ADOPTING THE CITY’S 2001 LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (LIR) AND SELF-CERTIFYING THE CITY’S CONFORMANCE WITH THE 1999 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY.

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

(Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart)

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

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5

(All Statutory References are to California Government

Code Sections)

The City Council/Agency finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation.

Anticipated Litigation:

(G.C 54956.9(b)

Based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, the City Council/Agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed session is authorized.

1 (Number of Potential Cases)

(E) Letter written by John Monks dated February 6, 2001 sent to Mayor Marilyn Lyon regarding Landslide Moratorium Zone 2 a copy of which is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office.

Initiation of Litigation:

G.C. 54956.9(c) one (Number of Potential Cases)

The City Council is meeting to discuss whether to file a law suit pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. by Mayor Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

After the Pledge of Allegiance which was led by United States Naval Sea Cadets Petty Officer Alejandro Ruiz, Seaman Vanessa Ruiz, and Seaman Recruit Mario Lucero, roll call was answered as follows:

PRESENT:Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Mayor Lyon

ABSENT:Stern

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; Accounting Manager Kathryn Downs; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

RECYCLING DRAWING:

The winner from the last drawing was Victor Teresinski, who will receive a check for $250, which represents a year of free refuse service. Another card was selected.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Councilmember Gardiner asked that the item regarding Adoption of Ordinance No. 368 Adopting the Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance Fee and Informal Bid and the item regarding the Pre-Ordering of HDPE and RCP Pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion before the item regarding Pre-Ordering of Drainage Pipe for Immediate Storm Drain Repairs near Palos Verdes Drive South and Peppertree Drive.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, spoke about the City’s investment policy and the Minutes of July 3.

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

Mayor Lyon suggested a correction to the Minutes of July 3. City Clerk Purcell said that the change would be made.

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.

Adopted the Minutes of July 3 and July 17, 2001.

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

ADOPTED 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.)

Notice of Completion for the Palos Verdes Drive East and Bronco Drive Storm Drain Project

(1) Approved a second and final Change Order in the amount of $59,272. (2) Accepted the work as complete. (3) Authorized 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) Authorized 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.

Reviewed and approved the proposed Professional Services Agreement between the City and Willdan for temporary planning staffing for the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department, and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the agreement.

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-53, 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:Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Stern

ABSTAIN:Ferraro on the Minutes of July 17 because she was absent from that meeting.

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of August 7, 2001 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed ordinance adopting by reference Title 10, Animals, of the Los Angeles County Code and amending Chapter 6.04 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.

Council discussion centered on the 50% license fee increase which might be significant to some residents; changes to the procedure which required that that a "Vicious Dog" appeal be handled by a court instead of by the City Manager’s Office; who would pay for legal fees when a matter goes to court; the County’s requirement that the City accept all provisions of its code to allow uniform enforcement by their representatives in all cities it services for animal control; and, the need for a simple pamphlet, possibly with a flow chart, to clearly explain the procedure to residents.

There being no response to the Mayor’s call for testimony, she declared the hearing closed.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 365. 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 motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Stern

Ordinance No. 368 - Adopting the Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance Fee

Staff recommendation was to adopt the proposed Ordinance 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.)

Council discussion centered on the expected life of the equipment, cost and funding sources for maintenance and spare parts and provisions to avoid system shutdown in the event of power outages.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, TO 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.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Stern

Staff recommendation was to 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.

Council discussion focused on the advantage of purchasing the pipe for this project along with the pipe for the Immediate Storm Drain Repairs near Palos Verdes Drive South and Peppertree Drive even though the items would be discussed and approved separately.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to reconfirmed 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.

Director Allison presented the staff report of August 7, 2001 and the recommendation to

(1) Find that an emergency exists which will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the following actions 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 the proposed resolution 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.

Council discussion centered on the discovery of this problem during an inspection, revegetation and road repairs necessary because of the repairs; alternative types of pipes and the reasons for selecting the material being purchased; and, a suggestion that a blanket purchase order be prepared in the hope of stabilizing a price for future pipe purchases.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to (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. 2001-54, 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.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Stern

Approve Process for Handling "Border Issues"

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of August 7, 2001 and the recommendation to 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.

Council discussion focused on the importance of considering cumulative impact of projects; the concept of Council bringing up projects to be discussed rather than staff because they are out in the community and talking to residents; the suggestion to use maps to pinpoint project locations to indicate cumulative impact; the influence of the Council to comment or change projects in other jurisdictions and specific actions which can be taken; the need to have written documentation of objection if the City wishes to file a lawsuit later; the suggestion that a written procedure will be helpful when the membership on the ad hoc committee changes; the reasons this situation lends itself better to an ad hoc committee rather than a standing committee;

City Attorney Lynch indicated that it was sometimes hard to determine the status of a development because it was not always clear if a Notice of Determination had been recorded with the County.

April Sandell, 28026 Pontevedra Drive, expressed thanks to the Council for their interest, and suggested that staff develop a checklist to indicate when constitutional rights had been violated or laws broken and then bring those concerns to the Council’s attention. She said that mixed-use projects were becoming more common and development could not be stopped but safeguards could be in place.

Don Shults, 2129 Velez Drive, representing Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association, expressed his appreciation for the Council’s support and hoped that since the new Mayor of the City of Los Angeles and the new Los Angeles City Councilmember both live in San Pedro, they would be receptive to the problems being investigated buy the ad hoc committee. He said that cumulative impact was very important and that it was critical to address problems in the early stages of development.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro to: (1) Direct staff to establish a process, which includes consideration of cumulative impact, for most effective City Council involvement in issues involving development, or other activities, proposed for adjacent communities that may affect residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. (2) Direct staff to write a letter to the County advising Supervisor Knabe that the County Community Development staff is failing to notify adjoining property owners of pending projects.

At 8:50 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M.

Eric Paris, 27234 Stadia Hill Lane, described what he considered to be unacceptable behavior at a recent Planning Commission meeting. He also said that he was told that since Planning Commission minutes had been scanned onto the CDs that hard copies were no longer available.

City Clerk Purcell reported that hard copies were still available at City Hall.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, reiterated her request that the City’s GPS system be named the Lee Byrd Global Positioning System because of his efforts in having Magnavox donate the system to the City.

Discussion of November 6 General Municipal Election Ballot Measures

City Attorney Lynch presented the staff report of August 7, 2001 and the recommendation to take whatever action Council deemed necessary, including adoption of appropriate resolutions. She also related the recent court decisions necessitating this action.

Mayor Lyon stated that even though Councilman Stern was not present he had verbally expressed his wish to have these two measures appear on the ballot for the election on November 6, 2001.

Council discussion centered on the requirement to take this action because of a court decision; the fact that these taxes had been in place since 1991 for the Transient Occupancy Tax and for the Golf Tax since 1993 and that the election would enable the people to ratify these taxes and remove the risk of litigation; ratification by the residents was preferable to depending on a development agreement; the printing cost to put these measures on the ballot; the fact that a 10% hotel occupancy tax is fairly standard; that the Los Verdes County golf course is exempt from the golf tax; and, the preference for the word "ratify" instead of "validate" which was used in the proposed resolutions.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that the Council could request that the percentages for these taxes be increased on the ballot but it was recommended that the voters be asked to simply ratify the percentages already in place.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-55, AS AMENDED, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ORDERING THAT A PROPOSITION RELATED TO THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 6, 2001

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Stern

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-56, AS AMENDED, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ORDERING THAT A PROPOSITION RELATED TO THE CITY’S GOLF TAX BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 6, 2001.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Stern

Council discussion next centered on the additional resolutions to be adopted; suggestions for clarification regarding the original dates and percentages of these taxes; and, the lack of impact of Propositions 62 and 218 depending on when the taxes were originally instituted.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-57, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT THE NOVEMBER 6, 2001 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Stern

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Stern

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Stern

Ordinance No. 369 - Making Minor Amendments to the City’s transient Occupancy Tax

City Attorney Lynch presented the staff report of August 7, 2001 and the recommendation to introduce the proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 3.16.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Relating to a Transient Occupancy Tax. She described minor changes to update the code and said that an urgency ordinance was not necessary.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 369 AMENDING CHAPTER 3.16.030 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSENT:Stern

City Attorney Lynch recommended that this item be continued to a future Council meeting.

Councilmember Gardiner expressed appreciation to persons who gave their time to assist him in gaining perspective; mentioned that he had meet with the Homeowners Association Council; and, complimented the United States Naval Sea Cadets on their flag ceremony.

Mayor Lyon reported on her League of California Cities monthly dinner meeting and agreed it was good to have participation by the youth of the community.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart gave details of a meeting with Assemblymember Alan Lowenthal at which a number of subjects of importance to the City were discussed.

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 9:45 P.M. on motion of Mayor Lyon.

ATTEST:

______________________

CITY CLERK

Authorize payment to Conte Productions for the production of the July 4^th, 2001, Independence Day Celebration.

Accept Conte Production’s proposal to continue to produce the City’s annual July 4^th Independence Day Celebration for a period of five years, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the attached agreement.

The City has provided an annual July 4th Independence Day Celebration for the community since 1976. In 1992 the Council elected to privatize the event and the City entered into an agreement with Conte Productions to manage and produce the celebration. The management agreement was last renewed in 1998 at a fee not to exceed $8,000 per year for a three-year term, which expires on August 31, 2001. Conte Productions again planned and conducted a safe and successful community-based event and at this time is requesting payment for services rendered. Additionally, they are seeking renewal of their agreement at a fee of not more than $10,000, for a term of five consecutive years commencing with the 2002 celebration. Beginning with the 2003 celebration, this fee would be adjusted annually according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The City's July 4th Independence Day Celebration has become an annual tradition for the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Peninsula. Although it is a goal to make this event self-sustaining, the effort to make the celebration even bigger and better each year combined with Council’s past decision to reduce the price of the rides, has required some City subsidy. For the past six years, to help reduce the subsidy, the Recreation and Parks Committee has solicited cash donations and prizes for the games. This year they collected $3325 in cash sponsorship donations along with a assorted prize and game merchandise. In addition, Waste Management provided the portable toilets, sinks, trash boxes/bags, and roll-offs and Coach USA/California Charter donated one bus and driver for shuttle service and a reduced price for the second bus and driver.

Conte Productions is a company that organizes, designs, and manages the mechanics and operation of special events and has over 20 years of experience producing community festivals and events. Staff has found them to be consistently professional and cooperative and they work well with the members of the Recreation and Parks Committee. Since 1992, they have provided a safe and fun family day every Fourth of July that is a credit to our City. If Council elects to retain them as the City's management firm for this very special event, Mark Conte pledges to maintain the high quality of work that the City expects and to continue to highlight the patriotic aspects of this celebration. In addition, they will strive to continually improve the celebration both financially and as an event which the City can view with pride.

The only significant differences between the attached proposed agreement and the previous agreement is an increase in duration from three to five years, an increase of $2000 per year in fees for services commencing in 2002, plus a consumer price index (CPI) adjustment each year, beginning with the year 2003.

The cost of the 2001 celebration remained under the production company’s contractual management fee.

Cost to the City for 2001 is $6,668.52. A total payment of $9,993.52 is due Conte Productions for the event. This includes City costs of $6,668.52 and a reimbursement to Conte Productions of $3,325, the amount of sponsorship donation checks that were made payable to the City and deposited in the City's account.

Listed below are costs incurred by the City for the three years of Conte Productions current contract.

Review and reconfirm by a four/fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s previous action on August 7, 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.

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 and August 7, 2001, the Council reconfirmed these findings and the previous direction given to staff.

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.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru
Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:AUGUST 21, 2001

SUBJECT:INFORMAL BID AND PRE-ORDERING OF HDPE PIPE FOR THE PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH DRAINAGE REPAIR PROJECT

Review and reconfirm by a four/fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s previous action on August 7, 2001 to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project.

On August 7, 2001, the City Council found that an emergency exists concerning the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair 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 project.

Approval of both the informal bid process and the pre-ordering of the pipe required a four-fifths (4/5) vote 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 (HDPE) pipe for this project because it is more flexible and lighter than traditional corrugated metal pipe (CMP). These characteristics are well suited for the pipe that will be laid in the canyon exposed.

Respectfully submitted:
Dean Allison
Public Works Director

Reviewed:
Les Evans

Staff Coordinator:Steve Massetti

1. Accept the work as complete.
2. Authorize the City Clerk to file 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 bonds.
3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to PCI, Ltd. 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent on no claims being filed on the project.

On, May 1, 2001, City Council awarded a contract to PCI Ltd. for the installation of the Bikeway Route Improvement Project along Palos Verdes Drive South, Palos Verdes Drive West, and Hawthorne Boulevard. This work was completed on June 29, 2001.

Final project cost is as follows:

PCI Ltd. has successfully completed all work in accordance with the plans and specifications. Therefore, the work should be accepted as complete and a Notice of Completion filed.

The recommended action will have no fiscal impact. Adequate funds were provided in the adopted FY 1999-2000 budget for completion of the project and funds were carried forward into the current year.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
________________________________
Les Evans, City Manager

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 Project’s Fund.

Beginning in Fiscal year 2001-02, the Capital Improvement Program includes annual funding for an Arterial Rehabilitation Program. This multi-year program will improve the City’s arterial roadways in accordance with the City’s Pavement Management Program.

On April 3, 2001, Council approved a professional services agreement with Willdan and Associates; thereby, authorizing the preparation of Plans and Specifications for resurfacing portions of Hawthorne Boulevard and Crenshaw Boulevard.

Hawthorne Boulevard is a public bus route. Therefore, there are numerous bus stops along both sides of the street. The roadway surface at each bus stop is constructed of asphalt rather than concrete which is stronger and less expensive to maintain. Therefore, staff recommends that the existing asphalt be removed and replaced with a concrete pad. The estimated cost of removing the asphalt and constructing a new concrete pad, at the ten locations, is $90,000. The approved project budget does not include $90,000 for new concrete bus pads. However, bus pads are an eligible item for Proposition A funding. On July 5, 2001, staff submitted an application to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority requesting approval of $90,000 to construct ten new concrete bus pads. Our request was approved on July 10, 2001. Accordingly, a Resolution (Attachment A) to amend the approved budget, for fiscal year 2001-2002 has been prepared for Council action. Staff recommends approval of this attached Resolution.

CONCLUSION

The approval of this Resolution will permit funding the construction of ten new concrete bus stop pads along Hawthorne Boulevard.

No funds are allocated in the approved FY 2001-2002 budget for the construction of concrete bus pads along Hawthorne Boulevard. The attached budget resolution increases funding in the Capital Improvement Program for this work.

The funding source for the concrete bus pad construction is Proposition A Funding as approved by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The estimated un-appropriated fund balance for Proposition A Funds at the close of FY 2003 is $328,192.

Respectfully Submitted,
Dean Allison
Director of Public Works

Approved
Les Evans
City Manager

Attachment:Resolution

FROM:CITY ATTORNEY

DATE:AUGUST 21, 2001

SUBJECT:ORDINANCE NO. 369 – TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX

RECOMMENDATION

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 369 AMENDING CHAPTER 3.16.030 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX. (This ordinance was introduced at the August 7^th meeting.)

BACKGROUND

Because of the issue concerning the validity of the transient occupancy tax, staff reviewed Chapter 3.16 and determined that some minor amendments would be beneficial; those changes appear in this ordinance. Please see the August 7^th staff report detailing these changes.

Respectfully submitted,
Carol Lynch, City Attorney

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

That the City Council accept the Gifts for Parks donations and direct staff to prepare letters for the Mayor’s signature expressing the Council’s thanks and appreciation.

The City’s Gifts for Parks program, established in 1982, provides a means by which interested individuals, organizations, and/or businesses may contribute funds, merchandise, or labor for the enhancement of the City’s Recreation and Parks facilities and programs. Donations, as prescribed by law, are tax deductible as charitable contributions.

The City has received the following donations designated for:

26^TH ANNUAL JULY 4^TH CELEBRATION:

• $100 from RDS Wire and Cable, Inc.
• $100 from Telecommunications Management Services
• $500 from York Long Point Associates
• $100 from SA Associates
• $25 from Sun Electric
• $400 from George Bender Plumbing
• $100 from Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations
• $100 from Seaview Residents Association
• $100 from RGM LLC Katherman Co.
• $100 from Mediterrania Homeowners Association
• $100 from California Water Service

• Assorted games used for prizes from Small Wonders
• $110 in gift certificates from Red Onion
• $125 in gift certificates from Ruby’s Diner
• 1 free shuttle bus and a second at half-price from Coach USA
• 36 boxes of cookies used for prizes from Trader Joes (Western Ave.)
• Gift basket from Breadsmith
• 5 free movie rentals from Blockbuster Video
• Miscellaneous office supplies used for prizes from Kinkos
• Coupons for six free pies used for prizes from Cocos
• Coupons for six free pizzas used for prizes from Dominos

REACH Program Donations

• $25 from Shirin Madani
• $50 from Karen Shimabukuro

It is recommended that the City accept these donations with thanks to all donors.

Respectfully submitted,
Ron Rosenfeld, Director
Recreation and Parks

Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager

ADOPTING THE CITY’S 2001 LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (LIR) AND SELF-CERTIFYING THE CITY’S CONFORMANCE WITH THE 1999 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY.

Adopt Resolution No. 2001-__, thereby adopting the City's 2001 Local Implementation Report (LIR) and self-certifying the City's conformance with the 1999 Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Los Angeles County.

A Congestion Management Program (CMP) was enacted by the State Legislature in 1990 to improve traffic congestion in California's urban areas. In accordance with the State statute, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) [previously known as the L.A. County Transportation Commission (LACTC)] adopted the first CMP for Los Angeles County on November 18, 1992.

In November 1993, the 1993 Congestion Management Program (CMP) was adopted by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (MTA). In addition to providing refinements to the 1992 Program, the 1993 CMP added procedures for meeting Deficiency Plan requirements. The Deficiency Plan procedures are intended to address deficiencies projected to occur on the regional roadway network between 1990 and 2010. Since the CMP is a countywide program, all local jurisdictions must participate in the Deficiency Plan process, regardless of the number of CMP intersections or congestion levels within each City's limits.

The MTA has updated and adopted several Congestion Management Programs since 1993. Most recently, in December 1999, the 1999 CMP was adopted by the MTA. The 1999 Program expanded the Deficiency Plan, which provides greater opportunities for local jurisdictions to maintain CMP compliance. In accordance with the 1999 CMP, the purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to adopt the attached self-certification conformance resolution, thereby adopting the City's 2001 LIR and self-certifying the City's conformance with the CMP requirements. Upon adoption, the adopted resolution and 2001 LIR will be transmitted to the MTA for its review and approval.

In adopting the attached self-certification resolution, the City resolves that it is in conformance with all the applicable requirements of the 1999 CMP and has taken, or will take, each of the following four specific actions (the requisite action appears in bold type and the City's response in normal type):

The City’s Public Works Department transmitted to the MTA the results of the 2001 highway monitoring performed on Western Avenue, in accordance with the requirements of the CMP.

On February 2, 1993, the City Council adopted the required TDM Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 10.28) and Staff continues to implement the TDM Ordinance, where applicable. As part of the Development Code Amendment proceedings, completed in May 1997, the TDM Ordinance was incorporated into the Development Code by reference.

On July 6, 1993, the City Council adopted an amended set of Local CEQA Guidelines, which incorporated the County's CMP Land Use Analysis program into the City's environmental review procedures. City Staff continues to implement the land use analysis program where applicable.

1. The City has adopted a 2001 Local Implementation Report consistent with the requirements identified in the CMP. This report balances traffic congestion impacts due to growth within the City with transportation improvements, and demonstrates that the City is meeting its responsibilities under the Countywide Deficiency Plan.

The CMP's Countywide Deficiency Plan requires the City to track development activity and transportation improvements using a countywide point system. The point system is used to assign debits for development activity and credits for transportation improvements. The City must maintain a positive balance, in which total credits exceed total debits, in order to remain in compliance with the CMP. If a City is found not to be in compliance with the CMP, gas tax revenues may be withheld and the City may be ineligible for transportation grant funds.

For purposes of the 2001 Local Implementation Report (LIR), the City tracked new development activity for the time period between June 1, 2000 through May 31, 2001. During this period, final building permits were issued for 16 new residential dwelling units, and one permit was finalled for a non-residential development at Western Avenue and Summerland Street. Although the 16 new dwelling units is a decrease from last year’s number of dwelling units, the large amount of debits is due to the commercial development at Western and Summerland. This building activity has resulted in a total point debit of 957 points for the 2000-2001 reporting year. This point total is referred to as the City's "congestion mitigation goal" and represents the total points that must be offset by credit points.

Although debits are only applied to development since June 1, 2000, cities have been allowed to earn credits for transportation improvement projects implemented as far back as January 1, 1990. Based on the original credit claims submitted by Staff to the MTA in 1994, as well as new credit claims submitted as part of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Local Implementation Reports, the City presently has an MTA approved credit base of 9,068 points (see attached 2000 Deficiency Plan Summary).

As part of the 2001 LIR, the City has submitted to the MTA additional credit claims for congestion management practices performed between June 1, 2000 and May 31, 2001.

In preparing the 2001 LIR, Staff has calculated the City's 2001 mitigation goal at 1,540 points and has identified additional credit claims of 420 points, which results in a net total of 1,960 credit points for this reporting period. Pending MTA’s approval, this could be added to the City’s current credit base of 9,068 credit points, resulting in a total credit base of 10,071. The conclusion of the LIR is that the City has clearly maintained a positive point balance, in which the City’s total credits exceed total debits. Therefore, the City’s 2001 LIR balances traffic congestion impacts due to growth within the City with transportation improvements, and demonstrates that the City is meeting its responsibilities under the Countywide Deficiency Plan. Draft copies of the 2001 LIR (point calculation, tally sheets, etc.) are attached for the Council's review.

In accordance with the Deficiency Plan of the 1999 L.A. County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the City Council, through a noticed public hearing (public notice attached), must adopt a self-certification conformance resolution, whereby the City agrees to conform to the local responsibilities required by the 1999 CMP, including preparation of the 2001 Local Implementation Report (LIR). As documented in this Staff Report, the City is in conformance with all applicable requirements of the 1999 CMP and has taken all of the required actions of the Deficiency Plan. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution No. 2001 - __ and authorize the City Clerk to forward this document to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager

• Resolution No. 2001 - __
• 2000 Deficiency Plan Summary (table)
• Draft 2001 Local Implementation Report
• Public Notice

WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), acting as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, adopted the 1999 Congestion Management Program in December 1999; and

WHEREAS, the adopted CMP requires that MTA annually determine that the County and cities within the County are conforming to all CMP requirements; and

WHEREAS, the adopted CMP requires submittal to the MTA of the CMP Local Implementation Report by September 1, 2001; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 21, 2001, at which time all interested parties were allowed to attend and give testimony.

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

Section 1:That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") has taken all of the following actions, and that the City is in conformance with all applicable requirements of the 1999 CMP:

A. By June 15 of odd numbered years, the City has conducted and transmitted to the MTA, traffic counts and calculated levels of service for selected arterial intersections, consistent with the requirements identified in the CMP Highway and Roadway System Chapter.

B. The City has locally adopted, and continues to implement, a transportation demand management ordinance, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Transportation Demand Management Chapter.

C. The City has locally adopted, and continues to implement, a land use analysis program, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Land Use Analysis Program Chapter.

D. The City has locally adopted the 2001 Local Implementation Report (LIR) attached hereto and made a part hereof, consistent with the requirements identified in the CMP. This report balances traffic congestion impacts due to growth within the City with transportation improvements, and demonstrates that the City is meeting its responsibilities under the Countywide Deficiency Plan.

Section 2:That the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward a copy of this Resolution to the Los Angeles County MTA.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21^st 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 above Resolution No. 2001-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on August 21, 2001.

City Clerk

August 4, 2001

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, August 21, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes to consider:

All interested parties are invited to submit written comments and to attend and give testimony. A copy of the City Draft 2001 Local Implementation Report, as well as previous CMP Local Implementation Reports are on file with the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department at City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes and are available for public review between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., on Fridays. For further information, please contact Associate Planner Eduardo Schonborn, aicp, at (310) 544-5228, or via e-mail at eduardos@rpv.com.

________________________________
Joel Rojas, aicp
Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement

Please publish in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on Saturday, August 4, 2001.

Adopt Resolution No. 2001-__, certifying a Negative Declaration for the project, and adopt Resolution No. 2001-__, approving General Plan Amendment No. 29 for the Final Draft Housing Element.

The State of California requires every city and county to prepare and adopt a Housing Element as part of the city or county's General Plan. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is the State agency charged with administering state housing law, including the review of these Housing Elements.

The State also requires that each local government periodically review and revise their Housing Element. This is the only element within the General Plan that a local jurisdiction is required to update. Shortly after incorporation, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted a General Plan, and consistent with State requirements, it included a Housing Element. The City's Housing Element was formally amended in 1990, as required by the State, and partially amended in 1992 (the 1992 amendment was a minor amendment to address another State requirement). As such, the City's current Housing Element consists of both the 1990 and 1992 Amended Housing Elements.

According to HCD, all local governments within the SCAG region were required to revise their Housing Element by December 31, 2000. As the City Council may recall, on December 19, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing and directed Staff to forward the Preliminary Draft Housing Element to HCD for review. Subsequently, HCD received the Draft Housing Element on December 27, 2000.

Since it has been over eight months since the City Council had reviewed the Preliminary Draft Housing Element, Staff has attached a copy of the December 19, 2000 City Council Staff Report to assist the Council in understanding the content and organization of the Housing Element.

On August 14, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed the attached Final Draft Housing Element. The Planning Commission noted only some very minor points of clarification. Specifically, they requested that clarification of the status of the application for the proposed senior affordable housing project be noted. Currently, the Draft Final Housing Element indicates that the application is complete, whereas actually it is not complete based upon recent changes proposed by the Developer. Additionally, depending upon whether or not the Redevelopment Agency Board allows the Developer to submit an application for condominiums, the project description may need to be changed slightly. After noting these minor points of clarification, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions No. 2001-25 and No. 2001-26, recommending that the City Council certify the attached Negative Declaration for the project and approve General Plan Amendment No. 29 for the Final Draft Housing Element.

Upon review of the Draft Housing Element, HCD sent the attached review letter (dated February 9, 2001), providing comments on the City's Draft Housing Element. As noted in the attached letter, HCD would find the Draft Housing Element in compliance with State Law provided that the City revises the document to address HCD's concerns. Briefly, HCD was concerned with and felt that the Element should

• Include an analysis of the adequacy of public facilities and services for identified sites.

• Provide more detailed analysis on potential and actual governmental constraints upon the development of housing.
• Strengthen, clarify and/or provide more definitive timelines in a number of proposed Housing Programs to demonstrate the City's ability to meet the requirements of State Law.
• Address specific issues pertaining to programs related to second dwelling units and to affordable housing to show the adequacy of these strategies.
• Identify zones where emergency shelters and transitional housing are permitted.
• Describe how all economic segments of the community were involved in the development of the Draft Housing Element.
• Document the number of low and moderate-income units converted or demolished in the Coastal Zone.

After Staff received HCD's comment letter, Staff worked with the City's Housing Consultant, City Attorney and HCD Staff to address HCD's comments. After many proposed revisions, Staff and HCD reached an agreement as to the proposed revisions to the Draft Housing Element. As shown in the attached letter from HCD, dated June 29, 2001, HCD will find the City's Draft Housing Element in compliance with State Law provided that the proposed revisions are approved by the City Council.

Attached, for the Council's review, is an edited copy of each page that shows a proposed revision to the Preliminary Draft Housing Element that the Council reviewed last December. The revisions are shown in bold for text that has been added, and in strikethrough for text that has been removed. As shown in the attached edited version, the proposed changes briefly consist of the following:

• Page 1-4. Clarification on the public's review of the Draft Housing Element.
• Page 1-5, Page 2-29. Statement addressing the Coastal Zone Requirements of the Housing Element.
• Page 2-16, Page 2-24, Page A-20, Page A-32. Additional language added to the Second Dwelling Unit Program providing additional notification to the public in regards to developing Second Dwelling Units and a tracking and monitoring system to determine if additional program modification should be considered.
• Page 2-17, Page 2-24, Page A-21. Additional language added to the Affordable Housing Development Program to provide clarity on two projects (Senior Affordable Housing Project and the Ocean Trails Project) that can be used to meet the City's affordable housing need. It's important to note that inclusion of these two projects into the Housing Element only shows how and where the City can meet its affordable housing need. It does not mean that these projects have been approved (in regards to the Senior Affordable Housing Project) or will be completed within the timeframe of the Housing Element.
• Page 2-21. Additional language added to the Rental Assistance Program to clarify actions to be taken by the City in implementing this program.
• Page 2-23. Additional language showing that the City will continue to advertise the existing first time homebuyer programs that are offered by the City in conjunction with the County.
• Page 2-28. Additional language noting that the City will consider parking reductions in projects that address affordable housing needs or senior housing as a method to reduce constraints or provide incentives regarding the development of affordable housing.
• Page 2-29, Page A-33. Additional language discussing how Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing are permitted uses with approval of a CUP in the CG zone.
• Page A-22. Additional language discussing additional sites suitable for residential development in the City and the public facilities and services available for these sites.
• Page A-35. Page A-38, Page A-39. Additional language analyzing various governmental constraints to the development of housing.

Also attached is a clean bound copy of the Final Draft of the Housing Element incorporating all proposed revisions as regular text.

In addition to the changes noted above, depending upon the outcome of the August 21, 2001 Redevelopment Agency Board's determination on the status of the senior affordable housing project, as recommended by the Planning Commission, Staff would also recommend minor changes to the Final Draft Housing Element that would provide clarification on the senior affordable housing project's most current status. These changes will be very minor points of clarification only and will not represent any changes to policy within the document.

As noted above, Staff has worked with HCD in revising the Housing Element to meet the requirements of State Law. In fact, HCD actually proposed much of the modified text. Staff feels that the attached proposed Final Draft Housing Element provides programs that are feasible to implement and will be of a benefit to the City. However, if the City Council has concerns regarding any of the proposed revisions, Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to address those concerns through any additional revisions. Upon making the revisions, the revised document can be brought back to the City Council at a subsequent meeting for formal adoption.

If the City Council elects not to adopt the revised Final Draft Housing Element as currently proposed and chooses to make revisions to the document, unfortunately, HCD may not find the revised Element in compliance with State Law. Although the City has never had a Housing Element that HCD found in compliance with State Law, the opportunity to have a Housing Element in compliance has never been closer than it is this year. This is important, as currently there is pending state legislation (Senate Bill 910) that, if adopted, may impose financial penalties upon cities that do not have a Housing Element in compliance with State Law according to HCD. Based upon the potential financial impacts of this pending legislation, and the limited feasible changes that HCD is willing to accept to find the attached Housing Element in compliance with State Law, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving the Final Draft Housing Element.

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration was prepared on January 15, 2001. The document was sent to the State Clearinghouse and to various other agencies for review and comment. The review and comment period began on January 16, 2001 and ended on February 16, 2001.

During the comment period, Staff received three comment letters. They were from: 1) Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2) California Department of Transportation, District 7 (CalTrans), and 3) State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The comment letter from SCAG merely presents various policies from SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and requests that the proposed Housing Element be consistent with these policies. Staff feels that the Housing Element is consistent with these policies. The comment letter from CalTrans notes that the City should address "transportation measures commensurate with the increase in growth and any costs and funding sources associated with transportation measures". The proposed Housing Element identifies a need for only 53 new housing units over the 5-year planning period. The amount of new housing units is very small, within the number of housing units supported by the General Plan for the City's build-out conditions, and will not cause any significant transportation impacts. Additionally, the development of any new structures shall be analyzed on an individual and cumulative impact basis in compliance with CEQA. The comment letter from OPR merely states that the City has complied with the State's review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to CEQA. Based upon the extent of these minor comments, no adjustments or revisions were necessary to the Final Draft Housing Element.

As shown in the attached Initial Study, the project will not result in or create any significant impacts to Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Geologic Problems, Water, Air Quality, Transportation and Circulation, Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, or Recreation. As such, Staff has concluded that a Negative Declaration may be adopted for the proposed project.

An 1/8 page public hearing notice was posted in the Peninsula News, and mailed to all Homeowner's Associations within the City, various State Agencies, neighboring cities, and to various churches and other groups interested in housing issues. At the time this Staff Report was prepared, Staff received two comment letters that were directed to the Planning Commission for their review at the August 14, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.

The letters (attached) were from Glenn and Barbara Arbuthnot. In their letters Mr. and Mrs. Arbuthnot identify two issues; 1) that the General Plan should not be amended for the senior affordable housing project (a.k.a. Indian Ridgecrest Gardens), located at the northwest corner of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge Road, and 2) that the amendment to the Housing Element will have a significant impact on the environment as it in part refers to the Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project, which Staff has already identified has significant impacts.

In regards to the Mr. and Mrs. Arbuthnot's first issue, as discussed in the Background section above, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and all other cities and counties within the SCAG region are required by State law to amend their General Plan Housing Element by December 31, 2000. Although the proposed Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project does include a request for a General Plan Amendment to move the land use boundary line between the Open Space Hazard and Institutional land uses, that application is not associated with nor being addressed with the Housing Element amendment currently before the City Council. That application will be reviewed in the future by both the Planning Commission and City Council as a separate General Plan Amendment along with all of the other entitlements associated with that project.

In regards to Mr. and Mrs. Arbuthnot's second issue, it is correct that the senior affordable housing project is described within the Final Draft Housing Element. However, it is important to note that "Program 1.3 - Affordable Housing Development" (see page 2.17 of the Final Draft Housing Element) notes that "The RHNA's very low and low-income construction need of 13 units will be met by the development of a senior affordable housing project, or the combination of the senior affordable housing project and the Ocean Trails project…" This does not mean that the project to meet the City's RHNA construction need has to be the Indian Ridgecrest project currently proposed. That specific project is discussed to show that the City has shown some commitment towards the construction of a senior affordable housing project in the City. The final project that is used to meet the City's RHNA need could be located somewhere else in the City. Additionally, its important to note that any project proposed to meet the City's RHNA construction need, including the Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project, will include its own analysis in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA analysis and the planning analysis will be used by the Planning Commission and City Council in determining if the specific development project can be approved. As such, there is no relationship between the CEQA analysis completed for the Housing Element and the CEQA analysis that is prepared for an individual project such as the Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project.

In summary, for the reasons noted above, Staff feels that the issues brought up by Mr. and Mrs. Arbuthnot are issues specifically to be addressed by the review and analysis of the Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project and not the Final Draft Housing Element, and therefore Staff does not propose any revisions to the Final Draft Housing Element.

For the reasons noted above, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolutions certifying the Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment No. 29 for the City's Housing Element. Once approved by the City Council the General Plan Housing Element will be forwarded to HCD for final approval.

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

Reviewed:
Les Evans
City Manager

RESOLUTION NO. 2001-

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes initiated General Plan Amendment No. 29 in 2000 in order to update the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, as required by State law; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65952.5(e) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 29 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and,

WHEREAS, the Initial Study was prepared on January 15, 2001 and distributed for circulation and review from January 16, 2001 through February 16, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing notice pursuant to the requirements of the City's Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes held a public hearing on August 14, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on August 14, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-25, recommending that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration for the project, and P.C. Resolution No. 2001-26, recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 29 for the Final Draft Housing Element; and,

WHEREAS, copies of the draft Negative Declaration were distributed to the City Council, and prior to taking action on the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 29, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in the Negative Declaration and determined that the document was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and local guidelines, with respect thereto, and adopted Resolution No. 2001-__, certifying the Negative Declaration; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing notice pursuant to the requirements of the City's Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes held a public hearing on August 21, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

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

Section 1: The City Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. 29, for the updated General Plan Housing Element, is necessary to comply with State law and is consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the Housing Element notes a new housing unit objective of 111 dwelling units to year 2005, which will not cause any significant adverse impacts to the City's circulation system and thereby will be consistent with the Circulation Element. Further, any new residential units will be developed in zones that permit development, will comply with the development standards applicable to those zones, and thereby will be consistent with the Land Use Element. Additionally, the Housing Element is consistent with the other goals and policies stated within the General Plan.

Section 2:The proposed project is an amendment to the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. Specifically, it amends the General Plan Housing Element as required by State Law. The proposed amendment will not create or result in any significant impacts to the General Plan, Zoning Code, nor be in conflict with any applicable environmental plans or policies, be incompatible with existing land uses, affect agricultural resources, or disrupt the physical arrangement of the established community. Therefore, there will be no significant land use or planning impacts associated with this project.

Section 3: The proposed amendment will consider updated population, employment and housing statistics. However, there will be no significant impacts to the regional or local population projections, nor induce substantial growth in the City, nor displace existing housing (especially affordable housing) as the proposed project's quantified objectives only provide for the construction of 111 new housing units, the rehabilitation of 40 existing housing units, and the conservation of 20 existing housing units.

Section 4: The proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures. Any physical modifications or alterations to existing land and/or structures as a result of the project objectives will be addressed through separate environmental analysis consistent with CEQA. As such, there will be no significant exposure to geological risks, nor any significant impacts to water resources, air quality, transportation/circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, no significant hazardous conditions created, no significant noise impacts, no significant impacts to public services, no significant impacts to utilities and service systems, no significant aesthetic impacts, and no significant impacts to cultural and recreational resources, as a result of the proposed project.

Section 5:For reasons discussed in the Initial Study, which is incorporated herein by reference, the project would not have any potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals, nor would the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

Section 6: The proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures. Any physical modifications or alterations to existing land and/or structures as a result of the project objectives will be addressed through separate environmental analysis consistent with CEQA. As such, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Further, for this reason, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, nor have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.

Section 7:For the foregoing reasons and based on its independent review and evaluation of the information and findings contained in the Initial Study, Staff Reports, minutes, and records of the proceedings, the City Council has determined that the project will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the Negative Declaration making certain environmental findings in association with General Plan Amendment No. 29 for the General Plan Housing Element update.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of August 2001.

ATTEST:

_____________________________

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)ss

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on August 21, 2001.

_______________________

Jo Purcell, City Clerk

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes initiated General Plan Amendment No. 29 in 2000 in order to update the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, as required by State law; and,

WHEREAS, on February 21, 2000, the City Council authorized the hiring of Castaneda and Associates, a housing consultant, to assist with the preparation of the City's updated Housing Element; and,

WHEREAS, a Preliminary Draft Housing Element was prepared by Staff and the City's housing consultant, dated November 14, 2000 and December 12, 2000; and,

WHEREAS, on November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing/workshop to hear public testimony and discuss the content of the Preliminary Draft Housing Element (dated November 14, 2000). At such meeting the Planning Commission forwarded the Preliminary Draft Housing Element directly to the City Council with no comment; and,

WHEREAS, on December 19, 2001, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing/workshop to hear public testimony and discuss the content of the Preliminary Draft Housing Element (dated December 12, 2000). At such meeting, the City Council directed Staff to forward the Preliminary Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review; and,

WHEREAS, on December 21, 2000, the Preliminary Draft Housing Element (dated December 21, 2000) was transmitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development; and,

WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development provided comments on the Preliminary Draft Housing Element in a letter to the City dated February 9, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, a revised Draft Housing Element was prepared by City Staff and the housing consultant, and on April 26, 2001 was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment; and,

WHEREAS, on June 14, 2001, the California Department of Housing and Community Development provided additional comments to the City via e-mail to Acting Principal Planner Gregory Pfost; and,

WHEREAS, additional revisions to the Draft Housing Element were prepared by City Staff and the housing consultant. On June 21, 2000, the revisions were transmitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development; and,

WHEREAS, on June 29, 2001, the California Department of Housing and Community Development transmitted a letter indicating that 1) the proposed revisions to the City's Draft Element address the requirements described in their initial February 9, 2000 letter, 2) that with the revisions incorporated, they find that the Draft Housing Element meets the statutory requirements of State housing element law, and 3) that the element will be in full compliance with State law when adopted and submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development for review; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65952.5(e) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 29 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and,

WHEREAS, the Initial Study was prepared on January 15, 2001 and distributed for circulation and review from January 16, 2001 through February 16, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing notice pursuant to the requirements of the City's Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes held a public hearing on August 14, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on August 14, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-25, recommending that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration for the project, and P.C. Resolution No. 2001-26, recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 29 for the Final Draft Housing Element; and,

WHEREAS, copies of the draft Negative Declaration were distributed to the City Council, and prior to taking action on the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 29, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in the Negative Declaration and determined that the document was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and local guidelines, with respect thereto, and adopted Resolution No. 2001-__, certifying the Negative Declaration; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing notice pursuant to the requirements of the City's Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes held a public hearing on August 21, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

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

Section 1: The City Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. 29, for the updated General Plan Housing Element, is necessary to comply with State law and is consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the Housing Element notes a new housing unit objective of 111 dwelling units to year 2005, which will not cause any significant adverse impacts to the City's circulation system and thereby will be consistent with the Circulation Element. Further, any new residential units will be developed in zones that permit development, will comply with the development standards applicable to those zones, and thereby will be consistent with the Land Use Element. Additionally, the Housing Element is consistent with the other goals and policies stated within the General Plan.

Section 2: The City Council finds that the Final Draft Housing Element (Attached Exhibit B), which includes all revisions (Attached Exhibit A) to the Draft Housing Element that was originally submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development on December 21, 2000, adequately responds to the concerns addressed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development

Section 3: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 29, as outlined in the Final Draft Housing Element dated August 2001 (Attached Exhibit B), which includes revisions as noted in the attached "Edited Version of Proposed Revisions to the Draft Housing Element, dated August 2001" (Attached Exhibit A), in order to further encourage the provision of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future community residents in compliance with State law.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of August 2001.

ATTEST:

_____________________________

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)ss

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on August 21, 2001.

_______________________

Jo Purcell, City Clerk

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

Approve the continued use of LLEBG (Local Law Enforcement Block Grant) and COPS (Citizens Option for Police Services) funds to pay for the CORE Police Team to perform enforcement and crime prevention duties at the schools in the region and in the area adjacent to and south of Crest Road.

This hearing fulfills the requirement that a public hearing be held prior to obligating funds that the City receives from both the Department of Justice and the State of California for supplementing police services in the City.

This will be the sixth year that the City has received funding from the Department of Justice under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program:

199625,104 199924,470

199725,302 200019,484

199825,144 200122,782

This grant, combined with the grant from the State under AB3229 (Brulte) will give us the necessary funding to continue supplementing the City's police services with the CORE Police Team. Additional funding comes from a cooperative public safety program with the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates, Rolling Hills and the Peninsula Merchants Association.

The CORE Team is concerned with quality of life issues, especially those involving juveniles, and since its inception has been built a high profile in the community. During this past year Team member Deputy Cory Johnston was recognized by both the Palos Verdes Peninsula Rotary Club and by the Chamber of Commerce for his work with juveniles.

• Conduct daily foot patrols on each of the school campuses and make frequent vehicle patrol checks of the parking lots and surrounding areas.

• Gather information from students, teachers and local residents about illegal narcotic activity in school areas; interview and identify any suspected gang members that they encounter, and keep a database.

• Provide foot patrol during designated hours in the Peninsula Center on a daily basis.

• Provide crime prevention assessments and instructions whenever requested; and, attend Neighborhood Watch activities and business crime awareness meetings.

• Attend the monthly Student Attendance Review Board meetings and assist Board members in counseling students and their parents/guardians. Make home visits when necessary to check progress of truants. (This effort has been very successful in reducing truancy and enforcing the City’s curfew ordinance.)

• Conduct daily checks of the cities’ parks, business districts, fast food restaurants and unoccupied dwellings for truant students and to deter criminal activity.

• Conduct undercover surveillance when situations require it, e.g., burglaries at Peninsula

Center, thefts from autos in the vicinity of Peninsula High School, and juvenile violations of liquor and tobacco law.

• Provide assistance to City Code Enforcement personnel by accompanying them during nuisance abatement efforts and other code enforcement activities.

• Patrol both on and off-road areas in public parks and coastal areas: Del Cerro Park, Ladera Linda Park and Community Center, Highridge Park, Hesse Park, Ryan Park, Pt. Vicente Interpretive Center, Pt. Vicente Fishing Access, Abalone Cove Shoreline Preserve, Sacred Cove, Halfmoon Bay/Smugglers Cove, Portuguese Bend, Ocean Trails, and Shoreline Park.

• Off-road patrolling of the open lands, canyons, hiking and horse trails: Armaga Canyon, Paint Brush Canyon, Sepulveda Canyon, Portuguese Canyon, Forrestall Canyon, Klondike Canyon, William Springs Horse Trail, and Peacock Flats.

• Work with property owners and homeowner associations to prevent crime associated with public and coastal access in their neighborhoods.

• Enforce State Department of Fish and Game regulations.

• Coordinate traffic control and public safety during events, such as the PV Marathon, Whale of a Day and the Ocean Trails Celebrity Golf Tournament.

As of June 30^th the balance in the LLESS/COPS fund was $254,724. Continued sharing of the costs with the two other cities in the Region and the participation of the Peninsula Merchants Association assures us of funding through FY 2002-2003.

The next step in this process is to hold a meeting of the Advisory Board to review the use of these funds. That Board consists of a representative from the City Council, the School District, the Lomita Sheriff’s Station and the City Attorney, Staff anticipates holding that meeting in late October.

Since Fiscal Year 1996 the City has been the recipient of certain State and Federal grants enabling us to supplement police services. This program has proven to be successful, however, before funds can be committed for Fiscal Year 2001 – 2002 certain public hearings must be held.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed,
Les Evans
JP

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

1.Approve the preliminary median and parkway landscape plan for Hawthorne Boulevard.

2. Authorize a contract amendment with Land Images Inc, to provide professional services in an amount up to $53,500 to prepare final construction plans for the first phase of landscape improvements for Hawthorne Boulevard.
3. Revise the expenditure plan for Recycling Fund, to reprogram funds from the neighborhood beautification program to Hawthorne Boulevard beautification efforts.
4. Request staff to prepare a fence / wall improvement program for Hawthorne Boulevard that establishes a fence / wall standard for Hawthorne Boulevard, and provides City funding for a portion of the cost of private fence/wall replacement.

The City Council established an adhoc committee to propose improvements that beautify the City. Mayor Lyon, and Mayor Pro tem McTaggart are members of that committee. Carolynn Petru and Dean Allison staff the committee. A number of potential projects were considered including undergrounding utilities along the City’s arterial roadways, increasing code enforcement activities, and constructing landscape improvements along the City’s arterial roadways. The committee concluded that constructing landscape improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard has the highest priority.

The committee utilized the City’s on-call landscape architect, Land Images Inc., to review conditions along Hawthorne Boulevard, suggest improvements, and estimate costs. This staff report presents the results of that investigation. More specifically this report presents the landscape theme proposed for Hawthorne Boulevard, proposes a funding plan for the improvements and recommends the reach of Hawthorne Boulevard that will be the first reach to be improved. The report also proposes that a fencing program be established along Hawthorne Boulevard to reconstruct the private walls and fences along the roadway, and finally the report requests funding authorization to design the first phase of landscape improvements.

If the staff recommendations are approved, landscape improvements for the first phase of Hawthorne Boulevard will be designed. The plans will be advertised and brought back to the City Council for award in early 2002, and construction can be underway by May of 2002. It will be the first step in a multi-year plan to beautify Hawthorne Boulevard, which has an estimated cost of $7.5 million.

The committee considered the following issues in the preparation of the plan:

In May of 2001 the City Council established the Roadway Beautification Fund for the purposes of funding a beautification program along the City’s arterial roadways. The City Council began a program to set aside $200,000 from the City General Fund and $100,000 from recycling revenues each year for the next two years. The details of the Roadway Beautification Fund are as follows:

It is important to note that when the City Council established the Roadway Beautification Fund it was decided that before any Roadway Beatification Funds are spent the City Council must be comfortable that all health and public safety needs of the City are met and adequate reserves are on hand.

The Recycling Fund, which is primarily funded from the proceeds of the city’s curbside recycling program, provides funding for citywide beautification. The details of the Recycling Fund are as follows:

The estimated construction cost for the first phase of Hawthorne Boulevard is $550,000, plus the design costs of $53,500. Staff proposed the following funding plan:

Under this funding plan, the entire costs for the first phase of improvements will be funded with recycling funds. No General Funds are proposed.

Included in the funding plan proposed above is the reprogramming of recycling funds from the Neighborhood Beautification Program to the Roadway Beautification Fund. This recommendation is made because staff believes that the Neighborhood Beautification Program has accomplished what it was created to do, improve the appearance of residential neighborhoods. Staff believes that Hawthorne Boulevard presents a greater need for beautification than the city’s neighborhoods.

Future year costs can be provided with a combination of Recycling Funds and General Funds. The amount of General Fund contribution can vary based the financial condition of the City.

Staff estimates that recycling funds will be available to the City on an annual basis as follows:

The recycling fund provides a reliable revenue stream for the city to fund roadway beautification. Utilizing these funds alone will provide adequate funding for a significant roadway beautification project every two years. Under such a scenario it would take approximately 30 years to complete landscaping improvements of Hawthorne Boulevard. If this revenue stream were augmented with General Funds the schedule would accelerate. For example if the City Council were to annually contribute $200,000 of general funds toward beautification, a project could be completed each year, and it would take approximately fifteen years to complete landscaping improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard.

Construction of Landscape Improvements will require funding for maintenance. Currently the costs to maintain medians citywide are as follows:

Funding for median maintenance is provided by a combination of General Funds, Gas Tax Funds, Proposition C Funds, and Landscaping and Lighting District Funds. Any cost increases must be borne by the General Fund.

The estimated annual maintenance cost for landscape improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard is follows:

The beautification committee concluded that to achieve the desired level of beautification along Hawthorne Boulevard many of the private walls and fencing at the edges of the roadway must be replaced. Since the improvements are private, one possibility is to require property owners to reconstruct the wall or fence through code enforcement activities. The committee believed that such actions would be protracted and may not be effective. Instead the committee suggested that a fencing program be established which encouraged property owners to upgrade their fencing and walls. The program would be voluntary and would establish standards, and contribute city funding towards replacement costs. If the staff recommendations are adopted staff will bring back to City Council a fencing program that proposes a standard fencing type and identifies a funding source.

Adopting the staff recommendations will begin the process to significantly improve the appearance of Hawthorne Boulevard. A landscape theme will be established and the design of the first phase of improvements will begin. Plans for the first phase will be completed in November. A construction project will be brought back to the City Council for consideration in February 2002, and if approved construction will be underway by May 2002.

Adopting the staff recommendations will also result in staff to preparing a fencing replacement program for Hawthorne Boulevard. That plan will be brought back to the City Council in November 2001. This will allow the first phase of fencing improvements to move forward at the same time as the first phase of the landscape improvements.

Adopting the staff recommendations will result in the expenditure of $53,500 for professional services to prepare final construction plans for phase one of landscape improvements for Hawthorne Boulevard. The cost of the phase one improvements are estimated at $550,000, and the cost of improvements for all Hawthorne Boulevard, from Palos Verdes Drive West to the northerly city limits is $7.5 million.

Based upon previous City Council direction, to initiate a program of beautification along the City’s arterial roadways, the City Council must be comfortable that all health and public safety needs of the City are met and adequate reserves are on hand.

Submitted by,
Dean E. Allison
Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Preliminary Landscape Plans
Power Point Presentation

(Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart)

Recommendation: That the City Council find that there are insufficient reasons to continue the distinction between lots in Zone 2 (Abalone Cove), which have been developed and those lots in Zone 2 which remain vacant. Therefore, the Council directs staff to prepare an additional exception under Municipal Code 15.020.040 allowing the construction of homes and appurtenant structures on all approved building lots in Zone 2 which meet a 1.5 local safety factor, provided the requirements of Municipal Code 15.020.050 are also met.

TO:CITY COUNCIL

FROM:MAYOR LYON AND MAYOR PRO TEM MCTAGGART

DATE:AUGUST 21, 2001

SUBJECT:ZONE 2

That the City Council find that there are insufficient reasons to continue the distinction between lots in Zone 2 (Abalone Cove), which have been developed and those lots in Zone 2 which remain vacant. Therefore, the Council directs staff to prepare an additional exception under Municipal Code 15.020.040 allowing the construction of homes and appurtenant structures on all approved building lots in Zone 2 which meet a 1.5 local safety factor, provided the requirements of Municipal Code 15.020.050 are also met.

On March 6, 2001, the City Council took the following action:

(1)Authorized the expenditure of $30,000 of general fund reserves for a review by Cotton, Shires and Associates of existing geologic and geotechnical documents to determine whether the data is sufficient to support the conclusions of the Peer Review Group to allow development in Zone 2 under certain conditions; and

(2) Requested that staff give direction to the consultant as follows: (a) Review to include lots 8, 10, 22, and 98 Vanderlip Drive. (b) Review to determine if it is safe to build on lots with a localized safety factor of 1.5 assuming that the gross area factor is not that high and to determine any cumulative effect by development on the 40 vacant lots.

Subsequently, on April 17, 2001, the City Council took the following action:

(1) Approved a Professional Services Agreement with Cotton, Shires and Associates to review existing geologic and geotechnical documents to determine whether the data are sufficient to allow building on vacant lots in Zone 2 if the local factor of safely calculated for the lot is 1.5 or greater;

(2) Authorized the expenditure of up to $30,000 for the Cotton, Shires contract from Building and Safety Account 402.35 Technical and Professional Services; and

(3) Formed a Peer Review Committee consisting of three independent geologists to review and comment on the findings of Cotton, Shires & Associates.

The Zone 2 Geology Committee, made up of geologists from Cotton, Shires & Associates and Keith Ehlert, Monte Ray and Dr. Kim Bishop (the Peer Review Geologists), have met three times over the past four months. Dr. Bishop was present only at the initial meeting. Prior to the next meeting, Cotton, Shires & Associates will prepare a technical report of findings. The draft report should be complete by the first week of September and will be distributed to the Peer Review Group and other interested parties. The report will be discussed at a public meeting tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2001.

It is our opinion that a lot of time and taxpayer money has been spent discussing the question of whether to allow building on vacant lots in Zone 2. Dr. Perry Ehlig's recommendations of 1993 and the Peer Review Panel's concurring recommendations of 1976-77 indicate that such building would have no negative impact on the overall stability of the area. To the contrary, the experts have indicated that development of those vacant lots that individually meet a 1.5 factor of safety, under appropriate guidelines, would enhance the stability of the entire area. In addition, the City has recently completed construction of the Abalone Cove sewer system, which is a major added precaution.

The latest attempt to pull together all geologic data for a final professional opinion has taken months and wandered far afield of the specific question: will building have a negative effect on stability? When asked for a direct answer on this question, Bill Cotton agreed with the panel members that it would not. In fairness to the property owners, now is the time to put the matter before the Council for final resolution. The additional information that Bill Cotton was presented with at the most recent Zone 2 Geology meeting has already been studied and raised no red flags. Mr. Cotton is expected to have completed his review by the time staff brings back the suggested Municipal Code Amendment. The Code Amendment would provide an exception for Zone 2 similar to the exception that was made for Zone 4 in the Seaview tract (see attached Municipal Code Chapter 15.20.040.K). It should be noted that adding an exception for Zone 2 to the Municipal Code will not result in a lifting of the Landslide Moratorium.

Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn Lyon
Mayor

John McTaggart
Mayor Pro Tem

Recommendation: Affirm staff’s determination that the keeping of a maximum of twelve (12) large domestic animals – of which a maximum of seven (7) animals may be boarded – may be "grandfathered" for the property at 6 Limetree Lane.

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

Affirm Staff’s determination that the keeping of a maximum twelve (12) large domestic animals—of which a maximum of seven (7) animals may be boarded—may be "grandfathered" for the property at 6 Limetree Lane.

Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC) provides for the filing of nonconformity statements related to the keeping of large domestic animals in the City. Pursuant to this Code section, the final determination on these statements was to be made by Staff. However, in the course of reviewing the statements submitted to the City, it became clear that Staff’s determination on some of these statements might be disputed, either by the party who filed the statement or by another interested party. Therefore, in 1999 Staff sought direction from the City Council regarding the final disposition on any disputed nonconformity statements, and the Council determined that it would make the final determination on any disputed statements. Of the twenty-six (26) nonconformity statements submitted, Staff identified seven (7) that were likely to be disputed. This is the third of the disputed statements to be presented to the City Council for a final determination.

Staff has reviewed Nonconformity Statement No. 8, filed by Sunshine for the property at 6 Limetree Lane. Based upon this statement and a site inspection, Staff determined that a maximum of twelve (12) large domestic animals could be kept, of which a maximum of seven (7) animals could be boarded. Sunshine has not disputed Staff’s determination on Nonconformity Statement No. 8, but written objections to Staff’s determination have been raised by Toni Deeble, Betty Strauss and Jeanne Smolley.

Sunshine’s property consists of a developed 26,400-square-foot lot and two (2) vacant, contiguous lots of 19,800 square feet and 22,120 square feet, respectively. Under the "old" provisions of the Development Code, up to five (5) animals could have been kept on the developed lot, and up to six (6) animals could have been kept on each of the vacant, contiguous lots, for a total of seventeen (17) animals on all the lots combined. Any or all of these animals could have been "boarded," meaning that they are not owned and/or maintained by the property owner. Under the current Development Code, a total of up to four (4) animals could be kept and/or boarded on all of the lots combined without the approval of a large domestic animal permit or conditional large domestic animal permit.

RPVDC Section 17.46.080 begins as follows:

Except as provided in this Section, all existing buildings, structures, fences, enclosures and uses of land, including the number of animals allowed by this Chapter, which do not conform to the provisions of this Chapter, but were existing as legal conforming uses or structures on February 1, 1997, shall be considered legal nonconforming uses and/or structures for purposes of this Chapter. The owner of a parcel or use which has been rendered nonconforming by the provisions of this Chapter shall file a written nonconformity statement with the Director in order to establish a record of the nonconforming use or structure. The written statement shall be filed with the Director by October 3, 1997. [emphasis added]

According to Nonconformity Statement No. 8 (attached), there were twelve (12) large domestic animals kept on Sunshine’s property as of February 1, 1997. This was verified during a subsequent inspection of the property. Seven of these animals are boarded, based upon information provided by Sunshine. Since the keeping and/or boarding of up to seventeen (17) animals was permitted by right under the "old" Development Code provisions and this was more than the number of animals observed by Staff on the site, Staff determined that the number of animals requested by Sunshine (i.e., twelve) could be "grandfathered" for the property.

Mrs. Deeble and Mrs. Strauss assert that no number of animals should be "grandfathered" for this property because (they allege) the property does not comply with basic City standards for the keeping of large domestic animals. This may or may not be the case. However, pursuant to the Development Code, the relevant issue for the approval of this nonconformity statement is whether the number of animals kept and/or boarded on the property was legal on February 1, 1997, but was subsequently rendered nonconforming by the enactment of revisions to the City’s Development Code in May of 1997. As discussed above, Staff believes that the number of animals requested by Sunshine qualifies for "grandfathering." However, it should be noted that, with the exception of specific structures and/or numbers of animals covered by the nonconformity statement, the approval of a nonconformity statement does not give any property owner the right to violate or deviate from the City’s standards for keeping large domestic animals. Accordingly, Mrs. Deeble’s and Mrs. Strauss’ concerns about issues of property maintenance, public health and aesthetics have been referred to the City’s Code Enforcement Division.

Mrs. Smolley asserts that two (2) of the horses listed on Sunshine’s nonconformity statement were moved to her property prior to February 1, 1997, and should not have been listed as being present on Sunshine’s property on that date. Sunshine does not dispute Mrs. Smolley’s assertion, but she also believes that there were at least twelve—and perhaps more—horses present on her property on February 1, 1997. However, since Sunshine’s statement only listed twelve (12) horses, Staff is only prepared to recommend that this number of horses be "grandfathered" for the property.

The property owner and the interested parties have been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this matter. Based upon the City Council’s determination, Staff will prepare a final nonconformity statement for recordation to the title of Sunshine’s property. It should also be noted that the City Council’s determination does not preclude Sunshine from applying for a large domestic animal permit in order to change the number of animals permitted on the property or to add or modify structures on the property.

The subject matter of this item will have no fiscal impact upon the City, regardless of the action taken.

The alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:

1. Grant the property owner’s request to "grandfather" twelve (12) animals for the subject property.
2. Determine a different number of animals to "grandfather" for the subject property.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Recommendation: Approve Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 41 allowing the landowner to proceed with the appropriate applications to request approval for a 1,179-square foot two-story addition, including a new garage, for property located at 120 Spindrift Lane.

Approve Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 41, thereby allowing the landowner to proceed with the appropriate applications to request approval for a 1,179 square foot two-story addition, including a new garage, for property located at 120 Spindrift Lane.

On April 10, 2001, the applicant submitted Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 41 to allow the necessary applications to be submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for consideration of the following: construction of a 535 square foot addition to the existing residence; and a 644 square foot garage and storage area under the new addition, resulting in a two story residential structure. The Landslide Moratorium Exception application was deemed incomplete on May 4, 2001, pending the submittal of additional information and plans, and verification of approval of the geological statement indicating that the additions will not aggravate the existing landslide situation. Upon submittal of the necessary information, the application was deemed complete on August 6, 2001.

Pursuant to the City’s Landslide Moratorium Ordinance, a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for a project in excess of a cumulative project total of 600 square feet of additional area must be acted upon by the City Council. Since the applicant is requesting approval to add 1,179 square feet of area, City Council consideration of Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 41 is required.

The subject property is an RS-2 (Single Family Residential) zoned lot located at 120 Spindrift Lane within the Portuguese Bend Club, which is within the City’s Landslide Moratorium area and coastal setback zone. The property is largely a rectangular-shaped parcel measuring 2,373 square feet in area, located near the end of the cul-de-sac. The parcel is currently developed with a 1,520 square foot one-story single-family residence, and a carport on the lower side of the lot. The structure is non-conforming since the original residence was constructed in approximately 1950 under the authority of Los Angeles County with 4-foot front and rear yard setbacks, where the City’s Development Code requires 20-foot and 15-foot minimums, respectively.

The applicant proposes to construct 1,179 square feet of additions to the existing residential structure. Specifically, the applicant proposes to expand and convert the existing carport into a new 644 square foot garage and storage area built up to the front property line, and add 535 square feet to the residence, which would be constructed over the new garage and would tie into the existing structure. Thus, the appearance of the residence would be of a split-level two-story residence, where the upper level would be comprised of the habitable portion of the residence and the lower level would be comprised of the garage and storage areas. The additions are proposed to be constructed up to the front and west side property lines, and would result in a 2,699 square foot structure size. Lastly, the resulting overall height is proposed to measure 26 feet, as measured from the lowest finish grade to ridgeline.

The City has established a moratorium prohibiting the filing, processing and approval of building, grading and other permits within the Landslide Moratorium Area. However, Section 15.20.040 of the Municipal Code establishes categories of projects that qualify as exceptions to the moratorium based on specific criteria. This project qualifies under Moratorium Exception Category (H), which allows for minor projects that involve additions to existing residential structures.

Municipal Code Section 15.20.040.H requires that, prior to the approval of a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit, the applicant submit geological and/or geotechnical studies to satisfy the City's Geotechnical Staff that the proposed project would not aggravate the conditions within the landslide area. The City's Geologist completed a review of the geotechnical reports submitted to the City, and concluded that the proposed addition will not aggravate the existing landslide situation. However, additional geotechnical information that is project specific will be required prior to the issuance of building permits.

Approval of the Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit by the City Council does not constitute planning approval of the proposed project. Rather, it allows the applicant to submit the appropriate planning applications for approval of the specific project. Based on the current proposal, the applicant would need to submit and obtain approval of a Variance, Height Variation, Site Plan Review, and Coastal Permit. The applications would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission through a noticed public hearing. However, approval of this Moratorium Exception Permit does not guarantee approval of the subsequent Variance, Height Variation, Site Plan Review and Coastal Permit applications by the Planning Commission.

The processing of the applications will be a discretionary process to ensure that the proposed project does not significantly impair views, will not result in infringement of privacy, and is compatible with the immediate neighborhood.

Although approval of a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit does not guarantee approval of any subsequent applications required by the City, Staff has identified a potential concern with the location of the addition, as it may exacerbate the nonconforming setback. Another potential concern includes the proposed structure size, as it may be significantly larger than the existing structure sizes evident in the immediate neighborhood. Nonetheless, as part of the Variance application findings, and the neighborhood compatibility analysis of the Height Variation application, the location and resulting structure size, in addition to the appearance of the structure, will be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure that the project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood.

Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the City Council approve Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 41 to allow the applicant to submit the appropriate applications to request approval for a 1,179 square foot two-story addition, comprised of a 644 square foot garage and storage area on the lower level and a 535 square foot room addition on the upper level, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A".

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:

1. Approve Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 41 for a smaller addition; or,
2. Identify any issues or concerns with the proposed project, and provide the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the hearing to a date certain.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans,
City Manager

• Exhibit "A" – Conditions of Approval
• Architectural Plans

1. The applicant shall submit the necessary Variance, Height Variation, Site Plan Review and Coastal Permit applications to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for review within one (1) year of this approval; otherwise, the approval shall become null and void.
2. In the case that the necessary Variance, Height Variation, Site Plan Review and Coastal Permit applications are approved by the City, the conditions of approval for Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 41 shall remain in full force and effect along with any additional conditions set forth in any Variance, Height Variation, Site Plan Review and/or Coastal Permit applications.
3. If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the Director of Public Works, all such deficiencies shall be corrected by the applicant.
4. If the project involves additional plumbing fixtures, or additions of habitable space which exceed two hundred square feet, or could be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, and if the lot or parcel is not served by sanitary sewers, septic systems shall be replaced with approved holding tank systems in which to dispose of on-site waste water. The capacity of the required holding tank system shall be subject to the review and approval of the city’s building official. For the purposes of this subsection, the addition of a sink to an existing bathroom, kitchen or laundry room shall not be construed to be an additional plumbing fixture. For those projects which involve additions of less than two hundred square feet in total area and which are not to be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant specifically agreeing that the addition of the habitable space will not be used for those purposes. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit. For lots or parcels which are to be served by a sanitary sewer system on or after the effective date of the ordinance (July 6, 2000), additional plumbing fixtures may be permitted and the requirement for a holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. If a sanitary sewer system is approved and/or under construction but is not yet operational at the time that a project requiring a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved, the requirement for a holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is required to be connected to the sanitary sewer system pursuant to Section 15.20.110 of the Municipal Code.
5. Roof runoff from all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets or an approved drainage course.

6. If required by the city geotechnical staff, the applicant shall submit site specific soil report and/or a geotechnical report, for the review and approval of the city geotechnical staff.
7. If the lot or parcel is not served by sanitary sewers, the applicant shall submit for recordation of a covenant agreeing to an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the city a sewer and storm drain easement on the subject property, as well as any other easement required by the city to mitigate landslide conditions. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. A Hold Harmless Agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney promising to defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from any claims or damages resulting from the requested project. Such agreement shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
9. All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system approved by the Director of Public Works. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden.
10. If the lot or parcel is not served by sanitary sewers, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to support and participate in existing or future sewer and/or storm drain assessment districts and any other geological and geotechnical hazard abatement measures required by the city, including, without limitations, an agreement to attach any private sewer system which is available. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11. The applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further projects on the subject site without first filing an application with the Director. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit.
12. This approval does not include a pool or spa.
13. All other necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to this code or any other applicable statute, law or ordinance shall be obtained.

Recommendation: Approve the fencing design and signage for Inspiration Point and direct staff to install said improvements.

FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:AUGUST 21, 2001

SUBJECT:FENCING AND SIGNAGE AT INSPIRATION POINT

Approve the fencing design and signage for Inspiration Point and direct staff to install said improvements.

At the February 20, 2001 City Council meeting, Sarah Key-Marer addressed the Council regarding the death of her four-year old daughter, Lauren Key, at Inspiration Point on November 8, 2000. She noted that Portuguese Point has fencing along the bluff edge and warning signage, but that Inspiration Point, which is immediately adjacent, is not similarly improved. Ms. Key-Marer requested that the City take measures to prevent future tragedies on City-owned coastal property.

In response to the issues raised by Ms. Key-Marer, staff visited each City-owned coastal property to determine which areas might need safety improvements. The results of staff’s study were considered by the City Council at the April 21 and May 1, 2001 Budget Policy Workshops. At that time, Council directed staff to include $45,000 in the FY 01-02 Budget to install the following bluff top improvements:

With the adoption of the City Budget on June 5, 2001 and the start of the new fiscal year on July 1, 2001, staff is proceeding with the installation of bluff top fencing at Shoreline Park. Standard warning signage will be installed at Ocean Front Estates, the Archery Range and Shoreline Park later in the year. The remaining issue is Council approval of the final design of the fencing and signage at Inspiration Point.

Despite its relatively remote location (the closest public parking is located a ½ mile away at Abalone Cove Beach), Inspiration Point is an attractive destination to hikers in the area due to its scenic beauty and unique vistas. Although there are a number of small interconnecting trails between Palos Verdes Drive South and Inspiration Point, the most obvious access onto the point is available from two footpaths. One footpath begins on Palos Verdes Drive South, just east of Peppertree Drive. The second trail comes up from Sacred Cove on the west side of Inspiration Point. The two trails converge just before the promontory juts out to sea.

Unlike Portuguese Point, which has a level area on top that is approximately 200 to 400 feet wide, the flat portion of Inspiration Point is only 20 to 40 feet wide. Installing fencing along the top of Inspiration Point would be particularly challenging because of this point’s narrow aspect, as well as the fact that the area between Palos Verdes Drive South and where the point extends into the ocean experiences nearly constant landslide movement. Rather than fencing Inspiration Point in a manner similar to Portuguese Point, staff recommends that a section of fence be installed parallel to the roadway in the area where the point first narrows and extends out to sea. The proposed location of the fence is shown as a white line on the aerial photograph on Figure 1 attached to this report. Staff has also marked the location of the fence on the property using wooden stakes and yellow plastic tape, as shown in the attached photographs. The fence construction would be similar to the fence at Portuguese Point, which consists of 48" high wooden posts set approximately 10’6" apart and connected by three galvanized metal crossbars. This same style of fencing is also used at Abalone Cove, Vanderlip Park and the Point Vicente Interpretive Center.

The fence would be equipped with swing gates in the locations where the fence intersects the two existing footpaths described above. In order to pass through, a hiker would be required to unlatch the gate and pull it open. The gate would automatically close behind the hiker by way of a spring mechanism. Ocean Trails is required to have three similar swing gates located at the top of steep and narrow trails leading from the bluff top down to the beach 150 to 200 feet below. Staff recommends that both the east and west swing gates be equipped with warning signs that state:

WARNING!

BEYOND THIS POINT ARE UNSTABLE CLIFFS AND STEEP DROP-OFFS.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN OR INEXPERIENCED HIKERS.

PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!

These signs would be approximately 3’ wide by 2’ high and could either be attached to the swing gate itself or to the fence adjacent to the gate. The sign would have a yellow background and black lettering. Exact placement would be determined at the time of installation in order to provide the best visibility to hikers.

As part of this year’s Budget Workshops, the City Council included funds in the FY 01-02 Budget to install fencing and signage improvements at Inspiration Point. Staff is now seeking Council approval for the final location, configuration and design of the proposed fencing and signage.

The total cost for the project would be $45,000, which includes $30,000 for fencing, $10,000 for warning signage and $5,000 for engineering services. The source of funds for the project would be the General fund. Staff is still investigating whether there may be some residual Measure A funds available for this type of park improvement project.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru
Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager

Recommendation: Authorize the expenditure of up to $18,500 toward neighborhood improvements in the Miraleste Neighborhood.

Award a grant in an amount up to $22,000 to the Miraleste Recreation and Park District for beautification improvements in the Miraleste neighborhood.

The Miraleste Recreation and Park District is proposing to construct beautification improvements in the Miraleste neighborhood. The improvements consist of stamped asphalt and landscaping within the public right of way. The total cost of the project is estimated at $ 62,000. Thus far contributions toward the project from property owners and the district total $ 40,000. Dawn Henry a director with the District is requesting that the City Council fund the shortfall.

The project consists of installing stamped asphalt at the three locations and installing landscape improvements at two locations. See attached Exhibit A.

Stamped asphalt is proposed within the public roadway at the three entrances to the Miraleste Community; Palos Verdes East at La Vista Verde Drive, Palos Verdes Drive East at Picardie Drive, and Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita. Stamped asphalt is a relatively new process for creating decorative pavement. Through a thermal process the existing asphalt is colorized and formed into decorative patterns. Currently there are no examples of this product in Rancho Palos Verdes, however the City of Palos Verdes Estates recently installed stamped asphalt on Palos Verdes Drive West at the entrance to the city.

Landscaping improvements are proposed at Miraleste Drive at Via Colinta, and at Miraleste Plaza. The improvements include the installation of irrigation improvements.

Staff is recommending that the City award a grant in the amount of $22,000 towards this beatification project. The rationale is that the project will beautify the City, the Miraleste community supports the project, and without City funding the project will be significantly delayed, or reduced in scope.

Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the expenditure of $ 22,000 toward beautification improvements in the Miraleste neighborhood. Funding for the proposed recommendations is available in the recycling fund.

Maintenance for the landscape improvements will be the responsibility of the Miraleste Recreation and Park District. Maintenance of the stamped asphalt will be the responsibility of the City. The stamped asphalt will be slightly more expensive to maintain than traditional asphalt. The funding source for this additional maintenance will be a combination of Propositions C funds, and General Funds.

Submitted by,
Dean E. Allison
Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Recommendation: Approve the Sheriff’s proposal to conduct a three-month pilot program increasing traffic enforcement during the PM hours and during the weekends at a cost of $10,200.

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the Sheriff’s proposal to conduct a three-month pilot program increasing traffic enforcement during the PM hours and during the weekends at a cost of $10,200.

INTRODUCTION

Approval of this pilot program will deploy full time traffic enforcement units during the P.M. hours and during weekends. These units will focus in areas where accidents have occurred and in residential areas where the residents have complained about speeding motorists.

BACKGROUND

The City is in receipt of a proposal from the Lomita Sheriff’s Station requesting that the regional Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rolling Hills consider a three-month pilot program of additional traffic enforcement. This proposal was presented to the Regional Law Enforcement Committee at their August 7^th meeting and received the approval of the members.

This traffic enforcement will be done on an overtime basis and the cost is estimated to be $15,906. It was agreed that the cost would be pro rated in the customary 60/30/10 formula among the regional cities (Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rolling Hills Estates respectively).

This program will go into effect at the start of the school year—September 4, 2001. A report on the findings of this program will be presented to the City Council in early 2002.

FISCAL IMPACT

The cost to the City, including liability insurance, is $10,200 and there are adequate funds in the General Law Public Safety budget to cover this expense.

CONCLUSION

The Sheriff’s Department has proposed a pilot program of deploying traffic enforcement units during certain hours of the day and on weekends. The Regional Police Committee has approved this proposal; funding for the program will come from the Public Safety General Law Budget.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Recommendation: Adopt City Council Policy No. 34 which establishes a policy for handling "Border Issues."

Review and adopt City Council Policy Issue No. 34, which establishes a policy for handling "Border Issues".

At the August 7, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council directed Staff to prepare a draft City Council policy for handling "Border Issues". Attached is the draft policy for the Council’s review and consideration.

In summary, the policy creates a procedure where the City Council can address potential "Border Issue" projects in neighboring communities on a monthly basis and refer such issues to the "Border Issues" ad hoc sub-committee for further investigation. The ad-hoc subcommittee, composed of Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro tem McTaggart, would then have the responsibility to monitor the proposed projects, coordinate with other local agencies, if necessary, and provide status reports to the City Council.

As pointed out at the last meeting, the present sub-committee has a finite life and is set to expire on December 3, 2001. In addition, minutes will be taken at any meeting of the sub-committee and provided to all Councilmembers.

Staff is recommending that the Council review the draft policy, provide staff with any suggested changes, and adopt the policy.

1. Direct Staff to make specific revisions to the draft policy and to bring back the revised policy at a future City Council meeting for adoption.
2. Direct Staff to propose a different method for monitoring Border Issues.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

NUMBER: 34

DATE ADOPTED: August 21, 2001

SUBJECT: Border Issues

It shall be the policy of the City Council that at least once a month, the City Council agenda shall contain an item to discuss "Border Issues" that have the potential to adversely impact residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. "Border Issues" consist of individual projects that are likely to have direct adverse impacts on City residents on their own, as well as projects that, together with other projects, could create cumulative impacts to City residents. The procedure for addressing such issues shall be as follows, which is summarized in the attached flow chart:

1. When City Staff receives notices or other information regarding proposed projects that are located outside of the City’s borders but with the potential to impact City residents, City Staff shall report such information to the City Council as part of the Council’s monthly "Border Issues" agenda item. Such proposed projects shall include, but not be limited to, proposed land use development projects, events, or special uses in the neighboring cities and communities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, San Pedro, Lomita and unincorporated LA County.
2. The Staff Report to the City Council on any such "Border Issue" proposed project shall include a description of the proposed project and the current status of the proposed project.
3. A copy of the Staff Report on such proposed projects shall be mailed to the Council of Homeowners Associations and any Homeowners Associations on file with the City that are located in the proximity of the proposed project.
4. Upon receipt of the Staff Report, the City Council shall consider any public testimony and take one of the following actions:

1. Determine that no potential adverse impacts would result to City residents and direct that no further action be taken on the item;
2. Determine that potential adverse impacts may result to City residents and direct the Border Issues sub-committee to monitor the proposed project and make a recommendation to the City Council as to what, if any, position the City should take on the project.
3. Determine that adverse impacts will result to City residents and establish a City position on the proposed project and give specific direction to the sub-committee and/or Staff.

1. Unless otherwise directed by the City Council, when a project is referred to the sub-committee for monitoring, the sub-committee will have the ability to take one or more of the following actions:

1. Direct Staff to respond to any CEQA notices:
2. Direct Staff to draft a letter to the lead agency stating the City’s position on the project;
3. Attend or direct Staff to attend any public hearings, workshops or any other informational meetings on the proposed project;
4. Meet with representatives of the lead agency proposing the project.

1. The sub-committee shall monitor projects, when directed to do so by the City Council, until the City Council deems otherwise. Unless otherwise directed by the City Council, monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City Council as part of the monthly "Border Issues" agenda item and may be accompanied by oral reports from the sub-committee members.

Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare an amended ordinance imposing additional restrictions on mobile food vendor parking.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:AUGUST 21, 2001

Direct staff to prepare an amended ordinance imposing additional restrictions on mobile food vendor parking.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart has asked that the matter of regulating mobile food vending trucks be placed on the City Council agenda. The issue is not a new one, but until this year had been quiet since 1997. Recently the owner of the Mobil Station complained that mobile vendors are unfair competition since he paid $1.5 million for his store and their investment in a truck is considerably less. On the other hand the vendors have complained to City Hall that they are ticketed if they park on Granvia Altamira for more than 15 minutes and do we know how many sandwiches they have to sell to pay off a ticket?

The facts are that the City cannot prohibit the mobile vending trucks, but we can limit the time they are allowed to stop in one place. Since the problem of the vending trucks seemed to be only on Granvia Altamira, in 1997 the City Council decided to restrict parking on the entire length of this street between Hawthorne Blvd and our City limits with PVE. Adjacent to the Mobil Station, and also adjacent to the 7-11 Market on the northwest corner, the curb is painted red (no parking) except for a small loading zone requested by the 7-11. The remainder of the curb on both sides of Granvia Altamira is painted green and signed for 15-minute parking.

At the time the parking restrictions were established, the City Manager noted that the Council could always elect to adopt a stricter ordinance governing mobile vending trucks if the parking limits didn’t work. For example an ordinance could limit vending trucks to 15-20 minutes in any location with a prohibition on returning to anywhere within a 500-foot radius for two hours (City of Los Angeles ordinance). Our current ordinance allows parking by itinerant vendors "for a period of time not to exceed fifteen minutes at any one location." We may also be able to impose some penalties for repeated violations of the parking ordinance. Vehicle Code Section 22455 (b) allows local agencies to impose additional requirements "for the public safety" on vehicles that are vending upon public streets. Thus, any additional requirement that is imposed must be to address a public safety issue.

The City Council should determine what additional restrictions they feel are appropriate and direct staff to bring back an ordinance for introduction. The Council may wish to consult with Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates before adopting an amended ordinance to insure we are all consistent in how we are regulating mobile vendor parking.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans,
City Manager

Attachments: City Code Section 10.04.060

CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

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

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5

(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)

The City Council/Agency finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation.

Anticipated Litigation:

(G.C 54956.9(b)

Based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, the City Council/Agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed session is authorized.

1(Number of Potential Cases)

(E) Letter written by John Monks dated February 6, 2001

sent to Mayor Marilyn Lyon regarding Landslide Moratorium Zone 2 a copy of which is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office.

Initiation of Litigation:

G.C. 54956.9(c)

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

CALL TO ORDERNEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2001-11

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

A.Minutes of August 7, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the Minutes.

DATE: AUGUST 21, 2001

SUBJECT: SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL

1. Provide direction to Staff and the Developer regarding the following issues: 1) can the Developer submit an application for a Tentative Tract Map to develop a Condominium project instead of an apartment building at the subject property, and 2) how many affordable housing units should be included with the proposed project; and,

2.Depending upon the outcome of the discussion of issue number 1) above, either approve the attached ENA for a 42-unit condominium project, or approve the attached ENA for a 52-unit apartment project.

On August 28, 1999, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to review the concept of a proposed Senior Affordable Housing apartment project presented by a non-profit affordable housing Developer. The Developer had entered into an agreement to purchase the subject property and requested that the City contribute up to $1.9 million towards the development of the apartment project. At the workshop, the City Council/Planning Commission gave some direction to the Developer, and indicated that the project had some merit.

In response to the Developer’s request for financial assistance, in March, 2000, the Developer assigned its right to purchase the property to the Redevelopment Agency, and the Agency purchased the property with restricted affordable housing set-aside monies for $ 687,500, which included reimbursement to the Developer of the funds that it had expended in connection with the purchase. The Agency also entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement ("ENA") with the Developer on February 1, 2000. The ENA allowed the Developer to process its applications to develop the affordable apartment project and precluded the Agency from negotiating with anyone else to develop the property while the ENA was in effect. The ENA also provided the Developer with the right to repurchase the property from the Agency. Initially, the ENA was effective until October 1, 2000. Pursuant to its terms, the ENA was extended once for three additional months, and then it expired.

While the first ENA was in effect, the Developer submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit for the proposed apartment project. The applications were deemed complete on September 14, 2000. Due to several changes to the project, which are discussed in greater detail in the next section of this report, the application process proceeded very slowly. A second ENA was approved by the Agency on December 19, 2000 (which did not provide the Developer with the option to repurchase the property). The second ENA was extended for three additional months and is scheduled to expire on September 1, 2001.

Meanwhile, on March 6, 2001 a Draft Supplemental EIR was released for a 45-day public review period. Many comments were received from the public about that document and the project.

The Traffic Committee reviewed the project at their March 26, 2001, April 23, 2001, and May 31, 2001 meetings. At their May 31^st meeting, the Traffic Committee recommended conditional approval of the proposed project from a traffic standpoint.

The Planning Commission has reviewed the project at their March 27, 2001, May 8, 2001, May 22, 2001 and June 26, 2001 meetings. At their June 26, 2001 meeting, the Developer’s request to change the project from 52 apartment units to 40 or 42 condominium units was presented to the Commission. The Commission felt that the issue of changing the project to condominiums needed to be addressed by the City Council before the Planning Commission could take any further action on the development proposal. Subsequently, the Planning Commission tabled the item until the City Council addressed the issue of whether or not the Developer could file a Tentative Tract Map for a Condominium development.

On July 12, 2001, Staff received the attached letter (dated July 10, 2001) from the Developer, requesting that the City Council discuss the developer’s request to change the project from apartments to condominiums.

Since the Planning Commission and City Council first reviewed this project in August 1999, the project has changed many times. In August 1999 it was presented as an 84-unit affordable housing apartment project for seniors plus a community center for the Peninsula Seniors. The project was reduced in size to 73 units in December 1999. In January 2001, the project was reduced to 64 units (13 affordable and 51 market-rate apartments), and the community center for the Peninsula Seniors was removed.

The project also changed in design from a monolithic curved design to the current Spanish Mediterranean design. The project was reduced further in March 2001 to 54 units and to 52 units in June 2001. The project is still proposed to be two stories tall with a partially subterranean parking structure. It also includes a library, computer room, and small community room for the residents. Grading is still proposed at approximately 10,773 cubic yards. The Developer has provided the attached table describing the changes in the project from the original proposal to the current project, and the attached colored rendering of the current project.

Although the project has been reduced significantly and the design has greatly improved, Staff is still concerned regarding the potential visual impacts associated with the proposed project. Specifically, Staff is concerned regarding the close proximity of the proposed building to Crenshaw Boulevard. The proposed location of the building can be seen from the partial silhouette framing currently existing on the subject site. This has been an issue that Staff has repeatedly brought to the Developer’s attention, and the Developer has attempted to address the issue by reducing the size of the structure and changing the design. Staff has noted these concerns to the Planning Commission, and although the Planning Commission has also expressed some concerns, as noted above, the Planning Commission has tabled this project until the City Council renders a decision on the Developer’s request to change the project from apartments to condominiums.

The Developer recently has advised Staff that although he is not intending to reduce the size of the building or move the building further away from Crenshaw Boulevard, the Developer has indicated that he will be making modifications to the Site Plan to incorporate additional landscaping to help screen the building.

As shown in the attached letters from the Developer, dated June 15, 2001 and July 10, 2001, the Developer is requesting to change the project from a 52-unit apartment project to a 42-unit condominium project. However, the reduction of units will not result in a reduction of the total building size. This is because the Developer is proposing to have the reduced number of units occupy the same footprint as the 52-unit project, but the size of the individual units will increase with the 42-unit project.

In evaluating the Developer’s proposal to change the project from apartments to condominiums, with the assistance of Staff, the City Attorney has prepared the attached letter, dated June 7, 2001. As noted in the letter, Staff and the City Attorney have identified the following concerns with changing the project from apartments to condominiums:

• A for-sale condominium project may not be consistent with the Institutional land use designation. As noted in the Development Code, the Institutional District provides for a wide range of uses established in response to the health, safety, educational, cultural and welfare needs of the City. The Institutional District permits, with approval of a CUP, "homes for the aged". This is the category that has been relied upon to allow the proposed apartment project. However, Staff is of the opinion that for any residential type project to be consistent with the Institutional land use designation, the project, whether it is apartment or condominium, also needs to provide services to the residents of the project. As noted in the Developer’s June 15, 2001 letter, the project will include a community room for residents, library, and computer rooms. Additionally, the project will provide for services including, but not limited to, transportation, meal services, housekeeping and other care giving services to residents in coordination with the Canterbury and Marriott projects or under separate contract. Although Staff believes that these types of proposed services may be sufficient to ensure consistency with the Institutional land use designation, and can be required through conditions of approval, Staff is concerned that it will be more difficult to require a condominium project to continue to provide them than an apartment project. Specifically, with an apartment project, the City will only have to deal with one owner, or operator of the building, and the City can revoke the conditional use permit for that use, if the facility does not comply with the conditions of approval. On the other hand, different people own condominiums with the common areas being managed by a homeowners’ association. Requiring a homeowners’ association to provide these services could be very problematic, and there really is no effective method by which to ensure compliance other than code enforcement against the individual residents and the association, which is neither effective nor desirable.

• Staff is concerned about the feasibility of imposing enforceable affordability restrictions on the re-sale of the affordable units (similar to the issues faced with the Villa Capri project). Although the developer has indicated that Corporation for Better Housing will take a non-possessory ownership interest in the affordable units to ensure that the units would be rented to low income households and would not be sold at market value, Staff is concerned that one is never certain about what the future may bring to this Corporation. For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, Staff feels that it would be easier to ensure continued affordability of the units in an apartment building than in a for-sale project. There are mechanisms, however, which could address this issue, such as having the affordable units revert to the Agency if they are not rented to low-income households. However, the Agency previously indicated that it did not want to be in the business of renting apartment units or managing the project.

• Staff also is concerned regarding the continued occupancy of the units by seniors. It will be more difficult to ensure that the units are being occupied by seniors in a for-sale project than an apartment project, as the City will have to monitor the use of individual units by many owners as opposed to one owner of an apartment building.

As noted above, Staff feels that although it may be possible to structure a condominium project with various mechanisms to ensure the consistency with the Institutional land use designation, continued affordability of the units, and occupancy by seniors, it would be easier to monitor an apartment project with one owner then a condominium project with many owners. Thus, the likelihood of future City involvement would be much less with an apartment project.

As noted in the attached letters from the Developer, the Developer is requesting that the City Council make a determination as to the number of affordable housing units to be included in this project. The developer has indicated that if the project is developed with 42 condominium units, 12 affordable units could be accommodated, but if only 6 affordable units are desired, the total number of condominium units could be reduced to 40. The even number of 6 or 12 is proposed as the affordable units are proposed to be similar in size and stacked over each other (3 units on top of 3 units, or 6 units on top of 6 units).

As noted in the "Additional Information" section below, the 1999 RHNA provided by SCAG, for the next 5 years, calls for 8 very low income housing units and 5 low income housing units, for a total of 13 lower income units to be constructed in the City. Although Ocean Trails is required to provide 8 affordable units (4 on-site and 4 off-site), based upon the current bankruptcy status, it is unclear whether all of these units will be provided within the 5-year planning period of the Housing Element. Therefore, to ensure that the City will meet the identified need of lower income units, a total of 13 units should be provided. However, since Ocean Trails is required to construct the 4 on-site units prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course (estimated in the early part of 2002), Staff feels fairly confident that at least 4 units will be made available during this planning period and therefore 12 units, as proposed by the Developer is acceptable. However, Staff would not recommend that the number of affordable units be reduced to 6. If only 6 units were to be proposed, Staff would be concerned that the funds utilized by the City for this project would not be utilized to their full potential, and the City would be further away from meeting its RHNA requirement during this planning period. Also, since the City’s Housing Element specifically refers to a senior affordable housing project as one of methods by which the City will meet its lower income RHNA requirement, the City could find itself in the position where it might have to amend its Housing Element and resubmit it to HCD for approval unless another senior affordable housing project is developed within the 5-year planning period.

On February 1, 2000, the RDA entered into the first Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with the Developer, which expired. On December 19, 2000, the RDA entered into a second ENA with the Developer, which was to expire on June 1, 2001, but was extended by the Executive Director for a maximum 3-month period to September 1, 2001. As such, the current ENA will expire on September 1, 2001.

The ENA provides the Developer with the security that the Agency will not negotiate with other persons or entities, other than the Developer, regarding the development of the project on the subject property. As shown in the attached letter, the Developer has requested that a new ENA be approved by the Agency. In addition, the Developer wants the new ENA to contain a provision that gives the Developer the irrevocable right to repurchase the property from the Agency, which is an important policy issue for the Agency to determine. Since Staff was not sure if the Agency was going to allow the developer to change the project from an apartment project to a condominium project, Staff has prepared the attached two ENA documents: one for a 52-unit apartment building and one for a 42-unit condominium project. Neither of these documents currently contains the repurchase provision requested by the Developer. Based upon the outcome of the discussions above, the Agency may adopt either ENA or no ENA.

Since the Redevelopment Plan was first adopted in 1984, the Agency was required to set-aside twenty percent (20%) of the gross annual tax increment into the Agency’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The purpose of this Fund is to increase, improve and preserve the City’s supply of low and moderate-income housing. In carrying out the housing set-aside requirements, the Agency may expend these funds on a number of different programs, including acquiring real property.

The current Fund balance is approximately $343,000. It was approximately $932,000 in March 2000 prior to the Agency purchasing the subject property. State law does not allow the housing fund balance to exceed $1 million unless the Agency has an adopted plan for its use. Otherwise, funds exceeding $1 million must be returned to the County.

Over the past two years Agency staff and Board members have actively pursued alternatives for the use of the funds including contacts with experienced developers of affordable housing projects, attempts to purchase developable land, new construction of affordable units in proposed developments and conversion of existing apartments into affordable units. The Agency, as well as private interests was unable to find a willing seller of existing units or available land other than the properties along Crestridge Road.

Acquiring real property is consistent with one of the programs identified within the Agency’s 5-year Implementation Plan is to:

Additionally, one of the Plan’s five year Housing Goals is to "Meet the fair share regional affordable housing goals for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by improving public improvements and community facilities, removing and preventing blighting conditions and providing and/or preserving affordable housing resources."

The 1999 Regional Housing Needs Assessment provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), for the next 5 years, calls for 8 very low income housing units, 5 low income housing units, 8 moderate income housing units and 31 above-moderate income housing units for a total of 53 new housing units to be constructed in the City. The fulfillment of the Agency’s obligation to utilize 20% of its tax increment income for the development of low to moderate income housing, such as this proposed project, will support the General Plan Housing Element Goals and assist in meeting the Regional Housing Needs allocated to the City by SCAG.

As noted above, a Supplemental EIR was prepared for the project and distributed for public comment between March 6, 2001 and April 26, 2001. During the comment period Staff received many letters from the public and various agencies regarding the proposed project. Based upon the comments received, and the many changes to the project since the document was prepared, Staff is recommending that the document be substantially revised and re-circulated for public review.

The Supplemental EIR was actually the second Supplement to the original EIR prepared for the 1991 Marriott project. As a result, according to public comments, comparison of this project to that project and the project discussed in the first Supplemental EIR (Marriott project approved in 1999) presents a document that is very confusing to read. Therefore, for this reason, and since the subject property was not proposed to be developed within the project scope analyzed in the original EIR, Staff is recommending that a new EIR be prepared. Upon direction from the Agency on the various items in this report, Staff will coordinate with the environmental consultant to prepare a cost estimate for completing the additional work, and will require the Developer to submit funds to cover these costs.

Over the past two years, Staff has received many letters in regards to this project, some opposed and some in favor. Attached are the letters (all three in favor of the project) received since the last Planning Commission meeting held on June 26, 2001.

The proposed project is a joint effort that includes the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency, the non-profit Developer, the County and other financial contributors. The combined amount of investment from the City and the Redevelopment Agency is proposed to be approximately $1.9 million. The City funds are restricted and can be utilized only for projects offering housing for low and moderate-income persons.

Staff has notified the Developer on April 10, 2001 and again on July 11, 2001 that the Trust Deposit Accounts to cover the work completed by the City's environmental consultant, traffic consultant and geologic consultant currently have a negative balance of approximately $19,000. In the July 11, 2001 letter from Staff, Staff notified the Developer that if the City did not receive the funds within two weeks, no further processing of the project by these consultants would occur. As of the preparation of this report, Staff has not received any additional funds from the Developer. As such, any future preparation of environmental documents or review by the City's geologist has been put on hold.

In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives:

1.The RDA Board may choose to decline to enter into a new ENA with

Indian Ridgecrest Gardens, L.P. and instead request proposals from all qualified developers (including Indian Ridgecrest Gardens, L.P.) to design, build and manage a senior affordable housing project on the Crestridge site. As a result of the expiration of the first ENA, the Developer no longer has the option to repurchase the property from the RDA. A Request for Proposal could reduce the density of development, specify unit size and mix and modify the design to be more compatible with the concerns of the nearby neighborhoods. Competing development companies could submit proposals describing how they could meet the project constraints and how much participation they would require from the City/RDA in order to keep the project affordable.

2.The RDA Board may choose to decline to enter into a new ENA with

Indian Ridgecrest Gardens, L.P. and instead table the issue of developing this site with a senior affordable housing project to sometime in the future.

Based upon the information noted throughout this report, Staff recommends that the RDA Board provide direction to Staff and the Developer regarding if the project can be changed from apartments to condominiums and the number of affordable housing units. Additionally, if the Agency wishes to proceed with this Developer, Staff recommends that the RDA Board enter into a new ENA for an apartment project or a condominium project.

Respectfully submitted:

Joel Rojas, AICP
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:
Les Evans
Executive Director/City Manager

This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (this Agreement) is made and entered into as of August 21, 2001, by and between the RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic, hereinafter referred to as Agency, and INDIAN RIDGE CREST GARDENS, L.P., a California limited partnership, hereinafter referred to as Developer.

Recitals

A.The subject matter of this Agreement is that certain parcel of real property described as Lot 2 of Parcel Map No. 25271, located at Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, California (the Property). The Property is approximately 19.54 acres in area. It is proposed that the Developer shall construct on the Property a condominium project with approximately forty-two (42) units (the Project), at least twelve (12) of which are to be restricted to rental by low income households. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting the ability of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City") to approve a smaller project or a different configuration of the proposed Project.

B.Developer and Agency previously entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement, dated February 1, 2000, which has expired, and another exclusive negotiating agreement dated December 19, 2000, which is scheduled to expire on September 1, 2001. While the prior agreements were in effect, Developer has made several substantial revisions to the Project. The latest revision, which was proposed by Developer on June 15, 2001, during the public hearings that were being conducted by the City’s Planning Commission to review the multi-family apartment building, is to change the project from an apartment building to a condominium development with the Developer proposing to retain ownership of the twelve units that are to be rented by low income households. By execution of this Agreement, Developer and Agency expressly acknowledge that neither of the prior agreements continues to be in effect. Developer and Agency are willing to enter into this new Agreement setting forth the terms pursuant to which: (i) the parties shall negotiate, for a period commencing on the date hereof and ending on August 1, 2002 (the ENA Period), the terms of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with respect to the Project, and (ii) the amount and nature of financial assistance to the Project, if any, to be provided by Agency.

C.Agency anticipates that following execution of this Agreement, during the ENA Period, the staff, consultants and attorneys of the Agency will devote substantial time and effort in reviewing plans, meeting with financial institutions and investors, and providing other aid and assistance to Developer in connection with the proposed Project, and in negotiating and preparing a DDA.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1.The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date hereof and shall terminate at the end of the ENA Period.

2.During the ENA Period: (i) Agency shall negotiate in good faith with the Developer with respect to a DDA concerning the disposition of the Property and the development of the Project on the Property, and (ii) Agency shall not negotiate with any person or entity, other than Developer, regarding a DDA for the development of the Project on the Property. It is anticipated that Developer and Agency's staff shall conclude such negotiations prior to May 1, 2002, which is prior to the expiration of the ENA period. Throughout the ENA Period, Agency’s staff shall be available to meet with Developer to discuss the Project, the site plans and architectural renderings, and other DDA issues.

3.Developer agrees that Agency shall have the right to approve the architect for the Project, which approval shall not unreasonably be withheld.

4.Developer and Agency, as the case may be, shall perform the following actions by the dates specified herein:

5.Developer shall: (i) work cooperatively with Agency and its staff and (ii) report to the Agency regarding the status of the Project on a monthly basis.

6.Developer shall hold neighborhood meetings to provide information about the Project to, and to receive comments from, the residents of the neighborhood of the Project.

7.Developer shall be responsible for all studies and evaluations concerning the physical condition of the Property and provide copies thereof to Agency.

8.Developer shall bear all costs incurred by Developer with respect to the Project. Developer shall, in good faith, expeditiously initiate and complete all studies, plans and other activities which are either required by this Agreement to be performed by Developer or which Developer otherwise deems necessary.

9.Developer and Agency understand and agree that City is not obligated to approve the proposed project, and that neither party is obligated to enter into any DDA; however, Developer and Agency shall negotiate in good faith with respect to the DDA for the Property.

10.This Agreement may not be assigned without the expressed written consent of Agency, which consent is subject to the sole and absolute discretion of Agency.

11.Neither the submission of this Agreement by Agency to Developer, nor the execution of this Agreement by either party, shall constitute a commitment by Agency to expend any financial resources on the Project, it being intended hereby that Agency's obligations shall become effective only following a public hearing as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33433, and the approval and execution of the DDA by Agency.

12.Agency may terminate this Agreement if Developer should fail to comply with and perform in a timely manner to the sole satisfaction of Agency all provisions hereof on Developer's part to be performed, or if progress is not being made in negotiations hereunder to Agency's sole satisfaction. Agency shall provide thirty (30) days written notice to Developer, which specifies any dissatisfaction or belief, and Agency shall not terminate this Agreement if Developer cures the deficiencies specified by Agency to the sole satisfaction of Agency within such thirty-day period.

13.Any notice, request, approval or other communication to be provided by one party to the other shall be in writing and provided by personal service or a form of express mail or service and addressed as follows:

If to Developer:

Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, L.P.
100 West Broadway, Suite 1250
Glendale, California 91210
Attention: Charles W. Brumbaugh

Tel: (818) 247-4303
Fax: (818) 247-1451

TO:HONORABLE CHAIR & MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

FROM:EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

DATE:AUGUST 21, 2001

Approve the attached Amendment to Construction Loan Agreement and Amendment To Promissory Note Secured By Deed of Trust and authorize the Chair to execute both documents on behalf of the Agency.

BACKGROUND:

On August 3, 1999, Bay Cities National Bank entered into a Construction Loan Agreement in the amount of $750,000 with the Portuguese Bend Club Homeowners Association in order that the Association would be able to install a privately owned sewer system. The Bend Club’s indebtedness was documented in a Promissory Note Secured by A Deed of Trust, dated August 29, 1999. Concurrently with the issuance of the loan, the Bank’s obligations and rights were assigned to the Redevelopment Agency. The Agency agreed to the assignment because it had determined that the sewer project furthered the purposes of the Redevelopment Plan, since the sewer system would reduce the amount of water that reaches the landslide and by so doing, should increase the stability of the area.

The loan is interest free, and requires equal monthly payments of principal over a 15 year term that was to commence one year after the completion of construction, but no later than September 1, 2000. Unfortunately, the Association had difficulty in finding a contractor to do the sewer project and the start of the project was delayed. The actual construction proved difficult and the work proceeded more slowly than anticipated. The sewer system is now in and functioning; however, the Association is alleging certain construction defects, and is in the process of resolving disputes with the contractor, the bonding company and certain subcontractors. It has been over two years since the loan was approved and nearly a year after the date the project was to have been finalized, and a Notice of Completion has still not been filed. As a result, the RDA has not disbursed all the loan funds, and the Association has not begun making payments on the loan.

To date the Agency has disbursed a total of $638,654.15 (unaudited) out of $750,000 authorized by the Agency. When the final request for disbursement of loan funds is made, it must be accompanied by all the documentation required by the Agreement. In particular, the Agreement requires a valid Notice of Completion, certification by the Association engineer that the work has been completed and evidence that all mechanic’s liens have been discharged or bonded. It appears that due to the contract disputes these conditions cannot be met in the near future.

Therefore, the Association has requested that the RDA approve the attached Amendment to the Construction Loan Agreement and the Amendment To Promissory Note Secured By Deed of Trust, which extend the time period for the project to be completed and the repayment obligations of the Association. By so doing, the Agency then can proceed to disburse funds to pay one of the subcontractors for undisputed amounts that still are outstanding, and the Association will begin making the required monthly payments to the Agency in September.

Respectfully Submitted,
Les Evans
Executive Director

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5

(All Statutory References are to California Government

Code Sections)

G.C. 54956.8

Property located on the northwest corner of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. APN 7589-013-905.

Property:

Street Address (if none, parcel number or other unique reference)

Negotiating Agency Attorney Lynch and Agency Executive Director City Manager Les Evans

Parties:Indianridge Crest Gardens & Charles Brumbaugh.

Name of Party or Parties (NOT Agent)

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