Agenda 02/19/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 02/19/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda February 19, 2002
February 19, 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


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 MEETING

FEBRUARY 19, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



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

7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-08

NEXT ORD. NO. 374

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 18, 2001 and February 5, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



3. Household Hazardous Waste Round-Up Siting Liability Agreement with Los Angeles County. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the attached Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program Siting Liability Agreement with the County of Los Angeles and County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County.



4. Funding Request for Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Cleanup Activities for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize the submittal of the funding request form to the Department of Conservation’s Division of Recycling for funding programs related to beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities for Fiscal Year 2002-2002 and Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY FORMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING PAYMENTS, AND IMPLEMENTING AND CARRYING OUT THE PROGRAMS.



5. Notice of Completion for Pipe Repairs Near Palos Verdes Drive South and Peppertree Drive. (Massetti)

Recommendation: (1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder.



6. Award of contract for services to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for proposed improvements to Marymount College (30800 Palos Verdes Drive East). (Mihranian)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional service agreement in an amount not to exceed $134,905 with RBF Consulting, to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Marymount College Facilities expansion project at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East.



7. Ordinance No. 373 – Ordinance Establishing New Regulations Applicable to the Issuance of Business Permits and the Regulations of Massage Establishments and Massage Technicians Operating in the City. (Evans)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 373, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFENSE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 (GENERAL LICENSING PROCEDURES) AND CHAPTER 7.54 OF DIVISION 2 OF TITLE 7 (MASSAGE) OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was re-introduced at the February 7th Meeting.)


8. Employee Service Recognition Program. (Petru)

Recommendation: Adopt City Council Policy No. 11 regarding the Employee Recognition Program.



9. Code Enforcement Case No. COD2001-00025: Status Report on Non-Permitted Commercial Antennae at 5905 Mossbank Drive. (Neth)
Recommendation: Receive and file, and provide further direction to staff.


10. 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.


PUBLIC HEARING:



11. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Conditional Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230, requesting elimination of certain conditions imposed by the Planning Commission for the use of Commercial Antennae Within a Residential Zone. (Applicant/Appellant: Schmitz & Associates, representing James A. Kay, Jr., property owner at 26708 Indian Peak Road). (Fox)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MODIFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, DENYING THE APPEAL, AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230.


REGULAR BUSINESS:



12. Traffic Calming on Via Rivera. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Approve the installation of a series of speed humps along Via Rivera Avenue between Rue De La Pierre and Via Del Mar in accordance with the City’s Traffic Calming Program. (2) Authorize the expenditure of up to $40,000 for the engineering and construction of speed humps, signs and pavement markings along Via Rivera. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.


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


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



13. Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: Direct staff to work with the Coastal Commission staff to modify the design of the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Program to eliminate the proposed lower parking lot and redesign the access driveway to minimize and/or eliminate the Coastal Commission staff’s concerns regarding the biologic (terrestrial) and geologic impacts of the project.



14. California Redemption Value Payments by Ivy Rubbish Disposal (Ramezani)

Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a contract amendment which allows Ivy Rubbish Disposal to defer payment of California Redemption Value revenues due the City for the period of July 1, 2000 though January 1, 2002, until the period July 1, 2002 through January 1, 2004.



15. Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Committee. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND DISASTER RESPONSE COMMITTEE AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO PROVIDE STAFFING AND FUNDING FOR THIS NEW COMMITTEE.



16. San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) A mend the professional service contract to AMEC earth and Environmental, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $104,109 for geotechnical inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $383,134. (2) Amend the professional service contract to Helix Environmental Planning for an amount not to exceed $68,600 for mitigation monitoring services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $147,900. (3) Amend the professional service contract to DMc Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $36,630 for engineering services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $177,240. (4) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS APPROVING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION PROJECT BY $210,000, FROM $3,194,650 TO $3,404.650.



17. General Plan Update. (Pfost)

Recommendation: (1) Formulate a "General Plan Update Committee" to review the General Plan Goals and Policies, as well as the technical updates identified by staff and make a recommendation to the City Council as to scope of the necessary General Plan amendments. (2) Direct staff to develop and implement a public participation strategy.



18. Fiscal Year 2002-2002 Midyear Financial Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: (1) Receive and file the attached midyear financial report. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, TO INCREASE CERTAIN EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GENERAL FUND, STREET MAINTENANCE (GAS TAX) FUND, RECYCLING FUND, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS – PARKS (MEASURE a) FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS – BIKEWAYS FUND, AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND.



19. Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Arterial Rehabilitation Program. (Noble)

Recommendation: (1) Approve Change Order Number Six to the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Arterial Rehabilitation Program. (2) Authorize an additional Change Order expenditure of up to $230,000 to complete the construction. (3) Approve a contract amendment with DMc Engineering for additional Construction Management Services. (4) Authorize an additional expenditure of $25,266 for Construction Management Services. (5) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND.



20. Vallon Signal. (Jules)

Recommendation: Consider decorative traffic signal equipment for the Hawthorne Boulevard/Vallon Drive traffic signal.



21. Intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Establish a new capital project to modify the traffic signal, and length the westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road. (2) Authorize the expenditure of up to $60,000 for the engineering and construction of signal and intersection modifications for Hawthorne Boulevard at Highridge Road. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.



22. Legislative Policy and Guidelines. (Evans)

Recommendation: (1) Adopt Legislative Guidelines for 2002. (2) Adopt revised City Council Policy No. 29. (3) Consider support of Proposition 42.



23. Palos Verdes Drive South Roadway Repairs from La Rotondo to the easterly City limits. (Allison)

Recommendation: Receive an update on the status of roadway repairs.



24. Community Leaders Breakfast Schedule. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Select two dates, one in the spring and one in the fall, for the Community Leaders Breakfast meetings.



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

Recommendation: Set a date and time to receive the Cotton, Shires and Associates technical review of the geological and geotechnical data for the Abalone Cove landslide and Zone 2 areas.



26. Reschedule City Council Meeting. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider rescheduling the regular Council meeting of March 6, 2002.



27. City Council and Staff Team Building Workshop. (Evans)

Recommendation: Confirm a date and time for a City Council and Staff Team Building Workshop.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



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



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Saturday, February 23, at 9:00 A.M. in the Fireside Room at Hesse Park to interview Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee applicants.



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, and Keith Lenard.

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

Existing Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: People of the State; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Jim Dao
Case No: Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. YC 039523

Name of Case: People of the State; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Mark J. Abrams
Case No: California Court of Appeal Case No. B151086

Name of Case: Mark J. Abrams v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Case No: United States District Court Case No. 00-09071 SVW (RNBx)

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 MEETING

FEBRUARY 19, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


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

7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-08

NEXT ORD. NO. 374

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 18, 2001 and February 5, 2002. (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 18, 2001

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

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

PRESENT: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
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; Accounting Manager Kathryn Downs; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to approve the agenda, as presented.  Motion carried.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, spoke on several items on the register of Demands.

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

Motion to waive full reading

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

Minutes of November 20, 2001 (301)

Approved the minutes as amended.

Engineering Services - Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance  (1204 x 901)

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

Notice of Completion - Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Sidewalk Repair Program  (1204 x 1405)

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

Non-Exclusive Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal Services Annual Agreement Renewals for 2002  (1204 x 1301)

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

Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Board Appointment  (1801)

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

Claim Against the City by Larry Prizlow  (303)

Rejected the claim and directed the City Clerk to notify the claimant.

Claim Against the City by Lucy Lillo  (303)

Rejected the claim and directed the City Clerk to notify the claimant.

Resol. No. 2001-98 - Register of Demands  (602)

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-98, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

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


PUBLIC HEARING:

Proposed 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program  (1204 x 601)

Mayor McTaggart opened the public hearing on this request to consider the Proposed 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.  City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that there were no written protests received by the City.

Director Allison presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Conduct a public hearing to receive citizen input on the proposed 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.  (2) Approve the proposed CDBG projects and budget.  (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute claims for CDBG projects with the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission.

Director Allison stated that the City uses the standard adopted by the Federal Government’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which is a maximum annual income of $47,100 for a family of five and maximum annual income of $34,900 for a family of two.  He closed by stating that the Public Works Department has written information available to the public which defines eligibility requirements.

In answer to Councilman Clark's query, Director Allison stated that the City's Home Improvement Program is in its third year of operation and that approximately ten projects are funded annually.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted that during review of Long Point and the Upper Point Vicente property, there was some interest in rehabilitating the public land and he asked if funding for this project would also be from CDBG grants. Director Allison clarified that the Altamira Canyon project could qualify because of the landslide but that most likely construction of buildings on City Hall property would not be eligible.

Mayor pro tem Stern pointed out that public facilities improvement, including parks, would be eligible.

City Manager Evans explained that the City Hall property would not meet requirements because the City has no census tracks to meet low to moderate income; that the use of CDBG funds was limited and that the projects being funded by these grants just barely qualified; and, that funding would be available to cities with residents with lower income.

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

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to (1) Approve the proposed CDBG projects and budget.  (2) Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute claims for CDBG projects with the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission.  Motion carried.

Discussion of Continued City Support with Respect to the Coastal Commission’s Appeal of Manned Tract Entry Observation Booths for the Oceanfront Project (Tract No. 46628)  (1203 x 701)

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to consider Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s suggestions to (1) Adopt a Resolution stating that the current City Council does not support the application by Makallon RPV Associates llc for manned tract entry observation booths on its appeal before the Coastal Commission.  (2) Direct Staff to forward a copy of said Resolution to the Coastal Commission.  (3) Direct Staff not to attend the upcoming de novo hearing on the appeal before the Coastal Commission.

Councilman Clark clarified that the term Tract Entry observation booths was a misnomer because the City had required that the booths be moved from the entry of the tract to the interior streets.

Joe Fleischaker, 4100 Macarthur Boulevard, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660, speaking for the owner of Oceanfront Estates, stated that since the plan for the booths was submitted, there had been a collaborative effort to address the needs of the local community and to find a plan acceptable to all.  He said that during three Planning Commission meetings, Capital Pacific Homes had worked with neighboring residents to address their concerns and that they had been working with the Coastal Commission as well.  He listed three additional improvements to make the booths more appealing to the community:  (1) maps and handouts from the City;  (2) installation of an emergency telephone; and, (3) providing a public rest room from dawn to dusk for persons accessing the trails.  He expressed thanks to the City and the community for support of the booths and asked that this support continue during the Coastal Commission meeting scheduled for the following month.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, objected to Mayor pro tem Stern's request that no one from the City attend the Coastal Commission hearing.

George Gleghorn, 28850 Crestridge Road supported Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s suggestion and stated that installation of the booths would change the public nature of the streets; that the booths would be intimidating; and, that the City should relay its position to the Coastal Commission.

Mayor pro tem Stern stated that Mayor McTaggart's appeal letter of December 6, 2000, provided an excellent statement of opposition to the booths; that the City Council should define the look and feel of the community; that these structures on public streets were a form of intimidation; and, the closed feeling was not appropriate for the Peninsula.  He understood that the Coastal Commission's decision was binding unless the City took further action to revoke permission for the booths to encroach on public land.  Since the vote was 3-2 in support of the booths when this matter was last before the Council, he felt it was appropriate to bring this matter before the Council once again to determine if there was continued support for the booths.

Councilman Clark said that he was on the Planning Commission when this matter was before it and was probably the architect of the solution that the Council upheld.  He said that although he respects the position taken by Mayor McTaggart and Mayor pro tem Stern, he did not feel that the booths were intimidating, although before modifications were made from the original plan to place these booths at the entrances to the development, he felt that they indicated a "stealth" guarded gate community.  The Planning Commission and many residents were opposed to this original proposal and Capital Pacific Homes re-designed their plan to downsize the booths and relocate them to the interior streets of the development.  Councilman Clark directed to the Council's attention to the Planning Commission minutes November 14, 2000, in which changes to the plans were discussed.  These changes were to downsize the booths and move them away from the entries, placing them at strategic locations within the residential areas.  These changes were later supported by a majority of the City Council. He listed the ways in which the developer suggests multiple purposes the booths can serve, such as an information kiosk, emergency telephone, and public rest rooms.  He referred also to Resolution No. 2001-08 which indicated that the revised booths were consistent with the City's original approval of Coastal Permit No. 94 and the applicable coastal access policies of the Coastal Act.  He felt that the booths did not set a precedent, as a precedent had already been set at the Island View development.

Councilwoman Ferraro stated that she would feel more comfortable walking the trails in that area if the booths had an emergency telephone and she agreed that the rest rooms would be a good idea.  She did not see the booths as presently revised as intimidating but more of a community service.

Mayor McTaggart asked Joe Fleischaker to return to the podium and asked him if a decision had been made to remove the video cameras.

Joe Fleischaker said that he was not briefed on that subject and did not know the answer.

Councilman Gardiner thanked Mayor pro tem Stern for putting this item on the agenda as it is the only vehicle for Council discussion of the matter, but he was uncomfortable with changing a previous Council decision when there is a defined process and someone has gone through that process and received a final decision. No decision would ever be final if a new Council could reverse a previous Council in cases where there is a clearly defined, published process for the public, those involved had gone through the entire process, and they had received a final decision from the Council. Councilman Gardiner further pointed out that this was different from a new Council changing priorities or policies of a prior Council since such instances did not involve applicants going through a defined process and getting a final answer. Councilman Gardiner was also uncomfortable with a camera taking pictures of everyone who passed through the project and cited the criteria and said that taking a video of the car and license plate was the same thing as requiring an ID. Therefore, the use of cameras appears to violate the City policy.

Councilman Clark replied that the remedy was in the conditions of approval and could be addressed in a scheduled six-month review after the start of operation of these booths.  If there is a violation of these conditions, the City can have them removed.

Mayor pro tem Stern assumed that if conditions of approval were violated, a process could start to revoke their encroachment permit. He agreed that the original plan was not good because it seemed to be designed to inhibit people from reaching the blufftop trails.

Councilman Clark said that he was opposed to inhibiting access to the interior streets.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed that every topic could not be revisited but he thought it was worth the effort to see if contact could be made with the Coastal Commission to make a decision within this area of their jurisdiction.Councilman Gardiner said he still did not want to reverse a Council decision and he thought contacting the Coastal Commission with the Council's concerns did just that but he did feel comfortable revoking their permit if they use video cameras.

Mayor McTaggart said that one objection in the beginning was that the booths seemed to be a deterrent to people using public streets. He accepted that his appeal was denied by the Council and he did not think it was right to reverse this decision, but he was opposed to a camera taking photographs of license plates.

Councilman Clark acknowledged that the video camera had slipped by the Planning Commission, who approved the booths almost unanimously.  He agreed with Councilman Gardiner's comment that violating the conditions of approval could cause revocation of their encroachment permit.  Councilman Clark recommended that the message the Council was attempting to send was a concern over the use of video cameras, a clear sign back to CPH. He sensed from the senior representative from Coastal Pacific Homes, who was not able to attend tonight's meeting, that taking the cameras out would perhaps be a final compromise for the Coastal Commission.  He was concerned that approving Mayor pro tem Stern's suggestion would send a message to the Coastal Commission that the Council had reversed its decision behind the scenes.  With the concept of security raised by Councilwoman Ferraro with an emergency phone present, and the possible removal of the cameras, he felt he could continue to support installation of the booths.

Mayor McTaggart, assuming in advance that there would be video cameras, felt that this would be a violation of their conditions and he said that the City often imposed hard rules on developers; however, once a decision was rendered, the developer should be able to count on it.  He admitted that he still was not happy with the booths and did not know what the Coastal Commission 's decision would be, but they had jurisdiction over appeals in this part of the City.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to adopt Alternative B in the staff report, to take no action on Mayor pro tem Stern’s request. Motion carried.

Mayor pro tem Stern withdrew his proposal.

Options for the Use of the Crestridge Property  (1101 x 701)

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to provide direction to staff regarding the following issues:  (1) Which if any of the concepts proposed for the use of the Crestridge property should receive further consideration; (2) What information and analyses will the City Council require to make a determination of the use of the property; and (3) Whether to consider the Planning Commissions recommendation to conduct a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop to discuss use options for the City's Crestridge property, use options for the adjoining privately owned Crestridge property and the need and appropriate location for senior housing in the City.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 8:10 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess.  The meeting reconvened at 8:17 P.M.

Options for the Use of the Crestridge Property (continued)

City Manager Evans suggested that the Council consider a joint workshop with the Planning Commission with an opportunity for public input.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed this would be a good idea.  He did have a concern about one of the specific proposals.  He wondered if traffic at that location would be a problem is an Exceptional Children's School was built on the Crestridge property.

City Manager Evans reminded the Council that representatives from each group interested in the property were at the meeting, although detailed presentations were being reserved for the future.

Councilman Gardiner pointed out that the joint workshop should be with the newly appointed Planning Commission.

Mayor McTaggart noted that this would mean the workshop would be scheduled for sometime after February.

Councilman Gardiner cautioned that the Council should articulate its criteria so projects are not presented which are inappropriate.  He also felt it was important to look at the affordable housing requirement from a systems approach, not in a piecemeal fashion, taking into consideration that the State could change its requirement.  The feasibility of a park, and how it would be funded, could be discussed at this joint workshop also.

Mayor pro tem Stern suggested that a possibility might be to have Standard Pacific bring together two parcels and incorporate a park and trails along with the affordable housing.

Mayor McTaggart pointed out that the housing needs to be senior housing as well because of the institutional zoning.

Councilman Gardiner pointed out that the land was purchased by the City with funds to be used only for affordable housing, and if the land were not used for affordable housing, the City would have to purchase the land with different funds and restore the money originally used to purchase the property.

Mayor McTaggart speculated that it might be a good idea to include the Finance Advisory Committee in the workshop

Jim Hathaway, 28955 Crestridge Road, felt that this city-owned property was not suitable for more than a one-story building. Other considerations were the challenge of providing good access for cars and the use of the land to the west. He agreed that the City needed a comprehensive plan for affordable housing and to understand the rules for affordable housing, and whether they are hard or soft rules.  He discussed the possibility of rental property fulfilling the requirement.  He also wondered if the City could spend more per dwelling so that the community could support the facility.  He felt confident with this piece of land and the intelligent people at the City, there would be a solution to incorporate low density, affordable housing, senior housing, and some kind of park.

Councilman Clark felt that the thorough report provided information for a good departure point for discussion.  He supported Mayor McTaggart's idea to include the Finance Advisory Committee in the workshop and to tackle the affordable housing requirement with a systems approach, not piecemeal as in the past.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved that staff schedule a joint workshop with the City Council, Planning Commission, and Finance Advisory Board and to provide presentations for each of the proposals mentioned so that the three City groups as well as the residents can provide input.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked if the Finance Advisory Committee would be present as participants or observers.

Mayor pro tem Stern was not sure but felt there was wisdom in having them included to take into account financial ramifications.

Councilwoman Ferraro felt that these three groups should look at the top three priorities to see what was possible financially.

Mayor McTaggart felt that all three groups should be participants.

Councilman Clark said that he had participated in a workshop with the City Council, Planning Commission, and View Restoration Commission and felt it was possible to be productive if the room is set up appropriately and there are ground rules.

Councilwoman Ferraro thought a Saturday workshop might be best for what could be a long workshop with much public input.

Councilman Gardiner was concerned about a workshop which ran too long and suggested that a facilitator could keep the groups on track.

Mayor McTaggart mentioned that Len Wood would be an excellent choice for facilitator.  He said that Mr. Wood s very effective and there is a great demand for his services.  He wondered if the cost for his services would be high.

City Manager Evans felt that it would not be too expensive to have Len Wood as a facilitator.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed that all groups should be equal participants in the discussion and to make the process as productive as possible, whatever that took.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that if the Council told the facilitator the desired process and what the Council hoped to accomplish in the workshop, the facilitator could make that happen.

Councilman Clark thought it would be a good idea to meet with Len Wood first to discuss objectives.

Mayor McTaggart stated that this is the way Len Wood operated.  He would probably want to meet individually with each Councilmember to obtain their candid thoughts to come up with a method of meeting the goal of the workshop.

Councilman Clark seconded the motion to have a workshop with the City Council, Planning Commission, and Finance Advisory committee and to hire a facilitator.

City Manager Evans said that Len Wood's fee and availability would have to be determined, and that there would need to be a well-defined format for the workshop which could be held in March after the Planning Commissioners are appointed.

Mayor pro tem Stern pointed out that the Finance Advisory Committee interviews were planned to be held in March.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that the Finance Advisory Committee interviews be moved to February and the Traffic Committee interviews be moved to March.

Council consensus was that this was a good idea.

City Manager Evans stated that this reorganization of Advisory Board interviews did not have to part of the motion on the floor.

The motion carried with no objection.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Marcy Tiffany, 33 Marguerite Drive, said she was representing RPV Councilwatch, a grassroots organization made up of Rancho Palos Verdes residents who believe it is important for the electorate to be fully informed about the actions of the RPV City Council.  She explained that the reason there were several women wearing burkhas, and spoke in protest for the manner in which the Mayor pro tem had been selected. She distributed three handouts which detailed the goals of RPV Councilwatch, explained why she felt the selection of Mayor Pro Tem Stern did not follow City policy, and provided copies of emails she exchanged with Mayor Pro Tem Stern on the subject. (Copies of the materials distributed by Ms. Tiffany are on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

Shari Uchida, 30970 Via La Cresta, a member of RPV Councilwatch, expressed her concern about the Mayor pro tem appointment.

Gale Pack, 28810 King Arthur Court, a member of RPV Councilwatch, hoped that the Council would reconsider the selection of Mayor pro tem and do what is right.

Connie Semos, 6512 Monero Drive, a member of RPV Councilwatch, hoped that the Council would provide an explanation of the Mayor pro tem decision.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, said that even before RPV Councilwatch, she had been watching the Council and she had been informed that people who view the Council meetings are unhappy about the way she (Lois) has been treated.

Councilman Gardiner clarified that there is a policy mentioned in the March 1, 1983 Council meeting minutes which gives the Council a simple vote for Mayor pro tem, that the policy for rotation of Mayor and Mayor pro tem is not always followed but that the selection of Mayor pro tem is based on the Councilmember who served the longest as a Councilmember, since last being Mayor or who has served the longest and not been Mayor.  Since Councilwoman Ferraro and Mayor McTaggart had already been Mayor, if the Council goes by the part of the policy after "or," which he believed was an option, the Council can select the person who has served the longest without being Mayor. Since Councilwoman Ferraro and Mayor McTaggart had already been Mayor, he nominated Mayor pro tem Stern because he felt it made sense to follow the process adopted in 1983.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that, if you read the policy further, it says that when a new person comes on - and Mayor pro tem Stern came on in 1999 – he went ahead of the then mayor, Tom Hollingsworth, but behind her because of the votes she received.

Marcy Tiffany said that she was a lawyer and she had prepared a written explanation of her interpretation based on reading and discussion with Mr. Stern by email.  She felt that the meaningful word was "shall" and she felt that the Council was not providing for an orderly decision for the choice of Mayor pro tem To say that you are to pick the Councilmember who has the longest time on the Council, if you do not take into consideration someone who served as Mayor since newly elected Councilmembers, you start measuring longevity from the time they were last mayor and if no one fits that category, the person who has been on the Council the longest should be chosen.

San Ramon Habitat Restoration Plans  (1101 x 604)

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Receive and file the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for the San Ramon project (on-site).  (2) Approve the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park (which includes off-site mitigation for the San Ramon and Palos Verdes Drive South Washout Projects, and on-site mitigation for the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project.)  (3) Approve the Conceptual Off-site Wetland Mitigation Plan for the San Ramon Project.  (4) Authorize staff to issue Request for Proposals seeking a qualified firm to install and maintain the habitat restoration area at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and a qualified consultant to monitor all of the restoration efforts associated with the project.

Councilman Gardiner felt that the staff report was very comprehensive but he admitted to not understanding all of the technical details since they require special knowledge and was pleased that assistance from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy might be part of the plan.

Councilman Clark echoed Councilman Gardiner's sentiment regarding the Land Conservancy.  Because he had a little more background with these matters, he said he understood most of it and was concerned that the wetlands mitigation would be outside the City but he would support the recommendation because of time constraints.  He did feel, however, that if the City has not identified any other wetlands in the City, this must be remedied.  He supported the concept of recruiting local talent to serve the City.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he was on the Land Conservancy Board at the time that Ocean Trails was required to provide revegetation as mitigation and hired the Land Conservancy to grow a lot of plants.  He was sure that the estimate from private industry was higher and this was an excellent program for the land conservancy so it was a win-win situation for everyone.

Councilman Clark agreed using the Land Conservancy would have a good fiscal impact.  As discussed at the last meeting, he felt it was important to have a dynamic financial model to be able to change the variables.

Mayor McTaggart proposed that a foundation be established to fund revegetation which would receive money from donors, estates and people who feel strongly that preservation of the Peninsula is a good use of their money. He felt that the numbers of acres the City is trying to acquire is frightening in terms of maintenance and the Land Conservancy has done a good job in the past.  He felt that because of the other cities reluctance to go along with the NCCP for enhancement of their habitats, he was opposed to having a Wetlands Mitigation Plan in another city but said he would support the idea as long as Rancho Palos Verdes gets adequate credit for doing work through the Land Conservancy.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that this credit needed to be recognized by the State.

Mayor McTaggart felt that the more land the City puts into the NCCP, the more we should be exempt from the requirement to revegetate.

Councilwoman Ferraro agreed but said that it seems like the more the City works toward a valid NCCP, the more it is asked to do. 

Councilman Gardiner favored use of the Land Conservancy but felt the City needed to get a systems view of everything so there were no surprises.

Councilman Clark asked if staff had any sense of what the financial difference would be in reference to the alternatives listed on circle Page 8 of the staff report.

Assistant City Manager Petru said that this would need to be explored.

Councilman Clark said that he sensed it would be more expensive to have an in-house expert or independent consultants as opposed to accepting the assistance of the Land Conservancy.

Assistant City Manager Petru clarified that the resource agencies preferred to have another entity involved in the monitoring process for the offsite wetlands mitigation, so that function would have to be handled in-house or by a consultant.

Councilman Clark understood that it was important to have an independent firm handle at this aspect.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked the highest priority task.

Assistant City Manager Petru said that Recommendation Nos. 2 and 3 were most urgent.  These were the approval of the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park (which includes off-site mitigation for the San Ramon and Palos Verdes Drive South Washout Projects, and on-site mitigation for the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project.)  and approval of the Conceptual Off-site Wetland Mitigation Plan for the San Ramon Project.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved approval of Recommendation Nos. 2 and 3 in the staff report.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, objected to the use of Abalone Cove Shoreline Park for habitat mitigation for the San Ramon project because of the Abalone Cove landslide.

Councilwoman Ferraro continued her motion to include receiving and filing of the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for the San Ramon Project (on site); and, instead of recommendation No. 4 to hire a qualified firm to install and maintain the habitat restoration area at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, that assistance be sought from the Land Conservancy, other interested qualified groups, or university students.

Mayor pro tem Stern seconded the motion.

Councilman Clark requested that the City's Finance Director and his staff look at financial implications of future restoration projects.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt that response to volunteer groups would have an important impact and analysis should be postponed until it was learned to what degree volunteer help might offset costs.

Councilman Clark agreed but felt that this was another indicator that the Council needed a dynamic financial model to be able to change the variables.

Councilman Gardiner asked when action had to be taken.

Assistant City Manager Petru said that the coastal sage scrub revegetation needed to be started in the Fall of 2002, therefore, with lead time to find out who will do the work and have contracts finalized, the deadline would be May or June.  She stated that Council was approving $10,500 for Wetlands mitigation and $30,000 for Wetlands monitoring and that it probably would be advisable not to be locked into a five-year contract with Helix, so she recommended that the Council authorized an initial one-year contract with Helix.

Councilwoman Ferraro modified her motion, and Mayor pro tem Stern agreed, to include Assistant City Manager Petru's comments.

The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:

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

Request to Abandon View Covenant Recorded against Property at 3027 Crest Road (Requestor: Mr.& Mrs. Robert Scalfaro - property owners)  (1203 x 1806)

Director Rojas presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Consider the property owner's request for the City to abandon the view covenant that was recorded against the property known as 3027 Crest Road after a formal review process for abandoning covenants has been adopted by the City Council.  (2) Amend Policy No. 30 to establish a process for dealing with requests from property owners to abandon recorded view covenants on a case-by-case basis.

Director Rojas added that it appears that Mr. Scalfaro and Mr. Morrell are close to an agreement but that Mr. Scalfaro still wishes to have his covenant abandoned.

Mayor pro tem Stern thanked the Seaview residents who sent emails and reassured them City Council Policy 30 being considered by the Council addressed covenants which residents signed simply because they wanted to modify their homes, not the covenants in place at Ocean Trails.

City Attorney Lynch confirmed that this was the case.

Mayor McTaggart asked if there would be a fee for removing a covenant.

Director Rojas said that one would have to be proposed.

Councilman Clark provided a history of how these covenants came to be and said that they were not enforced or required after 1996 because they really were not working as it was thought they would.  If people want these covenants removed, those properties would be subject to foliage analysis according to the original intent of View Preservation.

Robert Scalfaro, 3027 Crest Road, said that Director Rojas had been very helpful in helping formulate an agreement with his neighbor Mr. Morrell but he still was requesting that the Council abandon his covenant.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that if the parties have come to an agreement, the case does not need to be reviewed.

City Attorney Lynch emphasized that the agreement document had not been submitted.

Robert Morrell, 3126 Corinna Drive, said there was no resolution as yet and they were still in the talking stage.  He felt that the covenant should not be abandoned but simply ignored by the City.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if he was close to resolving the view dispute with Mr. Scalfaro.

Mr. Morrell said that they were close.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if he felt the view covenant was still necessary. Mr. Morrell said no but he felt the City should wash its hands of the whole covenant issue because it would seem easier if the City were not involved with covenants at all.

Councilman Clark pointed out that these are legal covenants and are still legally enforceable by property owners if they wish to and they could not be ignored.

City Attorney Lynch agreed with that statement.

Mr. Morrell said that he knew they would not just go away but he believed that the residents, not the City should deal with them.

Councilman Clark explained that the reason Proposition M was passed was to provide a means for the City to act as arbiter between residents.

Mr. Morrell said that did alter his thought that the City should not be involved in these covenants.

Warren Sweetnam, 7 Top Rail Lane, asked if the properties were inspected and requests made to trim the foliage after the City stopped enforcing view covenants.

Director Rojas said yes.

Mr. Sweetnam felt that the covenants were a problem and should be abandoned on a case-by-case basis since they were approximately 900 of them signed over a six-year period.  He reiterated Councilman Clark's statement of the original intent of the City's involvement in views.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that a fee would be required to remove these covenants and assuming that there are no view issues, why spend the time and money.

City Attorney Lynch suggested that a letter could be sent to property owners with view covenants to inform them that there is a process to remove the covenant and provide the amount of the fee.  They can then make the decision if they want to pay to have the covenant removed or leave it in place.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved to establish a fee for removal of a view covenant signed to obtain a permit and inform those property owners who have this type of covenant that they may pay the fee to have it removed if they wish.

City Attorney Lynch said that City Manager Evans thought the noticing could be accomplished by using the City newsletter and the reader board.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he did not have strong feelings about how the publicizing was accomplished just as long as these property owners know they have this option.

Councilman Clark seconded the motion.  Motion carried.

Turning to the specific covenant at hand, Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, that once the City has proof that a settlement is in place between Mr. Scalfaro and Mr. Morrell, that the covenant be removed without a fee.  Motion carried.

Introduction of Mobile Vendors Ordinance

Director Allison presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to INTRODUCE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NEW PARKING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MOBILE VENDORS WHO PARK ON CITY STREETS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted that he had submitted suggested language changes along with City Attorney Lynch's comments, which were included in additional/revisions and amendments memo distributed to the Council at the beginning of the meeting.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to adopt staff recommendation and introduce the ordinance with the amended language as presented by Mayor pro tem Stern.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he was uncomfortable with the rationale to change the time these mobile vendors are allowed to stay in one place from 15 to 10 minutes and wondered what was to be gained from this change.  He assumed these vendors were meeting a need or people would not be buying and they would not want to stay in a location where people did not buy.

Mayor McTaggart said that there were times when they had no customers and they sat for longer periods of time. 

Councilman Clark thought it would be a good idea to have uniformity with the Palos Verdes Estates ordinance, which allows only ten minutes.

City Attorney Lynch agreed that uniformity with surrounding cities would be preferable.

Mayor pro tem Stern still questioned the maximum of 10 minutes, rather than 15 minutes.

City Manager Evans clarified that in City Attorney Lynch's version, customers have to be there before the truck can stay.  In Mayor pro tem Stern's version the truck can be there before the customers.

Councilman Clark asked if these businesses were checked to see if they have business licenses.

Accounting Manager Downs said that she understood there were no random checks.

Councilman Clark thought regular random checks would be a good idea.

City Manager Evans said that when there have been complaints, the City has checked for a business license and assume the Sheriff's Department does the same.  We can require regular random checks.

There was no objection to the motion with the ten minutes remaining in the ordinance.

City Clerk Purcell introduced Ordinance 272, by title, 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.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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

Authorize Inclusion of Provisions in Agreements with Experts whose Sole Task is to Review Work that is Prepared by Others so that the City will Indemnify and Defend them from Litigation and Claims relating to their Determinations  (1101 x 1900)

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to provide direction to staff on whether agreements with experts whose sole task is to review work that is prepared by others, such as members of geotechnical review panels, should include provisions that would require the City to indemnify and defend them from litigation and claims related to their decisions.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to direct the City Attorney to prepare agreements with experts whose sole task is to review work that is prepared by others, such as members of geotechnical review panels, and to include provisions that would require the City to indemnify and defend them from litigation and claims related to their decisions. Motion carried.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked if the City would be covered by its JPIA insurance if it indemnifies someone else.

City Attorney Lynch said it would depend on the type of activity; usually this was not the case and not in this instance.

Contract Renewal for Geotechnical Consulting  (1203 x 201)

Director Rojas presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed agreement with Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. to provide geology and geotechnical engineering consulting services on an as-needed basis to the City for the next two years.

Director Rojas noted that there had been no cost increase since 1998 and this increase was reasonable and an adjustment since the trust deposit system was replaced a year ago.  He added that a fee schedule to residents would be brought before the Council for a public hearing.

Director Rojas mentioned that Bing Yen Associates also had been under contract with the City since 1997 and that contract would be brought before the Council in January 2002.

Councilman Clark asked what the intended period of performance was in the original 1997 Request for Proposal (RFP) and Director Rojas said that it was one year.

Since Zeiser Kling had been under contract for four years based on one year of intended performance, Councilman Clark asked about the City policy for obtaining a new RFP for competitive services.

City Manager Evans said that most maintenance or professional services agreements are written for one to three years, usually one base year and then several renewals, the fees are very cost.  The cost to prepare an RFP would be about the same as the City pays Zeiser Kling for one year.  They are doing a good job and it does not seem cost effective to prepare an RFP.  He closed by stating that there is no written policy but normally an RFP would be prepared after three years if it did not seem cost effective to renew the contract.

Councilman Clark asked if there were new firms within the last four years that provide geotechnical service that did not have a chance to compete.

City Manager Evans replied that there probably were but one favorable aspect of Zeiser Kling is that their personnel have not changed.  As a comparison, at Bing Yen Associates, many personnel changes have occurred and Bing Yen, the principal, has retired.  Zeiser Kling is familiar with the community, have hours at the public counter at City Hall, provide soil reports, and their personnel are almost like City employees.  He did not feel that it was worthwhile to seek out other firms at this time.

Councilman Clark made two suggestions: a change in wording to indicate that the Zeiser Kling personnel responsible for serving the City will remain the same unless the Directors of Planning or Public Works approves a change; and, that a provision for default be added.

City Attorney Lynch said that the agreement addresses this as failure to perform.

Mayor pro tem Stern questioned if the ten-day period for correcting discrepancies was adequate.

Director Rojas indicated that bills were processed very quickly and that ten days was a sufficient period of time but a longer period of time could be requested.

After discussion, the consensus was to make the correction period 15 business days.

Councilman Clark asked if there were any discounts for prompt payment and City Manager Evans said not on these types of contracts. Councilman Clark suggested that such a discount policy be considered for adoption by the City.

City Manager Evans noted that Bing Yen Associates is working on the Filiorum project and that the Council can be asked to extend their contract until this work is complete.

Consensus of the Council was that this would be reasonable.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Clerk, to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to (1) Execute the proposed agreement with Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. to provide geology and geotechnical engineering consulting services on an as-needed basis to the City for the next two years.  (2) Direct staff to issue an RFP when the Bing Yen contract comes up for renewal in January 2002 with a base year renewable for two more years.  (3) Change the time allowed to dispute a bill with Zeiser Kling from 10 days to 15 business days.  Motion carried.

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

Director Allison presented an oral report, with a staff recommendation to increase the Award of Grant from a maximum or $22,000 to an amount up to $40,000 to the Miraleste Recreation and Park District for beautification improvements in the Miraleste neighborhood.  He explained that a request had been received from the Miraleste Recreation and Park District to increase their beautification grant from $22,000, approved by the Council in August 2001, to $40,000 to for additional funds because of increased costs for electrical and asphalt work, $13,000 and $4,000 respectively.  Added to these costs were fees of $1,000 to Southern California Edison.  He stated that the Public Works Department had worked with the District to obtain bids for the electrical work and the that possibility of solar or battery powered installation was considered but was incompatible with the current system.  He closed by stating that the funding source was recycling funds.

Councilman Clark asked the purpose of the asphalt stamping.

Dawn Henry, 6525 Via Colinita, said that a committee which included a licensed landscape architect from UCLA had worked on this plan.  She said that the community wanted to enhance the entrance to the neighborhood and presented a diagram of the improvements that she distributed to the Council. (A copy of Ms. Henry’s diagram is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

Councilman Clark asked if the delineation was supposed to be a crosswalk and Dawn Henry said it was not.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted that the City posted a sign which said it was not a cross walk

Dawn Henry detailed the expenses for the project: the cost of the stamping was $28,500 and the remainder of the cost was for a sprinkler system and planting, for a total of $127,600.  She said that, if this request were to be approved, the City would have donated a total of $40,000 and the Miraleste Recreation and Park District provided the additional $87,600.

Councilman Clark asked the source of the funds from Miraleste Recreation and Park District were raised and Dawn Henry said that the money came from donations from residents, PV Homes Association, Miraleste Homeowners association, and fundraising events.

In reply to Mayor pro tem Stern's inquiry about assessments, Dawn Henry replied that each resident within the district was assessed $125 annual for maintenance but since was an improvement project, rather than maintenance, these funds were not used.

In answer to Councilman Clark's question about the source of City money, Dawn Henry said it was recycling funds before the money was redirected from the Homeowners Associations.

Councilman Gardiner moved to approve an additional $18,000, to increase the Award of Grant from a maximum of $22,000 to an amount up to $40,000 to the Miraleste Recreation and Park District for beautification improvements in the Miraleste neighborhood.

Councilwoman Ferraro seconded the motion contingent on recycling funds being available.

Director Allison indicated that recycling funds were available.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

City Attorney Lynch reported the following: (1) Regarding the purchase of open space, the Council received an updated report from the negotiator and no action was taken.  (2) Regarding the Chandler's lawsuit, the Council authorized another counter offer to Chandler's counter offer.  (3) Regarding all the remaining items, no action was taken.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

Councilman Gardiner asked for a report on the power outage. City Manager Evans said that Scott Gobble from Southern California Edison was present earlier in the evening but that he had left. City Manager Evans said that he was reluctant to give a report.

Mayor McTaggart reported that he had met with some men to discuss Girls' Softball.  He said that they were not developers but the group did include Rob Katherman, who represents developers.  Mayor McTaggart said they were careful not to discuss any specific project, however, Mr. Katherman called him later to discuss the low-income project and Mayor McTaggart suggested he forward information to the City Council.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if Rob Katherman was representing Charles Brumbaugh and Mayor McTaggart said yes.

Mayor McTaggart reported on the Housing Summit held by SCAG at which the Secretary of Housing and Development stated how easy it was to comply with the requirements.  He felt that SCAG made a worthwhile effort to have an open discussion about the difficulties of complying with the state's mandate about cities providing low income housing but the State perceives us ad do-nothings and has not given us the means to be otherwise.

Councilman Clark reported that he and Councilman Gardiner were invited speakers at the December meeting of the Council of Homeowners Association and said that the lively discussion included topics such as the concern by many homeowners association about the removal of the recycling grants to the local neighborhood associations to beautify their community.  Councilman Clark said that he was planning to ask to have this topic on a Council agenda soon, when it was appropriate, and would ask staff to provide a comprehensive history of these grants to homeowners associations.

Mayor McTaggart and Councilman Gardiner echoed their support to revisit this issue.


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 10:39 P.M. on motion of Mayor McTaggart.


____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________

CITY CLERK



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 5, 2002

The meeting was called to order at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by City Clerk Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to Thursday, February 7, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.


_______________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________
CITY CLERK







3. Household Hazardous Waste Round-Up Siting Liability Agreement with Los Angeles County. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the attached Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program Siting Liability Agreement with the County of Los Angeles and County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ROUND-UP SITING LIABILITY AGREEMENT WITH LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program Siting Liability Agreement with the County of Los Angeles and County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

On May 4, 2002, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) will be co-hosting its free annual Household Hazardous Waste Round-Up at the City Hall/City Yard facility sponsored by the Los Angeles County Public Works and the County Sanitation District No. 2. Since 1996, these City-held round-ups have been an excellent and convenient opportunity for residents of RPV and neighboring cities to properly dispose of household hazardous waste material. The attached agreement will hold-harmless the City of RPV against any liability claims that may result from the hazardous waste round-up activities taking place on City-owned property, and shifts the liability to the County of Los Angeles. The agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s office.

FISCAL IMPACT

There will be a cost of approximately $1,000 of City staff time to organize this event which will be paid for out of the Solid Waste Fund.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager



4. Funding Request for Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Cleanup Activities for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize the submittal of the funding request form to the Department of Conservation’s Division of Recycling for funding programs related to beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities for Fiscal Year 2002-2002 and Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY FORMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING PAYMENTS, AND IMPLEMENTING AND CARRYING OUT THE PROGRAMS.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: FUNDING REQUEST FOR BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING AND LITTER CLEANUP ACTIVITIES FY 01-02 AND FY 02-03

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Authorize the submittal of the funding request to the Department of Conservation’s Division of Recycling for funding programs related to beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities for FY 01-02 and FY 02-03.

  2. Adopt Resolution 2002- ___, authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute all necessary forms for the purposes of securing payments, and implementing and carrying out the programs.

BACKGROUND

Effective January 1, 2000, Senate Bill 332 mandated changes to the existing law governing the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Program, including an appropriation for $10.5 million to be expended annually as payments to cities and counties for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities. The Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling (DOR), administers this program. Funds are from deposits, California Redemption Value (CRV), collected from customers when purchasing different beverage containers such as sport drinks, coffee and tea beverages, water, distilled spirit coolers, beer and malt beverages and fruit drinks at stores. The FY 01-02 grant will be the 3rd year of this annual block grant program.

DISCUSSION

Payments to cities are calculated on a per capita basis. The City’s share for FY 01-02 is $11,915 and FY 02-03 is $11,915. Funds are paid in advance for eligible activities from July 1, 2002 until June 30, 2003. The funding request and Resolution No. 2002- ___ must be submitted by April 30, 2002.

The following are qualifying eligible activities:

  • Support for new or existing curbside recycling programs, neighborhood drop-off recycling program
  • Public Education promoting beverage container recycling, litter prevention and cleanup (including purchasing items made out of recycled beverage containers such as recycled plastic)
  • Beverage container litter prevention and/or abatement in public places including County cleanup projects.

For the FY 01-02 and FY 02-03 allocation, staff proposes the following programs and activities:

  • Servicing and maintaining the concrete recycling bins at various park sites. This will offset General Fund expenditures of approximately $1,500.
  • Litter pick up and cleanup at roadside and public right of way areas. This will offset Gas Tax expenditures of approximately $10,000.
  • Staff time for administering this program of approximately $415.

ALTERNATIVE

The alternative would be to not submit a request for funding for FY 01-02 and 02-03.

FISCAL IMPACT

If authorized, the City will receive approximately $12,000 each year. This will help fund existing programs and fund new activities promoting beverage container recycling. No funding will be received if the alternative is approved.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Resolution 2002- ___



5. Notice of Completion for Pipe Repairs Near Palos Verdes Drive South and Peppertree Drive. (Massetti)

Recommendation: (1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR PIPE REPAIRS NEAR PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH AND PEPPERTREE DRIVE

Staff Coordinator:Steve Massetti

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Accept the work as complete.
  2. Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

On, August 7, 2001, City Council found that an emergency existed which would not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that in order to respond to the emergency, it was appropriate to solicit informal bids for procurement of HDPE drainage pipe for an estimated cost of $35,000. On October 16, 2001 council awarded a construction contract on a time and material basis for drainage repairs to Colich and Sons, L.P. for an amount not to exceed $72,000.00. This work was completed on January 18, 2002.

Final project cost is as follows:

Authorized Amount (procurement + construction)
Construction Amount
Procurement Amount
Total Project Cost

$107,000.00
$38,010.11
$39,522.60
$77,532.71


The project was completed approximately $29,500 under budget and was installed prior to the first sizeable rains of the winter. There were additional unforeseen costs related to the procurement of the HDPE Pipe fittings and anchors. However, substantial cost savings were realized by coordination of staff and consultants with the construction contractor and the material supplier.

CONCLUSION

Colich and Sons, L.P. has successfully completed all work in accordance with the plans and specifications. Therefore, the work should be accepted as complete and a Notice of Completion filed.

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended action will have no fiscal impact. Adequate funds were available under miscellaneous drainage to provide for completion of the project.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



6. Award of contract for services to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for proposed improvements to Marymount College (30800 Palos Verdes Drive East). (Mihranian)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional service agreement in an amount not to exceed $134,905 with RBF Consulting, to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Marymount College Facilities expansion project at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO MARYMOUNT COLLEGE (30800 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST).

Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional services agreement in an amount not to exceed $134,905.00, with RBF Consulting, to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project on property located at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East.

BACKGROUND

On May 15, 2000, representatives from Marymount College submitted Environmental Assessment No. 726 to the Planning Department to initiate the required environmental review process for proposed improvements to the existing campus. Based on potential impacts the proposed project may have on the surrounding neighborhood and environment, Staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be necessary to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a result, in June 2000, Staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a qualified consultant to prepare the necessary EIR for the City and in October 2000, the City Council entered a service agreement with Envicom to prepare the required Environmental Impact Report at a cost not to exceed $96,000.00. At that time, it was expected that the project applications would be deemed complete by November 2000, thereby anticipating the EIR process to begin in December. However, it was not until July 12, 2001, that the project applications were deemed complete for processing.

Soon after the project applications were deemed complete, the Consultant was given authorization to proceed with the preparation of the project EIR. Work commenced on the draft Initial Study and was eventually delivered to Staff on November 30, 2001. However, because of the Consultant’s failure to meet specific submittal deadlines, as outlined in the service agreement, and the submittal of a draft initial study document that fell below Staff’s expectations, Staff terminated the Consultants service agreement on December 19, 2001.

In an attempt to prevent any further delays in the processing of the project applications, City Staff contacted RBF Consultants, who ranked second in the original EIR Consultant interview process, to determine whether they were still interested and available to prepare the EIR for the proposed project. The RBF team indicated to Staff that they were interested and were available to proceed immediately. However, it was also indicated that they would have to re-evaluate their original cost proposal submitted to the City in July 2000. A revised cost proposal was submitted to the City on January 11, 2002 and subsequently endorsed by the College. The RBF service agreement is now before the City Council this evening for approval.

DISCUSSION

In July 2000, RBF Consultants submitted their original proposal for the preparation of the required EIR for the College’s project, at an estimated cost of $121,715.00. At that time, Staff considered the RBF cost proposal competitive with the other six (6) cost proposals the City received, which ranged between $63,185 and $132,875. However, as Staff reviewed the proposals submitted to the City with respect to the various consultants’ level of experience with similar projects, understanding of the proposed project, its potential impacts, time schedule, Staff believed that although the RBF team was highly qualified, that their involvement in the preparation of the Long Point EIR would hinder their ability to dedicate the time needed to prepare the College’s EIR. Therefore, RBF was ranked second in the City’s EIR selection process and the service agreement was awarded to another consulting firm.

Now that City Staff is seeking a new consultant to prepare the College’s EIR and that the Long Point project does not warrant RBF’s full commitment, Staff believes that since RBF ranked second in the interview selection process, that they are highly qualified to prepare the College’s EIR. However, since it has been approximately 1½ years since RBF submitted their original proposal, a revised cost proposal was submitted for consideration by the City.

According to RBF’s revised proposal, it is estimated that the preparation of the required EIR for Marymount’s proposed facilities expansion project will now cost $134,905.00, an increase of $13,190.00 from the original proposal submitted in July 2000 (see attachment). In reviewing the cost difference between the original and current RBF proposal, aside from adjustments related to cost of living wages, the increased cost is directly related to a more focused review of potential noise impacts to neighboring residents as well as increased hours allocated for public meetings and electronic copies of documents to incorporate onto the City’s website.

It should be noted that Staff also considered issuing a new Request for Proposal (RFP) to find a consultant to complete the project EIR. However, Staff felt that doing so would likely not provide a more qualified consultant in that RBF finished second in the original RFP selection process, has submitted a competitive bid, and is extremely knowledgeable of the community and City’s EIR review process.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons noted above, Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional services agreement in an amount not to exceed $134,905.00, with RBF Consulting, to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project on property located at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Although the service agreement with RBF has not been formally executed, in order to prevent any further delays in preparing the required EIR, Staff has informed RBF to proceed with the EIR process. As such, RBF is currently preparing an Initial Study (IS) that identifies potential impacts of the project along with a Notice of Preparation (NOP). Once completed, the IS/NOP will be sent to all responsible agencies and interested parties notifying them that an EIR is going to be prepared and soliciting input on what the EIR should analyze. The state mandated CEQA process also recommends that a public scoping meeting be held during the 30-day IS/NOP review period to give the public the opportunity to voice their comments in lieu of, or in addition to, submitting written comments. Dates have not been confirmed yet, but Staff expects the IS/NOP to be publicly circulated on or around February 18, 2001. As was done for the Long Point NOP, Staff is proposing to invite the Traffic Committee to the regularly scheduled March 12, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to have a joint scoping meeting with both review boards.

FISCAL IMPACT

The preparation of an EIR for the proposed improvements at Marymount College will not directly impact the City’s General Fund nor will it have a fiscal impact to the City in that all costs associated with the preparation of the EIR will be incurred by the project applicant, Marymount College.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

  • Professional Services Agreement
  • Proposal by RBF


AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES

THIS AGREEMENT is executed this 19th day of February, 2002, by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (hereinafter called "CITY"), and RBF Consulting (hereinafter called ("CONSULTANT").

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the CITY received an application from Marymount College, requesting approval to construct approximately 143,050 square feet of new floor area in the form of new classrooms, a new library, a new gymnasium, and student residence halls. Additionally, the college proposes to conduct approximately 85,000 cubic yards of associated grading to accommodate the site improvements and reconfigure and reconstruct the parking lots on property located at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East. Said application will require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is described in detail in the City's Request for Proposal (RFP) dated June 21, 2000; and,

WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and CITY'S Local Guidelines require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project; and,

WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that it is professionally qualified and able to prepare the necessary Environmental Documentation in compliance with the applicable state laws and state, local guidelines, and in a format consistent with CEQA requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

Section 1. CONSULTANT'S Services. Consultant shall perform professional services by preparing Environmental Documentation for the proposed facilities expansion at Marymount College as set forth in the "Scope of Work", attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made part hereof by reference, including the following services:

(a) CONSULTANT, shall prepare, under consultation with the CITY, the following for the proposed project; (1) an Initial Study, (2) a Notice of Preparation (3) a Draft EIR, (4) a Response to Comments on the Draft EIR, (5) a Final EIR, (6) a Mitigating Monitoring and Reporting Program, (7) a Statement of Overriding Consideration (if necessary), and (8) a Notice of Determination as specified in Section II of Exhibit ‘A’.

The EIR shall be prepared in compliance with the "Scope of Work" attached as Section II of Exhibit ‘A’ and shall contain all items required by CEQA (as amended), the State Guidelines, and CITY'S Local CEQA Guidelines.

(b) When requested, CONSULTANT shall attend and participate in meetings with CITY staff as well as Public Hearings, which are necessary for the preparation and completion of the environmental documentation. Any meeting for which CONSULTANT is requested to attend by CITY beyond the number of meetings identified in Section II of Exhibit ‘A’, CONSULTANT shall be compensated on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Budget" contained in Section IX of Exhibit ‘A’, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

(c) CONSULTANT shall supply CITY with the deliverables described in the "Scope of Work" attached as Exhibit ‘A’, including the following documents for the proposed project:

    1. Administrative Draft and Final Initial Study (IS)/Notice of Preparation (NOP)
    2. Administrative Draft and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
    3. Draft Responses to Comments
    4. Administrative Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (including the final response to comments) (FEIR)
    5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
    6. Statement of Overriding Considerations (if necessary)
    7. Notice of Determination
    8. Computer files for all documentation, with processing documents in a format useable by Microsoft Word for the City’s Website.

(d) All reports, information, data and exhibits prepared or assembled by CONSULTANT or any subconsultants in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public, and CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without prior written consent of the CITY prior to such release. All such reports, information, data and exhibits shall be delivered to CITY upon demand without additional cost or expense to CITY. All charts, tables, figures, and maps, which are prepared with computer-based mapping or spreadsheet programs, shall be provided to CITY in their original formats.

(e) CONSULTANT shall respond to those comments raised by CITY staff's review of the documents in order to facilitate completion thereof. Consultant shall also respond to all comments from the public, responsible agencies, and/or other interested parties regarding the EIR. Letters identifying the response shall be sent to each commenting party.

(f) This agreement and the scope of work to be performed by CONSULTANT may only be amended in a written document executed by both of the parties to this agreement.

Section 2. Time of Performance. CONSULTANT shall timely perform the services described above as shown in the schedule within the attached Section III of Exhibit ‘A’.

Section 3. Compensation.CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT, and CONSULTANT agrees to accept in full satisfaction for the services provided for hereunder, a fixed fee not to exceed $134,905.00 for the EIR, which includes all labor and subconsultant costs, as described in the "Budget" contained within the attached Section IX of Exhibit ‘A’. In addition, this fixed fee shall include all expenses for printing, word processing, delivery, fax, phones, mileage, etc. Prior to printing of any documents, CONSULTANT shall verify with CITY the total number of documents to reproduce.

Not included in this fixed fee are expenses incurred for attending meetings beyond those specified in Section 1.(b) of this contract; analysis of key issues in addition to those identified within the attached Section II of Exhibit ‘A’, changes in the project description, plans, or scope of work requiring additional work; and printing additional copies of any document beyond the number of copies specified in Section IX of Exhibit ‘A’.

The actual costs of CONSULTANT'S services and expenses shall be itemized on the Invoice form, and CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for said undisputed services and expenses. Payments shall be made based upon Consultant's monthly invoices up to the maximum amounts set forth in the following schedule:

EIR

Benchmark Item

Maximum Amount of Payments*

Initial Study/ Project Description

$6,475.00

Draft EIR

$89,915.00

Final EIR/Mitigation Monitoring Program

$103,555.00

Notice of Determination/Statement of Overriding Considerations

$134,905.00

Receipt of Notice of Determination

Release of 5% Retention

*The maximum amount of payments serves as a cap on payments until the correlated benchmark item is completed, therefore completion of one benchmark item allows for billing up to the maximum identified for the following benchmark item. All amounts of payments shall be less the 5% retention.

Any work approved pursuant to section 1(f) of this agreement shall be included in the appropriate segment of the foregoing schedule, as determined by the City, and the maximum billing amounts shall be adjusted accordingly.

Five percent (5%) of each bill submitted by CONSULTANT shall be held by CITY in a retention account. The retained funds will be released to CONSULTANT when the environmental documentation project is successfully completed by the submittal of the final Notice of Determination/ Statement of Overriding Consideration (if necessary).

If CONSULTANT is requested by CITY to revise or supplement the environmental documentation with additional data, information or analysis solely as a result of the CONSULTANT'S failure to comply with the requirements of CEQA, or the State or local CEQA Guidelines, CONSULTANT shall provide such revision or supplement at no additional cost to the CITY.

If changes to existing laws, rules, regulations or policies of any state, federal or local governmental authority having jurisdiction over the project occur, new, unforeseen issues arise, or comments on the documents are received from attorneys other than the City Attorney during or following the circulation of the draft environmental document, during the term of this Agreement that require modification of the environmental documentation, CONSULTANT will perform such additional services on a time-and-materials basis, at the rates set forth within Section IX of Exhibit ‘A’.

The CITY and CONSULTANT hereby acknowledge and agree that the terms of CONSULTANT'S compensation are not dependent upon the CITY'S final action on these Projects.

Section 4. Independent Contractor.CONSULTANT will act hereunder as an independent contractor. This Agreement shall not and is not intended to constitute CONSULTANT as an agent, servant, or employee of the CITY and shall not and is not intended to create the relationship of partnership, joint venture or association between the CITY and CONSULTANT.

Section 5. Assignment. This agreement may not be assigned in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of CITY.

Section 6. Consultant.Responsible Project Manager. The CONSULTANT shall have a Responsible Project Manager who shall be principally responsible for the CONSULTANT'S obligations under this Agreement and who shall serve as principal liaison between CITY and CONSULTANT. The name of the Responsible Project Manager is Glenn LaJoie. Designation of another Responsible Project Manager by CONSULTANT shall not be made without the prior written consent of CITY.

Section 7. Personnel.CONSULTANT represents that it has, or shall secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform CONSULTANT'S services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT may associate with or employ associates or subconsultants in the performance of its services under this Agreement, but at all times shall be responsible for their services. CONSULTANT may not employ additional subconsultants without prior written approval of CITY.

Section 8. City: Liaison. CONSULTANT shall perform under the general supervision of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of CITY ("Director") or his or her designee, and all communications, instructions and directions on the part of the CITY shall be communicated exclusively through the Director or his or her designee. Any direct communication between CONSULTANT and the project proponent shall be appropriately authorized as determined by the Director.

Section 9. Data and Services to be Furnished by CITY. All information, data, records, reports and maps as are in possession of CITY and necessary for the carrying out of this work shall be available to CONSULTANT without charge.

Section 10. Interests of CONSULTANT.The CONSULTANT affirms that it presently has no interest and shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the services contemplated by this Agreement. No person having any such interest shall be employed by or be associated with the CONSULTANT or any subconsultant.

The parties agree:

(a) CITY has sole discretion to direct the work and evaluate the performance of CONSULTANT and CITY retains the right to terminate this Agreement or replace CONSULTANT at any time, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 herein.

(b) CITY has sole discretion to determine the amount of compensation paid to CONSULTANT, in accordance with the provisions of this agreement.

(c)CITY shall pay CONSULTANT from a CITY account under the exclusive control of CITY.

Section 11. Insurance.CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY certificates indicating compliance with the following minimum insurance requirements, to be maintained during the term of this agreement, not less than one (1) day prior to the beginning of performance under this Agreement.

1. Worker's Compensation Insurance to cover its employees as required by the California Labor Code.

The CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors similarly to provide such compensation insurance for their respective employees.

2. General liability protecting CONSULTANT in an amount no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000 in the aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Automobile liability protecting CONSULTANT in an amount not less than $500,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Employer's liability protecting CONSULTANT in an amount no less than $1,000,000 per accident, bodily injury or disease. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement professional errors and omissions insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim, and in the aggregate. Such policies of insurance shall:

(a) Be issued by an insurance company which is admitted to conduct business in the State of California and which is rated in Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of A VII or better.

(b) Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, name and list as additional insureds the CITY, its officers and employees.

(c) Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, such insurance policies shall be primary to any other similar insurance and shall name the CITY, its officers, agents and employees, as additional insureds. Each insurance policy shall contain a provision that prohibits cancellation, without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the CITY. The insurance certificates evidencing such insurance and endorsements naming the CITY, its officers, employees, and agents as additional insureds, shall be submitted to the CITY for review and thereafter the CITY shall have the right to approve or disapprove any insurance procured by CONSULTANT under the standards of this section.

Procurement of insurance by CONSULTANT shall not be construed as a limitation of CONSULTANT'S liability or as full performance of CONSULTANT'S duties to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend under this Agreement.

(d) Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, indemnify the CITY from liability from loss, damage or injury to persons or to property arising from CONSULTANT'S negligent acts in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.

(e) Except for Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability, include a severability of interests clause substantially similar to the following: "The insurance afforded by this policy applies separately to each insured against whom a claim or suit is made or suit it brought, except with respect to the limit of the insurer's liability."

(f) Contain a clause substantially in the following words: "It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy shall not be canceled nor materially changed except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the CITY of such cancellation."

(g) Cover the operations of CONSULTANT pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

(h) Acceptable to the City Attorney, and failure to comply with these insurance requirements shall be a material breach of the Agreement.

3. CONSULTANT shall not commence the performance of its services under this contract until the above insurance has been obtained and appropriate Certificates of Insurance have been filed with CITY. CONSULTANT further agrees that a clause substantially similar to this Section 11 will be included in any subcontract executed under this contract.

Section 12. Indemnification. CONSULTANT agrees to defend and indemnify the City, its officers, employees, and agents against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations, liabilities, and costs, including but not limited to reasonable costs of defense, that may be claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision or other organization to the extent caused by the negligent acts or intentional tortious acts, errors or omission of CONSULTANT or those for whom CONSULTANT is legally responsible. However, if any information or data prepared or provided by consultant is misused by an agent of the City, consultant shall not be responsible for such misuse of data.

Section 13. Termination. The executory provisions of this Agreement may be terminated by CITY upon five (5) days written notice to the CONSULTANT without further action by CITY. The executory provisions of this agreement may be terminated by the CONSULTANT upon thirty (30) days written notice to the CITY. In the event of such termination by the CITY, the CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT for work satisfactorily completed to date of such termination, but in no event to exceed the compensation described in Section 3 of this agreement, based on the percentage of completion of CONSULTANT's work on the date of termination, provided such work is in a form usable by CITY.

Section 14. Notice.Any notice or materials required to be given to the CONSULTANT shall be deemed duly and properly given upon delivery, if sent to CONSULTANT postage prepaid to:

Glenn Lajoie, AICP
RBF Consulting
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618

or personally delivered to CONSULTANT at such address or other address specified to the CITY in writing by CONSULTANT.

Any notice or materials required to be given to the CITY shall be deemed duly and properly given upon delivery, if sent to the CITY postage prepaid to:

Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
c/o City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

or personally delivered to CITY at such address or other address specified to the CONSULTANT in writing by the CITY.

Section 15. Entire Agreement.This agreement represents the entire integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.

Section 16. Litigation Costs.Should any dispute under this Agreement lead to litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees for the prosecution of the action.

Section 17. Applicable Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action arising from this Agreement, including but not limited to matters concerning validity, construction, performance or enforcement shall be exclusively in the state of federal courts located in Los Angeles County.

Section 18. Business License Required.Consultant shall obtain and maintain a City Business License prior to commencing preparation of the Environmental documentation as outlined in this agreement.

Section 19. Merger Clause.This Agreement and its Exhibits are the entire understanding of the parties, and there are no other terms or conditions, written or oral, controlling this matter. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and any of its Exhibits, the provisions of this agreement shall prevail.

Section 20. Provisions Cumulative.The foregoing are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the CITY.

Section 21. Anti-Waiver Clause.None of the provisions contained herein shall be waived because of previous failure to insist upon strict performance, nor shall any provision be waived because any other provision has been waived in whole or in part.

EXECUTED the day and year first stated above.

"CITY"
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

By _____________________________________
John McTaggart, MAYOR

"CONSULTANT"
RBF Consulting

By______________________________________

_________________________ ___
(Name/Title)

Exhibits:
‘A’ Proposal: Scope of Work, Project Schedule, Budget



7. Ordinance No. 373 – Ordinance Establishing New Regulations Applicable to the Issuance of Business Permits and the Regulations of Massage Establishments and Massage Technicians Operating in the City. (Evans)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 373, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFENSE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 (GENERAL LICENSING PROCEDURES) AND CHAPTER 7.54 OF DIVISION 2 OF TITLE 7 (MASSAGE) OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was re-introduced at the February 7th Meeting.)

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS PERMITS AND THE REGULATION OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE TECHNICIANS OPERATING IN THE CITY

RECOMMENDATION

Read Ordinance No. 373 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 (GENERAL LICENSING PROCEDURES) AND CHAPTER 7.54 OF DIVISION 2 OF TITLE 7 (MASSAGE) OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE" by title only, waive further reading, and introduce the ordinance.

BACKGROUND

At their meeting of February 7, 2002 the City Council:

  1. Adopted Los Angeles County’s current regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians by reference.
  2. Adopted Los Angeles County’s licensing procedures in addition to the regulations for massage establishments and massage technicians.
  3. Introduced Ordinance No. 373 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 (GENERAL LICENSING PROCEDURES) AND CHAPTER 7.54 OF DIVISION 2 OF TITLE 7 (MASSAGE) OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE"
  4. Approved entering into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office (the "Treasurer/Tax Collector") to license massage establishments and massage technicians within the City.
  5. Approved modifying the City’s agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to perform background investigations of applicant’s for business permits for massage establishments and massage technicians within the City.

Chapter 5.08 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") contains the City’s current regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians. These regulations consist of the provisions set forth in County of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 5860 ("Ordinance No. 5860") as amended and in effect on September 7, 1973. The City adopted Ordinance No. 5860 by reference after it incorporated in 1973. Although the County subsequently amended its regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians, the City has neither adopted these amendments nor modified the regulations. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 5860 is no longer an effective tool for regulating massage establishments and lacks many of the provisions necessary to adequately address the unique concerns presented by these types of businesses.

In addition to the outdated regulatory scheme contained in Ordinance No. 5860, the Municipal Code lacks a procedure to issue regulatory business permits. Unlike business licenses, which are a means to tax businesses operating within the City to raise revenue, business permits provide a process for regulating certain types of businesses so that they will not have an adverse impact upon the City and its residents. Historically, the City has relied on the County of Los Angeles (the "County") to issue a regulatory permit for massage establishments and technicians before the City issues a City business license pursuant to Chapter 5.04 of the Municipal Code. However, the City has never delegated this authority to the County.

DISCUSSION

The County’s licensing authority extends only to unincorporated areas, and the County will no longer issue massage establishment or massage technician licenses to businesses located within the incorporated boundaries of the City. In order to continue regulating massage establishments and massage technicians, the City must adopt its own regulatory scheme and licensing procedures. The City can accomplish this purpose by either adopting County ordinances and procedures or adopting its own ordinance that will establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme to govern various businesses within the City, including massage establishments and massage technicians. At their February 7, 2002 meeting the City Council decided to adopt the County ordinances. By adopting Ordinance No. 373 the City will again be consistent with the County of Los Angeles Code that regulates massage establishments and massage technicians and be able to contract with the County for regulatory permits.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Ordinance



ORDINANCE NO. 373

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 (GENERAL LICENSING PROCEDURES) AND CHAPTER 7.54 OF DIVISION 2 OF TITLE 7 (MASSAGE) OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

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

Section 1. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.050 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.050. Sections 591 through 599, inclusive, of Article 11 of Chapter II repealed. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.010, Sections 591, 591.1, 591.2, 591.3, 591.4, 591.5, 591.6, 591.7, 591.8, 591.9, 592, 592.1, 592.2, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, and 599 of the Licensing Ordinance are repealed."

Section 2. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.060 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.060. Los Angeles County licensing procedures adopted.

      1. Except as hereinafter provided, Division 1 of Title 7 (General Licensing Procedures) of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended and in effect on January 1, 2002, is hereby adopted by reference as the Business Permit Ordinance of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and may be cited as such.


      2. A copy of the Regulatory Business Permit Ordinance, as amended and in effect on January 1, 2002, has been deposited in the office of the city clerk of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and shall, at all times, be maintained by the clerk for use and examination by the public."

Section 3. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.070 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.070. Section 7.06.020 of Business Permit Ordinance amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.060, Section 7.06.020 of the Business Permit Ordinance is hereby amended by adding new subsection (F) to read as follows:

‘(F) Where fingerprinting and photo identification is required by an application for a particular business permit, the rules and regulations governing the procedure for such fingerprinting and photo identification shall be established by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, License Detail."

Section 4. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.080 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.080. Los Angeles County massage regulations adopted.

      1. Except as hereinafter provided, Chapter 7.54 of Division 2 of Title 7 (Massage) of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended and in effect on January 1, 2002, is hereby adopted by reference as the Massage Regulation Ordinance of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and may be cited as such.

      2. A copy of the Massage Regulation Ordinance, as amended and in effect on January 1, 2002, has been deposited in the office of the city clerk of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and shall, at all times, be maintained by the clerk for use and examination by the public."

Section 5. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.090 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.090. Section 7.54.010 of Massage Ordinance amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, Section 7.54.010 of the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following definitions thereto:

"‘Recognized school of massage’ means any school or institution of learning which teaches the theory, ethics, practice, profession, or work of massage, which has been approved pursuant to the California Education Code. A school offering a correspondence course not requiring attendance shall not be deemed a recognized school. The city shall have a right to confirm that the applicant has actually attended class in a recognized school.

‘Specified anatomical areas’ means the following:

(1) Less than completely and opaquely covered human (i) genitals or pubic region; (ii) buttocks; and (iii) female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola;

(2) Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered;

(3) Any device, costume or covering that simulates any of the body parts included in subparagraphs (1) or (2) above."

Section 6. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.100 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.100. Section 7.54.025 added to Massage Ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding Section 7.54.025 thereto to read as follows:

‘Section 7.54.025. License – Information required in application.

In addition to the requirements of Section 7.06.020, an application for a license required by this Part 1 shall also provide the information set forth in Section 7.54.230 of Part 2 of this Chapter .’"

Section 7. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.110 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.110. Section 7.54.040 of Massage Ordinance amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by amending Section 7.54.040 thereof to read as follows:

‘Section 7.54.040. Exceptions to chapter applicability.

This Part 1 does not apply to any of the following:

(a) Physicians, surgeons, chiropractors, osteopaths, physical therapists who are duly licensed to practice their respective professions in the state.

(b) Nurses registered under the laws of the state.

(c) Persons who are licensed to practice any healing art under the applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code of the state of California or any other statute of this state who provide any treatment administered in good faith.

(d) Barbers, cosmetologists and electrolysists who are duly licensed under the laws of the state while engaging in practice within the scope of their licenses, except that this exemption shall apply solely to the massaging of the neck, face, and/or scalp of the customer or client.

(e) Hospitals, nursing homes, sanatoriums, or other health care facilities duly licensed by the state.

(f) Accredited high schools, junior colleges, and colleges or universities whose coaches and trainers are acting within the scope of their employment.

(g) Trainers of amateur, semi-professional or professional athletes or athletic teams.

(h)Any business duly licensed as a health club, provided only one massage table is used at such location and provided such use is incidental to the operation of the health club.’"

Section 8. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.120 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.120. Section 7.54.160 of Massage Ordinance amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by amending Section 7.54.160 thereof to read as follows:

‘Section 7.54.160. Hours of operation.

The licensee shall not conduct or operate a massage parlor between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any day, and shall exclude all customers, patrons and visitors therefrom between those hours.’"

Section 9. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.130 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.130. Section 7.54.195 added to Massage Ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding Section 7.54.195 thereto to read as follows:

‘Section 7.54.195. Physical contact prohibited.

No massage parlor shall permit any massage technician, in the course of administering any massage service, to expose his or her specified anatomical areas or buttocks or to make physical contact with the specified anatomical areas of any client. No massage parlor shall allow any client, in the course of receiving any massage service, to expose to view of other persons his or her specified anatomical areas or to make physical contact with the specified anatomical areas or buttocks of any massage technician or any other person.’"

Section 10.Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.140 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.140. Section 7.54.230(J) of Massage Ordinance redesignated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by redesignating subsection (J) of Section 7.54.230 as subsection (L)."

Section 11. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.150 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.150. New Section 7.54.230(J) added to Massage Ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding new subsection (J) to Section 7.54.230 to read as follows:

(J) All convictions for any crime, except for minor traffic violations, and the reasons therefore.’"

Section 12. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.160 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.160. Section 7.54.230(K) of Massage Ordinance amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by amending subsection (K) of Section 7.54.230 to read as follows:

(K) The applicant’s fingerprints in the manner prescribed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Any fees for the fingerprinting shall be paid by the applicant’"

Section 13. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.170 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.170. Section 7.54.265 added to Massage Ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding new Section 7.54.265 to read as follows:

Section 7.54.265. Permit limitations – Off-premises massage prohibited. No massage technician permitted pursuant to this Part 2 may perform any massage or massage services in any location other than the location or locations specified in the permit."

Section 14. Title 5 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 5.08.180 to Chapter 5.08 to read as follows:

"5.08.180. Section 7.54.275 added to Massage Ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.08.080, the Massage Ordinance is hereby amended by adding new Section 7.54.265 to read as follows:

Section 7.54.275. Prohibited conduct – Physical contact. No massage technician shall, in the course of administering any massage service, expose his or her specified anatomical areas or buttocks or make physical contact with the specified anatomical areas of any client. Nor shall any massage technician allow any client, in the course of receiving any massage service, to expose to view of other persons his or her specified anatomical areas or buttocks or to make physical contact with the specified anatomical areas or buttocks of the massage technician or any other person."

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

Section 16. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _______ day of _______________, 2002.

_____________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
City Clerk



8. Employee Service Recognition Program. (Petru)

Recommendation: Adopt City Council Policy No. 11 regarding the Employee Recognition Program.

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOGNITION PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt amended City Council Policy No. 11 regarding the Employee Recognition Program.

DISCUSSION

On September 29, 1992, the City Council adopted Policy No. 11 regarding service pins awarded to full-time employees in recognition of their years of service to the City. Since the policy was adopted nearly ten years ago, the style of the pins has changed and is no longer consistent with the adopted policy. In addition, because the City has been in existence for over 28 years, there are now a number of full-time employees with more than 15 years service with the City (there are currently 5 employees with 15 years of service and 1 employee with more than 20 years of service). There is a need to amend City Council Policy No. 11 to reflect current circumstances. Attached is a draft of the amended City Council Policy No. 11 with proposed additions to the text shown in underline text and proposed deletions shown in strikeout text.

FISCAL IMPACT

On average, the City awards between two to six service pins each year. The cost of each pins varies between $100 and $140, depending on whether the pin has gems and, if so, how many. Due to the historic staff turnover rate, the addition of 20 year and 25 year service pins is not expected to be significant and can be absorbed within the existing City Budget.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Draft Amended City Council Policy No. 11



CITY COUNCIL POLICY

NUMBER: 11

DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 09/29/92 (Amended 02/19/02)

SUBJECT: Employee Recognition Program



POLICY
:

It shall be the policy of the City Council to recognize City employees for milestone full-time years of service as follows:

5 Years of Service to City – Silver Gold Recognition Pin
10 Years of Service to City – Silver Gold Recognition Pin w/ one gem
15 Years of Service to City – Gold Recognition Pin w/ 3 two gems
20 Years of Service to City – Gold Recognition Pin w/ three gems
25 Years of Service to City – Gold Recognition Pin w/ four gems

BACKGROUND:

The City Council recognized the need to recognize significant full-time employee anniversaries.



9. Code Enforcement Case No. COD2001-00025: Status Report on Non-Permitted Commercial Antennae at 5905 Mossbank Drive. (Neth)

Recommendation: Receive and file, and provide further direction to staff.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. COD2001-00025: STATUS REPORT ON NON-PERMITTED COMMERCIAL ANTENNAE AT 5905 MOSSBANK DRIVE

Staff Coordinator: Jan Neth, Senior Code Enforcement Officer

RECOMMENDATION

Receive and file, and provide further direction to Staff as deemed appropriate.

BACKGROUND

After a brief discussion regarding the non-permitted commercial radio antennae located at 5905 Mossbank Drive, at the City Council meeting of January 31, 2002, the City Council requested a status report of Code Enforcement Case No. COD2001-00025, currently under investigation by Code Enforcement and City Attorney Staff.

DISCUSSION

In a letter mailed to the property owner, dated January 29, 2002, the City Attorney’s office indicated that either the non-permitted commercial radio antennae be removed from the property, or that an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) be submitted to the Planning Department no later than February 7, 2002.

As requested by the Council on January 24, 2002, Staff conducted a site inspection, review of previous photographs, and a site plan submitted by the property owner, as more recent complaints that new antennae or modifications had taken place. Staff could not verify whether additional equipment had been installed on the property. A review of the file, on January 8, 2002 revealed that to date, no application for a CUP has been submitted, and the property owner has not contacted Code Enforcement Staff regarding removal of the antennae.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On February 8, 2002, Code Enforcement and City Attorney Staff received a fax letter from Moss & Associates, a land-use firm specializing in the design and permitting of telecommunications projects, indicating they would be representing the property owner in this matter.

CONCLUSION

The property owner at 5905 Mossbank Drive has failed to comply with the compliance options deadline of February 7, 2002, established in the City Attorney’s letter of January 29, 2002. As in previous code enforcement cases for similar non-permitted commercial radio antennae sites, legal remedies for compliance will be pursued through the City Attorney’s office.

FISCAL IMPACT

The City Council’s review of this matter will have no fiscal impact upon the City. However, the enforcement actions needed to obtain compliance will result in legal costs to the City, which will be borne by the City’s General Fund.

ALTERNATIVES

The following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:

  1. Receive and file this report; and/or,
  2. Provide further direction to Staff as deemed appropriate.

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

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



10. 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.


PUBLIC HEARING:




11. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Conditional Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230, requesting elimination of certain conditions imposed by the Planning Commission for the use of Commercial Antennae Within a Residential Zone. (Applicant/Appellant: Schmitz & Associates, representing James A. Kay, Jr., property owner at 26708 Indian Peak Road). (Fox)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MODIFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, DENYING THE APPEAL, AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230, REQUESTING ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE USE OF COMMERCIAL ANTENNAE WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. (Applicant/Appellant: Schmitz & Associates representing James A. Kay, Jr. the owner of the property at 26708 Indian Peak Road)

Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2002-__, thereby modifying certain conditions as recommended by Staff, denying the appeal, and conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 230.

BACKGROUND

On November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission concluded the public hearing on this application and conditionally approved the project. The matter was continued to November 15, 2001 for adoption of the revised P.C. Resolution, after taking public testimony on the contents of the resolution. The Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-43, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 230 subject to twenty-two conditions of approval. The conditions of approval were formulated through Staff’s review of the project and through the Planning Commission’s deliberations on the project.

The applicant expressed disagreement with some of the conditions of approval incorporated into the Planning Commission Resolution, and therefore, by submission of the November 28, 2001 letter has appealed the approval to the City Council. The appeal requests "that all conditions regulating the location, number and placement of antennas on the project site be eliminated." The letter does not identify the specific conditions, by number, which the applicant opposes. Therefore, in light of the applicant’s appeal, this item was scheduled for consideration by the City Council at this evening’s meeting.

DISCUSSION

The applicant’s appeal letter identifies three general areas of concern with the conditions of approval as applied by the Planning Commission. These three general categories are: 1) that the Planning Commission "overstepped its bounds" by applying different standards to commercial and non-commercial antennas; 2) that the conditions limiting non-commercial antennae conflict with the zoning codes regarding non-commercial amateur antennae; and 3) that all conditions regulating the location, number and placement of antennas on the project site should be eliminated. Each of these categories is discussed below.

Application of Different Standards to Non-Commercial Antennae than to Commercial Antennae

Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.76.020 sets forth the development standards and procedural requirements for various types of antennae. RPVMC Section 17.76.020(A) addresses "Commercial Antennas", Section 17.76.020(B) addresses "Satellite Dish Antennas," Section 17.76.020(C) addresses "Noncommercial Amateur Radio Antennas" and Section 17.76.020(E) addresses "Noncommercial Nondish Antennas." Each of these sections contains different criteria and standards for the different type of antennas involved. Therefore, to the extent that the Planning Commission has applied different standards to noncommercial amateur antennae than to commercial antennae, these distinctions are based on the different treatment of these antennae in the Municipal Code. By way of example, the findings and considerations for the number and placement of non-commercial amateur antennae, as set forth in Section 17.76.020(C)(4) are considerably different from the findings and review criteria for commercial antenna as set forth in 17.76.020(A) (requiring a conditional use permit) and the City’s adopted Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines ("Wireless Guidelines"). The process for commercial antennae is more complex than that for amateur antennae. Additionally, amateur non-commercial antennae are assumed to be ancillary uses in residential zones, whereas commercial uses are discouraged in residential zones, as specifically identified in the Wireless Guidelines Guideline No. 2 titled "Preference for Existing, Non-Single-Family Structures as Antenna Sites."

The applicant expresses concern regarding Condition No. 2, which requires that all commercial antennae, except those specifically permitted on the roof, shall be located within the structure, while amateur non-commercial antennae could, theoretically, be located on the roof of the structure. The applicant asserts that this distinction is improper, however the Municipal Code classifies by antenna type, based on the different interests, Federal laws and specific issues related to the different types of antennae. Therefore the applicant’s assertion that the antennae are the "same class of use" is an improper interpretation of the Municipal Code.

Finally, staff does recommend that Condition No. 2 be amended to make clear that commercial use of the expressly-approved roof-mounted antennae in substantially the current configuration, size and height is permissible. As discussed in the draft Resolution, this is defined as only the antennae and related features depicted in the plans and photographs submitted to the City in conjunction with the original application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 June 21, 2001. Therefore, the applicant could use those antennae for amateur, commercial, or a mix of amateur and commercial purposes. However, any additional antennae must be located in the structure, and no additional exterior antenna(e) would be allowed unless otherwise approved through amendment of this CUP. Additionally, prior to the approval of any additional amateur antennae on the roof, the applicant would first have to demonstrate that each of the approved roof-mounted antennae were being used for amateur purposes rather than commercial uses in order to avoid the cumulative impact of both commercial antennae and amateur antennae on the roof, when commercial use could be accommodated with interior antennae. Based on the foregoing, and with the clarifying language proposed by Staff, Staff believes that this basis for the appeal is unfounded.

Alleged Conflict between Conditions and Code Provisions regarding Amateur Antennae

Next, the applicant contends that the conditions of approval restrict the number of amateur antennae on the site to a greater degree than the Municipal Code otherwise would. RPVMC Section 17.76.020(C)(3) sets forth the criteria for exempt non-commercial amateur antennae. The criteria allow for installation of a certain number of certain classes of amateur antennae without processing an Antenna Site Plan Review. Exceeding these criteria either by number of antennae or by the dimensions of the antennae requires approval of a special Non-commercial Amateur Radio Antenna Permit.

At the time the new antennae regulations were adopted, the determination was made that the applicant’s then-existing antennae array qualified for an exemption under RPVMC Section 17.76.020(C)(3)(c)(ii). Further, the antennae deemed exempt are those specifically approved for roof-mounted location, even though the applicant now intends to use these antennae for commercial purposes at least part of the time. Therefore the conditions do not conflict with prior determinations regarding these antennae, even though a change in use is proposed.

The conditional use permit process requires the finding that the site is adequate to accommodate the use and those "features required by [the Municipal Code] or by conditions imposed…to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood" (See RPVMC Section 17.60.050(A)(1)). In order to protect the surrounding neighborhood, the City is empowered to impose conditions upon the approval of a CUP, and these conditions may well impose greater restrictions upon the use of property than the Municipal Code generally would. For example, in the interest of protecting the surrounding neighborhood, the days and hours of construction for a large project might be limited to 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, even though the Municipal Code generally allows construction activity to occur between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Saturday. In this case, the Planning Commission found that it was necessary to place limitations upon both commercial and non-commercial antennae on the site in order to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhood. By restricting the uses on the site beyond those otherwise permitted in the Code, the Commission has endeavored to address the cumulative impacts of the different types of antennae that could be approved under the Code.

It is important to note that, in adopting the condition of approval in P.C. Resolution No. 2001-43, the Planning Commission intended for the remaining exterior antennae to be used for only non-commercial purposes, and for all commercial antennae to be placed inside the building. Staff, however, believes that this would be impossible to enforce because there is no reliable means to know if an exterior antenna is being used for commercial or non-commercial purposes merely by looking at it. As such, Staff recommends that a set number of antennae be permitted on the roof, and that they be allowed to be used for either commercial or non-commercial use. Any additional antennae must be located within the structure in order to screen the antennae and minimize impacts to the neighborhood, and any additional exterior antennae would only be allowed thorough modification of the CUP, as discussed above.

Based on the foregoing, the applicant’s second general ground for appeal of the conditions is also without merit.

Request for Elimination of Certain Conditions of Approval

The applicant requests removal of "conditions regulating the location, number and placement of antennas on the project site…."

First, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the TCA) reserves to local governments the power to regulate as to "placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities," unless otherwise preempted by the Act. As discussed in the attached Resolution, and as discussed during Planning Commission deliberations, none of the conditions exceed that authority committed to local government in that 1) functionally equivalent services are not discriminated against, 2) the conditions do not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, and 3) the conditions do not regulate on the basis of radio frequency emissions, which is preempted by the TCA. Therefore, imposition of the conditions is within the police power traditionally exercised by local governments, and which is specifically reserved to local governments under the TCA.

Second, Staff presumes that the following specific conditions are the ones that the applicant challenges: 2 a-d, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 15. Should the applicant’s request be granted, the approval would be open ended as to the number, height, configuration and placement of antennae. If the request were granted, analysis of the mandatory findings and a CEQA determination would be necessary, as impacts associated with such an open-ended approval have not been previously considered in the analysis of the project. The potential for additional aesthetic impacts and impacts to land use compatibility would likely change the determinations supporting conditional approval of the permit.

Third, the conditions imposed by the Commission are consistent with the conditions placed on other conditional use permits for commercial antennae, although this case is somewhat unique in that it involves roof-mounted antennae, a mix of commercial and non-commercial antennae uses, and is in a residential—as opposed to a commercial or institutional—zoning district.

As such, Staff believes that the Commission properly exercised the City’s police powers in a manner consistent with the limitations set forth by the Telecommuncations Act of 1996. Additionally, the conditions enabled the Commission to determine that approval of this commercial use in a residential zone was proper in this case. If no conditions were applied, approval would conflict with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore Staff recommends denial of the applicant’s request for removal of these conditions.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On January 30, 2002, public notices for the City Council’s consideration of this appeal were mailed to the property owner, his representatives and one hundred one other property owners and interested parties within a 500-foot radius of the subject property. On February 2, 2002, notice of the February 19, 2002 City Council hearing in this matter was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. Staff has received eight letters in opposition to the proposed project from the owners of surrounding properties. Several neighbors also spoke in opposition to the project at the Planning Commission hearings, as reflected in the Minutes of those meetings. Copies of all public comments received in response to this and previous public notices for this application are attached at the end of this Staff report.

During the Planning Commission deliberation on this project, the applicant indicated willingness to accept a condition of approval requiring occupancy of the structure. As such, the Commission incorporated language to that effect in Condition No. 19. The condition was designed to ensure maintenance of the property and to avoid the problems that can occur at a vacant, unattended residential property. These issues, however, can also be addressed by requiring regularly scheduled maintenance of landscaping and removal of any trash and debris on the property. Since continued occupancy may not always be possible due to changes in tenancy, Staff is proposing a condition that will require appropriate maintenance of the property, regardless of whether or not it is occupied. To accomplish this, Staff recommends modification of Condition No. 19 to read as follows:

19. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the City’s final action on this application, the applicant shall contract with a landscape and maintenance service to provide weekly service at the property to ensure that the structure and grounds are maintained free from litter, debris, and overgrown vegetation so as not to become an eyesore. The service shall be retained at any and all times that the structure is not occupied by residents for residential purposes, or in the event that any resident is not maintaining the property as required by these conditions of approval and by the City’s Municipal Code. Prior to any residential occupancy, the necessary improvements to make the house habitable shall be completed with all necessary permits and inspections—including a functional kitchen, toilet and bathing facilities and utility connections for gas, electricity, water and sewer—and shall be maintained continuously.

Staff believes that the revised language ensures maintenance of the property in a manner consistent with the neighborhood while not mandating occupancy of the structure.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2002__, modifying certain conditions of approval as recommended by Staff, denying the appeal, and conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 230.

FISCAL IMPACT

The proposed appeal will have no significant fiscal impact due to the payment of the required $940.00 appeal fee. Nonetheless, should the City Council modify the conditions of approval as recommended by staff, the applicant/appellant is entitled to a refund of one-half of the appeal fee in accordance with RPVMC Section 17.80.120. That Code provision states: "If an appeal results in a modification to the project, other than changes specifically requested in the appeal, then one-half of the appeal fee shall be refunded to the successful appellant." In light of this code provision, if the council makes changes to the conditions, but not the changes that are specifically requested by the applicant/appellant, as recommended by Staff, then the applicant/appellant is entitled to the refund.

ALTERNATIVES

The following alternatives, in addition to Staff’s recommendation, are available for the Council’s consideration:

1. Grant the appeal as requested by the applicant; or,

  1. Grant a portion of the applicant’s appeal; or,

3.Deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission decision with no modifications to the conditions of approval.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Applicant’s appeal letter (dated November 28, 2001)
Draft Resolution No. 2002-__
P.C. Resolution No. 2001-43
PC Staff Reports and Minutes (October 23, November 13 and November 15, 2001)
Public comments
Project plans (revised by applicant after June 21, 2001)



RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230, THEREBY APPROVING THE COMMERCIAL USE OF CERTAIN ANTENNAE AND RELATED SUPPORT STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT ON THE SITE OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 26708 INDIAN PEAK ROAD, IN THE GRANDVIEW COMMUNITY

WHEREAS, on October 22, 1998, the applicant, James A. Kay, Jr., received approval of an application for Site Plan Review No. 8334 for after-the fact approval of an existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array for non-commercial radio communications, which was conditioned expressly to exclude commercial operations; and,

WHEREAS, on November 4, 1998, prior to the expiration of the 15-day appeal period for Site Plan Review No. 8334, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 341U, which established a moratorium on the processing of all antenna applications, including those applications upon which the City had acted but for which the appeal period had not yet expired; and,

WHEREAS, on April 16, 1999, the antenna moratorium was lifted, the City’s approval of Site Plan Review No. 8334 was voided, and the existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array were determined by Staff to be exempt from City permits for non-commercial use pursuant to Section 17.76.020(C)(3)(c)(ii) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and,

WHEREAS, o n October 15, 1999, Mr. Kay submitted an application for Site Plan Review No. 8736 to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for a 198-square-foot single-story storage room addition to the rear side of the house, which proposed a large number of electrical outlets, the installation of two dedicated air conditioning condensers for the room and no interior access to the rest of the house; and although Staff suspected that the addition was intended to house commercial radio transmitters, the City did not withhold approval of Site Plan Review No. 8736 based upon these suspicions; and,

WHEREAS, Staff subsequently reviewed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensing records and found that several active and pending commercial radio frequencies were licensed to Mr. Kay’s property on Indian Peak Road, and turned this FCC licensing information over to the City Attorney’s office; and,

WHEREAS, the City obtained warrants from the court and retained an expert in the field of radio transmissions, Dr. Henry Richter, to monitor transmissions from the site in connection with an investigation of the alleged commercial use of the existing antennae and found that commercial frequencies were in use at the site. Subsequently, on April 13, 2000, the City filed a complaint for preliminary and permanent injunction against Mr. Kay to prevent the non-permitted use of commercial antennae on the site, and this case currently is pending; and,

WHEREAS, Section 17.76.020(A) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code requires an individual to obtain a conditional use permit to install or operate a commercial antenna within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Section 17.96.090 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code further defines the term "commercial antenna" as follows:

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

Under these provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the applicant, Mr. Kay, was required to obtain a conditional use permit from the City to use his existing antennae and antenna support structure to broadcast on frequencies, deemed commercial by the FCC; and,

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2001, Mr. Kay submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 for after-the-fact approval to establish the existing antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site for commercial use, although Mr. Kay contested that the application was after-the-fact and requested a waiver of the penalty fee; and,

WHEREAS, on September 4, 2001 and September 18, 2001, the City Council considered Mr. Kay’s request for a waiver of the penalty fee for Conditional Use Permit No. 230, and denied the request based upon inability to make the fee waiver findings set forth in Section 17.78.010(B) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and,

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2001, the applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 were deemed complete by Staff; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project was determined by Staff to be categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301); and,

WHEREAS, after the submittal of these applications on June 21, 2001,and while the Planning Commission was conducting the public hearings on this application, the applicant installed at least eleven (11) additional vertical antenna masts with attached antennae onto the previously existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array, including additional cables and conduits for the additional antennae; and on November 8, 2001, the applicant submitted revised plans to the City depicting a total of twenty (20) vertical antenna masts with attached antennae on the roof-mounted antenna support structure and array; and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 23, 2001, November 13, 2001, and November 15, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, the applicant’s representative, Mr. Miner, testified that all of the antennae that currently are located at the subject property could be used either for commercial or non-commercial transmissions; and,

WHEREAS, the applicant’s representative, Mr. Schmitz, during the public hearing, stated that the applicant would be willing to comply with conditions that would improve the appearance of the property, such as painting the residence and planting landscaping, and having someone live at the residence, to ensure that the residence is in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood and to establish the proposed commercial use as being clearly ancillary to the principal residential use of the property, so that the Commission can make a finding of consistency of the proposed commercial use with the City’s General Plan; and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on November 15, 2001, adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-43 conditionally approving the project; and,

WHEREAS, the Applicant timely appealed conditional approval by letter dated November 28, 2001, based on disagreement with "all conditions regulating the location, number and placement of antennas on the project site…."

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

Section 1: The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 to legalize the use of existing roof-mounted and interior antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site for commercial purposes:

A. For the purposes of this determination on the subject application and throughout this Resolution, the terms and phrases "existing antenna(e)" and "existing roof-mounted antenna array" refer only to the antenna(e) and antenna array depicted in the plans submitted to the City by the applicant on June 21, 2001, and in photographs accompanying the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744. The terms and phrases "existing antenna(e)" and "existing roof-mounted antenna array" do not include any parts, elements, components or other features of the antenna(e) and antenna array that are not depicted on the plan submitted on June 21, 2001, or in the above-mentioned photographs, regardless whether these parts, elements, components or other features were, or are, physically present on the subject property as of the effective date of this Resolution.

B. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by the Development Code or by conditions imposed to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood because, as conditioned, the proposed project complies with the development standards for commercial antennae, as specified in RPVDC Sections 17.76.020(A)(2) through (A)(10). The site provides for two (2) off-street parking spaces for maintenance and service vehicles and the existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array does not require special markings or lighting to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. Although there is existing foliage on adjacent properties and rights-of-way, this foliage does not adequately screen any antenna support structures or antennae on the roof of the structure from view from many surrounding residences in the neighborhood and from nearby public rights-of-way, especially those residences located directly across the street and the residences located down slope from the rear yard on Fond du Lac Road. As such, the approval of this application is conditioned to require the removal of all but two (2) of the existing eight-and-one-half-foot long masts and two of the television antennae from the roof of the residence, and the relocation of all of the other existing or proposed antennae and related support structures and equipment to the inside of the house. This condition is necessary to maintain the appearance of the structure as a single-family residence, and to integrate the commercial use into the residential neighborhood. In this case, the imposition of stricter limitations upon both commercial and non-commercial antennae than are otherwise required by the City’s Development Code is necessary to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhood.

C. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because the subject property is served by Indian Peak Road, which is a public residential street. Aside from normal residential traffic associated with the existing house, the only additional traffic expected to result from the proposed project is an occasional service vehicle, and would rarely involve large trucks or other equipment that could adversely affect local traffic for any extended period of time. Any adverse effects of any additional traffic are mitigated by the conditions of approval imposed by this approval.

D. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effects on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, due to the conditions that are being imposed as part of this approval. Although service personnel would visit the site periodically, any impacts related to the maintenance and operation of the existing antennae would be very minor and have no significant adverse effects on surrounding properties. The existing antennae are visible from homes across Indian Peak Road and from Fond du Lac Road below. Since the conversion of the existing antennae to commercial use constitutes an intensification of the use that benefits the applicant financially but, as proposed by the applicant, does not offset the visual impacts of the antenna array upon the surrounding neighborhood, the approval of this proposal will be conditioned to require the removal of all but two (2) of the existing eight-and-one-half-foot-tall antennae masts and two (2) of the television antenna(e) from the roof of the structure, the painting of the remaining roof-mounted antennae and support structures that are permitted by this conditional use permit so as to blend better into the background sky, and the relocation of all of the other antennae and related support equipment to the inside of the house. In addition, no future changes to the location or configuration or which increase the number or the height of any approved antennae or element of the remaining roof-mounted antenna array will be permitted without an amendment to this conditional use permit that is approved by the Planning Commission, and any new antennae and support structures must be placed inside of the house to screen the antennae and to prevent further visual intrusion upon the surrounding neighborhood.

E. Any issues related to interference impacts upon electronic and other types of equipment, and actual or perceived effects upon human health, are strictly within the purview of the FCC, since Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits the City from "[regulating] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions."

F. The proposed use—as conditioned—is not contrary to the General Plan. The subject property and the Grandview neighborhood are designated Residential, 4-6 DU/acre, which is a land use designation intended to accommodate medium-density neighborhoods of detached, single-family homes and related accessory uses and structures. No evidence has been provided that the owner has ever resided at the existing home, and this property has not been occupied for at least the past three and one-half years. The evidence demonstrates that the property has not been maintained in a manner consistent with the quality of the surrounding neighborhood, and the residential character of the neighborhood has been eroded by the increasing deterioration and commercialization of this site. To prevent the proposed commercial use of the property from exacerbating the substandard condition of the residence, and to ensure that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, the approval of the proposed project includes conditions to address these deficiencies. The conditions include: 1) requiring contract landscape and maintenance services in the event that the home is unoccupied or if any occupants are not maintaining the property in conformance with the conditions; and 2) to require the removal of most of the visible exterior evidence of the commercial use of the property. These conditions will allow for the provision of wireless telecommunications services at this location, while minimizing the visual and aesthetic impacts of this commercial wireless operation on the surrounding residential neighborhood.

G. The required finding that, if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by RPVDC Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts), the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter, is not applicable because the subject property is not located within any of the overlay control districts established by RPVDC Chapter 17.40.

H. Conditions of approval, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed and include (but are not limited to) removal of all but two (2) of the existing eight and one-half feet-long roof-mounted antenna masts and two of the television antenna(e), painting the remaining roof-mounted antennae and masts, and prohibiting any further modifications to them without first obtaining approval of modification to this conditional use permit; requiring all other existing and any future antennae to be located inside of the house; limiting regular maintenance hours to 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday; requiring the property to be landscaped and painted and that weekly landscape and general maintenance services shall be provided by either a full time resident of the house or by contract with a qualified provider of such services if the residence is not occupied by a full-time resident or if any full time resident does not properly maintain the property in accordance with the conditions; requiring the applicant to obtain and maintain a valid business license; and reviewing the project for compliance with all conditions of approval within six (6) months of the date of the City’s final action on the application. These conditions are imposed through the City’s authority over placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities, as expressly reserved to local government under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

I. The required findings that no existing or planned tower can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna or proposed service area, or that the proposed tower cannot be located on the site of an existing or planned tower, are not applicable because the proposed project does not involve the construction or placement of a new antenna tower, and there is no antenna tower currently located on the subject property.

J. By permitting some of the existing antennae to remain on the roof of the residence, and by permitting commercial antennae to be located in the interior of the residence, personal wireless services to the surrounding community are not prohibited. Based on testimony by the applicant’s representative which demonstrates that antennae used for commercial radio transmissions from 1998 to the present are installed in the interior of the house and that those antennae functioned so as to provide personal wireless services, the City finds that requiring antennae to be located within the house does not have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services.

Section 2: The City Council finds that the proposed project—as conditioned—qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301. The exemption applies to alterations to existing minor structures and uses "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination." As conditioned, the existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array would be modified so that most of the antennae are removed and relocated to the inside of the house, and the negative aesthetic impacts of the existing antennae are minimized. Without the imposition of this condition, and if the antennae and other elements that have been added to the property since the submittal of the application to the City were to remain in place, the City Council would not be able to find this proposed project exempt from the requirements of CEQA, due to aesthetic impacts which could be potentially significant and thus would require further analysis pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.

Section 3: The City Council finds that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230—as conditioned—is consistent with the City’s Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines. This application was heard by the Planning Commission within the time lines established by the State’s Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA (Guideline No. 1). Although the Guidelines express a preference for existing, non-single-family structures as antenna sites (Guideline No. 2), installations on single-family residences are not prohibited and have been approved previously elsewhere in the City. In addition, the conditions of approval for this project will help to enhance the residential character of the neighborhood by requiring the applicant to upgrade the appearance and maintenance of the property. As a condition of approval, most of the exterior antennae will be removed, so the project will have no significant impact upon any view corridors (Guideline No. 4). The removal of these antennae will also serve to balance the aesthetic impacts of the antennae upon the neighborhood with the applicant’s financial benefit from the operation of the commercial antennae on the site (Guideline No. 5). Finally, with most of the antennae relocated to the inside of the house, they will be effectively screened from view from adjacent properties or rights-of-way (Guideline No. 9).

Section 4: The City Council finds that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230—as conditioned—is consistent with the local zoning authority reserved to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)) for the following reasons:

  1. The conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 "[does] not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services…and [does] not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsections (B)(i)(I) and (II)). In reviewing all of the applications to provide personal wireless services on other residentially-zoned property within the City, the City has applied consistently its regulations to these facilities so as to approve facilities that are compatible with surrounding uses and to modify or deny applications that do or will have adverse visual, aesthetic or other impacts upon surrounding properties. The instant application is being approved with conditions requiring the removal of most of the exterior antennae because it will otherwise result in adverse visual and aesthetic impacts upon adjacent properties. The City’s conditional approval of this specific proposal does not prohibit the applicant from providing wireless communications services because the applicant still has the ability to provide these services from the remaining exterior antennae and/or the antennae to be relocated inside the second story of the house. The applicant has admitted that he has transmitted commercially from the site, using the existing antennae located inside the house since 1998. The City has previously approved applications for commercial antennae for a variety of commercial wireless services and service providers, including applications for properties that were zoned or used for single-family residential purposes. Accordingly, the conditional approval of this particular application also does not result in a ban or prohibition of, or have the effect of prohibiting, the placement of these types of facilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
  2. The application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 was deemed complete by City Staff on September 19, 2001. The City has acted on the applicant’s request for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 "within a reasonable period of time after the request [was] duly filed with [the City], taking into account the nature and scope of such request" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(ii)). This application has been processed by the City in a timely fashion and in accordance with the time lines established by the State Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA, and the Telecommunications Act. The only delays in the processing of this application are attributable to the applicant’s request for a waiver of the penalty fee (which was denied by the City Council on September 18, 2001) and the applicant’s request for a continuance of this application from the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2001 to the meeting of November 13, 2001, and the Applicant’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s conditional approval.

  3. In conditionally approving the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230, the City has not "[regulated] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] Commission's regulations concerning such emissions" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(iv)). Although interference and radio frequency emissions were raised as issues of concern to surrounding residents at the public hearing and in correspondence to the City, none of the required modifications to the existing antennae on the site are in response to these concerns. Instead, these modifications are imposed only to address the aesthetic impacts of the antennae upon the surrounding neighborhood. City Staff advised the Planning Commission and the City Council that neither body could consider any environmental effects of emissions that comply with FCC regulations, including purported impacts upon health or alleged interference with television reception. The Planning Commission and City Council relied upon that advice and the provisions of the Act and, therefore, has not based its decision to conditionally approve the proposed project in any respect upon any actual or perceived environmental effects attributable to radio frequency emissions. Rather, the conditional approval regulates the aesthetic impacts and land use compatibility issues traditionally addressed through the exercise of local governmental police powers.

Section 5: The applicant’s appeal of the conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission is denied. However, modifications to the conditions entitle the applicant to a refund of one-half of the appeal fee pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.120.

Section 6: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(v)), any person adversely affected by the City’s final action in this matter may, within thirty (30) days after such action, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Minutes and the other records of this proceeding on file with the City, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 230, thereby approving the commercial use of certain antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site of a single-family residence, located at 26708 Indian Peak Road, in the Grandview community, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of February 2002, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:


_______________________
John McTaggart, Mayor

ATTEST:


____________________
Jo Purcell, City Clerk

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

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002-____ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on February 19, 2002.



EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230
(26708 Indian Peak Road)

1. Within ninety (90) days following adoption of this Resolution, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement shall render this approval null and void.

2. This approval is for the use of antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site of a single-family residence in the Grandview community for commercial purposes. The commercial use of the property is conditioned upon the following modifications:

    1. The roof-mounted equipment shall consist of a maximum of two vertical masts, each of which shall not exceed eight and one-half (8 ½) feet in height, as measured from the point where the mast meets the roof surface.
    2. Each of the two masts may have up to four (4) antennae affixed thereon, similar to those that currently are present at the site, provided that they do not extend any higher than the mast itself and that each antenna or radiating element does not project more than two feet horizontally from the center of the mast.
    3. In addition, the two (2) existing television antennae also may remain on the roof of the residence, so long as they do not exceed eight and one-half (8 ½) feet in height, as measured from the point where they are attached to the roof surface; that the horizontal boom of each antenna does not exceed six feet in length; that no radiating element or antenna attached to the boom exceeds two feet in length, and that all of the antennae and support structures on the property are maintained in compliance with the Municipal Code.
    4. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall review the exterior masts and antennae to ensure compliance with this condition. Any additional antennae, masts or other antenna support structure(s) shall be placed inside of the house and, provided that they are completely located inside of the house, they shall not require further approval or modification of this conditional use permit.
    5. The exterior masts and antennae described in this condition may be used for either commercial or non-commercial purposes.

The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make only minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval, and only if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change, such as the enlargement, expansion or addition to, the two exterior masts and antennae that this approval allows outside of the existing residential structure shall require approval of a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 230 by the Planning Commission and shall require a new and separate environmental review.

3. All project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, in the RS-5 district development standards of the City's Municipal Code.

4. Failure to comply with and adhere to any or all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project by the Planning Commission after conducting a duly noticed public hearing on the matter.

5. If the necessary modifications to site, the house and the existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array, as specified by these conditions of approval, have not been made within ninety (90) days of the date of the City’s final action on this application, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Planning Commission.

6. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply.

7. The applicant shall submit a plan depicting the roof-mounted masts and antennae that may be retained or erected pursuant to this approval, within (90) ninety days of the date of the City’s final action on this application. The applicant shall obtain a building permit and any other approval required by the Building Code to modify or construct the masts and attached antennae on the property.

8. Unless otherwise modified by these conditions, all conditions of approval for Site Plan Review No. 8736—for the 198-square-foot storage room addition—and Minor Exception Permit No. 555—for a front-yard fence in excess of the 42-inch height limit—remain in full force and effect.

9. Pursuant to Section 17.76.020(A)(4)(c) of the City's Municipal Code, the applicant/landowner shall agree, in writing, to cooperate in possible future co-location of additional wireless communications facilities inside the structure on this site. Under the terms of this agreement, the applicant/landowner shall be obligated to:

a. Respond in a timely, comprehensive manner to a request for information from a potential shared-use applicant; and

b. Negotiate in good faith for shared use by third parties.

10. The roof-mounted antennae and masts that are hereby approved shall be painted a color that helps to camouflage them against the background sky. The color shall be approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement before the antenna support structure and array are painted. Painting shall be completed and inspected by the Director within ninety (90) days of the date of the City’s final action on this application.

11. The two roof-mounted masts and the two television antennae approved by this resolution shall not be increased or expanded without the advance approval of the Planning Commission, including, but not limited to, any additional antennae, masts, antennae support structures, antenna assemblies or radiating elements of any kind. Existing masts and antennae that are permitted by this approval may be removed and replaced for maintenance and/or repair as long as the replacement masts or antennae are the same or less in height, length and mass and in the same location as the approved masts and antennae, and provided that the total number of masts and antennae is not increased.

12. Notwithstanding Condition No. 11 above, within ninety (90) days of the date of the City’s final action on this application, the applicant shall remove all existing masts, antennae, horizontal support structure, pipes, ducts and other components of the roof-mounted antenna assembly that are not expressly approved by this Resolution. Any other antennae and antenna support structures either shall be removed or relocated inside the house.

13. Except in case of emergency, regular maintenance of the antennae and related support equipment and structures shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday.

14. All service vehicles related to the maintenance of the antennae shall be parked off-street in the driveway or garage of the house. No more than two (2) service vehicles are allowed on the site at any time.

15. Any new antennae and related support equipment and structures shall be located inside of the house. No new exterior building-mounted antennae or support structures will be allowed without approval of a modification to this conditional use permit by the Planning Commission.

16. The support equipment for the antennae on the site, including air conditioning units, shall not generate noise levels in excess of 65 db, as measured at the property line of the subject property. Any sound attenuation measures to achieve this standard shall be the responsibility of the applicant, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

17. The operation of antennae on the site shall at all times comply with the requirements, standards and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

18. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City’s final action on this application, the exterior appearance of the house and site shall be brought into consistency with neighborhood standards by:

    1. Painting the exterior of the house and garage and maintaining the exterior of the building so that the paint is not peeling or cracking in a manner detrimental to the value of the property and neighboring properties, to the satisfaction of the Director; and,
    2. Landscaping the front yard area, and maintaining the landscaping in a neat and thriving condition to the satisfaction of the Director.

19. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the City’s final action on this application, the applicant shall contract with a landscape and maintenance service to provide weekly service at the property to ensure that the structure and grounds are maintained free from litter, debris, and overgrown vegetation so as not to become an eyesore. The service shall be retained at any and all times that the structure is not occupied by residents for residential purposes, or in the event that any resident is not maintaining the property as required by these conditions of approval and by the City’s Municipal Code. Prior to any residential occupancy, the necessary improvements to make the house habitable shall be completed with all necessary permits and inspections—including a functional kitchen, toilet and bathing facilities and utility connections for gas, electricity, water and sewer—and shall be maintained continuously.

20. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City’s final action on this application, the house shall be equipped with smoke alarms and fire extinguishers, including those areas where the commercial power supplies, transmitters and other related equipment are kept.

21. Within ninety (90) days of the City’s final action on this application, the applicant shall obtain a business license from the City. A valid City business license shall be maintained at all times while commercial radio transmissions occur from the property.

22. At approximately six (6) months from the date of the City’s final action on this application, the Planning Commission shall review the project for conformance with the conditions of approval, and determine if any conditions of approval need to be added, deleted or modified, or if the permit should be revoked. Within the initial 6-month permit period, the applicant shall be responsible for completing all of the site and use modifications described in this Resolution. Failure to fulfill these conditions may lead to the revocation of this permit during the 6-month review process by the Planning Commission.


REGULAR BUSINESS:





12. Traffic Calming on Via Rivera. (Allison)
Recommendation: (1) Approve the installation of a series of speed humps along Via Rivera Avenue between Rue De La Pierre and Via Del Mar in accordance with the City’s Traffic Calming Program. (2) Authorize the expenditure of up to $40,000 for the engineering and construction of speed humps, signs and pavement markings along Via Rivera. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CALMING ON VIA RIVERA

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Approve the installation of a series of speed humps along Via Rivera between Rue de la Pierre and Via Del Mar in accordance with the City’s Traffic Calming Program.

  2. Authorize the expenditure of up to $ 40,000 for the engineering and construction of speed humps, signs and pavement markings along Via Rivera.

  3. Adopt Resolution 2002- , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Amending Resolution 2001- 43. The Budget Resolution for fiscal Year 2001-02, for a budget adjustment to the City’s General Fund

BACKGROUND

On May 19, 1998 the City Council adopted the Citywide Traffic Calming Program. The objective of the program is to improve the livability of neighborhoods and to minimize adverse impacts of vehicular traffic along impacted residential roadways. The program identifies a procedure for the evaluation of neighborhood traffic concerns and for the implementation of control measures. Attached is a flow chart outlining the steps in the program.

In early 1999, property owners along Via Rivera submitted a petition to the Department of Public Works asking for a traffic investigation. The neighborhood is impacted by traffic from the Point Vicente Elementary School, which is located on the interior of the tract. See attached. A traffic investigation began but was placed on hold pending the outcome of a pilot program for speed humps on Basswood Avenue. In September 2000, the City Council determined that the Basswood Avenue project was successful, and that speed humps would be considered elsewhere in the city.

In January 2001 the City resumed the traffic investigation along Via Rivera. Traffic count data and radar speed survey data were collected. Accident information was reviewed. The investigation observed and concluded the following:

  • Via Rivera provides the primary access to the neighborhood and the Point Vicente Elementary School
  • The 85th percentile vehicle speed on Via Rivera is 35-36 MPH.
  • There have been six reported accidents in the neighborhood; three on Via Rivera between Rue La Fleur and Via Borica and three on Via Borica near Via Rivera. None of these accidents occurred in the segment of Via Rivera being recommended for speed humps.

An important aspect of the traffic-calming program is that it establishes thresholds for both traffic volumes and vehicle speeds for a roadway before traffic calming may be considered. The measured traffic characteristics on Via Rivera meet these thresholds:

CRITERIA

REQUIREMENT

OBSERVED DATA

Average Traffic Volumes:
Daily /Hourly

1500 vehicles per day
150 vehicles per hour

2281 vehicles per day
366-321 vehicles per hour

Percent of Vehicles
Exceeding 25mph

67 Percent

91 Percent


Attempts were made to reduce vehicle speeds through a program of increased enforcement, however, reduced vehicle speeds were short lived. As a result of these findings, the City’s Traffic Engineer worked with the neighborhood to propose traffic calming measures for the neighborhood. The following traffic calming measures were considered:

    1. Entrance Treatments - Entrance treatments are designed to discourage cut through traffic, they are not effective in reducing vehicle speeds. Cut through traffic is not the issue on Via Rivera, since most motorists on the roadway have a destination within the tract.

    2. Speed Humps – Speed humps have proven to be effective in reducing vehicle speeds. To a lesser degree speed humps reduce the volume of cut through traffic.

    3. Curb Extensions or Chokers - Curb extensions will likely reduce vehicle speeds, however, they have not proven to be as successful as speed humps. Construction of curb extensions will also eliminate on-street parking, which is undesirable.

    4. Traffic Circles – There is no logical location for this alternative.

    5. Roundabouts - Roundabouts are generally used on higher volume roadways and would not be appropriate as a traffic calming measure on Via Rivera.

    6. Diagonal, Diverters, Semi-Diverters or Half Closures – These devices are designed to discourage cut through traffic by creating a longer path for vehicle using a roadway as a cut through. As discussed above, cut through traffic is not the issue on Via Rivera.

After considering these and other measures, the Traffic Engineer recommended that speed humps be installed on Via Rivera from Rue de la Pierre to Via Del Mar. The recommendation was presented at the October 22, 2001 Traffic Committee Meeting. Property owners in the entire neighborhood were given notice of the meeting. After considerable testimony, the Traffic Committee unanimously agreed with the Traffic Engineer’s recommendation. Attached is a map showing the notification area.

In accordance with the Traffic Calming Program a new petition was next circulated in November 2001 to property owners in the segment of Via Rivera where speed humps are proposed. The petition stated that speed humps are proposed but since a final design has not been prepared, it did not state exact locations of the speed humps. In November 2001 the neighborhood returned petitions signed by 89 percent of property owners.

During the course of the several Traffic Committee meetings, the City received written letters, e-mails and phone calls from seven individuals in opposition to the speed humps. Those in opposition state traffic delays, personal inconvenience, and damage to vehicles as the principal reasons for their opposition.

When the City first contemplated installing speed humps on Basswood Avenue, the Traffic Committee requested input from the City Attorney regarding potential liability issues. In a March 10, 1999 memorandum to then Chair Shephard, the City Attorney discusses the legal principal governing liability of public entities. The City Attorney indicates that the potential for liability from the installation of speed humps should only arise when the location of, or manner of installation of the speed humps constitutes a dangerous condition of public property. The memorandum indicates that additional emergency response time caused by the installation of speed humps, by itself, should not give rise to City liability.

When speed humps were first proposed for Basswood Avenue, input was requested from the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (JPIA) for recommendations as well as their experiences with members who have installed speed humps. The JPIA indicates that many of their members have installed speed humps in residential neighborhoods and they have no reported claims against members as a result.

When speed humps were proposed for Basswood Avenue, two letters were received from the County Fire Department. The first letter dated February 25, 1999 indicates that speed humps are not recommended by the Fire Department. The letter goes on, however, to state conditions whereby speed humps will be considered and the details of their installation. A second letter from the Fire Department dated April 6, 1999 discusses the Basswood Avenue installation specifically and recommends that speed humps not be installed on Basswood Avenue because the law enforcement documentation was inconclusive, and because they are proposed on a roadway which impacts emergency service for more than 75 homes or residential units.

The Fire Department was notified of this proposal but has yet not responded. The law enforcement documentation for Via Rivera is similar to that for Basswood Avenue. Via Rivera serves more than 75 residential units. Staff expects to have a representative from the Fire Department at the meeting.

In a December 9, 1998 letter regarding the Basswood Avenue project, the Sheriff’s Department indicated that they do not believe speed humps negatively impact their ability to provide law enforcement services.

CONCLUSIONS

The property owners along Via Rivera submitted a petition requesting that a traffic study be conducted in their neighborhood. The study concluded that the neighborhood is impacted by traffic and meets the requirements of the City’s Traffic Calming Program. After consideration of various traffic calming measures, the City’s Traffic Engineer and Traffic Committee recommend the installation of speed humps on Via Rivera from Rue de la Pierre to Via Del Mar. Eighty Nine percent of the property owners signed a petition in support of speed humps.

Adopting the staff recommendation will approve the installation of a series of speed humps and provide the required funds to do so. With this funding, plans for speed humps will be prepared and presented to the Traffic Committee. Once approved by the committee, the construction project will be advertised and brought to the City Council for award.

ALTERNATIVES

Deny the request for speed humps, and request staff, the Traffic Committee, and the Via Rivera property owners, to work together to determine if an alternate solution can be worked out which addresses the needs of the neighborhood.

FISCAL IMPACT

The estimated total cost to install the speed humps is $ 40,000.

Installation of humps

$ 24,000

Installation of signs pavement markings

$ 10,000

Engineering, Inspection, and Administration

$ 6,000

Total

$ 40,000


Funding for this project is not included in the adopted FY 2001-02 Budget. The attached resolution provides the necessary funding using General Funds.

The history of approved budget adjustments for FY 01 – 02 that impact the General Fund is as follows:

7/1/2001

Beginning General Fund Balance

$ 7,042,634

7/5/2001

Girls Softball Feasibility Study

$ 10,000

7/17/2001

Purchase tax default property

$ 2,978

8/7/2001

Pre-order drainage pipe for Palos Verdes Drive South repairs

$ 35,000

9/18/2001

Vallon Traffic Signal

$ 135,000

10/2/2001

San Ramon Drainage Improvements

$ 1,150,000

11/20/2001

GASB 34 appropriation increase

$ 35,000

 

General Fund Ending Fund Balance

$ 5,674,656

 

50% Budgeted General Fund revenues

$ 6,382,490

 

Ending Fund Balance Deficiency

( $ 707,834 )


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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Resolution 2002-xx
Location Map
Flow Chart of Traffic Calming Process
December 11, 1998 letter from the County Fire Department
February 25, 1999 letter from the County Fire Department
April 6, 1999 letter from the County Fire Department
December 9, 1998
March 10, 1999 memorandum from the City Attorney
April 22, 1999 letter from the JPIA
Notification letter to neighborhood
Map of notification area
Completed petition
Copies of letters and e-mails


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


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



13. Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: Direct staff to work with the Coastal Commission staff to modify the design of the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Program to eliminate the proposed lower parking lot and redesign the access driveway to minimize and/or eliminate the Coastal Commission staff’s concerns regarding the biologic (terrestrial) and geologic impacts of the project.

TO: CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: ABALONE COVE BEACH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Direct staff to work with the Coastal Commission staff to modify the design of the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project to eliminate the proposed lower parking lot and redesign the access driveway to minimize and/or eliminate the Coastal Commission staff’s concerns regarding the biologic (terrestrial) and geologic impacts of the project.

BACKGROUND

Staff last provided the City Council with an update of the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project on May 15, 2001. The staff report presented at that time is attached for the Council’s information. The appeal of the City’s approval of this project still has not been scheduled for a hearing before the California Coastal Commission. The next potential hearing date in the Los Angeles area is April 2002.

The delay has been due to the Coastal Commission staff’s requests for more information from City staff regarding the biologic and geologic impacts of the project. The latter issue has resulted in the Coastal Commission staff suggesting several design changes to the grading plan, which if ultimately required by the Coastal Commission as part of a project approval, will have a material impact on the project’s budget and character.

Although City staff has responded to these requests for more information, we are becoming increasingly concerned that the Coastal Commission staff is steering the project in a direction that may not acceptable to the City Council. Therefore, before responding to the few outstanding items requested by the Coastal Commission, staff felt that it would be an appropriate time to bring the project back to the City Council for review and direction.

DISCUSSION

Since the last time the City Council was briefed on the project, the following work has been completed:

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

In May 2001, staff reported that the project would impact 0.24 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat. Assuming a 3:1 replacement ratio, the City will be required to replace this loss with 0.72 acres of new habitat. Because this calculation was based on an earlier design of the project, staff requested that our civil engineer recalculate the impact, based on the revised grading plan. The project, as currently approved by the City, would result in the loss of 0.057 acres of coastal sage scrub. Therefore, the City would be required to provide 0.171 acres of new habitat (7,449 square feet), which is proposed to be located on-site, in the level area adjacent to the upper parking lot along Palos Verdes Drive South. On November 20, 2001, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement sent a request for a 4d permit to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. The resource agencies sent a joint 4d concurrence letter back to the City on December 18, 2001.

Coastal Commission staff has informed City staff that the coastal sage scrub on the Abalone Cove Beach property may qualify as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (or "ESHA") under the California Coastal Act regulations. Apparently, the Coastal Commission’s recent interpretation of ESHA regulations have been very literal and the Commission has prohibited at least one project (Bolsa Chica in Orange County) from creating any habitat loss within an identified ESHA, even when the loss was proposed to be mitigated through re-vegetation at a 3:1 replacement ratio. Although a copy of the USFWS/CDFG 4d letter for this project has been provided to the Coastal Commission staff, at this point staff is uncertain if the 4d letter will be adequate for the Coastal Commission to determine that this is not an ESHA. However, due to the small amount of habitat that will be lost during construction (0.057 acres), staff is hopeful that the Coastal Commission will not see this as a significant issue, especially when considered in light of the significant recreational and public safety improvements that will be created as a result of the project.

GEOLOGY

1. Maintenance of Access Road

Although it is more of a maintenance issue than a geology issue, the Coastal Commission’s geologist also asked for a narrative description of how the City intends to maintain the access roadway and related surface drainage structures from Palos Verdes Drive South down to the beach. Staff is currently preparing a response letter based on the City’s extensive experience maintaining the sections of Palos Verdes Drive South between Wayfarers Chapel and Narcissa Drive (Abalone Cove Landslide) and between Portuguese Point and Kelvin Canyon (Portuguese Bend Landslide). Because the Abalone Cove Landslide moves at a significantly slower rate than the Portuguese Bend Landslide, staff anticipates that the improved access road will be maintained as part of the citywide roadway maintenance schedule. However, if the improved access road experiences movement closer to the magnitude experienced in the Portuguese Bend area, the City would maintain the access road on the same schedule as the section of Palos Verdes Drive South that runs through the more active slide area. Hopefully, this will satisfy the Coastal Commission staff’s concerns regarding maintenance of the access roadway.

2. Cut Slope

On January 16, 2001, staff forwarded a supplemental geology report prepared by the City’s geotechnical consultant, Group Delta, to the Coastal Commission staff, which examined the stability of the proposed 35 foot high cut slope along the access road, west of the new parking lot. The Coastal Commission’s geologist reviewed this report and requested that Group Delta prepare an additional slope stability section analysis that is perpendicular to the "worst case" section analysis examined in this report. Although the Commission’s geologist admitted to staff on the telephone that the City has already examined the "worst case" scenario, he felt that this new section would specifically address questions raised by the appellants regarding the overall stability of the area. Group Delta has estimated that this additional calculation would cost between $2,000 and $3,000 to complete. Unless the Council directs otherwise, staff intends to authorize this additional work so that there can be no question regarding the stability of the slope.

3. Pressure Ridge

As reported back in May 2001, the Coastal Commission’s geologist expressed concern regarding the removal of the existing mound (pressure ridge) where the unpaved parking lot and parking attendant’s kiosk is proposed to be located and it’s impact on the overall on the stability of the Abalone Cove Landslide. Group Delta, prepared a supplemental letter addressing this specific issue, stating that removal of the mound would not increase the instability of the Abalone Cove Landslide. However, because land movement would continue seaward of Palos Verdes Drive South, Group Delta indicated that the mound would probably re-establish itself slowly over time. Although this is a long-term maintenance issue for the City, and not a stability issue, the Coastal Commission’s geologist asked City to explore the design alternative to place fill over the pressure mound, rather than cutting it away. Merit Engineering, the City’s civil engineer for the project, was asked to prepare a conceptual design to fill over the pressure ridge. On July 11, 2001, staff forwarded the new design (see attached) to the Coastal Commission staff with the following analysis of the pros and cons of the alternative design:

Pressure Ridge Grading Alternative No. 1

Pros

  • The pressure ridge is preserved in its entirely.
  • Additional fill is placed at the toe of the landslide, thereby providing a greater resisting force.
  • The height of the cut into the slope immediately to the west of the pressure ridge will be reduced from 35 feet to approximately 20 feet.
  • The amount of coastal sage scrub disturbed in the area of the cut slope is decreased by approximately one third.

Cons

  • The project has changed from a relatively balanced grading operation with 820 cubic yards of export to an import project. The civil engineer estimates that the project will now require approximately 3,970 cubic yards of imported fill material, although this amount might be able to be reduced to 3,500 cubic yards if the new parking area can be lowered in the final design. The need to import a large amount of fill material (over 400 truckloads) will increase in the cost of the project by at least $70,000 or more. Therefore, the revised project will exceed the amount of funding available from Measure A grant funds. No other funding sources have been identified at this time to make up the difference in cost.
  • The limits of the grading area will expand seaward of the turn out area and will include a maximum 23-foot high manufactured fill slope.
  • A small amount of previously undisturbed coastal sage scrub will need to be removed to accommodate the construction of the reconfigured parking lot.
  • The steepness of the driveway between the parking lot and the first building will increase from a 12% grade to a 20% grade (for comparison, the ramp at Golden Cove Shopping Center behind the Montessori School is 20% in steepness). The new grade of the driveway would exceed Los Angeles County Fire Department emergency access standards.

In response to our concerns about the steep section of driveway, the Coastal Commission geologist suggested the possibility of adding more fill at the bottom of the slope to lengthen out the driveway and thereby decrease the steepness of the road. Merit Engineering prepared a conceptual drawing of this alternative (see attached). Staff has analyzed this modified design and has made the following observations:

Pressure Ridge Grading Alternative No. 2

Pro

  • The modified design would decrease the steepness of this section of the driveway from 20% to 10% maximum, thereby eliminating staff’s concerns about emergency and safe public access.

Cons

  • The amount of import required for the project would be increased by an additional 2,500 cubic yards, bringing the total amount of import required for the project to between 6,000 cubic yards and 6,470 cubic yards (depending on the final design of the new parking area). The import required for the ramp would increase the cost of import by an additional $50,000, bringing the total cost to import dirt onto the site to between $120,000 and $129,400.
  • Creation of an earthen ramp between the existing buildings and the toe of the slope would require the installation of two retaining walls, one on either side of the roadway, in order to protect the buildings. The two retaining walls would have a combined length of approximately 355 feet. The downslope retaining wall would have a maximum height of 4 feet and the upslope retaining wall would have a maximum height of 10 feet. The cost of the new retaining walls is estimated to be approximately $55,000.

FISCAL IMPACT

Since the last update was provided to Council in May 2001, the Coastal Commission staff has asked the City explore design modifications that would alter the project from an essentially balanced grading operation with only 820 cubic yards of export, to a project requiring 6,000 to 6,470 cubic yards of earth to be trucked into the site, as well as two new retaining walls. The cost of the import would be approximately $129,400 and the cost to construct the retaining walls would be approximately $55,000, for a total additional cost to construct the project of $184,400.

The current budget for the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project is $550,000. The funding source is County Bond Measure A, which is administered by the County of Los Angeles Regional Park & Open Space District. To date, the City has not committed any General fund monies to this project. County regulations allow the City to spend up to 25% of the total project budget ($139,000) on non-construction related items, such as design, engineering, inspection services and project management (collectively known as "administration" costs). The remaining 75% of the grant money ($411,000) is earmarked for construction costs. To date, the City has spent $117,000 (18%) on administrative costs for the project, leaving only $22,000 for administrative costs, which will be insufficient to carry us through the completion of the project. There are provisions in the County regulations that may allow the City to increase the percentage for administrative costs from 25% to 30%, if the City can demonstrate to the County’s satisfaction that the higher percentage is justified. However, shifting more of the grant funding to cover administrative costs would require a corresponding decrease in the construction budget for the project. However, now that the Coastal Commission staff is contemplating changes that will increase the construction costs of the project by $184,400 (a 45% increase over the current grant funding), the City may be faced with decreasing the scope of the project or backfilling the gap with General fund money.

STAFF’S PROPOSED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE

Due to the significant changes to the project that are currently being considered by the Coastal Commission staff, City staff took another look at the overall design of the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project to see if there was a way to re-design the project to address the Coastal Commission’s concerns while staying within the current project budget. Of the three elements that make up the bulk of the project (1. building and beach improvements, 2. access roadway and 3. new lower parking area), staff feels that the most important project components are the building renovation and beach improvements (shade structures, showers, signage, etc.). None of the Coastal Commission’s comments have concerned the design and configuration of these proposed improvements. The second most important component to the project, in staff’s view, are the improvements to the existing access roadway, which include widening the road to provide two lanes of traffic (one in each direction), adequate emergency access (26 foot minimum roadway width) and a vehicle drop off and turn around area. Staff feels that the proposed 15 space lower parking lot is the lowest priority of these three elements because of its location within the active landslide area and proximity to the pressure ridge that is of such great concern to the Coastal Commission staff.

Based on this analysis, staff has asked the project civil engineer to look at a project re-design that incorporates the following elements:

  • Leaving the existing pressure ridge intact in order to eliminate the Coastal Commission geologist’s concerns about removing resisting force at the toe of the landslide.
  • Removing the 15 space parking lot in the area where the old paddle tennis courts were located.
  • Using the area previously occupied by the parking lot to re-route the access roadway to avoid the pressure ridge and minimize the steepness of the roadway to meet Fire Department standards.
  • Incorporating a small retaining wall adjacent to the cut slope along the driveway to further minimize the extent of this cut and the impact to the coastal sage scrub habitat growing on the hillside above.
  • Reconfiguring the existing parking lot adjacent to the building and lifeguard station in order to provide a drop-off and turn around area, and increase the number of parking spaces.
  • Moving the attendant kiosk closer down to the existing beach-level parking lot to provide the traffic management and visitor assistance.

The project civil engineer is currently working on preparing this alternative design, which will be presented to the City Council at this evening’s meeting. If the Council feels that this design concept has merit, staff recommends that we further refine the design and then meet with Coastal Commission staff to determine if they are willing to support this new design proposal.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the staff recommended alternative, the Council may wish to consider the following two alternatives:

1. Continue to respond to the Coastal Commission staff’s requests for additional information, with the understanding that the Coastal Commission staff may recommend approval of a project that will be significantly more expensive to construct and operate than the project approved by the City Council in July 2000.

2. Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Coastal Commission indicating that the City no longer supports the project and, if approved by the Coastal Commission, the City does not intend to construct it and will allocate the remaining Measure A grant money to another qualified project. If the Council chooses this alternative, the City will be required to reimburse the County for all of the Measure A funds that have been spent to date on administrative costs for the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project ($117,000).

CONCLUSION

The appeal of the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project is tentatively scheduled for the Coastal Commission hearings in April 2002 in Los Angeles. City staff and our consultants have been working with the Coastal Commission staff over the last year to address their concerns about the project. Since the last update in May 2001, the Coastal Commission staff has suggested design modifications that will significantly change the character of the project and substantially increase the cost of construction. In response to these potential changes, staff has developed a conceptual design alternative for the Council’s consideration to address the Coastal Commission staff’s concerns regarding the geologic and biological (terrestrial) impacts of the project. The goal is to develop a project design that will be acceptable to both the City and Coastal Commission, but also stays within the current Measure A budget allocated to this park improvement project.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru
Assistant City Manager

Reviewed:
Les Evans
City Manager



14. California Redemption Value Payments by Ivy Rubbish Disposal (Ramezani)

Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a contract amendment which allows Ivy Rubbish Disposal to defer payment of California Redemption Value revenues due the City for the period of July 1, 2000 though January 1, 2002, until the period July 1, 2002 through January 1, 2004.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA REDEMPTION VALUE PAYMENTS FROM IVY RUBBISH DISPOSAL

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

Request staff to prepare a contract amendment which allows Ivy Rubbish Disposal to defer payment of California Redemption Value revenues due the City for the period of July 1, 2000 through January 1, 2002, until the period July 1, 2002 through January 1, 2004.

BACKGROUND

Ivy Rubbish Disposal (Ivy) has provided very good waste hauling service to the City and its residents for several decades. Ivy is operating under an agreement that went into effect in July 2000. The term of the agreement is for 7 years, with a possibility of three one-year extensions. Ivy's service area includes approximately 550 customers in the Portuguese Bend Community, and the area southerly of PVDS.

The July 2000 agreement requires Ivy to make the following annual payments to the City:

  • A fixed lump sum Collector Fee of $12,000 per year.
  • California Redemption Value (CRV) revenues received from beverage containers. (Estimated at $6,000 per year)
  • Curbside Supplemental Payments for beverage container recycling (annual cash-back from the Department of Conservation funded from a portion of the State-wide CRV’s collected from beverage containers). (Estimated at $2,000 per year)

The agreement allows haulers to retain all proceeds from the sale of recyclable materials for scrap. This generally applies to glass, paper, cardboard, plastic and/or aluminum.

DISCUSSION

Since July 2000, Ivy has paid the Collector Fee and the annual curbside supplemental payment; however, they have not submitted any CRV redemption revenues. For the 18-month period, staff estimates these revenues at $9,000.

Ivy indicates the following reasons for their failure to submit these revenues:

  • They misunderstood the terms of the agreement at the time the rate was proposed. Ivy indicates that the current rates do not factor in payment of the CRV revenues to the City.
  • The Public Works Department was not proactive in requesting payment.

Furthermore Ivy states that the market for recycled material (scrap) is such that rather than receiving revenues from the sale of recyclables for scrap, they incurred expenses. Ivy states that they use CRV revenues to offset these expenses. (See attached correspondence to and from Ivy regarding this matter). Due to the above-mentioned reasons, Ivy has requested the City for a waiver of the CRV payment for the period of July 1, 2000 until December 31, 2001.

Since mid January 2002, Ivy has switched to a new processing center and is taking steps to assure full payment of current and future CRV revenues.

Staff believes that the reason for the non-payment is a genuine misunderstanding, however, staff believes that payment must be made. Staff proposes that payment of revenues due be deferred until July 2002, and that payment be allowed over a period of 18 months. The July 2002 date was selected because under the terms of the agreement, rates to customers can first be adjusted at that time.

The City Council should provide staff with direction as to if interest should be factored into the amounts owed.

ALTERNATIVES

  1. Request Ivy to immediately make full payment of funds due the City for past CRV revenues

  2. Request staff to prepare a contact amendment to delete the requirement that Ivy pay CRV revenues to the City for all or a portion of the contract period.

FISCAL IMPACT

The CRV revenue from Ivy’s area is estimated at $6,000 a year. The City uses the CRV revenue for the Neighborhood Beautification Program, median improvements, and the Recycler of the Month program.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Correspondence to and from Ivy
Two pages from Ivy’s Agreement



15. Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Committee. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND DISASTER RESPONSE COMMITTEE AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO PROVIDE STAFFING AND FUNDING FOR THIS NEW COMMITTEE.

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND DISASTER RESPONSE COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2002 - ; Establishing an Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Committee and direct staff to bring back a budget adjustment to provide staffing and funding for this new Committee.

BACKGROUND

Late last year, Jack Karp contacted staff regarding the concept of creating a City Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Committee. On December 10, 2001, the Assistant City Manager met with Mr. Karp and John Nieto, along with Mike Martinet, the City’s Area G Disaster Coordinator, to discuss the City’s existing emergency response plans and programs. Mr. Karp and Mr. Nieto are members of the Peninsula Emergency Response Team (PERT), which is a local volunteer disaster response team coordinated by the Lomita Sheriff’s station. Mr. Karp indicated that he had also met with Council members Clark and Gardiner regarding his concept and had been encouraged by them to prepare a "white paper" on the subject. On February 2, 2002, staff received the attached draft resolution prepared by Mr. Karp, Mr. Nieto, Maureen Ford (also a member of PERT), and Councilman Clark, regarding the creation of a City Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Committee (see attached). Shortly thereafter, staff received a request from Council members Clark and Gardiner to agendize this matter for discussion at tonight’s meeting.

DISCUSSION

Staff has reviewed the draft resolution prepared by the citizen’s group. Staff noted that many of the "Whereas" statements, findings and Mission Statement appear to be largely aimed at creating a volunteer disaster response team or "first responders" specifically for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. For example, the proposed resolution indicates that the Committee members "shall become Disaster Service Workers" and "supply immediate aid and support in time of emergency." In addition, some of the identified tasks and responsibilities of the proposed committee support this direction.

Staff recommends that the Committee not take on the duties of local Disaster Service Workers, because this is the role of the existing Peninsula Emergency Response Team (PERT), or of the County Sheriff or County Fire District. Staff feels that emphasis should be placed on the other tasks and responsibilities suggested by the citizen’s group. These would include charging the Committee with the responsibility for reviewing and recommending improvements to the City’s emergency response plans and programs, improving public education and involvement in disaster planning and improving communication and facilitating cooperation with other emergency response organizations and agencies. With this set of goals in mind, staff has prepared an alternative resolution for the Council’s consideration, which includes a number of changes to define the Committee’s organizational structure, mission statement and list of responsibilities to be consistent with other Council-appointed advisory committees (see attached). A general discussion of the modifications proposed by staff is provided below:

Composition

The number of committee members was unspecified in the draft resolution, leaving the impression that it would be unlimited and open to all interested residents. Staff recommends that this committee function like other City committees, rather than like a large volunteer organization, such as PERT, Neighborhood Watch or the Point Vicente Docents. To address this issue, staff has included language in the draft resolution to specify that there will be seven (7) Committee members appointed to staggered terms by the City Council, with a Chairperson selected from the group by the Council. Staff has suggested a seven member committee because this is consistent with the membership of the City’s other advisory committees, such as the Financial Advisory Committee and the Recreation and Parks Committee.

Duties

Given the concept that the Committee would serve as an advisory board to the City Council, staff has re-worked the list of tasks and responsibilities included in the resolution. Staff has attempted to place emphasis on improving communication and coordination among the various agencies and organizations that provide emergency services to the City, expansion of the City’s emergency plans to include new or emerging threats, such as utility failures, biological or chemical terrorism and aviation accidents, and creating a public awareness and education program to educate residents about emergency preparedness. Although Committee members will be encouraged to seek emergency and disaster-related training and education, staff has removed references to the Committee functioning as a City volunteer disaster response team. It should be noted, however, that members would not be barred from, and in fact should be encouraged to participate in other groups and organizations in that capacity.

Staffing

Staff estimates that the Committee will require approximately 1,000 hours of staff time per year. This estimate is based on the level of effort necessary to support other similar City committees in the research and preparation of staff reports, attendance at meetings, taking of minutes, etc.

Funding

Because this is a new committee, a budget and funding source would need to be identified to pay for education and training, supplies, public outreach materials, etc. called for in the proposed Tasks and Responsibilities statement. The adopted City Budget for FY 02-03 includes $21,390 in the Emergency Preparedness Program. This is a Spartan budget, the largest components of which are $6,000 for the City’s membership in the Area G Disaster Council, $5,500 for operating supplies and equipment, which is used to re-stock the City’s EOC supply cache and provide equipment and supplies to the PERT program and $2,500 for emergency telephone service. Although it cannot be clearly defined at this time, it is apparent that the current budget would not provide adequate funding to staff an Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Committee. However, once the duties and scope of work of the Committee are defined, and the level of expertise required to staff the committee is established, a final budget can be prepared. Additional staffing may be required.

CONCLUSION

The draft resolution submitted by the citizen’s group envisions a broad spectrum of responsibilities for the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Team, ranging from acting as first responders during an emergency to expanding the City’s emergency plans. The Peninsula Emergency Response Team (PERT) provides the majority of the volunteer "first responders" functions under the direction of the Lomita Sheriff’s station. Therefore, staff has revised the resolution to shape the Committee into an advisory board that would review the City’s existing emergency plans and programs and make recommendations to the City Council on various ways to improve the City’s state of readiness to respond to a wide and emerging variety of emergency situations and disasters.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt the resolution creating an Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Committee as proposed by the citizen’s group.

2. Do not create a new Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Committee, but direct staff to work with the Lomita Sheriff’s station and the PERT Board to improve and broaden the training, scope of responsibilities and activities of the PERT organization.

3. Receive and file this report (take no action).

Respectfully Submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Draft Resolution provided by Mr. Jack Karp, et al
Resolution No. 2002 - ; (staff version)



A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE

"DISASTER PREPARDEDNESS & EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMITTEE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES"

Whereas, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is sited in a unique geographically isolated environment subject to natural calamities and disaster as well as the potential of civil unrest and hazardous impact due to its proximity to the Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles International Airport and is traversed in the air and on the ground by aircraft and vehicles transporting hazardous materials and;

Whereas, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has completed a Multihazard Functional Plan as part of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) as required by law and has in place the recommendations of SEMS and;

Whereas, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is a bedroom community without the in-depth resources of a large industrial/commercial community and;

Whereas, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes contracts with outside vendors and agencies for most of its standard municipal services and by doing so lacks an in-city base of highly trained crafts people, equipment and supplies and;

Whereas, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes city employees are dedicated trained and organized but may not be immediately available in case of a disaster by reason of an event happening during non-working hours and therefore the city staff may be prevented from fulfilling their duties by reason of absence from the city, inability to travel to the city or fulfilling their primary obligation to family and home and;

Whereas, there are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes dedicated and desirous of providing immediate aid who are well trained under the auspices of the Peninsula Emergency Response Team (PERT) and operating in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Sheriff and;

Whereas, there are other agencies in addition to PERT such as School District, Sheriff, Fire, Red Cross, Salvation Army, Neighborhood Watch and other communities and where there are other volunteer organizations and;

Whereas, SEMS has guidelines for utilization of volunteers and have created the classification Disaster Service Worker and;

Whereas, California has passed Good Samaritan liability laws California Civil Code Chapter 9, sections 1799.102, 8659, 13970, 50086 and which provides "no person, who in good faith and not for compensation, render emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered." CC Ch.9 section 1799.102, CC section 50086 "No person who is summoned by the County Sheriff, …, Fire Department…, or other local agency to voluntarily assist in a search or rescue operation, who possesses first aid training equivalent to the Red Cross Advanced First Aid and Emergency Care Training Standards, and in good faith renders emergency services to a victim prior to or during the evacuation of extraction of the victim, shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such persons in rendering such emergency services" and;

Whereas, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does declare and find that an Emergency Response Committee is in the best interest of all of the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes and will supply immediate aid and support in times of emergency and;

Therefore be it resolved that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby establishes an Emergency Response Committee whose members shall become Disaster Service Workers as permitted under law and whose mandate and duties shall be those as set forth in the Mission Statement and Core Values:

Mission Statement

To coordinate, supplement and support existing governmental and emergency agencies and other organizations as: auxiliary, ancillary, first responders as Disaster Service Workers for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and surrounding communities.

Core Values, Tasks & Responsibilities

1. Committee members shall work with and cooperate and support existing governmental and emergency agencies including but not limit to the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, Palos Verdes, Peninsula Unified School District, Red Cross, Salvation Army, PERT, Neighborhood Watch and the RPV Council of Homeowner Associations.

2. Committee shall prepare a matrix identifying the tasks of each organization and their relationship to one another to improve efficiency and streamline the use of manpower and supplies.

3. Prepare and enhance our expanded Emergency Disaster Preparedness Plan to encompass a broad base from governmental entities to individual residents.

4. Committee shall communicate and educate residents as to awareness and preparedness in case of disasters and emergencies.

5. Establish caches of emergency support supplies in multiple locations.

6. Committee members shall be trained and registered as Disaster Service Workers.

7. The Committee shall encourage and enlist other community members to participate in the PERT regardless of age or physical condition.

8. Encourage community members to part take in PERT training and drills and expand their knowledge.



RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING THE DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMITTEE

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is sited in a unique, geographically isolated environment subject to natural calamities and disasters, as well as the potential of civil unrest and hazardous impact due to its proximity to the Los Angeles Harbor and adjacent industrialized areas and is traversed in the air by a variety of aircraft and on the ground by vehicles transporting hazardous materials; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has completed a Multihazard Functional Plan as part of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) as required by law and has in place the recommendations of SEMS; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes contracts with outside vendors and agencies for most of its standard municipal services, including public works, police and fire and by doing so would quickly require mutual aid and outside assistance during a significant natural disaster or emergency situation; and,

WHEREAS, there are other disaster organizations and agencies including but not limited to the Peninsula Emergency Response Team, local School Districts, the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Neighborhood Watch and adjacent cities that can work more closely with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in the preparation for and response to disasters and emergencies.

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

Section 1: That creation of an Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Committee is in the best interest of all of the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes because it will allow the City to organize its own resources as well as pool resources with other emergency response agencies and organizations in order to achieve the highest level of planning, preparedness and response to a wide variety of disasters and emergencies.

Section 2: The City Council hereby establishes an Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Committee. The Committee shall consist of seven (7) members appointed by the City Council for staggered terms of service, with a Chairperson selected from the group by the Council. The Committee’s mandate and duties shall be those as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" (Mission Statement, Core Values, Tasks and Responsibilities), attached hereto and made a part thereof.

PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 19th day of February 2002.


__________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_________________________
CITY CLERK

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

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on February 19, 2002.


_____________________________
City Clerk



EXHIBIT A

MISSION STATEMENT

To advise and assist the City Council and staff to ensure that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes develops and maintains a high state of readiness to respond to a wide variety of emergencies and disasters.

CORE VALUES, TASKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1.The Committee shall work with other agencies and organizations involved with emergency preparedness and response to improve communication between these entities, coordinate resources and facilitate City participation in mutual training exercises. Examples of such entities include but are not limited to the cities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Palos Verdes Estates, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Peninsula Emergency Response Team (PERT), Disaster Communication Service (DCS), Neighborhood Watch and the RPV Council of Homeowner Associations

2. The Committee shall prepare and periodically update a matrix identifying the tasks of each organization serving the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in the event of a disaster or emergency and their relationship to one another to improve efficiency and streamline the use of manpower and supplies.

3. The Committee shall review and make recommendations to City Council regarding the City’s Emergency Disaster Preparedness Plan to address new and/or emerging threats, including but not limited to aviation accidents, utility failures, and biological or chemical terrorism.

4. The Committee shall develop and improve programs to communicate with and educate residents about the importance of preparedness in case of disasters and emergencies.

5. The Committee shall coordinate with the Public Works Department to establish caches of emergency support supplies in multiple locations within the City.

6. Committee members, who have not already done so, shall be strongly encouraged to become trained and registered as Disaster Service Workers, and/or receive other disaster-related training and certifications.

7. The Committee shall encourage residents to participate in the PERT, the Disaster Communication Service (DCS), or other local volunteer disaster response organization, regardless of age or physical condition.



16. San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) A mend the professional service contract to AMEC earth and Environmental, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $104,109 for geotechnical inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $383,134. (2) Amend the professional service contract to Helix Environmental Planning for an amount not to exceed $68,600 for mitigation monitoring services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $147,900. (3) Amend the professional service contract to DMc Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $36,630 for engineering services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $177,240. (4) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS APPROVING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION PROJECT BY $210,000, FROM $3,194,650 TO $3,404.650.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION PROJECT

STAFF COORDINATOR: NICOLE JULES, SR ENGINEER

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Amend the professional service contract to AMEC earth and Environmental, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $104,109 for geotechnical inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $383,134.

  2. Amend the professional service contract to Helix Environmental Planning for an amount not to exceed $ 68,600 for mitigation monitoring services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of 147,900.

  3. Amend the professional service contract to DMc Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $ 36,630 for engineering services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $177,240.

  4. Adopt Resolution No. 2002- ; approving a budget adjustment to increase the Capital Improvement Project Budget for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project by $210,000, from $3,194,650 to $3,404,650.

BACKGROUND

On October 2, 2001, the City Council awarded a construction contract for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. At that same meeting, engineering contracts were awarded to Harris and Associates for construction management services, AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc for geotechnical inspection services, DMc Engineering, Inc. for civil engineering services, and Helix Environmental Planning for environmental processing and inspection services. For a number of reasons, additional services and funding is required for several of the engineering contracts.

Construction is progressing on schedule and within budget. To date, the project is approximately 44% complete in time with 112 working days remaining in the construction schedule. Approximately 50% of the construction budget has been expended to date. The community, at large, is satisfied with the construction progress and complaints are minimal.

Amec Earth and Environmental, Inc. is contracted to perform geotechnical inspection services for the San Ramon Project. Originally, Amec’s contract assumed providing geotechnical inspection services for only 60 days during the grading portion of construction and, however, geotechnical inspection services will be needed for the entire duration of the construction, totalling 200 days. The necessary budget increase for Amec is $104,109. A detailed summary of Amec’s budget amendment is attached.

Helix Environmental Planning is contracted to perform environmental monitoring during construction operations. Their original contract, which was awarded before all permit conditions were provided, assumed one monitoring event per week during clearing stages. This original monitoring plan does not satisfy the permit process and needs to be increased to full-time monitoring during the clearing stages. Additionally, paleontological services are required which were not originally assumed. The necessary budget increase for Helix is $68,600. A detailed summary of Helix’s budget increase is attached.

DMc Engineering is contracted with the City to perform engineering services for the preparation of the San Ramon easement and legal exhibits, outlet drainage structure and topographic and lot line survey. DMc’s original contract amount did not provide for the unforeseen geological conditions which require additional engineering services for locating the outlet drainage structure in a safe and workable location. The necessary budget increase for DMc is $ 36,630. A detailed summary of DMc’s budget increase is attached.

CONCLUSION

Adopting this staff recommendations will provide the necessary additional funding for engineering services to complete the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide stabilization Project. The total cost of construction, including engineering services, now stands at $3,404,650.

FISCAL IMPACT

If the Council decides to proceed with the amended contracts for Amec, Helix and DMc, the FY01-02 Capital Improvement Fund appropriation for this project would need to be increased by $210,000, for a total budget amount of $3,404,650. A resolution has been prepared for the budget adjustment. The source of the funds is the General Fund.

The history of approved budget adjustments for FY 01 – 02 that impact the General Fund is as follows:

7/1/2001

Beginning General Fund Balance

$ 7,042,634

7/5/2001

Girls Softball Feasibility Study

$ 10,000

7/17/2001

Purchase tax default property

$ 2,978

8/7/2001

Pre-order drainage pipe for Palos Verdes Drive South repairs

$ 35,000

9/18/2001

Vallon Traffic Signal

$ 135,000

10/2/2001

San Ramon Drainage Improvements

$ 1,150,000

11/20/2001

GASB 34 appropriation increase

$ 35,000

 

General Fund Ending Fund Balance

$ 5,674,656

 

50% Budgeted General Fund revenues

$ 6,382,490

 

Ending Fund Balance Deficiency

( $ 707,834 )


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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Resolution No. 2002- ; Budget Adjustment to the Capital Improvement Fund
San Ramon Drainage and Land Stabilization Project – Budget Amendment Summary



17. General Plan Update. (Pfost)

Recommendation: (1) Formulate a "General Plan Update Committee" to review the General Plan Goals and Policies, as well as the technical updates identified by staff and make a recommendation to the City Council as to scope of the necessary General Plan amendments. (2) Direct staff to develop and implement a public participation strategy.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP , Deputy Planning Director

RECOMMENDATION

1) Formulate a "General Plan Update Committee" to review the General Plan Goals and Policies, as well as the technical updates identified by Staff and make a recommendation to the City Council as to scope of the necessary General Plan amendments; and 2) Direct Staff to develop and implement a public participation strategy to include creating a "General Plan Update" site on the City's Web page with the ability for the public to join an e-mail list serve group, providing notice in the newspaper and to all Homeowner Associations of all Committee meetings, press releases to update the public on the status of the update, and other methods.

BACKGROUND

At its January 12, 2002 meeting, the City Council discussed master plan issues and specifically focused upon the City's General Plan. The City Council acknowledged that portions of the General Plan need updating and directed Staff to take the initial steps to assist the City Council in determining the direction and extent of the update. The City Council expressed that a thorough review of the goals and policies is a necessary first step, and that this would help to define the direction and extent of future updating work to be conducted by the Council, Staff and the community. Further, the City Council expressed the importance of including public input, encouraging the use of local talent within the community, and specifically forming a community-wide task force to assist in the preparation of the update. The Council directed Staff to place the General Plan on the City's web site, and return to the City Council with a list of the General Plan Goals and Policies for review and discussion.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with additional information pertaining to an update of the General Plan, and to seek direction from the City Council as to the next step(s). Staff has divided the discussion of a General Plan Update into three components, which are discussed below.

  1. Goals and Policies
  2. Text Changes and Preparation of Reports/Studies
  3. Discussion of Current Topics

Goals and Policies

As requested by the City Council at its January 12, 2002 meeting, attached is a copy of the General Plan Goals and Policies, as originally adopted on June 26, 1975. They are organized according to the same format as the General Plan. The Council may notice that the Goals and Policies, and for that matter the General Plan, are organized into only 5 separate elements (Natural Environment Element, Socio/Cultural Element, Urban Environment Element, Land Use Plan, and Fiscal Element). Although at first glance, this may seem inconsistent with State Law, which mandates that the General Plan include 7 elements (Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Safety and Noise), all of the 7 State mandated elements plus one additional element (Scenic Highway) have been integrated into various parts of the General Plan.

At the January 12, 2002 City Council meeting, Councilman Gardiner brought up the importance of identifying the differences between what he called the "Ends" (i.e. "Where the City wants to go") and the "Means" (i.e. How the City gets there"). Councilman Gardiner asked Staff to make an attempt at defining these differences for each Goal and Policy. As shown in the attached list of Goals and Policies, Staff has added a note to the end of each Goal and Policy, identifying whether, in Staff's opinion, the Goal or Policy could be defined as an "(Ends)", a "(Means)", or in some cases both. Interestingly, the attached list shows that for the most part, the "Goals" tend to be the "Ends", while the "Policies" tend to be the "Means". The structure of the General Plan's Goals and Policies is consistent with the direction provided by the "General Plan Guidelines" as prepared by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), wherein the Guidelines indicate "An objective (or goal) is a general expression of community values…by definition, (they) should be expressed as ends and not as actions". The Guidelines also indicate that, "A policy is a specific statement that guides decision making. It indicates a commitment of the local legislative body to a particular course of action. A policy is based on and helps implement a general plan's objectives (goals)". It is important to note that Government Code Section 65302 specifies that "The General Plan shall consist of a statement of development polices and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals". Hence a General Plan needs to be structured in a way that includes both Goals ("Ends") and Policies ("Means") used to implement those Goals.

The City's General Plan currently contains 28 Goals and 190 Policies. As shown in the attached list, all of the Policies are directly related to and implement the more general Goals. After conducting a very preliminary review of the Goals and Policies, Staff has identified at least six Policies that will need to be revised, primarily because the six Policies call for an action (such as the adoption of standards or ordinances) that has already been completed. These six Policies are identified by the word "(Revision)" in bold text following the specific Policy. Although Staff believes that most of the policies are still valid today, 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.

Text Changes and Preparation of Studies/Reports

As noted in the report that was presented at the January 12, 2002 City Council meeting, Staff estimates that approximately 50% of the General Plan text needs to be updated, while another 40% needs to be completely re-written. Although Staff believes that much of the "update" work could be completed by current Staff, there will be a need to hire a consultant to assist in the public outreach programs, prepare the EIR, and re-write 40% of the plan. In addition, there will be a need for sub-consultants to prepare technical studies (such as Traffic, Noise, and Fiscal impacts), update the technical discussions on topics such as geology, hydrology, and archaeology, and update the tables, maps, and other graphics. Based on discussions with private consulting firms, Staff estimates that to complete the necessary update/re-write of the General Plan, as noted above, consultant costs would range between $200,000 and $400,000.

Current Topics

As noted in the January 12, 2002 Staff Report, Staff has identified some current topics/issues that Staff feels should be addressed in the General Plan update. The topic areas include:

    1. City owned properties and large vacant parcels within the Portuguese Bend area.
    2. Recreational needs of the community.
    3. Zone II and/or other geologic issues related to the landslides.
    4. Development pressures on Institutionally zoned properties

Staff envisions that a discussion of each of these topic areas will occur during the update process. As a result, information pertaining to each would be incorporated into various parts of the updated General Plan, including the possibility of forming new Goals and/or Policies related to each topic area.

Proposed Process

Staff is recommending that the following process be utilized for completing an update of the General Plan:

  1. Formulate a "General Plan Update Committee" made up of two City Council members and two Planning Commissioners to review the General Plan Goals and Policies, as well as the technical updates identified by Staff and make a recommendation to the City Council as to scope of the necessary General Plan amendments. Specifically, the Committee would:
    1. Review the 28 Goals and 190 Policies contained in the current General Plan and determine whether they should be retained, modified, or deleted, or whether new Goals and Policies should be added.
    2. Identify the specific technical areas that need to be adjusted and/or updated in the General Plan, what portions Staff will be able to complete, and what portions a Consultant will need to complete.

  2. Direct Staff to develop and implement a public participation strategy to include creating a "General Plan Update" site on the City's Web page with the ability for the public to join an e-mail list serve group, providing notice in the newspaper and to all Homeowner Associations of all "Goal/Policy Committee" meetings, press releases to update the public on the status of the update, and other methods.

  3. Upon completion of the General Plan Update Committee’s review, consider the committee’s recommendations with regards to the "Goals/Policies" and decide whether to create a broad-based "goals/policy" committee made up of representatives of each City Commission/Committee and local interest groups (such as the Council of Homeowner Associations, Peninsula Seniors, the docents, sports organizations, etc.) to provide input on the specific updates to the Goals/Policies.

  4. Upon completion of the General Plan Update Committee’s review, consider the committee’s recommendations with regards to the necessary text and graphics updates and direct Staff to prepare and release an RFP (Request For Proposals) for Consultant services to update portions of the General Plan and prepare environmental documentation, as recommended.

    Staff estimates that it will take 3-4 months for a "General Plan Update Committee" to review the General Plan Goals and Policies, as well as the technical updates identified by Staff and make a recommendation to the City Council as to scope of the necessary General Plan amendments. Once initiated, Staff estimates that the actual update process would take approximately 1 to 2 years to complete.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

As directed by the City Council at the January 12, 2002 meeting, Staff is in the process of putting the 1975 General Plan and the list of Goals and Policies on the City's Web site. This should be completed on or before February 22, 2002.

It was recently brought to Staff's attention, that there was a "Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Goals Committee Preliminary Goals Report" that was used to assist the City Council to prepare the original 1975 General Plan. Apparently, the Report was used to craft the Goals and Policies of the General Plan. Attached is a copy of the Report.

To provide the City Council with additional information on the purpose and content of a General Plan, attached is a copy of the introductory sections of OPR's "General Plan Guidelines".

CONCLUSION

This report serves to identify an initial strategy/proposal to assist the City Council in determining the extent of a General Plan update. Staff recommends that the City Council initiate the update process, as described above.

FISCAL IMPACT

As noted in previous reports, Staff estimates that a budget of $200,000-$400,000 will be required to engage a consultant to prepare the necessary updates to the General Plan, along with the necessary CEQA documentation. This cost will be better ascertained once the City Council, through recommendations of a "General Plan Update Committee" is able to identify the scope of the necessary General Plan amendments.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:
General Plan Goals and Policies
List of Citizen Participants/Committees used in the 1975 General Plan
Portion of OPR's "General Plan Guidelines"
Preliminary Goals Report, dated September 1974



City of Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan
Goals and Policies

(Adopted June 26, 1975)

Note: In preparation for City Council discussion at the February 19, 2002 City Council meeting, Staff has added one to two notes at the end of each of the original 1975 Goals and Policies listed below. The first note, shown in bold text, identifies whether, in Staff's opinion, the Goal or Policy could be defined as an "Ends" (i.e. "Where the City wants to go"), a "Means" (i.e. "How does the City gets there"), or both. Additionally, for Goals and Policies where there is a second note, Staff has identified in bold text, that, in Staff's opinion, the Goal or Policy will need "Revision".

Natural Environment Element

Goal:

A. It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to conserve, protect, and enhance its natural resources, beauty, and open space for the benefit and enjoyment of its residents and the residents of the entire region. Future development shall recognize the sensitivity of the natural environmental and be accomplished in such a manner as to maximize the protection of it. (ENDS/MEANS)

Policies for Public Health/Safety Related to the Natural Environment (G.P. pages 44-45):

1. Permit development within the Sea Cliff Erosion Area (RM1), only if demonstrated through detailed geologic analysis, that the design and setbacks are adequate to insure public safety and to maintain physical, biologic, and scenic resources. Due to the sensitive nature of RM 1, this area is included as an integral part of a Specific Plan District and should be more fully defined. (MEANS)

2. Allow only low intensity activities within Resource Management Districts of extreme slopes (RM 2). (MEANS)

3. Require any development within the Resource Management Districts of high slopes (RM 3) and old landslide area (RM 5) to perform at least one, and preferably two, independent engineering studies concerning the geotechnical, soils, and other stability factors (including seismic considerations) affecting the site. (MEANS)

4. Allow no further development involving any human occupancy within the active landslide area (RM 4). (MEANS)

5. Develop, as a part of any specific area planning study, a more detailed definition of the limits and composition of any RMD’s related to Health and Safety with particular reference to the active/old landslide areas, the sea cliff erosion setback, and critical extreme slope areas. (MEANS)

6. Develop and enforce a grading ordinance with detailed controls and performance standards to insure both engineering standards and the appropriate topographic treatment of slopes based upon recognized site planning and landscape architecture standards. (MEANS)

7. Prohibit activities that create excessive silt, pollutant runoff, increase canyon wall erosion, or potential for landslide, within Resource Management Districts containing Hydrologic Factors (RM 6). (MEANS)

8. Encourage establishment of the rocky inter-tidal areas as a marine reserve and strict enforcement be applied to all regulations concerning marine resources (Resource Management Districts containing Marine Resources RM 7). (MEANS)

9. Encourage developments within or adjacent to wildlife habitats (RM 8) to describe the nature of the impact upon the wildlife habitat and provide mitigation measures to fully offset the impact. (MEANS)

10. Encourage developments within Resource Management Districts containing Natural Vegetation (RM 9) to re-vegetate with native material wherever clearing of vegetation is required. (MEANS)

11. Stringently regulate irrigation, natural drainage, and other water-related considerations, in both new development and existing uses affecting existing or potential slide areas. (MEANS)

12. Provide incentives to enable unique and innovative development exceptions in areas otherwise precluding development for health and safety reasons, if the development can establish its engineering feasibility beyond a reasonable doubt, and is otherwise compatible with the intent of the General and Specific Plans for the area. (MEANS)

13. Provide a listing of toxic chemicals used as fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides which are determined to be damaging to the environment, with particular concern for the marine environment, at current use levels within the City (based upon water sampling, etc.) to all potential major users in the City, with use criteria or prohibition clearly indicated. (MEANS)

14. Maintain the existing natural vegetation of the City in its natural state to the maximum extent possible in all existing and proposed developments, to the extent commensurate with good fire protection policies and encourage the re-establishment of appropriate native plants. (MEANS)

15. Require a master landscape plan for any proposed development showing the retention/enhancement of natural vegetation proposed, new complementing vegetation, and all efforts involving retention/enhancement/protection of hydrologic factors, vegetation and wildlife factors. (MEANS)

16. Require all projects with any natural resource management district factors falling within their project boundaries to deal with these areas in detail in an Environmental Impact Report. (MEANS) (REVISION)

Overall Policies (G.P. page 45):

1. Develop a resource management ordinance to accompany the zoning ordinance, grading ordinance, and any other regulatory vehicles. (MEANS) (REVISION)

2. Develop a specific set of planning and design criteria for natural environment considerations with new development, and in upgrading existing areas for use by architects, planners, engineers, and others in a handbook/checklist form. (MEANS)

3. Develop and integrate a specific review process covering the natural environment aspects of any proposed development with the normal review processes associated with proposed development. (MEANS)

4. Consider in more detail natural environment factors in subsequent specific area studies as an integral part of these studies. (MEANS)

5. Consider the establishment of baseline data for air and water quality in order to develop standards for future enforcement of regulations specific to Rancho Palos Verdes. (MEANS) (REVISION)

6. Consider the acquisition of rights over the offshore tidelands area related to the City’s coastline. (MEANS)

7. Encourage study of and funding to preserve unusual flora and fauna. (MEANS)



Socio/Cultural Element

Goal:

A. It is the goal of the City to preserve and protect its cultural resources and to promote programs to meet the social needs of its citizens. (ENDS)

Cultural Resources

Goal:

A. The City shall strive to protect and preserve all significant archaeological, paleontological and historical resources within the City. (ENDS)

Policies (G.P. page 50):

1. Monitor the State’s activities for developments that could provide funds for the acquisition, preservation, and/or maintenance of historic places and archaeological sites. (MEANS)

2. Encourage the identification of archaeologically sensitive areas and sites. (MEANS)

3. Require all projects for new construction, subdivisions, conditional use permits, and variances that occur in archaeologically sensitive areas to have a special archaeological component in their Environmental Impact Reports. (MEANS) (REVISION)

4. Forward Environmental Impact Reports to the University of California at Los Angeles, the Society for California Archaeology’s (SCA) Clearinghouse for this area, and to California State College at Dominguez Hills. (MEANS)

5. Allow salvage excavation of the site where some technique of preservation cannot be implemented. (MEANS)

6.Actively press for the Point Vicente Lighthouse to be included in the National Register of Historic Places. (MEANS)

Current social, service, and cultural organizations

Goal:

A. Work toward a coordinated program to aid in matching the facility needs of the many and diverse groups in the community with existing and future facility resources throughout the City. (ENDS)

Policies (G.P. page 51):

1. Provide leadership in coordinating a cooperative approach to solving the need for community meetings, cultural events, and recreational facilities. (MEANS)

2. Plan for a large community meeting facility in its Civic Center. (MEANS)

3. Encourage the building of meeting facilities by private or nonprofit groups. Existing and new businesses, churches, utilities, etc., should be encouraged to allow some use of their facilities by community groups. (MEANS)

4. Encourage the building of playing fields for multiple uses by various recreational groups on City land, school sites, and private land, which has not yet been programmed for development. (MEANS)

Social Services

Goals:

A. Encourage programs for community involvement, participation, and action to minimize the sense of isolation and powerlessness felt by many individuals in the community. (ENDS)

B. Encourage programs for recreation, social services, and cultural and educational achievement. (ENDS)

C. Encourage a framework for interaction among the four cities of the peninsula and between the peninsula and its surrounding communities to solve common problems. (ENDS)

Policies (G.P. page 55):

1. Encourage the development and expansion of meaningful geographic groupings and sub community committees to act as a vehicle for improved communications with citizens, the City staff, and the City Council. Individuals should be encouraged to become involved in the community through interaction, communication and participation. (MEANS)

2. Act to enhance mobility within the neighborhood, mobility within the City, and on the Peninsula as a whole. Dependence solely upon the private automobile is not satisfactory. (MEANS)

3. Bring the residents’ needs into the City’s planning process and attempt to ensure that citizens and their skills are utilized. (MEANS)

4. Encourage all groups within the City to establish representation on the sub community committees and other civic action groups. Efforts should be made to ensure that no programs are developed that will isolate any group and particular emphasis should be given to those who suffer from isolation due to age, health, disability and race. (MEANS)

5. Encourage the use of town meetings and forums within neighborhoods and citywide to address a variety of issues and subjects of community interest. Facilities for such events should be provided where possible, and annual citywide events should be encouraged. (MEANS)

6. Develop an ongoing centralized civic information service of events, issues and services for the citizens. The City should encourage, through this service, the use of existing civic and private assistance organizations. (MEANS)

7. Encourage the development of job opportunities for youth within the City. The City should actively work toward providing meaningful opportunities for older citizens so that they will choose to remain in the community. (MEANS)

8. Develop recreational programs that will address the recreational needs of all citizens, both individually and in groups. This should include the development of a set of criteria, which will enable the City to project and evaluate the implications of its decisions as to the long-range effectiveness of these programs. (MEANS)

9. Identify, in partnership with other agencies and organizations, the major human services areas and the respective roles of each agency in the planning, administration and delivery of those services. (MEANS)

10. Establish, in partnership with other agencies and organizations, procedures for the better coordination of human services delivery. Specifically, the City should assume responsibility for acting as a clearinghouse for up-to-date information on the current state of human services. (MEANS)

11. Develop, in partnership with other agencies and organizations, mechanisms for the better coordination of human service planning efforts. Specifically, the City should assume responsibility for acting as a clearinghouse for information exchange relevant to human service planning activities throughout the community. (MEANS)

12. Place special emphasis on the cultural, educational, and recreational needs of individuals, families, and the community and encourage the expansion of existing programs in these areas. (MEANS)

13. Encourage the South Bay, Harbor, and Peninsula cities to share in the identification of common problems and work toward the development of solutions and services of benefit to each. This should include the encouragement of dialogue between the professional City employees of the four cities. (MEANS)

14. Take leadership in the formation of a four-city Peninsula commission dedicated to the expansion and strengthening of common Peninsula city bonds and which should further serve to develop an attitude of mutual respect among communities.(MEANS)



Urban Environment Element

Goal:

A. It is the goal of the City to carefully control and direct future growth towards making a positive contribution to all elements of the community. Growth in Rancho Palos Verdes should be a cautious, evolutionary process that follows a well-conceived set of general guidelines which respond to both holding capacity limitations for the region and environmental factors on the peninsula. (ENDS)

Activity Areas

Goals:

A. It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment; to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods; and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community. (ENDS)

B. The City shall discourage industrial and major commercial activities due to the terrain and environmental characteristics of the City. Commercial development shall be carefully and strictly controlled, and limited to consideration of convenience or neighborhood service facilities. (MEANS)

C. The City shall encourage the development of institutional facilities to serve the political, social, and cultural needs of its citizens. (ENDS)

D. The City shall endeavor to provide, develop, and maintain recreational facilities and programs of various types to provide a variety of activities for persons of all age groups and in all areas of the community. (ENDS)

E. Agricultural uses within the City shall be encouraged, since they are desirable for resource management and open space. (ENDS)

Compatibility of Adjacent Activity Areas to Rancho Palos Verdes

Policy (G.P. page 58):

1. Work in conjunction with neighboring cities when development plans are submitted to either this City or the other cities which generate impacts into other organizations. (MEANS)

Housing Activity

Policies (G.P. page 78):

1. Retain the present predominance of single-family residences found throughout the community, while continuing to maintain the existing variety of housing types. (MEANS)

2. Require all new housing developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping, open space, and other design amenities to meet the community standards of environmental quality. (MEANS)

3. Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design. (MEANS)

4. Prepare development codes with quality standards, but flexible to new technology and techniques of building. (MEANS)

5. Support and assist in enforcement of "open housing" regulations to prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. (MEANS)

6. Cooperate with County, State, and Federal agencies, monitoring all housing programs offered, and studying their desirability for implementation in the City. (MEANS)

7. Cooperate with other governmental entities to explore the possibility of obtaining rent and purchase subsidies for low-income housing in the City and South Bay region. (MEANS)

8. Initiate strong code enforcement programs so that scattered housing problems are solved rapidly to prevent even small-area deterioration. (MEANS)

9. Discourage condominium conversion since this further limits the economic range of housing. (MEANS)

10. Require all developments that propose open space to be held in private ownership to provide legal guarantees to protect these areas from further development. (MEANS)

11. Control the alteration of natural terrain. (MEANS)

12. Encourage energy conservation in housing design. (MEANS)

13. Require proposals for development of areas which impact corridor related views to analyze the site conditions and address the preservation of such views. (MEANS)

14. Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents. (MEANS)

15. Enforce height controls to further lessen the possibility for view obstructions. (MEANS)

16. Require proposed housing to show how it ensures the existence of neighboring site privacy, while simultaneously providing privacy to the occupants of the proposed units. (MEANS)

17. Make an effort through zoning, cooperation with other governmental entities, and acquisition to preserve the rural and open character of the City. (MEANS)

18. Allow no further development involving any human occupancy within the active landslide area. (MEANS)

Commercial Activity

Policies (G.P. page 85):

1. Place commercial activities under the same building orientation controls as residential activities in regard to topographic and climatic design factors. (MEANS)

2. Require the commercial activity where a commercial area would be nonconforming with adjoining activities, to provide the necessary mitigating measures, including landscaping, etc. (MEANS)

3. Make special efforts to ensure safe conditions on ingress and egress routes to commercial areas for both pedestrians and vehicles. (MEANS)

4. Require that scenic view disruption by commercial activities be taken into account not only in the physical design of structures and signs, but also in night lighting of exterior grounds. (MEANS)

5. Require commercial sites to limit the exposure of parking and exterior service areas from the view of adjoining sites and circulation routes. (MEANS)

6. Study parking areas as to the degree of use for the total area. Where a portion of the parking area is determined to only serve short-term seasonal demands, alternative surface treatments such as grass should be employed. (MEANS)

7. Require adequate provisions be incorporated into commercial site design to reduce negative impacts on adjoining residential areas. (MEANS)

Institutional Activity (Public, Educational and Religious)

Policies:

1. Locate schools on or near major arterials or collectors, buffered from residential uses, and provide adequate parking and automobile access. (MEANS)

2. Make every effort to preserve the Coast Guard Station as a historical and cultural resource in the event that it is deactivated. (MEANS)

3. Continue to work closely with the School District in coordinating planning and programming. (MEANS)

4. Encourage implementation of plans for pedestrian and bicycling networks linking residential areas with schools for the safety of children. (MEANS)

5. Encourage additional institutions of higher learning and research, particularly those related to oceanography. (MEANS)

6. Review the location and site design of future institutional uses very carefully to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites. (MEANS)

7. Encourage mitigation of the adverse aesthetic impact of the County communications tower, as changing technology and economics permit. (MEANS)

Recreational Activity

Policies (G.P. page 99):

1. Provide access to all public recreational land. (MEANS)

2. Continue to sponsor recreation programs within the City considering the diversity of needs. (MEANS)

3. Encourage local, public, non-profit recreation and cultural activities, which provide outlets for citizens on a non-discriminatory basis. (MEANS)

4. Establish ordinances to require builders and developers to provide lands and/or funds for acquisition and development of land for recreational use. These lands and/or funds shall be based on a standard of providing 4 acres of local parkland per 1000 population. (MEANS)

5. Seek County, State, and Federal funds or sharing funds to acquire lands. (MEANS)

6. Encourage landholders to contribute lands to the City for recreational use. (MEANS)

7. Work through the State and Federal government in support of legislation resulting in governmental acquisition of coastal land. (MEANS)

8. Encourage local citizens groups to participate in the planning, development, and maintenance of recreation facilities to the extent possible. (MEANS)

9. Engage in further study of recreational activities on a neighborhood level following the General Plan. (MEANS)

10. Investigate the interim use of vacant school sites for recreational use. (MEANS)

11. Encourage public use of institutional recreational facilities, where possible. (MEANS)

Agricultural Activity

Policies (G.P. page 100):

1. Encourage implementation techniques for preservation of agricultural activities. (MEANS)

2. Assist in the protection or conservation of agricultural sites. (MEANS)

3. Encourage continued operation of existing produce and flower stands, not necessarily in present locations and structural types, but in concept, related to local agricultural use. (MEANS)

4. Preserve flower farming wherever possible, in order to provide aesthetic appeal and visual accent. (MEANS)

Infrastructure

Goals:

A. It shall be a goal of the City to ensure adequate public utilities and communications services to all residents, while maintaining the quality of the environment. (ENDS)

B. It shall be a goal of the City to provide residents with a safe and efficient system of roads, trails and paths. (ENDS)

C. It shall be a goal of the City to encourage the increased mobility of residents through the development of an adequate public transportation system. (ENDS)

Resource System

Policies (G.P. page 107):

1. Cooperate with California Water Service Company and the Los Angeles County Fire Department to improve water service (pressure and flow) in areas of inadequate service. (MEANS)

2. Encourage the investigation and use of alternative water and energy sources. (MEANS)

3. Promote, practice and encourage workable energy conservation techniques. (MEANS)

Disposal/Recovery System

Policies (G.P. page 112):

1. Take an active interest in waste management and recycling programs and offer assistance to groups attempting to offer solutions to the problems of waste. (MEANS)

2. Require sanitary sewers in all major new developments. (MEANS)

3. Encourage the retention of all remaining natural watercourses in their natural state. (MEANS)

4. Require developers to install necessary flood control devices in order to mitigate downstream flood hazard induced by proposed upstream developments. (MEANS)

5. Require that all flood control/natural water source interfaces and systems be treated so that erosion will be held to a minimum. (MEANS)

6. Encourage the investigation of methods to reduce pollution impacts generated by development runoff. (MEANS)

7. Encourage the Sanitation District to upgrade all wastewater discharged from the Whites Point outfalls to a minimum of secondary treatment. (MEANS)

8. Require the installation of sewers in existing development if alternative sewerage systems endanger public health, safety and welfare. (MEANS)

Communication Systems

Policies (G.P. page 115):

1. Investigate the potential of cable communications systems as a source, which could disseminate information and issues to communities and/or the City as a whole. (MEANS) (REVISION)

2. Encourage the underground installation of cable communication network in all new developments. (MEANS)

Transportation Systems

Policies (G.P. page 137):

1. Design public access into residential areas to control non-local traffic. (MEANS)

2. Require any new developments with new streets to provide adequate right-of-way widths for possible future needs to provide for traffic patterns necessary to accommodate future growth needs. (MEANS)

3. Prohibit future residential developments from providing direct access (driveways) from individual units to arterials. (MEANS)

4. Encourage, together with other Peninsula cities, Southern California Rapid Transit District to improve public transportation on the Peninsula and to provide access to other destinations in the region. (MEANS)

5. Explore the establishment of an independent bus system or contract for service with an independent municipal transportation agency if RTD service remains unsatisfactory. (MEANS) (REVISION)

6. Design path and trail networks to reflect both a local and regional demand, while maintaining the unique character of the Peninsula. (MEANS)

7. Require, wherever practical, all path and trail networks to be in separate rights-of-way. (MEANS)

8. Coordinate and cooperate with adjacent cities, the County and other appropriate agencies and organizations in the development of path and trail networks is encouraged. (MEANS)

9. Prohibit motorized vehicles from using designated paths and trails, except in the case of emergency or maintenance vehicles. (MEANS)

10. Require that all new developments establish walkway, bikeway and equestrian systems where appropriate. (MEANS)

11. Further investigate possible funding sources for acquisition, development and maintenance of paths and trails. (MEANS)

12. Make use, where appropriate, of existing rights-of-way and easements. (MEANS)

13. Provide safety measures on paths and trails, particularly on bluffs and ridgelines, and include such measures as key design factors. (MEANS)

14. Encourage the R.T.D. to provide bike racks (or similar) on buses. (MEANS)

15. Encourage the establishment of a program designed to educate users and non-users of path and trail networks in terms of safety and courtesy. (MEANS)

16. Insure public access to the Rancho Palos Verdes shoreline. (MEANS)

17. Explore alternative methods of implementation for the stables proposed in this Plan. (MEANS)

18. Require adequate off-street parking for all existing and future development. (MEANS)

19. Investigate current and future parking characteristics and develop appropriate ordinances which regulate overnight street parking, parking of recreational vehicles, etc. (MEANS)

20. Require, wherever possible, pedestrian access to new developments for children to schools. (MEANS)

21. Require detailed analysis for all proposals to convert local public roads into private streets or retain new local roads as private property. Conditions for establishing private streets should include: (a) The road is a truly local road and is not needed as a thoroughfare in the collector and arterial road network, (b) An assessment district or a C.C.&R. district is established which will allow the district to levy taxes or legally enforceable assessments for road maintenance, (c) Provisions are made to guarantee the proper up-keep of the streets, (d) Dedication of non-vehicular easements may be required. (MEANS)

Infrastructure

Policies (G.P. page 138):

1. Explore the possibility of eliminating major or critical infrastructure facilities and networks that serve other parts of the City from landslide areas. (MEANS)

2. Prohibit the extension of any infrastructure component into any area known to be unstable or of major environmental significance. (MEANS)

3. Consider, at such time that a service or services do not adequately meet the needs of Rancho Palos Verdes, which utilities might better be a function of the City or other public agency. (MEANS)

4. Underground all new power lines and communications cables and implement programs to place existing lines and cables underground. (MEANS)

5. Continue to encourage the establishment of undergrounding assessment districts by homeowners, in areas of existing overhead lines. (MEANS)

6. Investigate funding sources to be used in local undergrounding programs for areas of existing overhead lines. (MEANS)

7. Allow new development to only occur where adequate infrastructure systems can reasonably be provided. (MEANS)

8. Require adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and networks, in order to reduce the visual impact of many infrastructure facilities and networks. (MEANS)

Safety

Goals:

A. It shall be a goal of the City to provide for the protection of life and property from both natural and man-made hazards within the community. (ENDS)

B. It shall be a goal of the City to provide for the protection of the public through effective law enforcement and fire protection programs. (ENDS/MEANS)

C. It shall be a goal of the City to develop and enforce health and sanitation, emergency communications, and disaster preparedness programs to ensure the overall health and safety of all residents. (ENDS/MEANS)

D. It shall be a goal of the City to protect life and property and reduce adverse economic, environmental, and social impacts resulting from any geologic activity. (ENDS)

Policies (G.P. page 175):

1. Promote the education and awareness pertaining to all hazards, which affect Rancho Palos Verdes residents. (MEANS)

2. Adopt and enforce building codes, ordinances, and regulations which contain design and construction standards based upon specified levels of risk and hazard. (MEANS)

3. Encourage cooperation among adjacent communities to ensure back-up law enforcement assistance in emergency situations. (MEANS)

4. Cooperate with the fire protection agency and water company to ensure adequate water flow capabilities throughout all areas of the City. (MEANS)

5. Cooperate with the fire protection agency to determine the feasibility of utilizing the existing helicopter "pad" at the Nike Site for a water refueling location. (MEANS)

6. Develop stringent site design and maintenance criteria for areas of high fire hazard potential. (MEANS)

7. Implement reasonable house numbering and consistent street naming systems. (MEANS)

8. Coordinate with the Fire Department to determine the feasibility of providing emergency access to the end points of long cul-de-sacs (in excess of 700 ft.). (MEANS)

9. Ensure that services are provided to deal adequately with health and sanitation problems. (MEANS)

10. Ensure that local, County, State and Federal health, safety, and sanitation laws are enforced. (MEANS)

11. Ensure that adequate emergency treatment and transportation facilities are available to all areas of the City. (MEANS)

12. Promote development and maintenance of liaison with various levels of health, safety, and sanitation agencies. (MEANS)

13. Encourage the availability of paramedic rescue service. (MEANS)

14. Be prepared to implement contingency plans to cope with a major disaster. (MEANS)

15. Maintain liaison with other local, County, State and Federal disaster agencies. (MEANS)

16. Regulate the activities, types, kinds, and numbers of animals and balance the interest of animal owners and persons whose welfare is affected. (MEANS)

17. Ensure the protection of compatible levels of wild animal populations. (MEANS)

18. Encourage liaison of animal regulation activities with adjacent cities. (MEANS)

19. Give consideration to alternative animal control and enforcement methods and to facilitate for shelter, medical treatment, and training. (MEANS)

Sensory Environment

Goals:

A. It shall be the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes through proper land use planning and regulations, to provide for a quiet and serene residential community with a minimum of restriction on citizen activity. (ENDS)

B. Palos verdes peninsula is graced with views and vistas of the surrounding Los Angeles basin and coastal region. Because of its unique geographic form and coastal resources, these views and vistas are a significant resource to residents and to many visitors, as they provide a rare means of experiencing the beauty of the peninsula and the Los Angeles region. It is the responsibility of the City to preserve these views and vistas fro the public benefit and, where appropriate, the City should strive to enhance and restore these resources, the visual character of the City, and provide and maintain access for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. (ENDS)

Noise Aspects

Policies (G.P. page 187):

1. Mitigate impacts generated by steady State noise intrusion (e.g., land strip buffers, landscaping, site design). (MEANS)

2. Develop an ordinance to control noise. (MEANS)

3. Regulate land use so that there is a minimal degree of noise impact on adjacent land uses. (MEANS)

4. Contain through traffic to existing arterials and collectors so that local roads are not used as bypasses or short cuts so as to minimize noise. (MEANS)

5. Require residential uses in the 70 dB(A) location range to provide regulatory screening or some other noise-inhibiting agent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. (MEANS)

6. Control traffic flows of heavy construction vehicles en route to or from construction sites to minimize noise. (MEANS)

7. Maintain current and up-to-date information on noise control measures, on both fixed point and vehicular noise sources. (MEANS)

8. Require strict noise attenuation measures be taken in all multi-family residential units. (MEANS)

9. Coordinate with all public agencies, especially our adjoining neighbors, who might wish to enter into a joint effort to study and/or control noise emissions. (MEANS)

10. Review noise attenuation measures applicable to home, apartment, and office building construction, make appropriates proposals for the City zoning ordinance, and make appropriate recommendations for modifying the Los Angeles County Building Code. (MEANS)

11. Encourage the State and Federal governments to actively control and reduce vehicle noise emissions. (MEANS)

12. Encourage State law enforcement agencies such as the California Highway Patrol to vigorously enforce all laws that call for the control and/or reduction of noise emissions. (MEANS)

Visual Aspects

Policies (G.P. page 192):

1. Develop controls to preserve existing significant visual aspects from future disruption or degradation. (MEANS)

2. Enhance views and vistas where appropriate through various visual accents. (MEANS)

3. Preserve and enhance existing positive visual elements while restoring those, which are lacking in their present visual quality. (MEANS)

4. Make a further study on the visual character of neighborhoods following the General Plan in order to assess visual elements on an individual neighborhood basis. (MEANS)

5. Develop well-located vista points to provide off-road areas where views may be enjoyed. These should have safe ingress and egress and be adequately posted. (MEANS)

6. Develop and maintain, in conjunction with appropriate agencies, public access to paths and trail networks for the enjoyment of related views. (MEANS)

7. Require developers, as developments are proposed within areas which impact the visual character of a corridor, to address treatments to be incorporated into their projects, which enhance a corridor’s imagery. (MEANS)

8. Require developments within areas which will impact corridor-related views to fully analyze project impacts in relation to corridors in order to mitigate their impact. (MEANS)

9. Require developments which lie between natural areas to be maintained and viewing corridors to show how they intend to mitigate view disruption. (MEANS)

10. Develop a program for the restoration of existing areas, which negatively impact view corridors through the urban design element (e.g., landscaping and under grounding). (MEANS)



Land Use Plan

Goal:

A. It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to provide for land uses which will be sensitive to and enhance the natural environment and character of the community, supply appropriate facilities to serve residents and visitors, promote a range of housing types, promote fiscal balance, and protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. (ENDS)



Fiscal Element

Goals:

A. It shall be a goal of the City to hold the property tax to a minimum and to continually explore and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of alternate or new sources of revenue. (MEANS)

B. It shall be a goal of the City to explore cooperative financing strategies that might be undertaken in association with other jurisdictions. (MEANS)

C. It shall be a goal of the City to take maximum advantage of regulatory legislation to obtain contributions, dedications and reservations (i.e., easements). (MEANS)

D. It shall be a goal of the City to ascertain that all revenues generated by growth are sufficient to cover costs related to growth. (MEANS)

E. It shall be a goal of the City to thoroughly evaluate capital acquisition and operating expenditures and their impacts before implementation of programs. (MEANS)

Policies (G.P. page 241-242):

1. Consider the cost effectiveness and community benefits of all new major services and facilities. (MEANS)

2. Require that wherever appropriate, special benefit services be paid for by the users in the form of specified fees or taxes. (MEANS)

3. Work toward integration of common services among the four Peninsula cities for improved cost effectiveness. (MEANS)

4. Consider the financial impacts of City decisions on other jurisdictions serving our residents. (MEANS)

5. Encourage State legislative action to provide equitable distribution of tax revenues commensurate with the City’s responsibilities. (MEANS)

6. Obtain a fair share of revenues available from other government sources with due consideration being given to the impact on local control and obligations incurred. (MEANS)

7. Continually evaluate the merits of contracting for services versus in-house staffing. (MEANS)

8. Encourage private contributions and donations to the City as alternatives to public funding. (MEANS)

9. Assess current administrative and enforcement capabilities before imposing new regulations to insure that such new regulations can be effectively administered without undue costs. (MEANS)

10. Utilize regulatory methods in a fair and equitable manner to reduce public costs. (MEANS)

11. Consider the financial impact of City decisions as they affect costs other than taxes to our residents. (MEANS)

12. Finance recurring expenditures from recurring revenues. (MEANS)



18. Fiscal Year 2002-2002 Midyear Financial Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: (1) Receive and file the attached midyear financial report. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, TO INCREASE CERTAIN EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GENERAL FUND, STREET MAINTENANCE (GAS TAX) FUND, RECYCLING FUND, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS – PARKS (MEASURE a) FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS – BIKEWAYS FUND, AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: FY 2001-2002 MIDYEAR FINANCIAL REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION

1) Receive and file the midyear financial report; and 2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002- , AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 2001-2002, TO INCREASE EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GENERAL FUND, STREET MAINTENANCE (GAS TAX) FUND, RECYCLING FUND, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS – PARKS (MEASURE A) FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS – BIKEWAYS FUND, AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND.

INTRODUCTION

The Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requires that a midyear review of the annual budget be presented to the City Council. Based upon staff’s analysis of the City’s financial activities during the first half of FY 2001-2002, it appears revenues and expenditures will generally approximate the budget. Except as described otherwise in this report, projected fund balances as of June 30, 2002 are expected to be equal to or greater than the original FY 2001-2002 budget estimates.

The Summary Schedule of General Fund Revenue is presented on the following page. Discussion regarding revenue projections for several other funds of the City has been included later in the report. It is important to understand that these revenue projections are based upon staff's analysis using trend comparisons with previous years, reports provided by state, county and local agencies, as well as direct conversations with these agencies. It should be noted that future economic activity, legislation and policy decisions, as well as any other unforeseen circumstances could affect the City's revenue stream for the remainder of FY 2001-2002.

The midyear financial report also includes discussion and analysis of anticipated expenditures, the status of major projects, and other relevant developments related to the FY 2001-2002 budget. If the activity of a particular fund, department or program is not discussed, there is nothing significant to report and revenues, expenditures and ending fund balance amounts are not expected to materially deviate from the amounts budgeted. Throughout the midyear financial report, staff has recommended several budget adjustments necessary to assure budgetary compliance.

FINANCIAL REPORT AND MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:

Staff has included a Mid-Year Fund Activity Summary (attachment A) to summarize the ending fund balances for all funds within the City. The schedule (included for the first time) includes all budget adjustments requested in this report, as well as revised revenue and expenditure projections.

GENERAL FUND

General Fund Revenue

It is difficult to estimate future revenue from sources such as sales and use tax, franchise taxes, business licenses and other permits. These types of revenues are predicated on conditions outside the City’s control. As an example, planning and building permit revenues will fluctuate with the economy as well as other conditions (i.e. weather). Additionally, several significant franchise tax revenues are received annually after preparation of the midyear report. For these revenues, staff has either reported FY 2001-2002 projected revenues as the budgeted amount or a conservative figure based on the amount of information currently available.

Assuming existing economic conditions and trends continue; General fund revenues should reach or slightly exceed the FY 2001-2002 budget of $12,764,980.

SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE:

Projected

Budget

Projected

Vs. Budget

Actual

Revenue Type

FY 2001-2002

FY 2001-2002

Variance

FY 2000-2001






Property taxes

3,411,430

3,590,000

178,570

3,450,750

Sale and use tax

1,050,000

1,120,000

70,000

1,100,506

Property transfer tax

260,000

260,000

0

248,486

Transient occupancy tax

10,000

10,000

0

8,576

Franchise taxes

1,164,000

1,164,000

0

1,087,028

Utility user taxes

2,003,000

1,813,000

(190,000)

1,764,021

Business license tax

346,000

400,000

54,000

366,608

Planning permits

193,500

193,500

0

215,886

Building & safety permits

666,600

666,600

0

728,036

Other permits

120,200

120,200

0

219,896

Golf fees

100,000

156,064

56,064

0

Fines and forfeitures

135,000

135,000

0

139,694

Rental & fee revenue

278,000

278,000

0

281,459

Interest revenue

320,000

250,000

(70,000)

465,382

Charges for services

109,500

109,500

0

105,833

Motor vehicle

2,400,800

2,329,000

(71,800)

2,444,252

Grant Income

96,000

156,000

60,000

84,008

Other revenue

100,950

100,950

0

326,455

Total (excluding transfers in)

12,764,980

12,851,814

86,834

13,036,876


Discussion and analysis regarding General fund revenues is presented below. If a particular revenue source is not discussed, there is nothing significant to report and anticipated revenues are expected to approximate the FY 2001-2002 budget.


Property Taxes

Based upon projection information provided by the County, property tax revenues are expected to reach $3,590,000 for FY 2001-2002. This represents nearly a $179,000 excess over the current year budget and a 4% increase over the actual amount received in FY 2000-2001. The expected budget variance can be attributed to the steady increase in the property tax base over the past several years due to continued strength in the local real estate market. The original budget was conservatively prepared assuming a much smaller growth rate.

Sales and Use Tax

Based on an analysis prepared by the City’s consultant, sales tax revenue paid to the City from the State of California appears to be on pace to exceed the $929,400 budget by approximately $70,000. The consultant’s analysis seems to indicate that sales tax received from the City of Rolling Hills Estates in accordance with the 8.6% revenue sharing agreement will approximate the budgeted amount of $120,600.

Utility Users Tax (UUT)

UUT is currently projected to be approximately $190,000 less than budget. UUT collected from three utilities comprises the majority of the projected shortfall: Southern California Gas, California Water, and AT&T. Staff spoke with representatives of each company to obtain an understanding of the UUT revenue variances.

During FY 2000-2001, natural gas prices increased approximately 163% from FY 1999-2000. As a result, natural gas production was increased substantially. The increase in production has caused a decrease in FY 2001-2002 gas prices, and a resulting decrease of UUT revenue to the City. In addition, the Southern California Gas representative asserts that customers are consuming less during FY 2001-2002 because of high prices experienced in the previous year. UUT revenue from Southern California Gas is expected to be about 110,000 or 30% less than FY 2000-2001.

The representative of California Water explained that consumer usage is down from FY 2000-2001. She believes customers are conserving water because of the sluggish economy. UUT revenue from California Water is expected to be approximately $50,000 or 23% less than FY 2000-2001.

UUT revenue from AT&T is expected to be approximately $30,000 or 30% less than FY 2000-2001. The representative from AT&T asserted that rates have recently been increased and as a result, customers are leaving AT&T for other long distance carriers. Finance staff noted that there appears to be a small upward trend in cellular company UUT, but no increase for other long distance UUT. Due to increasing competition, there is a probability that reductions of long distance rates have occurred throughout the industry.

Business License Tax

If the current trend continues, business license tax revenue is expected to exceed the budget by approximately $54,000, reaching a total of $400,000. This is attributable to a 2.6% increase in the fee schedule and to continued enforcement and collection efforts by staff.

Golf Fees

The 7.5% golf fee imposed on golf operations (i.e. green fees and cart rentals) has been collected from Ocean Trails for the period November 2000 through January 2002. Therefore, staff has conservatively projected FY 2001-2002 revenue as only the amount received to date.

Interest Revenue

At the time of budget preparation, the current investment interest rate was 5.8%. The budget was conservatively prepared assuming a 5.0% interest rate. During the current fiscal year, the investment rate has plummeted to 3.2%. General fund cash is approximately $6,000,000; therefore, the drop in interest rate is anticipated to generate an unfavorable interest revenue variance of approximately $70,000.

Motor Vehicle In-Lieu (VLF) Fees

Based upon the State Controller's Annual Estimate of Shared Revenues report issued in Spring 2001, VLF fees are projected to reach $2,329,000 during FY 2001-2002. The Controller’s report was prepared after the City's budget had been completed. The State Controller’s estimate is $71,800 less than the amount included in the FY 2001-2002 budget document. Based upon the revenue stream in the first half of FY 2001-2002, VLF fees are on pace to reach the State Controller’s estimate.

Sixty-five percent of motor vehicle fees (approximately $1.6 Million during FY 2001-2002) are currently back-filled by the State. Notwithstanding the commitment by the Governor to leave the back-fill intact during FY 2002-2003 State budget preparation, the VLF back-fill may be eliminated prior to the adoption of the State budget.

Grant Income

General fund grant revenue is predominantly comprised of two sources: reimbursements of State mandated costs and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) revenue. Budgeted reimbursements of State Mandated Costs were based on FY 2000-2001 estimated reimbursement requests. The actual FY 2000-2001 costs have been tabulated and exceed estimates by $31,500. This additional reimbursement amount has been received during the current fiscal year. The reimbursement requests for estimated FY 2001-2002 costs have been prepared and submitted in the amount of $29,500.

General Fund Expenditures

Based on a historical analysis of prior years, total General fund expenditures for the first six months of the fiscal year should not exceed a range between 42% and 45% of budgeted appropriations in order to be on track with budgeted limits. Total General fund expenditures through December 31, 2001 were approximately 38% of budget; therefore, it appears projected expenditures for FY 2001-2002 will be within the total General fund budget. However, there are a few individual programs that are expected to vary from budget. These programs are discussed below.

City Attorney

The total FY 2001-2002 budget for the City Attorney program is $544,475. Litigation costs alone are currently averaging more that $42,000 each month ($504,000 annualized). Staff anticipates that increased litigation activity will continue and total legal fees for FY 2001-2002 will approximate $1,000,000. Therefore, a budget increase of $460,000 is requested for a total FY 2001-2002 appropriation of $1,004,475.

Finance

The number of Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) meetings increased from several annually to fourteen during 2001. Staff anticipates the FAC will meet as many times, if not more frequently, during 2002. Additionally, the FAC recently requested the preparation of more comprehensive meeting minutes. The department’s Accounting Technician can no longer devote the time necessary to prepare FAC meeting minutes. Staff estimates the cost of a professional minute taker will be approximately $6,000 for the remainder of FY 2001-2002.

On January 31, 2002, the City Council asked the FAC to consider the use of long-term infrastructure financing, and the possibility of securing other revenue sources leading to a strategic schedule prior to April 30th budget workshop. Staff has retained a financial advisor to assist the FAC with this project at an estimated cost of approximately $9,000, during FY 2001-2002. Therefore, staff requests a budget adjustment of $15,000 for additional professional fees.

Public Works Administration

Staff requests a budget adjustment of $35,000 for the costs of a contract engineer. The additional engineering services are needed for a variety of administrative tasks due to increased Public Works department activity.

Recreation & Parks Administration

The budgeted Administrative Analyst II position in the Recreation & Parks department has been open for nineteen months due to a medical absence. Staff requests a $9,000 budget adjustment for the increased costs of filling this position with temporary help.

Transfers Out

In August 2001, the City purchased the Barkentine open space property. In accordance with the Barkentine Purchase Agreement, the City was obligated to pay accrued interest for any delay of the closing of escrow. In accordance with the Purchase Agreement, the amount of interest paid by the City was $60,512 during FY 2001-2002. Measure A grant proceeds cannot be used to reimburse the City for accrued interest. Staff requests a budget adjustment to transfer $60,512 from the General fund to the Capital Projects - Parks (Measure A) fund for the interest paid.

Projected General Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

The ending unreserved fund balance in the General fund is projected as follows:

Unreserved fund balance, July 1, 2001
$ 7,042,634
Projected revenue, FY 2001-2002
12,851,814
Projected expenditures, FY 2001-2002
(10,518,656)
Projected fund transfers (net), FY 2001-2002
(4,280,557)
Projected unreserved fund balance, June 30, 2002
$ 5,095,235

When the FY 2001-2002 budget was adopted in June 2001, the projected General fund unreserved fund balance at June 30, 2002 was estimated to be approximately $6,426,936. The $1,401,701 projected unfavorable variance is primarily comprised of the following:

  • Requested transfer of $60,512 to the Capital Projects - Parks (Measure A) fund;
  • Hawthorne/Vallon traffic signal ($135,000 authorized on September 18, 2001); and
  • San Ramon Drainage ($1,150,000 authorized on October 2, 2001).

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS FUNDS

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund Revenue and Transfers In

Certain project construction costs are reimbursed after project completion by granting agencies such as MTA and STIP, while other project costs may be reimbursed with transfers from restricted funds of the City (i.e. Proposition C, Quimby and EET). The amount of FY 2001-2002 revenue or transfers from other funds depends upon the percentage of project completion at fiscal year-end. Current year revenue and transfers-in will be less than budget, proportionate to the projected decrease in year-end project expenditures. Such grant revenue and transfers will likely be carried over and re-budgeted to FY 2002-2003 to match the period in which actual project expenditures will be incurred.

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund Expenditures

Twenty-four projects, with total costs of over $14,750,000, are budgeted for FY 2001-2002. Historically, many projects are not completed prior to fiscal year-end and need to be re-budgeted to the next fiscal year. This is also true during FY 2001-2002. An update of several projects is included below. If the activity of a particular project is not discussed, it merely indicates the project has been completed or staff expects to complete the project, within budget, prior to June 30, 2002.

Point Vicente Interpretive Center Expansion ($3,188,175 Budgeted)

Construction of the expansion will not occur until FY 2002-2003. Once the soil remediation has begun, staff will reassemble the building construction plans in order to advertise the project. Staff anticipates engineering costs of $40,000 during the current fiscal year.

Point Vicente Interpretive Center Soil Remediation ($1,939,485 Budgeted)

After funds were budgeted for this remediation project, the federal government accepted responsibility for soil remediation. However, staff expects the City will incur costs for inspection services, remediation coordination, engineering and construction of both land and building improvements jointly with the Army Corps of Engineers to assure the site has few deed restrictions and safe usage afterwards. Staff estimates approximately $500,000 will be spent in FY 2001-2002.

Abalone Cove Beach Improvements ($422,885 Budgeted)

Construction of the improvements will not begin until FY 2002-2003. Of the entire $422,885 budgeted for this project, $30,000 is allocated for engineering. Staff anticipates the necessity for about $5,000 of additional engineering costs during fiscal year, as a result of the Coastal Commission’s review and additional recommendations.

FY 2001-2002 and FY 2002-2003 Citywide Residential Street Overlay Program ($1,374,200 and $30,000 Budgeted, respectively)

The project design work has been completed. The construction contract for FY 2001-2002 overlay will be advertised and bid during February 2002. Staff anticipates the project will be completed during June 2002.

The budgeted FY 2002-2003 design cost was exceeded by approximately $23,000 due to higher bid responses to the request for proposals. Therefore, staff requests a budget adjustment for the additional design cost.

Hawthorne/Crenshaw Road Rehabilitation ($1,084,784 Budgeted)

This project is substantially complete; however, resurfacing of Hawthorne Boulevard north of Crest Road is currently on hold. Two layers of pavement fabric were discovered and will need to be removed before the street is resurfaced. Because the existence of this fabric was unknown during the budget process, the cost of removal was not included in the project budget. The same fabric was discovered south of Crest Road and was removed at an additional cost. The remaining project budget is not sufficient to cover the additional cost of removing fabric north of Crest Road. An estimate of the additional costs and further discussion will be presented to City Council under a separate staff report.

Ryan Park Parking Lot Rehabilitation ($75,000 Budgeted)

The Ryan Park parking lot rehabilitation project may be scaled down or placed on hold. The budgeted funding may be needed for the Ryan Park playground equipment project. Based on initial estimates, staff believes the purchase of this equipment will exceed the current appropriation of $100,000. Once final estimates are received, staff will report to City Council the effects on the CIP project, parking lot rehabilitation.

San Ramon Drainage ($3,194,650 Budgeted)

This multi-phased project includes stabilization of an active landslide and improvement of drainage conditions in the San Ramon Canyon. Phase I, stabilization of an active landslide, was substantially completed in December 2001. Phase II, providing additional buttress strength for the east slope, drainage improvements, and roadway rehabilitation is currently in process. Administrative costs have been higher than anticipated, and will be presented to City Council under a separate staff report. It is anticipated that an appropriation increase will be requested.

25th Street Settlement Roadway Repairs – Phase II and III ($887,530 Budgeted)

Design and engineering of Phase II is currently in process. Construction is anticipated to begin during the spring of 2002; however, the project will not be completed in the current fiscal year. The remaining appropriation will likely need to be carried over to FY 2002-2003.

RPV/PVE Joint Storm Drain ($733,550 Budgeted)

Construction is expected to begin during Spring 2002, and will continue in FY 2002-2003. Staff estimates $367,000 will be spent in the current fiscal year. The remaining appropriation will likely need to be carried over to FY 2002-2003.

PVIC Storm Drain ($207,000 Budgeted)

These drainage improvements will be installed in conjunction with the Point Vicente Interpretive Center expansion project. Due to the discovery of contaminated soil, both projects are currently on hold. This appropriation will likely need to be carried over to FY 2002-2003.

PVDE Drainage Improvements – Sunnyside Ridge ($163,959 Budgeted)

This appropriation provides for the study and analysis of all drainage facilities on Palos Verdes Drive East. Additional funding is required for survey of the area surrounding Sunnyside Ridge and environmental processing to prepare final design plans. Of the FY 2001-2002 Miscellaneous Drainage Improvement appropriation, $25,000 is available for design of the Sunnyside Ridge project. Staff will report to the City Council at a later date, during the current fiscal year, for approval of the project’s construction portion.

Hawthorne/Vallon Traffic Signal ($135,000 Budgeted)

This project includes design and installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive. The project is currently in the design phase. Staff anticipates the project will not be completed during FY 2001-2002 and the remaining appropriation will likely need to be carried over to FY 2002-2003.

Projected Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

As discussed earlier, the CIP fund receives transfers from several funds of the City. Significant anticipated FY 2001-2002 transfers are: $3,164,000 from the General Fund, $660,633 from the Street Improvement/Transit (Proposition C) fund, $384,000 from the Measure A Maintenance fund, $248,215 from the Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) fund, and $221,000 from the EET fund. A number of additional transfers were budgeted in FY 2001-2002, but will need to be carried over and re-budgeted due to project delays (i.e. Measure A, EET, and Quimby monies for PVIC Expansion).

It is projected that the CIP fund balance will be as follows:

Fund balance, July 1, 2001
$ 6,974,824
Projected revenue, FY 2001-2002
602,700
Projected expenditures, FY 2001-2002
(8,690,668)
Projected fund transfers in, FY 2001-2002
4,811,112
Projected fund balance, June 30, 2002
$ 3,697,968

The FY 2001-2002 budget adopted in June 2001 projected the ending CIP fund balance to be $1,769,443. The current projected fund balance variance is primarily due to non-completion of projects funded by CIP reserves during the current fiscal year (i.e. PVIC Soil Remediation, RPV/PVE Joint Storm Drain, PVIC Storm Drain, and the Hawthorne/Vallon Traffic Signal).


Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Revenue

CDBG fund revenue is received from the Community Development Commission (CDC) as reimbursement for eligible expenditures approved by the CDC. As discussed in the CDBG fund expenditure section, not all of the budgeted projects will be completed by June 30, 2002. Therefore, projected revenue from CDC reimbursements will be less than budget and proportionate to the decrease in actual expenditures.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Expenditures

Alta Mira Canyon Storm Drain ($880,276 Budgeted FY 2001-2002)

This project is currently in the final design phase. The engineering land survey has been completed. Staff expects final approval from the U.S. Army Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife department in April 2002. Construction is expected to begin during FY 2002-2003. Current year expenditures should approximate $200,000. The remainder of the project appropriation will likely need to be carried over to FY 2002-2003.

Home Improvement Program ($219,140 Budgeted FY 2001-2002)

There are 15 applicants currently in the pre-construction phase of the program. An additional 3 projects are in the construction phase, and 4 projects have been completed. Staff anticipates that approximately $192,140 will be expended in the current fiscal year. The remainder of the current fiscal year appropriation will likely need to be carried over to FY 2002-2003.

ADA Improvements ($20,000 Budgeted FY 2001-2002)

This appropriation provides for the design and installation of a City Hall elevator in compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). A complete City Hall improvement project is currently under consideration. A City Hall design will incorporate the proposed elevator. Staff anticipates there will be no expenditures for elevator design during FY 2001-2002. The appropriation will likely need to be carried over to FY 2002-2003.

Projected CDBG Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

The CDBG program is maintained under the assumption that all costs incurred will be approved and reimbursed by the Community Development Commission. Therefore, the CDBG fund is operated with annual revenues equal to annual expenditures. This results in beginning and ending fund balances of zero.

Affordable Housing Set-Aside Fund Revenues and Expenditures

The FY 2001-2002 budget assumed two new development projects would be approved and the City would receive $50,000 of developer fees. A 13-lot subdivision has been approved, but construction has not been completed. The second project, a 7-lot subdivision, has not yet been approved. Therefore, no developer fees are expected in FY 2001-2002. Due to the decline in the investment interest rate, interest is now projected at $33,000. This represents a $15,700 budget shortfall.

The City has considered using a portion of Affordable Housing Set-Aside monies (in combination with approximately $1,000,000 of RDA housing set-aside funds) for the development of a senior housing development. Staff does not expect project expenditures in the immediate future. Therefore, no expenditures are budgeted or anticipated in FY 2001-2002.

Projected Affordable Housing Set-Aside Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

Fund balance, July 1, 2001

$ 948,838

Projected revenue, FY 2001-2002

33,000

Projected fund balance, June 30, 2002

$ 981,838


The FY 2001-2002 budget estimated the Affordable Housing Set-Aside fund balance to be $1,047,660 as of June 30, 2002. The budget variance is attributable to the revenue shortfalls discussed above.

Park Development (Quimby) and Development Impact Mitigation (EET) Funds

A large portion of the available fund balances in both the Quimby and EET funds have been encumbered to finance a portion of the PVIC expansion project. However due to discovery of contaminated soil at the construction site, the expansion project has been delayed indefinitely pending soil remediation efforts. While these monies will still be allocated to the expansion project when construction proceeds, both of these funds will have ending fund balances at June 30, 2002 far in excess of budget estimates due to the project delay. However, the ending available fund balances of both the Quimby and EET funds, net of the amounts earmarked for the PVIC expansion project, will be zero.

Capital Projects – Parks Fund (Measure A)

As discussed above, staff requests a budget adjustment to transfer $60,512 from the General fund to the Capital Projects - Parks (Measure A) fund for Barkentine purchase interest paid in August 2001. With the requested budgeted transfer, the ending Capital Projects – Parks fund balance will be zero.

Capital Projects – Bikeways Fund

The Peninsula Bikeways project, accounted for in the Capital Projects fund, was carried over from FY 2000-2001 to the current fiscal year. As such, the Capital Projects – Bikeways fund will receive Transportation Development Act funds of approximately $35,000 from the Metropolitan Transit Authority during FY 2001-2002. Staff requests a corresponding budget adjustment to transfer the grant amount to the Capital Projects fund for construction expenditures. This budget adjustment will not affect ending fund balance, which is budgeted at zero.

Utility Undergrounding Fund

This fund was created with an initial General fund transfer of $225,000 in FY 2001-2002. The FY 2001-2002 budget includes an appropriation for professional services budget in the amount of $20,000. Staff anticipates no expenditures during FY 2001-2002. The budgeted ending fund balance of $210,600 is now projected to be $230,600 as of June 30, 2002.

Roadway Beautification Fund

This fund was created with initial transfers of $200,000 from the General fund and $100,000 from the Recycling fund in FY 2001-2002. An appropriation for $100,000 was budgeted for the Hawthorne Boulevard landscaping project. During the January 12th meeting, the City Council directed staff to stop all work on the Hawthorne Beautification project in order to revisit the approach and funding. Staff anticipates current year expenditures to be only about $5,350. The budgeted ending fund balance of $206,000 is now projected to be approximately $300,650 as of June 30, 2002.

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund Revenues

The budgeted Gas Tax revenue for FY 2001-2002 is $810,000. The State Shared Revenue Estimate for FY 2001-2002 (published after budget preparation) is $760,000. The AB2928 Traffic Congestion Relief revenue budget was $80,000. This revenue is expected to reach $123,000 based on the State Shared Revenue Estimate.

Due to a declining investment interest rate, interest revenue is not expected to reach the budgeted amount of $50,000. Currently, the projected interest revenue is $24,000.

Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund Expenditures

Street Maintenance (#302)

Staff requests a budget adjustment of $50,000 for roadway right-of-way maintenance. During FY 2001-2002, there has been increased catch-up preventative maintenance to remove debris from detention basins. The original budget for this function was $291,500. Staff anticipates the need to spend $341,500.

Traffic engineering professional services are used for staffing the traffic committee meetings and responding to increased requests from the public. Although the original budget for this item was $60,000; staff estimates this expenditure will approximate $75,000. The slurry seal savings is expected to offset this increased expenditure.

Staff has estimated that annual slurry seal program expenditures will approximate only $375,000 in accordance with the Pavement Management report. As there have been a number of overlay projects in recent years, fewer streets require crack-sealing, patching and slurry services. This item has a current year budget of $500,000.

Street Landscape Maintenance (#303)

Due to the increased number of requests for hazardous tree trimming and removals, street tree trimming expenditures are expected to be approximately $22,000 more than the original $100,000 budget during FY 2001-2002. Additionally, the City is experiencing higher than anticipated tree trimming costs in the City’s right-of-way in association with the City’s view restoration law. Staff anticipates total expenditures for these services will approximate $35,000. Slurry seal expenditure savings is expected to offset the increased street landscape maintenance expenditures.

Projected Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

Fund balance, July 1, 2001
$ 885,577
Projected revenue, FY 2001-2002
983,100
Projected expenditures, FY 2001-2002
(2,069,303)
Projected fund transfers in, FY 2001-2002
521,500
Projected fund transfers out, FY 2001-2002
(318,000)
Projected fund balance, June 30, 2002
$ 2,874


The FY 2001-2002 budget originally projected the ending Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) fund balance to be $29,646.

Recycling Fund Revenues

During budget preparation, staff anticipated $80,000 of annual recycling revenues would be collected from refuse haulers. Actual recycling revenues for FY 2000-2001 approximated $200,000. Projected revenues are expected to approximate $212,000 during FY 2001-2002. The additional recycling revenue is attributable to gross receipts from beverage containers redeemed from the residential curbside program.

Recycling Fund Expenditures

On December 18, 2001, City Council approved a grant increase of $18,000 for the Miraleste Recreation and Park District. Staff has included the grant in the attached budget resolution to formalize the action of the City Council.

On February 7, 2002, City Council approved new beautification grant guidelines. Staff has estimated the new guidelines will result in an additional $40,000 of beautification grant expenditures during FY 2001-2002. Therefore, staff requests a corresponding budget increase for Recycling fund city grant expenditures.

Projected Recycling Fund Balance, June 30, 2002

Fund balance, July 1, 2001
$ 650,498
Projected revenue, FY 2001-2002
278,600
Projected expenditures, FY 2001-2002
(234,011)
Projected fund transfers out, FY 2001-2002
(112,000)
Projected fund balance, June 30, 2002
$ 583,087

The Recycling fund balance was budgeted to be $431,206 at June 30, 2002. The net favorable projected variance of $151,881 is due to increased recycling revenues.

Street Improvement/Transit Fund Revenues (Proposition C)

Interest earnings should exceed the budget by $20,000 during FY 2001-2002. Several large dollar projects (i.e. 25th Street Settlement, Hawthorne/Crenshaw Road rehabilitation) funded with Proposition C monies will not be completed prior to June 30, 2002, resulting in a larger cash balance at year-end and higher interest earnings during the current fiscal year.

Street Improvement/Transit Fund Expenditures and Transfers Out (Proposition C)

It is anticipated that the 25th Street Settlement Roadway project, funded with $297,500 of Proposition C monies and budgeted in the CIP fund, will not be completed by June 30, 2002. As a result, actual transfers out during FY 2001-2002 will be approximately $150,000 less than budget. However, staff expects these funds to be transferred to the CIP fund in FY 2002-2003 when the project proceeds through to completion.

In addition, staff anticipates the budgeted transfer of $10,000 for the pavement management program will not be required during FY 2001-2002.

Projected Street Improvement/Transit Fund Balance, June 30, 2002 (Proposition C)

Fund balance, July 1, 2001
$ 757,885
Projected revenue, FY 2001-2002
504,500
Projected expenditures, FY 2001-2002
(3,170)
Projected transfers out FY 2001-2002
(859,399)
Projected fund balance, June 30, 2002
$ 399,816

The original budget document projected the estimated ending fund balance to be $121,668 at June 30, 2002. The majority of the remaining fund balance is encumbered for the completion of the 25th Street Settlement Roadway project.


Transit Fund Revenues (Proposition A)

Again, due to a declining investment interest rate, interest revenue is not expected to reach the budgeted amount of $14,000. Currently, the projected interest revenue is $8,000. Proposition A sales tax is expected to reach the budgeted amount of $566,500 for FY 2001-2002.

Transit Fund Expenditures (Proposition A)

Included in the FY 2001-2002 budget was $37,000 for the City’s contribution to replace Municipal Area Express (MAX) buses. The MAX transit agency has determined the City’s FY 2001-2002 contribution is unnecessary. In addition, the City will be receiving a $7,000 refund from the transit agency’s capital reserve fund.

Projected Transit Fund Balance, June 30, 2002 (Proposition A)

Fund balance, July 1, 2001
$ 279,624
Projected revenue, FY 2001-2002
574,500
Projected expenditures FY 2001-2002
(466,443)
Projected transfers out FY 2001-2002
(90,000)
Projected fund balance, June 30, 2002
$ 297,681


The original budget document projected the estimated ending fund balance to be $328,192 at June 30, 2002. The difference is primarily comprised of three components: current year net savings of $38,000, an additional $26,000 of Proposition A sales tax revenue during FY 2000-2001, and the August 7, 2001 budget adjustment to transfer $90,000 to the CIP fund for the Hawthorne/Crenshaw road rehabilitation project.

Measure A Maintenance Fund Transfers Out

Staff anticipates FY 2001-2002 landscape maintenance savings for the Measure A Maintenance fund. The total projected savings of $15,000 is specifically related to Abalone Cove Beach, Barkentine open space, and Forrestal open space. The Abalone Cove Beach Improvement project is currently scheduled for a Coastal commission review; therefore, maintenance will not be required during the current fiscal year. Staff estimates that only approximately half of the Barkentine open space maintenance appropriation will be needed. Due to the Forrestal volunteer clean-up day, maintenance costs should be less than anticipated at the time of budget preparation. Currently, the projected fund balance is expected to approximate $130,000.

Abalone Cove Sewer District Fund Expenditures

This fund was created in FY 2001-2002 with a maintenance budget of $50,000. Because the sewer project was completed at mid-year, staff anticipates the need for only half of the $50,000 budgeted maintenance expenditure. The budgeted fund balance of $5,250 is now projected to be $30,250.

INTERNAL SERVICE FUND

Equipment Replacement Fund - Computers - Expenditures

During the current fiscal year, several servers hard drives, the Planning area network switch and approximately eight workstation processors failed pre-maturely. The City’s IT consultant believes the failures are a result of excess heat.

Subsequent to the failure of the server drives and Planning area network switch, the air conditioning units have been replaced in the IT Operations Room and the Planning network switch closet. The previous air conditioning units experienced frequent outages. All of the workstation processor failures were located against the south wall that is exposed to the sun; and therefore, subject to solar heat during business hours. Though the cost to replace the equipment has exceeded the $10,000 reserve included in the FY 2001-2002 budget, staff does not request a budget adjustment at this time.

Equipment Replacement Fund – Equipment - Expenditures

During the current fiscal year, the photocopier at the Hesse Park facility unexpectedly failed. Staff requests a budget adjustment to include $2,500 to replace the fully depreciated photocopier. The projected fund balance with the additional copier expense is $1,762,881. The equipment replacement fund will continue to be fully funded.

RECOMMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS

General Fund

Staff recommends General fund budget adjustments as follows:

FY 2001-2002 General Fund Expenditure Increases:

City Attorney #001-103-40 Legal Services
$460,000
Finance #001-120-35 Professional Services
$ 15,000
Public Works Admin #001-301-35 Professional Services
$ 35,000
Recreation & Parks Admin #001-510-35 Professional Services
$ 9,000


General Fund and Capital Projects – Parks Fund (Measure A)

Staff recommends both General fund and Capital Projects – Parks fund budget adjustments as follows:

FY 2001-2002 General Fund Transfers Out Increase:

Transfers Out #001-391-20 Transfers Out
$ 60,512


FY 2001-2002 Capital Projects – Parks Fund (Measure A) Transfers In Increase:

Transfers In #339-391-10 Transfers In
$ 60,512


Capital Improvement Projects Fund

Staff recommends Capital Improvement Projects fund budget adjustments as follows:

FY 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Projects Fund Expenditures Increase:

FY 2002-2003 Overlay #330-930-35 Professional Services
$ 23,000


FY 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Projects Fund Transfers In Increase:

Transfers In #330-391-10 Transfers In
$ 35,000


Capital Projects – Bikeways Fund

Staff recommends a Capital Projects – Bikeways fund budget adjustment as follows:

FY 2001-2002 Capital Projects – Bikeways Fund Transfers Out Increase:

Transfers Out #340-391-20 Transfers Out
$ 35,000


Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund

Staff recommends a Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) fund budget adjustment as follows:

FY 2001-2002 Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund Expenditures Increase:

Street Maintenance #102-302-30 Maintenance
$ 50,000


Recycling Fund

Staff recommends the Recycling fund budget adjustment as follows:

FY 2001-2002 Recycling Fund Expenditures Increase:

Recycling #112-312-68 City Grants
$ 58,000

Equipment Replacement Fund

Staff recommends an Equipment Replacement fund budget adjustment as follows:

FY 2001-2002 Equipment Replacement Fund Expense Increase:

Furniture & Equipment #781-383-85 Furniture & Equipment
$2,500


CONCLUSION

Except as discussed above, projected revenues are expected to approximate budget and estimated expenditures should be slightly less than budget in all funds of the City for FY 2001-2002.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND, STREET MAINTENANCE (GAS TAX) FUND, RECYCLING FUND, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS – PARKS (MEASURE A) FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS – BIKEWAYS FUND, AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND

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

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

WHEREAS, certain 2001-2002 fiscal year program and/or department expenditures and transfers to other funds, as described below, are expected to exceed the amount budgeted; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget appropriation for certain expenditures and transfers be increased;

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

The following adjustments be made to the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget:

Increase the General Fund budget as follows:

City Attorney #001-103-40 Legal Services
$ 460,000
Finance #001-120-35 Professional Services
$ 15,000
Public Works Admin #001-301-35 Professional Services
$ 35,000
Rec & Parks Admin #001-510-35 Professional Services
$ 9,000
Transfers Out #001-391-20 To Parks (Measure A) Fund
$ 60,512


Increase the Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund budget as follows:

Street Maintenance #102-302-30 Maintenance
$ 50,000


Increase the Recycling Fund budget as follows:

Recycling #112-312-68 City Grants
$ 58,000


Increase the Capital Improvement Projects Fund budget as follows:

FY02-03 Overlay #330-930-35 Professional Services
$ 23,000
Transfers In #330-391-10 From Bikeways Fund
$ 35,000


Increase the Capital Projects – Parks (Measure A) Fund budget as follows:

Transfers In #339-391-10 From General Fund
$ 60,512


Increase the Capital Projects – Bikeways Fund budget as follows:

Transfers Out #340-391-20 To CIP Fund
$ 35,000


Increase the Equipment Replacement Fund budget as follows:

Furniture & Equip #781-383-85 Furniture & Equipment
$ 2,500

 

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2002.


___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________
CITY CLERK

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

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on February 19, 2002.


_____________________________
CITY CLERK



19. Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Arterial Rehabilitation Program. (Noble)

Recommendation: (1) Approve Change Order Number Six to the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Arterial Rehabilitation Program. (2) Authorize an additional Change Order expenditure of up to $230,000 to complete the construction. (3) Approve a contract amendment with DMc Engineering for additional Construction Management Services. (4) Authorize an additional expenditure of $25,266 for Construction Management Services. (5) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND.

TO : HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM : DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE : FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT : FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 ARTERIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Approve Change Order Number Six to the FY 2001-02 Arterial Rehabilitation Program.

  2. Authorize an additional Change Order expenditure of up to $232,000 to complete the construction.

  3. Authorize an additional expenditure of $25,000 for Construction Management Services.

  4. Adopt Resolution 2002 -____, a resolution of the City Council for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, amending Resolution 2001-43, the budget Appropriation for fiscal year 2001-2002, for a budget adjustment to the City’s Capital Project’s Fund.

BACKGROUND

Beginning in Fiscal year 2001-02, the Capital Improvement Program includes annual funding for an Arterial Rehabilitation Program. This multi-year program will improve the City’s arterial roadways in accordance with the City’s Pavement Management Program.

On October 2, 2001, Council awarded a construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company for the resurfacing of Crenshaw (Crest Road to Indian Ridge Road) and Hawthorne Boulevard (Dupree Drive to Verde Ridge Road).

DISCUSSION

The FY 2001-02 Arterial Rehabilitation Program is approximately 70% complete (Exhibit Map Attached). The construction activity completed consists of subsurface and pre- paratory work for the entire project, and the resurfacing of all of Crenshaw Boulevard and a portion of Hawthorne Boulevard (Dupree Drive to Crest Road). The remaining work consists of resurfacing Hawthorne Boulevard from Crest Road to Verde Ridge Road.

Construction was stopped on January 8, 2002 because the completion of this project, as designed, would require additional authorization from the Council. This is because more asphalt grinding was required to remove a fabric material beneath the pavement on Hawthorne Boulevard, south of Crest, before it was resurfaced and because more grinding was required more asphalt was required which increased costs.

At this time approximately $158,000 of approved project funding is available to complete the resurfacing of Hawthorne Boulevard per one the following construction options:

Construction Options for Completing the Project

Description

Cost*

Additional Funds Required

1. Remove fabric and resurface per Plan with rubberized asphalt

$390,000

$232,000

2. Remove fabric and resurface with Conventional asphalt rather than the Rubberized material

$346,500

$188,500

3. Leave fabric and feather fine Asphalt at new concrete and Slurry seal street

$75,500

($82,500)

4. Leave fabric in place and cover with .15’ of rubberized asphalt

$214,000

$56,000

5. Leave fabric in place and cover with .15’ of conventional asphalt

$164,500

$6,500

6. Leave fabric, pave #1 lane and slurry Seal #2 lane

$144,700

($13,300)


*
The costs above all include a 5% contingency.

Staff recommends Option One, which will complete the work as designed. Staff makes this recommendation because it is consistent with the approved plans and the pavement management program. Therefore an appropriation of $232,000 is needed to complete the construction work on Hawthorne Boulevard.

The removal of the fabric material and the placement of more pavement, then planned, also required additional engineering, inspection and administrative time. Staff has not received the final billing and associated backup materials from DMc Engineering; however, it is anticipated that these cost will not exceed $15,000. The completion of Hawthorne Boulevard, between Crest Road and Verde Ridge Road, will also require additional inspections and contract administration services beyond what was originally planned. The cost, for these additional services will not exceed $10,000. Therefore, an additional appropriation of $25,000 is needed for construction management services.

The approval of additional funding, as requested herein, for the resurfacing of Hawthorne Boulevard, from Crest to Verde Ridge, requires the adoption of Resolution 2002-___, a resolution of the City Council for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes amending Resolution 2001-43, the budget Appropriation for fiscal year 2001-2002, for a budget adjustment to the City’s Capital Project’s Fund.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendations will provide the needed funding to complete construction per the approved plan and the Pavement Management Program. The construction of the remaining work will begin the week of March 25, 2002 and should be completed by mid April.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION

The Alternative Actions are outlined in the discussion above. All of them, other then number one, are feasible but not recommended since they deviate from the City’s Pavement Management Program.

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended actions will necessitate a $257,000 expenditure. This expenditure is not include in the adopted budget and therefore, the attached budget adjustment requires Council approval. The proposed funding source is the Proposition C Fund. The current projected Proposition C Fund Balance for this fiscal year is $300,000. This proposed expenditure would reduce the fund balance to $43,000.

Respectfully Submitted,
Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

  1. Exhibit Map
  2. Budget Amendment Resolution



20. Vallon Signal. (Jules)

Recommendation: Consider decorative traffic signal equipment for the Hawthorne Boulevard/Vallon Drive traffic signal.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: VALLON SIGNAL

STAFF COORDINATOR: NICOLE JULES, SR ENGINEER

RECOMMENDATION

Consider decorative traffic signal equipment for the Hawthorne Boulevard/Vallon Drive traffic signal.

BACKGROUND

On September 18, 2001 the City Council approved the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive. On November 20, 2001 an engineering contract was awarded to Willdan and Associates for the traffic signal design of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive. As required by the project scope of work, Willdan will present decorative traffic signal exhibits to the City Council.

DISCUSSION

At the September 18, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council requested that staff present several options for the traffic signal poles and mast arms rather than the standard metallic poles currently used. Willdan and Associates has prepared a MS PowerPoint presentation illustrating decorative features and options that could be included in the traffic signal design process.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will result in selecting a decorative traffic signal enhancement that would complement the unusual configuration of the Hawthorne Boulevard/Vallon Drive intersection.

FISCAL IMPACT

The estimated total cost for this project is $135,000.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
MS PowerPoint Presentation



21. Intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Establish a new capital project to modify the traffic signal, and length the westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road. (2) Authorize the expenditure of up to $60,000 for the engineering and construction of signal and intersection modifications for Hawthorne Boulevard at Highridge Road. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: INTERSECTION OF HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD AND HIGHRIDGE ROAD

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Establish a new capital project to modify the traffic signal, and lengthen the westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road.

  2. Authorize the expenditure of up to $60,000 for the engineering and construction of signal and intersection modifications for Hawthorne Boulevard at Highridge Road.

  3. Adopt Resolution 2002- , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes amending Resolution 2001- 43, the Budget Resolution for fiscal Year 2001-02, for a budget adjustment to the City’s General Fund.

BACKGROUND

This item was presented to the City Council on September 18, 2001. At that time staff recommended that the "U" turn be allowed at this intersection without modifications to the traffic signal or to the intersection. The City Council requested staff to prepare and bring back a comprehensive traffic study of the intersection, and to respond to specific questions raised at the meeting.

The request to allow "U" turns for westbound Hawthorne Boulevard was first brought to the city’s attention as a request from the owner of the Chevron service station / car wash at the southeast corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road. The merchant believes that the "U" Turn restriction makes it difficult for motorists to access his service station.

A comprehensive traffic study has been prepared. The study was presented to the Traffic Committee at their January 28, 2002 meeting. This report to Council presents the traffic study and the recommendations from the Traffic Committee.

DISCUSSION
Existing Conditions

Hawthorne Boulevard is a major arterial street with two lanes in each direction separated by a raised center median. The existing speed limit on Hawthorne Boulevard is 45 MPH to the west and 40 MPH to the east of Highridge Road. Highridge Road is a collector street to the south of the intersection with one lane in each direction separated by a raised center median. Grayslake Road is a collector street to the north of the intersection with one lane in each direction separated by a centerline stripe. Highridge Road primarily serves a medium density residential area on a hillside above the intersection. Both streets have slight vertical curves approaching the intersection.

A visibility study was conducted at the intersection to determine the sight distance for left turning vehicles on Hawthorne Boulevard. It was found that the sight distance is adequate for left or U-turn traffic at the intersection during the unprotected portion of the signal phase. Both westbound and eastbound left turn traffic have at least 500 feet of sight distance to see oncoming vehicles, which meets the Caltrans minimum guideline for corner sight distance.

The existing signal operation provides protected-permissive left turn phasing on Hawthorne Boulevard, and concurrent permissive phases on Highridge Road and Grayslake Road. This means that a motorist on Hawthorne Boulevard wishing to make a left turn can do so either with a green arrow, or green ball when oncoming traffic permits. In addition during the period when there is a green left turn arrow on Hawthorne Boulevard, there is a green right turn arrow for Highridge Road to allow motorist to make a right turn.

Phase

Hawthorne Boulevard Movement

Highridge / Grayslake Movement

One

Green Left Arrows both directions

Red,
Except for: Green Right arrow for Highridge

Two

Green Ball, left turns are
permitted

Red

Three

Red

Green


Two "No U-Turn" signs are installed for westbound Hawthorne Boulevard. The signs are necessary to prevent a collision between a motorist making a "U" turn from westbound Hawthorne Boulevard and one making a right turn from Highridge Road to Hawthorne Boulevard. Hawthorne Boulevard is wide enough to allow U-turns. Eastbound U-turns are allowed.

A traffic volume study was conducted on October 4, 2001. The study indicates that Hawthorne Boulevard carries approximately 30,000 vehicles per day, and the intersection experiences high northbound right turn volume in the AM peak hour and high westbound left turn volume in the PM peak hour. This is indicative of commuter traffic to and from a residential area south of the intersection. A summary of the peak hour and daily volumes is shown below:

STREET

DIRECTION

AM PEAK

PM PEAK

DAILY

Hawthorne Blvd.

Westbound

890

1,764

16,841

 

Eastbound

1,430

829

13,019

 

Total Street

2,320

2,593

29,860

         

Highridge Rd.

Northbound

575

386

5,863

Grayslake Rd.

Southbound

238

131

2,036

 

Total Street

813

517

7,899

 

TOTAL

3,133

3,110

37,759


A review of the collision history during the previous four years indicates that this intersection has one of the higher collision rates along Hawthorne Boulevard within the City. The westbound left turn collision rate averages 2.75 per year, which represents 40 percent of the total number of collisions. Of the reported left turn accidents, all involve opposing through traffic on Hawthorne Boulevard. The remaining accidents are other type of collisions common to signalized intersections.

When the collision history was reported to the City Council in September 2001 there were two reported collisions for the year. Subsequently the most recent quarterly collision report indicates four additional left turn collisions occurred at this intersection. Moreover a collision pattern was found between June 14, 2001 and October 13, 2001 when five westbound left turn collisions occurred. This new information is significant because this collision rate meets one of the State of California (Caltrans) Traffic Manual criteria for the installation of protected left turn signals in the westbound direction.

The car wash and service station at the southeast corner have four customer driveways, three on Hawthorne Boulevard and one on Highridge Road. All of the driveways are limited to right turn in or right turn out due to raised center medians in the streets. The westerly driveway on Hawthorne Boulevard is restricted to entering only, while the two easterly driveways are restricted to exit only through the use of typical service station signs. Westbound access to the service station is inconvenient, requiring a driver to complete a U-turn at Fair Forest Drive approximately 1,000 feet south of the corner property.

Recommended Actions

The Traffic Engineer presented a report, that included several possible solutions, to the Traffic Committee at their January 25, 2002 meeting, see attached.

Issue One: Signal Modifications

As discussed above it was determined that in the four-month period from mid June 2001 to mid October 2001, there were five collisions related to westbound left turns. This collision history meets a warrant for the installation of a protected left turn. To improve safety, the Traffic Engineer recommends that the signal be modified to a protected left turn. A protected left turn signal requires a motorist to make a turn only during the green arrow. This revision to the signal requires that the left turn lane on westbound Hawthorne Boulevard be lengthened by approximately 155 feet.

On January 25, 2002 the Traffic Committee voted 7-0 to recommend this revision to the signal.

This signal modification will decrease intersection efficiency somewhat since the protected left turn phase requires more green time than a permissive phase. This reduces the green time available for Hawthorne Boulevard.

If approved by the City Council, this will not be the first time a signal would be modified in such a manner. In January 2001, the Public Works Department completed a capital project to modify the signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Granvia Altamira. That project was successful. In the two-year period preceding the project, there were 12 collisions involving motorists making left turns. Since the project was completed there have been no such collisions.

Issue Two: "U" Turns

On January 25, 2002 the Traffic Engineer recommended to the Traffic Committee that "U" turns be permitted at this intersection from westbound Hawthorne Boulevard. The Traffic Engineer made this recommendation because it would improve access to the service station and eastbound Hawthorne Boulevard without a significant impact to either safety or intersection efficiency.

If "U" turns are permitted for westbound Hawthorne Boulevard the intersection will operate slightly less efficiently than it currently does. This is because the green right turn arrow phase for Highridge Road must be removed. This change would not be significant because the green right turn arrow for Highridge Road is only activated when the left turn green arrow on Hawthorne Boulevard is activated. The green left turn arrow is triggered most heavily in the PM, when the volume of traffic on northbound Highridge Road is light.

A motion to recommend that "U" turns be permitted for westbound Hawthorne Boulevard was made at the January 25, 2002 Traffic Committee. The motion was defeated 3 – 4. One prevailing member of the traffic committee stated a concern over the location of the driveways to the service station / car wash. A second voiced concern over the nearby bus stop.

On September 18, 2001 the City Council requested staff to respond to the following specific questions:

  1. How far can someone see westerly on Hawthorne Boulevard when they are about to make a left or U-turn? At least 500 feet with adequate sight distance for permissive left or U-turns.

  2. If U-turns are permitted at the intersection, does the green right turn arrow for Highridge Road need to be removed? Yes

  3. How many vehicles that currently utilize the right turn arrow will be impacted if the green arrow is removed? Approximately 100 vehicles each peak hour.

  4. If U-turns are permitted, should right turns on red from Highridge Road be allowed? Yes, vehicles are required to yield during the red signal and it would significantly increase delay for northbound right turns otherwise.

  5. Should right turns on red be limited to certain hours? A right turn on red restriction is not necessary.

  6. Is there something unusual about this intersection regarding how vehicles access the car wash site? Yes, most major streets with median islands allow U-turns at major intersections or at regular intervals unless the street is too narrow.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will establish a new capital project to modify the signal and westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road. The project will increase safety at this intersection.

If approved a contract for the engineering will be awarded, plans will be prepared and advertised, and a project will be brought back to the City Council for award.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS

Alternative Action One: Take no action

Alternative Action Two: Approve the signal and median modifications and allow "U" turns for westbound Hawthorne Boulevard. Under this alternative the intersection would operate more safely but less efficiently than it currently does.

FISCAL IMPACT

The estimated total cost for the improved intersection/signal modifications is $ 60,000.

Signal Modifications

$ 20,000

Left turn lane revisions

$ 30,000

Engineering, Inspection, and Administration

$ 10,000

Total

$ 60,000


Funding for this project is not included in the adopted FY 2001-02 Budget. The attached resolution provides the necessary funding using General Funds.

The history of approved budget adjustments for FY 01 – 02 that impact the General Fund is as follows:

7/1/2001

Beginning General Fund Balance

$ 7,042,634

7/5/2001

Girls Softball Feasibility Study

$ 10,000

7/17/2001

Purchase tax default property

$ 2,978

8/7/2001

Pre-order drainage pipe for Palos Verdes Drive South repairs

$ 35,000

9/18/2001

Vallon Traffic Signal

$ 135,000

10/2/2001

San Ramon Drainage Improvements

$ 1,150,000

11/20/2001

GASB 34 appropriation increase

$ 35,000

 

General Fund Ending Fund Balance

$ 5,674,656

 

50% Budgeted General Fund revenues

$ 6,382,490

 

Ending Fund Balance Deficiency

( $ 707,834 )


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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Budget Resolution
Accident History
Summary of Past Budget Adjustments Impacting the General Fund
Exhibit Map



CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ACCIDENT HISTORY

Location: Hawthorne Blvd./ Highridge Rd.
Date: 1/1/1998 to 12/31/01

Date

Time

Dist.

Direction

Type

Reasons

11/1/01

10:00

Int.

EBTH vs. NBLT

Broadside

Red light violation

10/13/01

21:46

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield, driving with permit w/o adult

9/26/01

07:40

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield, citizen’s report

8/20/01

21:25

Int.

WBTH vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

7/14/01

15:55

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

6/14/01

20:15

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

12/12/00

09:25

Int.

SBSLOW vs. SBST

Rear end

Following too close

9/22/00

09:25

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

6/18/00

21:45

Int.

EBTH vs. EBST

Rear end

Unsafe speed

6/6/00

10:24

Int.

NBLT vs. EBTH?

Broadside

Failure to yield

4/24/00

18:10

Int.

NBTH vs. WB ?

Pedestrian

Signal violation

3/31/00

21:42

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Sideswipe

Improper driving

2/4/00

09:00

Int.

NBLT vs. SBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

1/5/00

14:00

Int.

EBTH vs. EBTH

Rear end

Unsafe speed

1/4/00

13:30

Int.

EBTH vs. EBTH

Rear end

Unsafe speed

9/25/99

16:20

Int.

NBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

9/16/99

12:40

200’ S

EBTH vs. EBTH

Rear end

Following too close

9/11//99

18:45

Int

WBTH vs. SBTH

Broadside

Red light violation

7/12/99

11:00

Int

WBLT vs. SBTH

Broadside

Unsafe left turn

6/19/99

15:57

Int.

WBTH vs. WBST

Rear end

Unsafe speed

11/20/98

19:00

Int.

EBBK vs. NBLT

Rear end

Unsafe backing

11/10/98

17:50

200’ N

WBTH vs. WBTH

Rear end

Unsafe speed-citizen report

8/12/98

17:40

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

8/12/98

17:17

Int.

EBLT vs. WBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

3/21/98

15:36

Int.

NBTH vs. EBTH

Broadside

Red light violation

2/10/98

09:20

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

1/28/98

19:00

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Red light violation

KEY- EB (northbound), TH-Through, ST-stopped, LT-Left turn, SLOW-Slowing



22. Legislative Policy and Guidelines. (Evans)

Recommendation: (1) Adopt Legislative Guidelines for 2002. (2) Adopt revised City Council Policy No. 29. (3) Consider support of Proposition 42.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND GUIDELINES

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Adopt Legislative Guidelines for 2002.
  2. Adopt Revised City Council Policy No. 29.
  3. Consider Support of Proposition 42.

BACKGROUND

At their meeting of January 31, 2002 the City Council considered the adoption of Legislative Guidelines for 2002. The Council was reluctant to authorize staff to interpret the City Council position on a lengthy list of legislative and policy issues. However, the Council was interested in a process through which their position on pending legislation could be more clearly heard in Sacramento and Washington, DC.

After deliberation the City Council adopted a position on one federal and four state issues.

At the federal level, the Council supported the continuation of Law Enforcement Block Grant programs. Addressing State issues the Council:

  1. Opposes any reduction in the State backfill of vehicle license fees.
  2. Supports the continuation of COPS funding.
  3. Supports a regional approach to airport development and usage and supports strategies to reduce aircraft noise.
  4. Supports Proposition 40 on the March ballot.

In addition, the City Council identified the preservation and expansion of municipal rights in federal telecommunications law and regulations as an issue of "focus" or concern.

The Council directed staff to prepare Legislative Guidelines for 2002 that reflected their action. They also directed staff to revise City Council Policy No. 29 to be consistent with the adoption of these Guidelines. Finally, the Council asked for more information on Proposition 42 on the March ballot.

DISCUSSION

Attached is a draft of Legislative Guidelines for 2002 consistent with City Council action at the January 31, 2002 meeting. Also attached is a revised City Council Policy No. 29 with deletions noted by strikeouts and additions by underlining.

Information regarding Proposition 42 is also attached, including a newspaper article describing the recent action of the Palos Verdes Estates City Council. The ballot initiative would dedicate the sales tax on gasoline for transportation purposes. Currently, a portion of these funds is diverted to the State General Fund and spent on State programs not related to transportation. Passage of Proposition 42 would provide an additional $500,000 annually for repair and improvement of roads in Rancho Palos Verdes as well as more funds for regional transportation projects. Approval of the measure by the voters would also give the State less flexibility in how its funds are spent.

Respectfully submitted:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

  1. Legislative Guidelines for 2002 (draft)
  2. City Council Policy No. 29 (draft)
  3. Information on Proposition No. 42.


LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES FOR 2002

Purpose

The Legislative Guidelines will address issues both at the State and Federal level and recommend positions on anticipated or proposed laws, regulations, rules, policies that may impact the City or the region. The City Council will take positions on significant public policy issues as well as identify issues of concern that they will closely monitor. These Guidelines will enable the Mayor and Council to more effectively respond to and act upon time-sensitive requests for support for any proposed legislation on which the Council has taken a position. City staff will monitor and track relevant legislation and prepare correspondence advocating the City’s position on pending legislation.

The City’s legislative advocacy activities shall be guided by these Guidelines and any amendments to these Guidelines approved by the City Council.

City Council Positions

The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has taken positions on the following issues and proposed laws rules, regulations or policies and has authorized the Mayor (or the Mayor Pro Tem in the absence or non-availability of the Mayor) to advocate the City’s position in the form of letters, telephone calls, personal contacts and other forms of communication:

Federal

Public Safety

Continuation of Law Enforcement Block Grant programs.

State

A.Fiscal Impact

Protection of City’s vehicle license fee revenue base.
Continuation of Citizen Option for Public Safety (COPS) funding.

    1. Aviation
    2. Promote a "regional" approach to airport development and usage and support aircraft noise abatement strategies.

    3. Parks

Proposition 40 (March ballot).

City Council Issues of Concern

The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has identified the following issues and proposed laws, rules, regulations or policies as issues of concern that they will continuously monitor and evaluate for impacts on the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the region:

Federal

Public Utilitites

Preservation and expansion of municipal rights in federal telecommunications law and regulatory deliberations.



CITY COUNCIL POLICY

NUMBER: 29

DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED:February 19, 2002

SUBJECT: FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE

ACTIVITIES OF THE CITY COUNCIL

POLICY:

It shall be the policy of the City Council that federal and state legislative items shall only be placed on a City Council agenda for Council consideration at the request of a Council member.

It shall be the policy of the City Council that annually, by the first meeting in February, the staff shall prepare and present Legislative Guidelines for the Council’s consideration. The Legislative Guidelines shall address issues both at the State and Federal level and recommend positions on anticipated or proposed laws, regulations, rules, policies that may impact the City or the region.

The Legislative Guidelines will include both those issues that the City Council decides either to support or oppose and those that they choose to identify as issues of concern, but not take a position on. After adoption of the Guidelines staff will periodically at the discretion or the City Manager, or the request of a Council member, place the Guidelines on the City Council agenda for reconsideration or updating. Staff will provide regular updates on the status of any legislative action affecting any issues identified in the Legislative Guidelines.

If a legislative matter is placed on the agenda at a Council member’s request and the majority of the Council vote to support or oppose such legislation, staff shall prepare the appropriate correspondence to the appropriate federal and/or state legislative representative(s) expressing the position of the City.

Individual Council members may wish to support or oppose a specific piece of legislation whether the Council has taken a position on such legislation or not. Any legislative activity by an individual Council member, including preparing legislative correspondence, may be conducted by any Council member. However, staff shall not assist in any legislative activity of an individual Council member, including the preparation of legislative correspondence, unless the legislative item has appeared on a Council agenda and has received a majority vote of the Council.

Such letters prepared by individual members of the Council may be prepared on City letterhead.

The League of California Cities’ "Legislative Bulletin" and any appropriate publication that summarizes legislation shall be provided as part of the weekly Administrative Report to each member of the Council for review.

BACKGROUND:

This policy is intended to assist in making the most efficient use of City staff time. The City Council recognizes that any member of the City Council may desire to individually conduct activities to support or oppose federal or state legislation. However, because conducting such legislative activities can be a time-consuming effort, staff shall only assist in conducting legislative activity when the majority of the Council voted to support or oppose such legislation.

The City Council adopted a policy for Council involvement in Federal and State legislative advocacy in 1995. Although the policy seems to have worked adequately over the past seven years, it did not allow the City to respond rapidly to requests to support or oppose legislation that may be before a committee or on the floor or the Assembly or before Congress and needs immediate action on the part of supporters or opponents.

The City Council’s revised legislative policy establishes an internal process for identifying, tracking and advocating its position on pending legislation synchronized to the fast-paced "legislation time clock." Through this proactive policy, the City Council hopes to have a stronger "voice" in Sacramento and in Washington, DC.



23. Palos Verdes Drive South Roadway Repairs from La Rotondo to the easterly City limits. (Allison)

Recommendation: Receive an update on the status of roadway repairs.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: ROADWAY REPAIRS TO PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH FROM LA ROTONDA TO THE EASTERLY CITY LIMITS

RECOMMENDATIONS

Receive an update on the status of roadway repairs

DISCUSSION

On June 21, 1999 severe cracks were observed in Palos Verdes Drive South (25th Street) from La Rotonda Drive to the Easterly City Limit. Site visits by the City’s geologist confirmed that settlement had occurred, and that further investigation was required. On August 3, 1999 the City Council awarded engineering contracts to investigate the causes of settlement and recommendations for improvements.

On October 19, 1999 the results of that investigation was presented to the City Council.

The report concluded that:

    • The subject fill slope (constructed 50+ years ago) has most likely been at a marginal state of stability since construction.
    • The majority of soil samples taken revealed moisture contents between 80% and 100% (20% is optimal) and relative compaction measurements between 70% and 85% (90% is the generally accepted minimum).
    • The fill slope has most likely been subject to low level "creep" which resulted in tension cracks throughout the fill material.
    • It is unlikely that the slope will fail catastrophically in the near future.
    • Continued strain accumulation and deformation within the fill slope will likely continue to degrade the stability of the slope and will likely cause movement over time.
    • The distressed area is underlain by 8 to 22 feet of artificial fill placed on landslide debris of the South Shores Landslide.
    • The irrigation installed to establish a coastal sage scrub re-vegetation area along roadway embankment contributed to the settlement
    • Poor roadway surface drainage contributed to the settlement.
    • Movement appears to be limited to the outer 15 feet of the face of the slope and no well-defined slip surface was detected.
    • The roadway is within the South Shores Landslide, however, the landslide does not affect the roadway settlement.

The October 19, 1999 report to the City Council also recommended improvements be constructed in two phases. This allowed for some of the improvements to be in place before the then impending rainy season. In December 1999, the first phase of roadway improvements, consisting of a storm drain system, a subdrain system and slope inclinometers were completed.

Since December 1999 geologists have continued to monitor the settlement in the roadway embankment. It was originally envisioned that phase two of the improvements would take place in the spring of 2000, however, based on the inclinometer readings, the project geologist recommended that phase two improvements not take place until there was a reduction or at least a stabilization in the rate of settlement. The project geologist recently recommended that settlement of the roadway is such that phase two improvements may proceed.

Staff will move forward with phase two improvements. The City is still in contract with the project’s Civil Engineering, and Geotechnical firms for the services required to prepare phase two improvements plans. Plans will be prepared advertised, and a construction contract will be brought back to the City Council for award.

The most recent time this project was before the City Council it was in the context of the Ocean Trails project. One of the Conditions of Approval for that project is the resurfacing and the realignment of Palos Verde Drive South from the easterly City limits to Schooner Drive, which encompasses this roadway segment. When cracks first appeared, an agreement was reached with Ocean Trails under which the City would assume responsibility for the repair of this roadway segment in exchange for Ocean Trails becoming responsible for the complete reconstruction of La Rotonda Drive rather than simply resurfacing the roadway as is called for in the Conditions of Approval.

The agreement was approved by the City Council on September 4, 2001. On that evening staff provided an estimate of needed work and costs for this portion of roadway. The level of improvements which staff is now proposing to move forward with is consistent the discussions on September 4, 2001.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the recommendations of the project’s geotechnical engineer, the City will move forward with the plans for phase two improvements. The plans will be advertised and a construction contract will be brought to the City Council for award.

FISCAL IMPACT

Preparing the final engineering plans, and advertising the project will require the services of the project geologist, and project engineer. Total costs will be approximately

$15,000. Funding for these services is included in the adopted budget. There are adequate funds in existing contacts with the consulting firms and additional authorization is not required.

The Adopted FY 2001 –02 also includes funding for the construction of phase-two roadway improvements. The funding sources are the Gas Tax Fund, Proposition C Fund, and The General Fund.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



24. Community Leaders Breakfast Schedule. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Select two dates, one in the spring and one in the fall, for the Community Leaders Breakfast meetings.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: COMMUNITY LEADERS BREAKFAST SCHEDULE

RECOMMENDATION

Select two dates, one in spring and one in fall, for the Community Leaders' Breakfast meetings.

DISCUSSION

The City has been hosting two Community Leaders' Breakfast meetings per year to create more opportunities for communication with the residents and appointed officials of the City. Should the Council wish to continue these breakfast meetings in 2002, below is a list of proposed dates for both the spring and fall meetings:

Spring : Fall:
   
Saturday, April 20th Saturday, October 5th
Saturday, April 27th Saturday, October 12th
Saturday, May 4th Saturday, October 19th
Saturday, May 18th Saturday, October 26th


Even if a date for the Fall Community Leaders Breakfast is set now, the Council still has the ability to adjust or cancel this date as the time draws closer and each Council member's schedule becomes more firmly established.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



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

Recommendation: Set a date and time to receive the Cotton, Shires and Associates technical review of the geological and geotechnical data for the Abalone Cove landslide and Zone 2 areas.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

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

RECOMMENDATION

Set a date and time to receive the Cotton, Shires & Associates Technical Review of the Geological and Geotechnical Data for the Abalone Cove Landslide and Zone 2 Areas.

BACKGROUND

At their October 16, 2001 City Council meeting the Council postponed a previously scheduled adjourned meeting set for October 30, 2001 at which time they had planned to consider the September 12, 2001 Zone 2 Technical Review by Cotton, Shires & Associates. The reasons for the postponement were as follows:

1. On Thursday, October 11, 2001 the City received a letter and a lengthy geologist’s opinion on the Zone 2 issues from Perona Langer Beck and Lallande (attorneys for the original Horan litigants). PLB&L have engaged the services of Dr. David Cummings, who was a member of the original Panel of Experts, to comment on the Zone 2 issues.

2. Mr. Bill Griffin advised staff that he (and others?) had hired Dr. Karl Vonder Linden (a Bay area geologist) to comment on the Zone 2 matter. The Vonder Linden comments were not expected to be available until shortly before the October 30th meeting (not enough time to be incorporated into the Cotton, Shires report.

3. The Peer Group consultants had not yet submitted their comments on the Cotton, Shires & Associates September 12, 2001 draft report.

The Council agreed that the meeting would be re-scheduled at such time as our consultant, Cotton, Shires & Associates, advised us the report and responses to comments were complete.

Significant Milestones

At their April 17, 2001 meeting the City Council took the following action:

(1) Approved a Professional Services Agreement with Cotton, Shires and Associates to review existing geologic and geotechnical documents to determine whether the data are sufficient to allow building on vacant lots in Zone II if the local factor of safely calculated for the lot is 1.5 or greater; (2) Authorized the expenditure of up to $30,000 for the Cotton, Shires contract from Building and Safety Account 402.35 Technical and Professional Services; and (3) Formed a Peer Review Committee consisting of three independent geologists to review and comment on the findings of Cotton, Shires & Associates.

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

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

  1. The property owner(s) must sign a covenant and agreement to participate in ACLAD and other recognized or approved districts whose purpose is to maintain the land in a geologically stable condition. The property owner(s) must also sign an indemnification and hold harmless agreement with the City. No proposed building activity may cause lessening of stability in the zone.
  2. The property owner(s) must pay a fee to help defray the cost of installing additional monitoring and producing wells that may be required or install a monitoring well on his/her property.
  3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a geotechnical report must be submitted to, and approved by the City’s geotechnical reviewers indicating what, if any, local geologic hazards must be corrected prior to, or during construction. Said report shall specify foundation designs based on field and laboratory studies. Grading exceeding 250 cubic yards shall require special approval by the City staff.
  4. No new houses may be built prior to installation of a public sanitary sewer system to serve the Abalone cove area. A covenant and agreement must be executed agreeing to such a sewer system and connection. Necessary easements must be provided.
  5. No building construction may be undertaken prior to installation of storm drainage improvements to carry runoff to Altamira Canyon and improvements to Altamira Canyon to prevent infiltration through the canyon bottom.
  6. All lot drainage deficiencies, if any, identified by the City staff, must be corrected. The designs of all pools, ponds and sumps will be subject to City review and approval.
  7. Runoff from all buildings and paved areas must be collected and directed to the street or to an approved drainage course as approved by the City Engineer.
  8. All other relevant building code requirements must be met.
  9. Individual lot stability must be a least 1.5 (although this was not included on the original list of conditions, all the consultants agreed that it should be required.

After hearing the presentation by Dr. Ehlig and comments from the public, the City Council took no action pending completion of the negotiations (for removal of liens and refinancing of the Horan Settlement debt) with the County. Although the liens were removed in December 1997 a follow up meeting was never scheduled.

In January 2001 Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart inquired of staff how the matter of Zone II development should be brought back to the Council since the bond negotiations with the County had been complete for over three years. Staff asked for the advice of Bill Cotton, of Cotton, Shires and Associates, who is providing geotechnical review services for Ocean Trails. Mr. Cotton met with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, the City Attorney and several staff members to discuss the issue of development in Zone II. Mr. Cotton recommended that a review of existing geologic and geotechnical documents should be undertaken to determine whether the data are sufficient to support the 1997conclusions of the Dr. Perry Ehlig and the Peer Review Group.

DISCUSSION

Since October 16, 2002 Cotton, Shires & Associates have completed work on the final draft of a Technical Review of Geologic/Geotechnical Data for the Abalone Cove Landslide and Zone 2 Areas. Copies of the Report are available both on the City website and in paper form from City Hall.

The January 14, 2002 Cotton, Shires & Associates Technical Review consists of a fourteen page narrative of their findings and conclusions and eight appendices.

Appendix F of the January 14, 2002 Report includes the significant correspondence (as determined by Cotton, Shires & Associates) received by interested parties including geologists and local residents. Included is the October 11, 2001 letter and a lengthy geologist’s opinion on the Zone 2 issues from Perona Langer Beck and Lallande (attorneys for the original Horan litigants

The City Council, last Spring, formed a Zone 2 Geology Committee made up of geologists from Cotton, Shires & Associates and Keith Ehlert, Monte Ray and Dr. Kim Bishop (the Peer Review Geologists). This group of geologists met four times last year, in public sessions, to discuss Zone 2 issues and share information. On October 17, 2002, the Peer Review Geologists submitted comments on the Cotton, Shires draft report dated September 12, 2001. Those comments have been addressed in Appendix G of the January 14, 2002 Report.

Appendix H of the January 14, 2002 Report is a response to questions on the September 12, 2001 draft report raised by Mayor Pro Tem Stern.

CONCLUSION

In order to provide adequate time for all interested parties to study the January 14, 2002 Technical Review, and in view of the already heavy schedule of meetings the City Council has committed to over the next two months, staff recommends that the presentation of the Report be set for an adjourned meeting in May. As an alternative, the Council may simply wish to agendize the matter at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting in March or April.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager



26. Reschedule City Council Meeting. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider rescheduling the regular Council meeting of March 6, 2002.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: RESCHEDULE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

RECOMMENDATION

Consider rescheduling the regular Council meeting of March 6, 2002.

BACKGROUND

The first Council meeting in March falls on Tuesday, March 5, 2002. Due to the California Primary Election on that day, the City Council meeting is automatically rescheduled to the following day, Wednesday, March 6, 2002. At least one Councilmember has indicated that he will not be available on that day.

DISCUSSION

Staff has been advised that one or more Councilmembers are also unavailable on Monday March 4th , Tuesday March 5th and Thursday March 7th. Staff has no recommendations for a potential date for rescheduling the March 6th meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager



27. City Council and Staff Team Building Workshop. (Evans)

Recommendation: Confirm a date and time for a City Council and Staff Team Building Workshop.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002

SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF TEAM BUILDING

WORKSHOP

RECOMMENDATION

Confirm a date and time for a City Council and Staff Team Building Workshop.

BACKGROUND

At the January 31, 2002 City Council meeting, Councilmember Clark suggested scheduling a team-building workshop with City Council and management staff as soon as practicable. The workshop would focus on communications between the City Council and staff and offer the Council an opportunity to convey their vision and priorities to everyone at the same time.

The Council agreed that such a Workshop would be productive and directed staff to develop some possible dates and times for the meeting. It was also agreed that the Council/staff workshop would be more effective with a facilitator and a pre-determined agenda. The facilitator would interview each Councilmember, and key staff members, prior to finalizing the agenda. The workshop could probably be accomplished in a four-hour period.

DISCUSSION

The proposed Workshop will involve all five Councilmembers, the City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, Director of Administrative Services, Director of Finance and Information Technology, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, Director of Public Works, Director of Recreation and Parks and a facilitator. Obviously, finding a four-hour period in the next month or six weeks that would accommodate the schedules of fifteen busy people has not been easy. Complicating the problem is a heavy schedule of League of City Conferences, including the City Managers’ Conference, the Public Works Directors Conference and the Planners’ Institute. Jury Duty and previously approved vacation periods further compound the problem.

We have identified three dates that all nine staff members and Len Wood (the proposed facilitator) are available. The dates are:

Saturday, March 9 (morning)
Friday, March 29 (late afternoon and evening)
Friday, April 5 (late afternoon and evening)

If none of these dates are compatible with City Councilmember commitments, the Council may wish to simply set a date and time and those staff members who are available will attend. All staff members are interested in attending this session and will make every effort to attend whenever the Workshop is scheduled.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



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



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Saturday, February 23, at 9:00 A.M. in the Fireside Room at Hesse Park to interview Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee applicants.



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, and Keith Lenard.

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

Existing Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: People of the State; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Jim Dao
Case No: Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. YC 039523

Name of Case: People of the State; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Mark J. Abrams
Case No: California Court of Appeal Case No. B151086

Name of Case: Mark J. Abrams v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Case No: United States District Court Case No. 00-09071 SVW (RNBx)

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.