Agenda 09/18/2001 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2001, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 09/18/2001 Rancho Palos Verdes Estates City Council Agenda Meeting September 18, 2001
September 18 , 2001

DISCLAIMER

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

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS



BEGINNING OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

This agenda has been prepared to provide for the orderly progression of City business. Detailed staff reports on specific items are posted in the hallway for public viewing. The City Council wants to hear your comments, however, to run the meeting efficiently, please observe the following rules when you participate in the meeting.

Please try to submit your REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL form to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called at the appropriate time to make your remarks.

For the sake of efficiency, the City Council agenda is divided into several sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items which, unless a request has been received from the public, council or staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the City Council. If you wish to speak to any Consent Calendar item(s) you will be limited to three minutes.

Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed hearings. Although the normal time limit is three minutes for each speaker, the Mayor may grant additional time to a representative speaking for an entire group; however, this should not discourage anyone from addressing the City Council individually.

Regular Business: This section contains items of general business and you will be allowed three minutes to speak on any item.

Public Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda. If you have submitted a request to speak, you will be called by the City Clerk at the appropriate time and you may speak for up to three minutes. Please limit your comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Public Comments. If action by the City Council is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda or referred to staff, as determined by Council.

Please make your remarks at the lectern microphone and direct your comments to the City Council and not to the staff or the public.

Conduct at the Council Meeting: The City Council has adopted a set of rules for conduct during City Council meetings. The following is an excerpt from those adopted Rules of Procedure:

Section 6.3 The Mayor shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person(s) who commits the following acts at a regular or special meeting of the City Council:

1.Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Council or any member thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

2.A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

3.Disobedience of any lawful order of the Mayor which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Council.

4.Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.



RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


 

6:00 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-75

NEXT ORD. NO. 370

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1.Motion to waive full reading.

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


2.Informal Bid and Pre-Ordering of HDPE Pipe and issuance of a Notice of Exemption for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project. (Massetti)

Recommendation: (1) Review and reconfirm by a four-fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s previous action on September 4 to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project. (2) Adopt the Notice of Exemption for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project and direct staff to post notice of this action as required by law.


3.California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP). (Evans)

Recommendation: (1) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the Los Angeles County Sheriff and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes authorizing payment of the City’s $115,538 2000-2001 CLEEP Grant, in two equal installments, to the Los Angeles County Sheriff for the purpose of designing, building, and adapting the hardware and software and converting and warehousing the data for the LARCIS data base. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE 2001-2002 CITY BUDGET TO INCLUDE THE EXPENDITURE OF $57,769 OF CLEEP FUNDS IN 2001.


4.Resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards. (Noble)

Recommendation: (1) Award a $634,534 construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company for the resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards and authorize staff to spend an additional $63,453 for possible extra work, thereby approving a $697,987 construction budget. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company. (3) Award a $43,600 professional services agreement to DMc for construction management and inspection services. (4) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract for a professional services agreement with DMc Engineering.


5.Approval of Lease Extension Between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes. (Waters)

Recommendation: Approve and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the lease agreement extension between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes.


6.Award of Contract for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Sidewalk Repair Program. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract to Damon Construction in the amount of $44,175 and authorize staff to spend up to $5,825 for possible extra work, thereby approving a $50,000 construction budget. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Damon Construction. (3) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with SA Associates in the amount of $12,000 to provide the necessary inspection and contract administration services.


7.Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARINGS:


8.Proposed Amendment to Ocean Trails Development Agreement and Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions. (Continued from September 4th.)(McLean)

Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment to Ocean Trails development agreement and the amendment to declaration of restrictions regarding the determination of Ocean Trail’s golf tax liability and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the documents on behalf of the City.


REGULAR BUSINESS:


9.Amendment of Municipal Code - Golf Tax. (Lynch)

Recommendation: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. ___, WHICH MAKES A FEW MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S GOLF TAX. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE REVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE DO NOT ADDRESS THE AMOUNT OF THE GOLF TAX OR THE ISSUE OF APPROVAL OF THE TAX BY THE VOTERS; THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT THE UPCOMING ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.


10.Amendment to the August 21st Minutes. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Consider Councilman Stern’s amendment to the August 21, 2001 minutes.


11.Purchase of Pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize the purchase of RCP pipe from Rialto Concrete Pipe for a cost of $7,165. (2) Authorize the purchase of HDPE pipe from P&F Distributors for a cost of $45,557. (3) Authorize an expenditure of $96,862 for P&F to provide fitting and fabrication of HDPE pipe at the factory in order to reduce the overall cost and construction time of the project.


12.Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification. (Allison)

 

Recommendation: (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 of 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 the 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.


RECESS:


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

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


13.Resolution Approving the Installation of a Traffic Signal at Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive. (Allison)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DIRECTING STAFF TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, WITH DESIGN FEATURES RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY’S TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AT THE INTERSECTION OF HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD AND VALLON DRIVE.


14.Resolution Approving Funding for the Hawthorne Boulevard/ Vallon Drive Signal. (Huey)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 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 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND.


15.Request for Waiver of the Penalty Fee related to Conditional Use Permit No. 230. (Requestor: James Kay, 26708 Indian Peak Road). (Fox)

Recommendation: Deny the requested fee waiver.


16.Traffic Study – Highridge Road at Hawthorne Boulevard. (Allison)

Recommendation: Provide direction regarding the scope of the traffic study to be conducted at the intersection of Highridge Road at Hawthorne Boulevard.


17.City Council Assignments. (Continued from September 4th) (Purcell)

Recommendation: Make Council assignments to certain delegate and alternate positions previously held by former Councilman Byrd.


18.Status of Review of Geologic and Geotechnical Data for Zone II. (Evans)

 

Recommendation: Receive a draft report from Cotton, Shires & Associates.


19.2001 Progress Report on the Implementation of the General Plan. (Schonborn)

 

Recommendation: Direct staff to forward the City’s Annual Progress Report on the General Plan to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and to the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the current status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during Calendar Year 2000 and through June 30, 2001.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:


CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Saturday, September 29, at 9:00 A.M. for the Community Leaders’ Breakfast at Hesse Park.

 


CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5
(All Statutory References are to California Government
Code Sections)


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property:Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029,

7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators:City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Negotiating Parties:York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation:Price and Terms of Payment


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

Anticipated Litigation:

(G.C 54956.9(b)

A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency.

____________1_____________

(Number of Potential Cases)

This relates to threats of litigation made by Mr. Charles Brumbaugh outside of a public meeting, which were published in an article by Josh Cohen in the Peninsula News on September 8, 2001. A copy of this article is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office.


View the agenda at www.palosverdes.com/RPV or
A full copy of the agenda package is at the counter at Hesse Park.


RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


 

6:00 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-75

NEXT ORD. NO. 370

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1.Motion to waive full reading.

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


2.Informal Bid and Pre-Ordering of HDPE Pipe and issuance of a Notice of Exemption for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project. (Massetti)

 

Recommendation: (1) Review and reconfirm by a four-fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s previous action on September 4 to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project. (2) Adopt the Notice of Exemption for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project and direct staff to post notice of this action as required by law.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM:PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

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

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Review and reconfirm by a four/fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s previous action on September 4, 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.
  2. Adopt the Notice of Exemption for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project and direct staff to post notice of this action as required by law.

BACKGROUND

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.

This storm drain repair project is subject to review under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff and the City’s consultant, Helix Environmental, have determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA because the project involves emergency repairs to an existing facility within a landslide, which is currently moving and will be exacerbated by the upcoming winter rains. The emergency determination is further warranted because the project demands immediate action to prevent loss or damage to life, health and property. If the necessary repairs are delayed, there is risk of damage to a major arterial roadway and essential public services.

The Notice of Exemption and the associated support documentation is attached for the Council’s review and approval. Helix Environmental has analyzed the proposed project and determined that it may cause environmental impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural and paleontological resources, water quality and noise. Each of these impacts is discussed in the attached Determination of Environmental Exemption, which also includes associated mitigation measures.

DISCUSSION

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 for this project because it is more flexible and durable than traditional corrugated metal pipe (CMP). These characteristics are well suited for the exposed pipe that will be laid in the canyon. Council made the suggestion that Staff attempt to procure this pipe in conjunction with the pipe for the San Ramon Project. It became infeasible to procure pipe for both projects simultaneously because the San Ramon Project will begin construction in October, while the design for this project is just nearing completion. By waiting until the design of this project was at the stage where staff could place an order for pipe, there would have been a significant delay to the construction schedule of the San Ramon Project.

CONCLUSIONS:

In addition to reconfirmation of approval for staff to bid and pre-order the pipe material, staff is seeking City Council approval of the Notice of Exemption prepared for the project to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff is requesting approval of the Notice of Exemption based on the emergency provisions contained in the California Environmental Quality Act.

Respectfully submitted:

Dean Allison, Public Works Director

Reviewed:

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment

Draft Notice of Exemption and Determination of Environmental Exemptio


3.California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP). (Evans)

Recommendation: (1) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the Los Angeles County Sheriff and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes authorizing payment of the City’s $115,538 2000-2001 CLEEP Grant, in two equal installments, to the Los Angeles County Sheriff for the purpose of designing, building, and adapting the hardware and software and converting and warehousing the data for the LARCIS data base. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE 2001-2002 CITY BUDGET TO INCLUDE THE EXPENDITURE OF $57,769 OF CLEEP FUNDS IN 2001.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT PROGRAM (CLEEP)

RECOMMENDATION

(1) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") Between the Los Angeles County Sheriff and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes authorizing payment of the City’s $115,538 FY 2000-01 CLEEP Grant, in two equal installments, to the Los Angeles County Sheriff for the purpose of designing, building, and adapting the hardware and software and converting and warehousing the data for the LARCIS data base. Payment to be made in two equal installments on September 30, 2001 and September 30, 2002. (2) Adopt Resolution No. Amending the 2001-02 City Budget to Include the Expenditure of $57,769 of CLEEP Funds in 2001.

BACKGROUND

The State Budget for FY 2000-01 contained a single line item for "California Law Enforcement Equipment Program – High Technology Grants." The item appeared, without guidelines or direction, as Budget Item 9201-106-0001 in the State Budget. The State Controller’s Office has taken the position that the CLEEP funds must be paid, " …to each city police chief, [or] county sheriff…," and that the money may only be used "…for purchase of high technology equipment." Distribution of CLEEP funds was made to cities based on population. All cities received a minimum of $100,000. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes received $115,538.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff has requested that all Contract Cities contribute their allocations into the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System (LARCIS) account.

LARCIS is a large data base system. It will integrate data from several Los Angeles Sheriff Department systems, and from 50 independent cities, into a single system. It will literally be possible for a Deputy in Rancho Palos Verdes to look at the name of a suspect and find his "street name," together with an incident report in Torrance from the prior year, and the fact that his vehicle license turned up at the scene of an investigation in Los Angeles. The Deputy would have instant access to all incident reports involving the suspect or the vehicle, regardless of whether they arose in Rancho Palos Verdes or any other city in the county.

In all, LARCIS will integrate more than 50 databases, some of which are now accessible only from single terminals in individual police departments.

LARCIS is based on reliable technology with years of testing, and should give many years of satisfactory performance. It is also a "generalizable technology," so that future upgrades should be less expensive than they might be with a more "cutting edge" technology.

The Sheriff’s Technology Division has a firm budget of $30 million for the entire project. The Sheriff’s Department has already spent $20 million on LARCIS, of which $4 million was for hardware. The remaining $10 million is needed to develop software and convert existing data into a coherent whole and transfer it into a big hard drive called a "Data Warehouse."

DISCUSSION

The Sheriff’s proposal recommending that all contract cities allocate the entirety of their California Law Enforcement Equipment Program ("CLEEP") funds to the Los Angeles County Sheriff for the purpose of funding their portion of the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System ("LARCIS") was initially greeting with a host of questions by the California Contract Cities City Manager’s group. The City Managers created a committee to meet with the Sheriff to better understand the proposal and to return with a recommendation for the contract cities.

After a series of meetings with technical and executive personnel in the Sheriff’s Department, the committee was satisfied that LARCIS would significantly improve the flow of information available to officers in the field, and to City staff. The committee was also satisfied that issues of use and funding were resolved and could be reduced to writing before funds are released.

Some of the questions that were addressed by the committee included fairness, access, cost and rules for use. The main "fairness" issue resulted from the fact that independent cities are not contributing to the direct cost of LARCIS. As it turns out, the direct cost of hardware and software for use by independent cities is only $4.5 million, and is already funded. The cost of development and converting Los Angeles County data into readable format is six times greater, approximately $25.5 million. That is where Contract Cities' contributions will be spent. All independent Cities must pay for their own data conversion, so the terms are identical to both groups.

Each Contract City that contributes to LARCIS will get "Complete Access." The access concept would permit the Sheriff to use the LARCIS system for every law enforcement function within the contracting city, and some members of city staff would have access to much of the system for code enforcement, public safety and related functions.

Independent Cities and any non-contributing contract city would have only "Limited Access." They would not even receive the reports and compilations of data that the system will provide, and city staff would have no access privileges whatsoever.

The Sheriff has assured the City Managers that he will not increase the cost of the existing Service Contracts as a result of the expenses associated with the maintenance or operation of LARCIS. These costs will be managed within the existing cost formula, and will not be passed through to Contract Cities.

The Sheriff has also agreed not to bill any additional sums for the cost of the hardware or software, either newly installed or as upgraded over time. The only exception to this guarantee is that in two years mobile hardware will be installed in patrol cars. That expense is outside of the LARCIS system, and will have to be separately budgeted and funded.

The attached MOU has been reviewed and revised by the City Attorney. Though the Sheriff continues to revise the document for "housekeeping-like" matters, staff anticipates that the final version will include all essential provisions contained in the attached document. Of course, staff will bring any significant revisions, if any, to the City Council before execution of the MOU.

FISCAL IMPACT

The 2001-02 City Budget already includes an appropriation of $38,513 for CLEEP expenditures. The attached budget resolution increases the appropriation to $57,769 ($38,513 originally budgeted plus the attached increase of $19,256) for 2001-02. Based upon a recent analysis of the LLESS/COPS/CLEEP fund, staff anticipates that the ending fund balance will be approximately $125,000 at the end of 2001-02 and nearly depleted (as expected) at the end of 2002-03.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Memorandum of Understanding

Resolution No. 2001-__ ; A Resolution Of The City Council Of 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 LLESS/COPS/CLEEP Fund


MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

TO THE ALLOCATION OF CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT PROGRAM (CLEEP) FUNDS BETWEEN

THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

AND

THE CONTRACT CITIES

This Memorandum of Understanding made and entered into this ________________, 2001, by and between the City of RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a general law city organized under the laws of the State of California ("City") and the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), and both of whom are collectively referred to as the "Parties."

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the County have given high priority to the need for a coordinated approach to address the need for a County- wide crime information system;

WHEREAS, in September 2000, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes accepted funding through the State Budget Act Fiscal Year 2000-1, a single line item as Budget Item 9201-106-0001 in the Budget (Ch. 52, Stat. 2000) for "California Law Enforcement Equipment Purchase Program - High Technology Grants ("CLEEP" or "CLEEP grant")."

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to participate in the coordination, development and implementation of a Countywide crime records management and information system hereafter referred to as the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System (LARCIS).

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes agrees to commit all funds obtained from CLEEP to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s LARCIS Account.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein set forth and the mutual benefits to be derived therefrom, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Purpose

The purpose of this Agreement shall be for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to participate in the coordination, development and implementation of the LARCIS Program.

2. Responsibility of the City

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall allocate the entirety of its CLEEP funds to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for the purpose of funding its portion of LARCIS. The City will be responsible for the purchase and maintenance cost of the LARCIS telephone data circuit to the City. Furthermore, the City will be responsible for additional computer terminals and any future relocation of access lines for the City. The LARCIS terminals must be used for LARCIS access only and cannot be connected to any other network including the Internet.

3. Responsibility of the County

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will expend the CLEEP funds provided from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on and for the sole purpose of designing, building and adapting the hardware and software and storing the data for the LARCIS database. In addition, the CLEEP funds will be used to purchase Sheriff’s Data Network hardware and one computer terminal for the sole purpose of providing the City with access to LARCIS. The County will provide management for the network connection and system user support for access to LARCIS.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will provide hardware and the following online access to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall by the dates listed below:

June 1, 2002

- Wide Area Network Connection to Sheriff’s Department

- LARCIS Statistical Reports on City Crime Activity

December 31, 2002

- LARCIS Ad Hoc Crime Query on City Crime Activity

- Crime Mapping of Ad Hoc Query

- Status and Case Assignment of Crime Reports

4. Payment Terms

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will pay an amount equal to their FY 2000-01 CLEEP grant of $115,538 to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Administrative Services Headquarters, Fiscal Section, 4700 Ramona Boulevard, Monterey Park California 91754, in a single payment or in two equal installments, on September 30th of 2001 and 2002, respectively. Payment should be accompanied with a memorandum explaining that the payment is for the specific purpose of developing LARCIS. The following account has been set up to accept payment:

Budget/Unit Organization No. 15687/15759

General Support/Data Systems Bur.

Revenue Code: 9857

Contract Cities

FIS/Service Code: 414

LARCIS/CLEEP Funds

If for any reason the June 1, 2002 deliverables, in accordance with Section Three (3), have not been met by the September 30, 2002 payment date, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes may postpone its second payment until the deliverables are complete.

5. Access to LARCIS

Each Contract City’s Sheriff’s Department’s personnel will have "complete access" to LARCIS in accordance with the users manual. The Sheriff’s Department personnel will use LARCIS for law enforcement functions within the City.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, by contributing to LARCIS, will get "full city access" for the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Director of Administrative Services. Full city access is defined as receiving an electronic account via the Sheriff’s Data Network. The account will enable access by these City employees to run statistical reports, informational queries, and case status and assignment information specific to the City to assist the City with investigations of criminal activity within the City and other related matters, such as code enforcement investigations. Full city access does not involve access to statistical information relative to any other city nor does it include crime/case "specific" information. The law enforcement data contained in LARCIS is information, which is exempt from disclosure under state and federal law and the Sheriff’s Department Policy. The City shall promptly notify the Sheriff’s Department in writing of any lawsuit filed against the City seeking to gain access to the LARCIS data.

6. Cost of Maintaining and Staffing LARCIS

LARCIS will not increase the cost of the existing Service Contract between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the County of Los Angeles as a result of the expenses associated with the maintenance or operation of the system. Furthermore, these costs will be managed within the existing cost formula, and will not be passed on to the contracting city.

The Sheriff’s Department will not bill any additional sums for the cost of the LARCIS hardware or software, either newly installed or as upgraded over time. This guarantee does not apply to the replacement of mobile digital terminals with in car computers.

  1. 7.Warranty and Hold Harmless

There are no express or implied representations or warranties regarding this agreement or the services provided hereunder, including, but not limited to, the implied warrantee of fitness for a particular purpose. The County also disclaims any liability for information contributed to the LARCIS database by law enforcement agencies not operated and controlled by the County.

Except as set forth hereinabove, each party agrees to hold the other harmless from all liability, in any form, which results from negligence or misuse of the LARCIS system.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles has caused this Agreement to be subscribed by the County Sheriff and the Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by its duly authorized officers, the date(s) being written thereafter.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RANCHO PALOS VERDES

A municipal corporation

By _________________________ By_________________________

LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF MARILYN LYON, MAYOR

Date: _________________, 2001 Date: _________________, 2001

By _________________________ ATTEST: ____________________

Deputy County Counsel City Clerk

Date: _________________, 2001 Date: _________________, 2001

 


RESOLUTION NO. 2001-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 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 LLESS/COPS/CLEEP FUND

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

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2001-43, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2001-2002 fiscal year: and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget appropriation be increased as follows:

LLESS/COPS/CLEEP Fund:

CLEEP#117-217-78 Other Miscellaneous $ 19,256
BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES:

The following increases be made to the fiscal year 2001-2002 LLESS/COPS/CLEEP Fund budget:

LLESS/COPS/CLEEP Fund:

CLEEP#117-217-78

Other Miscellaneous $ 19,256

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2001.

___________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________

CITY CLERK

State of California)

County of Los Angeles)ss

City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on September 18, 2001.

_____________________________

CITY CLERK


4.Resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards. (Noble)

Recommendation: (1) Award a $634,534 construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company for the resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards and authorize staff to spend an additional $63,453 for possible extra work, thereby approving a $697,987 construction budget. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company. (3) Award a $43,600 professional services agreement to DMc for construction management and inspection services. (4) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract for a professional services agreement with DMc Engineering.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:RESURFACING OF CRENSHAW AND HAWTHORNE BOULEVARDS

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Award a $634,534 Construction Contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company, for the resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards, and authorize staff to spend an additional $63,453 for possible extra work; thereby approving a $697,987 construction budget.
  2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully Miller Contracting Company.
  3. Award a $43,600 Professional Services Agreement to DMc Engineering for Construction Management and Inspection Services.
  1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract for Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering.

BACKGROUND

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

The 2001-2002 approved City budget includes $880,000 for the resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards. Pursuant to the original scope of work, Crenshaw (Crest Road to Indian Valley Road) and Hawthorne Boulevard (Dupre Drive to Verde Ridge Road) were to be resurfaced. However, subsequent to the adoption of the budget it became readily apparent that the cost of energy related products (including roadway materials) had increased substantially and in fact, the engineer’s final cost estimate, for this project, far exceeded the budget. Therefore, the scope of this project was reviewed with the intent of segmenting the work to create a project that would be within budget yet include the possibility of completing all segments of work should the City Council so desire. Based on the review it was determined that Hawthorne Boulevard should be split into three segments (EXHIBIT A – Location Map) Segment One, begins at Dupre Drive and stops at Crest road. Segment Two starts at Crest Road and terminates at Indian Valley Road, and Segment Three completes the resurfacing from Indian Valley Road to Verde Ridge Road.

On August 22, 2001, staff received the following construction bids.

BID SUMMARY

Construction Companies

Crenshaw/Hawthorne

(Includes Segment One)

Crenshaw/Hawthorne

(Includes Segments One and Two)

Crenshaw/Hawthorne (Includes Segments One, Two, and Three)

Sully Miller

$634,534

$800,338

$919,727

Excel Paving

$653,345

$813,324

$934,628

Sequel

$653,976

$817,926

$934,083

Based on the approved budget and the knowledge that all three contractors can successfully perform the work, it is hereby recommended that Council award a $634,534 Construction Contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company for the resurfacing of Crenshaw Boulevard and Phase One of Hawthorne Boulevard. Staff also requests the authorization to spend and additional $63,453 for possible extra work; thereby increasing the total construction budget to $697,987.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

The resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards will require routine inspections and contract administration services. Accordingly, staff solicited proposals from three qualified engineering firms. On July 31, 2001, staff received proposals from Harris & Associates and DMc Engineering. Based on an evaluation/rating of each proposal, staff determined that DMc Engineering was the most qualified firm. Therefore, staff recommends that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a $43,600 Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering.

DISCUSSION

The current level of approved funding precludes the possibility of resurfacing all three phases of Hawthorne Boulevard. Therefore, each phase was evaluated in an effort to determine which should be completed first. Based on this process, it was determined that the stretch between Dupre Drive and Crest Road should be completed first. This determination does not however negate the fact that the other two phases also require resurfacing.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION

Award the construction contract and professional service agreement as recommended and direct staff to prepare a resolution amending the 2001-2002 approved budget to include an additional $187,399 for the resurfacing of Segments Two and Three. Staff has investigated potential sources of funding that could be used to complete the two remaining segments and has determined that constructing these segments will require Council approval to spend an additional $120,000 of Proposition C funds and $67,399 of the City’s General Fund reserve. The approval of these expenditures will reduce the Proposition C fund balance to $1,668 and the General Fund Reserve balance to an estimated $6,359,537.

CONCLUSION

Staff recommends approval of a $697,987 project construction budget and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a $43,600 professional services agreement. These recommendations are made with the understanding that Council may direct staff to prepare a resolution amending the approved FY 01-02 budget to allocate sufficient funds to complete all segments of construction.

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended action will result in the expenditure of $741,587. The final plan for the recommended action as well as the alternate action is summarized as below.

Item Description

Resurfacing of Crenshaw Boulevard and Hawthorne Boulevard

  • Construction

Crenshaw and Segment One of Hawthorne Boulevard

Crenshaw and Segment One and Two of Hawthorne Boulevard

Crenshaw and Segment One Two and Three of Hawthorne Boulevard

Construction Contract

$634,534

$800,338

$919,727

Contingency Budget

$63,453

$80,033

$91,972

Total Construction Costs

$697,987

$880,371

$1,011,699

Inspection Services

$43,600

$49,650

$55,700

Total Project Costs

$741,587

$930,021

$1,067,399

  • Funding Sources

County Grant

$376,000

$376,000

$376,000

Prop C Funds

$195,587

$384,021

$454,000

Prop A Funds

$90,000

$90,000

$90,000

AB 2928

$80,000

$80,000

$80,000

General. Funds

0

$0

$67,399

Total Funding

$741,587

$930,021

$1,067,399

 

Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works


Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Exhibit A – Location Map


5.Approval of Lease Extension Between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes. (Waters)

Recommendation: Approve and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the lease agreement extension between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY

COUNCIL

FROM:RON ROSENFELD, DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND

PARKS

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF LEASE EXTENSION BETWEEN THE CITY AND MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

RECOMMENDATION

Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the lease agreement extension between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes.

BACKGROUND

On September 7, 1993, the City entered into a five-year agreement with Montessori School of Manhattan Beach, Inc., to lease space at the Ladera Linda Community Center to form the Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes. In July and November of 1995 the Council approved the school’s requests for the lease of additional space. In May of 1996 the Council approved the consolidation of all lease agreements to run concurrently for a five-year period. Montessori has been operating under a month-to-month lease approved by the RPV City Council on May 15 while they worked with staff in the Planning Department to complete the Conditional Use Permit process. Their Conditional Use Permit was approved at the August 28 Planning Commission meeting.

DISCUSSION

Montessori has requested a five-year extension of their current lease, which expired on May 21, 2001 and is now on a month-to-month basis. Staff has prepared the attached lease document extending the agreement for the requested five years, from September 21, 2001 to September 21, 2006, with the right of either party to terminate at any time upon six months advance written notice. This document is essentially the same as the lease that was reviewed and approved by the City Attorney in 1996, with the exception of the lease extension date, an increase in the base rent, and an increase in the required insurance coverage. Their original security deposit remains on file with the City.

FISCAL IMPACT

Revenue generated for the City by this lease will total $5,510.89 per month, adjusted annually according to the Consumer Price Index.

Respectfully Submitted,
Ron Rosenfeld, Director, Recreation and Parks

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager


6.Award of Contract for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Sidewalk Repair Program. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract to Damon Construction in the amount of $44,175 and authorize staff to spend up to $5,825 for possible extra work, thereby approving a $50,000 construction budget. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Damon Construction. (3) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with SA Associates in the amount of $12,000 to provide the necessary inspection and contract administration services.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:September 18, 2001

SUBJECT:AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE FY 2001-2002 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATION

1.Award a contract to Damon Construction in the amount of $44,175.00 and authorize staff to spend up to $5,825 contingency for a total of $50,000 for the FY 2001-2002 Sidewalk Removal and Replacement Program.

    1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with Damon Construction.
    2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a professional services Agreement with SA Associate in the amount of 12,000 to provide the necessary inspection and contract administration services.

BACKGROUND

In month, staff solicited bids for the FY 01-02 Sidewalk Removal and Replacement Program. This year's program covers areas throughout the City. Sealed bids were due and opened on September 5, 2001. The following two bids were received:

 

COMPANY NAME

BID AMOUNT

Damon Construction

$44,175.00

Minco Construction

$50,850.00

 

The project includes sidewalk, driveway approaches, curb and gutter, and parkway repairs,and the installation of tree root barriers. The City has established the following minimum criteria for removal and replacement of any sidewalk

Staff is also recommending that the City Council authorize a $4,417.50 contingency to allow for minor deviations in the quantities for the bid items and to allow for some flexibility should some unforeseen circumstance arise during construction.

To assure that the sidewalk repair project is completed on time and with the least amount of inconvenient to residents and property owners staff will closely monitor the work.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will award a sidewalk repair contract to Damon Construction in the amount of $50,000 and a contract for inspection services to SA Associates in the amount of $12,000.

ALTERNATIVE

Reject both bids. Re-advertise the project and solicit for new bids, however, it is unlikely that this will result in additional bids being received.

FISCAL IMPACT

No additional funds are required for the completion of a sidewalk repair program. Funds for this project are included in the Gas Tax- Street Maintenance budget. The amount of $64,503.00 is available from FY 01-02. The City will be reimbursed for a portion of the concrete removal and replacement cost for this project by property owner assessments.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager


7.Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARINGS:


8.Proposed Amendment to Ocean Trails Development Agreement and Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions. (Continued from September 4th.)(McLean)
Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment to Ocean Trails development agreement and the amendment to declaration of restrictions regarding the determination of Ocean Trail’s golf tax liability and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the documents on behalf of the City.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DENNIS McLEAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO OCEAN TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS

RECOMMENDATION:

To approve the proposed Amendment To Ocean Trails Development Agreement and the Amendment To Declaration Of Restrictions regarding the determination of Ocean Trail’s golf tax liability and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the documents on behalf of the City.

BACKGROUND:

At the last Council meeting, Staff presented the attached report regarding the proposed Amendment To Ocean Trails Development Agreement and the Amendment To Declaration Of Restrictions (the "Agreements"). In accordance with the discussion between the City Council and the City Attorney, the City Attorney has prepared the attached revised Agreements for your consideration. The content is nearly identical, except as described below:

  1. The agreements have been re-dated to reflect the date of adoption on September 18, 2001.
  2. The lettered paragraphs have been reorganized to address the various issues in a more logical order.
  3. Paragraph B addresses the issue of "bundling" the charge for other items that are required to play a game of golf within the golf fee that is charged to use the golf course and, when that occurs, allows the golf fee against which the ten percent tax is imposed to be reduced by 25%.
  4. Paragraph C prohibits the inclusion of items that are not required to play golf, such as use of the restaurant or purchases at the pro shop, within the golf fee. That section further provides that if there is some special promotion that combines the fee to play a round of golf with some other unrelated charge, such as golf and dinner, the charge for the round of golf against which the City’s ten percent tax is imposed shall be imputed at the standard golf fee, without any discount or promotion.
  5. Finally, paragraph D provides that if the golf course operator decides to "unbundle" some of the charges for items that are required to be used to play golf, such as a golf cart, from the golf fee, then the full amount of the City’s golf tax shall be collected without the 25% reduction. That paragraph also provides that the total amount of all of the unbundled items that are required to be used or rented to play golf shall not exceed 25% of the charge to play a round of golf.
  6. At Mr. Zuckerman’s request, Section 6 has been amended to extend the time period for Ocean Trails to pay the outstanding golf tax that is owed to the City from fifteen days to sixty days, to allow for approval by the Bankruptcy Court.

CONCLUSION:

Because the attached documents reflect the direction given by the City Council at the last Council meeting, staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached documents.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

 

RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY CLERK
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391


(Space Above for Recorder’s Use)

AMENDMENT TO OCEAN TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment to the Ocean Trails Development Agreement is made and entered into by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") and Ocean Trails, L.P., the current owner and developer of the Ocean Trails project ("Owner"), and is effective as of September 18, 2001.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, in December, 1997, the City entered into a development agreement with developer’s predecessors in interest with respect to the development of the Ocean Trails project ("Agreement"), which was recorded against the property where the Ocean Trails project is being built ("the Property"); and

WHEREAS, in Section 11.4 of the Agreement, developer’s predecessors agreed, among other things, to pay to the City the golf tax imposed by City Ordinance No. 291 (Chapter 3.40 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code), even if the tax were determined by a court to be invalid due to Proposition 62 or any other applicable law; and

WHEREAS, the parties’ agreement regarding the payment of the golf tax also was memorialized in a separate Declaration of Restrictions that was recorded against the Property; and

WHEREAS, during the development of the Ocean Trails Project, a landslide occurred, which has significantly delayed the development and opening of the eighteen-hole golf course while the landslide is being repaired; and

WHEREAS, during the repair of the landslide, a portion of the golf course has been operated (fifteen holes); Owner has charged a variety of fees to attract persons to play golf at the golf course, and Owner has included within the golf fees that are paid to use the golf course other fees and charges, such as, for example, rental of golf carts, which are not within the purview of the City’s golf tax; and

WHEREAS, the City has requested Owner to pay to the City the tax to which it is entitled pursuant to Chapter 3.40 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Agreement and the Declaration of Restrictions; and

WHEREAS, because the fees being charged by Owner to play golf at the Ocean Trails golf course include items that are not subject to the golf tax, the City and Owner are entering into this Amendment to Agreement to clarify the applicable provisions of Section 11.4 of the prior Agreement, only with respect to this issue, so as to resolve any dispute regarding the amount of the tax that currently is owed to the City and the method that will be used to determine the amount of tax that must be paid to the City in the future;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.Section 3.40.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code defines "golf fees" as "the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the use of a golf course or driving range, whether to be received in money, or in any other form including, without limitation, services, credits, goods, or labor of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom." Thus, golf fees do not include fees or charges for other services or items that are required to be used or rented in order to play golf at a golf course or driving range, such as, for example, the use of a golf cart, caddy or locker. Section 3.40.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code requires each user of the Ocean Trails golf course to pay a tax to the City in the amount of ten percent of the golf fees charged by the operator of the golf course, as defined in Section 3.40.020. Section 3.40.040 requires the golf course operator to collect the golf tax from users of the golf course, and Section 3.40.050 requires the golf course operator to remit the tax to the City.

  1. Owner has advised the City that it requires anyone wishing to play golf at Ocean Trails to rent a golf cart from Ocean Trails, and that the fee to rent the golf cart is included within the golf fees that currently are being charged to a user of the golf course. Since the fee to rent the golf cart, and any other fee that is charged for a similar service or item that is required to be used in order to play golf, are not within the definition of "golf fees", as defined by the Municipal Code, these other fees are not subject to the golf tax. Accordingly, the parties agree that the Agreement should reflect that if the golf fees include items that are required to play golf but are not subject to the golf tax, then it is appropriate to reduce the amount of the golf tax that Owner collects from users of the golf course by an amount that corresponds to the charges for the additional required items or services, as set forth herein, so that the appropriate amount of tax is established, collected from the users and paid to the City.
  2. The parties hereby agree that Owner may include within the golf fees that are charged for the use of the golf course fees for other services or goods that are required to be used or rented in order to use the golf course, such as a golf cart or caddy. When Owner includes fees and charges for additional services or items that are required to use the golf course within the golf fees that are charged to use the golf course, the amount of the golf fees to which the City’s ten percent tax is applied is hereby reduced by twenty-five percent.
  3. In no event shall Owner include within the golf fees charges for any other items or services that are not required to be used to play golf, such as the purchase of items at the pro shop, the purchase of food at the restaurant, or the use of the catering facility. If Owner combines the opportunity to play a round of golf with any other unrelated service, then for purposes of computing the tax that is imposed pursuant to Chapter 3.40 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the charge for the round of golf shall be imputed at the standard fee that Owner charges to play a round of golf, without any discount, promotion or combination of services.
  4. If Owner, does not include within a fee that is charged to use the golf course all additional fees or charges for items that are required to play golf at Ocean Trails, and those items are charged separately to the user of the golf course, then the provisions of this Amendment are not applicable to that fee, and Owner shall collect and pay to the City the full amount the ten percent golf tax without the twenty-five percent reduction authorized by paragraph B, above. Furthermore, the total of all of the additional fees or charges for items that are required to play golf at Ocean Trails, which Owner charges separately to the user of the golf course, shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the golf fee that is charged to the user to use the golf course.
  5. Section 2.Neither this Amendment nor Owner’s obligation to pay the golf tax to the City, as set forth in the Agreement shall be affected by the failure of the voters to approve the ten percent golf tax at the upcoming election on November 6, 2001, or at any time thereafter.

    Section 3.Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all of the provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

    Section 4.Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Amendment, Owner shall pay to the City: (a) the sum of $38,919.73, as full satisfaction of the amount of the golf tax that is due to the City through April 30, 2001, and (b) any and all unpaid tax that is owed to the City during the period from May 1, 2001, through August 31, 2001, which shall be calculated based on the provisions of Section 1 of this Amendment.

    Section 5.The City Clerk shall cause this document to be recorded against all of the parcels of land that comprise the Ocean Trails Golf Course.

    The parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first written above.

    Dated: ____________________"OWNER"

    OCEAN TRAILS, L.P., a California Limited Liability Partnership

    By: __________________________

    Kenneth Zuckerman

    Its: __________________________

     

    Dated: ___________________CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

    By: ___________________________
    Mayor

    ATTEST:
    _________________________
    City Clerk

    RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
    WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

    CITY CLERK
    CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
    30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
    Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391

    (Space Above for Recorder’s Use)

    AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS

    This Amendment to the Declaration of Restrictions that is recorded against the property where the Ocean Trails Golf Course is located is made and entered into by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") and Ocean Trails, L.P., the current owner and developer of the Ocean Trails project ("Owner"), and is effective as of September 18, 2001.

    RECITALS

    WHEREAS, in December, 1997, the City entered into a development agreement with developer’s predecessors in interest with respect to the development of the Ocean Trails project ("Agreement"), which was recorded against the property where the Ocean Trails project is being built ("the Property"); and

    WHEREAS, in Section 11.4 of the Agreement, developer’s predecessors agreed, among other things, to pay to the City the golf tax imposed by City Ordinance No. 291 (Chapter 3.40 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code), even if the tax were determined by a court to be invalid due to Proposition 62 or any other applicable law; and

    WHEREAS, the parties’ agreement regarding the payment of the golf tax also was memorialized in a separate Declaration of Restrictions that was recorded against the Property; and

    WHEREAS, during the development of the Ocean Trails Project, a landslide occurred, which has significantly delayed the development and opening of the eighteen-hole golf course while the landslide is being repaired; and

    WHEREAS, during the repair of the landslide, a portion of the golf course has been operated (fifteen holes); Owner has charged a variety of fees to attract persons to play golf at the golf course, and Owner has included within the golf fees that are paid to use the golf course other fees and charges, such as, for example, rental of golf carts, which are not within the purview of the City’s golf tax; and

    WHEREAS, the City has requested Owner to pay to the City the tax to which it is entitled pursuant to Chapter 3.40 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Agreement and the Declaration of Restrictions; and

    WHEREAS, because the fees being charged by Owner to play golf at the Ocean Trails golf course include items that are not subject to the golf tax, the City and Owner are entering into this Amendment to the Declaration of Restrictions to clarify the applicable provisions of Section 1(a) of the Declaration of Restrictions, so as to resolve any dispute regarding the amount of the tax that currently is owed to the City and the method that will be used to determine the amount of tax that must be paid to the City in the future;

    NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

    Section 1.Section 3.40.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code defines "golf fees" as "the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the use of a golf course or driving range, whether to be received in money, or in any other form including, without limitation, services, credits, goods, or labor of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom." Thus, golf fees do not include fees or charges for other services or items that are required to be used or rented in order to play golf at a golf course or driving range, such as, for example, the use of a golf cart, caddy or locker. Section 3.40.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code requires each user of the Ocean Trails golf course to pay a tax to the City in the amount of ten percent of the golf fees charged by the operator of the golf course, as defined in Section 3.40.020. Section 3.40.040 requires the golf course operator to collect the golf tax from users of the golf course, and Section 3.40.050 requires the golf course operator to remit the tax to the City.

  6. Owner has advised the City that it requires anyone wishing to play golf at Ocean Trails to rent a golf cart from Ocean Trails, and that the fee to rent the golf cart is included within the golf fees that currently are being charged to a user of the golf course. Since the fee to rent the golf cart, and any other fee that is charged for a similar service or item that is required to be used in order to play golf, are not within the definition of "golf fees", as defined by the Municipal Code, these other fees are not subject to the golf tax. Accordingly, the parties agree that the Agreement should reflect that if the golf fees include items that are required to play golf but are not subject to the golf tax, then it is appropriate to reduce the amount of the golf tax that Owner collects from users of the golf course by an amount that corresponds to the charges for the additional required items or services, as set forth herein, so that the appropriate amount of tax is established, collected from the users and paid to the City.
  7. The parties hereby agree that Owner may include within the golf fees that are charged for the use of the golf course fees for other services or goods that are required to be used or rented in order to use the golf course, such as a golf cart or caddy. When Owner includes fees and charges for additional services or items that are required to use the golf course within the golf fees that are charged to use the golf course, the amount of the golf fees to which the City’s ten percent tax is applied is hereby reduced by twenty-five percent.
  8. In no event shall Owner include within the golf fees charges for any other items or services that are not required to be used to play golf, such as the purchase of items at the pro shop, the purchase of food at the restaurant, or the use of the catering facility. If Owner combines the opportunity to play a round of golf with any other unrelated service, then for purposes of computing the tax that is imposed pursuant to Chapter 3.40 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the charge for the round of golf shall be imputed at the standard fee that Owner charges to play a round of golf, without any discount, promotion or combination of services.
  9. If Owner, does not include within a fee that is charged to use the golf course all additional fees or charges for items that are required to play golf at Ocean Trails, and those items are charged separately to the user of the golf course, then the provisions of this Amendment are not applicable to that fee, and Owner shall collect and pay to the City the full amount the ten percent golf tax without the twenty-five percent reduction authorized by paragraph B, above. Furthermore, the total of all of the additional fees or charges for items that are required to play golf at Ocean Trails, which Owner charges separately to the user of the golf course, shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the golf fee that is charged to the user to use the golf course.

Section 2.Neither this Amendment nor Owner’s obligation to pay the golf tax to the City, as set forth in the Agreement shall be affected by the failure of the voters to approve the ten percent golf tax at the upcoming election on November 6, 2001, or at any time thereafter.

Section 3.Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all of the provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 4.Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Amendment, Owner shall pay to the City: (a) the sum of $38,919.73, as full satisfaction of the amount of the golf tax that is due to the City through April 30, 2001, and (b) any and all unpaid tax that is owed to the City during the period from May 1, 2001, through August 31, 2001, which shall be calculated based on the provisions of Section 1 of this Amendment.

Section 5.The City Clerk shall cause this document to be recorded against all of the parcels of land that comprise the Ocean Trails Golf Course.

The parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions as of the date and year first written above.

Dated: ____________________"OWNER"

OCEAN TRAILS, L.P., a California Limited Liability Partnership

 

By: __________________________
Kenneth Zuckerman

Its: __________________________

Dated: ___________________CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

By: ___________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk


REGULAR BUSINESS:


9.Amendment of Municipal Code - Golf Tax. (Lynch)

Recommendation: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. ___, WHICH MAKES A FEW MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S GOLF TAX. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE REVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE DO NOT ADDRESS THE AMOUNT OF THE GOLF TAX OR THE ISSUE OF APPROVAL OF THE TAX BY THE VOTERS; THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT THE UPCOMING ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:CITY ATTORNEY

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE – GOLF TAX

RECOMMENDATION

Introduce the attached ordinance, which makes a few minor amendments to the City’s golf tax. It should be noted that the revisions contained in the attached ordinance do not address the amount of the golf tax or the issue of approval of the tax by the voters; those issues have been addressed in the ordinance that the City Council directed be submitted to the voters at the upcoming election in November.

BACKGROUND

This item was on the agenda for the last City Council meeting and was discussed by the City Council at that time. A copy of the last staff report is attached to this report to provide additional information about the imposition of the City’s golf tax on golf courses that are owned or operated entirely by a governmental entity.

The Council will recall that the draft amendment to the Ocean Trails Development Agreement was also on the last Council agenda. Following the discussion about the Ocean Trails item at that meeting, the Council gave direction to staff to revise the ordinance to address the same issue that was discussed in connection with the Ocean Trails agreement, which was: the combination of fees paid to a golf course operator for other services with the fee to use a golf course or driving range and the impact of the "bundling" and "unbundling" of services upon the amount of the golf tax that is paid to the City. The attached ordinance has been amended to address that issue, and the amendments are discussed in the following section of this report.

DISCUSSION

As was discussed previously, one of the issues that staff has encountered in connection with administering the golf tax is the issue of various amenities that may or may not be included within the greens fee that a golfer is required to pay in order to play a round of golf. For example, many golf courses require a golfer to rent a golf cart to play a round of golf. Some courses include mandatory golf cart rentals as part of the total greens fee that is charged; other courses separate out the golf cart rental from the greens fee, even though the golf must pay both fees to play a round of golf. This same scenario can apply to other types of goods and services that are required to be rented or used to play a round of golf, such as the use of a caddy, locker facilities, etc.

Staff has been advised that golf course operators would like the maximum flexibility in determining how to package or market various items in connection with golf course play. (In other words, the issue concerns, which items will be, included as part of the greens fees and which items will be charged separately from the greens fees.) However, the more flexibility that is afforded to the golf course operator(s) as to which items can be included within or excluded from the greens fees, the more difficult it will be for staff to determine how much of the greens fees to which to apply the City’s golf tax.

The ordinance that was presented to the City Council at the last meeting.

In the last version of the ordinance, staff made two proposed revisions to the golf tax in an attempt to address this issue.

The first amendment was to Section 3.40.040. That section was amended to add the new language that is contained in sub-section C, which requires the golf course operator to list separately from the golf fees any items or services that are required to be used in order to play a round of golf, but which the operator contends are exempt from the payment of the golf tax. That section stated:

"C.Any good(s) or service(s) that the operator requires any user to rent or purchase in order to use the golf course, which the operator contends is (are) exempt from the golf tax, shall be separately stated from the amount of the golf fees charged on the invoice or receipt that is provided to the user."

This change will make it easier for staff to verify which items will be included within the golf fees and are properly subject to the tax and which will not.

The second amendment was the addition of sub-section F to Section 3.40.060. That sub-section added a new rebuttable presumption to the golf tax, which states:

"F.Presumption. It shall be presumed that if the cost of all of the goods and services that the operator requires any user to rent or purchase in order to use the golf course, which the operator contends are exempt from the golf tax, exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total charge that the user is required to pay to the operator for said use, that the operator is attempting to prevent the City from receiving the full amount of the tax to which the City is entitled pursuant to this chapter. This presumption may be rebutted by the operator, if the operator presents contrary documentation that is satisfactory to the tax administrator that the charges are reasonable and are standard practices in the golf course industry."

Including this rebuttable presumption will enable the City to review any required charges that must be paid to play golf or to use a driving range that exceed 25% of the total charges that are required to be paid, to determine if the operator of the golf course is attempting to prevent the City from collecting the full amount of the golf tax to which the City is entitled. However, if the golf course operator presents evidence that is satisfactory to the City tax administrator (the Director of Finance) that the charges are reasonable or are typical in that industry, then the tax administrator may find that the presumption has been rebutted. Similar to any other decision of the tax administrator that is made in implementing the golf tax chapter, this decision would be appeal able to the City Council pursuant to Section 3.40.080.

The Revised Ordinance.

At the last meeting, the Council expressed concern about whether the last version of the ordinance fully addressed the issue of the costs of other golf-related items and the effect of such costs on the amount of the golf fees and the tax that is paid to the City and requested staff to further analyze the issue.

Although a rebuttable presumption is one method that can be used to address this issue, it may be preferable to amend the ordinance to place an absolute cap on the amount of the charges that can be collected for other items and services that are required to be rented or used in order to play a game of golf.

The "cap" approach is more straightforward than the presumption and is consistent with the amendments that the Council directed be made to the Ocean Trails Development Agreement.

Accordingly, the attached ordinance revises paragraph C to contain a 25% cap and deletes the presumption that was set forth in paragraph F.

Paragraph C of the revised ordinance states:

"C.Any good(s) or service(s) that the operator requires any user to rent or purchase in order to use the golf course, which the operator contends is (are) exempt from the golf tax, shall be separately stated from the amount of the golf fees on the invoice or receipt that is provided to the user. In no event shall the total charges for such separately stated required items exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the golf fee that is charged to the user to play a round of golf."

In addition to the amendment to paragraph C, new paragraph D has been added to address the issue of combining the fee to play golf with some other service that typically is not required to play golf, such as dinner at a restaurant. That section states:

"D.If the golf fee is combined with any other service or use (such as, for example, the purchase of a meal), then for purposes of computing the tax that is imposed under this Chapter, the charge for the round of golf or use of a driving range shall be imputed at the standard golf fee that is charged by the operator without any discount, promotion or combination of services."

If the Council prefers the approach of using a definite cap on the charges that can be imposed on items or services that are required to play golf, staff recommends that the City Council introduce the revised ordinance that is attached to the staff report.

ALTERNATIVES:

If the City Council prefers to retain the flexibility of the presumption, then the City Council could introduce the original ordinance instead. However, if that option is chosen, staff recommends that new paragraph D be added to that ordinance to address the issue of combining golf fees as part of a promotion of some other service, such as a meal at a restaurant. A copy of that ordinance, which includes new paragraph D and makes a minor change to the presumption in paragraph F also is attached to this report.

CONCLUSION:

Both of the attached ordinances clarify Chapter 3.40. However, neither of them affects the major issue regarding the golf tax, which is the imposition of the ten percent tax that was adopted by the City Council in 1993. That issue has been addressed by the ordinance that the Council has placed before the voters in the upcoming November election. Accordingly, it is recommended that the City Council introduce one of the attached ordinances for first reading.

Respectfully submitted,
Carol Lynch, City Attorney

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

  • Prior staff report
  • Two ordinances

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:CITY ATTORNEY

DATE:SEPTEMBER 4, 2001

SUBJECT:AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE – GOLF TAX

RECOMMENDATION

Introduce the attached ordinance, which makes a few minor amendments to the City’s golf tax. It should be noted that the revisions contained in the attached ordinance do not address the amount of the golf tax or the issue of approval of the tax by the voters; those issues have been addressed in the ordinance that the City Council directed be submitted to the voters at the upcoming election in November.

DISCUSSION

1.EXEMPTION FOR COURSES OWNED OR OPERATED BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.

In 1993, the City Council adopted the City’s ten percent golf tax. Currently, there is only one golf course in the City that is required to pay the tax, the Ocean Trails course. Los Verdes is not required to pay the golf tax because paragraph B of Section 3.40.130 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code exempts golf courses that are owned or operated by a governmental entity from the payment of the tax.

That exemption was included within the ordinance adopting the golf tax at the request of the County of Los Angeles. At the time the City was considering adopting the golf tax in 1993, the County asserted that Los Verdes was exempt from any such tax because the County-owned course was being operated as one of the County’s many recreational areas that is available to everyone to use at rates that are far more reasonable than the rates that are charged to play on privately owned golf courses. The then-City Council agreed with the County’s position and included the exemption within Ordinance 291.

As everyone knows, the Long Point Project proposes to locate a portion of a nine-hole golf course on City property. The current exemption contained in the golf tax for golf courses that are owned or operated by a governmental entity could be read to exempt the Long Point Project from the payment of the golf tax, even if only one or two golf holes were located on City-owned property. To eliminate any ambiguity over that issue, a minor modification to this exemption is included in the attached ordinance. The modification to Section 3.40.130 B clarifies that only golf courses that are owned or operated entirely by a governmental entity will be exempt from the payment of the golf tax.

2.CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF GOLF TAX THAT IS OWED TO THE CITY

One of the issues that staff has encountered in connection with administering the golf tax is the issue of various amenities that may or may not be included within the greens fee that a golfer is required to pay in order to play a round of golf. For example, many golf courses require a golfer to rent a golf cart to play a round of golf. Some courses include mandatory golf cart rentals as part of the total greens fee that is charged; other courses separate out the golf cart rental from the greens fee, even though the golf must pay both fees to play a round of golf. This same scenario can apply to other types of goods and services that are required to be rented or used to play a round of golf, such as the use of a caddy, locker facilities, etc.

The State Revenue and Taxation Code establishes the categories of items that are subject to sales tax and various exemptions from items that otherwise would be taxable. Suffice it to say that sales tax can be charged on leases or rentals of most tangible personal property. However, the State Board Equalization has held that no sales tax is applicable to fees that are charged for the use of a driving range because the patron is paying for the use of the facility and not for the use of tangible personal property. (See Ca.Bd.Eq.Annot. No. 330-2160.) This reasoning applies equally to greens fees that are paid to use a golf course.

Because it is impossible to determine in advance all of the items that may or may not be required to be used to play a round of golf and which of those items can or cannot be taxed by the City, in 1993, the City Council elected to require payment of the City’s golf tax only in connection with the use of driving ranges or golf courses.

Staff has been advised that golf course operators would like the maximum flexibility in determining how to package or market various items in connection with golf course play. (In other words, the issue concerns, which items will be, included as part of the greens fees and which items will be charged separately from the greens fees.) However, the more flexibility that is afforded to the golf course operator(s) as to which items can be included within or excluded from the greens fees, the more difficult it will be for staff to determine how much of the greens fees to which to apply the City’s golf tax. Staff has made two proposed revisions to the golf tax in an attempt to address this issue.

The first amendment is to Section 3.40.040. That section has been divided into several different lettered sub-sections so that the separate provisions will be easier to follow. The more substantive amendment is the addition of the new language that is contained in sub-section C, which requires the golf course operator to list separately from the golf fees any items or services that are required to be used in order to play a round of golf, but which the operator contends are exempt from the payment of the golf tax. That section states:

"C.Any good(s) or service(s) that the operator requires any user to rent or purchase in order to use the golf course, which the operator contends is (are) exempt from the golf tax, shall be separately stated from the amount of the golf fees charged on the invoice or receipt that is provided to the user."

Making this change will make it easier for staff to verify which items will be included within the golf fees and are properly subject to the tax and which will not.

The second amendment is the addition of sub-section F to Section 3.40.060. That sub-section states adds a new rebuttable presumption to the golf tax, which states:

"F.Presumption. It shall be presumed that if the cost of all of the goods and services that the operator requires any user to rent or purchase in order to use the golf course, which the operator contends are exempt from the golf tax, exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total charge that the user is required to pay to the operator for said use, that the operator is attempting to prevent the City from receiving the full amount of the tax to which the City is entitled pursuant to this chapter. This presumption may be rebutted by the operator, if the operator presents contrary documentation that is satisfactory to the tax administrator that the charges are reasonable and are standard practices in the golf course industry."

Including this rebuttable presumption will enable the City to review any required charges that must be paid to play golf or to use a driving range that exceed 25% of the total charges that are required to be paid to determine if the operator of the golf course is attempting to prevent the City from collecting the full amount of the golf tax to which the City is entitled. However, if the golf course operator presents evidence that is satisfactory to the City tax administrator (the Director of Finance) that the charges are reasonable or are typical in that industry, then the tax administrator may find that the presumption has been rebutted. Similar to any other decision of the tax administrator that is made in implementing the golf tax chapter, this decision would be appeal able to the City Council pursuant to Section 3.40.080.

It should be noted that although this provision is not exactly the same as the amendment to the Ocean Trails development agreement, which is a separate item on the agenda, it is consistent with that revision.

CONCLUSION

These revisions clarify Chapter 3.40. However, they do not affect the major issue regarding the golf tax, which is the imposition of the ten percent tax that was adopted by the City Council in 1993. That issue has been addressed by the ordinance that the Council has placed before the voters in the upcoming November election. Accordingly, it is recommended that the City Council introduce the attached ordinance for first reading.

 

ALTERNATIVES

The City Council could determine not to exempt users of golf courses or driving ranges that are owned or operated entirely by a governmental agency and delete paragraph B of Section 3.40.130. This alternative is likely to be opposed by Los Angeles County, if the County continues to advance the arguments that it made in 1993.

Respectfully submitted,
Carol Lynch, City Attorney


Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S GOLF TAX

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

Section 1. Section 3.40.40 of Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

"3.40.040Tax collection.

"A.Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this chapter to the same extent and at the same time as the golf fees are collected from every user.

"B.The amount of tax shall be separately stated from the amount of the golf fees charged, and each user shall receive a receipt for payment from the operator.

"C.Any good(s) or service(s) that the operator requires any user to rent or purchase in order to use the golf course, which the operator contends is (are) exempt from the golf tax, shall be separately stated from the amount of the golf fees on the invoice or receipt that is provided to the user. In no event shall the total charges for such separately stated required items exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the golf fee that is charged to the user to play a round of golf.

"D.If the golf fee is combined with any other service or use (such as, for example, the purchase of a meal), then for purposes of computing the tax that is imposed under this Chapter, the charge for the round of golf or use of a driving range shall be imputed at the standard golf fee that is charged by the operator without any discount, promotion or combination of services.

"E.If the golf fees are paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment; any unpaid tax shall be due upon the user’s ceasing use of the golf course.

"F.If golf fees are paid as part of any membership fee or dues, the operator shall collect a tax on an amount thereof that is fairly allocable to the golf fees or number of rounds the person paying such membership fee or dues is entitled to play under the terms of the membership, or the average number of rounds played by persons paying such membership fees or dues, whichever is greater."

Section 2.Section 3.40.130 of Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending paragraph B thereof to read as follows:

"B.No tax shall be imposed upon any user of a golf course that is that is entirely owned and/or operated by a governmental entity."

Section 3.Savings Clause. The provisions of this ordinance are substantially the same as those originally set forth in Ordinance No. 291, as adopted in 1993. Therefore, this ordinance is to be construed as a restatement and continuation of this earlier ordinance, as previously codified, and not as a new enactment. Nothing contained in this ordinance shall be interpreted or enforced in any manner as to constitute an increase in the amount of the tax imposed by Ordinance No. 291.

Section 4.Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ___ day of September, 2001.

 

_________________________

Mayor

ATTEST:
___________________________

City Clerk

 


ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S GOLF TAX

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

Section 1. Section 3.40.40 of Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

"3.40.040Tax collection.

"A.Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this chapter to the same extent and at the same time as the golf fees are collected from every user.

"B.The amount of tax shall be separately stated from the amount of the golf fees charged, and each user shall receive a receipt for payment from the operator.

"C.Any good(s) or service(s) that the operator requires any user to rent or purchase in order to use the golf course, which the operator contends is (are) exempt from the golf tax, shall be separately stated from the amount of the golf fees on the invoice or receipt that is provided to the user.

"D.If the golf fee is combined with any other service or use (such as, for example, the purchase of a meal), then for purposes of computing the tax that is imposed under this Chapter, the charge for the round of golf or use of a driving range shall be imputed at the standard golf fee that is charged by the operator without any discount, promotion or combination of services.

"E.If the golf fees are paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment; any unpaid tax shall be due upon the user’s ceasing use of the golf course.

"F.If golf fees are paid as part of any membership fee or dues, the operator shall collect a tax on an amount thereof that is fairly allocable to the golf fees or number of rounds the person paying such membership fee or dues is entitled to play under the terms of the membership, or the average number of rounds played by persons paying such membership fees or dues, whichever is greater."

Section 2.Section 3.40.060 of Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new paragraph F thereof to read as follows:

"F.Presumption. It shall be presumed that if the cost of all of the goods and services that the operator requires any user to rent or purchase in order to use the golf course, which the operator contends are exempt from the golf tax, exceeds twenty-five percent (25%) of the total charge that the user is required to pay to the operator for the use of the golf course, that the operator is attempting to prevent the City from receiving the full amount of the tax to which the City is entitled pursuant to this chapter. This presumption may be rebutted by the operator, if the operator presents contrary documentation that is satisfactory to the tax administrator that the charges for the required items are reasonable and are standard practices in the golf course industry, and that the charge for the use of the golf course has not been decreased."

Section 3.Section 3.40.130 of Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending paragraph B thereof to read as follows:

"B.No tax shall be imposed upon any user of a golf course that is that is entirely owned and/or operated by a governmental entity."

Section 4.Savings Clause. The provisions of this ordinance are substantially the same as those originally set forth in Ordinance No. 291, as adopted in 1993. Therefore, this ordinance is to be construed as a restatement and continuation of this earlier ordinance, as previously codified, and not as a new enactment. Nothing contained in this ordinance shall be interpreted or enforced in any manner as to constitute an increase in the amount of the tax imposed by Ordinance No. 291.

Section 5.Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ___ day of September, 2001

_________________________

Mayor

ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk


10.Amendment to the August 21st Minutes. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Consider Councilman Stern’s amendment to the August 21, 2001 minutes.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:AMENDMENT TO THE AUGUST 21ST MINUTES

RECOMMENDATION

Consider Councilman Stern’s amendment to the August 21, 2001 minutes.

BACKGROUND

At the September 4, 2001 meeting, staff presented Councilman Stern’s proposed amendment to the August 21, 2001 minutes. To give Councilmembers adequate time to read the amendment, it was the consensus that approval of these minutes should be carried over to the September 18th meeting.

Attached is a copy of the minutes as presented by staff, Page Nos. 1 through 13, followed by two pages indicating Councilman Stern’s proposed amendment.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 21, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Mayor Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

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

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

ABSENT:None

Also present were City Manager Les Evans; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Director of Recreation & Parks Ron Rosenfeld; Acting Principal Planner Greg Pfost; Associate Planner Eduardo Schonborn; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

RECYCLING DRAWING:

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Councilman Stern asked that the item regarding Payment for 2001 July 4th Celebration and Extension of Contract item be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Gardiner asked that the item regarding Ordinance No. 369 - Relating to a Transient Occupancy Tax be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

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

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, spoke on the following subjects: restrictions on shooting guns in the city; vaccination of cats; her opposition to the City offering helicopter rides at the Independence Day celebration; giving credit to whomever arranged for donations to the Independence Day celebration; and, storm drain repairs at Palos Verdes Drive and Peppertree.

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

Motion to waive full reading

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

Minutes (301)

Adopted the Minutes of August 7, 2001.

Informal Bid and Pre-Ordering of Pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project (1101 x 604)

Reviewed and reconfirmed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s previous action of August 7, 2001 to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order drainage pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.

Pre-Ordering of Drainage Pipe for Immediate Storm Drain Repairs Near Palos Verdes Drive South and Peppertree Drive (1204 x 604)

Reviewed and reconfirmed 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.

Notice of Completion for Bikeway Route Improvement Project (1204 x 112)

(1) Accepted the work as complete. (2) Authorized the City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed within 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the payment and performance bonds. (3) Authorized 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.

Resolution No. 2001-60 - Arterial Rehabilitation Program – Hawthorne & Crenshaw Boulevards (1204 x 1404)

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-60, 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 PROJECT FUND.

Gifts for Parks (1201)

Accepted the Gifts for Parks donations and directed staff to prepare letters for the Mayor’s signature expressing the Council ‘s appreciation.

Resol. No. 2001-61 - Register of Demands (602)

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-61, 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, Stern, and Mayor Lyon

NOES:None

ABSTAIN:Stern on Minutes of August 7 as he was on vacation and was absent from this meeting

############

Payment for 2001 July 4th Celebration and Extension of Contract (1201)

Staff recommendation was to (1) Authorize payment to Conte Productions for the production of the July 4th, 2001, Independence Day Celebration. (2) Accept Conte Production’s proposal to continue to produce the City’s Annual July 4th Independence Day Celebration for a period of five years, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the proposed agreement.

Council discussion focused on modification of the contract for more security for the City and Mr. Conte in the scheduling of this event to indicate that the agreement may be terminated by either party upon 9 months (270 days) written notice rather than the 120 days indicated in the agreement presented.

Mr. Conte agreed to the suggested change.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner (1) Authorized payment to Conte Productions for the production of the July 4th, 2001, Independence Day Celebration. (2) Accepted Conte Production’s proposal as amended, to continue to produce the City’s Annual July 4th Independence Day Celebration for a period of five years, and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the proposed agreement.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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

NOES:None

Ordinance No. 369 - Relating to a Transient Occupancy Tax (501 x 1501 x 1103)

Staff recommendation was to adopt Ordinance No. 369 relating to a Transient Occupancy Tax. (This ordinance was introduced on August 7.)

City Attorney Lynch clarified that an owner of a unit (such as the villas at the proposed Long Point project) would not be subject to transient occupancy tax, nor would someone renting for longer than 30 days. She said that a developer agreement could address different types of fees but the transient occupancy tax would not apply.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to 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 on August 7.)

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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

NOES:None

PUBLIC HEARING:


Resol. No. 2001- 62 - Conformance with the 1999 L.A. County Congestion Management Program (CMP) and Adoption of the 2001 Local Implementation Report (1203 x 1505)

Mayor Lyon opened the public hearing on this request to consider a resolution regarding conformance with the 1999 L.A. County Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adoption of the 2001 Local Implementation Report. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that there were no written comments received by the City but that correspondence from Barbara Covey had been received and distributed to the Council just prior to the onset of the meeting.

Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report of August 21, 2001 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution 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.

Council discussion centered on the possibility of installing a traffic signal in a location which might not meet the required criteria for traffic congestion but for which special circumstances might warrant a signal.

Ann Shaw, 30036 Via Borica, stated that the semi-rural, uncongested, peninsula with its ocean views should be preserved and special consideration based on common sense should be made to accomplish this.

Barbara Covey, 2742 San Ramon Drive, a member of the City’s Traffic Committee, said that circumstances in the City were not the same as downtown Los Angeles yet the same rules applied. She added that special circumstances like fog, steep slopes, and blind curves as well as a desire to preserve the semi-rural quality of the Peninsula indicated that sometimes a traffic signal was required even though the guidelines would not normally indicate this action. (A copy of Ms. Covey’s remarks is on file with the City Clerk’s Office)

Additional Council discussion focused on the acknowledgement of the special circumstances which existed on the Peninsula and the fact that conformance with the County program was necessary to receive funding for traffic improvements projects, however, the City had the right to impose stricter standards if so desired.

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

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 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. Motion carried.


Resol. Nos. 2001- 63 and 64 - General Plan Amendment No. 29 – Housing Element Amendment (1203 x 701)

Mayor Lyon opened the public hearing on this request to consider General Plan Amendment No. 29 – Housing Element Amendment. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that there any written comments received by the City were made a part of the agenda packet.

Acting Principal Planner Pfost presented the staff report of August 21, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Adopt the proposed resolution certifying a Negative Declaration for the Project. (2) Adopt the proposed resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 29 for the Final Draft Housing Element.

Council discussion focused on specific aspects of the Amendment; conformance with the State mandate in order to have the Housing Element approved; and, meetings with Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal to request his assistance in the State’s developing a more regional, realistic approach to the requirements.

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

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Stern to (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-64, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 29 FOR THE FINAL DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT. Motion carried.

Mayor Lyon re-opened the Public Hearing.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, asked why Greg Pfost was designated as Acting Principal Planner.

City Manager Evans explained that because of the departure of Deputy Planning Director Snow, Mr. Pfost was Acting Principal Planner on an interim basis.

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


Use of Federal and State Funding for Supplemental Police Services (601 x 1206)

Mayor Lyon opened the public hearing on this request to consider Use of Federal and State Funding for Supplemental Police Services. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that there were no written comments received by the City.

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of August 21, 2001 and the recommendation to 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.

Captain Ed Hitchcock of the L.A. County Lomita Sheriff’s Station described details, benefits, and results of the program.

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

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to 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. Motion carried.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Robert Scalfaro, 3027 Crest Road, said that he was being sued by a neighbor because of a covenant from 1990 and he asked that the City remove that covenant because he felt it sidestepped the City’s view ordinance. He cited Council action in 1997 to remove a covenant under similar circumstances and he asked that the Council review his case and remove the covenant in question. He said that he had spoken to City Planner Beilin Yu and View Restoration consultant Steven Jones and they suggested he make his request to the Council.

Council consensus was that staff prepare a memo describing the situation and place this request on a future Council agenda if appropriate.

Joseph Piccarelli, 30311 Via Borica, spoke about the proposed Long Point project and the developer’s request to use public land for a portion of the proposed golf course. He felt that the Planning Commission’s prolonged consideration of the developer’s EIR gave the appearance of tacit approval of the City Council for use of public land and he asked that the Council withdraw the permission to include public land in the Long Point proposal.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 8:27 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:37 P.M.


REGULAR BUSINESS:

Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification (1204 x 1404)

Director Allison presented the staff report of August 21, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Approve the preliminary median and parkway landscape plans 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, by refocusing funds from the neighborhood beautification program to the Hawthorne Boulevard beautification efforts. (4) Request staff to prepare a fence/wall improvement program for Hawthorne Boulevard that establishes a single fence/wall type for Hawthorne Boulevard, and provides City funding toward fence/wall replacement. He presented a computer-generated video presentation to illustrate features and costs of the plan.

Tom Lockett of Land Images discussed issues on Hawthorne Boulevard, the process to study these issues and conclusions reached. He discussed seven sections of Hawthorne Boulevard, showed drawings in a computer-generated video presentation, discussed the image to be created, view preservation and the plan to have blooming plants at all times.

Susan Powell of Land Images showed photographs of plants and simulations of proposed completed sections of Hawthorne Boulevard in a computer-generated video presentation and discussed environmental, view, and economic issues, stating that non-invasive, native, and existing plants would be used as appropriate. She also said that screening of undesirable walls was a goal which meant some sidewalks might have to be relocated; and she discussed the total cost of the project, providing percentages of various expenses, and the budget for Phase One of the project.

Director Allison discussed funding, providing alternatives for completion of the project in 30 years or 16 years.

Jim Slayden, 37 Mela Lane, discussed smaller median beautification projects in the past in other parts of the city and felt that homeowners associations had been receiving recycling funds for several years and that they would probably cooperate with the plan to redirect these funds toward this project.

Don Shults, 2129 Velez Drive, representing Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association was concerned that homeowners association and other groups would no longer be receiving recycling funds. He suggested that Western Avenue also be considered for beautification and discussed existing "stick-like" trees and unattractive walls and the benefits for travelers as well as residents.

Council discussion centered on input received by the Council Ad Hoc City Beautification Committee by staff and the public; the long-needed beautification of Hawthorne Boulevard; benefits to be received, including increased property values; the redirection of recycling funds from homeowners association to this project; the beneficial aspects of the current plan which take into consideration aesthetic, environmental, and economic issues; and, the continuity to be gained by considering a long-term plan rather than small sections of Hawthorne, one at a time. There were concerns that 30 years was too long and that additional funding, such as bonds or fundraising, should be sought to shorten the period to complete the work; and, that alternate plans should be investigated as well as additional input from the Council, staff and the public. Council suggestions included the use of large colored rocks for additional interest which would not need water or maintenance; thinning plants in the first phase of work to be used in later phases; and, looking into the possibility of charging fees for trucks traveling and possibly damaging the City’s arterials.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to continue this item to the Council meeting of September 4,2001 to provide time for additional input from Council, Staff and the public.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 9:58 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:08 P.M.

Zone II Geology Committee Reports (1101 x 1801)

The recommendation was to 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.

Mayor Lyon suggested that public testimony be taken at this time.

Speaking in support of the recommendation were: Mike Agahee, 1917 Via Tampa, Lomita, CA 90717; Dave Ruth, 74989 Havasu Court, Indian Wells, CA 92210; John Monks, 32200 Schooner Drive; Christopher Smith, 1236 Via Landeta, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274; Steve Case, 329 South Humboldt Drive, Henderson, NV 89104; Dana Ireland, 30 Narcissa Drive; Tracey LeRoy, 7936 3rd St., Downey, CA 90241; Mike Nopper, 67 Rockinghorse Road; Mike Kiss, 2440 Gleneyre, Laguna Beach, CA 92651; and, Chris Haber, 8720 Bleriot Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90245.

These speakers focused on the following concerns: Vacant lot owners have been paying property taxes, ACLAD fees, and weed abatement costs without the ability to develop their land; two panels of experts have said that the land has not moved in 100,000 years and feel there is not risk to building on these lots, for the vacant lot owners or the current residents; installation of the sewers should actually improve land stability by removing water from the soil; applicants for building permits would have to adhere to the same standards as those for previous construction in Zone II; and, that vacant lot owners are asking only for the right to apply to build on their own lot if the required stability factor can be met, not to institute a mass grading project.

Speaking in opposition to the recommendation were: Alyda White, 32614 Coastsite, Unit "F"; Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road; Jim Knight, 5 Cinnamon Lane; Jack Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive; Kim Redfield, 6 Peppertree Drive; Alfred Sattler, 1904 Avenida Aprenda; and, Barbara Sattler, 1904 Avenida Aprenda

These speakers focused on the following concerns: The League of Women Voters’ landslide position established in the 1960’s and reviewed every year since that time affirms that development on ancient or active slide areas should be disapproved entirely; the Council should not risk a lawsuit due to damage from possible land movement in the future; some felt that the geologists reviewing the current data were too close to the geologists who performed the initial studies; empathy was expressed for people who own vacant lots in Zone II but they were told that there was a building moratorium; a decision on building in Zone II should be postponed until the pending geological report is completed and submitted to the City; a decision should be postponed until the storm drain, sewer, and Altamira Canyon projects are complete; a question was raised whether current residents in Zone II had been asked about land movement they might have seen; one speaker indicated that hairline cracks had widened since the sewer installation began; it was unfair to give right to build to one property owner while risking damage to existing homes; and, could the property owners building sign an agreement that they would not sue the City should there be land movement.

At this time, Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart discussed the details in the report in the agenda packet.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart felt the Council should discuss the possibility of development in Zone II at this time so that if the results of the geology study when received indicated that development would be allowed on some lots, a procedure would be in place to allow property owners to apply without further delay; and, if the report indicated that building should not be allowed, there would have been no harm in discussing the possibility. He indicated that he had received information that day from a property owner indicating that there has been movement in Zone II and that this would be investigated. Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that there had been no analysis of GPS data since the passing of Perry Ehlig and it was important to have such a report to indicate whether there had been land movement in this area.

Mayor Lyon acknowledged that this is a complex issue and has been a source of concern for many years. She reiterated that no approval to build was being given at this time, only the discussion of setting in motion paperwork to allow application to build. She agreed that the status of Altamira Canyon and installation of the sewers was important as well as the investigation into the recent comment that there had been movement in Zone II, including analysis of GPS data.

A lengthy Council discussion, including several questions, with the City Manager and the City Attorney ensued relative to the process that was followed in presenting this recommendation for approval of an additional exception under the Municipal Code for building in the moratorium area. "Councilman Stern questioned Staff. The City Manager stated that it had been the position of the City for decades that the landslide moratorium over the entire area, including Zone 2, was justified by the geological data. The direction from the City Council in April 2001 was to have the geological data reviewed by Cotton Shires and the peer review committee. That report had not been completed. The conclusion of that review had not been received by the City. It was expected the week of September 3, 2001. Councilman Stern noted that the recommendation in the report from Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart was that the Council find that there were insufficient reasons to continue the distinction between developed and undeveloped lots in Zone 2. Staff acknowledged that it had no new information upon which to base the recommended conclusion.

City Attorney Lynch acknowledged that the present moratorium is quite defensible in her view, in part because the moratorium allows any owner of property to apply to have his or her property excluded from the moratorium. The City Attorney stated that it had been her advise to the City that it conduct an Environmental Impact Report. No such report had been prepared.

Staff acknowledged that it understood that it was to bring back to the City Council the Zone 2 issue when it was complete. It had not yet done so as in Staff's view, there was nothing to bring in yet for the Council.

The April 17, 2001 Staff Report on Zone 2 indicated Perry Ehlig and the Peer Review Panel had, among other things, indicated that no building should be allowed prior to the storm drain and Alta Mira Canyon improvements being completed. Those improvements have not been completed.

The City Attorney was asked if she would have concerns if the City Council adopted the recommendation contained in the report. City Attorney Lynch stated that so long as no action was taken, she would not have concerns. However, should the City Council take action at this time, she would be concerned as any action should be based upon the geology report, which was not yet complete.

Finally, Councilman Stern asked Staff if it could identify the location of the geological data that is being reviewed to make the determination regarding Zone 2. The City Manager noted that he believed that 12 borings were from York's Filiorum property, 7 borings were from Hon's Peacock Flats, with 7 or 8 borings from either Zone 2 or the top of Zone 5. The City Attorney indicated that any distinction made by the City between Zone 2 and other areas must be based upon geological data that justifies the distinction. The City Attorney indicated that a representative of Mr. York had indicated that Mr. York was looking very closely at what happens with Zone 2."

 

Councilman Stern asserted that, in his view, it would have been preferable to wait until the Peer Review Croup had completed and presented their report to the Council before placing the item on the City Council agenda.

City Manager Evans stated that Bill Cotton had indicated that the report would be received in the first week of September which would allow the Zone II Peer Review Group to analyze the information and provide a final report at their next meeting on September 18. City Manager Evans also said that Bill Cotton had received the information mentioned by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart regarding a report of land movement in Zone II and that analysis of GPS data would be included in the report.

Council discussion focused on consequences the City would face whether building was allowed or not; the lack of the geologist’s report; the fact that exclusion rather than an exception was being sought; statements the Mayor made to the Daily Breeze; and, comments received by property owners in other zone of the moratorium area.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Lyon, to continue this item to the Council meeting on September 18 when the final report from the Zone II Peer Review group is received.

Further Council discussion resulted in a suggestion to locate three of the best geologists from out of the area to provide a completely unbiased analysis of current data in order to have best information if and when there is litigation based on the City’s decision regarding development in Zone II.

Councilwoman Ferraro amended her motion, seconded by Mayor Lyon, to continue this item to the Council meeting on September 18, 2001 and to direct staff to contact the appropriate scientific body to obtain the name of three independent experts from out of the area to investigate the studies on hand and to provide an estimate of cost for this investigation. Motion carried.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 11:35 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 11:45 P.M.

Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 8 (Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane) (1203 x 1808)

Staff recommendation was to 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.

Due to the lateness of the hour, Council consensus was to carry over this item to the next meeting.

Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 41 (Applicant: Miles Pritzkat, representing Landowners Jim & Susan Maniscalco) (1203 x 1801)

Director Rojas presented the staff report of August 21, 2001 and the recommendation to 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.

Topics discussed by the Council included view impact, the need for a variance and a height variation, and the legal non-conforming status of this property. It was clarified that Council approval of this item did not approve these modifications but only gave the homeowners the right to apply.

Miles Prtizkat, the homeowners’ architect, said that he and his clients concurred with the staff report and requested that the Council please grant permission for application to be made.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner, to 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. Motion carried.

Fencing and Signage at Inspiration Point (1101 x 1201)

Staff recommendation was to approve the fencing design and signage for Inspiration Point and direct staff to install said improvements.

Due to the lateness of the hour, Council consensus was to carry over this item to the next meeting.

Beautification Grant for the Miraleste Recreation and Park District (1204 x 1200)

Director Allison presented the staff report of August 21, 2001 and the recommendation to award a grant in an amount up to $22,000 to the Miraleste Recreation and Park District toward neighbor improvements in the Miraleste neighborhood.

A representative from the Homeowner’s Association indicated that this request represented two years’ planning and she asked for the Council’s approval.

City Attorney Lynch noted that Councilman Stern and Mayor Lyon were not required to recuse themselves from participating in this item unless they were within 500 yards and there would be an impact of $10,000 or more on their property value. It was determined that they did not have to recuse themselves.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to adopt staff recommendation. Motion carried.

Additional Traffic Enforcement – Pilot Program (301 x 1206)

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of August 21, 2001 and the recommendation to 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.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to adopt staff recommendation.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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

NOES:None

Adoption of City Council Policy on Border Issues (1101 x 306)

Staff recommendation was to adopt City Council Policy No. 34 which establishes a policy for handling "Border Issues."

Due to the lateness of the hour, Council consensus was to carry over this item to the next meeting.

Mobile Food Vendor Controls (1101 x 1502)

Staff recommendation was to direct staff to prepare an amended ordinance imposing additional restrictions on mobile food vendor parking.

Due to the lateness of the hour, Council consensus was to carry over this item to the next meeting.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

City Attorney Lynch reported that no action was taken.


CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:


CITY MANAGER REPORTS:


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 1:45 A.M. on motion of Councilman Stern.

 

____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:
______________________

CITY CLERK


11.Purchase of Pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize the purchase of RCP pipe from Rialto Concrete Pipe for a cost of $7,165. (2) Authorize the purchase of HDPE pipe from P&F Distributors for a cost of $45,557. (3) Authorize an expenditure of $96,862 for P&F to provide fitting and fabrication of HDPE pipe at the factory in order to reduce the overall cost and construction time of the project.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:PURCHASE OF PIPE FOR THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

1) Authorize the purchase of RCP pipe from Rialto Concrete Pipe for a cost of $7,165; 2) Authorize the purchase of HDPE from P&F Distributors for a cost of $45,557; and, 3) Authorize an additional expenditure of $96,862 for P&F Distributors to provide fitting and fabrication of HDPE pipe at the factory in order to reduce the construction time for the project.

BACKGROUND

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

On July 17, August 7, August 21 and September 4, 2001, the Council reconfirmed these findings and the previous direction given to staff.

DISCUSSION

The City’s consultant, DMc Engineering, sent informal bid packages to three RCP manufacturers. The responses received back on this material are summarized below:

RE-ENFORCED CONCRETE PIPE

Manufacturer

Bid Amount

Hydro Conduit

No Bid Received

Johnson-Bateman Company

$8,154

Rialto Concrete Products

$7,165

DMc Engineering also sent informal bid packages to four HDPE pipe manufacturers. The responses received back on this material are summarized below:

HDPE PIPE

Manufacturer

Bid Amount

Aldrich Supply Company

No Bid Received

California Piping Material

$175,000 (verbal only)

Marden Susco

No Bid Received

P&F Distributors

$142,419

The City Council previously authorized staff to spend up to $50,000 to pre-order drainage pipe (both RCP and HDPE) for the San Ramon Project. P&F Distributors was the only firm that submitted a written and complete bid for the HDPE pipe. While the bids for HDPE appear to be much higher than expected, this is because the bid specifications included additional pre-fabrication of the pipe that will be discussed later in this report.

Looking at just the cost of pre-purchasing the HDPE pipe, P&F Distributors was asked to separate the cost of the raw materials and the cost of the pre-fabrication. P&F’s two bids are attached indicating a cost of $45,557 for the raw pipe material and a cost of $96,862 for the pre-fabrication. The amount just for the HDPE pipe, plus the $7,165 bid received from Rialto (low bidder) for RCP, totals $52,722 for the entire drainage pipe necessary to complete the project. This total is only slightly over the project engineer’s $50,000 estimate. Because Rialto and P&F provided the lowest bids for pipe and can deliver the required amount by the date requested by the City, staff has pre-ordered pipe from these two firms, as previously authorized by the City Council. This way, the City will be assured that the necessary drainage pipe materials will be available when construction begins on the San Ramon Project next month (see Additional Information).

The additional item included in the bid specification for the HDPE pipe was for the manufacturer to pre-fabricate longer sections of the pipe and prepare them with fittings to anchor them to the slope. The main benefit of having this work completed ahead of time at the factory is that the selected contractor will have fewer fusion welds to make in the field. This will allow the selected contractor to save time and complete the project within the critical time frame required by the City. P&F’s bid included an additional cost of $96,862 for this pre-fabrication. If the Council chooses to only purchase the raw HDPE pipe material at this time, the contractors bidding on the project would be required to increase their bids to include additional fusion welds and fittings fabrication to take place in the field. Staff expects that this cost is likely to be higher than the cost estimate provided by the manufacturer. It stands to reason that it would be more difficult, and thus more costly, to conduct this type of work in a constrained canyon environment, rather than in a controlled factory setting.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Due to the complexity and critical nature of the San Ramon Project, two construction firms, Road Builders and Colich & Sons, have been pre-qualified by the City to bid on the project. A pre-bid meeting was conducted with the two contractors at the site on September 5, 2001. Bid packages are due to the City on September 19, 2001. Staff will ask the City Council to award the bid to one of these contractors at the October 2, 2001 meeting. Construction is expected to begin on October 9, 2001. The contractor will be required to complete the first phase of the project, including placement of 25,000 cubic yards of fill at the toe of the landslide and installation of a temporary storm drain and outlet structure, within 50 working days from the start of construction (December 8, 2001). The second phase of the project, including placement of the remaining 50,000 cubic yards of fill in the canyon and completion of the permanent storm drain system, is expected to take an additional 150 working days (June 5, 2002), weather permitting.

CONCLUSION

In order to avoid a delay in the construction of the San Ramon Project, on July 3, 2001, the City Council declared the project to be an emergency, authorized staff to initiate an informal bid process to pre-order the drainage pipe needed for the project for up to $50,000. Because staff has pre-ordered the drainage pipe required for the San Ramon Project, the contractors bidding on this project will not need to include the purchase price of RCP and HDPE pipe in their proposals. In addition, if the City Council agrees to allow the HDPE pipe manufacturer to pre-fabricate the pipe sections and fittings at the factory, the selected contractor will have fewer fusion welds to make in the field. This is expected to have two results: 1) a corresponding decrease in the bid amounts received for this project, and 2) an ability for the selected contractor to save time in the field and complete the project within the critical time frame specified by the City.

ALTERNATIVES

1.Reject all bids and require the contractors bidding on the San Ramon Project to include procurement of drainage pipe as part of their construction bid package. However, this alternative is likely to cause a significant delay in the construction schedule, thereby jeopardizing the City’s ability to complete the project before the upcoming winter rains.

2.Authorize only the purchase of the raw pipe materials and forego pre-fabrication of the HDPE pipe at the factory. This alternative would require the contractors bidding on the project to include the fabrication of the HDPE pipe in the field, which is likely increase the cost of the project and may delay the construction schedule.

FISCAL IMPACT

The Adopted FY 2001-2002 budget includes adequate funding ($ 2,000,000) for this project.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager


12.Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification. (Allison)

Recommendation: (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 of 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 the 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.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
SUBJECT:HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD BEAUTIFICATION

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

  1. 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.
  2. Revise the expenditure plan for Recycling Fund, to reprogram funds from the neighborhood beautification program to Hawthorne Boulevard beautification efforts.
  3. 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.

BACKGROUND

This item was continued from the August 21, 2001 City Council Meeting.

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.

DISCUSSION

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

Issue

Discussion

Resolution

Parkways

To achieve the desired level of beautification, both the parkways and medians must be landscaped

The plan proposes to landscape parkways as well as the medians. This will require portions of sidewalks to be reconstructed.

Walls and fencing along the edge of roadway

The walls and fences along Hawthorne Boulevard are private. The wall and fencing type vary, and they are unattractive. Many need to be replaced.

A fencing program will be established to replace the existing walls and fences. The program will establish a fencing/wall standard, and the City will participate in a portion of the costs.

Views from private properties must be preserved.

Trees can be installed along portions of Hawthorne Boulevard without impacting views.

The plan proposes to include trees along both medians and parkways where it is determined that they will not impact views.

Invasive Plant material

The plan must avoid the use of invasive plants when there is the possibility that the plants can spread to the native areas.

At Aqua Armaga Canyon no invasive plants will be utilized.

Maintenance costs

Plant selection should be such that maintenance costs do not become burdensome.

The plan proposes grasses and trees which require less maintenance when compared to turf, and groundcover.

Which segment of Hawthorne Boulevard should be improved first ?

The first segment to be improved should be in a high traffic area, and should create a significant visual impact.

Hawthorne Boulevard from Eddinghill Drive to Locklenna Drive will be the first segment constructed. This is because traffic volume is high, and site preparation costs are relatively low.

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:

Roadway Beautification Fund:

Fund balance July 1, 2001

$ 0

Revenues

$ 0

Transferred from the General Fund

$ 200,000

Transferred from the Recycling Fund

$ 100,000

Interest

$ 6,000

Estimated fund balance July 1, 2002

$ 306,000

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:

Recycling Fund:

Fund balance on July 1, 2001

$ 500,000

Revenues

$ 146,000

Less Neighborhood beautification

$ 96,000

Less Recycler of the month, admin, supplies, salaries

$ 7,000

Less Block grant expenditures

$13,000

Less Transferred to the Roadway Beautification Fund

$ 100,000

Estimated Fund Balance July 1, 2002

$ 430,000

Funding Plan for first phase of improvements

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:

From the Roadway Beautification Fund:

Transferred from the General Fund

$ 0

Transferred from the Recycling Fund

$ 100,000

Interest

$ 6,000

From the Recycling Fund:

July 1, 2002 Balance

$ 430,000

Neighborhood Beautification Funds

$ 96,000

Total Funding Available

$ 632,000

Total Funding Required

$ 603,500

Excess Funding

$ 28,500

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

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:

Recycling Fund:

 
   

Anticipated sources of Funds:

 

Collector Fee from haulers

$ 80,000

State Block Grant

$ 13,000

Redemption value of recyclables

$ 120,000

Curbside Supplement Payment

$ 40,000

Total Funding Available

$253,000

   

Proposed uses of Funds:

 

Neighborhood Beautification

$ 0

Recycler of the Month

$ 7,000

Use of State Block Grant for litter pick up

$13,000

Roadway Beautification:

$233,000

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.

Maintenance Costs

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

Maintenance Costs:

 

Maintenance Contractor

$ 86,000

Power

$ 8,000

Water

$ 52,000

Total

$146,000

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:

Annual Maintenance Costs:

Phase One Hawthorne

All of Hawthorne

     

Maintenance Contractor

$ 11,000

$ 102,000

Power

$ 1,000

$ 9,000

Water

$ 7,000

$ 62,000

Total

$ 19,000

$173,000

Fencing Plan

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.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting the staff recommendations will begin the process to significantly improve 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.

FISCAL IMPACT

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

RECESS:


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

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


13.Resolution Approving the Installation of a Traffic Signal at Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive. (Allison)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DIRECTING STAFF TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, WITH DESIGN FEATURES RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY’S TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AT THE INTERSECTION OF HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD AND VALLON DRIVE.

TO:MAYOR LYON AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DEAN ALLISON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC

SIGNAL AT HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD AND VALLON DRIVE

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 2001___; thereby directing staff to install a traffic signal, with design features recommended by the City’s Traffic Engineer, at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive.

BACKGROUND:

On September 4, 2001, the City Council heard testimony from residents requesting that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive. The request is based on sight distance concerns and the speed of traffic in both directions on Hawthorne Boulevard which impedes the safe and timely access onto this boulevard particularly for those vehicles making left turns. The Council approved the residents’ request subject to receiving a written report from the City’s Traffic Engineer that includes a safety assessment of installing a traffic signal at this location and a listing of any special features that should be included in the design and construction of the signal. Assuming that the Traffic Engineer’s report would be favorable, the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution authorizing the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive.

DISCUSSION:

On September 8, 2001 staff received the attached written report from the City’s Traffic Engineer. The report supports the installation of a traffic signal at Hawthorne and Vallon subject to the inclusion of the following design features:

  1. Additional signal heads be installed to insure visibility for southbound Hawthorne traffic.
  2. Longer mast arms are used to insure visibility for southbound Hawthorne traffic.
  3. Install LED signal lenses to improve visibility.
  4. Change flasher to LED lens and add "Signal Ahead" sign, also add a second head to the existing flasher. This additional head will allow alternating flashing indicators to motorists approaching the intersection.
  5. Review and set special detection at Vallon (delayed right turn detection).
  6. During concept design phase investigate interconnecting the new Vallon signal with the Dupree signal to provide progressive movement for Hawthorne.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

  1. Decline to install the traffic signal, in which case the resolution should not be adopted.
  2. Give staff additional direction about the installation of the traffic signal.

CONCLUSION:

Because the Traffic Engineer’s Report supports the installation of a traffic signal at this location, staff also has prepared the resolution for Council approval directing staff to install the traffic signal at intersection of Hawthorne and Vallon with the design features recommended by the City’s Traffic Engineer.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Installing a new traffic signal, at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive will cost an estimated $135,000. Staff investigated possible funding sources and has determined that General Funds will have to be appropriated to cover the cost of this project.

There is a separate item on tonight’s agenda addressing the budget adjustment that is necessary to fund this project.

Respectfully submitted:
Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

  • Resolution No. 2001__ and the City’s Traffic Engineer Report dated September 8, 2001

RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DIRECTING STAFF TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD AND VALLON DRIVE

WHEREAS, at the September 3, 2001 City Council meeting, many residents of the La Cresta Tract requested that the City install a traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive, based on sight distance concerns and the speed of traffic in both directions on Hawthorne, which impedes the ability to safely turn onto Hawthorne, especially with respect to making left turns; and

WHEREAS, the City Council tentatively approved the residents’ request, subject to receiving a written report from the City’s Traffic Engineer approving the placement of a traffic signal at this intersection and recommending any design features that should be included; and

WHEREAS, the Traffic Engineer has provided a report to the City Council stating that it is acceptable to install a traffic signal at this intersection, provided that certain special design features are included, to insure adequate visibility, as set forth in the Traffic Engineer’s report;

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

Section 1. Based upon the report submitted by the City Traffic Engineer, and the safety concerns that have been raised by residents in the area, the City Council hereby directs staff to install a traffic signal that will control traffic from all entrances into the intersection at Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive.

Section 2. The design of the traffic signal shall incorporate the recommendations of the Traffic Engineer, including, but not limited to, the following features:

  1. Additional signal heads are installed, to insure visibility for southbound Hawthorne traffic;
  2. Longer mast arms are installed, to insure visibility for southbound Hawthorne traffic;
  3. LED signal lenses are installed to improve visibility;
  4. The existing flasher is changed to a LED lens; a second lens is added to the existing flasher, and a "Signal Ahead" sign is added,
  5. A special detection device is placed at Vallon (delayed right turn detection); and
  6. During the concept design phase, the Traffic Engineer shall investigate whether to interconnect the new Vallon signal with the Dupree signal to provide progressive movement for Hawthorne.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, this _________ day of September, 2001.

____________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk


14.Resolution Approving Funding for the Hawthorne Boulevard/ Vallon Drive Signal. (Huey)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 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 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING FUNDING FOR THE HAWTHORNE/ VALLON TRAFFIC SIGNAL

Staff Coordinator: Judy A. Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution 01- , a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, amending Resolution 2001-43, the budget appropriation for fiscal year 2001-02, for a budget adjustment to the City’s Capital Projects Fund.

BACKGROUND

On September 4, 2001 the City Council approved the installation of a traffic signal on Hawthorne Boulevard at Vallon Drive and requested that staff prepare a budget adjustment to provide funding for the project. The design and construction of the signal will take approximately one year.

DISCUSSION

Installing a new signal on Hawthorne Boulevard at Vallon Drive will cost approximately $135,000. Possible funding sources identified in the September 4, 2001 staff report included the Gas Tax Fund and the Proposition C Fund. Staff has investigated these funding sources and found that these funds are fully programmed for the current fiscal year for roadway maintenance and the residential and arterial overlay programs. The FY 01-02 capital improvement projects utilizing these funds include the Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program, the Hawthorne/Crenshaw Road Rehabilitation, and the 25th Street Settlement project. At this time, the only available funding source for the Vallon Drive and Hawthorne Boulevard signalization project is the General Fund.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will authorize and fund the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive.

FISCAL IMPACT

The $135,000 expense was not anticipated in the adopted FY 2001-02 budget, and a budget adjustment is necessary to allocate funds for this project. The funding

source is the General Fund, and the estimated fund balance of the FY 01-02 General Fund is $6,426,936.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

  • Budget Resolution No. 2001-

RESOLUTION NO. 2001-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS

VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND

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

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2001-43, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2001-02 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to allocate additional funds to install a traffic signal on Hawthorne Boulevard at Vallon Drive; and

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

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

The following adjustments be made to the following fund budgets:

General Fund: 001-391.20 Transfer Out
$135,000
Capital Improvement Projects Fund:
330-930-35 Professional Services
$ 25,000
330-930-82 Improvements Other Than Bldgs.
$110,000
330-391.10 Transfer In
$135,000

 

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001.

___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:
______________________
CITY CLERK

 

State of California)

County of Los Angeles)ss

City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on September 18, 2001.

____________________________
CITY CLERK
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES


15.Request for Waiver of the Penalty Fee related to Conditional Use Permit No. 230. (Requestor: James Kay, 26708 Indian Peak Road). (Fox)

Recommendation: Deny the requested fee waiver.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE PENALTY FEE RELATED TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230 [REQUESTOR: JAMES KAY, 26708 INDIAN PEAK ROAD]

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the requested fee waiver.

BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2001, Mr. James A. Kay, Jr. submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department. The purpose of the application is to attempt to legally establish an existing antenna support structure and array at Mr. Kay’s property in the Grandview community as a commercial antenna site. An application fee of $2,400.00 accompanied Mr. Kay’s application. However, because the City had evidence that the existing antennae on the property were used for commercial purposes prior to the filing of Mr. Kay’s application, Staff determined that this was an "after-the-fact" application and, therefore, subject to a penalty fee of $2,400.00. Mr. Kay paid the penalty fee on August 15, 2001, and simultaneously requested a waiver of the penalty fee (see attached letter). At Mr. Kay’s request, this matter was continued from the City Council meeting of September 4, 2001 to tonight’s meeting.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Section 17.78.010(B) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC), the City Council may grant a request to waive the fees associated with a development application if it finds that:

  1. The applicant or the beneficiary of the use or activity proposed by the applicant is a nonprofit corporation registered with the State of California; or
  2. The use or activity proposed or the activities of the beneficiary of the use or activity proposed are charitable, educational or otherwise provide a substantial benefit to the public; or
  3. The applicant has demonstrated a financial hardship, as determined by the City Council, on a case by case basis.

Mr. Kay asserts that his application is not "after-the-fact" and should not be subject to the penalty fee because he claims that the antennae and transmitters have not been and are not being used for commercial purposes. However, the City has evidence—through direct monitoring of frequencies and review of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensing records—of at least three (3) active commercial radio services currently licensed to Mr. Kay’s property. Mr. Kay also asserts that because his current application requests permission to use the existing roof-mounted antennae for commercial purposes, the previously-monitored commercial transmissions—which he claims to originate from antennae located inside the house—cannot be used as a basis for assessing penalty fees on his current application. In addition, Mr. Kay asserts that the City has no jurisdiction to require a conditional use permit (CUP) for commercial antennae located inside the house on Indian Peak Road.

Pursuant to Section 17.02.025(F) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC), the operation of a commercial antenna in a single-family residential zone requires the approval of a CUP. By his own admission in the attached Hearing Brief and additional comments, Mr. Kay has operated a commercial antenna from this property since 1998. There is no evidence that Mr. Kay has ever applied for or received approval of a CUP for the operation of commercial antennae at this site, either before or since 1998. As such, it is the City’s position that the current CUP application seeks to legalize the non-permitted use of commercial antennae on the site, regardless of where they are located.

Mr. Kay argues that the City’s authority to require a CUP for commercial antennae is limited to visible, exterior antennae. He correctly notes the City’s stated purposes in requiring a CUP for commercial antennae, as articulated in RPVDC Section 17.76.020(A):

17.76.020Antennas.

A.Commercial Antennas. The installation and/or operation of a commercial antenna shall require the submittal and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits). This subsection shall apply to all commercial antennas, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) of this Title. [emphasis added]

1.Purpose. The purposes of this subsection are as follows:

a.To minimize visual impacts of antenna towers through careful design, siting and vegetation screening;

b.To avoid damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through careful design and siting of tower structures; and

c.To maximize use of an existing transmission or relay tower to minimize the need to construct new towers.

d.To ensure that antennas are compatible with adjacent uses.

However, Mr. Kay fails to note the definition of "commercial antenna," as cited above and in RPVDC Section 17.96.090:

17.96.090Antenna, commercial.

"Commercial antenna" means all antennas, parabolic dishes, relay towers and antenna support structures used for the transmission or reception of radio, television and communication signals for commercial purposes. For the purpose of this definition, "commercial purposes" shall mean communications for hire or material compensation, or the use of commercial frequencies, as these terms are defined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). "Commercial antennas" shall not include antennas owned or operated by governmental agencies; and microcell cellular antennas, owned and operated by state licensed cellular telephone utility companies, located on existing utility poles within the public right-of-way.

Clearly, the definition of "commercial antenna" provides no exception based upon the placement of antennae inside of Mr. Kay’s house; a CUP is required for all antennae that meet this definition. Mr. Kay may be correct in asserting that the placement of antennae inside the house is consistent with the purposes stated in RPVDC Section 17.76.020(A)(1), but this is a determination to be made by the Planning Commission in reviewing his CUP application. It is not germane to the issue of whether a penalty fee should be assessed in this case, which is the only matter before the City Council at this time.

Development Code Section 17.86.080 authorizes the City to assess penalty fees for "work requiring a permit…carried on prior to obtaining said permit." It has been and continues to be the City’s stated position that the previously-monitored operation of commercial antennae on Mr. Kay’s property constitutes non-permitted "work" under Section 17.86.080, regardless of where these commercial transmissions emanated from on the property. Therefore, Staff maintains its position that the requested fee waiver is not warranted. In addition, Mr. Kay has provided no evidence that this request is warranted under any of the three (3) criteria discussed in RPVDC Section 17.78.010(B) above. Therefore, Staff believes that the assessment of the penalty fee is applicable to this case and should not be waived.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Mr. Kay has been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this request at tonight’s meeting, and has been provided with a copy of the Staff report.

CONCLUSION

Staff does not believe that Mr. Kay’s request for a waiver of the penalty fee associated with Conditional Use Permit No. 230 is warranted, based upon the required findings under RPVDC Section 17.78.010(B). In addition, Staff does not believe that Mr. Kay has presented compelling evidence that the penalty fee is inapplicable due to the location of the existing commercial antennae on the site. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council deny Mr. Kay’s request.

FISCAL IMPACT

The denial of the requested fee waiver will result in the City retaining the $2,400.00 penalty fee that was paid by Mr. Kay on August 15, 2001. If the penalty fee for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 is waived, the City’s costs associated with the processing of this application will still be partially offset by the $2,400.00 application fee that was paid (and for which Mr. Kay is not requesting a waiver).

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Grant the requested waiver of the penalty fee.
  2. Grant a reduction in the penalty fee, in an amount to be determined by the City Council.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

  • Fee waiver request from Mr. Kay (dated August 15, 2001)
  • Hearing Brief from Mr. Kay (received August 31, 2001)
  • Staff response to Mr. Kay’s Hearing Brief (dated August 31, 2001)
  • Additional comments from Mr. Kay (dated September 7, 2001)


16.Traffic Study – Highridge Road at Hawthorne Boulevard. (Allison)

Recommendation: Provide direction regarding the scope of the traffic study to be conducted at the intersection of Highridge Road at Hawthorne Boulevard.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:TRAFFIC STUDY HIGHRIDGE ROAD AT HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

RECOMMENDATION

Provide direction regarding the scope of the traffic study to be conducted at the intersection of Highridge Road at Hawthorne Boulevard.

BACKGROUND

At the September 4, 2001 City Council meeting staff presented a recommendation to remove a U-turn restriction at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road. The information supporting that recommendation consisted of accident data for this intersection as well as the accident data for the other signalized intersections along Hawthorne Boulevard.

During discussions, the City Council concluded that to make an informed decision addition data is required. This report presents the traffic data that staff proposes to assemble and present to the City Council when they next consider this matter.

DISCUSSION

It appears that the principal reason for the restriction on U-turns is due to the fact that the traffic signal phasing includes a right turn green arrow phase for motorists entering the intersection from Highridge Road. The right turn green arrow comes on only when there is a green left arrow on Hawthorne Boulevard. The U-turn restriction prevents a conflict between motorists making a U-turn from someone making a right turn on the green arrow from Highridge Road.

Based on discussions at the September 4, 2001 meeting, staff will conduct traffic studies and gather general traffic information to answer the following questions:

How far can someone see southerly on Hawthorne Boulevard when they are about to make a left or U-turn?

If U-turns are permitted at the intersection does the green arrow for Highridge Road need to be removed?

How many vehicles that currently utilize the right turn arrow will be impacted if the green arrow is removed?

If U-turns are permitted, should right turns on red from Highridge be allowed?

Should right turns on red be limited to certain hours?

If right turns are prohibited what type of indicator should be used, a sign or a red arrow?

Is there something unusual about this intersection regarding how vehicles access the car wash site?

FISCAL IMPACT

Staff estimates that it will cost approximately $ 2,500 in consulting services to prepare and present the traffic study.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager


17.City Council Assignments. (Continued from September 4th) (Purcell)

Recommendation: Make Council assignments to certain delegate and alternate positions previously held by former Councilman Byrd.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL

FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS

RECOMMENDATION

Make Council assignments to certain delegate and alternate positions previously held by former Councilman Byrd.

BACKGROUND

With the resignation of Councilman Byrd on July 3rd, the City lacks either a delegate or alternate to several organizations: California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) (Alternate), Contract Cities (Alternate), Palos Verdes Transit Authority (Delegate), and the West Basin Water District (Alternate).

Following is a brief description of those organizations:

California Joint Powers Insurance Authority: The CJPIA Board of Directors, comprised of one council member from each member city, meets once a year in July. The Executive Committee, which is selected by the Board of Directors, meets the fourth Wednesday of every month at the Authority’s headquarters in La Palma. The City is self-insured through an insurance pool administered by the CJPIA for general liability, property, special events, blanket bonding, and workers' compensation.

California Contract Cities Association: This organization meets the third Wednesday of the month at 6:30 PM for a dinner meeting hosted by member cities (location varies). As the name suggests, issues addressed by the organization generally are narrower than the League of California Cities' issues in that they tend to impact only contract cities. In addition to monthly meetings, the Association has an annual Sacramento Legislative Conference in January and a Palm Springs Conference in May.

PV Transit Authority JPA: The cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates are members of this agency. Its charter is to manage both the Dial-A-Ride and the Palos Verdes Transit systems. The meetings are conducted every other month (on odd months) on the third Thursday at 9:15 AM at Rolling Hills Estates City Hall.

West Basin Municipal Water District: This organization is comprised five divisions; Rancho Palos Verdes is in Division 1: there are a total of 17 South Bay Cities in the District. The District’s mission is to obtain and provide a safe and adequate supplemental supply of high-quality water to member agencies, including the communities, businesses and residents of the area in an efficient, effective and economical manner. This committee meets quarterly for dinner at the Alpine Village.

CONCLUSION

Certain assignments need to be made to fill either the delegate or alternate positions previously held by former Councilman Byrd.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans


18.Status of Review of Geologic and Geotechnical Data for Zone II. (Evans)

Recommendation: Receive a draft report from Cotton, Shires & Associates.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:STATUS OF REVIEW OF GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL DATA FOR ZONE II

RECOMMENDATION

Receive a Draft Report from Cotton, Shires & Associates.

BACKGROUND

At the August 21, 2001 City Council meeting the City Council discussed Zone II and took the following action:

(1) Continued the Zone II discussion to the Council meeting on September 18, 2001 when the final report from the Zone II Peer Review Group is received; and (2) Directed staff to contact the appropriate scientific body to obtain the names of three independent experts from out of the area to investigate the studies on hand and to provide and estimate of cost for this investigation.

At their April 17, 2001 meeting 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 II 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.

Previously, at their March 6, 2001 meeting 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 II 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.

The Council action in the matter of Zone II was a follow up to their action at a January 25, 1997 Workshop when they heard a presentation from City Staff and

Dr. Perry Ehlig recommending conditions for development in Zone II. Dr. Ehlig believed the Zone II area could be developed under the following conditions:

The property owner(s) must sign a covenant and agreement to participate in ACLAD and other recognized or approved districts whose purpose is to maintain the land in a geologically stable condition. The property owner(s) must also sign an indemnification and hold harmless agreement with the City. No proposed building activity may cause lessening of stability in the zone.

The property owner(s) must pay a fee to help defray the cost of installing additional monitoring and producing wells that may be required or install a monitoring well on his/her property.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, a geotechnical report must be submitted to, and approved by the City’s geotechnical reviewers indicating what, if any, local geologic hazards must be corrected prior to, of during construction. Said report shall specify foundation designs based on field and laboratory studies. Grading exceeding 250 cubic yards shall require special approval by the City staff.

No new houses may be built prior to installation of a public sanitary sewer system to serve the Abalone cove area. A covenant and agreement must

be executed agreeing to such a sewer system and connection. Necessary easements must be provided.

No building construction may be undertaken prior to installation of storm drainage improvements to carry runoff to Altamira Canyon and improvements to Altamira Canyon to prevent infiltration through the canyon bottom.

All lot drainage deficiencies, if any, identified by the City staff, must be corrected. The designs of all pools, ponds and sumps will be subject to City review and approval.

Runoff from all buildings and paved areas must be collected and directed to the street or to an approved drainage course as approved by the City Engineer.

All other relevant building code requirements must be met.

Individual lot stability must be a least 1.5 (although this was not included on the original list of conditions, all the consultants agreed that it should be required.

After hearing the presentation by Dr. Ehlig and comments from the public, the City Council took no action pending completion of the negotiations (for removal of liens and refinancing of the Horan Settlement debt) with the County. Although

the liens were removed in December 1997 a follow up meeting was never scheduled.

In January 2001 Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart inquired of staff how the matter of Zone II development should be brought back to the Council

since the bond negotiations with the County had been complete for over three years. Staff asked for the advice of Bill Cotton, of Cotton, Shires and Associates, who is providing geotechnical review services for Ocean Trails. Mr. Cotton met with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, the City Attorney and several staff members to discuss the issue of development in Zone II. Mr. Cotton recommended that a review of existing geologic and geotechnical documents should be undertaken to determine whether the data are sufficient to support the 1997conclusions of the Dr. Perry Ehlig and the Peer Review Group.

DISCUSSION

The Zone II 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 four times over the past four months, including this afternoon. Dr Bishop was present only at the initial meeting and the meeting today. Summary minutes from the first three meetings are attached.

At the August 7, 2001 meeting Mr. Cotton concluded that there was not enough geologic data available for Cotton, Shires & Associates to assess the risk of allowing new construction in Zone II. However, he commented that the construction of individual homes under controlled conditions would likely not affect the stability of the landslide. As a word of caution Mr. Cotton added that the gross stability of the underlying landslide and the potential for movement in the future, due to aggregate conditions, couldn’t be determined from available data.

At the August 7, 2001 meeting property owner comments focused on the fact that the land in Zone II had not moved in "historic" time; referred to Perry Ehlig’s conclusions that limited building could be approved; complained that they have been held hostage by the moratorium for many years; insisted that CSA should give more weight to empirical evidence rather than more studies; emphasized that the goal should simply be to not make things worse; reminded the geologists that with the dewatering wells and sewers the likelihood of sliding should be reduced; and pointed out that building codes are much stronger than they were twenty years ago.

At the August 14, 2001 meeting Bill Cotton reported that he had received additional data from Leighton & Associates and Law Crandal. The Leighton materials included 12 borehole logs plus maps and structural cross-sections. The Law Crandal material included 7 borehole logs plus report and structural cross-sections. Since the materials were received the previous Friday and Monday, Mr. Cotton had not yet had the opportunity to review the data. However, he now believes he has all the existing borehole information.

Also at the August 14, 2001 meeting a question was raised by Jack Monks whether or not Cotton, Shires was going beyond the investigation directed by the City Council. Les Evans read the Council direction from Council minutes and Bill Cotton responded that he intended to perform the tasks described in the Council minutes. Bill Cotton was asked if there would be additional testing. He replied that no testing was included in the scope of work. Bob Douglas asked if GPS data would be looked at. Bill Cotton agreed that it would. Jack Monks asked if the comments of the Peer Review geologists from the past week should have been included in the minutes of the meeting. Monte Ray indicated that he would like to see the Cotton, Shires Report before commenting. Keith Ehlert said he did not know what a developer could do, short of injecting water into the landslide that would destabilize the landslide. Jack Monks agreed and added that if the City did not allow building in Zone II then the City would have to buy all the properties.

At the August 14, 2001 meeting Cotton, Shires & Associates indicated that they would prepare a technical report of findings to be distributed to the Peer Review Group and other interested parties prior to the next meeting. The report was intended to be discussed at a public meeting scheduled for September 18, 2001. Cotton, Shires & Associates was unable to complete their report, receive comment from the Peer Review Group and finalize a document within the anticipated time frame. Therefore, the presentation the City Council will hear this evening is a preliminary report of findings and conclusions by Cotton, Shires & Associates.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager


19.2001 Progress Report on the Implementation of the General Plan. (Schonborn)

Recommendation: Direct staff to forward the City’s Annual Progress Report on the General Plan to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and to the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the current status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during Calendar Year 2000 and through June 30, 2001.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT

DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: 2001 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES GENERAL PLAN.

Staff Coordinator:Eduardo Schonborn, AICP, Associate Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Direct Staff to forward the City’s Annual Progress Report on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan to the State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and to the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the current status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during the 2000 calendar year and through June 31, 2001.

BACKGROUND

The City’s General Plan is a statement by local citizens of what is in the best interest of their community. The General Plan has functioned, and continues to function, as a guide to the future desires of residents. It provides the means by which the desired future can be obtained through specified goals and policies. Such goals and policies are implemented in conjunction with the City’s Development Code. To assess the progress of implementing the General Plan, Section 65400(b)(1) of the California State Government Code, requires that each city "provide an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the [general] plan and progress in its implementation."

On August 28, 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the attached 2000-2001 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and directed Staff, via Minute Order, to forward the report to the City Council for review and consideration.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Section 65400 of the State Government Code, Staff has prepared the City’s Annual Report regarding the status of the General Plan. The Annual Report lists the actions taken by the City, and the General Plan goals and policies implemented between January 2000 through June 30, 2001. This is because Staff is transitioning from a calendar year reporting cycle to a fiscal year reporting cycle. The Report is attached for the City Council’s consideration; and, if acceptable to the City Council, the Report will be subsequently delivered to both the State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

ALTERNATIVES

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

Direct Staff to modify the Report, and include additional information as directed by the City Council prior to forwarding the Report to the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments

  • 2000-2001 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes General

2000-2001 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES GENERAL PLAN

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to comply with the requirements of Section 65400(b)(1) of the California State Government Code, which requires that an annual report be submitted to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The annual report must provide information regarding the status of the City’s General Plan and the progress on its implementation, including the progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs. The General Plan is a comprehensive planning document intended to guide development for the City.

State law requires that each adopted general plan address a minimum of seven issues (i.e., "elements"). Each element covers a certain aspect of the City’s growth and development, and must be consistent with the other elements. The seven mandatory elements include Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety (including Seismic Safety). Additional optional elements may be included, as deemed appropriate by each city, depending on the unusual characteristics or development concerns of the jurisdiction. In reference to the City’s natural scenic vistas, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan includes an optional Scenic Highway element. Although each of the mandatory and optional elements are contained within the City’s document, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan addresses each element in broader categories, where the discussions regarding each mandatory element are integrated (and may overlap one another) throughout the document, as opposed to separate headings for each mandatory element.

The broader categories adopted in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ General Plan include the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Land Use, Conservation and Open Space elements; SOCIO/CULTURAL ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Conservation and Open Space elements; and the URBAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation and Open Space, Safety, Seismic Safety, and Noise elements, as well as the optional Scenic Highway element. In addition, the City’s General Plan includes a separate LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT that includes additional discussion regarding conservation, open space housing and seismic safety; and a FISCAL ELEMENT, which includes discussions regarding conservation, open space, and transportation (trails and bikeways). Finally, the City has an adopted HOUSING ELEMENT document, which was updated in 1992. However, in December 2000, the City Council approved a Draft Housing Element in accordance with State requirements, and has been coordinating with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to certify the document.

The Annual Report individually illustrates each of the seven mandatory elements of the rather than the broader categories. Each element is provides a list of actions taken by the City during calendar year 2000 through June 31, 2001, followed by a reference to the appropriate policy that is implemented by the action. The full text of each policy and goal implemented begins on page 12 of this report.

STATUS OF THE GENERAL PLAN

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated in 1973 in response to high-density development proposals along the scenic coastal bluffs that help define the character of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Subsequently, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan was prepared and adopted on June 26, 1975. The adopted goals related to minimizing density along the coastal bluff areas, maintaining the rural character of the community, recognizing and managing unique resources, and identifying and protecting areas with significant development constrains such as sloped areas and areas of geologic instability. These goals of the City are the same today.

Although the General Plan has not been updated, a total of 18 amendments have been made, which are summarized on the following page. The General Plan has been implemented through the City’s Development Code, which was revised in May 1997. The revisions include stringent design review and neighborhood compatibility standards that are designed to serve as effective implementation tools for the General Plan. The revisions also incorporated provisions and criteria for the construction of second units on single-family residential properties.

The City’s population has grown by only 5,145 since incorporation 28 years ago. Further, the City’s single-family housing units have increased by only 241 units between 1990 and 2000, which demonstrates the consistency of development in the City with the low density and rural character goals and policies contained in the General Plan.

In December 2000, the City Council approved a Draft Housing Element in accordance with State requirements, which was forwarded to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and comment. After addressing HCD comments, on June 29, 2001, the City was notified that the revised Draft Housing Element "meets the statutory requirements of State housing element law" and thus will be in full compliance with State Law when formally adopted by the City and submitted to HCD for final review. It is anticipated that the Housing Element will be reviewed, adopted and certified by the City Council in August 2001.

The actions taken by the City during the calendar year 2000 and through June 31, 2001 are consistent with the goals and policies contained within the City’s General Plan. The City continues to implement these goals and policies with decisions that balance community needs, property rights, and the health and welfare of the general public. The City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff continue to adhere to a vision for the City: to promote a well informed educated public with regard to City issues, problems, and services; a friendly responsive and competent City government; a safe community in which to live and work; a community with a sound economic base; a sound financial base to support and maintain vital City services; reductions to long-term public infrastructure costs within the City; and, a well maintained, balanced, and aesthetically pleasing community.

ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN

No.

Location

Description

Date

2

Tract 28750 – Peacock Ridge and Highridge Road

Change land use designation, from RS 2-4 DU/Acre to RS 4-6 DU/Acre

10-4-77

3

Coastal Zone

Establish regulations for development in the Coastal Zone

12-19-78

4

Tract 27832, Lots 1-8 Indian Valley Road

Change non-conforming land use from Single-family to Multi-family

9-5-78

5

  1. Ave. Esplendida & Ave. Classica
  2. Indian Valley Rd. & Armaga Spring Road

Change land use from Institutional to RS 2-4 DU/Acre on two former school sites

10-2-79

6

980 Silver Spur Road

Change land use from Commercial Office to Commercial Retail – remove Natural Overlay Control District

6-17-80

9

City Wide

Amend Housing Element Policies

9-23-81

10

Abalone Cove Shoreline Park

Change land use from Agriculture to Commercial Recreational & amend Coastal Plan to allow visitor serving uses in Coastal Zone

4-20-82

11

Paseo Del Mar at La Rotunda

Change land use from Institutional to RS 1 DU/Acre

9-7-82

12

(Golden Cove) PV Drive West at Hawthorne Blvd.

Change land use from Commercial Retail to RS 6-12 DU/Acre

8-7-84

13

Ladera Linda

32201 Forrestal Drive

Change land use from Institutional to RS 2-4 DU/Acre

9-7-82

14

Eastview Annexation

Amend General Plan to include policies/land use designations for Eastview Annexation

9-7-82

16

28041 Hawthorne Blvd.

Change land use designation from Res to Commercial

9-13-88

18

City Wide

Housing Element Update

9-18-90

20

City Wide

Amendment to the Housing Element

8-18-92

21

City Wide

Amend the General Plan to eliminate non-conforming auto service stations

11-3-93

22

City Wide

Amend the General Plan to incorporate the trail and bikeway policy from the Conceptual Trails Plan

11-6-91

23

3108, 6118, 6124 PV Drive South

Change land use designation from RS 2-4 DU/Acre to Commercial Office

3-4-97

24

5325 Ironwood and 5303 Bayridge

Change land use designation from RS 2-4 DU/Acre to RS 1 DU/5-Acres

3-17-98

Notes: Amendment Nos. 1, 7, and 17 were withdrawn

Amendment No. 8 was tabled in 1982 indefinitely

Amendment Nos. 15 and 19 were denied

ACTIONS TAKEN THROUGH JUNE 31, 2001, TO IMPLEMENT GENERAL PLAN

Listed below are actions taken by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes towards implementation of the General Plan during the 2000 calendar year, including actions taken through June 31, 2001. Past implementation reports have reported on the actions taken during calendar year; however, the City will commence reporting on a fiscal year rather than a calendar year.

Although the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan contains broader categories, each of the required elements is contained within these broad categories. Page one of this report indicates where each mandatory element is included within the City’s General Plan. As such, the following information is intended to specify and highlight each mandatory element, with a brief definition and the actions taken to implement the General Plan. The applicable policy number and page number where each policy can be found in the General Plan follows each action. However, a list of each policy as specified in the General Plan and referenced in this document, begins on Page 12 of this report.

By mandatory element, the following actions occurred:

Land Use Element

The Land Use Element designates the general distribution and intensity of uses of the land for housing, businesses, industry, open space, natural resources, education, public buildings and grounds, waste disposal services, and other categories of public and private use. This element serves as the central framework for the entire plan and is intended to correlate all land uses into a set of coherent development policies.

     

    Continued implementation of the comprehensively revised Development Code through the processing of relevant development applications. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 1-5 and 10-18 on Page 78, and Policy Nos. 7 and 8, Page 175)

    Allowed the keeping of four (4) horses and the operation of a therapeutic riding program on a 1.16-acre parcel in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District by Ride-to-Fly, a non-profit organization. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 16, Page 175)

    Allowed the keeping of up to 17 horses for a riding training and education for youths between the ages 8 and 20 years old on a 13.78-acre vacant parcel in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District by the Pony Club, a non-profit organization. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 16, Page 175)

    Approved miscellaneous minor revisions to the Ocean Trails project consisting of 75 single-family residences and an 18-hole golf course. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 2, 13 and 15, Page 78)

    Approved minor miscellaneous revisions to the Oceanfront Estates project consisting of 79 single-family residences. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 2, 13, and 15, Page 78)

    Approved the construction of a new, one-story, 15,099 square foot Montessori School for preschool students and students in grades K to 6 for a maximum total of 240 students, 20 teachers (2 per classroom) and 6 support staff members. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1 and 6, Page 93; and Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57)

    Approved the installation of various antenna panels for cellular telephones and personal communication systems on property throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element Goal on page preceding Page 101; and Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Policy No. 8, Page 138)

    Approved the construction a new 665 square foot hand car wash/vacuum area; a 600 square foot trellis seating area; a 180 square foot detail canopy; and a new 9 square foot car wash sign. (Urban Environment Policy No. 2 and 7, Page 85)

    Approved a conditional use permit for the operation of a Montessori School at the former Safeway grocery store located in the Golden Cove Center. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1 and 6, Page 93; and Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57)

 

Circulation/Transportation Element

The Circulation/Transportation Element serves as an infrastructure plan and must be correlated with the Land Use Element. This element identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, trails, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities.

    Continued allocation of Proposition A funds for bus stop shelter maintenance and improvements, the PV Transit/Dial-a-Ride programs and the Municipal Area Express (MAX) Transit system. (Socio-Cultural Element Policy No. 2, Page 55; Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 4 and 5, Page 137; and Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    Continued implementation of the City-wide Residential Street Overlay program to conduct studies to identify streets that require maintenance, upgrades and/or improvements. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    Allocated Gas Tax funds for street slurry seal, and street and sidewalk repair throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    Allocated General Fund revenues to public safety and road improvements, maintenance, and construction programs. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    Reviewed truck-hauling routes for trucks transporting construction-related material and equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187)

    Continued the construction of storm drain improvements throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element –Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 4, Page 112)

    Commenced the construction on the Abalone Cove Sewer System project. (Urban Environment Element –Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 8, Page 112)

    Completed the design on the peninsula-wide bikeway improvements. (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6, Page 137)

    Constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive West and a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive South. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192

    Constructed improvements to the City’s arterial roadway network in accordance with the recommendations of the Pavement Management Program. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    lll. Open Space Element, and
    lV. Conservation Element

The Open Space Element is the plan for the "comprehensive and long range preservation and conservation of open space land…" (Govt. Code Section 65563). It must specify plans and measures for preserving open space for natural resources, for managing the production of resources, for outdoor recreation, and for public health and safety.

The Conservation Element addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, including water, forests, soils, waterways, wildlife, and mineral deposits. It may consider issues such as flood control, water and air pollution, erosion, conversion of farmland, endangered species, and habitats.

    Entered into an agreement to purchase a combined total of 722 acres of open space land in Upper Filiorum and Portuguese Bend. (Natural Environment Element Policy No. 14, Page 45, and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 17, Page 78)

    Purchased 98 acres of open space land known as the Barkentine property, with Measure ‘A’ funds. (Natural Environment Element Policy Nos. 7 and 14, Page 45)

    Completed design of the peninsula-wide bikeway improvements. (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6, Page 137)

    Continued participation in the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program with the State Department of Fish and Game, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (Natural Environment Element Policy Nos. 4, 7, and 14, Page 45)

    Continued use of recycling funds to allocate and implement the beautification grants and the "Recycler of the Month" programs. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 112)

    Continued the installation of recycling containers at various City parks and facilities. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 112)

    Completed the approved development project of Lower Hesse Park. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 99)

    Co-sponsored various nature walks and hikes conducted by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy at various locations throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 55; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 99)

    Monitored the development of the trails approved as part of the construction of the Ocean Trails and the Ocean Front Estates development projects. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 99; Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 7, Page 137)

    Monitored the implementation of the Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Program. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 78)

    Implemented docent-led hikes through the trails constructed at the Ocean Trails. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 55; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 99)

    Accepted the equestrian and pedestrian trails constructed throughout the Seabreeze development project (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 7, Page 137)

    The Recreation and Parks Committee, in conjunction with the Planning Department, continued the review of short and long-term improvements to trails on the City’s Forrestal Property. (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 11, Page 137)

    Entered into a formal agreement with the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy to re-vegetate, operate and maintain the City’s Forrestal Property. (Natural Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 45; Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 99; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 137)

V.Safety/Seismic Safety Element

The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated with seismic, geologic, floor, and fire hazards. The Safety Element may also contain a broader range of safety-related issues which may be locally relevant, such as the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, power failure, and vehicle accidents, and policing. The Seismic Safety Element establishes policies and procedures to protect the community from risks associated with earthquake hazards. State Law requires this element with the Safety Element.

    Allocated General Fund revenues to public safety and road improvements, maintenance, and construction programs. (Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    Coordinated holiday sobriety checkpoints with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Urban Environment Element – Safety Policy No. 10, Page 175)

    Continued the services of crossing guards in neighborhoods surrounding schools. (Urban Environment Element – Safety Policy No. 1, Page 175)

    Renewed agreements with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s and Fire Departments for law enforcement, fire protection and paramedic services. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy Nos. 3-5, 11, and 13, Page 175)

    Coordinated with the Los Angeles County Weed Abatement District for fire hazard and fuel management reductions. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy Nos. 2 and 6, Page 175)

    Continued Risk Management Programs with the Emergency Response Team, which is consistent with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 14, Page 175)

    Continued to enforce the City’s Development Code and the Uniform Building Code, which include detailed geologic review requirements. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 2, Page 175)

Vl. Noise Element

The Noise Element identifies and appraises noise problems within the community and forms the basis for land use distribution, including current and projected noise level calculations for major noise sources.

    Continued the implementation of the Municipal Code regulating hours of construction and operation of mechanical equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 187)

    Reviewed truck-hauling routes for trucks transporting construction-related material and equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187)

Vll. Housing Element

The Housing Element is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all segments of the community and all economic groups. This element identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs and contains a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. In adopting this element, issues such as economic, environmental and fiscal factors, as well as community goals set forth in the General Plan must be considered.

    Continued the City’s formal Code Enforcement Program. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 78)

    Continued the implementation of the Home Improvement Program to provide grants and/or deferred loans to eligible low and moderate income homeowners for necessary minor home repairs, as well as repairs to correct building and safety code deficiencies. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 78)

    Approved a Draft Housing Element and forwarded the document to the State’s Housing and Community Development Department for comment (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6 Page 78)

    Purchased approximately 19-acres for potential new affordable housing units, using Redevelopment Agency set-aside funds. (Urban Environment Goal, page preceding Page 57)

    Accepted $596,000 of in-lieu of affordable housing fees from the developer of the Ocean Front Estates development project. (Fiscal Element Policy No. 8, Page 241)

SPECIFIC PLANS

A Specific Plan is a tool for implementation of the General Plan and contains development goals and guidelines for specified areas and/or districts within the City. To date, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has adopted four Specific Plans, including the Coastal Specific Plan, which addresses land use and development within the City’s Coastal Zone (all land seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South), as well as three Specific Plan districts along the Western Avenue commercial corridor. Staff is in the process of combining the three specific plans that govern Western Avenue, into one reference document, which is expected to be more user-friendly. Since the text, issues, policies, and standards will not be changed, a specific plan amendment will not be required. Nonetheless, by Specific Plan District, the following actions occurred during calendar year 2000 and through June 31, 2001:

Coastal Specific Plan

Certified in 1981, the Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan provides specific development guidelines and standards for all land located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South. The lands have been classified by Sub-regions (1-8), with specific development criteria provided, based on the unique character of each Sub-region.

Within Sub-region five, constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive South, containing a parking area and signage pertaining to the immediate natural environment. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192)

Within Sub-region one, constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive West. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192)

Continued monitoring the development of trails implemented with the construction of the Ocean Trails (Sub-region seven and eight) and the Ocean Front Estates (Sub-region one) development projects (Policy Nos. 1 and 2, Page U-28 of the Coastal Specific Plan).

 

Specific Plan District No. II

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 28821 – 28947 Western Avenue (southwest corner of Caddington Drive and Western Avenue) – The Terraces Shopping Center. Specific Plan No. II was adopted in 1985 by the City Council.

    Updated the Sign Program for The Terraces Shopping Center. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 85)

 

Specific Plan District No. III

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 29505 – 29701 Western Avenue. Specific Plan No. III was adopted in 1986 by the City Council.

    Constructed the 4,000 square foot automotive use (tire store) and a 2,240 square foot retail/restaurant building at Western Avenue and Summerland Drive, and miscellaneous improvements to the public right-of-way, as approved by Specific Plan Amendment No. 10. (Policy Nos. 3 and 7, Page 85)

 

Specific Plan District No. IV

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 29019 – 29421 Western Avenue. Specific Plan No. IV was adopted in 1987 by the City Council.

    No proposals for development were submitted to the City during 2000 and through June 31, 2001.

GOALS & POLICIES IMPLEMENTED DURING 2000 THROUGH JUNE 31, 2001

Below is a summary list of the General Plan Policies and Goals, and relevant Specific Plan Policies that were implemented during the 2000 calendar year and through June 31, 2001, as specified in the actions of the 2000-2001 Annual Report.

Land Use Element

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 78: Retain the present predominance of single family residences found throughout the community, while continuing to maintain the existing variety of housing types.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 78: Require all new housing developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping, open space, and other design amenities to meet the community standards of environmental quality.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 78: Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 78: Prepare development codes with quality standards, but flexible new technology and techniques of building.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 5, Page 78: Support and assist in enforcement of "open housing" regulations to prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 10, Page 78: Require all developments which propose open space to be held in private ownership to provide legal guarantees to protect these areas from further development.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 78: Control the alteration of natural terrain.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 12, Page 78: Encourage energy conservation in housing design.

Urban Environment Element Policy No 13, Page 78: Require proposals for development of areas which impact corridor related views to analyzed the site conditions and address the preservation of such views.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 14, Page 78: Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 15, Page 78: Enforce height controls to further lessen the possibility for view obstructions.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 16, Page 78: Require proposed housing to show how it ensures the existence of neighboring site privacy, while simultaneously providing privacy to the occupants of the proposed units.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 17, Page 78: Make an effort through zoning, cooperation with other governmental entities, and acquisition to preserve the rural and open character of the City.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 18, Page 78: Allow no further development involving human occupancy within the active landslide area.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 85: Make special efforts to ensure safe conditions on ingress and egress routes to commercial areas for both pedestrians and vehicles.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 85: Require the commercial activity, where a commercial area would be nonconforming with adjoining activities, to provide the necessary mitigation measures.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 85: Require commercial sites to limit the exposure of parking and exterior service areas from the view of adjoining sites and circulation routes.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 85: Require adequate provisions be incorporated into commercial site design to reduce negative impacts on adjoining residential areas.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1: Locate schools on or near major arterials or collectors, and provide adequate parking and automobile access.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6: Review the location and site design of future institutional uses to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites.

Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Policy No. 8, Page 138: Require adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and networks, in order to reduce the visual impact of many infrastructure facilities and networks.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 7, Page 175: Implement reasonable house numbering and consistent street naming systems.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 8, Page 175: Coordinate with the Fire Department to determine the feasibility of providing emergency access to the end points of long cul-de-sacs.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 16, Page 175: Regulate the activities, types, kinds, and numbers of animals and balance the interest of animals owners and persons whose welfare is affected.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57: The City shall encourage the development of institutional facilities to serve the needs of its citizens.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: To ensure adequate public utilities and communication services to all residents, while maintaining the quality of the environment.

Circulation/Transportation Element

Socio-Cultural Element Policy No. 2, Page 55: Act to enhance mobility within the neighborhood, mobility within the City, and on the Peninsula as a whole.

Urban Environment Element Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 4, Page 112: Require developers to install necessary flood control devices in order to mitigate downstream flood hazard induced by proposed upstream developments.

Urban Environment Element Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 8, Page 112: Require the installation of sewers in existing development if alternative sewerage systems endanger public health, safety and welfare.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 4, Page 137: Encourage, together with other [entities], to improve public transportation on the Peninsula and to provide access to other destinations in the region.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 5, Page 137: Explore the establishment of an independent bus system or contact for service with an independent municipal transportation agency.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 187: Mitigate impacts generated by steady state noise intrusion (e.g., land strip landscaping, site design).

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187: Control traffic flows of heavy construction vehicles en route to or from construction sites to minimize noise.

(Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192): Develop well located vista points to provide off-road areas where views may be enjoyed.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: It shall be the goal of the City to provide residents with a safe and efficient system of roads, trails and paths.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: It shall be the goal of the City to encourage the increased mobility of residents through the development of an adequate transportation system.

Open Space Element, and Conservation Element

Natural Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 45: Consider in more detail natural environment factors in subsequent factors in subsequent specific area studies as an integral part of these studies.

Natural Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 45: Encourage study of and funding to preserve unusual flora and fauna.

Natural Environment Element Policy No. 14, Page 45: Maintain the existing natural vegetation of the City in its natural state to the maximum extent possible in all existing and proposed developments, to the extent commensurate with good fire protection policies and encourage the re-establishment of appropriate native plants.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 55: Develop recreational programs that will address the recreational needs of all citizens, both individually and in groups.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 17, Page 78: Make an effort through zoning, cooperation with other governmental entities, and acquisition to preserve the rural and open character of the City.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 99: Provide access to all public recreational land.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 99: Continue to sponsor recreation programs within the City considering the diversity of needs.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 99: Establish ordinances to require builders and developers to provide lands and/or funds for acquisition and development of land for recreational use.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 99: Encourage public use of institutional recreation facilities, where possible.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 112: Take an active interest in waste management and recycling programs and offer assistance to groups attempting to offer solutions to the problem of waste.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6, Page 137: Design path and trail networks to reflect both a local and regional demand, while maintaining the unique character of the Peninsula.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 7, Page 137: Require all path and trail networks to be in separate rights-of-way.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 11, Page 137: Further investigate possible funding sources for acquisition, development and maintenance of paths and trails.

Safety/Seismic Safety Element

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 1, Page 175: Promote the education and awareness pertaining to all hazards which affect residents.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 2, Page 175: Adopt and enforce building codes, ordinances, and regulations which contain design and construction standards based upon specified levels of risk and hazard.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 3, Page 175: Encourage cooperation among adjacent communities to ensure back-up law enforcement assistance in emergency situations.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 4, Page 175: Cooperate with the fire protection agency and water company to ensure adequate water flow capabilities throughout all areas of the City.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 5, Page 175: Cooperate with the fire protection agency to determine the feasibility of utilizing the existing helicopter "pad" at the Nike Site for a water refueling location.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 6, Page 175: Develop stringent site design and maintenance criteria for areas of high fire hazard potential.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 10, Page 175: Ensure that local, County, State, and Federal health, safety, and sanitation laws are enforced.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 11, Page 175: Ensure that adequate emergency treatment and transportation facilities are available to all areas of the city.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 13, Page 175: Encourage the availability of paramedic rescue service.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 14, Page 175: Be prepared to implement contingency plans to cope with a major disaster.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: It shall be the goal of the City to provide residents with a safe and efficient system of roads, trails and paths.

Noise Element

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 187: Mitigate impacts generated by steady state noise intrusion (e.g., land strip landscaping, site design).

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187: Control traffic flows of heavy construction vehicles en route to or from construction sites to minimize noise.

Housing Element

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57: It shall be the goal of the City to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 78: Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6 Page 78: Cooperate with County, State, and Federal agencies, monitoring all housing programs offered, and studying their desirability of implementation in the City.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 78: Initiate strong code enforcement programs so that scattered housing problems are solved rapidly to prevent even small-area deterioration.

Fiscal Element Policy No. 8, Page 241: Encourage private contributions and donations to the City as alternatives to public funding.

 

Specific Plans

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 85: Require adequate provisions be incorporated into commercial site design to reduce negative impacts on adjoining areas.

(Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192): Develop well located vista points to provide off-road areas where views may be enjoyed.

Policy No. 1, Page U-28: Encourage future residential development to provide recreational facilities to meet the needs of their residents.

Policy No. 2, Page U-28: Encourage new developments adjoining public trails to design internal trails to link with the public trails.

Policy No. 4, Page U-28: Require all parks to provide adequate parking within their boundaries to meet their projected carrying capacities.

 


 

2000-2001 Annual Report Prepared by:

Eduardo A. Schonborn, aicp, Associate Planner

Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

Submitted for:

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

State of California


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:


CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Saturday, September 29, at 9:00 A.M. for the Community Leaders’ Breakfast at Hesse Park.


CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5

(All Statutory References are to California Government

Code Sections)


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property:Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029,

7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators:City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Negotiating Parties:York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation:Price and Terms of Payment


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

Anticipated Litigation:

(G.C 54956.9(b)

A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency.

____________1_____________

(Number of Potential Cases)

This relates to threats of litigation made by Mr. Charles Brumbaugh outside of a public meeting, which were published in an article by Josh Cohen in the Peninsula News on September 8, 2001. A copy of this article is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office.

 

View the agenda at www.palosverdes.com/RPV or

A full copy of the agenda package is at the counter at Hesse Park.