Agenda 12/18/2001 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2001, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 12/18/2001 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda December 18, 2001
December 18, 2001

DISCLAIMER

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

...end of disclaimer...

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


BEGINNING OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

DECEMBER 18, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



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

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-98

NEXT ORD. NO. 372

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



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


2. Minutes of November 20, 2001. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


3. Engineering Services - Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance. (Allison)
Recommendation: (1) Approve an amendment to an existing professional services agreement with Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc. for services required related to the maintenance of the Abalone Cove Sewer System. (2) Increase the funding authorization with Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc. by $5,900.


4. Notice of Completion – Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Sidewalk Repair Program (Allison)
Recommendation: (1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the payment and performance bonds. (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Damon Construction 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion contingent upon no claims being filed against the contractor.


5. Non-Exclusive Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal Services Annual Agreement Renewals for 2002. (Allison)
Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute non-exclusive commercial refuse collection and disposal services agreements with: Ace Roll Off Rubbish Service, Inc., BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. (BFI), California Waste Services, Consolidated Disposal Services, LLC, Easy Roll Off Services, EDCO Disposal Corporation, HMD Waste Company, Integrated Waste Industries, Inc., Ivy Rubbish Disposal, OK Disposal Service, S & H Disposal Company, and Waste Management- Los Angeles District.


6. Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Board Appointment. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Appoint Gale Lovrich and Chris Downey to a full four-year term of office on the Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Board of Directors until September 2005.


7. Claim Against the City by Larry Prizlow. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant.


8. Claim Against the City by Lucy Lillo. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant.


9. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARING:



10. Proposed 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Conduct a public hearing to receive citizen input on the proposed 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. (2) Approve the proposed CDBG projects and budget. (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute claims for CDBG projects with the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission.


REGULAR BUSINESS:



11. Discussion of Continued City Support with Respect to the Coastal Commission’s Appeal of Manned Tract Entry Observation Booths for the Oceanfront Project (Tract No. 46628) (Fox)
Recommendation: Consider Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s suggestions to (1) Adopt a Resolution stating that the current City Council does not support the application by Makallon RPV Associates llc for manned tract entry observation booths on its appeal before the Coastal Commission. (2) Direct Staff to forward a copy of said Resolution to the Coastal Commission. (3) Direct Staff not to attend the upcoming de novo hearing on the appeal before the Coastal Commission.


12. Options for the Use of the Crestridge Property. (Evans)

Recommendation: Provide direction to Staff regarding the following issues: (1) Which if any of the concepts proposed for the use of the Crestridge property should receive further consideration. (2) What information and analyses will the City Council require in order to make a determination of the use of the property. (3) Whether to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to conduct a joint City Council/Planning Commission’s recommendation to conduct the City’s Crestridge property, use options for the adjoining privately owned Crestridge property and the need and appropriate location for senior housing in the City.


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


13. San Ramon Habitat Restoration Plans. (Petru)
Recommendation: (1) Receive and file the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for the San Ramon project (on-site). (2) Approve the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park (which includes off-site mitigation for he San Ramon and Palos Verdes Drive South Washout Projects, and on-site mitigation for the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project.) (3) Approve the Conceptual Off-site Wetland Mitigation Plan for the San Ramon Project. (4) Authorize staff to issue Request for Proposals seeking a qualified firm to install and maintain the habitat restoration area at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and a qualified consultant to monitor all of the restoration efforts associated with the project.


14. Request to Abandon View Covenant Recorded against Property at 3027 Crest Road (Requestor: Mr.& Mrs. Robert Scalfaro – property owners). (Fox)
Recommendation: (1) Consider the property owner’s request for the City to abandon the view covenant that was recorded against the property known as 3027 Crest Road after a formal review process for abandoning covenants has been adopted by the City Council. (2) Amend Policy No. 30 to establish a process for dealing with requests from property owners to abandon recorded view covenants on a case-by-case basis.


15. Introduction of Mobile Vendors Ordinance. (City Attorney)
Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. ___ , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING NEW PARKING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MOBILE VENDORS WHO PARK ON CITY STREETS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.


16. Authorize Inclusion of Provisions in Agreements with Experts whose Sole Task is to Review Work that is Prepared by Others so that the City will Indemnify and Defend them from Litigation and Claims relating to their Determinations. (Evans & Lynch)
Recommendation: Provide direction to staff on whether agreements with experts whose sole task is to review work that is prepared by others, such as members of geotechnical review panels, should include provisions that would require the City to indemnify and defend them from litigation and claims related to their decisions.


17. Contract Renewal for Geotechnical Consulting. (Rojas)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed agreement with Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. to provide geology and geotechnical engineering consulting services on an as-needed basis to the City for the next two years.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



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



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



CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST


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


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR


G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property: Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029,
7573-003-016, 75 81-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators: City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement,
Keith Lenard, Palos Verdes Land Conservancy.

Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

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

City Negotiators: City Manager Les Evans, City Attorney Carol Lynch, and Public Works Director Dean Allison, Keith Lenard, Palos Verdes Land Conservancy.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL


Anticipated Litigation:

(G.C 54956.9(b)

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

___________1__________
(Number of Potential Cases)

Claim against the City by Chandler’s Palos Verdes Sand and Gravel Inc.

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

__________1__________
(Number of Potential Cases)

Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation but which the City/Agency believes are not yet known to potential plaintiff or plaintiffs.

Existing Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: People of the State; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Mark J. Abrams
Case No:

California Court of Appeal Case No. B151086

Name of Case: Mark J. Abrams v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Case No:
(RNBx)

United States District Court Case No. 00-09071 SVW

Name of Case: Jon Echevarrieta v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Case No:


California Court of Appeal Case No. B138366
C Super. Ct. No. YS006446
Name of Case: S.A.V.E. RPV v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Case No. California Court of Appeal Case No. 2CivilB151075



RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

DECEMBER 18, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



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

7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-98

NEXT ORD. NO. 372

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



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



2. Minutes of November 20, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

NOVEMBER 20, 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 7:00 P.M. the meeting reconvened

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

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

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


RECYCLING DRAWING:


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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, inquired about several items on the Register of Demands.
Mayor Lyon informed Ms. Larue that the Finance Director would be able to answer her questions.
Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows:

Motion to waive full reading

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

Engineering Services For Signal Design

(1) Awarded a professional services contract to Willdan Associates for the design of the new traffic signal at Vallon Drive, in the amount of $11,755. (2) Authorized staff to spend the contract amount plus an additional $1,245 for possible extra services for a total authorization of $13,000. (3) Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Willdan Associates, Inc.

Resol. No. 2001-93 - Annual Destruction of Records

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-93, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN CHANGES TO EXISTING RETENTION SCHEDULES, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-85.

Claim Against The City by John Shahin

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

Claim Against The City by Steve Finazzo

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

Resol. No. 2001-94 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-94, 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.


REGULAR BUSINESS:


Address Curb Painting

Director Allison presented the staff report of November 20, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Authorize staff to include address curb painting in the Annual Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. (2) Direct staff to deny future requests for an encroachment permit for address curb painting.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked if estimated cost per unit was standard.

Director Allison indicated that the total estimated cost of $7,500 broke down to $6.00 to $7.00 per unit, which was a standard charge.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked if that would vary by the number of curbs painted or was this a set amount specified in the contract.

Director Allison indicated that the curb painting would be made part of the slurry and overlay contract and that the City would be charged from $.00 to $6.00 per unit.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked if the slurry seal contractor would actually be painting the addresses on the curbs.

Director Allison said that the slurry seal contractor would most likely hire a subcontractor. He added that the quality of the work performed by independent contractors in the past was not an issue but the intimidating collection procedure directly from the homeowner had been a problem and this payment would now be made by the City to the slurry seal contractor.

Councilman Stern felt that public education would be important so that residents would know that the City would be painting addresses on curbs every seven years. He asked how the City intended to prevent independent contractors from offering this service directly to the homeowners and wondered if it was appropriate to adopt an ordinance.

Director Allison replied that an independent contractor would be required to obtain a permit from the City, and this permit would be denied. He added that if the contractor did not have this permit, the Sheriff would be called on for enforcement.

City Manager Evans felt that an ordinance was not necessary because the Neighborhood Watch organization would alert the City if this became a problem and the Sheriff would enforce the contractor’s lack of a City permit.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart related an experience in which solicitors two years ago showed him a permit issued during the time Doug Hinchliffe was Mayor and this was a period many years back.  He was concerned that residents would not recognize an invalid permit.

City Manager Evans indicated that information regarding businesses with City licenses was on the website or the information could be obtained by calling City Hall.

Mayor Lyon reminded residents they could pick up a No Solicitors sign at City Hall also.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to (1) Authorize staff to include address curb painting in the Annual Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. (2) Direct staff to deny future requests for an encroachment permit for address curb painting. Motion carried.

Comment Letter To The Regional Water Quality Control Board On The Draft Storm Water Permit

Director Allison presented the staff report of November 20, 2001 and the recommendation to authorize the Mayor to sign the proposed letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board outlining the City’s concerns with the proposed storm water permit.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked if the volume of water cleansed was about 23,000 gallons.

Director Allison said that was the approximate volume.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart thought the directives were unreasonable.

Director Allison agreed that the requirements were too broad and that it was difficult to comment. He said that he had met with the Water Board and after the permit was adopted, he would submit environmental information sensitive to the City. He hoped that there would be improvement.

Councilwoman Ferraro echoed Mayor pro tem McTaggart’s comments about the directives.

Director Allison said that they seem to be a little better each time.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart said that development was not allowed in environmental hazard zoning and this was the best place.

Director Allison said that this was the area the City was suggesting.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, outlining the City’s concerns with the proposed storm water permit. Motion carried.

Resol. No. 2001-95 - GASB Statement No. 34 Implementation

Director McLean presented the staff report of November 20, 2001, including a recommendation to (1) Adopt the depreciation reporting method for the entire infrastructure of the City. (2) Award a professional services contract to Harris & Associates for the valuation of infrastructure assets for implementation of GASB Statement No. 34, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with Harris & Associates. (3) Adopt the proposed resolution amending Resolution No. 2001-43, the budget appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001-2002, for a budget adjustment to the City’s general fund.

Mayor Lyon remarked that approval of the recommendation would be very helpful for citywide maintenance, including the pavement management system.

Director McLean agreed and stated that the pavement management system had been updated by Harris & Associates in the past. He added that several portions of the City’s infrastructure do have a records system. Certain segments do not and the City does not have the staff to perform the inventory, therefore, hiring Harris & Associates is necessary.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked if the City’s inventory of furniture and equipment is maintained using a bar coding system.

Director McLean said that not as part of this infrastructure; that a complete physical inventory was performed about a year ago; and, that bar coding all City property is an upcoming project for the Accounting Manager.

Councilman Gardiner asked if there would be financial reports as in the private sector, such as balance sheets and profit & loss statements reflecting indirect and direct costs.

Director McLean replied that the financial statement presentation will be changed with implementation of GASB 34.

Councilman Gardiner asked if, like in the private sector, there would be financial ratios, comparisons with other cities.

Director McLean responded that some of the information was part of the CAFR in the Introduction section and more meaningful financial analyses will be included with the implementation of GASB34.

Mayor Lyon said that direction normally came from Sacramento and the cities

have not been able to take care of infrastructure. She felt this would bring to the forefront cities like RPV and might help with state funding.

Councilman Stern said that the recommendation was to approve expenditure of $40,000 and option three included a field inspection and was a little more expensive. He wondered why staff was not recommending a field inspection.

Director McLean replied that this was discussed with the auditors. For an additional $10,000, the consultants will conduct surveys. He said that the infrastructure numbers would be based on estimates, because it was not possible to determine the actual cost of the infrastructure. Staff does not think surveying added sufficient benefit.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to (1) Adopt the depreciation reporting method for the entire infrastructure of the City. (2) Award a professional services contract to Harris & Associates for the valuation of infrastructure assets for implementation of GASB Statement No. 34, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with Harris & Associates. (3) Adopt the proposed resolution amending Resolution No. 2001-43, the budget appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001-2002, for a budget adjustment to the City’s general fund.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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

Ordinance No. 371 - Ordinance establishing regulations applicable to skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, and scooters upon public and private property

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of November 20, 2001 and the recommendation to introduce the proposed ordinance establishing regulations applicable to skateboards, roller skates, inline skates and scooters upon public and private property and amending the Rancho Palos Verdes municipal code.

Ordinance No. 371 - Ordinance establishing regulations applicable to  skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, and scooters upon public and  private property.

Darcy Judd, representing Peninsula Shopping Center and Westmont Plaza urged the Council to approve the ordinance because of complaints from customers and retailers about riders who zoom down sidewalks and through the parking lots.  She said that she agreed with these people that someone was going to be hurt, including possibly the skateboarders themselves. She explained that skateboards get away from the kids and one could take out a storefront and aside from safety, customers were being driven away She said that the Sheriff's Department would attest to the success at Peninsula Shopping Center.

Mayor Lyon suspected that a similar problem might exist at Miraleste Plaza.

Deputy Randy Oviedo from the Sheriff's Department felt that Darcy Judd had explained the situation clearly and that an undercover operation confirmed that the problem existed at Miraleste Plaza and Carl's Jr. after school and on weekends and it was observed that kids in front of Stuft Pizza were coming out between cards, just missing vehicles.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, described raising her two sons and she felt that it was wrong to prevent children in the City from enjoying their skateboards and that it was wrong to allow the deputy sheriffs to wear guns at City Council meetings..

Councilman Gardiner said that he understood the safety concern but he felt the fines were too expensive and that kids had to play somewhere.  He wondered where they would be allowed to participate in these types of activities.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that this ordinance was not a ban on these types of activities but merely allowed a private shopping center to post a prohibition sign on their won property.  He emphasized that unless the City Council provided direction to staff, there would be no ban on any City land.

Councilman Gardiner reiterated that he felt the fines were too high.

Mayor Lyon felt that it would be worse to have one of the children hit by a car.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart described an incident he observed at the Arco gas station at Silver Spur and Hawthorne during which the proprietor called the Sheriff when kids were causing problems with these types of activities and he said that by the time the Sheriff's department arrived, the kids were gone.  He said that this scenario occurred constantly and he was concerned about safety and his personal liability. Mayor pro tem McTaggart discussed skateboard parks being built in some cities and he wondered if this could be a possibility at upper Point Vicente Park, where the noise from the skateboards would not disturb residents.

Councilman Gardiner agreed that this would be a good place for kids to burn energy in an area which could be made safe for them.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart said that the City of Paramount had just recently completed a spectacular skateboard park which was designed by the kids.

Councilman Stern noted that City Attorney Lynch made an important point that businesses could choose to post the signs or not and he said that he felt it was appropriate to ban children playing in parking lots even though kids did need to be kids and have fun.  He emphasized that the Council could decide what would be banned in the parks.  He agreed that the fines seemed too high.

City Attorney Lynch said that the Council could establish lower fines

City Manager Evans thought that possibly the Sheriff's Department might comment on the possibility of giving a warning only for the first offense.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart suggested that the wording regarding the fine be changed to indicate that the fine could be to a certain amount.

Mayor Lyon asked about the fine in Rolling Hills Estates.

Randy Oviedo believed it was less than $100 for the first offense

Councilman Stern asked how the Sheriff’s Department dealt with the kids when they approached them.

Randy Oviedo said that the habitual ones have been warned many times and he felt it was not appropriate to take any action for a first-time offender. However, he was in favor of this ordinance to provide a tool to alleviate this problem in shopping area parking lots in the City. He agreed that many times the children were gone by the time the Sheriff’s Department arrived.

Councilman Gardiner commented that a warning to a 12-year old probably meant nothing and that the parent would have to be notified.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart noted that Rolling Hills Estates does not give warnings, only tickets.

Randy Oviedo said that after a few citations are written, word gets out among the kids.

Councilman Stern spoke in support of the ordinance since it gave property owners the option to post the sign or not and he also agreed that the Sheriff’s Department could give a warning for a first offence.

Councilman Gardiner stated that the signs would not be heeded by the children and that there had to be a way to get the message to the parents.

Mayor Lyon suggested publicity through the City’s website, newsletter, and the reader board.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that information be sent home from the schools.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart felt that a sign would be adequate notice and pointed out that some of the children live in San Pedro and are residents of the City of Los Angeles.

Mayor Lyon noted that the reader board is available to residents of San Pedro

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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


PUBLIC COMMENTS:


Steve Finazzo, 2175 Rockinghorse Road, spoke about his claim against the City and said that he had wanted to speak to his item on the Consent Calendar but he had arrived at 7:05 P.M. and the Consent Calendar had already been approved and his claim denied. He distributed to the Council a handout which described and illustrated his challenge to restore the view from his living room. He explained that some trees had been crowned or never cut and that there was one branch in particular which was impacting his view. He stated that within three months after trimming, the growth returns. He said this has been going on for since 1997.

Mayor Lyon asked City Attorney Lynch if the Council has to re-open the item to discuss it.

City Attorney Lynch said that this was not necessary if the Council was only going to discuss the item.

Councilman Stern asked Mr. Finazzo if he had made a financial claim against the City.

Mr. Finazzo replied that staff had not been able to take care of his problem so he filed the claim against the City.

Councilman Stern asked why the City would owe him money.

Mr. Finazzo said because the job was not accomplished appropriately and the trees were not trimmed to 25 feet all around as they should have been.

Councilman Stern asked staff if the foliage owner did not comply with the trimming requirement.

City Attorney Lynch said that it was a complicated issue. She said that the View Restoration Commission had determined which trees were to be trimmed and that there was one limb which was not addressed and Mr. Finazzo felt that this branch impaired his view. She said that the City had offered to cut back the branch at the City’s expense and that the Joint Powers Insurance Authority had offered to pay Mr. Finazzo $400. She indicated that the most relevant component of Mr. Finazzo’s case is the regrowth after the foliage is trimmed. She said that the resolution drafted indicated that annual tree trimming would be discussed each December. She closed by stating that Mr. Finazzo was not amenable to the JPIA’s settlement, JPIA rejected his claim against the City and this is why the item was on the agenda.

Mr. Finazzo, using photographs he presented to the Council, explained that the trees were trimmed two weeks ago and a huge branch was cut back, which showed more sky, but not his city lights view.

Councilman Stern told Mr. Finazzo that to correct a view issue, he would have to work with the City staff and the View Restoration Commission, and that the City Council had denied his claim because he was not entitled to money from the City.

Mr. Finazzo said that his case was before the View Restoration Commission three months ago and the Commission told him that they did not have the authority to re-open the case and that he would have to request that the City Council re-open his case.

Mayor Lyon asked if the case would be opened in December.

Director Rojas said that this was when the annual trimming would be addressed.

City Attorney Lynch asked Mr. Finazzo about re-growth.

Mr. Finazzo replied that two months after trimming, the foliage grows back.

Councilman Gardiner asked if the correct branches were trimmed, or were some missed.

City Attorney Lynch said that the View Restoration Commission’s decision focused on different parts of three trees and Mr. Finazzo feels that the trimming is not adequate but that he did not appeal to the City Council or to a court.

Councilman Gardiner clarified that the item on the Council agenda was to make a decision regarding money to be awarded to Mr. Finazzo not to discuss his view issue.

City Attorney Lynch confirmed that money was the issue on the agenda and that Mr. Finazzo based this claim for funds based on regrowth of foliage.

Councilman Gardiner said that a bad decision could be appealed but that issuing funds to Mr. Finazzo was not justified.

Councilman Stern agreed that this was not the proper remedy.

Councilman Gardiner asked if Mr. Finazzo appealed the original decision.

City Attorney Lynch said no and explained that he could file a new View Restoration application.

Mayor Lyon suggested that the Council could waive the fee for a new application.

City Attorney Lynch said that she had seen the photographs but she understood that the View Restoration Commission had ruled that the foliage not included in the trimming did not cause significant view impairment because the branches were in edge of view frame. The Commission focused on the view from Mr. Finazzo’s primary viewing area. If Mr. Finazzo was unhappy with that ruling, his remedy was to file an appeal.

Mayor Lyon told Mr. Finazzo that the annual tree trimming would be reviewed in December and said she hoped he received the action he desired.

Mr. Finazzo asked why the trees could not be trimmed 16 to 25 feet all around and why the tree were not being cut on the south side of the property.

Mayor Lyon advised Mr. Finazzo that the Council could not address the issues of his case.

Mr. Finazzo felt that the action being taken was different from that described when direction was given.

Councilman Gardiner said that if proper action was not being taken according to the direction given when his case was heard before the View Restoration Commission, staff would need to verify this. He said that he under from View Restoration project manager Trayci Nelson that the measurement issue is tricky but that staff had verified the measurement as correct.

Councilman Gardiner said that it appeared Mr. Finazzo needed to visit the Planning Department, who worked with the View Restoration Commission.

Mayor Lyon suggested that Mr. Finazzo meet with Director Rojas after the meeting.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:


City Attorney Lynch reported that no action was taken on the first item regarding purchase of open space but that a report was received from the City Negotiator.

Regarding the first item of potential litigation, she stated that the City Council directed her office to make a counter offer to Chandler Landfill.

Regarding the second item of potential litigation, she reported that the City Council authorized payment to Ledsam Contracting.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:


Councilwoman Ferraro reported from attending the Palos Verdes Transit meeting the following: ridership is up, most of the passengers are students, and some routes are being restructured. From attending the West Bain Water District meeting, she reported the following: because of the instituting of a two-tier structure for distribution and cost of water, there is encouragement to buy water on a long term basis, hoping that adequate rain will make a price increase unnecessary. Councilwoman Ferraro reported that she, like Councilman Stern, had coffee with Tom Harnsberger and discussed the Long Point project and the Filiorum property. She encouraged him to work with the negotiator.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart said that he met with the same gentleman for a dutch-treat lunch. He reported that Tom Harnsberger purports to be interested in finding a solution to the development or sale of the Filiorum property.

Councilmember Gardiner referenced a dutch-treat lunch with the same gentleman and he reported that his comments were similar to the ones in Councilman Stern’s memo.

Councilman Stern read the memo he submitted regarding Filiorum acquisition, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk’s office. He also reported on a Regional Law Enforcement meeting that he and Mayor pro tem McTaggart attended at which representatives from the Sheriff’s Department and Fire Department and the District G Emergency Coordinator focused on disaster preparedness with an update in light of recent threats.

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart reported from attending the South Bay Cities Council of Governments meeting the following: The same Emergency Preparedness presentation was given at the Regional Law Enforcement meeting, the emergency coordinator operates with a staff of one, there will be a planning exercise to encourage the agencies to work together, the Sheriff’s and Fire Departments are working closer together as a result of recent events.

Mayor Lyon reported on her meeting with the newly formed Coastal Coalition, made up of coastline cities and groups to groups interesting in protecting wetlands and increasing safety at beaches. She said that she found the group to be cohesive and worthwhile and said that it will be focusing on legislation and funding. She noted that Mayor pro tem McTaggart is the City’s other delegate.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart reported that he had received a lot of information from the Coastal Coalition.


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 8:22 P.M. on motion of Mayor Lyon.

 

____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________

CITY CLERK








3. Engineering Services - Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Approve an amendment to an existing professional services agreement with Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc. for services required related to the maintenance of the Abalone Cove Sewer System. (2) Increase the funding authorization with Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc. by $5,900.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: ENGINEERING SERVICES – ABALONE COVE SEWER
MAINTENANCE

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Approve an amendment to an existing professional services agreement with Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc. for services required related to the maintenance of the Abalone Cove Sewer System.

  2. Increase the funding authorization with Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc. by $5,900.

BACKGROUND

Once the Abalone Cove Sewer System is constructed and accepted, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will be responsible for its maintenance. The Public Works Department is currently soliciting proposals from firms capable of providing the required services. Before the improvements are accepted and maintenance begins, engineering services are required to assure that certain systems are in place.

DISCUSSION

To obtain the required services, the Public Works Department requested a single proposal from Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc. (CTE). This firm designed the sewer system and is very familiar with the characteristics of the system.

The scope of work and costs are presented in a letter from Consoer Townsend dated November 28, 2001. See attached. The deliverables are:

  • Specifications on a telecommunications system for each of the four in-street pump stations to notify staff and our contactors that there is a pump failure or power interruption.
  • Specifications on the back up generators to pump stations.
  • An action plan on how to best respond to a pump failure or power interruption.

The fees for the required services are reasonable and the unit prices for services are competitive.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will authorize staff to acquire the needed engineering services to be prepared to begin to maintain the Abalone Cove Sewer System.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION

Request staff to circulate a Request for Proposal to several firms. Staff recommends against this action because it would not likely be productive since Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc. is so familiar with the sewer system.

FISCAL IMPACT

Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the expenditure of up to $5,900 for engineering services for the maintenance of the Abalone Cove Sewer System. The adopted FY 2001 – 02 includes adequate funding for this action.

The funding source for this action is the sewer fees paid by property owners with homes connected to the Abalone Cove Sewer System.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
November 28, 2001 Letter from Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc.





4. Notice of Completion – Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Sidewalk Repair Program (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the payment and performance bonds. (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Damon Construction 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion contingent upon no claims being filed against the contractor.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM

Staff Coordinator: Bindu Vaish, Project Manager

RECOMMENDATIONS

    1. Accept the work as complete.

    2. Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance bonds.

    3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Damon Construction 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion contingent upon no claims being filed against the contractor.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

On September 18, 2001, City Council awarded a contract to Damon Construction for the removal and replacement of damaged city sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway aprons and the installation of tree root barriers. Pursuant to the approved contract, the work was completed at the following cost:

Authorized Contract Amount: $44,175
Approved Contingency Amount: 5,825
Total Project Budget:

$50,000
Actual Contract Expenditures: $49,946


The reason that the final contract cost exceeded the award amount is that the actual field quantities were greater than estimated.

CONCLUSION

Damon Construction has completed all work in accordance with the contract documents. Therefore, the work should be accepted as complete and the Notice of Completion filed with the County Recorder

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended actions will have no fiscal impact.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager



5. Non-Exclusive Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal Services Annual Agreement Renewals for 2002. (Allison)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute non-exclusive commercial refuse collection and disposal services agreements with: Ace Roll Off Rubbish Service, Inc., BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. (BFI), California Waste Services, Consolidated Disposal Services, LLC, Easy Roll Off Services, EDCO Disposal Corporation, HMD Waste Company, Integrated Waste Industries, Inc., Ivy Rubbish Disposal, OK Disposal Service, S & H Disposal Company, and Waste Management- Los Angeles District.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: NON-EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES ANNUAL AGREEMENT RENEWALS FOR 2002

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute non-exclusive commercial refuse collection and disposal services agreements with: Ace Roll Off Rubbish Service, Inc., BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. (BFI), California Waste Services, Consolidated Disposal Services, LLC, Easy Roll Off Services, EDCO Disposal Corporation, HMD Waste Company, Integrated Waste Industries, Inc., Ivy Rubbish Disposal, OK Disposal Service, S & H Disposal Company, and Waste Management- Los Angeles District.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Since 1992 the City has entered into one-year non-exclusive franchises for Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal with any firm that meets the agreement requirement. The City Council decided to use a non-exclusive franchise instead of an exclusive franchise following a series of townhall meetings where commercial business owners stated their preference for non-exclusive franchises. The Agreement was revised in December 1994 to include additional requirements pertaining to business sector recycling and penalty provisions for delinquent quarterly reports. In November 2000, the City Attorney updated and revised the commercial hauling agreement to emphasize recycling and waste diversion efforts.

The non-exclusive franchise allows the City to collect a five (5) percent franchise fee and up to a five (5) percent AB 939 fee from haulers doing business in the City. Starting January 2001, haulers are entitled to a reduction in their AB 939 fees if they show receipts of solid waste tonnage diverted from landfills to recycling/processing centers. The goal is to encourage haulers by providing a financial incentive to recycle construction, demolition, remodeling and business waste such as dirt, concrete, asphalt and cardboard, etc.

All haulers are required to submit payments on a quarterly basis along with a quarterly report, which provides refuse disposal and recycling information. Additionally, each hauler is required to annually obtain a City business license and submit proof of liability and workers compensation insurance.

In December 2000, a five-year notice of non-extension was issued to all of the City's authorized commercial haulers. This notice allows the City Council, anytime after December of 2004, to decide to:

  1. Continue the City's current non-exclusive franchise agreements with the commercial haulers; or
  2. Change to an exclusive agreement with one or more commercial haulers.

One of the benefits of reducing the number of haulers is more accurate reporting, monitoring and implementation of recycling programs in the commercial/non residential sector.

FISCAL IMPACT

The City received approximately $30,000 in franchise fees and $25,000 in AB 939 fees in 2001 from commercial haulers. AB 939 fees are deposited in the Solid Waste fund and are used to develop and implement recycling programs to meet the AB 939 mandate. Franchise fees are deposited in the General Fund.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager



6. Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Board Appointment. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Appoint Gale Lovrich and Chris Downey to a full four-year term of office on the Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Board of Directors until September 2005.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: KLONDIKE CANYON LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT - APPOINTMENT OF BOARD MEMBERS

RECOMMENDATION

Appoint Gale Lovrich and Chris Downey to a full four-year term of office on the Klondike Canyon Landslide Abatement District board until September 2005.

INTRODUCTION

Making these appointments will fill the vacancies left by the expiration of the term of office for incumbent board member Gale Lovrich and confirm the appointment of Chris Downey per Elections Code Section 10515.

BACKGROUND

The Klondike Canyon Landslide Abatement District scheduled a Special District Election to be held on February 12, 2002. As of the close of the nomination period, only two candidates submitted nomination papers: incumbent Gale Lovrich and nominee Chris Downey. Because there are only two nominees for the two terms expiring at this time, the Elections Code permits the cancellation of the election and the appointment of those nominees to the Board.

CONCLUSION

There are two expiring terms on the Klondike Canyon Board of Directors and the two candidates have filed nomination papers. The Election Code permits the cancellation of the election and the appointment of those nominees.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



7. Claim Against the City by Larry Prizlow. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY LARRY PRIZLOW

RECOMMENDATION

Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant.

BACKGROUND

This claim stems from an accident that occurred at the Ocean Trails. The claimant, Larry Prizlow, fell from the edge of the patio and landed on the concrete walkway. He sustained various injuries resulting from this fall and has incurred medical expenses for treatment of same. In his claim, Mr. Prizlow states that the amount of the claim exceeds $500,000.

This claim has been investigated the City’s claims administrators, Carl Warren & Co., and they have advised that the claim should be rejected.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



8. Claim Against the City by Lucy Lillo. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY LUCY LILLO

RECOMMENDATION

Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant.

BACKGROUND

This is a claim for repair of two automobiles which the claimant alleges were damaged during road construction activity on Santona Drive. The claimant has submitted an estimate for repair of the automobiles and for the cost of auto rentals for use when the cars are being repaired.

The City’s claims administrators, Carl Warren & Co., have investigated this claim and have recommended that the City reject it.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



9. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARING:





10. Proposed 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Conduct a public hearing to receive citizen input on the proposed 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. (2) Approve the proposed CDBG projects and budget. (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute claims for CDBG projects with the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: PROPOSED 2002-2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM

Staff Coordinator: Judy A. Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

1. Conduct a public hearing to receive citizen input on the proposed 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.

2. Approve the proposed CDBG projects and budget.

3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute agreements for CDBG projects with the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission.

BACKGROUND

Each year, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are allocated to cities by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which is administered through the Los Angeles Community Development Commission (CDC). Participating cities receive funding based upon the total number of cities participating in the County’s program, and a city’s commitment to provide housing, economic and community development opportunities which principally benefit persons of low and moderate income levels and/or aid in the prevention or elimination of blighted conditions.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has annually participated in the Los Angeles Urban County’s CDBG Program. In order to continue its participation in the upcoming 2002-2003 program year (beginning July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003) the City of Rancho Palos Verdes must prepare and submit a summary of proposed CDBG projects, including descriptions and budgets, to the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission (CDC) by February 1, 2002 for review and approval.

Pursuant to federal requirements, this public hearing was noticed in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on December 6 and 8, 2001. A copy of the notice is attached to this staff report. Federal requirements also mandate that as a part of the hearing, the City Council and public be informed of the range of eligible and ineligible housing and community development activities that may be funded under the CDBG Program. A list of eligible and ineligible CDBG projects and activities are attached to this report as Exhibits A and B, respectively.

In addition, interested persons may review a copy of the federal eligibility guidelines at the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ Public Works Department.

DISCUSSION

Current Year's CDBG Projects (2001-2002)

The 2001-2002 CDBG allocation for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was $261,494. In addition to this annual allocation, the 2001-2002 CDBG budget includes a carry-over allocation of $921,127 from prior years' projects ($92,140 - Home Improvement Program, $20,000 ADA Compliance Project and $808,987 - Altamira Canyon). A total of $1,182,621 in CDBG funds have been budgeted as follows:

1. Administration
$ 25,000
2. REACH Program
$ 39,205
3. Home Improvement Program
$ 219,140
4. ADA Compliance Project - City Hall Elevator
$ 20,000
5. Altamira Canyon Storm Drain Project
$ 879,276
 
Total FY 01-02 CDBG Funds:
$1,182,621

Description of Proposed 2002-2003 CDBG Projects

The Los Angeles County CDC recently informed the City of Rancho Palos Verdes that the preliminary 2002-2003 CDBG allocation for the City is $260,000. It is recommended that the City Council approve the following proposed projects for the 2002-2003 program year:

1.



CDBG Administration and Planning
Program administration funds are used for overall program
management, coordination, monitoring, reporting and evaluation.

$ 25,000


2.




REACH Program
Funds will be used to continue operation of the REACH Program. The public service cap (which is a percentage of the new allocated funds not including prior years’ funds) is limited to 15%.

$ 40,000



3.




Home Improvement Program
Funds will be used for the continued implementation of the Home Improvement Program which provides housing rehabilitation assistance to low and moderate income homeowners.

$ 135,000



4.





Altamira Canyon Storm Drain Project
Previously unallocated CDBG funds of $11,000 will be added to the current FY 01-02 budgeted amount of $879,276 and FY 02-03 budgeted amount of $25,000, thereby increasing the total Altamira Canyon budget to $915,276 for the proposed storm drain improvements.

$ 25,000




5.



ADA Compliance Project–City Hall Improvements
CDBG funds will be used to provide handicap accessibility to City Hall. Funds will pay for design, engineering and construction costs.

$ 35,000


 
Total FY 02-03 CDBG Funds:
$ 260,000


In the event that actual CDBG funding levels vary from the $260,000 estimate, the proposed projects and budgets may be adjusted accordingly by the City.

FISCAL IMPACT

Approving staff’s recommendation authorizes the allocation of $260,000 in 2002-2003 CDBG funds and $11,000 in prior years’ unallocated CDBG funds to the proposed CDBG projects for the 2002-2003 fiscal year.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Public Hearing Notice
Exhibit "A" – Eligible Activities
Exhibit "B" – Ineligible Activities


REGULAR BUSINESS:





11. Discussion of Continued City Support with Respect to the Coastal Commission’s Appeal of Manned Tract Entry Observation Booths for the Oceanfront Project (Tract No. 46628) (Fox)

Recommendation: Consider Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s suggestions to (1) Adopt a Resolution stating that the current City Council does not support the application by Makallon RPV Associates llc for manned tract entry observation booths on its appeal before the Coastal Commission. (2) Direct Staff to forward a copy of said Resolution to the Coastal Commission. (3) Direct Staff not to attend the upcoming de novo hearing on the appeal before the Coastal Commission.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:DISCUSSION OF CONTINUED CITY SUPPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION’S APPEAL OF MANNED TRACT ENTRY OBSERVATION BOOTHS FOR THE OCEANFRONT PROJECT (TRACT NO. 46628)

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Consider Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s suggestions to 1) adopt a Resolution stating that the current City Council does not support the application by Makallon RPV Associates llc for manned tract entry observation booths on its appeal before the Coastal Commission; 2) direct Staff to forward a copy of said Resolution to the Coastal Commission; and 3) direct Staff not to attend the upcoming de novo hearing on the appeal before the Coastal Commission.

BACKGROUND

On November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-41, thereby conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision ‘C’, Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’, Encroachment Permit No. 32 and Sign Permit No. 1096. These applications by the developer of the Oceanfront project were for modifications to the tract perimeter fencing requirements for improvements at the tract’s two entries on Palos Verdes Drive West, the approval of temporary and permanent tract entry identification signs for the community, and the placement of three (3) manned tract entry observation booths within the public rights-of-way of the interior streets of the tract.

On December 16, 2000, then-Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart and then-Councilmember Stern asked the City Council to consider an appeal of this action, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.80.130 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC). A majority of the City Council agreed to review the Planning Commission’s action, but only that portion related to the tract entry observation booths. The appeal was subsequently heard by the full City Council on January 16, 2001, at which time the City Council voted 3-2 (with then-Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart and then-Councilmember Stern dissenting) to deny its own appeal and approve the tract entry observation booths with modifications to two conditions of approval. The City Council subsequently adopted Resolution No. 2001-08 on February 6, 2001 by a 4-1 vote, with then-Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart dissenting (see attached copy).

On February 7, 2001, Staff sent a Notice of Final Decision to the Coastal Commission. The Notice was received by the Coastal Commission on February 8, 2001, beginning the Coastal Commission’s 10-business-day appeal period, which was set to end on February 26, 2001. On the final day of the appeal period, the City Council’s action was appealed by two (2) members of the Coastal Commission and three (3) City residents as Appeal No. A-5-RPV-01-066. The City received notice of the appeal from the Coastal Commission on March 1, 2001, and responded to the notice by sending the requested additional information to the Coastal Commission on March 5, 2001. The City also provided additional information in response to the issues raised in the Coastal Commissioners’ appeal in a letter to the Coastal Commission on March 19, 2001.

Pursuant to Coastal Commission administrative regulations, Appeal No. A-5-RPV-01-066 was agendized for a determination of substantial issue on April 10, 2001. The hearing in Santa Barbara was attended by Planning Staff and then-Mayor Lyon on behalf of the City, as well as the developer’s representative and one of the resident appellants. The Coastal Commission found that the appeal raised a substantial issue—without discussion or accepting comments from the public—and directed its Staff to set the matter for a de novo hearing before the Coastal Commission. After many delays and "false starts" over the past eight months, Staff believes that the Coastal Commission plans to consider this appeal at its upcoming meeting in January 2002, which will be held in the Los Angeles area.

DISCUSSION

Mayor Pro Tem Stern has requested that this matter be agendized for consideration by the full City Council. Specifically, Mayor Pro Tem Stern is asking the City Council to:

  1. Adopt a Resolution stating that the current City Council does not support the application by Makallon RPV Associates llc for manned tract entry observation booths on its appeal before the Coastal Commission;
  2. Direct Staff to forward a copy of said Resolution to the Coastal Commission; and,
  3. Direct Staff not to attend the de novo Coastal Commission hearing on the appeal.

Staff has prepared a draft Resolution for the City Council’s consideration. The draft Resolution states that the current City Council no longer supports the application for the proposed manned tract entry observation booths at the Oceanfront project.

The adoption of this Resolution will not negate the previous City Council’s action on this project. However, if the booths are ultimately approved on appeal to the Coastal Commission, the developer will be entitled to construct them, pursuant to full compliance with any conditions imposed by the Coastal Commission and/or the City.* The draft Resolution also directs Staff not to attend the de novo hearing before the Coastal Commission. However, the City cannot refuse to make the public record of this case available to the developer, the Coastal Commission or any other interested party, if requested to do so.

*In the event that the Coastal Commission approves the booths and the City Council wishes to prevent their construction in the City's public right-of-way, the City Council could decide to hold a duly-noticed public hearing to formally consider revoking its approval of the encroachment permit for the booths.

It should be noted that for the past few months the developer has been preparing its defense of the appeal. Part of these preparations has included the development of a public access signage program for the Oceanfront project. Staff has reviewed the signage program prepared by the developer and conceptually approved it as being consistent with the conditions of approval for the Oceanfront project, including those conditions related to the manned tract entry observation booths. However, Staff has also advised the developer that no action to finalize the approval of the signage program will be taken unless and until the Coastal Commission’s appeal is resolved.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The developer has been advised of the City Council’s discussion of this matter.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff requests direction from the City Council regarding Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s suggestions regarding the upcoming Coastal Commission appeal of the manned tract entry observation booths for the Oceanfront project.

FISCAL IMPACT

The actions suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Stern may have a positive fiscal impact upon the City in that additional Staff time and resources will not be expended in support of this appeal.

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Adopt the draft Resolution, with or without further modifications as deemed appropriate by the City Council.
  2. Take some other action on Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s request, as deemed appropriate by the City Council.
  3. Take no action on Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s request.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Draft Resolution No. 2001-__
Resolution No. 2001-08



RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, EXPRESSING ITS LACK OF CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED MANNED TRACT ENTRY OBSERVATION BOOTHS AT THE OCEANFRONT PROJECT (TRACT MAP NO. 46628), WHICH ARE CURRENTLY UNDER APPEAL TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AS APPEAL NO. A-5-RPV-01-066

WHEREAS, on August 23, 2000 and September 28, 2000, the developer of the Oceanfront residential project, Makallon RPV Associates llc, submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision 'C, Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’, Encroachment Permit No. 32 and Sign Permit No. 1096 to allow the replacement of sections of 3-foot-tall tract perimeter fence with small sections of solid wall up to six feet in height at the tract entries, installation of manned tract entry observation booths in the public rights-of-way of streets in the project, and installation of tract identification signs; and,

WHEREAS, on November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2000-41, thereby conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision 'C and Sign Permit No. 1096 for small sections of maximum 6-foot-tall perimeter wall, fountains and tract identification signs, and Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’ and Encroachment Permit No. 32 for tract entry observation booths in the public rights-of-way of Paseo de la Luz, Via del Cielo and Calle Viento; and,

WHEREAS, on December 6, 2000, and within the 15-day appeal period prescribed by the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, then-Mayor Pro Tem John McTaggart filed a request with the City Manager for City Council consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision 'C, Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’, Encroachment Permit No. 32 and Sign Permit No. 1096, pursuant to Section 17.80.130 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, on December 11, 2000, then-City Councilmember Douglas Stern filed a similar request with the City Manager; and,

WHEREAS, on December 19, 2000, a majority of the City Council agreed to appeal and review the Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision ‘A’ and Encroachment Permit No. 32 for the manned tract entry observation booths only; and,

WHEREAS, on February 6, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-08, by a 4-1 vote with then-Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart dissenting, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s action; and,

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2001, the City Council’s action was appealed to the California Coastal Commission by two Coastal Commissioners and three residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as Appeal No. A-5-RPV-01-066; and,

WHEREAS, on April 10, 2001, the California Coastal Commission conducted a public hearing to determine if the appeal of the City Council’s action raised a substantial issue and should be agendized for a de novo hearing before the Commission, and subsequently found that the appeal did raise a substantial issue, thereby holding in abeyance the City’s approval of the manned tract entry observation booths and related improvements for the Oceanfront project; and,

WHEREAS, as of the effective date of this Resolution, the California Coastal Commission has yet to conduct its de novo hearing on Appeal No. A-5-RPV-01-066, but may do so as soon as January 2002.

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

Section 1:The current City Council no longer supports the application by Makallon RPV Associates llc for the proposed manned tract entry observation booths in the City’s public rights-of-way of Paseo de la Luz, Via del Cielo and Calle Viento.

Section 2:Upon adoption, a copy of this Resolution shall be immediately forwarded to the developer and the California Coastal Commission.

Section 3:City Staff is hereby directed not to attend the upcoming de novo hearing on Appeal No. A-5-RPV-01-066 before the California Coastal Commission. Staff shall, however, make available the public record of this case to the developer, the California Coastal Commission or any other interested party, if requested to do so.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th 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 18, 2001.

_________________________________
City Clerk



12. Options for the Use of the Crestridge Property. (Evans)

Recommendation: Provide direction to Staff regarding the following issues: (1) Which if any of the concepts proposed for the use of the Crestridge property should receive further consideration. (2) What information and analyses will the City Council require in order to make a determination of the use of the property. (3) Whether to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to conduct a joint City Council/Planning Commission’s recommendation to conduct the City’s Crestridge property, use options for the adjoining privately owned Crestridge property and the need and appropriate location for senior housing in the City.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR THE USE OF THE CRESTRIDGE PROPERTY

RECOMMENDATIONS

Provide direction to Staff regarding the following issues: (1) Which if any of the concepts proposed for the use of the Crestridge property should receive further consideration; (2) What information and analyses will the City Council require in order to make a determination of the use of the property; and (3) Whether to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to conduct a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop to discuss use options for the City’s Crestridge property, use options for the adjoining privately owned Crestridge property and the need and appropriate location for senior housing in the City.

BACKGROUND

On August 21, 2001 the City Redevelopment Agency considered various issues pertaining to a proposal from Corporation for Better Housing and Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, LLP regarding development of the Crestridge property for Senior Housing including the approval of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA).

The Board decided: (1) not to approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, LLP; and (2) not to grant a "buy-back" provision to the developer Charles Brumbaugh; and (3) to direct staff to consider other options for the property, including the feasibility of a park.

History of the Indian Ridge Crest Gardens’ Proposal

On August 28, 1999, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to review the concept of a proposed Senior Affordable Housing project presented by the Corporation for Better Housing. At that time, the developer requested that the City contribute up to $1.9 million towards the development of the project. At the workshop, the City Council/Planning Commission gave general direction to the Developer, and indicated that the project had some merit.

Subsequent to August 28, 1999, a development application was submitted to the City by the developer. Over the next 2 years, the application was revised several times. The initial August 28, 1999 proposal was for an 84-unit apartment building for seniors plus a 5,000 square foot Community Center for the Peninsula Seniors. All units at that time were to be reserved for low and very low-income residents. The project was revised in January 2000, by reducing the number of units to 73. Then, in June 2000, the project was revised to 76 units. In January 2001, it was reduced to 64 units and the Community Center for the Peninsula Seniors was eliminated as the Peninsula Seniors withdrew their request to be included in this project.

Finally, a revised project was submitted that reduced the size of the project to 52 units, of which 13 were to be reserved for low and very low-income residents. The proposed project included a partially subterranean parking structure with 76 parking spaces. An additional 9 parking spaces were proposed at grade. Above the partially subterranean parking structure were two floors of living area inclusive of 52 residential units, an approximate 2,000 square foot community room for residents, a library for residents, elevators, laundry facilities, a lounge and recreation court (swimming pool and spa). Approval of a Conditional Use Permit was required: (1) for the proposed use, (2) because the proposed project exceeded one story, and (3) because the project exceeded 16' in height. Approval of a Grading Permit was required as grading for the proposed project included approximately 25,302 cubic yards of cut, 14,044 cubic yards of fill and approximately 11,258 cubic yards of export. Approval of a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change was required to move the existing land use boundary that separates the Institutional and the Open Space Hazard land uses, and which is currently located on the developable portion of the property. Additionally, the project included requests for crib/retaining wall systems along the frontages of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard, as well as along the western edge of the flat developable portion of the site.

City Obligation to Provide Affordable Housing Opportunities

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

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

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

State Mandate to Provide Low and Moderate Income Housing

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

"Preserve, improve and expand housing opportunities for low and moderate income residents. Typical examples include, but are not limited to: the replacement or repair of marginal or substandard dwelling units, providing financial subsidies to qualified low and moderate income households, and the implementation of financial assistance programs to reduce land, site development and/or construction costs to facilitate the development of low and moderate income housing."

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

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

There are eight affordable units planned for the Ocean Trails project, four onsite and four subsidized units offsite that are not new construction (the City is permitted to provide up to 4 of the 13 required affordable units by subsidizing existing housing stock). The four-onsite units at Ocean Trails are under construction. The four off-site subsidized units will need to be provided by Ocean Trails prior to the sale of lots within Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50666. Considering the Ocean Trails units, of the 13 required, five more are needed to meet the City RHNA numbers. All five of these units must be new construction.

DISCUSSION

Interest in the Crestridge property is high. We have received three statements of interest from potential users and have solicited a proposal for affordable housing for comparison purposes from a developer other than Corporation for Better Housing. In addition, the City Council directed staff to investigate the potential use of the land as a park site. Finally, staff believes that Corporation for Better Housing is still interested in developing the site. Each of the conceptual proposals is described below. A copy of each Statement of Interest is attached to this report.

Palos Verdes Art Center

City staff met with representatives from the Palos Verdes Art Center to discuss their interest in the property. The Art Center has outgrown their site on the corner of Crenshaw Blvd and Crestridge (opposite the City property) and is interested in acquiring the City land and building a new facility. It is not clear whether they would be interested in purchasing the property outright, or whether they would pursue some type of partnership arrangement with the City. Clearly, this project would have some environmental and aesthetic issues including traffic, parking and building appearance.

Exceptional Children’s Network

The Exceptional Children’s Network, a non-profit organization, is interested in developing an educational facility for learning disabled, and gifted and talented children on the Crestridge site. Their Statement of Interest described a "purchase" of the property. It is not clear what type of traffic this potential use would generate, nor is it clear how large a building would be required to accommodate the school.

Standard Pacific

Standard Pacific Homes is proposing to submit an application for development of the ten acre site that lies immediately to the West of the City property. The nature of their proposed project is construction of 104 age restricted "for sale" two and three bedroom attached units. The developer would also like to incorporate the City-owned parcel into his project. His letter and subsequent communications with Staff point out that he would 1) seek an additional 10-12 units for his project and would incorporate affordable units into the project; 2) include a linear park with public trails, a viewpoint and a sculpture garden; and 3) transfer a portion of the property free and clear to the Peninsula Seniors organization for the construction of a seniors center. Of course, their own 104-unit condominium project has not yet been reviewed and may have issues of its own - including, whether or not the proposed use ("for sale units") is consistent with the Institutional Zone.

At its December 11, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission considered a use determination request submitted by Standard Pacific Homes. The Commission was being asked to determine if a "for sale" condominium project, that provides services for its senior residents, is conditionally allowed in the Institutional Zone. Although the Commission agreed that senior housing was greatly needed in the City, some Commissioners expressed reservations about the appropriateness of allowing such a use in an Institutional Zone. Furthermore, the Commission felt that it was important to get feedback from the adjoining residents as to what use would be most appropriate on the privately owned property. Since the Council was considering options for the City’s adjoining Crestridge property, the Commission thought that it made sense to also consider options for the adjoining Crestridge property at the same time. As a result, the Commission accepted a withdrawal of the applicant’s use determination request and recommended that the City Council consider conducting a joint workshop (Planning Commission and City Council) to discuss use options for both properties, as well as the greater topic of the need and appropriate location for senior housing in the City.

Affirmed Housing Group

City staff invited Affirmed Housing Group to evaluate the possibility of an affordable senior housing project that would recognize the issues raised by the adjacent neighborhood including traffic, building mass and preservation of open space. Affirmed corroborated Corporation for Better Housing’s assertion that for on-site management of senior affordable rental units the number of units could not be much below 50. However, they did indicate that if the City wanted only five affordable units, designed to complement the existing nearby neighborhood and to preserve some of the open space, it could be accomplished. The only limitation is how much money the City is willing to invest to build and manage five affordable units.

City View Park

A passive park with trails, a viewpoint and possibly points of interest similar to those in the Lower Hesse Park Trails could be designed for this site. Assuming no parking or restroom facilities were added, such a park could be developed for less than $100,000 (plus $702,000 for the land). Minimum irrigation and planting is assumed.

Corporation for Better Housing Proposal

The Corporation for Better Housing/Indian Ridge Crest Gardens’ proposal for approximately 50-60 condos or apartments is still on the table. The most recent project submittal was described in some detail earlier in this report.

Do Nothing Alternative

A final alternative is to continue to hold the property in its present form and leave the decision for its best use to a time after all City property and needs have been studied and evaluated. The advantage to this approach is that the City will continue to be consistent with its adopted Housing Element and with the requirement to keep its Housing Set-aside fund balance below one million dollars. If, by pursuing this alternative, the City does not meet its housing need of 13 new affordable housing units by year 2005, then the next Housing Element revision, expected in year 2005, will need to address why the City did not meet its need and what programs the City will use for the next 5 year planning period

FISCAL IMPACT

The initial fiscal impact of any of the proposals is whether or not the Crestridge property must be purchased from the City Redevelopment Agency. Any project that does not include an affordable housing element would necessitate reimbursement of $702,000 to the Agency Housing Funds. If the property is to be utilized as a park the cost of the land would likely be a charge to the General Fund Reserve.

If the property is purchased from the Agency, the problem of what to do with the housing set-aside funds that are in excess of $1 million must be addressed. As was pointed out earlier in the staff report the City must develop a plan for these funds or risk losing them.

CONCLUSION

In order to properly evaluate the potential uses of the Crestridge property the City Council, and local neighborhoods, will probably want to review, at a minimum:

  1. A site plan.
  2. A rough grading plan.
  3. Elevations of any structures proposed for the site.
  4. A draft traffic study.
  5. The proposal for City/RDA cost sharing, if any.

Since the cost of preparing these submittals is estimated at between $10,000 and $25,000 for each proposed project, the City Council may wish to eliminate one or more of the alternatives at this time if they feel it cannot be successful. Sponsors of each project have been asked to be present at the City Council meeting to respond to questions. Detailed project presentations have not been requested at this time.

Respectfully submitted:
Les Evans, Executive Director/City Manager

ATTACHMENTS
Palos Verdes Art Center letter of August 22, 2001
Exceptional Children’s Network letter of September 5, 2001
Standard Pacific letter of October 10, 2001
Affirmed Housing Group letter of November 21, 2001


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




13. San Ramon Habitat Restoration Plans. (Petru)

Recommendation: (1) Approve the Draft Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park (which includes mitigation for the San Ramon Project, Palos Verdes Drive South Washout Project and Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project). (2) Approve the Draft Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the San Ramon Project. (3) Authorize staff to issue Request for Proposals seeking a qualified firm to install and maintain the habitat restoration area at Abalone Cove and a qualified consultant to monitor the restoration efforts at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and wetlands mitigation for the San Ramon Project.

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: SAN RAMON HABITAT RESTORATION PLANS

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive and file the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for the San Ramon Project (on-site).

2. Approve the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park (which includes off-site mitigation for the San Ramon and Palos Verdes Drive South Washout Projects, and on-site mitigation for the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project).

3. Approve the Conceptual Off-site Wetland Mitigation Plan for the San Ramon Project.

4. Authorize staff to issue Request for Proposals seeking a qualified firm to install and maintain the habitat restoration area at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and a qualified consultant to monitor all of the restoration efforts associated with the project.

BACKGROUND

On October 2, 2001, the City Council awarded the construction contract and project management contracts for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. The total cost of the contracts awarded at that time was $3,150,000. In the staff report presented that evening, staff indicated that the cost of the project did not include all of the mitigation for the coastal sage scrub (CSS) and riparian habitat that will be lost as result of the project. Most of the coastal sage scrub habitat will be re-vegetated on-site (approximately 2 acres) and the cost of installing this re-vegetation is part of the construction and project management contracts previously approved by the City Council.

However, due to the replacement ratios required by the resource agencies, a portion of the coastal sage scrub habitat mitigation will be required to be provided off-site. The City has proposed to locate the remaining portion of coastal sage scrub habitat at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. In addition, the project will impact an area of riparian habitat that could not be replaced on-site due to the installation of the landslide buttress and energy dissipater in the bottom of the canyon. Instead, an in-lieu fee was proposed to mitigate for the loss of this riparian habitat. Staff indicated that once the off-site habitat restoration plans and costs are determined, staff would return to the City Council with a separate agenda item.

DISCUSSION

Construction of the San Ramon Project, which began on October 4, 2001, has resulted in direct impacts to both Coastal Sage Scrub habitat and riparian habitat. Therefore, in order to build the project, the City was required to obtain a variety of regulatory permits from both state and federal agencies. A list of the permits obtained by the City that relate to habitat impacts is presented below:

Required Regulatory Permits

Agency

Type of Permit

Habitat Impacted

CA Dept. of Fish & Game

4(d) Permit

Coastal Sage Scrub

CA Regional Water Quality Control Board

401 Water Quality Certification

Wetlands

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service/

CA Dept. of Fish & Game

1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement

Wetlands

Army Corps of Engineers

Section 404 Permit

Wetlands


The chart below indicates the amount of habitat loss associated with the San Ramon Project and the mitigation obligations required of the City through the permits listed above:

Project Habitat Impacts and Mitigation Obligations

Habitat Impact

Mitigation Ratio

Total Mitigation

On-Site

Off-Site

0.92 acres CSS

3:1

2.76 acres

1.84 acres

0.92 acres

0.07 Riparian

2:1

0.14 acres

0

0.14 acres


In addition to obtaining the necessary permits from the resource agencies, the City’s consultant, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., has prepared three habitat restoration plans for the San Ramon Project. The first is for the on-site re-vegetation of 1.84 acres of CSS. This plan has been approved by the resource agencies and is attached for the Council’s information. The other two plans address the City’s off-site habitat mitigation obligations and are discussed below:

Off-Site Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan

Although the majority of the coastal sage scrub habitat restoration required for the San Ramon Project will take place on-site on the completed landslide buttress fill, nearly one additional acre will need to be provided somewhere off-site. In addition, the City currently has two other public works projects that require CSS habitat mitigation: the Palos Verdes Drive South Washout Project approved by the City Council as an emergency project on October 16, 2001 and the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project, which was approved by the City Council on July 5, 2000, but is still pending an appeal hearing before the California Coastal Commission. All three of these projects will require the City to engage in CSS habitat restoration efforts.

Logical locations for off-site habitat restoration are the various open space properties that the City has acquired in recent years. For example, the CSS habitat restoration associated with the 25th Street Roadway Repair Project is scheduled to take place at the Forrestal Nature Preserve. However, this project will use most of the available area for this type of restoration at this location. As a result, the Forrestal property will not have enough area available to accommodate the CSS mitigation required for the San Ramon and Palos Verdes Drive South Washout projects. Because the City was already planning to do habitat restoration at the Abalone Cove Shoreline Park property in conjunction with the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project, this site seemed the logical choice for the San Ramon and PVDS Washout projects. Therefore, Helix Environmental Planning prepared a draft plan to mitigate all three projects at this site in order to take advantage of the inherent economies of scale of conducting the re-vegetation for all three projects in the same general area. The draft plan is attached to this report and has also been submitted to the USFWS and CDFG for their preliminary review. The table below summarizes the City habitat mitigation obligations for the three projects and the amount of CSS re-vegetation that is proposed to take place at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park:

Public Works Project Impacts and Mitigation

 

Total CSS Impact

Mitigation Ratio

Total

Mitigation

Mitigation at

Abalone Cove

San Ramon Drainage/Landslide

0.92

3:1

2.76

0.92

Palos Verdes Dr. South Washout

0.44

3:1

1.32

1.32

Abalone Cove Beach Improvement

0.24

3:1

0.72

0.72

Total:

1.6

 

4.8

2.96


The conceptual plan prepared by Helix identified several areas at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park that could potentially be used for CSS habitat restoration. The total area identified is approximately 14 acres in size. It should be pointed out that, in preparing and submitting this plan, the City is in no way obligated to re-vegetate all of the areas identified with Coastal Sage Scrub. The thought behind initially identifying as much area as possible was that, in addition to the three identified projects, there may be potential for the City to use the property as a mitigation site for future public works projects. However, staff feels that not all of the areas identified in the plan would be appropriate for re-vegetation and, if fact, there may only be enough area available to mitigate the three projects currently at hand.

In Figure 3 of the Abalone Cove Habitat Restoration Plan, the areas identified as R-2 through R-7 (an aggregate of approximately 5.4 acres) are located within the boundaries of the active Abalone Cove Landslide Area. There is an issue of installing irrigation systems in a known landslide area, even if it is only temporary (5 years). In addition, the City may need to conduct landslide abatement work in the future (lower Alta Mira Canyon runs through this area), which could undo the City’s habitat restoration efforts. Based on this, staff does not recommend that the City use areas R-2 through R-7 as habitat restoration areas at this time.

The area identified as R-1 on Figure 3 includes all of the level area adjacent to the upper parking lot, between Palos Verdes Drive South and the bluff top. This area is approximately 8.4 acres in size and is currently used as a passive recreational area. Existing improvements within this area are very minimal, but include picnic benches, walking trails and a pipe-rail fence and signage along the bluff top. The only future development priority identified in the City’s Parks Master Plan for this area is paving the paths from the parking lot accessing the picnic tables and along the bluff top. In addition, the Council recently approved using funds from the Trees for the Millennium grant program to install shade trees at the various picnic table sites.

Although 8.4 acres is potentially available for habitat restoration in the R-1 area, staff would be concerned about committing this entire area to habitat restoration because it would severely limiting the City’s future options for developing additional public recreational amenities in this area. Instead, staff recommends that the City commit to re-vegetating only the acreage required for the three identified projects in the R-1 area. Further, staff recommends that the 2.96 acre habitat restoration area be located at the eastern end of the upper area. The proposed area is generally bounded by Palos Verdes Drive South on the north, the upper parking lot on the west and the edge of the bluff top on the south and east. This would leave approximately 5.44 acres available in the upper area for future park improvements. In addition, this area would be an ideal CSS habitat restoration area for the following reasons:

  • The area is large enough to accommodate the nearly three acres of CSS habitat re-vegetation that is required for the three public works projects.
  • The proposed location would not interfere with the existing passive recreational area adjacent to the upper parking lot.
  • The proposed area is located outside of the active landslide area.
  • The terrain is flat and easily accessible from the upper parking lot.
  • The existing pedestrian trails through this portion of the site could remain open during the re-vegetation effort.
  • A water supply is available at the park building at the entrance to the upper parking lot to provide temporary irrigation to the re-vegetation area.
  • The City’s newly completed scenic turnout on Palos Verdes Drive South would directly overlook the proposed re-vegetation area. The scenic turnout contains three informational plaques, one of which talks about coastal sage scrub habitat and the California gnatcatcher. The proximity of the re-vegetation area to the overlook would greatly enhance the educational value of this public amenity.

Off-Site Wetlands Mitigation Plan

As discussed earlier in this report, the San Ramon Project will result in the loss of 0.07 acres of riparian habitat. Due to the physical characteristics of this drainage and landslide stabilization project, the City is unable to mitigate for this impact on-site. Therefore, the City was obligated to look for an off-site mitigation area. As with CSS, the City’s open space properties were the logical locations to consider for this type of habitat restoration. Helix surveyed at both Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and the Barkentine property and staff reviewed the Forrestal Management Plan for potential mitigation sites. Unfortunately, both the Abalone Cove and Barkentine do not contain suitable areas for wetlands mitigation. Although there is some potential for wetlands mitigation in the quarry bowl on the Forrestal property, this area was found to be too small to provide the 0.14 acres (6,000 square feet) required for the project. In addition, access into the quarry bowl is extremely limited and the type of equipment that would be required to perform the work may cause more damage to the surrounding habitat areas than could be justified. Staff also looked at Shoreline Park at 25th Street, but the drainage courses on this property are already encumbered by conservation easements previously granted to the developers of the Ocean Trails Project.

In the course of investigated options for wetlands mitigation, Helix asked the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) for suggestions. The PVPLC indicated that they have an existing wetlands mitigation program at the Chandler Preserve in the City of Rolling Hills Estates with sufficient area available to provide off-site mitigation for the San Ramon Project. After further discussion, the resource agencies agreed to allow the City to pay a $10,500 in lieu fee to the PVPLC to satisfy the wetlands mitigation requirements for the San Ramon Project. In addition to the fee, the City would be required to monitor the restoration effort to ensure and document that it was successful. Helix has estimated the cost to monitor the project to be $30,000 over the minimum five years period required by the resource agencies. This is an extremely attractive option for the City for two important reasons: time and money.

With regards to timing, the state and federal resource agencies would not issue the necessary permits to begin construction of the San Ramon Project until a wetlands mitigation program had been identified. As the Council will recall, San Ramon was an emergency project that needed to complete the first phase of construction before the onset of the winter rainy season. Identifying the Chandler Preserve as the off-site mitigation area avoided a potentially disastrous delay in the issuance regulatory permits required for the project while the City searched for another suitable site.

With regards to cost, the primary consideration is that the PVPLC already has a successful wetlands restoration program in place at the Chandler Preserve. By paying an in lieu fee to an existing and successful program, the City is able to minimize the cost of mitigation to the lowest possible level. The costs are minimized because the PVPLC already has the land, staff, equipment, expertise and other resources available to conduct a wetlands restoration. In addition, the monitoring costs would be spread over the five year life of the project, at a rate of $6,000 per year.

Of course, the only drawback to this approach is that the restored wetlands habitat is located outside the City boundaries. However, staff strongly believes that the positive aspects of this mitigation option discussed above outweigh the physical location of the restoration site. Further, the off-site mitigation is still within the geographic confines of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and would contribute to the overall health of the local ecosystem, of which Rancho Palos Verdes is a part.

If the City Council agrees with this approach, the PVPLC is prepared to begin the restoration effort in January 2002. Mid-winter is apparently the ideal time to do wetlands mitigation work. In fact, the California Department of Fish and Game required the City to pay the in lieu fee within 30 days of the issuance of the 1601 streambed Alteration Agreement. However, if the Council is not in favor of the in lieu fee approach, the City can request a refund from PVPLC (or perhaps apply the funds to another project in the future) and submit permit amendments to the resource agencies to pursue a mitigation site located somewhere within the City’s boundaries. Although it cannot be accurately determined at this time, staff is certain that the cost of this option would be substantially higher than the current approach, due to the necessity to identify a suitable site, hiring a qualified entity or firm to conduct the restoration effort and absorbing the overhead cost of starting a wetlands restoration program from scratch. Regardless of which approach is taken, the cost of monitoring the program’s success for five years would not be significantly effected if the location of the restoration area were changed.

As a final note on this topic, although staff feels that a workable and economical solution has been identified to mitigate the San Ramon Project, the fact remains that the City will be faced with a continuing need to provide wetlands mitigation for future public works projects. Examples include the Alta Mira Canyon Drainage Project and future storm drain improvement projects on the east side of the City. If the Council is in favor of the in lieu fee approach, the Chandler Preserve may be able to satisfy some of this need, but it is not guaranteed that this site will be available to the City. Therefore, the Council may wish to consider hiring a consultant to survey the other open space properties owned by the City to determine their wetlands restoration potential in advance, rather than facing possible project delays in the future. However, unless the City is able to identify an area where a large amount of wetlands restoration can take place, the cost of future mitigation efforts are likely to be much higher than the in lieu situation with the San Ramon Project.

CONCLUSION

Because the San Ramon Project was an emergency project, which needed to begin construction before the onset of the winter rainy season, all of the habitat mitigation plans were not in place when the City Council awarded the construction contract for the project. Since that time, these plans have been completed and staff is seeking Council approval of the off-site Coastal Sage Scrub and wetlands habitat mitigation plans prepared for the San Ramon Project. In addition, staff is seeking Council authorization to issue Requests for Proposals find a qualified firm to install and maintain the off-site CSS habitat restoration area at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and a qualified consultant to monitor all of the restoration efforts associated with this project.

FISCAL IMPACT

As discussed in the Background section, the cost of the on-site habitat installation was included in the construction contract awarded by the Council on October 2, 2001. However, the project’s off-site mitigation requirements and the monitoring associated with all of the project’s re-vegetation were not included in the initial cost. Now that the re-vegetation plans have been completed, Helix has prepared preliminary cost estimates for these additional efforts, which are summarized in the chart below:

Habitat Mitigation Costs

Location & Type

Installation

Maintenance

Monitoring

On-Site CSS Mitigation

In construction contract

$29,395

$46,700

Off-Site CSS Mitigation

$34,000

$49,200

$49,000

Off-Site Wetlands Mitigation

$10,500

Included in installation

$30,000

Total:

$44,500

$78,595

$125,700


Based on these figures, the additional cost to install, maintain and monitor the habitat restoration associated with the San Ramon Project totals $248,795, although the off-site CSS mitigation at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park (totaling $132,200) also includes CSS mitigation for the Palos Verdes Drive South Washout Project and the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project. Because the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project has been on appeal to the Coastal Commission for over a year and a hearing date has still not been established, when and if this project moves forward, any future construction schedule may preclude its re-vegetation from being done at the same time as the other two pubic works projects, which could have an effect on the overall cost of the mitigation effort.

In FY 98-99, the City established a Habitat Restoration Fund using monies paid to the City by the developers of the Ocean Trails Project for conservation easements on City parkland. With developer payments totaling $206,260, plus interest earnings, this fund had an ending balance in FY 00-01 of $231,212. The adopted FY 01-02 Budget includes an expenditure of $120,000 to re-vegetate 5 acres of CSS habitat on City property to mitigate the City’s 25th Street Roadway Repair Project and the Alta Mira Canyon Drainage Project. As mentioned previously, re-vegetation for the 25th Street Project is planned for the Forrestal Nature Preserve, while the location for the Alta Mira Canyon Drainage Project CSS mitigation has yet to be determined. The ending balance for the fund in FY 01-02 is anticipated to be $163,272. The proposed Budget for FY 02-03 includes $7,500 for on-going maintenance of these two re-vegetation areas, resulting in an ending fund balance in FY 02-03 of $166,372.

Assuming the amounts included in the adopted Budget are accurate and the mitigation for the 25th Street Project and the Alta Mira Canyon Drainage Project move forward as expected this fiscal year, the City would have approximately $160,000 available in the Habitat Restoration Fund in FY 02-03 to fund the re-vegetation efforts associated with the San Ramon, PVDS Washout and the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Projects. However, with an estimated total cost of approximately $250,000 for these three projects, this would create a $90,000 funding shortfall.

ALTERNATIVES

In order to try to lower the cost of City’s habitat restoration efforts, the Council may wish to consider the following alternatives aimed at using local resources and/or talent, rather than outside consulting firms:

  • Consider talking to the PVPLC about entering into a Maintenance Agreement with the City, similar to what was done for the Forrestal Nature Preserve, to re-vegetate Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. As a non-profit agency using local labor and expertise, the PVPLC may be able to provide these services to the City at a substantial cost savings over using private consulting firms. Because the major CSS re-vegetation effort at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park will not begin until Fall 2002, the City has some time to explore this option.
  • Consider recruiting and hiring either an in-house employee or local independent consultant with expertise in biology and habitat restoration to monitor all of the re-vegetation sites associated with the City’s various public works projects. Potentially, this person could also prepare habitat restoration plans, obtain permits from the resource agencies and seek habitat restoration grant funding for the City. With the City’s increasing responsibilities to re-vegetate and maintain habitat, this may be a cost effective approach to consider.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments
San Ramon Canyon Landslide Project Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration Plan prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. dated November 8, 2001
Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration Plan prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. dated November 8, 2001
San Ramon Storm Drain and Landslide Stabilization Project Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Helix Environmental Planning Inc. dated November 26, 2001.



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

Recommendation: (1) Consider the property owner’s request for the City to abandon the view covenant that was recorded against the property known as 3027 Crest Road after a formal review process for abandoning covenants has been adopted by the City Council. (2) Amend Policy No. 30 to establish a process for dealing with requests from property owners to abandon recorded view covenants on a case-by-case basis.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1) Consider the property owner’s request for the City to abandon the view covenant that was recorded against the property known as 3027 Crest Road after a formal review process for abandoning covenants has been adopted by the City Council; and 2) Amend City Council Policy No. 30 to establish a process for dealing with requests from property owners to abandon recorded view covenants on a case-by-case basis.

BACKGROUND:

At the November 7, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council considered a request from Mr. Scalfaro, property owner at 3027 Crest Road, to abandon the view covenant that had been recorded against his property in 1990 (excerpt minutes attached). Mr. Scalfaro’s request was prompted by the fact that his neighbor, Mr. Robert Morrell, had begun legal proceedings to enforce the covenant through a court of law. At that time, the Council agreed to continue the item for one month to allow the two parties and their respective attorneys an opportunity to resolve the matter on their own. On November 26th, at the request of both parties, Staff visited Mr. Morrell's residence to assess the degree of view impairment caused by Mr. Scalfaro's foliage and to receive an update on their progress toward resolution of the view matter. At that time, both parties noted that they were working toward a resolution and felt that an agreement would probably be reached prior to the Council’s December 18th meeting. Therefore, instead of reporting back to the Council at its December 4th meeting, it was agreed to report back to the Council at its December 18th meeting.

In addition to addressing Mr. Scalfaro’s specific covenant removal request, the Council also addressed the general policy of how to handle future covenant removal requests. On November 7th, the Council directed Staff to formulate a process for removing all of the view covenants that have been recorded on private properties. Staff has looked into the matter and is recommending that the Council consider adopting a process where requests to abandon certain view covenants are considered on a case-by- case basis.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Scalfaro’s Request

On December 11, 2001, Staff was informed by Mr. Scalfaro’s attorney that the two parties were very close to settling the matter and that a settlement agreement was expected to be signed by the end of the week. No details of the pending agreement were provided to Staff. Mr. Scalfaro’s attorney also noted that although a settlement agreement was eminent, that Mr. Scalfaro’s request for the City Council to abandon the view covenant recorded on his property was still valid. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Council consider Mr. Scalfaro’s request after a formal review process for abandoning covenants has been adopted by the City Council.

Proposed Amendment to City Council Policy No. 30

As discussed in the attached November 7, 2001 Staff Report, the Code provision that gave applicants the option of submitting a "Covenant to Protect Views" to satisfy the Proposition ‘M’ requirement of "Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance" was in effect for approximately 6 years (1990 – 1996). As a result, Staff believes that approximately 900 covenants were recorded on properties during this time span. At the November 7th meeting, the Council generally supported the idea of removing all of the view covenants that had been recorded on various properties and directed Staff to formulate a process for removing such covenants. Staff and the City Attorney have looked into the matter and have identified some issues that need to be taken into consideration. These issues are discussed below.

  1. Although most of the recorded covenants were required as conditions of approval for planning applications approved administratively over-the-counter, some covenants were required as conditions of approval for discretionary applications that were approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. Furthermore, some covenants may have been required to avoid or minimize potential impacts of a proposed major project. As a result, a distinction needs to be made between these types of recorded covenants and the covenants that were recorded solely in lieu of a foliage analysis for over-the-counter applicants because the covenants on larger projects and the covenants imposed by the Planning Commission or City Council would have to be removed in connection with an amendment to the particular permit, via the same process by which the covenant was imposed.
  2. After the November 7th meeting, Staff received a number of letters from residents adjacent to the Ocean Trails development with concerns that the view covenants required to be recorded on the future Ocean Trails residential lots would be removed (letters attached). It should be noted that in July 1999, Ocean Trails requested that the condition which required that view covenants be recorded on the residential lots be removed, but withdrew its request after hearing strong neighborhood opposition. The conditions of approval that were imposed on the Ocean Trails project were designed to address project-wide impacts from the project that were analyzed in the EIR. As a result, the covenants required for the Ocean Trails residential project, and any other approved tract, are different from the covenants that were recorded in lieu of a foliage analysis for over-the-counter applicants and in Staff’s opinion should not be removed.
  3. The view covenants that were recorded by over-the-counter applicants were done so in lieu of Staff performing a foliage analysis of the applicant’s property. In cases where foliage analyses were performed and Staff identified view-impairing foliage on the applicant’s property, the foliage was required to be trimmed or removed prior to the building permit being issued. As pointed out by former View Restoration Commissioner Warren Sweetnam (comments attached), removing covenants outright may allow certain individuals to circumvent the intent of the foliage analysis provision of the ordinance. Therefore, Staff believes that view covenants should not be removed unless a foliage analysis is performed and it is determined that no significant view impairing foliage exists on the covenant owner’s property.
  4. The removal of a recorded view covenant from a property’s title is accomplished by recording a "Notice of Termination of Covenant" on the same title. The processing of such a termination covenant would require execution of the covenant by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and the City Clerk, notarized signatures from the property owners and the filing of the executed covenant with the County Recorder’s Office. In addition, Staff believes that there needs to be some sort of noticing process to alert adjacent property owners when a view covenant is proposed to be removed. To complete this exercise for approximately 900 covenants would be overwhelming and could take months to complete.

Notwithstanding the Council’s previous direction to remove all of the view covenants, for the reasons noted above, Staff and the City Attorney believe that the removal of view covenants should be restricted to the covenants that were recorded by residents in lieu of a foliage analysis for over-the-counter applications and that requests for removal of covenants be considered on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, unless otherwise directed by the Council, Staff will amend City Council Policy No. 30 to establish a review process that takes into account the issues identified above for processing future requests from property owners to abandon view covenants that have been recorded on their property.

CONCLUSION

The City Council received a request from Mr. Scalfaro, a property owner at 3027 Crest Road, for the City to abandon the view covenant recorded against his property due a neighbor initiating legal action to enforce the recorded covenant in a court of law. Staff has been informed by Mr. Scalfaro’s attorney that the two parties are very close to settling the matter and that a settlement agreement is expected to be signed by the end of the week. At the November 7th meeting, the Council generally supported the idea of removing all of the view covenants that had been recorded on various properties and directed Staff to formulate a process for removing such covenants. Staff and the City Attorney have looked into the matter and believe that the removal of view covenants should be restricted to the covenants that were recorded by residents in lieu of a foliage analysis for over-the-counter applications and that the requests for removal of covenants should be performed on a case-by-case basis.

FISCAL IMPACT:

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

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Minutes from November 7, 2001 CC Meeting
Staff Report from November 7, 2001 CC Meeting
Public correspondence received since November 7, 2001



15. Introduction of Mobile Vendors Ordinance. (Allison)

Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. ___ , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING NEW PARKING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MOBILE VENDORS WHO PARK ON CITY STREETS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MOBILE VENDORS WHO PARK ON CITY STREETS

RECOMMENDATION

Read Ordinance No. ____ "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MOBILE VENDORS WHO PARK ON CITY STREETS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE" by title only, waive further reading, and introduce the ordinance.

BACKGROUND

Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart asked that the matter of regulating mobile food vending trucks be placed on the City Council agenda for the September 4, 2001 City Council meeting to address concerns that were raised by the owner of the Mobil Station about the continued parking of mobile vendors near his property.

In response to the concerns raised by the property owner, in 1997, the City Council decided to restrict parking on the entire length of Granvia Altamira between Hawthorne Blvd and our City limits with Palos Verdes Estates. Adjacent to the Mobil Station, and also adjacent to the 7-11 Market on the northwest corner, the curb is painted red (no parking) except for a small loading zone requested by the 7-11. The remainder of the curb on both sides of Granvia Altamira is painted green and signed for 15-minute parking.

At the September meeting, the Council discussed the fact that the City cannot prohibit the mobile vending trucks, but the City can limit the time they are allowed to stop in one place. The City Council directed staff to obtain additional information from other jurisdictions about the requirements that they have imposed on mobile vendors. Pursuant to that direction, Staff has discussed this matter with the other cities that are located on the Peninsula and also has obtained a copy of the regulations of the City of Los Angeles, which are discussed in the following section along with proposed revisions to the City’s ordinance.

DISCUSSION

Vehicle Code Section 22455 (b) allows local agencies to impose additional requirements "for the public safety" on vehicles that are vending upon public streets. Thus, any additional requirement that is imposed must be to address a public safety issue.

The City of Palos Verdes Estates established a maximum time period of ten minutes for a mobile vendor to park at any location. This is five minutes shorter than the time period set forth in Section 10.04.060 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Staff recommends that our code be amended to be consistent with the ten minute time period established by the City of Palos Verdes Estates so that vendors in both cities are subject to the same requirements. The ordinance attached to this staff report makes that amendment to the Code. This amendment protects the public health, safety and welfare and adjacent properties by ensuring that mobile vendors do not remain at any one location for too long.

In addition, the proposed ordinance will require mobile vendors to move a distance of at least 500 feet, as measured in a straight line, at the end of the ten-minute period. By including this provision, the ordinance ensures that a mobile vendor will not simply move a few feet at the end of the ten-minute period, which would defeat one of the purposes of the ordinance that mobile vendors not continuously remain at one location and adversely affect the adjacent businesses or residences.

The ordinance also includes a new requirement that mobile vendors collect and properly dispose of any trash that comes from any item that is dispensed or sold from the vehicle. By so doing, the ordinance should help the City curtail litter and thereby comply with the NPDES requirements. Accordingly, this requirement also protects the public health and safety by preventing trash from being blown around the City and into the storm water system and the ocean.

The ordinance contains another new provision that requires mobile vendors not to park their vehicles in a manner that causes a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic or in a way that would cause someone to stand in street traffic when purchasing items from the vendor. Again, this measure is designed to protect public safety.

Finally, the ordinance continues the current requirement that any mobile vendor obtain a business license from the City and contains the existing exemption from the ten-minute time restriction for vehicles that are delivering goods to a particular location in response to an order or agreement with the property owner.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will add new requirements to the Municipal Code to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to make the City’s regulations consistent with those of other cities. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council make a motion to read the attached ordinance by title only and waive further reading and introduce the ordinance.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean Allison Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Draft Ordinance



16. Authorize Inclusion of Provisions in Agreements with Experts whose Sole Task is to Review Work that is Prepared by Others so that the City will Indemnify and Defend them from Litigation and Claims relating to their Determinations. (Evans & Lynch)

Recommendation: Provide direction to staff on whether agreements with experts whose sole task is to review work that is prepared by others, such as members of geotechnical review panels, should include provisions that would require the City to indemnify and defend them from litigation and claims related to their decisions.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH MEMBERS OF GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PANELS SO THAT THE CITY INDEMNIFIES AND DEFENDS PANEL MEMBERS FROM LITIGATION RELATING TO THEIR DETERMINATIONS

RECOMMENDATION

Provide direction to staff on whether agreements with members of geotechnical review panels should be amended so that the City would indemnify and defend panel members from litigation relating to their decisions.

BACKGROUND

From time to time, the City has retained one or more geologic and/or geotechnical experts to review determinations made by other experts in those fields. Frequently, several experts from different disciplines have been retained by the City and comprise a "panel of experts." Sometimes experts have been used to corroborate determinations or recommendations that have been made to the City, and on other occasions, one or more experts have been used to settle a dispute between a project expert and an expert that has been retained by the City to review the project expert’s work. In both instances, having other experts available to the City has been helpful in successfully resolving the issue.

Because these additional experts are not retained by a developer or by the City as its own expert, they usually do not collect data or prepare studies. Instead, they review studies or data that have been collected and analyzed by others. As such, they do not issue permits; they do not function as the City’s primary reviewer of technical information, and they have a limited role. Because the role of these experts is limited, they may not be employees of large companies and might not have the same professional liability insurance and financial resources available to them in case of litigation relating to their decisions.

DISCUSSION

The City has had some difficulty in locating qualified experts who are willing to serve solely in this reviewing capacity. One of the issues that have arisen in discussions with prospective panel members is whether the City would be willing to indemnify and defend them if litigation were filed against them in connection with their review of the work of others and any determinations that they make.

There is some precedent for this request. The City’s Administrative Code previously provided that the City would indemnify and defend lawsuits brought against the Building Official, even if that person was not an employee of the City, other than claims for punitive damages. That section of the code subsequently was amended to delete indemnification of building officials who were not City employees, because those individuals were exercising their judgment in determining whether the City should issue permits and whether projects complied with the requirements of the Building Code.

On the other hand, the technical reviewers who have raised this concern are not issuing permits and are not reviewing projects on behalf of the City to determine if permits or approvals should be issued. Instead, their sole purpose is to review the work and analysis of others. Accordingly, since they are not rendering decisions on the City’s behalf, it is unlikely that their determinations would form a separate basis of liability that would require defense or indemnification. If the City were sued as a result of a decision regarding a particular project, allegations of liability against the City probably would be based on the City’s ultimate determination regarding the project and probably would not be increased by virtue of the review of geotechnical data by an independent third party.

FISCAL IMPACT

If there is an identity of interest between the City and the third party expert, the same attorneys can represent both parties so that the City’s cost of defending a case should not be increased by virtue of the proposed indemnity and defense. However, if a conflict of interest develops between the City and the expert, the City would be required to hire a separate law firm to defend the expert, which would increase the City’s defense costs. This probably would be an unusual scenario, but it could cause an increase in City defense costs if it occurred.

ALTERNATIVES

1. The City could explore hiring bigger firms with the required technical expertise to review the work of other experts. Those firms may be more expensive, but they probably would have insurance and other resources that would enable them to defend themselves in litigation.

2. If the number of reviewing experts becomes too small, the City could cease the practice of using them to review the work of other geotechnical and geological experts.

CONCLUSION

Staff is seeking direction from the Council about whether the City would be willing to defend and indemnify only those geologic and geotechnical experts who are retained by the City solely to review the work of others.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans
City Manager



17. Contract Renewal for Geotechnical Consulting. (Rojas)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed agreement with Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. to provide geology and geotechnical engineering consulting services on an as-needed basis to the City for the next two years.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed agreement with Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. to provide geology and geotechnical engineering consulting services on an as-needed basis to the City for the next two years.

BACKGROUND

Due to the complex soils and geology of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement contracts on an as-needed basis for the professional services of licensed geologists and soils engineers. In 1997, Staff prepared and distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) which was provided to twenty-eight potential consulting firms. The City reviewed the eleven responses to the RFP, and after interviewing the top six candidates, selected two firms: Bing Yen and Associates, and Zeiser Kling Consultants. Contracts with these two firms were approved by the City Council on October 7, 1997 for a term continuing through October 31, 1998. On November 17, 1998, the City Council authorized one-year extensions to both contracts to November 17, 1999. On November 16, 1999, the City Council authorized one-year extensions to both contracts to November 17, 2000. On November 21, 2000, the City Council authorized one-year extensions to both contracts to November 21, 2001. This agenda item is to consider renewing the Zeiser Kling contract for an additional two years.

DISCUSSION

The Department’s geotechnical consultants provide a variety of specialized services. These include reviewing geology reports for development projects that range from additions to single family residences to major projects, such as new subdivisions and large non-residential projects; conducting field inspections of proposed construction, as requested by the City’s Building Official; and providing advice to the City on drainage issues and illegal grading activities. During the RFP process in 1997 the Department opted to contract with two firms in order to provide greater flexibility in project assignment, as well as the ability to obtain an in-house, third party opinion regarding any particularly complex and/or controversial project, if needed.

The two firms were selected after an extensive RFP process by a City review team. The City’s review team was composed of then Mayor John McTaggart, then Councilman Lee Byrd, then Public Works Director Les Evans and then Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Carolynn Petru. Both firms were determined by the review team to be highly qualified, with extensive experience and professional credentials, and familiarity with the unique geologic conditions found on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. In addition, both firms were able to provide liability insurance in the amounts required by the City.

At this time, Staff is seeking to renew only the Zeiser Kling contract. This is because last month Staff became aware that personnel changes and company restructuring had recently occurred at Bing Yen and Associates (BYA). This new information prompted the delay in renewing both contracts prior to the November 21, 2001 expiration date. As a result, Staff would like an opportunity to meet with the Principals at BYA to determine whether to recommend extension of the BYA contract. In the interim, Staff recommends proceeding with renewal of the Zeiser Kling contract.

Zeiser Kling Consultants have provided competent and responsive service to the City and its residents over the last four years. Zeiser Kling is responsible for the geotechnical review of all of the development projects that are approved by the Department. This primarily includes conducting site visits to determine if geotechnical or soils reports will be required and reviewing and commenting on submitted geotechnical and soils reports. These services are paid for by project applicants, through set geologic review fees (the fee schedule is attached). In addition, when requested to do so, the Zeiser Kling geologists will assist Staff in processing view restoration cases (tree removal on slopes), assessing the severity of code enforcement cases (illegal grading), and conducting any other needed investigations. These services are generally not a part of a fixed fee process but are paid for from the Department budget.

Given the level of service provided to the Department thus far and the expectation that it will continue, Staff is recommending that the Zeiser Kling contract be extended for two (2) years. At this time, Zeiser Kling is requesting an approximate 3% increase to the Associate Geologist and Project Geologist classifications of the fee schedule (the proposed fee schedule is included in the attached agreement). With the first renewal of their contract in 1998, Zeiser Kling received a 3% increase in their fee schedule. No other fee schedule increases have been requested or approved since 1998. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed fee schedule request is reasonable and recommends that it be approved with the contract extension. In addition, Zeiser Kling is requesting that the City increase Geologic Review fees as follows:

Increase the Site Inspection fee from $150 to $200

Increase the Geotechnical Report Review fee from $1,200 to $1,300

Increase the Planning Review fee (site inspection and report review) from $1,350 to $1,500

These fixed fees were established in November 2000 with the intent to make the geologic review process easier for applicants by establishing definitive up-front fees and eliminating the need to track overruns on trust deposit accounts or the need to collect additional funds. The fees were established based on cost estimates for conducting a typical site visit or report review. It now appears that after one year of collecting the fees, that the fixed fees need to be slightly increased. Therefore, unless otherwise directed by the City Council, Staff will bring back an item to amend the City’s current fee schedule, as proposed.

CONCLUSION

Zeiser Kling is a highly qualified firm, with extensive experience and professional credentials, and is familiar with the unique geologic conditions found on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. This experience has been enhanced through the work completed on behalf of the City over the last four years. The review services provided have met Staff's needs and expectations. As such, Staff supports continuing the contract with this firm for an additional two years with the proposed changes discussed above.

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract for only one year.
  2. Direct Staff to make additional modifications to the proposed contract and bring the revised contract back for further discussion at a future meeting.
  3. Direct Staff to issue a new Request for Proposals.

FISCAL IMPACT

Renewal of the contracts would not result in any additional fiscal impacts as the budget for FY 01-02 includes $120,000 for geotechnical consulting services for the review of privately initiated project geotechnical reports, which should be equal to the amount of revenue collected from the geologic review fees. In addition, the budget contains $10,000 for other, as needed, geotechnical consulting services. The consultants' compensation depends on the demand for consulting services and the nature of the investigations or review.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments
Draft 2001-2003 Contract with Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



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



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



CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

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


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property: Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029, 7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators: City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, Keith Lenard, Palos Verdes Land Conservancy.

Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

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

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

Works Director Dean Allison,
Keith Lenard, Palos Verdes Land Conservancy.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

Anticipated Litigation:
(G.C 54956.9(b)

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

___________1___________
(Number of Potential Cases)

Claim against the City by Chandler’s Palos Verdes Sand and Gravel Inc.

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

___________1__________
(Number of Potential Cases)

Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation but which the City/Agency believes are not yet known to potential plaintiff or plaintiffs.

Existing Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: People of the State; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Mark J. Abrams
Case No:

California Court of Appeal Case No. B151086

Name of Case: Mark J. Abrams v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Case No:
(RNBx)

United States District Court Case No. 00-09071 SVW

Name of Case: Jon Echevarrieta v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Case No:


California Court of Appeal Case No. B138366
C Super. Ct. No. YS006446
Name of Case: S.A.V.E. RPV v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Case No. California Court of Appeal Case No. 2CivilB151075