Agenda 11/07/2001 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2001, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 11/07/2001 Rancho Palos Verdes, City Council Agenda November 7, 2001
November 7 , 2001

DISCLAIMER

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

...end of disclaimer...

**CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS
**CLICK HERE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA

NOTE: MEETINGS ARE ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH DUE TO ELECTIONS ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6TH.


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

NOVEMBER 7, 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. 2001-90

NEXT ORD. NO. 371

CEREMONIAL MATTERS: Presentation of Proclamation to Town Sheriff Randy Oviedo.

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Minutes of August 21, September 18, September 29, October 2, and October 16, 2001. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Approve the Minutes.


2. Health Insurance Contributions. (Petru)
Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE CITY’S MAXIMUM MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION AMOUNTS FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS. (2) Direct the Finance Department to reimburse staff members who paid additional PERS Care health insurance premiums during 2001.


3. Point Vicente Interpretative Center Exhibits Grant Application. (Waters)
Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PURSUE AN URBAN RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL CENTERS GRANT FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION TO FUND FUTURE EXHIBITS AT POINT VICENTE INTERPRETATIVE CENTER.


4. September 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)
Recommendation: Receive and file.


5. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARING:




6. Resolution Adopting a Fee in Connection with Petitions to Commence the Process to Establish an Undergrounding Assessment District. (Continued from October 2nd.) (Allison)

Recommendation: Continue the Public Hearing to the December 4, 2001 City Council meeting.


RECESS:



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


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


REGULAR BUSINESS:




7. Assessment Deferrals for Undergrounding Districts. (Allison)
Recommendation: Provide staff with direction regarding assessment deferrals for undergrounding districts.


8. Long Point Resort Project (Conditional Use Permit No. 215, et. al). (Mihranian)
Recommendation: (1) Grant the applicant’s request to place the Long Point applications on hold; and (2) Establish a maximum period of six months at which time the applicant must either withdraw the project applications or present the project to the City Council.


9. Proposed Modification to the Wireless Telecommunication Facility (monopole) at City Hall. (Petru)
Recommendation: (1) Determine whether to allow AT&T Wireless Services to proceed with an application for a Conditional Use Permit Revision to modify existing wireless telecommunications facilities on the monopole at City Hall. (2) Determine whether the City should conduct an overall review of Conditional Use Permit No. 119 (monopole at City Hall) at this time.


10. Request to Abandon View Covenant Recorded Against Property at 3027 Crest Road (Requestor: Mr. & Mrs. Robert Scalfaro-property owners). (Rojas)
Recommendation: (1) Consider the property owner’s request for the City to abandon the view covenant that was recorded in December 1990 against the property known as 3027 Crest Road. (2) Provide staff with direction on whether to amend City Council Policy No. 30 to establish a process for dealing with any future requests from property owners to abandon recorded view documents.


11. Joint Lawsuit Investigation Against the FAA. (Park)
Recommendation: Approve allocating $22,000 from the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 City Attorney Budget for the joint lawsuit investigation.


12. Architectural Service Contract for Civic Center Project. (Park)
Recommendation: Approve Execution of the Professional Services Agreement with Johnson Fain Partners to Provide Architectural Services for the Civic Center Improvement Project.


13. Border Issues Status Report. (Evans)

Recommendation: Review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.)



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



CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

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


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR


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

Property: APN 7564-005-001, 7572-001-001 TO 004, 06 AND 07, 7581-023-011

City Negotiators: City Manager Les Evans, City Attorney Carol Lynch, and Public

Works Director Dean Allison.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL


Initiation of Litigation
:
G.C. 54956.9(c)

________One_________
(Number of Potential Cases)

The City Council is meeting to discuss whether to file a lawsuit regarding the Harbor Hills project.

Existing Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case:City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. York Long Point Associates, L.P.

Case No: Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC229913



RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

NOVEMBER 7, 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. 2001-90

NEXT ORD. NO. 371

CEREMONIAL MATTERS: Presentation of Proclamation to Town Sheriff Randy Oviedo.

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Minutes of August 21, September 18, September 29, October 2, and October 16, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the Minutes.


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 because he was on vacation.

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 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 addressed to the City Manager and City Attorney ensued. The questions by Councilman Stern were relative to the process that was followed in presenting a recommendation for approval of an additional exception under the Municipal Code for building in Zone 2 of the moratorium area: confirmation that it had been the position of the City that the landslide moratorium over the entire area, including Zone 2, was justified by the geological data; that the direction from the City Council in April 2001 was to have the geological data reviewed by Cotton Shires and the Peer Review Committee, with said report expected to be completed the week of September 3, 2001; that the recommendation from the Subcommittee was that the Council find that there were insufficient reasons to continue the distinction between developed and undeveloped lots in Zone 2; clarification that the moratorium was defensible; that the Zone 2 report would be presented to Council when completed; and, that the April 17, 2001 staff report said that Perry Ehlig and the Peer Review Panel had indicated that no building should be allowed prior to the storm drain and Alta Mira Canyon improvements being completed. Concern was expressed that any action taken should be based upon the yet-to-be completed geology report.

Further discussion identified the location of the geological data that was being reviewed to make the distinction between the developed and undeveloped lots: 12 borings on the York Filiorum property, 7 on the Hon Peacock Flats area, and as many as eight from either Zone 2 or Zone 5.

Councilman Stern asserted that, in his view, it would have been preferable to wait until the Peer Review Group 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


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 7:04 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; Senior Planner Kit Fox; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to approve the agenda, with the addition of the presentation by telecommunications providers which was on a posted agenda addendum. Motion carried.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


City Clerk Purcell announced that staff had requested that the resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards matter be removed from the Consent Calendar.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, commented on the following subjects: the Palos Verdes Drive South drainage repair project, resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards, approval of the lease extension between the City and the Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the award of the contract for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Sidewalk Repair Program.

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.

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

Reviewed and reconfirmed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s 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) Adopted 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.

Resol. No. 2001- 75 - California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP)

Approved 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 Fiscal Year 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) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-75, 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

Approval of Lease Extension Between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes

Approved and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the lease agreement extension between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Award of Contract for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Sidewalk Repair Program

Awarded a contract to Damon Construction in the amount of $44,175 and authorized staff to spend up to $5,825 for possible extra work, thereby approving a $50,000 construction budget. (2) Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Damon Construction. (3) Authorized 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.

Resol. No. 2001-76 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-76, 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

Mayor Lyon introduced Jay Zuanich, newly appointed captain of the Lomita Sheriff Station. Captain Zuanich expressed his enthusiasm for the new challenge, appreciated the confidence which has been placed in him, and said that he is looking forward to serving the City.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:


Proposed Amendment to Ocean Trails Development Agreement and Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions.

Mayor Lyon opened the discussion of this request to consider a proposed amendment to Ocean Trails Development Agreement and an amendment to Declaration of Restrictions. City Clerk Purcell announced that was a continued public hearing from the September 4, 2001 meeting. City Clerk Purcell noted that a revised copy of the development agreement had been submitted to the Council, with changes to Section 6.

Director McLean presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the 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.

City Attorney Lynch discussed changes she made such as reorganizing the agreement for a better flow, minor changes, and correction of some typographical errors. She discussed bundling of services including, for example, a promotion with a meal included with golf. She said that, based on direction from the Council, the amount of the golf tax would be imputed based on typical golf fee and that in no event could fees charged separately from golf fees, like golf carts and caddies, exceed 25% of the golf fee. She added that Mr. Zuckerman indicated that his bankruptcy attorney said that Section 6 would not become effective until the bankruptcy court approves and Ms. Lynch stated that if the court does not approve the agreement by December 20, the amendment will not be binding on either side and that if the Court approved the agreement Ocean Trails would be required to pay retroactive fees.

Council discussion centered on packages which might be offered in the future to include a stay in the proposed Long Point Hotel or blocks of tee times which might be purchased by a business entity. It was understood that the agreement did address these issues to make sure that the appropriate golf tax was received and also that this agreement, if approved, would run with the land and would be binding on any future operator of the golf course; but if the proposed agreement was not approved by the bankruptcy court, then the original development agreement would remain in place unless renegotiations took place. Further clarification indicated that any tee times sold by someone who bought a block of tee times at a discounted rate would require that golf tax be paid on the actual amount for a round of golf unless the discounted price was greater.

Barbara Dye, representing Ocean Trails, One Ocean Trails Drive, said that she was speaking for Ocean Trails since Ken Zuckerman was out of town. She questioned the procedure that discount golf tickets bought at a discount rate and sold at a different price would be taxed at the regular rate.

After much discussion between Ms. Dye, the Council, and staff, it was clarified that Ocean Trails would not pay additional tax but would be merely the pass through for the tax to be paid by the ultimate user of the tee time, the golfer. An exception noted would be charitable donations, which were not taxable.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, 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. Motion carried.


REGULAR BUSINESS:


Ordinance No. 370 - Amendment of Municipal Code - Golf Tax

City Attorney Lynch presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to introduce the proposed ordinance which makes a few minor amendments to the City’s golf tax. It should be noted that the revisions contained in the proposed ordinance did 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. She suggested that the ordinance be revised to make it consistent with the suggestions in the previous item on the agenda, the Proposed Amendment to Ocean Trails Development Agreement and Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 370, 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 motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
NOES: None

Amendment to the August 21st Minutes

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to consider Councilman Stern’s amendment to the August 21, 2001 minutes.

Councilman Stern moved to adopt the Minutes of August 21 as amended. He felt that the Council’s decision to delay action in Zone II was based on Council discussion and not on information in the staff report; consequently, a complete record was needed to reflect what was said. He added that in general he felt that minutes as currently prepared deprive the Council and the public of what was learned in discussions.

Council discussion centered on the Council policy which determines the current format for the Minutes and a quote was given from Roberts Rules of Order which states "If they [minutes] are to be published, it is often of far more interest to know what was said by the leading speakers than to know what routine business was done, and what resolutions adopted. In such cases, the duties of the secretary are arduous, and he should have at least one assistant".

Councilman Stern read samples from the current Council minutes and from current Planning Commission minutes, which actually stated what each person said.

Additional Council discussion included comments that the last several City Attorneys and the League of California Cities have advised the Council to have action minutes prepared; and that two Councilmembers would to have more detail than action minutes.

Councilman Stern said that sometimes there have been issues that arose from a prior decision and there was not enough detail to understand why the decision was made although recollections from Councilmembers were helpful.

The motion died for lack of a second.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to delay approval of the August 21 minutes to October 2 when discussion of the Council policy on minutes would be agendized.

Purchase of Pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to (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.

Council discussion centered on the pipe prefabrication aspect of the project which would result in a safer project with an earlier completion date.

Sam Van Wagner, 2763 San Ramon Drive, expressed his appreciation for the Council’s placing a priority on this project, the three community meetings which were held. He said that completion of this work before the rainy season begins would be very beneficial to homeowners in the neighborhood.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner to (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.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
NOES: None

Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification

Director Allison presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to (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.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, expressed her desire that walls along Hawthorne Boulevard be built of native Palos Verdes stone.

Council discussion centered on the need for beautification, the high cost of the project, whether enough other options had been pursued, landscaping on public property to screen unattractive walls on private property; the importance of selecting trees of a type or location which will not interfere with views; funds set aside in the current budget for beautification; a request to staff to bring back cost-saving measures and more details of plants to be selected; the offer from Dawn Henry to provide plants grown in the Miraleste Parks and Recreation District; the requirement to avoid using invasive plants, particular near a canyon; whether the proposed plan met the goal of the City to maintain a semi-rural atmosphere; whether other arterials should be considered for beautification; the impact of taking recycling funds away from the Homeowners Associations; the hope that additional funding, maybe donations, etc., will shorten the time to complete the project; and the need to follow through with a fence/wall program on private property.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Lyon to adopt the staff recommendation with the caveat that the Public Works Director report on a regular basis on the progress of the project, that input be sought from the public, and that Council will make decisions regarding trees and vegetation as the project moves forward.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
NOES: None


RECESS & RECONVENE:


At 8:28 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:46 P.M.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:


Mary Jane Schoenheider, 3700 Palos Verdes Drive North, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274, Chair of Concours D’Elegance, expressed appreciation for allowing the car show be held at Ocean Trails. She explained that the event had been held annually for nine years and that usually benefits went to Peninsula groups but that this year the proceeds would go to disaster relief for New York and Washington, D.C.

Dick Brunner, 1906 Peninsula Verde Drive, spoke about Harbor Hills, a development which was a border issue. He was concerned that cutting into the toe of a slope might jeopardize nearby homes in Rancho Palos Verdes and said that it appeared that the City of Los Angeles was not complying with the uniform building code.

Council replied that this was a border issue that was being monitored by the ad hoc committee; that it seemed the cut into the slope might be eliminated; that this project was on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors agenda for September 25 and that the Committee would investigate what aspect of the project would be discussed at that time. It was known that Supervisor Don Knabe was making a motion that notification to the cities was a necessity.

Don Shults, 2129 Velez Drive, discussed vendors offering to paint house numbers on curbs. He said that Neighborhood Watch said that homeowners should call the sheriff. He questioned whether these painters had permission to provide this service and whether they had business licenses and said that he planned the question the man who was going to be in his neighborhood the next day.

City Manager Evans replied that the problem seemed to be intimidation, rather than the lack of a license and a permit. He said that the City was no longer issuing permits to these type of vendors and that the Public Works Department was looking for an alternative.

Gloria Anderson, 6818 Los Verdes, Member of the Executive Board of the Peninsula Seniors invited the Council to a presentation on September 24 at the Senior Center by California State University at Long Beach at which results of a Senior Needs Assessment Survey would be discussed.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, described her experience attending the Zone II geologists’ meetings.

Resol. No. 2001- 77 - Resolution Approving the Installation of a Traffic Signal at Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive

Director Allison presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution 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.

Council discussion focused on no mention of the additional criteria for installing signals which was requested by Council at the last meeting and staff’s reply that this subject was being placed on the Traffic Committee’s next agenda; whether Long Point could be required to pay a portion of the cost of this traffic signal installation because of increased traffic should their project be approved and City Attorney Lynch’s reply that this would have to be made a part of the development agreement but there were no findings at this time; whether a light which changed from amber/red/green during the day could be changed to a blinking amber or red light in the evening; the demand only feature of this signal which meant that the signal would not turn red on Hawthorne Boulevard unless there was cross traffic; and, the need to keep the traffic signal simple and predictable and the potential nuisance of having a blinking light shining into someone’s home.

Cathy Khaledi, 30524 Via La Cresta, spoke in opposition to installation of a traffic signal and asked that this item be continued because she felt there was inadequate notice. She was interested in safety and said that she felt compassion to those who had been victims of accidents at this intersection; however, she felt that alternatives have not been fully investigated. She believed that the three-week experiment involving the signal up the hill on Hawthorne Boulevard at Dupre turning red occasionally even though there was no cross traffic was too short and that the current flashing light was too close to the warning sign of an upcoming intersection to be helpful. Ms. Khaledi hoped that other methods would be tried short of a traffic signal and was opposed to flashing lights which might shine into her bedroom views. She expressed concerned about view impact and distributed photographs to the Council to illustrate that concern.

The Council discussed possibly making the signal pole more attractive and limiting the length of the mast arm, perhaps seeking advice from the company working with the City to beautify Hawthorne Boulevard.

Director Allison replied that there was very little flexibility in the length of the mast arm. He said that that possibly the metal pole could be painted or the pole could be made of wood painted white and that perhaps the illuminated street sign which was usually affixed to the mast arm could be eliminated.

Additional Council comments were that the traffic engineer report served a legal purpose in protecting the City; that it might be possible to place the taller signal pole a little further up the hill and put a shorter post at the intersection; and, the need to avoid unusual aspects of this traffic signal to eliminate driver confusion.

Robert King, 30764 Via La Cresta, spoke in favor of installation of the traffic signal and estimated that an informal poll indicated that 90 out of 104 homeowners in the La Cresta area were in favor also. He described a possible solution he observed in Reno, Nevada, which included installation of a warning light placed approximately 200 yards up the hill from this intersection which would flash when the signal below was yellow, would be a solid light when the signal was red and which would not be on at all when the signal was green. He said that the reasons the signal was needed were discussed at the last Council meeting and he believed installation would improve safety.

Christina Bothamley, 30714 Via La Cresta, said that he concern was safety and she urged the Council to listen to the Traffic Committee and the Homeowners Association. She was in favor of installation of the traffic signal and suggested the Council work with Tom Luckett of Land Images for suggestions in improving the aesthetics of the signal.

Thomas Cowell, 6780 Vallon Drive, spoke in favor of installation of the traffic signal because he felt it would prevent another tragic accident.

Council discussion centered on traffic devices which might be installed such as the one observed in Reno Nevada and the reply from staff that it was unlikely this would be recognized as an approved traffic device in California; relocation of the flashing beacon and intersection warning sign for better notification of the signal ahead; the possibility of a training program for speeders; appropriate placement of a speed board; and installation of different devices to alert drivers to slow down as they approach the signal.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem McTaggart to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-77, 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 AND TO CONSIDER VIEWS OF NEARBY RESIDENTS.

Resol. No. 2001-78 - Resolution Approving Funding for the Hawthorne Boulevard/ Vallon Drive Signal

Director Allison presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution amending Resolution 2001-43, the Budget Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 for a budget adjustment to the City’s Capital Improvement Project Fund.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-78, 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.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
NOES: None

Request for Waiver of the Penalty Fee related to Conditional Use Permit No. 230.

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to deny the requested fee waiver.

Council noted that it seemed odd that the installer of the antenna had asserted under oath in a legal brief provided to the City that the applicant Mr. Kay had confined his commercial transmissions to the use of interior antennas but that Mr. Kay had not submitted this in writing to the City.

Carmen Trutanich, 407 North Harbor Boulevard, San Pedro, CA 90731, Trutanich and Michael, speaking for Bruce Bartram of his firm, stated that the question just posed was addressed in the California v. Kay lawsuit regarding an alleged 1999 violation of the municipal code and that the lawsuit was resolved in Mr. Kay’s favor. He said that the issue in question at this time was rooftop antennas, not interior, and that the allegation by Mr. Richter in 1999 that he had monitored transmission from Mr. Kay’s residence which he concluded was commercial transmission from a rooftop antenna was because Mr. Richter was unaware that the interior antennas were commercial. Mr. Trutanich stated that the City’s code dealt with aesthetics and safety but not frequencies, which were regulated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).

City Attorney Lynch stated that there has not been a ruling in the case in Mr. Kay's favor, as indicated by his attorney.  The case is set for trial in November.  She said that if a CUP were granted, there would be no need for the City to go to trial to obtain a permanent injunction.  She indicated that Mr. Kay has applied for a CUP and was now making this request for a fee waiver.  She clarified that the municipal code regulates  the use of commercial antennas whether they are exterior or interior, although an interior antenna would have no visual impact to neighbors and would be more likely to be approved.  She closed by saying that there was evidence, according to FCC licenses that had been issued for this property, that there were commercial uses at this site prior to installation of the interior antenna in 1998, and that the City believed that exterior antennas were being used.

Carmen Trutanich said that originally there were exterior antennas only and the CUP was to allow commercial use. When it was discovered that were interior commercial antennas, City staff changed the focus and required a CUP for the interior as well as the exterior antennas. He said that he felt the municipal code was not intended to address interior antennas.

City Attorney Lynch emphasized that Mr. Kay has no CUP at all.

Council noted that even though an interior antenna would not impact neighbors’ news, there was still a requirement for a CUP.

Carmen Trutanich stated that the City had the power to regulate certain aspects of antennas but he felt that regulations did not apply to an interior antennas based on what Mr. Richter was detecting as transmission from an exterior antenna. He said that Mr. Kay had applied for a CUP on June 21, 2001 and probably would have been granted the CUP if he had not delayed the process to request a fee waiver.

City Attorney Lynch said that this matter was on the Planning Commission’s agenda in October and it was presumptuous to say what its decision would be.

When Council asked if Mr. Kay had broadcast commercially using his interior antennas during the time period of 1995-1999, Mr. Trutanich replied that that Mr. Kay had been granted a license in 1995 but there was no evidence that he had transmitting until 1999 and that Mr. Kay had to be considered innocent until proven guilty. He reiterated that the City interpreted the municipal code differently and he and his client felt that the municipal code regulated mostly aesthetic aspects of antennas. He emphasized that that the fee waiver was the issue before the City Council.

Council discussion focused on the absence of a statement from the applicant regarding the use of his antennas; the requirement for a CUP for interior antennas; the lack of a CUP for an interior antenna, which would mean that neighbors’ experiencing interference for which the source was unknown; and, the after-the-fact application of a CUP which requires additional fees.

Mr. Trutanich argued that there was no evidence that Mr. Kay had transmitted using an exterior antenna and felt that the additional fee was unjust because the initial complaint was based on use of external antennas.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to deny the requested fee waiver. Motion Carried.

Traffic Study – Highridge Road at Hawthorne Boulevard

Director Allison presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to provide direction regarding the scope of the traffic study to be conducted at the intersection of Highridge Road at Hawthorne Boulevard.

Director Allison explained that up until a few months ago, a U-turn was allowed at the first opportunity on Highridge Road at Ridgegate to come back down Highridge Road to enter the car wash from that street but it had been determined that this was an unsafe U-turn because of the single lane of traffic on Highridge Road. He said that the issue was brought to the attention of the Public Works Department and then to the Traffic Engineer, who investigated and suggested this action.

Council discussion focused on a Councilmember site visit which produced the suggestion that a scaled drawing and perhaps a PowerPoint presentation be provided at a future Council meeting to give a sense of the site and the surrounding area; a suggestion to pose the question to be answered by the Traffic study, such as would allowing a U-turn make the intersection less safe, more safe, or the same; an opinion that the U-turn at Ridgegate was unsafe because it sometimes required stopping and backing up in order to execute the U-turn; and, whether it would possible to require Mr. Govani, the owner of the car wash, to bear all or part of the expense of the additional traffic study.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that there was no vehicle for this requirement since Mr. Govani had no application to make any changes at his site.

Christian Faulk, 22497 Kent Avenue, Torrance, CA 90505, spoke in support of allowing a U-turn at this intersection when traveling up the hill on Hawthorne Boulevard, stating that he found it inconvenient to gain access when he came to the location for business purposes in his capacity as a consultant. He said that U-turns were allowed on Hawthorne Boulevard in both directions at Palos Verdes Drive North as well as in both directions at the Mobil station on Hawthorne Boulevard at Granvia Altamira. He stated that Mr. Govani’s business would probably not increase by allowing a U-turn but his customers and the residents at the apartments/condominiums directly up the hill would benefit by easier access.

Additional Council discussion centered on the location of the driveway off Hawthorne Boulevard which necessitates a very quick right turn immediately after a U-turn going up the hill on Hawthorne Boulevard at Highridge Road; a suggestion to provide to the Traffic Committee scaled diagrams and traffic data, including visibility, of other intersections to compare conditions;

Shiraz Govani, 6945 Alta Vista Drive, owner of the car wash at the corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road, stated that he had signatures from over 50 of his customers who wished to have a U-turn allowed for easier access to the car wash.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardner, to perform a traffic study incorporating Council comments. Motion carried.

Status of Review of Geologic and Geotechnical Data for Zone II

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to receive a draft report from Cotton, Shires & Associates. He indicated that the peer review consultants had not had an opportunity to review Mr. Cotton’s report and suggested that the final report with the peer group’s input might be available in about a month.

Bill Cotton, Cotton, Shires & Associates, 300 Village Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95030, said that his firm was retained to review the large variety of documents and technical information on the Abalone Cove region and the area directly upslope known as Zone II. He explained that they were studying information developed by other groups to determine if there was sufficient information to make a judgment of the stability of Zone II and the feasibility of adding additional residential structures. Mr. Cotton felt there was insufficient information to judge the stability of the land but he did not believe that by adding individual homes with tight restrictions on grading, construction, drainage, etc, the equilibrium would be upset. However, he clarified that the land might move on its own. He emphasized that the best course of action to maintain stability was to prevent water from entering the ground and using dewatering wells to remove water.

Responding to Council queries, Mr. Cotton stated that the risk of land movement was the same to homeowners currently residing in Zone II as it would be to owners of newly constructed homes in Zone II; that any or all of the land might move but he could not predict; that more subsurface information obtained by drilling might provide a characterization of the slide; that water was the most important factor in a landslide; that whether there was additional building or not, the land might move or not; and, that the best approach to dealing with a landslide was to follow through with suggestions made by Dr. Perry Ehlig.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, disagreed with action being taken on Palos Verdes Drive South.

Christopher Smith, 1236 Via Landeta, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274, a lot owner in Zone II, urged the Council to absorb the information being provided to them and act on it. He said that Mr. Cotton said that additional homes would not cause destabilization and Mr. Smith asked that the Council keep the decision regarding allowing additional homes in Zone II as a priority since the property owners who wished to build had been waiting for so long.

Jack Monks, 32200 Schooner Drive, a lot owner in Zone II, said that he had hoped his children would have been able to grow up in a home in this area and when he bought the land seven years ago, he believed from his discussions with Perry Ehlig that he would be able to build within a reasonable time. He said that the City had been aware of the geological problems for some time and he felt that the property owners deserved an answer.

Chris Haber, 8720 Bleriot Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90045, a lot owner in Zone II, said that he too had hoped his children could have grown up in a home in this area and he described conversations at the time he purchased his lot with the Public Works staff regarding installation of sewers which are finally being installed seven years later. He said that the property owners were willing to accept the level of risk of the current homeowners in Zone II and was reassured by Mr. Cotton’s statement that new homes would not increase the possibility of land movement.

Council discussion centered on the Council hearing schedule to be followed to allow review by the peer review group and a final report to be prepared with those comments as well as comments by the public. It was reiterated that geologists who had not previously been involved in the geology be consulted.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to receive the report; direct staff to provide the peer group report and provide information on disinterested geologists; and, continue this item to a fifth Tuesday meeting on October 30. Motion carried.

Presentation by Telecommunications Providers Regarding Placement of Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way

Director Allison reported that he and City Attorney Lynch had been working with Sprint, who was giving tonight’s presentation, and three other companies which have applications before the City. He said that the City has no policy right now regarding telecommunications facilities being installed in the right-of-way and that tonight the Council would hear from Sprint, staff, and residents in order to work toward the formulation of a policy. Mr. Allison provided a computer generated visual presentation which showed typical current installations and proposed sites.

Councilman Stern disclosed that he had spoken with a representative of Miraleste Intermediate School which had received a request to install such a facility near their property.

Rob Searcy, Terra Firma Services, 5757 Century Boulevard, #604, Los Angeles, CA 90045, representing Sprint, gave a computer generated visual presentation showing statistics about the growth in wireless communication, the facilities require for coverage, the types of sites required, aesthetics, and examples of underground and above ground facilities.

Councilwoman Ferraro left the meeting at 12:15 A.M.

A question and answer with Council ensued with the following information being obtained: Director Allison has a map with all the proposed sites on the Peninsula. The other providers besides Sprint who have applied to the City are Nextel, AT & T, Verizon, and Cingular. Sprint has approached all the Cities on the Peninsula and has had applications in to Rancho Palos Verdes since October 2000. Sprint may need a few more sites over the years but mostly will be able to increase capacity at the currently proposed sites.

Charles Hillinger, 3131 Dianora, representing the Mira Catalina Homeowners Association, stated that a pole was placed in cement without warning near his back yard and near two other neighbors for whom he was speaking. He said that he had spoken with the City and was told that the pole would be removed and that another would not take its place.

Director Allison replied that the pole would be removed within two weeks.

Greg Sanders, 18101 von Karmann, Suite 1800, Irvine, 92612, attorney representing Spring PCS, said that Sprint wished to cooperate with the City as much as possible according to the Federal Communications Act to provide facilities for users of wireless communication.

Council discussion focused on the need for City guidelines to install these facilities in the most efficient, aesthetically pleasing way given the limitation of the City’s powers per the Federal Communications Act. Council consensus was to direct staff to provide at the next meeting demands, restrictions, and issues on which the City could make decisions.

City Council Assignments

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to make Council assignments to certain delegate and alternate positions previously held by former Councilman Byrd.

Councilman Gardiner agreed to take all Council assignments to certain delegate and alternate positions previously held by former Councilman Byrd, as follows: Delegate for Palos Verdes Transit. Alternate for California Joint Powers Authority, Contract Cities, and West Basin Water District.

Resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards

Staff recommendation was to (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.

Council consensus was to continue this item to October 2, 2001.

2001 Progress Report on the Implementation of the General Plan

Staff recommendation to 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.

Council consensus was to continue this item to October 2, 2001.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:


City Attorney Lynch reported that no action was taken on either item.


CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:


Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart described an interdenominational meeting he had attended at the South Bay Islamic Center in Lomita which was well attended by members of the Christian, Jewish and other faiths and intended to show support for Islamic people in the area.


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 12:47 A.M. on motion of Mayor Lyon to Saturday, September 29, at 9:00 A.M. for the Community Leaders’ Breakfast at Hesse Park.

____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________
CITY CLERK

 


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

COMMUNITY LEADERS' BREAKFAST

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2001

 

The meeting was called to order at 9:20 A.M. by Mayor Marilyn Lyon at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

PRESENT: McTaggart, Ferraro, Stern, Gardiner, and Mayor Lyon
ABSENT: None

Also present were City Manager Les Evans, Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk Jo Purcell, Deputy City Clerk Jackie Drasco, Recreation & Parks Director Ron Rosenfeld, Public Works Director Dean Allison, and Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Joel Rojas.

After the Flag salute, which was led by City Manager Les Evans, self introductions followed.

Beautification of Hawthorne Boulevard

Public Works Director Allison gave a Power Point presentation of the Plan to Beautify Hawthorne Boulevard. Said presentation showed "before" and "after" pictures of Hawthorne Boulevard. This would be a multi-year plan and would cost an estimated $7.5 million.

Funds would be coming from two sources: Roadway Beautification Fund and Recycling fund. The first phase of this project would start at Eddinghill Drive to Locklenna Dr.

Susan Powell of Land Images, the City’s on-call landscape architect, showed photographs of plants and color palettes of the proposed plants and responded to inquiries about their characteristics.

Harbor Hills Project

Citing the urgency of the situation relative to the Harbor Hills Project and how it impacted City residents, Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart requested that Council consider adding this matter to the agenda. He reported that the County Board of Supervisors would be considering approval of this project at their Tuesday morning meeting. He then moved, seconded by Mayor Lyon to add discussion of this matter to the agenda. The motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro to authorize both he and Mayor Lyon to request the City Attorney to begin research on the Harbor Hills legal issues relative to the California Environmental Quality Act; additionally, that he and the Mayor be designated to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting and request more time to clarify and mitigate the issues between the Sports Complex and City residents adjacent to the project. Motion carried.

State Senator Betty Karnette gave a brief report on the status of redistricting resulting from the 2000 census. Senator Karnette will continue to represent the City and both the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro and the Port of Long Beach.


ADJOURNMENT:


At the meeting adjourned on motion of Mayor Lyon at 10:45 A.M.

 

_______________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

_______________________
CITY CLERK

 


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

OCTOBER 2, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Mayor Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

After the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Brittany Arick, Theresa Branconier, Kristin Braun, Karen Ching, Jacqueline Delcarson, Grace Poon, Nadia Shahin, Marissa Simmons, and Emily Wratschko of Girl Scout Troop 875, roll call was answered as follows:

PRESENT: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
ABSENT: None

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


RECYCLING DRAWING:


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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


Mayor Lyon announced that the Improvement Authority and Redevelopment Agency meetings would be held after Public Comments at approximately 8:30 P.M. and that Councilmember Gardiner had requested that the item regarding Guidelines for Residential Undergrounding District be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

City Clerk Purcell reported that there had been two additional requests to remove from the Consent Calendar the items regarding the 2001 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and the Arterial Rehabilitation Program.

Council consensus was to hear these three items before the Public Hearing.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, 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.

Resol. No. 2001-79 - Peninsula Seniors Grant

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-79, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A NEW CONTRACT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING TO OBTAIN THE REMAINING BALANCE OF A $25,000 GRANT FOR THE PENINSULA SENIORS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002.

Appointment of members to the Miraleste and Ridgecrest Recreation & Park Districts

Made the following appointments: Miraleste Recreation & Park District: (1) Appointed Peter D. Glusac and Dawn E. Henry for a full term ending December 2, 2005. (2) Appointed Keith Harter to the unexpired term ending December 5, 2003. Ridgecrest Recreation & Park District: Appointed Victor Hansen, Gwynne Shaw and Dolores Pittelkow to a full term ending December 2, 2005.

Informal Bid and Pre-Ordering of HDPE Pipe for the Palos Verdes South Drainage Repair Project

Reviewed and reconfirmed by 4/5 vote the Council’s September 18th action to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for the Palos Verdes Drive So. Drainage Repair Project.

July and August 2001 Treasurer’s Reports

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. 2001-80 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-80, 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

2001 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan

Staff recommendation was to 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.

Mayor Lyon said that she asked to have this item removed from the Consent Calendar to emphasize the good job the City is doing in following the General Plan.

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

Arterial Rehabilitation Program: Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards

Staff recommendation was to (1) Award a $634,534 construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company to overlay portions 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.

Director Allison described the three alternatives considered, the level of work, materials used, and funding.

After a brief Council discussion regarding the cost and benefits of the rubberized asphalt to be used for this project, Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to (1)  Approve Alternative Action Number Two which authorized a $919,727 construction contract to Sully-Miller, plus an additional $91,972 for possible extra work; thereby approving a $1,011,699 construction budget.  (2)  Award a $55,700 Professional Services Agreement to DMc Engineering for Construction Management and Inspection Services.  (3)  Direct staff to prepare a Resolution amending the current project budget to include an additional $187,399 to cover the cost of overlaying Segments Two and Three of Hawthorne Blvd.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
NOES: None

Guidelines for Residential Undergrounding District

Staff recommendation was to adopt the proposed resolution establishing guidelines for residential underground districts.

Councilmember Gardiner stated that he had asked for this item to be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion because he was concerned that some homeowners may not be able to afford the cost of approximately $25,000 per home or may not have voted for undergrounding. He asked if the deferment of payment was automatic if someone was 62 or older; mentioned provisions for blind or otherwise disabled homeowners; and, wondered what provision were made for younger people, especially with the recent possibility of increased unemployment. He also mentioned the upgrading by Edison, with a portion of that cost being paid by Edison but he felt the public was being asked to pay for this upgrade without requesting it even though there would be a public benefit from the upgrade.

Director Allison said that he would rather Edison comment on this.

Councilmember Gardiner was concerned that we would have only the bid from Edison and he wanted to make sure the City’s residents get the most cost effective bid.

Director Allison said that it was his understanding that the deferment was automatic but he had not seen it in writing so was reluctant to confirm that information but said he would investigate. He said that it was possible for the City to work with Edison to obtain a competitive bid.

Councilmember Gardiner asked if the resolution contained this language

Director Allison replied that it was silent on this issue

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart inquired whether the assessment district would be taxed over and above the undergrounding.

City Attorney Lynch said that she was not aware of any additional tax but it would best to ask Edison. She added that there were exception categories for homeowners who were blind or otherwise disabled, as well as those over 62 years of age. She indicated that this was an automatic exception set forth by state undergrounding provisions.

Councilman Stern remembered that Scott Gobble from Edison said Edison would make a small contribution and that Edison was paying for the upgrade.

Councilmember Gardiner remembered that they would pay some portion only but not a very large amount.

Councilman Stern shared Councilmember Gardiner’s concerns about the financial impact of homeowners and wondered if the City could investigate some type of financing mechanism for people who have a financial need. For those who have sufficient equity, it may be possible to do a reverse mortgage or something like that. This would enable them to enjoy the benefit, including increased property value, and pay the undergrounding cost, with interest, when they sell their house. He thought perhaps the City could set aside funds to assist with this payment deferment.

City Attorney Lynch replied that this could be accomplished with City funds with a lien placed on the property but the assessment can’t be spread across fewer homes so that one homeowner is paying more than another.

Councilman Stern suggested that there might be lenders who would be willing to participate with the funds secured by property.

City Attorney Lynch was not sure if the lending industry would be interacted since the City would be issuing bonds but it could be investigated.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked the source of the funds to replace those deferred.

Councilman Stern replied that this cost was not being paid for all at once; that there would be bonded indebtedness for 20 years. Although he said that he did not know all the legal aspects of how the bond would be set up, the bond would be on the home and homeowners could borrow against their home. He added that if the City established the financing mechanism, it would not affect the bond and a new loan could be arranged to fund that portion of property tax.

City Attorney Lynch agreed that this could be done.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart brought up a scenario in which a retiree receiving social security might have all their funds invested in an IRA which has 50% of their future income eliminated by terrorist activity. He said that the structure established would have to take into account this type of situation so that this person was not even more financially hurt.

Councilmember Gardiner did not envision an escape hatch against unreasonable burden.

Councilman Stern disagreed, saying that we do have an escape hatch because the City Council makes the decision and if we perceive a hardship situation, we could hear the case and make a decision before imposing a financial burden but the City would need some kind of financing.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart was concerned that this arrangement would not work with seniors.

Mayor Lyon said that she would not want to make the undergrounding process cause senior citizens to sell their homes.

Councilman Stern felt that a senior’s home could provide the funding and that the financial consequences would be minimal.

Mayor Lyon suggested that this item be brought back and to direct staff to provide advice from experts in the field for potential financing mechanisms and to have an Edison representative present to answer questions.

Council consensus was to continue this item to November 7.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:


Resolution Adopting a Fee in Connection with Petitions to Commence the Process to Establish an Undergrounding Assessment District

Mayor Lyon opened the public hearing on this request to consider a Resolution Adopting a Fee in Connection with Petitions to Commence the Process to Establish an Undergrounding Assessment District

City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that there were no written comments received by the City.

Staff recommendation was to adopt the proposed resolution adopting a fee to be submitted in connection with petitions requesting advance funding by the city for formation costs for establishing Undergrounding Assessment Districts pursuant to the proposed resolution to establish undergrounding procedures.

Since the item establishing Guidelines for Residential Undergrounding District was continued to November 7, the public hearing was continued to November 7.


REGULAR BUSINESS:


Ordinance No. 370 - Amendment of Municipal Code - Golf Tax

City Attorney Lynch presented the staff report of October 2, 2001 and the recommendation to RE-INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 370, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S GOLF TAX. She explained that the ordinance was being reduced because substantial changes had been made at the last Council meeting and she said there was a further definition of the operator of the golf course to include whomever might sell blocks of tee times and that there was a new Paragraph G requiring that accounting principles acceptable to the City’s Finance Director would have to be used by any golf course operator paying City golf taxes.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked if the City had a "scalping" ordinance and wondered if someone other than Ocean Trails sells blocks of tee times would violate any County ordinance if they sold the tee times for more than they paid.

City Attorney Lynch said that was no such City ordinances, nor did she think the suggested practices would violate any County ordinance.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to RE-INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 370, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S GOLF TAX.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
NOES: None



Planning Case No. ZON2001-00005: a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for a 1,045-square-foot two-story addition for an existing single-family residence in the Portuguese Bend Club community. (Applicant: Len Cushman, 113 Spindrift Drive)

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of October 2, 2001 and the recommendation to conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked if a height variation permit and variance were required as well.

Senior Planner Fox said yes.

Gary Wynn, 27525 Valley Center Road, Valley Center CA 92082, structural engineer for the project, said that a view analysis was required but it was a non-issue and that the variance was required because the property was in the Coastal Zone.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked if views to the side were considered as well.

Mr. Wynn replied that views from the side and from below were considered. He indicated that the property owners met with their neighbors and worked for 1-½ years to ensure neighborhood compatibility.

Kathy Cushman, 113 Spindrift Drive, said that her family was expanding but they wished to stay in the neighborhood and they asked Mr. Wynn to design a project that would maintain the beach cottage theme and beautify the neighborhood.

Randee Wood Leegstra, 111 Spindrift Drive, spoke in support of approval of the landslide moratorium exception permit and said that the applicant had done an excellent job working with the neighbors to achieve neighborhood compatibility and to mitigate privacy and view issues.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked if the Coastal Permit application was submitted after City approval.

Director Rojas indicated that the applications were considered concurrently.

Councilman Gardiner said that he had asked for a copy of the geology report, which was not included in the reference materials. He said that the report indicated that the property had a safety factor greater than 1.0 and that it was not moving currently. He asked how this was determined, on the lot itself or underground, and asked if an approval were given in this area, what affect this approval would have on making other decisions in the moratorium area. He asked about the geological standard and if these projects were considered one at a time or if the cumulative affect considered.

Mayor Lyon said that geologist Bill Cotton said that the weight of new construction does not cause sliding but that the water seeping under the ground does, and she indicated that this area is on a sanitary sewer system.

City Manager Evans said that the policy of approving moratorium exceptions for existing structures in the slide area is consistent but that there were different standards for vacant lots, such as those in Zone II as compared to a developed lot in this case. He said that the factor of safety is above 1.0 but less than 1.5 but the whole area is not sliding so the factor is greater than 1.0 and he noted that the geologists feel that adding on to an existing structure which is connected to an existing sewer or holding tank does not add water to the slide and therefore does not make things worse. He acknowledged that this was a "gray area" but it had been addressed by geologists in the past and was codified in the municipal code.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked the city attorney if she felt that developed and undeveloped lots were treated equitably by the City’s moratorium regulations.

City Attorney Lynch replied that with a developed lot anyone could apply for a Moratorium Exception Permit and the criterion is that the addition cannot exacerbate slide conditions. She said that the geology report associated with these requests would address this.

Councilmember Gardiner said that he understood the conclusion regarding this project but could not see the facts supporting the decision.

Councilman Stern was concerned that the safety factor of 1.0 was lower than the standard of 1.5.

City Attorney Lynch said that the standards for an addition to an existing structure compared with those for a new structure were different, but that the Council could change this if they so desired.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit. Motion carried.

Planning Case No. ZON2001-00004: a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for a 575-square-foot two-story addition and a 166-square-foot second-floor deck for an existing single-family residence in the Portuguese Bend Club community. (Applicants: Andrew & Kelly Ely, 112 Spindrift Drive)

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of October 2, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit. (2) Authorize Staff to prepare a notice of termination for an existing covenant related to a previous, expired moratorium exemption permit for the property.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart suggested that to keep bureaucracy at a minimum, some of the covenants required for the permit might be eliminated.

Senior Planner Fox said that many of these covenants were only required for properties without sewer connections.

Carol Lynch reminded Council that there are some areas in this part of the City without sewers.

Councilman Stern asked the applicant if he had read his title policy and was aware of the covenant because, even though the Council was willing to lift this covenant, it might not be willing to eliminate other covenants.

Andrew Ely, 112 Spindrift, said that since he bought the property eight years ago, he had married and had children, was more aware of restrictions on the property but needed more space. He explained that he had worked with the Homeowners Association and his neighbors, considered neighborhood compatibility and his neighbors’ views and had made adjustments regarding his neighbor’s privacy.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to adopt the staff recommendation. Motion carried.

Border Issues Status Report

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of October 2, 2001 and the recommendation to review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff. He said that the staff report included the status of Harbor Hills and the Garden Village Shopping Center but that Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart had attended a County Board of Supervisors meeting earlier in the day and could provide updated information.

Mayor Lyon reported that Supervisor Don Knabe was instrumental in getting a 60-day extension before construction of Harbor Hills project to provide time to work out concerns, such as cutting into a steep slope below homes in Rancho Palos Verdes for a parking lot. Other concerns were lighting and noise and the fact that we were not notified early in the process. She said that a public meeting had been scheduled at 10:00 A.M. on Tuesday, October 9, at City Hall with Dick Simmons and Angie Valenzuela from Supervisor Knabe’s office, and residents were encouraged to attend to provide input to be returned to the Supervisor. She added that she and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart would be present also and it was hoped that they would be able to affect change before construction begins.

Councilman Stern asked if the Council needed to authorize any action to help the ad hoc committee follow through.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart indicated that the geology report needs to be reviewed to determine if it is safe to build the parking lot into the slope and it is possible that the parking lot may not built in this location anyway but he said he would feel more comfortable if this location change was put in writing.

Councilman Stern suggested that staff be directed to provide another status report in two weeks while we determine what our City can do.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart mentioned the meeting the following Tuesday and said that City Attorney Lynch was reviewing the environmental deficiencies and the notification process of Los Angeles County to eliminate the clandestine nature of this project.

Mayor Lyon emphasized that if this item needs to be on a future agenda, the Council will have a serious discussion at that time depending on what happens during this 60-day extension.

City Attorney Lynch said that she would review the environmental documents and she had the name of the person in charge of these documents but there was no extension by CEQA and they were proceeding forward even though there was a 60-day extension before construction started.

At this time, City Manager Evans reported on the status of Garden Village Shopping Center, stating that he had received a letter from Bill Cotton at Cotton Shires regarding the existing geology report that they were studying. Mr. Cotton also referred to a report from Leighton & Associates which indicates that possibly leaking from a sewer line caused settlement in the shopping center and maybe in surrounding areas. This is being investigated by the L.A. City Public Works or Planning Departments. He said that he had spoken to Gwen Butterfield, who had been helpful, and also to a member of L.A. City Councilwoman Janice Hahn’s staff and that he would continue to work toward making sure the Rancho Palos Verdes residents’ interests are protected.

Councilman Stern wondered why the staff report indicated that the Los Angeles City Council had to be involved.

City Manager Evans answered that because the City of Los Angeles is huge, finding the right person to speak to is difficult and that assistance from Councilwoman Hahn was being sought just as Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart were asking for assistance from Supervisor Knabe.

Councilmember Gardiner asked about a project on the Council’s agenda of September 4, 2001, regarding a Rancho Palos Verdes home near the border of Palos Verdes Estates. He said that there was a question about whether trucks hauling dirt for this project would be allowed to drive on streets in Palos Verdes Estates

Mayor Lyon said that she understood this resolved because the trucks simply needed to turn around on a street in Palos Verdes Estates.

Councilwoman Ferraro recalled that the applicant Mr. Esfahani said that he would work out the issue with the City of Palos Verdes Estates.

Director Allison said there was a meeting scheduled with the applicant and the City of Palos Verdes Estates and he would find out the results and report to the Council.

There were no questions or comments regarding the Chadwick School and the Covenant Church projects.

Booth Tarkington, 1902 Peninsula Verde Drive, representing a homeowners association overlooking the Harbor Hills development, thanked the Council for their interest and help so far. He was concerned about the lack of an Environmental Impact report and the comment that it was not required. He stated that verbal promises had been given for mitigation of environmental issues but with no EIR, these cannot be reviewed officially and he was curious about the environmental reports that City Attorney Lynch said she was reviewing because he was told there were none. He said that Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart had referred to this project as a Recreation Center and another group calls it a Community Center but he saw it as an Activity Center and that the terminology used was significant to receiving Federal funds. He mentioned sports and child care and thought that probably sports should be in the schools instead of having a sport venue for basketball at which other teams would compete and create crowds which would require parking. He also expressed concern about the steep slope adjacent to Rancho Palos Verdes which would be cut into to make a parking lot which he feared would cause drainage problems from homes built on fill at the top of hill. On an unrelated matter, he gave a commercial for the Harbor Free Clinic, which he said was available to all people in the area, and he expressed appreciation to the Council for financial support.


RECESS & RECONVENE:


At 8:20 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:29 P.M.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:


Dan Pressberg, 167 East South Street, Long Beach, CA 90805, representing the City of Long Beach, distributed flyers describing a Long Beach Veteran’s Day Parade and salute to veterans ceremony to be held on Saturday, November 10 with over 100 units, refreshments, a 1940’s-style canteen, and participating by TV and sports figures.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, pointed out the poor condition of Palos Verdes Drive South, asked about the status of the sewers in the Portuguese Bend Club, and felt there too many American flags in the room.


RECESS & RECONVENE:


At 8:35 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess to the Improvement Authority and Redevelopment meetings. The City Council meeting reconvened at 9:26 P.M.

Peninsula High School Yearbook Advertisement

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of October 2, 2001 and the recommendation to consider whether to place an advertisement in the 2002 Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Yearbook.

Mayor Lyon felt that the City’s logo, a scenic photo of the City, and the City’s website address be included in the ad.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked if this ad could be placed annually without it appearing as an item on a Council agenda.

Councilwoman Ferraro suggested that annual funding for the ad could be included in the City budget.

Councilman Stern said that it could be a Consent Calendar item.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to place a full-page color advertisement with the City’s logo and a scenic photograph in the 2002 Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Yearbook for a cost of $400.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
NOES: None

Resol. No. 2001-81 - San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of October 2, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Award a contract to construct the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project to Colich and Sons, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $2,250,556 and authorize staff to spend an additional $157,540 for anticipated extra items of work for a total authorization of $2,408,096. (2) Award a professional service contract to Harris and Associates for an amount not to exceed $349,300 for inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (3) Amend the professional service contract to AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $194,918 for geotechnical inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $279,025. (4) Amend the professional service contract to Helix Environmental Planning for an amount not to exceed $31,100 for mitigation monitoring services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $79,300. (5) Amend the professional service contract to DMc Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $ 16,000 for engineering services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $140,610. (6) Adopt the proposed resolution approving a budget adjustment to increase the capital improvement project budget for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project by $1,150,000 from $2,000,000 to $3,150,000.

Assistant City Manager Petru mentioned two additional items which arose after the staff report was submitted to the Council. She said that additional funds of $18,000 were being requested for colored concrete for the surface drainage structures to blend into the hillside to look more natural and to comply with conditions imposed on private developers. Also, she said that additional funds of $13,000 were being requested to add to AMEC’s to contract to include two more properties in the pre-construction geology study. She concluded by stating that the work was scheduled to begin on Tuesday, October 9.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart noted a typographical error on circle page 3 in which the Phase number should be "One", not "Two".

Councilmember Gardiner asked why there was only one bidder.

Assistant City Manager Petru explained that there was another bidder but the cost of dirt at $30 per cubic yard caused this company to drop out at the last minute.

Councilmember Gardiner asked if there was a penalty clause if they don’t finish on time.

Assistant City Manager Petru said that there were liquidated damages that the contractor must pay to the City for every day the work ran past the specified deadline in each phase. She added that Phase 1 should be completed by December 9 and it was hoped that the rainy season would not have begun. She directed Council to a chart on circle page seven which shows funding sources for this project.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, said that she was overwhelmed by the cost of this project but she felt it was necessary to make these repairs. She expressed concern that Colich & Sons was granted the contract because she was not impressed with their work on the Abalone Cove sewer project and was opposed to the City’s use of Helix as well because she felt their report on the Palos Verdes Drive South drainage was poor. She asked how inspection costs were calculated.

Mayor Lyon said that staff could explain the calculation to her after the meeting.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to (1) Award a contract to construct the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project to Colich and Sons, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $2,250,556 and authorize staff to spend an additional $157,540 for anticipated extra items of work for a total authorization of $2,426,096. (2) Award a professional service contract to Harris and Associates for an amount not to exceed $349,300 for inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (3) Amend the professional service contract to AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $207,918 for geotechnical inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $279,025. (4) Amend the professional service contract to Helix Environmental Planning for an amount not to exceed $31,100 for mitigation monitoring services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $79,300. (5) Amend the professional service contract to DMc Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $ 16,000 for engineering services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $140,610. (6) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-81, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION PROJECT BY $1,150,000 MILLION, FROM $2,000,000 TO $3,150,000. (7) Approve an additional $18,000 for colored concrete pipe for the surface drainage structures to blend into the hillside to look more natural and to comply with conditions imposed on private developers; and, an additional $13,000 to include two more properties in the pre-construction geology study - for a total expenditure of $3,181,000.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
NOES: None

Format of City Council Minutes

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of October 2, 2001 and the recommendation to provide direction to staff for preparation of a policy describing preparation, format and changes to City Council minutes.

Mayor Lyon asked Director McLean if the cost of webcasting would be less expensive as times goes on.

Director McLean said that it would and the current cost was estimated to be $3,000 per month. He added that he had been working with Ted Vegvari at Palos Verdes on the Net to try a pilot program with the bandwidth. He said that the City currently has a T1 connection and he was not sure how many users would connect but that it might work.

Mayor Lyon said that a lot of people don’t have cable television and this would be another way for them to view meetings live using their computer.

Councilman Stern said that online video streaming showed a small picture, although it can be expanded to full screen, however; there were problems of clarity with the picture and sound. He wondered if webcasting would have these same problems.

Director McLean said it would depend on how the frame speed was set. He said that most users have a 56K modem and so the movement was jerky.

Councilmember Gardiner said that a 56K modem or high speed would produce about 15 or 30 frames per second

Director McLean replied that he would defer to Ted because he did not know if the broadcasting software would give us a choice.

Councilmember Gardiner said that this type of software was available but he did not if the City would want to pay the cost.

Tom Redfield, 31273 Ganado Drive, representing the Coalition Striving to Improve City Government, pointed out that two years ago there was unacceptable video and no PowerPoint presentations, an ineffective setup for the public, Council and staff. He complimented the City on its email, website and other high-tech elements, however, he did not think there were enough people who have access to everything and that there is value in detailed minutes that may be used by other organizations and for the public, Council, and staff who can research topics through written records indicating what each of the Councilmembers contributed. He felt this was preferable to watching a long video tape and was in the interest of Council so that they are misquoted, whether deliberately or not, and to indicate how they voted. He noted some concerns he had after reviewing two years of minutes, including caustic and inappropriate remarks made. He said that he had spoken to the Finance Director who said that the City was not set up to provide detailed records at this time but a resource person could be provided to accomplish this. Me. Redfield felt that more detailed minutes would build effective relations with the community and provide information to those without high-tech resources. He closed by saying that maybe in five years this won’t be needed but he felt that right now, researching the minutes as current prepared were of little value in doing research and encouraged the Council to experiment with detailed minutes.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that he was happy with the status quo and reviewed a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission which indicated who was present and participated. He felt the important points were covered even though all the details of the discussion were not included. Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that he had reviewed minutes of other cities and ours were superior as they stand.

Councilman Stern said that he had submitted a memo which set forth his thoughts. He gave an example of Item No. 20 on tonight’s agenda which would have been better served by more detailed minutes such as the ones prepared for Planning Commission meetings. The topic was neighborhood compatibility and he found that the minutes from December 1999 did not indicate what the prior City Council had done and it would have been helpful, especially to those who have not been on the Council for a long time, to read the flow of conversation, with questions, topics, address, and comments to understand the final conclusion. He then read examples from a set of Planning Commission Minutes and from a set of City Council minutes to illustrate the difference. Councilman Stern expressed his appreciation of the discussion on technology but felt that this technology is not available to all residents and even for those who do have access, it is usually faster and more understandable to read information from a written record and to go directly to the topic of interest. He also believed there was a public benefit from knowing questions and comments received by individual Councilmembers so that it is known who is participating and who they might agree with. He closed by stating that this method of minute preparation can be done because it is already being done for the Planning Commission.

Councilmember Gardiner felt that the advantages of minutes prepared for the Planning Commission, which have much more detail but not verbatim, were that the sometimes a Councilmember might want something said in the record and also a person reading the minutes could see how possibly a Councilmember changed his mind as the discussion progressed.

Mayor Lyon agreed that expanded summary minutes might be helpful to showing the Council’s tossing around ideas to see how a balanced decision was made.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, Councilman Stern seconded, to direct staff to prepare the City Council minutes in the same format as the Planning Commission minutes, as "expanded summary" minutes, for the next three meetings.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to direct staff to

Councilman Stern said that he envision minutes like the Planning Commission has.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart was concerned that more detailed minutes would encourage pontification and prepared speech making.

Councilman Stern disagreed and asked Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart if he thought Cable TV coverage had changed this.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart replied that there had been a prepared inquisition a couple of times and he thought detailed minutes would have been embarrassing to the perpetrator.

The motion carried 3-2 with Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart and Councilwoman Ferraro dissenting.

Establishment of a Schedule and Venue for the Long Point Project City Council Public Hearings

Director Rojas presented the staff report of October 2, 2001 and the recommendation to provide staff with direction as to when to begin hearing the Long Point project applications and where to conduct the public hearings.

City Manager Evans indicated that the Planning Commission will have completed their work on the Long Point project by October 9 and the EIR should be certified by then. He said that the next step was to bring the project to the City Council. Staff felt that a larger facility would be required and that Long Point should be the only item on the agenda because the number of interested parties who would probably want to provide public comment and Mr. Evans said that the School District had agreed to allow the City to use the Miraleste School auditorium which would accommodate 400 people. He said that Assistant City Manager Petru had spoken to Cox Cable and they agreed to televise the meeting.

Mayor Lyon suggested November 7.

Councilman Stern referenced the October 1 letter from Mike Mohler, project manager for the Long Point Project, which stated that they would prefer October 16 but that November 7 would be acceptable.

City Manager Evans asked City Attorney Lynch what the consequences would be if the EIR were not certified by November 7.

City Attorney Lynch said that under CEQA there was no penalty for failing to certify the EIR within one-year period.

Mayor Lyon understood this to mean that by missing this date, there was not a de facto approval of the project.

Councilman Stern said that it seemed odd to have the EIR coming up while the project was still being formed at the Planning Commission level and he said that, due to the thickness of the volumes, he did not relish the thought of going through this.

Mayor Lyon asked Mike Mohler to comment on the scheduling of this item for Council hearings.

Mike Mohler, felt that the item could not be agendized for October 16 because there would not been enough time to prepare after the Planning Commission meeting on October 9, assuming the Commission completed that work at that time, however he said that he was anxious for the process to move forward.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to hold the Long Point hearings at Miraleste Intermediate School, the first one being scheduled on November 7. Motion carried.

Disclosure of Contact with Major Landowners/Developers

Councilman Stern presented the staff report of October 2, 2001 and the recommendation to adopt a City Council Policy that: Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission shall publicly disclose in writing to the City Clerk the existence of all communications between such person and a major landowner or major developer of real property within the City, which communication relates to such real property. A "Major Landowner" or "Major Developer" shall mean any person or representative of a person or entity who owns or has an interest in, or is attempting to develop any parcel in excess of 10 acres. Such contacts must be reported in writing within 30 days of the date of such contact. The writing need only identify (1) the parties to the communication, (2) the real property involved, (3) the date, and (4) include a very general statement of the topic of the communication. Such report shall be maintained by the City Clerk and be available for review by any person.

Councilman Stern remarked that the Council of Homeowners Association had made a similar request a few years ago which, along with the large turnout when major development items are on agendas, he felt shows a public interest in these developments. He hoped that this disclosure would make information available to the public early in the process. Acknowledging that Council contact with the developers outside a meeting is legal, he thought that disclosure would give the public more information to lobby the Council and increase confidence and respect toward the Council. He addition, he believed there would be a benefit to the Councilmembers also because there would be nothing to challenge our integrity. Making reference to a written disclosure he had provided to the City Clerk, Councilman Stern then disclosed a meeting on September 6 with Rob Katherman who represents Belmont Village proposed to be constructed at the previous Marriott Assisted Living Center site. He reported that Mr. Katherman provided updated information on the proposed project.

Councilman Stern moved to adopt the policy he had submitted regarding his proposed Council disclosure policy.

Mayor Lyon understood that ex parte communications required a statement at the Council meeting when a Councilmember speaks to anyone outside a meeting on a subject germane to an agenda item.

City Attorney Lynch advised that if any information is provided to a Councilmember, or a Planning Commissioner, regarding an item that is the subject of a hearing and that information is not already included as part of the record, that information must be disclosed so that all will know what might affect a decision. It does not matter who the source is, proponent or opponent, but if it is germane and the decision maker thinks it should be part of record, it should be revealed.

Councilmember Gardiner asked if he spoke to 20 people, was he required to name all 20 people. He said that this is a frequent occurrence.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that if a person comes to a Councilmember and that says and something happened on a particular site and the Councilmember believes it might be important for staff to investigate, it should mentioned at the Council meeting. If 19 other people agreed, the Councilmember does not have to disclose all those contacts. If this information is already part of the record, the Councilmember does not have to mention the contacts.

Mayor Lyon commented that if a Councilmember sends and receives email and the other Councilmembers are not privy to the recipient lists, maybe that needs to be disclosed as well.

City Attorney Lynch said that if the identity of the speaker is not part of record, it needs to be addressed to all parties.

Councilman Stern asked if City Attorney Lynch was referring to disclosure of information at the time it comes to us not when the item is on an agenda.

Mayor Lyon wanted to know what made a communication ex parte.

City Attorney Lynch replied that ex parte communication was information provided outside a public meeting.

Mayor Lyon referred to the Long Point agenda which has been on many Council and Planning Commission agendas and which was the subject of many people in the community talking to Councilmembers and she asked if those conversations should be disclosed.

City Attorney Lynch replied that the Council might wish to establish a policy for all contacts which might affect a decision, however, if the people who speak to a Councilmember are not disclosing facts outside the record, a Councilmember is not required to disclose that conversation.

Councilmember Gardiner asked how one would know what was part of the record.

City Attorney Lynch said that at the end of a hearing if a Councilmember has not heard anyone speak about an important piece of information that he or she has received away from a public meeting, the Councilmember should mention it at the meeting. She suggested that one safeguard would be to ask the person who provides the information to put it in writing and it will come to the meeting as part of the record.

Councilmember Gardiner thought that this would not foster residents talking to Councilmembers.

City Attorney Lynch said that due process was the issue and just because someone says they are in favor or against an issue does not mean that facts have been supplied that are not part of the record.

Councilmember Gardiner was concerned that, as a new Councilmember, he would not be as likely to know what already been said.

City Attorney Lynch remarked that this was a different issue than the one raised by Councilman Stern.

Councilman Stern emphasized that he was asking for disclosure before an item was on an agenda to provide information to the public before the meeting.

Councilman Stern ‘s motion died for lack of a second.

Mayor Lyon remarked that sometimes the public actually knows more than the Council and she referred to meetings being held regarding Marymount College project. She said that she learned at a Homeowners Association meeting she had attended the previous evening, that that association members have attended several presentations by Marymount and she found it hard to believe that the Council has not been privy to that. She added that it was a common occurrence for proponents of projects to come out into the community long before the item is on a Council agenda.

Councilman Stern said that possibly in that particular case the public does have information but he thought that probably they did not regarding the proposed Belmont Village.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart stated that the assumption ought to be that the Council might not know about either one.

Councilmember Gardiner felt this could be considered an early warning system and he thought email was a good idea for notification because, for example, when he had a tour of Ocean Trails with Ken Zuckerman, he could send it in right away to the City Clerk and not have to remember at a Council meeting.

Councilman Stern agreed email was a perfect means of disclosing these contacts.

Mayor Lyon thought it was still important to say something at the time a decision was being made and suggested these disclosures also be made during City Council Reports.

Councilman Stern concurred, and said that the policy he was suggesting would provide information to the press and the public from the City Clerk.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said it was hard to know when to disclose information. He gave an example of a phone message left by Mike Mohler, who represents the proposed Long Point project. He called Mike back but Mike said he was too busy to talk at the time. Did he have to disclose that to the City Clerk, and how about the lunch he had with members of SOC II?

Councilman Stern replied that it would be up to the individual Councilmember to make that decision. He described the public misperception that the proponent of a proposed project advances their cause with Councilmembers away from public meetings and the public feels they are behind in the process.

Mayor Lyon stated that she did not feel there was a problem.

Councilwoman Ferraro felt the policy was unnecessary.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart stated that the original request from the Council of Homeowners Associations did not define the term "major developer" and he said that the currently proposed policy defines a major development as ten acres or more and he wondered why that project size was chosen.

Councilman Stern said it was to lighten the burden.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart pointed out that under this policy a conversation with Charles Brumbaugh who proposed the Senior Affordable Housing project would not have to be disclosed because the development was less than ten acres.

Councilman Stern said that the line had to be drawn somewhere.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that she was Mayor when the request for disclosure with major developers came from the Council of Homeowners Association and she was quoted as saying this would be busywork for nothing and not necessary, and she still believed that.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that this policy indicated that if you spoke to a developer and did not report it, you were hiding something. He was concerned that this increased bureaucracy would not be helpful.

Tom Redfield, 3127 Ganado Drive, said this policy and expanded minutes were both supported by the Coalition Striving to Improve City Government and, and he felt that both contributed to improved confidence in City government and to track talented people to serve on the City Council and on Commissions and Committees.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked if the Coalition Striving to Improve City Government was a non-profit, secret organization.

Tom Redfield said that the Council had information regarding their organization. He then spoke in support of Councilman Stern’s disclosure policy, stating that it was not cumbersome, required little paperwork, and merely required common sense and sensitivity to the public’s desire to be informed. He was concerned that there seemed to be a reluctance to adopt the policy and stressed that it would be for the Council’s own protection, would help the City Attorney defend their actions, and that the Planning Commission made these types of disclosures and recused themselves from certain items when appropriate. He said that the Council had been having discussions with Marymount for years.

Mayor Lyon said that the consideration of each proposed development in the City is treated equally and that all had to go through the complete process. She took offense to his implying that the Council had made decisions before an item was on the agenda and said that she had not been discussing anything with Marymount.

Mr. Redfield said that one member of the Council has.

Councilwoman Ferraro and Mayor Lyon asked him to name this person.

Mayor Lyon felt that this Council has always done a good job handling comments from people and if appropriate, a Councilmember has recused himself or herself. She asked City Attorney Lynch how many other cities had a policy like the one being proposed.

City Attorney Lynch said that she did not know of any but she had done any research. When the Mayor asked her if the other City for which she served as City Attorney had such a policy and she said no.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that she had always reported at Council meetings what she considered significant contacts and she would continue to do so without adopting his unnecessary policy.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Lyon, not to adopt the recommendation.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, spoke in support of Councilman Stern’s policy and felt that it was particularly important regarding Long Point because this project would have a great impact on City and that everyone in the community knew how the Council was going to vote.

Mayor Lyon replied that the Councilmembers themselves did not know how they would vote because they did not have the final form of project.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that he did not have a problem with some type of formal disclosure procedure that makes sense but he felt that Councilman Stern’s proposed policy was not in the City’s best interest. He said that he was disgusted with the innuendos at the speaker’s podium that impugn the Council’s integrity without evidence or details.

Councilmember Gardiner supported the concept of an early warning system to the public. He moved that, rather than a written system, we ask Councilmembers to mention at council meetings when they are approached by a developer which would put the Council into a position of self policing. He felt that would take care of the intent without irksome details.

Mayor Lyon said that she could accept this and withdrew her second to Councilwoman Ferraro’s motion.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that the Councilmembers were already following the procedure in Councilmember Gardiner’s motion.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that this would formalize this action into a written Council policy.

Mayor Lyon said that this policy would fit in nicely with the agenda rearrangement that she and Councilmember Gardiner were working on which would relocate City Council Reports to the beginning of the meeting.

Councilwoman Ferraro withdrew her motion.

City Clerk Purcell stated Councilmember Gardiner ‘s motion: The City Council, using their own judgment, when they encounter developers or groups on something that seems important enough to bring to the City Council, shall report during the City Council Reports section of the City Council meeting agenda.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart seconded Councilmember Gardiner’s motion.

The motion carried 4-1, with Councilwoman Ferraro dissenting.

Proposed Amendment to the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance

Director Rojas presented the staff report of October 2, 2001 and the recommendation to provide staff with direction as to whether to initiate code amendment proceedings to consider amendments to the City’s existing "neighborhood compatibility" review procedures.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart explained an instance of how neighborhood compatibility had worked in his neighborhood. He said that an applicant with a second story project had been told an analysis of neighborhood compatibility and a view analysis would be required along with a hearing before the Planning Commission. They asked staff how they could avoid a Planning Commission hearing and they were told they could design the second story as a mezzanine and make the addition less than 16 feet high. Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that this was a loophole that gave the Planning Department more authority than probably was intended and there was no notification to the neighbors. He felt the code should be revised to define second story more accurately and close this loophole.

Councilwoman Ferraro said she was not sure what the solution was but that there had definitely been problems with consistency in neighborhood compatibility.

Councilmember Gardiner agreed that there seemed to be a need to tidy up the code. He described a conversation with a resident regarding back yard and side yard setbacks, the side yard setback being smaller, and an instance in which a back yard and a side yard of two homes met, the smaller setback was applied. He thought possibly there were anomalies and that the code should swept for these and brought to the attention of the Council.

City Attorney Lynch said that if was difficult to address every conceivable instance in the code but she felt the Council was struggling with the possibility of every application being analyzed for neighborhood compatibility.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked what triggers neighborhood compatibility now.

Director Rojas said a second story always does and a one-story addition if the increase in square footage is greater than 25% of the original home size.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that this percentage was chosen to try to avoid having minor additions analyzed for neighborhood compatibility. She suggested that the Council might like to set a different percentage.

Councilman Stern thought that instead of a code amendment, staff might focus on specific problems which the Council could address. He thought possibly requiring a neighborhood compatibility analysis for all additions might be appropriate to avoid the "piece-meal" approach.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart added that the situation which resulted from the 25% approach was that a larger house could have a much bigger addition before the requirement for a neighborhood compatibility analysis was required, whereas a smaller house could have a very small addition and this requirement would be triggered.

Councilman Stern said that more information was required to make a decision on this apparent problem.

Councilmember Gardiner noted that it seemed that there were at least two instances before them currently which needed to be addressed.

Mayor Lyon was concerned about slowing the process with more red tape.

Councilwoman Ferraro agreed that applicants would not be happy with more delays in processing their applications.

Councilmember Gardiner asked if neighborhood compatibility was not an issue if neighbors on all four sides approved the project.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart indicated that sometimes applicants specifically made their additions just under the 25% to avoid the extra time and expense.

Councilman Stern said that this type of situation would always exist unless all additions were subject to the same requirements but he did not feel this was the best solution because of the additional burden on the community.

Director Rojas agreed that applicants usually did what they could to avoid a two-month long review process.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart raised the issue of privacy when huge windows were installed.

Councilwoman Ferraro agreed and said that the current procedure seemed to require neighborhood compatibility when maybe it was not needed and vice versa.

Councilmember Gardiner suggested that staff discuss these problems with Planning Departments in other cities to try to determine a solution.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart suggested that it would have to involve cities with view issues and many second story addition applications.

Mayor Lyon suggested that Palos Verdes Estates would be a good place to start.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to direct staff to provide more information to the Council based on their experience and to contact other cities to see how they handle similar situations. Motion carried.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:


City Attorney Lynch reported that the City Council unanimously gave directions to the City’s negotiating team.


CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:


Councilman Gardiner reported that he and Councilwoman Ferraro had attended a PV Transit meeting.

Councilwoman Ferraro added that election of officers was held and that Rosemary Humphrey was still the head of the group.

Councilman Stern stated that he had attended an Ocean Trails meeting the past Thursday.

Mayor Lyon said that former Mayor Tom Hollingsworth had concerns about Palos Verdes Drive South and it was suggested that he bring this matter to this meeting.

Relative to the Ocean Trails meeting, Councilman Stern reported that repairs were to be completed on La Rotunda in October and November before the rainy season and that in the period of June through November 2001 Palos Verdes Drive South from La Rotondo west to Schooner was scheduled to be rebuilt. He said that a number of residents were concerned about when the condition of the streets would improve because of Ocean Trails’ bankruptcy.

Mayor Lyon asked when the unattractive chain link fence at Ocean Trails would be removed.

Councilman Stern replied that he would ask Deputy Director Planning Greg Pfost to put this on the next agenda.

Councilwoman Ferraro inquired when the mounds of dirt at Ocean Trails would be lowered.

Councilman Stern said that a timetable for addressing all these major items was requested and there should a checklist on the agenda to make sure the appropriate timely action was taken.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart described a Vector District field trip regarding African Honey Bees the next Thursday and asked anyone interested to call him for details. He added that other Councilmembers attending would not constitute a violation of the Brown act.

Mayor Lyon announced that she presented a proclamation the previous evening at a celebration of the 35th Anniversary of the Admiral Risty, the oldest restaurant in the City.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart added that it had been an interesting evening, with lots of reminiscing.


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 11:19 P.M. on motion of Mayor Lyon.

 

____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

 

______________________
CITY CLERK

 


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

OCTOBER 16, 2001

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

After the Pledge of Allegiance by Paige Anderson, Laurel Ast, Guilliana Battaglia, Ellie D’Ambra, Marie Delcarson, Taylor Gilbertson, Celia Herreros, Riley Hoffman, Kaitlin Murray, Taylor Raymond, Page Tripp, and Chloe Urbanczyk of Brownie Troop 108, roll call was answered as follows:

PRESENT: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
ABSENT: None

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


RECYCLING DRAWING:


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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


Mayor Lyon requested that the item regarding the Review of Ocean Trails’ Water Control Plan be heard first under Regular Business. Councilmember Gardiner suggested that, because of the large number of speakers present, the item regarding Long Point Land Use be the second Regular Business item.

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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


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

Motion to waive full reading

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

Minutes of September 4, 2001

Approved the Minutes.

Ordinance No. 370 - Amendment of Municipal Code - Golf Tax

ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 370, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S GOLF TAX. (This ordinance was re-introduced at the October 2nd Meeting.)

Resol. No. 2001-82 - Funding Appropriation For Solid Waste Activities

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-82, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, TO INCREASE BUDGETED APPROPRIATIONS IN THE SOLID WASTE FUND TO FUND VARIOUS RECYCLING AND NPDES ACTIVITIES.

Approve Agreement For Electronics Recycling Day

(1) Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to sign an agreement with SoCal Computer Recyclers for an Electronics/Computer recycling event.

Resol. No. 2001-83 - Memorandum of Understanding Between the Cities of Lomita, Lakewood, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach and Torrance, and Food Finders, A Non-Profit Organization and Approve Budget Adjustments

(1) Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Cities of Lomita, Lakewood, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach and Torrance, and Food Finders, a non-profit organization, relative to the administration and management of a Reuse Assistance Grant that was previously approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). (2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-83, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 2001-2002, TO INCREASE BUDGETED APPROPRIATIONS IN THE SOLID WASTE FUND TO FUND THE GRANT’S REQUIRED MATCH.

Resol. No. 2001-84 - Arterial Rehabilitation Program: Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevard

(1) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-84, 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 PROJECTS FUND.

Acquisition of Vehicle For The Department Of Public Works

(1) Authorized the Department of Public Works to purchase a new vehicle. (2) Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to enter into a purchase agreement with Golden State Truck Center, in the amount of $20,250.08.

Resol. No. 2001-85 - Watershed, Wildlife and Parks Improvement Bond Act of 2000, Urban and Community Forestry Grant Program

(1) Authorized staff to apply for a grant from the Watershed, Wildlife and Parks Improvement Bond Act of 2000 Urban and Community Forestry Program. (2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-85, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE ANY AGREEMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR PAYMENT.

Resol. No. 2001-86 - Trees For The Millennium Grant

(1) Authorized the expenditure of up to $80,000 (in street and landscape maintenance) to purchase and install new trees within the City’s parks and public rights-of-way. (2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-86, 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, FROM THE CITY’S GAS TAX FUND.

Contract Addendum No. 4 For The Long Point Resort Hotel/Golf Course Environmental Impact Report

Approved Contract Addendum No. 4 to the Agreement for Consulting Services between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF) for preparation of the Long Point Resort Hotel/Golf Course Environmental Impact Report, in the amount of $138,689.

Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District – Appointment of Board Member

Appointed Emily Vaughan to serve on the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District Board of Directors until November 2003.

Resol. No. 2001-87 - California Integrated Waste Management Board Grant Applications

(1) Authorized the Director of Public Works to submit a grant application to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for funding assistance to install a rubberized surface at the East View Park Playground area. (2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-87, AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE ANY AGREEMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR PAYMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROCESSING AND ACCEPTANCE OF THESE GRANTS.

Resol. No. 2001-88 - Park Playground Accessibility and Recycling Grant Program

(1) Authorized staff to submit a grant application to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for the upgrade of play equipment at Abalone Cove. (2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-88, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AGREEMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR PAYMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROCESSING AND ACCEPTANCE OF THIS GRANT.

Resol. No. 2001-89 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


PUBLIC HEARING:


Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, Conditional Use Permit No. 228, Grading Permit No. 2242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738 (Applicant: JCC Homes, Inc., Landowner: California Water Service Company, 5837 Crest Road)

Mayor Lyon opened the public hearing on this request to consider Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, Conditional Use Permit No. 228, Grading Permit No. 2242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that there were no written comments received by the City.

Staff recommendation was to table this matter until the Planning Commission has completed its review of the revised project proposal.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro to adopt staff recommendation to table the item. Motion carried

Continued 6-Month Review of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 (Applicant: Roger Grove, "Ride-To-Fly", 50 Narcissa Drive)

Mayor Lyon opened the public hearing on this request to consider the continued 6-Month Review of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that there were no written comments received by the City.

Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report of October 16, 2001 and the recommendation to determine that the "Ride-to-Fly" therapeutic riding program is operating in compliance with the conditions of approval for Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2, and receive and file this report.

Councilman Stern asked if the City had received proof of the organization’s non-profit status and if the soft paving issue had been resolved.

Associate Planner Schonborn said that the proof of non-profit status had been received on October 15 and that the soft paving had just been completed.

Roger Grove, 4923 Halison Street, Torrance, reported that the work had been accomplished to modify the property to the City’s requested standards, and as more funds and materials are available, additional improvements will be completed. He thanked the Council for their patience and understanding in supporting Ride-to-Fly’s goal to operate a therapeutic operation and to be a good neighbor.

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

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to adopt staff recommendation. Motion carried.


REGULAR BUSINESS:


Ocean Trails – Review of Water Control Plan Ocean Trails – Review of Water Control Plan

Deputy Planning Director Pfost presented the staff report of October 16, 2001 and the recommendation to approve the Ocean Trails’ Interim Operations and Maintenance Manual for Water Control, Groundwater Monitoring, and Ground Movement Monitoring Facilities.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart noted that there was no water-monitoring program for the residential portion of the project and that there was no clay cap under residential area.

Mayor Lyon added that there was also no clay cap under the habitat area.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart felt that the lack of a clay cap under the habitat area would not be a problem, however, he was concerned that without a formal residential water-monitoring plan, homeowners would not comply with restrictions merely mentioned in the CC&R’s.

Deputy Planning Director Pfost indicated that the plan does include irrigation restrictions with which each homeowner would have to comply. He said that the monitoring would be different for each individual lot and that there would be inclinometers and wells downslope but not on every lot.

Mayor Lyon was concerned also because there had been problems in other areas from uphill water coming downhill which appeared later, such as water from the City of Rolling Hills.

Councilman Stern asked if each lot was required to submit a landscaping plan to be approved by the City.

Deputy Planning Director Pfost replied that this was a requirement and there would be stricter irrigation standards than in other parts of the City.

Councilman Stern inquired if the City had the ability to ask the developers to look at alternatives to the plan submitted.

Deputy Planning Director Pfost responded that currently the plan was in compliance with Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code but restrictions do not normally apply to single-family residences. He said that additional language regarding irrigation methodology could be added.

Mayor Lyon described a scenario in which the Zuckermans may no longer own Ocean Trails or residence ownership might be separate from the golf course. Therefore, she felt it would be more prudent to have two separate plans, one for the golf course and one for the residences.

City Attorney Lynch felt that changes should be made now while the item is being discussed.

City Manager Evans asked if there would be regular inspections and about the accuracy of the probes.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart wondered who would pay for operation and maintenance costs.

City Manager Evans replied that the City would have to pay.

Mayor Lyon inquired if the golf course plan could be approved and the residential plan approved later.

City Attorney Lynch advised that it would be better to bring the item back later, but with two separate plans.

Mayor Lyon asked staff if it would be a problem to delay approval of the golf course plan.

Director Rojas said there would be no problem

Ken Zuckerman, One Ocean Trails Drive, came to the podium and informed the Council that some of his key people who were involved in designing and implementing the water control plan were present, including the project geologist and the golf course superintendent.

Mark Schluter, project geologist for Ocean Trails, One Ocean Trails Drive, explained that the residential lots did not have the same black adobe cap beneath but they did have clay soil that would create a low permeability barrier, although the permeability was not as low as the black adobe. He shared concerns about the possibility of homeowners overwatering and indicated that there was an extensive water control section in the residential plan, which included information on roof gutters, drains, and water control devices. He agreed that long term enforcement could be a problem as could leaky irrigation lines but he said they would do everything possible to implement a water control plan for the homes.

Mayor Lyon was concerned not about the water which could be seen but water below the bentonite layer.

Mark Schluter responded that the natural water table was 110 feet below the surface and it could not be monitored, however, water would be monitored in the golf course area, downslope of the residential areas.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart thought it was more important to measure water at higher elevations.

Mark Schluter emphasized that they were monitoring three wells, at different levels, and there was no water in the upper well.

Mayor Lyon reiterated that the Council had concerns that once the residential units were sold and a City-approved landscape plan implemented, it would be difficult to monitor the water and she wondered what would trigger a problem and how would enforcement be funded.

Barbara Dye, 29743 Knoll View Drive, representing Ocean Trails, replied that she had put together the monitoring report and said that golf course as well as residential areas would be monitored regularly and there were forms to be completed quarterly by the golf course supervisor.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked the remedy to enforce compliance if a homeowner waters excessively.

Barbara Dye said that Ocean Trails had established no remedy beyond CC&R’s and that the City Council needed to make the decision.

Mayor Lyon noted that the city had the ability to turn off the water.

Barbara Dye agreed that the City had this power to place restrictions on homeowners and it was difficult for Ocean Trails to plan ahead since all the residential construction would be custom. She repeated that the CC&R’s discussed the importance of water control.

Councilman Stern understood that Ocean Trails was building basins for runoff if someone leaves the water running.

City Manager Evans confirmed that runoff would go into a gutter and be handled but there still was a concern about water soaking into the ground. He suggested that the Council could also additional language to require that a homeowner periodically - the frequency to be determined by Council - to arrange for an inspection and certification (at the homeowner’s expense) that the irrigation system is operating correctly as originally approved. He believed that this requirement could be included as a covenant for each property to authorize the City’s enforcement.

Councilman Stern suggested that staff bring back suggested language.

Councilmember Gardiner described a visit he and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart had made to Ocean Trails to look at the elaborate computer-driven water control system. He had questions regarding Table 2.4 on circle page 5 and suggesting that the triggering words become triggering numbers to clarify enforcement.

Mark Schluter, the Ocean Trails geologist said that this could be changed.

Councilmember Gardiner also suggested that someone outside the system check occasionally in the event there was something amiss. He noted that the data was to be maintained by Ocean Trails and, because of his knowledge of information security, he felt there was a high probability that the data could be corrupted, destroyed, lost, etc., and he felt it was important for the City to keep a backup copy of the data.

Councilman Stern asked what medium was being used to store data and could it be put on a CD and delivered to City Hall.

Barbara Dye indicated that the City would be furnished a hard copy of the information quarterly but that the information could be furnished on disks also. She stressed that the quarterly reports would be reviewed by the City geologist and the peer review group, which constituted double independent review.

Councilmember Gardiner felt that machine-readable form of the report would be good and he emphasized the importance of an effective long-term system of maintaining data which would provide not only efficient storage but also efficient retrieval.

Mayor Lyon said that the staff report asked if the Council would like to review future revisions and she thought that it would.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked City Attorney Lynch if she felt strongly that the references to residential units be removed from this document.

City Attorney Lynch replied that the document should be divided into two separate sections so that the homeowners would not be confused about requirements which did not apply to them.

Mayor Lyon confirmed that the item would be brought to the Council at a later date with suggestions and additional language from staff.

Long Point Land Use

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of October 16, 2001 and the recommendation to consider directing the Long Point Developer to minimize the use of the Upper Point Vicente property by placing more golf holes on the Long Point property through elimination of the villas.

City Manager Evans added that the Department of Fish and Game would prefer open space and no golf or other use on city land but said that if the Long Point project required golf holes on Upper Point Vicente Park, the City Hall property, that two golf holes might be acceptable.

City Manager Evans said that the decision before the Council this evening was to decide if the Long Point developer should eliminate the villas to allow more golf holes on their private property. He stressed that the Council would not want to give the impression that the City would necessarily approve two golf holes on City property if the villas were eliminated.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked who brought this issue before the Council.

City Manager Evans said that it was the Long Point ad hoc subcommittee of Mayor Lyon and Councilman Stern.

Mayor Lyon clarified that their subcommittee had been looking for a direction since the meeting of the negotiating team and the possibility of deleting the villas from the Long Point plan seemed like a good place to begin.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that he had been opposed to the villas from the beginning as well as the number of casitas proposed. He suggested that the speakers be heard before Council discussion.

Speaking to the recommendation were: Gloria Anderson, 6818 Los Verdes; Marianne Hunter, 1 Cinnamon Lane; Roger Mills, 3603 Vigilance Drive; Barbara Gleghorn, 28850 Crestridge Road; Ann Shaw, 30156 Via Borica; Alida White, 32614 Coastsite Drive; George Gleghorn, 28850 Crestridge Road; Alice Slater, 4219 Dauntless Drive; Robert King, 30764 Via La Cresta; Joseph Picarelli, 30311 Via Borica; Rowland Driskell, 30 Via Capri; Elisabeth Ryan, 3224 Barkentine Road; Gerlinde Ryan, 3224 Barkentine Road; Holly Cain, 52 Avenida Corona; Jill Carlton, 4254 Palos Verdes Drive South; Lennee Bilski, 4255 Palos Verdes Drive South; and, Craig Mueller, 3559 Seaglen Drive.

These speakers focused on the following concerns: In light of the current economic downturn, a partnership between a developer and the City could be risky to the City’s financial stability; because the City is attempting to obtain funds for which there is great competition to purchase open space in Portuguese Bend, allowing the use of City land by a developer weakens the City’s commitment to preserve open space; even two holes is too many because City land should not be used at all; SOC II presented an alternate proposition for the use of Upper Point Vicente Park and a petition with 3,200 signatures urging the City to preserve the parkland for public use; the Federal government deed the land to the City with restrictions which would not allow golf; just because Upper Point Vicente Park is undeveloped does not mean that it is useless land; there was an objection to public land being made available to a few people; irrigation water could cause problems for residents downslope as has happened at Villa Capri from Los Verdes Golf Course; many Councilmembers campaigned on open space preservation and should live up to this promise; golf courses are not open space but artificial green space; it was felt that the developer wanted this land adjacent to City Hall because of the magnificent view but this view should be enjoyed by the general public; once the public land was given up, it could not be reclaimed; appreciation was expressed to the subcommittee for bringing this issue to the entire Council and to the Council for the preservation of the Forrestal, Barkentine and Shoreline properties; and, the 1975 General Plan set forth a plan to provide a large community facility at the Civic Center and encouraged community recreational areas and playing fields on City land.

Michael Mohler, representing Destination Development Corporation, 11777 San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90049, felt that although Bill Tippets had been designated as negotiator, he did not give the final word for the Department of Fish and Game. He said that he wanted to work with the City regarding the possibility of removing the villas from the project. He explained that a number of golf layouts had been analyzed, both on Long Point property and on City property and he described the extraordinary contribution the developer had made to the habitat, the NCCP process, and a survey of the gnatcatcher which was accepted and verified by the Department of Fish and Game. He also discussed the revegetation plan submitted to increase coastal sage scrub on City property. He looked forward to the Council meeting on November 7 at which their group could provide additional details regarding the Planning Commission hearings and the background of how the plans have developed. Mr. Mohler said that Bill Tippets had upped the ante at a Planning Commission meeting and his supervisor did not back him up and called him to task. He urged the Council to consider all factors and to work with the developer to attain a common beneficial goal.

Councilman Stern remarked that there was not a commitment for $20 million from the state and that there was no written proposal for the verbal commitment from the developer for the use of City land.

Mike Mohler replied that this step would not be taken until the Council had reached a decision regarding the use of City land.

Councilman Stern said that the developer had stated in advertisements that the project would general $4.5 million for the City and that he assumed this income was based on certain room rates and occupancy estimates. He guessed that the recent economic downturn would reduce this benefit to the City.

Mike Mohler agreed and said the Finance Advisory Committee had anticipated this and asked for a break-even number of approximately $2.5 million assuming the hotel could remain open.


RECESS & RECONVENE:


At 8:42 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:55 P.M.

Director McLean left the meeting during the recess.

Mayor Lyon asked Mike Mohler to return to the podium

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked if a smaller hotel had been considered, which could be expanded if successful.

Mike Mohler said that a smaller megastructure had not been considered, but the construction of the casitas was planned in phases.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that because of the downturn in the economy, the size of the hotel, and operation costs, the break-even point requires higher residency rates and he was concerned about a plan which used City land. He asked for more information about Mr. Tippets’ supervisor being unhappy about his testimony

Mike Mohler that Mr. Tippets and his supervisor did not agree about what was on the table.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart felt that U.S. Fish and Wildlife was more tied to the Civic Center property than State Fish and Game but the two groups did have to work together.

Mike Mohler explained that they were in the room together but Bill Tippets had been nominated as negotiator and he said that he had the feeling that Karen Evans of U.S. Fish and Wildlife was trying to get another hole on the property. He reminded the Council that the Ocean Trails Conservation Plan did not work until there were economic features such as endowments and bonds and then the agencies began to be more reasonable and willing to compromise. He knew that the City Council was well aware of the game of negotiating big deals. Mr. Mohler pointed out the benefits of a large hotel in the City for banquet and meeting space for City, community, and private events instead of importing the business out of the City. He drew a comparison between the size of the hotel and economics and the scaling down of the hotel would have unfortunate circumstances.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart hoped there would be full presentation before the Council at the November 7 meeting.

Mike Mohler stated that he learned that this issue was on the agenda tonight only a few days earlier so was not prepared at this time and said there was information beyond his scope, such as legal matters, but he assured the Council that the senior executives at Destination Development were preparing for the November 7 Council meeting and the Council’s direction tonight would help them prepare.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked if elimination of the villas would kill the project.

Mike Mohler said that he did not know and said that finances determine everything. He stated that the City’s Finance Advisory Committee had discussed the internal rate of return tied to the villas and that Rob Lowe could explain more fully on November 7.

Councilman Stern raised the issue mentioned in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News regarding a cooperative venture with Ocean Trails and he asked Mr. Mohler to enlighten the Council.

Mike Mohler said that this was brought up at the Planning Commission meetings and about a week ago, they were successful in taking steps to provide an opportunity to look at the underwriting which can be accomplished and that the affiliate in involved in due diligence. He expected that because of contact today with the Daily Breeze that there would more information published and said that he would keep the Council posted.

Councilman Stern recalled Planning Commission meetings that he watched and the vote of 4-3 which indicated that three of the Commissioners did not want to use land. He saw a natural synergy between Long Point and Ocean Trails and seems to be hearing that there is significant movement that might be tying these two together in some economic connection with the world-class golf course just down street.

Mike Mohler replied that at the April 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting the synergy between properties was mentioned. It seemed natural that when Ocean Trails once again has 18 holes, people playing golf there would be looking for lodging and the hotel at Long Point could send them business as well. He said there has always been an express desire for an alliance whether it is simply the purchase of tee times, assisting them our of bankruptcy, all the way to dual ownership and that all these possibilities had been discussed at public meetings. He was not sure how things would go but the Destination Development marketing group would summarize for the Council. Mr. Mohler emphasized the need for an onsite amenity to ensure success of the hotel and the suggestion of a spa would not be sufficient.

Councilman Stern said that a world-class golf academy had been mentioned as an onsite amenity and he asked if this combined with a 9-hole golf course would provide an acceptable onsite amenity.

Mike Mohler said that the 9-hole golf course would appeal to groups who have limited time. And for people who want to use the golf school.

Councilwoman Ferraro inquired if several different specifications could be presented at the November 7 meeting, with or without the villas or with fewer villas.

Mike Mohler said there would be analysis of economic impact of all these possibilities.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked if the Lowes would be there.

Mike Mohler said at least one of them would be, along with a strong showing of the executive corps.

Councilmember Gardiner disclosed that he had spoken with everyone in the spectrum, including SOC II people, other residents, Mike Mohler, and Rob Lowe. He felt that the goals of the City’s General plan and signatures of 3,2000 citizens meant that the City should wish Long Point good luck in placing your project on your property, not the City’s. However, he was willing as a member of the City Council to do whatever possible to make the Long Point project successful and to improve the internal rate of return and pointed out that usually there was a negative cash flow in the early stages of construction and maybe the City could ease that burden. He urged the Long Point developers to be as creative as they want on their own property and he felt it would be advantageous for the City to facilitate a win-win between Long Point and Ocean Trails. He thought that a 9-hole golf course with an academy with an 18-hole course nearby would be desirable along with any other cooperative ventures between the two groups. Councilmember Gardiner felt it was the job of the Council to define the "box" and that the City would help Long Point be successful in that box, to eliminate false starts and to avoid sending ambiguous signals.

Councilmember Gardiner moved to allow no golf holes on City property and felt that appropriate assistance from the City, other than providing City land, would help this successful group who has an excellent reputation and who had built good properties.

Councilman Stern agreed with Councilmember Gardiner’s suggestion and felt that allowing no use of City land but working with the developer to build a successful project on private property would be good for the City. He wondered if a funding mechanism such as non-recourse municipal bonds would be helpful.

City Attorney Lynch opined that the most viable alternative would be a Redevelopment Plan and said she would investigate new findings under State law which might apply because the land had been vacant for many years.

Councilman Stern agreed that this type of path might change finance rates dramatically and should be investigated to allow maximum creativity for the developer.

Mayor Lyon said that she and Councilman Stern had put this item on the agenda to ask for direction from the Council regarding Long Point and to further negotiations in the goal to establish the Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve because the two were tied together.

Councilmember Gardiner gathered that Bill Tippets had said that no golf holes on City property was preferable but two holes might work.

Mayor Lyon suggested the possibility of a connection with the NCCP.

City Manager Evans read from the staff report the section which indicated Mr. Tippet’s preference.

Councilmember Gardiner recalled that Mr. Tippets had preferred no golf holes on City property.

City Manager Evans said that he had indicated that in the past.

Director Rojas said that Bill Tippets had expressed that at the negotiation meeting.

Councilman Stern gave his viewpoint that it would be best to use no City land for golf.

Mayor Lyon stated that the Council had never been fond of the villas and she looked forward to the Council hearing the plan on November 7.

Councilman Stern said that it was important that Mike Mohler knew that the Council was not enamored with rooflines along Palos Verdes Drive South.

Councilwoman Ferraro felt the Council agreed on this. She asked Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart his suggestions for action to be taken at this time.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart responded that if the Council allows no City land for the Long Point project, their negotiations with Ocean Trails might be less productive. He expressed his long-standing feeling that there should be golf on City property but hoped this would not kill the project because he felt the City needed, and deserved, this hotel. He was concerned that allowing golf on City property would jeopardize funding for purchase of open space. He raised another issue that if golf were allowed on the property adjacent to City Hall, the Coastal Commission would then be involved in how we used our own land, for example the Independence Day celebration, and he found this unacceptable. Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart made reference to the federal restrictions on the use of the Upper Point Vicente Park at City Hall when it was deeded to the City and this was even more important than the opinion of the Federal and State environmental agencies and that even though Bill Tippets had been designated as negotiator, the City had not heard directly from the Federal government.

Councilmember Gardiner felt that the best opportunity for creativity would be if the box could be defined as close as possible to a final decision with the preference that no City land is used for the project, that villas are not desired, and that the City is amenable to finding proper methods to help boost Long Point’s internal rate of return and to encourage their cooperative ventures with Ocean Trails. He suggested that the final definition of the "box" this evening would benefit all parties.

Mayor Lyon reiterated that furthering the completion of the NCCP would be another benefit of making a decision tonight to deny Long Point use of City land. She said that she had always thought that some modified portion of the proposal might work but that she was moved by what Craig Mueller said about the goals of the 1975 General Plan. She said that the City needed a better Civic Center and playing field for children, as well as an independent source of revenue for the City that a successful hotel would supply. She also stressed the importance of purchasing additional open space.

Councilmember Gardiner restated his motion: To allow no use of City land by the Long Point developer and to ask the developer to re-think the villas, with the understanding that the City is amenable to the proper way to make Long Point’s figures of merit more attractive.

Mayor Lyon seconded Councilmember Gardiner’s motion.

City Attorney Lynch suggested that mention of the villas should be avoided because this was an issue to be discussed later at a noticed public hearing. She added that it was appropriate to discuss the use of City land but not to discuss the specific of the project.

The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

Councilmember Gardiner was enthusiastic about the possibilities of City benefits from this Council decision regarding the land adjacent to City Hall such as a visitor center at the Civic Center, an active or passive recreational area, possibly a summer festival, performing arts, etc.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart agreed but said there was an unknown element that the resource agencies might covet this land and that they have leverage in this respect.

Councilmember Gardiner suggested that the area downslope might be under the control of the resource agencies and the City could develop the flat area at the top of the hill.

Councilman Stern agreed with Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart that the resource agency could be a problem but that hopefully the Council could send a clear message of intent which would improve the City’s chances of acquiring open space.

Mayor Lyon indicated that the chances were also improved in light of the Governor’s approving the March park measure. She felt that Mr. Mohler had been given information to take back to the developer and she looked forward to an interesting meeting on November 7.

The motion was repeated: To allow no use of City land by the Long Point developer with the understanding that the City is amenable to exploring proper and appropriate ways to make Long Point’s figures of merit more attractive.

Without exception, the motion carried.


RECESS & RECONVENE:


At 9:40 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:54 P.M.

Approval of the August 21st Minutes

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of October 16, 2001 and the recommendation to consider Councilman Stern’s amendment to the August 21, 2001 minutes.

Mayor Lyon asked if the City had a video tape of the meeting.

City Clerk Purcell said the tape would be retained until the minutes were approved.

Councilman Stern said that since the tape would not be retained after approval of the minutes and the Council decision to postpone a decision regarding additional homes in Zone II was based on Council discussion and not on information in the staff report. Therefore, he felt it was important to make the changes he suggested.

Councilman Stern moved to adopt the Minutes of August 21, 2001, as amended.

Councilman Stern said that he had prepared the amended while watching the video tape of the meeting and wondered if the Council felt the information he submitted was inaccurate. He felt if that was not the concern, there was no reason to reject the amendment.

Mayor Lyon said that the amendment read like an unnoticed deposition.

Councilman Stern reiterated that the information discussed was important in showing why the Council made its decision and the staff report and the minutes as originally submitted provided no evidence to indicate why the decision was made.

Councilmember Gardiner pointed out that the Council had at its last meeting made the decision to experiment with more detailed minutes and he asked what the protocol was when a Councilmember wished to change the draft minutes presented.

Councilwoman Ferraro replied that a change to the minutes required a majority vote by the Council.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that if a Councilmember wanted to change a word or two or felt that the emphasis was incorrect, usually the Council agreed to the change but that it was unusual for a Councilmember to change an entire section and it not been Council policy in the past to make these types of changes.

Councilman Stern read an example of the originally submitted minutes compared with his amendment and again stressed that his amendment was a necessary, complete account of the discussion.

Mayor Lyon said that the Council had agreed to change the minutes format but that she did not feel this amendment was necessary.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that the discussion that took place was a courtroom type interrogation.

Councilman Stern said that he would not object to the discussion being characterized as an interrogation.

Councilmember Gardiner suggested that the amendment be distilled.

Councilman Stern ‘s motion died for lack of a second.

Mayor Lyon suggested that the City Clerk could do that and bring the minutes with the distilled amendment to the next Council meeting.

There was no objection.

Purchase of HDPE Pipe For The Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project

Director Allison presented the staff report of October 16, 2001 and the recommendation to authorize the purchase of HDPE pipe for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project from P & F Distributors for $38,874.60 plus authorize staff to spend an additional $3,125.40 for possible extra work, for a total authorization of $42,000.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Lyon to adopt staff recommendation.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Byrd, Ferraro, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
NOES: None

Storm Drain Repairs Near Palos Verdes Drive South At Peppertree Drive

Director Allison presented the staff report of October 16, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Award a construction contract on a time and material basis for drainage repairs to Colich and Sons, L.P. for an amount not to exceed $72,000. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract with Colich and Sons on behalf of the City. (3) Award a contract for design, construction management and inspection services to Merit Civil Engineering, an on-call consultant, and authorize the expenditure in the amount of $22,000. (4) Award a contract for design phase environmental coordination, construction phase environmental coordination and inspection services to Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., an on-call consultant, and authorize expenditure in the amount of $18,000.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro to adopt staff recommendation.

Councilman Stern observed that it seemed there had many emergencies within the last six months and he suggested that, although no one was at fault, there should be some action taken to survey the whole infrastructure, as was done with the analysis of the storm drains, so that emergency action was kept to a minimum

Councilmember Gardiner echoed Councilman Stern’s thoughts.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that the Council had instructed the staff to find deficiencies and they did. He said that it was necessary to take emergency action because homes were in danger and that there was not time to complete a master plan.

Councilman Stern understood but hoped the City would take a look at the entire infrastructure.

Councilmember Gardiner said that the Palos Verdes Drive East Drainage Improvement Program item on the agenda that evening was an example that this type of action was being taken.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Byrd, Ferraro, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
NOES: None

Geology Review – Zone II

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of October 16, 2001 and the recommendation to amend the Professional Services Agreement with Cotton, Shires and Associates for the review of existing geologic and geotechnical documents related to Zone II to authorize the expenditure of an additional $15,000 from Building and Safety Account 402.35 Technical and Professional Services.

City Manager Evans added that there were two additional reports to be submitted for review by Cotton Shires and the peer review group and that this review would not be complete in time for the October 30 meeting which had been scheduled specifically to discuss this topic alone.

Councilman Stern inquired how much time was needed for the review

City Manager Evans replied that he had not seen the Cummings report but Bill Cotton had received it, and that no one had seen the report from Dr. Vonder Linden.

Mayor Lyon asked City Manager Evans to keep the Council informed of the progress.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart suggested that a Saturday workshop might be a good idea.

Mayor Lyon agreed and recalled a RDA workshop a few years ago which seemed to have a more comfortable atmosphere because it was on a Saturday. She suggested that it be held at Ladera Linda Community Center as before.

City Manager Evans could not provide a date but said that when he had confirmation from Bill Cotton that the final report was ready, he would place this item on the agenda again.

Councilman Stern moved to cancel the meeting of October 30; to postpone rescheduling until the final report was ready for Council review; and, to amend the Professional Services Agreement with Cotton, Shires and Associates for the review of existing geologic and geotechnical documents related to Zone II to authorize the expenditure of an additional $15,000 from Building and Safety Account 402.35 Technical and Professional Services.

Marianne Hunter, 1 Cinnamon Lane, asked about a cutoff date for public comment.

City Manager Evans emphasized that there was never a deadline for public comment, however, there was a cutoff date for comments to go to Bill Cotton for input into the final report. He said that this date would be October 31 and that this information would be posted on the reader board and the City’s website.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart seconded the motion.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Byrd, Ferraro, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
NOES: None

Palos Verdes Drive East Drainage Improvement Program

Director Allison presented an abbreviated staff report of October 16, 2001, accompanied by a computer generated visual presentation and the recommendation to (1) Receive status report from RBF Consulting regarding proposed drainage improvements along Palos Verdes Drive. (2) Authorize Staff to proceed with design for the drainage system most in need of immediate repair/replacement. (3) Authorize Staff to request proposals from qualified environmental consultants to obtain environmental clearance for all 15 of the deficient drainage systems on Palos Verdes Drive East. (4) Authorize staff to obtain any necessary Right of Way permits required for the successful completion of this project.

Bruce Phillips of RBF Consulting, also providing a computer generated visual presentation, discussed objectives, benefits, problems, symptoms, solutions, and, the phases of the project. He illustrated the study area with its 39 existing 39 existing drainage systems.

Director Allison reported that the City had received complaints for problems for on private land.

Bruce Phillips said that the system was aging and a survey indicated that 21 out of the 29 drains Bruce videotaped needed repair and said that some of the bottoms and sides of the metal pipes were gone. He said that most needed upsizing or replacement and reported that a robot camera was used also.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked if concrete pipes could be repaired rather than replaced

Bruce Phillips said that concrete pipes have a longer life but cracked. He indicated that if the pipe was large enough, men can go down in the pipe, and with a drill or router they could epoxy the crack.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that the men would need to be able to breathe while in those pipes.

Bruce Phillips stressed that there was compliance with OSHA safety requirements and it was usually less expensive to take alternative action. He then went on to rank the drains by severity and a cost/benefit ratio and estimated that construction costs would be approximately eight million dollars.

Director Allison asked that the Council approve this multi-year plan, at a cost of about $1.5 million per year and he discussed scheduling and funding, stating that it was hoped work would begin in Summer 2002.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to (1) Authorize Staff to proceed with design for the drainage system most in need of immediate repair/replacement. (2) Authorize Staff to request proposals from qualified environmental consultants to obtain environmental clearance for all 15 of the deficient drainage systems on Palos Verdes Drive East. (3) Authorize staff to obtain any necessary Right of Way permits required for the successful completion of this project. Motion carried.

George and Pauline Chapin

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of October 16, 2001 and the recommendation to confirm that the City has not forgotten the murders of George and Pauline Chapin and ask that the Sheriff expend renewed effort to solve the case.

Mayor Lyon added that she had been contacted by family members to make sure that the case stays in the forefront of law enforcement.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked who was sponsoring the reward.

City Manager Evans said the Sheriff’s Department was funding a portion of it.

Mayor Lyon added the County had contributed as well.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart suggested that the City add to the reward.

Mayor Lyon reported that she had gone to the graveside with their granddaughter and there was no headstone

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart thought that providing a headstone would be a nice gesture as an alternative to adding to the reward.

Mayor Lyon asked City Manager Evans to contact the family about the headstone

Councilwoman Ferraro suggested that the item be brought back to the Council after the family’s response.

There was no objection.

City Council Policy For Disclosure

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of October 16, 2001 and the recommendation to adopt a City Council Policy for the disclosure of communications between City Council members and any person regarding a development proposal.

City Clerk Purcell pointed out that there had been an email from Councilman Stern after the staff report was completed which amended slightly the proposed policy.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner, to adopt the policy as amended. Motion carried

Holiday Appreciation Reception

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of October 16, 2001 and the recommendation to select a date for the annual holiday appreciation reception for City Committee Members, Commissioners, and Staff Members.

Mayor Lyon suggested Monday, December 10. There was no objection.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:


City Attorney Lynch reported that no action was taken on the first item and that an update was provided by the City Manager. She said that for the second item, the anticipated litigation, the Council unanimously authorized the staff recommendation to issue permits to Sprint for eight cellular sites that will not impact views and that will not be placed in front of anyone’s residence.


CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:


Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart reported that, as reported in the Daily Breeze, there would be a walkabout at the proposed Harbor hills facility the following Monday, October 22, to look at the topography of land and discuss the plan. He discussed the possibility that the County might offer some type of remediation and he also mentioned a controversy regarding racial issues. He was shocked that it was felt that notice to the adjoining City of Rancho Palos Verdes was unnecessary and with the assistance of L.A. County Supervisor Don Knabe and a letter from Mayor Lyon he hoped that this practice would be changed.

Councilman Stern reported on his Ocean Trails liaison meeting and said there was now a tentative schedule for the remediation of the landslide, work on Palos Verdes Drive South, etc., with hopefully better communication with the residents of the status of work at the site. He said that the repair of Palos Verdes South and permanent repairs to La Rotondo was scheduled for June through November 2002. The chain link fence was going to be removed or possibly simply moved back from the highway to maintain a safety barrier.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart replied that he and Councilwoman Ferraro were going to write a letter concerning the Department of Transportation policy of charging higher costs during peak landing hours because that would cause more night flights which would further impact sleep for City residents. He stated that also controllers were allowing planes to fly low over the Peninsula to conserve fuel and this was also unacceptable. He said that the expansion of LAX had been abandoned officially but he suspected there would be expansion of a different sort, with less parking and more commuter planes and noise over the Peninsula.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart disclosed that he received a call from Rob Katherman who represents a developer but they did not discuss the project and but only talked about the new disclosure policy.


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 11:04 P.M. on motion of Mayor Lyon.

.

____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________
CITY CLERK






2. Health Insurance Contributions. (Petru)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE CITY’S MAXIMUM MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION AMOUNTS FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS. (2) Direct the Finance Department to reimburse staff members who paid additional PERS Care health insurance premiums during 2001.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2001- ; amending the City’s maximum monthly contribution amounts for employee health insurance premiums.

2. Direct the Finance Department to reimburse staff members who paid additional PERS Care health insurance premiums during 2001.

BACKGROUND

Since 1974, the City has paid the monthly medical insurance premiums for its full-time employees and, although staff has been unable to determine the exact date, the City has also paid half of an employee’s dependent coverage at least since 1979. In the current benefits package, which has been in effect since 1997, the City pays the full cost of the full-time employees’ and any participating Councilperson’s medical, dental, vision and mental health insurance benefits. The City also pays up to 50% of the cost of medical, dental and vision insurance benefits for eligible dependents (the flat rate for mental health paid per employee also includes all dependents). With the creation of job sharing in 1998, where two employees share the job responsibilities equivalent to one full-time position, the City pays up to 50% of the cost of medical, dental, vision and mental health insurance benefits for each job share employee. The City also pays up to 25% of the cost of medical, dental, vision and mental health benefits for a job share employee’s eligible dependents. Although not considered health benefits, the City also pays the full cost of each employee’s life insurance, accidental death & dismemberment insurance, and long term disability insurance.

Since 1997, the City has contracted with CalPERS to provide medical benefits to its full-time employees and participating Councilmembers. As required by the contract with CalPERS, the Council adopted a Resolution establishing maximum contribution rates for health care insurance. The "maximum contribution rate" is the maximum amount that the City will pay in total health insurance premiums per employee per month. Adding up premium costs of the most expensive medical, dental, vision and mental health plans offered by City derives the amount. The medical insurance premium makes up the largest percentage of the total contribution rate. The City has used the most expensive plans to establish the contribution rate in order to allow participants the maximum amount of choice in selecting their health benefits. However, not everyone chooses the most expensive plans. For example, only seven employees/City Council members are currently enrolled in the PERS Care medical plan.

As health insurance premiums have increased from year to year, the City has adopted subsequent Resolutions increasing the a mount of the maximum contribution rate. Since 1997, the City has adjusted the maximum contribution rates three times to reflect insurance rate increases scheduled to go into effect during the next calendar year. The first increase in the maximum contribution rates of approximately 5% was made for calendar year 1998, the second of approximately 8.4% was made for calendar year 2000 and the third of approximately 14% was made for calendar year 2001. There was also a 1% increase in rates in calendar year 1999, however, because the increase was so small, the City did not need to increase the maximum contribution rates that had been established for the prior year.

DISCUSSION

Under the CalPERS health plan, employees can select from several different medical providers, including four HMOs and two PPO plans. Employees can choose between two types of dental plans offered by one provider. The City contracts with only one provider for vision and mental health benefits. With the exception of mental health, which charges a flat rate per employee regardless of the number of dependents, each plan has three different premium levels:

  • Employee only

  • Employee plus one dependent ("two-party")

  • Employee plus two or more dependents ("family")

Therefore, depending on which plans and what level of coverage an employee chooses, the total amount the City pays for each employee’s health insurance per month can vary greatly from one employee to another. The chart below shows the total health benefit cost the City has paid over the last five years and the budgeted amount for FY 01-02.

FY 96-97
Actual

FY 97-98
Actual

FY 98-99
Actual

FY 99-00
Actual

FY 00-01
Actual

FY 01-02
Budget

$156,142

$152,412

$152,000

$168,772

$182,031

$248,200


In June 2001, the City received notice from CalPERS that our medical insurance carriers will be increasing their rates effective January 1, 2002. The amount of the increase varied from 5% up to as much as 31%, depending on the provider. The rates for dental, vision care and mental health will not increase in 2002. As a result, staff has calculated that the City’s maximum contribution rates for calendar 2002 need to be increased by slightly over 28% for each of the three premium levels listed above, as compared to the limits established for 2001. The chart below compares the current maximum contribution rates with the proposed rates:

 

Insurance Status

Full-Time Employee/Councilmember
Maximum Contribution Per Month

Shared Position Employee
Maximum Contribution Per Month

2001

2002

2001

2002

Employee Only

$407.00

$523.00

$204.00

$261.00

Two Party

$598.00

$767.00

$299.00

$384.00

Family

$728.00

$928.00

$366.00

$467.00


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

After the City Council adopted the maximum insurance contribution rates for 2001, the City received notification from CalPERS that monthly premiums for the PERS Care PPO program were going to experience an additional increase starting on February 1, 2001. CalPERS attributed the unexpected increase to under pricing of premiums in 1999 and 2000, unanticipated growth in enrollment and ballooning prescription drug costs. Staff members enrolled in PERS Care were given an opportunity to switch to another program during an extended enrollment period. Because the City’s maximum contribution rates had already been established for the year, employees who chose to stay with PERS Care were required to pay any difference between the City’s maximum contribution rate and their actual monthly premiums. Four employees were affected by this unexpected increase, with out-of-pocket expenses ranging from $0.69 per month to $17.25 per month. The total out-of-pocket cost to these employees in 2001 was $576.84.

Now that the full impact of the February 2001 increase is know and because it has been the City’s policy to cover 100% of each employees health insurance premiums, the City Manager recommends that these employees be reimbursed for the out-of-pocket expenses they paid during 2001. Furthermore, although additional mid-year premium increases are not anticipated, staff has built a 2% cushion into the maximum contribution rates for 2002 to absorb any minor increases that may occur next year without having to come back to the Council for approval. The cushion is included in the figures for 2002 shown in the chart at the top of this page.

FISCAL IMPACT

Although the City will be paying higher costs for health benefits in the next calendar year, it is difficult to estimate the amount of the increase at this time. This is because the City will be half way through FY 01-02 before the increases take effect on January 1, 2001. In addition, the open enrollment period for employees to make changes to their health care plans, such as changing carriers and adding or deleting dependents, just ended on October 31, 2001. The choices that employees made during open enrollment have a direct impact on the amount of premiums paid by the City. The City’s Employee Benefit Fund, which is part of the Internal Services Fund, is expected to have adequate resources to cover the increase in costs over FY 00-01. If a larger increase occurs, the City can make any needed adjustments during the mid-year budget review.

Respectfully submitted,
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager


RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE CITY CONTRIBUTION RATES FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PREMIUMS FOR ACTIVE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES, ACTIVE SHARED-POSITION EMPLOYEES AND ACTIVE CITY COUNCIL PERSONS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2002

WHEREAS, on May 20, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-42 which established the City contribution rates for employee benefit premiums for active full-time employees and City Council persons for calendar year 1997; and,

WHEREAS, on November 5, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-93 amending the maximum contribution amounts for full-time employees and City Council persons for calendar years 1998 and 1999; and,

WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-29 establishing the maximum contribution amount for shared-position employees for calendar year 1998 and 1999; and,

WHEREAS, on December 7, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-89 establishing the maximum contribution amount for full-time employees, shared-position employees and City Council persons for calendar year 2000; and,

WHEREAS, on November 8, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-73 establishing the maximum contribution amount for full-time employees, shared-position employees and City Council persons for calendar year 2001; and,

WHEREAS, the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) medical benefits program, which is the offered provided to the City’s employees and City Councilmembers, will increase its rate by a maximum of 22% for calendar year 2002; and,

WHEREAS, the City desires to continue to provide certain contributions to its active full-time employees, shared-position employees and City Council persons for health benefits.

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

Section 1: The City’s contribution for each active full-time employee or active City Councilperson shall have a maximum amount which may be applied toward the full cost of the active fill-time employee’s or active Council person’s medical, dental, vision and mental health benefits, and to pay up to 50% of the cost of medical, dental, vision and mental health insurance benefits for eligible dependents, subject to the maximum amounts for these insurance coverages as specified in the table below:

  Insurance Status

Maximum Contribution Per Month

  Employee Only $523.00
  Two Party $767.00
  Family $928.00

Section 2: Pursuant to Resolution No. 98-28, the City shall pay a proportional share of the medical, dental, vision and mental health insurance premium for the shared-position employee and dependent care premium based on the number of hours that employee worked per week. The City’s contribution for each shared-position employee shall have a maximum amount which may be applied toward the full cost of the active shared-position employee’s medical, dental, vision and mental health insurance benefits for eligible dependents, subject to the maximum amounts for these insurance coverages as specified in the table below:

  Insurance Status

Maximum Contribution Per Month

  Employee Only

$261.00

  Two Party

$384.00

  Family

$467.00

 

Section 3: Any amounts remaining between the necessary contributions required and the maximum amounts specified in Sections 1 and 2 of this Resolution are not to be paid to the active full-time employee, active City Councilperson or active shared-position employee, as applicable.

Section 4: The shared-position employee shall pay any difference between the City’s contribution and the premium rates charged by the insurance carrier for the benefits that the shared-position employee has selected.

Section 5: If a full-time employee can provide proof of medical coverage that is generally similar to the City’s medical coverage, and declines the medical coverage offered by the City, the City will reimburse the full-time employee $75.00 per month. If a shared-position employee can provide proof of medical coverage that is generally similar to the City’s medical coverage, and declines the medical coverage offered by the City, the City will reimburse the shared-position employee $37.50 per month.

Section 6: The City shall pay the full cost for each active full-time employee’s and active shared-position employee’s life insurance premium and accidental death and dismemberment premium.

Section 7: The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to adopt rules and procedures for the implementation of the Resolution.

Section 8: Resolution No. 2000-73 is hereby rescinded and replaced by this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th day of November 2001.

 

____________________________
MAYOR

 

ATTEST:

____________________
CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001- ; was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 7, 2001.

 

_________________________
City Clerk



3. Point Vicente Interpretative Center Exhibits Grant Application. (Waters)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PURSUE AN URBAN RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL CENTERS GRANT FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION TO FUND FUTURE EXHIBITS AT POINT VICENTE INTERPRETATIVE CENTER.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: RON ROSENFELD, DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARKS

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER EXHIBITS GRANT APPLICATION

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt resolution No. 2001-, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, authorizing staff to pursue an Urban Recreational and Cultural Centers grant from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation to fund future exhibits at Point Vicente Interpretive Center.

DISCUSSION

One element of the planned expansion of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center is the fabrication and installation of new exhibits, estimated to have a total cost of approximately $500,000. Staff and the City’s Docent organization have been researching other venues for outside funding, including private donations, and state and federal grants. Staff identified the Urban Recreational and Cultural Centers, Museums, and Facilities for Wildlife Education or Environmental Education Program (URCC) as a viable funding venue. URCC is one element of the Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Act of 2000. The intent of the URCC is to provide funds to enhance, and develop cultural centers, museums, and facilities in urban areas throughout California. Staff contacted Assemblymen Lowenthal and Senator Karnette’s offices to nominate the City for URCC consideration, an essential first step according to the program’s guidelines. At this time Council approval of the attached resolution is necessary to continue the application process. If approved, staff is prepared to go forward with an application for $500,000 in URCC grant funds for PVIC exhibits.

Respectfully Submitted,
Ron Rosenfeld, Director, Recreation and Parks

Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager


RESOLUTION NO. 2001-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR URBAN RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL CENTERS, MUSEUMS, AND FACILITIES FOR WILDLIFE EDUCATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000, TO BE USED FOR EXHIBITS AT THE POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER.

WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Urban Recreational and Cultural Centers, Museums, and Facilities for Wildlife Education or Environmental Education Program which provides funds to the State of California for Grants to cities, counties, nonprofit organizations and federally recognized California Indian Tribes: and

WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the Program within the state and grant Project shown above, setting up necessary procedures; and

WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the application of said application to the State; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California for the Project;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO PALOS VERDES:

  1. Approves the filing of an application for local assistance funds from the Urban Recreational and Cultural Centers, Museums, and Facilities for Wildlife or Environmental Education Grant Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; and
  2. Certifies that the Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project; and
  3. Certifies that the Applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and
  4. Appoints Ron Rosenfeld, Director, Recreation and Parks, to act as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned Project.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED ON THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2001.

 

__________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


________________________________

CITY CLERK

State of California )
County of Los Angeles )ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001 - was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 7, 2001.

 

_____________________________
CITY CLERK



4. September 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the September 2001 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit an investment report to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. The City has elected to submit a treasurer’s report to the Council for review each month. This report summarizes the cash activity associated with all funds of the City. A separate treasurer’s report is prepared monthly for both the Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority and is presented under separate cover before their respective governing bodies. The attached treasurer's report includes the cash activities of the City for the month of September 2001.

ANALYSIS:

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $25,536,517 at September 30, 2001. This represents a $56,699 decrease during the month. The overall decrease is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

It should be noted that the beginning cash balances for several funds differ from the prior month ending cash balances. This is due to the posting of year-end closing entries during October. The year-end closing entries included cash transfers between funds for budgeted capital projects funding. The overall September beginning cash balance did not change.

Gas Tax Fund – The Gas Tax fund cash balance decreased by approximately $78,000 primarily due to the timing of State Gas Tax payments. The August apportionment was received at the end of August, and the September apportionment was received at the beginning of October. No apportionment was received in September, yet routine cash disbursements continued.

Proposition A Fund – The cash balance in the Proposition A fund increased by more than $31,000 during the month. The normal Proposition A apportionment was received in September; however disbursements in this fund are not consistent each month. Of the annual budgeted expenditures in this fund, 95% are paid in two installments during July and December of each year.

Special Trusts Fund – The cash balance in this fund increased by over $194,000 during the month. Cash fluctuations in the Special Trusts fund are caused by timing differences of payments to and from the City for various services including engineering and inspections. The September cash increase was primarily due to a $200,000 geology trust deposit received from Ocean Trails.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



5. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARING:






6. Resolution Adopting a Fee in Connection with Petitions to Commence the Process to Establish an Undergrounding Assessment District. (Continued from October 2nd.) (Allison)

Recommendation: Open and continue the Public Hearing to the December 4, 2001 City Council meeting.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FEE IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONS TO COMMENCE THE PROCESS TO ESTABLISH AN UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT.

RECOMMENDATION

Open and continue the Public Hearing to the December 4, 2001 City Council meeting.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to City Council direction, staff has included in the guidelines for the residential undergrounding program a requirement that property owners wishing to form an undergrounding district pay a $100 fee. To establish the fee a public hearing is required.

The City Council is considering several programs that will allow property owner to defer assessments for undergrounding. Until the deferral program is finalized, the public hearing for the fee must be continued.

Submitted by,
Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager


RECESS:



PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.) (This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)



REGULAR BUSINESS:






7. Assessment Deferrals for Undergrounding Districts. (Allison)

Recommendation: Provide staff with direction regarding assessment deferrals for undergrounding districts.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: ASSESSMENT DEFERRALS FOR UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICTS

RECOMMENDATION

Provide staff with direction regarding assessment deferrals for undergrounding districts

BACKGROUND

On October 2, 2001 staff presented two reports regarding residential undergrounding program. The first report presented program guidelines in the form of a resolution. The second report was a part of a public hearing to establish the $100 fee on property owners wishing to establish a residential undergrounding district. During discussions on these two items, the City Council asked questions about, and requested staff to provide information on programs that allow property owners to defer undergrounding assessments in addition to the state deferral program discussed in the guidelines. The City Council also requested staff to provide additional information regarding the state deferral program, the bidding process, and Southern California Edison’s financial responsibility towards a residential undergrounding district.

This staff report presents that additional information. This evening staff is requesting direction from the City Council regarding deferral programs. Once that additional direction is provided, staff will bring a revised undergrounding program to the City Council for adoption.

DISCUSSION

The attached October 29, 2001 memorandum from the City Attorney provides detailed information regarding deferral programs available to the City Council. The characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of each program are as follows:

State Program

  • Covers only assessment, not house connection
  • Available only to Senior Citizens, and disabled
  • Assessments are due when property is sold
  • If eligibility is met, the deferment is automatic, there is no hearing process
  • No program costs for City

1913 Act Funding

  • Covers only assessment, not house connection
  • City sets eligibility criteria
  • There is a cost to underwrite the bond
  • Assessments are due when property is sold or bonds mature

RDA low and moderate housing fund

  • Covers only house connection, not property assessments
  • Project must be within, or benefit, the redevelopment area
  • May be a loan or grant program

In addition the City Council raised the following issues:

Since Southern California Edison (SCE) ends up with new facilities, do they pay a portion of the cost?

Yes. Southern California Edison pays a portion of the cost of the construction, in the form of a line equivalency, which is approximately $9 per foot. The amount is determined by the Public Utilities Commission and approximates the cost of a new overhead project.

If one meets the eligibility requirements for the State Program, is the deferral automatic?

Yes.

Rather than SCE constructing the improvements, can the project be advertised and awarded like other Public Works projects?

Yes, however, if SCE does not perform the work they will charge a fee for inspection that they require. This would be in addition to the City’s public works inspector.

CONCLUSIONS

To finalize the guidelines for the neighborhood undergrounding program staff requires additional direction from the City Council regarding the assessment deferral programs. Once that additional direction is provided staff will bring the program guidelines back to the City Council for adoption.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
October 29, 2001 memorandum from Carol Lynch and Mark Mandell
Summary of Assessment Deferral Programs



CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Mayor Lyon and Members of the City Council
FROM: Carol Lynch and Mark Mandell
DATE: October 29, 2001
SUBJECT: Assessment Deferrals for Senior Citizens, the Disabled and Persons with Limited Income

BACKGROUND AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is currently developing a procedure for the creation of assessment districts to finance the undergrounding of utilities. The City Council has requested a summary of the available mechanisms through which it can offer senior citizens, the disabled, and persons with limited income the opportunity to defer payment of assessments against their property.

There essentially are two mechanisms available to the City for this purpose:

A. The City can encourage its residents to participate in the State Controller’s Office Property Tax Postponement Program. Advantages of this program are that it would be available to residents at no cost to the City and that program participants could transfer the amount of the deferral to a new home, should they move away from the home subject to the assessment. Disadvantages of this program are that it is only available to senior citizens and the disabled with household incomes of less than $24,000 and that it requires participants to file annual applications with the State.

B. The City can establish a deferral program pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. A major advantage of such a program is that it gives the City maximum flexibility in determining eligibility criteria. Disadvantages are that the amount of such a deferral may not be shifted to a new home, but must be repaid upon transfer of the property, and that such deferrals must be repaid by the final maturity date of bonds issued to finance the undergrounding project, even if no ownership change has occurred for the property. Such program could be either of two types:

(i) A program where the City enters into year-to-year agreements with eligible homeowners to pay those homeowners’ annual assessments. An advantage of this type of program is that it would allow the City to make annual assessment payments rather than one large payment at the initiation of the program. A disadvantage is that the City cannot commit to making annual payments beyond the current year, but instead must have the right to stop making payments in any year, which may cause concern to any property owner who requests a deferral, or

(ii) A program where the City deposits into a deferral fund the full amount necessary to make future assessment payments. The advantage of this option is that the City would be able to commit to deferring future year assessment installments against eligible properties. The disadvantage is that it would require a large, up-front, cash commitment by the City.

Finally, the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency can establish a loan or grant program using moneys in its Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund. Loans or grants could be made for the purpose of assisting homeowners in paying only for their on-site connections to undergrounded utilities. This program is not listed as one of the basic funding options, since it does not cover the cost of undergrounding the improvements within the public right-of-way, which is the largest portion of the undergrounding expenditures. Advantages of such a program are that the Agency would have a high level of discretion with regard to loan or grant terms and that housing funds, rather than general funds, would be used. A disadvantage is that such a loan or grant may be made only to households meeting certain income criteria living in homes meeting certain affordability criteria. Another disadvantage is that the undergrounding either should be located within the Redevelopment Project Area or should benefit that area of the City.

DISCUSSION

The City is contemplating the formation of assessment districts pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets & Highways Code Section 10000 et. seq.) (the "1913 Act") to finance the undergrounding of overhead utilities in certain neighborhoods. The City desires to identify mechanisms by which property owners can defer such assessments.

There are two components to an undergrounding program: (i) work done in the public right of way to convert above ground utilities to underground locations (i.e. relocating transmission lines from poles to conduits) and (ii) work done on private property, including connections to individual homes and businesses. Work on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. However, if a property owner files a request, the City may include the costs of such work in the assessment and issue bonds to pay such costs. If such private costs were included within the assessment, then these costs would also be eligible for deferral under each of the deferral options discussed in this memorandum. If private costs are not included within the assessment, they still could be financed through a redevelopment loan or grant program, provided that all of the criteria for doing so can be satisfied.

Analysis

Each of the programs discussed in this memorandum has separate limitations. The City may wish to consider establishing a deferral program in conjunction with a Redevelopment Agency loan program. Also, regardless of what programs the City wishes to establish on its own, the City may wish to consider publicizing the State’s Property Tax Postponement Program.

I. Property Tax Postponement Program.

Pursuant to the Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens Property Tax Postponement Law (Revenue & Taxation Code Section 20581 et seq.), the Office of the California State Controller administers a statewide property tax postponement program. While the City has no role in the administration of this program, it could play a role in ensuring that the City’s residents are aware of the existence of the program. This program allows homeowners to delay payment of their property taxes until they die, sell their home, cease to live in their home, or fail certain criteria. For the purposes of this program, property taxes include assessments against real property.

In order to qualify for postponement pursuant to this program, a homeowner and his or her home must meet all of the following criteria:

•The homeowner must be 62 years of age or older, blind or disabled;

•The homeowner’s household income cannot exceed a certain amount, which is adjusted annually for inflation (currently $24,000);

•The home must be a residential dwelling occupied as the principal place of residence of the homeowner;

•The homeowner must own the home, and meet certain ownership criteria (e.g. holding at least a 20% interest in the home);

•The homeowner must receive the property tax bill for the home; and

•Property taxes against the home must not be delinquent.

Additionally, if any portion of the home is used for rental or business, only a percentage of the property taxes equal to the percentage of the home devoted to the personal use of the claimant is eligible for postponement.

A homeowner must file a claim for each tax year he or she desires postponement. The Office of the Controller, after approving a homeowner’s claim, issues the homeowner a certificate of eligibility. This certificate may be submitted by the homeowner to the county tax collector as payment of eligible property taxes. Once the certificate has been used to pay taxes, the State records a lien against the property for the amount of taxes postponed. During the postponement period, interest (currently at a rate of six percent) accrues against the postponed tax amount.

Postponed property taxes need not be repaid to the State until the homeowner: (i) ceases to occupy the premises as a primary dwelling; (ii) dies; (iii) sells, conveys, or disposes of the interest in the home, or (iv) allows any non-postponed property taxes against the home to become delinquent. The surviving spouse of a homeowner need not repay the postponed taxes, so long as the surviving spouse continues to occupy the home as his or her primary dwelling. However, unless the surviving spouse would otherwise qualify for the postponement program, that surviving spouse must pay property taxes which come due in the years following the death of the eligible spouse.

If a homeowner sells his or her home, he or she may apply the amount of postponed property taxes towards the purchase of a new home, establishing a lien against that home and continuing to defer the postponed property taxes. Future year assessments against the original home would remain the obligation of the new owner of that property.

Claim forms and other information about the State postponement program may be found at http://www.sco.ca.gov/col/taxinfo/ptp/index.cfm.

II. Deferral of Assessments Pursuant to the 1913 Act.

Chapter 8 of the 1913 Act authorizes the City to allow property owners to defer payment of an assessment levied pursuant to that act, so long as eighty percent or more of the area of the assessment district is developed for residential, commercial, or industrial use. Such a deferral program may be adopted by resolution of the City Council, and the City Council may establish both eligibility criteria for the deferral and a procedure for determining that property owners taking advantage of the deferral are eligible. The 1913 Act establishes no limitations on the criteria, which the City may establish, though, as with all governmental actions, the City must have a rational basis for any criteria it establishes.

The City has two options for financing a deferral pursuant to the 1913 Act:

•It can enter into annual agreements with individual homeowners, pursuant to which the City agrees to pay that homeowner’s assessment installment for the coming year. Such an agreement may not commit the City to make assessment payments beyond the current year; or

•It can create a deferral fund for the assessment district, depositing into such fund (from some other source of funds available to the City) the amount necessary to pay assessments against specific properties for a specific period of time (including the full term of the assessment).

Although there is a provision of the 1913 Act which purports to allow the City to issue additional bonds in order to fund a deferral fund, it is unlikely that this authorization survives Proposition 218. As has been noted, Proposition 218 requires that assessments be levied according to special benefit. It is unlikely that properties, other than properties receiving the deferral, could be found to benefit from such a program. Therefore, it would likely be impermissible under Proposition 218 to levy an assessment against all properties to service the debt on bonds financing a deferral program that only benefits certain of the properties.
Deferred assessments must be paid back to the City if: (i) the home is transferred; (ii) the bonds issued to finance the assessment district reach their final maturity, or (iii) other criteria established by the City, at its discretion, are met.

III. Redevelopment Loans and Grants

The Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et. seq.) (The "CRL") requires that the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") use not less than twenty percent of its tax increment funds for the purposes of increasing, improving and preserving the City’s supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income and to very low income households. A person or family qualifies as being of low- or moderate-income when household income is below a level established by the State (currently $52,300 for a family of two living in Los Angeles County). Affordable housing cost is equivalent to various percentages of the area median income, adjusted for family size, income level, and type of housing (ownership or rental).

The Agency is authorized to use housing fund moneys to rehabilitate buildings or structures. Pursuant to this authorization, the Agency could consider establishing a program to lend or grant money to persons of low- or moderate-income to help defray the costs of converting their home’s utility connections in order to connect them to the new underground system.

If the Agency were to establish a loan program, it could set eligibility criteria and loan terms, so long as the loans are only available to persons owning the affordable housing that is occupied by low- or moderate-income residents, as defined above. Use of Redevelopment Funds typically is restricted to the redevelopment project area. In order to make a loan or grant for the rehabilitation of housing outside of a redevelopment project area, both the Agency and the City must find that the use of funds for the loan or grant will be of benefit to the project area.

CONCLUSION

There are programs that the City Council could choose to implement to assist low income households, senior citizens and persons with disabilities so that the assessments for the cost of the undergrounding of utilities can be deferred.





8. Long Point Resort Project (Conditional Use Permit No. 215, et. al) (Mihranian)

Recommendation: (1) Grant the applicant’s request to place the Long Point applications on hold; and (2) Establish a maximum period of six months at which time the applicant must either withdraw the project applications or present the project to the City Council.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: LONG POINT RESORT PROJECT (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215, ET. AL.)

Prepared By: Ara Michael Mihranian, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Grant the applicant’s request to place the Long Point applications on hold; and 2) Establish a maximum period of 6 months at which time the applicant must either withdraw the project applications or present the project to the City Council.

BACKGROUND

Since April of this year, the Planning Commission has been reviewing the Long Point Resort Project applications through a series of public hearings. On October 9th the Planning Commission adopted a motion, by a vote of 4-3, forwarding a recommendation of conditional approval of the Long Point Resort Project to the City Council. It was anticipated that the City Council would begin considering the project applications at its November 7th meeting. At the October 16th City Council meeting, a regular business item was agendized at the request of the City Council’s Open Space Acquisition Subcommittee for the Council to consider directing the Long Point developer to minimize the use of Upper Point Vicente property. After considering public testimony and discussing the concerns raised by the Department of Fish and Game with respect to the use of City land for the Long Point project, the City Council unanimously agreed to deny the Long Point Developer use of the Upper Point Vicente property. In response to the Council’s action on October 16th, the Long Point Developer submitted a letter (see attachment) requesting that the Council refrain from conducting the public hearing on the project applications that have been forwarded to the Council by the Planning Commission to allow the developer adequate time to reassess the project. Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request.

DISCUSSION

Prior to the October 16th City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to schedule the first public hearing for the Long Point Resort Project on November 7th. However, as a result of the Council’s action on October 16th, the developer has requested that the City Council public hearings for the project applications be placed on hold to allow adequate time to contemplate revisions to the project. As the Council will note, the applicant’s request is open ended with no time deadline. In order to prevent the project applications from lingering indefinitely, the Council may wish to establish a time limitation as to when the project applications should be presented to the Council. As such, Staff recommends that the Council establish a maximum period of 6 months, at which time the applicant must either withdraw the project applications or present the project to the City Council. When the public hearing is established, a notice of the hearing will be given to all interested parties, property owners within a 500 foot radius, and published in the Peninsula News. It should be noted that in the event that the applicant completely withdraws the project applications a public hearing before the City Council will no longer be necessary.

CONCLUSION

Given the action taken by the City Council at its October 16th meeting to deny use of the City’s Upper Point Vicente property as part of the Long Point application, Staff recommends the City Council approve the applicant’s request to place the public hearings on the project applications on hold for a period of at least 6 months.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

  • Applicant’s letter dated October 17, 2001



9. Proposed Modification to the Wireless Telecommunication Facility (monopole) at City Hall. (Petru)

Recommendation: (1) Determine whether to allow AT&T Wireless Services to proceed with an application for a Conditional Use Permit Revision to modify existing wireless telecommunications facilities on the monopole at City Hall. (2) Determine whether the City should conduct an overall review of Conditional Use Permit No. 119 (monopole at City Hall) at this time.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY (MONOPOLE) AT CITY HALL

RECOMMENDATION

1. Determine whether to allow AT&T Wireless Services to proceed with an application for a Conditional Use Permit Revision to modify existing wireless telecommunications facilities on the monopole at City Hall.

2. Determine whether the City should conduct an overall review of Conditional Use Permit No. 119 (monopole at City Hall) at this time.

BACKGROUND

On February 16, 1988, the City entered into a ground lease with PacTel Cellular for the monopole site and the support equipment located inside the City Hall Administration building. On March 1, 1988, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit No. 119, allowing PacTel Cellular to erect a 90-foot high wireless telecommunications monopole structure at City Hall. Ownership of the monopole has been transferred several times in the intervening years and is currently owned by SpectraSite Communications.

On November 15, 1988, City Council approved a separate lease with Los Angeles Cellular (now known as AT&T Wireless Services). Shortly after approval of the lease, the Director of Planning approved the co-location of Los Angeles Cellular on the monopole as a staff-level approval. Since that time, because of the potential for cumulative adverse visual impacts, it has been the practice of the City to require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Revision for any subsequent co-locations or modifications to the existing equipment on the monopole.

There are currently three users on the monopole: Verizon, AT&T and Edison. The City recently received a request from Terra Firma Services, representing AT&T, to upgrade their equipment on the monopole, which is located on the lowest of the two platforms on the structure. AT&T is requesting to replace the existing whip antennas with panel antennas. As previously mentioned, this type of modification will require a Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 119.

AT&T’s proposed modification also prompted staff to review the terms of the monopole lease. The original lease between the City and PacTel (now SpectraSite) was executed on November 15, 1988 and included an addendum, which added the following provisions:

Lessor and Lessee have discussed at length the Lessor’s interest in making Lessee’s cellular telephone service available to the public while at the same time preserving the aesthetics of the Civic Center area. Therefore, Lessee agrees that it shall cooperate at Lessee’s sole cost and expense to camouflage Lessee’s antenna in the initial installation thereof on the Property, to the end that its impact on the aesthetics of the Civic Center shall be minimized. Lessee and Lessor also agree that after the first five (5) years of the term, Lessee’s conditional use permit may be reviewed annually by Lessor for the purpose of determining whether advances in technology since the commencement of the Lease, or since the last review of the Lessee’s conditional use permit, as the case may be, would enable Lessee to construct an antenna of a different style or size that would have less impact on the aesthetics of the Civic Center area without degradation in the quality of Lessee’s service. If so, Lessee agrees to install a new antenna of the design requested by Lessor pursuant to such review within a reasonable amount of time thereafter. (emphasis added)

DISCUSSION

Based on the background information presented above, there are two issues for the City Council to consider at this time:

Should the City review the entire Conditional Use Permit, as allowed by the terms of the lease?

As discussed above, the terms of the lease allow the City to periodically review the Conditional Use Permit to determine if the facility can be modified to reduce its aesthetic impact on the Civic Center without causing degradation in wireless telecommunication service to the community. The City has never conducted such a review since the monopole was constructed nearly thirteen years ago in 1989. Staff has contacted several telecommunications consultants regarding this issues and based upon their input, has identified the following three options:

1. Do not review the entire Conditional Use Permit at this time, thereby leaving the monopole structure in its existing condition.

2. Hire a consultant to review the options for modifying or replacing the monopole with a "stealth" design.

This type of review would cost the City approximately $3,000 and take about 2 to 3 weeks for the selected consultant to complete. Examples of "stealth" design might include a tower clad to look like a tree or a structure, like a clock tower. However, because the carriers on the monopole still use "line of sight" technology, the options for reducing the 90-foot height of the structure may be very limited. A 90-foot high clock tower or tree may be more conspicuous (if not entering the realm of the absurd), than the existing structure. Further, the additional wind load created by the stealth covering may render this option infeasible from an engineering standpoint. A variation on this option would be to invite SpectraSite to suggest alternatives to the City, which could then be analyzed by the City’s consultant. The cost and time for the review would be basically the same in either case.

3. Require SpectraSite to refinish or replace the existing monopole with one that has a galvanized metal surface.

When the monopole was installed in 1989, structures of this type were typically painted "sky blue" in an attempt to blend them into the background. As we now know, this approach wasn’t very successful. Depending on the time of day and weather conditions, the monopole can actually be more conspicuous because its paint. The current thinking is to use galvanized metal finishes on monopoles. This is a matte finish rather than a shiny one to reflect less light and would not discolor and peel like a painted surface.

If the Council decides to require the monopole to replaced or modified, as suggested in Options 2 and 3, SpectraSite must then be given a reasonable amount of time to comply with the City’s direction. Depending on the extent of the required modification, an additional six months to a year is probably a reasonable time frame to be expected.

Should the City allow AT&T to proceed through the CUP Revision application process in order to modify their existing facilities located on the monopole?

One of the requirements for filing a complete CUP Revision application is the landowner’s signature on the application. In this case, the landowner is the City. Therefore, AT&T is seeking authorization from the City Council for the City Manager to sign the application form, thereby allowing this application to proceed through the normal CUP Revision application and public hearing process. The CUP Revision application process would entail a noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission, with the possibility of appeal to the City Council. Notice of the public hearing would be mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the exterior boundary of the City Hall property. Allowing the applicant to go through the permit process does not obligate the City in any way to approve the project. However, if the City Council is opposed to allowing any further modification to the equipment on the monopole, the Council can deny the requested authorization to proceed. This action would prevent the applications from being filed with the City.

CONCLUSION

The City has received a request from AT&T to modify its existing wireless telephone antennas on the monopole at City Hall. The request prompted City staff to review the original lease for the monopole. The terms of the lease allow the City to periodically review the monopole to determine if the facility can be modified to reduce its aesthetic impact on the Civic Center without causing degradation in wireless telecommunication service to the community. The City has never conducted such a review since the monopole was first installed in 1989. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on whether or not to embark on such a review. If so, staff also seeks direction from the Council on whether to allow AT&T to proceed with a Conditional Use Permit Revision application while such a review is in progress.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Conduct a study on improving the aesthetics of the monopole and allow AT&T to proceed with its request to modify its existing antennas on the monopole. However, if approved, AT&T’s new antennas would be required to comply with any future determination regarding any replacement or modification to the monopole.

2. Conduct a study on improving the aesthetics of the monopole, but deny AT&T’s request to modify its existing antennas on the monopole until the City’s review is completed.

3. Leave the monopole in its current configuration at this time, but allow AT&T to proceed with its request to modify its antennas.

4. Leave the monopole in its current configuration at this time, and deny AT&T’s request to modify its existing antennas.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact associated with allowing AT&T to proceed with the Conditional Use Permit Revision application. The applicant would be required to pay all necessary permit fees before the application(s) could be deemed complete to begin processing.

If the Council decides to review Conditional Use Permit No. 119, as allowed for in the lease, the cost associated with such a review would be the responsibility of the City. Staff would need to seek proposals from qualified consultants in order to determine the exact cost of this review, but it is estimated to be in the $2,000 to $3,000 range. If the City determines that the monopole should be modified or replaced to improve the aesthetics of the Civic Center, this cost would be borne by the owner of the monopole.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



10. Request to Abandon View Covenant Recorded Against Property at 3027 Crest Road (Requestor: Mr. & Mrs. Robert Scalfaro-property owners) (Rojas)

Recommendation: (1) Consider the property owner’s request for the City to abandon the view covenant that was recorded in December 1990 against the property known as 3027 Crest Road. (2) Provide staff with direction on whether to amend City Council Policy No. 30 to establish a process for dealing with any future requests from property owners to abandon recorded view documents.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: REQUEST TO ABANDON VIEW COVENANT RECORDED AGAINST PROPERTY AT 3027 CREST ROAD (Requestor: Mr.& Mrs. Robert Scalfaro – property owners)

RECOMMENDATION:

1) Consider the property owner’s request for the City to abandon the view covenant that was recorded in December 1990 against the property known as 3027 Crest Road; and 2) Provide Staff with direction on whether to amend City Council Policy No. 30 to establish a process for dealing with any future requests from property owners to abandon recorded view covenants.

BACKGROUND:

In August of this year, the property owners at 3027 Crest Road, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Scalfaro, approached Staff with a concern that they were being sued by their neighbor for breaching a view covenant that was recorded on the Scalfaro’s property on December 17, 1990 (covenant attached). As a result, they were requesting that the City abandon the recorded view covenant. In response, they were advised by Staff that the language contained in the covenant allows only the City Council to terminate and abandon the recorded covenant. Therefore, on August 21, 2001, Mr. Scalfaro approached the Council with his request for the City to abandon the view covenant recorded against his property (see attached letter). In his letter, Mr. Scalfaro cites a similar case that occurred in 1997 where the City Council agreed to abandon a view covenant at the property owner’s request. In response, the Council directed Staff to provide the background information and comparative facts between this request and the request for abandonment that was approved by the Council in 1997. The Council agreed that upon review of the background information, the Council would then determine whether to agendize the item for discussion.

After researching the matter and conducting a site visit to Mr. Scalfaro’s property, Staff prepared a memorandum that compared the facts of the 1997 Council action and the current request (see attached memorandum dated October 18, 2001) and distributed the memorandum to each Council member. On October 19, 2001, Councilman Stern contacted the City Manager via e-mail and requested that the item be agendized (message attached). Therefore, the item is now before the City Council for consideration.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Scalfaro’s Request

As discussed in the attached letter dated August 20, 2001, Mr. Scalfaro requests that the City Council abandon the view covenant that has been recorded on his property for two main reasons. These reasons are summarized below in bold text, followed by Staff discussion.

The spirit of the current View Restoration Ordinance is not represented by the covenant, as the covenant contains a stricter view standard than the present Development Code. As a result, Mr. Scalfaro believes that he is being denied the same rights as other property owners.

This is correct in that the covenant language requires property owners to maintain foliage so as not to "impair a view" from surrounding properties, whereas the City’s Development Code requires that foliage not "significantly impair a view". This is because the covenant language, which was developed in 1990, reflects the original language of Proposition M, which was incorporated into the City’s Development Code in 1989. However, in 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 317, which made a number of amendments to the View Restoration and Preservation Ordinance (the Proposition M language). Among the amendments, the phrase "significant view impairment" replaced the phrase "view impairment" to make the view criteria of the View Restoration/Preservation Ordinance consistent with the view criteria of the pre-existing Code and avoid frivolous cases. Although not foreseen at the time, the amendment created an inconsistent review standard between the Development Code and the covenant language, with regards to view impairment due to foliage.

In 1997, a similar case was presented to the Council, which resulted in the abandonment of the covenant.

On July 15, 1997, the City Council approved a request from the property owner at 6162 Arrowroot Lane to abandon a covenant that had been recorded on the property on June 28, 1990 (July 15, 1997 Staff Report and minutes are attached). The basis for the Council’s decision at that time was that 1) Staff had determined that the subject foliage was being maintained so as not to significantly impair a view, whereas it could be determined to be out of compliance with the stricter covenant requirement; 2) the terms of the covenant allowed the Council to terminate and abandon the covenant at any time without stipulations, 3) the option to record a covenant went beyond the requirement of the original Proposition ‘M’ Ordinance, and 4) the view owners would still have the opportunity to file a View Preservation or View Restoration application with the City to restore their view if it were to become significantly impaired in the future.

The circumstances involving the 1997 Council action and the current request are the same, with the following exceptions:

    1. Unlike the 1997 request, Staff has had no involvement with processing any type of View Restoration application or making any view impairment determinations on the property as the property owner trying to enforce the covenant has opted not to use the City’s process.
    2. Unlike the 1997, request, this covenant was recorded as a condition of approval of a 2-lot Parcel Map. Therefore, if it is agreed that the covenant on Mr. Scalfaro’s property should be removed, the view covenant recorded on the adjoining lot of the same Parcel Map should also be removed.
    3. Unlike the 1997 request, an adjacent property owner, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Morrell at 3126 Corinna Drive, has begun legal proceedings to enforce the view covenant requirements through a court of law. In the 1997 matter, a neighboring view owner contested the removal of the covenant and threatened legal action to enforce the covenant, but a legal suit had not been filed at the time the City abandoned the covenant. An attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Morrell has submitted a letter (attached) in which he raises a concern that abandoning the covenant could interfere with the court process.

In summary, the recorded covenant on Mr. Scalfaro’s property contains a view standard that is stricter than that contained in the City’s present Development Code, surrounding property owners would still have the ability to restore or protect their views through the City’s View Restoration/Preservation process if the covenant were to be abandoned, and there is an established precedent for the City Council to abandon such covenants. However, a neighboring property owner has begun legal proceedings to enforce the covenant and is concerned that removal of the covenant may interfere with the court process. Furthermore, Staff has not been invited to perform a view analysis from 3126 Corinna Drive and thus is unable to ascertain whether there is a difference between "view impairment" and "significant view impairment" from the neighboring property. Staff recommends that the Council consider Mr. Scalfaro’s request, in light of these circumstances, and determine whether to abandon the view covenant recorded at 3027 Crest Road.

Proposed Amendment to City Council Policy No. 30

The View Restoration and Preservation Ordinance (Proposition ‘M’) contains a provision that prohibits building permits for new additions from being issued if foliage on the permit applicant’s property significantly impairs a view from any surrounding property. To implement this portion of the Ordinance, Staff conducts foliage analyses and requires that any significant view impairing foliage be trimmed or removed prior to building permit issuance. Recognizing the burden that this review process would pose to applicants and Staff, in 1990, the City Council amended the Code to allow building permit applicants the option of submitting a "Covenant to Protect Views" to satisfy the Proposition ‘M’ requirement of "Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance".

On December 3, 1996, the Council directed Staff to amend the Development Code to eliminate the covenant option and directed Staff not to enforce any recorded covenants on file with the City. On December 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Council Policy No. 30 (attached) which states "that the City not enforce any ‘Covenant to Maintain Property to Protect Views’ that has been submitted to the City and recorded by the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office." After the adoption of Policy No. 30, City Staff suspended the enforcement of recorded covenants. However, as provided for in the language of the covenants, private property owners are still able to enforce the terms of the covenant through a court of law.

As noted earlier, in 1997, the City Council agreed to hear a property owner’s request to abandon a view covenant that had been recorded on the property. The Council agreed to abandon the covenant, thus establishing precedent to deal with any similar requests on a case-by-case basis. However, the Council stopped short of amending Policy No. 30 or establishing a specific review process for considering similar future requests.

The Code provision that gave applicants the option of submitting a "Covenant to Protect Views" to satisfy the Proposition ‘M’ requirement of "Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance" was in effect for approximately 6 years (1990 – 1996). Staff believes that 800 to 900 covenants were recorded on properties during this time. Although Staff is aware of relatively few requests from property owners to have the City remove recorded covenants, Staff anticipates that there will be more requests in the future to have view covenants removed. As such, Staff believes that it may be appropriate at this time for the City Council to consider establishing a policy for considering any similar future requests. Staff has identified the following options for the Council to consider.

  1. Establish a policy whereby any future requests are automatically agendized for the Council’s review and the Council considers each request based on set review criteria (i.e. signed request from the property owner, payment of a fee, covenant language differs from Development Code, no legal case on file, etc.).
  2. Establish a policy whereby any future requests are reviewed and acted upon by Staff based on set review criteria established by the Council, with an appeal process to the City Council.
  3. Establish a policy whereby any future requests are automatically processed by Staff, upon payment of a processing fee.
  4. Establish no policy at all and handle each request on a case-by-case basis.

Staff seeks Council direction on whether to amend City Council Policy No. 30 to establish a process for dealing with any future requests from property owners to abandon view covenants that have been recorded on their property.

CONCLUSION

The City Council received a request from a property owner at 3027 Crest Road for the City to abandon the view covenant recorded against his property. In response to the request, the Council directed Staff to provide the background information and comparative facts between this request and the request for abandonment that was approved by the Council in 1997. Staff prepared a memorandum with the requested information and distributed the memorandum to each Council member. The item has been agendized at the request of Councilman Stern. Staff has addressed the basis of the property owner’s request, as well as concerns raised by an adjacent property owner, who has initiated legal action to enforce the recorded covenant in a court of law. Staff recommends that the Council consider the request to abandon the covenant and provide the requestor and Staff with direction. In addition, in anticipation of future requests to have view covenants removed, Staff believes that it may be appropriate at this time for the City Council to consider establishing a policy for considering any such future requests. Staff seeks Council direction on whether to amend City Council Policy No. 30 to establish such a process.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Without establishment of a processing fee for the abandonment of recorded covenants, all Staff and City Attorney costs associated with the abandonment process would be borne by the City’s General Fund. In addition, the removal of a recorded view covenant from a property would shift the remedy for surrounding property owners who wish to have their view restored from a civil suit solution to a solution through the City’s View Restoration and Preservation process. Although there are fees collected for processing View Restoration Permits, no fees are collected for Staff administration tasks, such as providing information to residents and coordinating the pre-application meetings, or for processing View Preservation Applications. Therefore, all costs associated with these Staff functions would be borne by the City’s General Plan.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
View Covenant recorded at 3027 Crest Road
Letter from M/M Scalfaro dated August 20, 2001
Staff memorandum dated October 18, 2001
Email message from Councilman Stern
July 15, 1997 Staff Report and Minutes
Letter from Larry Burge dated October 23, 2001



11. Joint Lawsuit Investigation Against the FAA. (Park)

Recommendation: Approve allocating $22,000 from the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 City Attorney Budget for the joint lawsuit investigation.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: JOINT LAWSUIT INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE FAA

RECOMMENDATION

Approve allocating $22,000 from the FY 2001-2002 City Attorney budget for the joint lawsuit investigation.

BACKGROUND

Residents first reported increased excessive aircraft noise generated from LAX departure flights to the City during the fall of 1997. Since then, the City and its residents have been steadfast in their efforts to persuade aviation industry representatives and other elected officials to consider alternatives that would reduce the level of aircraft flights and noise over the City. According to residents there has been no significant change or improvement in aircraft noise abatement, even after the City’s participation in an FAA sponsored task force, MITRE noise study analysis and flight demonstration project. Realizing that excessive aircraft noise continued to be a sensitive quality of life issue for many residents, the City along with the Cities of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach proposed to jointly hire legal counsel to investigate the viability of a lawsuit against the FAA and/or LAWA (Los Angeles World Airports) for unlawful overflights from LAX.

On July 5, 2000, the City Council unanimously authorized the expenditure of funds for Richards, Watson and Gershon and Chevalier, Allen & Lichman to conduct a preliminary legal and factual investigation. On September 19, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-62 appropriating $75,000 from the General Fund Reserve for the tri-city lawsuit investigation and the joint purchase of the aircraft flight monitoring system. The City Manager was authorized to approve joint retainer agreements for legal counsel with both aforementioned legal firms.

The scope of work relating to the changes to flight tracks for arrivals and departures from Los Angeles International Airport and their resulting impacts, included, but not limited to: (1) development of appropriate legal strategies to remedy the impact of the changes; (2) consultation with cities designated representatives concerning airport noise statutes, FAA regulations, relevant environmental statues, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and all matters which the cities determine are properly related to the strategy developed for remedying impacts; (3) participation in the preparation and prosecution of related litigation, to the extent determined appropriate by the cities; and (4) interface with the FAA at both the regional level and in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of influencing its position with respect to the changes in a manner consistent with the goals and desires of the cities.

DISCUSSION

During fiscal year 2000-2001, the two legal firms along with their consultants conducted the bulk of the legal and factual investigation necessary to analyze potential claims against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). However the City exhausted its budget allocation of $42,000 prior to the end of the fiscal year. The City’s outstanding expenses currently total approximately $6,150. At the City’s request, the Cities of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach and both legal firms Richards, Watson and Gershon and Chevalier, Allen & Lichman have reached an agreement to complete the remaining investigative work by February 15, 2002.

The City Council is asked to consider continuing the legal and factual investigation through February 15, 2002 and to allocate $22,000 from the fiscal year 2001-2002 City Attorney budget to cover outstanding and future anticipated expenses.

Staff will provide a status report after February 15th.

FISCAL IMPACT

Unpaid legal bills amount to approximately $6,150 and the legal firms have estimated another $15,000 from each City will cover the remaining investigative work.

Staff is proposing to earmark $22,000 during fiscal year 2001-2002 from the City Attorney Budget of $750,000.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Gina Park, Senior Administrative Analyst

REVIEWED BY
Les Evans, City Manager



12. Architectural Service Contract for Civic Center Project. (Park)

Recommendation: Approve Execution of the Professional Services Agreement with Johnson Fain Partners to Provide Architectural Services for the Civic Center Improvement Project.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE CONTRACT FOR CIVIC CENTER PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Approve execution of the professional services agreement with Johnson Fain Partners to provide architectural services for the civic center improvement project.

BACKGROUND

During the FY 2001-2002 budget process, the City Council allocated $30,000 for architectural services to provide alternative conceptual plans for civic center improvements including a new Council chamber, centralized public counter and other building improvements such as installing an elevator.

As a matter of background information, the centralized public counter concept has been adopted by many Cities to enhance customer service. The one-stop service counter would be staffed by each City department/program that conducts regular business directly with the public, so a customer can walk in and complete his/her business at one location rather than being directed through a series of people and departments. Ideally the centralized counter would be situated within proximity of the larger service departments, Planning and Public Works, so staff members can readily assist customers when specifically called upon. Some services provided at the centralized counter may include public information, building permits, plan checks, cashier, etc.

Currently, the Hesse Park multi-purpose room is set up several times a month for Council and Commission meetings. The present audience seating capacity is 50 seats and an overflow room with seating capacity of up to 20 people. A permanent Council Chamber would allow for fixed seating of up to ten Councilmembers/Commissioners and support staff of up to seven. Audience seating would be designed for approximately 125 persons. In addition, a permanent meeting chamber would enable the City to make optimum use of available information technology for live cablecast and power point presentations.

Other modifications may include required ADA improvements, including restrooms and an elevator; installation of air conditioning and heating for the entire Civic Center complex; and enhancing the City’s main entrance.

DISCUSSION

The City issued a Request for Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) to over 30 architectural firms located within Los Angeles County based upon a referral listing provided by the American Institute of Architects of firms that specialized in institutional and/or government facilities or public projects. A total of four architectural firms submitted their SOQ’s and an in-house panel rated each firm according to its qualifications and experience; appropriateness and clarity of work scope; whether or not key individuals to be involved in the project have experience with these type of facilities; whether or not the architect has worked with municipal clients before; effectiveness of the architectural team in presenting their approach to the project and clarifying their experience; and level of enthusiasm exhibited for the project. Although any of the four firms are qualified to perform the services desired by the City, the architect selection panel unanimously recommended two firms, Sturm, Joncich & Associates and Johnson Fain Partners, for consideration by the City Manager. In the final analysis, Johnson Fain Partners was selected as the best-qualified firm to meet the City’s objectives and to assist the City with its visioning process for the Civic Center.

City Council is asked to concur with staff’s recommendation to hire Johnson Fain Partners to provide conceptual design plans for the Civic Center improvements. Within the agreed upon scope of work attached to the professional agreement, Johnson Fain Partners will provide diagrams for site development, conceptual floor plans and elevations, foam models, and computerized views of major project features.

Should Council approve execution of the contract, staff anticipates the project to begin within 30 days of contract execution.

FISCAL IMPACT

The professional service agreement for architectural services and associated miscellaneous expenses is not to exceed $25,000. An additional $3,500 to $4,500 will be earmarked for a contractor to provide construction cost estimates for the design alternative(s). The City Council previously approved $30,000 for this preliminary design phase during the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget process.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Gina Park, Senior Administrative Analyst

REVIEWED
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Professional Service Agreement



13. Border Issues Status Report. (Evans)

Recommendation: Review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: "BORDER ISSUES" STATUS REPORT

RECOMMENDATION

Review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.

BACKGROUND

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

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

At their September 4, 2001 meeting the City Council adopted a policy on how to process "border issues."

DISCUSSION

No new issues have been added to the report during this period. The Chadwick School Expansion item has been dropped from the report as it has received final approval and appears to no longer have any organized opposition. There is some new information regarding the Harbor Hills Community Center included in the attached Status Report. In addition, staff has finally identified a contact person within the City of Los Angeles organization who is willing to address the geotechnical issues that are of concern to the City.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Border Issues Status Report


BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT

November 7, 2001

CONSTRUCTION OF A RECREATION FACILITY AT HARBOR HILLS
(LOS ANGELES COUNTY)

The County has proposed construction of a 12,650 square foot recreation facility for the Harbor Hills Housing area. The $2.3 million project will consist of a gym, two multi-purpose rooms, a recreation office, sports equipment storage, a child care area for 36 pre-school children, a sheriff’s patrol office, a full service kitchen, restrooms and locker rooms. It will also include a 75-space parking lot.

Homeowners in Peninsula Verde were not offered adequate opportunity to comment on the project and have turned to the City to intercede on their behalf. Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart feels the environmental process (CEQA) for the project was flawed and has requested the records documenting the environmental review. A community meeting took place at the Harbor Hills Community Center on August 27, 2001 and was attended by Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart as well as homeowners from Peninsula Verde. In addition to strong objections to the County’s notification process for the project, the homeowners expressed concerns about lighting intensity, times of operation, children crossing PVDN, traffic, unsavory activities near the Lomita water tower and location of the recreation facility. A second meeting took place on September 12, 2001 to allow the County Regional Planning Department to go over the environmental approval process conducted for this project. The Mayor represented the City at this meeting. Issues raised by the homeowners included concerns about the notification process, environmental clearances and parking and grading on the hillside adjacent to their homes.

In response to concerns from Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, Supervisor Knabe became involved in the matter. At their meeting on September 25, 2001, the County awarded the construction contract for the community center. However, in response to the concerns of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, Supervisor Knabe, at the October 9, 2001 Board meeting received approval of his motion to: "Extend the time period for the Executive Director of the Housing Authority to report back to the Board from 30 days to 60 days regarding the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Lomita’s specific concerns related to the planned construction of a community center and childcare center at the Harbor Hills Public Housing Development; and instruct the Executive Director of the Community Development Commission to postpone commencement of any construction until the Board further review the matter."

On Monday, October 22, 2001 Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart joined five or six Peninsula Verde residents and an equal number of Harbor Hills residents to discuss possible modifications to the Community Center plans. County Community development staff made the presentations, but Supervisor

Knabe’s office was represented as well as County Counsel and the County Geologist. Harbor Hills’ staff was also in attendance. The County is proposing relocating the 75-space parking lot away from the Peninsula Verde homes. In addition, they are proposing reduced lighting in the parking lot. Our residents were pleased with these changes, but disappointed that the Community Center building could not be relocated further from the property line. The City Attorney will report on her research into the environmental process in closed session at the November 7, 2001 City Council meeting. The City geologist has completed his review of the County geotechnical reports. His review comments are attached.

RE-VITALIZATION OF THE GARDEN VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ON WESTERN AVENUE AT WESTMONT (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

The Garden Village revitalization project was approved by the Los Angeles City Council on June 8, 2001. The project, located on Western Avenue north of Westmont, will add 2000 square feet of retail space to a reconfigured shopping center to be anchored by a "super" Albertson’s.

The Border Issues Committee was particularly concerned about the underlying soils and drainage conditions in the project area that includes both the City of Los Angeles and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore, at the meeting of June 16, 2001 the ad hoc committee recommended that the City Council authorize a study of these geologic conditions and whether or not the Gardens Village revitalization project will have any adverse impacts on existing properties in our City. The Council authorized the study and funding of $10,000. In addition, City Staff researched the issue of the adequacy of the environmental process for the project.

The statute of limitations has run on the environmental documentation prepared for the Garden Village project. The City Attorney advises us that we have no recourse from that avenue. Bill Cotton, the geologist who is reviewing the geology and soils information provided as part of the project design, has completed his review of the geotechnical reports associated with the Garden Village project. Mr. Cotton is concerned that there are inadequate long-term geotechnical recommendations to mitigate the impacts of future settlement on existing storm drain and sewer lines on the Village Garden’s property. City staff, with the assistance of Councilwoman Hahn’s office, is now in touch with Mr. Glen Hirano at the Bureau of Engineering who is responsible for enforcing the geotechnical conditions of the Garden village project. Mr. Hirano and his deputy have spoken with City staff several times over the past three weeks and are reviewing the concerns expressed by Cotton, Shires & Associates. City staff has scheduled a meeting with Bureau staff and hope to become more familiar with the assignment of responsibilities for inspection and monitoring conditions of the development. We anticipate that a more definitive process for insuring geotechnical concerns are properly addressed will soon be forthcoming.

EXPANSION OF THE COVENANT CHURCH ON PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

The project is still in the informational gathering phase. According to our information, the applicant has been making changes to the project so the exact proposal has not been finalized. Generally, the project involves the construction of a new sanctuary building that would accommodate 2,050 seats, along with a new 3-5 level parking structure with 500 parking spaces. The Church also proposes to convert the existing sanctuary to a gymnasium/multi-purpose room for events such as wedding receptions. The preparation of the Initial Study is still underway which will determine whether the project will necessitate an EIR or Negative Declaration. We will receive a notice when either document is prepared and circulated to the public.

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52666 (3200 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST)
MARSHALL ESFAHANI

City staff has been in contact with the City of Palos Verdes Estates to discuss the construction traffic that will be generated from the newly approved residential tract on Palos Verdes Drive West at the border of our City. The City of Palos Verdes Estates indicates that they will allow construction traffic related to grading to enter their city since the disposal site for the project will be within the City of Palos Verdes Estates. However, any other construction traffic leaving the site will not be permitted to travel through the City. The City of Palos Verdes Estates is insisting that a cut be made in the median to accommodate the construction traffic. Mr. Esfahani seems confident that he can negotiate more reasonable terms from Palos Verdes Estates. So far he has apparently not done so.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.)




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


CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

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


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

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

Property: APN 7564-005-001, 7572-001-001 TO 004, 06 AND 07, 7581-023-011

City Negotiators: City Manager Les Evans, City Attorney Carol Lynch, and Public Works

Director Dean Allison.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL


Initiation of Litigation
:
G.C. 54956.9(c)

_________One_________
(Number of Potential Cases)

The City Council is meeting to discuss whether to file a lawsuit regarding the Harbor Hills project.

Existing Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. York Long Point Associates, L.P.

Case No: Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC229913



RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 7, 2001
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



CALL TO ORDER

NEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2001-15

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


A. Minutes of August 21, September 4, and October 2, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.

D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 21, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 11:45 P.M. by Chair Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

PRESENT: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Chair Lyon
ABSENT: None

Also present were Executive Director Les Evans; Agency Attorney Carol Lynch; Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Director Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Acting Principal Planner Greg Pfost; Agency Secretary Jo Purcell; and, Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

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

Minutes (301)

Approved the Minutes of August 7, 2001.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Gardiner, McTaggart, and Chair Lyon
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Stern on vacation and absent from the August 7 meeting.


REGULAR BUSINESS:


Indian Ridgecrest Gardens Senior Affordable Housing Proposal – Exclusive Negotiating Agreement & Discussion of Issues

Acting Principal Planner Pfost presented the staff report of August 21, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, LP. (2) Provide direction to staff and developer as to whether the developer may submit an application for a Tentative Tract Map for Condominium purposes over the subject property. (3) Provide direction to staff and developer regarding the number of affordable housing units to be included with the proposed project.

Board discussion centered on the proposed change from 52 apartments to 41 condominiums and how the number of affordable housing units which this project could provide would not change; the last exclusive negotiating agreement with Charles Brumbaugh which deleted the reference to his buyback option; the reprogramming of RDA set aside funds which were used to buy this property if the project is not built; the different means of satisfying the State’s affordable housing unit requirement; the fact that the City’s housing element would not have to be revised if this project is not built; and the affordable units being provided as part of the Ocean Trails project.

Charles Brumbaugh, Corporation for Better Housing, 100 W. Broadway, #1250, Glendale, 91210, stated that in 1999 he had the subject property in escrow and, for the benefit of both parties, he made an arrangement for the City to purchase the property and an option for him to buy back the property was made a part of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA). He felt that he had lived up to his part of the agreement in good faith and he asked that the buyback option which had been removed from the second ENA be added again in the new ENA he was requesting. He said that he was willing to provide condominiums or apartments, whichever the Board wished and he was also willing to provide the number of affordable units required. Mr. Brumbaugh said that the building had been completely redesigned to accommodate condos and he felt that the current residents in the neighborhood preferred condos over apartments. He stated that he had no preference but wanted to construct a building that all concerned were pleased with; however, he did not think that condos would be harder to control and believed that the resulting Homeowners Association would hire a management company, which the City could approve, to make sure that all residents were at least 55 years or older and that affordable housing requirements were met. Mr. Brumbaugh added that condos were not as desirable to purchase when built on leased land and if apartments were built the City could still own the land and would have more authority over project.

Mark Steenbock, Manager of Crestridge Estates, LLC, 5200 West Century Boulevard, #256, Los Angeles, CA 90045, said that the project he was planning on the adjacent property might be affected if the Board chose not to build condos for the project in question. He asked the Board to consider the distinctions between the two proposed projects and said that his proposal included on-site professional management which would provide reports to the City. He compared the topography and density of the two senior housing projects and said that they were not requesting any City funds and would not be involved with any affordable units. He closed by stating that the neighborhood had been receptive to their proposal and that if the ENA was not extended, he would be interested in talking to the City in submitting another project

which included affordable housing.

Agency Attorney Lynch clarified that the application for Mr. Steenbock’s project had been incomplete for six months and that there was reason to believe that it might be withdrawn.

Speaking in support of the staff recommendation were the following persons: Jim Slayden, 37 Mela Lane; Ray Mathys, 5738 Whitecliff Drive; Wayne Hazelrigg, 674 West 27th Street, #11, San Pedro, CA 90731; Reverend Ted Levon, P. O. Box 345, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274; Al D’Amico, 2302 Rue Le Charlene; and, Ron Malin, 9 Cayuse Lane.

Their comments focused on: That this facility would be wonderful for retirees who wish to sell their larger home in Rancho Palos Verdes and move into a smaller place but still stay in the area; that there were not many apartments or condos in the City; that changing the units to condos was considered preferable to apartments; and, that the rendering of the facility looked attractive.

Speaking in opposition of the staff recommendation were the following speakers: William Brandlin, 5201 Middlecrest Road; Glenn Arbuthnot, 28856 Crestridge Road; Barbara Arbuthnot, 28856 Crestridge Road; Ross Anderson, 28870 Crestridge Road; Jim Hathaway, 28955 Crestridge Road; Chuck Taylor, 5441 Middlecrest Road; Linda Puentes, 5575 Mistridge Drive; Jack Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive; and, Robin Rahn, 28846 Crestridge Road

Their comments focused on: That Mr. Brumbaugh was well aware that he waived his buy-back privilege with the last Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA); that approving another ENA would restrict the City’s options to develop this property to only Mr. Brumbaugh’s plan; that other groups have expressed interest in developing this property with a one-story, low-density facility; that a park could be placed here; that there may be other options for the use of this parcel which have not been mentioned yet; that other means to fulfill the affordable housing requirement are available such as subsidized housing and there is plenty of time to meet this requirement; that there seemed to be confusion as to exactly how many affordable units were required; that even after modifications, the facility would still be too massive and incompatible with the neighborhood; that this facility as proposed would require many variances from the City code; that condos instead of apartments would be difficult for the City to manage as affordable units; that the facility is not attractive as the first view entering the City on Crenshaw; that there are no benefits to the City with an ENA, only to the developer; that affordable housing should not be provided to the detriment of surrounding residents; that the project should not be built because so many citizens object to it; and, that a senior center would be preferable to this facility.

(Member Stern left the dais at 12:52 A.M. and returned at 12:54 A.M.)

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, commented on the resale of affordable units at the Villa Capri project at market value prices and asked if there was some way to assure that affordable units maintained that status.

Board discussion focused on circumstances which could change the affordable status of a unit and the fact that a unit inherited by someone under 55 years of age would require selling the unit.

Agency Attorney Lynch advised that apartments would be a simpler solution because there would be one owner rather than many owners of condominiums and the City would not have be directly involved.

Acting Principal Planner Pfost said that there were eight affordable units planned for the Ocean Trails project, four onsite and four subsidized units offsite which were not new construction. Therefore, he said of the 13 required, five more would be needed at this proposed senior housing project.

Further Board discussion centered on the consensus to oppose including the buyback feature in an ENA; the importance of considering other uses for this property, including a park; and, whether condos for this project might not be considered institutional zoning.

Member Gardiner moved, seconded by Member Stern to (1) Not approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, LP. (2) Not grant a "buy-back" provision to the developer Charles Brumbaugh. (3) Direct staff to consider other options for the property, including the feasibility of a park.


RECESS & RECONVENE:


At 1:28 A.M., Chair Lyon declared a recess to allow inserting a new video tape to continue recording. The meeting reconvened at 1:30 A.M.

After the break, Members Ferraro, Gardiner, and McTaggart disclosed that they had received information from Rob Katherman regarding this project.

The motion carried 3-2 on the following roll call vote:

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

Amendment to Construction Loan Agreement and Amendment to Promissory Note Secured by Deed of Trust for the Portuguese Bend Club Homeowners Association to Finance the Installation of Sewers

Director Allison presented the staff report of August 21, 2001 and the recommendation to approve the proposed amendment to construction loan agreement and amendment to promissory note secured by deed of trust and authorize the Chair and the Agency Secretary to execute both documents on behalf of the Agency.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, expressed her approval that that the sewers in Portuguese Bend were on the Redevelopment Agency agenda.

Member Gardiner moved, seconded by Member Ferraro to approve the proposed amendment to construction loan agreement and amendment to promissory note secured by deed of trust and authorize the Chair and the Agency Secretary to execute both documents on behalf of the Agency. Motion carried.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT: Agency Attorney Lynch reported that no action was taken.



PUBLIC COMMENTS: This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda: each speaker is limited to three minutes.



ADJOURNMENT:


The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 A.M. on the motion on Chair Lyon.

 

_______________________
Chair

Attest:

 

________________________
Agency Secretary

 


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

SEPTEMBER 4, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 11:52 P.M. by Chair Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

PRESENT: Gardiner, McTaggart, and Stern
ABSENT: Ferraro (left the meeting at 11:20 P.M.) and Chair Lyon (left the meeting at 10:55 PM)

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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


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

Resol. Nos. RDA 2001-11 and 12 - Continuing Appropriations – Fiscal Year 2000-2001

(1) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-11, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-07, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, TO CONTINUE CERTAIN EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001. (2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2000-07, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001, TO REDUCE THE BUDGET FOR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS.

Resol. No. RDA 2001-13 - Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Budget Adjustments

ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-13, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2000-07, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001, TO INCREASE BUDGETED APPROPRIATIONS IN THE DEBT SERVICE FUND.

June Treasurer’s Report

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. RDA 2001-14 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-14, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

AYES: Gardiner, McTaggart, and Stern
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ferraro and Chair Lyon (left earlier in the evening)


REGULAR BUSINESS:


Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements

Director Allison presented the staff report of September 4, 2001 and the recommendation to increase the authorization limit for the construction contract for the Abalone Sewer Improvements by $150,000 for a total authorization of $5,260,000.

Board discussion revealed that if this recommendation was not adopted, work would have to stop for at least two weeks.

Member Stern moved, seconded by Member Gardiner to adopt the staff recommendation.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Gardiner, McTaggart, and Stern
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ferraro and Chair Lyon


PUBLIC COMMENTS:


Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, spoke on the following subjects: the request to consider construction in Zone II, her neighbor’s cracked driveway; the moving of her home from the Portuguese Bend slide area; the fence placed near her property by developer Jim York on his Filiorum property.


ADJOURNMENT:


The meeting was adjourned at 12:07 A.M. on the motion on Chair Lyon.

 

_______________________
Chair

Attest:

________________________
Agency Secretary

 


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

OCTOBER 2, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 9:20 P.M. by Chair Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

PRESENT: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Chair Lyon
ABSENT: None

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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


Member Ferraro moved, seconded by Member Gardiner, to approve the agenda. Motion carried.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


Member Ferraro moved, seconded by Member Gardiner, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows:

June Treasurer’s Report

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. 2001-14 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-14, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

AYES: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Chair Lyon
NOES: None


PUBLIC COMMENTS:


Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, objected to the manholes installed as part of the sewer project and requested that the bad condition of the roads in Portuguese Bend, which she attributed to the sewer contractor, be improved.

Director Allison said that in response to Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart’s comments, temporary repairs were performed and this will continue as needed. He said that he is in touch with the contractor, who is using heavy equipment and the community has requested that permanent repairs to roads and yards be postponed until the project is complete.

Councilmember Gardiner asked what percentage of the sewers have been installed.

Director Allison replied that 85% had been installed; there are 25 properties to complete. He described the special challenge of the Vanderlip property on which there are 14 units for which it was hard to connect all the homes to the sewer system without causing a lot of disturbance to improvements; therefore, most are not connected as yet.


ADJOURNMENT:


The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 P.M. on the motion on Chair Lyon.

 

_______________________
Chair

Attest:

________________________
Agency Secretary


B. September 2001 Treasurer’s Report (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the September 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

BACKGROUND:

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

ANALYSIS:

The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by $435,162 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $2,215,262 at September 30, 2001. The majority of the month’s expenditures were related to ongoing progress payments for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. It is expected that the Agency will continue to experience large monthly decreases in cash until the completion of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Agency Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Executive Director


C. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC COMMENTS: This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda: each speaker is limited to three minutes.



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

 




RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 7, 2001
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



CALL TO ORDER:NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2001-12

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1. Minutes of September 4 and October 2, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

SEPTEMBER 4, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 12:07 A.M. by Chair Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

PRESENT: Gardiner, McTaggart, and Stern
ABSENT: Ferraro (left meeting at 11:20) and Chair Lyon (left meeting at 10:55 PM)

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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA


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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR


Commissioner Gardiner moved, seconded by Commissioner Stern, to approve the amended consent calendar as follows:


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


Minutes of August 7, 2001

Approved the Minutes.

June Treasurer’s Report

Ordered received and filed.

Resol No. 2001-10 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. IA 2001-10, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

AYES: Gardiner, McTaggart
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Stern, on the Minutes of August 7, because he was on vacation and absent from this meeting
ABSENT: Ferraro and Chair Lyon


ADJOURNMENT:


At 12:07 A.M. the meeting was adjourned on motion of Chair Lyon.

_____________________
Chair

ATTEST:

________________________
Commission Secretary


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

OCTOBER 2, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 8:35 P.M. by Chair Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

PRESENT: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Chair Lyon
ABSENT: None

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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA


Commissioner Ferraro moved, seconded by Commissioner Gardiner, to approve the Agenda as presented. Motion carried.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR


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

July and August Treasurer’s Reports

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. IA 2001-11 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. IA 2001-11, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

AYES: Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Chair Lyon
NOES: None


REGULAR BUSINESS:


ACLAD Information Briefing

Staff recommendation was to receive the briefing from Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) chairman Robert Douglas and provide direction to staff as appropriate.

Robert Douglas presented a computer generated video presentation which Chair Lyon and Commissioner Gardiner had seen at a Portuguese Bend walkabout and asked him to bring to the full Commission. This presentation gave a history of ACLAD and discussed dewatering wells and GPS measurements among other things.

Commissioner Stern asked how the information presented by rd related to Zone II.

Robert Douglas said that Bill Cotton had this information.

Commissioner Gardiner asked who would be the custodian of information gathered.

Robert Douglas said he would like to work with the City to that end. He said that some dewatering wells were drilled by the City and they were turned over to ACLAD for maintenance and he thought this was a good arrangement.

Commissioner Gardiner asked about water going into the system out of ACLAD boundaries which meant that residents downstream and to pump it out.

Chair Lyon said that Commission Attorney Lynch mentioned that the Assessment District would have to benefit those participating and if someone uphill might be causing the problem, they can’t be included.

Commission Attorney Lynch noted that this water might even be coming from another City which would mean that the other City would have to cooperate.

Robert Douglas said that most was coming from Rancho Palos Verdes

Commissioner Stern stated that a lot of the water was from the Del Cerro area.

Commissioner McTaggart said that some was from Rolling Hills Estates.

Commissioner Gardiner suggested that the drainage should be studied.

Chair Lyon felt that by having this topic on a Commission agenda from time to time a means could be found for the Commission fund more dewatering wells to remove more water. She asked the status of Altamira Canyon.

Director Allison replied that the project was being delayed by time required to apply to Fish and wildlife for a permit to perform a survey, design and the actual work and by one property owner who is preventing the surveying. He said that the environmentalists say they can go back into the canyon by August 15, 2002.

Commission Attorney Lynch reported that Fish and Wildlife had agreed to remove disputed language which might make it possible for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to perform the work and she said that court action was being taken to allow the City to on to the land of the uncooperative property owner to finish the survey and move on to the design phase of the project.

Chair Lyon saw this an emergency situation because of the volume of water involved and the process needed to move along as quickly as possible.

Robert Douglas agreed it was a high priority.

Commissioner McTaggart asked if we could send someone to Washington D.C. to expedite the Fish and Wildlife permit and said that he had always believed that a registered surveyor had the right to go onto anyone’s property.

Commission Attorney Lynch said that threats had been lodged and the City wanted to approach with a warrant and law enforcement in order to avoid a claim or injury by the persons going on property.

Commissioner Gardiner suggested that a mechanism should be put in place so that the City could take action rather than simply receiving this information briefing.

Commissioner Stern referred to Robert Douglas’ letter of September 11 regarding clarification of expenditures and he said that staff input was required.

Commissioner Gardiner moved, seconded by Chair Lyon, to consider putting a mechanism in place so that the issues are defined and bring them back to the Commission for prioritization with emphasis on manpower, a timetable, and development of costs and exploration of funding options.

Chair Lyon wondered if there were funds left from the Horan settlement.

Commissioner Ferraro suggested that possibly County funds might be available.

Chair Lyon seconded Commissioner Gardiner’s motion.

Robert Douglas said that they could define the projects; they just needed the funding.

Commissioner Stern said that ACLAD could work with staff.

Commissioner Gardiner asked about new GPS technology which provided continuous monitoring.

Robert Douglas agreed that continuous observation was preferable.

Commissioner Gardiner added that data in a machine-readable form was best for storage of information.

Robert Douglas stated that the sewer installation had inadvertently relocated one GPS station and another one could not be found.

Chair Lyon asked if help had been sought by the people who caused these problems.

Robert Douglas said that it would be discussed with them.

Motion carried


ADJOURNMENT:


At 9:20 P.M. the meeting was adjourned on motion of Commissioner Stern.

 

_____________________
Chair

ATTEST:

________________________
Commission Secretary

2. September 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

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

BACKGROUND:

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

ANALYSIS:

The Improvement Authority’s cash increased by $5,122 during the past month, ending with an overall balance of $1,611,503 at September 30, 2001. Cash activity during September 2001 was limited to the receipt of the $7,917 monthly transfer from the City’s General fund and approximately $2,800 of cash outlays for routine dewatering well maintenance activities.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer


3. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC COMMENTS: For items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes.



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