Agenda 08/07/2001 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2001, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 08/07/2001 RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 8,2001

 

August 7 , 2001

DISCLAIMER

The following City Council agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the City Council at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual City Council meeting. The City Council may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the City Council Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the Reception area at City Hall.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
** CLICK HERE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA
**
RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION



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

AUGUST 7, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


7:00 P.M.

REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-53

NEXT ORD. NO. 369

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

AUGUST 7, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

 

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-53

NEXT ORD. NO. 369

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1.Motion to waive full reading.

Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title.


2.Minutes of July 3 and July 17, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the Minutes.


3.Claim Against the City by Barbara Zuliani and Candy Rice. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of the City Council’s action.


4.Ordinance No. 366 Adopting Code Amendment No. 49 - Equestrian Overlay District (City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide). (Fox)

Action Taken: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 366 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.46 (EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY (Q) DISTRICT) OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was introduced on July 17.)


5.Ordinance No. 368 Adopting the Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance Fee. (Allison)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 368 AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING NEW CHAPTER 13.06 ESTABLISHING SEWER MAINTENANCE FEES FOR THE ABALONE COVE SEWER SYSTEM. (This ordinance was introduced on July 17.)


6.Notice of Completion for the Palos Verdes Drive East and Bronco Drive Storm Drain Project. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Approve a second and final Change Order in the amount of $59,272. (2) Accept the work as complete. (3) Authorize the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after the recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance Bonds. (4) Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Excel Paving 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent on no claims being filed on the project.


7.Informal Bid and Pre-Ordering of HDPE and RCP Pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: Review and reconfirm by a four-fifths vote, the Council’s previous action on July 17, 2001, to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE and RCP drainage pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.


8.Professional Services Agreement with Willdan for Temporary Professional Planning Services. (Snow)

Recommendation: Review and approve the attached Professional Services Agreement between the City and Willdan for temporary planning staffing for the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the agreement.


9.Register of Demands. (McLean.)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


PUBLIC HEARING


10.Adopt Ordinance No. 365 Amending Animal Control Ordinance. (Park)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 365 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE TITLE 10, ANIMALS, OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6.04 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was introduced on July 3.)


RECESS


PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)

(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)


REGULAR BUSINESS


11.Pre-Ordering of Drainage Pipe for Immediate Storm Drain Repairs near Palos Verdes Drive South and Peppertree Drive. (Massetti)

Recommendation: (1) Find that an emergency exists which will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the actions taken below are necessary to respond to the emergency. (2) Authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for an estimated cost of $35,000. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND.


12.Approve Process for Handling "Border Issues." (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider establishing a process for City Council involvement in issues involving development, or other activities, proposed for adjacent communities that may affect residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.


13.Discussion of whether to add measures to the November 6 General Municipal Election Ballot requesting the voters ratify (or increase) the imposition of the previously approved increase in the transient occupancy tax and to ratify (or increase) the imposition of the previously approved golf tax. (Lynch)

Recommendation: Take whatever action Council deems necessary including adoption of appropriate resolutions.


14.Adoption of ordinance making minor amendments to the City’s transient occupancy tax. (Lynch)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT Ordinance No. ___U AMENDING CHAPTER 3.16.030 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. (2) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. ___ AMENDING CHAPTER 3.16.030 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX. (Staff report on the item will not be available until Friday, August 3rd or Monday, August 6th.)


15.Adoption of an ordinance making minor amendments to the City’s golf tax. (Lynch)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT Ordinance No. ___U AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 3.40, SECTION .030, RELATING TO A GOLF TAX AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. (2) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. ___ AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 3.40, SECTION .030, RELATING TO A GOLF TAX. (Staff report on the item will not be available until Friday, August 3rd or Monday, August 6th.)


CITY COUNCIL REPORTS


CITY MANAGER REPORTS


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

AUGUST 7, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


 

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-53

NEXT ORD. NO. 369

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1.Motion to waive full reading.

Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title.


2.Minutes of July 3 and July 17, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the Minutes.


 

D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

July 3, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. After the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call was answered as follows:

PRESENT:Ferraro, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon

ABSENT:None

Also present were City Manager Les Evans, Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk Jo Purcell; and, Recording Secretary Arlene Jaentsch.

CEREMONIAL MATTERS:

In appreciation for his service to the Community and outstanding contributions to the county, Councilman Byrd was presented with a proclamation from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in addition a Certificate of Recognition was presented by the Palos Verdes Transit Authority for Councilman Byrd’s input on transit service and fiscal management advice. Letters of appreciation were read by Mayor Lyon from State Senator Betty Karnette and Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal. A tile commemorating Councilman Byrd’s years of service to the City was presented by Mayor Lyon.


RECESS: At 7:30 p.m Mayor Lyon declared a recess

.

The meeting reconvened at 7:49 p.m.


RECYCLING DRAWING

There was no winner for this meeting.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to approve the agenda. Motion carried.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR

The April 2001 Treasurer’s report was removed from the consent calendar because an attachment was missing. The report will be brought back at the next meeting.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Stern to approve the Consent Calendar as follows:

Motion To Waive Full Reading

Adopted a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after the reading of the title.

Minutes of June 5, June 16, June 19, and June 20, 2001

Approved the Minutes.

Notice of Completion for 2000-2001 Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program

(1) Accepted the work as complete. (2) Authorized the City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance bond. (3) Authorized the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Silvia Construction, Inc. 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent on no claims being filed on the project.

One-Year Extension of Agreement with Gary Amo for Public Information Services

Approved a third one-year extension of the Agreement with Gary Amo for Public Information Services and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement extension.

Traffic Signal Installation on Crest Road at Highridge Road

(1) Approved the Plans and Specifications for the traffic signal installation on Crest Road at Highridge Road. (2) Awarded a construction contract to Dynalectric, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $99,400, and authorized staff to spend an additional $10,600 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $ 110,000. (3) Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Dynalectric, Inc. (4) Authorized the expenditure of up to $110,000 for construction inspection and administration services.

Claim Against the City by Michael Tahbaz

Rejected the claim and directed the City Clerk to notify the claimant of Council’s action.

Resol. Nos. 2001-47, 48, and 49; November 6, 2001 General Municipal Election

Adopted the following resolutions: RESOL. NO. 2001-47, November 6, 2001 General Municipal Election (1) CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2001, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF SAID CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES; (2) RESOL. NO. 2001-48, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2001; and, (3) RESOL. NO. 2001-49, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, PERTAINING TO MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE OF AND THE COSTS THEREOF FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2001.

City Investment Policy – Fiscal Year 2001-2002

Adopted the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 investment policy for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Loan Agreement Between the City and the RDA

Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the proposed Loan Agreement between the City and the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

Resol. No. 2001-50 - Register Of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-50, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Rd., referred to the recent Slurry Seal project and other Public Works projects and the funding involved.

Filling Vacancy on the City Council

City Attorney Lynch gave a summary of the staff report and the staff recommendation that if Councilmember Byrd resigns from the City Council, the Council should determine at the July 3rd City Council meeting whether to appoint an individual to serve the remainder of Councilmember Byrd’s term, and should the Council wish to do so, the Council should make the appointment at that meeting.

Eric Paris, 29234 Stadia Hill Lane, stated two reasons for appointment, to assure a quorum and as a trial period for the people to evaluate the performance of whomever is appointed before the election. He encouraged the Council to appoint an interim member.

Tom Redfield, 31273 Ganado, spoke in favor of leaving the Council seat vacant until the November 6 election decides who the people think should be there. He felt that appointment was an unfair advantage to whoever was selected.

Gil Alberio, 2177 Rocking Horse Road , presented his views as a candidate for appointment and as a candidate for the November election. He expressed his opinion that although it would be a tough decision the Council should appoint someone so that there would be five members.

Council discussion focused around appointment or waiting until the election or calling a special election. The majority expressed the opinion that it would be best to appoint someone to fill the vacant seat to assure that there would be a quorum for future meetings. After some discussion it was decided to vote for candidates nominated by Council members. Council nominated candidates as follows:

 

Council Member

Nominee

Stern

Stefan Wolowicz

McTaggart

Eric Paris

Ferraro

Gil Alberio

Lyon

Peter Gardiner

Councilman Stern nominated Stefan Wolowicz a member of the Finance Advisory Committee with an excellent background who is also a C.P.A.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart nominated Eric Paris who in the last election got the next to the most votes for a seat on the Council.

Councilwoman Ferraro nominated Gil Alberio who has served on Planning Commission and the View Restoration Commission.

Mayor Lyon nominated Peter Gardiner, who has served as a Trustee for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District.

Ballots were distributed by City Clerk Purcell and she explained the voting procedure and that this would not be a secret ballot.

In the first round each Council member voted for their nominated candidate. In the second round. Peter Gardiner was elected by a vote of three, Councilman Stern was the dissenting vote.

Immediately following the vote City Clerk Purcell administered the oath of office to Peter Gardiner.

Councilman Gardiner accepted the office and thanked the Council for their votes and stated that he would listen well to fellow citizens and do his best to represent the views and interests of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

The Council welcomed Council member Gardiner , thanked the other candidates and expressed appreciation to everyone who came forward to serve the City as a volunteer for the Council seat.

Ordinance No. 363 Amending Traffic Code – Repeal of "For Sale Sign" Prohibition

City Attorney Lynch gave the staff report and the recommendation to

Introduce Ordinance No. 363 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REPEALING REGULATIONS RELATING TO PARKING VEHICLES FOR SALE ON PUBLIC STREETS AND AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

Donald Jones, 5511 Eau Clair Drive, referred to a citation he received for having a "For Sale" sign in his car. He said that a Los Angeles County court had overturned the previous ordinance, and stated that he supports the right of an individual to sell an auto and urged the Council to introduce the Ordinance.

Council discussion centered on signage. City Attorney Lynch explained that this Ordinance would only affect signs affixed to vehicles and would not affect signs on property. Councilmember Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to introduce the Ordinance.

Motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Ferraro, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSTAIN:Gardiner

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Vic Quirarte, 29369 Quailwood, spoke in opposition to the proposed softball fields at the Lower Point Vicente location as well as the proposed golf course at the City Hall site. He expressed dissatisfaction with Destination Resorts and said that he thinks the City Council and the Mayor run the City not Destination Resorts.

Alan White, 32614 Coastsite Drive, a docent at the Interpretive Center for ten years, told the Council that school tours and children fascinated by the whales, tourists from all over and the citizens of RPV , make heavy use of the Interpretive Center. He urged the Council to refuse to consider offers made by Destination Resorts.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, said that she had called City Hall with many questions about the Register of Demands and commended Assistant City Manager Petru for answering these questions.


REGULAR BUSINESS

Ordinance No. 364 - Prohibiting Hunting on Public Land

City Attorney Lynch gave the Staff Report and the recommendation to INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 364 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS PROHIBITING HUNTING ON CITY PROPERTY AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, had read in the staff report about the use of sling shots. She referred to a recent movie being made with guns in RPV and wanted a resolution against them too. City Attorney Lynch explained that there already was an Ordinance against the use of guns in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to introduce Ordinance No. 364.

Motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Stern, Ferraro, McTaggart, Gardiner and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

Ordinance No. 365 - Animal Control Ordinance

City Attorney Lynch gave the Staff Report and the recommendation to INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 365 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE TITLE 10, ANIMALS, OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6.04 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (2) Direct the City Clerk to set a public hearing on the adoption of this Ordinance at the City Council meeting on August 7, 2001, and to publish notice according to Government Code Section 50022.3.

City Attorney Lynch stated that this is introduction of the County code by reference and that there will be a public hearing before it is adopted. Council Inquired about the county contract and expiration date, which runs for another two years. Citizens have to go to the pound in Carson and it is difficult for some. The county had offered to put shelters closer but individual cities would have to provide the funding.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro to introduce Ordinance No. 365. Motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Stern, McTaggart, Ferraro, Gardiner and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

RECESS:

City Council Assignments

City Clerk Purcell gave the staff report and the recommendation to assign Council members to various committee seats upon the resignation of Councilman Byrd.

Council consensus was to discuss this item at a future meeting.

Pre-Ordering of Drainage Pipe and Issuance of a Notice of Exemption for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.

Assistant City Manager Petru gave the Staff Report and the recommendation to (1) Based on the facts set forth in this report, find that an emergency exists which will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the actions requested in numbers 1 and 2 were necessary to respond to the emergency. (2) Authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for an estimated cost of $50,000. (2) Adopt the Notice of Exemption for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project and direct staff to post notice of this action as required by law.

Council discussed the availability of the pipe. Assistant City Manager Petru explained that distributors are scarce and that after ordering there would be a six weeks wait for delivery. Council stated that they have known about this for about a year and that this item was put in the budget.


Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to approve the staff recommendation. Motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Stern, McTaggart, Ferraro and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSTAIN:Gardiner

CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

City Attorney Lynch reported on closed session items as follows. For the Pt. Vicente Interpretive Center item, Council unanimously voted to approve a tolling agreement. Council also approved a second tolling agreement with Chandler landfill, voting unanimously for a 90-day agreement.

On the second item Olson v. R.P.V., Council approved the settlement agreement in exchange for waving of the appeal.

The third item, R.P.V. v. Chiles, Council unanimously approved the settlement agreement at $150.00 per parcel, the same amount as previously paid for sewer easement.

ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart reported on the recent meeting of the County Contract Oversight Committee and the Liability Trust Fund.

ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m. on the motion of Mayor Lyon.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 17, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

After the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call was answered as follows:

PRESENT:Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon

ABSENT:Ferraro

Also present were City Manager Les Evans, Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; Senior Planner Fox; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

RECYCLING DRAWING:

There was no winner from the previous Council meeting. Another card was drawn.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart requested that the item regarding the Comment Letter on Draft EIR/EIS for the Proposed Master Plan Improvements at Los Angeles International Airport be heard immediately before the first public hearing.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to approve the agenda, as amended. Motion carried.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, inquired why the Minutes of May 23 were delayed.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to approve the amended Consent Calendar as follows:

Councilmember Gardiner requested that Ordinance No. 364 – Prohibiting Hunting On Public Land and April and May 2001 Treasurer’s Reports be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

The maker and the seconder agreed to amend the motion to approve the Consent Calendar.

Motion to waive full reading

Adopted a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title.

Minutes (301)

Adopted the Minutes of May 23, 2001.

Informal Bid and Pre-Ordering of Pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project

Reviewed and reconfirmed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s action on July 3, 2001 to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order drainage pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.

Ordinance No. 363 - Repeal of "For Sale Sign" Prohibition

ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 363 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REPEALING REGULATIONS RELATING TO PARKING VEHICLES FOR SALE ON PUBLIC STREETS AND AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was INTRODUCED at the July 3rd meeting.)

Resol. No. 2001-51 - Budget Adjustment for the Purchase of Tax Defaulted Property

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-51, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND TO PURCHASE TAX-DEFAULTED PROPERTY FROM THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

Resol. No. 2001-52 - Register of Demands (602)

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-52, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

The motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Ferraro

Ordinance No. 364 – Prohibiting Hunting On Public Land

The staff recommendation was to adopt the proposed ordinance establishing regulations prohibiting hunting on city property and amending the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. (This ordinance was introduced at the July 3rd meeting.)

Staff provided clarification that the ordinance applied to land owned or leased by the City.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 364 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS PROHIBITING HUNTING ON CITY PROPERTY AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Ferraro

April and May 2001 Treasurer’s Reports

The staff recommendation was to receive and file the reports.

Councilmember Gardiner suggested some clarifications be made to the report to make its contents more understandable and asked about the City’s investment policy and the possibility of different investments for better return.

Mayor Lyon and City Attorney Lynch explained that the City’s policy had been very conservative for the last 15 years because of investment experience before that time but that possibly this subject could be agendized for discussion at a future meeting.

Council consensus was to order the Treasurer’s Reports received and filed.

City Manager Update on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineering Shoreline Protection Project

At this time, Mayor Lyon asked City Manager Evans to give a report on this project.

City Manager Evans explained the history of the project which begun as landslide abatement and evolved into shoreline habitat protection. He said that at the Council meeting on September 5, 2000, the Army Corps presented a offshore barrier project which was unacceptable because of expense and aesthetics, and that the Council advised the Corps at that time not to proceed unless the City could develop information to allow the Corps to make it less expensive and more aesthetically pleasing. City Manager Evans advised that the City’s lobbyist in Washington had recently informed him that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had requested that $100,000 be allocated for this project in the Federal budget. The lobbyist suggested that the City write letters to Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Jane Harman requesting that this money be removed from the budget. He clarified that money was needed for purchase of open space and for cleanup of lead contaminated soil at Point Vicente Interpretative Center but these funds could not be used for these purposes.

Comment Letter on Draft EIR/EIS for the Proposed Master Plan Improvements at Los Angeles International Airport

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of July 17, 2001 and the recommendation to approve the South Bay Cities Council of Governments’ Comment Letter on the Draft EIR/EIS for the Proposed Master Plan Improvements at Los Angeles International Airport and the attached cover letter and authorize the Mayor to sign the cover letter on behalf of the City Council. He discussed revisions to the cover letter suggested by Attorney Barbara Lichman and provided to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet.

Council discussion centered on the need to include all pertinent issues in the letter to preserve the City’s legal position, even if it was decided later not to pursue some of the issues. It was suggested that the Council could approve the concept and the letter could be composed by Staff in order to meet the July 25, 2001 submittal deadline.

Donald Jones, 5511 Eau Claire Drive, urged the Council to send the letter and mentioned several of his concerns such as congestion, air pollution, noise, and several incidents in which there were almost collisions between airplanes. He favored development of regional airports rather than expansion of LAX.

Beverly Ackerson, 27129 Spring Creek Road, co-chairman of the Peninsula resident group PANIC, thanked the Council for writing a letter responding to the EIR/EIS which she felt was badly flawed. She said that the Peninsula was not listed as an impacted area even though it was well known that there had been a severe aircraft noise problem for several years.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, asked for a copy of the cover letter which included the revisions suggested by Attorney Lichman.

Council consensus was to have staff work with Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, one of the Council Liaisons to LAX Expansion/Noise, to make sure that the cover letter including all issues that the City wished to address.


PUBLIC HEARINGS

Ordinance No. 366 - Code Amendment No. 49

Mayor Lyon opened the public hearing on this request to consider Code Amendment No. 49 and to introduce Ordinance No. 366. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that written comments were submitted to the Council at the onset of the meeting.

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of July 17, 2001 and the recommendation to introduce the proposed ordinance to adopt an Amendment to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay (Q) District) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that this proposed ordinance would not legalize activities previously not allowed by code but merely would allow previous legal activities to continue.

Council discussion focused on the complex issues discussed during the years of hearings to establish the code regarding horsekeeping regulations and the recent hearings which led Council to ask for greater discretion in determining the appropriateness of grandfathering the number of horses allowed on certain properties. Further modifications to the proposed ordinance were discussed.

Richard Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive, said that he was a member of the Equestrian Committee but was speaking as a private citizen. He clarified that the date of February 1, 1997 was established retroactively so it would have been impossible for horse owners to know in advance to bring in extra horses that day to increase the number of horses they were allowed to keep on their property. He added that horses are being trucked in and out all the time and on any given day, there may be varying number of horses on a piece of property.

There being no further testimony, Mayor Lyon closed the public hearing.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 366, AS AMENDED, ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.46 (EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY (Q) DISTRICT) OF TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Ferraro

RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 8:20 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 P.M.

Ordinance No. 367 - Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance Fee

Mayor Lyon opened the public hearing on this request to introduce Ordinance No. 367 regarding the Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance Fee. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that written comments from the public, a revised ordinance, a revised staff report, and a revised engineer’s reports were submitted to the Council at the onset of the meeting.

Director Allison presented the staff report of July 17, 2001 and the recommendation to introduce the proposed ordinance Amending Chapter 13.06 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code establishing Sewer Maintenance Fees for the Abalone Cove Sewer System.

The City’s consultant, Joan Cox, Harris & Associates, described how fees were established according to Proposition 218; the various types of systems installed; the allowance of a fee increase by CIP in the future; corrected information regarding certain properties received since the Council received the agenda packet; the need to verify other information regarding certain properties; the recalculation of beach property fees; and the fact that there no fees for vacant lots. She mentioned that fees for some properties, because of incorrect information, would be much higher than expected by the property owner and that the Council might wish to notify the owner and/or subsidize the higher fee.

Council discussion centered on the City’s subsidy and possible sunset dates; funding for spare parts replacement for the system; future assessments, separate from this fee; assistance for payment by property owners with financial hardship; and, a restriction against use of recycled "gray water" because of the landslide.

Bob Halderman, 88 Narcissa Drive, discussed the possibility of the pumps failing.

Staff provided information regarding the modular aspect of parts replacement; who is responsible (the City or the homeowner) for blockage in different areas of the system; capacity for storage and backup generator in the event of a power failure; pipes above ground and flexible for accommodate land movement; and, features included in the maintenance contract.

Muriel Titzler, 3 Ginger Root Lane, expressed concerns regarding homeowners on a fixed income or suffering temporary financial hardship and she discussed the additional fees and taxes paid by upon property owners in this part of the City.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, said that she did not live in this part of the City but was asked to read a letter from Kathy Snell, who did. Ms. Snell felt that the park/beach formula to determine fees for those areas was incorrect. (A copy of Ms. Snell’s letter is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

City Attorney Lynch clarified that Ms. Snell’s remarks were partly why some changes were made by the consultant.

Daphne Clarke, 10 Peppertree Drive, said that she was not directly affected but she was concerned about elderly homeowners and hoped that fees could be waived or deferred until the sale of their property.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that Proposition 218 required that the Council would have to consider this separately from the establishment of the fees.

There being no further testimony, Mayor Lyon closed the public hearing.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 367U AMENDING CHAPTER 13.06 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING SEWER MAINTENANCE FEES FOR THE ABALONE COVE SEWER SYSTEM.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Ferraro

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner, to INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 368 AMENDING CHAPTER 13.06 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING SEWER MAINTENANCE FEES FOR THE ABALONE COVE SEWER SYSTEM.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Ferraro

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Rowland Driskell, 30 Via Capri, spoke in opposition to the proposed use the York Long Point Project’s proposed use of golf at Upper Point Vicente; suggested some enhancements to beautify the site; and, felt that the farmer’s lease should not be renewed so that the farmed section could accommodate other uses. He also questioned the value of the proposed nine-hole golf course and described negative comments he received when he phoned other golf courses to determine the demand for this smaller course.

Don Shults, 2129 Velez Drive, President of Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association, discussed the Ad Hoc Committee to Study City Border Issues established by the Council; provided details on some of the projects; and, requested that the committee give regular reports.

Council consensus was to possibly provide regular reports from this ad hoc committee at Council meetings, maybe near the beginning of the meeting, and to agendize this matter for further discussion at a future meeting.


REGULAR BUSINESS

Guidelines for Residential Undergrounding Districts

Director Allison presented the staff report of July 17, 2001 and the recommendation to

adopt the proposed guidelines to establish a Residential Underground Program and he presented a computer generated visual presentation to illustrate the procedure.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart left the dais at 9:40 P.M. and returned 9:42 P.M.

Scott Gobble, Southern California Edison, offered the following information: the estimated length of time for bonds to sell; the option of having Edison design the project and then either build it or have someone else build it; the lines become the property of Edison after they installed; maintenance for underground lines differs from overhead; and, the minimum and usual number of homes included in a district.

Council discussion focused on the need for cost deferral for residents for whom the assessment would be a hardship and the consensus was to address this issue after the fees have been established for a successful district.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to adopt the proposed guidelines to establish a Residential Underground Program.

The motion carried with Councilmember Gardiner dissenting.

City Attorney Lynch suggested that the guidelines be submitted in resolution form for Council.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart reported on the LAX Round Table meeting he attended on July 11.

Councilmember Gardiner expressed appreciation to those who had helped with his transition as City Councilmember completing the term of Councilman Byrd.

Mayor Lyon thanked the Recreation and Parks Department for another very successful and enjoyable Independence Day celebration.

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 10:20 P.M. on motion of Mayor Lyon.

____________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________

CITY CLERK


3.Claim Against the City by Barbara Zuliani and Candy Rice. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of the City Council’s action.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE:AUGUST 7, 2001

SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY BARBARA ZULIANI AND

CANDY RICE

RECOMMENDATION

Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of the City Council’s action.

BACKGROUND

The claimants in this matter allege that the flooding of their properties was the result of construction at an adjacent property. They are claiming that the City failed to review the drainage that caused said damage. The claimants have submitted a claim totaling $725 for the cost of unclogging gutter drains at 2800 Colt Road and for the delivery of fill dirt at 2756 Colt Road.

Carl Warren & Co. has investigated this matter and has advised the City to reject the claim.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans


4.Ordinance No. 366 Adopting Code Amendment No. 49 - Equestrian Overlay District (City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide). (Fox)

Action Taken: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 366 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.46 (EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY (Q) DISTRICT) OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was introduced on July 17.)

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE

ENFORCEMENT

DATE:AUGUST 7, 2001

SUBJECT:CODE AMENDMENT NO. 49 (CITYWIDE, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Ordinance No. 366 to enact an amendment to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay (Q) District) of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code.

DISCUSSION

On July 17, 2001, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 366 to approve Code Amendment No. 49 to give the Council the discretion to review disputed large domestic animal nonconformity statements. The City Council conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 366 at the July 17th public hearing and modifications to the language of the Ordinance were read into the record. These modifications have been incorporated into the attached Ordinance (additions underlined, deletions struck out). Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 366 to enact Code Amendment No. 49.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Draft Ordinance No. 366

ORDINANCE NO. 366

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.46 (EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY (Q) DISTRICT) OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE

WHEREAS, on May 15, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes directed Staff to prepare a code amendment to give the City Council the discretion to review large domestic animal nonconformity statements and determine the number of large domestic animals to be "grandfathered" in cases where the number of large domestic animals present on a property on February 1, 1997 is disputed or cannot be determined with certainty; and,

WHEREAS, on June 8, 2001, Staff initiated Code Amendment No. 49 in order to implement the City Council’s direction; and,

WHEREAS, after notice given pursuant to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 10, 2001 to consider Code Amendment No. 49, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding all said amendments; and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the language of Code Amendment No. 49, heard public testimony and forwarded Code Amendment No. 49 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval; and,

WHEREAS, after notice given pursuant to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the City Council held a public hearing on July 17, 2001 and August 7, 2001 to consider Code Amendment No. 49, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding all said amendments.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1:The City Council has reviewed and considered the amendment to Chapter 17.46 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code.

Section 2:The City Council finds that the amendment to Title 17 of the Municipal Code is consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, Zoning Amendment Procedures.

Section 3:The City Council finds that the amendment to Title 17 is consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that it upholds, and does not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans, in particular to balance the rights of property owners whose horsekeeping activities and/or facilities were rendered nonconforming by the adoption of revised Development Code standards in 1997 with the potential impacts of these activities and/or facilities upon the owners and residents of adjacent properties and the City as a whole.

Section 4:The City Council finds that the amendment to Title 17 is substantially the same as previous provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code or any other ordinance repealed, amended or superseded upon the enactment of this Ordinance and that the amendment to Title 17 shall be construed as a restatement and continuation of the previous provisions and not as new enactments.

Section 5:The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence that the amendment to Title 17 would result in new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of effects, as previously identified in Environmental Assessment No. 694 and Negative Declaration, adopted through Resolution No. 97-25 in conjunction with Ordinance No. 320 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the Municipal Code, since the number of large domestic animals permitted on a given property will not exceed number that could have been kept legally in 1997 and, in reviewing a given large domestic animal nonconformity statement, the City Council will ensure that the size of the property is adequate to accommodate the number of animals without adverse impacts to surrounding properties. An addendum to the prior Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A’. The City Council hereby finds, based on its own independent judgement, that the facts stated in the addendum are true because the minor revisions to the Municipal Code will strengthen the Code and lessen the potential for environmental impacts of future development in the City the number of large domestic animals permitted on a given property will not exceed number that could have been kept legally in 1997 and, in reviewing a given large domestic animal nonconformity statement, the City Council will ensure that the size of the property and the condition of the facilities is adequate to accommodate the number of animals without adverse impacts to surrounding properties.

Section 6:The City Council further finds that the amendment to Title 17 is necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare in the area.

Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based upon the information and findings included in the Staff reports and records of the proceedings, Section 17.46.080 of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

17.46.080 Nonconformities.

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.

A. A written nonconformity statement shall include:

1. The ownership of the lot or parcel;

2. If the nonconformity involves the keeping of more than four large domestic animals on a vacant or developed lot or parcel, or on any combination of contiguous lots or parcels which are owned or under the control of the same individual(s), a statement identifying the owner of each animal kept on the subject property;

    1. The conditions for which the waiver is requested;
    2. Permission from the owner for a city representative to enter upon said lot or parcel to verify the nonconforming condition; and

5. Any additional information, as required by the director.

B. Upon submittal of the written nonconformity statement to the director, the director or his or her representative, shall verify the nonconforming condition through a site visit to the property. Upon verification of the nonconforming condition, the director shall keep on file a record of the nonconforming condition.

C. Except as provided below, the acceptance and verification of a written nonconformity statement by the director shall permit the nonconforming condition to continue in perpetuity:

1. The boarding of five to eight large domestic animals on a lot or parcel or on any combination of contiguous lots or parcels which are owned or under the control of the same individual(s), shall be permitted to continue until the lot(s) or parcel(s) is/are sold or transferred, or until February 1, 2007, whichever time period is longer. For purposes of this section, change of ownership shall not include inter-spousal transfers in cases of divorce, transfers of property to the transferor's children or inheritance by a spouse or child.

2. Nonconforming conditions involving the boarding of more than eight large domestic animals shall be discontinued within twelve months after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title.

3. The provisions of subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection C shall not apply to any lot or parcel or combination of contiguous lots or parcels which are owned or under the control of the same individual where the boarding of five or more large domestic animals was being conducted lawfully on July 1, 1975. In such cases, the acceptance and verification of the written nonconformity statement by the director shall permit the nonconforming condition to continue in perpetuity.

D. The director shall cause each nonconformity statement which is issued to be recorded with the county recorder. The recorded document shall clearly describe the uses and/or structures that are allowed to continue on the property.

  1. If no written nonconformity statement has been submitted to the director pursuant to Section 17.46.080 of this chapter, or if the property owner does not allow the director or his/her representative to verify the nonconforming condition, it shall be presumed that the nonconforming condition was illegal at the time of adoption of this chapter.
  2. If the owner of the property for which a written nonconformity statement was submitted in 1997, or any resident, files a timely challenge to the director's determination of the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property as of February 1, 1997, based on the challenger's statement that the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property fluctuated in 1997 such that the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property as of that time cannot be determined accurately, the City Council may approve up to the maximum number of large domestic animals that the property owner testifies were kept on the property at any time during calendar year 1997, provided that:

    1. The number that is approved does not exceed the maximum number of large domestic animals that could have been kept lawfully on the property as of February 1, 1997; and,
    2. The City Council finds that the size and shape of the property and the nature and condition of the horse facilities is are adequate for the keeping of the number of large domestic animals that is approved.

Section 8: The rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall not be affected by the amendment to Title 17 by this Ordinance and shall continue in effect until they are modified, revoked, expire or are otherwise terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms of Title 17 as they existing on the day before the effective date of this Ordinance.

Section 9: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of August 2001.

_________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )

 

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. 366 passed first reading on July 17, 2001, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on August 7, 2001, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

_________________________

CITY CLERK

 


EXHIBIT ‘A’ TO ORDINANCE NO. 366

ADDENDUM NO. 5 TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/

NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA/ND) NO. 694

August 7, 2001

On April 1, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-25, thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 694 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code. Prior to its adoption, the Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment from March 4 through March 24, 1997 and no substantive comments were received from any persons or responsible agencies. In adopting the Negative Declaration, the City Council found: 1) that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the adoption of the amendments; 2) that many of the amendments were clarifications and minor non-substantive revisions; and 3) that the substantive amendments would reduce impacts on the environment since the requirements and regulations governing development in the City would generally be strengthened, thereby further reducing any adverse impacts to adjacent properties, and therefore, upon the environment.

The City Council is currently considering the adoption of an Ordinance that would approve an amendment to Section 17.46.080 (Nonconformities) of the City's Development Code. The proposed amendment would give the City Council the discretion to review large domestic animal nonconformity statements and determine the number of large domestic animals to be "grandfathered" in cases where the number of large domestic animals present on a property on February 1, 1997 is disputed or cannot be determined with certainty. As such, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendment would not result in new significant environmental effects but actually serve to reduce impacts upon the environment. Furthermore, the City Council believes that the amendment is within the scope of EA/ND No. 694 that was prepared and adopted in conjunction with the amendments to Titles 16 and 17 that were adopted on April 19, 1997 by the City Council. As a result, no further environmental review is necessary.


5. Ordinance No. 368 Adopting the Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance Fee. (Allison)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 368 AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING NEW CHAPTER 13.06 ESTABLISHING SEWER MAINTENANCE FEES FOR THE ABALONE COVE SEWER SYSTEM. (This ordinance was introduced on July 17.)

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: AUGUST 7, 2001


SUBJECT: ABALONE COVE SEWER MAINTENANCE FEE

RECOMMENDATION

Consider for second reading and adoption Ordinance No. 368 amending the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code by adding new Chapter 13.06 establishing sewer maintenance fees for the Abalone Cove Sewer System.

BACKGROUND

Construction funding for the Abalone Cove Sewer System was provided by the Landslide Settlement Agreement. Under the terms of that agreement, however, proceeds may not be used for maintenance purposes. Staff proposes that the maintenance of the Abalone Cove Sewer System be funded by sewer maintenance fees imposed on users of the system.

In accordance with the provisions of Proposition 218 and Section 5471 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at its regular meeting of July 17, 2001. An engineer’s report was prepared to determine the fee amounts. That report estimated operating costs and the corresponding fee for each property. That report was presented to the City Council at the July 17, 2001 meeting. Following presentation of the engineer’s report, the City Council opened the public hearing and heard and considered all objections to the proposed sewer maintenance fees. After receiving both oral and written testimony from all members of the public wishing to be heard, the City Council closed the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, the City Council determined, in accordance with the provisions of Proposition 218, that written protests were not made by the owners of a majority of separate parcels of property subject to the proposed fee and introduced Ordinance No. 368 for first reading and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 367-U adding Chapter 13.06 to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.

DISCUSSION

The California Constitution, as modified by Proposition 218 requires that:

  • The per parcel fee may only be imposed for service that is actually used by or immediately available to the owner of property
  • The amount of fee shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel
  • Revenues derived from fees shall not exceed the amount funds required to provide the property-related service
  • Revenues derived from the fee shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee is imposed

The Abalone Cove Sewer System is comprised of three types of subsystems: (i) a gravity subsystem; (ii) a force main subsystem; and (iii) a low-pressure subsystem. Sewer service to each parcel connected to the system is provided through one or more of these subsystems. Each subsystem requires different levels of operation and maintenance and, therefore, has different maintenance costs associated with it. The modified engineering study determined the annual maintenance cost of each subsystem is as follows:

Maintenance:

Gravity / PV Drive South Pump Station

$ 9,400

Neighborhood Pump Stations

$ 22,700

Low Pressure system, including grinder pumps

$ 2,800

Administration

$ 5,700

Total Annual Budget

$ 40,600

The study also identified several categories of properties, or zones, based upon the sewer system configuration serving those properties:

Zone

Type of lateral

Type of mainline

In Street Pumps

A

Gravity

Gravity

PVDS South Only

B

Gravity

Gravity / Force main

PVDS South and a neighborhood in-street pump facility

C

Low Pressure

Gravity / Low Pressure

PVDS South only

D

Low Pressure

Gravity / Force main / Low pressure system

PVDS South and a neighborhood in-street pump facility

Based on costs to maintain the pipelines, and pump stations, and grinder pumps, as well as the number of properties in each zone, the annual sewer fees by zone for a residential unit are as follows:

Zone

Annual Fee Per Residential Dwelling Unit

A

$ 119.07

B

$ 479.39

C

$ 161.61

D

$ 521.93

The proposed maximum fees may escalate annually based upon the Consumer Price Index.

The calculated fees for Zones B and D are significantly greater than the fee amount estimated by staff in discussions with property owners in the design phase of the project. In those discussions, staff estimated that the annual cost for sewer maintenance would be approximately $ 200 per year, comprised of a Sanitation District fee of $75 per year, and a City fee of $125 per year. Those discussions were held at the time that only a grinder pump system was being contemplated and were in-fact accurate for a grinder pump system

In this same timeframe, however, a consensus of property owners requested that the City revise the project design to construct a system, which provided gravity connections to the greatest number of properties. The City agreed to the request and redesigned the system. Given the topography of the Portuguese Bend community, the new design required that in-street pump stations be added. The principal reason for the high costs of maintenance in Zones B and D is the cost to maintain these in-street pump stations, which require weekly inspections. This high cost of inspection and maintenance, together with the limited number of parcels over which cost are spread results in the high per-parcel cost for maintenance.

In an effort to bring more uniformity to the annual maintenance fees, the City Council agreed to have the City subsidize sewer maintenance, principally for Zones B and D, for a total of $19,125. This reduces the annual fees per residential unit for the 2001-2002 fiscal year to the following:

Zone

Annual Fee
W/o City Contribution

City Subsidy

Annual Fee for
FY 2001-2002
W/ City Contribution

A

$ 119.07

$ 0

$ 119.07

B

$ 479.39

$ 270.24

$ 209.15

C

$ 161.61

$ 31.90

$ 129.71

D

$ 521.93

$ 302.14

$ 219.79

The subsidized fees will be in effect for FY 2001-2002 only. The City Subsidy will be reviewed each year thereafter when the City’s Budget is adopted and may be discontinued, reduced, or otherwise altered as the City Council deems appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will enact Ordinance No. 368 establishing sewer fees for users of the Abalone Cove Sewer System.

FISCAL IMPACT

Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the expenditure of $19,125 for FY 2001 – 02 toward the cost to maintain the Abalone Cove Sewer Project. The funding source is the General Fund.

Submitted by,
Dean E. Allison
Director of Public Works


Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager


6. Notice of Completion for the Palos Verdes Drive East and Bronco Drive Storm Drain Project. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Approve a second and final Change Order in the amount of $59,272. (2) Accept the work as complete. (3) Authorize the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after the recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance Bonds. (4) Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Excel Paving 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent on no claims being filed on the project.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: AUGUST 7, 2001

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST AND BRONCO DRIVE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Approve a second and final Change Order in the amount of $59,272.
  2. Accept the work as complete.
  3. Authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the County
  4. Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance Bonds.

  5. Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment

to Excel paving 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the

County Recorder contingent on no claims being filed on the project.

BACKGROUND

On June 6, 2000, City Council awarded a construction contract to Excel Paving Company to install a storm drain line beneath the pavement along a portion of Palos Verdes Drive East. The construction of this line and associated appurtenances has been completed at a total cost of $1,055,272 per the following cost summary.

Project Cost Summary

Palos Verdes Drive East Storm Drain Line

Description of Work Approved Budget Actual Expenditure

* Contract Work $592,100 $592,100

* Change Orders 403,900 (1.) 463,172 (2.)

Totals: $996,000 $1,055,272

  1. The June 6, 2000 City Council award of this contract included a $48,900 budget for contract changes. On October 3, 2000, City Council approved an additional $355,000 for contract changes.
  2. A second and final Change Order, in the amount of $59,272 has been issued for the following additional work:

a. The construction of the outlet structure for this storm drain line was more difficult than originally planned. The presence of a very steep slope necessitated adding eight (8) feet to the top end of the concrete outlet structure. This requirement became apparent only after the drainpipe was laid and the bottom of the structure was excavated.

b. The actual quantity of pavement removed/replaced was greater than estimated.

c. The street surface, for the entire length of the project, was resurfaced with Slurry Seal to insure a watertight surface at pavement join locations and to provide a finished appearance to the limits of the project.

CONCLUSION

Excel Paving has successfully completed all work in accordance with the plans and specifications. Therefore, staff recommends that the:

  1. Change Order Budget be increased $59,272.
  2. Project Work be accepted as complete.
  3. City Clerk be authorized to file the Notice of Completion and the project bonds exonerated per policy.
  4. Director of Public Works be authorized to release the 10% retention payment at the appropriate time and under the terms of the contract.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is adequate funding in the adopted Fiscal Year 2000/2001 miscellaneous drainage improvement budget to cover the cost of additional work amounting to $59,272. The Fund source is the General Fund.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Approved
Les Evans, City Manager


7. Informal Bid and Pre-Ordering of HDPE and RCP Pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: Review and reconfirm by a four-fifths vote, the Council’s previous action on July 17, 2001, to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE and RCP drainage pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: AUGUST 7, 2001

SUBJECT: INFORMAL BID AND PRE-ORDERING OF HDPE AND RCP PIPE FOR THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Review and reconfirm by a four/fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s previous action on July 17, 2001 to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE and RCP drainage pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.

BACKGROUND

On July 3, 2001, the City Council found that an emergency exists concerning the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. This emergency situation will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids or the normal process of ordering the pipe. The Council authorized staff to conduct an informal bid process and to pre-order the drainage pipe that will be required for this capital improvement project.

On July 17, 2001, the Council reconfirmed these findings and the previous direction given to staff.

DISCUSSION

Approval of both the informal bid process and the pre-ordering of the pipe required a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Council under Public Contract Code Section 22050(a)(1). In addition, Public Contract Code Section 22050(c)(1) requires that when a governing body takes action under Section 22050(a)(1), it must review that action and reaffirm it by a four-fifths vote at each subsequent regularly scheduled meeting until the action is terminated. Accordingly, because the informal bid process has not yet been completed, staff has placed this item on tonight’s agenda.

As Council will recall, staff proposed the use of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe for this project because it is seamless and more flexible than traditional re-enforced concrete pipe (RCP). These characteristics are well suited for the section of pipe that will be laid in the canyon under a large amount of fill. Since this item was presented to the City Council on July 3rd and 17th, the City’s civil engineering consultant has clarified that the upper portion of the drainage pipe will be constructed from traditional RCP. This is the section that runs between Palos Verdes Drive East and the top of the slope where the four homes are located. The existing drainage pipe in this area is RCP and the City will simply be upsizing the pipe through this section in order to increase storm-flow capacity and eliminate the existing bottleneck in the system. RCP would be an adequate and appropriate material to be used for this section of the drainage pipe. However, the City should pre-order this material, along with the HDPE pipe, to ensure that all the necessary pipe is available to complete the project in a timely manner.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager


8. Professional Services Agreement with Willdan for Temporary Professional Planning Services. (Snow)

Recommendation: Review and approve the attached Professional Services Agreement between the City and Willdan for temporary planning staffing for the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the agreement.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: AUGUST 7, 2001

SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN FOR

TEMPORARY PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES

Staff Coordinator: David Snow, Deputy Planning Director

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the attached Professional Services Agreement between the City and Willdan for temporary planning staffing for the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department, and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.

BACKGROUND

The Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement has needed the assistance of temporary planning services due to recent staff vacancies. Additionally, high profile projects such as the Long Point Project and implementation of the department's new computer tracking system have limited the availability of internal resources for day to day public service and application processing functions. In order to maintain the level of service, and to continue timely processing of incoming applications, staff determined that temporary planning help was needed. To that end, staff consulted with a number of firms that provide such services. Ultimately, Willdan was selected as having a staff person available to meet the Department's needs, whereas other firms did not have staff immediately available.

The agreement allows for a maximum of 40 hours per week, but is based on actual hours needed. Further, the agreement allows for a term extending through December, 2001, however staff envisions that the services would only be required through August, 2001 as the presently vacant Assistant Planner position would be filled by that time. The agreement allows for termination with 10 days prior notice.

FISCAL IMPACT

The proposed agreement will result in costs to the Department, however the costs incurred will be within the overall Departmental budget since savings were realized from the vacant associate planner position. Additionally, the department's professional services line item has funds available for this purpose. The projected cost under this agreement is $23,250.00, based an hourly rate of $75.00 per hour, and limited part time services during June and August, with near full time services during July.

ALTERNATIVES

The following alternative is available, in addition to Staff’s recommendation, for the City Council’s consideration:

  1. Identify any issues of concern within the Agreement that require further review or analysis and provide Staff with appropriate direction, and move to continue the discussion to a date certain.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed professional services agreement with Willdan.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp
Director of Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement

Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

Professional Services Agreement


9. Register of Demands. (McLean.)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


PUBLIC HEARING


10. Adopt Ordinance No. 365 Amending Animal Control Ordinance. (Park)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 365 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE TITLE 10, ANIMALS, OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6.04 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was introduced on July 3.)

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST

DATE: AUGUST 7, 2001

SUBJECT: ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE NO. 365

RECOMMENDATION

CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 365 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE TITLE 10, ANIMALS, OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6.04 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

BACKGROUND

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted a number of changes to the Los Angeles County Code, Title 10, Animals, that governs animal care and control activities. As the City’s contracted animal control service provider, the County has requested the City to adopt the same changes for uniform animal control enforcement.

Many of the changes are relatively minor and technical in nature, while others are more significant. In particular, there has been an increase in dog license fees.

Dog License Fees

Unaltered Dog

Altered Dog

Senior Citizen

Old Fee Schedule

$20

$10

$5.00

New Fee Schedule

$30

$15

$7.50

These increases are the first since 1990 and reflect inflation and higher costs in doing business for the Department. Other changes to Title 10 include:

1. Animal Sales for Biomedical Purposes. The Department of Animal Control ("Department") has adopted policies forbidding the release of unclaimed animals that are impounded to medical research facilities. The changes the Board adopted to Title 10 repealed the medical research provision. Thus, the Board codified what has been Department policy for 10 years.

2. Elimination of Fees. Fees have been eliminated for small dead animals brought to the shelters for disposal as well as surrender fees for small live animals or single litters of animals brought to a shelter by their owners or custodians.

  1. Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Dogs. In 1998, the Department discontinued following the procedures contained in Chapter 10.37 pertaining to dangerous dogs. A Los Angeles Municipal Court ruled that the County’s ordinance was unenforceable because the ordinance did not allow a dog owner to appeal the Director’s decision to a court (Wyche v. County of Los Angeles). Based on that ruling and additional legal review by the County Counsel’s office, the County has adopted an alternative process set forth in state law (California Food and Agriculture Section 31641 et seq.), which was the process that the City followed before it began contracting with the County for animal care and control services. The Board has now codified that process and has adopted a new Chapter 10.37 that conforms to the provisions contained in the Food and Agricultural Code, which will be included, by reference, into the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, when the attached ordinance becomes effective.

The proposed ordinance was introduced at the July 3rd meeting and the notice of the public hearing and ordinance adoption was published according to Government Code Section 50022.3.

DISCUSSION

Ordinance number 365 will adopt by reference Title 10, Animals of the Los Angeles County Code as amended and in effect on June 1, 2001. The Ordinance also maintains amendments to the County Code that were previously adopted by the City Council to implement Council’s previous direction of not requiring residents to obtain cat licenses.

FISCAL IMPACT

Dog license revenue will increase by a nominal amount as a result of the $2.50 increase in dog license fees for senior citizens.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Gina Park, Senior Administrative Analyst

REVIEWED
Les Evans, City Manager
Attachment: Ordinance No. 365

ORDINANCE NO. 365

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE TITLE 10, ANIMALS, OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6.04 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Section 6.04.010 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

"6.04.010 County animal control ordinance adoption. Except as hereinafter provided, Title 10, Animals, of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended and in effect on June 1, 2001, is hereby adopted by reference as the Animal Control Ordinance of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and may be cited as such.

A copy of Title 10, Animals, of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended an in effect on June 1, 2001 has been deposited in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and shall at all times be maintained by the City Clerk for use and examination by the public.

Section 2: Section 6.04.020 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

"6.04.020. Animal control ordinance amended.

A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6.04.010, the Animal Control Ordinance is amended by amending Sections 10.08.230, 10.12.180, 10.12.190, 10.20.010, 10.20.011, 10.20.020, 10.20.030, 10.20.040, 10.20.045, 10.20.050, 10.20.060, 10.20.070, 10.20.110, 10.20.130, 10.20.140, 10.20.150, 10.20.160, 10.20.170, 10.20.180, 10.20.190, 10.20.200 and 10.20.210 to read as follows:

Section 10.08.230. Unlicensed dog. "Unlicensed dog means any dog for which the license for the current year has not been paid, or to which the tag for the current year, provided for in this Division 1, is not attached

Section 10.12.180. Unlicensed dogs or unvaccinated dogs or cats – Right of entry for enforcement. For the purpose of discharging the duties imposed upon him by this Division 1, the director, in order to enforce the provisions hereof to take and impound any unlicensed dog or unvaccinated dog or cat, may enter any real property upon which any dog or cat is kept or harbored or upon which he has reason to believe any dog or cat is kept or harbored and demand the exhibition by the person owning or having charge or control of any such dog or cat, the required rabies vaccination certificate, and/or the license or license tag for such dog for the current year provided for by this Division 1. This section does not permit any person to enter any private dwelling, except where necessary to rescue an animal.

10.12.190. Refusing to show license or certificate unlawful. Any person upon whom any demand is made under authority of this Division 1 for the exhibition of any dog or cat rabies vaccination certificate, or any dog license or tag, who fails to refuse to exhibit the same if he has it in his position, is guilty of a violation of this Division 1, which shall be punishable as herein provided.

10.20.010. License tags - Issuance - Fee. Pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30801) of Division 14 and 14.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the director shall issue serially numbered permanent dog license tags marked with the name of the county of Los Angeles.

10.20.011. License - Issuance by veterinarians and other qualified persons in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes - Conditions. The director may authorize the issuance of dog licenses, as required by Section 10.20.010, by persons practicing veterinary medicine in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, or other persons approved by the director who meet the qualifications established by the department. Said persons shall transmit records and negotiable papers to the department of animal care and control at intervals as established by the director, and shall collect and transmit to the director the fee required by this chapter for the issuance of such licenses. The director may reimburse these businesses for such fees.

10.20.020. Person deemed custodian when. Any person keeping or harboring any dog for 15 consecutive days shall be deemed to be the custodian thereof and subject to licensing provisions within the meaning of this Division 1.

10.20.030. License - Required - Costs. Every person owning of having custody or control of any dog over the age of four months in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall obtain a license from the director for each of such dogs and shall pay the fees for such licenses as set forth in Section 10.90.010.

10.20.040. Kennel dogs - Individual license required when. An individual dog license shall be obtained for each dog in addition to a kennel license, when such dog is not kept exclusively in a kennel run or cage. No individual license shall be required for any dog in transit, or when attending a dog show in the care of a kennel representative.

10.20.045. Dog breeding - License required - Fees. Any person, except for a person possessing a valid kennel license, who causes the breeding of a female dog and sells the offspring for pay or other compensation, shall obtain an animal breeding permit in the amount set forth in Section 10.90.010. Each permit shall authorize the whelping of no more than one litter per female dog in any 10-month period and no more than one litter per domestic household in any 12-month period.

10.20.050. Exceptions from licensing requirement.

A. The provisions of this Division 1 do not require either a tag or a license for:

1. Any dog found within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes when the owner thereof resides in any municipality or unincorporated territory within the county, and such dog is wearing or has attached to it a license tag for the current year issued by such municipality or county.

2. Any dog owned by or in the charge of any person who is a nonresident of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and is traveling through the City or temporarily sojourning therein for a period of not exceeding 30 days;

3. Any dog brought into the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and kept therein for not to exceed 30 days for the exclusive purpose of entering the same in any bench show, or dog exhibition, or field trials or competition;

4. Any dog brought or sent into the City of Rancho Palos Verdes from any point outside thereof for the exclusive purpose of receiving veterinary care in any dog hospital, in the event that such dog is kept at all times strictly confined within such hospital;

5. Any dog wearing having attached to it a license tag for the current year issued by a municipality within the county or by the county when the owner thereof has, within one year last past, moved his principal place of residence from such municipality or unincorporated territory of the county to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; provided, that such municipality or county similarly exempts from tag and license requirements dogs wearing current City license tags and owned by persons who have moved from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to such municipality or unincorporated territory of the county.

10.20.060. Unvaccinated dogs - Licensing permitted when. The director may accept the payment of the fee for a license tag and a license for a dog who has not been vaccinated as required by Division 1 on condition that the owner of

such dog within five days thereafter, have such dog vaccinated and submit the required veterinarian's certificate to the director. Upon receipt of such certificate, the director shall issue the license tag and license.

10.20.070. Unvaccinated dogs - Time limit for vaccination when dog is disabled. A person who obtains a license without submitting a certificate of vaccination because of the infirmity or disability of the dog shall, within 10 days after the termination of such infirmity or disability, cause such dog to be vaccinated as required by Part 2 of this chapter.

10.20.110. License tag - Fee for spayed or neutered animals. Pursuant to Section 30804.5 of the Food and Agriculture Code, any dog license tag issued pursuant to Section 10.20.030 of this Part 1 shall be issued for one-half or less of the fee required if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered.

10.20.130. Record keeping and procurement of tags and receipts. The director shall procure the number of license receipts and dog license tags needed each year, and shall keep a register wherein shall be entered the name and address of each person to whom any dog license tag is issued, the number of such tag, the date of issuance thereof and a description of the dog for which issued.

      1. License - Vaccination requirements and conditions. The director shall not issue a dog license unless the applicant exhibits a certificate signed by a veterinarian, licensed either by the state of California or by any other state to practice veterinary medicine, that:

A. The period elapsing from the date of vaccination with approved rabies vaccine to the date of expiration of the license being issued does not exceed the time as established by the state; or

B. Such dog should not be vaccinated with rabies vaccine because such vaccination would jeopardize the health of such dog due to infirmity or other disability, which infirmity or other disability, and the estimated date of termination thereof, is shown on the face of the certificate to the satisfaction of the director.

10.20.150. License - Information to be shown on receipt. When the director issues a dog license, he shall show on the receipt the age of the dog, the date of last vaccination, and, if the license was issued without proof of vaccination, the reason therefor.

10.20.160. License and License tag - Transfer permitted when - Fee. If, during a license period, a dog is sold or title to the dog is otherwise transferred to a new owner, such new owner may apply to the director for a transfer of such dog's tag and license and pay a transfer fee as specified under Chapter 10.90. Upon receipt of such application and fee, the director shall record the name and address of the new owner.

10.20.170. Replacement of lost tags. In case any license tag for an individual dog is lost or destroyed, a duplicate thereof may be procured from the director upon the submission to the director of such proof as he or she may require and upon the payment therefor as specified under Chapter 10.90.

10.20.180. Tag to be worn by dog. A license tag for an individual dog shall be securely affixed to a collar, harness or other device which shall at all times be worn by such dog, except while such dog remains indoors or in any enclosed yard or pen.

10.20.190. Keeping unlicensed dogs prohibited. A person shall not harbor or keep, or cause or permit to be harbored or kept, any unlicensed dog in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

10.20.200. Counterfeit or imitation tags prohibited. A person shall not attach to or keep upon any dog, or cause or permit to be attached to or kept upon any dog, any tag provided for in Section 10.20.010 of this chapter except a tag issued for such dog under the provisions of this chapter, or attach or keep upon or cause or permit to be attached to or kept upon any dog, or make or cause or permit to be made or have in possession, any counterfeit or imitation of any tag provided for in this chapter.

10.20.210. Removing tag from collar prohibited. An unauthorized person shall not remove from any dog any collar or harness or other device to which is attached a license tag, or remove such tag or other identification therefrom.

B. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6.04.010, the Animal Control Ordinance is further amended by amending the first paragraph of Schedule VI to read as follows:

Every person owning a dog over the age of four months shall obtain an annual license and tag for each such dog; except, there shall be a one-time only fee for registration of discharged military dogs, for guide dogs or Seeing-eye dogs, for signal dogs trained to assist the hearing impaired, for service dogs trained to perform tasks to assist the physically handicapped, upon payment of the following fees:

A. Dog license and tag fees: Dogs over four months:
1.
Unspayed/unneutered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
$30.00
2.
Spayed/neutered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$15.00
3.
Dog License surcharge, per license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$2.00
4.
Senior Citizen-spayed/neutered dog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
$7.50
5.

Delinquency charge for annual license, renewal not obtained on or before date of expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$20.00
6.
Replacement of tag or official license receipt . . . . . . . . . . .
$5.00
7.
Transfer of ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$5.00
8.
Discharged military dogs (one-time registration fee) . . . . . .
$5.00
9.
Guide dogs or Seeing Eye dogs, signal dogs and service dogs (one-time registration fee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$5.00

 

Section 3. Section 6.04.030 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

"6.04.030 Violations - Penalty

A. Unless a different penalty is provided for in this Chapter, any person violating any provision of the Animal Control Ordinance is guilty of an infraction that is punishable by:

1. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a first violation;

2. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second violation of the same provision within twelve (12) calendar months; and

3. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each additional violation of the same provision within twelve (12) calendar months.

B. Any person violating any of the following Sections, or violating any of the Chapters or provisions referenced in the following Sections, is guilty of a misdemeanor that is punishable as provided for in Section 1.08.010 of Chapter 1.08 of this Code:

Section 10.12.190
Section 10.12.200
Section 10.12.210(B)
Section 10.20.280
Section 10.20.310
Section 10.28.060
Section 10.32.020
Section 10.32.040
Section 10.32.070
Section 10.32.080
Section 10.37.030
Section 10.37.040(c)

Section 10.37.050(c)
Section 10.37.050(f)
Section 10.37.060
Section 10.40.010
Section 10.40.040
Section 10.40.065(B)
Section 10.48.060
Section 10.72.040
Section 10.76.050
Section 10.80.020
Section 10.86.020"

 

Section 4. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5. The City Clerk is directed to forward a certified copy of this ordinance to the Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 2001.

_______________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:
_____________________________

CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. 368 passed first reading on July 3, 2001, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on _____, 2001 and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:

 

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

_______________________
CITY CLERK


RECESS


PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)

(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)


REGULAR BUSINESS


11. Pre-Ordering of Drainage Pipe for Immediate Storm Drain Repairs near Palos Verdes Drive South and Peppertree Drive. (Massetti)

Recommendation: (1) Find that an emergency exists which will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the actions taken below are necessary to respond to the emergency. (2) Authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for an estimated cost of $35,000. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: AUGUST 6, 2001

SUBJECT: PRE-ORDERING OF DRAINAGE PIPE FOR IMMEDIATE STORM DRAIN REPAIRS NEAR PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH AND PEPPERTREE DRIVE

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Based on the facts set forth in this report, the repair of storm drain facilities near Palos Verdes Drive South and Peppertree Drive is an emergency which will not permit a delay resulting from the formal solicitation for bids, and therefore, staff requests approval of recommendations two and three.

  1. Authorize staff to obtain / pre-order an estimated $35,000 of high-density polyethylene pipe, through an informal bid process, for emergency repairs to the storm drain system along a portion of Palos Verdes Drive South. This cost is for pipe procurement only and does not include installation costs as will be determined and submitted to Council at a later date.
  2. Adopt Resolution 2001 -____, A resolution of the City Council for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, amending Resolution 2001-43, the budget Appropriation for fiscal year 2001-2002, for a budget adjustment to the City’s Capital Projects Fund.

BACKGROUND:

Late this spring, it was determined that ground movement in the Portuguese Bend Landslide had caused significant damage to storm drain facilities along Palos Verdes Drive South (Exhibit A – Pictures of the damaged storm drain facilities). As a result of these damages, massive erosion of the bluff face near the eastern edge of the landslide has occurred.

It is imperative that these facilities be repaired prior to the winter rains. Therefore, staff is requesting Council authorization to obtain an estimated $35,000 of high-density polyethylene pipe through an informal bid process. This authorization will enable staff to complete the necessary repairs prior to the upcoming winter rains.

DISCUSSION:

Staff has brought this matter before Council, at this time, so that the appropriate actions can be undertaken to repair the system.

Time is of the essence if these repairs are to be completed prior to the rainy season. Accordingly, staff will tighten up the project schedule by obtaining the necessary pipe materials in advance of contractor selection and will expedite the bidding process and award of contract upon receipt of the plans and specifications currently under design.

The civil engineer for the project, Merit Engineering, has recommended that the City use high-density polyethylene or HDPE pipe for this project. HDPE pipe is ideal for the proposed storm drain repair project because it is more flexible than traditional re-enforced concrete pipe (RCP), and can better adapt to the terrain of this volatile area. HDPE is the material that will also be utilized on the San Ramon Project, recently approved by Council. HDPE is convenient to monitor and maintain. The pipe contractor will place and secure the pipe on the surface of the slope to facilitate maintenance in this active area. City Maintenance crews will then actively monitor the condition of the pipe and its connections.

Because there are relatively few manufacturers and distributors of HDPE pipe, staff is seeking City Council authorization to conduct an informal bid process for procurement. Due to the specialized nature of this product, staff does not believe that a formal bid process would result in a lower cost, but instead may preclude completion of the repairs prior to the rainy season. In addition, due to the urgency associated with this project, staff is also requesting Council authorization to pre-order the pipe to ensure that it will not cause a delay in the construction schedule. The pipe will be stored at the distributor’s yard until it can be installed by the contractor.

Section 2.44.140 of the Municipal Code allows the Council to deviate from the typical purchasing process if it is determined that because of the nature of the services, advertising for bids would not likely result in lower prices. In addition, the Public Contract Code Section 22050(a)(1) permits a public agency to procure necessary equipment, services and supplies for "emergency repairs" via an informal bidding process.

Staff believes that this project qualifies as an emergency under the Public Contract Code because the commencement of land movement, the separation of the existing drainage pipe and the resulting erosion was sudden and unexpected, and it poses a clear an imminent danger to the remainder of the drainage system and to one of the City’s major arterial roadways.

Approval of both the informal bid process and the pre-ordering of the pipe requires a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Council under Public Contract Code Section 22050(a)(1). In addition, Public Contract Code Section 22050(c)(1) requires that when a governing body takes action under Section 22050(a)(1), it must review that action and reaffirm it by a four-fifths vote at each subsequent regularly scheduled meeting until the action is terminated. Accordingly, staff will place this item on each subsequent agenda until the pipe has been purchased.

Public Works Staff is working with Planning Personnel to obtain all environmental clearances required prior to undertaking these repairs. Additionally, any required mitigation measures will be addressed as part of the scope of work.

CONCLUSIONS:

Due to the circumstances associated with this storm drain system, the City should move as quickly as possible to complete the emergency repairs. To that end, staff is seeking City Council authorization to conduct an informal bid process to obtain and pre-order the drainage pipe so that the contractor will not be delayed by having to wait for delivery of this critical material.

ALTERNATIVES:

The necessary pipe could be obtained through a formal competitive bid process. However, there is no assurance the costs would be lower. Additionally, the formal bid process would require more time, thereby delaying the repair of these facilities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The recommended actions authorize expenditures of up to $35,000. The FY 01-02 estimated unencumbered fund balance in the General Fund will be $6,426,936.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works


Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Resolution 2001-__

Exhibit A – Pictures of the Damaged Storm Drain Facilities


RESOLUTION NO. 2001-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND.

WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council; and

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2000, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2001-43, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2000-2001 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, it is advantageous to the City to allocate additional funds to repair the storm drain facility near Palos Verdes Drive South; and

WHEREAS, a budget increase in the Capital Improvement Projects Fund is necessary to authorize the expenditure of additional funds for the project.

BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES:

That the following adjustment be made to the following fund budget:

Increase Capital Improvement Projects Fund:

Improvements Other Than Buildings 330-930.82
$ 35,000
Transfer In 330-391.10
$ 35,000

Decrease in General Fund:

Transfer Out 001-391.20

$ 35,000

 

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 6th OF AUGUST, 2001.

ATTEST:

MAYOR

CITY CLERK

State of California )

County of Los Angeles ) ss

City of Rancho Palos Verdes )

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 6, 2001.

City Clerk


12. Approve Process for Handling "Border Issues." (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider establishing a process for City Council involvement in issues involving development, or other activities, proposed for adjacent communities that may affect residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: AUGUST 7, 2001

SUBJECT: APPROVE PROCESS FOR HANDLING "BORDER ISSUES"

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider establishing a process for City Council involvement in issues involving development, or other activities, proposed for adjacent communities that may affect residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

BACKGROUND:

At their meeting of April 17, 2001 the City Council established an Ad Hoc Committee for dealing with "border issues." The committee is composed of Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem John McTaggart. The committee is charged with monitoring the activities of neighboring jurisdictions to determine whether or not the City Council should take positions on proposed developments (or events or uses) that may adversely affect the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Border issues are those proposed land developments, events or special uses proposed for approval in adjacent communities that may impact the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. Recent border issues have included approval by the City of Los Angeles of a Home Depot and a Senior Housing project in San Pedro and approval of a housing project at the intersection of Hawthorne Blvd and Crest Road by Rolling Hills Estates.

Potential border issues that are currently pending in San Pedro include revitalization of the Garden Village Shopping Center and proposed expansion of the Port. In unincorporated area near Palos Verdes Drive North and Western Avenue a potential issue is a county project to construct a 12,500 square foot multi-purpose facility. In Rolling Hills Estates the City is considering expansion of the Rolling Hills Covenant church on Palos Verdes Drive North. Last month the Committee recommended that the City Council become involved in investigating the soils/geology in the area around the Village Gardens Shopping Center

 

DISCUSSION:

Mayor Lyon has requested that the City Council adopt procedures for addressing future border issues. Currently, potential issues usually come to the attention of staff members first either through a formal notice from an adjacent agency, an informal discussion with a staff member at another agency or a citizen inquiry. A typical example of a communication from another agency about a pending use permit is attached. It may be helpful if City staff summarizes briefly the pending border issues they are aware of, and their status, and provides this summary report to the City Council on a monthly basis. If Councilmembers have additional concerns about other issues these could be added to the list. The City Council could then decide which issues should be referred to the Border Issues Committee for further investigation. The Border Issues Committee would research the referred matter(s), report back to the City Council and, if appropriate, recommend that the Council take a formal position on specific issues. A draft version of the proposed Border Issues Status Report is attached for City Council review.

As established by Mayor Lyon, the Border Issues Committee has a finite life and will expire on December 3, 2001. Its purpose will be limited to any project specifically assigned to it by the City Council at a duly noticed City Council meeting. Minutes will be taken at any meeting held by the Committee. The minutes will be provided to all Councilmembers

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Notice of Public Hearing (Rolling Hills Preparatory School)

Border Issues Status Report (draft)


13. Discussion of whether to add measures to the November 6 General Municipal Election Ballot requesting the voters ratify (or increase) the imposition of the previously approved increase in the transient occupancy tax and to ratify (or increase) the imposition of the previously approved golf tax. (Lynch)

Recommendation: Take whatever action Council deems necessary including adoption of appropriate resolutions.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY ATTORNEY

DATE: AUGUST 7, 2001

SUBJECT: TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX AND GOLF TAX BALLOT MEASURES

RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss whether to place either the golf tax or the increase of the transient occupancy tax on the November 6, 2001 ballot and take whatever actions the Council deems to be appropriate.

INTRODUCTION

As a result of a very recent decision by the California Supreme Court, the City’s golf tax and the 1991 increase of the transient occupancy tax ("TOT") from 6% to 10% are vulnerable to a legal challenge. On July 18, 2001, the Supreme Court denied a request to reconsider its decision, which now is final. Accordingly, last week, I advised the City Council about this issue in a confidential memorandum. The Mayor and other Councilmembers made individual requests to Mr. Evans to place these items on the August 7th agenda so that the City Council could discuss the issue at a duly noticed City Council meeting and determine how to proceed in light of this recent change in the law. Because Mr. Stern is on vacation, he requested that this staff report document that he was one of the Councilmembers who had requested that this matter be placed on the agenda for Council discussion and that the public be made aware of this issue as soon as possible.

BRIEF SUMMARY

To insulate the golf tax and the increased amount of the TOT, both ordinances eventually should be placed on an upcoming ballot for approval by a majority of the voters. The immediate issue is whether either or both taxes should be placed on the ballot for the November 6, 2001 election, or whether this action should be deferred to another general municipal election.

It is important to note for purposes of this discussion that even without voter approval, the current risk to the City’s general fund is minimal. This is so with respect to the golf tax because the only entity that currently is obligated to pay the golf tax to the City, Ocean Trails, is obligated to do so by its development agreement with the City. That agreement specifically recognized the potential invalidity of the golf tax but nonetheless obligates the developer to pay the tax to the City. The agreement was entered into in 1997 and is effective for ten years. Therefore, there is no immediate need to address this issue with respect to the golf tax.

Mr. Evans has stated that a reduction of the amount of the TOT that is collected by the City to the amount that originally was established will not have a significant impact on the City’s revenues. The TOT originally was approved by the City Council in 1973 at a rate of 6%. In 1991, the City Council increased the rate to 10%. It is the 4% increase that currently is at risk. Last year that percentage yielded approximately $3,200 to the City’s general fund.

Based on these facts, the Council could determine to place one or both of these taxes on the upcoming November ballot. On the other hand, the Council could decide not to place them on the ballot for this election. If the first option is chosen, four affirmative votes by Councilmembers are required by Proposition 62 and Proposition 218, and that action would have to be taken at the August 7, 2001 City Council meeting so that the appropriate documents can be transmitted timely to the County Clerk’s office.

A decision to defer placing these taxes on the ballot for this election would not preclude the City Council from making a subsequent decision to place either or both taxes on a ballot for another general City election. It also would not preclude the City from entering into a development agreement, similar to the Ocean Trails agreement, with any other project that is expected to generate significant revenues from either or both taxes so that payment of the taxes to the City would be required, despite the recent change in the law.

BACKGROUND:

In 1986, the voters of the State of California enacted Proposition 62, which required that any new general tax and any increase to an existing general tax is submitted to the voters for approval before it could become effective. Based upon long-standing case law, many public attorneys and officials, including this office, believed that Proposition 62 was not constitutional. California courts had long held that income-producing measures at the local level are not subject to referendum under the California Constitution, and Proposition 62 appeared to require a form of referendum on a locally adopted tax. The belief that Proposition 62 was unconstitutional was fortified in 1991, when the Court of Appeal issued its decision in City of Woodlake v. Logan, 230 Cal. App. 3d 1058 squarely holding that Proposition 62 was unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court denied a petition for review filed in the Woodlake case, thereby implicitly approving the decision.

In accordance with the above-referenced legal authorities, many cities, counties and other public entities in California enacted or raised general taxes without submitting such proposals to a vote pursuant to Proposition 62. Rancho Palos Verdes was one of these cities. In 1991, the City Council increased the City’s transient occupancy tax from 6% to 10%, and in 1993, the City Council adopted the golf tax and the utility users tax.

However, in September of 1995, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino, (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 220. In that case, the Supreme Court declared Proposition 62 to be constitutional, placing in question the validity of the tax ordinances enacted by many cities between the time Proposition 62 became effective and the date of the Guardino decision, a period of approximately nine years (hereinafter referred to as "window period taxes").

The Guardino decision left open many questions concerning the validity of window period taxes. One of those questions was the protection afforded by the statute of limitations. Another question was whether the courts would apply the Guardino decision retroactively to invalidate taxes enacted or increased during the window period. Guardino did not directly address this question, as the tax invalidated in that case had never been collected.

Over two years after the Guardino decision, the first appellate court addressed the issue of whether the statute of limitations protected taxes that were adopted during the window period. That case was McBrearty v. City of Brawley, (1997) 59 Cal.App. 4th 1441. There, the appellate court applied a three-year statute of limitations to window period taxes not submitted to a vote pursuant to Proposition 62. However, that court stated that the statute of limitations began to run upon the filing of the Guardino decision in September 1995, rather than at the time the tax was enacted. Under the holding in that case, any window period tax that was not challenged before September of 1998 was safe from later challenge and could continue to be collected.

The La Habra Decision

At the time that the appellate court issued its McBrearty opinion, the City of La Habra was embroiled in a separate case raising the same issue regarding the statute of limitations. Although the trial court in the La Habra case agreed with the court of appeal in McBrearty, the court of appeal in the La Habra case did not. The Court of Appeal in the La Habra case held that the three-year statute of limitations began to run when the tax ordinance was enacted. This was a more favorable result for local governments because any tax ordinance that was more than three years old was safe from challenge under the La Habra rule. An identical conclusion was reached in Griffith v. County of Santa Cruz, an unreported appellate decision filed on June 15, 2000.

Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court decided to review the La Habra decision and still has pending before it the Griffith v. County of Santa Cruz decision. In the La Habra case, the Supreme Court again reversed the appellate court and issued an opinion that was modified and finalized on July 18th. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809). In its La Habra opinion, the Supreme Court held that each time a taxpayer pays a tax, that taxpayer is afforded a new three-year period during which the taxpayer may challenge the validity of the tax for not having been submitted to the voters pursuant to Proposition 62. This, of course, is a complete reversal of the decisions of the three appellate courts discussed above. It also means that no window period tax is afforded protection by an applicable statute of limitations. Its validity always may be challenged so long as the tax is being collected. This applies to the golf tax and the transient occupancy tax increase that Rancho Palos Verdes adopted during the window period. Thus, the limitations protection, which we believed would be available based on the appellate court decisions in McBrearty and La Habra, has been eliminated.

Implications of the La Habra Decision

It is clear that if either the City’s golf tax or the increase of the transient occupancy tax is challenged, our ability to protect their validity has been severely eroded by the Supreme Court’s La Habra decision. However, there is one argument left available to the City if it wishes to defend these taxes.

Some local government attorneys have made the argument that Proposition 218, the 1996 initiative that imposed further limitations on the ability of local governments to impose taxes, fees and assessments, implicitly superseded Proposition 62’s applicability to window period taxes. This argument is based on the language of Proposition 218, which provides that all taxes enacted subsequent to January 1, 1995, must be submitted to a vote of the electorate. Thus, these attorneys argue that this language implicitly "grandfathers" those taxes adopted after Proposition 62, but before January 1, 1995. The trial court in the Griffith case accepted this argument, although the court of appeal declined to address it because the Court of Appeal decided the case on other grounds. As mentioned above, the Griffith case remains pending before the California Supreme Court.

We believe that it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept the argument that Proposition 218 implicitly "grandfathers" window period taxes adopted before January 1, 1995, because it seems clear that the intent of the authors of Proposition 218 was to limit local government authority to impose taxes. Furthermore, the California Supreme Court’s opinion in the La Habra case appears unsympathetic to the plight of local governments that adopted taxes in reliance on the court of appeal’s decisions invalidating Proposition 62.

ALTERNATIVES:

We believe that the La Habra decision leaves the City with the following four basic options regarding the TOT (All but the second option also apply to the golf tax.):

1. Continue to collect the transient occupancy tax at the current rate of 10% and defend the validity of both the increase of the TOT and the validity of the golf tax in reliance on the Proposition 218 argument discussed above without ever placing either tax on a ballot for approval by the voters.

Because we are not optimistic that the Supreme Court will render a favorable decision on this issue in the Griffith case, we do not believe that this will be a viable defense if either tax ever were challenged. Accordingly, this option is not recommended as the long-term solution to this issue. However, it should be noted that the Ocean Trails development agreement is effective for almost seven more years, and the owner of the golf course parcels is obligated to pay the golf tax to the City during the remainder of the life of the development agreement. Thus, addressing the issue of the validity of the golf tax will not become critical until that time, unless another golf course is constructed within the City that is not subject to a development agreement that requires the payment of the golf tax.

2. Cease collecting the TOT at the rate of 10% and resume collecting the tax at the rate of 6% until such time as the voters approve an increase in the amount of the TOT.

This would bring the City into compliance with Proposition 62 with respect to the TOT and is recommended until such time that the voters approve an increase of the TOT above 6%. (Again, since Ocean Trails is obligated to pay the golf tax to the City pursuant to the development agreement, is not recommended that the City refrain from collecting the golf tax from Ocean Trails.)

3. Place ratification of either, or both. the increase of the TOT and the golf tax on the November, 2001 election ballot.

Neither Proposition 62 nor Proposition 218 prohibits an increase of the transient occupancy tax or the imposition of the golf tax; they merely require that the taxes be submitted to the electorate for a vote. Thus, the City could place an increase of the TOT and approval of the golf tax on the November, 2001 ballot, provided that four Members of the City Council vote to do so.

If the City Council wishes to place the tax on the November ballot, the City Council must adopt a resolution calling that election no later than August 10th. Furthermore, Proposition 218 provides that a tax increase may only be submitted to the voters at a regularly scheduled election for City Council members, unless an "emergency" is declared by a unanimous vote of the City Council. "Emergency" is not defined by Proposition 218.

Thus, unless the City Council unanimously declares an emergency, the tax increase must be placed on the November, 2001 ballot, or the City Council will not have another opportunity to submit the matter to the voters until November, 2003. Councilmember Stern requested that the staff report reflect that he favored placing both taxes on the ballot at the November 6, 2001 election.

If the City Council chooses to place this matter on the November ballot, the Council still should provide direction to staff about whether to continue to collect the tax in reliance on the Proposition 218 "grandfathering" argument between now and the election or to refrain from collecting the increased amount of the TOT that was approved in 1991, as recommended by staff.

Also, the Council could choose to place an increase of the amount of the TOT on the ballot that differs from the 4% increase that was approved by the City Council in 1991. In that regard, the Mayor requested that staff conduct a survey to ascertain the amounts of transient occupancy taxes that other cities have imposed. The results of that survey are attached to this staff report.

4. Place neither tax on the November 6, 2001 ballot, and wait to place them on a ballot at another election. If this alternative is chosen, the Council is not limited or precluded from determining in the future whether to place either or both of the taxes on a ballot at any other election that coincides with election of seats on the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council (unless, as discussed above, the Council unanimously determines that an emergency exists so that another election date could be used).

This alternative also would not preclude the City from entering into a development agreement with any forthcoming project, such as the Long Point Development, that would require payment of either or both of the taxes regardless of approval of the taxes by the voters.

FINANCIAL IMPACTS:

The financial impacts of placing either or both of these measures on the ballot for the upcoming election is negligible, because Proposition 62 and Proposition 218 require that election to be held at the same time as the regular municipal election for seats on the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, unless an emergency is declared. The City Attorney is required by law to prepare a title and summary and impartial analysis for any measure that is placed on a ballot for approval by the voters, so there will be some cost to the City for the preparation of those documents.

Respectfully submitted,
Carol Lynch, City Attorney

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager


14. Adoption of ordinance making minor amendments to the City’s transient occupancy tax. (Lynch)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT Ordinance No. ___U AMENDING CHAPTER 3.16.030 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. (2) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. ___ AMENDING CHAPTER 3.16.030 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX. (Staff report on the item will not be available until Friday, August 3rd or Monday, August 6th.)

EXHIBIT "A"

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

VALIDATING AND RE-ADOPTING THE CITY’S TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX

AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Validation of Existing Tax. The 1991 adoption of the amendment to Section 3.16.030 (Tax imposed) of Chapter 3.16 (Transient Occupancy Tax) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, which increased the tax on the rent charged by hotel operators from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%), is hereby validated and approved to the full extent permitted by law. The existing provisions of Section 3.16.030, as amended in 1991, are set forth below in full and are incorporated herein by this reference:

"For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the rent charged by the operator. The tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the city which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the city. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient’s ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the tax administrator may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the tax administrator."

Section 2. Reimposition of Tax. Section 3.16.030 (Tax imposed) of Chapter 3.16 (Transient Occupancy Tax) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby re-adopted as set forth above.

Section 3. Amendment and Repeal. Notwithstanding Section 9217 of the California Elections Code, without a vote of the people, the City Council may do any and all of the following: (i) repeal this Ordinance; (ii) reduce the rate of the transient occupancy tax below ten percent (10%); or (iii) increase the rate of the transient occupancy tax to ten percent (10%) if it has been previously reduced below such rate. In no event shall the City Council increase the rate of the transient occupancy tax in excess of ten percent (10%) without approval by a majority of the voters voting in an election on the increase.

Section 4. Findings. The People of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby find as follows:

A. In 1991, without voter approval, the City Council adopted an ordinance increasing the rate of the City’s transient occupancy tax from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%) of the rent charged by hotel operators. Such action was taken in reliance on the case law controlling at the time, which invalidated the Proposition 62 requirement that general taxes receive voter approval. Subsequently, the California Supreme Court overturned that case law and upheld the Proposition 62 voter approval requirement for general taxes.

B. This Ordinance was proposed by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes through the adoption of Resolution No. _____ by the affirmative votes of not less than four of its Members as required by Government Code Section 53724(b).

Section 5. Intent. Section 1 of this Ordinance is intended to validate the City’s collection of the increased amount of the transient occupancy tax from the 1991 increase to the present pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 3.16.030. Section 2 of this Ordinance is intended to re-adopt the transient occupancy tax at a rate of ten percent (10%) and thereby authorize future collections of the tax at such rate. Section 3 of this Ordinance is intended to allow the City Council to repeal the transient occupancy tax, or to reduce or increase (to a maximum of ten percent (10%)) the rate of such tax, without a vote of the people. This Ordinance is not intended, and does not allow, the City Council to increase the rate of the transient occupancy tax in excess of ten percent (10%) without voter approval.

Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The People of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby declare that they would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

Section 7. Execution. The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the adoption of this Ordinance by signing where indicated below.

I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the People of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes voting on the 6th day of November, 2001.

_____________

Mayor

ATTEST:
___________________________

City Clerk


15. Adoption of an ordinance making minor amendments to the City’s golf tax. (Lynch)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT Ordinance No. ___U AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 3.40, SECTION .030, RELATING TO A GOLF TAX AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. (2) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. ___ AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 3.40, SECTION .030, RELATING TO A GOLF TAX. (Staff report on the item will not be available until Friday, August 3rd or Monday, August 6th.)

 

EXHIBIT "A"

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

VALIDATING AND RE-ADOPTING THE CITY’S GOLF TAX

AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Validation of Existing Tax. The 1993 adoption of Section 3.40.030 (Tax imposed) of Chapter 3.40 (Golf Tax) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, which imposes a tax in the amount of 10% on the golf fees charged by an operator of a golf course in the City, is hereby validated and approved to the full extent permitted by law. The existing provisions of Section 3.40.030, as adopted in 1993, are set forth below in full and are incorporated herein by this reference:

"For the opportunity of playing golf in the City, each user is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of ten percent of the golf fees charged by the operator. The tax constitutes a debt owed by the user to the city which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the city."

Section 2. Reimposition of Tax. Section 3.40.030 (Tax imposed) of Chapter 3.40 (Golf Tax) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby re-adopted as set forth above.

Section 3. Amendment and Repeal. Notwithstanding Section 9217 of the California Elections Code, without a vote of the people, the City Council may do any and all of the following: (i) repeal this Ordinance; (ii) reduce the rate of the golf tax below ten percent (10%); or (iii) increase the rate of the golf tax to ten percent (10%) if it has been previously reduced below such rate. In no event shall the City Council increase the rate of the golf tax in excess of ten percent (10%) without approval by a majority of the voters voting in an election on the increase.

Section 4. Findings. The People of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby find as follows:

A. In 1993, without voter approval, the City Council adopted an ordinance imposing a tax in the amount of ten percent (10%) on the golf fees charged by an operator of a golf course in the City. Such action was taken in reliance on the case law controlling at the time, which invalidated the Proposition 62 requirement that general taxes receive voter approval. Subsequently, the California Supreme Court overturned that case law and upheld the Proposition 62 voter approval requirement for general taxes.

B. This Ordinance was proposed by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes through the adoption of Resolution No. _____ by the affirmative votes of not less than four of its Members as required by Government Code Section 53724(b).

Section 5. Intent. Section 1 of this Ordinance is intended to validate the City’s adoption of the golf tax and the collection of the golf tax pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 3.40.030. Section 2 of this Ordinance is intended to re-adopt the golf tax at a rate of ten percent (10%) and thereby authorize future collections of the tax at such rate. Section 3 of this Ordinance is intended to allow the City Council to repeal the golf tax, or to reduce or increase (to a maximum of ten percent (10%)) the rate of such tax, without a vote of the people. This Ordinance is not intended, and does not allow, the City Council to increase the rate of the golf tax in excess of ten percent (10%) without voter approval.

Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The People of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby declare that they would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

Section 7. Execution. The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the adoption of this Ordinance by signing where indicated below.

I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the People of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes voting on the 6th day of November, 2001.

_________________________
Mayor

 

ATTEST:
___________________________

City Clerk


CITY COUNCIL REPORTS


CITY MANAGER REPORTS

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.


REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

AGENDA

AUGUST 7, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

 

CALL TO ORDER NEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2001-09

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

A. Minutes of August 17, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the Minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

JULY 17, 2001

 

The meeting was called to order at 10:20 P.M. by Chair Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

PRESENT: Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Chair Lyon

ABSENT: Ferraro

Also present were Executive Director Les Evans; Assistant Executive Director Carolynn Petru; Agency Attorney Carol Lynch; Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Director Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Finance Director Dennis McLean; Agency Secretary Jo Purcell; and, Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Member Stern moved, seconded by Member McTaggart, to approve the agenda. Motion carried.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Member Stern moved, seconded by Member McTaggart, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows:

Minutes (301)

Approved the Minutes of July 3, 2001.

April and May 2000 Treasurer’s Reports (602 x 1900)

Ordered received and filed.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Chair Lyon

NOES: None

ABSENT: Ferraro

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 10:21 P.M. on the motion on Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart.

_______________________
Chair

Attest:
________________________

Agency Secretary


B. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


REGULAR BUSINESS


C. Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Increase the spending authorization for construction management and inspection services for the Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements by $100,000, for a total authorization of $370,000. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-07, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2001, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE AGENCY’S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: AUGUST 7, 2001

SUBJECT: ABALONE COVE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS

RECOMMENDATION

Increase the spending authorization for construction management and inspection services for the Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements by $100,000, for a total authorization of $370,000.

BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2000, the Board awarded a contract for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements. The authorization limit for the construction contract is $5,110,000. On August 1, 2000, the Board also awarded contracts totaling $270,000 for construction management and inspection services. Construction began in October 2000 and is still underway. At the time the contracts for inspection and construction management services were awarded it was anticipated that that construction would be completed by July 1, 2001. Construction is scheduled to be completed on November 1, 2001. Because of the protracted construction schedule additional funding is required for the additional inspection and construction management services. Construction management and inspection costs for this project are $25,000 per month. The staffing level is 50 hours per week for inspection, and 20 hours per week for construction management.

DISCUSSION

The principal reasons for the construction delays are:

The construction schedule was lengthened because the construction sequencing was revised to reduce construction impacts on property owners. The contract allows construction of the mainline and on private properties to occur simultaneously and throughout the entire duration of the schedule. Constructing the improvements in this manner minimizes the total construction schedule, but greatly impacts private properties, since construction on a given property could last for up to six months. This construction sequencing was changed, at the City’s request, to require construction on private properties to begin only after construction on the mainline is completed. This change resulted in less impact to private properties but an expanded the project schedule.

The construction schedule lengthened because the City added additional items of work to the contract. Since the contract was awarded construction of laterals on seven properties was added. This work was required when several property owners were late in agreeing to allow construction on their property.

The construction schedule was delayed because the City was late in providing final specifications to three of the four in-street pump stations. This is because changes were made to the plans to eliminate a 30’ deep segment of sewer line. This revision resulted in changes to three of the four in-street pump stations. In addition there were delays coordinating with Southern California Edison to energize the pumps.

There were other delays caused by changed conditions as well as delays caused by the contractor but the principal reasons are those listed above. Since the City caused these delays, they were beyond the control of the contractor and therefore, the cost of the additional construction management and inspection services is the responsibility of the City.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting the staff recommendation will authorize the expenditure of up to $ 100,000 for additional construction management and inspection services for the Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements. This increase in authorization is required due to the longer than expected construction schedule.

FISCAL IMPACTS

The funding source is the Landslide Settlement Fund. After this additional expenditure the estimated FY 2001 – 02 fund balance in the Landslide Settlement Fund is $60,000. This fund balance will be allocated to the cost of engineering services for the Altamira Canyon Drainage Improvement Project as noted in the City’s approved budget.

Respectfully Submitted,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

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.


IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

AGENDA

AUGUST 7, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

 

CALL TO ORDER:

NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2001-09

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1. Minutes of July 3, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the Minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 3, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 9:14 P.M. by Chair Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

PRESENT: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Chair Lyon

ABSENT: None

Also present were Chief Administrative Officer Les Evans; Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Carolyn Petru, Commission Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean, Commission Secretary Jo Purcell; and, Recording Secretary Arlene Jaentsch.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Commissioner Stern moved, seconded by Commissioner McTaggart, to approve the Agenda as presented. Motion carried.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR

Commissioner McTaggart moved, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro, to approve the amended consent calendar as follows:

Minutes (301)

Approved the minutes of June 5, 2001.

Improvement Authority Investment Policy-Fiscal Year 2001-2002

Adopted the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 investment policy for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

April 2001 Treasurer’s Report

Removed from Consent Calendar will be brought back later. Attachment was missing.

Resol. No IA 2001-07 - Register of Demands (602 x 2200)

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. IA 2001-07, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

The motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Stern, Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Chair Lyon

NOES: None


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, questioned budget amounts for the landslide areas.


ADJOURNMENT

At 9:16 p.m. the meeting was adjourned on motion of Commissioner Ferraro.

_____________________
Chair

ATTEST:
________________________
Commission Secretary


2. April and May 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

DATE: AUGUST 7, 2001

SUBJECT: APRIL 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the April 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of April 2001 for the Improvement Authority.

ANALYSIS:

The Improvement Authority’s cash decreased by approximately $27,000 during the past month, ending with an overall balance of $1,570,025 at April 30, 2001. Cash activity during April 2001 was limited to the receipt of the $7,917 monthly transfer from the City’s General fund, interest earned of approximately $24,500 and approximately $5,500 of cash outlays for routine dewatering well maintenance activities.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer


TO: HONORABLE CHAIR & MEMBERS OF THE

COMMISSION

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

DATE: AUGUST 7, 2001

SUBJECT: MAY 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the May 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of May 2001 for the Improvement Authority.

ANALYSIS:

The Improvement Authority’s cash increased by approximately $6,000 during the past month, ending with an overall balance of $1,575,899 at May 31, 2001. Cash activity during May 2001 was limited to the receipt of the $7,917 monthly transfer from the City’s General fund, a Southern California Edison deposit refund of approximately $2,200 and approximately $4,200 of cash outlays for routine dewatering well maintenance activities.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans
Chief Administrative Officer


3. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. IA 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


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.