Agenda 03/11/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 03/11/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda March 11, 2002
March 11, 2002

DISCLAIMER

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

...end of disclaimer...

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


BEGINNING OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 11, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



6:00 P.M. – 6:15 P.M.Interview with Planning Commission applicant.

6:15 P. M. – 7:00 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. 2002-15

NEXT ORD. NO. 374



1. League of California Cities Grassroots Representative. (Evans)

Recommendation: Introduce Ann Marie Wallace and discuss legislative issues that may affect the City.



RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



2. 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.



3. Minutes of February 7, 9, and 23, 2002, and March 6, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



4. Claim Against the City by Howard Mori. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of the Council’s action.



5. Used Oil Recycling Block Grant for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize the application of the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 used oil block grant to continue the used oil and filter recycling program for City of Rancho Palos Verdes residents. (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 ANY AGREEMENTS, CONTRACTS, AND REQUESTS FOR PAYMENT AS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM.



6. Neighborhood Watch – Purchase of Replacement Computer. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the purchase of a CPQ 2710US Notebook Computer and Norton antivirus software at a cost of $1802.60 for use by volunteer Neighborhood Watch Coordinator Gail Lorenzen; said amount to be paid from the Neighborhood Watch Trust Fund.



7. Amendment to the Veterans’ Preference System in the Personnel Rules. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL RULES REGARDING THE VETERANS’ PREFERENCE SYSTEM.



8. Franchise Tax Board Contract for Taxpayer Information. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO EXECUTE ANNUAL CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD FOR TAXPAYER INFORMATION SHARING SERVICES.



9. January Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.



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.


REGULAR BUSINESS:



11. Appointment of Planning Commission & Finance Advisory Committee Members. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Make the following appointments: Planning Commission: (1) Appoint four members to a four year term of office to serve until March 7, 2006;(2) Appoint three members to a two year term of office to serve until March 2, 2004. Finance Advisory Committee: (1) Appoint four members to a four-year term of office to serve until March 7, 2006; (2) Appoint three members to a two-year term of office to serve until March 2, 2004. Chairs: (1) Set a time and place to interview those appointees who have expressed a desire to serve as chair of these boards. (2) Authorize the Mayor to appoint an interim chair to each of these boards to serve until Council has conducted the interview for chairs.



12. Amateur Antenna Ordinance. (Lynch)

Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. _____U, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING AMATEUR ANTENNAS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.



13. Amateur Antenna Ordinance. (Lynch)

Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING AMATEUR ANTENNAS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.



14. Joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee to discuss the Crestridge Property. (Pfost)

Recommendation: Schedule a date for a joint meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee to discuss the Crestridge Property.



15. Border Issues Status Report. (Fox)

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



16. Western Avenue Boundary Issues. (Fox)

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



17. Peninsula-Wide Issues Committee. (Evans)

Recommendation: Receive a report from Mayor McTaggart regarding the formation of a Peninsula-Wide Issues Committee and consider the appointment of representatives to that Committee, if formed.



18. Roof Repair for City-Owned Buildings. (Allison)

Recommendation: Accept the Roof Inspection Report prepared by the Garland Company and authorize staff to implement the proposed Five-Year Roof Repair and Replacement Plan.



19. City Council Rules of Procedure. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RULE 8.2 OF THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE REGARDING THE ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY.


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


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL


Existing Litigation
:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: People of the State; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. James A. Kay, Jr.

Case No: Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. YC 037398)

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

MARCH 11, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



6:00 P.M. – 6:15 P.M. Interview with Planning Commission applicant.

6:15 P. M. – 7:00 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. 2002-15

NEXT ORD. NO. 374






1. League of California Cities Grassroots Representative. (Evans)

Recommendation: Introduce Ann Marie Wallace and discuss legislative issues that may affect the City.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES GRASSROOTS REPRESENTATIVE


RECOMMENDATION

Introduce Ann Marie Wallace and discuss legislative issues that may affect the City.

BACKGROUND

The Grassroots Network is a new program for the California League of Cities. It consists of fifteen field coordinators located in ten field offices. Their job is to work with city officials and the League's regional divisions to aggressively promote key League legislative priorities with legislators, district legislative staff, local media and other supporting community groups.

Ann Marie Wallace is the South Bay regional representative for the League Grassroots Network program. Ann Marie is already working with us at the staff level and should be a valuable asset in our legislative advocacy program.

Ms. Wallace has worked with elected officials and other stakeholders in a variety of communications, legislative and campaign capacities. She has served on the staff of a Lieutenant Governor and an Assemblymember, has managed and served as a communications/legislative director for a transit agency and has managed several political campaigns. Most recently, Ann Marie worked in the White House where she drafted political briefings, advised Administration Officials on the political implications of policy decisions, and coordinated activities between the President and state/local elected officials around policy announcements and initiatives. She received a bachelor's degree in Political Science from California State University, Long Beach. She resides in Long Beach and her office is at the Torrance Municipal Airport.


Respectfully submitted,

Les Evans
City Manager


RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



2. 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.



3. Minutes of February 7, 9, and 23, 2002, and March 6, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file. Roll call was answered as follows:

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

PRESENT: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
ABSENT: Councilwoman Ferraro

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; Finance Director Dennis McLean; Accounting Manager Kathryn Downs; Senior Planner Kit Fox; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.


RECYLE DRAWING


A card was drawn and Mayor McTaggart mentioned details of an electronic roundup to be held in Carson on February 23, 2002, from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.


CEREMONIAL ITEM


On behalf of the City Council, Councilman Clark presented chrome license plate frames to Mayor McTaggart inscribed with Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor 2002.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


Mayor Pro Tem Stern, Councilman Clark, and Councilman Gardiner made corrections to the minutes and Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked that the item regarding the Agreement for Professional Services with Geotechnical Review Panel Members be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed before the first Regular Business item.

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

Motion to waive full reading

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

Minutes of January 12, 2002

Approved the minutes, as amended.

Award Contract for Services to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Construction of a New Single-Family Residence

Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional services agreement in an amount not to exceed $18,380 with RBF Consulting to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for proposed construction of a new single-family residence on vacant property located at 3787 Coolheights Drive.

December 2001 Treasurer’s Report

Ordered received and filed.

Register of Demands

ADOPTED 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.



Agreement for Professional Services with Geotechnical Review Panel Members

Staff recommendation was to approve agreements for professional services with Bing Yen, Glenn Brown and Monte Ray.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern pointed out that there might be fiscal impact from potential liability, suggesting that the consultants might have insurance which would be the primary means of protection for them, and asked that language be added to clarify that work cannot be subtracted or reassigned to other individuals.

City Attorney Lynch replied that the reassignment of work would be clarified and that none of the consultants had insurance and clarified that the indemnification covered their professional services not such incidents as car accidents while on City business.

Councilman Clark asked how the rate of compensation was determined.

City Attorney Lynch indicated that there was no change in their rate of compensation and it had been determined initially by discussions with the consultants.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, was opposed to different hourly rates for the three Geotechnical Review Panel Members.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to approve agreements, as amended, for professional services with Bing Yen, Glenn Brown and Monte Ray.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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


REGULAR BUSINESS:


Beautification Grant Funding and Program Options

Director Allison presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to provide direction to staff regarding the characteristics of the neighborhood beautification grant program.

Councilman Clark asked if the $100,000 in the budget had been earmarked for a specific project.

Director Allison replied that it had not been and that money was being put aside for future projects.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that grants might be for different amounts because sometimes funding for large projects required grants for two or three subsequent years.

Mayor McTaggart said that some projects require less than the normal grant amount also.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that instead of sequential funding, possibly a fund could be established for larger projects.

Mayor pro tem Stern discussed input he received from the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Association and said that they were in favor of an association matching funds, and preferred Option No. 3. which allowed the larger associations to take on larger projects because fund raising was relatively easy. He said this was not the same procedure as suggested by Councilman Gardiner but would provide the same result.

Mayor McTaggart clarified that neighborhoods could receive grants without being a homeowners association.

Councilman Clark felt it would be helpful to determine which areas of the City were not associated with a homeowners association.

Mayor pro tem Stern indicated that when he was President of the Homeowners Council, there were 35 association members and that some of those groups were not particularly active. He said that it might be easy for some groups to form an entity to apply for a grant, such as a condominium development.

City Manager Evans stated that there had been announcements in the City Newsletter and through other means of communication emphasizing that it was not necessary to form a homeowners association to apply for a grant. He explained that the grant amount set by the Public Works Department met the needs of most projects but there had been a precedent set for funding of a meaningful project such as the $40,000 granted to the Miraleste Recreation and Park District.

Council consensus was that applications should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that there had been a history of phased projects funded over several years but they were not necessarily submitted in that fashion originally. He said that maybe they could be in the future.

Councilman Gardiner asked what happened if there were requests for more funds than were available.

City Manager Evans replied that this had not happened and he referenced a point system for evaluating projects.

Councilman Clark said that how recently a group had received a grant might be a factor.

Mayor McTaggart was in favor of increasing the base grant amount as mentioned at previous meeting.

Don Shults, 2129 Velez, discussed a phone call with Brian Campbell (President of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations) during which they talked about a concern regarding the same groups receiving grants repeatedly, however, if there were sufficient funds and not too many requests, he felt this should not be a problem. He agreed that it should be made clear that it was not necessary to form a homeowners association to apply for a grant. However, he said that he and Mr. Campbell agreed that some of the larger homeowners associations might have larger projects which would require additional funding.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner to approve Option No. 3.

Councilman Clark felt it was important to increase the individual grant amount and Option No. 3 did not provide this increase.

Mayor pro tem Stern withdrew his motion and moved to approve a modified Option No. 4 which provides a base grant of $3,000, and provides a dollar for dollar match up to an additional grant amount of $1,500, which allows for a total project amount of $6,000, with the total allowable funding for matching part of the grant limited to $30,000 overall for all grants.
 
Councilman Clark felt the motion should include an outreach to residents who are not members of a homeowners association.

The maker and seconder of the motion agreed to this addition. Motion carried.

Traffic Calming on Via Rivera

Director Allison presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to (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 the proposed resolution amending Resolution 2001-43, the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 for a budget adjustment to the City’s General Fund.

Director Allison stated that because the meeting was rescheduled to February 7 from February 5, a continuance to February 19 was necessary to fulfill noticing requirements and that the Council could hear testimony but speakers were encouraged to wait until February 19 to give their comments.

Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts – Proposed Assessment Deferral Loans

Director McLean presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 including the Finance Advisory Committee’s recommendations as listed on Page 7 of their report.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if there was any data available to assess when loans would be repaid. He further elaborated that it appeared as though the financial model contained in the staff report was based upon the worst case scenario; that property owners participating in a loan deferral program would continue to own the property throughout the entire duration of the term debt obligation, therefore, the City would pay the assessments until the end of the term of the district debt obligation.

Director McLean said that because no information regarding the frequency of property sales was easily available, the financial models were based upon the assumption that some properties would transfer within a 20-year period based on mortality rates only. Other sales frequency trends would be completely unpredictable.

Councilman Gardiner asked if the 1913 Act required the City to set aside this large fund up front for a 20-year stream and he wondered why there could not be a deferral fund enabling annual contributions to it over a period of time.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell, Deputy City Attorney, explained that there were legal limitations in the City’s ability to make contracts for future years but there were two options. The City could: (1) create a deferral fund which would be sufficient to make assessment payments on behalf of participating property owners over the life of the term debt and enter into an agreement with the property owner to make those payments on behalf of the property owner or (2) enter into an agreement in which the City makes a commitment to make the assessment payment on behalf of the property owner for only one year at a time.

Councilman Gardiner expressed the concern that a long-term agreement would be established; the home might sell a short time thereafter. He further stated that although the funds would be released, it seemed like a lot of money to set aside at the outset.

Councilman Clark pointed out that there were not mutually beneficial results by implementing the deferral fund.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt that the two options seemed to be two extremes and that ideally, perhaps the City would like to be able to say that as long as a property owner continues to qualify, the City would commit to make payments for that year only.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell explained that the annual option provided something close to that arrangement because the City could enter into an agreement with the homeowner at the outset to pay their assessments from year to year but the City still reserved the right to discontinue paying the assessment after any year. He clarified that the City could use either option in the same Undergrounding District.

Mayor pro tem Stern pointed out that it was not just a matter of trusting the City but that sometimes circumstances change and options could be eliminated.

Mayor McTaggart raised the idea of reserving cash funds and dedicating the interest earnings for deferral loans.

Director McLean indicated that interest currently earned was less than 4%; therefore, a substantial amount of monies would have to be reserved.

Mayor pro tem Stern speculated that this would not provide enough income.

Councilman Clark asked if other cities have successful mechanisms like this.

City Manager Evans said that Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach have been involved with undergrounding utilities, but they don’t have a loan deferral programs like this one under consideration.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell noted that Berkeley has created an elaborate procedure for financing but it did not involve any loan assistance from the City. He said that undergrounding utilities was relatively rare and generally did not include provisions for deferral loans.

Councilman Clark asked if technological advances had reduced the cost of undergrounding utilities to the point that the cost estimates include in the financial models were overstated.

Director Allison replied that in his regular conversations with Scott Gobble of Southern California Edison, there had been no indication of cost reductions now, or in the future.

Mayor McTaggart felt the opposite was true and that costs were much higher than just a few years ago.

Councilman Clark said that there was a miniscule contribution from Southern California Edison which did not take into account sustainment of the system and maintenance of the infrastructure.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell agreed that the Southern California Edison would provide a credit but the amount was small, only about 10-15%.

Councilman Clark felt that Edison’s contribution did not cover the benefit they would be receiving in terms of reduced costs for maintaining the overhead system.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell clarified that Southern California Edison’s contribution was governed by rules set by the Public Utilities Commission.

Councilman Gardiner recalled that Scott Gobble had mentioned a figure of $9.00 credit for a cost of $300.00 per foot.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt that there could be no change other than through lobbying.

Councilman Clark said he would like to see the City participate in this lobbying.

Councilman Gardiner said that he had heard of money available in San Diego for a project by Pacific Gas & Electric and asked if there money available for undergrounding projects.

Mayor McTaggart said this would apply only to major arterial undergrounding.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell indicated that a portion of each ratepayer’s utility bill went into a fund for undergrounding projects of substantial community benefit but the City’s fund currently had a negative balance.

Director McLean then summarized the recommendations from the Finance Advisory Committee as detailed in the staff report.

Councilman Gardiner pointed out that were two types of financial hardship. One was for someone on a fixed income and the other might be for someone with a temporary setback. He noted that the City Council had the ability to not approve an Undergrounding District if there too many homeowners adversely impacted.

Councilman Clark asked if there was sufficient interest in pursuing an undergrounding process and an assessment deferral process or was this merely a hypothetical debate.

Director Allison indicated that there were usually four to five inquiries per year and that after the procedure was discussed by the Council last fall, there had been three to four calls.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt that the mechanism should be established and until there is publicity, the City will not know how many successful districts could be established. However, the benefits of undergrounding were many and it was worth pursuing.

Councilman Gardiner asked about the undergrounding of high voltage wires and if this was including in undergrounding and Director Allison stated that they could not be included because they provide general benefit.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern noted that the cost to underground these wires was astronomical compared to the ones being addressed in this process.

City Attorney Lynch confirmed that the wires were not included and that it would be important for the residents to know that these wires would remain when making a decision to underground their neighborhood.

City Attorney Lynch indicated that the procedure itself would have to be brought back to the Council because approval of the proposed guidelines was delayed until the loan deferral procedure was established.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked about interest charge.

Director McLean said it could be a little over the city’s LAIF, approximately 1-4% greater than the City’s LAIF rate.

Councilman Gardiner inquired about the percentage of the City which was already undergrounded and Director Allison replied that it was approximately 60%.

Director McLean added that Chair Butler of the Finance Advisory Committee had expressed an opinion that the frequency of undergrounding and requests for loan deferrals would probably be less than expectations.

Council consensus was to adopt the Finance Advisory Committee’s recommendations with a provision to charge interest a few points above the LAIF rate and agendize Council review of the process to establish an Undergrounding Assessment District.


RECESS & RECONVENE:


At 8:52 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:


Alexander Barth, a high school Peninsula Library Board Trustee explained that the student trustees were getting out into the community to make citizens aware of their activities, as well as those of other student appointees; and, to become more aware of the focus of local government. He made reference to an article in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News about student appointees.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, spoke in protest of the fee charged to her for receiving the agenda packet. She asked that this ordinance be overturned.

Ordinance No. 373 establishing new regulations applicable to the issuance of business permits and the regulation of massage establishments and massage technicians operating in the City

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to (1) Adopt, by reference, Los Angeles County’s current regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians. (2) Adopt Los Angeles County’s licensing procedures in addition to the regulations for massage establishments and massage technicians. (3) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE 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 CODE. (4) Enter into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office to license massage establishments and massage technicians within the City. (5) Modify the City’s agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to perform background investigations of applicants for business permits for massage establishments and massage technicians within the City.

Darlene Morales, owner of The Nail Nook, 28731 Western Avenue, said that her business had been at its present location for 14 years and provided mostly nail and skin care but for ten years had also been providing massage therapy services. She explained delays and the lack of cooperation from Los Angeles County regarding the performance of background checks which were required for a massage therapist license.

City Manager Evans hoped, assuming the City Council accepted staff recommendation, that the City would be able to assist Ms. Morales in expediting this process.

City Attorney Lynch outlined the problems and delays associated with adopting the County ordinance or having the City handle the licensing process on its own. She recommended that the Sheriff’s Department perform the background checks and she estimated that each background check would take about three months. She clarified that the business as well as the therapist required separate background checks and licenses.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern felt that having the Sheriff’s Department perform the background checks was logical because, given the small number of massage establishments in the City, it did not make sense to train someone at the City to handle this task. However, he did see the importance of providing public protection in establishing that these businesses and the individual therapists were legitimate.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that Ms. Morales seek assistance from Dick Simmons in his San Pedro office. Mr. Simmons works for Don Knabe, the Fourth District Los Angeles County Supervisor.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to (1) Adopt, by reference, Los Angeles County’s current regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians. (2) Adopt Los Angeles County’s licensing procedures in addition to the regulations for massage establishments and massage technicians. (3) Introduce 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 CODE. (4) Enter into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office to license massage establishments and massage technicians within the City. (5) Modify the City’s agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to perform background investigations of applicants for business permits for massage establishments and massage technicians within the City.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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

Border Issues Status Report

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to review the current status of border issues and provide direction.

Senior Planner Fox discussed new developments and action taken as detailed in the staff report for the Harbor Hills project, the Garden Village Shopping Center, and the proposed golf course in Rolling Hills Estates. He also mentioned the possibility of San Pedro, Wilmington, and Harbor City joining together to break away from the City of Los Angeles to form a separate city.

Councilman Gardiner asked about the status of Mr. Esfahani’s situation with the City of Palos Verdes Estates and whether it would be necessary to make a cut in the median in order to haul through that City the necessary dirt associated with the project for his Rancho Palos Verdes home.

Director Allison replied that Mr. Esfahani is convinced he can negotiate an arrangement with the City of Palos Verdes Estates to avoid this cut but, to date, this has not been accomplished.

Councilman Clark raised the issue of the formation of a new city having a potential impact to Eastview residents who have children attending Los Angeles Unified District schools. He asked staff to investigate whether it was expected that a new school district would be formed.

Mayor pro tem Stern suggested that groups which are in favor of this new city being formed be contacted to determine this information.

City Manager Evans said that he would prepare a letter for the Mayor’s signature.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted that the January 12 minutes mentioned postponement of appointment of ad hoc committees for specific border issues and asked if the entire Council would continue to address each issue.

Mayor McTaggart indicated that until other specific border issues ad hoc committees were established, he and Councilman Gardiner would act as a general border issues committee in the interim and that the Council would continue to determine border issues to be addressed.

Don Shults, 2129 Velez, representing Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association, thanked the author of the staff report for the status update and expressed concern about establishing a border along Western Avenue between San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes if a new city is formed.

Mayor McTaggart felt that borders would not be changed but that some discrepancies might be corrected, such as a sign being in the City of Los Angeles (San Pedro) and the business associated with that sign being located in Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as a border error at one intersection.

Don Shults felt that Eastview children attending L.A. Unified schools would not be greatly impacted because there weren’t that many attending.

City Manager Evans said that the next border issues status would be on a Council agenda in March.

Interview Schedule for Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee Applicants

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to (1) Approve the interview schedule for applicants for the Planning Commission. (2) Approve the interview schedule for applicants for the Finance Advisory Committee.

City Clerk Purcell explained that a schedule had been established to interview Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee applicants on two upcoming Saturdays, February 9 and 23, and that applicants had been advised of their appointments. Binders distributed to the Council contained applications for all advisory boards for interviews to be scheduled over the next few weeks.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, recommend that the Chair of the Planning Commission receive $100 a month for expenses instead of the amount of $50 which all the Commissioners receive, since the Chair has a responsible position and it would duplicate the concept that the Mayor receives more money for expenses than the other Councilmembers.

Modification of City Council Rules of Procedure

Mayor Pro Tem Stern presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to consider the suggestion of Mayor Pro Tem Stern to add a new item 5 to Rules 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure, which shall read: 5. Prior to hearing public testimony or comments Councilmembers are encouraged to raise questions or articulate issues of concern which they may have which may assist members of the public to focus comments upon those questions or issues.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt that public comments and questions often help the Council make a decision and if they know the issues Council is concerned about, the public can comment on these specific topics. He explained that this proposed policy was not intended to stifle public comment but to provide the best input.

Mayor McTaggart was concerned that the public might feel that this would indicate the Council had a certain mindset about a project that would hinder honest deliberations.

Mayor pro tem Stern believed this would accomplish the opposite and would simply allow the public to see what was going on in the minds of the Council, and help answer Council questions.

Mayor McTaggart felt that questioning staff was sufficient and to give an indication to the public of Council’s viewpoint might negate the public hearing.

Councilman Gardiner saw the value in directing public comments to a particular aspect of a project which might be of concern to a Councilmember.

Mayor McTaggart read the section of the policy which referred to Council questioning staff.

Councilman Gardiner felt that staff might not have all the answers; that the public might offer a different perspective. He was concerned, however, that a member of the public might have a prepared speech and that it was important that this not be replaced by addressing specific Council concerns. He believed that the worst thing that might happen would be duplication of information and that the best thing would be more focused public comments.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that questions of staff and the public would often be different and that this policy would create more dialogue between the public and the Council.

Councilman Clark stated that he was initially concerned about the public leaping to the conclusion that the Council might have already made up their minds and that there concerns might offer evidence of a predetermined decision, but then he understood that this policy might elicit focused input from the community.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that Council comments before taking public testimony would also allow the project applicant to see what concerns the Council had and give the applicant an opportunity to possibly explain away those concerns. He agreed that this policy should not take away their right to present their planned remarks.

Mayor McTaggart was concerned that there could be legal problems.

City Attorney Lynch said that it was acceptable to ask speakers to focus on particular aspects of a project but that the Council would have to make sure their own comments did not indicate the support or opposition to a project.

Councilman Clark suggested that explicit language be added to the policy to indicate that the Council would not prejudge a project before the public hearing was closed.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed, and said that this would indicate that the Council would not be stating their vote but merely encouraging speakers to assist in the Council’s decision making process by providing focused input.

Mayor McTaggart felt that, with clarification, the policy would be acceptable, however, he felt the current policy was sufficient.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to add a new item 5 to Rules 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure, which shall read: 5. Prior to hearing public testimony or comments Councilmembers are encouraged to raise questions or articulate issues of concern which they may have which may assist members of the public to focus comments upon those questions or issues and to request that City Attorney Lynch draft language to indicate that the Council would not make their possible vote known before the public hearing was closed.

Barbara Statler 1904 Avenida Aprenda, felt it was important for people speaking before the Council to be allowed to give their prepared remarks and with the constraint of three minutes to speak, she hoped there would be enough time for their remarks and to also address Council concerns. She stated that she was in favor of dialogue between the Council and the speakers.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:


Mayor Pro Tem Stern stated that he had lunch the previous Friday with Todd Anderson and two other representatives from the Girls’ Softball League, and they told him about their interest in having a playing field at lower Point Vicente Park.

Mayor McTaggart said that he also had been contacted by Todd Anderson previously and had already reported this conversation.

Councilman Gardiner reported that he was having breakfast the following morning with Todd Anderson and Brent Eastwood regarding the same issue.

Mayor McTaggart described a Contract Cities Executive Board Meeting at which the collective cost of the NPDES permit for the County of Los Angeles was discussed. He said that there was a report prepared by an independent group which was expected to be available at a Contract Cities meeting on April 24 and that that Contract Cities was hoping for attendance from cities and businesses to show support and to make known the problems with compliance.

Mayor McTaggart, a member of the SCAG Housing Committee, explained the critical need for cities to provide information to SCAG for the affordable housing issue.


RECESS, RECONVENE, CLOSED SESSION REPORT, AND ADJOURNMENT:


At 10:15 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess to the Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority, and Closed Session meetings. The regular Council meeting reconvened at 10:30 P.M. and, after a closed session report from City Attorney Lynch in which she reported no action was taken, the meeting was immediately adjourned in honor of James Ishibashi to Saturday, February 9 at 9:00 A.M. at Hesse Park for Advisory Board Interviews.

____________________
                MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________
CITY CLERK



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

FEBRUARY 9, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Mayor John McTaggart in the Fireside Room at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

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

Also present were City Manager Les Evans, and Administrative Staff Assistant Arlene Jaentsch.


INTERVIEW OF ADVISORY BOARD APPLICANTS


Council interviewed candidates for the Planning Commission. No action was taken.


ADJOURNMENT: At 2:30 P.M. the meeting was adjourned.

 

___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


____________________

CITY CLERK



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

FEBRUARY 23, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Mayor John McTaggart in the Fireside Room at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

PRESENT: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
ABSENT: Ferraro

Also present were City Manager Les Evans, and Administrative Staff Assistant Arlene Jaentsch.


INTERVIEW OF COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE APPLICANTS


Council interviewed candidates for the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee. No action was taken.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Mayor McTaggart, to add Public Comments and Council Reports to the agenda. There was no objection.

The Council asked about the plans for interviewing the remaining applicants for the Planning Commission and if it could be accomplished by conference call. The Council discussed the process and philosophy for making appointments.

This portion of the agenda was completed at 1:30 P.M.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:


Tom Redfield, 31273 Ganado Drive, stated that communication was important and the Coalition Striving to Improve City Government was working hard to get quality people to apply for the Commissions and Committee. He suggested that applicants' qualifications should be discussed in closed session.


RECESS & RECONVENE:


At 2:00 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 2:10 P.M.

Discussion of proposed golf course for County landfill area

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of February 23, 2002, with the recommendation to Review the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and related materials, and provide direction to Staff as deemed appropriate. He referenced Joan Davidson’s material.

Councilman Clark said that he had spoken to Rob Katherman about the project in response to an inquiry from Joan Davidson. Mr. Katherman sent him a packet of information, which he will provide to staff.

Councilman Gardiner said that he had discussed the matter with Joan Davidson and encouraged her to bring forth the issue. He believed that there are enough red flags raised; we are gambling with children’s lives; and, we need to have more answers. He felt it was important for the City to hire someone to help ask the right questions.

Councilman Clark assumed that the City of Rolling Hills Estates has already developed some information on this issue that Rancho Palos Verdes may be able to use rather than trying to develop its own information in a very short time.

Councilman Gardiner gave an example of a question to ask: Is adding 200,000 cubic feet of dirt to landfill "leaving it alone?"

Councilman Clark wondered if the question of "leaving it alone" was still relevant and did it apply to the proposed golf use.

Mayor McTaggart suggested drafting a letter to address the following: (1) The impact on air quality and how will fugitive dust be mitigated? (2) The impact of relocating 115 horses from an equestrian facility and the sewering of a new facility. (3) The impact to public safety; public protection should be the responsibility of the County, not the cities; and, a plan should be provided to fund the cost. (4) Without knowing where the ultimate en try will be, how can traffic impacts be addressed. (5) How can the impacts of the facility be mitigated?

Councilman Clark stated that Councilmembers should review the material and send comments to the City Manager.

Councilman Gardiner expressed concern about hazardous materials in the landfill and the consequences should water touch these materials.

Joan Davidson, 1525 Via Arco, Palos Verdes Estates, stated that there is a high level of methane gas coming from the landfill and there is a lot of liquid in drains buried in the landfill. She also said that there is a high water able in the vicinity of the landfill and that corrosive materials have damaged South California Edison lines. She thought that the recent Torrance landslide might have been related to the landfill. (A copy of Ms. Davidson’s letter and attachments is on file in the City Clerk’s Office.

Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood, reminded the Council of the nearby Torrance landslide and suggested that Rancho Palos Verdes ask Torrance if they have information related to the landfill and the slide.

Councilman Gardiner pointed out that a portion of the landfill is above the Rancho Vista School site.

Joan Davidson informed the Council that the landfill does not comply with current laws governing landfills.

Councilman Clark asked Ms. Davidson about Rolling Hills Estates’ reaction to her questions.

Joan Davidson replied that she was taking the same information to the Rolling Hills Estates City Council meeting next week. She added that the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District has never been formally notified of this proposal.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked if the comment period for the NOP could be extended.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor McTaggart, to hire an expert to develop questions so that the EIR will address the City’s concerns, to direct staff to prepare a letter including Council input to the Los Angeles County Department of Recreation and Parks and to agendize this matter for the Council meeting on March 11. Motion carried.

The Council also directed that a letter be sent to the County asking for a 30-day time extension for submission of comments on the NOP.

Bob Bush, 6030 Montemalaga Drive, said that he is part of the development team. He reported that the Los Angeles County Recreation and Parks issued an RFP for golf about 1-1/2 years ago and there was one group, Meritage, who submitted a proposal. He stated that the County has no money to build the golf course.

Councilman Clark noted that putting a golf course on an old landfill is not new technology.

Authorize Mayor to sign letter to FAA regarding:

(1) Object to redesigned FAA air space at LAX
(2) Enforce the turbo props crossing over the PVP shoreline at 5000 msl
(3) Move more of the turbo props off the PVP and fly them over the ocean and around the PVP.

Mayor McTaggart stated that City needed to learn what the redesigned FAA airspace is and that he understood the redesign allowed flight paths as low as 3500 feet. He stressed the importance of addressing these issues: (1) Rather than merely objecting, it is more important to request documentation on details of the design and to determine how it relates to "free flight." (2) GPS controllers could clarify comments by an LAX employee who said that 3500 msl is acceptable at the shoreline. (3) Reiterate consensus of elected officials that planes fly a minimum of two miles off shore and that no planes fly over the Peninsula.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to direct the City Manager to meet with the Mayor to draft an appropriate letter. Motion carried.


COUNCIL REPORTS:


Mayor McTaggart reported that the cities of Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills declined the concept of the Peninsula-Wide Issues Committee. John Flood, Mayor of the City of Palos Verdes Estates felt that the Mayor’s meeting was a more effective way to address issues. Mayor McTaggart suggested that Rancho Palos Verdes meet with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and the city of Rolling Hills Estates to form the committee and said that he would provide an update on this topic at the Council meeting on March 11.

 


ADJOURNMENT: At 4:00 P.M. the meeting was adjourned.

 

___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


____________________

CITY CLERK



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 6, 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 Monday, March 11, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.


_______________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________
CITY CLERK



4. Claim Against the City by Howard Mori. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of the Council’s action.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY HOWARD MORI

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

Mr. Mori has filed a claim against the City alleging that on November 24, 2001 a limb from a eucalyptus tree located in the City median fell on his car and caused damage. Mr. Mori has submitted bids ranging from $652 to $912 to cover the cost of repair.

Carl Warren & Co. has investigated this claim and has advised that the City reject it.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



5. Used Oil Recycling Block Grant for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize the application of the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 used oil block grant to continue the used oil and filter recycling program for City of Rancho Palos Verdes residents. (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 ANY AGREEMENTS, CONTRACTS, AND REQUESTS FOR PAYMENT AS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: USED OIL RECYCLING BLOCK GRANT FOR FY 2002-03

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Authorize the application of the FY 2002-03 used oil block grant to continue the used oil and filter recycling program for City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) residents; and
  2. Adopt Resolution No. 2002- , authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute any agreements, contracts, and requests for payment as necessary to implement the program.

BACKGROUND

The City implemented its first curbside used oil recycling program during FY 94-95. The curbside collection of oil filters was added in April of 1999. The City receives funds through the Used Oil Recycling Block Grant, awarded annually by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). To date, the used oil and filter recycling program has accomplished the following tasks:

  • Produced and distributed these public outreach material: several refuse bill inserts containing used oil and/or oil filter recycling information and household hazardous waste roundup dates; annual stormwater/used oil recycling awareness calendars; and promotional item giveaways at curbside and at various public events such as the Fourth of July celebration, the Abalone Cove Beach Cleanup days and school assemblies and recycling presentations.
  • Established two certified used oil collection centers within City limits.
  • Contributed to Los Angeles County's regional used oil recycling media campaign.
  • Stenciled various storm drain catch basins throughout the City

As a result of the certified used oil collection centers, the City has been made eligible to apply for and receive the Used Oil Recycling Block Grant funds in FY 2002-03 to continue the used oil and filter recycling program.

The program addresses a key problem. Some residents change their own motor oil from their cars and then they may improperly dispose of the oil in backyards, their trash, or in the storm drain system. By continuing the existing Used Oil Recycling Program, the City will continue to provide educational awareness about the City’s residential curbside used oil and oil filter recycling program and publicize the places where "do it yourselfers" can return oil for recycling. This will reduce liability for urban storm water run off problems and promote a healthier environment for citizens.

The grant covers programs developed and implemented from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003. The City is eligible to receive approximately $19,104 as a result of having the two privately operated certified used oil collection centers available for City residents. The application and Resolution No. 2002- __ must be submitted by March 28, 2002.

The scope of work proposed to continue the used oil and filter recycling program includes the following tasks:

  1. Purchase tools and promotional material to help educate people to recycle used oil and oil filters, such as oil drip containers, funnels, rags and mats;

  2. Continue to provide information and encourage residents to utilize the residential curbside oil and filter recycling programs;

  3. Continue to contribute to Los Angeles County's regional used motor oil recycling media campaign;

  4. Conduct a public education campaign using City media to increase awareness of local used oil
    opportunities available to the general population including newsletter articles, billing inserts, brochures and continue to conduct school assemblies; and

  5. Maintain the City's storm drain inlet filters (the new grant eligible activity offsets expenditures in General Fund ($3,100) and Gas Tax Fund ($3,100).

The City’s residential solidwaste contracts with Waste Management and Ivy Rubbish Disposal include the cost of collection and disposal of the used oil and oil filters.

ALTERNATIVE

The alternative would be to not apply for the FY 2002-03 Used Oil and Filter Recycling Block Grant.

FISCAL IMPACT

If authorized, the City will receive approximately $19,104 in FY 2002-03 in Used Oil and Filter Recycling Block Grant funds. 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 No. 2002- ___



RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR A FY 2002/03 USED OIL RECYCLING BLOCK GRANT

WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act that provides funds to cities and counties for establishing and maintaining local used oil collection programs that encourage recycling or appropriate disposal of used oil; and

WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Board has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the state, setting up necessary procedures governing application by cities and counties under the program; and

WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for implementation of a used oil collection program;

BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES:

That the City Council authorizes the submittal of an application to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for a FY 2002-2003 Used Oil Recycling Block Grant. The Director of Public Works, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes all necessary applications, contracts, payment requests, agreements and amendments hereto for the purposes of securing grant funds and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in the grant application.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 11th DAY OF MARCH, 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 a regular meeting thereof held on March 11, 2002.

 

______________________
CITY CLERK



6. Neighborhood Watch – Purchase of Replacement Computer. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the purchase of a CPQ 2710US Notebook Computer and Norton antivirus software at a cost of $1802.60 for use by volunteer Neighborhood Watch Coordinator Gail Lorenzen; said amount to be paid from the Neighborhood Watch Trust Fund.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH – PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT COMPUTER

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the purchase of a CPQ 2710US Notebook Computer and Norton antivirus software at a cost of $1802.60 for use by the volunteer Neighborhood Watch Coordinator Gail Lorenzen; said amount to be paid from the Neighborhood Watch Trust Fund.

BACKGROUND

The City’s Neighborhood Watch program continues to grow and the Volunteer Coordinator, Ms. Gail Lorenzen, has requested approval for the purchase of a notebook computer. Attached is a copy of Ms. Lorenzen’s correspondence to City Manager Les Evans describing the inadequacy of the present computer which was purchased in late 1995.

FISCAL IMPACT

There are adequate funds in the Neighborhood Watch Trust Fund account to cover this purchase; balance as of January 31, 2002 was $18,766. This trust fund is funded by donations to Neighborhood Watch.

CONCLUSION

Membership in the City’s Neighborhood Watch program continues to grow and the computer purchased in 1995 is inadequate, and in some cases incompatible, for the record keeping and communication required to keep the program functioning.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



7. Amendment to the Veterans’ Preference System in the Personnel Rules. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL RULES REGARDING THE VETERANS’ PREFERENCE SYSTEM.

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE VETERANS’ PREFERENCE SYSTEM IN THE PERSONNEL RULES

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2002 - ; amending the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules regarding the Veterans’ Preference System.

BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2002, the City Council adopted updated Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules and Management Personnel Rules. At the meeting, Council directed staff to return with revisions to the recently adopted Veteran’s Preference System to broaden the application of this provision.

DISCUSSION

As adopted by Council on January 31, 2002, the Veterans’ Preference System would only apply to candidates who are applying for first time employment in entry-level competitive service positions. The Council requested that staff modify the system to apply to a broader range of recruitments.

As discussed in the previous staff report, State law requires cities with a civil service system and entrance examination for the selection of employees to implement a Veterans’ Preference System (VPS) or adopt a resolution identifying reasons it will not adopt such a system. The term "civil service system," as applied to cities, is not defined under the law. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it is intended to cover personnel systems where employment is based on merit and fitness, which is determined to the extent practicable by competitive examination. Alternate terms for such a system include a classified service system and competitive service system.

The City Attorney’s Office has done some additional research and found that the State’s encouragement of cities to adopt a VPS was adopted in recognition of a similar system under the State Civil Service Act. The State system is limited to entrance examinations for positions covered by the State civil service system (i.e. competitive service system). Entrance examinations are defined as "any open competitive examination other than one for a class having a requirement of both college graduation and two or more years of experience." An open examination generally involves a position for which any qualified person may apply. This is contrasted with closed examinations, which are generally promotional examinations for which only current employees may apply. Consequently, the State’s VPS generally does not extend to promotional appointments. Given this information, staff proposes that the following amendment be made to Rule III, Section 5 of the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules:

SECTION 5 – VETERANS’ PREFERENCE SYSTEM: The recruitment procedures utilized for entry level positions involving first-time employment within the classified service of the City (not including in-house promotions) shall include a Veterans’ Preference System giving preference to a veteran over other identically qualified applicants. Normally, this will involve the awarding of one or more veteran credit points to a qualified veteran who meets the minimum requirements of the position and who passes all portions of the testing or examination process. The procedures may require applicants to request veterans’ preference consideration in conjunction with their applications and to timely submit documents or other proof sufficient to determine eligibility. The procedures, requirements and definitions used in the Veterans’ Preference System shall be consistent with those provided in any applicable law involving Veterans Preference Systems for California cities.

The Council also asked staff to look into whether the Veterans’ Preference System should be applied to management positions as well. The City Attorney’s research revealed that the State does not apply a VSP to management positions. In fact, management positions are not typically included under any type of preference system because selection usually does not include a competitive examination. Most preference systems provide for the addition of points to a competitive test score. In contrast, selection of management personnel is usually based on more subjective criteria, such as management philosophy, agreement with the agency’s policies and goals, personality and a candidate’s ability complement the existing organization. Appointments are made at the discretion of management and personnel in these positions serve at the pleasure of their superior. Consequently, staff recommends that the City not include a VPS for employee selection in the management group.

While there is nothing prohibiting the Council from applying a VSP to management positions, if the City Council decides to include such a system for management employees, it should recognize the subjective nature of management employment. One option is presented below. Because the Management Personnel Rules do not include classification or selection procedures, this item may be included in the Miscellaneous Procedures of Rule XI, as a new Section 4:

SECTION 4 – VETERANS’ PREFERENCE SYSTEM: Any officer or employee with authority to select persons for employment in management positions may give preference to a veteran over other identically qualified applicants or candidates, as determined in the judgment of the selecting officer or employee. This rule does not apply to any employment included in the competitive service, as defined in Municipal Code section 2.46.040, part-time employees or temporary employees. It also does not apply to independent contractors, volunteers and members of boards, commissions and committees.

CONCLUSION

Based on direction provided at the last meeting, staff has prepared an additional amendment to the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules to expand the Veterans’ Preference System for the recruitment competitive service employees, but excluding in-house promotions. Staff does not recommend that a similar system be added to the Management Personnel Rules because of the subjective nature of these recruitments. It is noteworthy that the State has not included such a provision for the recruitment of its own management positions.

FISCAL IMPACT

Additional amendments to the Competitive and Management Personnel Rules regarding the Veterans’ Preference System will not result in any fiscal impact to the City.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Include a Veterans’ Preference system in both the Competitive Service and Management Employee Personnel Rules.

2. Receive and file this report, thereby leaving the Competitive Service and Management Personnel Rules, as currently adopted.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Resolution No. 02- ;



RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL RULES ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2002-05

WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed under the provisions of Chapter 2.46 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to adopt rules for the administration of the personnel system created in said Municipal Code Chapter; and,

WHEREAS, the objectives of these rules are to facilitate efficient and economical services to the public and to provide for an equitable system of personnel management; and,

WHEREAS, at the same time, within the limits of administrative feasibility, considerable latitude shall be given to the City Manager in the interpretation and application of these rules so that they are applied equitably; and,

WHEREAS, on January 31, 2002, the City Council adopted Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules which included a Veterans’ Preference System that applied to first time entry-level employment with the City; and,

WHEREAS, the Council directed staff to return with revisions to the recently adopted Veteran’s Preference System to broaden the application of this provision.

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

Section 1: Amends Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules, Rule III, Section 5 to read as follows:

SECTION 5 – VETERANS’ PREFERENCE SYSTEM: The recruitment procedures utilized for employment within the classified service of the City (not including in-house promotions) shall include a Veterans’ Preference System giving preference to a veteran over other identically qualified applicants. Normally, this will involve the awarding of one or more veteran credit points to a qualified veteran who meets the minimum requirements of the position and who passes all portions of the testing or examination process. The procedures may require applicants to request veterans’ preference consideration in conjunction with their applications and to timely submit documents or other proof sufficient to determine eligibility. The procedures, requirements and definitions used in the Veterans’ Preference System shall be consistent with those provided in any applicable law involving Veterans Preference Systems for California cities.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on March 11, 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 a regular meeting thereof held on March 11, 2002.


__________________________
City Clerk



8. Franchise Tax Board Contract for Taxpayer Information. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO EXECUTE ANNUAL CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD FOR TAXPAYER INFORMATION SHARING SERVICES.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: FRANCHISE TAX BOARD CONTRACT FOR TAXPAYER INFORMATION

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO EXECUTE ANNUAL CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD FOR TAXPAYER INFORMATION SHARING SERVICES.

BACKGROUND:

Recently, State of California legislation (AB63) became effective, enabling the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to share taxpayer information with local governments. The information shared will include taxpayer name, address, tax identification number, and principal business activity code. Each year, local governments will have the opportunity to subscribe to one year of tax information for a fee. The 2001 tax year information will be the first provided by this program. To date, ninety-one California cities, including the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (of course subject to affirmation and attached resolution by the City Council), have requested contracts to participate. Finance Staff would like to use this information to identify businesses currently without a City of Rancho Palos Verdes business license, yet are required by City ordinance to carry a valid business license.

The cost of this program is not currently known; however, FTB has informed Finance Staff that the City’s annual share will not to exceed $1,100 for the 2001 tax year. The average cost of a business license in the City is approximately $150. Therefore, the taxpayer information provided by the FTB would have to enable Finance Staff to secure eight previously unlicensed businesses each year. Considering there are currently over 2,400 business licenses issued by the City, Finance Staff believes this program will be cost effective and generate additional revenue for the City.

Staff recommends providing the Finance Director with authorization to execute the attached FTB agreement as well as annually renewable agreements hereafter, provided the FTB fee does not to exceed $3,000 each fiscal year.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No budget adjust is required. Finance Staff believes that the current Finance Department budget for FY 2001-2002 is adequate to pay for the cost of this professional service expenditure.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO EXECUTE ANNUAL CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD FOR TAXPAYER INFORMATION SHARING SERVICES

WHEREAS, State of California legislation (AB63) has enabled the California Franchise Tax Board to share taxpayer information with local governments; and,

WHEREAS, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes may subscribe to annual taxpayer information for a fee; and,

WHEREAS, Staff desires to obtain taxpayer information from the California Franchise Tax Board for purposes of pursuing additional business license revenue;

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 authorizes the Director of Finance to execute annual contracts with the California Franchise Tax Board, to obtain taxpayer information, in an amount not to exceed $3,000 during each fiscal year.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2002.

 

___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________
CITY CLERK

State of California)
County of Los Angeles)s
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 March 11, 2002.


_____________________________
CITY CLERK



9. January Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT:JANUARY 2002 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the January 2002 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit an investment report to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. The City has elected to submit a treasurer’s report to the Council for review each month. This report summarizes the cash activity associated with all funds of the City. A separate treasurer’s report is prepared monthly for both the Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority and is presented under separate cover before their respective governing bodies. The attached treasurer's report includes the cash activities of the City for the month of January 2002.

ANALYSIS:

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $25,947,486 at January 31, 2002. This represents a $625,688 decrease during the month. The overall decrease is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

Proposition C Fund – Fund cash increased by over $80,000 during the month of January. A total of $73,522 was received for both the December and January apportionments of Proposition C sales tax. In addition, $7,892 was received for second quarter interest earnings. Budgeted disbursements in this fund are primarily limited to fund transfers for road maintenance within the Gas Tax fund and CIP projects. There were no transfers made during the month of January.

Proposition A Fund – Cash in this fund decreased by over $147,000 during January. The semi-annual Palos Verdes Transit contribution of $188,086 and quarterly Municipal Area Express (MAX) contribution of $13,025 were disbursed. These disbursements were partially offset by the receipt of the monthly Proposition A sales tax apportionment in the amount of $53,107.

CIP Fund – The cash balance in this fund decreased by over $500,000 during the month. The CIP fund received a $315,000 grant from the State Department of Transportation for the PVDS El Nino Overlay project completed during FY 2000-2001; as well as the budgeted monthly General fund transfer of $152,833 and second quarter interest earnings of $60,748. Significant disbursements included $578,115 to Colich and Sons for San Ramon oil services, $183,440 to P & F Distributors for San Ramon pipe, $112,298 to Sully Miller for resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards, and $42,837 to Amec Earth & Environmental for San Ramon inspection.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

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.


REGULAR BUSINESS:



11. Appointment of Planning Commission & Finance Advisory Committee Members. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Make the following appointments: Planning Commission: (1) Appoint four members to a four year term of office to serve until March 7, 2006;(2) Appoint three members to a two year term of office to serve until March 2, 2004. Finance Advisory Committee: (1) Appoint four members to a four-year term of office to serve until March 7, 2006; (2) Appoint three members to a two-year term of office to serve until March 2, 2004. Chairs: (1) Set a time and place to interview those appointees who have expressed a desire to serve as chair of these boards. (2) Authorize the Mayor to appoint an interim chair to each of these boards to serve until Council has conducted the interview for chairs.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION & FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

RECOMMENDATION

Make the following appointments:

Planning Commission: (1) Appoint four members to a four year term of office to serve until March 7, 2006;(2) Appoint three members to a two year term of office to serve until March 2, 2004.

Finance Advisory Committee: (1) Appoint four members to a four year term of office to serve until March 7, 2006; (2) Appoint three members to a two year term of office to serve until March 2, 2004.

Chairs: (1) Set a time and place to interview those appointees who have expressed a desire to serve as chair of these boards. (2) Authorize the Mayor to appoint an interim chair to each of these boards to serve until Council has conducted the interview for chair.

INTRODUCTION

Making these appointments will enable these boards to meet and confer as soon as necessary.

BACKGROUND

The recruitment process for advisory board applicants started in mid-December 2001. Since that time 76 applications have been received and the Council has held two meetings (February 9 and February 23) to interview applicants for the Planning Commission and the Finance Advisory Committee. Staff has prepared the attached ballot which lists all of the applicants interviewed for these two boards and which also indicates if the applicant is an incumbent.

Appointment Process

At the January 31st meeting, the City Council adopted amended Policy No. 6 (Recruitment and Selection for City Boards), which, in part, governs the selection process for board members:

1. Terms of service on City Boards will be four years for each new appointee. Initially, half (plus one) of the terms will be four years and half (less one) of the terms will be two years.

2. Appointments will be made to Boards in even numbered years on a schedule to be established by the City Council and following as soon as possible the seating of a new Council.

3. Terms will be staggered to maintain continuity.

4. Following the appointment of Board members, those appointees indicating an interest in being considered for chair, will be interviewed separately by the City Council specifically for the purpose of selection of the chair.

5. Terms of service for the Chair will normally be one year. Appointments and reappointments will be made annually on a schedule to be established by the City Council.

6. In the event a board meets before a chair is appointed/reappointed, the Mayor may appoint an interim chair. If the former chair is reappointed to the board, he/she may act as interim chair. If the chair is not reappointed to the board then the vice chair may act as interim chair.

7. The vice chair of each board will be elected by the board members.

CONCLUSION

The Council has completed the recruitment and interview process for applicants for the Planning Commission and the Finance Advisory Committee and can now make appointments to these boards.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



12. Amateur Antenna Ordinance. (Lynch)

Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. _____U, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING AMATEUR ANTENNAS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AND CITY ATTORNEY

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE REVISING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAE AND THEIR SUPPORT STRUCTURES

RECOMMENDATION

1) Read Ordinance No. ____ "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING AMATEUR ANTENNAS, AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CODE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF" by title only, waive further reading, and adopt the ordinance; and,

2) Read Ordinance No. ____ "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING AMATEUR ANTENNAS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CODE" by title only, waive further reading, and introduce the ordinance.

BACKGROUND

Section 17.76.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code regulates the placement of amateur and commercial antennae within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"). Based upon the provisions of regulations and orders promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), and the provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the City imposed less stringent requirements on the placement of antennae and antenna support structures that are to be used for amateur purposes than the restrictions that have been imposed upon antennae that are to be used for commercial purposes. To that end, a category of exemptions was created for certain amateur antennae and their support structures, which would be smaller in size and would not cause adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, so that amateur antenna (or "ham") radio operators could erect them at their homes without having to obtain a permit from the City.

Meanwhile, some individuals who erected antennae that allegedly were to be used solely for amateur purposes have filed applications to convert those antennae to commercial use. As the City Council knows, a lawsuit was filed by Mr. Mark Abrams seeking to overturn the City’s denial of his application for a conditional use permit to allow him to use alleged amateur antennae located at his home for commercial purposes. In January 2002, the United States District Court ruled that substantial evidence was not present in the record to justify the City’s decision to deny Mr. Abrams’ application for a conditional use permit to make commercial use of the existing antennae on his property. If this decision is not reversed on appeal, it establishes judicial precedent that could be used to allow the current exemptions for certain amateur antennae to be used by individuals seeking to make commercial use of antennae and increase their profit by adding more antennae and support structures on residential structures. This would have an adverse impact on aesthetics and be detrimental to the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the public health, safety and welfare.

DISCUSSION

Unlike ham radio operators, who do not have a financial incentive to increase the number of antennae located on their properties, those seeking to convert antennae to commercial use have an incentive to misuse the current exemption by placing as many antennae on a residential property as possible and then obtain a conditional use permit to operate commercially to maximize their economic return.

This ordinance amends one of the categories of exemptions for amateur antennae and support structures to limit the number of building-mounted antennae and support structures that can be erected without a permit from the City. As currently written, multiple antenna support structures can be affixed to a building-mounted antenna assembly. The proposed ordinance limits the number of antenna support structures that can be attached to an antenna assembly that extends above the roofline without a permit to one antenna support structure and requires all radiating elements to be attached to that support structure.

This revision is not expected to affect amateur radio enthusiasts who are broadcasting from their homes solely on amateur frequencies. However, an application currently is pending before the City to convert existing roof-mounted antennae to commercial use. While that application has been pending, the antenna assembly on that property has been altered, and the number of antennae and support structures has been increased.

This application, along with the decision in the Abrams’ case, has brought to light the need to amend immediately the City’s existing exemption for building-mounted amateur antennae to further limit the support structures and antennae that can be constructed without a permit. The proposed ordinance would affect only building-mounted amateur antennae and support structures that were erected after June 1, 2001.

Staff has met with some of the amateur radio operators who participated previously in the process leading up to the adoption of the current regulations to obtain their input in this matter. They indicated that the proposed language may not be the perfect solution to the problem, and it was agreed that further amendments to this Section of the Code might be necessary.

However, to address the recent court decision and to preclude additional antennae from being added to assemblies located on residential structures without a permit and the possibility that they will be converted to commercial use—along with the corresponding adverse aesthetic impacts to the City’s residents, the immediate neighborhood and the general public—it is necessary for this amendment to become effective immediately. Accordingly, both an urgency ordinance and a non-urgency have been prepared and are attached to this report.

CONCLUSION

To preclude misuse of the existing exemption for building-mounted antennas and their support structures by those seeking to make commercial use of those antennae, Staff recommends that the City Council make a motion to read the attached ordinances by title only and waive further reading, introduce the non-urgency ordinance, and adopt the urgency ordinance.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
Carol Lynch, City Attorney

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Draft Urgency Ordinance
Draft Ordinance



ORDINANCE NO. ____U

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING AMATEUR ANTENNAS, AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Paragraph 3 c ii of Section 17.76.020 C of Chapter 17.76 of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

ii.One building mounted antenna assembly which does not exceed twelve feet in height, as measured from the point where the antenna assembly meets the roof surface, and which contains radiating elements each of which does not exceed six feet in total length. If the antenna assembly is mounted onto the roof, or if any portion of the antenna assembly projects above the roofline, not more than one antenna support structure may be affixed to the antenna assembly and any radiating elements must be affixed only to that antenna support structure.

Section 2. This Ordinance shall not apply to any portion of any building-mounted antenna assembly, including any antenna support structure, radiating elements or antennae, which was erected at its current location, in accordance with all applicable code requirements, prior to June 1, 2001.

Section 3. Section 17.76.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code regulates the placement of amateur and commercial antennae within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"). Based upon the provisions of regulations and orders promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), and the provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the City imposed less stringent requirements on the placement of antennae and antenna support structures that are to be used for amateur purposes than the requirements that have been imposed on antennae that are to be used for commercial purposes. To that end, a category of exemptions for certain amateur antennae and their support structures, which would be smaller in size and would not cause adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, so that amateur antenna (or "ham") radio operators could erect them at their homes without having to obtain a permit from the City.

Meanwhile, some individuals who erected antennae that allegedly were to be used solely for amateur purposes have filed applications to convert those antennae to commercial use. In January 2002, in a lawsuit that was filed by an individual seeking to use alleged amateur antennae for commercial purposes, the federal district court ruled that substantial evidence was not present in the record to justify the City’s decision to deny that individual’s application for a conditional use permit to make commercial use of existing amateur antennae. If this decision is not reversed on appeal, it establishes judicial precedent that could be used to allow the current exemption for certain amateur antennae to be used by individuals seeking to make commercial use of those antennae and profit thereby by adding more antennae and support structures on residential structures to the detriment of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the public health, safety and welfare.

Unlike amateurs operators, who do not have a financial incentive to increase the number of antennae at their properties, those seeking eventually to convert antennae to commercial use have an incentive to misuse the current exemption by placing as many antennae on a residential property as possible and then obtain a permit to operate commercially, to maximize their economic return. This ordinance amends one of the categories of exemptions for amateur antennae and support structures to limit the number of building-mounted antennae and support structures that can be erected without a permit from the City.

To avoid the substantial delay that will be caused by the delay in the effectiveness of new regulations governing exempt antennae and the corresponding adverse impacts to the public health, safety and welfare of the City’s residents and the general public—if the number of exempt amateur antennae and their support structures can be so easily increased and then converted for commercial use—it is necessary for this ordinance to become effective immediately. It is therefore urgent that the enactment of new regulations governing exempt antennae be adopted so that the current exemption cannot be misused by individuals seeking to make commercial use of amateur antennae, especially since one such application currently is pending before the City, and the antenna assembly on that property has been altered and expanded while the application for commercial use was pending. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare, hereby declares the facts constituting the urgency, and passes this ordinance by at least a four-fifths vote of the City Council. Accordingly, this measure is adopted immediately upon introduction pursuant to Government Code Section 36934 and shall take effect immediately pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b).

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

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ____ day of March 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 do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. ___ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on ________, 2002, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

_________________________
City Clerk



13. Amateur Antenna Ordinance. (Lynch)

Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING AMATEUR ANTENNAS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.



ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING AMATEUR ANTENNAS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Paragraph 3 c ii of Section 17.76.020 C of Chapter 17.76 of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

ii. One building mounted antenna assembly which does not exceed twelve feet in height, as measured from the point where the antenna assembly meets the roof surface, and which contains radiating elements each of which does not exceed six feet in total length. If the antenna assembly is mounted onto the roof, or if any portion of the antenna assembly projects above the roofline, not more than one antenna support structure may be affixed to the antenna assembly and any radiating elements must be affixed only to that antenna support structure.

Section 2. This Ordinance shall not apply to any portion of any building-mounted antenna assembly, including any antenna support structure, radiating elements or antennae, which was erected at its current location, in accordance with all applicable code requirements, prior to June 1, 2001.

Section 3. 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 4.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 March 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 do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. ___ passed first reading on _______, 2002, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on ________, 2002, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

_________________________
City Clerk



14. Joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee to discuss the Crestridge Property. (Pfost)

Recommendation: Schedule a date for a joint meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee to discuss the Crestridge Property.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND

FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS THE

CRESTRIDGE PROPERTY

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Deputy Planning Director

RECOMMENDATION

Schedule a date for a joint meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee to discuss the Crestridge Property.

BACKGROUND

On August 21, 2001 the City's Redevelopment Agency considered various issues pertaining to a proposal from Corporation for Better Housing and Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, LLP regarding development of the Crestridge property (located at the northwest corner of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Blvd) for Senior Housing including the approval of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA). The City's Redevelopment Agency owns the subject parcel. The Board decided: (1) not to approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, LLP; and (2) not to grant a "buy-back" provision to the developer Charles Brumbaugh; and (3) to direct staff to consider other options for the property, including the feasibility of a park.

On October 12, 2001, a development company, Standard Pacific, submitted a request for a use determination for the vacant parcel located immediately adjacent to and west of the Agency owned property located on Crestridge Road. The request was for a determination that senior condominiums are similar to and no more intensive than other conditionally permitted uses in the Institutional zoning district. Standard Pacific was considering purchasing the property from its current owner, Crestridge Estates llc, and pursuing an application for a 104-unit senior condominium project on the site. Standard Pacific has expressed interest in a larger, 120-unit residential project that could encompass the subject property as well as a portion of the adjacent, Agency-owned property. On October 26, 2001, the Director issued a determination that senior condominiums are not consistent with the Institutional zoning district. On November 12, 2001, the developer filed an appeal of the Director’s determination. On December 11, 2001, during the hearing of the appeal, the Planning Commission expressed that a condominium use was not consistent with the Institutional zoning district. Not wishing to have a negative vote, the applicant withdrew his application at the meeting. Although the applicant withdrew the application, the Planning Commission felt this was an important topic that needed further discussion. As such, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission conduct a joint workshop to hear public input on what the community believes to be appropriate uses for the subject property at the same time the City Council would be addressing the Agency owned property. Further, the Planning Commission requested that the workshop address the issue of the needs for and appropriate location of senior housing throughout the peninsula.

At the December 18, 2001 City Council meeting, based upon the Redevelopment Agency's direction at the August 21, 2001 meeting, the City Manager reported on various options for the use of the Agency-owned Crestridge property. At that meeting, after considering the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council directed Staff to schedule a joint meeting, with the Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee to consider potential land uses on the Agency-owned Crestridge property and the adjacent privately owned Crestridge property. The Council also agreed that the joint workshop should occur after new appointments to both boards have been made.

DISCUSSION

Based upon the actions described above, and in consideration that new appointments to the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee may be completed at the March 11, 2002 City Council meeting, Staff is recommending that the City Council select a date in which a joint workshop could be held between the City Council, Planning Commission and the Finance Advisory Committee. Staff envisions that this will be a publicly noticed workshop, and all interested parties pertaining to both sites will be notified of the workshop date. Based upon the City Council's calendar, Staff is recommending the following options for such a workshop:

  1. Tuesday, May 7, 2002 at 6:00p.m. (Prior to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting).

  2. Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 6:00p.m. (Prior to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting).

  3. Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 6:00p.m. (Prior to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting).

Once the City Council chooses a date for the workshop, the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee will be informed of the date.

CONCLUSION

Staff recommends that the City Council schedule a date for a joint meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee to discuss the Crestridge Property.

FISCAL IMPACT

There are no fiscal impacts associated with this Action.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



15. Border Issues Status Report. (Fox)

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

At their meeting of April 17, 2001 the City Council established an ad hoc committee for dealing with "border issues." The committee is charged with monitoring the activities of neighboring jurisdictions to determine whether or not the City Council should take positions on developments, events or special uses proposed for approval in adjacent communities that may impact the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes At their September 4, 2001 meeting, the City Council adopted a policy on how to process "border issues."

DISCUSSION

Since the border issues were last discussed on February 5, 2002, there have been several new developments. Three Notices of Preparation (NOP’s) were received for proposed projects in adjoining jurisdictions. On February 14, 2002 Staff forwarded comments to the County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on the NOP for the possible "de-annexation" of the harbor area from the City of Los Angeles. On February 22, 2002 Staff also forwarded comments to the City of Rolling Hills Estates on the NOP for the proposed expansion of Rolling Hills Covenant Church. Copies of these comment letters are attached to this report, as is a copy of the NOP for Rolling Hills Covenant Church (the NOP for the Harbor Area Special Reorganization was attached to last month’s border issues report).

On February 23, 2002, the City Council reviewed Staff’s draft comments to the County Parks and Recreation Department on the NOP for the proposed South Coast County Golf Course. Staff has also received additional information from Joan Davidson and from the City Attorney’s research of the former Palos Verdes Landfill, which is the site of the proposed golf course. Staff has made additional revisions to the draft comment letter (additions underlined, deletion struck out), and is seeking final City Council input prior to the submittal of these comments to the County on March 12, 2002.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Border Issues Status Report
Revised draft NOP comments on the South Coast County Golf Course EIR
Final NOP comments on the Harbor Area Special Reorganization EIR
Letter from the Mayor to the Harbor Study Foundation, Inc.
Final NOP comments on the Rolling Hills Covenant Church Expansion EIR
NOP and Initial Study for the Rolling Hills Covenant Church Expansion EIR



BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT
Revised March 11, 2002

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

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

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

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

On Monday, October 22, 2001 Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart joined five or six Peninsula Verde residents and an equal number of Harbor Hills residents to discuss possible modifications to the Community Center plans. County Community development staff made the presentations, but Supervisor Knabe’s office was represented as well as County Counsel and the County Geologist. Harbor Hills’ staff was also in attendance. The County is proposing relocating the 75-space parking lot away from the Peninsula Verde homes. In addition, they are proposing reduced lighting in the parking lot. Our residents were pleased with these changes, but disappointed that the Community Center building could not be relocated further from the property line.

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

On January 10, 2002, the City received the promised letter from Supervisor Knabe regarding design and operational changes to the project (see attached letter). These changes include relocation of the parking areas, the use of shorter lighting fixtures and lower illumination levels in the parking areas, limitations of the days and hours of operation for special events and child care services, dedication of two Sheriff’s deputies to the on-site field office, and adjustments to the building roof form and landscaping plans to reduce the impact of the project upon views from City residents in the Peninsula Verde community.

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Adelman, General Manager
Department of Building and Safety

Vitaly B. Troyan, City Engineer

Con Howe, Director
Department of Planning

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

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

On January 16, 2002, the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, Grading Section required that the developer of the Garden Village Shopping Center agree to the following condition in order to proceed with placing caissons:

Prior to commencement of structural framing, all underground utilities located within or adjoining the site shall be inspected, repaired or replaced, and sealed to prevent infiltration, as recommended.

Before proceeding with the caisson work the developer was required to sign an Affidavit guaranteeing the maintenance of the Albertson’s building site. The Affidavit (attached) states:

I am (We are) fully aware of Settlement and Cracking may occur in the parking lot and hardscape areas due to underlying fill and alluvial deposits and assume full responsibility for periodic inspection, maintenance and repair.

The Shopping Center developer also agreed (attached letter) that he/they would inspect, or arrange for the inspection, of the public storm drain and sewer line on the property during the course of construction. The developer does not agree to assume responsibility for any repair of these utilities. Prior to commencement of structural framing, all underground utilities located within or adjoining the site shall be inspected, repaired or replaced, and sealed to prevent infiltration, as recommended.

According to Mr. Richard Fortner, Senior Building Inspector for Special Projects, the developer has completed the inspection, however, the report has not yet been submitted. It is Mr. Fortner’s position that any deficiencies in the subsurface utilities will have to be repaired either by the City or by the developer prior to occupancy of the new market.

PROPOSED EXPANSION OF ROLLING HILLS COVENANT CHURCH, 2222 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

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

On February 9, 2002 an article appeared in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News regarding an upcoming EIR scoping meeting for the Rolling Hills Covenant Church expansion project. Although Staff did not attend the scoping meeting on February 12, 2002, we did download a copy of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study from the Rolling Hills Estates’ web site (www.rollinghillsestates.com). The Initial Study identified a number of potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, noise, public services, utilities, aesthetics and transportation/traffic. The deadline for public comments on the NOP was February 28, 2002, so on February 22, 2002 Staff forwarded the attached comments to the City of Rolling Hills Estates. We expect that a draft EIR for the project will be available for further public comment some time this spring.

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52666, 3200 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (MARSHALL ESFAHANI AND CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES)

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

PROPOSED SOUTH COAST COUNTY GOLF COURSE ON FORMER PALOS VERDES LANDFILL (COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

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

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

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

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

On February 11, 2002, the City received a copy of the NOP and Initial Study for this project. The deadline for public comment on the NOP is March 12, 2002. The Initial Study identifies a number of potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, noise and transportation/traffic. Based upon the review of the Initial Study, Staff has identified further significant concerns in the areas of hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality and recreation. These concerns were reflected in a draft comment letter that was reviewed by the City Council on February 23, 2002. Since that date, Staff has received additional information regarding the former Palos Verdes landfill, and the draft NOP comment letter has been revised to incorporate this additional information. Also, Staff contacted the County on February 26, 2002 to request a 30-day extension of the comment deadline for the NOP. As of the date this report was completed, the County had not yet responded to the City’s request. Therefore, Staff is requesting the City Council’s final input on the draft NOP comment letter on March 11, 2002 so that the comments can be submitted to the County Parks and Recreation Department by the March 12th deadline in the event that an extension is not granted.

PROPOSED SPECIAL REORGANIZATION OF THE HARBOR AREA (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

On January 31, 2002, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the County of Los Angeles conducted a public scoping meeting on the EIR for the proposed "special reorganization" (i.e., de-annexation) of the harbor area of the City of Los Angeles. The project area abuts the easterly boundary of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and includes all portions of the City of Los Angeles located south of Lomita Boulevard, encompassing the communities of Wilmington, Harbor City and San Pedro. Potential environmental effects identified in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) include impacts to public services, traffic and transportation, utilities and service systems, and the cumulative effects of this proposal with other pending special reorganizations in the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood areas of the City of Los Angeles. The project applicant, Harbor Study Foundation, Inc., is proposing that the election on the question of the special reorganization be held November 5, 2002.

Public comments on the NOP are due to LAFCO by February 19, 2002. Since the City Council has requested that Staff investigate the possibility of adjusting the City boundary along Western Avenue, Staff intends to forward comments to LAFCO requesting that these boundary issues and/or adjustments be considered in conjunction with any future special reorganization of the harbor area. Staff would also appreciate input from the Border Issues subcommittee and/or the full City Council regarding other appropriate comments on the NOP for this project.

Based upon input from the City Council at the February 5, 2002 City Council meeting, Staff forwarded the attached NOP comments to LAFCO on February 14, 2002. Along with the Western Avenue boundary issues identified by Staff, the letter also discusses the City Council’s concern regarding possible future school district boundaries and attendance policies with respect to students in the Eastview area. In addition to Staff’s comments to LAFCO, a letter from the Mayor was also sent to Harbor Study Foundation, Inc.



[Revised Draft Comments on the South Coast County Golf Course NOP]

11 March 2002

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
FAX: (213) 487-0380

Larry Hensley, Acting Chief of Planning
County of Los Angeles
Department of Parks and Recreation
433 S. Vermont Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90020

SUBJECT Comments in Response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed South Coast County Golf Course


Dear Mr. Hensley:

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the above-mentioned project. The City respectfully requests the inclusion of the following issues within the scope of the potential environmental impacts analyzed in conjunction with the proposed golf course:

1) The project description states that the site is surrounded by a variety of uses, including a school across Crenshaw Boulevard to the southeast. Although not identified by name, we assume that this is a reference to the private Rolling Hills Country Day School. It should also be noted that the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) has an elementary school campus (Rancho Vista) located at Palos Verdes Drive North and Moccasin Lane, which is less than three hundred fifty feet (350’) from the southwesterly boundary of the project site. Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes attend both of these schools.

The omission of the Rancho Vista Elementary School and the minimal references to the Rolling Hills Country Day School do not accurately reflect the sensitivity and vulnerability of these schools to the construction-related impacts of the proposed project. For example:

a) The discussion of Air Quality in the Initial Study only identifies single- and multi-family residences as sensitive receptors likely to be affected by construction related air quality impacts. It makes no reference to either of the adjacent schools.

b) The discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials in the Initial Study notes that the impact of hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials, substances or wastes on existing or proposed schools within a ¼-mile radius of the site is expected to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. This assertion might be arguably valid if Rolling Hills Country Day School was the only nearby school, but with the addition of Rancho Vista Elementary School to the analysis, it seems more likely that the impact to these schools is more likely to be potentially significant, with or without mitigation.

Based on the foregoing comments, the City requests that the project description and EIR for the proposed South Coast County Golf Course be revised to accurately discuss the proximity of Rancho Vista Elementary School to the site, and to incorporate a comprehensive analysis of all of the environmental impacts likely to affect both adjacent schools.

2) In the discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Transportation/Traffic, the Initial Study states that the project is expected to result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to emergency response and evacuation plans. The project site is bounded by Hawthorne Boulevard and Crenshaw Boulevard, which are two of the major north-south arterials that connect the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Peninsula to the rest of the South Bay. The City is concerned that an incident on the project site involving hazardous materials, large-scale earth movement or some other catastrophic event—either during construction or after completion of the project—could block one or both of these arterials, thereby isolating the Peninsula and adversely affecting emergency response and/or the evacuation of residents. As such, the City requests that the EIR for the proposed South Coast County Golf Course include a more detailed discussion of project impacts upon emergency response and evacuation plans for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Peninsula as a whole.

3) The discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality impacts in the Initial Study notes that less-than-significant impacts are expected. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has extensive first-hand knowledge of the adverse impacts that can result from the infiltration of water into areas with questionable soil stability. Although the Initial Study suggests a number of methods to limit or prevent the infiltration of surface runoff (i.e., subsurface drains, protective liners, etc.) resulting form the proposed project, the City recommends that the EIR include a comprehensive analysis of the methods by which existing and future drainage problems—both on- and off-site—can be improved or corrected by the proposed project.

4) The discussion of Transportation/Traffic impacts in the Initial Study notes that potentially significant impacts are expected with respect to the level of service for roadways and intersections identified in the County’s Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Please note that the intersection of Western Avenue and Toscanini Drive in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is one of the intersections that are monitored for compliance with the CMP. As such, the City requests that the traffic study and the EIR for the proposed South Coast County Golf Course include the intersection of Western Avenue and Toscanini Drive in the analysis of level-of-service impacts resulting from the proposed project.

5) The project description notes that two golf course design alternatives are proposed. Design A involves the relocation of the City of Rolling Hills Estates equestrian center to a different location on the site, and would be contingent upon the City of Rolling Hills Estates negotiating a lease with the County for the relocated equestrian center. Design B involves the relocation of the equestrian center off site, and would be contingent upon the acquisition of suitable private property to accommodate the relocated center. The project description also states that the new equestrian center would be required to accommodate one hundred fifteen (115) horses. The discussion of Recreation in the Initial Study only notes that "[the] relocation of the equestrian center is not anticipated to create a significant impact." Although the project description does not envision a project without a replacement equestrian center—either on-site or off-site—the environmental impacts of such an alternative should be considered in the EIR.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the unique character and ambiance that the many equestrian neighborhoods contribute to the City and the Peninsula as a whole, and we do not support the elimination of an equestrian center from the proposed project. However, in the event that neither of the scenarios envisioned under Designs A and B are achieved, the horses currently kept at the equestrian center would need to be kept somewhere else—most likely, somewhere else on the Peninsula. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes currently has very limited opportunities for commercial boarding, and the operation of commercial boarding facilities in residential neighborhoods has been a recurrent concern of the City Council and many City residents. As such, the City requests that the EIR for the proposed South Coast County Golf Course include the discussion of an alternative where no replacement equestrian center is provided, and that this discussion include analysis of the impact on surrounding communities of the elimination of the existing equestrian center.

6) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes believes that the impacts of relocating the existing equestrian center, including changes in traffic patterns, cannot be fully assessed when the location of the new center is still unknown. The City suggests that the EIR should focus on a single design for the project—with the equestrian center located either on- or off-site—and discuss the impacts of alternatives as appropriate. The City also recommends that any mitigation measures associated with relocating the equestrian center include a requirement for sewer connections and compliance with NPDES standards for animal-keeping facilities.

7) The discussion of air quality impacts in the EIR should include the control and mitigation of fugitive dust in surrounding neighborhoods. Suggested mitigation measures might include the placement of air quality monitoring stations and the periodic cleaning of swimming pools and residential interiors that are soiled by fugitive dust.

8) The discussion of Public Services impacts in the Initial Study notes that the City of Rolling Hills Estates would be primarily responsible for providing police and security services for the golf course. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes believes that, as a County faculty, the costs associated with the provision of public services related to the golf course should be borne by the County.

9) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is particularly concerned about the potential for the development of the former Palos Verdes landfill to unleash hazardous substances upon the surrounding community. We are aware that a variety of hazardous materials were deposited—both legally and illegally—and that the landfill was in operation well before the imposition of more stringent State and Federal standards for the handling of toxic materials. Enclosed are copies of background material on the landfill that should be included in the analysis of this project. Also, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will be retaining the services of an independent consultant to review the draft EIR with respect to the issue of hazard materials on the site.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5228 or via e-mail at kitf@rpv.com.

Sincerely,

Kit Fox, aicp
Senior Planner

enclosures

cc: Mayor and City Council
Les Evans, City Manager
Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
Douglas Prichard, City Manager, City of Rolling Hills Estates



[Final Comments on the NOP for the Special Reorganization of the Harbor Area]

14 February 2002

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
FAX: (818) 254-2452

Larry J. Calamine, Executive Officer
Los Angeles County LAFCO
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 350
Glendale, CA 91203

SUBJECT Comments in Response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Special Reorganization of the Harbor Area of the City of Los Angeles


Dear Mr. Calamine:

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the above-mentioned project. The City respectfully requests the inclusion of the following issues within the scope of the potential environmental impacts analyzed in conjunction with the proposed special reorganization:

1) The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council has an on-going concern with "border issues," and has formed a subcommittee to monitor the activities of neighboring jurisdictions to determine whether or not the City Council should take positions on developments, events or special uses proposed for approval in adjacent communities that may impact the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. One of the issues of concern identified by the City Council is the potential correction of "anomalies" in the current boundary between the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles, particularly along Western Avenue. For example, we are currently aware of a couple of instances where commercial and residential properties are bisected by the city boundary line. The full City Council will be discussing this issue at an upcoming meeting. As a result of that meeting, the City Council may provide direction to Staff regarding specific city boundary issues that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would like to see corrected. As such, the City requests that the EIR for the proposed special reorganization of the harbor area of the City of Los Angeles address the possibility of minor adjustments to the boundary between the study area and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

2) The NOP for the special reorganization notes that there may be environmental effects related to the provision of public services. The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council is particularly concerned about any impact this project may have upon public schools and attendance policies within the Eastview area of the City, which directly abuts the study area for the proposed special reorganization. The formerly-unincorporated Eastview area, which is located within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), was annexed to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in 1983 and is home to two (2) LAUSD campuses (Dodson Middle School and Crestwood Avenue Elementary School). After many years of negotiations, the City Council successfully achieved modifications to school attendance policies to allow students in the Eastview area to attend schools in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD), which serves most of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City Council is concerned that the special reorganization of the harbor area could lead to changes in school district boundaries and/or attendance policies that would adversely affect students in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. As such, the City requests that the EIR for the proposed special reorganization of the harbor area of the City of Los Angeles include the potential impacts school district boundaries and/or attendance policies within the discussion of impacts to public services.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5228 or via e-mail at kitf@rpv.com.

Sincerely,

Kit Fox, aicp
Senior Planner

cc: Mayor and City Council
Les Evans, City Manager
Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement



[Final Comments on the Rolling Hills Covenant Church Expansion NOP]

22 February 2002

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
FAX: (310) 377-4468

Oscar Orci, Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Dr. N.
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274

SUBJECT

Comments in Response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Expansion of Rolling Hills Covenant Church


Dear Mr. Orci:

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the above-mentioned project. The City respectfully requests the inclusion of the following issues within the scope of the potential environmental impacts analyzed in conjunction with the proposed church expansion:

1) The discussion of Air Quality and Noise impacts in the Initial Study notes that potentially significant impacts are expected as a result of construction activities associated with the expansion of the church. These include the exposure of sensitive receptors—such as nearby single-family residences—to significant pollutant and noise levels. The two Rancho Palos Verdes neighborhoods located closest to the project site are Peninsula Verde and Rolling Hills Riviera. The City requests that the impacts upon the homes in these two neighborhoods be considered in the air quality and noise studies conducted for the EIR for this project.

2) The discussion of Noise, Public Services, Aesthetic and Transportation and Traffic impacts in the Initial Study indicates that the expansion of the church facilities—in addition to accommodating a larger congregation for worship services—would also allow for larger and potentially more frequent special events (such as concerts) to occur on the site. The Peninsula Verde and Rolling Hills Riviera neighborhoods (see above) could be affected by increased noise levels and nighttime illumination as a result of the expansion of the church facility. In addition, Palos Verdes Drive East is a narrow and winding major thoroughfare that serves the Miraleste area of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Even a small increase in traffic on Palos Verdes Drive East could have significant adverse impacts upon residents in this area of the City. As such, the City requests that the EIR for the proposed expansion of Rolling Hills Covenant Church include a comprehensive analysis of off-site noise, light/glare and traffic impacts to surrounding neighborhoods resulting from both regular church operations and special events.

3) The discussion of Transportation and Traffic impacts in the Initial Study notes that potentially significant impacts are expected with respect to the level of service for roadways and intersections identified in the County’s Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Please note that the intersection of Western Avenue and Toscanini Drive in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is one of the intersections that are monitored for compliance with the CMP. As such, the City requests that the traffic study and the EIR for the proposed expansion of Rolling Hills Covenant Church include the intersection of Western Avenue and Toscanini Drive in the analysis of level-of-service impacts resulting from the proposed project.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5228 or via e-mail at kitf@rpv.com.

Sincerely,

Kit Fox, aicp
Senior Planner

cc: Mayor and City Council
Les Evans, City Manager
Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement



16. Western Avenue Boundary Issues. (Fox)

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: WESTERN AVENUE BOUNDARY ISSUES

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of January 12, 2002, the City Council asked for a map depicting the City’s boundary along Western Avenue, with the intention of reviewing any existing boundary issues or conflicts with the City of Los Angeles. Staff has investigated this matter and presents its findings at tonight’s meeting.

DISCUSSION

At tonight’s meeting, Staff will present a diagram depicting the City’s easterly boundary with the City of Los Angeles. This diagram focuses on the boundary of the Eastview area along Western Avenue, not the boundary from the City’s incorporation (i.e., the neighborhoods off Miraleste Drive to the north of Deane Dana/Friendship Park). For the purposes of this report, a reduced version of this diagram is attached.

Beginning at the northeast corner of the City, the boundary runs down the center of Western Avenue to its intersection with Delasonde Drive/Westmont Avenue, where it turns easterly to encompass the Westmont Plaza shopping center and the City’s Eastview Park. The boundary continues to the east, surrounding the Strathmore community (i.e., the "panhandle"), then heads westerly back toward Western Avenue. Before reaching Western Avenue, however, the boundary turns southerly, encompassing Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church, Bay Cities Bank, Rolling Hills Animal Hospital, the Harbor Cove Plaza office building and the Fidelity Federal Bank tower. The boundary continues to the south, cutting diagonally across the intersection at Trudie Drive/Capitol Drive such that a sliver of the parking lot at the Western Plaza shopping center is actually in the City of Los Angeles. As Western Avenue continues to curve southwesterly, the boundary crosses back across the street until it intersects with the easterly edge of the right-of-way, which it then follows southerly to the intersection with Summerland Avenue. At Summerland Avenue, the boundary turns easterly and eventually intersects with the City’s "original" (i.e., pre-Eastview annexation) boundary near Via Colinita and Miraleste Drive.

In reviewing the current City boundary, Staff has identified the following Western Avenue boundary issues as potential candidates for some type of adjustment with the City of Los Angeles:

Western Plaza Signs

As shown on Map 1, small portions of several of the lots that make up the Western Plaza shopping center (29105-29229 Western Avenue) are located in Los Angeles, while the buildings and the parking lots are in Rancho Palos Verdes. The portions of the shopping center in Los Angeles include at least two (if not all four) of the existing freestanding signs along Western Avenue. As reflected in the attached documents, the City unsuccessfully attempted to resolve this issue in 1986, shortly after the annexation of the Eastview area. The adjustment of the City boundary in this area would allow the City to apply consistent signage standards to all of the signage for the Western Plaza shopping center.

Boundary South of Trudie Drive

As shown on Map 2, south of the Western Plaza shopping center the city boundary skews back across Western Avenue as the road curves slightly to the southwest. The boundary finally intersects with the easterly edge of the Western Avenue right-of-way near Peck Park and continues along the easterly side of the street to the intersection with Summerland Avenue (see Map 3). Adjusting the boundary to coincide with the centerline of the right-of-way would be consistent with the location of the City boundary along Western Avenue to the north of Delasonde Drive/Westmont Avenue. Alternately, the boundary could be adjusted so that the Western Avenue right-of-way is entirely in either Rancho Palos Verdes or Los Angeles.

The Terraces Condominiums

As shown on Map 4, The Terraces condominiums are located at 1450 Brett Place, directly behind and below Bay Cities Bank, Rolling Hills Animal Hospital and the Harbor Cove Plaza office building. This 38-unit condominium complex was approved in 1981 (but not built until 1986) and consists of three floors of residences above a subterranean parking garage. The project site is split by the City boundary such that nearly two-thirds of the site and nearly one-half of the units are wholly or partially in Rancho Palos Verdes. The City has no building permit records for the original construction of the complex, nor has the City ever issued any permits for the project since its completion. Staff assumes that the City of Los Angeles has issued the previous building permits for this complex, so adjusting the boundary to exclude The Terraces from the Rancho Palos Verdes would probable have little impact on its residents. However, since the majority of the complex is already in Rancho Palos Verdes, the City may wish to consider annexation of the remainder, if the residents so desire.

CONCLUSION

Staff has identified the above-mentioned issues as possible candidates for boundary adjustments along Western Avenue. Staff requests direction from the City Council regarding these or any other City boundary issues about which the City Council is concerned.

FISCAL IMPACT

Any adjustment of the City’s boundary could have fiscal impacts to the City in terms of property tax and other revenues. The net fiscal impact of any adjustment to the Western Avenue boundary is unknown at this time. However, given the relatively minor nature of the possible adjustments envisioned at this time, these impacts are not expected to be significant.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Diagram of city boundary along Western Avenue (reduced version)
Assessor’s parcel map details
1985-1987 documents regarding Western Plaza signs



17. Peninsula-Wide Issues Committee. (Evans)

Recommendation: Receive a report from Mayor McTaggart regarding the formation of a Peninsula-Wide Issues Committee and consider the appointment of representatives to that Committee, if formed.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: PENINSULA WIDE ISSUES COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION

Receive a report from Mayor McTaggart regarding the formation of a Peninsula Wide Issues Committee and consider the appointment of representatives to that Committee, if formed.

BACKGROUND

At their January 12, 2002 meeting the City Council discussed the advisability of trying to form a Committee made up of representatives from all four Peninsula cities, and the School District, to address issues of mutual concern (primarily traffic and development). The proposal is that the Committee be made up of two Councilmembers from each City and two from the School Board as well as the City Managers and School Superintendent. The Committee meetings would be public and would require noticing. There was general agreement by the Councilmembers that Mayor McTaggart should discuss the matter with the Mayors and School Board President at their next meeting.

DISCUSSION

The Mayor has received feedback from all four cities and the School District and will make a report on the feelings of the other agencies toward forming a Committee.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager



18. Roof Repair for City-Owned Buildings. (Allison)

Recommendation: Accept the Roof Inspection Report prepared by the Garland Company and authorize staff to implement the proposed Five-Year Roof Repair and Replacement Plan.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: CITYWIDE ROOF INVENTORY

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accept the Roof Inspection Report prepared by the Garland Company and authorize staff to implement the proposed Five-Year Roof Repair and Replacement Plan.

BACKGROUND

The City has building structures at six locations. Most of these facilities were built before the City incorporated. Accordingly, the structures are nearing, or exceed, thirty years of use. As with any structure, roofs have a specified life span. Over the last several years, it has become apparent that the roofs are aged and may require extensive repairs and/or replacement. Therefore, the services of a roofing consultant were retained to inspect each roof.

DISCUSSION

On February 22, 2002, the Garland Company completed the inspections of all City owned roofs. Based on these inspections, it is evident that the roofing materials at each facility have deteriorated and failures are forthcoming. However, it is not necessary that all repairs/replacements be completed immediately. The Roof Inspection Report, prepared by the Garland Company, includes the following five-year timeline for completing the necessary repairs and replacements.

Five-Year Roof Repair/Replacement Plan

Location
Replacement Year
Estimated Cost

FY 2001/2002

   
Hesse Park 2001/2002
$50,000
Eastview Park  
1,450
Ladera Linda (Emergency Repairs Only)
960
Abalone Cove (Nursery)  
1,100
General Maintenance All Other Roofs
3,000
 
Estimated Construction Costs: $56,510
     
10% Construction Contingency Budget
5,651
Contract Administration and Inspection
5,000
   
Total Costs: $67,161
Approved 2001/2002 Budget
20,000
   
Shortfall 2001/2002: $47,161

FY 2002/2003

   
Civic Center Complex 2002/2003
$45,000
(One Building)    
 
Estimated Construction Costs: $45,000
10% Construction Contingency Budget
4,500
Contract Administration and Inspection
5,000
   
Total Costs: $54,500
Approved 2002/2003 Budget
20,000
 
Shortfall 2002/2003: $34,500

FY 2003/2004    
Ryan Park
2003/2004
$12,100

(Two Buildings)

   
 
Estimated Construction Costs: $12,100
10% Construction Contingency Budget
1,210
Contract Administration and Inspection
5,000
   
Total Costs: $18,310
Budget  
0
 
Shortfall 2003/2004: $18,310

FY 2004/2005

   
Civic Center Complex 2004/2005
$17,880
(Two Buildings & a Walkway)    
   
Estimated Construction Costs: $17,880
10% Construction Contingency Budget
1,788
Contract Administration and Inspection
5,000
   
Total Costs: $24,668
Budget  
0
   
Shortfall 2004/2005: $24,668

FY 2005/2006

   
Abalone Cove Roof 2005/2006
$1,400
Civic Center    
(One Building)  
3,500
Ladera Linda Center  
23,000
   
Estimated Construction Costs: $27,900
     
10% Construction Contingency Budget
2,790
Contract Administration and Inspection
5,000
   
Total Costs: $35,690
Budget  
0
   
Shortfall 2005/2006: $35,690

The plan should be implemented this fiscal year. Exhibits A, B, C & D show the condition of the roofs that require immediate work.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendations will begin the process to repair or replace the roofs on all buildings citywide.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS

Direct staff to adjust the five-year plan wherein the sum total of all work will for fiscal year 2001-2002 will not exceed the current approved budget of $20,000.

FISCAL IMPACT

The 2001/2002 approved Public Works Building Maintenance budget includes $20,000 for citywide roof replacements. Implementing the first year of the recommended repairs/replacements will necessitate the appropriation of additional funds.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Exhibit A Hesse Park Roof
B Eastview Park Roof
C Ladera Linda Roof
D Abalone Cove (Nursery) Roof



19. City Council Rules of Procedure. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RULE 8.2 OF THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE REGARDING THE ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2002- ; amending Rule 8.2 of the City Council Rules of Procedure regarding the acceptance of public testimony.

BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2002, the City Council agreed with Councilman Stern’s suggested addition to the Council’s Rules of Procedure regarding accepting public testimony, but requested that the City Attorney draft cautionary language that Council members will not indicate information about their possible vote on an issue before public testimony is given.

DISCUSSION

In addition to the proposed language presented at the last meeting, the City Attorney prepared the following additional language to Rule 8.2 for the Council’s review and consideration. The added text is indicated in underline type:

5. Prior to hearing public testimony or comments, Council members are encouraged to raise questions or identify issues of concern that they may have, which may assist members of the public to focus their comments upon those questions or issues. However, Council members shall refrain from stating their final position or how they intend to vote on the issue until all public testimony has been received.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Resolution No. 2002 - ;



RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OPERATING RULES AND PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2000-01

WHEREAS, on January 18, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-01 setting forth certain rules of order for conducting Council meetings; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to expand said rules regarding the acceptance of public testimony to be followed at City Council meetings.

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

Section 1: That new Item No. 5 to Rule 8.2 of the City Council Rules of Procedure is hereby added to the rules and procedures and shall read as follows:

Prior to hearing public testimony or comments, Council members are encouraged to raise questions or identify issues of concern that they may have, which may assist members of the public to focus their comments upon those questions or issues. However, Council members shall refrain from stating their final position or how they intend to vote on the issue until all public testimony has been received.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of March 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 a regular meeting thereof held on March 11, 2002.


____________________
City Clerk


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


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL


Existing Litigation
:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: People of the State; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. James A. Kay, Jr.

Case No: Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. YC 037398)

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 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
MARCH 11, 2002
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


CALL TO ORDER NEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2002-04

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


A. Minutes of February 5 and 7, 2002, and March 6, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



D R A F T

M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 5, 2002

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

_______________________
CHAIR

ATTEST:


_____________________

AGENCY SECRETARY



D R A F T


M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

FEBRUARY 7, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 10:15 P.M. by Chair McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

PRESENT: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
ABSENT: Ferraro

Also present were Executive Director Les Evans; Agency Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Agency Secretary Jo Purcell; and, Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Member Stern moved, seconded by Member Gardiner, to approve the Agenda. Motion carried.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

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

Minutes

Approved the minutes of December 18, 2001, January 2, and January 12, 2002.

November and December 2001 Treasurer’s Reports

Ordered received and filed.

Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Midyear Financial Report

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. RDA 2002-02 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002-02, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ferraro


PUBLIC COMMENTS:


There were no requests to speak.


ADJOURNMENT :


The meeting was adjourned at 10:17 P.M. on the motion of Chair McTaggart.


__________________
Chair

ATTEST:


_________________________
Agency Secretary



D R A F T


M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 6, 2002

The meeting was called to order at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by Agency Secretary Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to February 11, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.


_______________________

CHAIR

ATTEST:


_____________________

AGENCY SECRETARY


B. January 2002 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: JANUARY 2002 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator:Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the January 2002 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of January 2002 for the Redevelopment Agency.

ANALYSIS:

The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by $177,213 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $1,273,267 at January 31, 2002. The majority of the month’s expenditures were related to ongoing progress payments for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. It is expected that the Agency will continue to experience large monthly decreases in cash until the completion of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Agency Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Executive Director


C. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


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



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



CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST


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


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL


Existing Litigation
:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Settlement of York Long Point sewer line litigation.

Case No. BC 229913

City of Rancho Palos Verdes
v.
York Long Point Associates, L. P., a
California Limited Partnership, Arch E. Ekdale;
Virgina F. Ekdale; Chicago Title Insurance Company;
Beal Bank, SSB, Does 1 through 100, Inclusive; and ANY
AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE OR CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY TITLE OR INTEREST
IN OR TO THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE COMDEMNED HEREIN.



RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA
REGULAR ADJURNED MEETING
MARCH 11, 2002
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


CALL TO ORDER:NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2002-03

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1. Minutes of February 5 and 7, 2002, and March 6, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



D R A F T

M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 5, 2002

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


_______________________

CHAIR

ATTEST:


_________________________

COMMISSION SECRETARY



D R A F T

M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

FEBRUARY 7, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 10:17 P.M. by Chair McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

PRESENT: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
ABSENT: Ferraro

Also present were Chief Administrative Officer Les Evans; Commission Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Commission Secretary Jo Purcell; and, Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


Commissioner Gardiner moved, seconded by Commissioner Stern, to approve the Agenda. Motion carried.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


Commissioner Stern moved, seconded by Commissioner Gardiner, to approve the Consent Calendar.

Minutes

Approved the minutes of December 18, 2002, January 2 and January 12, 2002.

November and December 2001 Treasurer’s Report

Ordered received and filed.

Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Midyear Financial Report

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. IA 2002-02 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. IA 2002-02, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ferraro


PUBLIC COMMENTS:


There were no requests to speak.


ADJOURNMENT:


The meeting was adjourned at 10:19 P.M. on the motion of Chair McTaggart.


________________

Chair

Attest:


_____________________
Commission Secretary



D R A F T

M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 6, 2002

The meeting was called to order at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by Commission Secretary Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to march 11, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.


_______________________

CHAIR

ATTEST:


_________________________

COMMISSION SECRETARY


2. January 2002 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

DATE: MARCH 11, 2002

SUBJECT: JANUARY 2002 TREASURER’S REPOR

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the January 2002 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of January 2002 for the Improvement Authority.

ANALYSIS:

The Improvement Authority’s cash increased by $20,227 during the past month; ending with an overall balance of $1,581,250 at January 31, 2002. Disbursements of $5,827 were offset with the monthly General fund transfer of $7,917 and second quarter interest earnings of $18,137.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer


3. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


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



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