1. Selection of Mayor.
   Action Required: City Clerk will ask for nominations for Mayor.
   
   
2. Selection of Mayor Pro Tem. (Mayor)
   Action Required: Mayor will ask for nominations for Mayor Pro Tem.

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM: DIRECTOR OF ADMIN. SERVICES/CITY CLERK

DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2001

SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION RESULTS

ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECITING THE FACTS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 6, 2001, DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW.

Adoption of this resolution will enable Councilman Gardiner and Councilman-elect Larry Clark to start serving their four-year term of office on the City Council.

The Los Angeles County Registrar has completed the official canvass of the November 6, 2001 General Municipal Election and has issued a Canvass Certificate and Official Statement of the votes cast by precinct. The results of that canvass are set out in Exhibit "A" to the proposed resolution.

The County Registrar has issued the official results of the November 6, 2001 General Municipal Election and the City Council should now adopt the proposed resolution which recites the facts of the election.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell, City Clerk

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

RESOLUTION NO. 2001-

WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, on Tuesday, November 6, 2001 as required by law;

WHEREAS, notice of said election was duly and regularly given in time, form and manner as provided by law; and that in all respects said election was held and conducted and the votes cast thereat, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as require by the provisions of the Election Code of the State of California; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-48 adopted on July 3, 2001, the election was consolidated with the School District Election and the County Registrar canvassed the returns of said election and has certified the results to this City Council, said results are received, attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A."

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows:

Section 1. That the whole number of ballots cast in the precincts except absent voter ballots was 4,256.

That the whole number of absent voter ballots cast in the City was 2,147 making a total of 6,403 ballots cast in the City.

Section 2. That the names of persons voted for at the election for Member of the City Council were as follows:

Section 3. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City to each of the persons above named for member of the City Council for which the persons were candidates, and for and against the measures, were as listed in Exhibit "A" attached.

Section 4. That the City Council does declare and determine that:

That as a result of the election, a majority of the voters voting on the measures relating to the Transient Occupancy Tax (Measure "M") and the Golf Tax (Measure "N") did vote in favor of them and that the measures were carried and shall be deemed adopted and ratified.

Section 5: The City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City Council of the City a statement of the results of the election showing:

1. The whole number of ballots cast in the City;
2. The names of the persons voted for;
3. The measures voted upon;
4. For what office each person was voted for;
5. The number of votes given at each precinct to each person and, for and against each measure; and
6. The total number of votes given to each person, and for and against each measure.

Section 6: That the City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to

each of such persons so elected a Certificate of Election signed by the City Clerk and duly authenticated; that the City Clerk shall also administer to each person elected the oath of office prescribed in the State Constitution of the State of California and shall have them subscribe to it and file it in the office of the City Clerk. Each and all of the persons so elected shall then be inducted into the respective office to which they have been elected.

Section 7: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book or original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on December 4, 2001.

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard and was immediately recessed to a closed session per the Brown Act Checklist. At 7:14 P.M. the meeting reconvened.

After the Pledge of Allegiance led by Peter Palett of Webelos Tiger Pack #970, 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; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; Senior Planner Ara Mihranian; Senior Administrative Analyst Gina Park; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

Mayor Lyon presented a proclamation to Town Sheriff Randy Oviedo upon his promotion to another assignment within the Sheriff’s Department. She read the proclamation, which listed his accomplishments on behalf of the City.

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

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

Councilmember Gardiner requested that the minutes be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

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

(1) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-90, 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) Directed the Finance Department to reimburse staff members who paid additional PERS Care health insurance premiums during 2001.

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-91, 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.

Ordered received and filed.

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-92, 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.

Councilmember Gardiner and Councilman Stern provided suggested changes and corrections to the Minutes.

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

Director Allison presented the staff report of November 7, 2001 and the recommendation to continue the Public Hearing to the December 4, 2001 City Council meeting.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner, to continue to December 4, 2001. Motion carried.

Director Allison presented the staff report of November 7, 2001 and the recommendation to provide staff with direction regarding assessment deferrals for undergrounding districts.

City Attorney Lynch described programs which she outlined in a memo attached to the staff report.

Councilman Stern noted that the state program had limited potential but if residents qualified by age or disability, the deferral was automatic and the City took no action and did not provide funds. He compared this plan with the 1913 Act Funding which allowed the City to set the criteria but which required City funds to establish the fund initially. He asked if this money would come from the General Fund or from the creation of a bond issue.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that deferred assessments could not be spread over the district.

Councilman Stern asked if a bonded indebtedness could be secured by the homes needed assessment deferral with a lien to be paid when the home was sold in order to avoid Proposition 218 issues.

City Attorney Lynch said that under the 1913 Act Funding the money would simply be forwarded and secured by a lien on property.

Councilman Stern stated that a bond issue would establish a fund which would provide seed money and then the program would fund itself.

City Attorney Lynch felt this would work as long as liens were placed only on properties subject to that.

Councilmember Gardiner asked about homeowners in a bind who did not qualify under age or disability, some type of perpetual undergrounding fund which would indicate how many projects could be approved.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked if this fund would be established by bonding.

Councilmember Gardiner said bonding or some other type of mechanism. He asked if the undergrounding was about $9.00 total per foot.

Scott Gobble, Southern California Edison, 505 Maple Avenue, Torrance, CA 90503, said that the average in Rancho Palos Verdes was approximately $300 to $350 per foot.

Councilmember Gardiner asked if Edison paid $9.00 per foot.

Scott Gobble said that the Public Utilities Commission set the figure and that it could vary slightly depending on the voltage of the poles.

Councilmember Gardiner said that he understood Edison does not make the rules.

Councilman Stern suggested that the Council create a goal and guidelines and direct the Finance Advisory Committee to research the structure of a revolving fund, taking into account legal constraints.

Mayor Lyon agreed that this would be good idea and would also provide an opportunity for public input.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked if the 1913 Act Funding would replenish the money eventually when the lien was paid at the time the house was sold.

City Attorney Lynch said that the funds would be replenished when the house was sold, or at the end of the program when the bonds were paid off.

Councilwoman Ferraro understood that the program was self-sustaining but that the City would have to provide the initial money for the pool of funds.

Councilman Stern asked if interest would be earned, the amount and whether the City would set it or was it statutory.

City Attorney Lynch said that she believed it was statutory but that she would investigate.

Councilman Stern moved that the Council direct the Finance Advisory Committee to review the discussion of the Council and meet the goal to create a structure, possibly by bonds, that creates some kind of revolving fund of approximately $500,000 to allow people to use this fund to pay their yearly assessment if they meet the criteria and to be replenished when liens were paid at the time the house was sold.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that the City would set the criteria under the 1913 Act Funding program.

Councilmember Gardiner seconded the motion if it included the $5,000 connection fee as well. Motion carried.

Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report of November 7, 2001 and the recommendation to (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 revised project to the City Council.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart referenced Councilmember Gardiner’s motion in which he mentioned City assistance in the success of developing the Long Point project.

Councilman Stern asked why a deadline was necessary and how Mike Mohler felt about this deadline.

Senior Planner Mihranian replied that it was merely to keep the project from lingering indefinitely.

Vic Quirarte, 29369 Quailwood, suggested that, for clarity, an actual date be established as a deadline rather than a deadline of six months.

Mayor Lyon asked if there was someone from Destination Resorts who wished to speak.

Mike Mohler, representing Destination Development Corporation, 11777 San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90049 said that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.

Councilmember Gardiner said that he agreed that an actual date should be established for the deadline.

City Manager Evans suggested May 7, 2002.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to (1) Grant the applicant’s request to place the Long Point applications on hold; and (2) Establish a date of May 7, 2002, which time the applicant must either withdraw the project applications or present a revised project to the City Council. Motion carried.

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of November 7, 2001 and the recommendation to (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. She said that AT&T informed staff earlier that day that they wanted to install the new equipment on the monopole by the end of the year. Because there was not sufficient time to process the CUP revision application before that time, they were no longer interested in moving forward at this time but that they might ask again later. Assistant City Manager Petru explained that SpectraSite was interested in modifications to the monopole to improve aesthetics and she modified her recommendation as follows: (1) Direct staff to work with SpectraSite Communications to develop alternatives to improve the aesthetics of the monopole, without degrading telecommunication service to the community. (2) Authorize staff to spend up to $3,000, if necessary, to retain a consultant to analyze the alternatives proposed by SpectraSite Communications. (3) Deny AT&T’s request to file a Conditional Use Permit application to modify their existing equipment on the monopole until the overall review of the facility is completed.

Kathleen Hill, SpectraSite, 2301 Dupont Drive, #200, Irvine, CA 92612, clarified that they are not a carrier but a manager of towers. She said that they had purchased the monopole from Verizon two years ago and were studying ways to improve all their towers and hoped to maintain a good relationship with all the cities. She indicated that she was not aware of AT&T’s request and was in agreement with Ms. Petru’s modified recommendation, as these actions would tie in perfectly with their master plan.

Scott Gobble, Southern California Edison, 505 Maple Avenue, Torrance, CA 90503, reported that Edison is also a tenant on monopole and said that for the last seven years, they had used the pole for emergency and day-to-day routine communication with their field crews. He expressed interest in working with SpectraSite and urged the Council to protect Edison’s continued effective use of the monopole.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked how Edison would maintain communication while modifications might be made to the monopole.

Scott Gobble described the history of their use of the pole and said that they had preferred using the monopole already in place to placing another tower on the Coast Guard property below City Hall to minimize the visual impact of two poles. He indicated that timing was essential so that they would be able to relocate their facilities to maintain constant communication with their crews on the RPV City Hall side of the Peninsula.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked if temporary poles might be necessary.

Scott Gobble said that the safety of the public and Edison crews was most important and that he did not have enough information to discuss their specific needs but he knew that they had contingencies for situations such as earthquakes which might temporarily disrupt their communications.

Councilman Stern felt that the issue of continued service was implied and that there might be just a small gap in usage due to construction and felt it made sense to evaluate aesthetics as well as technical aspects of the monopole.

Scott Gobble said that SpectraSite had not contacted Edison.

City Attorney Lynch emphasized that it would be in the interest of SpectraSite to work with their lessees on the pole.

Councilwoman Ferraro was glad aesthetics were being considered but expressed her opposition to any type of "stealth" design which would make the monopole look like a tree, clock tower, etc.

Councilmember Gardiner assumed that the modified antenna would be made ready first so that the service could be merely switched over to the original antenna after modifications were made. He was concerned that the Telecommunications Act might overrule action the City might approve.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that the City has control over aesthetics and interference with adjacent users but not the more technical aspects of the antennas and stated that SpectraSite as the major lessee would have to address all issues with their sub-lessees.

Councilmember Gardiner asked whether the City could require that the most advanced technology be used.

City Attorney Lynch said there is a presumption that favors technical advances but the City, as landowner, has control over the aesthetics and some control over technology depending on its impact on aesthetics.

Councilman Stern asked if the City could not provide City land for the antennas.

Councilmember Gardiner inquired about the City’s ability to require a different type of antenna.

City Attorney Lynch said that the lease had a section on aesthetics which outlined the City’s authority.

Councilmember Gardiner felt it was important to take an inventory of the lessees on the pole since SpectraSite was unaware of AT&T’s application and since they had not contacted Southern California Edison.

Councilman Stern agreed that it was important for SpectraSite to honor their contractual commitment to the tenants on the pole.

Councilmember Gardiner assumed that SpectraSite would clear the proposed modifications with their tenants on the pole.

Councilman Stern clarified that that the City had the ability to ask for revisions if the Council did not agree with their modifications.

Councilmember Gardiner said that he was against making the pole look like something else like a tree.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to (1) Direct staff to work with SpectraSite Communications to develop alternatives to improve the aesthetics of the monopole, without degrading telecommunication service to the community. (2) Authorize staff to spend up to $3,000, if necessary, to retain a consultant to analyze the alternatives proposed by SpectraSite Communications. (3) Deny AT&T’s request to file a Conditional Use Permit application to modify their existing equipment on the monopole until the overall review of the facility is completed. Motion carried.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked Assistant City Manager Petru if AT&T had officially withdrawn their application.

Assistant City Manager Petru replied that by telephone that day she had informed AT&T of staff’s modified recommendation to deny their request at this time and AT&T had expressed no objection to this action, although there was nothing in writing to that effect.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

Director Rojas presented the staff report of November 7, 2001 and the recommendation to (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.

Councilman Stern disclosed that he is one of the 900 homeowners in the City who signed a view covenant when he remodeled his home a few years ago. He asked why there was no view analysis at the time the covenant was signed and yet the view owner can invoke this document to obtain a view.

Director Rojas said that in 1990 the Code allowed covenants to be filed in lieu of a view analysis.

Councilman Stern asked if it was significant that private legal proceedings had begun to enforce the covenant recorded on the property.

Director Rojas noted that in 1997 there was a threat of litigation but no lawsuit had been filed.

Councilwoman Ferraro noted that the applicant’s attorney said in his letter that the City would be interfering in a court case and she asked City Attorney Lynch if she agreed with that statement and if the Council could do this and, if so, should it be done with all covenants as a matter of policy.

City Attorney Lynch responded that it was the Council’s decision whether to handle the covenants on a case-by-case basis or to establish a broader policy. As to whether there was interference with a case, the covenant says the Council has the ability to remove the covenant at any time. If it were removed, there would be no covenant to enforce so it would interfere with a lawsuit, as it would likely end the legal proceedings.

Councilman Stern agreed but felt the interference with the lawsuit does not answer the questions.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that the covenant would be rendered unenforceable and it becomes a moot point.

City Attorney Lynch agreed and said that the situation has changed since the Council started imposing view covenants in an effort to simplify the view process which was in its infancy. Since then the process has been developed successfully and these types of covenants are no longer required, however, she clarified that the existing covenants were left in place so the homeowner could enforce them even though the City had stopped enforcing the covenants.

Councilmember Gardiner felt that everyone should be treated the same and there should not be an alternative method and if a legal case was eliminated, it was all right. He believed that it would be best to address the covenants as a whole, rather than one at a time.

City Attorney Lynch reiterated that the Council could remove the covenant at any time but someone could file a small claims action to recover costs, however, it might be difficult to win.

Mayor Lyon said that the view process according to the City ordinance was another remedy.

Councilman Stern said that the view ordinance was established for consistency and the View Restoration Commission handles these cases routinely, therefore, he found it troubling that possibly someone who was not familiar with the City’s procedures might tell a resident that he needed to go to court.

Larry Burge, 22930 Crenshaw Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90510, attorney for Robert Morrell, submitted a letter with photographs prior to the meeting and noted that staff said there were 900 of these view covenants and he felt the City should establish a procedure to deal with them. In the meantime, he asked that the Council not interfere with the court process which had begun. He said that at the time the parcel map was requested, it was the duty under the ordinance that the trees be trimmed to bring them into conformance. He said that his clients could have insisted that this happen but did not recognize that at the time and instead relied on the covenant, which allowed them to recover costs. If the Council is entertaining to remove the covenant and take rights from the owner because he gave up something he was legally entitled to, he has paid for the right to either go to the View Restoration Commission or to sue in the court. The reason the court approach was taken was because up until recently, the view restoration and view preservation process was not in force and the client made this choice. He discussed a similar case of a covenant on a home on Arrowroot Lane and referred to Exhibit 1 of his colored exhibits. He said that there were two photos, one as the actual view in January 2000 and the other is a computer simulation of what view the view should be, with the trees erased and the view inserted. He said that the difference with the Arrowroot situation was there is significant view impairment from the master bedroom. He was confused by the fact that Proposition M was codified in 1989 and this particular view covenant was signed in 1990. He noted that the ordinance was amended in 1996 to insert the word "significantly" impaired view. He believed that rights should not be taken from the homeowner simply because the City decided to no longer enforce these view covenants.

Councilman Stern asked if the speaker was under the impression that there will be a different result from going to court than from following the City’s procedure under the view ordinance.

Mr. Burge said that he believed that.

Councilman Stern asked if Mr. Burge did not think that the City would strive for consistency so that all residents would have equal rights.

Mr. Burge said that not all residents had a view covenant and that trees could be trimmed as a result of a permit issued if a person did not wish to enter into a covenant.

Councilman Stern clarified that under the City’s procedure, the owner of foliage would have to pay for the trimming and he asked what legal fees his client incurred so far.

City Attorney Lynch said that under the alternative remedy, the view applicant would pay for the tree trimming.

Mr. Burge said that it was his understanding that under the ordinance his client would have to pay and under a court remedy, he would not.

Councilman Stern asked the cost of trimming the trees.

Mr. Burge said that based on three other cases he had handled in Rancho Palos Verdes, he was estimating about $8,000 every other year.

Robert Morrell, 3126 Corinna Drive, said that he had contacted Mr. Song, the previous owner, by mail in May 2000 and asked him to remove his foliage, composed of about 20 huge pine trees. He said that Mr. Song’s daughter wrote back a week later asking for photos of the trees obstructing the view. Mr. Morrell said that he received photos from seven neighbors and sent them to her but because of the large quantity of trees could not circle any specific trees. He said that he heard nothing from Mr. Song or his family and some time later spoke to Mr. Scalfaro, the current owner who said he would trim the trees but never to the level of the utility lines. Mr. Morrell said that he asked Mr. Scalfaro to come to his property to see the view impairment. After seeing the situation, Mr. Scalfaro said that Mr. Morrell would have to do what he needed to do to restore his view and that he would not help. Mr. Morrell said that Mr. Scalfaro had trimmed the trees slightly and he distributed to the Council a photo taken earlier today of the view from the sliding door of his bedroom and another from the back of his property showing the detail of the trees blocking the view.

Councilman Stern asked him why he decided not to follow the City’s view procedure and noted that often mediation between the two parties results in a satisfactory solution.

Robert Morrell said that he had tried to be a good neighbor but that after a year and a half, there was no solution. He felt that the City process would take too long.

Councilman Stern asked how soon he thought he would get results from a lawsuit.

Robert Morrell said he estimated June 2002.

Warren Sweetnam, 7 Top Rail Lane, as a member of the View Restoration Commission for ten years, he had discussed the view covenants many times and he explained that the covenants were required when someone modified their home in order to eliminate all view-impairing trees. Even after the ordinance went into effect, residents modifying their homes were given the choice of signing a view covenant instead of trimming their foliage at that time. In 1997, the Council realized that these covenants really were accomplishing their goal and at that time the City no longer enforced or required view covenants.

Robert Scalfaro, 3027 Crest Road, agreed with the comments of the City Council and said that previous speakers had made incorrect statements. He said that there was a letter dated 1990 in his file in the Planning Department thanking his in-laws the Songs for trimming their trees in accordance with the covenant. He felt that Mr. Morrell's photographs were not meaningful because it was impossible to know the vantage point from which they were taken. He further stated that Director Rojas had attempted to visit the Morrell property and was not permitted to do so. He hoped that the Council would abandon the covenant.

Lee Lubin, 22900 Ventura Boulevard, #110, Woodland Hills, CA 91364, attorney for Robert Scalfaro emphasized the Council’s ability to abandon a covenant at any time. He disagreed with the opposing attorney’s opinion about how this matter should be handled and he said that even in a court case, the City would be asked to provide information regarding the viewing area. He that no matter which remedy was sought, the fact was that there was no significant view impairment.

Councilman Stern said that Mr. Burge had mentioned costs incurred by his client and he asked Mr. Lubin if his client would be willing to reimburse him.

Mr. Lubin replied that when he was first aware of the lawsuit, he called Mr. Burge and asked that any legal action be postponed until this item appeared on a City Council agenda, therefore, he did not feel that reimbursement of legal costs was appropriate except for possibly the initial filing fee.

Mayor Lyon pointed out that if a resident was not in agreement with the decision from the City’s view procedure, he still had the option of going to court.

City Attorney Lynch said that if there were substantial evidence, the court might remand the case back to the City.

Mayor Lyon asked if that would be a loss of due process.

City Attorney Lynch said the dispute could ultimately be challenged in court.

Councilman Gardiner asked the estimated time for this resident to complete the City’s view procedure at this time.

Mayor Lyon said it would probably take longer than the June 2002 time mentioned for the completion of the court case.

Director Rojas said that possibly with a solution through pre-application mediation, the process would take a considerably shorter time and, depending on the merits of the case, the view procedure might take the same amount of time.

Councilman Stern said that appeals in court could lengthen that process.

Councilman Gardiner guessed that there would be less out-of-pocket cost using the City’s process.

Councilman Stern believed the savings would be substantial.

City Attorney said that the cost using the City’s process could be increased if legal counsel were required but this was not usually the case.

Councilman Gardiner felt that removing the covenants was the best approach but he was not sure how exactly this case would be affected, although he thought it would not be affected significantly.

Councilman Stern stated that for consistency, a review by the City’s View Restoration Commission would be preferable to a review by a jury from out of the area and that the system is working well. He did not understand why Mr. Morrell felt going to court was a better remedy and guessed possibly he thought the covenant might have more power. He suggested that the Council abandon the covenant and direct the parties involved to meet to try to resolve the situation because he said that the ultimate legal expenses were going to be much more than the $5,000 already incurred.

Mayor Lyon agreed and she pointed out that the cost of the early neighborhood consultation process was absorbed by the City and the taxpayers, whereas with a lawsuit, Mr. Morrell was paying the entire cost .

Councilman Gardiner said that he was not entirely sympathetic regarding the legal costs incurred.

Councilman Stern asked about costs for beginning the City’s process.

City Attorney Lynch said that this case would likely be considered view preservation but it could be view restoration and the cost would be affected by the appropriate procedure.

Councilman Stern asked if the Council had the ability to waive fees.

City Attorney Lynch said the Council could waive filing fees.

Mayor Lyon thought that might be appropriate.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart thought the covenant approach was somewhat Pollyanna and it did not work as was expected and he felt at this time it would be helpful to know if there was evidence that there was not blockage at the time the ordinance was passed. Lacking this information, it was difficult to decide what was equitable.

Councilman Stern pointed out that if the Council had to make a decision regarding the covenant and unless it is abandoned, the case would be prosecuted.

Councilman Gardiner asked if they would apply for view presentation or restoration if the covenant were abandoned.

Director Rojas said that if Mr. Morrell submitted documentation that he had a view in 1989, it would be preservation and if not, it would be restoration.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart said that in restoration the foliage owner pays for the trimming and in preservation the view owner pays.

City Attorney Lynch added that a trust deposit would be established because staff has to perform a view analysis.

Director Rojas stated that a pre-application meeting might eliminate the case going to the View Restoration Commission.

Councilman Stern said that this process had been very successful in solving many problems.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked to see the letter Mr. Scalfaro spoke about.

Mr. Burge produced a copy of the letter.

Mr. Scalfaro said that the letter was addressed to Mr. Song, his father-in-law and he said that he saw the letter in his file when he met with staff member Steven Jones at City Hall in August.

Councilman Stern moved that this item be continued to give the parties a chance to meet. He guessed that the Council was going to abandon the covenant.

Mr. Lubin expressed concern that a postponement of the decision regarding abandonment of the covenant could result in further legal fees.

Mr. Burge stated that if the Council wished to postpone the decision on abandonment of the covenant, he would withhold further legal action. He was under the impression that this item would not come to the Council for a very long time.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart seconded the motion if it could be brought back in one month.

Councilman Gardiner said that the Council still needed to address the 900 covenants currently recorded.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked if the waiving of filing fees would be included.

Councilman Stern said that this could be decided later.

The motion carried with no objection.

Councilman Gardiner moved that staff propose a procedure for Council’s review to remove all the view covenants.

Mayor Lyon said that the procedure would have to include notification to all 900 property owners.

City Attorney Lynch pointed out that a document would have to be recorded for each covenant removed although there would be no recording fee.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart seconded the motion.

The motion carried 4-0-1, with Councilman Stern abstaining because he has a recorded view covenant on his home.

At 9:02 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 P.M.

Ann Shaw, 30036 Via Borica, representing SOC II thanked the Council for its decision to deny the use of City land for the Long Point project. She requested that the Council immediately direct the Recreation and Parks Committee to hold public hearings to receive input for the future use of Upper Point Vicente Park and she urged the Council to be responsive to the public.

Vic Quirarte, 29369 Quailwood, agreed with Ms. Shaw and suggested that the Council establish a task force of interested groups in the City to come up with a master plan for Upper Pt. Vicente Park, similar to the committee which discussed plans for the Forrestal properly.

Jim Knight, 5 Cinnamon Lane, also agreed that an enhancement plan for Upper Point Vicente Park should be developed.

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of November 7, 2001 and the recommendation to approve allocating $22,000 from the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 City Attorney Budget for the joint lawsuit investigation.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that the extra cost was caused in part by the FAA’s being recalcitrant in providing information requested and then providing information in a non-useable form. He estimated that the process had been going on for about a year and emphasized that the money was necessary to pay the unpaid bills and for other necessary expenses.

Councilwoman Ferraro clarified that the other cities had to agree to provide these funds as well.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to approve allocating $22,000 from the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 City Attorney Budget for the joint lawsuit investigation.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

Sr. Administrative Analyst Park presented the staff report of November 7, 2001 and the recommendation to approve Execution of the Professional Services Agreement with Johnson Fain Partners to Provide Architectural Services for the Civic Center Improvement Project.

Councilmember Gardiner agreed that air conditioning should be installed but he was not sure about the other modifications.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that the elevator was essential.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart agreed that the elevator would satisfy ADA requirements.

Councilmember Gardiner was concerned about a project being started which did not have a broader goal. He wanted to avoid spending money to re-do areas when plans changed as time went on. He suggested the use of virtual reality and thought Ted Vegvari of PV on the Net might be able to help. He discussed the flat area of the City Hall property as well as the downslope areas and thought building could be carried out in phases under Council guidance with a master plan for such amenities as a Council chamber, Seniors facility, Children’s Theater, athletic playing fields, etc.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart mentioned that the Council had made the decision to integrate the existing buildings into one structure.

Councilmember Gardiner said that this might be one possibility.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that this was the plan which had been discussed by the Council in previous years.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart felt that action needed to be taken with the concepts already developed by the Council and staff in order to expedite Civic Center improvements.

Councilmember Gardiner felt that the proposed project could be canceled and new ideas discussed.

Mayor Lyon felt strongly that the plans go ahead as proposed because improvements were sorely needed and soon. She mentioned the lack of sound quality for Council meetings on cable television, the inconvenience of residents having to go from one building to another to process an application and she felt the time had come to take action.

Councilman Stern believed that the proposed plan did not negate anything that Councilmember Gardiner said and he agreed that a master plan would be a good idea. He suggested that the project be delayed for a few months so that discussions could be held for improving the entire facility. He saw the Council Chambers and a non-stop center for processing applications as priorities but could see no benefit in beginning the design process that might have to be changed within a few months.

Councilwoman Ferraro felt that there had been sufficient discussion to determine what was needed.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart agreed that more talk would simply further delay improvements for residents and he discussed the more convenient, user-friendly City Halls which most other cities had. He felt there was enough information to avoid taking a wrong step which would have to be corrected later.

Councilmember Gardiner reiterated that he was concerned about a "piece-meal" project

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that the plan proposed was to remodel the existing facility rather than start from scratch and that this would be the most efficient use of the City’s funds. He felt that there was not in-house expertise to design the project and favored hiring one of the firms investigated by staff.

Kevin Tyrell, of John Fain Partners, described their firm and introduced Dan Janotta and Pat Shigetomi.

Dan Janotta gave a PowerPoint presentation which provided an overview of the firm and illustrated some of its recent projects. He stated that there were three principle disciplines within the firm, architecture, planning, and interior design. He explained their method of working and reported that they had developed three concepts to incorporate Council Chambers into the current facility, one with the chamber in the middle of the two current buildings, another with the chambers toward the rear of the property facing the ocean, and another with the chambers at the front of the current facility.

Pat Shigetomi showed examples of interiors of recent projects on an easel and described her concept of incorporating an attractive interior with retrofitting, ADA upgrades, and efficiency.

Kevin Tyrell described their vision of the project proposed at this time and potential consideration for future project expansion in the future.

Councilman Stern asked about the scope of his work in light of Council concerns about a master plan.

Kevin Tyrell said that he believed the short-term project could be accomplished with no conflict for a grander facility planned for the future.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked if amenities mentioned by the Council such as a Senior facility, a shell for summer concerts, and recreational fields for children were being considered in their vision.

Kevin Tyrell said that any identified amenities could be considered as part of the master plan for the site.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked about the topography and the habitat and wondered if they had considered whether it should be left alone or enhanced.

Kevin Tyrell said that they had considered this situation and it was certainly an important aspect of the property.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked how they would make the rectangular box-like buildings interesting.

Kevin Tyrell said that they would use the rectangular nature of the current facility as a background to support a jewelpiece.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart wondered if it would be possible to create a Mediterranean style to soften the boxy nature of the buildings while developing the first phase of the improvements.

Kevin Tyrell said that the budget would be a determining factor but that they could make the facility more attractive.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart mentioned that the Peninsula Seniors group were looking for a permanent facility to conduct business and he wondered if the Council chambers could serve a dual purpose to accommodate the Seniors as well.

Kevin Tyrell said that this could be studied but he was concerned that if the two uses were too diverse, the facility might not be ideal for either use.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart thought it was worth considering.

Councilmember Gardiner felt that the Council’s guidance should be at the beginning of the process to provide a vision of what the Council wants, not just its approval at the end of the process.

City Manager Evans responded that the Council has been providing guidance to staff on this project for several years and staff is now carrying out the Council’s directives. If there is to be a change from that original direction, the Council may make that decision. He was concerned about making the Council Chamber serve another purpose because the same problems will be experienced at that facility as are being experienced now in the multipurpose room at Hesse Park where meetings are currently held. He thought that the current meeting place might even be considered as the Senior Center. He felt the project had been well thought out and this is the first phase which was relatively inexpensive and which could realistically be accomplished. It was part of a much larger plan for Civic Center improvement.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart stated that in his 27 years in facilities design and construction, he learned that the first thing is to go to the customer and ask him what he needs and tell him what he can have and find out what he can really live with. This would be what was convenient for employees and in this case each department head had to determine the needs for his department.

Councilmember Gardiner replied that he was not contemplating telling the staff where to put the phones, filing cabinets and toilets, but he was thinking about major design parameters such as where the Council chamber and the band shell would go and whether there would be a conflict with the locations selected. Then, after Council set these parameters, staff could flesh out the plan.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart felt that it was important to have guidelines from the people who would be using the buildings, not from the architect or the Council, and he thought it was logical to have the staff put together the proposal for a facility used by staff. He believed that there is an opportunity before the Council to have professionals with vision to assist us, to provide expertise that the City does not have in-house.

At this time there was another presentation by Jerry Sturm, president, architect and principal of JSA. Mr. Sturm expressed his excitement about the possibility of modifications which would provide a workable City Hall. He said that staff has researched his credentials and found them favorable. He stated that he did not have an elaborate presentation, that the Council had a choice between a large firm and a small firm, and that he had worked as an architect for these type of projects for 30 years and for the last 15 years had principal of his own company. He explained that most of his work had been for City and County governments, school districts, banks, colleges, military facilities, retail centers, etc., and he was proud of his team who had worked well together for years. Mr. Sturm stated that every architectural job presented a challenge and that he looked forward to providing his pride of workmanship to the City. He presented evidence of customers returning to him for additional projects as proof that he worked well with clients and met their needs. He distributed to the Council a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation he had made to staff.

Councilman Stern suggested that the Council Chamber be built first and then if the facility can have other uses without detracting from its primary purpose, it can be used for other purposes. He agreed that the plan should begin for a better City Hall to improve efficiency for serving residents but he also preferred a master plan for the use of the whole property, which would mean a delay of a few months. He was not sure that the current modifications proposed would not conflict with future plans.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked Councilman Stern why he would want to delay the process since City Manager Evans had explained that the Council had discussed this project completely in the last several years.

Councilman Stern said that the project was never discussed in the context of the whole property. He repeated that he thought this first aspect of the project was not in conflict with future plans but he was not sure and would like to wait a few more months.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that he felt the band shell was not feasible because of the way the sound would carry and a study would need to be performed to determine the acoustics of the terrain.

Councilmember Gardiner felt it was important to determine what the City’s residents wanted in the way of a Civic Center and then create it. He expressed the need to provide an opportunity for notions to surface instead of modifying the Civic Center in a piecemeal fashion. He compared the situation to the appearance of a house for which an addition was planned well or not.

Mayor Lyon recognized the Shakespeare by the Sea performances this past summer on City Hall property which were successful without a band shell. She was not sure a Senior Center at City Hall would provide a convenient location for seniors on the Peninsula. She referenced the many years of discussion to provide a basic efficient City Hall to make the best use of the space available and said she would like to see the plan move forward along with parallel action by the Parks and Recreation Committee to determine public wishes and needs for Upper and Lower Point Vicente Park and to bring this back as a future Council agenda item. Mayor Lyon felt that gathering this public input did not preclude the Council from approving work to begin to improve City Hall.

Mayor Lyon moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to approve execution of the Professional Services Agreement with Johnson Fain Partners to provide architectural services for the Civic Center Improvement Project and to request that staff direct the Recreation and Parks Committee to gather public input for use of Upper and Lower Point Vicente Park.

The motion carried (3-2) on the following roll call vote:

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of November 7, 2001 and the recommendation to review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.

City Manager Evans added that Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart had been meeting with the County regarding Harbor Hills which resulted in some modifications such as moving the 75-car parking lot to the western end of the property and agreeing that they would not cut into the slope below RPV homes. He explained that Peninsula Verde Homeowner Association President Dick Brunner and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart had been active in the discussion, had studied the plans, and that that not all RPV requests for modifications had been granted.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart stated that designers said there would be additional cost if the gym building were moved further from RPV residences but they did consider turning the building at an angle to give the appearance of more space between the building and the homes. He said that he also had been concerned that the on-site probation office would bring felons onto the property but said that he learned the office was for at-risk youth who live at the site and added that he would like to see this commitment in writing. Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that RPV residents had first been made aware of this development by trenches being dug practically in their back yards and an investigation revealed that there were construction drawings already prepared when there had been no environmental hearings and no compliance with CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) or NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act).

Dick Brunner, 1906 Peninsula Verde Drive, President of the Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association, said that he was out of town and unable to attend the last meeting so he brought Daniel and Booth Tarkington to give a report.

Daniel Tarkington, 1902 Peninsula Verde Drive, reported that a proposal was made to move the parking lot closer to the buildings on the site but the City of Lomita Planning Department had not received any modified plans so he was not sure if this would actually happen. He understood that the plans had already been approved by the City of Lomita and by the County.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart felt that the City of Lomita staff did not care about moving the building but that nearby RPV residents did and he said that there was still one more opportunity to ask the County Board of Supervisors to relocate the building.

Daniel Tarkington was concerned about the potential for extreme erosion because of the water tanks on this property. He said that rainwater ran down the slope and the slope should have vegetation planted on it.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart if he had spoken to the City of Lomita.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart responded that some of the residents in the nearby condos seemed concerned but had not attended meetings.

Daniel Tarkington stated that the City of Lomita said they had placed articles about the project in the Daily Breeze but there was no map and no one knew anything until two months ago. He felt Lomita residents were unaware of the proposed project.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked Dick Brunner if he had spoken to the condo Homeowners Association president.

Dick Brunner indicated that the condo Homeowners Association president had attended the first meeting and that condo residents were concerned and perturbed that the City of Lomita had not notified them.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart was not sure that the County felt that notification to anyone was necessary and he wanted to change this policy but needed the cooperation of the Supervisor to take this matter to the Board to make sure that neighbors were informed.

Councilman Stern was pleased that the border issues were being discussed once a month and he asked the committee if the Council could assist in any way.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart suggested that a letter describing the conditions and concerns would be helpful.

Booth Tarkington, 1902 Peninsula Verde Drive, shared Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart’s concerns about the probation office and he wondered about the traffic caused by the day care and sporting events and whether these uses justified the large parking lot. He also wondered if residents in Rancho Palos Verdes or Lomita would be using these facilities and if the City of Rancho Palos Verdes had any influence over these uses.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart replied that the day care center is mostly drop off so few parking spaces were needed but he felt sure that the number of parking spaces was determined by the building code and the City of Lomita. He stated that the day care and sporting events uses would be for the general public. He shared Mr. Tarkington’s concern about the water tower on the hillside and said this was one of the issues which would be raised with the County. He was unclear about why the County seemed to have autonomy and did not have to provide environmental documents and notification.

City Attorney Lynch pointed out that the sports facilities were not on a regulation size so tournaments would not be held at this site.

City Manager Evans agreed that the City of Lomita required a certain number of parking spaces and the developers of the project did not feel the large parking lot was needed.

Mayor Lyon suggested that issues be enumerated in a letter to Los Angeles County Don Knabe and request that assurances of modifications be provided in written form.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart suggested that environmental issues should be researched by City Attorney Lynch.

Dick Brunner came to the podium again and asked if the letter could please state that the surrounding community is uncomfortable with outsiders coming in.

Councilman Stern suggested that the Border Issues subcommittee could work with staff to make sure the letter addressed all concerns.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that the letter should be signed by the Mayor.

Mayor Lyon mentioned the probation office issue and requested that assurances of onsite clients only be put in writing.

On another subject, Councilmember Gardiner raised the issue of heavy trucks bring allowed to enter Palos Verdes Estates to turnaround.

City Manager Evans said that Mr. Esfahani had not resolved the issue as yet but was working on it and he was expecting a positive outcome.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart felt that trucks en route to other Peninsula cities should not be allowed to use Rancho Palos Verdes streets just because those cities did not allow heavy trucks to use their streets.

City Manager Evans mentioned that Don Shults was present to discuss the Garden Village Shopping Center and said that he (Mr. Evans) felt confident that the key people with the City of Los Angles had been identified for each aspect of the project, although no one was aware of a geological report on the storm drains and sewer lines. Mr. Evans reported that he would going to write a formal letter to each of the City staff identified to make sure that this geological report is made available and to turn the matter over to City Attorney Lynch if they did not respond in a timely manner.

City Attorney Lynch suggested that a closed session be held before adjournment this evening to determine if additional action is required.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked that a copy of any correspondence be sent to RPV residents April Sandell and Don Shults.

City Manager Evans said that he had left a message for Erwin Busey of Regency Realty and that he hoped to speak with him soon.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked about Cotton Shires response.

City Manager Evans said that they underlined their concerns in the letter provided.

City Attorney Lynch reported that (1) there was no action regarding the open space purchase. (2) the Harbor Hill potential lawsuit would be discussed again in a closed session to be held that evening immediately after adjournment of the Improvement Authority meeting. (3) the Council unanimously directed staff to prepare an agreement to pay compensation to the property owner for the easement.

At 11:01 P.M., Mayor Lyon declared a recess to a Closed Session. The meeting reconvened at 11:30 P.M.

.

____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________
CITY CLERK

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 371 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES, INLINE SKATES AND SCOOTERS UPON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was introduced at the November 20^th meeting.)

The City has received requests from the management of the Westmont Shopping Center and from the L. A. County Sheriff’s Department urging the City to adopt an ordinance regulating the use of certain wheeled devices upon public and private property. As a result of those requests, the City Attorney’s office prepared an ordinance which was introduced at the November 20^th meeting.

At that meeting, testimony was given by a management representative from the Westmont Shopping Center and from L. A. County Sheriff’s Deputy Randy Oviedo supporting the City’s adoption of this ordinance.

Upon the adoption of this ordinance on this date, these regulations can become effective January 5, 2002 upon the posting of signs citing this section of the Municipal Code.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 21967 authorizes cities to adopt rules and regulations prohibiting or restricting persons from riding or propelling skateboards on highways, sidewalks, or roadways subject to the provisions of Vehicle Code Section 21968; and

WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 21968 prohibits the use of motorized skateboards on any sidewalk, roadway, or any other part of a highway or on any bikeway, bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail; and

WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 21969 further authorizes cities to adopt rules and regulations prohibiting or restricting persons engaged in roller skating on highways, sidewalks, or roadways subject to the provisions of Vehicle Code Section 21968; and

WHEREAS, the City wishes to regulate the use of skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, scooters and other similar motorized or unmotorized wheeled devices to the maximum extent permitted by law.

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

Section 1. Title 9 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code hereby is amended by adding new Chapter 9.30 to read as follows:

No person shall, and it shall constitute a public nuisance for any person to, operate, ride, propel, or coast any skateboard, or utilize roller skates, inline skates, scooters or any similar motorized or unmotorized wheeled device having wheels less than six (6) inches in diameter, upon any private property within any zone in the city, where notice of such prohibition has been posted and is clearly visible at a minimum of two entrances to the prohibited area or in the immediate vicinity of the area where such activity is prohibited. This section shall not apply to persons participating in any program, event or class which is sponsored by the property owner in which use of the self-powered wheeled devices described herein are specifically authorized, permitted or required.

The prohibition set forth in Section 9.30. 010 of this Chapter shall not apply unless a property owner posts at least two notices in substantially the following form: ‘PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9.30.010 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, NO SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES, INLINE SKATES, OR SCOOTERS ARE PERMITTED.’

It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision, or fail to comply with any of the requirements, of this chapter. Any person violating any provision of this chapter or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of an infraction and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by: (1) a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for a first violation; (2) a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars for a second violation within one year; (3) a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars for each additional violation within one year."

Section 2. Title 12 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 12.16.120 to Chapter 12.16 to read as follows:

Section 3. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 4. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.

Section 5. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

__________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
City Clerk

Pursuant to the Measure A program, funds are collected annually by the County and set aside for maintenance and servicing program projects. The City’s annual allocation is approximately $67,000. The current fund balance, including accrued interest is approximately $475,000. Last January, the County approved a one-time maintenance activity expenditure for the Forrestal Open Space project. It is anticipated that this activity, as outlined in the Forrestal Management Plan, will be significant in terms of our current Maintenance and Servicing fund balance.

The City's M & S funds can be used when the projects are completed. Staff currently spends approximately $45,000 per year for M&S activities.

Pursuant to the receipt of Measure A funding, the City is required to assure that at-risk youths (ARY) are employed. The City is required to spend at least 10% of its C&D funds on employment of ARY.

• The City’s target goal is to spend a total of $328,502 through FY 2018-2019. It is at the discretion of the City to decide how and on what projects to utilize ARY.
• To date the City has spent approximately $35,440, or fulfilled about 11% of its total goal towards employment of ARY.
• The City plans to meet a large portion of our goal by employing ARY during the construction of PVIC.
• Based on the current spending patterns, the City will fulfill the Youth at Risk requirements.

The recommended action does not necessitate the expenditure of funds.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
At-RiskYouth Goals and Actuals

1. Terminate an existing maintenance contract with L.A.CHA Maintenance Services for janitorial services.
2. Award a contract for janitorial services to Bell Building Maintenance Company, for the balance of FY 2001-02, and for FY 2002-03, and 2003- 04, and authorize the expenditure of $41,700 per year.
3. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with Bell Building Maintenance Co.

On September 21, 1999, the City awarded a janitorial maintenance contract to L.A.CHA Maintenance Company for a three-year period at $32,700 per year. The service provided by that contract provides janitorial maintenance services for City Hall, and the City’s park buildings.

Beginning in early 2001,the Public Works Department repeatedly informed the existing contractor that they were not in compliance with contract specifications and feedback from a number of staff members indicated that the quality of service provided by the contractor was unacceptable. October 2, 2001, L.A.CHA gave 120 days notice of intent to terminate their agreement with the City.

The Public Works Department prepared new contract specifications. The new specifications were revised to include: an increase in the frequency for carpet cleaning and window cleaning at Hesse Park and removal of the contractor’s responsibility for supplying paper products.

A mandatory pre bid meeting was held on November 15, 2001 and five companies attended the meeting and a walk-through inspection of the facilities. The following bids were received and opened on November 26, 2001.

Subsequent to the receipt of bids, staff contacted the references for Bell Building Maintenance. This firm’s performance has been satisfactory. Additionally, their bid of $41,700 per year is within the City’s approved budget. Therefore, staff recommends:

1. The award of a janitorial services contract to Bell Building Maintenance Company for the remainder of the fiscal year 2001-2002 and for FY 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.
2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement with Bell Building Maintenance Company.

Adopting the staff recommendations will award a new custodial contract to a new contractor. The level of service will increase as mentioned.

The adopted FY 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 includes adequate funding for the recommended actions, including the cost of the City purchased paper products. The funding source for this contract is the General Fund.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

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

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 October 2001.

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $25,733,058 at October 31, 2001. This represents a $196,541 increase during the month. The overall increase is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

General Fund – The General fund cash balance decreased by approximately $360,000 primarily due to the timing of property tax revenue. Throughout the fiscal year, General fund expenditures are fairly consistent from month to month. However, property taxes are levied twice each year. This causes the timing of property tax cash receipts to be cyclical. October is a month in which only $10,389 or only one-third of one percent of the annual budgeted property tax revenue was received.

COPS/LLESS/CLEEP Fund – The cash balance in the COPS fund increased by more than $104,000 during the month. This is due to the receipt of the annual COPS Brulte grant from the State in the amount of $100,000.

CIP Fund – The cash balance in this fund increased by over $341,000 during the month. This is primarily due to receipt of the $400,000 HTC grant from the County. This grant is intended to help fund the Hawthorne/Crenshaw Road Rehabilitation project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Open the Public Hearing and table the matter until the Finance Advisory Committee has presented their recommendations regarding deferral of assessments.

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.

At the November 7, 2001 meeting the City Council requested that the Finance Advisory Committee review the Undergrounding Program and consider funding programs which allow property owners to defer payment of assessments. The Public Hearing for the per parcel fee will be tabled until the deferral program is finalized.

Submitted by,
Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

Adopt Resolution No. 2001-__, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 738; and adopt Resolution No. 2001-__, conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242.

On September 18, 2000, the project applicant, JCC Homes, submitted a request for Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, Grading Permit No. 2242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738 to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The applicant's request was a proposal to subdivide the 4.99-acre California Water Service Company (CWSC) site on Crest Road into a 9-lot residential planned development (RPD). The application for Conditional Use Permit No. 228 was submitted on December 18, 2000, a revised 10-lot tentative tract map was submitted on January 16, 2001, and additional information was submitted on March 20, 2001. A general plan amendment has also been requested to make the property’s land use and zoning designations more consistent with one another.

The subject property is the 4.99-acre CWSC site, located between Crest Road and Scotwood Drive, just east of Highridge Road along the City’s boundary with the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The property includes the existing CWSC offices, maintenance yard, parking lots and an underground reservoir. Vehicular access to the site is currently available from both Crest Road and Scotwood Drive. The site is surrounded by detached single-family residences (Mesa Palos Verdes) to the north, east and south and attached single-family residences (Seaview Villas) in the City of Rolling Hills Estates to the west. The land use and zoning designations for the site are Infrastructure-Facility and RS-4, respectively.

The applicant's proposal requests permission to subdivide the site into ten (10) lots for a single-family RPD. The proposed project includes seven (7) residential lots, one lot for a private street, one lot for the existing CWSC office and one lot for the existing underground CWSC reservoir. The CWSC office and reservoir will remain on the site. The homes currently proposed by the applicant include a mix of 16-foot-tall one-story and split-level homes, ranging from approximately 4,000 to 4,600 square feet of living area. The proposed residential lots would range from approximately 10,500 to 14,000 square feet. The proposed project would also require approximately 16,000 cubic yards of earth movement, consisting of 14,000 cubic yards of cut, 2,000 cubic yards of fill and 12,000 cubic yards of export. The proposed project involves a tentative tract map, a general plan amendment, a conditional use permit and a grading permit. In addition, based upon the environmental assessment submitted with the above-mentioned applications, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the project.

On September 25, 2001, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on these applications and heard testimony from the applicant and several interested parties. The Planning Commission’s discussions focused on a number of issues. These included:

• The need for discussions between the applicant and the neighbors in the Mesa Palos Verdes and Seaview Villas communities to address their concerns about views, structure size and neighborhood compatibility

• The status of the existing reservoir and CWSC’s future plans for the site

• The design of the subdivision, particularly with respect to proposed Lot 9

• The appropriateness of using the remaining reservoir site to meet the open space requirement of the RPD

• The relationship of the project to foliage in the City’s right-of-way and any related view impacts

• Alternate, non-residential uses for the surplus portions of the CWSC site

On October 9, 2001, a neighborhood meeting was held at Hesse Park. The meeting was attended by Planning Staff, representatives of JCC Homes and CWSC, and sixteen interested parties from the surrounding Mesa Palos Verdes and Seaview Villas communities. At that meeting, JCC Homes indicated that many alternatives were being considered, and outlined a number of possible project modifications to address neighborhood concerns. On October 16, 2001, JCC Homes submitted revised plans for the proposed subdivision and homes. The revised plans incorporated reduced home sizes, elimination of 2-story homes, increased side-yard setbacks abutting the rear yards of homes on Stonecrest Road and retention of mature landscaping where possible. The revised plans were presented to the Planning Commission on October 23, 2001, along with Staff’s responses to other issues raised at the previous meetings (see the attached October 23^rd Staff report and Minutes for a detailed discussion). The outstanding issues at the October 23, 2001 meeting included completion of the view analysis of the revised homes (based upon the recently-constructed silhouettes), preparation of a landscape plan for the tract, and the completion of revisions to the Initial Study and draft MND to reflect the revised project description and the inclusion of a general plan amendment.

As shown in the attached Staff report, on November 27, 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed the outstanding issues described above and heard additional public testimony. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-44, recommending adoption of the draft MND to the City Council; and P.C. Resolution No. 2001-45, recommending conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 to the City Council. Copies of these Resolutions and the previous Staff report and Planning Commission Minutes are attached to this report.

The attached September 25, 2001 Planning Commission Staff report discusses in depth the required findings for the approval of the tentative tract map, conditional use permit and grading permit. All of these findings were made by the Planning Commission in its adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-45, and are summarized briefly below:

• The proposed residential lots are consistent with the development standards for the RS-4 zoning district

• The number of residential lots proposed is consistent with the densities permitted by the RS-4 zoning district

• Adequate provisions have been or will be made for access, utility connections and other appropriate dedications

• The project is consistent with the Development Code provisions for the establishment of a residential planned development (RPD), including the requirement that at least thirty percent (30%) of the site will be permanent open space (i.e., the landscape surface of the existing underground reservoir)
• The project is consistent with the intent of the City’s single-family development standards, and the proposed homes have been found to be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood

• The project demonstrates consideration for and sensitivity to the preservation of existing foliage, the privacy of surrounding neighbors and the future residents of the subdivision, and the provision of safe and adequate circulation

• The quantity of grading proposed is not excessive for the project

• The grading and related construction of the proposed homes will not have adverse visual impacts upon surrounding residences

In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that the General Plan land use designation for the portions of the site proposed for residential development be changed from Infrastructure-Facility to Residential 2-4 DU/acre. The Infrastructure-Facility land use designation is reflective of the land use in place on the property at the time of the City’s incorporation in 1973. Also in 1973, the property was down-zoned for single-family residential use with a 1-acre minimum lot size because the County land use plan for the site and the City as a whole generally called for much higher residential densities than existed at the time. Through the adoption of the City’s first zoning ordinance in 1975, the property was re-zoned RS-4, which was and is consistent with the density of development in the surrounding single-family neighborhood (Mesa Palos Verdes). The portions of the site proposed for residential development are surplus areas that are no longer needed for the water company’s operations. This is due in part to the fact that the original water company facilities were envisioned to supply a much higher density of development in the City—particularly within the coastal areas—which never materialized after the incorporation and down-zoning of much of the City. However, there is still an apparent inconsistency with the General plan land use designation of Infrastructure-Facility and the site’s RS-4 zoning designation. Therefore, the approval of the proposed subdivision and residential development of portions of the CWSC site shall be contingent upon the City Council’s approval of a general plan amendment that designates the portions of the site proposed for residential development as Residential 2-4 DU/acre.

Finally, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the draft MND prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 738. All of the recommended mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval for the project, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared for the project.

On November 14, 2001, public notices were mailed to the applicant, the property owner and one hundred seventy-two other property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. On November 17, 2001, public notice of the December 4, 2001 public hearing for Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, et al. was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. Copies of all correspondence received in response to this notice are attached to this report. Public notice of the draft MND was also published and circulated in accordance with City and State regulations.

The Planning Commission found that the proposed project is consistent with all of the required findings for approval. As such, Staff hereby forwards, on the Planning Commission’s behalf, a recommendation that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2001-__, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 738; and adopt Resolution No. 2001-__, conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242.

If approved, the developer could, at the City Council’s discretion, be required to pay in-lieu park dedication and affordable housing fees to the City prior to the approval of the final tract map. The amount of these fees is unknown at this time.

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

1. Approve the proposed project with further modifications, and direct Staff to return with appropriate Resolutions at a future date.
2. Deny the proposed project, and direct Staff to return with appropriate Resolutions at a future date.
3. Identify issues of concern with the project, provide direction to Staff and/or the applicant, and continue this matter to a future meeting.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Resolution No. 2001-__ (MND)
Resolution No. 2001-__ (TTM)
P.C. Resolution Nos. 2001-44 and2001-45
Planning Commission Staff reports and Minutes
Additional public correspondence Project plans

RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__

WHEREAS, on September 18, 2000, applications for Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228, Grading Permit No. 2242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738 were submitted to the Planning Department by JCC Homes, Inc. on behalf of the property owner, California Water Service Company, to allow the division of a 4.99-acre site into seven (7) residential lots, one (1) open space lot, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot to accommodate the existing California Water Service Company offices; and,

WHEREAS, Staff completed an initial review of the applications and plans submitted to the Planning Department and determined that additional information was needed in order to continue processing the request. Furthermore, the applicant was informed of some potential Staff concerns pertaining to views and aesthetics, thus recommending that an environmental consultant prepare the necessary environmental documents to determine the project’s impact on the surrounding environment. Subsequently, Staff deemed the subject applications incomplete on October 18, 2000 and February 8, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2001 the augmented project applications and revised plans were submitted to the City and reviewed by Staff, and subsequently deemed complete for processing pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act on April 17, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53305 General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review for twenty-one (21) days between September 13, 2001 and October 4, 2001, and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and,

WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigation Monitoring program has been prepared, and is attached to the Environmental Assessment No. 738 and this Resolution as Exhibit ‘A’; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, at the September 25, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff and the applicant to further investigate design alternatives to address concerns pertaining to density, structure size, setback buffers and view impacts with the applicant and the surrounding neighbors. A unanimous motion to continue action on the proposed tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to October 23, 2001 was passed by the Commission; and,

WHEREAS, on October 9, 2001 Staff met with the applicant and surrounding neighbors to address the concerns identified at the September 25, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. At that time, possible project revisions were discussed by the applicant and presented to Staff and the neighbors, who collectively addressed the concerns pertaining to density, structure size, setback buffers and view impacts; and,

WHEREAS, on October 16, 2001, the applicant submitted revised project plans to the City in order to address the concerns raised by Staff and the neighbors; and,

WHEREAS, at the October 23, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission was presented with the revised project plans and heard additional testimony from the neighbors. A unanimous motion to continue action on the proposed tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to October 23, 2001 was passed by the Commission; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing a new notice pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 27, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, on November 27, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-44, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 738; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing notice pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

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

Section 1: The subject applications would permit the subdivision of a 4.99-acre site into ten (10) lots, consisting of seven (7) residential lots, one (1) open space lot, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot for the remaining California Water Service Company office. The proposed residential lots will maintain a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum contiguous lot area of 3,300 square feet, as required by the City’s Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance for lots located within the designated RS-4 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district. As proposed, six (6) of the lots will maintain access off Scotwood Drive via a new private street, and the seventh residential lot will have direct access off Scotwood Drive, an existing public street. The subject property is currently improved with the existing California Water Service Company office, reservoir, maintenance yard, carport and parking lot. A portion of the existing carport will be demolished prior to recordation of the final tract map. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision requires 16,000 cubic yards of associated grading, consisting of 14,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill, of which 12,000 cubic yards will be exported from the site. The City Council finds that the proposed project is permitted within the RS-4 zoning district, and would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. In making this finding, the City Council considered the project's mitigation measures that address the issues of Land Use and Planning, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology, Noise, Traffic/Circulation, Utilities, and Water Quality.

Section 2: The creation of seven (7) single-family residential lots is consistent with the type of land use and density identified in the City’s General Plan, Residential 2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre; and, as conditioned, is consistent with the City’s Development Code for projects within the RS-4 zoning district, and will not significantly impact the required land use.

Section 3: The proposed project will create seven (7) single-family residential lots that when developed will not alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population in the area above what is forecast in adopted City plans and policies, nor will the project affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing beyond what will developed. The project will not create a significant additional demand for fire or police protection, or other governmental services.

Section 4: The subdivision and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract; and that the dedications required by local ordinance are shown on the Tentative Tract Map and/or are set forth in the attached conditions of approval.

Section 5: That the discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Quality Control Board.

Section 6: The project requires 16,000 cubic yards of associated grading to prepare the site for residential development. As such, the City Council finds that the proposed project will not result in significant adverse affects to topography; destruction, covering, or modification of unique geologic or physical features; impacts to archeological or paleontological resources; or expose persons to seismic ground failure, landslides, or other known hazards; affect any plant or animal species or result in the removal of any sensitive plant life or animal life; or create a wasteful or inefficient use of the energy already being consumed on the site. Although on-site grading is proposed, a geotechnical report addressing the scope of the project grading has been conceptually approved by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer in the planning stage, further reports will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Building Official and the City’s geotechnical consultant prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Furthermore, the geotechnical report shall provide the developer with applicable conditions for which the project shall be constructed, along with other conditions that the City’s Building Official and City’s geotechnical consultant find necessary to ensure the project is constructed in a manner that does not jeopardize the public’s health, safety and welfare. As such, the mitigation measures will ensure that the proposed project will not cause any significant geological impacts.

Section 7: The proposed project will not change the current, the course or the direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters, since the project site is not located in such a setting. Although there may be slight changes in the absorption rates, drainage patterns, and surface run-off on the subject site as a result of the proposed project. A proposed drainage plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval pertaining to the implementation of mitigation measures that address potential impacts to water patterns. Furthermore, in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, as it pertains to implementation strategies that reduce stormwater runoff. As such, the City Council finds that such conditions will ensure that water patterns will not significantly impact the surrounding environment.

Section 8: That the proposed land division will not generate traffic volumes that create substantial impacts to circulation patterns, parking capacity, or traffic congestion, as discussed in the Initial Study.

Section 9: Although the construction of the proposed project is anticipated to generate noise levels uncommon to the surrounding environment, such noise will be temporary in nature and that the City has imposed conditions, in accordance with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ Municipal Code, that limits construction between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction permitted on Sundays and legal holidays (as identified in the City’s Municipal Code). Furthermore, mitigation measures require that all construction equipment engines be equipped with standard noise insulating features and are tuned to the manufacturer’s recommendations. As such, the City Council finds that the mitigation measures imposed will ensure that noise levels do not adversely impact surrounding properties.

Section 10: With respect to aesthetics, the City’s Development Code requires new residential construction be developed in a manner that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, as it pertains to size, mass and bulk, architectural style and front yard setbacks, in order to preserve the character of established neighborhoods. The seven (7) homes proposed as a part of this project have been reviewed for compatibility with the character of the surrounding Mesa Palos Verdes neighborhood. All of the homes will comply with the 20-foot front-yard setback requirement, which applies throughout the surrounding neighborhood. The homes will also display a variety of architectural styles and materials that complement the architecture of nearby homes. Although the proposed homes are generally larger than the surrounding homes in Mesa Palos Verdes, their size has been reduced by the applicant in response to neighborhood concerns. The six (6) homes on the cul-de-sac will form their own "neighborhood" that will be internally consistent with itself. The seventh home, which faces on to Scotwood Drive, will be seen in direct context with adjacent residences, so it has been re-designed to minimize its apparent bulk and mass as viewed from the street. With respect to scenic vistas from surrounding properties, the project has been modified to limit all seven (7) homes to sixteen feet (16’) in height, as measured from the finished grade elevations, so that ocean views are preserved and protected. As such, the City Council finds that the proposed conditions will protect views of the Pacific Ocean and Santa Catalina Island from surrounding properties.

Section 11: Grading of the site may cause some impacts to air quality as a result of air-borne dust particles. However, to ensure that there will be no significant impacts, mitigation measures have been added that require the applicant take specific actions to control air-borne dust particles.

Section 12: For reasons discussed in the Initial Study, which is incorporated herein by reference, the project will not have any potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals, nor would the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

Section 13: The applicant has consulted the lists prepared pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and has submitted a signed statement indicating whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included on any such list, and has specified any such list. The Lead Agency has consulted the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, and has certified that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not included in these lists of known Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites as compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Section 14: The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit ‘A’, attached hereto, are incorporated into the scope of the proposed project. These measures will reduce potential significant impacts identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level.

Section 15: For the foregoing reasons and based on its independent review and evaluation of the information and findings contained in the Initial Study, Staff Reports, minutes, and records of the proceedings, the City Council has determined that the project as conditioned and mitigated will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment and, therefore, adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration making certain environmental findings in association with Environmental Assessment No. 738, Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 to allow the subdivision of a 4.99-acre site into seven (7) residential lots, one (1) open space lot, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot to accommodate the existing California Water Service Company offices, on property located within the City’s designated RS-4 zoning district, located at 5837 Crest Road.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December 2001.

_____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

_______________________________
CITY CLERK

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

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December 4, 2001.

__________________________
City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes

RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__

WHEREAS, on September 18, 2000, applications for Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228, Grading Permit No. 2242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738 were submitted to the Planning Department by JCC Homes, Inc. on behalf of the property owner, California Water Service Company, to allow the division of a 4.99-acre site into seven (7) residential lots, one (1) open space lot, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot to accommodate the existing California Water Service Company offices; and,

WHEREAS, Staff completed an initial review of the applications and plans submitted to the Planning Department and determined that additional information was needed in order to continue processing the request. Furthermore, the applicant was informed of some potential Staff concerns pertaining to views and aesthetics, thus recommending that an environmental consultant prepare the necessary environmental documents to determine the project’s impact on the surrounding environment. Subsequently, Staff deemed the subject applications incomplete on October 18, 2000 and February 8, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2001 the augmented project applications and revised plans were submitted to the City and reviewed by Staff, and subsequently deemed complete for processing pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act on April 17, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review for twenty-one (21) days between September 13, 2001 and October 4, 2001, and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, at the September 25, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff and the applicant to further investigate design alternatives to address concerns pertaining to density, structure size, setback buffers and view impacts with the applicant and the surrounding neighbors. A unanimous motion to continue action on the proposed tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to October 23, 2001 was passed by the Commission; and,

WHEREAS, on October 9, 2001 Staff met with the applicant and surrounding neighbors to address the concerns identified at the September 25, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. At that time, possible project revisions were discussed by the applicant and presented to Staff and the neighbors, who collectively addressed the concerns pertaining to density, structure size, setback buffers and view impacts; and,

WHEREAS, on October 16, 2001, the applicant submitted revised project plans to the City in order to address the concerns raised by Staff and the neighbors; and,

WHEREAS, at the October 23, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission was presented with the revised project plans and heard additional testimony from the neighbors. A unanimous motion to continue action on the proposed tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to October 23, 2001 was passed by the Commission; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing a new notice pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 27, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, at its November 27, 2001 meeting, after hearing public testimony, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-44 making certain findings related to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project; and,

WHEREAS, at its November 27, 2001 meeting, after hearing public testimony, the Planning Commission also adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-45, recommending that the City Council conditionally approve Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing notice pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

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

Section 1: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Tentative Tract Map No. 53305 to subdivide the 4.99-acre site into ten (10) lots:

Section 2: The City Council finds that the proposal to change the land use designation for portions of the property from Infrastructure-Facility to Residential 2-4 DU/acre is appropriate because the Infrastructure-Facility designation is reflective of the land use in place on the property at the time of the City’s incorporation in 1973. Also in 1973, the property was down-zoned for single-family residential use with a 1-acre minimum lot size because the County land use plan for the site and the City as a whole generally called for much higher residential densities than existed at the time. Through the adoption of the City’s first zoning ordinance in 1975, the property was re-zoned RS-4, which was and is consistent with the density of development in the surrounding single-family neighborhood (Mesa Palos Verdes). The portions of the site proposed for residential development are surplus areas that are no longer needed for the water company’s operations. This is due in part to the fact that the original water company facilities were envisioned to supply a much higher density of development in the City—particularly within the coastal areas—which never materialized after the incorporation and down-zoning of much of the City. However, there is still an apparent inconsistency with the General plan land use designation of Infrastructure-Facility and the site’s RS-4 zoning designation. Therefore, the approval of the proposed subdivision and residential development of portions of the California Water Service Company site should be contingent upon the City Council’s approval of a general plan amendment that designates the portions of the site proposed for residential development as Residential 2-4 DU/acre.

Section 3: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 228 to establish a residential planned development (RPD) overlay for the subject property:

Section 4: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Grading Permit No. 2242 for the development of seven (7) single-family residences and a private street:

_____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

_______________________________
CITY CLERK

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

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December 4, 2001.

__________________________
City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes

General

1. Within ninety (90) days of this approval, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The developer shall supply the City with one mylar and copies of the map after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.
3. This approval expires twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval of the tentative tract map by the City Council, unless extended per Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 16.16.040 of the Development Code. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Department in writing prior to the expiration of the map.
4. The portion of the existing carport structure that crosses the property line between Lots 8 and 9 shall be demolished prior to recording the final tract map. A demolition permit shall be obtained by the City’s Building and Safety division prior to any demolition activity.
5. All lots shall comply with the lot criteria required by the Development Code for a RS-4 Zoning District, including the 10,000 square foot minimum lot area and the 3,300 square foot minimum contiguous lot area.
6. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 5 PM on Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays unless otherwise permitted with the approval of a Special Construction Permit.
7. Unless specific development standards for the development of the lots are contained in these conditions of approval, the development of the lots shall comply with the requirements of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code.
8. The approval of the proposed subdivision and residential development of portions of the California Water Service Company site shall be contingent upon the City Council’s approval of a general plan amendment that designates the portions of the site proposed for residential development as Residential 2-4 DU/acre.

9. Prior to submitting the Final Map for recordation pursuant to Section 66442 of the Government Code, the subdivider shall obtain clearances from affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from the City’s Engineer for the following items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures, etc.

10. If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map, the developer shall submit a preliminary guarantee. A final guarantee will be required at the time of filing of the final map with the County Recorder. If said signatures do not appear on the final map, a preliminary title report/guarantee is needed that covers the area showing all fee owners and interest holders. The account for this preliminary title report guarantee shall remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder.

11. A qualified archaeologist shall make frequent periodic grading inspections to evaluate cultural resources on the site. If archaeological resources are found, all work in the immediate area shall stop and the resources shall be removed or preserved. All "finds" shall be reported to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement immediately.
12. A qualified paleontologist shall be present during all rough grading operations. If paleontological resources are found, the paleontologist shall stop all work in the affected area and all resources shall be excavated or preserved. All "finds" shall be reported to the Director Planning, Building and Code Enforcement immediately.

Sewers

13. A bond, cash deposit, or other City approved security, shall be posted prior to recordation of the Final Map or start of work, whichever occurs first, to cover costs for construction of a sanitary sewer system, in an amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works.
14. Prior to approval of the final map, the subdivider shall submit to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement a written statement from the County Sanitation District approving the design of the tract with regard to the existing trunk line sewer. Said approval shall state all conditions of approval, if any, and state that the County is willing to maintain all connections to said trunk lines.
15. Approval of this subdivision of land is contingent upon the installation, dedication and use of local main line sewer and separate house laterals to serve each lot of the land division.

16. Sewer easements are required, subject to review by the City Engineer, to determine the final locations and requirements.
17. Prior to construction, the subdivider shall obtain approval of the sewer improvement plans from the County Engineer Sewer Design and Maintenance Division.

18. There shall be filled with the City Engineer a "will serve" statement from the water purveyor indicating that water service can be provided to meet the demands of the proposed development. Said statement shall be dated no more than six (6) months prior to issuance of the building permits.
19. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or prior to commencement of work, whichever comes first, the subdivider must submit a labor and materials bond in addition to either:

1. An agreement and a faithful performance bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer and guaranteeing the installation of the water system; or
2. An agreement and other evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer indicating that the subdivider has entered into a contract with the serving water utility to construct the water system, as required, and has deposited with such water utility security guaranteeing payment for the installation of the water system.

20. There shall be filed with the City Engineer a statement from the water purveyor indicating that the proposed water mains and any other required facilities will be operated by the water purveyor and that, under normal operating conditions, the system will meet the needs of the developed tract.
21. At the time the final land division map is submitted for checking, plans and specifications for the water systems facilities shall be submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval, and shall comply with the City Engineer’s standards. Approval for filing of the land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications mentioned above.
22. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities that shall include fire hydrants of the size and type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land division. The City Engineer shall determine domestic flow requirements. Fire flow requirements shall be determined by the Fire Department and evidence of approval by the Fire Chief is required.
23. Framing of structures shall not begin until after the Los Angeles County Fire Department has determined that there is adequate fire fighting water and access available to said structures.
24. Prior to final map approval by the City, and subject to the review and approval of the City PBCE Department, the project proponent shall provide evidence that they have received confirmation from the California Water Service Company that current water supplies are adequate to serve the proposed project.
25. The City shall ensure that construction plans and specifications for all proposed homes shall include the following interior water conservation measures for the following plumbing devices and appliances:

• Reduce water pressure to 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve.
• Install water-conserving clothes washers.
• Install water-conserving dishwashers and/or spray emitters that are retrofitted to reduce flow.
• Install one-and-one-half gallon, ultra-low flush toilets.

26. Landscaping and irrigation plans for the public and private open space areas shall be submitted by the project proponent and approved by the Director of PBCE, prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plans shall incorporate, at a minimum, the following water conservation measures:

• Extensive use of native plant materials.
• Low water-demand plants.
• Minimum use of lawn or, when used, installation of warm season grasses.
• Grouped plants of similar water demand to reduce over-irrigation of low water demand plants.
• Extensive use of mulch in all landscaped areas to improve the soil’s water-holding capacity.
• Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems.
• Use of reclaimed wastewater, stored rainwater or gray water for irrigation.

27. The project proponents shall contact the Department of Water Resources for information on other water conservation techniques which could be incorporated into the project design. Evidence of compliance with such other recommendations shall be submitted to the Director of PBCE, prior to the issuance of building permits.

Drainage

28. A bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof shall be posted to cover costs of construction in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.

29. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the developer shall submit a hydrology study to the City Engineer to determine any adverse impacts to existing flood control facilities generated by this project. Should the City Engineer determine that adverse impacts will result, the developer will be required to post a cash deposit or bond or combination thereof in an amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works, which will be based on the project’s share of the necessary improvements.
30. Drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with the following requirements must be approved prior to the recordation of the Final Map or commencement of work, whichever comes first:

1. Provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and dedicate and show easements on the final map.
2. Eliminate the sheet overflow and ponding or elevate the floors of the buildings with no openings in the foundation walls to at least twelve inches above the finished pad grade.
3. Provide drainage facilities to protect the lots from high velocity scouring action.
4. Provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties.

31. In accordance with Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the State Department of Fish and Game, 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California 90802, (562) 435-7741, shall be notified prior to commencement of work within any natural drainage courses affected by this project.
32. All drainage swales and any other on-grade drainage facilities, including gunite, shall be of an earth tone color and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
33. Site surface drainage measures included in the project Geotechnical Engineering & Engineering Geologic Exploration report (Western Laboratories, July 21, 2000) shall be implemented by the project developer during project construction.
34. Subject to review and approval of the City Public Works and Building and Safety Department and prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit a stormwater management plan which shows the on-site and off-site stormwater conveyance system that will be constructed by the project proponent for the purpose of safely conveying stormwater off of the project site. These drainage structures shall be designed in accordance with the most current standards and criteria of the Director of Public Works and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to ensure that default drainage capacity is maintained. The plan shall also show whether existing stormwater facilities off the site are adequate to convey storm flows.
35. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding the required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the project. The developer shall obtain this permit and provide the City with proof of the permit before construction activities begin on the project site.
36. Appropriate Best Management Practices, including sandbags shall be used to help control runoff from the project site during project construction activities.
37. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the project proponent shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed project.

38. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or the commencement of work, whichever occurs first, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof shall be posted to cover costs for the full improvement of all proposed public streets and related improvements, in an amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works.
39. The developer shall post an additional cash deposit, letter of credit, or combination thereof in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of full improvements of all facilities within the right-of-way of Scotwood Drive adjacent to the Tract. Said improvements may include, but are not limited to, A/C paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements, bikeways, bus stop improvements, medians and landscaping. The design of such improvements shall be subject to the adopted street standards and the approval of the Director of Public Works.
40. The proposed street shall be "private" and designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, pursuant to the following specifications:

1. All proposed streets shall be thirty (30) feet in width, measured from flow-line. Right-of-way shall be a minimum of thirty-three (33) feet.
2. Cul-de-sacs shall be designed to the specifications of the Director of Public Works and the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
3. Street and traffic signs shall be placed at all intersections and/or corners, as specified by the Director of Public Works, and shall meet City standards.
4. All proposed streets shall be designed in substantially the same alignment, as shown on the approved tentative tract map, and to the above conditions.
5. Any raised and landscaped medians and textured surfaces shall be designed to standards as approved by the Director of Public Works prior to construction. The developer shall provide maintenance of such improvements.
6. No street lights or vehicular gates are permitted.

41. The contractor shall be responsible for repairs to any neighboring streets (those streets to be determined by the Director of Public Works) which may be damaged during development of the tract. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall post a bond, cash deposit or City approved security, in an amount sufficient to cover the costs to repair any damage to streets or appurtenant structures as a result of this development.
42. The applicant shall obtain any necessary approvals from the City of Rolling Hills Estates to allow the use of public streets for project-related construction vehicles.
43. The City, at its discretion, may permit the developer to make said improvements or use the above payments to make said improvements by the City, as determined by the Director of Public Works.
44. The developer shall pay traffic impact fees in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works upon acceptance of all public works improvements by the Director of Public Works.

45. All utilities to and on the lots shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. Cable television shall connect to the nearest trunk line at the developer’s expense.

Geology

46. Subject to review and approval by the Director of the City Planning Building and Code Enforcement Department (City PBCE) and prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent implement are of the recommendations in the Geotechnical Engineering & Engineering Geologic Exploration report (Western Laboratories, July 21, 2000) prepared for the project.
47. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or commencement of work, whichever occurs first, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof shall be posted to cover costs for any geologic hazard abatement in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.
48. All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development shall be eliminated or the City Geologist shall designate a restricted use area in which the erection of buildings or other structures shall be prohibited.
49. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the developer shall submit a Geology and/or Soils Engineer’s report on the expansive properties of soils on all building sites in the proposed subdivision. Such soils are defined by Building Code Section 2904 (b).
50. An as-built geological report shall be submitted for structures founded on bedrock. An as-built soils and compaction report shall be submitted for structures founded on fill as well as for all engineered fill areas.

Easements

51. Easements shall not be granted or recorded within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highway access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements until after the final tract map is filed with the County Recorder, unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the Final Tract Map.
52. A private street easement, prepared to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, shall be recorded against Lots 8 and 10 allowing egress and ingress rights to Lots 1 through 6.
53. A landscape maintenance easement, prepared to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, shall be recorded against Lots 1 through 4, inclusive, allowing the homeowners’ association to access and maintain the landscaping on the southerly portions of Lots 1 through 3 and the easterly portions of Lots 3 and 4.

54. Easements are required, subject to review by the City Engineer, to determine the final locations and requirements.

55. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof shall be posted to cover costs to establish survey monumentation in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.
    
    
56. Within twenty-four (24) months from the date of filing the Final Map, the developer shall set survey monuments and tie points and furnish the tie notes to the City Engineer.
    
    
57. All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code.
    
    
58. All tract corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.

59. Any street names and/or house numbering by the developer must be approved by the City Engineer.

60. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall pay to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes a Parkland Dedication in lieu fee which is to be calculated pursuant to the City’s Development Code
61. A notation shall be placed upon the final tract map, stating the Lot 7 is a common open space area for the tract, pursuant to Section 17.42.040(C) of the City’s Municipal Code. Lot 7 shall be held in fee by California Water Service Company and its successors, which shall be obligated to maintain the property as a common open space area. The foliage along the southerly property line of Lot 7 shall be maintained so as not to exceed eight feet (8’) in height.


62. A notation shall be placed upon the final tract map, reserving the right to prohibit the erection of residential structures on Lots 7 and 8 to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Affordable Housing

63. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the subdivider shall agree to participate in the City’s affordable housing program, as codified in Chapter 17.11 of the City’s Municipal Code. Said participation may include construction of affordable units and/or payment of an affordable housing in-lieu fee.

64. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or the commencement of work, whichever occurs first, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof, shall be posted to cover the costs of grading in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.
65. Prior to issuance of a grading permit by Building and Safety, the applicant shall submit to the City a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating that the applicant has obtained a general liability insurance policy in an amount not less than 5 million dollars per occurrence and in the aggregate to cover awards for any death, injury, loss or damage, arising out of the grading or construction of this project by the applicant. Said insurance policy must be issued by an insurer admitted to do business in the State of California with a minimum rating of A-VII by Best’s Insurance Guide. Said insurance shall not be canceled or reduced during the grading or construction work and shall be maintained in effect for a minimum period of one (1) year following the final inspection and approval of said work by the City, and without providing at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City.

66. Approval shall allow a total of 16,000 cubic yards of earth movement, consisting of 14,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill, of which 12,000 cubic yards will be exported from the site. The maximum height of cut is 8 feet and the maximum height of fill is 3 feet. Any revisions that result in a substantial increase to the aforementioned grading quantities shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council as a revision to the grading application.
67. A construction plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to issuance of grading permits. Said plan shall include but not be limited to: limits of grading, estimated length of time for rough grading and improvements, location of construction trailer, location and type of temporary utilities. The use of rock crushers shall be prohibited.
68. Prior to filing the Final Map, a grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geologist. This grading plan shall include a detailed engineering, geology and/or soils engineering report and shall specifically be approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It shall also be consistent with the tentative map and conditions, as approved by the City.
69. A note shall be placed on the approved grading plan that requires the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement to approve rough grading prior to final clearance. The Director (or a designated staff member) shall inspect the graded site for accuracy of pad elevations, created slope gradients, and pad size by requiring the applicant to provide survey certifications of the pad elevations, slope gradients, and pad sizes.
70. Grading shall conform to Chapter 29, "Excavations, Foundations, and Retaining Walls", and Chapter 70, "Excavation and Grading of the Uniform Building Code".
71. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall demonstrate to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code Requirements which require watering for the control of dust.
72. During construction, all grading activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 30 mph). To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff.
73. The project proponent shall provide the Director of PBCE with weekly certifications that all construction equipment is fitted with emission control devices and kept in proper tune.
74. Graded slope tops shall be rounded, slope gradients shall be varied, and no significant abrupt changes between natural and graded slopes will be permitted. All created slopes shall not be greater than 3:1. Slopes may be split between adjacent lots.
75. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the project proponent shall prepare a haul route plan for approval by the City’s Public Works Department. The project proponent shall also be required to post a bond with the City in an amount determined by the Public Works Department that will provide for the repair of City streets damaged by the hauling of soil to the project site.
76. Project construction activities shall comply with applicable City noise restrictions. Construction activities shall be limited to hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. No project construction will be allowed on Sundays or on holidays.

Prior to issuance of building permits, the subdivider shall submit a tract fencing plan for the review and approval for the Director.

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

Receive and file the following: (1) the FY 2000-2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and (2) the Single Audit report of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Each City Council Member has received a copy of the FY 2000-2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Finance Department staff has compiled the information contained within the CAFR, including a Letter of Transmittal or written summary of the City’s accomplishments during the past year, the financial statements and statistical information of the City and its component units (Redevelopment Agency and Joint Powers Improvement Authority). A separate set of financial statements for both of the City’s component units (inclusive of a separate audit opinion for each) will be presented to their respective governing boards. A copy of the CAFR is currently available for review by the public in the reception area at City Hall.

The City’s auditors, Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP, have prepared the CAFR, and staff has reviewed the document in its entirety. Staff believes that the FY 2000-2001 CAFR meets the standards and requirements established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) for presentation of financial data, note disclosure and statistical information. The CAFR includes the audited financial statements and accompanying notes for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. The scope of the audit examination is limited to the general-purpose financial statements and the accompanying notes, beginning on page 2 of the CAFR. Based upon their independent audit, Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP have issued an unqualified opinion (clean opinion). The opinion letter is presented on page 1 of the CAFR.

A management letter is intended to call attention to matters involving the internal controls of the City’s accounting system. The auditors provide suggestions for improving the internal controls and efficiency of the of the City’s financial systems. Test procedures include discussions with staff about the internal control system and the general operating affairs of the City for the past fiscal year, tests of the internal control system, and other audit procedures deemed necessary to render an opinion on the City’s financial statements. For FY 2000-2001, the auditors noted no matters involving the City’s accounting internal controls, and therefore did not issue a management letter.

A Single Audit of Federal financial assistance is required when local governments spend more than $300,000 for projects funded with Federal monies. The City expended $457,615 on Federal funded projects during FY 2000-2001. The Single Audit report includes the Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to Each Major Program and Internal Control over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133. As noted in the report, there were no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported, and no matters were noted involving the internal control over financial reporting and its operation that are considered to be material weaknesses.

A copy of the Single Audit report is also available for review by the public in the reception area at City Hall.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

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

At their meeting of April 17, 2001 the City Council established an Ad Hoc Committee for dealing with "border issues." 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.

At their September 4, 2001 meeting the City Council adopted a policy on how to process "border issues."

Councilmember Gardiner asked that we gather information on the proposed Palos Verdes Golf Course. The course is proposed for the old landfill in Rolling Hills Estates. Attached is a letter discussing the project signed by Doug Pritchard, City Manager of Rolling Hills Estates and a report by Kit Fox, our Senior Planner, of a "scoping" meeting that took place on November 126, 2001. The Council may wish to add this matter to the list of "border issues" under review by the Ad Hoc committee. An update of pending issues is attached.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans
City Manager

Attachments:
Border Issues Status Report
Letter from Rolling Hills Estates
Report of Scoping Meeting

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. 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 reported on her research into the environmental process in closed session at the November 7, 2001 City Council meeting. The City geologist also provided his comments on the project grading at the November 7, 2001 meeting. The City Council directed the City Manager to prepare a letter to Supervisor Knabe pointing out that the 60-day period within which the Board is expected to receive a report from the Housing Authority will expire on November 22, 2001. Prior to the expiration of the 60-day period the Council has asked for assurances from the Supervisor in writing regarding design and operational changes. The letter, signed by Mayor Lyon is attached. Dick Simmons, of the Supervisor’s office, has indicated that such a letter is forthcoming.

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 measures to mitigate the impacts of future settlement on existing storm drain and sewer lines on the Village Garden’s property. Mr. Cotton’s concerns were also voiced by the developer’s geologist during the project planning phase. City staff, has attempted to find out which Department or person in the city of Los Angeles hierarchy has been assigned the responsibility for inspection and monitoring conditions of the development related to settlement and possible storm drain damage. Although we have talked with many City of Los Angeles employees and have been treated courteously, no one has accepted the responsibility. Accordingly, Staff has prepared letters to:

The letters are all similar in that they express the City’s concern over the repair and inspection of the storm drains and ask who is responsible for insuring that the lines are properly monitored. Should we not receive an appropriate response we will recommend that the matter be taken up by the City Attorney.

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 been able to do so.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2001

SUBJECT: PROCESS FOR SELECTION AND RECRUITMENT OF MEMBERS FOR THE CITY’S ADVISORY BOARDS

(1) Establish a process for interviewing and selecting advisory board members and chairs; and, (2) Set a schedule to interview the applicants.

Setting an interview schedule at this time will allow sufficient time to conduct the recruitment for candidates for the City’s advisory boards.

Recruitment for the City’s advisory boards has traditionally taken place during the holiday season in December and early January. Reviewing the history of the interview schedule showed that sometimes the City Council set adjourned meetings (weekdays and weekends) during the month of December to interview candidates and then made appointments later that month. For the last few recruitments, however, the schedule has stretched into the month of January with appointments being made later that month.
Following the 1999 election, however, because of the dearth of applicants for these advisory boards, especially for the View Restoration Commission, recruitment was extended through the month of February. It was felt that with all of the distractions of the holiday season that perhaps December and early January was not the best time to conduct the recruitment and that future recruitments should begin after the holiday season. Interviews were then conducted in late February 2000 and, except for the View Restoration Commission, appointments were made in early April of that year; appointments to the View Restoration Commission were made in mid-May.

City Council Policy No. 6 adopted in 1992 calls out the process for advertising all advisory board vacancies, to wit:

Councilman Stern has recommended that the Council consider meeting on a Saturday to conduct the interviews and that after selection of board members that those appointees interested in being the chair submit their name for consideration. (Advisory board chairs have generally been appointed for a one-year period, with off-year appointments being made at the first Council meeting in December.)

Something else for the Council to consider is the suggestion made by former Councilman Hollingsworth. After discussion of the recruitment process at a Mayor’s breakfast meeting, he felt that incumbent board members should be interviewed apart from new applicants. His memorandum of October 26, 1999 reads, in part, as follows: "There are several benefits as I see it. First, the group of "incumbents" would be more at ease and provide more insightful answers to questions. Second, the Council could ask more probing and useful questions. Third, the new applicants would also be more at ease and Council could ask different kinds of questions, more related to qualifications."

Maddy Act

As required by Government Code Section 54972 (Appointments List) an appointments list of all regular and ongoing boards, commissions, and committees appointed by the City Council has been prepared and is attached. This list will be posted and published on the City’s website.

Recruitment for the City’s advisory boards has historically taken place during the months of December and January. Council needs to set an appropriate schedule at this time so the recruitment process can begin.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

*There are two vacancies on the View Restoration Commission, one regular member and one alternate.

Continue the discussion and decision on the matter of format of City Council minutes to the December 18, 2001 City Council meeting.

The matter of the format for City Council minutes was discussed at the September 18, 2001 meeting and again at the October 2, 2001 meeting. Attached is a copy of the discussion that took place at both of those meetings as well as the staff report for the October 2, 2001 meeting. At the October 2^nd meeting Council directed staff to prepare the City Council minutes in the same format as the Planning Commission minutes ("expanded summary") for the next three meetings.

As of this date, three sets of minutes (October 2, October 16, and November 7) have been prepared using the expanded format. The October minutes were presented and approved by council at previous meetings. The November 7^th minutes are on this evening’s agenda for review and approval.

The Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk has developed information regarding the additional time required to prepare minutes in the expanded format. She has also made a brief study of the advances in technology that may ultimately make written minutes, especially in an expanded format) a costly redundancy. Obviously, the City Council has had an opportunity now to review three sets of "expanded format" minutes and compare them with the "summary format" minutes used in the past. Unfortunately, the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk made plans several months ago to be out of town on December 4, 2001 and will therefore not be present at this meeting. We would respectfully request that the discussion and decision on this matter be delayed until she can be present.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

As directed, the matter was brought back on October 2^nd and the following discussion ensued:

Provide direction to staff for preparation of a policy describing the preparation, format, and changes to City Council minutes.

This matter comes to the City Council as the result of direction given to staff at the September 18, 2001 City Council meeting.

Minutes are written to affirm in writing the proceedings of the City Council. They are an official record that is classified as "permanent" and can never be destroyed.

There are three types of minutes: Action: Records the motions made, the name of the maker and second, and the vote, whether roll call or by voice (see Exhibit "A"). Summary: Provides similar information and presents a brief summary of the Council discussion points (see Exhibit "B"). Detailed: Contains a detailed record of all discussion and includes attributing statements made to specific councilmembers (see Exhibit "C"). Since incorporation in 1973, the minutes of City Council meetings have been in summary format (See Exhibit "D"). To-date 23 volumes of minutes have been written. (There is a fourth type of minutes, verbatim minutes that are prepared by a court reporter or other similar service. Due to the high cost of preparing verbatim minutes, and the other technology that is available, this type of minutes is not being addressed in this report.)

The summary format was chosen because of certain concerns: that elected officials sometimes have a tendency to use the minutes as a political platform; and, that preparing detailed minutes would significantly increase the amount of staff time required to prepare the minutes. In the event a councilmember wanted to have a statement recorded in the minutes, however, provision was made to accommodate such a request under certain conditions. This summary format was memorialized by the adoption of Resol. No. 75-31, which specifically addressed "Remarks by Council Members" as follows:

The preparation of the City Council minutes generally takes three hours of transcription for each hour of meeting. While the minutes are taken using a laptop computer, these notes do not result in a near final copy (See Exhibit "E"). Upon completion of the initial draft, the minutes are disseminated to the various departments for editing. Generally, the minutes of a meeting are included in the agenda packet of the succeeding meeting.

Participants in a meeting can speak at a rate of 180 to 190 words per minutes; keyboarding discussion is at the rate of 75 to 80 words per minutes. Unlike the verbatim testimony taken by a certified court reporter at a rate of up to 260 words per minute, the laptop computer notes taken at our meetings are limited to recording key points of discussion, and finally the motions adopted by Council. These notes then require editing to result in the summary sections of the minutes that begin with the introduction "Council discussion focused on . . ."

While detailed minutes are not direct quotations, they do require paraphrasing of discussion to put it in a grammatically correct form and to attribute specific comments to specific members. In the event that the notes taken at the meeting are insufficient, then the tape of the meeting must be reviewed for clarification. Using our current method of taking notes, the preparation of detailed minutes would probably result in reporting fewer key points and instead require the minute taker to keyboard as much of a particular statement as possible. The minute taker would have to decide which statements, comments and/or responses should be chosen for recordation. Inherent in this, of course, is the issue of whether the councilmembers would agree that the statements chosen for recordation were interpreted correctly and if they were the appropriate comments to record.

To give Council a sense of how other cities write their minutes, staff contacted cities in the South Bay and requested a sample of their minutes. Those samples are attached as Exhibit "F."

The only legal requirement for the content of minutes is contained in Government Code Section 36814, which states "The Council shall cause the clerk to keep a correct record of its proceedings. At the request of a member, the city clerk shall enter the ayes and noes in the journal." The Code is silent about the "style" and whether minutes should be action, summary, or detailed.

Although the written minutes are the official record of City Council meetings, the advent of certain technology now makes it possible to record the meetings in several different mediums, to wit:

On-Line Video Streaming: Replays of City Council and Planning Commission meetings are now available over the Internet. The public only needs Real Player G2, version 6.0 or later software and Internet access to the City’s Web site to view current and archived video files. Instructions to obtain Real Player G2 are on the Web site and can be downloaded free. Video streaming not only gives the public access to the complete record of the City Council meetings but it also provides staff with the means to review meetings for clarification of Council direction. Palos Verdes on the Net will make a separate broadcast quality DVD copy of each meeting for permanent archival.

On-Line Webcasting: Webcasting would give residents who have Internet access but who are not hooked up to cable TV the ability to view meetings live over the Internet. The City does not currently have this capability; Palos Verdes on the Net can provide it by converting the Cox Cable signal on-the-fly to a digital format to enable viewing with use of the Real Player software over the Internet. A dedicated broadcast-capable workstation and additional Internet bandwidth would be required from the point of origin on the City’s network. The cost of acquiring additional bandwidth would be approximately $3,000 each month.

Videotaping: Cox Cable already produces a master videotape of City Council meetings. As part of the City’s official Records Management Retention and Destruction Schedule, this master could be retained for a period of ten years. Cox will also make a duplicate copy that could be distributed to the library for checkout by patrons. Due to space limitation, however, the library would maintain these tapes on a 13-month basis in the History Room at the Malaga Cove Library (See Exhibit "G"). These videotapes are provided by Cox as part of their franchise agreement with the City.

The written minutes are the official record of City Council meetings and those minutes are kept forever. Technology now gives the City the ability to provide the live and delayed broadcast of these meetings through video and digital mediums that present complete and unedited viewing of City Council meetings. These advances appear to obviate the preparation of detailed written minutes.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Exhibit "A" City of Santa Monica Minutes
Exhibit "B" City of Rancho Palos Verdes Minutes
Exhibit "C" City of Palos Verdes Estates Minutes
Exhibit "D" City of Rancho Palos Verdes Minutes
Exhibit "E" City of Rancho Palos Verdes Minute Notes
Exhibit "F" Minutes from the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates, Hermosa Beach, Torrance, Redondo Beach,
and El Segundo
Exhibit "G" Palos Verdes Library District September 27, 2000 letter
Exhibit "H" October 2, 2001 Memorandum fro Councilman Stern re Form of City Council Minutes

RECOMMENDATION

Provide direction to staff on a planning process for updating the General Plan and other plans.

BACKGROUND

Recent informal communications from several Councilmembers seem to indicate that the City Council may be interested in updating existing Master Plans and developing plans for the use of City properties. The purpose of this staff report is to provide a brief summary of the status of the City’s current Plans and open a discussion of the interest, or lack of interest, in embarking on a Citywide "needs assessment" and review of our long-range goals.

The basis of the "Plan" for development in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is the General Plan. Virtually all our other "Plans," whether they describe private development projects, specific plans governing particular areas or City Capital Improvement projects, must be found in conformance with the General Plan before they are approved. Our General Plan was adopted on June 26, 1975. The last significant update occurred in 1984 following the Eastview annexation. Other than that amendment, the General Plan has received only minor amendments since its adoption.

Last year, and again this year, the City received a letter from the State Attorney General advising us that our General Plan should be updated. The latest letter of admonishment from the Office of Planning and Research and the Office of the Attorney General was received on November 20, 2001 and is attached to this staff report. The letter outlines the "legal and practical" reasons for updating the General Plan and asks us for a progress report for doing so. The City should respond with a letter indicating our intentions prior to the end of the year.

Prior City Councils did not authorize the staff effort and funds required to update the General Plan, because the goals and policies articulated in the Plan have not changed and still are followed by the City. However, concerns have been raised about the format of the 1975 General Plan and the fact that some of the site-specific information in the General Plan is no longer accurate.

The Coastal Specific Plan was adopted in 1978 and certified as our Local Coastal Plan in 1983, but has not been significantly changed since that time. The content and policies are generally consistent with the ongoing vision of the City; however, since the document is 20 years old an update would be beneficial.Existing Planning Documents

In addition to the General Plan, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has other guiding principles. On September 21, 1993 the City Council formally adopted the following "Core Values" and "Vision" statements:

Core Values Statement
The primary purpose of City government is to provide service. As your city government, our commitment is to wisely use our resources to provide competent, responsive and reliable services in an atmosphere which demonstrates our commitment to accessibility, customer service, honesty and integrity. In all we do and in every decision we make we will ask ourselves, "is this the best for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes?".

Vision Statement
After an extensive community outreach program, the City Council hereby affirms that the City’s vision for Rancho Palos Verdes is to have a community that has the following qualities:

A summary of the existing written documents that guide City planning include:

All of the elements of the City General Plan do not require substantial revision, as many of the goals and policies are still applicable today just as they were in 1975. However, in brief, the current topics/issues that should be addressed in any update include:

Below is a preliminary listing of the items/issues that Staff believes should be addressed (inclusive of the 6 items above) in an update to each of the required seven General Plan Elements. Of course, the City Council and/or Planning Commission may bring up other items/issues. (Items shown below in italicized text would definitely require the assistance of a Consultant, whereas, items shown in normal text may be able to be completed by City Staff)

Below is a very preliminary outline of public workshops recommended for processing of the General Plan update.

Staff recommends that a workshop committee be formed that is composed of City Council, Planning Commission, Traffic Committee (Circulation Element), and Parks and Recreation Commission (Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements) members. The Council may wish to add representation from the Finance Advisory Committee and the Equestrian Committee as well so that all city commissions/committees would have representation. It is envisioned that the suggested workshops will last between two and four hours and include a presentation by Staff, discussion of issues from the workshop committee, and input from the public. All workshops will be noticed to an interested parties list, all homeowner's associations, general publication in the newspaper and other public agencies.

The proposed workshops would occur no more often than once a month and often would be six weeks apart. The seven workshops will take eight months or longer, and based on past experience the Planning Commission and City Council will spend an additional six months hearing and rehearing the elements of the General Plan before they approve it. It may take several months for selecting appropriate consultants to assist us and for providing proper noticing for the initial meetings before the process can start. The Council should assume that a General Plan update process will take at least two years from the date staff is authorized to begin.

Staff recommends that work on plans other that the General Plan be delayed until adoption of the new General Plan. Since every Department will be involved to some extent with the General Plan update, to also ask them to work on individual plan updates will divert staff resources from other projects. Even with the help of consultants, the burden on the Planning, Public Works and Recreation Department would be particularly significant. Also, trying to work on all of the plans may cause contradiction in the plans. Many times, goals and policies develop slowly throughout the land use planning process. To try to prepare the sub-plans while preparing the General Plan would weaken this process. Going through the land use planning process first provides the framework for later specific plans. Finally, the Planning Commission will be required to find the various sub-plans to be consistent with the General Plan, thus delaying any final action on Trails, Bikeways, Recreation and Parks and Specific Plans until after the General Plan is adopted.

It may be possible to combine the processes for the General Plan Update and Coastal Specific Plan Update. These two documents are so interlaced that this would make sense from a logistic, economic and public input standpoint.