hollywood. In addition this new regulation does not acknowledge that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on a regular basis has maintenance crews pick up litter from major roadways. The estimated annual cost to sweep residential streets twice per month is $40,000. Revisions to the City’s General Plan The new regulations appear to require that the City revise its General Plan within 18 months to include a new section on storm water quality. The estimated one time cost to update the general plan is $ 20,000. CONCLUSION Adopting the staff recommendation will authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board expressing concern over certain aspects of the proposed storm water permit. Staff recommendation number two authorizes the expenditure of $5,000 with the Coalition for Practical Regulations, for legal fees. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the staff recommendations will result in the expenditure of $5,000. There is adequate funding in the adopted FY 2000 – 01 Budget in the line item for NPDES compliance. The funding source is the General Fund. Submitted by, Reviewed by, Attachments: Draft Letter to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE BILLS RECOMMENDATION Receive and discuss various legislative bills of interest to the City Council. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION At the May 1, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council requested additional information on the following legislative bills: AB 1284, SB 503, AB 62X/14X, and SCA 3. AB 1284 (Lowenthal), Job-Center, Community Infill Housing Development Incentive Act of 2001 This bill’s intent is to promote, encourage, and facilitate housing construction in areas of the State, including Los Angeles County ("job center"), that have experienced the most job growth but have not built sufficient affordable housing. This bill would authorize a city, county or city and county to create a Housing Opportunity District (HOD) and that a portion of increased property tax revenues recovered from affordable housing construction be allocated to the HOD. The concept seems tailored after Redevelopment, however HOD’s cannot overlap Redevelopment Project Areas. AB 1284 would create a state-mandated local program, but the local agency would have the authority to levy service charges, fees or assessments to pay for the program; no state reimbursement would be required of this Act. BILL STATUS: Hearing before the Assembly Local Government Committee on May 9, 2001. SB 503 (Vasconcellos), Attainable Housing Zones This bill’s intent is to encourage "attainable housing" construction in San Diego and Santa Clara counties by providing developer incentives, including the required reduction of development fees by at least 25%. In turn, "attainable housing" must be offered for initial sale at or below 75% the average new home in the county or 85% below the average new home in the city that contains the zone. This pilot program would allow local governments in San Diego and Santa Clara counties to create Attainable Housing Zones to encourage new higher-density housing that is both affordable to middle-class families and located within one-half mile of public transit and consequently accessible to major places of employment. SB 503 also establishes the Attainable Housing Zone Infrastructure Improvement Fund that will provide State grant funds to participating cities/counties once 100 units of attainable housing are developed in the zone. The State grants will in effect subsidize local development fees. Grants may be used for infrastructure projects surrounding the attainable housing project, the purchase of land for future attainable housing development, or to develop a master plan for optimal transit/pedestrian-oriented development. Jurisdictions with a population of less than 250,000 may be eligible for grants up to $750,000. It remains unclear whether the reduced development fees will be sufficient to cover the associated infrastructure costs or whether participating cities will experience a net gain/loss of funds overall. By January 1, 2007, the State Department of Housing and Community Development will review the pilot program for continuance, expansion or termination. BILL STATUS: Hearing before Senate Housing and Community Development Committee on May 7, 2001. AB 62X (Poochigian) and AB 14X (Matthews) Utility User Taxes Preemption AB 62X and AB 14X are nearly identical; both propose a state mandated tax relief by rolling back the utility user tax (UUT). The California League of Cities strongly opposes both bills. AB 62X Status: Poochigian pulled the bill from the Senate Local Government Committee at its April 18th hearing, however Poochigian vowed to bring the bill back at a future hearing. The amended AB 62X is anticipated to place a "trigger" on local governments’ UUT at no more than a specified percentage gain (to be determined by the legislature), using January 2000 as a base year. Once the City’s UUT revenue hit the cap, UUT would be suspended for a period of time. AB 14X (Matthews) would mandate that utility user tax levied by local governments be imposed on a per-unit of usage (and be no greater than the rate in January 1, 2001) and not upon the current cost-based system. The bill’s intent is to reduce the potential of steep tax increases while encouraging consumers to reduce gas and electricity consumption. UUT has risen along with rising energy prices that impact all consumers (cities, businesses, and residences) across the board. The City anticipates potentially major local revenue loss of one of its few remaining discretionary local revenue sources, if AB 62X or AB 14X is passed. BILL STATUS: AB 14X re-referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee and Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation; hearing dates unknown. SCA 3 (Karnette) Senate Constitutional Amendment; Transportation: Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes: additional uses. This constitutional amendment, if approved by California voters, would authorize the expanded use of state fuel (gas/diesel) tax revenues for capital, maintenance and operating costs of public mass transit vehicles. According to the League of California Cities, this measure sets a dangerous precedent for gas tax monies, since gas tax revenues covered by Article 19 of the California Constitution are protected for capital purposes only—streets and road and public mass transit guideways. The California Constitution specifically excludes maintenance and operating costs for mass transit power systems and mass transit passenger facilities, equipment, vehicles and services. Proponents of this measure argue that transit agencies need additional funding sources for increasing operational budget deficits. Opponents, including the League of California Cities, claim that SCA 3 will make the existing funding shortage for highways, streets and roads even worse; that SCA 3 will provide no new revenue for transportation. The net result could be more money for transit districts and less money for streets and highways. According to Karnette’s legislative staff, Karnette plans to amend SCA 3 to permit the use of gas tax revenues for transit rolling stock (capital expenditures for buses and rail vehicles), as recommended by the Legislative Analyst’s December 2000 report. Under current law, transit rolling stock can compete with highway improvements for funding as a Regional Improvement Program. If SCA 3 passed the City’s share of gas tax revenues will most likely not be impacted, however the number of highway improvements may be impacted by gas tax reallocation toward capital expenditures of buses and rail vehicles. BILL STATUS: May 1, Senate Committee on Transportation failed passage; reconsideration granted at a later date. Legislative Bill Action Information For updates of State Legislation status, history, analysis, or text visit on-line at www.leginfo.ca.gov or www.cacities.org (website of the League of California Cities; on-line registration required). The list of League of California Cities’ Legislative Representatives is attached with phone numbers and e-mail addresses for specific questions pertaining to legislative bills. FISCAL IMPACT None associated with this report. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED REVIEWED Attachments: AB 1284 text
15. Guidelines for Residential Undergrounding Districts. (Allison)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICTS RECOMMENDATION Provide staff with direction on certain policy issues regarding the guidelines for residential undergrounding districts. BACKGROUND Few improvements enhance the appearance of a residential neighborhood as much as removing overhead wires and utility poles. The General Plan recognizes this when it states that "overhead wires are an unsightly vestige of a necessary infrastructure component, and cause considerable disturbance to views". Current city standards require utility lines to be constructed underground. However many of our older residential neighborhoods still have overhead utility lines. Staff has received a number of requests from residents as to how they can go about undergrounding their utility lines. In response to these requests the City Council directed staff to prepare user-friendly guidelines to assist property owners with the undergrounding process. Attached is a draft copy of the draft guidelines. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on a policy and a funding issue, which will be a part of the proposed guidelines. Once this input is received, the guidelines will be adjusted and brought back to the City Council for final adoption. DISCUSSIONS Property owners are responsible for the cost of undergrounding utility lines in residential neighborhoods. The City acts as a facilitator in the process to assure that the property owners and utility companies are working together. In addition the funding mechanism for undergrounding projects is generally an assessment district, and the city acts as the district engineer when the assessment district is formed. The draft guidelines give much detail on the undergrounding process; however, a simplified version of the process is as follows:
Note: Ballots are weighted by assessment amount. Under California Law is there is a majority of ballots in favor of the project, the City Council may choose to establish the district. Staff is requesting guidance from the City Council on the following issues:
This is perhaps the most important aspect of an undergrounding program. Typically, not all residents are in favor of undergrounding. However, if the assessment district is formed, all residents in an undergrounding district will have an assessment placed against them. This may pose an economic hardship to some. The most successful undergrounding districts are those which receive a high degree of neighborhood support. Staff recommends that a project shall have support from 80% of impacted property owners before the City Council will consider advancing seed money to fund the design engineering, or assessment district engineering. This threshold is higher than the requirements in other cities that have undergrounding programs. Staff recommends this high level of support for the following reasons:
It is noted that if a project does receive the 80% support from the community the engineering will not automatically be funded. The 80% of support from the neighborhood means that the item will be brought to the City Council for consideration of funding. The cost for design engineering will vary with project size and project details, however, staff estimates the cost for design engineering at $40,000 and assessment district engineering at $15,000 per district. Several cities have successful undergrounding programs. Listed below are some characteristics of those programs:
2. How much money should be budgeted for residential undergrounding? Staff recommends that $ 20,000 should be budgeted for FY 2001 – 02, and FY 2002 – 03. This funding provides for the engineering services to assist property owners on the initial stages of the undergrounding process. Costs for design engineering and assessment district engineering will be funded on a project-by-project basis at the time the project is brought before the City Council. CONCLUSIONS Adopting the staff recommendations will provide staff with the direction it need to finalize the program guidelines for a citywide residential undergrounding program. Once finalized and adopted by the City Council guidelines will provide information to property owners regarding the undergrounding process and establish City policy for future undergrounding districts. FISCAL IMPACT Staff recommends that the City annually budget $20,000 for engineering services to assist property owners through the early stages of the undergrounding process. The funding source is the General Fund. Submitted by, Reviewed by, Attachments:
16. Change of Minutes. (Purcell)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: REQUESTED CHANGE TO APPROVED APRIL 17, 2001 MINUTES - APPOINTMENT OF CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Consider Mayor Lyon’s request to change the minutes of April 17 ( Appointment of Ad Hoc Committee) to reflect her intent that this Ad Hoc Committee sunset in December 2001. BACKGROUND Mayor Lyon has requested that the approved minutes of April 17 be changed to reflect her intent that the Ad Hoc Committee to Study City Border Issues sunset in December 2001. Attached is a transcript of that portion of the meeting, as well as a copy of the approved minutes. If Council approves Mayor Lyon’s request, that portion of the minutes will be changed to read as follows: "Mayor Lyon suggested that this Ad Hoc Committee sunset December 2001." Respectfully submitted, Reviewed: 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 a Budget Workshop on Wednesday, May 23, at 6:00 P.M. in the City Hall Community Room. 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 G.C. 54956.8 Potential purchase of open space. Property: Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029, 7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022 City Negotiators: City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Existing Litigation: G.C. 54956.9(a) Name of Case: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al v. Los Angeles Word Airports) Case No: BC247857 View the agenda at www.palosverdes.com/RPV or A full copy of the agenda package is at the counter at Hesse Park. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
