Agenda 05/07/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 05/07/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda May 7, 2002 8:00 PM
May 7, 2002 8:00 PM

DISCLAIMER

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

...end of disclaimer...

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


BEGINNING OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMISSION &

FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MAY 7, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


8:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-30

NEXT ORD. NO. 376

RECYCLE DRAWING:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

 

1. Minutes of March 19, March 25, and April 27, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.

 

2. Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. (Huey)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 AND ORDERING THE ENGINEER TO PREPARE A REPORT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO.

 

3. Amendment to the City Manager’s Employment Agreement. (Lynch)

Recommendation: Approve the third amendment to the City Manager’s employment agreement.

 

4. Claim Against the City by Joy Major. (Purcell)

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

 

5. March 2002 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

 

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. Long Point Resort Project (Conditional Use Permit No. 215, et. al. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: (1) Consider a presentation of the revised Long Point Resort Hotel project by the applicant. (2) Consider certification of the project Environmental Impact Report. (3) Establish a tentative processing schedule of the revised project.

 
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. Proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Agenda and Calendar for the Finance Advisory Committee. (McLean)

Recommendation: Review the proposed Rancho Palos Verdes Finance Advisory Committee proposed calendar and agenda of meetings for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and provide staff and the Finance Advisory Committee with clarification and affirmation of the proposed agenda topics.

 

9. Municipal Area Express (MAX) Inter-Agency Agreement. (Huey)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to continue its participation in the commuter transportation transit service, known as Municipal Area Express (MAX) for the period of July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2005. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement for MAX Commuter Bus Service on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

 

10. On-Call Professional Service Agreements. (Huey)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize a contract limit increase of up to $128,250 for contract engineering services under the On-Call Service Agreement for CBM Consulting. (2) Authorize a contract limit increase of up to $90,000 for contract engineering services under the On-Call Service Agreement for Merit Civil Engineering.

 

11. City Advisory Boards: Appointment of Members to the Recreation & Parks Committee, Equestrian Committee, and Emergency Preparedness Committee. (Purcell)

Recommendation: (1) Appoint seven members to the Recreation & Parks Committee: Four members with a term of office until March 7, 2006; and, three members with a term of office until March 2, 2004. (2) Confirm the appointment of seven members to the Equestrian Committee: Four members with a term of office until March 7, 2006; and, three members with a term of office until March 2, 2004. (3) Appoint nine members to the Emergency Preparedness Committee: Five members with a term of office until March 7, 2006; and, four members with a term of office until March 2, 2004. (4) Set 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, May 21st as the date to interview appointees for the position of chair for these three boards.



12. Border Issues Status Report. (Fox)

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

 

13. Request to Support Legislation Concerning Bonds For Harbor And Port Security Improvement Measure. (McTaggart)

Recommendation: Consider Council support of AB1782 (Kehoe and Lowenthal).

 

14. California Contract Cities Association Conference. (Evans)

Recommendation: Determine whether to (1) fund Commission and Committee member attendance at the Annual California Contract Cities Conference in Palm Springs from May 30 to June 2, 2002; and, (2) fund a City dinner on Friday, May 31st.

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

 

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to 7:00 P.M. on Monday, May 20th for a Zone 2 Workshop.



RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMISSION &

FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MAY 7, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


8:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-30

NEXT ORD. NO. 376

RECYCLE DRAWING:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Minutes of March 19, March 25, and April 27, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 19, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file, and was immediately recessed to a closed session per the Brown Act Checklist. At 7:20 P.M. the meeting reconvened.

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

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

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


CEREMONIAL MATTER:

Presentation of proclamation by Mayor McTaggart to Eric Randall

Mayor McTaggart read the proclamation presented to Mr. Randall as President of the Los Angeles County Board of Real Estate


RECYCLE DRAWING:

Winners were Neil Katz, Donald Ritter, Harry Keches, each of whom will receive a check for $250, which represents a year of free refuse service. Another card was selected.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to hear the Public Hearings in this order: (1) the Abrams antenna item, (2) the Kay antenna item, (3) the PVIC item. Motion carried


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Councilman Gardiner and Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked that the San Ramon Geotechnical Services item be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilman Clark asked the same for the item regarding revisions to City Council Policy Manual.

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

Waiver of Full Reading

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

Gifts for Parks (1201 x 602)

Accepted the Gifts for Parks donations and direct staff to prepare letters for the Mayor’s signature expressing the Council’s thanks.

Approval of Contract between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Renaissance Esmeralda Resort for Expenses Related to Youth Activities at the California Contract Cities Conference (1201 x 1102)

Authorized staff to sign the proposed contract between the City and the Renaissance Esmeralda Resort related to youth activities during the annual California Contract Cities Conference, May 30-June 2, 2002.

Approval of Matching Funds for School Recycling Drive (1204 x 1301)

(1) Approved a recycling match for Point Vicente ($100) and Cornerstone Elementary Schools ($100) as part of their November 2001 America Recycles Day, recycling drive and fundraising efforts. (2) Approved additional matching funds, up to a total of $600, to be used for future recycling drives at City schools.

Gift for the Public Works Department (1204 x 602)

Accepted a gift for the Public Works Department and direct staff to prepare a letter of appreciation for the Mayor’s signature.

Acquisition of Vehicle for the Public Works Department (1204)

(1) Authorized the Department of Public Works to purchase a new vehicle. (2) Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to enter into a purchase agreement with Golden State Truck Center in the amount of $ 21,737.

Release of Bond Posted for Vantage Point (1204 x 1404)

Authorized the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works to release a bond posted by Cayman Development Company for the construction of a traffic signal on Crest Road.

Resol. No. 2002-20 - Register of Demands (602)

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-20, 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


Geotechnical Services for the lower San Ramon Canyon Regulations (1204 x 604)

Director Allison provided a brief summary of the staff report and the recommendation to (1) Award a professional services agreement for geotechnical engineering services to GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc. (3) Authorize the expenditure of up to $30,000 for engineering services for a geotechnical review of the lower San Ramon Canyon.

Councilman Clark asked if there were potential problems from the situation in this area upslope permeating back into the San Ramon development or Marymount and whether the consultant will investigate this risk.

Director Allison said that this was a possibility and that the consultant would investigate although it was not known if all questions could be answered.

Councilman Gardiner asked which areas were public and which were privately owned.

Director Allison replied that the switchbacks were public land and to the east were private lands.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked the location and the effect on the Tarapaca homes.

Director Alison said that the large lot at the end of Tarapaca all the way to Palos Verdes Drive South were part of this situation.

Mayor pro tem Stern added that the map distributed shows the lot lines and the location of the canyon relative to switchbacks.

Councilman Gardiner asked about surveys on privately-owned land and noted that most of the slipping was on private land.

Director Allison agreed with Councilman Gardiner’s assessment and replied that if there were a need to go on private property, permission would be sought from the landowner.

Councilman Clark asked if this area was the subject of potential residential development about three years ago and Director Allison said yes.

Mayor pro tem Stern supported this investigation and asked if lot owners had been contacted.

Director Allison said that no contact made yet but that would be happening soon.

Marty Redfield, 31223 Ganado Drive, encouraged the Council to be pro-active about investigating this potential risk to homes; said that residents in the area have been watching this earth movement and that many feel that only the light rainfall for the last couple of years has kept the situation from worsening; expressed concern about unstable land nearby in various directions and how the possible expansion of Marymount might worsen conditions; and, asked if it might be possible to reduce costs by joining forces with Marymount since their EIR requires exploring the unstable canyon.

City Manager Evans said that sharing of information might be helpful but that the City would want its own consultant and so would Marymount.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to adopt staff recommendation.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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


Revisions to City Council Policy Manual (1101 x 306)

Staff recommendation was to adopt amended policy Nos. 1 (Video Tapes of City Council And Committee/Commission Meetings), 9 (Advertising in the Recreation Brochure), 10 (City Council/Committee/Community Recognition Program, 17 (Procedure for Audience to Address City Council, 24 (Commission and Committee Chair Attendance at City Council Meetings), and 25 (Policy Against Harassment in the Workplace); and, to adopt new policy no. 36 (Policy Against Workplace Violence) in the City Council Policy Manual.

Councilman Gardiner said that, regarding Policy No. 1, he preferred all material be converted to DVD or its equivalent as technology changes and he asked why the medium determined how long the record was kept.

Assistant City Manager Petru replied that storage had been a factor and also the City did not have ownership of the tapes because members of the Amateur Radio Club manned the cameras. Another factor is that videotape is not as durable as DVD’s. She added that possibly tapes could be converted to DVD format.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that we was not aware that the City did retain a video record of meetings and asked how many tapes the City currently has.

Assistant City Manager Petru said that she would have to check but she thought maybe from February 2002 but there were early records of meetings on the City’s website.

Mayor pro tem Stern stressed the importance of retaining a record of meetings and asked how quickly DVD’s could be burned.

Assistant City Manager Petru replied that she had spoken to Cox Cable and they are currently testing different burners to decide which product to buy. They estimated that they would be ready within the next month or so.

Councilwoman Ferraro suggested that tapes could be saved until that time.

Assistant City Manager Petru said that Cox would burn the DVD’s directly from the live feed and the City would most like have to outsource the conversion from tape to DVD.

Councilman Clark thought the DVD library should be permanent rather than holding the DVD’s for only five years.

Assistant City Manager Petru said that this was the intent and that changes would be made as technology changes.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to adopt Policy No. 1, as amended, and direct staff to investigate converting videotapes to DVD.

Mayor pro tem Stern referred to Policy No. 24which required the Chair of the Planning Commission to attend City Council meetings to answer questions and noted that staff was asking if the Council wanted to continue this policy.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that this applied when a Planning Commission decision was appealed to the City Council.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted that this was not being done.

Councilman Clark suggested that the policy be amended to require the Chair of the Planning Commission to attend only as requested by the City Council.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed that there was not a need to ask the chairman to come to every time there is an appeal.

Councilman Gardiner discussed the difficulty of making this decision at a Council meeting and suggested that this would be the call of the Mayor or the Mayor pro tem.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt any Councilmember could make this request to the City Manager who would then relay the information to the Planning Commission Chair.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to (1) Adopt all amended policies, with Policy No. 1 and Policy No. 24 being amended further by Council. (2) Adopt the new Policy No. 36. Motion carried.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Reconsideration of the Decision on the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 (Appellant: Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive) (1203 x 1801)

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of March 19, 2002 and the recommendation to adopt (1) adopt the proposed resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 720; and (2) adopt the proposed resolution conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 207.

Mayor McTaggart opened the public hearing on this request to reconsider the decision on the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that all written protests received by the City were included in the agenda packet or provided to the Council at the outset of the meeting.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

City Attorney Lynch felt it was appropriate to give this report at this time because it directly related to the item. She reported that no action was taken on the Kay or Abrams lawsuits, except that the Council unanimously directed the City Attorney’s office to file an appeal to the Federal District Court’s decision. The City Manager evaluation will be continued to a later meeting, as there was not time for the Council to address this at this time.

Continuing with the antenna item, Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked if a commercial antenna installation is permitted in an RS2 zone.

City Attorney Lynch said that it was a permitted use with a Conditional Use permit (CUP).

Mayor Pro Tem Stern understood that the reconsideration of this CUP approval was per a Court Order.

Wilkie Cheong, 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90067, attorney for Mark Abrams, made reference to correspondence from his office and said that Mr. Abrams was before the City Council because the court ordered to City to grant his Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with reasonable conditions. He felt that most if not all of the City‘s proposed conditions were unnecessary and that three of them were particularly onerous. He listed these three specific conditions as painting of the tower, maintaining the tree as screening, and the indemnification of the City by Mr. Abrams in a challenge to the CUP. He felt the conditions were unfair and discriminatory.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he had not had a chance to read Mr. Cheong’s letter but he asked why painting the antenna and maintaining the tree were unreasonable conditions, especially since the court stated that the City could address aesthetics issues.

Wilkie Cheong replied that painting the antenna would make grounding more difficult and that since the screening tree is deciduous, it would provide less screening in the winter when the leaves fall off and Mr. Abrams did not want to be accused of being in violation of one of the conditions during the winter.

Councilman Clark suggested that a non-deciduous tree could be planted in place of the current tree.

Mayor McTaggart questioned that paint would interfere with grounding since grounding is done with a screw.

Wilkie Cheong said that there technical reasons that the paint interfered.

City Attorney Lynch suggested that Mr. Abrams, or perhaps Dr. Richter could explain.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern pointed out that there two different staff analyses, one deals with whether the City has the legal right to apply conditions and the other deals with which conditions the City should impose even if they are legal.

Sanford Samuels, P.O. Box 1189, Northridge, CA 91328 confirmed that the grounding accomplished by screwing into the antenna would not be as good if the antenna were painted.

Mayor McTaggart questioned that statement.

Sanford Samuels replied that sometimes grounding was accomplished by clamping onto the antenna.

Mayor McTaggart noted that the antenna tower at City Hall was required to be painted; and that Mr. Abrams was not being treated differently.

Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive, said that he objected to all of the proposed conditions. He said that not only grounding was affected when a tower was painted but also a painted tower became a maintenance problem and the current dull gray color was actually less intrusive. He felt that the request for him to indemnify the City was unreasonable because this was not normally a condition of approval and it invited the filing of frivolous lawsuits that would make him the fall guy for everything that happens in the neighborhood. Regarding the issue of regular maintenance on the tower, he said that there had not been any complaints and that ham radio operators would have to take time off from their jobs to comply with the restricted maintenance schedule. He stated that the City keeps saying the tower is new but it is the same one. He objected to the tree maintenance condition because he had maintained it since he purchased the property and he could have taken it out but left it for screening in deference to the neighbors. He noted that the tree did adversely affect the antenna because the branches hit it and must be pushed aside for maintenance of the antenna. He was concerned that neighbors would poison the tree to force him to replace it. Regarding service vehicles restricted to driveway parking, he stated that this was not a normal requirement and he asked if this meant that if he had a plumber come to his home for repairs that he was forced to park his vehicle, possibly leaking oil, on his new driveway.
Mayor pro tem Stern replied that this condition referred to service vehicles related to antennas.

Mark Abrams inquired if his friends came to his home for a barbecue and decided they wanted to do something on their repeater, would they have to move their cars into driveway to get wrench out of their toolbox.

Mayor McTaggart noted that anyone with a business within their home cannot adversely affect parking conditions in their neighborhood.

Mark Abrams replied that parking would not be adversely affected because there would not be more than one service vehicle per month.

Mayor pro tem Stern stated that if maintenance is that infrequent, why would parking off the street be unreasonable.

Mark Abrams objected to the noise suppression condition and said that the Code did not mention noise suppression for transmitter equipment and that other roof equipment, such as air conditioners, was not subject to this restriction.

Mayor McTaggart said that the CUP permitted conditions on commercial uses.

Mark Abrams asked how the level of 65 decibels was determined.

Councilwoman Ferraro replied that it was standard.

Mark Abrams objected to the restrictions on lights on the tower and asked if he would allowed to use a flashlight if he heard a strange noise on the roof in the middle of night.

City Attorney Lynch said that the condition could be changed to allow a flashlight.

Mark Abrams asked if he could put Christmas lights on the antenna.

Councilwoman felt that blinking lights should not be allowed, only a flashlight.

Mayor pro tem Stern thought no lights should be allowed.

Mark Abrams objected to being required to obtain a business license because he said that the Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission defined his use as a public utility. He said that since the conditions were unreasonable, there should be no conditions, and therefore was opposed to a six-month review.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that six months was a standard review period for CUPs. He then asked Mr. Abrams why he felt it was inappropriate for him to incur the cost of defending his commercial antenna.

Mark Abrams that he was defending it right now against the City even though the Court had ordered the City to issue the CUP. He added that there was no legal basis for his being responsible for litigation against the City and that there was no other instance in which this condition was imposed.

City Attorney Lynch said that this condition was applied to Ocean Trails.

Mayor pro tem Stern added that the City had been indemnified in one other lawsuit.

In reference to painting the antenna structure, City Attorney Lynch suggested that the condition be changed to require only parts of the structure that are white to be painted gray or grayish blue.

Mayor pro tem Stern suggested that staff evaluate whether painting the entire tower would make it appear more visible and if so, this would not be required.

City Attorney Lynch felt that the service vehicle parking condition could be clarified to indicate that the restriction did not apply to Mr. Abrams’ guests and language would be added to address a vehicle that did not look like a service vehicle.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked Mr. Abrams when he had trimmed the tree last.

When Mr. Abrams replied that it had been about a year, Mayor pro tem Stern said that the condition to maintain the tree could not be too onerous if trimming were required only annually.

Councilman Gardiner was concerned about establishing a standard by which to determine if the tree is being trimmed properly for screening purposes and he asked if the condition of tree was adequate in the photograph dated March 14, 2002.

City Attorney Lynch said that language would be prepared to address this issue.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked Mr. Abrams if he objected to a photograph being used to indicate the degree to which the tree should be trimmed.

Mark Abrams said that he objected to the condition in general because he had been maintaining the tree for screening purposes.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that the photograph was not the only means of establishing a standard by which to adhere but that in this type of instances, pictures are generally better than verbiage. He asked Mr. Abrams if he had a photograph that might be used for this purpose.

Mark Abrams that he was not sure; that he had not been prepared to provide a photograph.

When Mayor McTaggart expressed appreciation of the tree for screening purposes, Mr. Abrams added that he had improved the property from the eyesore that it was when he had purchased it.

City Attorney Lynch said that she and Senior Planner Fox would work together using photographs and crafting language to provide a standard by which to measure tree maintenance.

Councilman Gardiner asked if the condition for indemnification was normally included when a CUP was approved and if not, was Ocean Trails the only instance. He felt it might be an unreasonable condition.

City Attorney Lynch said that she could not think of any another without doing some research.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt it was a reasonable condition since the Court had ordered the City to issue the CUP and that in a sense it was not the City’s approval, but Mr. Abrams’ approval.

Councilwoman Ferraro agreed.

Councilman Gardiner asked how PRB-1 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 applied to this approval.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that PRB-1 did not apply because this was a commercial facility.

Councilman Gardiner said that he understood it was both amateur and commercial.

Mayor pro tem Stern stated that the CUP is for commercial use and that he did not find it inappropriate that Mr. Abrams indemnify the City since approval of the CUP was not a decision of the City Council.

Mayor McTaggart mentioned a request for indemnification when a huge wall was proposed on Silver Spur because of potential danger. He said that the wall was never built but this indemnification had been one of the conditions.

Mark Abrams felt there was a significant difference between his situation and the far more extensive Ocean Trails golf course project.

Councilman Clark said that he agreed with Councilman Gardiner that the condition might not be reasonable.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked Mr. Abrams’ attorney if Mr. Abrams would be an indispensable party to a lawsuit challenging the CUP approval and would he not want to be in charge of its defense.

Wilkie Cheong said that the resolution stated that the City would select counsel and Mr. Abrams would pay the cost. He said that Mayor pro tem Stern was assuming that both Mr. Abrams and the City would be joined in lawsuit, but this would not necessarily be the case and that the City and Mr. Abrams had different interests.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that language could be added to indicate this indemnification would apply if both Mr. Abrams and the City were sued.

Wilkie Cheong believed that were still different interests and a conflict of interest could exist.

Mayor pro tem Stern emphasized that the City had little incentive to defend approval of this CUP.

City Attorney Lynch felt that Mr. Abrams would have to be an indispensable party.

Mayor pro tem Stern stated that since this indemnification applied to a challenge of this particular approval only, he felt there was a very slight additional burden and that Mr. Abrams would not want the City to control the litigation so it was not unreasonable and made since and would not dramatically change what would happen without the indemnification.

Wilkie Cheong said that he respectfully disagreed.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if Mr. Abrams would like to control litigation if the CUP had to be defended.

Wilkie Cheong replied that, given the choice, of course he would.

City Attorney Lynch pointed out that, in addition to 500 Silver Spur already mentioned, that moratorium exception permits routinely required indemnification.

Councilman Clark asked how many moratorium exception permit applications the City had received.

Director Rojas estimated about 50 to 60.

Councilman Clark felt that with this new information, he was included to agree with Mayor pro Stern that the condition was appropriate and reasonable.

Councilman Gardiner said that he had no objection as long as all applicants were being treated the same.


RECESS & RECONVENE:


At 8:30 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess.  The meeting reconvened at 8:42 P.M.

Mayor pro tem Stern suggested that the indemnification condition could be amended to state that the City would have no obligation to defend a lawsuit related to Mr. Abrams’ CUP approval.

Karyl Newton 46 Oceanaire Drive, promised that she would not poison any trees and she thanked the City Council for making the decision to appeal the court’s decision because she felt that commercial antennas had many negative impacts on the community

Lynda Heran, 16 Oceanaire Drive, President of Del Cerro Homeowners Association, said that her association thanked the Council for deciding to appeal the Federal Court ruling and she urged the Council to continue to require screening, if possible on all sides of the antennas, and to keep the neighborhood residential.

Rick Kulis, 15 Coveview Drive, thanked the Council for its decision to file an appeal and thanked Mayor pro tem Stern for his helpful email updates on city matters that allowed networking and mobilization for residents to speak on important issues.

Douglas Marston, 14518 Daphne Avenue, Gardena, CA 90249, listed his credentials as a person knowledgeable in the matters being discussed, including teaching at El Camino College; said that he believed in the principles set forth by PRB-1 to support the rights of amateur ham radio operators; and, stated that he had a repeater at Mr. Abrams’ house. He reported problems with the effectiveness of antennas caused by the tree which was in place for screening purposes. He asked the Council to take into consideration that most ham operators work during the day and that their only opportunity to visit this repeater site was during the evenings and on weekends and the fact that sometimes their visits were social as well.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked how much tree trimming would be appropriate.

Douglas Marston said that it needed to be cut back from the structure so that it did not come into the antennas.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked how often Mr. Marston had to visit Mr. Abrams’ site for maintenance purposes.

Douglas Marston said that he had been there within the last month but that it had been about a year since his last maintenance and that he estimated about once a year.

City Attorney Lynch noted that the condition on maintenance hours was intended to prevent work during the evening hours when it might be disruptive to neighbors but that weekend work might be reasonable.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed and suggested that the condition could distinguish between emergency and regular maintenance.

Douglas Marston asked if restrictions were being considered on maintenance work inside the house.

City Attorney Lynch said that the condition would be clarified to indicate exterior maintenance.

Councilman Gardiner asked where the antenna began on the lower end and by what means how the signal was carried.

Douglas Marston said that the antenna began where it was bolted to the house and that the signal was carried by coaxial.

George Papps, 25 Oceanaire Drive, expressed his appreciation of the Council’s decision to appeal the court’s decision.

Robert Moore, 10 Amber Sky Drive, from the Del Cerro neighborhood, thanked the Council for its decision to appeal what he considered an inappropriate commercial enterprise being operated in a residential neighborhood and he thought the proposed conditions were reasonable. He felt this site represented intense usage and crossed the line from recreational to commercial, providing services for people in other cities and counties, and that the applicant had applied for one thing and was doing something else.

Mayor McTaggart wondered if the framers of PRB-1 intended for someone to install antennas in a city and then say that the city has nothing to say about them.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that a summary of PRB-1 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 would be helpful because this was a hybrid case.

City Attorney said that possibly could be together for the next meeting.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked Mr. Abrams if it was his intention to broadcast amateur signals from the existing antennas or would they be converted strictly to commercial use.

Mark Abrams replied that the amateur equipment would continue to function for people who use his facility and for his own use as an active ham radio operator himself and, although he said he objected to conditions in general, maintaining the amateur equipment would not be an onerous condition.

Mark Lidikay, 520 East Carson, #43, Carson, CA 90745, President of the South Coast Amateur Network, reported that he has equipment at Mr. Abrams' site and that he objected to the condition regarding maintenance time restrictions because he would have to take time from his job to comply. He also was concerned about the City's definition of a service vehicle and said that he had radios in his personal vehicle but this is the same vehicle he would use if he were merely visiting Mr. Abrams. He said that Mr. Abrams had taken down certain antennas that were no longer available for use to appease the neighbors and that coverage was decreased.

Councilman Clark brought up the condition that restricted additional antennas being added and pointed out that amendments or revisions to the CUP by a formal request to the City Council.

Mark Lidikay said that the benefits of ham radio during a disaster were for the benefit of the public and equipment should be provided for adequate coverage. He said that he would be happy to have a repeater at his house but the location would not provide adequate coverage.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked how often he was required to perform maintenance at Mr. Abrams' site and Mr. Lidikay said the last time was about two years ago but he objected to the fact that the proposed condition would mean that he had to take time from job to perform maintenance.

Mayor McTaggart asked Mr. Lidikay if his vehicle has commercial license plates because he used it for business.

Mr. Lidikay said that commercial plates were required and that his job required him to carry computer tools in his car for serving computers in offices. However, he said how would one of Mr. Abrams' neighbors know whether the tools in his car were for working on computers or on antennas.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that it should not be a problem to add language to amend the condition requiring that maintenance vehicles be parking off the street and restricting maintenance hours for a reasonable accommodation for amateur radio operators who are using Mr. Abrams' site.

City Attorney Lynch suggested tailoring these conditions to be more accommodating and that the six-month review would indicate is there had been unreasonable maintenance in the middle of the night or other action that might disturb the neighbors.

Ian MacDonald, 47 Oceanaire, agreed with the Council's decision to appeal Judge Wilson's decision and described the history of Mr. Abrams' antennas. He thought it was important that Mr. Abrams trim his tree so that the antennas would be screened while still protecting his antennas.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that the City had not been given access to the property to get a sense of the tree size and that it would be helpful if Mr. Abrams would grant access.

City Attorney Lynch said that it was possible to get a good view of the tree from a neighbor's property and deferred to Senior Planner Fox as to whether access to Mr. Abrams' property was necessary.

Senior Planner Fox indicated that a site plan had been provided with the original application.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s preference was that staff gain access to site to fully appreciate the situation.

Wilkie Cheong said that he would confer with his client Mr. Abrams.

Councilman Gardiner asked if the Federal Court judgment could be placed on the website and City Attorney Lynch said yes.

Peter Von Hagen, 32426 Conqueror, explained that he and his wife are amateur ham radio operators and he described their disaster assistance activities with the Sheriff’s Department and local and national organizations. He stated that the indemnification condition bothered him but the proposed solution seems acceptable. He described the components of Mr. Abrams facility, including lines running from the antennas on the roof to equipment inside. He thought it best to remain the antennas unpainted as the oxidized aluminum blended well with the sky. He said that Mr. Abrams’ antennas do come under the auspices of PRB-1 because they are amateur radio antennas but with commercial activity as well and he felt that Mr. Abrams had incurred cost above what was appropriate. He explained that the amateur radio hobby is one of experimentation and as different antennas became available, modifications need to be made and it was a hindrance to Mr. Abrams to ask him to come to the City each time he wanted to make a minor change. He felt this approval should be reserved for major changes.

Councilman Gardiner asked if was satisfied with the definition of antenna restricted to equipment outside the house.

Peter Von Hagen said in addition to the radiating element there was also a feed line and matching devices, a coupler, and a tuner inside the house.

Councilman Gardiner said that because there was conflicting information, it was important to have a clear definition of an antenna.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern did not see the ambiguity and had no problem limiting discussion to the exterior portion of the antenna.

Margaret Zinn, 22 Oceanaire, said she was speaking for a number of neighbors in the Del Cerro area and she thanked the Council for appealing the court’s decision.

Meredith Eick, 2066 W. 226th Street, Torrance, CA 90505, thanked the Council for their decision to file an appeal and said that he was the owner of 6 Cove View Drive that shared ten feet of the lot boundary with 44 Oceanaire. He explained that he was a licensed amateur radio operator and a registered electrical engineer consultant for communication systems. He described interference caused by Mr. Abrams’ facility that hampered his enjoyment of his amateur radio hobby and was saddened by the problems caused to amateur radio operators in the City by this commercial facility. He disagreed that repeaters would be useful for a disaster.

Councilman Gardiner asked if the condition requiring that Mr. Abrams comply with FCC regulations was adequate.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern said that the problem was the City could not require anything more.

Councilman Gardiner asked about frequency allocations and City Attorney Lynch said that Mr. Abrams was assigned certain frequency allocations for commercial use and he had to comply also with FCC regulations regarding emissions but she would defer to Dr. Richter for further details.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 9:35 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:42 P.M.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that the public hearing be continued.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern suggested that a condition be added that required Mr. Abrams to maintain his amateur radio equipment and that Mr. Abrams had said he would have no objection to this condition.

City Attorney Lynch said this would be added.

Councilman Clark thought it would be useful to explore further screening with additional trees.

Councilwoman Ferraro was in favor of continuing the public hearing.

Councilman Gardiner asked for a clarification of the effect of PRB-1 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

City Attorney Lynch asked that Mr. Abrams’ permission for access to his property be sought.

Council consensus was to continue the public hearing to Monday, March 25 at 7:00 P.M.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, spoke to the following items: Councilwoman Ferraro’s photo in the L.A. Times regarding her activities in The Republican Woman’s Club and a questionnaire/bulletin sent out regarding the item on tonight’s agenda on the cleanup of Pt. Vicente Interpretative Center.

Appeal of 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., the owner of the property at 26708 Indian Peak Road) (1203 x 1801)

Mayor McTaggart opened the public hearing on this request to hear the Appeal of Planning Commission’s conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that all written protests received by the City were included in the agenda packet or provided to the Council at the outset of the meeting.

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of March 19, 2002 and the recommendation to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MODIFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, DENYING THE APPEAL, AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230.

Councilman Clark said that the proposed resolution indicates that the project qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and he felt that the aesthetic impact was of potential significance which would require further investigation under CEQA.

Mayor McTaggart agreed.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked if much of the broadcasting took place from the interior of the home.

City Attorney Lynch said allegedly so.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked why requiring the use of interior antennas would not comply with PRB-1.

City Attorney Lynch stated that testimony and evidence before the Planning Commission indicated that Mr. Kay’s representative said that the antennas on the roof were solely for amateur use and that the commercial antennas were located inside the house but the record does not indicate that the interior antennas could be used for amateur broadcasts.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern said that if the interior antennas could not be used to broadcast an amateur signal, then there is nothing restrictive by having the commercial antennas located to the interior with reasonable conditions.

City Attorney Lynch said there was concern about the record and that allegedly the exterior antennas were for amateur use and that the commercial frequencies licensed at this location indicate that all antennas are15 meters above the ground.

Senior Planner Fox indicated that the ridgeline of the structure is less than 22 feet.

City Attorney Lynch felt it was likely that the commercial broadcast was being conducted from the roof since the commercial license says broadcasting was from an exterior structure on the property. The license does not mention anything about interior antennas.

Councilman Gardiner said that a legal brief was delivered to City Hall at 3:25 P.M. and he received it about 5:00 P.M.; therefore, he was not prepared to make a decision.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern agreed, and indicated that he received the brief at 6:20 P.M.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that the speakers be heard and that the public hearing continued to March 25.

Chuck Michel, Trutanich-Michel, LLP, 407 North Harbor Boulevard, San Pedro, CA 90731, attorney for James Kay, apologized for the late delivery of the brief and said that this was the quickest response possibly since they had received the staff report on Friday. He indicated that there were some additional exhibits which were not included and he distributed those at the meeting. He explained that the brief addressed three restrictions on the CUP. These were the quantity of antennas, the requirement that the antennas be installed inside the structure, and conditions imposed on the exterior antennas. He said that Mr. Kay has been sued by the City; that the City had prevailed; and, that there was an injunction against commercial use. He said that Mr. Kay had looked at the City’s commercial antenna regulations and saw that all restrictions for a commercial frequency were based on aesthetics for exterior antennas and since his commercial antennas were inside the structure, he thought he was in compliance with the law. Mr. Michel said that when the City prevailed in its lawsuit, Mr. Kay was forced to consolidate his amateur antennas and that under the Code, he could have more antennas if they were less than 12 feet in height. He said that a recent revision to the law was a retroactive law and was not enforceable. He added that the interior antennas were unsafe to workers currently remodeling the home and that Mr. Kay did not want his family exposed to the radiation produced by the interior antennas. (The brief mentioned by Mr. Michel, a document from the FCC entitled "A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance", and a letter dated February 27 from his firm to City Attorney Lynch, are all on file in the City Clerk’s Office.)

Mayor Pro Tem Stern noted that Planning Commission minutes indicated that Mr. Kay’s representative Mr. Schmitz had said that Mr. Kay would have someone living in the home but now it was stated that this condition is not acceptable.

Chuck Michel said that might have been true if he was allowed to have the 20 antennas.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked why the applicant was no longer agreeing to having the home inhabited.

Chuck Michel said that if a person has other homes, living in this home would not be a high priority and he mentioned the constant, if sporadic progress in remodeling the home and the difficulty in obtaining a building permit from the City because it was said that Mr. Kay was in violation of the law. Mr. Kay believed that he was not in violation because there was no commercial broadcasting from the roof.

Mayor McTaggart asked how many commercial licenses were attached to the subject property.

Chuck Michel said that he recalled there were three and that one of them was issued to the Getty Center. He explained that the license need not be issued to the person who lived at the address and that he could research the subject further.

Mayor McTaggart asked why someone would obtain a license and not broadcast.

Chuck Michel replied that the license could be obtained for a repeater.

Mayor McTaggart asked if the interior antennas created an unsafe condition for the adjacent neighbors if there were in their yard.

Chuck Michel said that anyone outside would not be in danger.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern stated that staff said there were antennas added recently.

Chuck Michel confirmed this and said they were added on the same day as the Planning Commission meeting and that the City’s code does not restrict amateur antennas.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern said that when Mr. Kay applied for the commercial antenna permit, those additional antennas were not present.

Chuck Michel repeated that there was no regulation to stop the addition of more antennas as long as they were less than 12’ high.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked if Mr. Kay wanted to broadcast commercially.

Chuck Michel said that he did want this.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked how the City would be violating the Telecommunications Act of 1996 if it denied Mr. Kay the right to broadcast commercially.

Chuck Michel indicated that the only difference in commercial and amateur broadcasting was in the frequency and, except for the new ordinance adopted recently by the Council, the current antennas were in compliance with the law.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern said that a statement was made when the CUP application was submitted that there would be no changes but there have been changes.

Chuck Michel replied that it would depend on whether broadcasting was commercial or amateur and if it were amateur, they would be allowed.

Councilman Gardiner asked if Mr. Michel was saying that as long as they were amateur antennas only, the City could not restrict the number of antennas.

Chuck Michel said that according to the FCC, the City would not interfere was long as the amateur antennas were less than 12 feet high.

Councilman Gardiner noted that the FCC’s PRB-1 allowed the City to consider aesthetics.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern noted an application for a Conditional Use Permit allowed the cities to impose conditions.

Don Schmitz, 29350 Pacific Coast Highway, #11 & 12, Malibu, CA 90265, representing James Kay, said that Mr. Kay’s antenna structure and array complied with what was City code and that the additional antennas were added with no secrecy and that there was never any letter issued from the City to indicate that the additional antennas were in violation of the code. However, he said that since the Council adopted the new ordinance, the City was reaching back in time, coincidentally to the time Mr. Kay made his application. He said that they were not seeking a fight with the City and that things would be better left to the attorneys. He presented a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate details of the project, including proposed screening of the antennas.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked why Mr. Kay had agreed to some conditions previously and now he was not. He reference painting the antennas, landscaping, painting the house, and having the home inhabited.

Don Schmitz said that that landscaping and painting the house were acceptable conditions, however, painting the antennas and habitation of the site were not. He said that Mr. Kay has other residences and he was not enthusiastic about being forced to live in this house or having someone else live there but he did intend to maintain the house in a condition which met City standards.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked about a condition limiting the hours for antenna maintenance which apparently was not acceptable and he said it was hard to determine the issues because conditions previously agreed to were now not acceptable.

Don Schmitz said that Mr. Kay did not wish to have commercial frequency or amateur ham radio antennas on the second floor of the home and that limiting the antennas to five was not acceptable because the existing array was legal per the ordinance which was in place at the time the antennas were installed. He said that Mr. Kay did not wish to live in the home but would maintain it properly and said that screening of the antennas would address the aesthetics issues.

Chuck Michel returned to the podium to report that there were three licenses attached to the address of this house and that that they were not Mr. Kay’s licenses.

Mayor McTaggart stated that this was a commercial business in a residential neighborhood and that a CUP was required.

Chuck Michel said that Mr. Kay believed that he was in compliance.

City Attorney Lynch said that the City never distinguished between interior and exterior antennas but that during a Planning Commission site visit in November 2001, workers were observed installing interior antennas which now they are taking out again.

Chuck Michel said he was aware that Planning Commissioners had seen the interior antennas when they visited the home but he knew nothing about installation occurring during their visit and they have been removed now.

City Attorney Lynch asked if Mr. Kay would object to a stealth antenna structure, a monopalm or monopine, which would have less visual impact than the proposed screening and she asked if the proposed screening would screen the antennas on the front of the home only.

Don Schmitz said that they had contemplated screening on one side only but it could be on both sides.

Larry Helfman, 26716 Indian Peak Road, next to the subject property, felt that Mr. Kay wanted to have the rights of an amateur license while actually broadcasting commercially and wanted the benefit of the Telecommunications Act; however, at the Planning Commission meeting his representatives could provide no evidence that this property was ever used for amateur broadcasting and Mr. Kay’s declaration indicates that he has never lived there and that he has used these antennas for commercial broadcasting in the past. Further, even if Mr. Kay’s antennas were for amateur use and exempt from a permit, the City could still impose reasonable conditions for commercial use. Furthermore, this site was a vacant antenna facility, not a home and because it is a two-story structure on the highest point the street, it impacted aesthetics and property values in the neighborhood and screening methods were unacceptable. He urged the Council to adopt the alternate draft resolution because he felt this was a proliferation of antennas and a legitimate concern for the City.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 11:00 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 11:05 P.M.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to continue the Public Hearing to Monday, March 25, 2002. Motion carried

Point Vicente Interpretive Center (1201 x 1204)

Mayor McTaggart opened the public hearing on this request to reconsider the decision on the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that there were no written protests written by the City.

Director Allison presented the staff report of March 19, 2002 and the recommendation to

receive testimony from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the public regarding the soil remediation project at the Point Vicente Interpretative Center. He presented a PowerPoint presentation giving details of the steps which have been taken to lead to eventual cleanup of the site.

Tawny Tran from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers described the team who has made a cooperative effort to work toward the goal of cleanup of the Pt. Vicente Interpretative and gave a PowerPoint presentation illustrating how eligibility and responsibility were determined, and an organization chart.

Joyce Clarke, SAIC, gave a history of the site and provided a PowerPoint presentation showing infrared photographs, locations of the highest concentration of lead, the conservative approach to tolerable levels of lead in the soil, and the plan for cleanup.

Marsha Menga, Department of Toxic Substance Control, said that she was available to answer questions.

Mayor McTaggart asked if it was likely that the site would not have to be posted with signs about soil contamination when cleanup is complete.

Ms. Menga said that it was anticipated that there would be no needs for such signs.

Councilman Clark asked if there would be no attempt to remediate the soil under the current structure and Director Allison said that was correct.

Vic Quirarte, 29369 Quailwood, expressed his appreciation to Director Allison, the Department of Recreation & Parks, and the City Council for their efforts to clean up the Pt. Vicente Interpretative Center and urged the Council to go forward with Plan No. 5.

Joan Berry, 30770 Ganado Drive, president of Los Serenos de Point Vicente, the docent org for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, said that the docents were present this evening to show their support.

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


REGULAR BUSINESS:



RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 12:00 Midnight, Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 12:06 A.M.

City Advisory Boards: Appointment of Traffic Committee Members; and, Interview of Parks & Recreation and Equestrian Committee Applicants (301 x 106 x 1502)

Staff recommendation was to (1) Appoint seven members to the Traffic Committee: Four members with a term of office until March 2, 2004; and three members with a term of office until March 7, 2006. (2) Set a date to interview the Chair. (3) Set a date to interview Parks & Recreation Committee and Equestrian Committee applicants.

The votes cast for the candidates for Traffic Committee Commission were as follows:
 
Mayor McTaggart – Libby Aubrey, Barry Hildebrand, Charlotte Iseda, James Jones, William Schurmer, Ava Shepherd, Thomas Wall.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern – Libby Aubrey, Barbara Covey, Barry Hildebrand, James Jones, William Schurmer, Ava Shepherd, Thomas Wall.
Councilman Clark -  Libby Aubrey, Barbara Covey, Barry Hildebrand, Charlotte Iseda, Donald Stephenson, William Schurmer, Ava Shepherd.

Councilwoman Ferraro – Ken DeLong, Barry Hildebrand, Charlotte Iseda, James Jones, William Schurmer, Ava Shepherd, Thomas Wall

Councilman Gardiner – Libby Aubrey, Barbara Covey, Barry Hildebrand, James Jones, William Schurmer, Ava Shepherd, Thomas Wall. 


A second ballot was taken with the votes cast as follows:
Mayor McTaggart – Charlotte Iseda.
Mayor Pro Tem Stern – Barbara Covey.
Councilman Clark -  Barbara Covey.
Councilwoman Ferraro – Charlotte Iseda.
Councilman Gardiner – Barbara Covey.

Council voting by written, open ballot appointed the following to serve on the Traffic Committee: Libby Aubrey, Barry Hildebrand, James Jones, William Schurmer, Ava Shepherd, and Thomas Wall. A second ballot was necessary to select Barbara Covey.

Mayor pro tem Stern suggested that that Barbara Covey and Thomas Wall serve two-year terms.

Councilwoman Ferraro added Libby Aubrey to that list because she is new to the committee and moved that Barbara Covey, Thomas Wall and Libby Aubrey serve two-year terms and that the remainder of the appointees serve four-year terms.

Mayor pro tem Stern seconded the motion.

Councilman Clark disagreed and felt that the determination of the terms should be based on the same criteria of longevity of service which were used to determine the terms for the Planning Commission and the Finance Advisory Committee.

City Manager Evans pointed out that Barry Hildebrand had served on the Traffic for the longest period of time.

Mayor pro tem Stern suggested that staff provide the data as to the longevity of each returning committee member and the decision could be made quickly at the meeting on March 25.

There was no vote on Councilwoman’s Ferraro’s motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner to continue the selection of terms to March 25, 2002.

Council consensus was to interview interested appointees for chair of the Traffic Committee before the Council meeting on April 16.

Next the Council considered setting a date to interview applicants for the Recreation & Park Committee and the Equestrian Committee.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted out that there were only five applicants for the Equestrian Committee, which normally was made up of nine members, and he wondered if the size of the committee should be reduced.

City Clerk Purcell pointed out that the committee had been operating with seven members for sometime, as there were two vacancies.

Director Rojas said that seven members would probably be sufficient.

City Attorney Lynch stated that it was important to make sure that committee members be distributed between the two equestrian areas of the city to avoid a lack of quorum because of recusals when a member lived too close to a property which was the subject of an agenda item.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that this information be provided and a decision made at the meeting on March 25.

Mayor pro tem Stern suggested that a date for interviewing could still be set and he suggested April 6.

When it was determined that this date was open for some Councilmembers and because it was during Spring break for schools, it was the consensus of Council to hold these interviews after the Community Leaders’ Breakfast on April 27.

Councilman Clark asked about the continuation of the View Restoration Commission.

City Manager Evans said that this item was on the agenda for the Council meeting on April 2.

An issue was raised as to whether applicants which had been interviewed for an Advisory Board and not selected who wanted to be considered for another Board should be interviewed again, and Council consensus was that this would not be mandatory but the applicant could choose to be interviewed again if they wished.

Request to Extend the Use of Temporary Personnel (1101 x 1202)

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of March 19, 2002 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution requesting the Board of Administration of the Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) to approve an extension of allowed employment for a retired employee pursuant to the California Government Code.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-21, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REQUESTING THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CalPERS) TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF ALLOWED EMPLOYMENT FOR A RETIRED EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE.

Modification of Rule of Procedure 3.2 to Eliminate Rescheduling of Meetings on Election Dates other than City Election Dates (306)

The recommendation was to (1) Modify existing Rule of Procedure 3.2 (Regular Meetings) subpart to 1 so that the City Council does not automatically change its regular meeting date when there is an election, but instead only does so when there is a City Council election. (2) Consider introduction of the proposed ordinance establishing regular meeting days and amending Chapter 2.04 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.

A motion was made to Modify, with further changes suggested by the Council, existing Rule of Procedure 3.2 (Regular Meetings) subpart to 1 so that the City Council does not automatically change its regular meeting date when there is an election, but instead only does so when there is a City Council election.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 375 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULAR MEETING DAYS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

The motion carried (4-1) on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
NOES: Ferraro

Construction Activity at 5888 Mossbank Drive (1203 x 201)

Director Rojas presented the staff report of March 19, 2002 and the recommendation to receive and file information regarding the construction activity at 5888 Mossbank Drive.

Mohamad Chahine, 7460 Alida Place, owner of the property in question said that with patience from neighborhood, he would conform to the cities wishes.

Councilman Gardiner said that although he appreciated assurances from the applicant that he would comply, the work must stop until there is compliance.

Mayor McTaggart explained that he had received a phone call that there was still wall construction on the site.

Director Rojas said that an inspector had gone out and stopped all work yesterday.

Mr. Chahine said that he believed he was permitted to work on the walls on the south, east, and west of the property but not on the wall in the center of the property and that these were the instructions he gave the workers.

Mayor McTaggart said that this was not what the inspector said.

Bryan Zuppiger, Building Official for the City, said that there three walls that need to be backfilled, on the west, east, and south sides of the property and that this had not been accomplished.

Councilman Gardiner asked how there could be different information that he and Mayor McTaggart had been told when the visited the property.

Bryan Zuppiger said that the discrepancy was discovered the next day and that his superior was informed.

City Manager Evens said that there was an email but unfortunately it was not picked up until Monday morning.

Councilman Gardiner said that the solution should be simple at this point, simply to fix the wall that is not right.

Mr. Chahine said that he had not realized there was a problem and when he learned that there was, he had intended to add a safety rail to make the wall safe for his neighbors. He explained that he applied for a variance and paid the fee of $630 but then was told by the Planning Department that the variance would not be granted and he withdrew the application.

Councilman Gardiner asked when this took place and Bryan Zuppiger said it was on December 11, 2001.

Mr. Chahine said that he would take down the wall if that was what was required.

Director Rojas confirmed that this was the requirement

Mayor McTaggart stated that the backfill of the wall was for engineering design purposes.

Bryan Zuppiger agreed and said the backfilling served as a buttress.

Mayor McTaggart informed Mr. Chahine that if there were further illegal construction the Sheriff’s Department would be called.

Mr. Chahine asked for a clarification of when he could begin construction again.

Director Rojas said that when the walls match, he could begin construction on the rest of property.

Mr., Chahine said that he would take down the wall the following morning as he had been told to do nothing until after direction was given by the Council at tonight’s meeting

Mayor pro tem Stern said that it appeared that the applicant and staff had a clear understanding of what the approved plans called for and what Mr. Chahine must do to comply.

Director Rojas confirmed that there would be no toleration for deviation.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

Councilman Gardiner reported that a recent neighborhood compatibility meeting he recently attended was very lively.

Mayor pro tem Stern reported that a recent Ocean Trails meeting he attended focused on the impact of trustees being names and dealings with the bank. He said that Deputy Director of Planning Greg Pfost would provide details in meeting minutes.


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 12:46 A.M. to Monday, March 25, at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.



____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________

CITY CLERK


D R A F T

M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
MARCH 25, 2002

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

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

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

Also present were City Manager Les Evans; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Senior Planner Kit Fox, City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and Recording Secretary Arlene Jaentsch.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

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

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

Minutes of January 31, 2002.

Approved the minutes of January 31, 2002 as amended.

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

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


PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Appeal of 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., the owner of the property at 26708 Indian Peak Road).

Mayor McTaggart reported that this was a continued public hearing from March 19th on this request to an appeal of 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., the owner of the property at 26708 Indian Peak Road).

City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that all written comments received by the City had been forwarded to the Council.

Senior Planner Fox gave the staff report and presented photographs for the Council to review.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern questioned Senior Planner Fox regarding Mr. Kay’s disagreement with factual issues as stated in the report submitted regarding the use of antenna’s on the roof versus the 2nd floor rooms. City Attorney Lynch and Senior Planner Fox stated that they were aware that the nature of these types of radio frequency is that they travel in the line of sight. From the roof the waves would not be penetrating the house. Mayor McTaggart asked the source of this information regarding the line of sight. City Attorney Lynch said they were referring to the appellant’s submitted FCC manual.

Mayor McTaggart said that when dealing with one antenna mass the radio waves would not reflect off others.

Senior Planner Fox stated that this would be much more difficult to quantify for the subject property. However, with multiple antennas they would interfere with each other to some extent. He also stated that there is a standard for radiation (i.e. acceptable levels in the workplace) which lists the acceptable levels.

Councilman Gardiner questioned the ordinance wording, and asked if the ordinance guided the decision making—if a specific thing is not mentioned does that mean by the omission that it is prohibited, or if it is not mentioned that it is permitted. City Attorney Lynch said that it would depend on how the ordinance is written. Councilman Gardiner questioned whether the definition of antenna support structure, which refers to a vertical element, would also allow for a support element that was horizontal.

Councilman Gardiner continued to discuss the terminology relating to antenna support structures. City Attorney Lynch explained that support structure is anything to which the antenna is actually affixed and can be horizontal or vertical.

Councilman Gardiner questioned the Staff’s original determination removing the roof-mounted antennas and the horizontal versus vertical structure. City Attorney Lynch explained that Staff would have made site visits to originally determine the nature of the attached structure. At the time it was determined that the antenna support could be permitted by right as an amateur radio antenna.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern inquired whether Council would be the party to interpret this wording and if Council had ever interpreted that language. City Attorney Lynch replied that she could not recall Council doing so. City Attorney Lynch stated that the structure could be not more than 12 feet high and each radiating element could be six feet in length. Antenna assembly was broadly interpreted to include any thing that was affixed, such as guide wires. Mayor McTaggart pointed out that the whole thing was out of compliance as a support structure. Councilman Gardiner then asked if he could put a Ferris Wheel on top of his home and call it an Antenna support structure.

Councilman Gardiner and Mayor Pro Tem stern inquired why the house was not considered the support structure. In response to this question City Attorney Lynch said that at the time it was not considered as the support structure.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern wanted to focus on Conditions Nos. 3 and 4 and move through several of the others regarding painting and maintenance of a non-commercial Antenna. He asked what the maintenance hours allowed were and how were these determined. City Attorney Lynch said that the Municipal Code was the basic source for the painting and maintenance requirements as well as the parking and hours.

Councilman Clark said that the testimony suggests that amateurs working voluntarily could only come on the weekend to comply with the hours permitted by the council.

City Attorney Lynch said that the conditions must be appropriate for both Mr. Kay’s alleged commercial use and Mr. Abrams amateur use.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern again inquired about conditions and parking restrictions—i.e. maintenance and amateur users. Senior Planner Fox stated that Staff was trying to apply consistent conditions to both sites, the Abrams and Kay cases.

Councilman Gardiner then asked for Dale Hanks, an amateur radio operator, to come forward and address the council. Councilman Gardiner stated that Mr. Hanks had participated in the drafting of the City Ordinance.

Dale Hanks, Ham Radio Operator since he was 17, said that he had worked with the Planning Commission from 1998-1999.

Councilman Gardiner asked about the vertical and horizontal poles of the support structure.

Dale Hanks stated that the original intention was to have one support structure to support one antenna. Dale Hanks stated that this would serve most ham operations but in some cases they would like more. He said that what was anticipated was a vertical structure like a tower or pole holding up a vertical antenna, but not, a horizontal element supporting the antenna.

Councilman Gardiner referred to PRB-1 and stated that it is to promote and protect amateur antenna users. He said that it was not the intent to open the gate to as many frequencies as needed for a commercial operation in a residential neighborhood.

Councilman Clark noted that the judge did not focus on the zoning in the Abrams case.

Bruce Bartram, 407 N. Harbor Boulevard, San Pedro, attorney representing Mr. Kay, wished to speak on conditions of the Conditional Use Permit as detailed in the staff report in relation to the property being maintained and the exterior to be brought into consistency with City standards . He stated that his client has completed new landscaping and painting on the property to bring it up to the standards of the neighborhood.

Councilman Clark inquired into the current status of the property and the City’s policy of nuisance abatement.

City Attorney Lynch stated that at the beginning of the process the property was in a terrible state, but now the property is in keeping with the neighborhood.

Mr. Bartram had questions on the requirement for weekly maintenance.

Mayor McTaggart wanted to know if the property was for commercial use or would Mr. Kay be using it as his residence.

Mr. Bartram stated that Mr. Kay, in his deposition, under oath, said that he intended to renovate the home as a second residence.

Councilman Clark stated that the council had read the deposition. Mayor Pro Tem Stern said that he was skeptical of someone who buys a home in 1994 and never moves in. He stated that the neighborhood is residential and that if someone wishes to operate a commercial business where it is not zoned, he would not find it unreasonable to ask these questions.

Mr. Bartram said that the antenna was there when Mr. Kay bought the property. He also asked if there were ever any complaints made by the neighbors.

City Attorney Lynch stated that there had been a code enforcement complaint.

Mr. Bartram referred to the 1997 site plan review and the injunction.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern reminded Mr. Bartram, that Mr. Schmitz who was also representing Mr. Kay at the site plan review; had told the Planning Commission at that time, that the house would be landscaped and made nice for the neighborhood and that someone would be occupying the house as a residence.

Mr. Bartram said that this was a misstatement.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern pointed out that the Planning Commission issues the permit on the information supplied by the applicant. The applicant had said through his attorney that this was acceptable and now he says it is a misstatement.

Mr. Bartram explained that Mr. Schmitz was under a lot of stress and not prepared for the multiple questioning at the Planning Commission meeting. He said that he was not aware of the terms Mr. Kay would agree to.

City Attorney Lynch said that when staff was consulted about other permits for the property, that the permits were contingent on painting the house and maintenance of the landscaping.

Mr. Bartram said that if you mask the antenna there is nothing wrong with the house.
He then asked staff if the current improvement complies with the conditions.

Senior Planner Fox said that Staff have not been able to visually inspect the property in person and have only seen photos.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked if all the antennas could be placed in the interior and referred to past use of antennas from the second story. There was discussion regarding the radio frequency signals and the possibility of someone living in the downstairs section of the house and using the antenna from the second story or upstairs interior. He pointed out that it is Mr. Kay’s choice whether he wants to use his home for residential or commercial use.

Mr. Bartram referred to Mr. Kay’s declaration he said that Mr. Kay believes that he would be exposed to detrimental radio frequency signals.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern wanted to know if there was any distinction in the level of exposure to Mr. Kay living on the first floor and installing the antenna on the second floor as compared to occupying the whole house with antennas operating on the roof. He asked if Dr. Richter or Mr. Schmitz could provide some basis for Mr. Kay’s claims in writing.

City Attorney Lynch communicated that they were out of town but perhaps they could get something in writing.

Councilman Gardiner discussed the EMF effects of the use of antenna on the roof and in the bedroom.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern stated that the Council wished to evaluate a better or worse situation with antenna either on the second floor or the rooftop.

Mayor McTaggart questioned Mr. Bartram about the implied liability of Mr. Kay’s having workers repairing and working in proximity to the antenna and the radiation effect from transmissions. Mr. Bartram stated that all persons were apprised of what they were working with.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern referred to pictures presented by Larry Helftman, where it appears that antennas are sitting in from the rear of the house barely above what would be the top at about 8 or 10 feet just above the eaves.

City Attorney Lynch referred to the FCC licenses and indicated that the antennas are higher than they are on the roof. She noted that the FCC indicated that there was a lack of candor and that Mr. Kay had not been forthcoming with the FCC in other license matters.

Councilman Gardiner said that this is a factual matter not an opinion matter, that there is a responsibility by alerting someone exposed to radio frequencies and with notification of the dangers involved.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern said that if the Council did not require someone to live in the residence, the antennas could be placed on the interior. Councilman Clark felt that the home is in a residential area and that Mr. Kay was using this for commercial use. He pointed out that as of June 2001 there were only 5 antennas and that since then the applicant has added more and Councilman Clark wanted to know if the original exemption still applies.

Mr. Bartram reminded the council that the 5 antennas as stated in the July 1999 report are not subject to regulation, they are exempt under the then ordinance.

The council continued with questions and comments about FCC licenses. Reference was made to the Getty Museum, with whom, Mr. Bartram said there was not a contract. City Attorney Lynch said that the City did obtain a copy of the contract between Mr. Kay and the Getty Museum although neither the Getty nor Kay had activated transmissions at the site.

Mayor McTaggart questioned whether Mr. Kay is aware that when he was deposed the statements made are under the penalty of perjury. Mayor Pro Tem Stern commented, that Mr. Kay gave the impression that the Getty of their own accord went and obtained the license, he said that if there is a contract, it shows a troubling lack of candor on Mr. Kay’s part.

Councilman Clark also wanted to know why, if this is a residence, the condition for someone to live there would be an issue, since the residence is zoned for residential not commercial use.

Mr. Bartram asked whether a home has to have a fulltime resident to be considered a residence.

Councilman Clark asked if Mr. Kay had attended any of these meetings, if he was concerned with what the Council was considering.

Councilwoman Ferraro noted that Mr. Kay stated in the declaration, that he fully intended to use the home as a residence; and she questioned why is he now objecting to something he had agreed to.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern referred to circle page 58 from the March 19th Staff Report and then to Page 3 of Mr. Kay’s declaration. He read aloud Mr. Kay’s statement " that the Getty trust obtained a license without my knowledge or permission". He said that there appears to be a contract between Mr. Kay and the Getty, with his knowledge and his permission. Mayor Pro Tem Stern pointed out a need for Mr. Kay to explain this discrepancy and allow the City Council to have factual answers. He said that the statement appeared to be a factual inaccuracy under oath, and these inaccurate statements make it very difficult for the Council to consider this appeal.

Councilman Gardiner wanted to know if there was any indication presented so far that this facility had been used as an amateur site. He asked if there was any way to check to see if this location was used by amateurs.

Mr. Dale Hanks, stated that, after an operator received a license they could go to any location to transmit, and these were not usually logged.

City Attorney Lynch said that they only had Mr. Kay’s statements to go by that the property had been used for amateur radio transmission. She said that Dr. Richter did pick up commercial transmission after Staff expressed concern, which was the basis of the court injunction.

The Council discussed the conditions and the location of the antenna, the hours of maintenance and the parking restrictions.

Councilman Gardiner asked whether it would be possible to go into a closed session for more discussion. City Attorney Lynch stated that they had not noticed a Closed Session for this meeting but could for the April 2nd meeting.

Council discussed further the differences between a ham operator and a commercial operator.

Mayor McTaggart suggested a closed session with legal counsel and a full reading of the resolution.

Councilman Clark stated that he believed that since this is a residentially zoned area, he would not support any motion that exempts the residential requirement.

Councilman Gardiner wanted answers to issues about occupancy safety and liability.

City Attorney Lynch said that the City is immune from liability. The site is required to be operated in compliance with the thresholds as established by the FCC. Mayor McTaggart reminded them of the OSHA rules that would apply as well. Mayor Pro Tem Stern stated that everyone with an FCC license must be in compliance with the FCC.

Council discussed continuing the Public Hearing to the meeting of April 16, 2002.

It was the council consensus that more information would need to be supplied regarding the interior and occupancy issues to determine the antenna placement and they must have further information before a decision could be reached.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern also felt that the applicant needs to make the choice whether he plans to live in the home as a residence or not.

Councilman Clark also expressed his point of view that this entire issue is the application for commercial use in a residential zone. He said that the neighbors expect the home to be occupied and to be used as a residence.

Council consensus was to continue the item to the second meeting in April.

City Attorney Lynch stated that she would communicate with Bruce Bartram and the Staff.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved that no action be taken and the Public Hearing be continued to the meeting of April 16, 2002, the motion was seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro. Motion passed.


THE MEETING RECESSED AT 8:56 P.M.



MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:06 P.M.

Reconsideration of the Decision on the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207, Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive Public Hearing continued from March 19, 2002. (1203 x 1801)

City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that all written comments received by the City had been forwarded to the Council.

Reading of the Staff Report was waived and the Public Hearing continued from March 19th.

The following citizens wished to speak to the Council regarding this matter:

Ian McDonald, 47 Oceanaire, stated that Mr. Abrams has greatly improved the condition of his yard and in doing this cleared three trees which now make the antennas visible to his neighbors. He supported the condition to put in more trees to cover these up again. He also asked for an independent company to monitor the radiation at the property line at Mr. Abrams expense.

Lynda Heran, 16 Oceanaire, president of the Del Cerro HOA, asked the Council not to modify condition numbers 11 and 12.

Karyl Newton, 46 Oceanaire Drive, stated that 99% of residents moved to Del Cerro for the rural beauty of the area, while 1 percent are interested in destroying that ambiance. She said that Mr. Abrams should be held responsible for the effects of this commercial equipment.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern noted the concern with the condition on painting the entire antenna. Certain aspects are already changed and they could determine what staff has changed and would still require painting but would allow the Planning Director to determine the areas to be painted.

Skip Hansen, 3250 Martingale Drive, stated that he has known Mark Abrams as an amateur radio operator but has not personally used equipment at Mr. Abrams home. He said that the first time he saw the property it was dilapidated and now, with the antenna taken out of the equation, a lot has been done to improve the property.

Meredith Eick, 2866 West 226th Street, Torrance owner of 6 Cove View Drive, radio amateur, professional electrical engineer. He stated his opinion that the applicant bought 44 Oceanaire to covertly operate a commercial business. He said he felt that the local radio amateurs including himself, are to blame for allowing this to continue. He claims that the applicant does not live at 44 Oceanaire all the time. Mr. Eick said he would not want to live next to an antenna farm.

Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive, said that the interference problems of Mr. Eick are imaginary. He noted that the court has ordered the City to issue the Conditional Use Permit. He contended that no conditions are appropriate or reasonable. He objected to planting additional trees he because he would have to remove part of the house or patio, disturb the croquet, football and recreational use of my lawn.

Councilman Clark asked Mr. Abrams if he had heard of a Conditional Use Permit that did not have conditions associated with it.

Mark Abrams showed the council a diagram of the wall surrounding the pool area with two wrought iron gates.

Mayor McTaggart questioned if the lot coverage had been exceed. He also wanted to know the output power of the antenna.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked if there was a location further west where a tree could be planted.

Mr. Abrams stated that it depended on the property line. He said that the existing tree interferes with radio interception and has had a negative impact on the performance of the antennas.

Mr. Abrams addressed Karyl Newton’s interference noting that it was mainly due to conflicts with her cable and the ham repeaters. He said that the cable company has changed their frequency to address this.

Mayor McTaggart expressed disbelief with this explanation and said he has experienced interference. He did mention that Cox does forget to seal the connection when someone drops the service.

Councilman Gardiner thought it might be worthwhile to look at our Cox cable service provider.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked when Mr. Abrams put out commercial signals, there a limit to the number of signals. He wanted to know if by broadcasting commercially there impacts on amateur use.

Mr. Abrams replied that in order to minimize radio frequency interference, he has installed many expensive components to minimize this interference

Councilman Gardiner inquired into multiplexed antenna. He expressed the belief that the capacity of the antenna increases when multiplexed.

Mr. Abrams said that it is his opinion that in no way is there an aesthetic impact that has to be mitigated. He felt that Dr. Richter is incompetent and that he could bring his own consultant and ten others to refute Dr. Richter.

Councilman Gardiner asked if the two antennas, one five feet from property line and the other the tower, had been considered by staff.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern said that he believed the dimensions had been reviewed.

Councilman Gardiner said that factually Mr. Abrams did not like the idea of conditions but the judge did not specify other than that the antenna could not be lowered.

Councilman Clark concurred that there are many Conditional Use Permits issued and that they all have conditions.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked the height which Mr. Abrams was planning to broadcast.

Mr. Abrams said that depending on what he needed to do at the time, but most likely 35 feet to the top. He stated that he and his wife have always wanted to add a second story and would be willing to add a second story to where there is the greatest visual exposure, the garage at the lower part of the house. He said that putting something over the top of the garage would add a visual screen he would be willing to do that but not the tree.

The Council discussed conditions 19 & 20, the two added on at the end of the last hearing. Additional discussion was spent on No. 15 and the new no. 18.

City Attorney Lynch stated that the No. 18 on page 31 was to address issues that arose at one time for the mobile antenna on the property, which Mr. Abrams used as a flag pole.

In response to condition no. 19, which asks Mr. Abrams to provide the city with a list of all FCC call signs, or all users of the site, Mr. Abrams said that this is privileged information that no company releases to the public. He stated that the Council is not allowed to regulate and the condition appears to serve no purpose other than to regulate based on frequencies.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern inquired the reason the Council cannot have the information.

Mr. Abrams said that this requirement is an intrusion on FCC jurisdiction and is a duplicate of No. 17 he said that the FCC preempts the disclosure and there is nothing in the scope of the municipality that requires this condition to be attached.

Councilman Gardiner agreed that this would be considered proprietary information and would need to be handled as such.

City Attorney Lynch said that they could add the wording to maintain confidentiality.

Mr. Abrams said he believes that the City cannot keep the information confidential.

Councilman Gardiner believes that the FCC would demand the local jurisdiction to monitor it.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked for City Attorney Lynch’s opinion.

City Attorney Lynch believed that this issue was covered already and that the condition was not necessary. The intent of the condition was for a mechanism of cross-referencing to maintain operating standards. She said that, if Mr. Abrams agrees to comply with the FCC, that would be enough.

In response to safety issues, Mr. Abrams said that there is no hazard to anyone unless someone were to climb up and sit for 30 hours in front of the antenna.

Councilman Clark suggested going over the conditions one by one on Circle page 28. He notes that Staff recommended a tree in the lawn area to provide screening of the view from Cove View.

Ian McDonald stated that Mr. Abrams had made a front garden by taking out three very nice trees that screened the tower from Oceanaire.

Mr. Abrams said that he removed the three trees and planted three more and three to five on the side yard. He said he was trying to be a good neighbor but the neighbors were making it hard to be one.

City Attorney Lynch said they would relate the tree distance to the antenna tower if it did not block the signal.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked if Mr. Abrams could work with staff to determine how much to trim and use this as a baseline, to work out an acceptable trimming level. City Attorney Lynch said Staff would rewrite the resolution accordingly.

Mayor McTaggart continued this Public Hearing to April 2, 2002, when the City Attorney will have completed the final form of the resolution to be adopted.


MEETING RECESSED AT 11:25 P.M.



MEETING RECONVENED AT 11:35 P.M.



REGULAR BUSINESS

Traffic Committee Appointments: Determination Of Terms Of Office. (301 x 1606)

Councilman Clark expressed the opinion that the most senior serving returning members should get the shorter terms of two years . These members are: Jim Jones, appointed in 1998; Barry Hildebrand appointed in 1996; and Ava Jordan-Shepherd appointed in 1996.

There was discussion among the Council regarding the terms.

With Councilman Clark indicating he thinks that the most senior serving returning members should get the shorter terms .

Councilwoman Ferraro expressed the opinion that the new members should get shorter terms with a transition to the members who had been on the longest so that the experienced members could orient the newer members.

Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner to appoint Barbara Covey, Barry Hildebrand, Ava Jordan-Shepherd to a two-year term of office until March 2, 2004, and the remaining four members; Libby Aubrey, James Jones, William Schurmer and Thomas Wall; to a four-year term of office until March 7, 2006.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
NOES: Ferraro


AUDIENCE COMMENTS

Lois Larue, 3134 Barkentine Road, commented on a recent article in the L.A. Times dated 1/31/2002. She also wanted the City to stop the work in Abalone Cove.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

Mayor McTaggart commented on a recent Palos Verdes Transit Authority Meeting. A noteworthy item he wanted to mention was the plan to put surveillance cameras on the bus interiors to monitor behavior.

Mayor McTaggart informed the Council about the Ocean Trails bankruptcy . All council members will be apprised that the bank has asked Lowe Enterprises to take over the Golf Course. There is the possibility of another sub-committee being formed to separate the issue of the Hotel and the Golf Course.

Councilman Gardiner wished to discuss the Equestrian Committee and the possibility of discontinuing this Committee and instead designating staff to handle the issues and bring them to Council.

City Manager Evans said that several Equestrian Committee items would be coming to Council in the near future and that may be a good time to evaluate the Equestrian Committee.


ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on April 2, 2002 for interviews at Hesse Park.


____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________

CITY CLERK


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
COMMUNITY LEADERS' BREAKFAST
SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 9:20 A.M. by Mayor John McTaggart at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

Present: Clark, Ferraro, Stern, and Mayor John McTaggart
Absent: Gardiner

Also present were Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk Jo Purcell, Deputy City Clerk Jackie Drasco, Recreation & Parks Director Ron Rosenfeld, Public Works Director Dean Allison, and Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Joel Rojas.

After the Flag salute, which was led by Mayor John McTaggart, self introductions followed.

State Senator Betty Karnette gave an overview of the state’s economy and the budget cuts that may be necessary.

She then fielded questions about the state’s housing requirements, the prospects of getting Proposition 140 funds for the purchase of land in the Portuguese Bend area.

She explained that she would continue to represent this area until 2004 when she will be termed out.

L. A. County Supervisor Don Knabe gave an overview of the County’s budget with respect to getting funding from the state. He explained the costs for providing health services, welfare, and the effects of the economy on the County’s budget.

The Supervisor then fielded questions about the Alameda Corridor and explained how it was completed on time and on budget.

A brief discussion followed about the vehicle license fee and whether those funds would continue to be returned to local government.

Councilman Clark gave a brief update on Long Point and Ocean Trails.


RECESS AND RECONVENE: The meeting recessed at 10:25A.M. and reconvened at 11:00A.M.



INTERVIEW OF ADVISORY BOARD APPLICANTS

Council interviewed candidates for the Recreation & Parks Committee and the Equestrian Committee. It was the consensus that all of the applicants for the Equestrian Committee should be appointed. Council requested that the matter be placed on the May 7th agenda for confirmation.


ADJOURNMENT: At 3:00 P.M. the meeting was adjourned on motion of Mayor McTaggart.

_____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


___________________
CITY CLERK






2. Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. (Huey)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 AND ORDERING THE ENGINEER TO PREPARE A REPORT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT

Staff Coordinator: Judy Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Adopt Resolution No. 2002-____, initiating proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for fiscal year 2002-2003 and ordering the engineer to prepare a report in connection therewith.

  2. Adopt Resolution No. 2002-____, approving the engineer’s report in connection with the levy and collection of assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for fiscal year 2002-2003.

  3. Adopt Resolution No. 2002-____, declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collect assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for fiscal year 2002-2003 and setting a time and place for hearing objections thereto.

BACKGROUND

In 1992, the City Council formed an assessment district designated "Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District" (the "Citywide District") pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "1972 Act"). The purpose of forming the district was to insure adequate funding for the on-going operation, maintenance and servicing of median landscaping, street trees, street lighting and traffic signals within the boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Citywide District includes all of the assessable parcels in the City.

The district is funded through assessments on properties citywide. Each parcel is assessed an amount, which is based on the benefit the parcel receives from district operation. The City assures a fair and equitable sharing of district costs by conducting an annual review of district operations, wherein the current year’s expenses are reviewed, the ensuing year’s expenses are budgeted, and assessments are determined.

The 1972 Act requires that proceedings be undertaken on an annual basis for any year during which assessments will be levied and collected. The 1972 Act also requires preparation of an engineer’s report in connection with the annual levy of assessments. The City Council may approve the report as filed, or it may modify the report and approve it as modified. After approval of the report, the City Council may adopt a Resolution of Intention, which sets a public hearing on the proposed levy of assessments for the ensuing fiscal year.

The district engineer, Harris & Associates, reviewed the proposed district budget, and filed with the City Clerk an engineer’s report which includes:

    1. An estimate of the costs of operation, maintenance and servicing for fiscal year 2002-2003 (including incidental expenses).

    2. A diagram for the assessment district.

    3. An assessment of the estimated costs of operation, maintenance and servicing for fiscal year 2002-2003.

There are no increases in the assessments proposed for fiscal year 2002-2003. The City may provide notice of the pubic hearing by publishing a Resolution of Intention one time at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. Resolution 2002-____ sets the Public Hearing date for June 4, 2002.

ANALYSIS

For fiscal year 2002-2003 the estimate of total District expense, including Overhead and Administration, is $462,672. The total proposed assessment of $327,616 will fund most of these expenditures. Approximately $124,456 of accumulated reserves and $10,600 of General funds will be used to cover district expenditures in excess of the annual assessment.

The engineer’s report classified areas within the City into various zones which, by reason of variations in the nature, location and extent of the proposed maintenance

activities and improvements, receive differing degrees of benefit from the operation of

the district. Depending on which zone a parcel is in, the proposed assessment for a parcel with a single family home ranges from $8.23 to $45.79, and most parcels will receive an assessment of approximately $20.00 for fiscal year 2002-2003. In all seven zones within the City the proposed assessments for fiscal year 2002-2003 are the same as the assessments levied in fiscal year 2001-2002.

CONCLUSION

In order to levy assessments the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires the City Council to approve an engineer’s report and conduct a public hearing. Adopting staff recommendations will approve the engineer’s report and establish a date for the public hearing.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION

Direct staff to modify the engineer’s report and bring this matter back to Council.

FISCAL IMPACT

The full cost of this program is borne by the property owners within the Citywide District. Depending on which zone a parcel is in, the proposed assessment for a parcel with a single family home ranges from $8.23 to $45.79 for fiscal year 2002-2003. In all seven zones throughout the City, the proposed assessments for fiscal year 2002-2003 are the same as the assessments levied in fiscal year 2001-2002.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Engineer’s Report for FY 2002-2003
Resolutions 2002-__, 2002-__, 2002-__


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 AND ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEER'S REPORT PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the "Act"), the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes desires to initiate proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments against the assessable lots and parcels of property within an existing assessment district designated the "Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District" (the "District") for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, to pay for the costs and expenses of the improvements described in Section 3 hereof.

Section 2. The boundaries of the District are coterminous with the boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Section 3. The proposed improvements are briefly described as follows: The maintenance and operation of public streets and sidewalks within the District, including the operation, maintenance and servicing of public lighting facilities, including safety lighting and traffic signals, landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass and other ornamental vegetation, and appurtenant facilities, including irrigation systems, located along public roadways, streets and rights-of-way within the boundaries of the City.

Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the landscaping, public lighting facilities, and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, public lighting facilities, or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.

Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of the landscaping and the maintenance of any of the public lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for the public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of landscaping or appurtenant facilities.

Section 4. Public property owned by any public agency and in use in the performance of a public function which is included within the boundaries of the District shall not be subject to assessment to be made under these proceedings to cover any of the costs and expenses of the improvements.

Section 5. The City Council hereby designates Harris & Associates as the engineer for the purposes of these assessment proceedings (the "Engineer").

Section 6. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Engineer to prepare and file with the City Clerk a report for the District for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003 in accordance with Article 4 (commencing with Section 22565) of Chapter 1 of the Act.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2002.


______________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________
City Clerk

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

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No.2002-___ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 7, 2002.


______________________________
City Clerk


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, commencing with Section 22500 (the "Act"), by previous resolution initiated proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments against the assessable lots and parcels of land in the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (the "District") for fiscal year 2002-2003 and ordered the Engineer, Harris & Associates, to prepare and file a written report in accordance with Article 4 (commencing with Section 22565) of Chapter 1 of the Act.

Section 2. In accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Act, the Engineer has prepared and filed such report (the "Engineer's Report") with the City Clerk and the City Clerk has presented the Engineer's Report to the City Council.

Section 3. The Engineer's Report described in Section 2 hereof has been considered by the City Council and such Engineer's Report is hereby approved as filed.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May 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-___ is duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 7, 2002.


______________________________
City Clerk,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council hereby declares its intention to levy and collect assessments against the assessable lots and parcels of property within an existing assessment district designated the "Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District" (the "District") pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the "Act") for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, to pay for the costs and expenses of the improvements described in Section 3 below.

Section 2. The boundaries of the District are coterminous with the boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Section 3. The proposed improvements are briefly described as follows: The maintenance and operation of public streets and sidewalks within the District, including the operation, maintenance and servicing of public lighting facilities, including safety lighting and traffic signals, landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass and other ornamental vegetation, and appurtenant facilities, including irrigation systems, located along public roadways, streets and rights-of-way within the boundaries of the City.

Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the landscaping, public lighting facilities, and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, public lighting facilities, or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.

Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of the landscaping and the maintenance of any of the public lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for the public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of landscaping or appurtenant facilities.

Section 4. The assessments to be levied and collected against the assessable lots and parcels of property within the District for fiscal year 2002-2003 are not proposed to increase from the assessments levied and collected for fiscal year 2001-2002.

Section 5. By previous resolution, the City Council ordered the Engineer, Harris & Associates, to prepare and file an engineer's report pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The Engineer has prepared and filed a written report with the City Clerk entitled "Engineer's Report for Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District, Fiscal Year 2002-03" (the "Engineer's Report") and by previous resolution the City Council approved the Engineer's Report as filed.

Section 6. Reference is hereby made to the Engineer's Report on file in the office of the City Clerk and open to public inspection for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the District and the zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the District. The office of the City Clerk is located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275.

Section 7. Public property owned by any public agency and in use in the performance of a public function which is included within the boundaries of the District shall not be subject to assessment to be made under these proceedings to pay for any of the costs and expenses of the improvements.

Section 8. Notice is hereby given that the City Council appoints June 4, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, as the date, time and place for the hearing of protests or objections to the levy of the proposed assessments in connection with the District. All interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard. The City Council shall consider all oral statements and all written protests made or filed by any interested person. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any interested person may file a written protest with the City Clerk or, having previously filed a protest, may file a written withdrawal of that protest. A written protest shall state all grounds of objection. A protest by a property owner shall contain a description sufficient to identify the property owned by the signer thereof. Written protests may be delivered in person to the City Clerk or may be mailed to the City Clerk at City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275. Any written protest which is mailed must be received at City Hall at or prior to 4:30 p.m. on June 4, 2002.

Section 9. The City Clerk shall give notice of the aforesaid date, time and place of hearing in accordance with law.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2002.


_______________
Mayor

ATTEST:

______________________
City Clerk

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

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002-___ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 7, 2002.


_____________________
City Clerk



3. Amendment to the City Manager’s Employment Agreement. (Lynch)

Recommendation: Approve the third amendment to the City Manager’s employment agreement.

TO: MAYOR MCTAGGART AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CAROL W. LYNCH, CITY ATTORNEY

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

RE: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CITY MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

BACKGROUND

At the last City Council meeting, the City Council conducted the annual performance evaluation of the City Manager. Based on the review that the City Manger received, the City Council unanimously directed the City Attorney to prepare a third amendment to the City Manager’s employment agreement. That amendment has been prepared and is attached to this report.

DISCUSSION

The third amendment to the City Manager’s employment agreement makes the following changes to the City Manager’s current agreement with the City:

    1. The term of the agreement, which is set forth in Section 2 of the Agreement, is extended by one year, from June 30, 2002, to June 30, 2003.

    2. Other provisions of the Agreement have been revised to reflect the new term of the Agreement.

    3. The City Manger’s salary has been increased by $10,000 per year, which is comparable to the salary that is being paid to managers of other cities of comparable size in the South Bay.

    4. The agreement has been revised to allow the City Manager to sell back to the City some of his unused vacation leave, which is similar to the City’s policy regarding other management employees.

Except as expressly set forth in the amendment to the agreement, all of the other provisions of the City Manager’s employment agreement have not been altered and remain in effect.

CONCLUSION

The attached amendment to the City Manager’s employment agreement includes all of the directions that were given by the City Council. Accordingly, it is recommended that the City Council approve the Third Amendment to the City Manager’s Employment Agreement.

Respectfully submitted,
Carol W. Lynch, City Attorney

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager


THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This agreement is the third amendment to the Employment Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Lester G. Evans, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as "Employee"). This Third Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of May 7, 2002.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 of the Agreement, the City Council of City conducted an annual review Employee’s performance at a closed session held at a regular City Council meeting on April 16, 2002; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds, that based on the review of Employee’s performance, the City Council desires to increase Employee’s annual salary and allow Employee to sell some of his accrued vacation time back to the City;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that:

Section 1.Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SECTION 2. TERM

"A. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 1998, until June 30, 2003, and shall automatically renew from year to year thereafter unless either party gives written notice to the other party not later than the first day of January immediately prior to the end of each contract year of a desire to amend, modify or terminate this Agreement. If either party does not give such notice, then the term of this Agreement shall be extended on the same terms and conditions as are herein provided for an additional period of one (1) year from the first day of July following said January 1st. This paragraph shall not be construed as preventing the parties from amending or modifying the Agreement by a written instrument executed by both of the parties. The question of extension or non-extension of the term hereof shall be considered by the COUNCIL at the time of the annual evaluation of EMPLOYEE as provided in Section 7 hereof.

"B. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the COUNCIL to terminate the services of EMPLOYEE at any time upon ninety (90) days advance written notice, subject only to the provisions set forth in Section 4, paragraphs A and B of this Agreement.

"C. In accordance with Section 2.08.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, EMPLOYER hereby approves EMPLOYEE’S residence outside of the City during the term of this Agreement.

"D. EMPLOYEE agrees to remain in the exclusive employment of EMPLOYER until June 30, 2003, and neither to accept other employment nor to become employed by any other employer while employed by EMPLOYER. The prohibition against other employment shall not be construed to prevent occasional teaching, writing, or consulting performed on Employee’s time off in accordance with Section 8 of this Agreement.

SECTION 2. Paragraph C of Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended by changing the dates referred to therein from June 30, 2001 to June 30, 2003.

SECTION 3. Section 6 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SECTION 6. SALARY

"A. EMPLOYER agrees to pay EMPLOYEE for his services rendered pursuant hereto, an annual salary of $130,000.00. EMPLOYEE’S salary shall be paid in installments at the same time as other employees of EMPLOYER are paid.

"B. In recognition of accomplishments and excellent performance, merit increases may be granted to EMPLOYEE by COUNCIL. EMPLOYER agrees that EMPLOYEE’S salary shall be reviewed annually at the same time that EMPLOYEE’S performance is reviewed pursuant to Section 7."

SECTION 4. Section 10 of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding new paragraph C thereto to read as follows:

"C. On or before June 30, 2002, Employee may sell back to EMPLOYER one hundred (100) hours of Employee’s accrued vacation leave for the sum of $6251.20. On or before June 30th of each year after June 30, 2002, that this agreement remains in effect, EMPLOYEE may sell back to EMPLOYER up to 60 hours of accrued or unused vacation leave at the rate of compensation then being earned by EMPLOYEE."

Section 5. Except as expressly amended by this Third Amendment to Employment Agreement, all of the provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, has caused this Third Amendment to Employment Agreement to be signed and executed on its behalf by its Mayor, and duly attested by its City Clerk, and EMPLOYEE has signed and executed this Third Amendment to Employment Agreement, as of the date and year first above written.

Dated: _____________________

EMPLOYER
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


____________________
CITY CLERK

Dated: _____________________

EMPLOYEE


_____________________
LESTER G. EVANS, JR.



4. Claim Against the City by Joy Major. (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: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY JOY MAJOR

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

The claimant in this matter has submitted a claim for damage to her automobile sustained during the construction of the sewer project in Portuguese Bend. Ms. Major alleges that damage to her car amounted to $665.83 and has submitted bills substantiating the cost of this repair work.

This claim has been investigated by Carl Warren & Co, the City’s insurance administrators, and they have advised that the City should reject it.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



5. March 2002 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: MARCH 2002 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

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

BACKGROUND:

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

ANALYSIS:

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $25,413,610 at March 31, 2002. This represents a $613,901 decrease during the month. The overall decrease is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

Proposition A Fund – Cash in this fund increased by over $54,000 during March. The March apportionment of Proposition A sales tax was received during the month. However, expenditures were limited to $1,144 for maintenance activities.

Parks & Building Maintenance Fund – Cash in this fund increased by almost $42,000 during March due to the receipt of a Measure A reimbursement for FY 2000-2001 Lower Hesse Park maintenance.

CIP Fund – The cash balance in the CIP fund decreased by almost $518,000 during the month. Disbursements included $151,913 to Colich & Sons for the San Ramon drainage project and $569,280 to Sully Miller for resurfacing Hawthorne and Crenshaw Boulevards. The disbursements were partially offset by the monthly General fund transfer of $152,833.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



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. Long Point Resort Project (Conditional Use Permit No. 215, et. al. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: (1) Consider a presentation of the revised Long Point Resort Hotel project by the applicant. (2) Consider certification of the project Environmental Impact Report. (3) Establish a tentative processing schedule of the revised project.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: LONG POINT RESORT PROJECT (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215, ET. AL.)

Prepared By:Ara Michael Mihranian, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that: 1) Members of the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee consider a presentation of the revised Long Point Resort Hotel project by the applicant; 2) The City Council consider certification of the project Environmental Impact Report; and 3) That the City Council establish a tentative processing schedule for the revised project.

BACKGROUND

Beginning in April 2001, the Planning Commission conducted twelve public hearings to review the proposed Long Point Resort Project applications, which at that time proposed the use of the City owned Upper Point Vicente property. On October 9, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended, by a 4-3 vote, conditional approval of the Long Point Resort Project to the City Council. At that time, it was anticipated that the City Council would begin considering the project applications at its November 7th meeting. However, at the October 16th City Council meeting, an item was agendized at the request of the City Council’s Open Space Acquisition Subcommittee, made up of then Mayor Lyon and then Councilman Stern, for the Council to consider directing the Long Point developer to minimize the use of the City’s Upper Point Vicente property. After considering public testimony and discussing the concerns raised by the Department of Fish and Game with respect to the use of City land for the Long Point project, the City Council unanimously agreed that the Long Point Developer could not use the City’s Upper Point Vicente property.

In response to the Council’s action on October 16th, the Long Point Developer submitted a letter requesting that the Council refrain from considering the project applications that had been forwarded to the Council by the Planning Commission, to allow the developer adequate time to reassess the project. On November 7, 2002, the City Council unanimously agreed to place the project applications "on hold" for a period of six months (until May 7, 2002), during which time the applicant was directed to either formally withdraw the proposed project or submit a revised project without the use of the City’s Upper Point Vicente property.

On April 22, 2002, the applicant for the Long Point Resort Hotel project (Destination Development Corporation) formally submitted a revised project to the Planning Department for consideration. The revised project no longer includes the Upper Point Vicente property and has been modified from a nine (9) hole golf course to a resort hotel with a golf academy and driving range amenity. The revised project is now being presented to a joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee to obtain input from the three bodies that have reviewed and/or will review aspects of the project.

DISCUSSION

Revised Project Description

At the time the proposed project was forwarded to the City Council by the Planning Commission, the project involved a mix of uses including a 9-hole public golf course and practice facility, a 400 room hotel (including some bungalow units), 50 casita units with a maximum of 3 keys per unit, 32 single key resort villa units, conference center, related commercial uses, restaurants, trails, public park areas, coastal access points and parking, and natural open space and habitat areas. The overall acreage of the proposed project was approximately 168.4 acres, which included the privately owned Long Point site (old Marine Land site at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South – approximately 103 acres) and the publicly owned Upper Point Vicente property (the areas surrounding the Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall buildings at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard – approximately 65 acres).

As a result of the City Council’s direction at its October 16th meeting to deny the applicant use of the City owned Upper Point Vicente Area, a revised project was submitted to the Planning Department on April 22, 2002 that removed all proposed development on the Upper Point Vicente property, as described below:

  • Removal of five proposed golf holes;
  • Removal of the proposed Golf Maintenance Area/Facility;
  • Removal of the proposed parking lot improvements at City Hall and the cul-de-sac street adjacent to St. Paul’s Lutheran Church;
  • Removal of all proposed trail, park and habitat improvements; and,
  • Removal of the proposed tunnel under Palos Verdes Drive South

In addition to the above revisions, the revised project involves the following modifications to the Resort Hotel Area:

  • Removal of a Par 3 Golf Hole adjacent to the existing homes on Channel View Court.
  • Reduction of the Golf Clubhouse from 14,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet.
  • Elimination of one of the proposed three (3) tennis courts to accommodate the relocation of the golf maintenance facility.
  • Replacement of the subterranean parking garage that had been proposed to be under the hotel building with a new partially subterranean parking structure proposed to be located directly across from the banquet facility motor courtyard.
  • Additional grading to reduce the building pad elevations of the proposed villas so that the ridgelines will be below the elevation of Palos Verdes Drive South.

As a result of these modifications, the proposed project consists of a 400-room resort hotel with a golf academy/practice facility. Furthermore, as originally proposed, the project includes 50 casita units (a maximum of 3 keys per unit), 32 single key resort villa units, conference center, related commercial uses, restaurants, trails, public park areas, coastal access points and parking, natural open space and habitat areas.

Attached to this report is a reduced copy of the revised project site plan. In order to formally introduce and explain the revised project, the applicant respectfully requests the allowance of approximately thirty (30) minutes at the May 7th meeting to provide a power point presentation and statements by representatives from Destination Development.

Planning Commission Role

As previously noted, between the months of April and October 2001, the Planning Commission held twelve (12) public hearings on the original proposed project. In its review, the Commission considered issues related to the City owned Upper Point Vicente property, as well as the Long Point property, and made project revisions to both sites. After this extensive review, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Council regarding the proposed project.

Based upon an initial review of the revised project, Staff believes that the changes to the Resort Hotel Area (RHA) are relatively minor in scope. Nonetheless, Staff believes that the new aspects of the revised project, such as, the new semi-subterranean parking structure, changes to the amount of earth movement, the hotel and golf operations, and other design related modifications, should be reviewed in greater detail. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Council remand the revised project back to the Planning Commission for further review at a duly noticed public hearing. However, because of the Commission’s extensive review of the original project and the fact that the modifications are relatively minor, the City Council may consider directing the Commission to focus its review on solely the new changes to the project. Furthermore, the Council may consider limiting the time period or the number of public hearings the Commission is to conduct on the revised project.

Once the Commission completes its review of the revised project, a new recommendation would be forwarded to the Council for consideration at a duly noticed public hearing. A discussion of the tentative project schedule under this scenario occurs later in this Staff Report. Furthermore, a proposed tentative schedule is attached to this Report for review (see attachment).

It should be noted that if the Council opts to remand the revised project back to the Planning Commission, Staff will complete a detailed analysis of the revised architectural and grading plans for the Commission’s consideration. However, if the Council decides not to remand the project back to the Planning Commission, Staff will complete a detailed analysis of the revised project for consideration by the City Council at an upcoming public hearing.

Finance Advisory Committee Role

Between the months of August 2000 and November 2001, the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) met nine (9) times regarding the proposed Long Point Resort Hotel Project (Resort Project) to consider:

  • Whether or not the developer’s basis for computing the projected tax and fee revenue to be paid the City is reliable;
  • Whether the projected tax and fee revenue to the City is achievable; and
  • To review the financial impact resulting from the elimination of Resort Villas and/or Casitas from the Resort Project and/or the addition of other facilities (e.g. underground parking).

Hospitality Valuation Services International (HVSI), the City’s resort consultant, performed a review of the Developer’s pro-formas during its assignment. Based upon its review, HVSI stated the following in its report:

"Based on the information available, it is our opinion that the projections of occupancy and average rate set forth by Destination Resorts are reasonable… Upon completion of this review, members of HVSI concluded that the developer’s financial projections for the proposed subject property appeared reasonable."

At the conclusion of its assignment, the FAC stated the following in its report, dated October 19, 2001:

"Based upon the review performed and the oral statements made by HVSI, the FAC finds that the Developer’s presentation of projected tax and fee revenue appear to be reasonable using methods and assumptions consistent with the resort and leisure property industry. Forecasts and projections are prepared based upon assumptions about the future. Additionally, future events, including possible negative economic trends, changes in customer demand, perils and governmental legislation may significantly impact actual results and cannot be predicted. Such future events may have a significant impact on the Resort Project’s attainment of the results contained in its financial projections, especially projected tax and fee revenue. Therefore, the FAC finds that the projected tax and fee revenue to the City cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty.

In addition, the FAC expresses the following reservations and limitations regarding the reliability of the Developer’s financial projections, including the projected tax and fee revenue:

    • The severity and length of the apparently emerging economic downturn is an important factor that may impair the Developer’s ability to secure investment and debt financing and attain the revenue results reported in its financial projections.

  • Because the Developer’s financial projections are proprietary confidential documents, the FAC did not directly review them. HVSI conducted its review in accordance with the terms and conditions of a confidentiality agreement with the Developer. Therefore, the FAC has relied on the work performed by HVSI leading to its findings and conclusions presented in its reports."

HVSI also made the following statement in its report:

"…investors generally require internal rates of return on equity in the range of 20% to 25%". Based upon HVSI’s findings, the Developer’s projected internal rate of return ("IRR"), assuming the elimination of Resort Villas and/or Casitas from the Resort Project and/or the addition of other facilities (e.g. underground parking), appear to yield IRR’s that are below an acceptable level. Only the planned Resort Project scenario (550-keys, plus 32 villas with no underground parking) yields a 21.3% IRR that falls well towards the low range of acceptability for equity investment. Also, HVSI reported, "It is extremely difficult to render new full service hotels, and particularly resort hotels of the [Resort Project’s] caliber, feasible at any time, but even more so in the current investment environment".

The FAC gained a substantial amount of knowledge about the Resort Project while conducting its assignment made by the City Council. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council consider assigning the FAC with the task of reviewing the first draft of a development agreement and offer the City Manager and the City Council with suggestions. The FAC’s review should include the following:

  • What, if any, infrastructure and operational costs will the City incur during construction and after initial operations begin (e.g. Public Works and Public Safety)?
  • Will the City experience negative cash flow during the development and early operations of the Proposed Resort?
  • Could the City be damaged economically in the event the Proposed Resort ceases operations? If so, what safeguards could be instituted to mitigate the cost of possible damages?

  • What, if anything, should the City do to assist the Developer during the planning, construction and early operations of the Proposed Resort?

Project Schedule

In order to facilitate Council discussion of a revised processing schedule for the revised project, Staff has prepared a tentative project schedule (see attachment). The timeline accounts for two (2) possible public hearings with the Planning Commission and three (3) public hearings with the City Council on the merits of the project. Furthermore, in the event the project applications are approved by the City Council, the schedule tentatively outlines a timeline for the California Coastal Commission’s review of the project applications, as well as the City’s review and consideration of a development agreement for the project. Therefore, based on the discussion contained within this report, Staff seeks Council direction on the future schedule of the revised project.

CEQA

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prior to approving a project, the lead agency (the City) shall certify that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. Since the City Council is the deciding body on the Long Point project, the final EIR must be reviewed and certified by the Council prior to taking action on the development applications. As such, Staff originally anticipated that the project EIR and applications would be forwarded to the City Council last fall. Therefore, Staff transmitted EIR Volumes I through IV to the Council in August 2001 and Volume V* to the Council in 2001.

*Volume I - EIR; Volume II - Technical Appendices; Volume III - Response to Comments; Volume IV - Revised Biological Resources Section; and Volume V - Response to Comments on Revised Biological Section.

As previously noted, since the City Council decided against allowing use of the City owned Upper Point Vicente property for the Long Point project, the applicant has opted to move forward with a revised plan utilizing only the Long Point property for a resort hotel and golf academy/practice facility. The City has a couple of options on how to comply with CEQA for the revised project.

One option that the City Council can consider is certification of the project EIR, as recommended by the Planning Commission on October 9, 2001, prior to remanding the revised project to the Planning Commission for additional review. If the Council were to take this action, the revised project could then be analyzed through an Addendum for the revised project, provided that no significant new information or mitigation measures are necessary, and there is no substantial increase in the severity of the environmental impacts previously identified and analyzed in the Final EIR. Based on staff’s preliminary review of the revised applications, it appears that an Addendum would be the proper environmental document if the Final EIR is certified by the City Council. Of course, if new significant environmental impacts arising from the revised project do need to be analyzed, that can be accomplished through the preparation of a subsequent EIR.

The City Attorney’s office has opined that certification of the Draft EIR by the City Council at this time is an appropriate option, in light of the extensive public review of the Draft EIR through the Planning Commission hearings, and because the Draft EIR includes an analysis of an alternative that is substantially the same as the Applicant’s newly revised project. The Draft and Final EIR included alternative no. 7.2* entitled the "No Project Alternative." This alternative analyzed the development of the Long Point site (referred to as the Resort Hotel Area, or RHA, in the EIR) under the existing project entitlements initially approved in 1991. Additionally, the revised project is less intense, and generally is less or equally impactful as the project analyzed in the EIR. Therefore, the analysis in the EIR in effect overstates potential impacts of the revised project.

*Discussion of Alternative No. 7.2 appears at pages 7-8 through 7-21 of Volume I of the Final EIR.

In the event the Council agrees to remand the revised project to the Planning Commission for a focused review, the Commission would also consider the environmental effects of the related project as part of its focused review. If it is determined that the revised project results in environmental impacts that are either "equal to" or "less than" the impacts identified in the final EIR, it would be appropriate to process an Addendum, as discussed above. If, however additional environmental impacts are identified, it would be appropriate to prepare a Supplemental EIR that would be re-circulated for public review.

A second option for the Council’s consideration is to remand the project and the environmental review to the Planning Commission by not certifying the EIR. Under this scenario, an Addendum would not be an appropriate document, as an Addendum can only be prepared for a certified EIR. Without a certified EIR to work from, revisions to the EIR documents may be required in order to make the EIR consistent with the revised project. In light of the size of the environmental documentation already completed, and the breadth of changes that could be required, significant additional time and effort without could be required without a corresponding benefit. Rather than undergo an expensive and complex process of revising the EIR documentation, an Addendum could succinctly and efficiently explain the proposed changes to the project.

Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council certify the final EIR. To do so, the City Council must determine that the final EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and adequately addresses the City’s environmental concerns. As such, Staff has attached to this report the Planning Commission’s adopted resolution recommending certification of the project EIR, as well as a draft resolution for the certification of the project EIR by the Council (see attachment). It should be noted that the certification of the project EIR does not signify approval of, or any commitment to approve, any project, but rather indicates that an appropriate analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from a "worst case scenario" project have been fully analyzed. Therefore, although the final EIR analyzed the project using both the Upper Point Vicente property and the Long Point property as a "worst case" scenario, certification of the final EIR does not mean that the City is allowing the applicant use of the City owned Upper Point Vicente property now or in the future. A statement to this effect is included in the draft resolution prepared for the Council’s consideration.

Representatives from the City’s Environmental Consulting team, RBF Consultants, will be in attendance at tonight’s meeting to assist in the discussion of the project’s EIR and the certification process.

It should be noted that pursuant to Section 15108 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency (the City) shall certify the final EIR of a project within one (1) year from the date of completeness, unless a one time ninety (90) day time extension is requested by the applicant. The project was deemed complete by Staff on July 18, 2000, thus requiring action on the EIR by July 17, 2001. However, the applicant requested a ninety (90)-day time extension due to the additional studies required to complete a comprehensive document, which thereby extended the action date on the EIRs certification to October 17, 2001. Since the project was placed on "hold" at the applicant’s request to allow additional time for the applicant to consider revising the project, certification of the EIR was postponed. A new time period commenced upon the submittal of the revised application on April 22, 2002. Nonetheless, there is no bar to the City Council’s certification of the EIR at this time.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Public Noticing

Tonight’s meeting was noticed to all interested parties, property owners within a 500-foot radius (for both the Resort Hotel Area and the Upper Point Vicente Area), list serve subscribers and published in the Peninsula News. Furthermore, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a notice of the tonight’s meeting was sent to those agencies that submitted comments to the City during the comment period for the project EIR.

Public Comments

As a result of the public notice, to date, the City received one (1) comment letter regarding the revised project (see attachment). According to the comment letter, concerns were raised regarding the revised project’s potential impacts to biological resources, grading, and pesticides. Furthermore, the comment letter expresses a concern with the proposed partnership with Ocean Trails, potential hotel bankruptcy, revised project related traffic impacts, and modified golf operation and design amenities. In response to the comment letter, Staff believes that these issues will be part of the Commission’s scope to review the revised project, as recommended earlier in this report, in order to assure that the revised project does not result in additional impacts to the environment and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Additionally, in the event the City receives additional public comment letters after this Staff Report has been transmitted, Staff will provide the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee copies of such letters at the joint meeting.

Trust Deposit

To date, the trust deposit accounts set up by the City for the preparation of the project EIR and the City Attorney’s review of the project maintain a deficient balance. According to City records, the EIR trust deposit account is negative $22,529.50, while the EIR trust deposit account is negative $133,239.23. In the event the City Council wishes to consider the applicant’s revised proposal, Staff recommends that review of the revised project not occur until the outstanding balances have been fully funded. Furthermore, since the revised project will require additional review by the City’s environmental consulting team as well as the City Attorney, at the time the trust deposit accounts are replenished, Staff respectfully requests that additional funds, in an amount to be determined, be deposited into the trust deposit accounts to recover future costs incurred by the City. It should be noted that in order for the City’s environmental consulting team to proceed with the preparation of the required environmental documents for the revised project, a contract addendum would have to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. At this time, because the scope of the revised project has yet to be determined by the Council, the environmental consulting team is unable to prepare a revised cost proposal. Nevertheless, based on Council direction at tonight’s meeting, the consultant’s have informed Staff that an updated cost proposal to prepare the required environmental documents for the revised project will be completed. Upon receipt of the cost proposal, Staff will agendize a contract addendum for review by the City Council at a future meeting.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that the revised project may be accepted by the City Council and remanded back to the Planning Commission for a focused review. Upon completion of the Commission’s review, a recommendation should be forwarded back to the City Council for consideration at a future meeting. In regards to the project EIR, Staff believes that if the City Council finds that the final EIR adequately complies with CEQA, that the EIR be certified with the direction that the appropriate additional environmental documentation be prepared for the project revisions.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

  • Tentative Project Schedule
  • Applicant’s Revised Project Submittal Letter – April 22, 2002
  • Revised Project Site Plan
  • Public Comment Letters
  • Draft Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. 2002-__

TENTATIVE REVISED PROJECT SCHEDULE

TASK / MILESTONE

ACTION DATE

Revised project introduced at a joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee

May 7, 2002

Planning Commission public hearing

May 28, 2002

Planning Commission public hearing

June 11, 2002

City Council public hearing

July 2, 2002

City Council public hearing

July 16, 2002

City Council’s decision

August 6, 2002

Finance Advisory Committee’s review of development Agreement

August 2002

California Coastal Commission Meeting – Los Angeles

September 2002

Finance Advisory Committee’s review of development Agreement

September 2002

Finance Advisory Committee’s review of development Agreement

October 2002

California Coastal Commission Meeting – San Diego

November 2002

Finance Advisory Committee’s review of development Agreement

November 2002

Finance Advisory Committee’s review of development Agreement

December 2002



RESOLUTION NO. 2002-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PRAPARED IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED HOTEL AND RELATED USES TO BE KNOWN AS THE LONG POINT RESORT.

WHEREAS, a formal application was filed by Destination Development Corporation (the "Developer") requesting approval of conditional use permits, grading permits, a coastal development permit and a tentative parcel map (collectively the "discretionary permits") and a general plan amendment to allow construction of a 550-room (400 guest rooms and 50-3 keyed casitas) resort hotel and conference center, 32 private villas, and a 9-hole golf course on 103.5 acres of land generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and 64.9 acres of land generally located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, as more fully described in the project EIR (herein referred to as "Initial Project"); and,

WHEREAS, the Initial Project has since been revised to eliminate the portion of the Project that called for the use of 64.9 acres of publicly-owned land generally located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard and commonly known as Upper Point Vicente Area ("UPVA"), while the remainder located on 103.5 acres of privately-owned land generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and formerly occupied by Marineland (the "Resort Hotel Area" or "RHA") remains in the project (herein referred to as "Revised Project"); and,

WHEREAS, the City analyzed the Initial Project’s potential impacts on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto, and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines; and,

WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study") for the Initial Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines; and,

WHEREAS, the Initial Study concluded that there was evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources and governmental services, including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land-use and planning, noise, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems; and,

WHEREAS, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of an environmental impact report (the "EIR") for the Project in accordance with the provisions of Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081; and,

WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation of the EIR from July 20, 2000, through September 4, 2000, for an extended 45-day comment period in order to receive written comments on the appropriate scope of the EIR; and,

WHEREAS, the City sent the Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the State of California (the "State Clearinghouse") and to other responsible, trustee, and/or interested agencies and persons in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a); and,

WHEREAS, in accordance with Guidelines Section 15083, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public scoping session concerning the EIR on August 22, 2000, to provide an introduction to the Project and the CEQA process and to afford an opportunity for the public and interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR; and,

WHEREAS, the scoping session was noticed by publication in the local press, by mailing to all residents within a 500-foot radius of the Project and by posting at City Hall, Hesse Park, and the Ladera Linda Community Center and was attended by the applicant, representatives of various agencies, and members of the general public; and,

WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR"), together with those certain technical appendices (the "Appendices"), was completed on February 2, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, the City circulated the DEIR and the Appendices to the public, the State Clearinghouse, and other interested persons between February 6, 2001, and April 6, 2001, for an expanded 60-day comment period pursuant to Guidelines Section 15087(c); and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 20001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the DEIR; and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on April 10, 2001, April 14, 2001, April 24, 2001, May 17, 2001, June 12, 2001, July 10, 2001, and July 24, 2001, at which times all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the Project and the DEIR; and,

WHEREAS, during the public review and comment process, the City received over 30 hours of public testimony and more than 300 written and oral comments regarding the Project and the adequacy of the DEIR; and,

WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and additions to the DEIR in response to the comments; and,

WHEREAS, the City completed the responses to comments on the DEIR and preliminary revisions to the DEIR in July 2001 and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and the public in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and,

WHEREAS, after reviewing the responses to comments and the revisions to the DEIR, City staff concluded that the revised material in the biological resources analysis (Section 5.3 of the DEIR) constituted new information requiring recirculation of the biological resources analysis of the DEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and Guidelines Section 15088.5; and,

WHEREAS, the City recirculated the Revised Biological Resources Analysis to the public, the State Clearinghouse, and other interest persons between August 1, 2001, and August 30, 2001, for a shortened 30-day comment period pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087(c) and 15105(a) (the "Second Public Review and Comment Period"); and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further held duly noticed public hearings on August 14, 2001, August 28, 2001, and September 11, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the Project, the DEIR, and the Revised Biological Resources Analysis; and,

WHEREAS, during the Second Public Review and Comment Period, the City received several hours of testimony and 15 written and oral comments regarding the Project and the adequacy of the Revised Biological Resources Analysis; and,

WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and additions to the Revised Biological Resources Analysis where appropriate in response to the comments received during the Second Public Review and Comment Period; and,

WHEREAS, the City completed the Responses to Comments on the Revised Biological Resources Analysis on September 24, 2001, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and the public at least ten (10) days prior to considering the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR"); and,

WHEREAS, on October 9, 2001, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting to consider the FEIR, and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 28, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 216, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2229, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2230, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 166, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26073 FOR A PROPOSED HOTEL AND GOLF COURSE TO BE KNOWN AS THE LONG POINT RESORT;" and,

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2002, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider, among other things, certification of the Final EIR for the Long Point project; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the EIR documentation completed for the Initial Project, and relies on the review process completed through the Planning Commission’s hearings on the EIR.

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

Section 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR") is comprised of five volumes: Volume 1 is the FEIR dated July 9, 2001; Volume 2 contains the Technical Appendices in support of the FEIR; Volume 3 contains the Responses to Comments on the DEIR; Volume 4 is the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, and Volume 5 contains the Responses to Comments on the Revised Biological Resources Analysis. The Planning Commission reviewed the FEIR at a duly noticed public meeting on October 9, 2001 (the "P.C. Hearing") at which time evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the P.C. Hearing was provided in accordance with applicable law. Based upon the record of the Hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the completeness and adequacy of the FEIR and to recommend approval of the general plan amendment and the discretionary permits for the Project to the City Council. Further, the City Council reviewed the FEIR at a duly noticed public hearing (the "Council Hearing") on May 7, 2002, at which time evidence was presented and considered by the City Council. Based upon the records of the P.C. Hearing and the Council Hearing, the Council voted to certify the completeness and adequacy of the FEIR.

Section 2. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and upon other substantial evidence which has been presented in the record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file and available for public examination during normal business hours with the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, who serves as the custodian of these records.

Section 3. The City Council finds that pursuant to Guideline Sections 15087(e) and 15105, agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the FEIR.

Section 4. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the contents of the FEIR pursuant to Guidelines Section 15084(e). The City Council hereby finds that the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in the responses to comments received after recirculation of the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, and in the evidence presented in written and oral testimony at the Hearing, does not constitute new information requiring a second recirculation of the FEIR under CEQA. None of the information presented to the Planning Commission or City Council after recirculation of the Revised Biological Resources Analysis has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. All feasible mitigation measures suggested in the FEIR have been considered. Those measures, as applicable, shall be incorporated as a condition of project approval for any approval under this EIR. No additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified.

Section 5. The City Council finds that the comments regarding the DEIR, the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, and the responses to those comments have been received by the City; that the Planning Commission has received public testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR; and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony prior to making its recommendation to the City Council on the Initial Project. The City Council hereby certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, pursuant to Guidelines Section 15090.

Section 6. Based upon the Initial Study and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Initial Project would not cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Objectionable Odors, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Population and Housing. Explanations for why the City Council determined that the Project will have no impact or will cause a less than a significant impact to the foregoing resources are contained in the Initial Study (included as Appendix 15.1 to the FEIR) and in Section 10.0 of the FEIR in accordance with the provisions of Guidelines Section 15128.

Section 7. Based upon the FEIR and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Initial Project, as mitigated (attached herein as Exhibit "A"), would not cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology and Drainage, Land Use and Relevant Planning, Marine Resources, Noise, Public Health and Safety, Public Services and Utilities, Traffic and Circulation, and Recreational Facilities. Explanations for why the foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are fully discussed in Section 5.0 of the FEIR, the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, and the Initial Study (included as Appendix 15.1 to the FEIR).

Section 8. Based upon the FEIR and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Initial Project would create significant unavoidable impacts in the impact categories of Air Quality (short-term air pollutants and long-term operational impacts) and Noise (long-term impacts). These significant impacts are further described in the in Section 5.0 of the FEIR. The construction-related significant impacts to Air Quality that would arise from the Initial Project are associated with construction equipment and grading activities and that would be temporary in nature, while the operational significant impacts to Air Quality would be long term in nature. The long-term significant impacts to Noise are attributable to Initial Project-related traffic. Although the Initial Project’s individual contribution would not be significant, the existing ambient noise levels exceed State standards; when Initial Project-generated and cumulative vehicular noise are combined, the result would cause a significant and unavoidable noise impact on a cumulative level. All applicable and feasible mitigation measures, and any changes or alterations required to minimize impacts, will be required of, or incorporated into, any project considered in conjunction with the certified EIR. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Section 5.0 of the FEIR.

Section 9. Based upon the FEIR and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Initial Project’s cumulative impacts, with the exception of the impacts to Noise and Air Quality, are not significant. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 5.0 of the FEIR and the Revised Biological Resources Analysis.

Section 10. Section 7.0 of the FEIR describes, and the City Council has fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include "Alternative 7.1 - No Development Alternative," "Alternative 7.2 - No Project Alternative," "Alternative 7.3 - With Coast Guard Site Alternative," "Alternative 7.4 - Relocate Practice Facility - Option ‘A’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.5 - Relocate Practice Facility - Option ‘B’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.6 - No Resort Villas - Option ‘A’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.7 - No Resort Villas - Option ‘B’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.8 - Program of Utilization Alternative," "Alternative 7.9 - Point Vicente Park Enhancement Alternative," and "Alternative 7.10 - Point Vicente Park Enhancement and Existing Entitlement Alternative." The City Council further finds that the Initial Project would result in unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives into the preparation of the FEIR, and that all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the FEIR

Section 11. For the environmental impacts identified in the FEIR as "significant and unavoidable," namely in the impact areas of Air Quality and Noise, the City Council hereby acknowledges that the City Council must adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" before approving any project, including the Revised Project. The City Council further acknowledges that each of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, and attached herein as Exhibit A, shall be adopted, as applicable, for any project approved pursuant to this EIR, and each mitigation measure shall be imposed as a condition of Project approval, as applicable, to any project approved pursuant to this EIR. Finally, the City Council hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Program" which is presented herein as Exhibit "A".

Section 12. The City Council, by adopting this resolution certifies the Final EIR Prepared for the Initial Project, and in no way approves any project associated with the Final EIR. Further, nothing in this resolution shall be construed as approval or authorization for any use of the City’s Upper Point Vicente property, regardless of the analysis included in the FEIR.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2002, by the following vote:


________________________________
JOHN C. MCTAGGART, MAYOR

ATTEST:


_________________________________
City Clerk

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

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on May 7. 2002


__________________________
City Clerk


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. Proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Agenda and Calendar for the Finance Advisory Committee. (McLean)

Recommendation: Review the proposed Rancho Palos Verdes Finance Advisory Committee proposed calendar and agenda of meetings for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and provide staff and the Finance Advisory Committee with clarification and affirmation of the proposed agenda topics.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DENNIS McLEAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: PROPOSED FY 2002-2003 AGENDA AND CALENDAR FOR THE FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION:

To review the proposed RANCHO PALOS VERDES - FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - PROPOSED CALENDAR AND AGENDA OF MEETINGS - 2002 – 2003 and provide staff and the Finance Advisory Committee with clarification and affirmation of the proposed agenda topics.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

During it’s meeting on January 31, 2002, the City Council set forth the following action:

"…various commissions and committees [of the City] be encouraged to bring issues forth that they believe should be addressed by them and then on to City Council for consideration."

Keeping with his understanding of the City Council’s intention, Chair Wolowicz presented an outline titled "PROPOSED CONTENT AND FORMAT OF MEETINGS" for the April 10th meeting of the Finance Advisory Committee (the "FAC"). The Members of the FAC discussed the outline that led to the preparation of the attached draft of the RANCHO PALOS VERDES - FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - PROPOSED CALENDAR AND AGENDA OF MEETINGS - 2002 – 2003 (hereafter referred to as the "FAC Calendar"). The FAC last discussed the draft FAC Calendar during its April 24th meeting. The FAC or staff liaison assigned to each topic is noted with brackets.

Request for Clarification and Affirmation by the City Council:

The FAC annually reviews the City’s Five Year Financial Model and performs assignments as requested by the City Council. Topics already assigned by the City Council are noted with one asterisk. Proposed new topics for consideration by the City Council are noted with two asterisks. The draft FAC Calendar does not include any possible assignment regarding the proposed Long Point Resort project. Staff and the FAC seek affirmation and/or further direction from the City Council regarding the proposed new topics included on the proposed FAC calendar.

Additionally, both staff and the FAC seek the following clarification regarding the FAC’s role, as well as its appointed liaison, Richard Wallace, with the pending financing of the purchase of approximately 722 of open space along Palos Verdes Drive South:

  • Would the FAC liaison become a member of the Joint Committee formed between the Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy?
  • Should the FAC actively and independently search for financing?
  • Will the FAC liaison serve to follow the activities of the Joint Committee ands report to the FAC?

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director


RANCHO PALOS VERDES - FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

PROPOSED CALENDAR AND AGENDA OF MEETINGS
2002 - 2003

Revised May 1, 2002

Recurring topics:

  • Economic issues, including issues related to the FY 2002-2003 State budget and its impact on the City
  • Unusual items impacting operations (if any)
  • Understanding financial statements
  • ** Potential finance communications with other governmental sources (letter writing)
  • ** Issues (including financing) regarding the purchase of 722 acres of privately owned property throughout the City’s coastal open space area along PVDS
  • Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • Search for additional revenue sources
  • ** Self-education regarding GASB 34 implementation
  • ** Dynamic financial modeling

    NOTES: * Indicates limited presentation or discussion - expected to be periodic recurring topic
    ** Indicates this is a proposed topic, waiting City Council approval to formally add to agenda


April 24, 2002

  • Revised 2002 Five Year Financial Model (McLean)
  • Financing Alternatives update to City Council on April 30, 2002. (McLean)

April 30, 2002

  • Participation in the Budget Workshop with the City Council

May 7, 2002

  • Participation in the Joint Workshop with the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding:
    1. the Crestridge property
    2. Long Point Presentation

May 8, 2002

  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan (McLean)
  • * Search for additional revenue sources (McLean)

June 12, 2002

  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • * Search for additional revenue sources
  • ** Initial summary discussion of GASB 34 impact (Member Smith and Staff)

July 10, 2002

  • ** Issues (including financing) regarding the purchase of 722 acres of privately owned property throughout the City’s coastal open space area along PVDS (Wallace)
  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • * Search for additional revenue sources
  • * Discussion of Dynamic Modeling concept (Member Curtis)

August 14, 2002

  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • * Search for additional revenue sources
  • ** Discussion of tax allocation percentages to City (Butler)
  • *Discussion of Dynamic Modeling concept (Member Curtis)

September 11, 2002

  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • * Search for additional revenue sources
  • *Discussion of Dynamic Modeling concept (Member Curtis)

** Discussion of tax allocation percentages to City (Butler

October 9, 2002

  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • * Search for additional revenue sources
  • *Discussion of Dynamic Modeling concept (Member Curtis)

November 13, 2002

  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • * Search for additional revenue sources

December 11, 2002

  • ** Presentation of audited statements with audit firm FYE June 30, 2002
  • ** Presentation of Management Letter by audit firm - FYE June 30, 2002
  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • * Search for additional revenue sources

January 8, 2003

  • ** Presentation of GASB 34 requirements and impact
  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • * Search for additional revenue sources

February 12, 2003

  • Presentation of 2003 Five Year Infrastructure Plan
  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • * Search for additional revenue sources

March 12, 2003

  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • * Search for additional revenue sources

April 9, 2003

  • Presentation 2003 Five Year Financial Model
  • * Development and implementation of a financing plan
  • * Search for additional revenue sources


 
9. Municipal Area Express (MAX) Inter-Agency Agreement. (Huey)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to continue its participation in the commuter transportation transit service, known as Municipal Area Express (MAX) for the period of July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2005. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement for MAX Commuter Bus Service on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL AREA EXPRESS (MAX) INTER-AGENCY AGREEMENT

Staff Coordinator: Judy A. Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to continue its participation in the commuter transportation transit service, known as Municipal Area Express (MAX) for the period of July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2005.

2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement for MAX Commuter Bus Service on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

BACKGROUND

Municipal Area Express (MAX) is a commuter transportation system which serves South Bay residents who travel into the El Segundo employment area. This system is jointly operated and funded by the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Torrance, El Segundo, Lawndale, Lomita, Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles. The system is administered by the City of Torrance, who in turn contracts with a private operator for daily operation. The current Agreement for MAX Commuter Bus Service was entered into in 1999 and expires on June 30, 2002. The attached Agreement continues the City’s participation in the MAX program until June 30, 2005. This is the fifth consecutive MAX inter-agency agreement, with the first such agreement dated April 1990, when service was inaugurated.

ANALYSIS

Municipal Area Express (MAX) has operated for twelve years as a viable, effective commuter transit alternative for South Bay residents. The MAX service provides between 250 and 275 rides daily with a 14-vehicle fleet along three routes through the South Bay, operating during the morning and afternoon peak hours.

MAX is funded through a combination of fares, contributions from the member jurisdictions (usually Proposition A or C Local Return dollars) and from Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) special fund sources. Participant shares are calculated by the number of riders originating in each city and the number of route miles passing through each city. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ contribution to the Fiscal Year 2001-02 MAX program was $52,100. A copy of the adopted FY 2001-02 MAX operating and capital reserve budgets is attached. The FY 2002-03 operating budget has not been adopted yet, but is expected to reflect the same participant contribution amounts since the bus contractor, Coach USA, will be in the second year of its contract extension.

Under a separate agreement a capital reserve account for the replacement of its aging fleet of buses was established by MAX in FY 98-99 to accumulate money to purchase 14 compressed natural gas buses. A purchase order was issued in November 2001, and the first bus was delivered the week of April 1, 2002. The last bus is expected to be delivered the week of May 20, 2002. Federal funds provided 79% of the financing, while 21% of the cost was financed by MAX participant jurisdictions. The City’s share of $110,022 was paid in annual payments of $36,674 over the last three fiscal years.

CONCLUSION

Adopting staff recommendations will authorize the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to continue its participation in the MAX commuter transportation transit service.

FISCAL IMPACT

This program is fully funded by Proposition A funds. The estimated fund balance at June 30, 2002 is $297,681.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
FY 2001-02 MAX Operating Budget
Agreement for MAX Commuter Bus Service



10. On-Call Professional Service Agreements. (Huey)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize a contract limit increase of up to $128,250 for contract engineering services under the On-Call Service Agreement for CBM Consulting. (2) Authorize a contract limit increase of up to $90,000 for contract engineering services under the On-Call Service Agreement for Merit Civil Engineering.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS

Staff Coordinator: Judy A. Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize a contract limit increase of up to $128,250 for contract engineering services under the On-Call Service Agreement for CBM Consulting.

2. Authorize a contract limit increase of up to $90,000 for contract engineering Services under the On-Call Service Agreement for Merit Civil Engineering

BACKGROUND

The Public Works Department relies on contract professional services to efficiently and effectively provide public works services. Contact services typically include services for engineering design, inspection, geotechnical engineering, landscape architecture, construction management, surveying, plan checking, and environmental clearance.

For large-scale projects such as the design of a storm drain or the overlay program the department circulates a Request for Proposal (RFP), evaluates proposals, and brings a recommendation for award of a contract to the City Council.

The department is also involved in a number of small-scale projects, and projects where consulting services are urgently needed. In such cases the RFP process would be an inefficient method to obtain the needed services. In response to this an on-call process was established to streamline the manner in which contract professional services are obtained. Under the on-call process the City Council established a list of 24 qualified engineering firms, and contracts were awarded to and executed with each firm. Under the on-call process staff then has the ability, throughout the year, to select a firm from the on-call list, and authorize expenditures within limits established by the City Council.

The limits established by the on-call process are the adopted budget as well as a limit of $ 25,000 for each project, and a limit of $60,000 per fiscal year awarded to any one firm. The principal behind the $25,000 and $60,000 limits is to develop a number of consulting engineering firms that have experience working with the City, and therefore a relationship with staff and knowledge of the City’s procedures. Over the course of the current fiscal year staff has exceeded these limits with two engineering firms, Merit Civil Engineering, and CBM Consulting, and this staff requests a waiver from these limits.

ANALYSIS

It is important to note that staff is not requesting additional funding, only the ability to exceed the expenditure guidelines established by the on-call process.

CBM Consulting provided staffing when there was a vacancy in the Senior Engineering position. The individual who staffed the position was effective, and was responsible for a number of important capital projects such as the FY 01-02 Residential Overlay, the Sunnyside Ridge Drainage improvements, and the Altamira Canyon. Given the current workload in the Public Works Department, when the Senior Engineer was hired, it was decided that the contract person should continue to provide services. It is estimated that for the current fiscal year, the total cost for contract professional service with CBM Consultants under the on-call process will be $ 128,250.

Staff is also requesting authorization to exceed the limits of the on-call process with Merit Civil Engineering. Merit Civil Engineering has worked with the City on a long-term basis and has a very good knowledge of the City’s practices and procedures. Because of this, they were hired to assist staff on a number of small projects, which collectively will exceed the $60,000 limitation. It is estimated that for the current fiscal year, the total cost for contract professional services with Merit Civil Engineering under the on-call process will be $90,000.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendations will revise the contract limits imposed by the On-Call process and allow expenditures for CBM Consulting and Merit Civil Engineering to exceed the previously authorized limits for engineering services.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact to the recommended actions. Funding is available in the adopted budget.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



11. City Advisory Boards: Appointment of Members to the Recreation & Parks Committee, Equestrian Committee, and Emergency Preparedness Committee. (Purcell)

Recommendation: (1) Appoint seven members to the Recreation & Parks Committee: Four members with a term of office until March 7, 2006; and, three members with a term of office until March 2, 2004. (2) Confirm the appointment of seven members to the Equestrian Committee: Four members with a term of office until March 7, 2006; and, three members with a term of office until March 2, 2004. (3) Appoint nine members to the Emergency Preparedness Committee: Five members with a term of office until March 7, 2006; and, four members with a term of office until March 2, 2004. (4) Set 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, May 21st as the date to interview appointees for the position of chair for these three boards.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: CITY ADVISORY BOARDS: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE RECREATION & PARKS COMMITTEE, EQUESTRIAN COMMITTEE AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION

(1) Appoint seven members to the Recreation & Parks Committee: Four members with a term of office until March 7, 2006; and, three members with a term of office until March 2, 2004. (2) Confirm the appointment of seven members to the Equestrian Committee: four members with a term of office until March 7, 2006; and, three members with a term of office until March 2, 2004. (3) Appoint nine members to the Emergency Preparedness Committee: Five members with a term of office until March 7, 2006; and, four members with a term of office until March 2, 2004. (4) Set 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, May 21st as the date to interview appointees for the position of chair for these three boards.

INTRODUCTION

Appointment of the Recreation & Parks Committee, Equestrian Committee and the Emergency Preparedness Committee will complete the recruitment and interview process for these advisory boards that began late last year. Remaining to be appointed are the View Restoration mediators: those applications will be presented to the City Council the week of May 27th. At the June 4th City Council meeting, staff will request Council to set an interview date for the applicants.

BACKGROUND

Recreation & Parks Committee: Appointment of Members

The City received applications from 18 residents interested in serving on the seven-member Recreation & Parks Committee. Attached is a list of those candidates. On Saturday, April 27th the City Council interviewed 16 candidates for that committee: two candidates (Sunshine and James M. Juneau) did not interview.

Equestrian Committee – Confirmation of Appointment

Also on April 27th, the City Council interviewed seven applicants for the nine-member Equestrian Committee; one only candidate (Gordon Leon) was a non-incumbent candidate. Upon completion of the interviews for this committee, it was the consensus of Council that all seven applicants should be appointed and that the matter should be placed on the May 7th agenda for confirmation of these appointments.

Emergency Preparedness Committee

Nineteen residents have applied for this newly formed nine-member committee and interviews were scheduled for May 6th. Attached is a list of the committee candidates.

CONCLUSION

The interview and appointment process for the City’s various advisory boards continues, and the Council now needs to set a date to interview those appointees to the Recreation & Parks Committee, the Equestrian Committee and the Emergency Preparedness Committee who are interested in serving as chair of their respective committee. The remainder of the recruitment process will continue as outlined in the Introduction section of this report.

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

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager


RECREATION & PARKS APPLICANTS

Hildreth, Carol (Incumbent)

Inamdar, Kamal V. (Incumbent)

Other choices:
2nd Planning Commission 3rd Finance Advisory Committee 4th Traffic Committee

Longacre-Singh, Jean (Incumbent)
2nd choice is Equestrian Committee

Vannorsdall, Lois (Incumbent)

Block, Arlene G.

Other choices: 2nd Planning Commission 3rd Traffic Committee

Borks, Shirley

*Brown, Stuart

Other choices:
2nd Recreation & Parks Committee
3rd Planning Commission

Coppertino-Minn, Dr. Maria Ann

Eldridge Jr., Leo Lawson

Knight, Jim

*Yourman, Kevin

Interviewed for Finance Advisory Committee

Morgan, Glyn

Other choices:
2nd Traffic Committee
3rd Planning Commission

Juneau, James Michael

2nd choice is Recreation & Parks Committee

*Stephenson, Donald G.

Other choices:
4th Recreation & Parks Committee
5th Emergency Preparedness Committee

*Sunshine

Other choices:
2nd Recreation & Parks Committee
3rd Equestrian Committee
4th Traffic Committee
5th View Restoration Commission 6th Finance Advisory Committee

Swank, Lyn Peterson

Torres, Juan A.

Other choices:
2nd View Restoration Commission
3rd Planning Commission

Woods, Jo

RECREATION & PARKS COMMITTEE ROSTER

Maureen E. Ford, Chair
Kamal V. Inamdar
Christina Bothamley
Jean Longacre
Ken Delong
Lois Vannorsdall
Carol Hildreth

 


Meetings 2nd Wednesday of each month – Ladera Linda Multi-Purpose Room

Name Term Begins Term Expires

First Appointed

Ford 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 02/20/98
Bothamley 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 03/01/94
DeLong 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 04/04/2000
Hildreth 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 02/18/92
Inamdar 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 04/04/2000
Longacre 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 01/08/96
Vannorsdall 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 04/04/2000


EQUESTRIAN COMMITTEE APPLICANTS

Bara, Richard (Incumbent)

Bojorquez, Carolyn Ann (Incumbent

Clarke, Daphne E. (Incumbent)

Greenwood, Sherree (Incumbent)

*Leon, Gordon

O’Neil, Charlene (Incumbent)

Ryan, Madeline (Incumbent)


*Interviewed for Planning Commission

EQUESTRIAN COMMITTEE ROSTER

Charlene O’Neil, Chair
Sherree Greenwood
Richard Bara
Madeline Ryan
Carolyn Ann Bojorquez
William D. Simpson
Daphne E. Clarke
Jeanne Smolley
Kitty Fairchild


Meetings 2nd Thursday of the month, City Hall Community Room

Name Term Begins Term Expires First Appointed
O’Neil 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 01/20/98
Bara 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 01/20/98
Bojorquez 04/03/2001 04/02/2002 04/03/01
Clarke 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 04/04/2000
Fairchild 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 04/04/2000
Greenwood 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 01/20/98
Ryan 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 01/20/98
Simpson 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 01/20/98
Smolley 04/04/2000 04/02/2002 01/20/98


EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE APPLICANTS

Baker, William
2 Year Term Requested

Borks, Shirley

Boudreau, Jennifer

*Christensen, Paul H.

** De Long, Ken
1st choice Traffic

Ford, Maureen
3rd Recreation & Parks

Getzin, Ken

Holt, Gabriella Schaefer

Hughes, Melvin W.

Karp, Jack
4 year term requested

*Kline, Marcia

Leon, Gordon

McCully, Tim

Morgan, Glyn
Other choices:
2nd Recreation & Parks
3rd Traffic

Nieto, John E.

Norton, Don

Salot, Dr. Stuart

Smith, Richard Kimball
4 year term requested

Weissman, Alan M.



12. Border Issues Status Report. (Fox)

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

The following is the regular monthly report to the City Council on various "border issues" potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

DISCUSSION

On April 5, 2002, Staff forwarded the comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed South Coast County Golf Course Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the County. A copy of these comments is attached to this report.

As noted in the April 2002 border issues Staff report, Staff received a copy of the draft EIR for the special reorganization of the harbor area. Since the comment deadline was yesterday (May 6, 2002), Staff has already prepared comments on the EIR (see attachments). Our comments focused on the Local Agency Formation Commission’s (LAFCO) response to our NOP comments regarding boundary issues. LAFCO has acknowledged the City’s concerns regarding changes in LAUSD attendance boundaries or policies, but has stated that the proposed project will have no effect upon these matters. LAFCO will conduct a public hearing on May 22, 2002 to consider the draft EIR.

The City has also received an NOP for a proposed EIR for the reconstruction of the REMAX office building at the northeast corner of Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive North in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. A copy of the NOP is attached to this report. The deadline for public comments on the NOP is June 3, 2002. Staff will prepare comments on this project and provide a copy to the City Council in the June 2002 border issues Staff report.

On April 26, 2002, the City received the attached Notice of Scoping/Initiation of Studies from CalTrans for proposed intersection improvements at Hawthorne Boulevard (SR-107) and Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1) in the City of Torrance. Based upon this notice, Staff does not anticipate any significant impacts upon the City’s residents. Accordingly, Staff does not intend to comment on this project unless the City Council identifies specific issues of concern that it would like to see addressed in the environmental analysis for this project.

Finally, Staff has followed up on the status of a couple of other border issues on which we have not reported in a while:

  • Harbor Hills Community Center – The project is currently under review by the City of Lomita’s Traffic Commission and Planning Commission. The Planning Commission hearing is scheduled for May 13, 2002. Pending approval by the City of Lomita, the County Housing Authority hopes to begin construction by early Summer 2002. A copy of a recent memorandum from the Housing Authority to Supervisor Knabe’s office is attached to this report.

  • Garden Village Shopping Center Renovations – Renovations continue at the Garden Village shopping center. As required by the City of Los Angeles, the developer has conducted inspections of the underground storm drain and sewer lines below the site, and is preparing an inspection report. As of the date this report was completed, the final inspection report was not yet complete. Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) Staff have assured us that the new Albertson’s market building will not receive a certificate of occupancy until any damaged underground utilities are repaired.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Border Issues Status Report
Comments on the South Coast County Golf Course NOP
Comments on the Harbor Area Special Reorganization Draft EIR
NOP for the Proposed REMAX Office Building EIR
Notice of Scoping/Initiation of Studies for PCH/Hawthorne Intersection Improvements
Memorandum regarding the Harbor Hills Community Center


BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT

Revised May 7, 2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On April 2, 2002, the City received a copy of a memorandum from the Housing Authority to Supervisor Knabe’s office regarding the project scheduled for the Harbor Hills Community Center. The project is scheduled from review by the City of Lomita Traffic Commission and Planning Commission in April 2002 and May 2002, respectively. Pending these approvals, the County intends to begin construction by early Summer 2002, with completion of the project to take approximately one year. Staff intends to monitor this project to ensure that the promised design and operational changes discussed above are implemented.

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Adelman, General Manager
Department of Building and Safety

Vitaly B. Troyan, City Engineer

Con Howe, Director
Department of Planning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Mr. Richard Fortner, Senior Building Inspector for Special Projects, the developer has completed the inspection, however, the report has not yet been submitted. It is Mr. Fortner’s position that any deficiencies in the subsurface utilities will have to be repaired either by the City or by the developer prior to occupancy of the new market. As of April 30, 2002, the final inspection report was not yet complete.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On March 6, 2002, the County informed us that a 30-day extension of the NOP comment period had been granted. The new deadline for comments is April 11, 2002. The City Council will take a final look at the draft NOP comment letter for this project on April 2, 2002. Based upon the City Council’s comments, a final comment letter on the NOP was forwarded to the County on April 5, 2002.

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

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

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

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

On March 22, 2002, the City received a copy of the draft EIR for the special reorganization of the harbor area. Although Staff has not yet had time to fully review the document, we note that, in addition to our comments, LAFCO also received NOP responses from SCAQMD, County Animal Care and Control, the State Clearinghouse, CalTrans, the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, SCAG and LAUSD. The 45-day public comment period will end on May 6, 2002, and a public hearing will be held to consider the EIR on May 22, 2002. Staff intends to review the draft EIR and provide comments to LAFCO on or before the end of the comment period. On April 30, 2002, Staff forwarded comments on the EIR to LAFCO.

PROPOSED DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF REMAX OFFICE BUILDING, 2483 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

On April 16, 2002, the City received a copy of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study for the REMAX office building project in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The project proposes the demolition of the existing, single-story 2,000-square-foot building and parking lot, and the construction of a new, single-story 5,950-square-foot office building. The project requires a number of discretionary approvals by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, including a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, a Minor Deviation from the minimum site area for commercial development, a Precise Plan of Design and a Grading application for the importation of 5,700 cubic yards of fill.

The Initial Study identifies a number of potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas of land use and planning, earth resources, water, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, risk of upset, noise, public services, utilities, aesthetics, cultural resources, and recreation. It should also be noted that this project is just down the street from the Rolling Hills Covenant Church, which is also proposing a major expansion (see discussion above). The deadline for public comments on the NOP for the REMAX project is June 3, 2002. Staff will prepare comments on the NOP and forward them to the City of Rolling Hills Estates.


 
13. Request to Support Legislation Concerning Bonds For Harbor And Port Security Improvement Measure. (McTaggart)

Recommendation: Consider Council support of AB1782 (Kehoe and Lowenthal).

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM: SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: REQUEST TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION CONCERNING BONDS FOR HARBOR AND PORT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

RECOMMENDATION

This item is placed on the agenda by Mayor John McTaggart for Council consideration to support AB1782 (Kehoe and Lowenthal).

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION

Assembly Bill 1782 (Kehoe and Lowenthal) is an urgency bill which would enact the Harbor and Port Protection Act of 2002 authorizing the issuance of state bonds in the amount of $350 million for purposes of financing capital improvement projects that would provide enhanced security at harbors and seaports in the state. The bill would be placed on the ballot at an unspecified future election. A committee of State government made up of the State Controller, Treasurer, Director of Finance and the State Attorney General would be responsible for determining the exact amount of state bonds issued under this bill.

AB 1782 defines "security projects" as capital improvement projects that include, but are not limited to, any project that provides video surveillance equipment or bomb detection technology, including e-ray or other devices. Security projects would also include other security equipment to assist with screening of incoming vessels and cargo, monitoring the physical perimeters of harbors and ports, and providing or augmenting on-site emergency response capability.

According to the bill author’s office, there are no provisions within existing law that require the state to offer financial aid to California ports in order to meet their immediate security needs. California’s ports have an immediate need for electronic surveillance, improved fencing, lighting and other equipment to protect them from potential threats. Other than the National Guard or in dealing with emergency crises as they occur, the State has no mechanism for providing California ports with security enhancements that may reduce the chances of ports from becoming terrorist targets. The US Coast Guard primarily focuses on ensuring vessel arrival and departure is done in a safe manner. Although the Coast Guard can provide assessments for overall port security, it will not actually carry out any improvements. In addition US Customs is primarily responsible for checking cargo entering California ports, but it is not responsible for protecting the actual port facilities or monitoring entrances.

Although the Federal government recently appropriated $93 million for grants to be applied toward port security, there are 361 ports nationwide. The Port of Los Angeles, the busiest port in the nation and the Port of Long Beach, the 4th busiest port, are currently seeking to supplement their own cost commitment to address the need for heightened security.

AB 1782 was referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, date unknown.

Registered Support:
Office of the Attorney General
Bay Area World Trade Center
California Association for Port Authorities
California Labor Federation
California Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference
Northern California Marine Association
Port Commissioners of the San Diego Unified Port District
Port of Long Beach
Port of San Diego
Port of San Francisco
San Francisco Bar Pilots

Opposition: none on file.

FISCAL IMPACT

None associated with this report.

PREPARED BY
Gina Park, Sr. Administrative Analyst

APPROVED BY
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:

1. Draft Letter

DRAFT LETTER

The Honorable Christine Kehoe
Member of the California Assembly
State Capitol
Room 2158
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: AB 1782

Dear Honorable Assembly Member Kehoe:

On behalf of the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes, I would like to express the City’s support of AB 1782 which would authorize the issuance and sale of $350 million of General Obligation bonds to finance capital improvement projects for enhanced security measures at California’s ports and harbors.

Currently, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are attempting to address the need for heightened security, which may cost millions. It is our understanding there are no provisions in existing State law that require financial aid to California ports in order to meet their immediate security needs, including electronic surveillance, improved fencing, lighting and other equipment to protect the harbors and ports from potential terrorist threats. AB 1782 will provide a funding mechanism for any necessary security infrastructure.

Your efforts to establish the Harbor and Port Protection Bond Fund are appreciated.

Sincerely,
John C. McTaggart
Mayor

Cc: Assembly member Alan Lowenthal


 
14. California Contract Cities Association Conference. (Evans)

Recommendation: Determine whether to (1) fund Commission and Committee member attendance at the Annual California Contract Cities Conference in Palm Springs from May 30 to June 2, 2002; and, (2) fund a City dinner on Friday, May 31st.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE

RECOMMENDATION

Determine whether to: 1) fund Commission and Committee member attendance at the Annual California Contract Cities Conference in Palm Springs from May 30 to June 2, 2002; and, 2) fund a City dinner on Friday, May 31st.

BACKGROUND

The City will be hosting this year’s California Contract Cities Association Conference, where Mayor John McTaggart will be installed as the Association’s new President. City representatives and their spouses and other members of their immediate family, including four City Council members, the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager and all of the Department Heads, are already scheduled to attend the conference. Mayor McTaggart has requested the City Commission and Committee members and their guests also be invited to attend. In addition, City representatives traditionally attend a dinner held on the second night of the conference. However, because a larger number of City representatives will be attending this year’s event, modification to the usual arrangements will be necessary.

DISCUSSION

1. Commission/Committee Member Attendance

Staff polled the members of the City’s various Commissions and Committees to determine the level of interest in attending the conference and received the following feedback:

Commission/Committee

Members

Guests

Planning Commission

3

3

View Restoration Commission

3

3

Traffic Committee

5

5

Finance Advisory Committee

1

1

Recreation and Parks Committee

5

4

Equestrian Committee

1

1

TOTAL:

18

17


The FAC Chairman has expressed interest in attending with a guest, but has indicated that he would entirely pay his own way. FAC member Becky Clark will be attending with Councilman Clark. In addition, one member of the Planning Commission has indicated that she owns a condominium in Palm Springs, and therefore, would not require accommodations for her and her guest.

The cost per Commission or Committee member attendee would be $1,200, including conference registration, lodging, per diem and mileage. Based on the expressed level of interest, the cost to fully sponsor the Commission and Committee members would require a budget adjustment of $20,000 (excluding all expenses for one FAC member and lodging for one Planning Commissioner). The adopted City travel policy states: "Expenses for spouses and/or guests shall be paid for by attendees and are not reimbursable." Therefore, attendees will be required to pay any additional costs for family members to attend, including additional lodging fees, meals or enrolling any children in the "Kid’s Kamp" and other youth activities sponsored by the City and the hotel.

2. City Dinner

On the second night of the conference (this year, Friday, May 31st), the City traditionally attends a dinner for City representatives attending the conference at one of the local restaurants. In past years, typically 10 people have attended this dinner hosted by the City Attorney. Because the City will be hosting this year’s conference, attendance will be significantly higher than in past years. With approximately 40 to 45 people on the guest list and using an estimate of $50 per person, the cost of the dinner is expected to be $2,500 (including tax and gratuity). The City Attorney is willing to offset a portion of this cost, but not the entire amount. The City can seek other sponsors for the dinner, but the level of sponsorship may not be known until the time of the event. In addition, if Commission/Committee members and their guests were invited to attend this year’s dinner, the total cost would increase to approximately $4,250. If the City wishes to hold this event, a budget needs to be established now, so that the City can find a location and make the necessary reservations and arrangements for the dinner.

FISCAL IMPACT

The total cost of Commission/Committee member attendance and the City dinner is estimated to be $24,250. However, part of the cost of the City dinner may be offset by sponsorships. If approved by the Council, the cost would be paid for through a budget adjustment to the Recreation and Parks Department’s Special Events program. Funding for this program is derived from the General fund.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Fund a limited number of members from each Commission and Committee to attend (1 or 2, for example).

2. Do not provide funding for Commission and Committee members attendance at the conference, but encourage any interested members to attend if they pay their own way.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager


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

 

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to 7:00 P.M. on Monday, May 20th for a Zone 2 Workshop.



RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 7, 2002
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

CALL TO ORDERNEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2002-06


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


A. Minutes of April 2, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
APRIL 2, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 12:25 A.M. by Chair McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

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

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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Member Gardiner requested to remove the Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements item from the Consent Calendar.

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

Minutes (301)

Approved the minutes of March 11, 2002.

February 2002 Treasurer’s Report (602 x 1900)

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. RDA 2002-05 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002-05, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

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

Abalone Cove Sewer Improvements

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

Citing the substantial difference in sewer improvement fees at the two addresses, Member Gardiner questioned whether the City’s contractor is over-charging or whether Mr. Barth obtained an exceptional deal for his sewer improvements.

Director of Public Works Dean Allison expressed his belief that Mr. Barth obtained an exceptionally good deal in this case.

Agency Attorney Lynch explained that the City must comply with a lot more requirements with Public Works contracts than an individual who is doing work on their own property.

Executive Director Evans explained that the way this project was bid, the contractor had to take into consideration the easy and difficult jobs and give the City a price for doing the connections; and expressed his belief that Mr. Barth had one of the easier jobs to be performed.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, briefly highlighted the $28,000 the City paid to Charles Abbott for the GPS work and reiterated her request to observe the GPS workers during their activities.


ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 12:28 A.M. on motion of Chair McTaggart.


__________________
Chair

ATTEST:


_________________________
Agency Secretary


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

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: MARCH 2002 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator:Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

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

BACKGROUND:

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

ANALYSIS:

The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency increased by $154,512 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $1,146,037 at March 31, 2002. The Abalone Cove capital projects fund received a reimbursement from the Abalone Cove Sewer project retention escrow account in the amount of $221,221. The majority of the month’s expenditures were related to ongoing progress payments for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. It is expected that the Agency will continue to experience monthly decreases in cash until the completion of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Agency Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Executive Director


C. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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

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

 

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




RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 7, 2002
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

CALL TO ORDER:NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2002-05


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1. Minutes of April 2, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 2, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 12:28 A.M. by Chair McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

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

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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

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

Minutes

Approved the minutes of March 11, 2002.

February 2002 Treasurer’s Report

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. IA 2002-04 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. IA 2002-04, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

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


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

There were no requests to speak.


ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 12:29 A.M. on the motion of Commissioner Stern.


________________
Chair

Attest:


_____________________
Commission Secretary


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

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

DATE: MAY 7, 2002

SUBJECT: MARCH 2002 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

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

BACKGROUND:

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

ANALYSIS:

The Improvement Authority’s cash increased by $6,549 during the past month; ending with an overall balance of $1,595,240 at March 31, 2002. Disbursements of $1,368 were offset with the monthly General fund transfer of $7,917.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans
Chief Administrative Officer


3. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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

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

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