Agenda 04/16/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 04/16/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda April 16, 2002
April 16, 2002

DISCLAIMER

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

...end of disclaimer...

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


BEGINNING OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 16, 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. 2002-25

NEXT ORD. NO. 376


CEREMONIAL MATTERS:

Presentation of proclamation by Mayor McTaggart to Shirley Borks, named by Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal as Woman of the Year in the 54th District.


RECYCLE DRAWING:



APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 19 and Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 2, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



2. Claim Against the City by Marshall Tuck. (Purcell)

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



3. Signal Project at Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive. (Allison)

Recommendation: Direct staff to move forward with the design of a traditional traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive.



4. Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract for the construction of the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Residential Street Overlay and Slurry Seal to Excel Paving Company for the contract bid amount of $1,464,222.50, and authorize staff to spend up to an additional $135,777.50 for possible extra work or unforeseen conditions, for a total authorization of $1,600,000. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Excel Paving Company. (3) Award a contract to SA Associates for the Contract Management and Inspection services in an amount not to exceed $ 60,000. (4) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with SA Associates.



5. Acceptance Of Easements For The San Ramon Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002- ; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND CITY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTED USE COVENANTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT PROJECT.



6. 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:



7. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 (Appellant: James Kay, 26708 Indian Peak Road). (Fox) (Continued from March 25, 2002 meeting.)

Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2002-__ thereby modifying certain conditions denying the appeal and conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 230.


RECESS:

During the recess, Council is scheduled to interview two applicants (Jack Karp and Don Norton) for the Emergency Preparedness Committee.


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

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


REGULAR BUSINESS:



8. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19 (Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive). (Fox)

Recommendation: Determine the maximum number of large domestic animals that may be "grandfathered" for keeping and/or boarding on the property at 20 Vanderlip Drive.



9. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 8 (Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane). (Fox)

Recommendation: Affirm Staff’s determination that the keeping of a maximum twelve (12) large domestic animals—of which a maximum of seven (7) animals may be boarded—may be "grandfathered" for the property at 6 Limetree Lane.



10. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3 (Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive). (Fox)

Recommendation: Affirm Staff’s determination that the keeping of a maximum ten (10) large domestic animals—of which a maximum of six (6) animals may be boarded—may be "grandfathered" for the property at 1 Peppertree Drive.



11. Equestrian Committee Workload Summary. (Fox)

Recommendation: Receive and file.



12. Equestrian Committee Report on an Equestrian Facility. (Hurwitz)

Recommendation: Receive a presentation and provide direction on the findings of the group’s subcommittee regarding the feasibility of a City Equestrian Facility.



13. Recreational Vehicle Street Parking and Residential Storage. (Neth)

Recommendation: Provide staff with direction as whether to initiate any code amendments to address the issues associated with RV parking and storage on public streets and private property.



14. Request for Proposals – City Hall Telephone and Voice Messaging System. (McLean)

Recommendation: Approve the attached City of Rancho Palos Verdes Request for Proposal for VOIP Telephone System (the "RFP") for the replacement of the City Hall telephone system and authorize the Finance Director to negotiate the terms and conditions of the purchase of the system and related support agreement.



15. Professional Services Agreement For An Employees Benefit Study. (Petru)

Recommendation: (1) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Aon Consulting for an Employee Benefits Study in the amount of $27,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2) ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2002- , AMENDING RESOL. NO. 2001-35, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 01-02, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.



16. Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority proposal to install surveillance cameras in certain busses and advise the City Council representatives to the Transit Authority on whether or not to support the proposal when the issue is before the Authority Board.



17. Senate Bill 633, Delay Prevention Act. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider the request of Mayor Mike Gordon of the City of El Segundo to support an amendment to pending federal legislation that takes away local control over airport planning.



18. West Basin Water District Grant Application. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider the request of the West Basin Municipal Water District to write a letter of support for a Proposition 13 grant application submitted by the District in December 2001.



19. Emergency Preparedness Committee. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-11 TO INCREASE THE MEMBERS OF THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE FROM SEVEN (7) MEMBERS TO NINE (9) MEMBERS.



20. League of California Cities Membership. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider Councilmember Gardiner’s proposal to withdraw from membership in the League of California Cities.



21. League of California Cities Resolution. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider Councilmember Clark’s proposal to submit a resolution to the League of California Cities for consideration at the annual conference in October.



22. Adjourned City Council Meetings. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider establishing new dates for interviewing the Recreation and Parks Committee and Equestrian Committee applicants, a new date for the Zone 2 Workshop and a date for a joint meeting with the School Board.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



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



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Saturday, April 27th to the Community Leaders’ Breakfast starting at 9:00 A.M., followed by the interviews of applicants for the advisory boards (Parks & Recreation and Equestrian Committee) starting at 11:00 A.M.



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)

Anticipated Litigation:
(G.C 54956.9(b)

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

__________1__________
(Number of Potential Cases)

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


PERSONNEL

Public Employee Performance Evaluation
G.C. 54957

Title: City Manager


RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 16, 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. 2002-25

NEXT ORD. NO. 376


CEREMONIAL MATTERS:

Presentation of proclamation by Mayor McTaggart to Shirley Borks, named by Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal as Woman of the Year in the 54th District.


RECYCLE DRAWING:



APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 19 and Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 2, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


M I N U T E S

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

APRIL 2, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor John McTaggart in the Fireside Room at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

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

Also present was Jo Purcell, Admin. Services Director/City Clerk.

Interview Of Appointees For Advisory Board Chairs (106)

Council interviewed the following appointees for the position of chair for their respective board: Planning Commission: Jon Cartwright, Tom Long and Craig Mueller. Finance Advisory Committee: Earl Butler and Steve Wolowicz. Traffic Committee: William Schurmer. No action was taken.

Interview for Emergency Preparedness Committee (106)

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff memorandum of April 2 and requested that Council set a date to interview the applicants for the Emergency Preparedness Committee.

It was the consensus that these interviews should be held on Monday, May 6th beginning at 6:00 P.M.

Adjournment: At 6:13 P.M. the meeting adjourned on motion of Mayor McTaggart.


___________________
Mayor

Attest:


___________________
City Clerk


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 19, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, and was immediately recessed to a closed session per the Brown Act Checklist. At 7:02 P.M. the meeting reconvened.

Following the Pledge of Allegiance, led by City Manager Evans, 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; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Senior Planner Ara Mihranian; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and Recording Secretary Denise Bothe.


RECYCLE DRAWING:

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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

City Clerk Purcell advised that the applicant’s attorney for the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Conditional Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 has requested that the item be continued to the March 19th meeting. She advised that staff requested that the items regarding California Redemption Value Payments by Ivy Rubbish Disposal and Modification to the Signal at Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road be placed on a future Agenda.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

City Clerk Purcell briefly highlighted the changes to the minutes.

Councilman Gardiner requested that the award of contract for services to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for proposed improvements to Marymount College be pulled from the Consent Calendar.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern, to approve the Consent Calendar, as amended.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, addressed the brevity of her comments in the minutes of December 18, 2001 and requested that her comments be reflected in full.

Rebecca Orchard, owner/operator of the Body Workshop on Western Avenue, requested clarification on what the City is proposing to adopt in regard to County Codes for massage establishments -- noting that she has successfully been in this business for approximately eight years.

Addressing Ms. Orchard’s inquiry, City Attorney Lynch stated that, at this point, there are no exemptions for any existing businesses; that staff has suggested to City Council that these County regulations be put in place; and she suggested that if Ms. Orchard has particular areas of concern, that she put it in writing and forward it to staff for input. City Attorney Lynch expressed her belief that City Council had not necessarily intended that this licensing matter be concluded, but that staff is attempting to get a licensing mechanism in place.

Motion to waive full reading

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

Minutes of December 18, 2001 and February 5, 2002 (301)

Approved the Minutes as amended.

Household Hazardous Waste Round-Up Siting Liability Agreement with Los Angeles County (1204 x 1402)

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

Resol. No. 2002-08 - Funding Request for Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Cleanup Activities for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and Fiscal Year 2002-2003 (1204 x 1301)

(1) Authorized the submittal of the funding request form to the Department of Conservation’s Division of Recycling for funding programs related to beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities for Fiscal Year 2002-2002 and Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-08, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY FORMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING PAYMENTS AND IMPLEMENTING AND CARRYING OUT THE PROGRAMS.

Notice of Completion for Pipe Repairs Near Palos Verdes Drive South and Peppertree Drive (1204 x 604)

(1) Accepted the work as complete. (2) Authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder.

Ordinance No. 373 – Ordinance Establishing New Regulations Applicable to the Issuance of Business Permits and the Regulations of Massage Establishments and Massage Technicians Operating in the City (1101 x 1103)

Adopted Ordinance No. 373, an ordinance of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes adopting by reference Division 1 of Title 7 (General Licensing Procedures) and Chapter 7.54 of Division 2 of Title 7 (Massage) of the Los Angeles County Code and amending the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. (This ordinance was re-introduced at the February 7th Meeting.)

Employee Service Recognition Program (1101 x 1202)

Adopted City Council Policy No. 11 regarding the Employee Recognition Program.

Code Enforcement Case No. COD2001-00025: Status Report on Non-Permitted Commercial Antennae at 5905 Mossbank Drive (1203 x 1801)

Received and filed, and provide further direction to staff.

Resol. No. 2002-09 - Register of Demands (602)

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-09, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

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


Award of contract for services to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for proposed improvements to Marymount College (30800 Palos Verdes Drive East) (1203 x 1804)

Staff recommendation was to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional service agreement in an amount not to exceed $134,905 with RBF Consulting, to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East.

In response to Councilman Gardiner’s concerns of potential neighborhood opposition, City Attorney Lynch explained that under State law, the City is required to process complete applications once they are submitted; that if the City Council has concerns about the potential success of a project as a result of neighborhood opposition, staff could communicate those concerns to the Applicant; advised that staff is expecting to discuss these neighborhood concerns at the EIR scoping meeting; and that the residents will be able to voice their concerns at that same meeting with the Applicants. She stated that the City Council’s sensitivity to neighborhood opposition would be communicated to the Applicants.

Director Rojas explained that the scoping meeting happens very early on in the process; that it is the public’s first opportunity to formally voice their concerns; and stated that staff will also communicate to the Applicant the City’s concerns with regard to the proposal.

Addressing Councilman Clark’s concern with regard to possible conflict of interest, City Attorney Lynch explained that a Councilmember owning property within 500 feet of this project is required under the law to abstain from consideration and/or that a Councilmember beyond that 500 feet who is financially impacted by this project must abstain from consideration. Having taken a prior position with the homeowners association in regard to the Applicant’s proposal, City Attorney Lynch stated that if Councilman Clark believes he had previously committed himself to the position of the homeowners association, she suggested that he abstain from consideration of this proposal. She reiterated that the two legal issues for conflict of interest are the 500-foot radius and the economic impact.

City Attorney Lynch explained for Councilman Gardiner that if Councilman Clark now is taking the position that he can be objective, as long as he is outside of the 500-foot radius and as long as his property will not be financially impacted, then he could participate.

Councilman Gardiner clarified that he is not prejudging the application, but that he is announcing he is very sensitive to the concerns and opposition of the residents; and that he would like to see take place a mutually agreeable mechanism for all parties to address this proposal before unnecessary money is spent on the Applicant’s behalf.

City Attorney Lynch advised that staff would communicate Councilman Gardiner’s sentiments to the Applicant as well as those concerns from the residents and staff.

Councilman Clark requested that staff provide confirmation as to what distance each of the City Councilmembers’ residences are from the Applicant’s proposed project.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor McTaggart, to concur with staff’s recommendation. Motion carried.


PUBLIC HEARING:

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

Mayor McTaggart opened the public hearing in regard to this matter and noted the request from the applicant’s attorney that this matter be continued to the March 19th meeting

Larry Helfman, 26716 Indian Peak Road, urged those Councilmembers who have not already done so to go out and look at this property, both from Indian Peak and Fond Du Lac, in order to get a better sense of what the applicant is proposing; and expressed his concern that he was not able to find in the hallway notebook the subject resolution which had been adopted by the Planning Commission.

Each Councilmember and staff confirmed that they had in their agenda packets a copy of the referenced Planning Commission resolution.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to continue this matter to the March 19th City Council meeting. Motion carried.


REGULAR BUSINESS:

Resol. No. 2002-10 - Traffic Calming on Via Rivera (1204 x 1502)

Director Allison presented the staff report of February 19, 2002, and the recommendation to (1) Approve the installation of a series of speed humps along Via Rivera Avenue between Rue De La Pierre and Via Del Mar in accordance with the City’s Traffic Calming Program. (2) Authorize the expenditure of up to $40,000 for the engineering and construction of speed humps, signs and pavement markings along Via Rivera. (3) Adopt the proposed resolution amending Resolution No. 2001-43, the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 for a budget adjustment to the City’s General Fund.

Director Allison stated for Mayor McTaggart that the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (JPIA) had not been consulted in the past three years with regard to the speed humps on Basswood; and that the City is not aware of whether any claims have been made related to those speed humps. Director Allison noted for Mayor McTaggart that staff would continue to update any information that is received from JPIA and forward that information to the City Council.

With the aid of Power Point, Director Allison highlighted the placement of speed humps which are located in the City and addressed the location where traffic calming is needed on Via Rivera.

Responding to Councilman Clark’s inquiry, Director Allison explained that staff has worked closely with the residents on Basswood and that staff has received positive feedback in regards to the speed humps; stated that the complaints of speeding vehicles have dropped off dramatically; and added that the speed hump striping on Basswood was toned down and that some of the proposed speed hump signs were eliminated.

Ann Shaw, 30036 Via Borica, expressed her opposition to the installation of speed humps; stated that this will not improve the livability of the greater neighborhood; and urged the City to poll every resident in this area in regard to the placement of these proposed speed humps.

Karis Say, 30121 Via Borica, expressed her concerns with the negative impact these speed humps will have upon the delay of emergency vehicles; and expressed her belief that these speed humps will decrease the property values.

Robert Zymet, 30346 Via Borica, expressed his opposition to the speed humps; stated that no one has been injured on this street as a result of the speed of traffic; and addressed his concern with the delay of emergency vehicles and the negative impact to property values and automobiles.

Director Allison noted for Mayor McTaggart that Via Rivera is approximately 34 feet wide and that the grade of the street is less than 5 percent.

Eva Kolosvany-Stupler, 30211 Via Rivera, stated that driving over the speed humps will create further discomfort for her ailing back conditions; and noted her belief that the speed humps will create a traffic hazard.

Nathan Dunn, 30417 Via Rivera, noted his opposition to the installation of speed humps; questioned why the speed humps are being proposed if there have been no accidents; and questioned whether the City has any statistics to reflect that vehicles traveling an additional 10 miles per hour is any more hazardous for the neighborhood.

Director Allison highlighted for Mayor pro tem Stern Circle Page 22, which reflects the property owner notification map, stating that every resident in the circled area had been notified; and explained that once the process is engineered, staff will know the exact location for the speed humps and that staff will provide that information to City Council.

Mayor McTaggart asked that the proposed location for the speed humps not only be brought to the Traffic Committee for review, but that it also be brought back to the City Council; and that staff also provide information concerning the exact width and grade of the streets.

Responding to Councilman Gardiner’s inquiry, Director Allison advised that staff will also provide at a later date a report on the six reported accidents in this neighborhood as far as time frame and what percentage was speed related.

Highlighting precedent-setting concerns, Councilman Gardiner suggested that the issue of placing speed humps in the City be addressed by the City Council at a future meeting; and questioned if motorists avoiding the speed humps will take alternative routes which may create other problems, such as more traffic around the schools; and expressed his desire that the entire neighborhood be given the opportunity to provide input on the placement of speed humps in the area.

Ken Denzel, 30802 Via Rivera, stated that the traffic in this area needs to be slowed down; and he commented on two recent accidents on his street.

Jim Sweeney, 30903 Via Rivera, advised that this street is a feeder street onto Hawthorne Boulevard; addressed his concern for the safety of the children and other pedestrians; stated that the principal at the neighborhood school is in favor of the speed humps; expressed his belief that the speeding traffic has become a crisis situation and that there have been numerous accidents on this street.

Rod Robertson, 30841 Via Rivera, commented on the recent accident on this street -- noting his alarm that it left one of the vehicles in this residential neighborhood in a totaled condition; addressed his concerns for the safety of the children; and urged the City Council’s approval of the speed humps.

Beverly Chen, 30224 Via Rivera, expressed her belief that the speed humps will divert traffic to other streets; that this is the only convenient access to Hawthorne Boulevard and that it will place a negative impact upon traffic circulation on this street; and noted her opposition to speed humps on this arterial street. She stated that speed humps should be not placed in residential neighborhoods.

Andrew Cohen, 30224 Via Rivera, expressed his support for the speed humps; requested that consideration be given to placing the speed humps further down towards his neighborhood, stating that motorcycles and other vehicles routinely race down the street; and stated that the speed humps are an appropriate solution to the speeding traffic.

Jim Jones, 2747 Vista Mesa Drive, clarified that this is not a final agreement, that it is a request to initially fund a study for a traffic calming measure; and stated that he would like to see the engineering go forward to see where it is most appropriate to place the speed humps.

Responding to Councilman Clark’s inquiry, Mr. Jones stated that one member of the Traffic Committee had questioned whether enough of the neighborhood had been notified of this proposal; advised that studies report that motorists are using Basswood and that they are not avoiding the speed humps; and that studies indicate a decrease in the speed of traffic. Despite the Traffic Committee meeting notices having gone out to a large number of residents, Mr. Jones advised that the turnout for those in opposition was small and that the majority of the residents in attendance were supportive of the speed humps.

Addressing Councilman Gardiner’s question, Mr. Jones explained that after much deliberation by the Traffic Committee, speed humps appear to be the best available solution to the speeding traffic in the area; and mentioned that in order to be effective, a minimum of three speed humps must be installed on a street and that the speed humps be no more than 200 feet apart.

In response to Mayor pro tem Stern’s inquiry, Mr. Jones noted that the average speed on Basswood dropped to approximately 28 miles per hour following the placement of speed humps; explained that any vehicle can comfortably maintain an unbroken speed of 25 miles per hour; and mentioned that emergency response vehicles are required to drive the posted speed limit in residential neighborhoods.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that center islands in the middle of the block be studied to assist with traffic calming.

Director Allison noted for Councilman Gardiner that the posted speed hump of 15 miles an hour is the engineer’s advisory speed limit.


RECESS AND RECONVENE

At 8:30 P.M. Mayor McTaggart recessed the meeting, and he reconvened the meeting at 8:46 P.M.

Henry Ott, 30914 Rue De La Pierre, advised that he recently moved to this neighborhood; noted that the speed humps at his last residence in Pasadena did not slow the traffic down; and stated that he is opposed to the speed humps.

Mayor pro tem Stern highlighted the data which proves that there is a speeding problem in this area; pointed out that the residents who are subjected to the speeding are overwhelmingly in support of the speed humps and that those who don’t live on this street are overwhelmingly opposed to the speed humps. Highlighting the concerns for a drop in property values, he added that the people who are most likely to be harmed in the value of property are in favor of the speed humps; and that given this situation, he would be in support of speed humps to slow the traffic -- noting the statistics that reflect a decrease in speed once speed humps are in place.

Councilman Gardiner stated that the speed humps appear at this time to be the most cost effective and feasible option to slow down the traffic.

Mayor McTaggart requested that when this issue comes back for final consideration by City Council, that more specifics be provided as far as number of daily trips to this school district, how many families bring children in from outside the area, street width/grades and what other alternatives had been studied; expressed his opinion that speed humps in front of houses don’t improve the quality of life for the homeowner; and requested that the placement of center islands be studied. He stated that he would be in support of this study as long as other alternatives are addressed.

Councilman Clark stated that this community needs to deal with today’s more aggressive driving to protect its residents; and that while these speed humps may provide inconvenience for some of the residents, it clearly is the best option at this time; and suggested that the City look at alternatives to slow the traffic down, such as with the use of cameras for enforcement purposes -- noting that the cameras work in other countries.

Councilwoman Ferraro pointed out the favorable statistics on Basswood following the placement of speed humps; and stated that the complaints have dramatically decreased.

Addressing Mayor pro tem Stern’s regarding the various alternatives considered by the Traffic Committee, Director Allison explained that the Traffic Committee was able to consider two options: one being speed humps and one being to narrow the road by building a median at certain locations -- pointing out that this last option would eliminate curb parking in front of someone’s home. Director Allison added that the traffic engineer worked closely with the residents.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to (1) Approve the installation of a series of speed humps along Via Rivera Avenue between Rue De La Pierre and Via Del Mar in accordance with the City’s Traffic Calming Program. (2) Authorize the expenditure of up to $40,000 for the engineering and construction of speed humps, signs and pavement markings along Via Rivera. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-10, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND, AMENDED TO REFLECT A $9,000 EXPENDITURE FOR THE ENGINEERING WORK-UP, NOT $40,000.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Joan Davidson, 1525 Via Arco, Palos Verdes Estates, addressed her concerns for the safety of the school children and the close proximity to the Palos Verdes Landfill and proposed golf course -- noting that these children are living and playing next to the landfill which includes tons of toxic materials; and stated that the underground wells have been found to be contaminated. Ms. Davidson expressed her concern that the construction activities may create additional hazards, such as bursting methane pipes; questioned whether the construction activities will result in a safe environment; and urged the City to reassure the school, parents and residents that these activities have a fail-safe system.

Mayor McTaggart advised that a peninsula-wide committee is being established to address this issue; and that the school board will be involved along with other committees and members from the local communities.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that it be agendized for the next City Council meeting.

Noting that the EIR comment period is soon approaching its deadline, City Manager Evans advised that staff has the initial study and that they plan on preparing a draft response which will incorporate other comments and concerns; and that this draft response will be provided to City Council.

Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project (1101 x 1201)

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of February 19, 2002, and the recommendation to direct staff to work with the Coastal Commission staff to modify the design of the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project to eliminate the proposed new lower parking lot and redesign the access driveway to minimize and/or eliminate the Coastal Commission staff’s concerns regarding the biologic (terrestrial) and geologic impacts of the project. She presented a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate various aspects of the project.

Assistant City Manager Petru noted for Mayor McTaggart that the maximum grade of the road is ten percent, which meets the Fire Department’s requirements.

Mayor pro tem Stern requested that this issue be re-noticed for future meetings.

Addressing Councilwoman Ferraro’s inquiry, Assistant City Manager Petru stated that the initial Coastal Commission staff’s reaction is that this design will eliminate the major concern that their staff has with the geologic stability of the area and that it also seems to go a long way to address concerns with the terrestrial habitat impacts. She noted that as far as she is aware, the Coastal Commission staff never had any comments with regard to the buildings; and reiterated that their initial reaction to the proposed re-design was guarded but positive.

In response to Councilman Clark’s question, Assistant City Manager Petru stated that the existing parking near the buildings can be reconfigured; and that the edge of the slope can be cleaned up and restripped, but that the overall number of parking spaces will be reduced.

Assistant City Manager Petru noted for Mayor McTaggart that a hammerhead for the turnaround might be a possibility in the existing lower parking lot and that it may be possible to provide more parking spaces on the road.

Daniel Pinkham, No. 1 Narcissa, stated that due to the City’s recent efforts to purchase the land on the north side of Palos Verdes Drive South as open space, he suggested that the City Council write a letter to the Coastal Commission reflecting that the City may not be interested in this plan at this time; and highlighted the bigger picture that if and when the open space above is saved, the beach area could be part of the big plan for that open space. He suggested that the parking be placed higher up in order to maintain the special quality of the natural area; and he requested that the City organize citizen groups to give some more input on the plan.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that the Abalone Cove slide is moving; noted her opposition to what the City is proposing for Abalone Cove; and urged the City to hire qualified and competent geologists to perform the geological testing.

Councilwoman Ferraro expressed her belief that this plan has potential for getting Coastal Commission approval; that it creates a minimal impact and not much disturbance to the habitat; noted the need to repair/renovate the buildings; stated that the parking plan is a good compromise; and she suggested that staff informally present this plan to the Coastal Commission to get their view.

Mayor McTaggart stated that this is a City facility which needs to be accessible to the handicapped; and that safe emergency service access is necessary to this public facility.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that the same population having prior notice of this issue be re-noticed for comment.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted his preference that the public be given an opportunity to provide comment in regard to the modifications before the City Council makes its recommendation.

Councilwoman Ferraro noted her support for re-noticing those who have expressed prior interest.

Mayor McTaggart requested additional information on the amount of grading that would be required for the proposed re-design.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern, that staff bring this back after re-noticing all the people who had expressed prior interest in this project; that clarification be provided with regard to the numbers on the grading required (export/import); and that staff provide a recommendation on whether the City should go forward. No objection was noted

City Manager Evans explained that staff will most likely need to confer a little more with the Coastal Commission; that staff will come back before the City Council if it looks like this is a viable idea and advise the City Council at that time how much more money might be needed and what other options may be available.

California Redemption Value Payments by Ivy Rubbish Disposal (1204 x 1301)

Council consensus was to continue this item to a future agenda.

Resol. No. 2002-11 - Emergency Preparedness Committee (1101 x 401)

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of February 19, 2002, and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution establishing an Emergency Preparedness Committee and direct staff to bring back a budget adjustment to provide staffing and funding for this new committee.

Jack Karp, 31115 Ganada Drive, noted his support for the alternative recommendation; expressed his belief that this committee will act as an umbrella to integrate other organizations which have the same ideas in mind and that it will offer informal training to the local communities; and he urged support of this first step.

Maureen Ford, 30659 Ganado Drive, stated that she is in favor of staff recommendation; and noted her belief that first responders will do more to protect residents and property due to the unique geography which might further isolate this community during an emergency or natural disaster.

John Nieto, 4235 Exultant Drive, expressed his belief that the residents in this community have the capability to become mobilized during an emergency; and urged support of staff’s alternative recommendation.

Councilman Gardiner noted the necessity to look at what happens when the system resources are overwhelmed.

Councilman Clark noted his support for the concept of the residents coming forward with this idea; stated that he is in support of staff’s recommendation; and addressed the need to study what the City will need to do should the first-line responders not be available.

John Alkemia, Assistant Fire Chief, Division I, expressed his support for the formation of the committee, stating that it provides an opportunity to communicate better with the City’s residents; explained that emergency services have the potential to be inundated all over the area and that it is necessary to study strategies for being prepared for emergencies; and he addressed the importance of keeping people motivated to stay with the program.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted his concern that this should be a peninsula-wide approach.

In response to Mayor pro tem Stern’s comment, Mr. Alkemia explained that the City is legitimizing the Peninsula Emergency Response Team (PERT), which is already established throughout the peninsula; and stated that this committee will be of assistance in drawing all of the other emergency-based groups together.

Sergeant Dave Rozas, Lomita Sheriff’s Department, and the City’s Disaster Emergency Preparedness liaison, stated that PERT currently has 60 members, which is soon expected to grow to 83 participants; commented on the intent for this plan to set its focus peninsula-wide -- noting that PERT is already interfaced with other community response groups in the area; and stated that if the resources in an emergency situation are stretched at a local level, an area command team is immobilized, and then from there, a State-level emergency response takes over.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted his support for staff’s proposal; addressed the need to figure out what this City has and what it will need to create a successful and coordinated plan; and highlighted the need to keep people interested and involved in the program. He commended those residents for bringing this plan forward.

Councilman Gardiner addressed the need to study how the locals will fill the gap until the duly authorized people are put in place.

Highlighting his discussions with Assistant City Manager Petru regarding the City’s emergency preparedness, Mr. Nieto commended Ms. Petru for her assessment of where she believes the City needs to be, where it’s at, and where it needs to go in the future.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-11, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND DISASTER RESPONSE COMMITTEE AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO PROVIDE STAFFING AND FUNDING FOR THIS NEW COMMITTEE. Motion carried.

San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project (1204 x 604)

Staff recommendation was to (1) Amend the professional service contract to AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $104,109 for geotechnical inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $383,134. (2) Amend the professional service contract to Helix Environmental Planning for an amount not to exceed $68,600 for mitigation monitoring services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $147,900. (3) Amend the professional service contract to DMc Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $36,630 for engineering services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $177,240. (4) Adopt Resolution No. 2002-12, a Resolution of the City Council of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes approving a budget adjustment to increase the Capital Improvement Project budget for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project by $210,000, from $3,194,650 to $3,404.650.

Mayor pro tem Stern stated that it is his intent to visit this site.

Councilman Clark noted that he had gone out to this site.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern, to concur with staff’s recommendation. Motion unanimously carried.

General Plan Update (1203 x 701)

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

In order to shorten the General Plan Update process, Councilman Gardiner suggested that the City’s 1974 goal statement be reviewed and reaffirmed and then to make any changes from that point forward.

Councilman Clark expressed his preference that the community becomes involved in the update process.

Mayor pro tem Stern suggested starting with the 28 defined goals.

Councilwoman Ferraro noted her support of staff recommendation.

Mayor McTaggart expressed his belief that the goals will not change; noted his desire that the public ultimately participate in the process; and suggested that this be done at the leadership workshop.

Council consensus was to review this matter further at the workshop.

Ken Dyda noted the necessity for public participation.

Resol. No. 2002-13 - Fiscal Year 2002-2002 Midyear Financial Report (602)

Director McLean presented staff report and the recommendation to (1) Receive and file the attached midyear financial report. (2) Adopt Resolution No. 2002-13, a Resolution of the City Council of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes amending Resolution No. 2001-43, the budget appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001-2002, to increase certain expenditure appropriations in the General Fund, Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund, Recycling Fund, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) fund, Capital Projects – Parks (Measure A) Fund, Capital Projects – Bikeways Fund, and Equipment Replacement Fund.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to (1) Ordered received and filed. (2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-13, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, TO INCREASE CERTAIN EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GENERAL FUND, STREET MAINTENANCE (GAS TAX) FUND, RECYCLING FUND, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS – PARKS (MEASURE A) FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS – BIKEWAYS FUND, AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND. Motion carried.

Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Arterial Rehabilitation Program (1204 x 1404)

Director Allison presented staff report of February 19, 2002, and the recommendation to (1) Approve Change Order Number Six to the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Arterial Rehabilitation Program. (2) Authorize an additional Change Order expenditure of up to $230,000 to complete the construction. (3) Approve a contract amendment with DMc Engineering for additional Construction Management Services. (4) Authorize an additional expenditure of $25,266 for Construction Management Services. (5) Adopt Resolution No. 2002-14, a Resolution of the City Council of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes amending Resolution No. 2001-43, the budget appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001-2002, for a budget adjustment to the City’s Capital Improvement Project Fund.

It was the consensus of the City Council to support staff’s recommendation to continue the job as designed, using rubberized asphalt.

Director Allison advised that if this is approved, work should commence this April.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern, to concur with staff’s recommendation. Motion carried.

Vallon Signal (1204 x 1404)

Director Allison presented staff report of February 19, 2002, and the recommendation to consider decorative traffic signal equipment for the Hawthorne Boulevard/Vallon Drive traffic signal. He introduced Erik Zandvliet from Willdan & Associates.

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Zandvliet highlighted the various types of signals for consideration.

Mayor McTaggart expressed his desire that the visual impact be minimized as much as possible; and urged staff to work with those residents who live closest to the proposed signal.

Responding to Mayor McTaggart’s suggestion, Mr. Zandvliet explained that the signal light would be approximately 17 feet high, higher than normal for extra precaution.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that City Council set a price range and have staff come back with some options.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, that the signal light be limited to $125,000 maximum and that sample photographs be provided at a future meeting for selection. No objection was noted.

Intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road (1204 x 1503)

Council consensus was to continue this item to a future agenda.

Legislative Policy and Guidelines (1101 x 306)

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of February 19 and the recommendation to (1) Adopt Legislative Guidelines for 2002. (2) Adopt revised City Council Policy No. 29. (3) Consider support of Proposition 42.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to adopt Staff Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 and to support Proposition No. 42.

City Manager Evans stated that most cities are taking a favorable position with Proposition No. 42.

Palos Verdes Drive South Roadway Repairs from La Rotondo to the easterly City limits (1204 x 1404)

Director Allison presented the staff report of February 19, 2002, and the recommendation to receive an update on the status of roadway repairs.

There was no objection to receive and file the update.

Community Leaders Breakfast Schedule (301 x 310)

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

Saturday, April 27, 2002, was selected as the spring Community Leaders Breakfast meeting; and Saturday, October 26, 2002, was tentatively scheduled for the fall Community Leaders Breakfast meeting.

Status of Review of Geologic and Geotechnical Data for Zone 2 (1101 x 1801)

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of February 19, 2002, and the recommendation to set a date and time to receive the Cotton, Shires and Associates technical review of the geological and geotechnical data for the Abalone Cove landslide and Zone 2 areas. He advised that staff will be distributing the latest Zone 2 report this week; and questioned whether the City Council wished to set a workshop date or to have staff present this at a regular City Council meeting.

City Manager Evans noted for Mayor pro tem Stern that the January/February 2002 report will soon be displayed on the City’s website.

Councilman Gardiner questioned whether the report addressed the concerns of those who submitted letters.

City Manager Evans explained that due to limited funds, the report did not address all or most of the approximate 100 letters received from the residents, but that the report did address staff’s and the Council’s concerns; that it incorporated all of the geologists’ comments; and that it addressed the questions raised by the peer review geologists. He stated that the City Council would receive all of the correspondence received at its Zone 2 Workshop.

It was the consensus of the City Council that staff present this at the May 18, 2002, Zone 2 Workshop.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, noted corrections needed in the staff report.

Reschedule City Council Meeting (307 x 1101)

Staff recommendation was to consider rescheduling the regular Council meeting of March 6, 2002.

Council consensus was to reschedule this meeting to Monday, March 11, 2002.

City Council and Staff Team Building Workshop (1101 x 1202)

Staff recommendation was to confirm a date and time for a City Council and Staff Team Building Workshop.

Council consensus was to schedule this workshop to its Saturday, March 9, 2002, meeting.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:


City Attorney Lynch reported the following:  (1) no action was taken in regard to the 
 acquisition of any of any of the properties for open space; (2) with respect to the Dao case, the City Attorney gave the Council an update regarding the case, and no action was taken; (3) the City Council unanimously authorized the addition of Mr. Ramsey Woodworth of the Washington D.C. law firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon to officially be associated in the Abrams cases; (4) with regard to the Kay case, no action was taken; and (5) with regard to the Chandler's claim, no action was taken.  

ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

Mayor pro tem Stern announced that Mayor McTaggart had been appointed as Chair of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Committee and that he (Mayor pro tem Stern) will serve as Vice-Chair.

Mayor McTaggart requested that the Saturday, February 23 agenda include discussion of a letter to be signed by him to address various aircraft noise issues. He noted that an equine rescue group is being formed to help with possible emergency evacuations in the community.

Councilman Gardiner commented on the success of the neighborhood compatibility meeting, noting that there was quite a bit of participation.

Councilman Clark stated that the Ocean Trails Committee met today; advised that Norman Hanover has been named as the trustee by the bankruptcy report; stated that he will be managing the Ocean Trails property and development from this point on; that he will be at the property on Mondays, possibly Tuesdays; and that he will set up a meeting with the City Council.


ADJOURNMENT:

At 12:00 Midnight, the meeting was adjourned to Saturday, February 23, 2002, at 9:00 A.M. in the Fireside Room at Hesse Park for interviews of Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee applicants followed by a brief adjourned Council meeting.







2. Claim Against the City by Marshall Tuck. (Purcell)

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY MARSHALL TUCK

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

A claim has been submitted by Mr. Marshall Tuck for damage to his car which allegedly was caused while traversing certain roads in his neighborhood which are under construction for installation of sewers. Mr. Tuck has submitted bills totaling $2,642.67 for material and labor covering the cost of repairs.

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

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



3. Signal Project at Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive. (Allison)

Recommendation: Direct staff to move forward with the design of a traditional traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: SIGNAL PROJECT AT HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD AND VALLON DRIVE

RECOMMENDATION

Request staff to move forward with the design of a traditional traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive.

BACKGROUND

On September 18, 2001 the City Council approved the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive. When the signal was approved the City Council requested staff to consider the construction of a decorative signal. At the February 19, 2002 City Council meeting several options for decorative signals were presented. The City Council reviewed the options – which ranged in cost from $115,000 to $250,000 – and asked staff to bring back options for a decorative traffic signal with a construction budget of not more than $ 125,000.

DISCUSSION

After reviewing the various options for a decorative traffic signal, staff recommends that a traditional signal be constructed for the following reasons.

  1. The view of the ocean from the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive is one of the more spectacular views in the City. Any manmade object constructed at this location, no matter how decorative it is, will detract from the view.

  2. The traditional signal will have the smallest project profile and will therefore impact views less than the decorative signals options.

  3. The neighborhood seems indifferent as to what type of signal is installed at this location. At the September 18, 2002 meeting the entire neighborhood was notified but no one from the neighborhood spoke on the issue.


  4. This signal would be the only decorative signal in the City. Generally when a City installs a decorative signal it does so at several intersections thereby establishing a theme that is carried on with other street furniture such as streetlights, benches and signs.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the construction of a traditional traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive.

FISCAL IMPACT

The estimated construction costs for the traditional signal is $115,000. The City Council adopted a budget adjustment on September 19, 2001 to provide adequate funding for this project. The funding source is the General Fund.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



4. Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract for the construction of the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Residential Street Overlay and Slurry Seal to Excel Paving Company for the contract bid amount of $1,464,222.50, and authorize staff to spend up to an additional $135,777.50 for possible extra work or unforeseen conditions, for a total authorization of $1,600,000. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Excel Paving Company. (3) Award a contract to SA Associates for the Contract Management and Inspection services in an amount not to exceed $ 60,000. (4) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with SA Associates.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: FY 2001 – 02 OVERLAY AND SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Award a contract for the construction of the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Residential Street Overlay and Slurry Seal to Excel Paving Company for the contract bid amount of $1,464,222.50, and authorize staff to spend up to an additional $135,777.50 for possible extra work or unforeseen conditions, for a total authorization of $1,600,000.

  2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Excel Paving Company.

  3. Award a contact to SA Associates, for the Contract Management, and Inspection services in an amount not to exceed $ 60,000.

  4. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with SA Associates.

BACKGROUND

Each year the City implements a slurry seal and overlay program. The streets included in the program are selected in accordance with the pavement management program. This year’s streets include those generally bounded by Palos Verdes Drive West to the west Hawthorne Boulevard to the east and lower Crest Road to the north. See attached exhibit.

ANALYSIS

  • Construction Contract

The project was advertised and sealed bids were received and opened at 10:00 AM on April 4, 2002. Excel Paving Company submitted the lowest of the five bids received. The following table summarizes the bids received:

CONTRACTOR

BID

Excel Paving Company

$1,464,222.50

Sully Miller Contracting Company.

$1,479,606.00

Silvia Construction, Inc.

$1,494,835.00

Copp Contracting Inc.

$1,585,622.50

Hardy and Harper, Inc.

$1,671,208.50

ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE

$1,460,000.00

The City has previously worked with Excel Paving Company on paving projects of a similar nature. Staff found that the work performed was satisfactory. In addition, references were contacted and reported satisfactory or above performance on similar projects. The bid documents and bonds (from a California surety company) appear to be in order and their contractor’s license is current.

  • Contract for Construction Management and Inspection Services

Staff submitted a request for proposal to three firms, Willdan, John M. Cruikshank Consultants, Inc., and SA Associates. All three firms submitted a proposal. Proposals have been reviewed and staff has concluded that all three firms are qualified to perform the work.

The proposals are presented on a not-to-exceed time and material basis for part time construction management services, and full time inspection services during construction. SA Associates has proposed an attractive rate for the proposed project team. Staff has negotiated with SA Associates and believes that the proposed price of $60,000 is fair compensation for the proposed work.

Staff is familiar with SA Associates as well as the team they propose to utilize for this project. This firm has successfully provided Construction Management and Inspection Services for previous City Projects, and staff is satisfied with their performance.

ALTERNATIVES

An alternative is to reject all construction bids and re-advertise the construction project. This alternative could take approximately 2 months to complete and lower bids are not anticipated. Additionally, the City could reject all consultant proposals and re-bid the CM and inspection of the project. This alternative could take approximately 1 month or more and lower costs are not anticipated.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendations will award a construction contract to Excel Paving Company, for the FY 2001–02 Overlay and Slurry Seal Program, and a contract to SA Associates for construction management and inspection services.

Construction will begin in May 2002 and be completed by September 2002.

FISCAL IMPACT

Funding for the program comes from several sources. The overlay project is a Capital expense and is funded with a combination of General, Proposition C, and Bikeway funds. The Slurry Seal Project is a street maintenance activity and is funded with Gas Tax and Proposition C Funds.

The breakdown is as follows:

Costs:

 

Construction

$ 1,600,000

Construction Management and Inspection

$ 60,000

Total Costs

$ 1,660,000

   

Funding:

 
 

Funding Available

Proposed Funding

General Fund

$ 1,235,700

$ 1,134,000

Proposition C

$ 86,000

$ 86,000

Gas Tax

$ 430,000

$ 430,000

Bikeway

$ 10,000

$ 10,000

Total

$ 1,761,700

$ 1,660,000

The spending authorizations recommended are within the limits in the adopted FY 2001 – 02 Budget. The FY 2001 – 02 Budget authorizes the expenditure of $ 1,761,700.

The proposed funding plan, however, is different than the budgeted funding plan. The proposed funding plan utilizes less General Fund than originally budgeted. This change is proposed because fewer streets than anticipated in the project area are scheduled for slurry seal.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Exhibit of streets
Agreement with SA Associates



5. Acceptance Of Easements For The San Ramon Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002- ; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND CITY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTED USE COVENANTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT PROJECT.

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS FOR THE SAN RAMON PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution 2002 - ; Authorizing the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Director of Public Works and City Attorney to execute and record easements and restricted use covenants associated with the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Abatement Project.

DISCUSSION

Once the San Ramon Project is completed, the City will be required to maintain the new storm drain and surface drainage structures in perpetuity. The City will also be required to maintain the landscaping on the new buttress fill slope for a minimum of five (5) years, until it becomes established. The City has also determined that it would be prudent to restrict the types of uses allowed at the top of the slope of certain properties in order to protect the future integrity of the buttress fill and the stability of the surrounding homes. To this end, the City Attorney’s office has prepared the various Grant of Easement Deeds, Temporary Landscape Maintenance Easements and Restricted Use Covenants for the project. Staff has obtained the majority of the required signatures from the property owners. However, before the documents can be recorded with the County, the City must accept them. In order to expedite this process, staff is seeking authorization from Council for key staff members to accept and sign the documents on behalf of the City.

FISCAL IMPACT

As a government entity, the City is exempt from paying recording fees to the County. Therefore, this action will have no direct fiscal impact on the City, aside from the obligations that the City has already agreed to undertake in conjunction with the project.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Attachment:
Resolution No. 2002 - ;


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE CERTAIN STAFF MEMBERS TO ACCEPT AND EXECUTE THE EASEMENTS AND OTHER RECORDED DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION PROJECT

WHEREAS, upon completion of the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Abatement Project, the City will be required to maintain the new storm drain facility and surface drainage structures in perpetuity. The City will also be required to maintain the landscaping on the new buttress fill slope for a minimum of five (5) years, until it becomes established. The City has also determined that it is necessary to restrict the types of use allowed at the top of the slope of certain properties in order to protect the future integrity of the buttress fill and the stability of the surrounding homes; and,

WHEREAS, the City Attorney has prepared the necessary Grant of Easement Deeds, Temporary Landscape Maintenance Easements and Restricted Use Covenants associated with the project, which need to be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office; and,

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

Section 1: The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Director of Public Works and City Attorney to accept and execute the various easements and restricted use documents associated with the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Abatement Project on the behalf of the City.

Section 2: The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to execute and records the documents referenced in Section 1 with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 16th day of April 2002.


___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


__________________________
CITY CLERK

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

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on April 16, 2002.


___________________________
City Clerk



6. 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:





7. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 (Appellant: James Kay, 26708 Indian Peak Road). (Fox) (Continued from March 25, 2002 meeting.)

Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2002-__ thereby modifying certain conditions denying the appeal and conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 230.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

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

Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

On March 25, 2002, the City Council heard additional testimony from the appellant’s attorney and the public, and discussed the proposed conditions of approval. Based upon these discussions, Staff has made additional revisions to the attached Resolution.

DISCUSSION

One of the main topics of discussion at the March 25th meeting was the health effect upon future residents of the home if the applicant was required to place antennae inside the house. The appellant claims that the antennae in the upstairs bedroom of the house, which were the alleged source of the commercial transmissions that were previously monitored by the City, pose a serious health hazard to any future occupant(s) of the house. However, the City Council questioned if the health effects of the roof-mounted antennae upon occupants in the second floor of the house would be any more detrimental than the effects that would accrue to occupants on the first floor of the house if antennae were in use in the upstairs bedroom. As noted in our previous report, Staff has not been able to determine independently if the use of interior antennae would exceed FCC standards for RF exposure to the home’s occupants, given the large number of commercial frequencies licensed to this property. As of the date this report was completed, the appellant had provided no additional information to substantiate his claim or quantify the RF emissions that would result from the use of interior antennae, nor has he responded to the City Council’s question. Staff is also concerned that the appellant, by raising the issue of RF emissions, is trying to force the City Council to impose conditions upon the approval of this application based upon the health effects of these emissions, which is prohibited by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). Therefore, Staff suggests two alternatives to avoid being drawn further into the issue of RF emissions:

  1. Eliminate the requirement for the placement of antennae inside of the house—which was imposed by the Planning Commission—if it is still the intent of the City Council to require the house to be occupied; or,

  2. Require interior placement of some or all of the existing antennae but eliminate the occupancy requirement—allowing the appellant to make his own decision about whether or how to occupy the home—and impose the recommended condition requiring regular maintenance of the home to sustain the exterior appearance of a "typical" single-family residence.

Another issue raised by the appellant’s attorney was the continued applicability of the condition (No. 18) requiring the painting of the house and the landscaping of the property. Unrelated to the non-permitted use of commercial antennae, the City has also pursued Code Enforcement action against the appellant for property maintenance violations for several years. Although the City has issued other permits and approvals to the appellant for improvements to the property, theses permits and approvals have always been conditioned upon the correction of the property maintenance violations, including painting the house and landscaping the front yard. As noted at the last City Council meeting, the house has been freshly painted and landscaped. Therefore, since Staff considers the previous property maintenance violations at the site to be corrected, Condition No. 18 has been modified to require the recent painting and landscaping to be maintained appropriately.

Staff has prepared the attached revised draft Resolution for the City Council’s consideration. Based upon the City Council’s previous discussion, the draft Resolution more closely mirrors the Planning Commission’s original action in that it requires the removal of all but two (2) of the vertical antenna supports and the two (2) television-type antennae. The following conditions have been modified (additions underlined and deletions struck out):

9.The lighter-colored portions of the roof-mounted antennae and masts that are hereby approved shall be painted At all times, the applicant shall maintain the color of the entirety of the roof-mounted antenna support structure and all of the antennae and radiating elements located thereon, in a neutral color—, such as gray, gray-green or gray-blue—that helps to camouflage them against, that will blend with the background sky and the gray color of the existing antenna support structure. Tfoliage 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 maintain the current gray color of the existing paint the white or lighter colored portions of the antenna support structure . The color shall be 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 before any 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 are painted. Painting shall be completed and inspected by the Director within ninety (90) days of the date of the City’s final action on this applicatit 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.

12. 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 between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday.

13. All service vehicles related to the maintenance of the commercial antennae and support equipment 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.

18.Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City’s final action on this application, tThe exterior appearance of the house and site shall be brought into consistency with neighborhood standards maintained at all times in a manner satisfactory to the Director by:

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

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

*Mayor Pro Tem Stern suggested this modification in an e-mail to Staff after the March 25th meeting.

24. The roof-mounted antenna assembly 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.

25. 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.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

At the March 25th meeting, the City Attorney mentioned the recent FCC action to revoke several of the appellant’s commercial licenses. A copy of this decision is attached. Also attached is a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding the former relationship between the appellant and the Getty Trust for the use of a commercial antenna on the subject property.

CONCLUSION

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

ALTERNATIVES

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

1. Grant the appeal as requested by the applicant;

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

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

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Draft Resolution No. 2002-__
FCC 01-341
Memorandum from the City Attorney


RECESS:

During the recess, Council is scheduled to interview two applicants (Jack Karp and Don Norton) for the Emergency Preparedness Committee.


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

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


REGULAR BUSINESS:




8. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19 (Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive). (Fox)

Recommendation: Determine the maximum number of large domestic animals that may be "grandfathered" for keeping and/or boarding on the property at 20 Vanderlip Drive.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL NONCONFORMITY STATEMENT NO. 19 [DOWNHILL, 20 VANDERLIP DRIVE]

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Determine the maximum number of large domestic animals that may be "grandfathered" for keeping and/or boarding on the property at 20 Vanderlip Drive.

BACKGROUND

Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC) provides for the filing of nonconformity statements related to the keeping of large domestic animals in the City. Pursuant to this Code section, the final determination on these statements was to be made by Staff. However, in the course of reviewing the statements submitted to the City, it became clear that Staff’s determination on some of these statements might be disputed, either by the party who filed the statement or by another interested party. Therefore, in 1999 Staff sought direction from the City Council regarding the final disposition on any disputed nonconformity statements, and the Council determined that it would make the final determination on any disputed statements. Of the twenty-six (26) nonconformity statements submitted, four (4) have been disputed. This is the second of the disputed statements to be presented to the City Council for a final determination.

Staff has reviewed Nonconformity Statement No. 19, filed by Jack Downhill for the property at 20 Vanderlip Drive. Based upon this statement and a site inspection, Staff determined that a maximum of six (6) large domestic animals could be kept and boarded on the property. Staff has also determined that the existing structures for the keeping of the animals (i.e., barn, corral, etc.) were legally established. Mr. Downhill asserted that up to eleven (11) large domestic animals should be permitted, and he disputed Staff’s determination on Nonconformity Statement No. 19.

On May 1, 2001, the City Council first considered Mr. Downhill’s arguments in favor of the "grandfathering" of a larger number of animals on his property. As a result of the City Council’s discussion that evening, Staff was directed to promulgate a Code amendment to give the City Council more latitude to determine the number of animals to be "grandfathered" on a property. The City Council’s final determination on Mr. Downhill’s request was held in abeyance until after this Code amendment was effective. Therefore, Staff has brought this matter back to the City Council for final resolution.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Downhill’s property consists of a developed 302,306-square-foot lot. Under the "old" provisions of the Development Code, up to six (6) animals could have been kept on the lot. Any or all of these animals could have been "boarded," meaning that they are not owned and/or maintained by the property owner. Under the current Development Code, a total of up to four (4) animals could be kept and/or boarded on the lot without the approval of a large domestic animal permit or conditional large domestic animal permit.

RPVDC Section 17.46.080 begins as follows:

Except as provided in this Section, all existing buildings, structures, fences, enclosures and uses of land, including the number of animals allowed by this Chapter, which do not conform to the provisions of this Chapter, but were existing as legal conforming uses or structures on February 1, 1997, shall be considered legal nonconforming uses and/or structures for purposes of this Chapter. The owner of a parcel or use which has been rendered nonconforming by the provisions of this Chapter shall file a written nonconformity statement with the Director in order to establish a record of the nonconforming use or structure. The written statement shall be filed with the Director by October 3, 1997. [emphasis added]

According to Nonconformity Statement No. 19 (attached), there were six (6) large domestic animals kept on Mr. Downhill’s property as of February 1, 1997. This was verified during a subsequent inspection of the property. All of these animals are boarded, based upon information provided by Mr. Downhill. Since the keeping of up to six (6) animals was permitted by right under the "old" Development Code provisions and this was the number of animals observed by Staff on the site, Staff determined that this would be the number of animals "grandfathered" for the property. In addition, Mr. Downhill has provided evidence that he owned and/or controlled the property prior to July 1, 1975, so the boarding of this number of animals is allowed to continue in perpetuity (pursuant to RPVDC Section 17.46.080(C)(3))*. Mr. Downhill asserts that the property should be "grandfathered" for the number of animals that could have been kept by right under the County Code (i.e., up to eleven (11) animals according to Mr. Downhill).

*For properties that, on February 1, 1997, were not under the same ownership and/or control as they were on July 1, 1975, the nonconforming boarding of more than four (4) animals may only continue until February 1, 2007 or until the property in question is sold or transferred (whichever occurs later).

The recent amendment to the non-conformity section of the City’s equestrian regulations (Section 17.46.080(F)) allows the City Council to make a determination regarding the number of animals to be "grandfathered" if the number cannot be determined with certainty:

If the owner of the property for which a written nonconformity statement was submitted in 1997, or any resident, files a timely challenge to the director's determination of the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property as of February 1, 1997, based on the challenger's statement that the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property fluctuated in 1997 such that the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property as of that time cannot be determined accurately, the City Council may approve up to the maximum number of large domestic animals that the property owner testifies were kept on the property at any time during calendar year 1997, provided that:

  1. The number that is approved does not exceed the maximum number of large domestic animals that could have been kept lawfully on the property as of February 1, 1997; and,
  2. The City Council finds that the size and shape of the property and the nature and condition of the horse facilities are adequate for the keeping of the number of large domestic animals that is approved.

The number of animals requested by Mr. Downhill is more than the maximum that could have been kept in 1997, and is also more than were actually kept on the property in 1997, at least according to Mr. Downhill’s nonconformity statement. However, at the May 1, 2001 City Council meeting, Mr. Downhill expressed some uncertainty as to the actual number of horses that were present on February 1, 1997. Staff has researched the County Code regarding the keeping of horses and found that the County Code as of September 7, 1973—which the City adopted by reference on January 15, 1974 as its interim zoning ordinance—was mute on the issue. Clearly, however, horses were and had been kept on properties in the Portuguese Bend community for many years prior to this. As such, Staff assumes that the County took a permissive view of horsekeeping (i.e., that it was permitted unless specifically prohibited), and Mr. Downhill may well be correct that the County would have allowed the keeping of eleven (11) horses on the property.

Mr. Downhill requests the approval of nonconforming boarding in perpetuity under Section 17.46.080(C)(3) of the Development Code, so the criterion for determining the appropriate number of boarded animals to "grandfather" is the number that were lawfully boarded on July 1, 1975. Since the City did not adopt its first Development Code until November 25, 1975, the 1973 County Code was still in effect on July 1, 1975. Therefore, it may be appropriate to allow more than six (6) boarded horses to be "grandfathered" for the property*. Based upon Staff’s original inspection of the property, there appeared to be adequate facilities present—and more than adequate acreage—for the keeping of eleven (11) horses.

*Section 9161(A) of the 1975 Development Code would have limited the maximum number of horses kept on Mr. Downhill's property to six (6).

In summary, Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on the following two issues:

  1. How many horses should Mr. Downhill be allowed to keep on the property?
  2. How many of the horses allowed to be kept on the property can be boarded horses?

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The property owner has been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this matter. No other parties have expressed interest in the nonconformity statement for this property. Based upon the City Council’s determination, Staff will prepare a final nonconformity statement for recordation to the title of Mr. Downhill’s property. It should also be noted that the City Council’s determination does not preclude Mr. Downhill from applying for a large domestic animal permit in order to request permission to keep more than the number of animals that are ultimately "grandfathered" pursuant to Nonconformity Statement No. 19.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the evidence originally available, Staff concluded that there were six (6) animals kept and/or boarded on the subject property as of February 1, 1997. Since this number of animals was permitted to be kept by right under the "old" Development Code and the property owner qualified for the pre-1975 exemption to allow the boarding this number of animals in perpetuity, Staff determined that this was the number of animals to be "grandfathered" for the property at 20 Vanderlip Drive. However, based upon additional research and new Development Code provisions allowing the City Council more latitude to determine the number of animals to be grandfathered, Staff now believes that it may be appropriate to grant Mr. Downhill’s request for the "grandfathering" of more than six (6) horses, if the City Council chooses to do so.

FISCAL IMPACT

The subject matter of this item will have no fiscal impact upon the City, regardless of the action taken.

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Grant the property owner’s request to "grandfather" eleven (11) animals for the subject property.
  2. Determine a different number of animals to "grandfather" for the subject property.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Nonconformity Statement No. 19
Response from Jack Downhill
Nonconformity Statement flowchart



9. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 8 (Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane). (Fox)

Recommendation: Affirm Staff’s determination that the keeping of a maximum twelve (12) large domestic animals—of which a maximum of seven (7) animals may be boarded—may be "grandfathered" for the property at 6 Limetree Lane.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL NONCONFORMITY STATEMENT NO. 8 [SUNSHINE, 6 LIMETREE LANE]

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Affirm Staff’s determination that the keeping of a maximum twelve (12) large domestic animals—of which a maximum of seven (7) animals may be boarded—may be "grandfathered" for the property at 6 Limetree Lane.

BACKGROUND

Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC) provides for the filing of nonconformity statements related to the keeping of large domestic animals in the City. Pursuant to this Code section, the final determination on these statements was to be made by Staff. However, in the course of reviewing the statements submitted to the City, it became clear that Staff’s determination on some of these statements might be disputed, either by the party who filed the statement or by another interested party. Therefore, in 1999 Staff sought direction from the City Council regarding the final disposition on any disputed nonconformity statements, and the Council determined that it would make the final determination on any disputed statements. Of the twenty-six (26) nonconformity statements submitted, four (4) have been disputed. This is the third of the disputed statements to be presented to the City Council for a final determination.

Staff has reviewed Nonconformity Statement No. 8, filed by Sunshine for the property at 6 Limetree Lane. Based upon this statement and a site inspection, Staff determined that a maximum of twelve (12) large domestic animals could be kept, of which a maximum of seven (7) animals could be boarded. Sunshine has not disputed Staff’s determination on Nonconformity Statement No. 8, but written objections to Staff’s determination have been raised by Toni Deeble, Betty Strauss and Jeanne Smolley.

DISCUSSION

Sunshine’s property consists of a developed 26,400-square-foot lot and two (2) vacant, contiguous lots of 19,800 square feet and 22,120 square feet, respectively. Under the "old" provisions of the Development Code, up to five (5) animals could have been kept on the developed lot, up to five (5) animals could have been kept on the larger vacant, contiguous lot and up to four (4) animals could have been kept on the smaller vacant, contiguous lot, for a total of fourteen (14) animals on all the lots combined. Any or all of these animals could have been "boarded," meaning that they are not owned and/or maintained by the property owner. Under the current Development Code, a total of up to four (4) animals could be kept and/or boarded on all of the lots combined without the approval of a large domestic animal permit or conditional large domestic animal permit.

RPVDC Section 17.46.080 begins as follows:

Except as provided in this Section, all existing buildings, structures, fences, enclosures and uses of land, including the number of animals allowed by this Chapter, which do not conform to the provisions of this Chapter, but were existing as legal conforming uses or structures on February 1, 1997, shall be considered legal nonconforming uses and/or structures for purposes of this Chapter. The owner of a parcel or use which has been rendered nonconforming by the provisions of this Chapter shall file a written nonconformity statement with the Director in order to establish a record of the nonconforming use or structure. The written statement shall be filed with the Director by October 3, 1997. [emphasis added]

According to Nonconformity Statement No. 8 (attached), there were twelve (12) large domestic animals kept on Sunshine’s property as of February 1, 1997*. This was verified during a subsequent inspection of the property. Seven of these animals are boarded, based upon information provided by Sunshine. Since the keeping and/or boarding of up to fourteen (14) animals was permitted by right under the "old" Development Code provisions and this was more than the number of animals observed by Staff on the site, Staff determined that the number of animals requested by Sunshine (i.e., twelve) could be "grandfathered" for the property.

*Sunshine's statement indicates that there are facilities for twelve-and-one-half (12½) animals, but the statement only lists twelve (12) animals present on February 1, 1997.

Mrs. Deeble and Mrs. Strauss assert that no number of animals should be "grandfathered" for this property because (they allege) the property does not comply with basic City standards for the keeping of large domestic animals. This may or may not be the case. However, pursuant to the Development Code, the relevant issue for the approval of this nonconformity statement is whether the number of animals kept and/or boarded on the property was legal on February 1, 1997, but was subsequently rendered nonconforming by the enactment of revisions to the City’s Development Code in May of 1997. As discussed above, Staff believes that the number of animals requested by Sunshine qualifies for "grandfathering." However, it should be noted that, with the exception of specific structures and/or numbers of animals covered by the nonconformity statement, the approval of a nonconformity statement does not give any property owner the right to violate or deviate from the City’s standards for keeping large domestic animals. Accordingly, Mrs. Deeble’s and Mrs. Strauss’ concerns about issues of property maintenance, public health and aesthetics have been referred to the City’s Code Enforcement Division.

Mrs. Smolley asserts that two (2) of the horses listed on Sunshine’s nonconformity statement were moved to her property prior to February 1, 1997, and should not have been listed as being present on Sunshine’s property on that date. Sunshine does not dispute Mrs. Smolley’s assertion, but she also believes that there were at least twelve—and perhaps more—horses present on her property on February 1, 1997. However, since Sunshine’s statement only listed twelve (12) horses, Staff is only prepared to recommend that this number of horses be "grandfathered" for the property.

The recent amendment to the non-conformity section of the City’s equestrian regulations (Section 17.46.080(F)) allows the City Council to make a determination regarding the number of animals to be "grandfathered" if the number cannot be determined with certainty:

If the owner of the property for which a written nonconformity statement was submitted in 1997, or any resident, files a timely challenge to the director's determination of the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property as of February 1, 1997, based on the challenger's statement that the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property fluctuated in 1997 such that the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property as of that time cannot be determined accurately, the City Council may approve up to the maximum number of large domestic animals that the property owner testifies were kept on the property at any time during calendar year 1997, provided that:

  1. The number that is approved does not exceed the maximum number of large domestic animals that could have been kept lawfully on the property as of February 1, 1997; and,
  2. The City Council finds that the size and shape of the property and the nature and condition of the horse facilities are adequate for the keeping of the number of large domestic animals that is approved.

The number of animals requested by Sunshine is less than the maximum that could have been kept in 1997. Based upon Staff’s original inspection of the property, there appeared to be adequate facilities present for the keeping of twelve (12) horses.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The property owner and the interested parties have been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this matter. Based upon the City Council’s determination, Staff will prepare a final nonconformity statement for recordation to the title of Sunshine’s property. It should also be noted that the City Council’s determination does not preclude Sunshine from applying for a large domestic animal permit in order to change the number of animals permitted on the property or to add or modify structures on the property.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the available evidence, Staff concluded that there were twelve (12) animals kept on the subject property as of February 1, 1997, of which seven (7) animals were boarded. Since this number of animals was permitted to be kept by right under the "old" Development Code, Staff determined that this is the number of animals to be "grandfathered" for the property at 6 Limetree Lane. It should be noted, however, that the boarding of seven (7) animals will not be "grandfathered" in perpetuity. By February 1, 2007, or if and when the property is sold or transferred—whichever occurs later—the number of boarded animals must be reduced to four (4). However, the total number of animals that may be kept on the combined lots (i.e., twelve) will not change.

FISCAL IMPACT

The subject matter of this item will have no fiscal impact upon the City, regardless of the action taken.

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Grant the property owner’s request to "grandfather" twelve (12) animals for the subject property.
  2. Determine a different number of animals to "grandfather" for the subject property.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Nonconformity Statement No. 8
Letters from Toni Deeble and Betty Strauss and Jeanne Smolley
E-mail response from Sunshine
Nonconformity Statement flowchart
Additional public comments



10. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3 (Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive). (Fox)

Recommendation: Affirm Staff’s determination that the keeping of a maximum ten (10) large domestic animals—of which a maximum of six (6) animals may be boarded—may be "grandfathered" for the property at 1 Peppertree Drive.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL NONCONFORMITY STATEMENT NO. 3 [BARA, 1 PEPPERTREE DRIVE]

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Affirm Staff’s determination that the keeping of a maximum ten (10) large domestic animals—of which a maximum of six (6) animals may be boarded—may be "grandfathered" for the property at 1 Peppertree Drive.

BACKGROUND

Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC) provides for the filing of nonconformity statements related to the keeping of large domestic animals in the City. Pursuant to this Code section, the final determination on these statements was to be made by Staff. However, in the course of reviewing the statements submitted to the City, it became clear that Staff’s determination on some of these statements might be disputed, either by the party who filed the statement or by another interested party. Therefore, in 1999 Staff sought direction from the City Council regarding the final disposition on any disputed nonconformity statements, and the Council determined that it would make the final determination on any disputed statements. Of the twenty-six (26) nonconformity statements submitted, four (4) have been disputed. This is the fourth of the disputed statements to be presented to the City Council for a final determination.

Staff has reviewed Nonconformity Statement No. 3, filed by Richard and Kay Bara for the property at 1 Peppertree Drive. Based upon this statement and a site inspection, Staff determined that a maximum of ten (10) large domestic animals could be kept, of which a maximum of six (6) animals could be boarded. The Baras have not disputed Staff’s determination on Nonconformity Statement No. 3, but written objections to Staff’s determination have been raised by Joe and Toni Deeble.

DISCUSSION

The Baras’ property consists of a developed 451,935-square-foot lot and two (2) vacant, contiguous lots of 52,272 square feet and 24,829 square feet, respectively. Under the "old" provisions of the Development Code, up to six (6) animals could have been kept on the developed lot, up to six (6) animals could have been kept on the larger vacant, contiguous lot and up to five (5) animals could have been kept on the smaller vacant, contiguous lot, for a total of seventeen (17) animals on all the lots combined. Any or all of these animals could have been "boarded," meaning that they are not owned and/or maintained by the property owner. Under the current Development Code, a total of up to four (4) animals could be kept and/or boarded on all of the lots combined without the approval of a large domestic animal permit or conditional large domestic animal permit.

RPVDC Section 17.46.080 begins as follows:

Except as provided in this Section, all existing buildings, structures, fences, enclosures and uses of land, including the number of animals allowed by this Chapter, which do not conform to the provisions of this Chapter, but were existing as legal conforming uses or structures on February 1, 1997, shall be considered legal nonconforming uses and/or structures for purposes of this Chapter. The owner of a parcel or use which has been rendered nonconforming by the provisions of this Chapter shall file a written nonconformity statement with the Director in order to establish a record of the nonconforming use or structure. The written statement shall be filed with the Director by October 3, 1997. [emphasis added]

According to Nonconformity Statement No. 3 (attached), there were ten (10) large domestic animals kept on the Baras’ property as of February 1, 1997*. This was verified during a subsequent inspection of the property. Six of these animals are boarded, based upon information provided by the Baras. Since the keeping and/or boarding of up to seventeen (17) animals was permitted by right under the "old" Development Code provisions and this was more than the number of animals observed by Staff on the site, Staff determined that the number of animals requested by the Baras (i.e., ten) could be "grandfathered" for the property.

*The Baras filed an amendment to Nonconformity Statement No. 3 on December 22, 1999, that revised their original request for the keeping of eighteen (18) horses, of which a maximum of eight (8) horses would be boarded.

In his letter, Mr. Deeble states that "[the] City Council decided that given [that] there is no practical way to determine particular horse ownership in the field, the property owner, if they wish to exceed the four horse maximum, should make application to the Equestrian Committee and show cause why four horses are inadequate." His letter concludes with the statement that "following the established procedure would ensure equity and accountability for all property owners." Staff believes that Mr. Deeble may be mistaken in his understanding of the treatment of nonconforming horsekeeping activities in the Development Code. Although Equestrian Committee review is required for the establishment of new horsekeeping facilities or activities that exceed the 4-horse standard, there has never been any provision in the Development Code requiring the Equestrian Committee to review existing, nonconforming horsekeeping facilities or activities. In fact, it is only fairly recently that the City Council was assigned a role in reviewing disputed nonconformity statements. As such, Staff believes that the Baras have "[followed] the established procedure" with respect to "grandfathering" the keeping and boarding of horses on their property.

Mrs. Deeble’s letter raises a number of objections to the granting of the Baras’ "grandfathering" request. Staff believes that most of these objections may be based upon Mrs. Deeble’s misunderstanding of the Development Code and Staff’s determination regarding the Baras’ request:

  • Mrs. Deeble claims that the Baras’ request should not be granted in perpetuity because they did not own the property prior to July 1, 1975, as discussed in Section 17.46.080(C)(3) of the Development Code. This Code section only deals with nonconforming boarding activities. The Baras have never claimed to own the property since 1975, and Staff’s determination regarding the number of animals allowed to be boarded would not allow the nonconforming boarding of more than four (4) horses to continue in perpetuity.

  • Mrs. Deeble correctly notes a miscalculation in Staff’s original determination regarding the maximum number of animals allowed on the property under the "old" Development Code. She also notes that the "old" Development Code contained language that discouraged commercial boarding, although it did allow the boarding of horses where the payment did not actual expenses insured by the property owner. There was no limitation in the "old" Development Code upon the number of horses that could be boarded under these conditions, nor was there any requirement for a property owner to provide documentation to the City of the boarding fees charged and the expenses incurred. As such, based upon the "old" Code provisions, Staff had no reason to believe that the numbers of horses kept and boarded by the Baras on February 1, 1997 was not consistent with the City’s regulations at the time.

  • Mrs. Deeble appears to misunderstand the maximum number of horses that Staff determined should be "grandfathered" for the Baras’ property, based upon the distinction between "kept" horses and "boarded" horses. As discussed above, the "old" Development Code would have allowed up to seventeen (17) horses on the property, regardless of whether they belonged to the Baras or not. According to the Baras’ nonconformity statement, there were only ten (10) horses kept on the property as of February 1, 1997, of which four (4) belonged to the Baras and six (6) did not. Staff determined that the keeping of ten (10) horses—regardless of whom they belonged to—was permitted under the "old" Development Code. Therefore, pursuant to Section 17.46.080(C) of the current Code, the nonconforming keeping of ten (10) horses would be allowed to continue in perpetuity. However, the nonconforming boarding of six (6) of the ten (10) horses would only be allowed until February 1, 2007 or until the property is sold or transferred, whichever occurs later. If either of these conditions is triggered in the future, the number of boarded animals would need to be reduced to four (4), but the entitlement to keep a total of ten (10) horses would remain. Staff is not suggesting that the Baras would be allowed to keep sixteen (16) horses on the property. However, it is Staff’s interpretation of the current Code provisions that the Baras are entitled to keep the same number of horses—in perpetuity—as they had and were allowed to keep under the "old" Development Code.

The recent amendment to the non-conformity section of the City’s equestrian regulations (Section 17.46.080(F)) allows the City Council to make a determination regarding the number of animals to be "grandfathered" if the number cannot be determined with certainty:

If the owner of the property for which a written nonconformity statement was submitted in 1997, or any resident, files a timely challenge to the director's determination of the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property as of February 1, 1997, based on the challenger's statement that the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property fluctuated in 1997 such that the number of large domestic animals that were kept on the property as of that time cannot be determined accurately, the City Council may approve up to the maximum number of large domestic animals that the property owner testifies were kept on the property at any time during calendar year 1997, provided that:

  1. The number that is approved does not exceed the maximum number of large domestic animals that could have been kept lawfully on the property as of February 1, 1997; and,
  2. The City Council finds that the size and shape of the property and the nature and condition of the horse facilities are adequate for the keeping of the number of large domestic animals that is approved.

Mrs. Deeble’s letter implies that the Baras have been less than candid regarding the numbers and ownership of the horses kept on their property. Staff has only the information provided by the Baras in their nonconformity statement upon which to make its determination. The number of animals requested by the Baras is less than the maximum that could have been kept in 1997, and based upon Staff’s original inspection of the property, there appeared to be adequate facilities present—and more than adequate acreage—for the keeping of ten (10) horses.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The property owner and the interested parties have been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this matter. Based upon the City Council’s determination, Staff will prepare a final nonconformity statement for recordation to the title of the Baras’ property. It should also be noted that the City Council’s determination does not preclude the Baras from applying for a large domestic animal permit in order to change the number of animals permitted on the property or to add or modify structures on the property.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the available evidence, Staff concluded that there were ten (10) animals kept on the subject property as of February 1, 1997, of which six (6) animals were boarded. Since this number of animals was permitted to be kept by right under the "old" Development Code, Staff determined that this is the number of animals to be "grandfathered" for the property at 1 Peppertree Drive. It should be noted, however, that the boarding of six (6) animals will not be "grandfathered" in perpetuity. By February 1, 2007, or if and when the property is sold or transferred—whichever occurs later—the number of boarded animals must be reduced to four (4). However, the total number of animals that may be kept on the combined lots (i.e., ten) will not change.

FISCAL IMPACT

The subject matter of this item will have no fiscal impact upon the City, regardless of the action taken.

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Grant the property owner’s request to "grandfather" ten (10) animals for the subject property.
  2. Determine a different number of animals to "grandfather" for the subject property.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Nonconformity Statement No. 3 and amendment
Letters from Joe and Toni Deeble
Nonconformity Statement flowchart
Additional public comments



11. Equestrian Committee Workload Summary. (Fox)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: EQUESTRIAN COMMITTEE WORKLOAD SUMMARY

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Receive and file.

BACKGROUND

This report is presented in response to the City Council’s request for a summary of the past workload of the Equestrian Committee.

DISCUSSION

The table below summarizes the Equestrian Committee’s workload from February 1998 to the present, including major accomplishments for each year, the number of meetings held and the number of times Committee members recused themselves from deliberations.

Year

No. of
Meetings

No. of
Recusals

Major Equestrian Committee Accomplishments

1998

10 *

0

  • Completed the Equestrian Committee Guidelines
  • Requested a formal role in reviewing equestrian trails
  • Reviewed two Code Enforcement cases

1999

12

0

  • Assigned an Equestrian Committee member to the Forrestal Subcommittee
  • Formed a subcommittee to explore the feasibility of a City equestrian facility
  • At the City Council’s direction, reviewed Code Amendment No. 44 to streamline permits for non-profit organizations, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission
  • Reviewed four Code Enforcement cases

2000

11 **

4 ***

  • Completed revisions to the Equestrian Committee Guidelines
  • Reviewed and approved Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 1 for the keeping of goats at the Lower Filiorum property
  • Reviewed and approved Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 2 for Ride-to-Fly
  • Reviewed Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 3 for the Pony Club (later withdrawn)
  • Reviewed one Code Enforcement case

2001

10 ****

2 *****

  • Reviewed and approved Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 5 for the Pony Club
  • Reviewed draft Guidelines for Manure Management, at the request of the Public Works Department
  • Reviewed three Code Enforcement cases

2002

4

0

  • Prepared to conduct 6-month review of Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit No. 5
  • Reviewed one Code Enforcement Case

8) No July 2001 or December 2001 meetings were held

9) Committee members Bara and Clarke recused from discussion of CLDAP No. 5

*The first Equestrian Committee meeting was held in February 1998, and no December 1998 meeting was held

**No December 2000 meeting was held

***Committee members Bara, Burt, Clarke and Smolley recused from discussion of CLDAP No. 1

****No July 2001 or December 2001 meetings were held

*****Committee members Bara and Clarke recused from discussion of CLDAP No. 5

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager



12. Equestrian Committee Presentation on an Equestrian Arena/Center. (Hurwitz)

Recommendation: Receive a report from the members of the Equestrian Committee regarding their research on potential sites for an Equestrian Arena/Center and provide the Committee with direction.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: EQUESTRIAN COMMITTEE REPORT ON A CITY EQUESTRIAN FACILITY

Staff Coordinator:Brent Hurwitz, Associate Planner/Equestrian Committee Liaison

RECOMMENDATION

Receive a presentation on the findings of the group’s subcommittee regarding the feasibility of a City Equestrian Facility and provide direction.

BACKGROUND

In 1999, the Equestrian Committee determined that there is a need in the City for an Equestrian Center. Subsequently, they formed a subcommittee to evaluate the scope, location, and feasibility of this type of facility. They had also discussed the potential for the facility to be under City ownership. Over the past two years, the Equestrian Committee’s subcommittee has explored the issue and is now at a point where they would like to make a presentation to the City Council. Therefore, at the request of the Equestrian Committee, this item has been placed on the Council’s agenda.

DISCUSSION

According to the Chairperson of the Equestrian Committee, Charlene O’Neil, a presentation of the subcommittee’s findings and recommendations will be made by Mr. Don Burt, or a member of the Equestrian Committee. At this time, there are no plans or formal reports to transmit to the City Council.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager



13. Recreational Vehicle Street Parking and Residential Storage. (Neth)

Recommendation: Provide staff with direction as whether to initiate any code amendments to address the issues associated with RV parking and storage on public streets and private property.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STREET PARKING AND RESIDENTIAL STORAGE

Staff Coordinator: Jan Neth, Senior Code Enforcement Officer

RECOMMENDATION

Provide Staff with direction as whether to initiate any code amendments to address the issues associated with RV parking and storage on public streets and private property.

BACKGROUND

Periodically the City has received a limited number of complaints regarding the parking of RV’s on both the street and on private properties (approximately 3 to 4 per year). Typically, the street parking complaints relate to the long-term storage of RV’s on public streets, and traffic visibility issues, due to the height, length and proximity of the parked RV to a driveway or intersection. Complaints pertaining to the parking or storage of RV’s on residential properties have all been related to the location, height and length of the RV, and the visual and property value impacts they have on surrounding properties.

Recently, in January 2002, the City received a complaint from a resident regarding long-term street parking of RV’s and in February 2002, a complaint from a resident regarding the parking of RV’s on private property. A brief discussion of both issues was included in the February 13, 2002 Administrative Report (Friday Report). At the request of Councilman Larry Clark, this item has been agendized for Council discussion.

DISCUSSION

RV Parking on City Streets

The City regulates street parking of RV’s pursuant to California Vehicle Code § 22651(k), which allows the Sheriff to remove any vehicle left parked or standing for a period of 72 consecutive hours or more, pursuant to RPVMC § 10.08.010. Enforcement of this code is done on a complaint basis to the Sheriff’s Department.

When a complaint is received, a deputy will respond by marking the vehicle’s tire and the street in order to determine if the vehicle has been moved after the 72-hour time period has elapsed. If, when rechecked, the vehicle has not been moved, it may be cited or possibly towed at the owner’s expense.

In January 2002, the City received a letter from Mrs. Sue Adams of 5 Surrey Lane in which she expressed a concern with the long term parking of RV’s on her narrow private street (letter attached). Mrs. Adams was contacted by Staff and informed of the above regulations. However, Mrs. Adams felt that the City should consider a more restrictive parking control ordinance; since she felt other cities on the peninsula have more restrictive overnight parking regulations for RV’s. Staff contacted the other 3 peninsula cities with regards to RV parking restrictions on public streets. It appears that only the City of Rolling Hills Estates prohibits overnight parking of RV’s on City streets. The cities of Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills rely on the same 72-hour parking restrictions that RPV does.

There are both positive and negative aspects of the existing 72-hour parking code. The existing code allows responsible RV owners to park their vehicle in the street, while loading or unloading, in a reasonable amount of time without facing any enforcement measures. However, the negative aspect of the code is that it can be abused by RV owners who choose to "store" their RV’s on public streets. When ultimately marked for enforcement by a deputy, the owners simply move the RV, even as slightly as a few inches, and are again considered legally parked for an additional 72-hours.

Due to the limited number of complaints received (approximately 3 to 4 per year) the California Vehicle Code section regulating the 72-hour parking, currently allowed by RPVMC § 10.08.010, appears to be the least regulatory and efficient method of enforcement for RV street parking overall. Introducing a more restrictive parking ordinance, would require additional input from the Sheriff’s Department in regards to their ability to enforce such an ordinance, be it parking by permit, or to the extreme of completely prohibiting the street parking of RV’s. Should a more restrictive ordinance include a permit process, there would also be additional impacts on City Staff, who would most likely be tasked with administering that process.

RV Parking on Private Property

Currently, the City’s Municipal Code allows for the parking and storage of RV’s on residential properties. The existing code requires that the parking area be a legally paved surface. The legally paved surface may be the existing driveway, or an area approved through the Site Plan Review process for additional parking. Once used for parking purposes, the legally paved surface is counted as lot coverage. However, the current code does not restrict the location, height or length of RV’s.

Several weeks ago, the City received a complaint (via email) from a resident on Hightide Drive regarding an oversized RV parked diagonally across the driveway of a private residence. In this particular case, no violation exists, since the City’s Municipal Code permits the storage of operable RV’s on private property with no size or location limitations, if parked on a legally paved surface. The resident was concerned that the City’s code allows for visual and property value impacts and noted that other peninsula Cities have stricter ordinances regulating the parking of RV’s on private property.

Staff also conducted a review of the regulations for the residential parking and storage of RV’s in the three other peninsula cities. Parking and storage of RV’s on residential properties is regulated in the other peninsula cities in a number of ways. In Rolling Hills Estates, RV’s parked or stored in any yard areas adjacent to a street are treated as a substandard property condition and may be regulated or prohibited. Rolling Hills prohibits the parking of RV’s within 50 feet of any roadway easement. Palos Verdes Estates, allows the parking of RV’s in the front yard only if space is not available in the rear or side yards or within the setbacks, and only if adequately screened. Copies of the ordinances are attached.

In order to address the complaints of over-sized RV’s being stored on residential properties, the City Council may wish to authorize Staff to amend the current City code allowing residential parking of RV’s on legally paved surfaces to be more restrictive. Restrictions on the location, height and length of RV’s could be added to the code to mitigate potential visual impacts created by large RV’s.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Staff is aware of a similar issue being recently addressed by the City of Costa Mesa. This year the City introduced a new ordinance regulating the street parking of RV’s. Their new ordinance is moderately restrictive, and would require RV owners to obtain permits to park their RV’s in the street for the purpose of loading and unloading their vehicles. The permit would be valid for a 48-hour time period and could only be obtained for a limited number of times (trips) per resident per year. A large number of RV owners (in excess of 300) expressed a tremendous outcry against the ordinance, at a recent City Council meeting. The RV owners stated that they felt the ordinance would not only regulate their coming and going by restricting the number of hours the vehicle could be parked in the street, as they were satisfied with the existing 72-hour law, but would also limit the number of trips they could plan, due to the limited number of permits the ordinance would allow. They felt that the ordinance would severely restrict their personal freedom. The Costa Mesa City Council ultimately directed the ordinance back to Police Staff for an additional 30-day review, rather than pass the new ordinance on it’s second reading.

CONCLUSION

The City currently regulates the street parking of RV’s via the 72-hour parking code pursuant to the California Vehicle Code. The storage of RV’s is allowed by the current code on legally paved surfaces with no additional restrictions. Although there have been recent complaints that the City’s Code be more restrictive, over the years the City has received relatively few complaints on the subject (approximately 3 to 4 per year). Staff seeks Council direction as to whether to initiate code amendments to address these issues at this time.

FISCAL IMPACT

Reviewing the existing codes for the street parking and residential storage of RV’s would have no fiscal impact on the City.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Letter from Sue Adams
Letter from Thomas Dosdall
City of Palos Verdes Estates Municipal Code for RV’s
City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code for RV’s
City of Rolling Hills Estates, Municipal Code for RV’s



14. Request for Proposals – City Hall Telephone and Voice Messaging System. (McLean)

Recommendation: Approve the attached City of Rancho Palos Verdes Request for Proposal for VOIP Telephone System (the "RFP") for the replacement of the City Hall telephone system and authorize the Finance Director to negotiate the terms and conditions of the purchase of the system and related support agreement.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS – CITY HALL TELEPHONE AND VOICE MESSAGING SYSTEM

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the attached City of Rancho Palos Verdes Request for Proposal for VOIP Telephone System (the "RFP") for the replacement of the City Hall telephone system and authorize the Finance Director to negotiate the terms and conditions of the purchase of the system and related support agreement.

BACKGROUND

The existing Avaya (formerly Lucent) System 25 phone and voice messaging system at City Hall was acquired in 1987 at a cost of approximately $90,000. As you may already know, staff previously considered the replacement of the existing phone system in 1999 when Lucent informed the City the existing system would not be year 2000 compliant. Lucent later provided a software upgrade that enabled Y2K compliance for the voice messaging system. With the Y2K upgrade, staff decided to postpone the replacement of the phone system. The decision to postpone the replacement of the existing system: (1) deferred the cash outlay for several years, therefore, saving overall phone system costs; and (2) has provided additional time to consider the best solution.

Staff’s City Hall Telephone System Replacement Project Team

The City’s Information Technology consultant, Ted Vegvari, Director of Palos Verdes on the Net (PVNET), has led two technical interns and the City’s IT staff in a team environment (the "Project Team") during its efforts to replace the City Hall phone system. The Project Team has solicited input from key departmental staff via meetings, the preparation of a user survey and product demonstrations presentations by telephone vendors.

PVNET and IT staff have met with key department staff several times before the preparation of the attached RFP. All full time staff and key independent contractors completed the user survey. Staff was invited to view the vendor product demonstrations conducted in the Community Room at City Hall on March 11, 2002. Subject to the approval of the attached RFP by the City Council (or a revised version thereof), the Project Team expects to invite qualifying vendors to participate in the RFP, including a comprehensive demonstration at City Hall prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.

Existing Avaya System 25 Phone System

The existing Avaya (formerly Lucent) System 25 telephone system was acquired in 1987. The System 25 serves the City Hall facility (only) and includes:

  • A main processor for operation of the system;
  • One main reception console for call distribution by the Receptionist;
  • (5) twenty-two button (department) attendant consoles;
  • (4) thirty-four button (department) attendant consoles;
  • (17) five button handsets;
  • (43) ten button handsets; and
  • A refurbished Octel 100 voice messaging system.

IT staff expects to request approximately eighty (80) handsets with the RFP.

Upon its complete failure, the original voice messaging system was replaced with a refurbished Octel 100 voice messaging system during August 2001. The Octel 100 was acquired with full knowledge that it is compatible with Avaya phone systems only. Except for the Octel voice messaging system, no other voice messaging solutions existed that are compatible with the obsolete Avaya System 25. Octel is a wholly owned subsidiary of Avaya.

Replacement of Existing Avaya System 25 Phone System is Necessary

The Avaya phone system must be replaced for the following reasons:

  • The current System 25 experiences voice file crashes and software corruption causing lost calls during transfers and lost system set-ups;
  • The handsets fail regularly (i.e. eighteen (18) have been replaced in the last 6 months);
  • The current System 25 has been at maximum handset capacity for nearly five years;
  • Avaya notified the City’s Information Technology (IT) staff in January 2002 that the main processor has not been supported since 1999; and
  • Avaya will terminate its limited hardware and software support on July 24, 2002;

Failure and Obsolescence of Existing Internal Copper Phone Lines

The existing copper phone lines were installed through the inside walls with the original phone system at City Hall in the 1970’s. Staff has experienced an increasing number of dropped calls, background noise and dead lines. The line failures and degradations have been occurring throughout City Hall, including the phone lines in the Planning conference room, the Planning copier room, the first floor CBT room, the Recreation and Parks copier room and in the open Finance area. Avaya support personnel have performed hours of troubleshooting and determined that the problems are not equipment or software related, but can only be a result of line failures. Additionally, the existing copper phone lines do not possess the bandwidth to maintain reliable connectivity (analog via digital phone sets), nor the ability to support current standards, or near future requirements such as video conference calls.

Voice Over IP vs. Digital Telephone Technology

IT staff considered two alternatives when it began its research nearly two years ago: (1) a digital (voice file) phone system which operates over copper phone lines; or (2) a Voice Over IP (VOIP) system. As you may already know, digital phone systems began replacing analog phone system technology in the late 1980’s. VOIP systems began replacing digital phone systems in the mid 1990’s. Digital phone systems no longer offer any advantages (e.g. cost and reliability) compared with VOIP systems. Additionally, a digital phone system cannot provide network based video conferencing, cannot operate over the City’s existing computer network and would require replacement of the City’s copper phone lines throughout City Hall. As described below, a VOIP system could operate over the existing computer network as is, with practically no limitation for future expansion, and no possibility of running out of bandwidth or capacity.

VOIP Phone and Voice System

Like all forms of telecommunications, phone and voice messaging systems have experienced dramatic technological improvements over the last decade. Current day phone systems can reliably converge voice, data and video over an IP based network. IP designates "Internet Protocol", the standard protocol that keeps track of hardware (e.g. phone handsets and computers) and routes data, voice and video files across a network. IT companies like Cisco and 3COM have been selling and installing converged systems (voice, data and video operating over the same network) since the late 80s. A wide range of companies and agencies have migrated to VOIP systems, including: Lego, the Texas cities of Dallas and Houston, Ventura Unified School Districts, EDS, Intel, Yahoo, Sunray Gaming, the City and County of Indianapolis, NASA, Boeing, Progressive Insurance, Archer Engineers, H. B. Fuller, Heinz, Federal Trade Commission, the universities of Maryland, Arkansas and Ohio State, Exter Township in Pennsylvania, American Express, Lloyds of London, Citibank, Dow Chemical and the California cities of Daly and Manhattan Beach.

A recent telecommunications industry study reported the following rate of implementation of converged networks in organizational environments in the United States:

  • 26% currently use converged networks;
  • 42% will migrate to converged networks in 1-2 years;
  • 19% will migrate to converged networks in 2-3 years; and
  • 13% will migrate to converged networks beyond 3 years.

IT staff’s recommendation to select a VOIP phone and voice messaging system is not motivated merely by the technological trend, but by the availability of a superior communications platform, dramatically improved system manageability, integration with existing workflow and desktop utility software applications, convenience and cost savings as follows:

    1. As stated previously in this report, the existing copper wire phone lines that run through the walls and ceilings at City Hall are no longer reliable. The cost of replacing the copper lines can be avoided by use of the existing 10MB network cabling already in place throughout City Hall. IT staff estimates that several additional lines and switches would be required to accommodate additional phone handsets at a cost of about $4,000 compared with an estimated cost of $26,000 to replace the existing copper lines (80 handsets X $325). Therefore, a net savings of about $22,000 will be derived if the existing network cabling already in place throughout City Hall is used for the replacement phone system.

    2. The installation of an IP based phone system will enable administrative integration of the phone system with local area network (LAN) that already exists at City Hall. Telephone handsets would have an IP address just like a computer workstation already connected to the network. The IP based telephone server would handle call processing more efficiently and execute in a similar but much more advanced manner than the current (Avaya) main processor. The IP based telephone server would distribute calls to and from the IP based telephone handsets. Some of the many benefits of the IP based phone system include:

      1. If a staff person needs to move to another office or work area at City Hall for an extended period time, they can simply relocate (physically move) their IP based handset to a new location while retaining all of the settings (e.g. nearby call transferring to an attendant and voice messaging).

      2. Staff could easily change their personal handset preferences (e.g. call transferring when their line is busy, call waiting directly to voice messaging and call forwarding to a remote location or cellular phone) using the integrated user desktop phone management program.

      3. The VOIP system enables staff to utilize Softphone on their home PC (requires a Broadband or DSL connection) and utilize most or all of the capabilities of a phone located on premises at CH. Staff could also redirect their office phone to their Softphone when working from home or during emergencies.

      4. Administration of the system could be conducted by the City’s IT staff from their own computer workstation, including general preference changes for a department or group (e.g. automatic call transferring to a department attendant when busy or the number of rings before transferring to voice messaging or transferring), new user set-up, tape back-up of system configuration and set-up changes for the main reception and department attendant consoles.

      5. A VOIP system will have the ability to conduct video conferencing calls when the technology becomes common and cost effective. A digital phone system operating across standard copper wire lines (like the current system) will not have the bandwidth (file size capacity and width) to conduct video conferencing. Therefore, the acquisition of a non-VOIP based phone system prevents the ability of conducting video conferencing across the phone system in the future.

      6. Though the City expends only about $5,000 annually for long distance calls, VOIP based phone systems have the ability to place phone calls over the Internet. Currently, phone calls made over the Internet between two (or more) IP based phone systems, rather than using the local and long distance telephone systems, are free. Multinational companies already utilize VOIP phone calls for transcontinental communications. It’s expected that Internet call handling systems will be developed by telecommunications companies to manage Internet phone calls with reduced rates. Therefore, the acquisition of a VOIP phone system will enable the City to benefit from potential long distance savings in the future if Internet long distance call handling becomes commonplace.

      7. The VOIP phone system will include a soft phone interface that could be installed on the workstation of nearly every phone user. The soft phone could perform all the user operations of the phone handset, plus enable caller ID viewing of calls on hold, conducting phone calls with use of a headset and the choice of touch tone phone operation with a computer monitor. Softphones also work from Laptop computers while traveling.
    1. Future improvements of the phone system, if necessary, will be performed with software and hardware upgrades similar to the rest of the network (e.g. the viewing of email and voice mail messages on the user’s computer monitor will be possible in the future with a software upgrade).

User Feature Preferences Expressed by Staff

As mentioned previously herein, IT staff accumulated the input of staff: (1) with the use of a comprehensive citywide staff survey; (2) small group meetings with each department to consider their respective needs; and (3) by conducting a Demonstration Day to view the different VOIP systems by the vendors under consideration.

Citywide Staff Survey

A copy of the User Survey (see Attachment A) accompanies this report, including a summary of its findings. The Project Team offered 35 user questions regarding features and 11 voice-messaging questions for staff’s consideration. Staff was asked to rank the importance of each user feature using a 0-5 range, 0 representing no preference for the questioned feature and 5 being the highest preference for the user feature.

The IT staff learned that each department had very different phone preferences. Therefore, the telephone system selected must enable significant flexibility for administration, departmental and user preference settings (e.g. one department refrains from the use of voice messaging, except as a last resort while another department will enable automatic transfers of busy calls to voice messaging). The importance of user features varies from each department.

In total, the differences in departmental needs are so widespread that a VOIP system appears to be the easiest to manage and configure because it is computer based and the core OS management interface is computer based and accessible from staff workstations. As a result, VOIP systems are less difficult to implement and manage than older style analog systems, require the less user and admin training, and are expected to require the least support.

Department Meetings to Assess Preferences and Needs

At the request of the Project Team, each department selected a coordinator(s) to work with department staff and the Project Team prior to the preparation of this report. Most of the department coordinators are also responsible for call distribution within the department. Therefore, they intimately know departmental call distribution procedures, department needs for the replacement phone system as well as the shortcomings of the existing system. The discussions between the Project Team and the department coordinators highlighted the fact that each department has its own procedures for call distribution, busy lines, voice messaging and call screening by attendants. As stated previously, the Project Team learned that the replacement system must enable easy departmental configurations (e.g. busy calls transferred to pre-determined nearby extension and distinctive rings).

Request For Qualifications - Demonstration Day

As mentioned previously in this report, the Project Team began its research almost two years ago. The research process has included inquiries of other phone system users, reviewing technical "white papers" issued by industry members, following industry trends through industry periodicals and websites, attendance industry conferences - CT Expo (the premier annual national industry trade show) two years in a row - and an in depth product demonstration and presentation with detailed technical information regarding the technology, current and emerging standards, and setup and operation of VOIP systems by an industry leader. Over the course of its research, the Project Team became familiar with the telephone products, telephone equipment and software leaders in the VOIP marketplace.

In early 2002, the Project Team prepared a Request For Qualifications (the "RFQ") for VOIP systems (see attachment B). The Project Team contacted all known industry telephone solution providers that manufacture, distribute, sell and support VOIP systems, including:

  • Avaya
  • Cisco
  • 3COM
  • Altigen
  • Seimens
  • Alcatel
  • ESI
  • Artisoft

The RFQ, information regarding Demonstration Day and general information about the vendors (see Attachments C, D and E) that participated can also be viewed at:

http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/rfq/

The Project Team requested each telephone solution provider to select an experienced and local vendor, certified to install and support his or her respective VOIP system to participate in the RFQ process, including Demonstration Day. The attached Vendor Information and Confirmation includes all of the vendors that participated in the Demonstration Day. As stated previously, City staff was also invited to view the vendor demonstrations. Subsequent to Demonstration Day, the Project Team met with the department coordinators to solicit feedback from what they observed during Demonstration Day. Though both the Project Team and staff agreed that the Demonstration Day could not provide sufficient information to make a recommendation regarding which telephone solution to acquire, there was a consensus that the telephone systems demonstrated by several telephone solution providers were favorites. Due to their large volume, the submissions provided by interested vendors in response to the RFQ have not been attached to this staff report for your review. They are available for your review upon request.

Vendors and Telephone Solutions Selected to Participate in the Request For Proposals

As described previously herein, the Project Team has been reviewing information about all of the telephone systems included in Demonstration Day for nearly two years. The Project Team conducted its own Q & A with the vendors during Demonstration Day, including technical considerations, user features and support and training. Based upon its research, including its Demonstration Day findings, inquiries with other users, trade publication reviews, reviewing technical "white papers" issued by industry members, following industry trends through industry periodicals and websites and attendance at CT Expo and input from City staff, it recommends the following telephone solutions and vendors to participate in the Request For Qualification process:

Telephone System Provider

Qualified Vendor Selected by Telephone System Provider

Avaya

Salient Networks

3COM

Starnet Data Design, Inc.

Altigen

Network Finesse

Siemens

Real Time Communications

Cisco

Expanets

All of the telephone solution providers selected to participate in the RFP are long-term telephone system industry members. Based upon the information provided, PVNET has determined that each certified vendor appears to be qualified to perform the installation and initial support. Of course, further inquiries of the vendors will be made, including client references, evidence of financial stability and an extensive on-site demonstration. Selection of a telephone solution and certified vendor to participate in the RFP process is not intended to limit the City’s decision process, merely narrow the field. The City shall maintain the right to consider other telephone solution alternatives if it chooses.

Overview of Request For Proposal

The Project Team has attached the RFP for your review and approval. The RFP includes the following:

  • The details regarding the technical configuration and installation issues for the telephone system;
  • Minimum requirements of the system, including training and support;
  • Draft purchase and support agreements in the event the vendor is selected;
  • Deadline for submission of a reply to the RFP; and
  • A description of required vendor qualifications.

The selection of a telephone system requires a substantial amount of judgment, rather than an evaluation of quantitative information. Though cost is a significant factor for consideration in making a decision for making a recommendation to the City Council, the Project Team will consider the following prior to making its recommendation to the City Council:

  • User features;
  • Reference replies regarding proposed vendors, including support and training;
  • Likelihood that vendor will continue to provide support during the expected useful life of the telephone system;
  • Administration features;
  • Likelihood the telephone system meets the minimum technical requirements; and
  • Financial stability of the telephone system provider and vendor.

Assuming the City Council approves the RFP (or a revised version thereof), staff expects that the RFP will be issued on or about April 19, 2002. Replies to the RFP will be due May 10, 2002. It is anticipated that the Project Team will present a recommendation, accompanying an agreement for the acquisition and support for City Council approval on or about June 4, 2002. Thereafter, IT staff expects the telephone system could be installed during the later part of June 2002.

FISCAL IMPACT

The FY 2001-2002 budget includes an appropriation of $100,000 in the Equipment Replacement fund to provide the replacement of the existing phone and voice messaging system operating at City Hall. As described previously, the original voice messaging system was replaced with a refurbished Octel 100 voice messaging system during August 2001 at a cost of about $15,000. Therefore, approximately $85,000 remains available in the FY 2001-2002 budget for the proposed purchase. IT staff does not know whether the budget appropriation of $85,000 will be sufficient to replace the existing system at this time. Based upon discussions with the vendors, it’s too close to call.

IT staff is proposing include a provision for $25,000 in the FY 2002-2003 budget for the cost of support of the system, including hardware and software support as well as maintenance services provided by either the selected vendor and/or PVNET. This amount may need to be adjusted once the City receives the responses to the RFP in May 2002.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



15. Professional Services Agreement For An Employees Benefit Study. (Petru)

Recommendation: (1) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Aon Consulting for an Employee Benefits Study in the amount of $27,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2) ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2002- , AMENDING RESOL. NO. 2001-35, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 01-02, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR AN EMPLOYEES BENEFIT STUDY

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Aon Consulting for an Employee Benefits Study in the amount of $27,000,and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2002- ; Amending Resolution No. 2001- 35, the Budget Appropriation for Fiscal Year 01-02, for a budget adjustment to the City’s General fund.

BACKGROUND

This time last year, the City Council amended the City’s contract with the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) to include the 2% @ 55 retirement formula and one-year final compensation factor. The previous contract provided a 2% @ 60 retirement formula and three-year final compensation factor. The contract amendment generated a great deal of discussion among the regular employees and the management team about other benefit enhancements that could improve the City’s ability to attract and retain high quality employees. The management team decided to poll the employees to determine which benefit improvements would be of greatest interest to them before moving forward with presenting any proposals to the City Council as part of the FY 02-03 Budget. Therefore, in August 2001, the Assistant City Manager conducted a benefits survey of the City’s full-time and job share employees.

DISCUSSION

The employee survey consisted of a list of twelve potential benefit improvements and asked each employee to rank the list in order of their personal priority (see attached sample survey). The Assistant City Manager received responses from 37 employees of the City’s 42 employees. The results were compiled and the employees’ top five requested benefit enhancements are as follows:

1. 457 Deferred Compensation Plan Matching Contribution Program

The City’s 457 plan is similar to 401K plans found in the private sector. Currently, the employees make all contributions to the City’s 457 Deferred Compensation Plan. The Benefits Study would analyze the cost of the City matching employee contributions at various levels. In addition, the consultant will assist the City in surveying other cities matching policies. Twenty-four employees ranked matching contributions as one of their top three desired benefit enhancements.

2. Lifetime CalPERS Healthcare Benefits for City Retirees

Currently, the City participates in the CalPERS healthcare program and pays the required minimum of $16 per month toward each retiree’s healthcare premium. The individual retiree pays the balance of the premium amount. The Benefit Study will analyze the impact of providing lifetime healthcare coverage to employees that retire directly from the City. As discussed in Item No. 3 below, the City currently pays 100% of a full-time employees healthcare premiums. This proposed benefit would extend the same level of coverage to City retirees, but would not include their dependents. Seventeen employees ranked lifetime healthcare as one of their top three desired benefit enhancements.

3. Larger Dependant Healthcare Coverage

The City currently pays 100% of a full-time employee’s healthcare premiums and pays 50% of any dependent’s premiums. Employees are required to pay the balance of the dependent healthcare premiums. The Benefits Study would review the impact of increasing the subsidy currently provided for employee’s dependents at various levels, such as 75% or 100%. Most of the City’s employees with dependant coverage are in the professional/journeyman level positions, which is the segment where the City experiences the highest level of turnover. This benefit enhancement may help to slow the rate of turnover. Thirteen employees ranked this within their top three desired benefit enhancements.

4. Supplemental Retirement Benefit Program

As discussed in the background section, the City provides employees with a 2% @ 55 CalPERS retirement formula benefit. The majority of cities in California have adopted this retirement formula for their miscellaneous employees (i.e. non-safety employees). In order to attract and hold onto qualified employees in a shrinking labor market, many cities have also instituted supplemental retirements programs to improve this benefit without modifying their contract with CalPERS. For example, the City of Rolling Hills Estates recently contracted with Public Agency Retirement System (PARS), a 401(a) tax-qualified multiple employer trust, to create a defined contribution plan for its full-time employees. Under this program, RHE begins making contributions on the employee’s behalf after they have worked a minimum of two years for the city. Employees become 50% vested in the program after five years of service with RHE and 100% vested after 10 years. Based on the number of years of service, RHE contributes an equivalent of 1% to 6% of an employee’s annual salary into their individual account. Once vested, employees are given a choice on how they would like the benefit to be distributed, such as a lump sum payment, roll over into an IRA, installments payments, etc. This is just one example of a supplemental retirement benefit program. The Benefits Study will look at several variations of this theme. Thirteen employees ranked this within their top three desired benefit enhancements.

5. Sick Leave "Cash Out" Program

The City allows employees to accumulate unused sick leave up to a maximum of 720 hours. No cash out is provided for amounts over 720 hours and no cash out is provided at separation from the City of any unused sick leave. The Benefits Study will look at two alternatives for accrued sick leave. The first would allow employees to cash out sick leave that exceeds the 720 hour maximum and the second would allow amounts over 720 to accumulate in a "bank" that can either be cashed out or used to provide retiree health care benefits at retirement. Twelve employees ranked this within their top three desired benefit enhancements.

CONCLUSION

Staff feels that the analysis of the fiscal impacts of the top five benefit enhancements identified by the employees is beyond the expertise of City staff. Therefore, staff believes that the City requires the assistance of third-party specialist in the employee benefits consulting field to prepare an employee benefits study and make to recommendations. An expert in the field may also be able to identify opportunities to "piggyback" some of the benefits on each other in order to leverage the City’s assets, such as allowing employees to apply unused sick leave to deferring the cost of post-retirement healthcare premiums. City staff would like to engage the services of Mr. John Bartel of Aon Consulting. Mr. Bartel is a highly qualified consultant with over 27 years of employee benefits experience, primarily in pension consulting services in both the public and private sectors. The Council may recall that Mr. Bartel and his firm prepared the financial analysis of the retirement formula improvements adopted by the City in 2000. The draft contract document is attached for the Council’s review. If engaged by the City, Mr. Bartel has indicated that the work will take between four to six weeks to complete. Although it will not be ready in time for the April 30th Budget Workshop, staff will present the data to City Council at the first opportunity in May, prior to the adoption of the FY 02-03 Budget in June 2002.

FISCAL IMPACT

The project scope is described in the attached letter from Mr. Bartel dated April 4, 2002. The amount of this contract would be $27,000 ($25,000 in hourly costs and $2,000 in miscellaneous expenses, such as copying and postage). The funds for the study would be provided from the Employee Benefits Fund (Account # 785-385). The projected current year ending fund balance is $39,666, which should be sufficient to cover the cost of the proposed work. However, because the authorized expenditures may exceed the $531,755 currently included in the adopted budget, staff has prepared a Resolution to amend the FY 01-02 Budget to ensure that expenditures do not exceed the authorized amount in the Employee Benefits Fund, in order to maintain budgetary compliance.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Draft Professional Services Agreement
Resolution No. 2002- (budget adjustment)


CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT

This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "CITY"), and Aon Consulting (the "CONSULTANT"), an employee benefits consulting group.

I. DESCRIPTION OF WORK

CONSULTANT shall provide employee benefit consulting services to CITY.

A. CONSULTANT agrees as follows:

1. To assess the expected financial impact upon CITY of the following proposed employee benefit enhancements:

i. 457 Deferred Compensation Plan matching contributions
ii.Lifetime CalPERS healthcare benefits
iii.Larger dependent healthcare coverage
iv.Supplemental retirement programs
v.Sick leave "cash out" options

2. To prepare a discussion outline to assist the CITY in understanding the financial implications of the proposed benefit enhancements.

3. CONSULTANT agrees to complete the initial review within five weeks of receiving all necessary information.

4. CONSULTANT further agrees that the CITY reserves the right to accept or reject any recommendation.

B. CITY agrees as follows:

1. CITY agrees to provide CONSULTANT access to all of CITY's records pertaining to employee retirement benefits, so long as CITY determines in its discretion that such information is not confidential and is necessary to the CONSULTANT to prepare the agreed upon work.

2. CITY agrees to arrange meetings, when possible, with appropriate CITY employees when requested by CONSULTANT and when, in CITY's discretion, such meetings are necessary.

II. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT

CITY agrees to pay and CONSULTANT agrees to accept compensation on an hourly basis according to the following:

A. Vice President at $250.00 per hour.
Consultant at $200 per hour.
Actuarial Analyst at $150 per hour.

B. CONSULTANT agrees not bill more than $25,000, without prior written approval of CITY, for all five items listed in section A1 of this Agreement.

C. CONSULTANT shall not bill CITY for Rancho Palos Verdes meeting travel time.

D. CONSULTANT shall limit miscellaneous expenses to $2,000, or 10% of hourly fees for this project, whichever is less.

E. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with documentation supporting billed amounts.

F. Undisputed invoices shall be paid by CITY within forty-five (45) days of submittal by CONSULTANT.

III. CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT

Either CITY or CONSULTANT shall have the right to terminate this Agreement with or without cause, by giving not less than thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other party. On the date of termination stated in the written notice of termination, CONSULTANT shall discontinue performance of the services stated in this Agreement.

IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

The CONSULTANT shall perform the services as contained herein as an independent contractor and shall not be considered an employee of CITY or under CITY supervision or control. This Agreement is by and between the CONSULTANT and CITY and is not intended, and shall not be construed, to create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture, or association, between the CITY and the CONSULTANT.

V. SUCCESSOR AND ASSIGNMENT

The services as contained herein are to be rendered by the CONSULTANT whose name is first written above. CONSULTANT shall not assign nor transfer any interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the CITY.

VI. INDEMNIFICATION

CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY and each member thereof, and every officer, employee and agent of the CITY, from any and all claims, causes of action, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations, liabilities or financial losses, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and court costs arising directly or indirectly from any or all negligent or other wrongful acts, errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, its agents, employees and subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement.

VII. INSURANCE

CONSULTANT shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has obtained all insurance required hereunder. At all times during the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall maintain not less than the types and amounts of insurance coverage listed below and issued by insurers admitted to do business in California and listed "A" or better in Best's Insurance Guide:

(a) General Liability:Consultant shall at all times during the term of the Agreement carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, a policy or policies of Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, with minimum limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for each occurrence and in the aggregate, combined single limit, against any personal injury, death, loss or damage resulting from the wrongful or negligent acts by Consultant. Said policy or policies shall be issued by an insurer admitted in the State of California and rated in Best’s Insurance Guide with a rating A VII or better.

(b) Professional Liability:Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement, carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect a policy or policies of professional liability insurance with a minimum limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). Said policy or policies shall be issued by an insurer admitted in the State of California and rated in Best’s Insurance Guide with a rating of A VII or better.

(c) Workers' Compensation Insurance:Before beginning work, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a certificate of insurance as proof that it has taken out full workers' compensation insurance for all persons whom it may employ directly or through subcontractors in carrying out the work specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

(d) Car Insurance:Throughout the term of this Agreement, at CONSULTANT's sole cost and expense, CONSULTANT shall keep, or cause to be kept, in full force and effect, for the mutual benefit of CITY and CONSULTANT, comprehensive, broad, form, general automobile insurance against claims and liabilities for personal injury, death, or property damage arising from CONSULTANT's activities, providing protection of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for bodily injury or death to any one person or for any one accident or occurrence and at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for property damage.

VIII. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

In the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Fair Employment Practices Act (California Government Code Sections 12940-48) and the applicable equal employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 200e-217), whichever is more restrictive.

CONSULTANT shall not discriminate as to race, creed, religion, gender, color or national origin in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to this Agreement, and will comply with all rules and regulations of the City relating thereto.

IX. INTERPRETATION

This Agreement and any dispute hereunder shall be governed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. No provision of this Agreement is to be interpreted for or against either party because that party or that party's legal representative drafted such provision, but this Agreement is to be construed as if it were drafted by both parties hereto.

X. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to retention of CONSULTANT by the CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to such retention.

XI. WAIVER

No breach of any provision hereof can be waived unless in writing. Waiver of any one breach of any provision shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other breach of the same or any other provision thereof.

XII. ATTORNEY'S FEES

In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees.

Executed this ___________ day of __________, 2002

AON CONSULTING

By: ___________________________

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES


_________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:


_________________________
City Clerk


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 01-02, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND

WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council; and,

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2001 the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2001-43, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2001-2002 fiscal year; and,

WHEREAS, certain employee benefits costs will cause total fiscal year 2001-2002 expenditures in the Internal Service Fund - Employee Benefits to possibly exceed the amount budgeted; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget appropriation be increased to match actual expenses.

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

Section 1: The following increase be made to the fiscal year 1997-98 General Fund budget:

General Fund:

Professional/Technical Services -- #785-385.35 -- $27,000

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of April 2002.


__________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________
CITY CLERK

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

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on April 16, 2002.


__________________________
CITY CLERK



16. Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority proposal to install surveillance cameras in certain busses and advise the City Council representatives to the Transit Authority on whether or not to support the proposal when the issue is before the Authority Board.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: PALOS VERDES PENINSULA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority proposal to install surveillance cameras in certain busses and advise the City Council representatives to the Transit Authority on whether or not to support the proposal when the issue is before the Authority Board.

BACKGROUND:

During the past school semester, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority has experienced an increase in the number of disciplinary problems on the busses. The driver deals with the majority of the incidents. The more serious ones have required the involvement of Transit Authority staff or Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District staff. Several students with continuing behavior problems have had their ridership privileges cancelled.

DISCUSSION:

In response to the disciplinary problem the Transit authority staff has developed a Passenger Disciplinary Policy. A draft copy of that Policy is attached. In an attempt to provide definitive documentation in an instance of a disputed disciplinary action, Transit Authority staff has suggested the installation of surveillance cameras in selected busses to monitor the potential disruptive passenger activities. The videos would be used only to document incidents.

Councilmembers Ferraro and Gardiner represent the City on the joint Transit Authority Board (Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates also have two representatives each). Councilmember Gardiner has asked that the City Council advise Councilmember Ferraro and him on whether or not they should support the surveillance camera proposal.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Draft Passenger Disciplinary Policy



17. Senate Bill 633, Delay Prevention Act. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider the request of Mayor Mike Gordon of the City of El Segundo to support an amendment to pending federal legislation that takes away local control over airport planning.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 633, DELAY PREVENTION ACT

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider the request of Mayor Mike Gordon, of the City of El Segundo, to support an amendment to pending federal legislation that takes away local control over airport planning.

BACKGROUND:

At the City Council meeting of April 2, 2002 Mayor McTaggart asked that the letter from Mayor Gordon be placed on the next City Council agenda for action.

DISCUSSION:

Attached is the letter from Mayor Gordon requesting support for the amendment. Since Mayor Gordon asked that the letter of support be sent by April 9, 2002, action by the Council this evening may be too late. However, staff has been following the status of the proposed legislation and believes that it has not yet gone to the senate floor.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Letter from Mayor Gordon w/ attachments
Senate Bill 633



18. West Basin Water District Grant Application. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider the request of the West Basin Municipal Water District to write a letter of support for a Proposition 13 grant application submitted by the District in December 2001.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: WEST BASIN WATER DISTRICT GRANT APPLICATION

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider the request of the West Basin Municipal Water District to write a letter of support for a Proposition 13 grant application submitted by the District in December, 2001.

BACKGROUND:

At the City Council meeting of April 2, 2002, Mr. David Cobb, representing the West Basin Municipal Water District, asked for City Council support of a grant application. The Mayor asked that the item be placed on the next City Council agenda for action.

DISCUSSION:

Attached is the letter of support requested by the Water District. Mr. Dobb will be present to answer questions about the grant.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Sample Letter of Support for Proposition 13 Grant Application


19. Emergency Preparedness Committee. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-11 TO INCREASE THE MEMBERS OF THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE FROM SEVEN (7) MEMBERS TO NINE (9) MEMBERS.

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2002 - ; amending Resolution No. 2002-11 to increase the members of the Emergency Preparedness Committee from seven (7) members to nine (9) members.

BACKGROUND

On February 19, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-11, thereby creating the new Emergency Preparedness Committee. On April 2, 2002, the City Council directed staff to agendize an item at the next meeting to consider increasing the membership of the Committee from seven (7) members to nine (9) members.

DISCUSSION

Staff initially suggested a seven (7) member committee because this is consistent with the membership of the City’s other advisory committees, such as the Financial Advisory Committee, Traffic Committee and the Recreation and Parks Committee. However, with the dissolution of the View Restoration Commission and the proposed reduction of the Equestrian Committee to five members, increasing the membership to nine will make the Emergency Preparedness Committee the City’s largest advisory committee.

The proposed change in the number of Emergency Preparedness Committee members would not alter the duties of the Committee as set forth in Resolution No. 2002-11. However, the staffing required to support the larger Committee would be expected to increase slightly. In addition, other funding for the Committee, particularly with regards to training, meetings and conferences, and mileage reimbursement would all be expected to increase with the addition of two more Committee members.

FISCAL IMPACT

The preliminary budget for Emergency Preparedness program would increase from $31,780 currently budgeted for FY 02-03 to $127,280. If the Council increases the size of the Committee, staff will make any further adjustments and present the program budget to the Council at the April 30, 2002 Budget Workshop. The Emergency Preparedness program is funding entirely from the General fund.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Leave the composition of the Committee at seven members.

2. Increase the membership of the Committee to some number greater than nine members.

Respectfully Submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Resolution No. 2002 - ;


RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES INCREASING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE

WHEREAS, on February 19, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-11, creating the Emergency Preparedness Committee; and,

WHEREAS, as set forth in Resolution No. 2002-11, the Emergency Preparedness Committee consists of seven (7) members; and,

WHEREAS, on April 2, 2002, the City Council directed staff to agendize an item at the next meeting to consider increasing the membership of the Emergency Preparedness Committee from seven (7) members to nine (9).

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

Section 1: That increasing the membership of the committee will provide a greater opportunity for resident participation and will allow for a broader range of expertise among the members of the Committee.

Section 2: That the second sentence of Section 1 of Resolution No. 2002-11 is hereby amended to read as follows:

The Committee shall consist of seven (7) nine (9) members appointed by the City Council for staggered terms of service, with a Chairperson selected from the group by the Council.

PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 16th day of April 2002.

 

__________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_________________________
CITY CLERK

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

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002- ; was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on April 16, 2002.


_____________________________
City Clerk



20. League of California Cities Membership. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider Councilmember Gardiner’s proposal to withdraw from membership in the League of California Cities.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MEMBERSHIP

RECOMMENDATION

Consider Councilmember Gardiner’s proposal to withdraw from membership in the League of California Cities.

BACKGROUND

On January 15, 2002 the League of California Cities filed a ballot measure with the State Attorney General to protect local government revenues. The measure would prohibit the state from taking any action that reduced any local financial resource available for appropriation by a local government for public safety, public health, or for other local government services. The measure was designed to protect existing local taxes (e.g., sales, property, etc.) plus growth according to the Gann factor, fines and forfeitures, and amounts received from state subventions in existence on January 1, 2002, including the VLF, COPS, booking fees, Proposition 172 and other subventions received by local governments.

The Board of Directors of the League of California Cities voted overwhelmingly on February 2, 2002 to establish four specific conditions before the League proceeded with the proposed measure as a ballot initiative on the November 2002 statewide ballot. The four conditions were: (1) support from at least seven of the ten largest cities in the state; (2) support from the California State Association of Counties; (3) receipt of a title and summary for the initiative that is not harmful; and (4) $1 million in contributions in the campaign bank account by March 31, 2001 to match a similar contribution from the League to defray the cost of qualifying the measure for the November 2002 ballot. Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge and League Second Vice President said: "We know it’s a steep challenge, and we will know in the near future whether we should set our sights on the November 2002 or March 2004 ballot."

On March 7, the League received the title and summary for the proposed ballot measure. It contained the following summary statement of the fiscal impact of the proposed measure that was prepared by the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance:

"This initiative would have the following major fiscal effects: (1) Significant restrictions on state authority over local government finances; and (2) Higher local resources than otherwise would have been the case—potentially several billions of dollars annually. Commensurate fiscal impact on the state, in the form of reduced spending on non-local government programs and/or higher state taxes."

After review of the ballot title and summary and consideration of the impact of the references in the fiscal analysis to higher local resources and spending cuts and/or tax increases, the League Executive Committee simply concluded it was not sufficient to justify the considerable expense of gathering signatures at this time.

Commenting on the decision, John Russo, League First Vice President and chair of its Fiscal Reform Task Force, said: "Frankly, I am very disappointed. I’m sure other local officials are too, but we all knew a lot of stars would have to line up to make it possible for us to put our measure on the ballot in November of this year. As far as I am concerned, this simply means we need to look carefully at the opportunities at the March 2004 election. In the meantime, we need to use our Grassroots Network to engage the state legislature and governor on these important issues."

DISCUSSION

Councilmember Gardiner feels very strongly that the League must move forward with the revenue protection ballot initiative now rather than wait until 2004. He points our that the League’s decision to wait will put City revenue sources at risk for another two years. In view of the League’s failure to act decisively on the part of its member cities, Councilmember Gardiner has proposed that the City withdraw from membership in the League.

Although the City Council has not been active in the League for the past few years, several Councilmembers have expressed interest in participating in the Division meetings and serving on committees. This may give us a greater voice in future decisions by the League Board.

The cost of the City’s League membership is $11,590 annually. For comparison purposes, the California Contract Cities annual membership is $2,800, South Bay Cities Council of Governments is currently $4,444 and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is $3,318.

Attached is a Status Report on the Ballot Measure and a copy of the League’s Strategic Plan.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Status Report on Proposed Ballot Measure
2001-02 Strategic Plan



21. League of California Cities Resolution. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider Councilmember Clark’s proposal to submit a resolution to the League of California Cities for consideration at the annual conference in October.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES RESOLUTION

RECOMMENDATION

Consider Councilmember Clark’s proposal to submit a resolution to the League of California Cites for consideration at the annual conference in October

BACKGROUND

The California League of Cities sets policy through resolutions presented before, and voted on by the general membership at the annual conference. This year the League Conference is October 2-5 in Long Beach.

Cities within the Los Angeles County Division have the opportunity to create positive changes in the League through the resolutions process. The Division can sponsor resolutions submitted by member cities and recommend positions to the League. Resolutions should be submitted for the Division’s consideration by June 28, 2002. The Division Legislative Committee will review all resolutions and recommend positions to the Division General Membership in July. The final recommendations will be voted upon at the August 1st Division General Membership meeting. The resolutions sponsored by the Division will be presented at the Annual League Conference in October.

DISCUSSION

Few improvements enhance the appearance of a city as much as removing overhead wires and utility poles. The General Plan recognizes this when it states that "overhead wires are an unsightly vestige of a necessary infrastructure component, and cause considerable disturbance to views". Current city standards require utility lines to be constructed underground.

The Public Utilities Commission has for decades, required that the electrical utilities set aside funds for the undergrounding of overhead electric facilities. Unfortunately, as Councilmember Clark has pointed out, the funds that are actually committed for this purpose are very small in relationship to the need. Staff has been unable to determine just how much of Southern California Edison Company revenues are designated for undergrounding projects, but for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes the annual amount is about $154,000 or enough to underground less than five hundred feet of overhead lines.

Councilmember Clark has suggested that the City Council sponsor a resolution for consideration by the League that would require SCE to put aside additional funds for replacing overhead lines with underground facilities. At this time staff has not done significant research in the matter and can offer no details of how the proposal might be structured. However, if the City Council is interested in pursuing Councilmember Clark’s proposal a more detailed staff report will be prepared.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Letter from Scott Gobble of 6/12/2001
Rules 20A and 20B



22. Adjourned City Council Meetings. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider establishing new dates for interviewing the Recreation and Parks Committee and Equestrian Committee applicants, a new date for the Zone 2 Workshop and a date for a joint meeting with the School Board.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: APRIL 16, 2002

SUBJECT: ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

RECOMMENDATION

Consider establishing new dates for interviewing the Recreation and Parks Committee and Equestrian Committee applicants, a new date for the Zone 2 Workshop and a date for a joint meeting with the School Board.

BACKGROUND

The City Council has set several adjourned meetings over the next six weeks and has unsuccessfully tried to set a joint meeting with the School Board. The adjourned meetings currently on the calendar include:

April 27: Community Leaders’ Breakfast followed by interviews of Recreation and Park Committee and Equestrian Committee applicants.

April 30: Budget Workshop

May 6: Disaster Preparedness Committee interviews.

May 18: Zone 2 Workshop

The School District suggested two possible dates for a joint meeting. The dates were May 9th and May 16th. Unfortunately, Mayor McTaggart has a conflict on May 9th and Councilmember Ferraro has a conflict on May 16th. In addition, Councilmember Gardiner has advised me that he cannot be present at the adjourned meeting on April 27th. Councilmember Clark may not be able to attend the May 6th interviews. Finally, our geologist has informed us that he has an unavoidable conflict on May 18th and will not be able to attend the Zone 2 meeting.

DISCUSSION

Several Councilmembers have provided me their personal calendars for the next three months. Finding an available date for a Council meeting is a formidable task. Based on information provided me by the Councilmembers, the following is a list of all the dates through June 30th that may be available for adjourned meetings with all Councilmembers present:

April 19 Friday
May 4 Saturday
May 13 Monday
May 17 Friday
May 20 Monday
May 22 Wednesday
May 24 Friday
May 25 Saturday (Memorial Day Weekend)
June 7 Friday
June 10 Monday
June 11 Tuesday (also a Planning Commission meeting date)
June 12 Wednesday (also a Finance Committee meeting date)
June 14 Friday
June 15 Saturday

These dates assume an evening meeting for a weekday and a morning meeting on a Saturday. No effort has been made to determine what meeting venues may be available on any particular date or which staff members may have conflicts. Clearly meeting dates that conflict with Committee/Commission meetings may create difficulties with staffing.

An alternative to finding a date on which all Councilmembers are available to attend an adjourned meeting may be to acknowledge that from time to time the Council will have to meet when not everyone can be present.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



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



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Saturday, April 27th to the Community Leaders’ Breakfast starting at 9:00 A.M., followed by the interviews of applicants for the advisory boards (Parks & Recreation and Equestrian Committee) starting at 11:00 A.M.



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)

Anticipated Litigation:
(G.C 54956.9(b)

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

____________1___________
(Number of Potential Cases)

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


PERSONNEL

Public Employee Performance Evaluation
G.C. 54957

Title: City Manager