Agenda 04/02/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 04/02/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda April 2, 2002 (5:30 & 7:30)

April 2 , 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.




NOTE:

After the agenda for the April 2 meeting which begins at 5:30 P.M. meeting you will see the agenda for the April 2 meeting which begins at 7:00 P.M.


RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 2, 2002, 5:30 P.M.

HESSE PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA


CALL TO ORDER:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


1. Interview of appointees for Advisory Board Chairs. (Purcell.)

Recommendation: Interview the candidates for chair of the Planning Commission, the Finance Advisory Committee, and the Traffic Committee

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: INTERVIEW OF APPOINTEES FOR ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRS

RECOMMENDATION

Interview the candidates for chair of the Planning Commission, the Finance Advisory Committee, and the Traffic Committee.

INTRODUCTION

Conducting a separate interview for the position of board chairs is part of the new Recruitment and Selection policy adopted by the City Council on January 31st, to wit:

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/reappointments will be made annually on a schedule to be established by the City Council.

BACKGROUND

Council made appointments to the Planning Commission and the Finance Advisory Committee on March 11th; appointments to the Traffic Committee were made on March 19th. The following appointees have applied for the position of chair for their respective boards:

Planning Commission: Jon Cartwright, Tom Long, and Craig Mueller

Finance Advisory Committee: Earl Butler and Steve Wolowicz

Traffic Committee:Libby Aubrey, Bill Schurmer

CONCLUSION

The recruitment process for the Planning Commission, Finance Advisory Committee and Traffic Committee has been completed and Council can now appoint the chairs for these boards.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager


2. Interviews for Emergency Preparedness Committee. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Set a date to interview the candidates for the Emergency Preparedness Committee.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: INTERVIEWS FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION

Set a date to interview the candidates for the Emergency Preparedness Committee.

INTRODUCTION

Interview of these candidates will complete the "recruitment" phase of the City’s Advisory Board Recruitment and Selection policy.

BACKGROUND

On February 19th the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-11 establishing a seven member Emergency Preparedness Committee. As of this writing, 16 applications have been received from residents interested in serving on this committee. This number of applicants will require three hours to interview and Council needs to pick a date to conduct these interviews.

CONCLUSION

The City has conducted the recruitment phase for Emergency Preparedness volunteers and Council now needs to set a date to interview the applicants.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed,
Les Evans

 


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

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 2, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


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

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-22

NEXT ORD. NO. 376

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Motion to waive full reading.

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



2. Minutes of March 9 and March 11, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



3. Ordinance No. 375 - Modification of Rule of Procedure 3.2 to Eliminate Rescheduling of Meetings on Election Dates other than City Election Dates. (Purcell)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 375 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULAR MEETING DAYS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was introduced at the March 19th Meeting.)



4. Acceptance of Maintenance for a portion of the public improvements at Tract No. 46628 (Oceanfront Estates). (Still)

Recommendation: (1) Accept for maintenance the public trails, fencing, landscape, hardscape, and parking lot for Tract 46628 as depicted in the exhibit. (2) Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute a change order in the amount of $17,400 with Bemus Landscaping.



5. Parkland Dedication Fees for Final Parcel Map No. 26047. (Applicant: Robert M. Patterson). (Yu)

Recommendation: Approve parkland dedication (Quimby) fees for Final Parcel Map No. 26047 pursuant to the City’s parkland dedication fee formula in the amount of $8,653.63.



6. February 2002 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.



7. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARINGS:



8. Reconsideration of the Decision on the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 (Appellant: Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive). (Fox) (Continued from March 25, 2002 meeting.)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED PURSUANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 720. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207.


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

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



9. Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Grading Permit No. 2242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738 (JCC Homes Inc./California Water Service Company, 5837 Crest Road). (Fox)

Recommendation: Review the revised project to determine if the applicant has adequately addressed the issues raised by the City Council and concerned neighbors, and direct staff to either: (1) bring back to the next meeting resolutions of approval for the revised project, as recommended by the Planning Commission; or, (2) prepare resolutions of denial due to City Council concerns with the revised project



10. Overview of the Current View Restoration and Preservation Process. (Nelson)

Recommendation: Review the staff report and overview of the current View Restoration and Preservation process and provide staff with direction as to whether to initiate any changes to the process via amendments to the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines or Code.


REGULAR BUSINESS:



11. Appointment of Advisory Board Chairs. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Appoint the chair for the Planning Commission, Finance Advisory Committee and Traffic Committee.



12. Ocean Trails – Extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666. (Pfost)

Recommendation: Extend the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 for the Ocean Trails project for one year until April 15, 2003.



13. Intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard at Highridge Road. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Request staff to develop a citywide Traffic Signal Program to include a plan for new signal installation and modification of existing facilities. (2) Request staff to develop a funding plan for the first five years of the traffic signal program for incorporation into the City’s Five Year CIP and Financial Model.



14. Ladera Linda Community Center and Portuguese Bend Fields. (Evans)

Recommendation: Schedule a joint meeting with the Palos Verdes Peninsula School Board to discuss the possible relocation of School District Administrative Offices to Ladera Linda.



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. General Plan Update – Steering Committee Formation. (Pfost)

Recommendation: (1) Formulate a "General Plan Update Steering Committee." (2) Direct Staff to develop and implement a public participation strategy.



17. Agenda for the Joint Workshop with the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee Concerning the Crestridge Properties. (Pfost)

Recommendation: Approve the proposed Draft Agenda for the joint workshop between the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee on May 7, 2002.



18. In Lieu Fee Agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for Off-Site Wetlands Mitigation for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the In Lieu Fee Agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for off-site wetlands mitigation at Chandler’s Preserve associated with the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.



19. Quarterly Off-Site Council Meeting Schedule. (Petru)

Recommendation: Select dates for the Spring and Summer off-site City Council meetings for 2002 and select a location for the Saturday, May 18, 2002 meeting regarding the Zone 2 Report.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



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



20. City Council Reports. (Evans)

Recommendation: Make City Council reports as required by City Council Policy Number 23.


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)

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)


RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 2, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


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

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-22

NEXT ORD. NO. 376


RECYCLE DRAWING:



APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Motion to waive full reading.

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



2. Minutes of March 9 and March 11, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.

MINUTES

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 8:00 A.M. by Mayor John McTaggart, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

Present: Clark, Gardiner, Ferraro, Stern & Mayor McTaggart
Absent: None

Also present were City Manager Les Evans, Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk Jo Purcell, Public Works Director Dean Allison, Recreation & Parks Director Ron Rosenfeld and Finance Director Dennis McLean.

Leonard and June Wood of Wood & Associates were also present to conduct the Team Building and Goal Setting Session of the Meeting.

Mr. Wood began the session by distributing the Strength Deployment Inventory assessment that was completed by all participants.

The next portion of the team building focused on the current and projected time allocation for the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager and each of the department directors insofar as the Council’s directives were concerned.

Discussion of this time allocation focused on the reality of accomplishment of goals and directives under current staffing and the necessity of supplementing staffing to complete these directives in a timely manner, and, if necessary review of the directives with a view toward scaling them back to reflect available budget and staffing resources.

The team building portion of the meeting concluded at 12:00 Noon. No action was taken.

General Plan Update

Director Rojas presented his March 9th staff report which made the following recommendation: 1) Formulate a "General Plan Update Committee" to review the General Plan Goals and Policies, as well as the technical updates identified by Staff and make a recommendation to the City Council as to scope of the necessary General Plan amendments; and 2) Direct Staff to develop and implement a public participation strategy to include creating a "General Plan Update" site on the City's Web page with the ability for the public to join an e-mail list serve group, providing notice in the newspaper and to all Homeowner Associations of all Committee meetings, press releases to update the public on the status of the update, and other methods.

Council concern was that this committee have a broad-based membership; that the proposed timeline of approximately one to two years for completion was too long and could be accelerated inasmuch as this was a review and not the first time writing of the Plan; that the anticipated cost of between $200,000 and $400,000 was also excessive for much the same reason; and, that staff should consider phasing this project to reduce both time and cost.

It was felt that the General Plan should be reviewed for areas that needed to be brought into compliance; how those areas could be identified; and, how this review process could be phased, such as identifying the goals and objectives. Council reiterated its concern that the number of residents polled for this review be an adequate representation of the population for their recommendations to be considered credible.

Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood, presented a written statement outlining a proposed process for citizen participation in the 2002 Revision and Update of the 1974 Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Goals. The purpose of this process was to provide citizen input to the City Council for the deliberation and incorporation into the update of the General Plan and subsequently for the Development Code. Mr. Dyda’s proposal detailed the objective, participation, history, composition and organization of the 14 subcommittees that would prepare revisions and recommendations for the City Council. Also a part of this proposal was a proposed schedule for the accomplishment of this review. (Mr. Dyda’s written proposal is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

Council discussion of the proposal centered on the number of subcommittees and whether it would be necessary to have 14; where the proposal allowed for staff and Council participation; and the absolute importance that there be as broad a base as possible for public participation in the review before recommendations are presented to the City Council.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro that a steering committee be made up of certain members of the Council, the Planning Commission, the Council of Homeowners and other representative groups such as the youth sports coalition, the seniors, the docents, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, the School District and others be formed to develop a plan on how the matter of citizen participation will be approached for this General Plan review; motion carried unanimously.

Interview of Applicants

Council then proceeded to interview a candidate for the Planning Commission as well as all of the candidates for the Traffic Committee.

Adjourn: At 4:00 P.M. the meeting adjourned to Monday, March 11 at 6:00 P.M. for an Adjourned Regular City Council meeting. Motion made by Mayor McTaggart.


___________________
Mayor

Attest:


_____________________
City Clerk


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file, and was immediately recessed to a closed session per the Brown Act Checklist. At 7:14 P.M. the meeting reconvened.

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

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

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

League of California Cities Grassroots Representative

City Manager Evans introduced Ann Marie Wallace, the South Bay Regional Representative for the new League of California Cities Grass Roots Network. He stated that she has a strong background in legislative advocacy, is a graduate of California State University at Long Beach, lives locally, and has her office at the Torrance Municipal airport.

Ms. Wallace explained that she had met with senior City staff who provided background on the City and met with several Councilmembers in January in Sacramento. She thanked the City for supporting Proposition 42, which was important to maintain City revenue. She distributed a packet to the Council with background on the League, services it provides to cities, and information on the annual conference being held October 2-5 in Long Beach. She said that her first priority was to protect State raids on city funds during the current State deficit situation and that the long term solution was to gain the trust of voters and ask for their protection of local government funds in a state-wide ballot measure. She explained that the League Board of Directors estimated that March 2004 would be a good time to place this measure before voters.

Councilman Gardiner, along with Mayor McTaggart, was concerned about loss of City funds in the meantime and asked why this measure could not be placed on the ballot sooner.

Ms. Wallace replied that a poll indicated that the voters were not receptive at this time and it was also believed that such a measure would be less successful during a general election.


RECYLE DRAWING:

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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

City Clerk Purcell stated that a revised Urgency Ordinance, a revised staff report and a resolution regarding the Franchise Tax Board item, changes to minutes from Mayor Pro Tem Stern were presented to the Council at the outset of the meeting. At this time, Councilman Gardiner, Councilman Clark, and Councilwoman Ferraro submitted additional minutes changes orally.

Councilman Gardiner asked that the item amending the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules regarding the Veterans’ Preference System be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Motion carried.

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 council members after the reading of the title.

Minutes (301)

Approved the Minutes of February 9 and March 6 as presented. Approved the Minutes of February 7 and February 23, as amended.

Claim Against the City by Howard Mori (301 x 303)

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

Resol. No. 2002-15 - Used Oil Recycling Block Grant for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 (1204 x 1301)

(1) Authorized 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) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-15, 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.

Neighborhood Watch – Purchase of Replacement Computer (301 x 1206)

Approved 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.

Resol. No. 2002-16 - Franchise Tax Board Contract for Taxpayer Information (602 x 1501)

ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-16, 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.

January Treasurer’s Report (602)

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. 2002-17 - Register of Demands (602)

ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-17, 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.


Amendment to the Veterans’ Preference System in the Personnel Rules (1101 x 1202)

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of March 11, 2002 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed Resolution amending the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules regarding the Veterans’ Preference System.

Councilman Gardiner asked that the veterans’ preference be restricted to veterans who received an honorable discharge.

Assistant City Manager Petru replied that this could be added.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-18, 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, as amended. Motion carried.


REGULAR BUSINESS:

Appointment of Planning Commission & Finance Advisory Committee Members (301 x 106)

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of March 11, 2002 and the recommendation to

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.

Council voting by written, open ballot appointed the following to serve on the Planning Commission: Jon Cartwright, Frank Lyon, Tom Long, Craig Mueller, Clara Duran Reed, and Susan Cote. A second and third ballot was necessary to select David Tomblin.

Councilman Clark moved that commissioners who have served the longest be appointed to two-year terms.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern agreed and added that the third commissioner with a two-year term should be the person selected on the third ballot.

Mayor McTaggart disagreed, stating that commissioners who received the most votes should serve the four-year term.

Councilman Clark pointed out that the only commissioner who received five votes had specifically requested a two-year term. He amended his motion to include a two-year term for the last person chosen and said that the selection of a term did not reflect on the quality of the applicant, but merely was intended to begin the staggered terms.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern seconded the motion. Motion carried.

Council consensus was that Jon Cartwright, Frank Lyon, and David Tomblin would serve two-year terms until March 2, 2004; and, that Susan Cote, Tom Long, Craig Mueller, and Clara Duran Reed would serve four-year terms until March 7, 2006.

Council voting by written, open ballot appointed the following to serve on the Finance Advisory Committee: Earl Butler, Betsy Clark, John Curtis, Gina McLeod, William Smith, Steve Wolowicz, and Richard Wallace.

Based on the previous process and requests from applicants, the Council appointed Earl Butler, William Smith, and John Curtis to serve two-year terms until March 2, 2004; and, Becky Clark, Gina McLeod, Stefan Wolowicz, and Richard Wallace to a four-year term of office to serve until March 7, 2006.

City Clerk Purcell asked about selection of an interim chair and mentioned that the Planning Commission was meeting the following evening.

City Manager Evans indicated that the current chairs could serve until the Council selected new chairs. There was no objection. He asked the Council to select a date to interview interested Commissioner and Committee members to appoint chairs.

Council consensus was to interview chair candidates prior to the regular Council meeting on April 2, at 5:30 P.M and to change that time to 6:00 P.M. if there is a light Closed Session.

Ordinance No. 374U - Amateur Antenna Ordinance (1801 x 1103)

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of March 11, 2002 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed Urgency Ordinance regarding amateur antennas and amending the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and declaring the urgency thereof.

City Attorney Lynch explained that the ordinance submitted with the staff report had been revised and distributed to the Council and interested audience members.

City Attorney Lynch described events leading to the introduction of the urgency ordinance. Not to exclude any from the local amateur radio community but to expedite submission of this ordinance to Council, she said that Dale Hanks and Herb Clarkson had been asked to provide input over the last few days and that their latest suggestions from the afternoon of this meeting were included in the revised ordinance submitted at the outset of the meeting. She suggested that the non-urgency ordinance be reviewed by the Planning Commission for other possible revisions and agendized at a later Council meeting and that a moratorium not be established.

Councilman Clark asked if the ordinance included a definition of building mounted antenna assembly. He felt that the use of precise terminology was critical.

City Attorney Lynch replied that antenna assembly was defined on a handout from Senior Planner Fox distributed to the Council at the outset of the meeting as the totality of equipment used to support reception by or transmission from an antenna. It includes the antenna(s), including antennas used in connection with amateur repeaters, antenna support structure(s), and any radiating elements, cables, parabolic dishes and mechanical rotators.

Dale Hanks, 5225 Middlecrest, stated that he was a member of the group that worked in 1998 and 1999 to clarify the antenna ordinance and make it compatible with PRB1 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He said that he had been working with Carol Lynch and Joel Rojas for the last several days and that he was in agreement with the revised ordinance submitted to the Council this evening.

Councilman Gardiner spoke in support of the staff recommendation and support and described his background in telecommunication. He felt it would be useful to review terms and definitions and to give examples of types of antennas.

City Attorney Lynch felt it would be helpful to take advantage of Councilman Gardiner’s expertise and agreed that it would be a good idea to review terms and definitions.

Mayor McTaggart suggested an ad hoc subcommittee to work with Director Rojas.

Councilman Clark suggested that Councilman Gardiner be appointed to this subcommittee and Councilman Gardiner agreed to take this assignment.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to (1) Adopt urgency Ordinance No. 374U regarding amateur antennas and amending the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and declaring the urgency thereof. (2) Refer the non-urgency ordinance to the Planning Commission for their review and to obtain public input. (3) Establish an ad hoc subcommittee made up of Councilman Gardiner

Mayor McTaggart volunteered to work with Councilman Gardiner.

City Attorney Lynch suggested that Councilman Gardiner act as liaison, rather than forming an ad hoc subcommittee, to avoid Brown Act noticing requirements and to expedite the process.

City Clerk Purcell clarified that the motion would include adoption of the urgency Ordinance No. 374U only and she read the title.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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

Amateur Antenna Ordinance (1801 x 1103)

Staff recommendation was to introduce the proposed ordinance regarding amateur antennas and amending the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.

Council consensus was to refer this non-urgency ordinance to the Planning Commission for their review and to obtain public input.

Joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee to discuss the Crestridge Property (1203 x 602)

Director Rojas presented the staff report of March 11, 2002 and the recommendation to

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

Council consensus was to select the regular Council meeting of May 7 as the joint meeting date.

Mayor McTaggart asked if the meeting should begin at 6:00 P.M.

City Manager Evans replied that the regular agenda would be kept light.

Councilman Gardiner felt it was important to identify specific questions and issues to keep the group focused.

City Manager Evans replied that staff would bring issues to the Council before May 7.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 8:25 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:42 P.M.

At this time, the Council allowed a speaker on the Antenna Ordinance heard earlier in the agenda.

Demitrius Hatezon, 6542 Ocean Crest Drive, thanked the Council for its support of antennas; relayed a personal anecdote illustrating the importance of amateur radio; described his experience and organization membership as an amateur radio operator himself; explained that the Peninsula was vulnerable to attack because of its position between LAX and the L.A. Harbor and oil field and the importance of amateur radio, and specifically repeaters, during a disaster.

In reference to establishment of a subcommittee during the antenna ordinance discussion, City Attorney Lynch clarified that if the Council wanted to establish a simple ad hoc committee made up of Councilman Gardiner and Mayor McTaggart, there would be no Brown Act issue and Mayor McTaggart had been involved in the 9-month process to revise the antenna ordinance when changes were last made.

There was no objection.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Frank Lyon, 15 Oceancrest Court, referring to his work with the City as a private citizen, as a member of the Finance Advisory Committee and as a Planning Commissioner, commented on the high quality of the City staff, stating that they were competent, friendly, and professional in interfacing with the public. He felt that this outstanding performance reflected the wonderful leadership of Les Evans as City Manager. He thanked the Council for his re-appointment to the Planning Commission.

Members of the Council echoed Mr. Lyon’s sentiments.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, spoke to several items: agreed that Les Evans performed well; recommended an office supplies business in San Pedro whose employees watch RPV City Council meetings; described how she became active in the ACLU; and expressed her support of a moratorium on capital punishment in California.

Border Issues Status Report (1203 x 310)

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of March 11, 2002 and the recommendation to Review the current status of border issues, and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.

Regarding Section 7 of the draft letter to the County regarding the proposed South Coast County Golf Course, Councilman Gardiner and Mayor McTaggart suggested that the language be strengthened to increase control of fugitive dust.

In reply to Councilman Gardiner’s inquiry about progress by the project’s environmental consultant, City Manager replied that preliminary work conducted by the consultant has been submitted.

City Attorney Lynch added that the main Torrance Library was the repository of all environmental documents and comments submitted.

In response to a question from Mayor pro tem Stern, City Manager Evans replied that information will be submitted to the Council at its meeting on April 2.

Councilman Clark raised the issue of relocation of the existing equestrian center on the property and possible environmental impact to Rancho Palos Verdes.

Mayor McTaggart agreed there were potential NPDES problems and that the horses should remain at that site.

Council consensus was to direct staff to revise the draft comment letter on the South Coast County Golf Course EIR by strengthening the sections regarding fugitive dust and the relocation of the Rolling Hills Estates equestrian center and incorporating the comments of the City's environmental consultant and the City Attorney.

Western Avenue Boundary Issues (1203 x 310)

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of March 11, 2002 and the recommendation to receive and file, and provide direction to staff.

Senior Planner referred to an exhibit on the wall which illustrated the boundary along Western Avenue.

Mayor McTaggart speculated that the areas on which the RPV business signs are in Los Angeles would be less than a square mile and too small to annex and this would be merely a boundary issue.

Senior Planner indicated that the area was about one-half acre.

Raising another type of border issue, Councilman Clark reported that he had been approached by an RPV resident who lives on Rue Le Charlene and his is the only home which is in RPV; the other three on the street are in the City of Los Angeles.

Mayor pro tem Stern discussed three boundary issues mentioned in the staff report. He felt that the signs for RPV businesses which have signs in the City of Los Angeles should be relatively simple to correct, made sense and there had been previous attempts in 1985-1986 to make this adjustment. He stated that the boundary issue with the Terraces condominiums was more difficult since there could be property tax implications and possibly money due RPV. He wondered if the boundary should be adjusted to make this development entirely in Los Angeles since that city issued the building permits and the structures were built under the L.A. City code regulations.

City Manager said that the property tax issue could be researched.

In reference to the boundary running down the center of Western Avenue or not, he felt that more information – the pros and cons of the choices - and how CalTrans was involved. If he felt if all things were equal, the border should run down the middle of Western Avenue.

City Manager Evans said that CalTrans has jurisdiction over the roadway itself and is responsible for maintaining the paved surface, but the cities maintain the sidewalks and landscaping.

City Manager Evans then suggested that Councilwoman Hahn’s office be informally approached to determine the contact person within the City of Los Angeles with whom to negotiate these boundary issues.

Council consensus was to direct staff to bring back an analysis of the pros and cons of each of the three possible boundary adjustments, and to contact LA Councilmember Hahn's office to begin a dialogue regarding these possible adjustments.

Peninsula-Wide Issues Committee (1101 x 310)

Mayor McTaggart presented the staff report of March 11, 2002 and the recommendation to 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.

Mayor McTaggart indicated that the Mayor and Mayor pro tem of Rolling Hills Estates were interested in meeting regularly but the other cities declined.

City Manager Evans stated that he received a call from the Rolling Hills Estates City Manager that afternoon and he reported that the majority of the City Council decided not to participate. City Manager Evans suggested that possibly the School District might be interested.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern expressed his disappointment because he felt many issues impacted neighboring cities and suggested that if the School District wanted to join Rancho Palos Verdes, possibly other Peninsula entities would follow.

Mayor McTaggart explained that the Mayors of Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills felt that the monthly Mayor’s Luncheon served the purpose of discussing peninsula-wide issues but that the representative from the School District seemed interested.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern felt that a more formal structure would be more productive.

Councilman Clark agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Stern and said he had hoped to see two representatives from each Peninsula city attend a formal meeting and he wondered if the residents of those cities might not question why their City Councils did not want to join with Rancho Palos Verdes. He thought the body should be established and hoped that others would become interested.

Mayor McTaggart thought it would be appropriate to approach L.A. Councilwoman Janice Hahn to participate since there were issues between Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Los Angeles.

Councilman Gardiner wondered if the meetings could be combined with the PV Transit meetings which were attended by representatives from the four Peninsula cities.

City Attorney Lynch thought the two groups should remain separate.

Councilman Gardiner noted that Rancho Palos Verdes has a 7-member Traffic Committee and only one of the other cities had such a committee and it consisted of one staff member.

Mayor McTaggart felt the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council should make its presence known when a border issue affects its residents and let the other cities know that representatives would attend hearings and be involved with EIR’s.

Councilman Clark agreed it was important to send a positive message that Rancho Palos Verdes would be proactive in working through issues which affect the entire Peninsula.

Councilman Gardiner noted that youth sports were handled on a Peninsula-wide basis.

Councilman Clark commented that the other cities have expressed an interest in the Long Point project.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved to form a Peninsula-Wide Committee and that Rancho Palos Verdes would be represented by Councilman Gardiner and Councilman Clark.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that it might be more appropriate for the committee to consist of the Mayor and Mayor pro tem.

Mayor McTaggart agreed that maybe one of the members could be the Mayor or Mayor pro tem.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern amended his motion to form the Peninsula-Wide Committee with the Mayor and Mayor pro tem serving as Rancho Palos Verdes’ representatives and invite other cities to participate, including the City of Los Angeles through Councilwoman Janice Hahn’s office.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that a letter be written to the School Board and to Councilwoman Hahn.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern suggested that the Library be invited also.

City Manager Evans said that the letter would be sent and he asked what the next step would be if they did not want to participate.

Councilman Clark felt it was appropriate to establish the committee at this time and wait until later to set a date for the first meeting until there has been time for a response.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern felt that staff should give some thought to ideas which might be on the first agenda.

City Manager Evans suggested that, in order to be fair to each entity, the responsibility for hosting the meeting and preparing the agenda should rotate.

Councilman Clark said that this should not be viewed as a Rancho Palos Verdes dominated body.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern hoped this was not the perception when it is really an effort to work cooperatively.

Councilman Gardiner seconded the motion. The motion carried.

Roof Repair for City-Owned Buildings (1204)

Director Allison presented the staff report of March 11, 2002 and the recommendation to

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

Director Allison added that there are seven buildings, not six as indicated in the staff report.

Councilman Clark asked why roof repair was not budgeted and asked the method of estimating $20,000 per year.

Director Allison said that the program for maintaining City structures has been more reactive and that the $20,000 per year was an estimate without inventory. The inventory has indicated that repairs are now critical.

Councilman Clark wondered if it made sense to do extensive repairs or replacement to the City Hall roof with the possibility of a new City Hall in the future.

Director Allison replied that money would be budgeted but no decision made until engineering plans are requested and that possibly by that time more information will be available about the master plan for City Hall.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt that a reactive approach to these types of repairs was troublesome and hope that there could be more anticipation of large expense such as these.

City Manager Evans said that the goal was planning ahead but sometimes there were circumstances which complicated that planning and said that money has been set aside for building replacement. He indicated that the City Hall roof had been leaking for some time but there was always a reason to put off repairs, such as that possibly a new City Hall might be built. He indicated that stopping the leaks at City Hall had become more critical because of expensive computer equipment which is housed there and he expected that a new roof would be needed before a new City Hall would be built.

Councilman Gardiner stated that this agenda item indicates a move toward being proactive and that he was in favor of moving forward and he felt it was also important to discuss the issue of a future City Hall complex.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern, to accept staff recommendation. Motion carried.

City Council Rules of Procedure (1101 x 306)

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of March 11, 2002 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution amending rule 8.2 of the City Council Rules Of Procedure regarding the acceptance of public testimony.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-19, 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. Motion carried.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

City Attorney Lynch reported that regarding the purchase of open space, the Council took no action but gave direction about price and terms of payment for purchase agreements that are being negotiated. Regarding the Kay lawsuit, the Council took no action.  Regarding the Abrams lawsuit, the Council took no action, and though the issue did not come up in the Closed Session, City Attorney Lynch indicated that the Council might wish to clarify publicly for concerned residents that the the City Council has not yet decided whether to appeal the District Court's decision. Regarding the Chandler 's case, the Council gave direction to provide one last counter offer to Chandler’s


CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

Councilman Clark reported on a meeting he and Mayor McTaggart had with representatives from JCC Homes and California Water Service during which those representatives described revisions to their project. Councilman Clark stated that he and Mayor McTaggart suggested that they seek input from the residents near the proposed project regarding the revisions so that they have time to make changes based on this input before it comes back to the Council on April 2.

Mayor McTaggart echoed Councilman Clark’s comments and emphasized that he and Councilman Clark did not indicate whether or not they would support the project but they did request that they provide engineering data regarding the water tank.

Councilman Clark also described the South Bay Council of Government (COG Third Annual General Assembly that he and Mayor McTaggart attended on February 28. He said that the focus was on Livable Communities in the South Bay; that the program was excellent; and that the meeting was attended by Planning Commissioners Jon Cartwright and Tom Long and Planning Director Joel Rojas and one of his new planners. He learned at the meeting that it is expected that the South Bay will have double the population of Chicago by 2020.

Councilman Gardiner asked the definition of the South Bay and Mayor McTaggart said it was from Inglewood to Long beach.

Councilman Clark added that Rick Cole, Azusa City Manager, moderated the discussion and that useful information was provided to help cities in the South Bay maintain the quality of life and Planning Director Joel Rojas gave a report on the City’s efforts to expand open space with the acquisition of land for the Portuguese Bend Reserve.

Councilman Clark reported his attendance at a Coastal Commission with Planning Department staff at which an Ocean Trails amendment was approved, providing a lot line adjustment.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern stated that he attended a League of California Cities the following Thursday night and the speaker was Dallas Jones, from the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. Mr., Jones stressed the importance of cities being prepared; provided an update on the State’s activities; and described the critical need for cooperation between agencies. Mayor Pro Tem Stern stated that Rancho Palos Verdes is one of the first cities to be proactive on a local level.

Councilwoman Ferraro described the West Basin Water meeting she attended at which a presentation was given on the construction of Hollywood reservoir with one of the key elements being security.

Mayor McTaggart reported that he and Senior Administrative Analyst Gina Park had attended a training session on aircraft noise data retrieval for a tracking system about to come on line.

Mayor McTaggart also mentioned that there was a brochure for housing compliance in the Council office at City Hall and reminded the Council that Rancho Palos Verdes has an approved housing element when many cities do not. He said that the challenge was keeping current on information regarding requirements.

Mayor McTaggart said he attended a Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) meeting at which the topic of livable communities was discussed and he made reference to the city’s goal to preserve as much open space as possible and that the most serious density problem facing the South Bay was the proposed expansion of LAX.


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 10:14 P.M. on motion of Mayor Pro Tem Stern in memory of those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.



___________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________
CITY CLERK






3. Ordinance No. 375 - Modification of Rule of Procedure 3.2 to Eliminate Rescheduling of Meetings on Election Dates other than City Election Dates. (Purcell)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 375 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULAR MEETING DAYS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE. (This ordinance was introduced at the March 19th Meeting.)

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 375 – ESTABLISHING REGULAR MEETING DAYS

RECOMMENDATION

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 375 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULAR MEETING DAYS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

BACKGROUND

Ordinance No. 375 (Exhibit "A") was introduced at the March 19th meeting and can now be adopted by the City Council. This ordinance changes the Municipal Code to require that "only when a Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Election is conducted in the City on the first or third Tuesday of the month shall the City Council meeting be held on the next succeeding day which is not a holiday." Previously, whenever a statewide primary, gubernatorial, or a presidential election occurred on a first or third Tuesday of the month, Council meetings would be carried over to the next day that was not a holiday. In some years, this resulted in changing the Council’s meeting schedule twice during the calendar year.

The proposed change was prompted by Councilman Stern’s memorandum expressing concern for the disruption that rescheduled meetings caused for both the public and

CONCLUSION

This ordinance will change the Municipal Code by allowing the City Council to hold council meetings on elections days that are not City election days.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager


ORDINANCE NO. 375

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULAR MEETING DAYS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE

WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined that changing the meeting dates of City Council meetings in response to elections other than City elections is disruptive to the conduct and scheduling of City business; and

WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous of keeping the schedule of City Council meetings as undisturbed as possible;

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby ordains as follows:

Section 1. Title 2, Chapter 2.04, Section 2.04.020, Paragraph "A" of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is amended to read:

A.Only when a Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal election is conducted in the City on the first or third Tuesday of the month, shall the City Council meeting be held on the next succeeding day which is not a holiday."

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on April 2, 2002.


____________________
Mayor

Attest:


______________________
City Clerk

EXHIBIT "A"



4. Acceptance of Maintenance for a portion of the public improvements at Tract No. 46628 (Oceanfront Estates). (Still)

Recommendation: (1) Accept for maintenance the public trails, fencing, landscape, hardscape, and parking lot for Tract 46628 as depicted in the exhibit. (2) Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute a change order in the amount of $17,400 with Bemus Landscaping.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF MAINTENANCE FOR A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT TRACT 46628

Staff Coordinator: Larry Still, Maintenance Superintendent

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Accept for maintenance the public trails, fencing, landscape, hardscape, and parking lot for Tract 46628 as depicted in the attached exhibit.

  2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute a change order in the amount of $17,400 with Bemus Landscaping.

DISCUSSION

As a part of the development of Tract 46628, a development agreement was negotiated between the City and the developer, Capital Pacific Holdings (CPH). One aspect of that agreement is that upon construction of the public improvements by the developer, the City will assume maintenance responsibility. Under the terms of the agreement City maintenance costs will be funded by the developer through the payment of $750,000 to establish a maintenance fund. Maintenance costs will then be funded with the fund’s interest earnings.

A number of the public improvements have been constructed and the developer has made the $750,000 payment. The developer is requesting that the City assume maintenance responsibility for several of the improvements. The City has inspected the improvements and found them to be constructed in accordance with the project specifications.

The public improvements that are included will be constructed as part of the development and their status is as follows:

Item

Status

Comment

Slant drain and outlet structure

Completed

Will be accepted for maintenance by City when the remaining storm drain system is accepted by the County

Trail, landscaping, and irrigation along Palos Verdes Drive West

Completed

Recommended for acceptance of maintenance at this time

Internal trails, fencing, landscaping and irrigation

Completed

Recommended for acceptance of maintenance at this time

Four habitat restoration areas

Not completed

Will be accepted at a later date

Scenic Turnout and associated landscaping and irrigation

Completed

Recommended for acceptance of maintenance at this time

Paving blocks within the street at four locations

Not Completed

Will be accepted at a later date

This staff report formally accepts for maintenance those improvements depicted on attached Exhibit A.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

Staff could not identify any alternative actions according to the agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT

Funding is available in the adopted FY 2001 – 02 budget. Staff estimates the annual cost for maintenance of the public improvements currently being accepted at $17,400. The FY 2001 – 02 budget estimates that the fund will generate a total of $39,200 in interest earnings.

There are additional public improvements that will ultimately be accepted for maintenance and funded from maintenance fund. Staff estimates that the total costs for all public improvements will be slightly less than the fund’s interest earnings.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager



5. Parkland Dedication Fees for Final Parcel Map No. 26047. (Applicant: Robert M. Patterson). (Yu)

Recommendation: Approve parkland dedication (Quimby) fees for Final Parcel Map No. 26047 pursuant to the City’s parkland dedication fee formula in the amount of $8,653.63.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES FOR FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 26047 (Address: 27965 Palos Verdes Drive East; Applicant: Robert M. Patterson)

Staff Coordinator:Beilin Yu, Assistant Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the acceptance of parkland dedication (Quimby) fees for Final Parcel Map No. 26047, pursuant to the City’s parkland dedication fee formula, in the amount of $8,653.63.

BACKGROUND

On November 14, 2001, the applicant, Robert M. Patterson, submitted Final Parcel Map No. 26047 to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for approval. As part of the Conditions of Approval of the final map, the applicant must pay the parkland dedication (Quimby) fees prior to approval of the final map (see attached Condition No. 20 of Resolution No. 2001-17). Pursuant to the City’s Development Code, the parkland dedication fee shall be determined pursuant to a set fee formula and accepted by the City Council.

SITE PROJECT AND DESCRIPTION

On August 16, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2001-17, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 26047 to allow a two-lot subdivision subject to conditions of approval. The applicant’s approval allows a 60,768 square foot lot located at 27965 Palos Verdes Drive East to be split into two lots. Lot 1 will be 38,828 square feet and Lot 2 will be 21,780 square feet. Since the subject lot is developed with a single-family residence, only Lot 2 (the new undeveloped lot) is subject to the parkland dedication fee.

CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Chapter 16.20.100 of the City’s Municipal Code (see attachment), as a condition of approval of a tentative tract or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes. However, if there is no park or recreational facility designated in the General Plan to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall in lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of land dedication, the amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required to be dedicated. The fair market value of land shall be determined by the City Council using one of four alternative methods. These methods are: 1) the assessed market valuation established by the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor, if the land has been assessed within the last calendar year; 2) the sale price of land if sold within the last five years plus the inflation rate and any contingencies at the time of sale; 3) the sale of comparable properties within the last year; or 4) a land appraisal prepared by a member of the appraisal institute.

The applicant submitted an appraisal to determine the "fair market value" of the property. According to the appraisal submitted by the applicant, the 21,780 square foot vacant lot has a fair market value of $309,000.00. Using this appraisal, Staff calculated the per acre value of the property as $617,999.96 per acre. Based upon the fair market value, the calculation for the Quimby park fee is as follows:

Market Value of the Subject Property (per acre) $617,999.96 /acre
multiplied by: Parkland Dedication requirement* 0.0140 acre per dwelling unit

multiplied by: Number of dwelling units:

1 dwelling unit
equals: $8,652.00

*Pursuant to the Section 16.20.100(D) of the Development Code, the City's Parkland Dedication requirement is .0140 for subdivisions having a density of less than 6.1 dwelling units/acre.

As a result, Staff recommends that the total amount of $8,652.00 be paid in lieu of land dedication since Staff believes that the dedication of 0.014 acres of land in this area is not feasible for the applicant or the City, and such a dedication would not serve any realistic recreational purpose in that the General Plan does not designate a park or recreational facility in whole or in part in this area. Furthermore, Section 16.20.100(G)(5) of the Municipal Code states that only payment of fees shall be required in subdivisions containing fifty (50) parcels or less. Staff consulted with the applicant regarding the fee and he indicated that he will pay it prior to final map recordation.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the above discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the parkland dedication (Quimby) fee of $8,652.00

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternative is available to the City Council:

1. Identify any issues or concerns with the proposed calculation, provide Staff and/or applicant with directions in using an alternate method in determining the "fair market value", and continue this item to a future agenda.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

  • Chapter 16.20.100 of the RPV Municipal Code
  • Resolution No. 2001-17
  • Land Appraisal Document



6. February 2002 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 2002 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the February 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 February 2002.

ANALYSIS:

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $26,027,510 at February 28, 2002. This represents an $80,025 increase during the month. The overall increase is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

Gas Tax Fund – Fund cash decreased by over $150,000 during the month of February. The January apportionment of Gas Tax was received in January; therefore, no apportionment was received in February. Disbursements of $154,244 were primarily comprised of $14,785 to PCI, Ltd. for pavement marking, $15,174 to California Water Service, $29,435 to Hardy & Harper for PVDS road maintenance, and $31,171 to West Coast Arborists for Millennium tree planting and monthly services.

Proposition A Fund – Cash in this fund increased by over $88,000 during February. Apportionments of Proposition A sales tax for both January and February were received during the month. Expenditures were immaterial and limited to maintenance and printing.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



7. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARINGS:



8. Reconsideration of the Decision on the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 (Appellant: Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive). (Fox) (Continued from March 25, 2002 meeting.)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED PURSUANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 720. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION ON THE APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207 [APPELLANT: MARK ABRAMS, 44 OCEANAIRE DRIVE]

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2002-__, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 720; and adopt Resolution No. 2002-__, conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 207.

BACKGROUND

On March 25, 2002, the City Council heard additional testimony from the appellant and other interested parties regarding the conditions of approval for this project. Staff has revised the attached Resolutions to reflect the City Council’s most recent direction, based on the concerns that were raised. In particular, Mr. Abrams raised concerns about one of the additional trees that will be located in his rear yard that would impact his patio and barbeque. Although Mr. Abrams would not allow Staff to visit his property, Staff did visit the neighboring property to the east and, as discussed in greater detail below, has revised the placement of the tree so that it will not interfere with the patio and barbeque.

DISCUSSION

The following conditions have been revised in accordance with the City Council’s direction at the March 25, 2002 meeting (additions underlined and deletions struck out):

8. At all times, the applicant shall maintain the color of the entirety of the antenna tower and all of the antennae and radiating elements located thereon, in a neutral color, such as gray, gray-green or gray-blue, that will blend with the background foliage and the sky, to the satisfaction of the Director. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City’s final action on this permit, the applicant shall paint the white or lighter colored portions of the antenna support structure and array in a neutral color—such as gray, gray-green or gray-blue—that will blend with the background foliage and sky and the gray color of the existing antenna tower that has been approved by the Director. The applicant shall maintain the current gray color of the existing antenna tower, and provide the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement with a selection of possible colors for approval prior to the painting of any portion of the antenna support structure and array. At the Director’s discretion, any portion of the antenna array may be left unpainted if, in its unpainted state, it conforms to the intent of this condition and substantially matches the existing gray color of the antenna support structure. The applicant shall be continuously responsible for maintaining the antenna support structure and array in the approved color. In addition, the Director reserves the right to require the applicant to paint additional portions of the antenna support structure and array at any time that the Director finds that additional painting of some elements of the antenna support structure and array is necessary to further reduce the aesthetic impacts of the antenna tower and the radiating elements and antennae located thereon.

11. Except in case of emergency, regular maintenance of the commercial antennae and related exterior support equipment and structures shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Maintenance of the non-commercial antennae and related exterior support equipment and structures may occur during the weekday hours specified above, and between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM on Saturdays.

18. The antenna tower authorized by this approval shall not be used for any purpose other than to transmit and receive approved radio frequencies, in compliance with FCC regulations only be used as an antenna support structure and for no other purposes.

19. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this approval, and annually thereafter, the applicant shall provide to the City a listing by FCC call sign of all personal wireless facilities, as defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 332, that are using this site and all other radio facilities or frequencies that are licensed by the FCC to this site. In addition, within thirty (30) days of this approval, and annually thereafter, the applicant also shall provide to the City documentation demonstrating that the site is being operated in accordance with FCC emission requirements and limits, considering all facilities that are licensed by the FCC to operate at the site or that use the site pursuant to an amateur radio operator's license.

At the March 25, 2002 meeting, the City Council directed Staff to further explore the screening options for the antenna tower. Although Staff was not permitted to enter Abrams’ property, Staff was able to view the rear yard area from the adjacent Newton property at 46 Oceanaire Drive. Staff also re-evaluated the views of the site from Oceanaire Drive and the undeveloped Eick property at 6 Coveview Drive. Mr. Abrams has planted several large shrubs along the property line abutting the Newton property that will eventually provide some screening of the tower for the Newtons, which is most visible from the pool area behind their garage. The addition of another tree to the north of the antenna tower will provide further visual screening of the tower for the Newtons, as well as for the Eicks and other residents on Coveview Drive. Therefore, Staff continues to recommend requiring one 24-inch-box evergreen tree to be planted to the north of the tower.

At the March 25, 2002 meeting, Mr. Abrams also expressed concern about the possibility of the existing or proposed trees damaging his house, the antenna tower or other structures on his or an adjacent property. To address this concern, the City Council agreed to include provisions in this condition allowing the trimming of the trees to maintain safe clearance from the antenna tower and other structures, while still maintaining visual screening of the tower to the Director’s satisfaction.

Mr. Abrams also stated on March 25, 2002 that the proposal for a second tree to the southwest of the antenna tower would interfere with his pool, barbecue and patio areas. However, Mr. Abrams stated that there is a grass area behind the garage that is used by his dogs. Staff had originally suggested placing the second tree close to the antenna tower so that it would provide screening from a wider field of view, particularly from Oceanaire Drive approaching the property from the west. However, given the likely impacts to the existing hardscape improvements in Mr. Abrams’ yard, Staff suggests relocating the second tree to the grass area behind the garage. Staff believes that this will provide additional screening of the tower from Oceanaire Drive that could be nearly equivalent to that provided by a second story addition to the house above the garage, as suggested by Mr. Abrams at the March 25, 2002 meeting, but without the degree of interference that could be caused by a second story addition. Staff also noted that Mr. Abrams has planted several trees in the front yard of his home that may eventually provide additional screening of the antenna tower.

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends revising Condition No. 10 as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck out):

  1. The existing tree in the rear yard of the subject property, as depicted in photographs of the property taken on March 18, 2002 and kept in the City’s files, provides screening for the existing antenna tower. This tree shall be generally maintained by the applicant Within ninety (90) days of this approval, the applicant shall meet with the Director to obtain approval by the Director to trim only those portions of the tree that could damage the antenna tower and the roof of the residence while still maintaining an appropriate level of visual screening of the tower. Following the trimming, the tree shall be photographed by Staff, and the applicant shall maintain the tree in a manner consistent with the post-trimming photographs and to the Director’s satisfaction, in size and fullness so as to continue to provide a similar degree of screening for the antenna tower. In the event that this tree dies or is felled by an act of God or any other intentional or unintentional act, it must be replaced by another tree of an evergreen variety that is at least a twenty-four-inch (24") box size tree. In addition, the applicant shall plant two (2) additional 24-inch-box evergreen trees to the immediate north and southwest of the antenna tower in the rear yard of the property. One tree shall be planted in the lawn area to the north of the existing antenna tower, and the other tree shall be planted in the lawn area behind the garage, based upon the April 24, 2000 site plan in the City’s files. These additional trees must be allowed to grow to a sufficient height to screen the antenna tower, but all of the trees specified in this condition may be trimmed by the applicant so as to maintain at least four feet (4’) clearance from the antenna tower or the antennae themselves. The trees may be trimmed as necessary as well as to protect other structures on the subject property and adjacent properties while still maintaining visual screening of the antenna tower, to the satisfaction of the Director. The applicant shall also allow the existing shrubs along the easterly property line and the trees in the front yard to grow to a height that will screen the tower and be maintained at that height, as determined by, and to the satisfaction of, the Director.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On March 26, 2002, Mr. Abrams submitted a written request for copies of previous correspondence regarding the City’s determination that this application did not qualify for a categorical exemption from CEQA. Staff provided Mr. Abrams with a copy of a March 8, 2000 letter. Copies of Mr. Abrams request and the City’s letter are attached.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing discussion and the order of the United States District Court in the case of Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-__, thereby adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. 2002-__, thereby conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 207.

ALTERNATIVES

In order to comply with the Court’s order, the City Council must adopt a Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 207 at tonight’s meeting. Any further changes to the conditions of approval should be read into the record for inclusion in the final Resolution.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Resolution No. 2002-__ (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No. 2002-__ (CUP)

Request from Mr. Abrams and Staff response


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THUS MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS IN ASSOCIATION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 720 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207 TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE OF EXISTING ANTENNAE ON AN EXISTING ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE, LOCATED AT 44 OCEANAIRE DRIVE IN THE DEL CERRO NEIGHBORHOOD

WHEREAS, on July 12, 1999, September 30, 1999, and January 21, 2000, Mr. Abrams submitted applications and supplemental information for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and Environmental Assessment No. 720 to allow the commercial use of certain of the existing antennae on the existing antenna support structure on his property in the Del Cerro neighborhood; and,

WHEREAS, on January 31, 2000, the applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and Environmental Assessment No. 720 were deemed complete by Staff; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 could result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment unless mitigation measures were imposed and, therefore, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2000, and May 9, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, on May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2000-12, thereby denying the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 with prejudice; and,

WHEREAS, on May 10, 2000, within the 15-day appeal period prescribed by Section 17.80.070 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, Mr. Abrams appealed the Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 to the City Council; and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2000, and July 5, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, after the public hearing was closed on July 5, 2000, the applicant objected to some of the information that had been submitted to the City Council during the public hearing and also sought to present additional information to the City Council, even though the public hearing already had been closed; and,

WHEREAS, in order to address Mr. Abrams’ concerns, on July 18, 2000, the City Council directed staff to re-notice the public hearing so that it could be re-opened and any additional information that is relevant to the application could be considered by the City Council prior to making a decision on the application; and,

WHEREAS, the re-opened public hearing was held on August 15, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence that had not been presented previously to the City Council; and,

WHEREAS, on August 15, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-53, thereby denying the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 with prejudice; and,

WHEREAS, on August 24, 2000, Mr. Abrams filed suit against the City in Federal court in order to overturn the City’s action on the grounds that it violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and,

WHEREAS, on January 9, 2002, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled in the case of Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes and vacated the City’s denial of Mr. Abrams’ application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207; and,

WHEREAS, on February 25, 2002, the United States District Court for the Central District of California subsequently denied Mr. Abrams’ petition for damages in the case of Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes and ordered the City to issue Conditional Use Permit No. 207 without requiring Mr. Abrams to modify the size, height, location or configuration of the existing antennae support structure and array; and,

WHEREAS, the City revised the Mitigated Negative Declaration originally prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 720 to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce the aesthetic impacts of the existing antenna support structure and array to the extent feasible, in accordance with the Court’s order and in compliance with the provisions of CEQA; and

WHEREAS, on March 18, 2002, the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered its judgment in the case of Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes, ordering the City to issue Conditional Use Permit No. 207 by April 2, 2002 and allowing the imposition of reasonable conditions that are consistent with the Court’s order of January 9, 2002; and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2002, March 25, 2002 and April 2, 2002 to reconsider Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and Environmental Assessment No. 720, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence

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

Section 1: The subject application would permit the conversion of an existing 52½-foot-tall antenna support structure and array from amateur use only to both amateur and commercial use. There will be no change in the number or type of antennae or the height, location or configuration of the antenna tower. The subject property is currently improved with a single-family residence. The City Council finds that the proposed project is permitted within the RS-2 zoning district—provided that a conditional use permit is issued—and that the commercial use of the existing antennae and support structure would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. In making this finding, the City Council considered the project's mitigation measures, which address the issues of Aesthetics and Cumulative Impacts.

Section 2: With respect to aesthetics, the City’s Development Code and Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines require antenna towers to be screened—to the maximum extent feasible—in order to reduce their visual impacts upon surrounding properties. In previous approvals for commercial antennae in the City, this screening has usually been accomplished by requiring antennae and antenna towers to be painted to blend into the background and/or by planting screening foliage. Although the existing antenna support structure and array does not significant impair the protected view from and surrounding residences, the aesthetic impacts of the structure also include its negative visual impacts upon the general scenic character of the neighborhood. These impacts are related to the height of the existing tower and antenna array as compared to other features in the neighborhood. The 52½-foot-tall tower is much taller than all the residences in the immediate area, and many of the lighter-colored elements of the structure stand out visually against the background sky and foliage. As a result of the recent court decision in the case of Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes, the City cannot require the existing antenna support structure and array to be modified in any way that reduces the number, size or height of the existing antennae or the tower itself. However, changing the color of the existing antenna support structure and array to a more uniform neutral color would help it to blend into the background sky and foliage. Prohibiting any lighting on the antenna tower will also reduce adverse visual impacts. There is also a large tree adjacent to the antenna tower that helps to screen and camouflage the tower, which should be retained and maintained in a manner to continue to provide this level of screening. In addition, two (2) more trees are required to be planted for screening purposes. As such, the City Council finds that imposition of mitigation measures regarding the color of the tower and the retention of existing screening foliage will reduce the aesthetic impacts of the project to less-than-significant levels.

Section 3: With respect to cumulative impacts, the proposed project does not include any physical modification or alteration of the existing, developed site. The direct environmental impacts of the project are limited to the effects related to the operation and maintenance of the commercial antennae, but these effects are expected to be less than significant. However, the indirect aesthetic impacts of the project are potentially cumulatively considerable. Although there are no similar projects existing or currently proposed on other properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the topography and geographic orientation of the neighborhood make it a desirable site for both amateur and commercial radio use. It is possible that a similar tower for either commercial or amateur use could be proposed on a nearby site at some future date. In order to address the potential for future cumulative impacts of this project, any future modifications to the existing antenna support structure and array that involve additional antennae or changes in the height or configuration of the antenna tower should require the approval of revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 207 by the City. As such, the City Council finds that imposition of a mitigation measure regarding future modifications of the existing antennae support structure and array will reduce the cumulative impacts of the project to less-than-significant levels.

Section 4: For reasons discussed in the Initial Study, which is incorporated herein by reference, the project will not have any potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals, nor would the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Section 5: The applicant has consulted the lists prepared pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and has submitted a signed statement indicating whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included on any such list, and has specified any such list. The Lead Agency has consulted the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, and has certified that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not included in these lists of known Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites as compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Section 6: The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached hereto as Exhibit ’A’, are incorporated into the scope of the proposed project. These measures will reduce potential significant impacts identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level.

Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on its independent review and evaluation of the information and findings contained in the Initial Study, Staff Reports, minutes, and records of the proceedings, the City Council has determined that the project as conditioned and mitigated will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment and, therefore, adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration making certain environmental findings in association with Environmental Assessment No. 720 and Conditional Use Permit No. 207 to allow the proposed commercial use of existing antennae on an existing antenna support structure, located at 44 Oceanaire Drive in the Del Cerro neighborhood.

Section 8: The City Council is adopting this Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject commercial use at this specific location in order to comply with the order of the United States District Court issued on January 9, 2002 and March 18, 2002. If that order is reversed, the City Council hereby reserves the right to vacate this Resolution and decision and reinstate its prior decision denying the conditional use permit or, in the alternative, to reopen the hearing to consider adopting additional mitigation measures to further reduce the environmental impacts of the project, including but not limited to the reduction in the height and bulk of the existing antenna support structure and array.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of April 2002, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:


_______________________
John McTaggart, Mayor

ATTEST:


____________________
Jo Purcell, City Clerk

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

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002-____ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 2, 2002.


_________________________________

City Clerk


Exhibit ‘A’

Mitigation Monitoring Program

Project: Environmental Assessment No. 720 for Conditional Use Permit 207

Location: 44 Oceanaire Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

Applicant/ Landowner: Mark Abrams


TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. Introduction
  2. Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program
    1. Roles and Responsibilities
    2. Mitigation and Monitoring Program Procedures
    3. Mitigation Monitoring Operations

  3. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist
  4. IV.Mitigation Monitoring Summary Table

I. INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE

This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), to allow the conversion of an existing, 52½-foot-tall antenna support structure and array from amateur use only to both amateur and commercial use, located at 44 Oceanaire Drive in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, responds to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Section 21081.6 requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is acting as lead agency for the project.

An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate, this environmental document recommended mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid impacts identified. Consistent with Section 21080 (2)(c) of the Public Resources Code, a mitigation reporting or monitoring program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City are implemented. The City will adopt this MMP when adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES

This MMP has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). This MMP complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for implementation of CEQA.

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code states: "When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21081, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program."

II. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The MMP for the project will be in place through all phases of the project including final design, pre-grading, construction, and operation. The City will have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures.

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES

The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consists of filing requirements and compliance verification. The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist and procedures for its use are outlined below.

Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist

The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist includes: the implementing action when the mitigation measure will occur; the method of verification of compliance; the timing of verification; the department or agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures; and compliance verification. Section III provides the MMP Checklist.

Mitigation Monitoring Program Files

Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.

Compliance Verification

The MMP Checklist shall be signed when compliance of the mitigation measure is met according to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. The compliance verification section of the MMP Checklist shall be signed, for mitigation measures requiring ongoing monitoring, and when the monitoring of a mitigation measure is completed.

MITIGATION MONITORING OPERATIONS

The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each mitigation measure:

1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement shall designate a party responsible for monitoring of the mitigation measures.

2. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement shall provide to the party responsible for the monitoring of a given mitigation measure, a copy of the MMP Checklist indicating the mitigation measures for which the person is responsible and other pertinent information.

3. The party responsible for monitoring shall then verify compliance and sign the Compliance Verification column of the MMP Checklist for the appropriate mitigation measures.

Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MMP Checklist. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement with advice from Staff or another City department, is responsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed.  If mitigation measures are refined, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement would document the change and shall notify the appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel about refined requirements.

III. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST

INTRODUCTION

This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on May 8, 2001. Mitigation measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the Initial Study.

* Types of measures are project design, construction, operational, or cumulative.

* Time of Implementation indicates when the measure is to be implemented.

* Responsible Entity indicates who is responsible for implementation.

* Compliance Verification provides space for future reference and notation that compliance has been monitored, verified, and is consistent with these mitigation measures.

MITIGATION MEASURES

TYPE

TIME OF

IMPLEMENTATION

RESPONSIBLE

ENTITY

COMPLIANCE

VERIFICATION

AESTHETICS

1. At all times, the applicant shall maintain the color of the entirety of the antenna tower and all of the antennae and radiating elements located thereon, in a neutral color, such as gray, gray-green or gray-blue, that will blend with the background foliage and the sky, to the satisfaction of the Director. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City’s final action on this permit, the applicant shall paint the white or lighter colored portions of the antenna support structure and array in a neutral color that has been approved by the Director. The applicant shall provide the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement with a selection of possible colors for approval prior to the painting of any portion of the antenna support structure and array. At the Director’s discretion, any portion of the antenna array may be left unpainted if, in its unpainted state, it conforms to the intent of this condition and substantially matches the existing gray color of the antenna support structure. In addition, the Director reserves the right to require the applicant to paint additional portions of the antenna support structure and array at any time that the Director finds that additional painting of some elements of the antenna support structure and array is necessary to further reduce the aesthetic impacts of the antenna tower and the radiating elements and antennae located thereon.

Project Design/
Operational

Within ninety (90) days after approval by the City

Applicant/Developer

 

2. The existing tree in the rear yard of the subject property, as depicted in photographs of the property taken on March 18, 2002 and kept in the City’s files, provides screening for the existing antenna tower. Within ninety (90) days of this approval, the applicant shall meet with the Director to obtain approval by the Director to trim only those portions of the tree that could damage the antenna tower and the roof of the residence while still maintaining an appropriate level of visual screening of the tower. Following the trimming, the tree shall be photographed by Staff, and the applicant shall maintain the tree, to the Director’s satisfaction, in size and fullness so as to continue to provide a similar degree of screening for the antenna tower. In the event that this tree dies or is felled by an act of God or any other intentional or unintentional act, it must be replaced by another tree of an evergreen variety that is at least a twenty-four-inch (24") box size tree. In addition, the applicant shall plant two (2) additional 24-inch-box evergreen in the rear yard of the property. One tree shall be planted in the lawn area to the north of the existing antenna tower, and the other tree shall be planted in the lawn area behind the garage, based upon the April 24, 2000 site plan in the City’s files. These additional trees must be allowed to grow to a sufficient height to screen the antenna tower. The trees may be trimmed as necessary to protect other structures on the subject property and adjacent properties while still maintaining visual screening of the antenna tower, to the satisfaction of the Director. The applicant shall also allow the existing shrubs along the easterly property line and the trees in the front yard to grow to a height that will screen the tower and be maintained at that height, as determined by, and to the satisfaction of, the Director.

Project Design/
Operational

Within ninety (90) days after approval by the City and on-going

Applicant/Developer

 

3. No lights may be placed upon the antenna tower, nor may it be otherwise illuminated in any manner. This condition shall not restrict the use of hand-held lighting, nor the use of temporary lighting during the performance of emergency repairs.

Project Design/
Operational

On-going

Applicant/Developer

 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

1. No additional antennae may be added to the existing antenna support structure without prior City approval of a revision to this conditional use permit. Existing antennae on the antenna support structure may be removed and replaced for maintenance and repair purposes, but the replacement antenna(e) must be the same size (or smaller), same height (or lower), same type and same location as the antenna(e) they are replacing.

Cumulative

Prior to any future modification of the existing antenna support structure and array

Applicant/Developer

 

 


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207, THEREBY APPROVING THE COMMERCIAL USE OF EXISTING ANTENNAE AND AN EXISTING ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE AND OTHER RELATED EQUIPMENT ON THE SITE OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 44 OCEANAIRE DRIVE IN THE DEL CERRO COMMUNITY

WHEREAS, on January 8, 1990, the applicant/appellant, Mark Abrams, received approval of an application for Site Plan Review No. 5322 to permit the construction of a 40-foot-tall amateur radio antenna support structure and array on his property at 44 Oceanaire Drive in the Del Cerro neighborhood, which could be used only for amateur radio communications and was conditioned expressly to exclude commercial operations; and,

WHEREAS, on January 19, 1998, Mr. Abrams received approval of an application for Site Plan Review No. 8017 to permit the construction of a second, similar amateur radio antenna support structure and array on the same property; and,

WHEREAS, on January 20, 1998, the City’s approval of Site Plan Review No. 8017 was appealed to the Planning Commission by Karyl Newton, the owner of the adjacent property at 46 Oceanaire Drive; and,

WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal of Site Plan Review No. 8017, Mr. Abrams admitted that there was at least one antenna on the existing support structure and array that was used for commercial purposes, and evidence was also presented to the Planning Commission which confirmed this commercial use and demonstrated that the existing antenna support structure and array was taller than forty feet (40’0"); and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s consideration of the appeal of Site Plan Review No. 8017 was continued to a date certain, and was subsequently tabled by the imposition of a moratorium on applications for second antenna support structures, and the application subsequently was voided by the enactment of revisions to the City’s antenna regulations; and,

WHEREAS, the City investigated the allegations regarding the height of the existing antenna support structure and array and found that Building Permit No. 9827 had been erroneously issued and finaled in 1990 to allow the antenna support structure and array to exceed the 40-foot height limit; and,

WHEREAS, the City obtained warrants from the court and retained an expert in the field of radio transmissions, Dr. Henry Richter, to monitor transmissions from the site in connection with an investigation of the allegations regarding commercial use of the existing antennae and found that the allegations were valid. Subsequently, on June 29, 1999, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted the City’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and on September 13, 1999, the court issued its written order, preventing Mr. Abrams from using the antennae for commercial purposes unless and until the City approved a conditional use permit for that use; and,

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

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

Under these provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the applicant, Mr. Abrams, was required to obtain a conditional use permit from the City to use his existing antennae and antenna support structure to broadcast on commercial frequencies, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"); and,

WHEREAS, on July 12, 1999, September 30, 1999, and January 21, 2000, Mr. Abrams submitted applications and supplemental information for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and Environmental Assessment No. 720 to allow the commercial use of certain of the existing antennae on the existing antenna support structure on his property in the Del Cerro neighborhood; and,

WHEREAS, on January 31, 2000, the applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and Environmental Assessment No. 720 were deemed complete by Staff; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 could result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment unless mitigation measures were imposed and, therefore, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and,

WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2000, and May 9, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, on May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2000-12, thereby denying the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 with prejudice; and,

WHEREAS, on May 10, 2000, within the 15-day appeal period prescribed by Section 17.80.070 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, Mr. Abrams appealed the Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 to the City Council; and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2000, and July 5, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, after the public hearing was closed on July 5, 2000, the applicant objected to some of the information that had been submitted to the City Council during the public hearing and also sought to present additional information to the City Council, even though the public hearing already had been closed; and,

WHEREAS, in order to address Mr. Abrams’ concerns, on July 18, 2000, the City Council directed staff to re-notice the public hearing so that it could be re-opened and any additional information that is relevant to the application could be considered by the City Council prior to making a decision on the application; and,

WHEREAS, the re-opened public hearing was held on August 15, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence that had not been presented previously to the City Council; and,

WHEREAS, on August 15, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-53, thereby denying the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 with prejudice; and,

WHEREAS, although the applicant had previously asserted that commercial transmissions from the subject property originated from temporary tripod antennae located in the rear yard and not from the existing antenna tower, the City’s consultant, Dr. Richter, did not see such temporary antennae during the monitoring of commercial transmissions from the site. In addition, based upon the review of FCC licensing data, the numerous commercial frequencies licensed by the FCC to operate at the subject property are designed to operate from a freestanding tower at elevations from nine meters (9m) to fourteen meters (14m) above the ground. However, if temporary tripod antennae were used at the site but were not tall enough to be observed from adjacent properties by Dr. Richter, they could not have been anywhere near nine meters (9m) in height, much less the maximum height of the existing tower, which is approximately fourteen meters (14m). Therefore, it is reasonable for the City Council to conclude that the existing antenna tower was used for commercial purposes, and that the appellant’s claims to the contrary were false.

WHEREAS, on August 24, 2000, Mr. Abrams filed suit against the City in Federal District Court in order to overturn the City’s decision on the grounds that it violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and,

WHEREAS, on January 9, 2002, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled in the case of Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes and vacated the City’s denial of Mr. Abrams’ application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207; and,

WHEREAS, on February 25, 2002, the United States District Court for the Central District of California subsequently denied Mr. Abrams’ petition for damages in the case of Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes and ordered the City to issue Conditional Use Permit No. 207 without requiring Mr. Abrams to modify the size, height, location or configuration of the existing antennae support structure and array; and,

WHEREAS, the City revised the Mitigated Negative Declaration originally prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 720 to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce the aesthetic impacts of the existing antenna support structure and array, in accordance with the Court’s order and in compliance with the provisions of CEQA; and

WHEREAS, on March 18, 2002, the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered its judgment in the case of Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes, ordering the City to issue Conditional Use Permit No. 207 by April 2, 2002 and allowing the imposition of reasonable conditions that are consistent with the Court’s order of January 9, 2002; and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2002, March 25, 2002 and April 2, 2002 to reconsider Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and Environmental Assessment No. 720, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Pursuant to the order of the United States District Court, the City Council hereby approves the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 to legalize the use of the existing antenna support structure and array on the site for commercial purposes:

A. For the purposes of this determination on the subject application and throughout this Resolution, the term "existing antenna support structure and array" and its variants refers only to the antenna support structure and antenna array depicted in the plans submitted to the City by the applicant on April 24, 2000, as part of his application for a conditional use permit, and in the photograph submitted by the applicant that is in the City’s file for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and Environmental Assessment No. 720. The term "existing antenna support structure and array" and its variants, therefore, does not include any parts, elements, components or other features of the antenna support structure and/or antenna array that are not depicted on the plan submitted on April 24, 2000, or in the above-mentioned photograph. However, if any changes have been made to the antennae or the support structure after the applicant submitted the plan on April 24, 2000 and before the date of the ruling of the United States District Court on March 18, 2002, the applicant shall submit a revised plan depicting the antenna support structure and the number and configuration of the existing antennae located thereon within (90) ninety days of the date of the City’s final action on this application. This plan shall be retained in the City’s files and used as a basis for determining compliance with the conditions of approval for this project.

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

C. The City Council is approving the subject commercial use at this specific location in order to comply with the order of the United States District Court issued on March 18, 2002. If that order is reversed, the City Council hereby reserves the right to vacate this Resolution and decision and reinstate its prior decision denying the conditional use permit or, in the alternative, to reopen the hearing. In approving the conditional use permit, conditions are being imposed as part of this approval to reduce the impacts of the antenna tower and the commercial use on the surrounding residential neighborhood to the extent feasible and in compliance with the order of the United States District Court. Although service personnel would visit the site periodically, any impacts related to the maintenance and operation of the existing antennae would be very minor and have no significant adverse effects on surrounding properties. The existing antennae are visible from surrounding homes in the Del Cerro community. The approval of this proposal will be conditioned to require the existing antenna support structure and array to be painted to blend better into the background sky and foliage, and no future changes to the height, size, number, location or configuration of the antennae will be permitted without an amendment to this conditional use permit that is approved by the Planning Commission.

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

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

F. Conditions of approval, which the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general and which comply with the order of the United States District Court, have been imposed and include (but are not limited to) painting the existing antennae support structure and array; maintaining the existing screening foliage on the property and requiring two (2) additional trees to be planted for screening purposes; prohibiting any further modifications to the existing antennae support structure and array without first obtaining approval of a modification to this conditional use permit; limiting regular maintenance hours for the exterior commercial antennae and equipment to 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday; precluding illumination of the antenna tower, requiring the applicant to obtain and maintain a valid business license; and reviewing the project for compliance with all conditions of approval within six (6) months of the date of the City’s final action on the application. These conditions are imposed through the City’s authority over placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities, as expressly reserved to local government under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and in compliance with the order of the United State District Court in the case of Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes.

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

Section 3: This application is consistent with some provisions of the City’s Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines in that it was heard by the Planning Commission and City Council within the time lines established by the State’s Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA (Guideline No. 1). Although the City’s Antenna Guidelines express a preference for existing, non-single-family structures as antenna sites (Guideline No. 2), installations on single-family residences are not prohibited and have been approved previously elsewhere in the City. However, this approval is not consistent with other provisions of the City’s Antenna Guidelines.

Section 4: The City Council finds that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 207—as conditioned—is consistent with the order of the United States District Court and the local zoning authority reserved to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)) for the following reasons:

  1. The conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 "[does] not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services…and [does] not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsections (B)(i)(I) and (II)). In reviewing all of the applications to provide personal wireless services on other residentially-zoned property within the City, the City has applied consistently its regulations to these facilities so as to modify or deny applications that do or will have adverse visual, aesthetic or other impacts upon surrounding properties. The instant application is being approved pursuant to the order of the United States District Court with conditions requiring the implementation of measures to screen the appearance of the existing antenna support structure and array to the extent feasible and consistent with the order of the United States District Court so as to avoid modifying the size, type, number or location of existing antennae. The City’s conditional approval of this specific proposal allows the applicant to provide wireless communications services. Accordingly, the conditional approval of this particular application does not result in a ban or prohibition of, or have the effect of prohibiting, the placement of these types of facilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
  2. The application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 was acted upon by the City "within a reasonable period of time after the request [was] duly filed with [the City], taking into account the nature and scope of such request" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(ii)). The public hearing to reconsider this application was held less than within thirty (30) days after the decision was rendered by the United States District Court in the case of Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes. This application has been processed by the City in a timely fashion and in accordance with the time lines established by the State Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA, and the Telecommunications Act.

  3. In conditionally approving the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207, the City has not "[regulated] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] Commission's regulations concerning such emissions" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(iv)). Although interference and radio frequency emissions were raised as issues of concern to surrounding residents at the public hearing and in correspondence to the City, none of the required conditions of approval are in response to these concerns. Instead, these modifications are imposed only to address the aesthetic impacts of the existing antenna support structure and array upon the surrounding neighborhood. City Staff advised the Planning Commission and the City Council that neither body could consider any environmental effects of emissions that comply with FCC regulations, including purported impacts upon health or alleged interference with television reception. The City Council relied upon that advice and the provisions of the Act and, therefore, has not based its decision to conditionally approve the proposed project in any respect upon any actual or perceived environmental effects attributable to radio frequency emissions. Rather, the conditional approval regulates the aesthetic impacts and land use compatibility issues traditionally addressed through the exercise of local governmental police powers.

Section 5: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(v)), any person adversely affected by the City’s final action in this matter may, within thirty (30) days after such action, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Section 6: The applicant objected to a condition of approval requiring him to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, agents and employees harmless from any damages, attorney’s fees and court costs arising from any legal challenge to the approval of this permit, and as a result of this objection, the condition was not imposed. However, nothing in this Resolution shall be construed as requiring the City to defend any legal challenge to the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 207.

Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Minutes and the other records of this proceeding on file with the City, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 207, thereby approving the commercial use of existing antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site of a single-family residence, located at 44 Oceanaire Drive in the Del Cerro community, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to comply with the order of the United States District Court issued on March 18, 2002. However, If that order is reversed, the City Council hereby reserves the right to vacate this Resolution and decision and reinstate its prior decision denying the conditional use permit or, in the alternative, to reopen the hearing.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of April 2002, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:


_______________________
John McTaggart, Mayor

ATTEST:


____________________
Jo Purcell, City Clerk

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

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002-____ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 2, 2002.

 

_________________________________
City Clerk


EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207
(44 Oceanaire Drive)

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

2. This approval is for the use of existing antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site of a single-family residence in the Del Cerro community for commercial purposes, subject to full compliance with the conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make only minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval, and only if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change, such as the enlargement of, expansion of or addition of new antennae or radiating elements to the existing antennae support structure and array, shall require approval of a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 207 by the City Council and shall require a new and separate environmental review.

3. All project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, in the RS-2 district development standards of the City's Municipal Code.

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

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

6. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with any non-discretionary technical requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply.

7. If any changes have been made to the antennae or the support structure after the applicant submitted the plan on April 24, 2000 and before the date of the ruling of the United States District Court on March 18, 2002, the applicant shall submit a revised plan depicting the antenna support structure and the number and configuration of the existing antennae located thereon within (90) ninety days of the date of the City’s final action on this application. This plan shall be retained in the City’s files and used as a basis for determining compliance with the conditions of approval for this project.

8. At all times, the applicant shall maintain the color of the entirety of the antenna tower and all of the antennae and radiating elements located thereon, in a neutral color, such as gray, gray-green or gray-blue, that will blend with the background foliage and the sky, to the satisfaction of the Director. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City’s final action on this permit, the applicant shall paint the white or lighter colored portions of the antenna support structure and array in a neutral color that has been approved by the Director. The applicant shall provide the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement with a selection of possible colors for approval prior to the painting of any portion of the antenna support structure and array. At the Director’s discretion, any portion of the antenna array may be left unpainted if, in its unpainted state, it conforms to the intent of this condition and substantially matches the existing gray color of the antenna support structure. In addition, the Director reserves the right to require the applicant to paint additional portions of the antenna support structure and array at any time that the Director finds that additional painting of some elements of the antenna support structure and array is necessary to further reduce the aesthetic impacts of the antenna tower and the radiating elements and antennae located thereon.

9. No additional antennae may be added to the existing antenna support structure without prior City approval of a revision to this conditional use permit. Existing antennae on the antenna support structure may be removed and replaced for maintenance and repair purposes, but the replacement antenna(e) must be the same size (or smaller), same height (or lower), same type and same location as the antenna(e) they are replacing.

10. The existing tree in the rear yard of the subject property, as depicted in photographs of the property taken on March 18, 2002 and kept in the City’s files, provides screening for the existing antenna tower. Within ninety (90) days of this approval, the applicant shall meet with the Director to obtain approval by the Director to trim only those portions of the tree that could damage the antenna tower and the roof of the residence while still maintaining an appropriate level of visual screening of the tower. Following the trimming, the tree shall be photographed by Staff, and the applicant shall maintain the tree, to the Director’s satisfaction, in size and fullness so as to continue to provide a similar degree of screening for the antenna tower. In the event that this tree dies or is felled by an act of God or any other intentional or unintentional act, it must be replaced by another tree of an evergreen variety that is at least a twenty-four-inch (24") box size tree. In addition, the applicant shall plant two (2) additional 24-inch-box evergreen in the rear yard of the property. One tree shall be planted in the lawn area to the north of the existing antenna tower, and the other tree shall be planted in the lawn area behind the garage, based upon the April 24, 2000 site plan in the City’s files. These additional trees must be allowed to grow to a sufficient height to screen the antenna tower. The trees may be trimmed as necessary to protect other structures on the subject property and adjacent properties while still maintaining visual screening of the antenna tower, to the satisfaction of the Director. The applicant shall also allow the existing shrubs along the easterly property line and the trees in the front yard to grow to a height that will screen the tower and be maintained at that height, as determined by, and to the satisfaction of, the Director.

11. Except in case of emergency, regular maintenance of the commercial antennae and related exterior support equipment and structures shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Maintenance of the non-commercial antennae and related exterior support equipment and structures may occur during the weekday hours specified above, and between the hours of 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM on Saturdays.

12. All service vehicles related to the maintenance of the commercial antennae shall be parked off-street in the driveway or garage of the house. No more than two (2) such service vehicles are allowed on the site at any time. The parking of vehicles related to the maintenance of the non-commercial antennae or other household purposes are not restricted by this condition, but shall comply with the general parking restrictions imposed by the City’s Municipal Code.

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

14. No lights may be placed upon the antenna tower, nor may it be otherwise illuminated in any manner. This condition shall not restrict the use of hand-held lighting, nor the use of temporary lighting during the performance of emergency repairs.

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

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

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

18. The antenna tower authorized by this approval shall only be used as an antenna support structure and for no other purposes.

19. Since this approval is for the joint use of the existing antenna tower for both commercial and amateur purposes, at all times the applicant shall maintain antennae on the tower that are being used or are available for amateur use.


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

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



9. Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Grading Permit No. 2242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738 (JCC Homes Inc./California Water Service Company, 5837 Crest Road). (Fox)

Recommendation: Review the revised project to determine if the applicant has adequately addressed the issues raised by the City Council and concerned neighbors, and direct staff to either: (1) bring back to the next meeting resolutions of approval for the revised project, as recommended by the Planning Commission; or, (2) prepare resolutions of denial due to City Council concerns with the revised project

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53305, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 30, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2242 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 738 [JCC HOMES, INC./CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY, 5837 CREST ROAD]

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Review the revised project to determine if the applicant has adequately addressed the issues raised by the City Council and concerned neighbors, and direct Staff to either: 1) bring back to the next meeting resolutions of approval for the revised project, as recommended by the Planning Commission; or 2) prepare resolutions of denial due to City Council concerns with the revised project.

BACKGROUND

On November 27, 2001 the Planning Commission concluded the public hearing and unanimously adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-44, recommending adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to the City Council; and P.C. Resolution No. 2001-45, recommending conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 to the City Council for this project. The project approved by the Planning Commission proposed the subdivision of the 4.99-acre California Water Service Company (CWSC) site into ten (10) lots for a single-family residential planned development (RPD), including seven (7) residential lots, one lot for a private street, one lot for the existing CWSC office and one lot for the existing underground CWSC reservoir. The CWSC office and reservoir would remain on the site. The proposed homes would include a mix of 16-foot-tall one-story and split-level homes, ranging from approximately 4,000 to 4,600 square feet of living area, on lots ranging from approximately 10,500 to 14,000 square feet. The proposed project would also require approximately 16,000 cubic yards of earth movement, consisting of 14,000 cubic yards of cut, 2,000 cubic yards of fill and 12,000 cubic yards of export.

On December 4, 2001, the City Council opened the public hearing to consider this application and heard testimony from the applicant and several other interested parties from the surrounding neighborhood. The City Council identified a number of issues of concern with the project, asked Staff to further research some of these issues, and directed the applicant to work with the neighborhood to address it’s remaining concerns.

DISCUSSION

Revised Project Description

On February 15, 2002, the applicant submitted revised project plans to the City. The revised project still proposes seven (7) homes on the property, with the existing CWSC office and reservoir to remain. The main difference between the current proposal and the project reviewed by the Planning Commission is that the request to establish an RPD has been withdrawn, and with it, the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 228. All of the proposed residential lots now fully comply with the RS-4 lot development standards. Most of the homes are the same sizes as previously proposed. In addition, the applicant is no longer obligated to set aside thirty percent (30%) of the site as open space. The applicant also proposes that a portion of the new street could be public, with the cul-de-sac abutting Lots 1 through 6 remaining a private street. Revised project plans are attached to this report. The table below depicts the differences in the seven (7) residential lots between the previous and current proposals on a lot-by-lot basis.

Lot

Area

Width

Depth

Front

Rear

One Side

Both Sides

Lot Cov.

Standard
RS-4 lot

Min.
10,000 SF

Min.
75’

Min.
100’

Min.
20’

Min. 15’

Min.
10’

Min.
20’

Max.
50%

 

Old/
New

Old/
New

Old/
New

Old/
New

Old/
New

Old/
New

Old/
New

Old/
New

1

14,493 SF/
12,414 SF

83.3’/
88.0’

146.0’/
140.0’

20’/
20’

56’/
57’

10’/
10’

42’/
36’

29%/
31%

2

12,101 SF/
10,902 SF

83.3’/
78.0’

146.0’/
140.0’

20’/
20’

52’/
52’

7’/
10’

17’/
20’

37%/
36%

3

11,751 SF/
13,558 SF

83.3’/
103.0’

140.1’/
136.6’

20’/
20’

45’/
45’

7’/
10’

32’/
35’

32%/
31%

4

10,923 SF/
13,362 SF

87.5’/
94.0’

124.0’/
133.3’

20’/
20’

15’/
15’

5’/
10’

33’/
28’

38%/
40%

5

11,080 SF/
11,890 SF

87.5’/
89.5’

125.7’/
131.5’

20’/
20’

26’/
27’

6’/
10’

16’/
20’

49%/
46%

6

12,054 SF/
11,213 SF

100.7’/
84.2’

125.7’/
131.5’

20’/
20’

22’/
22’

7’/
10’

22’/
22’

49%/
49%

9

11,848 SF/
11,848 SF

76.3’/
76.3’

135.0’/
135.0’

20’/
20’

42’/
15’

10’/
11’

20’/
21’

34%/
49%

The proposed homes on Lots 1 through 6 are the same size as those previously reviewed by the Planning Commission, as are the finished pad elevations and 16-foot maximum ridgeline elevations. However, adjustments to Lots 3 and 4 will require at least two more of the existing mature trees along the easterly tract boundary to be removed, as compared to the previous proposal. The proposed home on Lot 9 has increased from 4,459 square feet of living area to 5,369 square feet of living area, including a 1,673-square-foot basement level. The revised plans indicate that the pad elevation and maximum ridgeline on Lot 9 have also been raised approximately eighteen inches (18"), although the proposed house still complies with the 16-foot height limit. No change in the size or configuration of Lots 7 and 8 are proposed, and Lot 10 (i.e., the private street) is approximately the same size as before, although it has shifted about six feet (6’) to the south.

Issues of Concern

Alternate Development Standards

Mayor Pro Tem Stern and Councilwoman Ferraro questioned the rationale for allowing deviations from the RS-4 development standards, especially with respect to the reduced side-yard setbacks between homes.

The applicant has now revised the project so that all of the proposed homes meet the minimum setback requirements of the RS-4 zoning district. In addition, all of the homes comply with the 16-foot height limit as either pad lots (Lots 4 through 6) or downslope lots (Lots 1 through 3 and 9).

Open Space Dedication

The entire City Council and several neighbors questioned the appropriateness of allowing the 1.70-acre underground reservoir site to satisfy the 30-percent open space dedication for the RPD. Mayor Pro Tem Stern and Councilman Gardiner noted that dedicated open space should be available for active use. Mayor McTaggart noted that a structure—albeit underground—should not qualify as open space. Councilman Clark expressed a concern that the open space was not integrated into the design of the project.

In response to these concerns, the applicant withdrew the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 228, which would have been necessary for the establishment of an RPD. At this point, the only open space issues remaining are compliance with the RS-4 lot coverage/open space standards for the residential lots, and the possible dedication or payment of an in-lieu fee for parks. As discussed above, the proposed homes meet the RS-4 lot coverage standard, although Lots 6 and 9 would be nearly "maxed out." Based upon the provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant would be responsible for either dedicating 0.098 acre (i.e., approximately 4,269 SF) for public park purposes or paying an in-lieu fee. Given that the area required to be dedicated is less than one-half the size of the typical lot in the surrounding neighborhood, Staff believes that the City would derive greater overall benefit from the payment of an in-lieu fee.

Neighborhood Compatibility

Councilman Gardiner had questions regarding the neighborhood compatibility analysis and asked for a numerical comparison. Residents of the surrounding Mesa Palos Verdes and Seaview Villas communities have also expressed concern about the number and size of the proposed homes.

A neighborhood compatibility finding is a required component of the grading permit application for this project. The components of neighborhood compatibility include front setbacks, architectural style and materials, and the scale of surrounding residences. The typical homes in Mesa Palos Verdes are 35-year-old ± 2,400-square-foot, 2-story and split-level homes with 2-car garages on 9,000-square-foot lots. They exhibit a variety of architectural styles. The revised homes proposed by the applicant are 4,000- to 5,400-square- foot, 1-story and split-level homes with 3-car garages on lots that average 12,000 square feet. The applicant also proposes a variety of façade treatments, and all of the proposed homes meet the 20-foot front-yard setback requirement.

In terms of scale, the proposed homes are larger than the surrounding Mesa Palos Verdes homes. The six homes at the end of the cul-de-sac form their own "neighborhood," which does not relate directly to surrounding residences. However, the home on Scotwood Drive (Lot 9) will be seen in direct context with surrounding homes. This home would be more than one-and-a-half times the scale of the nearest ten homes (see table below). Staff has previously advised the applicant that the scale of the house on Lot 9 would be of critical concern in terms of neighborhood compatibility. Unfortunately, the revised project results in an even larger home on this lot than previously proposed. Therefore, Staff recommends limiting the maximum living area of the house on Lot 9 to 4,000 square feet, with a 3-car garage of no more than 600 hundred square feet.

Address

Lot Size

Lot Type

Stories

Structure Size

Structure/Lot Ratio

Lot 9, TTM 53305

11,848

Downslope

2

5,994

0.51

29541 Oceanport

9,280

Pad

2

2,868

0.31

29535 Oceanport

9,030

Pad

2

2,950

0.33

29538 Oceanport

9,310

Pad

2

2,774

0.30

5811 Scotwood

9,130

Pad

2

2,774

0.30

5805 Scotwood

8,910

Pad

2

2,868

0.32

5806 Scotwood

9,020

Pad

2

2,868

0.32

5814 Scotwood

9,090

Pad

2

2,945

0.32

5822 Scotwood

9,000

Pad

2

2,868

0.32

5832 Scotwood

9,000

Pad

2

3,216

0.36

5840 Scotwood

8,990

Pad

2

3,530

0.40

Average

9,076

   

2,966

0.33

Neighbors in the surrounding Mesa Palos Verdes community also continue to express concern about the compatibility of this project with their neighborhood. Frequently-mentioned issues include the number of lots, the size of the homes, and the amount of buffering provided at the project perimeter. In discussions with Staff prior to the submittal of the revised project, the applicant indicated that an alternate project with fewer homes and greater setback buffers was being considered, and a conceptual site plan was shown to Staff on February 7, 2002. Staff told the applicant that the alternate plan appeared to be more responsive to the concerns of the surrounding neighbors, but this was not the revised plan submitted by the applicant on February 15, 2002.

The revised project has not reduced the number or size of the homes. The side setback buffer on Lot 4 has been reduced approximately ten feet relative to the rear yards of the homes on Stonecrest Road, and as a result of this reduction, at least two more of the mature trees in this area will need to be removed during site grading. The rear setback buffers on Lots 1 through 3 have not been changed relative to the rear yards of the homes on Sunmist Drive. This buffer still ranges between forty-five feet (45’) and fifty-seven feet (57’). It is important to note that, although the applicant no longer proposes an RPD, Staff believes that it is still critical for the applicant to establish a homeowners’ association for the project that would bear the responsibility for maintaining the landscape buffer areas and the private street.

Questions for California Water Service Company (CWSC)

Mayor McTaggart had several questions for CWSC regarding the safety of developing adjacent to the existing reservoir, the elimination of a location for future expansion of CWSC facilities in the City and the nature of the land swap between CWSC and JCC Homes. Councilman Gardiner also asked about the change in circumstances that lead CWSC to declare a significant portion of the Crest Road property surplus. At the December 4, 2002 City Council meeting, no CWSC representative was in attendance to address these questions, and the applicant has not provided any additional information to Staff in these matters. However, with respect to the safety of the development, the applicant have submitted geotechnical studies—which have been conceptually approved by the City’s geotechnical consultant—that demonstrate the appropriate construction standards and methods for the site. In addition, representatives of CWSC have previously stated that the reservoir is inspected and maintained on a regular basis at several public hearings on this application.

General Plan and Zoning Consistency

Several members of the City Council questioned the consistency of the project with the General plan land use designation "Infrastructure-Facility." The Infrastructure-Facility land use designation is reflective of the land use in place on the property at the time of the City’s incorporation in 1973. Also in 1973, the property was down-zoned for single-family residential use with a 1-acre minimum lot size because the County land use plan for the site and the City as a whole generally called for much higher residential densities than existed at the time. Through the adoption of the City’s first zoning ordinance in 1975, the property was re-zoned RS-4, which was and is consistent with the density of development in the surrounding single-family neighborhood (Mesa Palos Verdes). Staff assumes that RS-4 was chosen for the CWSC site because it was consistent with surrounding densities so that if the water company facilities ever "went away," the logical replacement would be single-family residential development. Unfortunately, Staff has been unable to confirm this assumption in the records of the City’s adoption of its zoning map. As such, there continues to be an apparent inconsistency with the General plan land use designation of Infrastructure-Facility and the site’s RS-4 zoning designation.

Councilmember Clark asked if there were any other properties in the City that displayed a similar land use and zoning inconsistency. Staff has identified two other such sites: a CWSC reservoir site at the top of San Pedro Hill and a CWSC reservoir site adjacent to Miraleste Intermediate School. Both of these properties are designated Infrastructure-Facility in the General Plan, but zoned RS-2 on the City’s zoning map. The fact that all three CWSC reservoir sites in the City display the same inconsistency suggests to Staff that there was a conscious decision made by the framers of the City’s first zoning map to assign residential zoning to these properties.

Given the current inconsistency, the approval of the proposed subdivision and residential development of portions of the CWSC site is wholly contingent upon the City Council’s approval of a general plan amendment that designates at least the portions of the site proposed for residential development as Residential 2-4 DU/acre. The remainder of the site could be left Infrastructure-Facility to reflect the CWSC facilities that would remain. However, the City Council also has the authority to consider changing the zoning to "match" the land use designation. The most likely candidate for such a zone change would be from RS-4 to I (Institutional), but this would not allow the development of the property for residential purposes.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On March 13, 2002, public notices were mailed to the applicant, the property owner and one hundred seventy-two other property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. On March 16, 2002, public notice of the April 2, 2002 public hearing for Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, et al. was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. Copies of all correspondence received in response to this notice and previous notices are attached to this report. Public notice of the draft MND was also previously published and circulated in accordance with City and State regulations.

CONCLUSION

The Planning Commission found that the original project was consistent with all of the required findings for approval. In revising the proposed project, the applicant has addressed some—but not all—of the issues of concern discussed at the December 4, 2001 City Council meeting. Staff has prepared Resolutions on the Planning Commission’s behalf, forwarding a recommendation that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2001-__, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 738; and adopt Resolution No. 2001-__, conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30 and Grading Permit No. 2242 for the revised project. If the City Council desires additional information from Staff or the applicant, it would be appropriate to continue this matter to a date certain. However, if the City Council does not believe that it can support the proposed general plan amendment, then the project should be denied.

FISCAL IMPACT

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

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Remand the revised project back to the Planning Commission for consideration.

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

Reviewed by:
City Manager

Attachments:
Recent correspondence
City Council Minutes of December 4, 2001
Planning Commission Minutes of November 27, 2001
Project plans



10. Overview of the Current View Restoration and Preservation Process. (Nelson)

Recommendation: Review the staff report and overview of the current View Restoration and Preservation process and provide staff with direction as to whether to initiate any changes to the process via amendments to the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines or Code.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT VIEW RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION PROCESS

Staff Coordinator: Trayci Nelson, Senior View Restoration Coordinator

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council review the staff report and overview of the current View Restoration and Preservation process and provide staff with direction as to whether to initiate any changes to the process via amendments to the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines or Code.

BACKGROUND

In November 1989, the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes passed Proposition M, which established the right of property owners to views. Subsequently, in response to the will of the voters and the adoption of the ordinance, the City created a View Restoration Commission (VRC), and established guidelines to ensure the preservation and restoration of protected views.

Since the incorporation of Prop M into the City's Development Code as the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance ("view ordinance") and the adoption of the Guidelines that implement and facilitate the view restoration process, two lawsuits have been filed challenging the view ordinance provisions. The first lawsuit was filed in 1991 by a foliage owner associated with a city decision that challenged the constitutionality of the City’s ordinance. When the lawsuit was filed, the City suspended all View Restoration actions pending the outcome of the case. As such, a total of 22 View Restoration Permit applications (27 had been filed) were left unresolved for more than five years until the process was resurrected in November 1996. While the City prevailed in the matter, the appellate court did not rule on the merits of the ordinance, thus allowing subsequent lawsuits to continue. Subsequently, in June 1998, a new lawsuit was filed by a foliage owner associated with another City decision which challenged that the ordinance was unconstitutional; that the ordinance was an unlawful exercise of the City’s police power; that the ordinance constituted a taking of private property without just compensation; and that the ordinance deprived an individual of due process.

In November of 1999, a judge ruled in the lawsuit, finding that the City’s ordinance was a valid exercise of the City’s police power. In January 2001, after the filing of an appeal by the foliage owner, a state appellate court ruled in favor of the City’s ordinance and rejected all of the challenges raised in the lawsuit. Additionally, and unlike the first legal challenge, the court also agreed to publish the decision, effectively preventing further lawsuits challenging the merits of the ordinance.

After the first lawsuit was dismissed in 1996, the City Council agreed to use contract planners to administer the view ordinance. The contract planners continue to administer the ordinance.

DISCUSSION

Provided below is a summary of the various issues associated with the view restoration and preservation process.

Code Amendments and Guideline Revisions

Revisions to the view ordinance have occurred since adoption of Prop M in 1989. The revisions that have been adopted have been determined to be consistent with the original intent of Prop M. In 1994, Ordinance 298 was adopted giving view restoration participants the right to appeal a decision of the VRC to the City Council. Prior to that time, the only recourse was through the courts. In 1996, Ordinance 317 was adopted which added the word "significant" to "view impairment". This addition was seen as a clarification of the language and the intent of Prop M to make the review standard consistent with the pre-existing code review standard. In 1997, Urgency Ordinance 262 was adopted by the Council, which gave greater flexibility to the VRC for providing replacement foliage to the owners.

No changes were more significant than those that occurred beginning in September 1997. These revisions have since become the current view restoration and preservation process and guidelines (attached as Exhibit 4). Approximately ten months after the ruling on the first lawsuit and the City’s acceptance of new view restoration permit applications for processing, the City Council and the new VRC held several meetings and conducted a joint workshop. The purpose of the meeting and subsequent joint workshop was to discuss several proposals that would streamline the view restoration and preservation process. From the joint workshop, several policies were established and, numerous amendments to the Guidelines were proposed. In November 1997, Council directed Staff to amend the Guidelines in place at the time (dated December 3, 1996) and agreed that the changes would serve to strengthen and streamline the view restoration and preservation process and would not change the overall structure or intent of the ordinance. A summary of the most significant changes to the guidelines are listed below:

Section IV-A An expanded pre-application consultation process was

(Pages 5-7) incorporated into the previously existing early neighbor consultation process. The new process requires all potential applicants to file a "Notice of intent to File a View restoration Application" prior to the submittal of a formal application to the City.

Section IV-B-5 Criteria were incorporated into the Guidelines to help determine (Page 9) whether a view is being" significantly" impaired by foliage:

Foliage position within a view frame
Single-component view vs. multi-component view
The significance of prominent landmarks

"City skylines" were added to the list of prominent landmarks contained in this section.

Language was added to clarify that only foliage, which significantly impairs a view, will be trimmed and/or removed, thus allowing foliage which does not significantly impair a view to remain in an applicant’s view frame.

Section V-BA policy was added that requires an applicant, or the (Pages 11-12) subsequent owner of an applicant’s property, to provide replacement foliage to a foliage owner in cases where foliage thatis ordered to be culled, trimmed or laced by the VRC happens to die within one year of the initial trimming.

Section V-CLanguage was added to correspond with a previously adopted (Page 12) urgency ordinance that allows the VRC to order replacement foliage in cases where pruning the height of foliage will likely destroy the aesthetic value of the foliage.

Section V-DLanguage was added to correspond with a previously adopted (Pages 12-13) urgency ordinance that allows the VRC to order replacement foliage in situations where removal of foliage would cause significant adverse impacts to existing shade, the energy efficiency of a dwelling, the viability of any remaining landscaping, and the integrity of the landscape plan.

Section V-EA section was added to clearly explain that replacement (Page 13) foliage should be comparable to the foliage removed in terms of

function and/or aesthetics.

Section V-FA section was added to set standards for the size and type (Pages 14) replacement foliage.

Section V-GA new section was added that requires that a long-term foliage (Page 14) maintenance schedule be incorporated into the conditions of approval of all View Restoration Permit (VRP) Applications. The maintenance schedule dictates: 1) the minimum frequency of future trimming (i.e. semi-annual, annual, biennial); 2) the time periods when trimming should occur, based on seasonal dormant periods when trimming is least harmful to certain foliage; and 3) the City’s follow-up inspection schedule.

Council adopted the current View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines with the changes noted above on February 17, 1998. These Guidelines continue to serve as the basis for processing applications today.

View Restoration versus View Preservation

There are two separate and distinct processes in the view ordinance for restoring impaired views: View Restoration and View Preservation.

The view restoration process is utilized to restore a view from a property that had a view when the lot was created but is now significantly impaired by foliage on another property and there is no photographic documentation of the view as it existed in November of 1989, when prop M was adopted, or anytime since then. Under this process, the view holder pays to have their view restored. Once restored, the foliage owner is financially responsible for all future maintenance. View restoration decisions are made by the View Restoration Commission (VRC) and are appealable to the City Council.

The view preservation process is utilized to restore a view from a property that had a view when the lot was created but is now significantly impaired by foliage on another property and there is photographic documentation of the view as it existed in November 1989, when the View Restoration Ordinance was adopted, or anytime since then. Under this process, staff relies on the photo documentation to restore the view to the level shown in the photograph. Under this process, the foliage owner bears the financial responsibility for restoring and maintaining the view from the applicant’s property. View preservation actions are administrative decisions made by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement and can be appealed to the VRC and the City Council.

The view preservation process described above involves situations where there has not been a view restoration decision made by the VRC. Where a view restoration decision has been issued and the view has been restored and verified by City staff, the process referenced above would differ in that staff would issue a maintenance trimming notice which would require that the foliage be brought into compliance with the view restoration permit. No new decision is made. Staff would simply enforce the existing view restoration action. However, a controversial aspect of this process has surfaced with a limited number of cases. The controversy centers on staff’s approach to ensure that foliage owners maintain foliage in accordance with VRC decisions.

Typically, once a VRC decision is rendered, the foliage owner is required to trim his or her trees in accordance with the approved decision. Staff will then verify that the work has been done in accordance with said decision and will document the restored view with a photograph. The photographic documentation then becomes the baseline for making a determination of significant view impairment in any future view preservation enforcement actions that become necessary. Staff makes a determination as to a project's compliance or non-compliance with a resolution and conditions of approval based on a visual comparison of the foliage shown on the documented photo with the foliage, as it exists at the time of a follow-up inspection. In most cases, a determination of "substantial compliance" is completed to the satisfaction of the applicant and the foliage owner and the case is closed. However, occasionally the applicant or foliage owner insist on a more precise measurement, which necessitates staff spending a great deal time visiting and revisiting particular properties with disagreements on both sides over small branches and foliage. Still another controversial issue involves the frequency of follow-up trimming. Follow-up trimming is usually required to be performed once per year unless conditions of project approval dictate a more frequent schedule. It is not uncommon however, for view owners to request additional trimming much more often and usually only when the first branches or leaves begin to appear in the restored view.

The Current Process

Under the current process, an applicant must first file a Notice of Intent to file an application for view restoration or view preservation. There is no fee for filing the Notice of Intent and it is not considered a formal application submittal, rather it is the starting point for initiating the "Early Neighbor Consultation" or Pre-Application process. Once submitted, Staff schedules and facilitates the pre-application meeting. Staff, one view restoration commissioner, the applicant(s) and foliage owner(s) attend the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to explain the City’s view restoration process and to help facilitate an agreement between the participants. If an agreement is reached, then staff or the participants will draft an agreement and the file is closed. If no agreement is reached, then the applicant is free to file a formal view restoration or view preservation application.

As noted earlier, staff processes view preservation cases, whereas view restoration cases are acted upon by the VRC. Attached to this report are the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines and procedures, which include an application package that is handed out to prospective applicants. The package also includes a flowchart that describes the entire application process. Staff will provide an overview of the current view restoration and preservation process via a power point presentation at the City Council meeting. In addition, staff will show before and after photo examples where views have been restored via the existing process. It should be pointed out that although staff does not maintain a formal logbook of before and after photos, there are before and after photos for each application that are available to the public for review.

Case Workload

The most significant and important change that has been made to the application process has been the "Early Neighbor Consultation" or Pre-application process. Prior to the change to a more formal staff- facilitated process, which added the prerequisite of a meeting between the two parties prior to the submittal of a formal application, the Early Neighbor Consultation process consisted of a written letter from the applicant to the foliage owner requesting a meeting or asking for trees to be trimmed or removed. The process rarely resulted in a true consultation between neighbors. Additionally, the View Restoration Commission (VRC) heard every restoration application filed. Since the more formal Pre-application process was implemented in February 1998, a majority of all view restoration and preservation cases filed are resolved without the need for formal City staff involvement or hearings before the VRC.

Since February 1998, seventy-six (76) view restoration cases have been accepted and processed (VRP No. 59 through VRP No. 135). Of those 76 cases, thirty-nine (39), or 51 percent, have come to an agreement without the need for formal City involvement. Additionally, fourteen (14) of the cases, or 18 percent, were not resolved at the pre-application level and have gone before the VRC for hearing. Eleven (11), or 15 percent, have been closed for lack of significant view impairment, lack of agreement, or due to inactivity on the part of the applicant. The remaining twelve (12), or 16 percent, are still pending action, all of which were received in the 2001-2002 fiscal year. In summary, the VRC hears roughly 18 percent of all view restoration cases received, versus 100 percent prior to the formal pre-application process. Of the 14 cases heard by the VRC since February 1998, none of the decisions have been appealed to the City Council.

Since February 1998, fifty-seven (57) view preservation cases have been filed. Of those 57 cases, twenty-two (22), or 39 percent, were resolved before the pre-application meeting occurred, or as a result of the pre-application meeting. Seventeen (17) or 30 percent were resolved through administrative notices of decision (denials and approvals). Sixteen (16), or 28 percent were closed with either no agreement, causing the applicant to withdraw the request or administratively withdrawn by staff due to inaction. Three (3) percent are pending pre-application meetings. View preservation cases are acted upon by the Director and the Director’s decision may be appealed to the VRC and to the City Council. There have been no appeals of View Preservation decisions since the pre-application process has been in place.

The case workload information occurring since February 1998 (the Implementation of the pre-application meeting process) is summarized in the following table. A more detailed breakdown of the case workload since 1989 is attached as exhibit 2:

Table 1-1

 

Pre-Application Agreement

City Involvement

Misc. Reso.*

Pending Action

Total

View Preservation

22

17

16

2

57

View Restoration

39

14

11

12

76

Total

61

31

27

14

133

*Miscellaneous resolution refers to cases where view impact is found to be non-significant, therefore the applications were denied or withdrawn. This also refers to cases where no meeting was held and there was no response to the "follow-up" card sent by staff. In this instance the files were administratively closed.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On March 25, 2002 staff received a memorandum from View Restoration Commissioner Bud Franklin concerning an interpretation of the view restoration and preservation process (dated April 2, 2002, attached). In his memo, Commissioner Franklin raises the following three questions and is seeking direction from Council. Staff's response to each question is also noted below.

1. Does a foliage owner have a right to grow foliage to the lower of his ridgeline or 16 feet above the base of the tree or bush?

Staff Response: Yes. Per the view ordinance, foliage that is up to 16 feet in height or the ridgeline, whichever is lower, is not subject to the view ordinance.

2. If foliage does not exceed the lower of the ridgeline or sixteen feet and there is no view above these elevations, where "view" is as defined by the ordinance, does the foliage owner then have the right to allow his foliage to exceed these heights?

Staff Response: Yes. Per the view ordinance, foliage is allowed grow to any height, as long as the foliage does not create significant view impairment from any property.

3. When the voters approved the following wording of Finding 2 in Proposition M, section 2(C)(2)(c), and similar wording throughout Proposition M, what foliage did they believe it applied to - a) only the branches, leaves, and flowers above the lower of the ridgeline or 16 feet, or b) the entire tree or bush including that portion below the lower of the ridgeline or 16 feet?

Staff Response: Staff has always interpreted "foliage" to mean all portions of a tree or shrub including the trunk, all branches, leaves, flowers, etc. Sometimes, Staff and VRC decisions require trimming portions of a tree that is below 16 feet or the ridgeline. This is done to provide a balanced trimming. Otherwise the end result would be foliage that is only partially trimmed and not aesthetically appealing. Staff's current practice of dealing with the whole tree has never presented a problem with foliage owners in past decisions as they recognize the aesthetic advantages of doing so. However, if a foliage owner were ever to object to any trimming below 16 feet, staff would ensure that he trimming only occurs above 16 feet.

3a. As a corollary question, How much of the tree is subject to remedial action: a) only the upper part that may be in violation? Or b) the entire tree?

Staff Response: Same as 3 above.

CONCLUSION

Since 1989, and at the writing of this report, the City has processed 192 view restoration and preservation cases. In that time, a total of two (2) view restoration permits and two (2) view preservation permits have been appealed. As a result, the City Council has heard a total of three view related cases or 1.6% of all cases since the ordinance and process went into effect in 1989 (one case was appealed twice). No cases have been appealed to the City Council since the Pre-application process was initiated in 1998. Additionally, of the 192 total view related cases processed), only eleven or six (6) percent have been forwarded to the City Attorney for legal action.

FISCAL IMPACT

The City’s View Restoration and Preservation Ordinance is administered by contract planners. The cost of this contract service has varied through the years as it is correlated with case workload and changes to the administrative process. Back in 1996, when the program was resurrected after settlement of the first lawsuit, the cost of the contract services was approximately $300,000 per year. After the pre-application requirement was implemented in 1998 and cases before the VRC were reduced, the cost of the contract services was also reduced. The City’s expenditure on the program in FY 00-01 was $240,893. The City’s current budget has earmarked $220,000 for the program in FY 01-02 and FY 02-03. During the current fiscal year, the case workload has substantially increased. As a result, expenditures at mid-year were $145,140.

With regards to revenue, the fees associated with the program have generated between $3,000 and $10,000 per year since 1996. This is because the bulk of the work associated with administering the view ordinance is not covered by any established fees. Fees are only taken in for View Restoration cases that are processed through the VRC. The fees do not cover all the follow-up work after VRC decisions are made and the entire pre-application process. In addition, fees are not taken in for processing View Preservation cases. Furthermore, fees do not cover the day to day administrative duties or the processing of City Tree Review Permits (cases involving City trees). In FY 00-01, revenue from the program totaled $3,350. Thus far in FY 01-02, $13,300 has been taken in.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments

Exhibit 1: PowerPoint Presentation (to be distributed at City Council Meeting)
Exhibit 2: View Restoration and Preservation Statistics
Exhibit 3: Memo submitted by Commissioner S. Bruce Franklin (April 2, 2002)
Exhibit 4: View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines


REGULAR BUSINESS:



11. Appointment of Advisory Board Chairs. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Appoint the chair for the Planning Commission, Finance Advisory Committee and Traffic Committee.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRS

RECOMMENDATION

Appoint a chair for the Planning Commission, the Finance Advisory Committee, and the Traffic Committee.

INTRODUCTION

With the completion of interviews of appointees interested in serving as chair of their respective board, the City Council can now make those appointments.

BACKGROUND

Council made appointments to the Planning Commission and the Finance Advisory Committee on March 11th; appointments to the Traffic Committee were made on March 19th. The following appointees have applied for the position of chair for their respective boards:

Planning Commission: Jon Cartwright, Tom Long, and Craig Mueller

Finance Advisory Committee: Earl Butler and Steve Wolowicz

Traffic Committee:Libby Aubrey, Bill Schurmer

CONCLUSION

The interview process for chairs of the Planning Commission, Finance Advisory Committee and Traffic Committee has been completed and Council can now make those appointments.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



12. Ocean Trails – Extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666. (Pfost)

Recommendation: Extend the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 for the Ocean Trails project for one year until April 15, 2003.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50666 (OCEAN TRAILS LP)

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Deputy Planning Director

RECOMMENDATION

Extend the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 for the Ocean Trails project for one (1) year, until April 15, 2003.

BACKGROUND

The City received the attached letter, dated January 9, 2002, from Ocean Trails requesting a one-year time extension to approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 (VTTM 50666).

The Conditions of Approval for VTTM 50666 state,

"Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.76.090, this approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date that the Coastal Permit associated with this Vesting Tentative Tract Map is approved by the last responsible agency, unless the Final Map has been recorded. Three extensions of up to one (1) year each may be granted by the City Council, if requested in writing prior to expiration."

The California Coastal Commission originally approved the Ocean Trails project on April 15, 1993. Therefore, the City’s approval would have expired on April 15, 1995. However, on September 13, 1993, the State enacted an automatic 24-month extension for all approved maps in the State of California, thereby automatically extending the expiration date of VTTM 50666 to April 15, 1997. Then, on May 15, 1996, the state enacted an automatic 12-month extension to all approved maps. Therefore, the map would have expired on April 15, 1998. On April 7, 1998, the City Council approved a time extension request from Ocean Trails to extend the map for one year, until April 15, 1999. On April 20, 1999, the City Council approved another time extension to extend the map for one year, until April 15, 2000. Then, on May 16, 2000, the City Council approved another time extension to extend the map for one year, until April 15, 2001. The automatic extensions granted by the State and the subsequent Council approved extensions are all consistent with the Subdivision Map Act.

As a result of the extensions identified in the previous paragraph, the expiration date for VTTM 50666 would have been April 15, 2001. However, after the project was initially approved in 1993, the State amended the Subdivision Map Act to increase the maximum number of time extensions from three 1-year extensions to five 1-year extensions. Since the City, pursuant to State law, had already granted three extensions, the project became eligible for a maximum of two more extensions. One of these two remaining extensions was approved by the City Council on May 15, 2001, thereby establishing a new expiration date of April 15, 2002. In summary, Ocean Trails may request only one more extension. The Applicant has submitted the attached letter, dated January 9, 2002, requesting approval of the final one-year extension.

DISCUSSION

Currently, Phase I Grading, which is composed of the golf course and all of Tract No. 50667, including the residential lots located on the east side of the Ocean Trails project, is nearing completion. Additionally, since Tract 50667 has been finaled, and the grading for the residential lots within Tract No. 50667 has been completed, the developer can begin selling and building units from that tract. Phase II grading, which encompasses the housing portion of VTTM 50666 is currently under construction.

As the Council is aware, on June 2, 1999, a major landslide (Landslide C) significantly impacted a portion of the golf course, Ocean Trails Park, and public trails. In June and July of 2000, the developer received approval from the City Council and Coastal Commission for the repair of Landslide C. Construction on the repair has begun, however, due to financial issues, the construction of the repair has been put on hold. Of the 6 slot cuts involved with the landslide repair, the developer completed 4, was halfway through number 5 and began excavation on number 6. Since the repair has been put on hold, the site has been winterized to reduce potential erosion. Additionally, the developer's geologist and the City's geologist are regularly monitoring inclinometer data, which identifies any land movement. At this time, Staff has not received information from the Applicant on the exact date when construction will resume.

Landslide C is located within the boundaries of VTTM 50666. Any changes to existing lot lines or easements established through the original approval of VTTM 50666, to address the repair of Landslide C, will need to be approved by the City Council prior to approval of the Final Map for Tract 50666. Since the City has a process to evaluate any further changes to VTTM 50666 as a result of Landslide C, Staff does not feel that the repair of Landslide C should have any bearing on this extension request.

Additionally, an existing ancient landslide (Landslide A) is also located within the boundaries of VTTM 50666. A portion of the golf course (Holes #10 and #11) is located on Landslide A. The County’s existing main trunk sewer line runs close to the edge or within the boundaries of Landslide A (the exact location of Landslide A and its proximity to the sewer line has not yet been confirmed). Staff has informed the developer that because there are uncertainties as to the exact location of the foundation setback line, which determines where residential homes may be constructed in proximity to Landslide A, a detailed geological investigation of Landslide A will need to be completed prior to City Council approval of the Final Map for Tract 50666. This investigation is currently underway. The developer's geologist has drilled additional borings for site investigation and has prepared geologic reports addressing the location of the foundation setback line. The City's geologist has reviewed those reports and disagrees with the developer's geologist's findings. A Peer Review Board has been created by the City to review both party's findings and conclusions. Similar to Landslide C, since the City has a process to evaluate any further changes to VTTM 50666 as a result of the investigations into Landslide A, Staff does not feel that any potential issues related to Landslide A should have any bearing on this extension request.

The developer has submitted an application and filed the necessary fees to process Final Map No. 50666. The application is being reviewed by City Staff and the City Engineer and is currently incomplete. As noted above, the geological issues pertaining to Landslide C and A will need to be addressed prior to City Council approval of the Final Map.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

As the Council is aware, the court appointed a Trustee to oversee the Ocean Trails project. The Trustee, Mr. Norman Hanover, has indicated that he plans to attend the April 2, 2002 City Council meeting to answer questions the Council may have related to the project.

CONCLUSION

Based on the discussion presented in this report, Staff feels that the applicant is making progress towards the completion of the Ocean Trails Project. Additionally, any remaining geological issues pertaining to Landslide C or A will need to be addressed prior to the Final of Map 50666. As such, for the reasons noted above, Staff feels that the approval of the time extension request for VTTM 50666 should be granted.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives:

1. Decline to extend VTTM 50666 beyond its current expiration date.

2. Identify any issues of concern with the extension request, provide Staff and/or the applicant with any direction, and continue the item to a date certain. Since the request for extension was submitted prior to the deadline, the approvals will remain valid until the Council takes action on the requests.

FISCAL IMPACT

There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENT:
Letter dated January 9, 2002



13. Intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard at Highridge Road. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Request staff to develop a citywide Traffic Signal Program to include a plan for new signal installation and modification of existing facilities. (2) Request staff to develop a funding plan for the first five years of the traffic signal program for incorporation into the City’s Five Year CIP and Financial Model.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: INTERSECTION OF HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD AND HIGHRIDGE ROAD

RECOMMENDATIONS:

  1. Request Staff to develop a citywide Traffic Signal Program to include a plan for new signal installation and modification of existing facilities.

  2. Request Staff to develop a funding plan for the first five years of the traffic signal program for incorporation into the City’s Five Year CIP and Financial Model.

BACKGROUND

This item was placed on the February 19, 2002 City Council Agenda and continued at the request of the owner of Highridge Car Wash.

This item was discussed by the City Council on September 18, 2001. At that time staff recommended that the "U" turn be allowed at this intersection without modifications to the traffic signal or to the intersection. The City Council requested staff to prepare and bring back a comprehensive traffic study of the intersection, and to respond to specific questions raised at the meeting.

The request to allow "U" turns for westbound Hawthorne Boulevard was first brought to the city’s attention as a request from the owner of the Chevron service station / car wash at the southeast corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road. The merchant believes that the "U" Turn restriction makes it difficult for motorists to access his service station.

A comprehensive traffic study has been prepared. The study was presented to the Traffic Committee at their January 28, 2002 meeting. This report to Council presents the traffic study and the recommendations from the Traffic Committee.

DISCUSSION

Existing Conditions

Hawthorne Boulevard is a major arterial street with two lanes in each direction separated by a raised center median. The existing speed limit on Hawthorne Boulevard

is 45 MPH to the west and 40 MPH to the east of Highridge Road. Highridge Road is a collector street to the south of the intersection with one lane in each direction separated by a raised center median. Grayslake Road is a collector street to the north of the

intersection with one lane in each direction separated by a centerline stripe. Highridge Road primarily serves a medium density residential area on a hillside above the intersection. Both streets have slight vertical curves approaching the intersection.

A visibility study was conducted at the intersection to determine the sight distance for left turning vehicles on Hawthorne Boulevard. It was found that the sight distance is adequate for left or U-turn traffic at the intersection during the unprotected portion of the signal phase. Both westbound and eastbound left turn traffic have at least 500 feet of sight distance to see oncoming vehicles, which meets the Caltrans minimum guideline for corner sight distance.

The existing signal operation provides protected-permissive left turn phasing on Hawthorne Boulevard, and concurrent permissive phases on Highridge Road and Grayslake Road. This means that a motorist on Hawthorne Boulevard wishing to make a left turn can do so either with a green arrow, or green ball when oncoming traffic permits. In addition during the period when there is a green left turn arrow on Hawthorne Boulevard, there is a green right turn arrow for Highridge Road to allow motorist to make a right turn.

Phase

Hawthorne Boulevard Movement

Highridge / Grayslake Movement

One

Green Left Arrows both directions

Red,
Except for: Green Right arrow for Highridge

Two

Green Ball, left turns are permitted

Red

Three

Red

Green

Two "No U-Turn" signs are installed for westbound Hawthorne Boulevard. The signs are necessary to prevent a collision between a motorist making a "U" turn from westbound Hawthorne Boulevard and one making a right turn from Highridge Road to Hawthorne Boulevard. Hawthorne Boulevard is wide enough to allow U-turns. Eastbound U-turns are allowed.

A traffic volume study was conducted on October 4, 2001. The study indicates that Hawthorne Boulevard carries approximately 30,000 vehicles per day, and the intersection experiences high northbound right turn volume in the AM peak hour and high westbound left turn volume in the PM peak hour. This is indicative of commuter traffic to and from a residential area south of the intersection. A summary of the peak hour and daily volumes is shown below:

 

 

STREET

DIRECTION

AM PEAK

PM PEAK

DAILY

Hawthorne Blvd.

Westbound

890

1,764

16,841

 

Eastbound

1,430

829

13,019

 

Total Street

2,320

2,593

29,860

         

Highridge Rd.

Northbound

575

386

5,863

Grayslake Rd.

Southbound

238

131

2,036

 

Total Street

813

517

7,899

 

TOTAL

3,133

3,110

37,759

A review of the collision history during the previous four years indicates that this intersection has one of the higher collision rates along Hawthorne Boulevard within the City. The westbound left turn collision rate averages 2.75 per year, which represents 40 percent of the total number of collisions. Of the reported left turn accidents, all involve opposing through traffic on Hawthorne Boulevard. The remaining accidents are other type of collisions common to signalized intersections.

When the collision history was reported to the City Council in September 2001 there were two reported collisions for the year. Subsequently the most recent quarterly collision report indicates four additional left turn collisions occurred at this intersection. Moreover a collision pattern was found between June 14, 2001 and October 13, 2001 when five westbound left turn collisions occurred. This new information is significant because this collision rate meets one of the State of California (Caltrans) Traffic Manual criteria for the installation of protected left turn signals in the westbound direction.

The car wash and service station at the southeast corner have four customer driveways, three on Hawthorne Boulevard and one on Highridge Road. All of the

driveways are limited to right turn in or right turn out due to raised center medians in the streets. The westerly driveway on Hawthorne Boulevard is restricted to entering only, while the two easterly driveways are restricted to exit only through the use of typical

service station signs. Westbound access to the service station is inconvenient, requiring a driver to complete a U-turn at Fair Forest Drive approximately 1,000 feet south of the corner property.

Recommended Actions

The Traffic Engineer presented a report that included several possible solutions, to the Traffic Committee at their January 25, 2002 meeting, see attached.

Issue One: Signal Modifications

As discussed above it was determined that in the four-month period from mid June 2001 to mid October 2001, there were five collisions related to westbound left turns. This collision history meets a warrant for the installation of a protected left turn. To improve safety, the Traffic Engineer recommends that the signal be modified to a protected left turn. A protected left turn signal requires a motorist to make a turn only during the green arrow. This revision to the signal requires that the left turn lane on westbound Hawthorne Boulevard be lengthened by approximately 155 feet.

On January 25, 2002 the Traffic Committee voted 7-0 to recommend this revision to the signal.

This signal modification will decrease intersection efficiency somewhat since the protected left turn phase requires more green time than a permissive phase. This reduces the green time available for Hawthorne Boulevard.

If approved by the City Council, this will not be the first time a signal would be modified in such a manner. In January 2001, the Public Works Department completed a capital project to modify the signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Granvia Altamira. That project was successful. In the two-year period preceding the project, there were 12 collisions involving motorists making left turns. Since the project was completed there have been no such collisions.

Issue Two: "U" Turns

On January 25, 2002 the Traffic Engineer recommended to the Traffic Committee that "U" turns be permitted at this intersection from westbound Hawthorne Boulevard. The Traffic Engineer made this recommendation because it would improve access to the service station and eastbound Hawthorne Boulevard without a significant impact to either safety or intersection efficiency.

If "U" turns are permitted for westbound Hawthorne Boulevard the intersection will operate slightly less efficiently than it currently does. This is because the green right

turn arrow phase for Highridge Road must be removed. This change would not be significant because the green right turn arrow for Highridge Road is only activated when

the left turn green arrow on Hawthorne Boulevard is activated. The green left turn

arrow is triggered most heavily in the PM, when the volume of traffic on northbound Highridge Road is light.

A motion to recommend that "U" turns be permitted for westbound Hawthorne Boulevard was made at the January 25, 2002 Traffic Committee. The motion was defeated 3 – 4. One prevailing member of the traffic committee stated a concern over the location of the driveways to the service station / car wash. A second voiced concern over the nearby bus stop.

On September 18, 2001 the City Council requested staff to respond to the following specific questions:

  1. How far can someone see westerly on Hawthorne Boulevard when they are about to make a left or U-turn? At least 500 feet with adequate sight distance for permissive left or U-turns.

  2. If U-turns are permitted at the intersection, does the green right turn arrow for Highridge Road need to be removed? Yes

  3. How many vehicles that currently utilize the right turn arrow will be impacted if the green arrow is removed? Approximately 100 vehicles each peak hour.

  4. If U-turns are permitted, should right turns on red from Highridge Road be allowed? Yes, vehicles are required to yield during the red signal and it would significantly increase delay for northbound right turns otherwise.

  5. Should right turns on red be limited to certain hours? A right turn on red restriction is not necessary.

  6. Is there something unusual about this intersection regarding how vehicles access the car wash site? Yes, most major streets with median islands allow U-turns at major intersections or at regular intervals unless the street is too narrow.

CONCLUSION

The Traffic Committee recommends a new capital project to modify the signal and westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road. The project will increase safety at this intersection.

FISCAL IMPACT

The estimated total cost for the improved intersection/signal modifications is $ 60,000.

Signal Modifications

$ 20,000

Left turn lane revisions

$ 30,000

Engineering, Inspection, and Administration

$ 10,000

Total

$ 60,000

Funding for this project is not included in the adopted FY 2001-02 Budget nor is it reflected in the Five Year Financial Model. Therefore, staff believes that a comprehensive program for future traffic signal needs should be developed and prioritized prior to proceeding with additional projects.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Accident History
Exhibit Map


CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

ACCIDENT HISTORY

Location: Hawthorne Blvd./ Highridge Rd.

Date: 1/1/1998 to 12/31/01

Date

Time

Dist.

Direction

Type

Reasons

11/1/01

10:00

Int.

EBTH vs. NBLT

Broadside

Red light violation

10/13/01

21:46

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield, driving with permit w/o adult

9/26/01

07:40

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield, citizen’s report

8/20/01

21:25

Int.

WBTH vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

7/14/01

15:55

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

6/14/01

20:15

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

12/12/00

09:25

Int.

SBSLOW vs. SBST

Rear end

Following too close

9/22/00

09:25

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

6/18/00

21:45

Int.

EBTH vs. EBST

Rear end

Unsafe speed

6/6/00

10:24

Int.

NBLT vs. EBTH?

Broadside

Failure to yield

4/24/00

18:10

Int.

NBTH vs. WB ?

Pedestrian

Signal violation

3/31/00

21:42

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Sideswipe

Improper driving

2/4/00

09:00

Int.

NBLT vs. SBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

1/5/00

14:00

Int.

EBTH vs. EBTH

Rear end

Unsafe speed

1/4/00

13:30

Int.

EBTH vs. EBTH

Rear end

Unsafe speed

9/25/99

16:20

Int.

NBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

9/16/99

12:40

200’ S

EBTH vs. EBTH

Rear end

Following too close

9/11//99

18:45

Int

WBTH vs. SBTH

Broadside

Red light violation

7/12/99

11:00

Int

WBLT vs. SBTH

Broadside

Unsafe left turn

6/19/99

15:57

Int.

WBTH vs. WBST

Rear end

Unsafe speed

11/20/98

19:00

Int.

EBBK vs. NBLT

Rear end

Unsafe backing

11/10/98

17:50

200’ N

WBTH vs. WBTH

Rear end

Unsafe speed-citizen report

8/12/98

17:40

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

8/12/98

17:17

Int.

EBLT vs. WBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

3/21/98

15:36

Int.

NBTH vs. EBTH

Broadside

Red light violation

2/10/98

09:20

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Failure to yield

1/28/98

19:00

Int.

WBLT vs. EBTH

Broadside

Red light violation

KEY- EB (northbound), TH-Through, ST-stopped, LT-Left turn, SLOW-Slowing



14. Ladera Linda Community Center and Portuguese Bend Fields. (Evans)

Recommendation: Schedule a joint meeting with the Palos Verdes Peninsula School Board to discuss the possible relocation of School District Administrative Offices to Ladera Linda.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER AND PORTUGUESE BEND FIELDS

RECOMMENDATION:

Schedule a Joint Meeting with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Board to discuss the possible relocation of School District Administrative Offices to Ladera Linda.

BACKGROUND:

The City originally entered into an agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District to purchase eight parcels of land at the Loma Del Mar School site on June 18, 1979. The Loma Del Mar School site is located west of the Ocean Terraces Condominiums and is now part of the Ocean Trails Golf Course. In the agreement the City was to purchase one parcel from the District each year over an eight-year period. In 1981, the City decided, at the urging of the Ladera Linda neighborhood, to purchase the closed Ladera Linda Elementary School site and let the District keep the Loma Del Mar site. In order for this alternate purchase to take place, the Ladera Linda site was also divided into eight parcels. At this time the City had already purchased parcels one and two of the Loma Del Mar site. Therefore the City and the School District entered into another agreement on June 16, 1981. Under the terms of this new agreement, the parties agreed to trade parcels one and two of the Loma Del Mar site for parcels 3b and 4b of the Ladera Linda site. The City then purchased parcel 5b of the Ladera Linda site in May 1981 and continued to purchase one parcel each year until all eight parcels of the Ladera Linda site had been purchased. The facility includes 13,268 square feet of buildings on an 11.21-acre site. The total cost of the Ladera Linda facility was $974,000.

This former elementary school site’s amenities include a parking lot, restrooms, paddle tennis courts, tot lot, playground, basketball court, soccer and softball fields. Ladera Linda is also home of the Discovery Room that features live and static exhibits of local flora, fauna and historic information. Staff and volunteers provide educational programs on-site for a large variety of school, youth and other groups as well as conduct docent-led hikes in the surrounding hills and Forrestal Property. This location also has a multipurpose room and classroom available for rental for meetings and private parties. Currently about 5,000 square feet of the classroom space and about 21,000 square feet of playground and parking area are leased to a Montessori School for an annual rent of $66,130. The Agreement with the Montessori School may be terminated upon six months notice.

Adjacent to the Ladera Linda Community Center are the Portuguese Bend Fields that are owned by the School District. The City and the District have a Memorandum of Understanding that allows the City to use the property for public park and recreation area. The term of the MOU ends on April 29, 2002. These fields include a total of about 21.9 acres and are an active site for softball and soccer as well as major special events. The fields are available for rental for corporate picnics and other large celebrations. There are excellent views of the cliff face, flanking hillsides, coastline, Long Point, ocean and islands.

DISCUSSION:

On March 26, 2002 we received a call from Ira Toibin, Superintendent of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District. He related to us that his Board had a lengthy discussion at their meeting on March 25, 2002 regarding the need for opening more schools. One of the needs is in the area of the former Valmonte Elementary School in Palos Verdes Estates, currently utilized as the School District Administrative Offices. The School Board has concluded that if Valmonte Elementary School is re-opened, the District Offices must be relocated. Dr. Toibin inquired whether or not the City Council would consider returning the former Ladera Linda Elementary School facilities to the District for use as Administrative offices. Another option that he mentioned was the construction of modular offices on the Portuguese Bend fields that are currently on loan from the District by the City. The discussion also touched on the possibility of a future need for re-opening an elementary school at the Ladera Linda site. In addition to these topics, the idea of studying the construction of joint City-School District Administrative offices with shared meeting rooms was discussed.

The Superintendent and the City Manager discussed the possibility of bringing the Ladera Linda matter, and related topics, before the proposed new Peninsula Issues Committee. However, after discussing the matter with School Board President Perkins and Mayor McTaggart, there was a feeling that a joint meeting of the School Board and City Council might be more appropriate. The dates proposed for the joint meeting are Thursday, May 9, 2002 and Thursday, May 16, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Memorandum of Understanding



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: APRIL 2, 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 March 11, 2002, Staff has revised the draft comment letter on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed South Coast County Golf Course, incorporating the City Council’s comments and additional information from the City’s consultant. Staff is seeking final City Council input prior to the submittal of these comments to the County by April 11, 2002.

The City has also received a copy of the draft EIR for the special reorganization of the harbor area. Staff intends to provide comments to LAFCO on or before the May 6, 2002 deadline for public comments. Unfortunately, this is prior to the next regular review of border issues on May 7, 2002. If the City Council wishes to review Staff’s comments before they are submitted, it may wish to agendize this matter for review on the April 16, 2002 agenda.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Border Issues Status Report
Final revised draft NOP comments on the South Coast County Golf Course EIR
Notice of Availability of the Harbor Area Special Reorganization Draft EIR


BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT
Revised April 2, 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.

On March 6, 2002, the County informed us that a 30-day extension of the NOP comment period had been granted. The new deadline for comments is April 11, 2002. The City Council will take a final look at the draft NOP comment letter for this project on April 2, 2002.

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.

On March 22, 2002, the City received a copy of the draft EIR for the special reorganization of the harbor area. Although Staff has not yet had time to fully review the document, we note that, in addition to our comments, LAFCO also received NOP responses from SCAQMD, County Animal Care and Control, the State Clearinghouse, CalTrans, the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, SCAG and LAUSD. The 45-day public comment period will end on May 6, 2002, and a public hearing will be held to consider the EIR on May 22, 2002. Staff intends to review the drat EIR and provide comments to LAFCO on or before the end of the comment period.

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

2 April 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.

  1. 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.

The potential of landslides is great in this area particularly with uncompacted material such as found here (particularly when hydrated). Historic records show some mass wasting at the base of the area proposed for development. Additionally, steep slopes are present at the site and the potential for mudflows (albeit small-scale) are a possibility. Finally, the potential impact to groundwater quality from leachate seems to be classed as a non-issue in the Initial Study. The EIR should fully address these concerns.

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. Particularly attention should be given to the land use impacts of commercial stables in residential areas, as well as the impacts to drainage and water quality as a result the stringent new NPDES standards for animal-keeping facilities.

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 elimination mitigation of fugitive dust in surrounding neighborhoods. The goal of this project, if approved, should be to prevent any dust and particulate matter from escaping the project site. However, acknowledging that some dust may escape due to windy conditions or lapses in strict implementation of proper grading and construction practices, mitigation measures should be applied to reduce any fugitive dust impacts to less-than-significant levels. Suggested mitigation measures might include enforcement of a regular site watering and street cleaning schedule, the placement of air quality monitoring stations and the periodic cleaning of swimming pools and residential interiors that are soiled by fugitive dust. Mitigation of objectionable odors may be necessary during excavations and grading of the parcel, particularly if the clay cap is to be breached. In addition, nearby schools should be considered as sensitive receptors.

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 facility, the costs associated with the provision of public services related to the golf course should be borne by the County.

  1. 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 has will be retaineding the services of an independent consultant to review the draft EIR with respect to the issue of hazard materials on the site.

In general the NOP does not identify Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, and Geology and Soils as having "Potentially Significant Impacts" as a result of the project. The City would like to point out the fact that mitigations to the former landfill already exist at the site in the form of a clay cap, soil gas collection system, leachate collection system, and groundwater control and treatment system. The impacts to these mitigations by changing the grading and water infiltration and run off characteristics of the site need to be included in the EIR. The potential for overwhelming the current mitigations or changing the effectiveness of the leachate and soil gas migration systems is significant, particularly with the documented threats to surrounding residential neighborhoods and schools, as well as the threat to usable groundwater in the Los Angeles Basin aquifers. The City believes the ranking of these categories should be elevated to the Potentially Significant Impact level as no clear mitigations currently are recognized without a detailed study.

10. The County discounts the project’s potential impacts to biological resources because the site has been previously disturbed. The EIR should still address biological concerns, as the site is near Significant Ecological Areas (based on the County General Plan). Additionally, the site has been relatively undisturbed for approximately 20 years; therefore, native species may have re-established themselves.

11. The discussion of Geology and Soils notes that impacts may be potentially significant impact, even with mitigation incorporated. Areas of loose, uncompacted fill material are more susceptible to violent shaking during an earthquake. In addition, seismic settlement may occur during an earthquake, considering the nature of the underlying fill materials (decomposing material and loosely compacted backfill material).

12.In the discussion of Utilities and Service Systems, it is noted that the increased water demand may adversely impact the City’s water supply (although reclaimed water may alleviate this to some degree), especially in times of drought. Water would also be used during construction for dust control. The EIR should address the project’s impacts upon the water supply of all of the communities on the Peninsula.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project. The City also appreciates the additional time granted to review and comment upon this NOP. 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



16. General Plan Update – Steering Committee Formation. (Pfost)

Recommendation: (1) Formulate a "General Plan Update Steering Committee." (2) Direct Staff to develop and implement a public participation strategy.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - STEERING COMMITTEE

FORMATION

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Deputy Planning Director

RECOMMENDATION

1) Formulate a "General Plan Update Steering Committee"; and 2) Direct Staff to develop and implement a public participation strategy.

BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2002, Staff presented a report to the City Council identifying a recommended process for initiating the General Plan update. At the meeting, the City Council agreed that a "Steering Committee" should be formed to define a process for the General Plan update, establish milestones, and make recommendations to the City Council. At the March 9th meeting, the Council directed Staff to further define the potential members and objectives of the Committee.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with potential alternatives to assist the Council in defining the make-up and objectives of the "Steering Committee".

Number of Members and Make-up of the Steering Committee

In defining the make-up of the "Steering Committee", Staff believes that the total number should be limited to a maximum of 15 members. Staff believes that the limited number is necessary since it is anticipated that there will be a lot of public input and therefore it will be important to keep the meeting moving in an efficient manner. Furthermore, a limited number of committee members would better facilitate meeting set-up and staffing, distribution of information, and analysis preparation/reporting to the Committee.

As the General Plan's goals and policies cover such a large variety of issues, the members of the Committee should represent a good cross-section of the community and be able to understand the issues at hand. To this end, Staff offers the following recommendation for the 15 members:

      • Two City Council members
      • Two Planning Commissioners
      • One Recreation and Parks Committee Member
      • One Finance Advisory Committee Member
      • One Equestrian Committee Member
      • One Traffic Committee Member
      • One View Restoration Committee Member
      • One representative from the Council of Homeowners' Associations
      • One representative from the Peninsula Seniors
      • One representative from the Peninsula Youth Recreation League Council
      • One representative from the Docents
      • One representative from the School District
      • One representative from the Chamber of Commerce

Once Staff receives direction from the City Council on the number and make-up of Committee members, Staff will contact each of the commission/committee/organizations for a representative to attend all future Committee member meetings. Once confirmed, Staff will notify the Council of the final Committee membership.

Objectives of the Steering Committee

Staff believes that the main objective of the Steering Committee will be to create a process for completing their review of the General Plan Goals and Policies. As discussed at the March 9, 2002 City Council meeting, this process will include incorporating input from "grass-roots" citizen committees, which will be formed to incorporate more public participation into the process. Additionally, Staff believes that the Steering Committee could also affirm the specific technical areas identified by Staff that need to be adjusted and/or updated in the General Plan, what portions Staff will be able to complete, and what portions a Consultant will need to complete.

The Steering Committee will be responsible for reporting back to the City Council as to which Goals and Policies need to be eliminated, revised or maintained, and if any new Goals and Policies should be proposed, and what technical areas need updating.

Additionally, Staff believes that the Committee meetings will be a) held on a regular basis, b) properly noticed, c) have a specific agenda format for each meeting, and d) chaired by a selected Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Public Participation Strategy

In addition to formulating a Steering Committee, Staff is also recommending that the City Council direct Staff to develop and implement a public participation strategy in conjunction with the Committee's review of the General Plan. The strategy would include creating a "General Plan Update" site on the City's Web page with the ability for the public to join an e-mail list serve group, providing notice in the newspaper and to all Homeowner Associations of all Committee meetings, press releases to update the public on the status of the update, and other methods.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

As noted above, Staff feels that early on in the process, the Committee, with Staff assistance, should define and/or confirm the technical areas of the General Plan that need updating. Upon doing this, Staff would bring a report back to the City Council seeking direction as to whether or not the City should employ a consultant to assist Staff with the technical updates. As noted in past reports, Staff believes that a consultant will be necessary for some of the updating work, including, at least, the preparation of a new land use map and other graphics within the General Plan document.

Upon completion of the Steering Committee’s review, Staff envisions that the City Council will consider the Committee’s recommendations and provide input to Staff on the specific updates that should be made to the Goals/Policies. This would then start public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council for the final adoption of the General Plan Amendment.

Staff estimates that it will take 4-6 months for the Steering Committee to review the General Plan Goals and Policies and report back to the City Council. At that time, Staff will provide an estimate of the time and cost to complete the actual General Plan update process.

CONCLUSION

This report serves to identify an initial strategy/proposal for selecting a General Plan Update Steering Committee that will assist the City Council in determining the extent of a General Plan update. Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to Staff in regards to the make-up and objectives of the Committee, and on initiating a public participation strategy.

FISCAL IMPACT

As noted in previous reports, Staff has estimated that it would cost between $200,000-$400,000 to hire a consultant to prepare all the necessary updates to the General Plan. This is a conservative cost estimate that includes the preparation of all necessary studies, text and graphics, the coordination of all public meetings and the preparation of the CEQA documentation - most likely an EIR. However, as previously discussed, the true cost of the General Plan update will be better ascertained once the City Council, through recommendations of a "Steering Committee" is able to identify the scope of the necessary General Plan amendments.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



17. Agenda for the Joint Workshop with the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee Concerning the Crestridge Properties. (Pfost)

Recommendation: Approve the proposed Draft Agenda for the joint workshop between the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee on May 7, 2002.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: AGENDA FOR the Joint Workshop with the PLANNING COMMISSION and Finance Advisory Committee concerning the Crestridge Properties

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Deputy Planning Director

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the attached Draft Agenda for the joint workshop between the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee on May 7, 2002.

BACKGROUND

At the March 11, 2002 City Council meeting, the Council agreed to hold a joint workshop with the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee on May 7, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss future uses of the Crestridge properties. The City Council also agreed that issues of discussion should be identified, so as to facilitate public input at the joint workshop. To that end, the Council directed Staff to obtain input from the Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee prior to the May 7th workshop. The Planning Commission provided input at their March 26, 2002 meeting, while the Finance Advisory Committee provided input at their March 27, 2002 meeting.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this report is to notify the Council of the Planning Commission's comments pertaining to potential issues to be discussed at the May 7th workshop, and to obtain Council direction on a Staff prepared Draft Agenda for the workshop.

At their March 26th meeting, upon reviewing a list of six potential issues that Staff felt may be addressed at the May 7th workshop, the Planning Commission revised the list slightly, condensing it into three main issues that should be addressed in sequential order. The Planning Commission felt that addressing the issues sequentially was important, because the issues are so broad and the workshop committee will be so large (potentially 19 members if all of the Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee members attend) that it may be difficult to fully discuss and reach any resolution on these issues. The issues can be summarized as follows:

Planning Commission Issues:

    1. What are acceptable uses of the Crestridge properties? Uses that should be discussed include:

      1. Are residential condominiums an appropriate use for the Institutional Zone?
      2. Should a city park be developed on the RDA owned property?
      3. Should a senior center be developed on the RDA owned property?
      4. Should a youth and active recreational facility be developed on the RDA owned property?
      5. Are all other uses currently defined in the Institutional Zone acceptable uses for the subject properties?
      6. Should a Specific Plan be created for the Crestridge properties in order to further define the optimum development patterns, physical constraints and potential uses?

    2. What are the needs for Senior Citizen housing on the Peninsula, and what sites in the City can help accommodate that need?

    3. What are the City's affordable housing needs, and what sites in the City can help accommodate that need?

CONCLUSION

Based upon the Planning Commission's input, Staff has generated the attached Draft Agenda for the May 7th Workshop. Staff recommends that the City Council review the Draft Agenda and provide direction to Staff of any changes.

It should be noted that Staff anticipates preparing a detailed Staff Report that will address the various items and issues noted in the attached Draft Agenda. Furthermore, Staff also plans to utilize the services of a professional meeting facilitator to attend the workshop, absorb the discussion and input from all those in attendance, and then propose a next step in the process.

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

ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Agenda for the May 7, 2002 Workshop


(DRAFT)

AGENDA

JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING THE
CRESTRDIGE PROPERTIES

6:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 7, 2002
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


SCHEDULING NOTE

REQUESTS TO SPEAK MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.


CALL TO ORDER: (Mayor)

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

COMMUNICATIONS:

Staff:

City Council, Planning Commission, Finance Advisory Committee:

AGENDA:

  1. Overview of existing land use on Crestridge Road (Staff - approx. 5 minutes).

  2. Overview of undeveloped land on Crestridge Road (Staff - approx. 15 minutes).
    1. The Belmont (formally Marriott) project site
    2. The privately held, un-entitled vacant property
    3. The RDA owned vacant property

  3. Overview of allowed uses in the Institutional Zone (Staff - approx. 5 minutes).

  4. Presentation by Parties that have submitted Statements of Interest in the RDA owned property (Palos Verdes Art Center, Exceptional Children's Network, Standard Pacific, Affirmed Housing Group, and Corporation for Better Housing) (10 minutes for each presentation).

  5. Presentation and discussion of issues identified by the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee (approx. 90 minutes)

  6. Public Input (3 minutes per speaker).

  7. Direction/Next Step - Discussion between Staff and workshop members (20 minutes), led by a professional meeting facilitator.

ADJOURNMENT



18. In Lieu Fee Agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for Off-Site Wetlands Mitigation for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the In Lieu Fee Agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for off-site wetlands mitigation at Chandler’s Preserve associated with the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: IN LIEU FEE AGREEMENT WITH THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY FOR OFF-SITE WETLANDS MITIGATION FOR THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the In Lieu Fee Agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for off-site wetlands mitigation at Chandler’s Preserve associated with the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.

BACKGROUND

As previously reported to Council, the grading required for the San Ramon Project resulted in the loss of 0.07 acres of riparian habitat. Due to the physical characteristics of this drainage and landslide stabilization project, the City was unable to mitigate for this impact on-site. Fortunately, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) has an existing wetlands mitigation program at the Chandler Preserve in the City of Rolling Hills Estates with sufficient area available to provide off-site mitigation for the San Ramon Project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the other resource agencies agreed to allow the City to pay a $10,500 in lieu fee to the PVPLC to install the wetlands mitigation area at Chandler Preserve. In addition to the initial in lieu fee, the City is also required to monitor the restoration effort to ensure and document that it is successful. The PVPLC will also require reimbursement for some additional costs incurred to maintain the restoration area (primarily weed control) over the minimum five years period required by the resource agencies. A conservative estimate for these additional activities, which would be spread out over the five year period, is $30,000.

DISCUSSION

On December 18, 2001, the City Council approved the Conceptual Off-site Wetland Mitigation Plan for the San Ramon Project, which had been prepared by the City’s consultant, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., and approved by the various resource agencies. Subsequent to approving the mitigation plan, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested that the City also enter into an In Lieu Fee Agreement with the PVPLC to memorialize the terms and obligations of the off-site mitigation effort. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided the City with a sample agreement, which the City and PVPLC have jointly modified to fit the specifics of the off-site mitigation project. The draft in lieu agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office as to its form and content, and is attached for the Council’s consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT

The $10,500 in lieu fee has already been paid to the PVPLC for the initial installation of the wetlands mitigation area at Chandler Preserve. This fee was paid from the City’s Capital Improvement Project (CIP) fund for the San Ramon Project. All future costs of the off-site mitigation (estimated to be $30,000 over the next five years for monitoring and maintenance) are proposed to be paid for out of the City’s Habitat Restoration Fund. The ending balance in FY 01-02 for this fund is estimated to be $163,272.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Draft In Lieu Agreement


IN LIEU FEE AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
AND
THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY

This In-Lieu Fee Agreement is made and entered into this ___ day of _________, 2002 by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") and the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy ("Conservancy").

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the City is undertaking a public works called as the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California, and such work will involve the discharge of "dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States;" and,

WHEREAS, the Conservancy owns a portion of the Linden H. Chandler Preserve located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, County of Los Angeles, California, which consists of 0.14 acre for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation, which adheres to the Corps specified parameters detailed in the City’s Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan dated December 20, 2001 ("Restoration Plan"), and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference (the "Property"); and,

WHEREAS, the Property possesses aquatic, wildlife habitat, and biological value (collectively, "conservation values") of great importance to the Corps, and the public in general; and,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ ("Corps") permit for San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project (Corps file no. 2001-0-1329-JLB) includes under Special Conditions 4 and 5x that prior to initiation of construction, the City shall provide an In-Lieu Fee agreement for the purpose of detailing mitigation conformance and implementation plans. This agreement shall provide assurances of mitigation compliance as required by the Corps, California Department of Fish and Game and Water Quality Control Board.

WHEREAS, this agreement provides funding to the Conservancy for the purpose of implementing the Corps-approved Restoration Plan ("Plan") for 0.14-acre of land, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference; and,

WHEREAS, on December 18, 2001, the City Council authorized the Conservancy to implement the Corps-approved Restoration Plan and provide maintenance of the project on the Property; and,

WHEREAS, the City desires to implement mitigation measures as required by the Corps, by funding implementation of the Plan for a portion of the Property that will be performed by the Conservancy.

WHEREAS, permanent protection and preservation of the mitigation site is ensured because there is an existing conservation easement recorded for the Property. Furthermore, the Chandler Preserve was partially purchased with Los Angeles County Proposition A funds, which further restrict the use of the site for anything other than conservation purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, agreements and conditions herein set forth, the City and Conservancy, mutually covenant and agree as follows:

1. The Conservancy agrees to provide 0.14-acre within the Property, which the Corps has found to be necessary for the City to meet the compensatory mitigation required by the Corps.

2. The City shall fund an amount of $10,500, payable to the Conservancy for the purpose of providing the funds necessary for the Conservancy to complete the work detailed in the Restoration Plan. Further monies may be needed for the five years of maintenance called for under the Restoration Plan and shall be determined annually on a time and materials basis by mutual agreement between the City and Conservancy.

3. Upon receipt of the necessary funding from the City, the Conservancy shall commence and diligently pursue implementation of the Restoration Plan.

4. In lieu fee funds shall be used solely for activities directly related to aquatic habitat restoration, enhancement and creation, to include exclusively the following activities: implementation of mitigation and monitoring plans, administrative costs, and long-term management of the 0.14-acre. Administrative costs shall be limited to a maximum of ten percent (10%). Administrative costs include, but are not limited to bookkeeping, mailing expenses, printing, office supplies, bank fees, training, travel and staff time directly related to supporting these expenses and similar activities. Administrative costs do not include project monitoring, permit fees, or long-term management.

5. The Conservancy shall maintain accurate records for expenditure of in-lieu fee funds and documentation of restored areas, including the date restoration work began, the total number of acres restored, and restoration updates. The Conservancy shall provide the Corps with an annual financial report. This report shall be submitted to the Corps and copies to the City by February1st of each year.

6. Upon acceptance of the Restoration Plan by the Corps, the Conservancy shall provide a detailed schedule including anticipated time lines for implementation of the Restoration Plan. The acceptable date for the commencement of planting shall not exceed one year past commencement of earthmoving activities associated with the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project (October 4, 2001).

7. The City shall be responsible for monitoring, and shall provide annual monitoring reports to the Corps with copies to the Conservancy for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of initiation of the restoration work. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., or another qualified restoration specialists selected by the City and approved by the Corps, shall prepare the monitoring reports. The annual reports shall conform with the Corps-approved Restoration Plan.

8. This agreement shall become effective on the date of signature by all parties. Any party to this agreement may terminate the agreement upon sixty (60) days written notification to the other party. However, upon termination of this agreement, the City will provide notification to the Corps. Upon notification, the Corps shall then determine whether any modification to Corps file no. 2001-0-1329-JBL is warranted.

9. Without written approval of the Corps, the Conservancy shall not be relived of its obligations under this agreement to complete restoration and maintain any portion of the 0.14-acre where restoration has been initiated or for which some funds have already been expended. Provided, however, that if this agreement is terminated by any party under Paragraph 8, the Conservancy shall be relieved of obligations to continue with restoration. City agrees to pay for all continuing costs for maintenance and monitoring all or that portion of the 0.14-acre site for which construction has been completed. If the agreement is terminated by any party pursuant to Paragraph 9, any unused funds maintained by the Conservancy shall be refunded to the City or to an entity designated in writing by the Corps, and used for implementation, maintenance and monitoring of the remainder of the 0.14-acre site that has not been restored at the date of cancellation.

10. The City and Conservancy agree that these measures are in the best interest of all parties involved and agree to be bound by these obligations.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement, and this agreement shall become effective on the date shown signed by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES


By: ___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_______________________________
City Clerk

PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY


By: ____________________________
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR



19. Quarterly Off-Site Council Meeting Schedule. (Petru)

Recommendation: Select dates for the Spring and Summer off-site City Council meetings for 2002 and select a location for the Saturday, May 18, 2002 meeting regarding the Zone 2 Report.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: QUARTERLY OFF-SITE COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE

RECOMMENDATION

Select dates for the Spring and Summer off-site City Council meetings for 2002 and select a location for the Saturday, May 18, 2002 meeting regarding the Zone 2 Report.

BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2002, the City Council conducted an adjourned regular meeting at the Ladera Linda Community Center. Subsequently, on January 31, 2001, the Council decided to hold Council meetings at locations other than Hesse Park on a quarterly basis. Because the January 12th meeting served as the off-site meeting for the first quarter of 2002, staff was directed to report back with potential dates and locations for the remaining three quarters of the year.

DISCUSSION

Because Hesse Park is located on the west side of the City and Ladera Linda is located on the south side, staff looked for sites that were located in the east and north sections of the community. Unfortunately, the City does not have any park sites in these areas with meeting facilities. Therefore, staff contacted the following schools because they are located in Rancho Palos Verdes (in order to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act). Each of these schools (the first two within the Palos Verdes Unified School District and the last one in the Los Angeles Unified School District) has an auditorium large enough to accommodate a City Council meeting:

  • Miraleste Intermediate School (east side)
  • Cornerstone (formerly Pedregal) Elementary School (north side)
  • Dodson Intermediate School (Eastview area)

Because the School Districts establish their yearly facility calendars based on the school year (September to August) rather than on the calendar year, neither of the School Districts have established their calendars for Fall 2002. In addition, the Assistant Principal at Dodson Intermediate School has informed staff that their auditorium is scheduled to be renovated over the summer and, therefore, will not be available for meetings until the Fall. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council select dates for the Spring meeting at Miraleste Intermediate School and Summer meetings at Cornerstone Elementary School, and allow staff additional time to work with the staff at Dodson Intermediate School to determine which dates are available at this facility for the Fall off-site meeting. A subsequent report will be presented to Council to select the Fall meeting date.

Below is a list of potential dates for the Spring and Summer off-site meetings. Unless otherwise noted, all of the proposed meetings would be held on regular City Council meeting days (first or third Tuesday of the month starting at 7:00 PM).

Spring Meeting at Miraleste Intermediate School

April 16
May 7 (includes a joint meeting with PC & FAC @ 6:00 PM to discuss Crestridge property)
May 18 (Saturday meeting @ 9:00 AM to discuss Zone 2 Report)
June 18

Summer Meeting at Cornerstone Elementary School

July 2
July 16
August 6
August 20
September 3
September 17

Staff recommends that the Council select one date from each of the Spring and Summer lists to conduct an off-site meeting. The Council may also wish to decide where to hold the May 18th meeting regarding the Zone 2 Report. The staff initially suggested Miraleste Intermediate School because a large crowd may turn out. However, the Council may also want to consider holding the meeting at Ladera Linda Community Center because this facility is located near the area in question.

FISCAL IMPACT

The Palos Verdes Unified School District will require the City to pay the overtime costs if the janitorial staff is required to work on a Saturday or remain on-site after 11:30 PM to close the facility on a weekday. Although staff has not received the hourly rates prior to the preparation of this staff report, the cost, if required, is expected to be minimal.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



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



20. City Council Reports. (Evans)

Recommendation: Make City Council reports as required by City Council Policy Number 23.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

RECOMMENDATION

Make City Council reports as required by City Council Policy Number 23.

BACKGROUND

City Council Policy Number 23 (attached) requires that each Councilmember serving on an outside organization or on an ad hoc Council subcommittee, where they represent the interests of the City, make a quarterly report to the full Council on the activities of the organization or subcommittee. It has been pointed out to staff that while each Councilmember has been making regular reports, a few organizations or committees to which a Councilmember has been appointed have not yet been reported on this quarter. In view of the fact that some committees have formal minutes (such as the Red Team, Contract Cities, PV Transit) and some committees haven’t met yet this year (such as the CJPIA), whether or not the quarterly reporting requirement has been fulfilled is not entirely clear.

DISCUSSION

Staff has provided (attached) a listing of City Council assignments made in January of this year. It would be appropriate for each Councilmember to briefly report on the activities of their organization, committee or liaison assignment, if they have not done so previously this quarter. Staff has provided excerpts from available minutes of Council meetings in 2002 that address Oral City Council Reports.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
City Council Policy No. 23
City Council Assignments for 2002
Excerpts from City Council Minutes

CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2002

ORGANIZATION DELEGATE/ALTERNATE

  • City Selection Committee
    McTaggart/Stern
  • League of Calif. Cities L.A. County Division
    McTaggart/Stern
  • So. Calif. Assoc. Of Governments (SCAG)
    McTaggart
  • So. Bay Cities Council of Govts. (SBCOG)
    McTaggart/Clark
  • San. Districts (Dist. No. 5 & So. Bay San. District)
    McTaggart/Stern
  • Calif. Joint Powers Ins. Authority(CJPIA)
    McTaggart/Stern
  • Contract Cities
    McTaggart/Gardiner
  • So. Bay Youth Project
    Ferraro/Stern
  • Chambers of Commerce
    Entire Council
  • Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
    Clark/Stern
  • Palos Verdes Trans. Authority
    Gardiner/Ferraro
  • Max Policy Steering Committee
    McTaggart/Ferraro
  • Pen. Regional Law Enforcement
    Stern/McTaggart
  • West Basin Muni. Water District
    Gardiner/Ferraro
  • Calif. Coastal Coalition
    McTaggart/Clark
  • Vector Control District
    McTaggart

AD HOC COMMITTEES

  • Open Space Acquisition
    Stern/ Clark
  • Neighborhood Compatibility
    Clark/Gardiner

STANDING COMMITTEES

  • Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)
    McTaggart/Gardiner
  • Council Liaison to Ocean Trails/Long Point
    Stern/Clark

LIAISON ASSIGNMENTSLIAISON / ALTERNATE

  • Council Liaison to Western Avenue Corridor Task Force
    Stern/Gardiner
  • Council Liaison to LAX Expansion /Noise
    McTaggart/Ferraro
  • L.A. Community Roundtable
    McTaggart/Gardiner

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)

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)



RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 2, 2002
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


CALL TO ORDER -- NEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2002-05

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


A. Minutes of March 11, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

MARCH 11, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 10:04 P.M. by Chair McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

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

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; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Agency Secretary Jo Purcell; and, Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

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

Minutes (301)

Approved the minutes of February 5 and 7, 2002, and March 6, 2002.

January 2002 Treasurer’s Report (602 x 1900)

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. RDA 2002-04 - Register of Demands (602 x 1900)

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002-04, 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, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
NOES: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

There were no requests to speak.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

City Attorney Lynch reported that the Board took no action but received a report that the Long Point sewer litigation had been concluded.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 P.M. on the motion of Member Ferraro.


__________________
Chair

ATTEST:


_________________________
Agency Secretary


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

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 2002 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator:Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the February 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 February 2002 for the Redevelopment Agency.

ANALYSIS:

The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by $281,742 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $991,525 at February 28, 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.


D. Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize payment to Van Diest Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $13,900 for sewer improvements at 35 Narcissa Drive. (2) Authorize payment to Mr. Michael Barth in the amount of $2,800 for sewer improvements at 29 Sweetbay Road.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: ABALONE COVE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Authorize payment to Van Diest Brothers, Inc. in the amount $ 13,900 for sewer improvements at 35 Narcissa Drive

  2. Authorize payment to Mr. Michael Barth in the amount of $2,800 for sewer improvements at 29 Sweetbay Road.

BACKGROUND

On August 7, 2001 a construction contract for the Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements was awarded to Colich and Sons Construction Company. The project consists of constructing sewer improvements within the private streets, and on private residential lots in the Portuguese Bend Community.

During the course of the project a portion of the sewer improvements was completed by parities other than the approved contractor. The construction was inspected and was found to meet project specifications. This staff report authorizes payment to the parties who completed the work.

DISCUSSION

The work in question took place on two properties, 35 Narcissa Drive, and 29 Sweetbay Road.

35 Narcissa Drive

The property owner at 35 Narcissa Drive had several disagreements with Colich and Sons over the work being performed within the street adjacent to his property. The City investigated the complaint and found that all work met project specifications. Because of this disagreement, however, Colich and Sons requested that construction of the private improvements at 35 Narcissa be removed from the contract.

The City agreed to remove the work at 35 Narcissa from Colich’s contract and the City contacted Van Diest Brothers, Inc. for a proposal for the work. The bid amount from Van Diest Brothers, Inc. was $ 13,900 which was $300 more than the approved contract price. Van Diest Brothers, Inc. was authorized to begin construction. Because the construction at 35 Narcissa was deleted from the contract at the request of Colich and Sons, and because Van Diest’s bid was greater than the approved contract amount, Colich and Sons will be responsible for the $300 extra charged by Van Diest. This amount will be deducted from the Colich contract.

29 Sweetbay Road

The property owner at 29 Sweetbay Road, unilaterally decided to have his plumbing contractor construct a portion of his sewer lateral. The property owner paid the plumbing contractor for the work, and submitted an invoice to the City. The approved contract unit price for the work completed is $5,800; the amount of the invoice is $2,800. Thus a $3,000 savings was realized.

In both cases since a party other than the approved contractor completed the work, an additional authorization is requested.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting the staff recommendation will authorize payment for construction of a portion of the Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements completed by parties other than the approved contractor. The recommended payment amount is slightly less than the approved contract prices.

FISCAL IMPACT

The total cost for the recommended actions is $16,700. This amount is slightly less than the approved contract price. Funding is available in the Abalone Cove Capital Improvement Fund.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, Executive Director


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



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



RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 2, 2002
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


CALL TO ORDER: NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2002-04

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1. Minutes of March 11, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

MARCH 11, 2002

 

The meeting was called to order at 10:06 P.M. by Chair McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

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

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; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Commission Secretary Jo Purcell; and, Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

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

Minutes

Approved the minutes of February 5 and 7, 2002, and March 6, 2002.

January 2002 Treasurer’s Report

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. IA 2002-03 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. IA 2002-03, 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, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Chair McTaggart
NOES: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

There were no requests to speak.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 P.M. on the motion of commissioner Ferraro.


________________
Chair

Attest:

_____________________
Commission Secretary


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

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

DATE: APRIL 2, 2002

SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 2002 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the February 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 February 2002 for the Improvement Authority.

ANALYSIS:

The Improvement Authority’s cash increased by $7,441 during the past month; ending with an overall balance of $1,588,692 at February 28, 2002. Disbursements of $475 were offset with the monthly General fund transfer of $7,917.

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.