Agenda 01/12/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 01/12/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda January 12, 2002
January 12, 2002

DISCLAIMER

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

...end of disclaimer...

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


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

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 2002

LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER, 32201 FORRESTAL DRIVE


9:00 A.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-01

NEXT ORD. NO. 373

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 December 4, 2001. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


3. Contracts for Whale of a Day Special Event. (Rosenfeld)
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to sign the proposed contracts associated with the City’s 18th Annual Whale of a Day celebration on March 2, 2002.


4. Adoption of Ordinance No. 372 – Mobile Vendors. (Allison)
Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 372, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ETABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MOBILE VENDORS WHO PARK ON CITY STREETS, AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was introduced on December 18, 2001.)


5. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, 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:



6. Policy for Recruitment and Selection of Members for the City’s Advisory Boards. (Evans)
Recommendation: Adopt a policy for recruitment and selection of City Advisory Board Members and Board Chairs.


7. City Council Committee Assignments. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Make Council assignments.


8. Beautification Grant Program Award History. (Allison)
Recommendation: Provide direction to staff regarding the future of the neighborhood beautification grant program.
EXHIBIT "A"
SUMMARY OF BEAUTIFICATION GRANTS
Total Number of Known HOA's 80  
Other Non-HOA groups (schools, library, PTA, Church) 11  
Other HOA groups (ad hoc, branch-offs, name changes, etc) 14  
Total Number of possible applicants 105  
Total Number of applicants receiving Beautification grants 91  
Total Number of HOA's not receiving Beautification grants 14  
Total Number of grants awarded- Cycle 1 through Cycle 12 246 $535,428  
Average amount of grant awarded- Cycle 1 through Cycle 12 $2,175  
Applicants awarded 8 grants 5  
Applicants awarded 6 or more grants 12  
Applicants awarded 4 or more grants 21  
Applicants awarded 3 or more grants 35  
Applicants awarded only 2 grants 20  
Applicants awarded only 1 grants 34  
HOA's awarded 0 grants (HOA's that have not applied) 14  
Applicants awarded at least $10,000 in grant funds 18 $253,700  
Applicants awarded at least $12,000 in grant funds 13 $184,800  
Applicants awarded at least $15,000 in grant funds 6 $103,600  
The HOA's listed below have been the most successful in receiving grants.  The total amount of grants received from the City since the inception of the grant program is:  
Ridgegate HOA $20,000    
Seaview HOA $19,294    
Ladera Linda HOA $16,750    
The Hill Community (Hill Top Circle) $15,963    
Miraleste Hills HOA $15,860    
Mediterrania HOA $15,753    



9. Border Issues Status Report. (Evans)
Recommendation: Review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.


10. Citywide Stop Sign Installation Policy. (Allison)
Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING REGULATIONS REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS.


11. Addition of Traffic Calming signs to the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
Recommendation: Adopt revisions to the City’s Traffic Calming Program, as recommended by the Traffic Committee, to add signs as a traffic-calming tool.


12. Master Plan Updates. (Evans)

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


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



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



CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST


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


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

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

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

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

Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

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

City Negotiators: City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

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.


RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 2002

LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER, 32201 FORRESTAL DRIVE


9:00 A.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-01

NEXT ORD. NO. 373

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 December 4, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

DECEMBER 4, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Mayor Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

Following the Pledge of Allegiance by Caitlin Finnegan, Axie Hulse, Wendy Nicoletti, and Jacy Lundberg of Brownie Troop No. 651, roll call was answered as follows:

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

Also present were City Manager Les Evans; Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Senior Planner Ara Mihranian; Deputy City Clerk Jackie Drasco; and Recording Secretary Denise Bothe.


CEREMONIAL MATTERS:

Mayor Lyon presented certificates to Lauren Huey and Jordana Held for their refurbishing of City park signs and benches and for their achievement in being awarded the Senior Girl Scout Gold Awards; advised that the efforts of these two young ladies saved the City $8,000 this year in park restoration fees; and on behalf of the City, Mayor Lyon thanked them for their work.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Councilmember McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilmember Stern, to approve the Agenda, as amended (request to address Agenda Item 10 as the first order of business under Public Hearing). Motion carried.


CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION:

Resol. No. 2001-96 – Certification of Election Results

Councilmember Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-96, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECITING THE FACTS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 6, 2001, DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF AND SUCH MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW. Motion carried.

Swearing in of Newly Elected Councilmembers:

Deputy City Clerk Drasco swore in newly elected Councilmembers Larry Clark and Peter Gardiner.

Council Reorganization:

Councilmember Stern nominated, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner, John McTaggart to serve as Mayor. Motion carried.

Mayor McTaggart nominated, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, Barbara Ferraro to serve as Mayor Pro Tem.

Councilmember Gardiner nominated, seconded by Councilmember Clark, Douglas Stern to serve as Mayor Pro Tem.

By way of written ballot, Douglas Stern was selected as the new Mayor Pro Tem, as reflected by the following votes:

Councilwoman Ferraro: Ferraro, McTaggart
Councilmember Stern: Clark, Gardiner, and Stern

Mayor McTaggart asked Councilwoman Ferraro if she would like to make the vote for Mayor pro tem Stern unanimous and she said yes.


PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO OUTGOING MAYOR LYON:

At this time, Supervisor Knabe presented to the City a check in the amount of $400,000 to be used for road improvements on Hawthorne and Crenshaw Boulevards.

Supervisor Knabe, on behalf of his colleagues and himself, presented Marilyn Lyon with a plaque in recognition of her years of service to the City Council and that of Mayor; expressed his appreciation of her leadership, longtime friendship and personal support of his political efforts; wished her the very best in her future endeavors; and stated that he is looking forward to working with her in the future.

Marilyn Lyon stated that she felt honored and privileged to have served this community in the capacity as Mayor and Councilmember; and noted that she also enjoyed her work while serving on the Recreation and Parks Committee. She thanked those for giving her the opportunity to serve in this capacity.

Mayor McTaggart thanked Marilyn Lyon for her devotion to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; stated that he has enjoyed working with her throughout the years; and, on behalf of the City and City Council, he presented her with the Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor’s Badge and a gift in recognition of her dedicated service.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 7:25 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess for refreshments in celebration of Marilyn Lyon’s service to the City. The meeting was reconvened at 7:59 P.M.


RECYCLING DRAWING:

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


APROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

At this time, Councilmember Gardiner suggested that because of the large number of individuals present in the audience, Agenda Item No. 10, JCC Homes, Inc., be considered as the first order of business after the Consent Calendar. No objection was noted.

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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Mayor Pro Tem Stern advised that he had emailed City Clerk Purcell suggested amendments to the November 7, 2001, City Council Minutes. Deputy City Clerk Drasco advised that suggested changes to the minutes had been distributed to the City Councilmembers prior to this evening’s meeting.

Deputy City Clerk Drasco announced that there were no speakers for Consent Calendar items.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows:

Motion to waive full reading

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

Minutes of November 7, 2001

Approved the Minutes, as amended.

Ordinance No. 371 – Amendment to Municipal Code - Skateboards

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

Status of Proposition "A" Funds – At-Risk Youth Compliance

Received and filed.

ACLAD Board Appointment

Appointed Robert Douglas and Mary Sheridan to a full four-year term of office on the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District Board of Directors.

Award of New Maintenance Contract

(1) Terminated an existing maintenance contract with L.A. CHA Maintenance Services for janitorial services. (2) Awarded a contract for janitorial services to Bell Building Maintenance Company for the balance of Fiscal Year 2001-2002, and for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, and authorized the expenditure of $41,700 per year. (3) Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an agreement with Bell Building Maintenance Company.

October 2001 Treasurer’s Report

Received and filed.

Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-97, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Clark on the November 7 minutes.


PUBLIC HEARING:

Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228, Grading Permit No. 242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738 (Applicant: JCC Homes, Inc.; Landowner: California Water Service Company, 5837 Crest Road).

Mayor McTaggart opened the public hearing on this request to consider Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228, Grading Permit No. 242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738. Deputy City Clerk Drasco announced that notice had been duly published and that all written comments received by the City had been forwarded to the Council, including a request from the applicant to continue the item to a later date, which was received after the agenda packet was prepared.

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of December 4, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Adopt Resolution No. 2001-98, a Resolution of the City Council of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 738. (2) Adopt Resolution No. 2001-99, a Resolution of the City Council of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228, and Grading Permit No. 2242.

Highlighting his recent service as Planning Commissioner, Councilmember Clark announced that he had participated in two Planning Commission meetings related to this matter but that because of his resignation from that body, he did not participate in the final decision by the Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Ferraro advised that she had toured the subject site; that she had discussions with Mr. Nelson and Mr. Delgado; and that she had talked with Mrs. Tuttle, a resident who lives nearby, in regard to this proposal.

Councilmember Gardiner advised that he too had toured this site along with Mayor McTaggart; that he spoke with Mr. Jensen, the developer; and that he received several pieces of correspondence from residents living in the area.

Mayor McTaggart advised that he had visited this site and spoke to Mr. Jensen and Mr. Delgado.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern advised that he had not been out to this site but that he had had some correspondence with Mr. Nelson – noting that this correspondence was provided to the Councilmembers in their Agenda package.

Councilmember Clark advised that he had toured this site today and met with Mr. Nelson.

Councilmember Gardiner asked that staff provide the following information prior to the next hearing in regard to this matter: 1) Alternatives, Page 5, stated that it would be useful to discuss the alternatives, such as make the zoning conform to the General Plan rather than the other way around; 2) Open Space, requested a definition of open space, what is the intent of the open space, and how does this proposed open space site measure up with the subject property; 3) Neighborhood Compatibility, requested numerical comparisons of lot size and house footprints; 4) requested that staff explain what has changed in the last year or so, since 1973, which leads the water company to assert that this property is surplus – expressing his belief that the water usage is going up, not down; and 5) he questioned what will happen in an emergency situation if there are water shortages due to drought or necessary reservoir repairs or reconstruction.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s inquiry in regard to whether the City actually does have RS-4 zoning at this site, City Attorney Lynch explained that the General Plan designation for this property does not allow residential use, but that the zoning map indicates that it’s zoned RS-4 – pointing out that when that zoning map was adopted in 1975, that was the zoning designation that was placed on that property; and that what causes this inconsistency is that the General Plan itself does not say that that RS-4 is a consistent designation. City Attorney Lynch explained that the State requires zoning be consistent with the General Plan; and that a city can either make the zoning consistent with the General Plan or the General Plan consistent with the zoning – noting that the City Council has the latitude to say whether they believe the General Plan designation rather than the zoning designation is correct, or visa versa.

In response to Councilmember Clark’s inquiry, City Attorney Lynch stated that the City does have other analogous zoning situations in the community with infrastructure facility land use designations and residential zoning.

Responding to Councilmember Clark’s question, Senior Planner Fox cited two examples in which the zoning designation is different from the General Plan, both of which are California Water Reservoir facilities.

Addressing Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s question with regard to the rationale for recommending approval of the 10-foot side yard setback, Senior Planner Fox explained that the only instance where these reduced setbacks occur are the ones which are internal to the project; and that it was done primarily to try and accommodate the concerns expressed by the surrounding neighborhood, to provide additional setback buffers from the surrounding neighbors – the offset being that there would be smaller setbacks internally.

Councilmember Clark expressed his opposition to one of the lots only having ten feet between two 4,000-square-foot homes.

Senior Planner Fox explained for Mayor Pro Tem Stern that the subdivision will not be gated; that it is his belief California Water wants to maintain control over any access to the reservoir site; and that there is no condition to limit public utilization of this site, but that the intent is for a more passive recreational use.

Responding to Councilwoman Ferraro’s inquiry, City Attorney Lynch explained that the applicant wants to keep part of this property for water company infrastructure and then use the rest for single-family homes; she further explained that she does not foresee a problem if the City Council were to choose not to allow the subdivision to proceed – noting that this would, in her opinion, not present a taking because the applicant would still be able to make use of the site for water company business.

In response to Councilwoman Ferraro’s inquiry as to whether the setback of the homes can be pushed back so that they are still consistent with the setbacks required for the adjoining properties, Senior Planner Fox stated that they could be, but that the homes would probably need to be redesigned, probably made smaller, to provide those setbacks.

Citing Code Section 17.42, City Attorney Lynch defined for Councilmember Gardiner open space requirements – noting that the definition is not well-defined; and stated that it would be a subjective decision by the City Council as to whether they find it to be acceptable or not.

Councilmember Gardiner noted his expectation that open space be usable land; and stated that he got the impression the water company has no intent on making it available for public use.

Mayor McTaggart questioned how this particular site can be defined as open space when it has a structure on site; questioned what would happen if the reservoir needed to be shut down for repairs – expressing his concern with the possibility that a large water tank may be placed on site in an emergency situation; and requested that the water company provide a response as to why it believes another reservoir is not necessary. Highlighting the possibility of future drought predictions, Mayor McTaggart stated that a smaller reservoir might be necessary for the peninsula.

In reference to the 30-percent open space requirement, Councilmember Clark stated that this open space should be integral to the development, not separate, distinct and away from it.

Mayor McTaggart highlighted for staff what he believed might be some inaccuracies in staff report relating to grading and transportation of cubic yards (Mitigation Monitoring program section). Senior Planner Fox stated that the figures would be revised to properly reflect the correct cubic yards to be imported and exported.

In response to Councilmember Gardiner’s question, Senior Planner Fox confirmed that all correspondence received from the community in regard to this matter had been provided to City Council. Councilmember Gardiner noted his preference that all the community correspondence be put in the same section of the report.

Senior Planner Fox noted for Mayor McTaggart that it is not unusual for a final drainage plan to not have been submitted prior to coming before City Council; stated that a grading plan has been reviewed; that the hydrology has been preliminarily reviewed by the City’s geotechnical consultant, Zeiser Kling; and that this process has been coordinated with the NPDES requirements.

Councilmember Gardiner commented on Robert Shirley’s November 1, 2001, letter in which Mr. Shirley expressed his concern that the neighbors are not being fully communicated with by staff and the Applicant; and questioned whether the process for communicating with these residents had been adequate.

Mayor McTaggart questioned why the applicant believed the recompacting activities would not negatively impact the residents at the end of the cul-de-sac street.

Councilmember Clark concurred with Mayor McTaggart’s concern with the disturbance to the existing residents -- noting that he was told by Mr. Nelson that it would be a very extensive excavation and recompacting job.

Mayor McTaggart commented on his belief that this project depended on a land swap between JCC Homes and the water company; addressed his concern with this joint venture and the tax implications of partnering; and urged the City to be watchful of this issue and its concerns, if any. Mayor McTaggart commented on his concern with how the open space can be owned by another entity other than the applicant and be considered part of the applicant’s development.

Kurt Nelson, representing the applicant, JCC Homes, stated that one of the reasons for the applicant’s request for a continuance this evening is due to the homeowners recent procurement of legal counsel and the inability of both sides to meet and confer prior to this evening’s meeting; and advised that Mr. Jensen from California Water had a prior engagement out of town this evening and was not able to make this hearing.

Mr. Nelson commented on a partial lowering of the homes following an initial meeting with the residents to the north; explained that the portion of the property being proposed for residential development will not impact the storage or service of water to the community; advised that the size of the homes has been reduced (mostly the height of the houses) in order to address the views to the north along Scottswood; and explained that the pad on Lot 9 will be lowered by an additional foot. Mr. Nelson stated that the issue near the southerly boundary is screening, where most of the recompaction will take place; advised that a comprehensive landscaping plan has been prepared; and mentioned that the setbacks to the east were increased to preserve the Monterey Pines in that area.

Leo Lawson, 5827 Sunmist Drive, stated that redesign plans were supposed to have been submitted to the neighboring homeowners before it was brought up at one of the last Planning Commission meetings, stating that this was not done; and stated that as far as some of the residents are concerned, some due diligence issues have been violated. Mr. Lawson advised that his property backs up to two of the proposed split-level homes; and commented on his concern that this would have a negative impact upon his view and his privacy. He addressed his concerns with adequate drainage, the safe recompaction of soil, and stated that the integrity of this reservoir could be compromised by the grading activities and additional weight of the homes. He expressed his concern that the south wall has not gone through extensive studies for assurance of stability, integrity; and requested that the City Council require a feasibility study to be performed to research the possibility of the power company selling this 4.99 acres to the City for use as a park.

Bob Shirley, 29635 Stonecrest Road, highlighted four of his primary complaints in regard to this project: 1) expressed his belief that the zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan and that the General Plan should not be amended to accommodate this development; 2) the open space issue is unresolved and disputable; 3) the reservoir represents a dangerous condition when proposing excavation and building homes 15 to 20 feet away, thus risking the rupturing of water and utility lines; and 4) this project is not compatible with the neighborhood.

Carolyn Tuttle, 29541 Oceanport Road, noted her support of flat roofs, believing that the flat roofs will help maintain her view; urged the water company to landscape its office building site; questioned whether the City’s insurance carrier has been made aware of this proposal; noted her concerns that the compacting activities will have a negative impact upon the integrity of the swimming pools in the neighborhood; and expressed her lack of faith in strict adherence to CC&R’s and the maintenance of landscaping. Ms. Tuttle suggested that a City pool be placed upon this site instead of what is currently being proposed.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 9:13 P.M. Mayor McTaggart recessed the meeting and reconvened the meeting at 9:25 P.M.

Tom Tuttle, 29541 Oceanport Road, addressing his concern with protecting his view of Catalina Island, requested that the City Council direct staff to require, at a minimum, that the applicant erect a flagged silhouette on the east and south side roof lines.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s inquiry, Senior Planner Fox advised that there is no code requirement for silhouetting this type of subdivision; advised that staff had asked the developer early in the process to silhouette at least two homes (Lot Nos. 6 and 9) that staff believed would be the most visible to existing residents; stated that until recently, there was a more elaborate silhouette on Lot 9, but with the revision of the project and reduction of the height of that structure, the more elaborate silhouette was removed and replaced with a more simplified silhouette.

Highlighting the limited number of homes being proposed, Mayor Pro Tem Stern questioned why staff is not requiring a full silhouette – noting his preference that one be erected. Councilmember Gardiner echoed Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s comment.

Dorothe Turley, 5814 Scottswood, distributed to the City Council a photograph which depicted the view from her home; and urged the City to maintain a uniform building code for all who live in this community, expressing her belief that bending the rules would not be not consistent with the general compatibility of the neighborhood. Ms. Turley expressed her opposition to erecting homes on this site; and questioned whether fire and safety issues have been thoroughly studied – highlighting the proposal for only one ingress/egress and the large number of houses being proposed for this small acreage.

James Demarais, 2855 Pine Creek Drive, Suite E-306, Costa Mesa, advised that he is a land-use attorney representing the area homeowners; stated that over 60 signatures have been obtained in opposition to this proposed project; and requested that, at the earliest, this hearing be continued to January. Mr. Demarais highlighted some of the issues of concern to the residents: the General Plan is inconsistent with the zoning – expressing his belief that zoning must be brought into compliance with the General Plan; and read into the record the following California Supreme Court ruling which spoke on this issue "As planning and zoning law does not contemplate the General Plan to be amended to conform to zoning ordinances, the tail does not wag the dog. The General Plan is a charter to which the ordinance must conform. Unrestricted amendments of the General Plan to conform to zoning changes would destroy the General Plan as a tool for the comprehensive development of the community as a whole"; and he concluded that this proposed project should be denied. Mr. Demarais expressed his belief that this project poses a dangerous condition, whether it be excavating/grading, believing that the likelihood for damage to the surrounding community clearly outweighs any benefit that the developer may have.

Tom Alley, 6304 Sattes Drive, noted his aversion to flat roofs; stated that the recompaction activities which have recently taken place near his home have hardly been noticeable; advised that he owns a home near Lot 9; and stated that he is not opposed to this project.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, addressed her opposition to placing the proposed number of homes on this small piece of land.

Councilmember Clark expressed his belief that the developer needs to better communicate with the residents impacted by this project.

Mr. Nelson commented on what he believes has been a great deal of dialogue – highlighting the fact that he has personally met with the residents surrounding the project; pointed out that some residents who are not in attendance this evening are satisfied with the project and the Applicant’s attempts to alleviate any concerns; pointed out that all the two-story homes were eliminated because of the residents’ concern for their views; and that other changes have occurred as a result of the applicant’s desire to work with the neighbors.

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

Mayor McTaggart emphasized the necessity to review the Planning Commission Minutes related to this matter before this issue is brought back to City Council for consideration.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner, to continue this matter to a future meeting. Motion carried.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, echoed by Councilmember Clark, that this matter be re-noticed to make sure that everybody who is impacted by this project is adequately informed of these proceedings. Motion carried.

Resolution Adopting a Fee in Connection with Petitions to Commence the Process to Establish an Undergrounding Assessment District. (Continued from November 7th.)

Mayor McTaggart re-opened the public hearing on this request to consider a resolution adopting a fee in connection with petitions to commence the process to establish an undergrounding assessment district.

Director Allison presented the staff report of December 4, 2001 and the recommendation to table this matter until the review by the Finance Advisory Board has been completed.

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

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner, to table this matter until the Finance Advisory Board has completed its review of this matter. Motion carried.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None.

At this time, Mayor McTaggart suggested that Agenda Item 12, Border Issues, be considered as the next order of business. No objection was noted.


REGULAR BUSINESS:

Border issues Status Report

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of December 4, 2001 and the recommendation to review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff; and advised that staff is still pursuing the two major border issues: the Harbor Hills project and the Garden Village Shopping Center revitalization. With regard to the Harbor Hills, City Manager Evans advised that the Community Development Commission has verbally committed to relocating the parking lot; that a limitation of hours of operation will be placed in the conditions; and that onsite probation officers will deal with customers. Mr. Evans explained that relocating the community center building further away from the City’s residents or rotating it is not a feasible option at this point in time – pointing out that doing this only creates additional problems. He asked for two volunteers from City Council to meet with Supervisor Knabe to discuss the final issue about rotating the building.

Dick Brunner, 1906 Peninsula Verde Drive, advised that a Councilmember from Lomita had been contacted by the City’s local homeowners associations surrounding Harbor Hills and that this Councilmember knew nothing about this proposed development; that planning staff from Lomita informed him that nothing has ever been filed with them by the County; and suggested that discussions/negotiations be opened with Lomita staff, expressing his belief that Lomita is willing to meet and confer on this matter.

Mayor McTaggart mentioned that the closest thing to a public hearing on this matter was at Supervisor Knabe’s office when he decided that he would assent to this City’s wishes and put off the start of construction on this project; and advised that he was told the staff in Lomita were unaware of how far this project had gone.

City Attorney Lynch mentioned that the County does have to comply with CEQA guidelines, but that the County does not have to comply with the local zoning authority in Lomita or any governmental facility being constructed in any city.

On another border issue brought up by Mayor Pro Tem Stern regarding RPV resident Mr. Esfahani’s remodeling which required heavy trucks hauling dirt through the City of Palos Verdes Estates and the objection by PVE, City Attorney Lynch explained that local entities are prevented or preempted from adopting regulations under the State Vehicle Code that regulate truck routes and basically require oversized vehicles to only use certain routes within a particular city – pointing out that the League of California Cities is very upset with this ruling and that it is currently being appealed. She stated that for this limited time period while it is being appealed and the case law is still in effect, this City should use it to its advantage and try and negotiate with Palos Verdes Estates.

In regard to this matter, Mayor McTaggart urged the City to initiate some dialogue with Palos Verdes Estates.

Turning to a new topic, City Manager Evans stated that staff is still working on the Garden Village Shopping Center and that letters have been sent to various County departments (the City Engineer, Planning Department, Director of the Building Department) explaining the problem with this center – pointing out that no one is taking responsibility for the concerns raised by this City’s geologist and the developer’s geologist; and advised that if City staff does not get a response from these letters to the County (a copy of which has been provided to the City Council) in a reasonable time, staff will ask the City Council for permission to take some stronger action, possibly with the assistance of the City Attorney. City Manager Evans advised construction on this site has ceased for now.

Mayor McTaggart then noted that the Border Issues Ad Hoc Committee was to have ended in December; but that he would like to continue with these types of issues and make this a standing sub-committee, which would mean it was subject to the Brown Act. He appointed Peter Gardiner to join him to serve on this Council sub-committee

Councilmember Clark expressed his preference that the purpose of this committee be expanded to deal with Peninsula issues.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to increase the duties addressed by this Border Issues Committee, highlighting additional issues affecting the Peninsula such as the proposal to build the golf course on the landfill. Motion carried.

Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Audit Management Letter and Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Internal Control.

Director McLean presented the staff report of December 4, 2001 and the recommendation to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Audit Management Letter and Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Internal Control. With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Director of Finance McLean highlighted the various aspects of these documents.

Councilmember Gardiner expressed his desire that the Finance Advisory Committee discuss the rollout baseline budget and any potential scenarios.

In response, Director of Finance McLean advised that each year, the Finance Advisory Committee reviews a 5-year financial model which is prepared by staff, inclusive of the CIP plan prepared by the Department of Public Works; and that following the review by the Finance Advisory Committee, the report is presented to City Council for its review in conjunction with the preparation of the City’s budget.

Councilmember Gardiner urged staff to purchase a simulation model printout program, a cash-flow model that shows the scenarios which reflect trends over time so that City Council can see what the impact of interaction with other project impacts has upon the budget.

Councilmember Clark requested that staff revisit in the near term the capital projects outlay commitments that the City is committed to over the next five years.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Audit Management Letter and Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Internal Control. Motion carried.

Establishment of Process for Selection and Recruitment of Members for the City’s Advisory Boards

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of December 4, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Establish a process for interviewing and selecting advisory board members and chairs; and, (2) Set a schedule to interview the applicants. He explained that the interview and selection process for appointing these board members has varied throughout the years depending on how many applications have been received on an annual basis.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern noted his preference that more time be given to interview these volunteers on an individual basis; suggested that once the full committee has been selected, that those members who are interested in serving as Chair then be interviewed. Mayor Pro Tem Stern suggested that the View Restoration Commission be rolled over into the responsibility of the Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Ferraro expressed her concern that the Planning Commission may already have all they can handle.

Councilmember Clark suggested that specific view restoration mediators be assigned to the Planning Commission, individuals who will strictly report to the Planning Commission.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that City Council schedule a goal-setting session to decide what to do with the View Restoration Commission.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern noted his preference that the board interviews be very limited in size of participants; and noted the importance of having experienced individuals serving on these boards.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, that review of the charters for the various committees be addressed. Motion carried.

Councilmember Clark suggested that consideration be given to whether any new committees need to be created; and suggested that consideration be given to creating an Emergency Response and Disaster Preparedness Committee for this city.

In response to Councilwoman Ferraro’s inquiry, City Manager Evans invited the City Councilmembers to attend the school district’s emergency task force meeting on Monday, December 10, 2001, from 8:30 A.M. until 12:30 P.M. at Ridgecrest School; and advised that Carolyn Petru will be in attendance.

City Manager Evans advised that there are 45 board vacancies to fill.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that the selection process for board members be modified, such as increasing to 4-year terms and staggering the terms of each member, thereby maintaining some experienced members on each board.

City Manager Evans suggested that the City Council consider dealing with no more than two boards at one time, such as first conducting the selection process for the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Committee and then waiting a while for the next series of committees.

Richard Bara, No. 1 Peppertree Drive, noted his support to increase the terms to four years instead of two years and to stagger the selection process.

Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, that two-year and four-year terms be offered to those who volunteer to serve on these boards; that the selection process be staggered; that once the board members are selected, that interviews take place for those interested in serving as Chair; that the first rotation start with Planning Commission and then the Traffic Commission; that the next rotation start approximately one month later; that these first interviews will be conducted on Saturday, February 9th and the 23rd. Motion carried.

Clarifying the City Council’s motion, City Manager Evans stated that some positions will be offered for two-year and four-year terms; that the terms will be staggered; that following selection of each board, interviews will be conducted for those interested in serving as Chair; that the charters of each board will be reviewed and studied for possible changes; advised that the application filing deadline would be Saturday, February 1, 2002; and that the first session would start on Saturday, February 9th and 23rd, 2002.

There was consensus that the Council select Chairs from interviews with interested committee or commission members; and that a policy be developed to reflect that the City Council Chair be rotated on an annual basis.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern highlighted which boards he believed should go through the interview process first: Planning Commission and Traffic, then the Finance Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation, then View Restoration and any other newly formed boards.

Mayor McTaggart stated that the second interview session would most likely occur in March, with subsequent interviews probably in April.


FORMAT OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of December 4, 2001 and the recommendation to continue the discussion and decision on the matter of the format of City Council minutes until the December 18th meeting and City Clerk Purcell’s recommendation to maintain action-only minutes.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner, to adopt the expanded minutes as the regular format for City Council. Motion carried.

Councilmember Clark expressed his belief that the expanded Minutes are important for good record keeping and that the expanded minutes provides wealth of information.

In response to Councilmember Gardiner’s inquiry, City Manager Evans explained that expanding the minutes is more of an issue with limited staff hours rather than expense.

Councilmember Gardiner stated that additional resources should be made available to the City Clerk’s Office for this expanded service.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern expressed his belief that the expanded minutes are far superior to those of action-only Minutes; and supported Councilmember Gardiner’s statement that additional resources should be provided for this service.

In response to Councilwoman Ferraro’s comment, Deputy City Clerk Drasco advised that City Clerk Purcell provided in the Agenda packet some figures on how much additional time will be necessary to complete the expanded minutes.

Master Plan Updates

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of December 4, 2001 and the recommendation to provide direction to staff on a planning process for updating the General Plan and other plans; and highlighted the following topics: preservation of open space in the city, establishment of a youth athletic facility, establishment of a senior center, preparation of a master plan for the use of the property at the Civic Center, plans for the Crestridge property, and future plans for the water service property. He suggested that a workshop session be scheduled to discuss these planning issues and update of the General Plan.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to direct staff to begin the process for updating the General Plan and other plans; and moved that a letter be sent to the Attorney General’s Office to advise them that the City Council has scheduled a workshop in regard to this matter. Motion carried.

City Council Meeting Schedule

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of December 4, 2001 and the recommendation to reschedule regular Council meetings for the month of January 2002 and set dates for adjourned meeting workshops.

Consensus was to alter the City Council’s January meeting schedule as follows: Master Plan workshop and regular meeting on Saturday, January 12, 2002, 9:00 A.M., and a regular meeting on Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 7:00 P.M.

Proposed Amendment to the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance

Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report of December 4, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Review the "neighborhood compatibility" criteria and development standards from neighboring jurisdictions. (2) Provide staff with direction as to whether to initiate code amendment proceedings to consider amendments to the City’s existing "neighborhood compatibility" review process.

Mayor McTaggart recommended that two members from the Planning Commission and two members from City Council be selected to serve on a committee in regard to this matter.

Councilmember Gardiner suggested that information regarding this committee be sent to the Council of Homeowners and that their input on issues of neighborhood compatibility be solicited.

Mayor McTaggart expressed his preference that the committee work on this issue for no more than three months and that it report back to City Council at the end of that timeframe.

Councilmember Gardiner requested that some of the measures of compatibility be quantitative, and where not, that there be some look at the qualitative social sciences to develop indicators of compatibility; and explained that there should be a way to break this down into some recognizable components and that an attempt should be made to find a way to measure it.

Highlighting Councilmember Gardiner’s request for quantitative indicators, Councilmember Clark cautioned Councilmember Gardiner that there should be some caution when considering turning this into an equation – expressing his belief that this needs to be a judgment call anchored in cogent, clear, understandable criteria and guidelines; commented on the Planning Commission’s formation of an Ad Hoc Committee which was created to work on the establishment of neighborhood compatibility guidelines; and mentioned that this committee is approximately 85 percent complete with its assignment. Councilmember Gardiner added that these guidelines do not address ordinance issues and that this should also be given consideration.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that staff may need to have more latitude in denying applicant requests; and stated that he would like to see what the Planning Commission’s Ad Hoc Committee had come up with on this subject.

Councilmember Clark expressed his belief that the Ad Hoc Committee may be attempting to develop a pamphlet in regard to this matter; and stated that if a subcommittee were to be formed, two members from City Council and two members from the Planning Commission should be appointed; and that it would be his recommendation that this committee consider code changes and also work alongside the Council of Homeowner’s Association.

City Attorney Lynch advised that this work would have to be done within the confines of Proposition M.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern suggested that Councilmembers Gardiner and Clark serve on this subcommittee.

Mayor McTaggart requested that the formation of a subcommittee be formalized and put on a future City Council Agenda for consideration; and that the Council of Homeowner’s Association be advised of this action.

Without objection, Councilmembers Gardiner and Clark were appointed to serve on this subcommittee; that staff was directed to solicit two volunteers from the Planning Commission; and that staff notify the Council of Homeowner’s Association of this action.

Oral City Council Reports

Mayor Pro Tem Stern advised that the chain-link fence has been removed on Palos Verdes Drive South; that payment of approximately $108,000 was received for the golf tax; advised that the complete removal of the stockpile of dirt from the landslide remediation efforts is expected to be February 15, 2002; that the anticipated opening day for the 18-hole golf course and completion of Oceantrails Park is May 1, 2002; and that the repair and reconfiguration of Palos Verdes Drive South and Malago La Rotunda* is anticipated to be June 1, 2002 through November 1, 2002.

Councilmember Clark stated that his recent tour of the rebuilt 18-hole golf area and Oceantrails was very interesting and he encouraged the rest of City Council to tour this unique reconstruction.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned to the Redevelopment Agency at 11:50 P.M.

________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

________________________
CITY CLERK








3. Contracts for Whale of a Day Special Event. (Rosenfeld)

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to sign the proposed contracts associated with the City’s 18th Annual Whale of a Day celebration on March 2, 2002.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: RON ROSENFELD, DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARKS

DATE: JANUARY 12, 2002

SUBJECT: CONTRACTS FOR WHALE OF A DAY SPECIAL EVENT

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the City Manager to sign the attached contracts associated with the City’s 18th Annual Whale of a Day celebration on March 2, 2002.

BACKGROUND

The annual Whale of a Day special event, held in celebration of the annual migration of the Pacific Gray whale, had been held on the grounds of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center for fifteen years. For the past two years, due to the closure of the Center, the event has been held on the grounds of the United States Coast Guard’s Point Vicente Lighthouse.

DISCUSSION

Staff has contacted the United States Coast Guard to request their permission to hold the 18th Annual Whale of a Day celebration on the grounds of the Point Vicente

Lighthouse on March 2, 2002. Permission was granted verbally and the Coast Guard submitted a contract to the City for signature. In addition, since public parking near or at this site is limited, staff approached York Long Point Associates requesting permission for parking at the Long Point site. Again, permission was verbally granted and a contract for signature has been submitted to the City. A security deposit in the amount of $1000.00 is required for the use of the Long Point parking lot. Please see the attached two contracts requiring signatures.

CONCLUSION

Due to the ongoing closure of Point Vicente Interpretive Center, an alternate location to hold the annual Whale of a Day Celebration is needed. The U.S. Coast Guard has again agreed to allow the Point Vicente Lighthouse site to be used for this popular event. In addition, since there is minimal parking available at the Coast Guard site and shuttle service would be required, another location was needed for public parking. York Long Point Associates has agreed that the Long Point site could be used for this purpose and a contract has been submitted for signature.

Respectfully Submitted:
Ron Rosenfeld, Director, Recreation and Parks

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager





4. Adoption of Ordinance No. 372 – Mobile Vendors. (Allison)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 372, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ETABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MOBILE VENDORS WHO PARK ON CITY STREETS, AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was introduced on December 18, 2001.)

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: January 12, 2002

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

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Ordinance No. 372 "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"

BACKGROUND

This ordinance was introduced at the December 18, 2001 City Council meeting.

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 adopt the ordinance.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Draft Ordinance


ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS ON MOBILE VENDORS PARKING ON CITY STREETS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE

WHEREAS, mobile vendors parking on City streets can have an adverse impact on adjacent uses and City residents when these vendors park for long time periods at the same location; and

WHEREAS, if not properly regulated, mobile vendors can leave trash and debris within the city, which is detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined that the regulations adopted previously by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") are more lenient than those adopted by neighboring cities, which has caused an adverse impact upon businesses and residences located in the City and has adversely affected the public health, safety and welfare; and

WHEREAS, to reduce these adverse impacts upon the public health, safety and welfare, the following amendment to the Municipal Code is being adopted so that mobile vendors doing business in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will be subject to the same time, location and operating requirements that are present in other jurisdictions;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Section 10.04.060 of Chapter 10.04of Title 10 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

"10.04.060 Parking by itinerant vendors -- Restrictions.

    1. No person shall stand or park any motorized vehicle from which food, foodstuffs, goods, wares, merchandise, fruits, vegetables, beverages, are sold, offered for sale, bartered, or hawked on any portion of any public street, alley, sidewalk or right-of-way within the city, except that, at the request of a bona fide purchaser, a person may stand or park such vehicle for a period of time not to exceed ten minutes at any one location. Upon the elapse of that period of time, any motorized vehicle that continues to be used to sell such items must be parked at a location more than five hundred (500) feet, as measured in a straight line, from the location where the vehicle was parked at the beginning of the ten minute period. This paragraph A shall not apply to persons delivering such goods from a store or other fixed place of business or distribution upon the order or request of, or by agreement with, a customer.
    2. Prior to leaving any location, the operator of the motor vehicle shall collect and properly dispose of all trash or refuse that contained or was part of any item that was dispensed or distributed from the motor vehicle. No person shall park or stand a motorized vehicle for the purposes set forth in this section without first obtaining a business license from the city. No person shall park or stand such a vehicle in a manner that causes a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and no person shall distribute any item from such a motor vehicle in a manner that causes any person to stand in that portion of the street that is between the vehicle and the center of the street.

Section 2.Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ___ day of January, 2002.

 

_________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
City Clerk





5. Register of Demands. (McLean)
Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, 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:




6. Policy for Recruitment and Selection of Members for the City’s Advisory Boards. (Evans)

Recommendation: Adopt a policy for recruitment and selection of City Advisory Board Members and Board Chairs.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JANUARY 12, 2002

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

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt a policy for the recruitment and selection of City Commission and Committee Members and Commission and Committee Chairs.

BACKGROUND

At their meeting of December 4, 2001 the City Council considered the process for recruitment and selection of City Commission and Committee members. After discussing various alternatives the Council agreed that they would:

(1) Establish a term of four years for each new appointee; (2) Stagger the terms in order that continuity will be maintained; (3) Conduct interviews of applicants for Commissions/Committees in groups of one or two persons; (4) Conduct interviews for Chair from among appointees who express an interest in serving in that capacity; (5) Arrange interview schedules for only two or three Commissions or Committees at a time, prioritized as follows: Planning Commission/Traffic Committee (February), Finance Advisory Committee/Recreation & Parks Committee (tentatively March), and Equestrian/VRC/possibly new committee for emergency preparedness (tentatively April). (6) Set two Saturday dates – February 9 and 23 – to begin the interview process for the Planning Commission and Traffic Committee. (6) Set a deadline of February 1, 2001, for applicants to submit application for all Commissions and Committees. (7) Adopt a City Council Policy memorializing the new selection procedures.

Recruitment for the City’s advisory boards has traditionally taken place during the holiday season in December and early January. Reviewing the history of the interview schedule showed that sometimes the City Council set adjourned

meetings (weekdays and weekends) during the month of December to interview candidates and then made appointments later that month. For the last few recruitments, however, the schedule has stretched into the month of January with appointments being made later that month.

Following the 1999 election, however, because of the dearth of applicants for these advisory boards, especially for the View Restoration Commission, recruitment was extended through the month of February. It was felt that with all of the distractions of the holiday season that perhaps December and early January was not the best time to conduct the recruitment and that future recruitments should begin after the holiday season. Interviews were then conducted in late February 2000 and, except for the View Restoration Commission, appointments were made in early April of that year; appointments to the View Restoration Commission were made in mid-May.

DISCUSSION

City Council Policy No. 6 adopted in 1992 has been revised to reflect the proposed new recruitment and selection process outline by the City Council on December 4, 2001.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans

City Manager


CITY COUNCIL POLICY

NUMBER:

DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED:

SUBJECT: CITY ADVISORY BOARD RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION

POLICY:

It shall be the policy of the City Council to fill vacancies on City-appointed Commissions and Committees as follows:

Service Criteria

  1. Terms of service on City Advisory Boards will be four years for each new appointee.
  2. Appointments will be made to Advisory Boards in even numbered years on a schedule to be established by the City Council.
  3. Terms will be staggered to maintain continuity.
  4. The Chair of each Advisory Board will be determined by separate interview of interested appointees for each Board.
  5. Terms of service for the Chair will normally be two years and appointments will be made in even numbered years on a schedule to be established by the City Council.

Recruitment Process

1. The vacancy shall be advertised in the Palos Verdes News, Daily Breeze and LA Times newspapers. Advertising may take the form of a press release. Additionally, the vacancy shall be posted at the City’s regular posting places and be placed on the Government Access Reader Board. The City Clerk shall include a summary of duties in the recruitment flyer, press release and any other recruitment material. A deadline for receipt of applications will be established by the City Council
2. Interested applicants, including incumbents seeking reappointment, will be required to fill out applications.
3. Applications will be reviewed by the City Council. Each applicant shall be interviewed by the City Council and appointments made at a public meeting.

Interview Process

  1. Interviews of applicants for Advisory Boards will be conducted by the City Council in small groups on a schedule to be established by the Council.
  2. The City Clerk will notify applicants of their interview times and advise them of their status during the selection process.
  3. The City Clerk will advise successful applicants of the opportunity to be interviewed for Chair if they so desire. The City Clerk will notify applicants for Chair of their interview times and advise them of their status in the selection process.
  4. The City Clerk will provide new Advisory Board members a copy of the Commission and Committee Handbook and Statement of Economic Interest forms if applicable to their Board appointment.
  5. The City Attorney will brief new Advisory Board members of their responsibilities under the Brown Act and Conflict of Interest Laws.

BACKGROUND:

At their meeting of December 4, 2001 the City Council considered the process for recruitment and selection of City Commission and Committee members. After discussing various alternatives the Council agreed that they would:

      1. Establish a term of four years for each new appointee; (2) Stagger the terms so that continuity will be maintained; (3) Conduct interviews of applicants in small groups; (4) Conduct interviews for Chair from among appointees who express an interest in serving in that capacity; (5) Arrange interview schedules for only two or three Advisory Boards at a time, prioritized as follows: Planning Commission/Finance Advisory Committee (February), Traffic Committee/Recreation & Parks Committee (tentatively March), and Equestrian/VRC/possibly new committee for emergency preparedness (tentatively April). (6) Set two Saturday dates – February 9 and 23 – to begin the interview process for the Planning Commission and Traffic Committee. (6) Set a deadline of February 1, 2001, for applicants to submit applications for all Advisory Boards. (7) Adopt a City Council Policy memorializing the new selection procedures.




7. City Council Committee Assignments. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Make Council assignments.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: JANUARY 12, 2002

SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS

RECOMMENDATION

Make Council assignments.

BACKGROUND

City Council members represent the City at various organizations and associations that deal with public policy and legislation that directly affects the City. Presently there are fourteen such organizations. Assignment of Council representation to these organizations has traditionally been made upon the selection of a new mayor.

With the exception of the Sanitation Districts (District No. 5 and So. Bay San District), the following list shows the representation to these various organizations prior to the November 6, 2001 election.

ORGANIZATION DELEGATE/ALTERNATE
   
City Selection Committee Lyon/McTaggart
League of Calif. Cities L.A. County Division Lyon/McTaggart
So. Calif. Assoc. Of Governments (SCAG) McTaggart/Lyon
So. Bay Cities Council of Govts. (SBCOG) Lyon/McTaggart
San. Districts (Dist. No. 5 & So. Bay San. District) McTaggart/Stern
Calif. Joint Powers Ins. Authority(CJPIA) McTaggart/Gardiner
Contract Cities McTaggart/Gardiner
So. Bay Youth Project Stern/Ferraro
Chambers of Commerce Entire Council
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project Ferraro/Stern
Palos Verdes Trans. Authority Gardiner/Ferraro
Max Policy Steering Committee McTaggart/Ferraro
Pen. Regional Law Enforcement Stern/McTaggart
West Basin Water District Lyon/Gardiner
   
AD HOC COMMITTEE  
   
City Beautification Lyon/McTaggart
City Border Issues Lyon/McTaggart
   
STANDING COMMITTEE  
   
Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) McTaggart/Gardiner
   
LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS LIAISON/ALTERNATE
   
Council Liaison to Ocean Trails Stern/Lyon
Council Liaison to Western Avenue Corridor Task Force Ferraro/Stern
Council Liaison to LAX Expansion/Noise McTaggart/Ferraro


Following is a brief summary of the background, duties and meeting schedule for each of the organizations to which the Council has delegate or alternate representation for the City.

City Selection Committee: This committee is established by the State of California Government Code. Every mayor in the County of Los Angeles is represented on the committee. In the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Mayor Pro Tem has generally been the alternate in the Mayor's absence. The City Selection Committee meets as needed at the monthly League of California Cities Division meetings and selects city representatives to the following bodies:

California Coastal Commission
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Local Agency Formation Commission

League of California Cities, L. A. County Division: League meetings are held on the first Thursday of each month at 6:30 PM in the City of Monterey Park. This is a dinner meeting. In addition to discussing matters of regional interest, the League Division annually authors a number of resolutions that are voted on at the Annual State League Conference to develop a League policy and Legislative agenda for the ensuing year.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): SCAG includes a six county region. Its policy work is largely done through a series of committees. All councilmembers are eligible to attend meetings and participate on committees. The meetings are held on the first Thursday morning of each month. Depending upon the committee on which our delegate serves, the meeting is at 9:00 AM or 10:00 AM and meets at 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles. The appointment of a City delegate and an alternate are for purposes of voting at the SCAG annual meeting held in April.

South Bay Cities Council of Governments (COG): The COG is composed of elected representatives from 16 South Bay cities, the County of Los Angeles, and CalTrans. This organization meets on the fourth Thursday of every month at 7:00 PM at the Joslyn Center, 1601 Valley Drive, Manhattan Beach, to discuss issues of interest to South Bay Cities. The COG is a legal agency formed through a Joint Powers Agreement to address regionally significant issues in the South Bay. The 16 member cities are:

Rancho Palos Verdes El Segundo
Inglewood Carson
Lawndale Lomita
Gardena Hawthorne
Los Angeles Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills Estates P. V. Estates
Torrance Manhattan Beach
Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach

Sanitation Districts: The City is a member of two of the sanitation districts: Sanitation District Number 5 and the South Bay Sanitation District. By law, the Mayor is the City's representative on the Sanitation District. Each City has an alternate who may be any councilmember, but by policy has traditionally been the Mayor Pro Tem. The Committee meets the third Wednesday of the month at 1:30 PM at Torrance City Hall, third Floor Assembly Room, 3031 Torrance Boulevard. The members receive a $150 per month stipend, paid by the District. Prior to the District meeting, it has been the custom for the four Peninsula mayors to meet for lunch as an informal Mayors' Committee to discuss both Sanitation District matters and issues of general interest to the Peninsula cities. (A representative from the School District also attends this informal meeting with the mayors.)

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

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

South Bay Youth Project (Juvenile Diversion): Meets for lunch on a quarterly basis in Redondo Beach. This body serves as a counseling agency for at risk youth and their families.

Chamber of Commerce: The City belongs to both the Peninsula Chamber of Commerce and the San Pedro/Peninsula Chamber of Commerce. Both Chambers have monthly mixers that are generally announced in the weekly Administrative Report calendar.

Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (Bay Watershed Council): This organization was created under the Federal National Estuary Act in 1988 to address growing concern regarding the protection of the ecological integrity of the Santa Monica Bay (from White's Point in the south to Malibu in the north). The Bay Watershed Council is made up of private corporations, federal, state and local governments and interested academic professionals. One councilmember serves as a Bay Watershed Council member with another councilmember serving as an alternate. Additionally, most Bay Watershed Council members serve on subcommittees of the organization. The Bay Watershed Council meets quarterly on varying days and times – usually on the last Thursday of the quarter with rotating locations in the Westchester and Santa Monica areas. RPV City representatives have not routinely attended these meetings.

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

MAX Policy Steering Committee: Seven agencies (Rancho Palos Verdes, Torrance, Lomita, Lawndale, El Segundo, and the City and County of Los Angeles) meet to provide policy direction to the MAX Transit System under an agency agreement. The City of Torrance is the lead agency for the system which operates a commuter express transit system from South Bay cities to the various locations in the area known as the El Segundo Employment Center. The MAX Committee meets on alternate months on the first Monday at 5:00 PM at the City of Torrance City Hall, West Annex. The first meeting in 2002 will be on February 4th.

Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Committee: Under a formally adopted agreement, the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills share sheriff's services and meet quarterly to monitor and advise the Sheriff's Department on police issues. Each city has two council representatives on this committee that meets quarterly at 8:00 AM at Rolling Hills City Hall. The chairmanship and responsibility of agenda preparation rotates between the three cities on an annual basis. The first meeting for 2002 will be held on February 14th and Rancho Palos Verdes will assume the chairmanship at that meeting.

LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS

Ocean Trails: Two members serve as a liaison to the developer of Ocean Trails and work with staff and consultants regarding the Ocean Trails project.

Western Avenue Corridor: Two members serve as liaisons to the Western Avenue Task Force which is comprised of residents and business owners on and adjacent to Western Avenue.

World Airports (LAWA) Roundtable: Two councilmembers represent the City on this committee that is a forum to address excessive aircraft noise generated by LAX and related issues.

CONCLUSION

The City Council members represent the City on various committees that consider policy and legislation that directly impacts the City. These assignments have traditionally been made upon the annual selection of the mayor.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager





8. Beautification Grant Program Award History. (Allison)

Recommendation: Provide direction to staff regarding the future of the neighborhood beautification grant program.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JANUARY 12, 2002

SUBJECT: BEAUTIFICATION GRANT PROGRAM AWARD HISTORY

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

Provide direction to staff regarding the future of the neighborhood beautification grant program.

BACKGROUND

This item has been brought to the City Council at the request of Councilmember Clark.

Since 1989 the City has annually awarded beautification grants of up to $2,500 to homeowner groups for the purposes of beautifying the City. Over the past 12 years a total of 246 grants with a value of more than $ 535,000 have been awarded.

The grants may be used only for the purposes of constructing improvements. The maintenance of any improvements constructed under the program is the responsibility of the homeowner groups. The grants have been used to fund many beautification efforts. Grant monies have been used to beautify entry walls to neighborhoods, install landscaping in parkways and medians, and to construct fencing to name a few. In evaluating applications nearly all applications were approved that in some way beautified the city and were visible from the public right of way. It is not clear if any grant application has been denied.

Out of a total of 105 homeowner groups and schools that are eligible to receive grants, 91 have been awarded at least one grant. Homeowner groups are eligible to receive grants each year, and some homeowner groups have constructed costly improvements using a multi-year approach. The most successful homeowner group has received a total of $20,000 in grant monies over eight years.

In 1998 the program guidelines were revised to allow applications from the City’s school and library locations. Grants to the library and school require a 50% district match.

Attached is Exhibit "A", A Summary of Beautification Grants. Also attached is Exhibit "B" which reports Beatification Grant Award Amount by HOA.

Funding for the beautification grants comes from City’s recycling fund. The primary source of funding is the redemption value of recyclables from residents. The recycling fund receives annual revenues as follows:

A fixed amount from its residential haulers

$ 80,000

Gross receipts from beverage containers redeemed from the curbside program

* $120,000

The City’s share of State Curbside Supplemental Payments

* $ 40,000

State Block Grant

$ 13,000

Total Revenues

$ 253,000


*These amounts fluctuate slightly from year to year and are not a fixed amount

In addition to funding the beautification grant program the city has traditionally used it’s recycling fund for the Recycler of the Month Program, litter pickup along the City’s arterial roadway, servicing recycling bins at parks, and to design and construct median improvements.

The adopted fiscal year 2001-02 budget identifies the following expenses for the Recycling Fund:

Annual Neighborhood Beautification Grant Program

$ 82,000

Recycler of the month program

$ 7,000

Litter pickup along the City’s arterial roadways

$ 10,000

Recycling bins at City parks and Trails

$ 3,000

Median design and construction

$100,000

Personal Services, Administrative and Overhead

$ 15,000

Total

$ 217,000

 

In 2001 the City Council established an adhoc committee to propose improvements to beautify the City. Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart were appointed to the committee. The Committee considered a number of potential projects such as under grounding utility lines and constructing landscape improvements along the City arterial roadways. The committee concluded that constructing landscape improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard is the highest priority.

The committee together with the City’s on-call landscape architect prepared a report on Hawthorne Boulevard which:

    • Evaluated median and parkway conditions
    • Developed a landscape theme for median and parkway improvements
    • Developed a costs estimate for landscape improvements along the entire reach of Hawthorne Boulevard at $6 million.
    • Identified the reach along Hawthorne Boulevard from Seamount Drive to Locklenna Lane as phase one of the improvements.
    • Prepared an engineers’ estimate of $600,000 for phase one improvements

A report was presented to the City Council on September 4, 2001. The report included a funding plan for phase one improvements as well as a multi-year funding plan for ongoing landscape improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard.

The funding plan for phase one improvements is as follows:

Costs:

     

Engineering

$ 50,000

Recycling Fund Balance

$ 430,000

Construction

$ 550,000

Fund Balance Roadway Beautification Fund

$100,000

   

Reprogramming of
FY 01-02 Neighborhood Beautification Funds

$ 96,000

Total

$600,000

Total

$ 626,000


The funding plan for future years costs for landscape improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard is as follows:

Total anticipated annual recycling revenues

$253,000

Less: Recycler of the month program

( $ 7,000 )

Less: Litter pick up along the City’s arterial roadways

( $ 10,000 )

Less: Trash bid maintenance in the City’s Parks

( $ 3,000 )

Funds available annually for Hawthorne Boulevard beautification

$233,000

The multi-year funding plan proposes to accumulate funds in the recycling fund and construct a $466,000 landscape improvement every other year.

The plan for both phase one and future years costs reprograms funds formerly used to fund the Neighborhood Beautification Program to Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification Project.

At the September 18, 2001 City Council meeting the City Council took the following actions:

  • Approved the preliminary median and parkway landscape plan for Hawthorne Boulevard
  • Authorized the design of phase one improvements
  • Revised the expenditure plan for the Recycling Fund to re-program funds from the Neighborhood Beautification Program to Hawthorne Boulevard beautification efforts
  • Requested staff to make periodic progress reports on phase one landscape plans.

Councilmember Clark has requested that this item be brought back to the City council for additional discussion regarding the reprogramming of funds from the Neighborhood Beautification Program to the Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification Program.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"





9. Border Issues Status Report. (Evans)

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JANUARY 12, 2002

SUBJECT: "BORDER ISSUES" STATUS REPORT

RECOMMENDATION:

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

BACKGROUND:

At their meeting of April 17, 2001 the City Council established an Ad Hoc Committee for dealing with "border issues." The committee is charged with monitoring the activities of neighboring jurisdictions to determine whether or not the City Council should take positions on proposed developments (or events or uses) that may adversely affect the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Border issues are those proposed land developments, events or special uses proposed for approval in adjacent communities that may impact the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

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

DISCUSSION:

Since the border issues were last discussed on December 4, 2001, there has been little change in status. The Palos Verdes Golf Course project has been added to the list of projects being tracked, although there has been no action on the project since our last report. Minor updates on the Harbor Hills project status and on the Garden Village project are included in the attached report. Otherwise the information in the report is unchanged since December 4, 2001.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:


BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT
January 12, 2002

CONSTRUCTION OF A RECREATION FACILITY AT HARBOR HILLS
(LOS ANGELES COUNTY)

The County has proposed construction of a 12,650 square foot recreation facility for the Harbor Hills Housing area. The $2.3 million project will consist of a gym, two multi-purpose rooms, a recreation office, sports equipment storage, a child care area for 36 pre-school children, a sheriff’s patrol office, a full service kitchen, restrooms and locker rooms. It will also include a 75-space parking lot.

Homeowners in Peninsula Verde were not offered adequate opportunity to comment on the project and have turned to the City to intercede on their behalf. A community meeting took place at the Harbor Hills Community Center on August 27, 2001 and was attended by Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart as well as homeowners from Peninsula Verde. In addition to strong objections to the County’s notification process for the project, the homeowners expressed concerns about lighting intensity, times of operation, children crossing PVDN, traffic, unsavory activities near the Lomita water tower and location of the recreation facility. A second meeting took place on September 12, 2001 to allow the County Regional Planning Department to go over the environmental approval process conducted for this project. The Mayor represented the City at this meeting. Issues raised by the homeowners included concerns about the notification process, environmental clearances and parking and grading on the hillside adjacent to their homes.

In response to concerns from Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, Supervisor Knabe became involved in the matter. At their meeting on September 25, 2001, the County awarded the construction contract for the community center. However, in response to the concerns of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, Supervisor Knabe, at the October 9, 2001 Board meeting received approval of his motion to: "Extend the time period for the Executive Director of the Housing Authority to report back to the Board from 30 days to 60 days regarding the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Lomita’s specific concerns related to the planned construction of a community center and childcare center at the Harbor Hills Public Housing Development; and instruct the Executive Director of the Community Development Commission to postpone commencement of any construction until the Board further review the matter."

On Monday, October 22, 2001 Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart joined five or six Peninsula Verde residents and an equal number of Harbor Hills residents to discuss possible modifications to the Community Center plans. County Community development staff made the presentations, but Supervisor

Knabe’s office was represented as well as County Counsel and the County Geologist. Harbor Hills’ staff was also in attendance. The County is proposing relocating the 75-space parking lot away from the Peninsula Verde homes. In addition, they are proposing reduced lighting in the parking lot. Our residents were pleased with these changes, but disappointed that the Community Center building could not be relocated further from the property line.

The City Attorney reported on her research into the environmental process in closed session at the November 7, 2001 City Council meeting. The City geologist also provided his comments on the project grading at the November 7, 2001 meeting. The City Council directed the City Manager to prepare a letter to Supervisor Knabe pointing out that the 60-day period within which the Board is expected to receive a report from the Housing Authority expires on November 22, 2001. Prior to the expiration of the 60-day period the Council asked for assurances from the Supervisor, in writing, regarding design and operational changes. The letter, signed by former Mayor Lyon went out on November 12, 2001. So far there has been no response, although Dick Simmons, of the Supervisor’s office, has indicated that a letter is forthcoming. In addition, at the request of Dick Bruner (Peninsula Verde HOA) staff discussed the project with the City Manager of Lomita in mid December. Mr. Odom is aware of the project and says the proposed parking lot revisions are being reviewed by the Lomita Planning Department. He was not aware of any special interest in the project on the part of his Council or citizens groups.

RE-VITALIZATION OF THE GARDEN VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ON WESTERN AVENUE AT WESTMONT (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

The Garden Village revitalization project was approved by the Los Angeles City Council on June 8, 2001. The project, located on Western Avenue north of Westmont, will add 2000 square feet of retail space to a reconfigured shopping center to be anchored by a "super" Albertson’s.

The Border Issues Committee was particularly concerned about the underlying soils and drainage conditions in the project area that includes both the City of Los Angeles and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore, at the meeting of June 16, 2001 the ad hoc committee recommended that the City Council authorize a study of these geologic conditions and whether or not the Gardens Village revitalization project will have any adverse impacts on existing properties in our City. The Council authorized the study and funding of $10,000. In addition, City Staff researched the issue of the adequacy of the environmental process for the project.

The statute of limitations has run on the environmental documentation prepared for the Garden Village project. The City Attorney advises us that we have no recourse from that avenue. Bill Cotton, the geologist who is reviewing the geology and soils information provided as part of the project design, has completed his review of the geotechnical reports associated with the Garden Village project. Mr. Cotton is concerned that there are inadequate long-term geotechnical measures to mitigate the impacts of future settlement on existing storm drain and sewer lines on the Village Garden’s property. Mr. Cotton’s concerns were also voiced by the developer’s geologist during the project planning phase.

City staff, has attempted to find out which Department or person in the City of Los Angeles hierarchy has been assigned the responsibility for inspection and monitoring conditions of the development related to settlement and possible storm drain damage. Although we have talked with many City of Los Angeles employees and have been treated courteously, no one has accepted the responsibility. Accordingly, Staff has prepared letters to:

Andrew Adelman, General Manager
Department of Building and Safety

Vitaly B. Troyan, City Engineer

Con Howe, Director
Department of Planning

The letters are all similar in that they express the City’s concern over the repair and inspection of the storm drains and ask who is responsible for insuring that the lines are properly monitored. Should we not receive an appropriate response we will recommend that the City Attorney take up the matter. The letters were mailed on November 29, 2001. We did receive a telephone call from Tom Stevens from the office of the General Manager of Building and Safety on December 19, 2001 offering assistance. A follow-up call to Mr. Stevens on January 2, 2002 was made in which we were assured that he was still working on a response to our inquiry.

In addition, staff has maintained contact with the San Pedro Office Manager of the Department of Building and Safety and the Plan Checker for the Albertson’s Market. No building permit for the market has been issued, although the plan checker has approved the plans.

EXPANSION OF THE COVENANT CHURCH ON PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

The project is still in the informational gathering phase. According to our information, the applicant has been making changes to the project so the exact proposal has not been finalized. Generally, the project involves the construction of a new sanctuary building that would accommodate 2,050 seats, along with a new 3-5 level parking structure with 500 parking spaces. The Church also proposes to convert the existing sanctuary to a gymnasium/multi-purpose room for events such as wedding receptions. The preparation of the Initial Study is still underway which will determine whether the project will necessitate an EIR or Negative Declaration. We will receive a notice when either document is prepared and circulated to the public.

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52666 (3200 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST)
MARSHALL ESFAHANI

City staff has been in contact with the City of Palos Verdes Estates to discuss the construction traffic that will be generated from the newly approved residential tract on Palos Verdes Drive West at the border of our City. The City of Palos Verdes Estates indicates that they will allow construction traffic related to grading to enter their city since the disposal site for the project will be within the City of Palos Verdes Estates. However, any other construction traffic leaving the site will not be permitted to travel through the City. The City of Palos Verdes Estates is insisting that a cut be made in the median to accommodate the construction traffic. Mr. Esfahani seems confident that he can negotiate more reasonable terms from Palos Verdes Estates. So far he has apparently not been able to do so.

PALOS VERDES GOLF COURSE EIR SCOPING MEETING

On November 26, 2001, Planning Staff attended an environmental impact report (EIR) scoping meeting for the proposed Palos Verdes Golf Course in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The County’s Parks and Recreation Department is the lead agency for the EIR, with the actual document preparation being handled by the consulting firm, ESA. The project proponent is a development consortium, headed by Rob Katherman, which has a 2-year contract with the County to complete the land use entitlement process for the golf course.

The project site is the 160-acre former landfill located between Crenshaw Boulevard and Hawthorne Boulevard. Existing activities on the site include a co-generation and recycling facility for the old landfill, as well as the City of Rolling Hills Estates’ equestrian center. The developers propose an 18-hole, par-72 golf course and a 29,000-square-foot clubhouse. The contract with the County also requires the developer to provide a 7,000-square-foot area for an equestrian center in the immediate area surrounding the golf course, although the exact location of the new equestrian center has not been determined.

A major issue of concern raised by the ±150 people in attendance was the disposition of the existing equestrian center and trails on the site. Additional issues of concern included drainage problems for downslope properties in the City of Torrance; geologic concerns about the stability of the old landfill; health concerns regarding toxic materials and methane gas from the old landfill; concerns about the operation of the golf course such as noise, lighting, traffic and security; and construction-related impacts such as air quality, noise, vibration and truck traffic.

The developer’s consultant, ESA, anticipates that the Initial Study (IS) will be complete in early December 2001 and that a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR will be released at that time. The 30-day comment period for the NOP would end in early-to mid-January 2002, with expected public release of the draft EIR in late Spring 2002 and possible action by the County in Summer 2002. It was Staff’s impression that the November 26th scoping meeting was somewhat premature since the IS was not complete and the NOP had not been released. Staff also believes that this schedule may be overly optimistic, given the level of public concern expressed at the scoping meeting, and that it is more likely that the County will make no decision until some time next fall.





10. Citywide Stop Sign Installation Policy. (Allison)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING REGULATIONS REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JANUARY 12, 2002

SUBJECT: CITYWIDE STOP SIGN INSTALLATION POLICY

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution 2002 - __, a resolution of the City Council for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, adopting regulations regarding the installation of stop signs.

BACKGROUND

In 1999 the Traffic Committee formed an ad hoc committee to develop a stop sign installation policy for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Traffic Committee believed that having a policy tailored to the needs of the City would better serve residents. This is because the stop sign warrants published by the State of California have such high volume thresholds that stop signs on most of our residential streets would never be justified.

The Ad Hoc Committee was comprised of Traffic Committee members Bill Schurmer, Jim Jones and Charlotte Iseda (former member). Staff provided support to the committee by providing technical guidance and assistance in formatting the draft policy. Members of the Ad Hoc Committee devoted a significant amount of time in researching policies developed by other agencies and reviewed alternatives for implementing a policy for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

After numerous Ad Hoc Committee meetings, the Traffic Committee held several public hearings to review the policy and to make final changes and recommendations.

DISCUSSION

At the August 27, 2001 Traffic Committee meeting, the final draft of the policy was reviewed. The Traffic Committee made several minor changes, directed staff to make the final corrections and to forward to the City Council with the recommendation that the Council adopt the Stop Sign Installation Policy. Attached is a copy of the final Stop Sign Installation Policy as recommended by the Traffic Committee.

The policy provides specific guidelines for use in evaluating potential candidate intersections for stop sign control at local street intersections. The guidelines reflect the need to allow the City to consider stop signs not only based on traffic volume and accident criteria but also a variety of conditions that may result in the need for all-way stop controls, such as the proximity of an intersection to a school. The guidelines also provide greater flexibility in meeting minimum traffic volume criteria for local street intersections.

Staff believes that the following elements are particularly noteworthy:

  1. The policy includes specific judgment based criteria for considering all-way stop installations for local street intersections.

  2. The "Volume Warrants" for Arterial streets are identical to the warrants provided in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. The Traffic Committee did not believe that there was a specific need to reduce the traffic volume warrant on Arterial streets from the statewide standard.

  3. The policy recognizes different traffic volume criteria for local street intersections based on the number of "legs" of the intersection (3 or 4).

The policy was reviewed by the City Attorney to determine the City’s ability to adopt such a policy and the potential "design immunity" ramifications of adopting the policy. The City Attorney replied that the City does have the ability to adopt a stop sign installation policy and that the policy will not, generally, affect the City’s design immunity.

As is currently the case, requests for stop signs will be submitted to the Traffic Committee for consideration. If approved by the Traffic Committee the request will be brought to the City Council for final approval.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting the staff recommendations will establish new criteria for the installation of stop signs in residential neighborhoods.

FISCAL IMPACTS

Staff could identify no fiscal impacts to the recommended actions. The installation of a new stop sign and pavement markings at an intersection is approximately $1500.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Resolution 2002 -
City of RPV Stop Sign Installation Policy


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING A STOP SIGN INSTALLATION POLICY

WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Sections 21351, 21354 and 21355 grant local agencies the authority to place and maintain stop signs on local streets, including the discretion to designate any intersection under the jurisdiction of a local agency as a stop intersection; and

WHEREAS, the installation of stop signs or other traffic control devices must be based upon a documented need for vehicle control; and

WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Transportation ("CalTrans") has established criteria for assessing the need for stop signs or other traffic control devices at intersections (the "CalTrans warrant policy"); and

WHEREAS, the CalTrans warrant policy does not give sufficient consideration to special circumstances applicable to particular local intersections in determining whether stop signs or other traffic control devices are warranted at such intersections; and

WHEREAS, the Traffic Committee determined that (i) the reliance on the CalTrans warrant policy to determine whether to install stop signs at intersections of local streets does not adequately address the actual conditions and development within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and (ii) strict application of the CalTrans warrant policy under such circumstances generally would result in stop signs not being installed at intersections of local streets in Rancho Palos Verdes where stop signs are needed to address unique local conditions; and

WHEREAS, the Traffic Committee, after careful study, developed a proposed Stop Sign Installation Policy to supplement the CalTrans warrant policy; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Stop Sign Installation Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," reflects the needs of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and its local community for additional right-of-way control while retaining the integrity of the use of stop signs through their judicious use; and

WHEREAS, the Traffic Committee reviewed and refined the proposed Stop Sign Installation Policy at several public meetings; and

WHEREAS, at its August 27, 2001 meeting, the Traffic Committee recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed Stop Sign Installation Policy in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

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

Section 1. Findings. The City Council adopts the findings made in the recitals of this Resolution and incorporates those findings herein by reference.

Section 2. Adoption of Stop Sign Installation Policy. The Stop Sign Installation Policy attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted. The Stop Sign Installation Policy established by this resolution shall become effective immediately.

Section 3.Required Review. No stop sign shall be installed in the City unless the City Engineer has first reviewed and approved the request and made a recommendation of approval to the Traffic Committee. The City Engineer shall evaluate every request for the installation of a stop sign to determine whether the proposed installation is safe at the location identified. Based upon the results of his or her review, the City Engineer shall forward a recommendation to the Traffic Committee regarding the appropriateness of installing a stop sign at the location identified in the request. The Traffic Committee shall then review each request for the installation of a stop sign, together with the Traffic Engineer’s recommendation, at a duly noticed public meeting and shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the appropriateness of a proposed stop sign installation. The recommendations of the Traffic Engineer and the Traffic Committee shall then be forwarded to City Council for consideration at a duly noticed City Council meeting.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this       day of                , 2002.

                                                                     
Mayor

ATTEST:

                                                         
City Clerk


CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STOP SIGN INSTALLATION POLICY

This policy is intended to establish a set of guidelines for the purpose of evaluating requests for stop signs in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The policy is intended to supplement the Caltrans warrant system for the installation of stop signs by specifically addressing a variety of situations with straightforward criteria. The California Vehicle Code sections 21351, 21354 and 21355 provide the authority for a local agency to place and maintain stop signs on local streets including designating any intersection under its jurisdiction as a stop intersection and to erect stop signs at one or more entrances. The policies presented are intended to reflect the needs of the local community for additional right-of-way assignment while retaining the integrity of the use of stop signs through their judicious use. All requests for the installation of stop signs shall follow the review procedure set forth below.

REVIEW PROCEDURE

No stop sign shall be installed in the City unless the City Engineer has first reviewed and approved the request and made a recommendation of approval to the Traffic Committee. The City Engineer shall evaluate every request for the installation of a stop sign to determine whether the proposed installation is safe at the location identified. Based upon the results of his or her review, the City Engineer shall forward a recommendation to the Traffic Committee regarding the appropriateness of installing a stop sign at the location identified in the request. The Traffic Committee shall then review each request for the installation of a stop sign, together with the Traffic Engineer’s recommendation, at a duly noticed public meeting and shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the appropriateness of a proposed stop sign installation. The recommendations of the Traffic Engineer and the Traffic Committee shall then be forwarded to City Council for consideration at a duly noticed City Council meeting.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Stop signs are used to establish right-of-way at an intersection, reduce delays and decrease accidents. The installation of stop signs or other traffic control devices must be based upon a documented need for vehicle control. Documenting the need for stop sign installation should incorporate the warrants established by the State of California and the criteria set forth in this policy.

Satisfaction of a warrant is not a guarantee that a stop sign is needed. Nor is the fact that a warrant is not satisfied an assurance that stop sign control would not be beneficial. With the warrants serving as the basis for evaluation, sound engineering judgment and all pertinent facts should be considered in decisions related to the installation of stop signs.

When being considered, it should be noted that stop signs can create unnecessary vehicular stops, increased delay, and add to fuel consumption and air pollution if used improperly. The installation of stop signs can also increase undesirable noise in residential neighborhoods, create an illusion of safety and result in increased disregard for traffic controls.

Additionally, stop signs are generally not considered effective speed control devices on local streets. Rather, stop signs are intended to assign right-of-way to traffic. This is a common misconception, as often people believe stop signs will help to control speeds.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

In certain cases, conditions may exist which are not adequately addressed by the criteria presented hereafter. In these cases, special consideration should be given to the applicability of stop sign controls to the intersection. However, other, less restrictive measures should be considered before installing all-way stops. Examples of conditions warranting special consideration include:

  1. Extreme pedestrian visibility problems.
  2. In new developments where a traffic signal installation may be under consideration but not yet approved.
  3. A street that is in proximity to a school, fire department, church, park or any area of high public use.
  4. Steep curves or inclines that could be considered an additional restriction to visibility
  5. Other considerations as may be deemed appropriate by engineering or technical studies.

CRITERIA

The following presents the definition of terms and guidelines for the evaluation of locations within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for stop sign control. As appropriate, separate criteria are presented to address residential neighborhood and local street situations versus locations along arterial roadways.

Typical Locations

3-Legged or "T" Intersection – An intersection typically comprised of one through street and a terminating street. Often the terminating street is referred to as "the stem of the T". In this case, typically only one-way stops (stopping traffic approaching on the terminating street) and all-way stops are considered.

4-Legged Intersection (Arterial Street/Local Street) – An intersection generally comprised of a major through street (typically a collector arterial or higher arterial) and a minor intersecting street. In this case, typically only two-way stops (stopping traffic on the minor street approaches) are considered.

4-Legged Intersection (Local Street/Local Street) – An intersection generally comprised of two minor streets with neither street necessarily considered a through street. In this case, typically either two-way or all-way stops are often considered.

Intersections With More Than 4 legs – A special case location that generally has more than two streets intersecting at the same point. This type of intersection often requires unique analysis to evaluate the conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. Specific criteria for this situation are not included in this policy in recognition of the special circumstances.

General Criteria

Two different terms are used to describe roadways in the context of these guidelines. The following definitions apply:

Local Street – This term refers to a roadway that carries relatively low volumes of traffic and is not considered an arterial street. This classification includes those streets that meet strict residential street definitions (per the California Vehicle Code) and streets that do not meet this strict definition but are not included in the City’s arterial street system.

Arterial Street – Refers to the functional classification of the roadway based on the General Plan designation of the roadway. All of the following roadways are considered to be arterials in increasing functional order: collector arterial, minor arterial, major arterial and principal arterial.

One-way Stop Control (T-Intersections)

If any one of the following criteria is satisfied, a one-way stop should be considered:

1a)(Local/Local) On the terminating street at its intersection with a through street where application of the normal right-of-way rule is unduly hazardous as evidenced by accidents susceptible to correction with stop signs.
1b)(Arterial/Local) On the minor street at its intersection with a through arterial.

2. On a city street at its intersection with a state highway (State responsibility).
3. On a street where the safe approach speed to the intersection is less than 10 miles per hour.

Two-way Stop Control (4 or More Legged Intersections)

If any one of the following criteria is satisfied, two-way stop control should be considered:

    1. When available sight distance is less than that dictated by the prevailing traffic speeds (sight distance triangle, as defined by state law).
    2. Three or more accidents of a type susceptible to correction by a two-way stop sign installation within a twelve-month period.
    3. The total peak hour intersection volumes exceeds 100 vehicles

All-way Stop Control (3 or More Legged Intersections)

All-way stop control is most effective when applied to intersecting streets with close to equal traffic volumes. Special consideration should be given to locations that have significant unusual visibility or physical conditions. All-way stops should only be installed after all less restrictive methods of traffic control or modifications are deemed ineffective or unfeasible. All streets considered should have as close to equal traffic volumes as possible. Generally, 4-legged intersections should have no less than a 60/40 split and 3-legged intersections no less than a 70/30 split. An all-way stop should be considered when any of the following criteria are satisfied:

    1. Where a traffic signal is justified and the need for traffic control at the intersection is urgent, all-way stop control can be used as an interim device while arrangements are being made to install a traffic signal.

    2. Available sight distance is less than that dictated by the prevailing traffic speed (sight distance triangle, as defined by state law) for pedestrians and vehicles crossing the higher volumes street.

    3. Five or more reported accidents of a type susceptible to correction by the installation of an all-way stop have occurred within a twelve-month period. Types of accidents susceptible to correction include broadside and left-turn collisions.

    4. Volume Warrant – Local Streets

      1. Total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average 180 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day: and,

      1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the minor street for the same 8 hours must average at least 72 vehicles per hour.

    1. Volume Warrant – Arterial Streets

      1. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day; and,

      1. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the peak hour.

      1. When the 85th percentile approach speed of the major street exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements.

    1. Any unusual physical or geometric conditions that cannot be effectively addressed by less restrictive methods.



11. Addition of Traffic Calming signs to the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.

Recommendation: Adopt revisions to the City’s Traffic Calming Program, as recommended by the Traffic Committee, to add signs as a traffic-calming tool.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

BY: BRUCE MATTERN, PE, TE / CONSULTANT TRAFFIC ENGINEER

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2001

SUBJECT:ADDITION OF TRAFFIC CALMING SIGNS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATION

The City Council approves a revision to the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program to add the use of "traffic calming signs" as recommended by the Traffic Committee.

BACKGROUND

In June 1998, the City Council adopted the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. This action adopted certain elements to address traffic concerns in residential neighborhoods. These elements consist of the following:

  • Maintain Existing Street System
  • Higher Visibility Crosswalks
  • Entrance Treatments
  • Speed Humps
  • Curb Extensions or Chokers
  • Traffic Circles
  • Roundabouts
  • One-Way Streets
  • Median Barriers
  • Semi-Diverters or Half Closures
  • Diagonal -Diverters
  • Cul-de-sac or Street Closure

On September 25, 2000, the Traffic Committee reviewed a request from the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association of using "traffic calming" signs in their neighborhood to improve motorist awareness within the neighborhood. The Traffic Committee reviewed the requirements of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program and identified two important issues, which affect the consideration of the requested signs. The two issues are:

  1. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program does not specifically limit the consideration of measures in addition to those identified in the Program, to achieve the goals and objectives identified. Those measures presented in the Program are referred to as "Examples of Traffic Calming Tools".

  2. Specific guidelines are included for each of the "Examples" included in the Program document. These guidelines provide Staff, residents and the Traffic Committee with a means of evaluating individual requests.

It appears that Staff and the Traffic Committee could consider the use of additional signs as a traffic calming measure, subject to City Council approval.

DISCUSSION

The Traffic Committee reviewed examples of traffic calming signs currently being used by the City of Calabasas along with information regarding the history and insights into their program. Copies of the signs used by the City of Calabasas are attached.

Based on the information obtained from the City of Calabasas, City staff review and the Traffic Committees evaluation of the signs, it appears that the signs are primarily intended to increase driver awareness as they enter residential neighborhoods. There is no expectation from an engineering standpoint, that the signs will have any significant measurable affect on vehicle speeds. However, the signs may improve driver awareness and appear to satisfy the resident’s desire to do something to protect their neighborhood environment.

The limited use of signs at neighborhood entrance areas is not likely to result in significant "sign pollution". Special care would be exercised in developing messages for the signs that convey neighborhood pride and promote safe driving. It is unlikely that the signs would have any significant negative affects on neighborhoods.

The Traffic Committee reviewed and is recommending for Council approval a Description and Guideline for Application of Traffic Calming Signs. It should be noted that the Guidelines for Application include provisions for requesting the sign treatments that incorporate a process for homeowner’s association requests, and also incorporates lower traffic volume thresholds than other traffic calming measures. The process for considering and implementing requests for traffic calming signs includes modifications to the standard process. The intention of these modifications is to reflect the relative capital cost of the signs and the potential impacts of the signs. The Traffic Committee believes it is appropriate to consider a streamlined process for consideration of requests for traffic calming signs. The description and guidelines are attached for review.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Traffic Calming Signs is a tool that may help to affect a change in driver behavior by increasing driver awareness to neighborhood conditions. The installations are relatively low cost for fabricating and installing the signs. Coordination and labor for the rotation of the signs could result in the significant expenditure of Staff time over time, depending on the number of installations within the City. Staff and the Traffic Committee believe that the use of the signs has some merit as a tool for increasing driver awareness/education.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Traffic Calming Sign Description and Guideline
Example Signs from the City of Calabasas





12. Master Plan Updates. (Evans)

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JANUARY 12, 2002

SUBJECT: MASTER PLAN UPDATES

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

At their December 4, 2001 meeting the City Council set a workshop for January 12, 2002 to discuss master plan updates. Due to the lateness of the hour, there was little discussion of the master plan issues at the December 4, 2001 meeting. Therefore, a portion of the staff report prepared for that meeting is repeated in this report.

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

Last year, and again this year, the City received a letter from the State Attorney General advising us that our General Plan should be updated. The latest letter of admonishment from the Office of Planning and Research and the Office of the Attorney General was received on November 20, 2001. The letter outlined the "legal and practical" reasons for updating the General Plan and asked for a progress report for doing so. The City responded on December 11, 2001 with a letter indicating that the City Council would review the adequacy of the General Plan at a workshop session on January 12, 2002 and determine what portions of the Plan may require updates.

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

    • General Plan - June 1975 (Eastview Annexation - 1984)
    • Coastal Specific Plan/Local Coastal Plan - December 1983
    • Western Avenue Specific Plans (3) - January 1986, October 1986, October 1987
    • Recreation and Parks Master Plan - October 1989
    • Conceptual Trails Plan – September 1993 (revised)
    • Conceptual Bikeways Plan – October 1996 (revised)

January 1990

    • Five Year Capital Improvement Plan - April 1998
    • Council Goals and Objectives - March 2001

DISCUSSION

An update of the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan would likely begin with a review of both plans by Staff and the Planning Commission to identify the areas that are in need of update, and then providing the Council with a report on those sections which require amendment or further study.

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

  1. City owned properties and large vacant parcels within the Portuguese Bend area.
  2. An updated traffic study.
  3. Review, revise, and/or establish new Objectives and Policies.
  4. Recreational needs of the community.
  5. Zone II and/or other geologic issues related to the landslides.
  6. Update the Coastal Specific Plan/Local Coastal Plan.

The General Plan contains approximately 190 pages of text. Staff estimates that approximately 10% of the text requires little to no change. This portion consists primarily of descriptions of the physical environment, such as climate and topography, as well as historical discussions.

Staff estimates that approximately 50% of the text needs to be updated. This is text that is in a format that is still useful but that is based on information that is almost 30 years old. The portions that need to be updated include the following:

Air quality and ocean resources
Resource Management Districts
Archaeological and other cultural resources
The Commercial Activities section

The Recreational and Institutional activities section
Water, energy and sanitation systems
Public transportation
Path and trail networks
Fire hazards, flood hazards and seismic hazards
Emergency/Disaster responsiveness

Staff estimates that approximately 40% of the text needs to be completely re-written. This is because major changes and/or advancements have occurred to the related subject matter. The portions that need to be re-written include the following:

Description of the geologic conditions and habitat resources
Preservation of natural resources
Housing section
Commercial retail section
Educational and Institutional Activities
Flood control, communication systems, broadcast communications
Transportation system
Noise element
Population projections
Specific plan and overlay control districts
Fiscal element

Tables

There are 34 tables that need to be updated with new factual information.

Maps

There are 20 maps that need to be updated, primarily because they do not include the Eastview section of the City that was annexed in 1983. In addition, there are 7 maps related to text noted above that needs to be re-written that also need to be re-done. Furthermore, all the maps should be converted to a digital format and their clarity enhanced.

Use of Consultants

Although Staff could perform much of the work, there will be a need to employ professional consultants to complete specific tasks or studies. It is expected that a geotechnical consultant will need to update and re-write the geological discussions. In addition, there will be a need to hire a traffic consultant to perform a new citywide traffic study, as well as a need to hire a noise consultant to perform a citywide noise study. Furthermore, a financial consultant will likely be needed to complete the fiscal analysis of the plan. Lastly, an EIR consultant will need to prepare the EIR for the plan. It is the EIR aspect of the plan that Staff believes will be the most expensive and time consuming to complete. Due to increased CEQA requirements and years of case law, General Plan EIR’s have evolved to be very large and complex documents. It should be noted that at the time the City’s General Plan was written and adopted, the CEQA process was in it’s infancy. As a result, the General Plan was also considered the project EIR with a discussion of the state mandated EIR requirements taking up only 9 pages.

Policies

The General Plan contains 175 policies. Unlike the factual text, tables and maps described above, Staff believes that most if not all of the policies are still valid today. Nonetheless, Staff believes that as part of a General Plan Update, an effort should be made by the City and its residents to re-evaluate the General Plan policies and determine which policies should be retained, modified or deleted, or whether new policies should be added. Staff believes that the best approach for achieving this is to create a broad-based "policy committee" made up of City residents that would review the policies and make a recommendation to the City Council.

Status of Other Plans:

Coastal Specific Plan
The City’s Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) is a 285-page document that was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 1978. The CSP only applies to the area located in the City’s defined Coastal Zone, which is the land between Palos Verdes Drive South/Palos Verdes Drive West and the ocean. The format of the plan and the methodology used in preparing the plan is similar to the City’s General Plan.

The CSP can be divided into two portions. The first portion is made up of 5 elements that discuss the natural, socio/cultural, urban environment, corridor and fiscal properties of the entire coastal zone. It appears that much of the information contained in these 5 elements is taken from the City’s General Plan. Therefore, like the General Plan, the portions that describe the natural environment require little to no change, the portions that describe resources, infrastructure, trails and hazards need to be updated and the portions that discuss geology, habitat, housing, transportation, noise and fiscal impacts would likely need to be re-written.

The second portion of the CSP divides the coastal zone into 8 subregions and discusses the specific conditions, resources and policies for each subregion. Staff believes that while two of the subregion sections (Subregions 3 and 4, covering the area between the Long Point property and the City’s Abalone Cove property), require little to no change, the other six subregion sections need to be updated to reflect land use decisions that have occurred since adoption of the CSP. The Subregion 1 section needs to be amended to reflect the approval of the Lunada Pointe and Oceanfront Estates residential projects. The Subregion 2 section needs to be amended to reflect the PVIC expansion and the closure of Marineland. The Subregion 5 section needs to be amended to reflect the habitat and recreation enhancements and landslide abatement activities that have occurred in the Abalone Cove and Sacred Cove area. The Subregion 6 section needs to be amended to reflect the landslide abatement projects that have occurred in and around the Portuguese Bend Club. The Subregion 7 section needs to be amended to reflect the approval of the Ocean Trails project. The Subregion 8 section needs to be amended to reflect the recreation and habitat enhancements that have occurred in Shoreline Park.

Like a General Plan update, there will be a need to employ professional consultants to complete specific tasks or studies for a CSP update. The same consultants needed for the General Plan update, such as geotechnical, traffic, noise and financial consultants, will be needed for a CSP update. In addition, an EIR consultant will need to prepare the EIR for the plan.

The CSP contains 84 policies. Staff believes that although most of the policies are still valid today, many are no longer applicable due to the land use decisions that have occurred in the Coastal Zone since adoption of the CSP. Nonetheless, Staff believes that as part of a CSP Update, an effort should be made by the City and its residents to re-evaluate the policies and determine which policies should be retained, modified or deleted, or whether new policies should be added. Similar to the suggestion for reviewing the General Plan policies, Staff believes that the CSP policies should be evaluated by a broad-based "policy committee" made up of City residents that would make recommendations to the City Council.

In accordance with the 1976 Coastal Act, the City’s CSP also serves as the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), which has been approved by the Coastal Commission. As a result, the City has the authority to issue Coastal Permits for development activities that occur in the Coastal Zone and Coastal Permits are reviewed by the Coastal Commission only on appeal. It should be noted that at the time the City’s LCP was written and adopted, the Coastal Act was in its infancy, and as a result the City’s LCP was one of the first approved by the Coastal Commission. As a result of increased coastal regulations and case law since 1978, LCP’s have become very large and complex documents. In addition, more recently approved LCP’s tend to have a much larger Coastal Zone that extends further inland than the City’s present Coastal Zone. Any amendments to the City’s Coastal Specific Plan will also require approval by the Coastal Commission. As such, it is very possible that the Coastal Commission in reviewing the City’s amended LCP could propose additional coastal access requirements, impose more stringent coastal regulations and propose an expansion of the coastal zone.

There are no legal updating requirements, nor is there any pressure from the State on the City to perform an update.

Western Avenue Specific Plan
There are actually three specific plans for Western Avenue. One of the plans discusses the land uses between Summerland and Crestwood Street, one discusses land uses between Crestwood Street and the Terraces and the third is a plan for the Terraces. Although the plans are not current and Western Avenue is an area of the City that appears to need attention, the updating of these plans is not as crucial as some of the other plans. The most important issues along Western Avenue are related to traffic and drainage and could be addressed in a General Plan update.

Parks Master Plan
A citizens committee updated the Parks Master Plan over a period of about one year in 1989. Many of the recommendations included in the Plan have been completed, some are planned for the future and others are simply not consistent with current Council policy. The City Council may wish to ask the Recreation and Parks Commission to look at the Master Plan, and the current inventory of City properties, and develop updated conceptual plans for each.

Master Plan of Trails
The Conceptual Trails Plan was revised in September 1993. However, the plan lacks an adopted Trails Network Plan (TNP) that is supposed to address the physical and legal aspects of the trails. The Plan should be coordinated with the Open Space plans such as Forrestal and Barkintine.

Master Plan of Bikeways
The Conceptual Bikeway Plan was adopted on January 22, 1990 and updated on October 15, 1996. The plan describes the various recognized bikeway standards, existing bikeway improvements, and proposed bikeway improvements based upon the objectives, policies and programs established through the Circulation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan. The City utilizes this document as a guideline for bikeway improvements whenever roadway improvements are proposed by the City or by private developments.

Since its last revision there have been a number of bikeway improvements. The plan should be updated to reflect these improvements. It is recommended that the update be prepared in AutoCAD format on citywide base map topography to improve its usefulness and facilitate future revisions. It is estimated that the cost for the update is $7,500.

Capital Improvement Plan
The last comprehensive Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan was reviewed by the City Council in April 1998. Since that time the Plan has been modified each year, based on City Council priorities and newly identified urgent needs, and incorporated into the Five-Year Financial Model. The Financial Model is reviewed each year by the Finance Advisory Committee and forwarded to the City Council for their information prior to annual budget adoption.

Process for Update/Preparation of Plans
Below is a very preliminary outline of public workshops recommended for processing of the General Plan update.

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

Meeting
  City Council/Planning Commission scoping meeting to discuss purpose and objectives of updating the General Plan. Also, City Council to give direction on the proposed process and authorize Staff to release a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for consultant assistance. Staff begins to collect and analyze data in preparation for future workshops.
Milestone
  Release Request for Proposal (RFP) to 3-5 consultants, based upon RFQ response.
Meeting
  City Council meeting to approve consultant contract to prepare all or portions of General Plan and related EIR.
Workshop 1
  Discussion of Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements. Notice of EIR Preparation released for General Plan Update.
Workshop 2
  Continued discussion of Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements.
Workshop 3
  Final discussion of Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements. Notice of EIR Preparation Ends.
Workshop 4
  Discussion of Safety Element
Workshop 5
  Continued and final discussion of Safety Element. Release of Draft EIR.
Workshop 6
  Discussion of Circulation, Housing and Noise Elements.
Workshop 7
  Discussion of any optional elements.
Hearing
  Planning Commission Public Hearing on adoption of General Plan Update - Final EIR prepared for Commission review.
Hearing
  City Council Public Hearing. Certification of EIR and approval of General Plan Update.

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

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

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

Staffing the General Plan Update

Option A: Full Consultant Use

    • City Staff would direct consultant and review information prepared by Consultant.
    • Consultant would prepare EIR.
    • At Workshops and Public Hearings, City Staff would prepare brief introductory Staff Report with attachment that includes Consultant's staff report discussing the bulk of the issues.
    • Consultant would take the lead role at all workshops and public hearings.
    • Consultant would prepare all maps, tables, figures, etc.
    • City Staff involved would include at least the following:
      1. One Project Manager (Deputy Planning Director or Senior Planner): Work at least 50% of his/her time towards this project.
      2. One Support Staff Planner (Senior or Associate Planner Level): Work at least 50% of his/her time towards this project.
      3. One Support Staff (Staff Assistant II): Work at least 25% of his/her time towards this project.
    • Estimated Consultant Costs: Approximately $350,000 to $400,000

Option B: Limited Consultant Use

    • Consultants would only be needed to prepare most graphic materials (such as the land use map, and other maps, tables and charts), and prepare various studies (Traffic, Noise, Geology).
    • Consultant would prepare EIR.
    • Staff would take the lead role at all workshops and public hearings with very limited Consultant attendance (i.e. only needed for discussion on information prepared by Consultant).
    • Staff would prepare all written material (drafts, final versions and all staff reports).
    • City Staff involved would include at least the following:
      1. One Project Manager (Deputy Planning Director or Senior Planner): Work at least 75% of his/her time towards this project.
      2. Two Support Staff Planners (Senior and/or Associate Planner Level): Work at least 50% of their time towards this project.
      3. One Support Staff (Staff Assistant II): Work at least 25% of his/her time towards this project.

Estimated Consultant Costs: Approximately $200,000 to $250,000.

FISCAL IMPACT

Staff believes that a budget of $200,000-$400,000 will be required to engage a consultant to prepare an update of the City’s General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan, along with the necessary CEQA documentation.

CONCLUSION

The City’s planning documents that guide the future of the City have not been reviewed and updated for many years. The City Council may wish to direct staff to establish a strategy and time schedule for updating all, or some of the plans. If so, the Council should first discuss alternative processes for receiving community input, staffing various studies and coordinating preparation schedules.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager


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


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


CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

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


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

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

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

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

Negotiating Parties:York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation:Price and Terms of Payment

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

City Negotiators: City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

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.



RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 2002
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER, 32201 FORRESTAL DRIVE

CALL TO ORDERNEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2002-01

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


A. Minutes of December 4, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.

D R A F T

M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 11:50 P.M. by Chair McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

PRESENT: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
ABSENT: Ferraro (had departed the meeting at 11:50 P.M.)

Also present were Executive Director Les Evans; Assistant Executive Director Carolynn Petru; Agency Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Deputy Secretary Drasco; and Recording Secretary Denise Bothe.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Member Stern moved, seconded by Member Gardiner, to approve the Agenda. Motion carried (absent Member Ferraro).


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Member Stern moved, seconded by Member Gardiner, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried (absent Member Ferraro). Member Clark abstained from Item A, approval of the November 7, 2001, Minutes.

Minutes of November 7, 2001

Minutes of November 7, 2001, were approved as presented.

October 2001 Treasurer’s Report

Ordered received and filed.

Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Audited Financial Report

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. 2001-16 -- Register of Demands

ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-16, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

The motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
NOES: Ferraro (had departed the meeting at 11:50 P.M.)
ABSTAIN: Clark (Minutes November 7, 2001 only)


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, expressed interest in observing those individuals who will be working on the GPS system.

Executive Director Evans stated that the next time the GPS activities are undertaken, Ms. Larue could be given 24 hours’ notice of this activity; and because of the large expense in this GPS activity, he requested of Ms. Larue that she only observe these activities and that she not interrupt the work flow.

Ms. Larue stated that 24 hours’ notice would be acceptable.


ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 11:59 P.M. on the motion of Chair McTaggart.

________________
Chair

Attest:

________________
Agency Secretary



B. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


PUBLIC COMMENTS: This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda: each speaker is limited to three minutes.



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




RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 2002
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER, 32201 FORRESTAL DRIVE

CALL TO ORDER:NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2002-01

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1. Minutes of December 4, 2001. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.

D R A F T

M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 11:59 P.M. by Chair McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

PRESENT: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
ABSENT: Ferraro (had departed the meeting at 11:51 P.M.)

Also present were Chief Administrative Officer Les Evans; Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Carolynn Petru, Commission Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Deputy Commission Secretary Jackie Drasco; and Recording Secretary Denise Bothe.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Commissioner Gardiner moved, seconded by Commissioner Stern, to approve the Agenda. Motion carried (absent Commissioner Ferraro).


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Commissioner Gardiner moved, seconded by Commissioner Stern, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried (absent Commissioner Ferraro). Commissioner Clark abstained from Item 1, approval of the November 7, 2001, Minutes.

Minutes of November 7, 2001

Minutes of November 7, 2001, were approved as presented.

October 2001 Treasurer’s Report

Ordered received and filed.

Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Audited Financial Report

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. IA 2001-13 -- Register of Demands

ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. IA 2001-13, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

The motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
NOES: Ferraro (had departed the meeting at 11:50 P.M.)
ABSTAIN: Clark (Minutes November 7, 2001 only)


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None.


ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 Midnight on the motion of Chair McTaggart.

________________
Chair

Attest:

___________________
Commission Secretary



2. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. IA 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


PUBLIC COMMENTS: For items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes.



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