Agenda 05/21/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 05/21/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda May 21, 2002 6:15 PM
May 21, 2002 6:15 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 WASTE MANAGEMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATIONS


BEGINNING OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

MAY 21, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

_____________________________________________________________________

6:15 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-35

NEXT ORD. NO. 376

RECYCLE DRAWING:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 2nd Regular Meeting and May 6th Adjourned Meeting. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



2. Crossing Guard Services for the 2002-2003 School Year: Amendment No. 10 to All City Management Services Contract. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 10 to the agreement with All City Management Services, Inc. (All City), for an amount not to exceed $8,376.00 to provide crossing guard services at Miraleste Intermediate School for the 2002-2003 School Year.



3. Rejection of Bids and Request to Readvertise. (Still)

Recommendation: Reject all bids for the maintenance of City owned parks/trails and authorize staff to re-advertise.



4. Commercial Refuse and Collection Agreement with United Pacific Waste. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Nonexclusive Franchise Agreement for Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal Services with United Pacific Waste to be effective through December 31, 2002.



5. Sewer and Storm Drain Transfer and Bond Exoneration/Reduction – Tract 45667; Location: PV Dr. So. And Tramonto. (Massetti)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TO ACCEPT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF THE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES KNOWN AS MTD 1353 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FOR FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Quitclaim of Easements for the subject storm drain improvements to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. (3) Authorize Staff to notify the surety company to exonerate, or reduce as appropriate, the Payment and Performance bonds upon confirmation from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Department and Los Angeles Flood Control District that the storm drain and sewer facilities have been accepted and that maintenance has been transferred to the County.



6. Acceptance of the Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee for Final Parcel Map No. 19062; Location: 18 Rockinghorse Road (Planning Case No. SUB2002-00001). (Fox)

Recommendation: Accept the parkland dedication in-lieu fee for Final Parcel Map No. 19062 in the amount of $4,943.05.

 

7. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Three-Year Cooperation Agreement. (Huey).

Recommendation: (1) Authorize the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to continue its participation in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Federal Fiscal Years 2003-2005. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM, AND ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS. (3) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the proposed Agreement with the County of Los Angeles Community Development Commission (CDC).

 

8. Street Sweeping Services for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Approve a one-year extension to an existing contract for street sweeping services with R.F. Dickson and Company. (2) Approve a five percent cost increase for the street sweeping services contract for Fiscal Year 2002-2003.

 

9. Budget Adjustment for California Contract Cities Conference. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A $10,000 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR FY 01-02 TO THE RECREATION & PARKS – SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM FOR EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE.

 

10. Request to Extend the Use of Temporary Personnel. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002- , 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; AND, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-21.

 

11. 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:



12. View Restoration Permit No. 118 - Appeal (Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. James Beck, 4110 Maritime Drive; Foliage Owner: Ms. Lynn Doran, 4115 Maritime Drive). (Nelson)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION AND APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 118 UPON FINDING THAT ALL APPLICABLE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY MADE AND ALL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.02.040(C)(2) HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

 
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:

 

13. Appointment of Members to the Recreation & Parks Committee and Appointment of a Chair for the Equestrian 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; and (2) Set 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, June 4th as the date to interview appointees for the position of chair for this board. (3) Appoint a chair for the Equestrian Committee.

 

14. Equestrian Committee Report on a Possible City Equestrian Facility. (Fox)

Recommendation: Receive a presentation on the findings of the Equestrian Committee subcommittee regarding the feasibility of a City Equestrian Facility, and provide direction as appropriate.

 

15. Roadside Maintenance Contract. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Award a three-year contract for roadside maintenance services to U.S. Landscape, Inc, in an amount equal to $156,000. (2) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with U.S. Landscape, Inc. (3) Authorize the expenditure of up to $194,200. for Fiscal Year 2002-2003.

 

16. Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Rate Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: (1) Maintain the current monthly residential solid waste and recycling rates for Waste Management of Los Angeles and Ivy Rubbish Disposal during FY 02-03. (2) Apply the estimated $18,480 excess collection due from the Waste Management of Los Angeles contract for the period of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, to offset any future rate increases. (3) Request the Director of Finance to establish a new account in the Solid Waste Fund to deposit excess collection from the Waste Management of Los Angeles contract.

**CLICK HERE FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATIONS



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

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

 

18. Letter of Support for I-405 Arterial Improvement Initiative (Park)

Recommendation: Consider supporting the request for $750,000 in the FY02-03 transportation appropriation bill for the South Bay I-405 arterial improvements initiative.

 

19. Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority. (Evans)

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

 

20. School District Liaison. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider the appointment of a City Council liaison committee to meet with a similar committee representing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District or select some potential dates in July and August for a joint meeting of the City Council and the School Board.

 

21. League of California Cities Membership. (Evans)

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

 

22. League of California Cities Resolution. (Evans)

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

 

23. Los Angeles County West Vector Control District – City Representative. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Determine who is to be the City’s representative to the Vector Control District Board for the new term of office beginning June 26, 2002.


CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

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


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property: Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029, 7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators: City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

Property: APN 7564-005-001, 7572-001-001 TO 004, 06 AND 07, 7581-023-011

City Negotiators: City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

(Government Code Section 54956.8)


CLOSED SESSION TO SET JUST COMPENSATION

ALTAMIRA CANYON ACQUISITION

City Negotiators: Les Evans, City Manager; Carol Lynch, City Attorney; Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

1. Property: Address Not Assigned

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-003
Negotiating Parties: Alan H. Mendel

2. Property: 11 Figtree Drive

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-002
Negotiating Parties: Michael Chiles and Jayne Chiles

3. Property: 10± Figtree Drive

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-001
Negotiating Parties: Michael Chiles and Jayne Chiles

4. Property: 9 Figtree Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-009
Negotiating Parties: Charles D. and Mary E. Oreb, Trustees of the Oreb
Family Trust

5. Property: 8 Thyme Place

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-015
Negotiating Parties: John D. and Sallie M. Reeves, Trustees of the Reeves Family Trust

6. Property: 7± Thyme Place

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-014
Negotiating Parties: John D. and Sallie M. Reeves, Trustees of the Reeves Family Trust

7. Property: 5± Thyme Place

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-010
Negotiating Parties: Neil G. Siegel, and Robyn C. Friend

8. Property: 14 Cinnamon Lane

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-011
Negotiating Parties: Charles E. Parks, Jr., Trustee of the Parks Family Trust

9. Property: 26 Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-015
Negotiating Parties: Michele A. Smith

10. Property: 28± Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-016
Negotiating Parties: Michele A. Smith

11. Property: 33 Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-011-031
Negotiating Parties: Robert G. Douglas, Trustee of the Douglas Woodruff Family Trust

12. Property: 60 Narcissa Drive

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-011-027
Negotiating Parties: Robert B. and Rae A. Bauer, Trustees of Bauer Trust

13. Property: 27± Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-011-028
Negotiating Parties: Robert B. and Rae A. Bauer, Trustees of The Bauer Trust

14. Property: Address Not Assigned

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-017
Negotiating Parties: William M. and Lynn B. Petak/ Mark C. and Katherine M. Fairchild

15. Property: 22± Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-017
Negotiating Parties: Mark C. and Katherine M. Fairchild

16. Property: 20± Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-018
Negotiating Parties: Mark C. and Katherine M. Fairchild

17. Property: 18± Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-019
Negotiating Parties: Betty A. Turner

18. Property: No Street Access

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-022
Negotiating Parties: Hale J. Field and Chapin E. Field

19. Property: 10 Pomegranate Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-021
Negotiating Parties: Hale J. Field and Betty E. Strauss

20. Property: 8± Pomegranate Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-020
Negotiating Parties: Hale J. Field and Betty E. Strauss

21. Property: 6± Pomegranate Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-019
Negotiating Parties: Sepp Donahower

22. . Property: 3± Peppertree Drive

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-035
Negotiating Parties: Patricia M. Brown

23. Property: 1 Narcissa Drive

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-034
Negotiating Parties: Vicki Pinkham

Existing Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: People of the State; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Mark J. Abrams

Case No: California Court of Appeal Case No. B151086

Name of Case: Mark J. Abrams v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes

Case No: United States District Court Case No. 00-09071 SVW (RNBx)


RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

MAY 21, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


 

6:15 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-35

NEXT ORD. NO. 376

RECYCLE DRAWING:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 2nd Regular Meeting and May 6th Adjourned Meeting. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
MAY 6, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor John McTaggart in the Fireside Room at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

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

Also present were Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru and Administrative Services Director/City Clerk Jo Purcell.


INTERVIEW OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE APPLICANTS

Council interviewed candidates for the Emergency Preparedness Committee. No action was taken.


ADJOURNMENT: At 9:05 P.M. the meeting adjourned to 6:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 7, 2002 for a work session on the Crestridge Property. Motion made by Mayor McTaggart.



___________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:


____________________

CITY CLERK


DRAFT
MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 2, 2002

 The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, and was immediately recessed to a closed session per the Brown Act Checklist.  At 7:03 P.M. the meeting reconvened.

Following 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; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Deputy Planner Director Pfost; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; Senior Planner Kit Fox; and Recording Secretary Bothe.

 RECYCLE DRAWING:

Because there was no winner from last month’s Recycle Drawing program, Mayor McTaggart asked that two cards be selected.  The winners will receive a check for $250, which represents a year of free refuse service.

At this time, Mayor McTaggart announced that on Saturday, May 4, 2002, from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., the City Hall will host another Household Hazardous Waste Roundup event for its residents.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

It was the consensus of the City Council to consider Appointment of Advisory Board Chairs, as the first order of business.

Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to approve the Agenda as amended.  No objections were noted.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, briefly addressed the Constitution of the United States and this City’s interaction with the First Amendment; expressed her concern with the $4,000 fee the City paid for the four-hour Teambuilding Workshop; requested clarification with regard to Rancho Palos Verdes executing annual contracts with the State of California Franchise Tax Board for taxpayer information sharing services; and congratulated the McTaggart family for the Rotary pinning event of Mayor McTaggart’s 101-year-old father.

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

 Motion to waive full reading

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

Minutes   (301)

Approved the Minutes of March 9 and 11, 2002, as presented.

Ordinance No. 375 - Modification of Rule of Procedure 3.2 to Eliminate Rescheduling of Meetings on Election Dates other than City Election Dates  (301 x 1103)

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

Acceptance of Maintenance for a portion of the public improvements at Tract No. 46628 (Oceanfront Estates) (1204 x 1411)

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

Parkland Dedication Fees for Final Parcel Map No. 26047

(Applicant: Robert M. Patterson) (1203 x 1201)

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

February 2002 Treasurer’s Report (602)

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. 2002-22 - Register of Demands (602)

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-22, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

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

NOES:           None

#          #            #            #            #            #            #            #            #            #            #           

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Resol. No. 2002- 23 - Reconsideration of the Decision on the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207  (Appellant: Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive.)  (Continued from March 25, 2002 meeting.) (1801 x 1203)

Senior Planner Fox presented staff report and the recommendation to (1) Adopt the proposed resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 720.  (2) Adopt the proposed resolution conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 207.

With regard to Condition No. 10, Mayor pro tem Stern expressed his preference that “any” tree that dies or is felled by an act of God or any other intentional or unintentional act must be replaced by another tree of evergreen variety of at least 24-inch box size.

City Attorney Lynch noted for Mayor pro tem Stern that his preferred language will be included to so reflect that change, as well as included in the language for the mitigation monitoring program.

Meredith Eick, 2866 West 226th Street, owner of 6 Cove View Drive, expressed his belief that regulating antenna maintenance hours and the number of vehicles at the subject property is reasonable; and noted his preference that applicants install their antennas inside their attics or other areas inside their homes.

Sanford Samuels, P.O. Box 950489, Mission Hills, expressed his belief that the recommended hours of maintenance is an unreasonable condition; and urged the City to hire its own professional consultant to provide an opinion on antenna radiation impacts, if any, and not to take into consideration what laymen have stated at these hearings about antenna emissions.

Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive, stated that most of the conditions are unreasonable, unjustified, and that the conditions will not stand up in court -- noting his intention to take this issue all the way to the Federal Appeals Court, if necessary.  He addressed his objection to the hours of operation and the recommended hours of ham radio antenna maintenance; and stated that as previously agreed upon, staff had not yet removed Condition No. 19 from the conditions, as noted in the faxed copy of staff report that his attorney had sent him -- pointing out that the City had not sent him a copy of staff’s report for this evening’s meeting.  Mr. Abrams noted his objection to Condition No. 18, believing that the language is improperly worded.

City Attorney Lynch concluded that Mr. Abrams was not in possession of the most recent staff report/conditions; and suggested that this public hearing be recessed in order to allow him some time to review the correct version of staff report/conditions.

Mayor McTaggart ordered a recess of this public hearing, Agenda Item No. 8, for the benefit of Mr. Abrams’ review of this evening’s staff report.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, commented on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press; she happily noted the arrival of Sean Patrick, who was born on March 29, 2002, the new son of the president of the Homeowners Council; and requested that City Council send a note of congratulations.

There being no further public comments, Mayor McTaggart ordered the reconvening of the reconsideration of the decision on the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 207

Mr. Abrams stated that he is not able to say that he’s had sufficient time to review the correct version of this evening’s staff report/conditions; and reiterated his objection to all the conditions, specifically the conditions addressing revoking the permit -- expressing his belief that the City does not have the authority to revoke the permit.  Mr. Abrams stated that the condition of approval for painting the antenna structure is inappropriate; and stated that the judge had ruled that there is no aesthetic impact and that forcing him to paint the antenna and plant trees to mitigate the aesthetics is a totally unreasonable condition -- pointing out that once the antennas are painted, it creates a maintenance problem. He addressed his strong objection to the planting of trees for screening purposes; noted his objection to Item No. 11, which restricts maintenance hours for the amateur equipment; and stated that these conditions violate his religious convictions by not being permitted to do these activities on Sundays – pointing out that he observes the Sabbath.  He noted his objection to the requirement for obtaining a business license, stating that the City has no valid claim that these operations are a business activity; and he addressed his objection to a 6-month review of the conditional use permit.

Councilman Clark expressed his belief that these conditions are appropriate for commercial operations from this site and that, therefore, the business license requirement is appropriate; and he commented on the City’s standard requirement for a review period following the issuance of many conditional use permits – explaining that this is done to ensure that the owner of a conditional use permit is complying with the conditions.

Mr. Abrams advised that he has a business license for his office location where he conducts his actual business; and expressed his belief that neither City staff nor the City Council has been candid with him.

Highlighting Mr. Abrams’ comment this evening in regard to his objection to screening, Councilman Clark pointed out that Mr. Abrams himself had proposed at the last meeting to add additional screening by way of adding a structure to his home.

Mr. Abrams stated that adding additional structure to his home is beneficial in providing additional living space, but that adding the screening with plants provides no benefit and that it detracts from the propagation of the radio signals; and advised that he already experiences signal degradation from the existing foliage not only on his property, but from those properties in the surrounding neighborhood.

In response to Councilman Gardiner’s inquiry, City Attorney Lynch explained that State law and other laws provide that a city can require a business license from any location where a business is operated; however, the City has to do a representative apportionment of a business license fee to reflect whatever occurs in the city.

Councilman Clark stated that following exhaustive discussions/efforts with respect to this conditional use permit, it is his belief that the City has crafted both a reasonable and appropriate set of conditions for this conditional use permit.

Mayor pro tem Stern requested that Condition 19 be added back into the final set of conditions, now making it Condition 20, and that it require a listing of all radio facilities or frequencies that are licensed.

Mr. Abrams noted for the record that he will not disclose confidential business information, stating that there is no legitimate municipal purpose served by the collection of that information.  He expressed his belief that the City is attempting to regulate frequencies, which is not within the purview of the City’s jurisdiction; and that this will be used against the City in court.

Councilman Clark stated that the City is attempting to verify what frequencies he is using at this site.

Mayor pro tem Stern stated that the purpose for placing Condition 19 back into the final conditions has nothing to do with regulating frequencies, that it’s simply a matter of disclosure.

Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to (1) ADOPT, AS AMENDED, RESOLUTION NO. 2002-23, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED PURSUANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 720.  (2) ADOPT, AS AMENDED, RESOLUTION NO. 2002-24, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207.

Mayor McTaggart closed the public hearing.

At 8:00 P.M. Mayor McTaggart recessed the meeting, and he reconvened the meeting at 8:10 P.M.

Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Grading Permit No. 2242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738 (JCC Homes Inc./California Water Service Company, 5837 Crest Road) (1203 x 1803)

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

Councilwoman Ferraro noted for the record that she had met with Mr. Jensen in regard to this property.

Mayor pro tem Stern expressed, echoed by Councilman Gardiner, some concern that a former staff member had made the determination to zone this site inconsistent with the General Plan and that for the better part of the past 20 years, it has remained inconsistent with the General Plan.

City Attorney Lynch expressed her opinion that the former staff member believed this zoning determination was consistent; and City Attorney Lynch stated that she, herself, takes the opposite view.

Mayor McTaggart stated that he had previously requested, and not received, an analysis from California Water Service (Cal Water) of its plans for emergency preparation for the Peninsula, questioning what amount of water is expected to be available following an emergency situation; and questioned the appropriateness of abandoning this site.

Councilman Clark requested information on where the other reservoir sites are located and how they connect into the existing facility.

Mayor pro tem Stern questioned if there are sites that Cal Water owns or plans to acquire so that this City is not faced with a difficult situation during/after an emergency.

Representing Cal Water, Mike Risso advised that a hydraulic study of the Palos Verdes Peninsula has been completed, including recommendations in that study which puts Cal Water into a ten-year capital improvement budget arena; and stated that the study identifies City-owned land and other land that could be acquired throughout the Peninsula.  Mr. Risso explained that the study identifies a better mix of pumping arrangements and other arrays of piping that would benefit the distribution of water throughout the system in the Peninsula; and he stated that Cal Water has not acquired any of these recommended sites at this point in time.  He added that the hydraulic study would be provided to the City Council.

In response to Mayor pro tem Stern’s inquiry, Mr. Risso explained that it has been calculated that approximately 11 million gallons of additional capacity/storage would be needed in this 10-year plan, wherever the reservoir will be located; that this water would be distributed throughout the entire Peninsula, not just Rancho Palos Verdes; advised that the existing reservoir is an approximate 9.5-million gallon reservoir; and that its supplies are currently distributed to various reservoirs throughout the entire Peninsula – pointing out that approximately 33 million gallons of storage exists for the entire Peninsula.  He stated that Cal Water has identified this site as surplus.

Councilman Clark noted his understanding that this additional 11 million gallons of capacity is over and above the total capacity of the existing reservoir on site.

Councilman Gardiner requested that an engineered analysis be provided to support the claim that this site is a surplus reservoir; and that assumptions and projections be included to address the Peninsula’s water needs.

Mr. Risso stated that Cal Water annually studies the fire flow availability, water distribution, sources of supplies, every scenario Cal Water can think of.  Mr. Risso mentioned that the hydraulic report was done in advance of the subdivision request.

Responding to Councilman Clark’s request, Mr. Risso reiterated that Cal Water would provide the City Council a copy of the analysis/study and any other information the City requests.  Mr. Risso explained that it would be more beneficial to build small reservoirs throughout the Peninsula rather than have one large facility; and that these smaller reservoirs would more favorably be between 1.5- and 3-million gallon reservoirs.

Mr. Risso noted for Councilman Gardiner that the average life cycle of a reservoir is 50 years; and stated that this reservoir was built in 1970.

Addressing Mayor McTaggart’s inquiries, Mr. Risso stated that in the past 31 years, no reservoirs have been constructed on the Peninsula; and advised that there is enough supply/capacity to support a 3- to 4-day emergency situation on the Peninsula.

Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, commented on the history of the various zoning in this area and its consistency with the General Plan.

Jack Cameron, 17 Lariat Lane, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274, Chairman of JCC Homes, questioned whether he should proceed with his proposal until such time that the City Council has made its determination of the water company’s request.

City Attorney Lynch noted for Mr. Cameron that the City Council is not going to take action on Cal Water’s proposal this evening because the City Council is ruling on a General Plan amendment.

Mr. Cameron stated that his proposal to develop an RS-4 site will not require any open space, but that Cal Water has agreed to dedicate, in perpetuity, and maintain an open space area; advised that the proposal is to build 7 houses which will comply with the City’s standards; and explained that this alternate plan is being proposed to accommodate the concerns and requests of the neighbors and Planning Commission.  Mr. Cameron expressed his desire to work with the residents and the City to build a project that will be acceptable to all involved.

Kenneth Bley, 2049 Century Park East, Los Angeles, counsel representing JCC Homes,

commented on Mr. Shirley’s December 3, 2001, letter, stating that he agrees with the first three paragraphs, but that he disagrees with Mr. Shirley’s conclusions.  He added that this City Council does have the authority to make this change to the General Plan and that there is nothing in the law which prohibits this body from doing so.

The following individuals spoke in support of this request:

Dennis Rizza, 1811 Santa Rena, Rancho Palos Verdes;
George Wong, 6916 Willow Tree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes;
Stephen Kauffman, 28825 King Arthur Court, Rancho Palos Verdes;
Brian Horne, 23 Santa Catalina Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes;
Tom Alley, 6304 Sattes Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes;
Gary Yardumian, 58 Oceanaire Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes;
Todd Anderson, 2 Masongate Drive, RHE; and
Gerald Marcil, 544 Paseo Del Mar, PVE;

 Issues addressed in support of the applicant’s proposal are as follows:

The project will enhance property values; that it will improve a blighted area; that it will not impact any of the neighbors’ ocean views; that it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; that the applicant is willing to accommodate the requests of the residents; and that the donation of $250,000 for the youth sports facility is an excellent example of the applicant’s interest in the betterment of this city.

As a result of the supportive statements in regard to the applicant’s offer to donate $250,000 for a youth sports facility, the City Council strongly expressed its dissatisfaction with any notion that the City Council’s determination will have a bearing on the applicant’s generous offer – pointing out that the final decision will rest solely on the merits of the project and not on the donation.  The City Council suggested that the Applicant make that generous donation regardless of the outcome of this case.

The following individuals spoke in opposition to this request: 

Carolyn Tuttle, 29541 Oceanport Road, Rancho Palos Verdes;
Tom Tuttle, 29541 Oceanport Road, Rancho Palos Verdes;
Leo Lawson, 5827 Sunmist Drive;
Greg Johnson, 29643 Stonecrest Road, Rancho Palos Verdes;
Robert Shirley, 29635 Stonecrest Road; and
Jim Vesely, 29651 Stonecrest Road.

Issues addressed in opposition to the applicant’s proposal are as follows: 

That this project negatively impacts the Catalina view for the Tuttle residence – requesting that a full silhouette be erected; that there will not be adequate water supplies to sustain those living in the Peninsula following an emergency situation; that the Lawson residence will lose some of its privacy; that this proposal is not consistent with previous development in Rancho Palos Verdes; that it is not the highest and best use of the property; that what is being proposed this evening is different than what was considered and approved by the Planning Commission; that the houses should be lowered in height and that the setbacks should be increased; and that the excavation and construction activities could have a negative impact upon the surrounding homes and the walls of the existing reservoir. 

Dorothy Turley, 5814 Scotwood Drive, stated that until she has seen the final plans, she is neither for nor against the project at this time.  

Kurt Nelson, 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, representing JCC Homes, advised that soil tests have been conducted and that more will be done; commented on the numerous communications the applicant has had with the residents – pointing out that the applicant supports additional neighborhood meetings in order to clear up any confusion the residents have and to reach a reasonable solution to their concerns; and explained that the applicant is more than willing to make modifications to the plans for Lot No. 9 so that it does not negatively impact any of the surrounding neighbors.  Mr. Nelson stated that the applicant is sensitive to Mr. Lawson’s concerns; explained that the home on Lot 9 will be located 52 feet from Mr. Lawson’s property line; and that it will be generously landscaped to ensure that his privacy is not being impinged upon. 

Mayor pro tem Stern commented on the importance of being very cautious in making a decision that could have an impact on the water supplies for the Peninsula. 

Mayor McTaggart urged Cal Water to provide in a timely manner ample engineering documentation to support its claim that the water supplies will not be negatively impacted as a result of this housing project. 

Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to close the public hearing.  No objections were noted. 

RECESS & RECONVENE: 

At 10:10 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess.  The meeting reconvened at 10:19 P.M.

Councilman Clark expressed concern that the applicant is proposing a project which is different than what had been proposed and approved at the Planning Commission level; and stated that this altered proposal should go back to the Planning Commission for consideration. 

Mayor McTaggart commented on the need for City Council to address the Peninsula water supply issue; and highlighted his concern that a 3-day supply of water will not be adequate to support the Peninsula in case of an emergency situation. 

Councilman Gardiner expressed his belief that consideration of any housing proposal for this site is somewhat a waste of time until the City Council has resolved the issue of releasing this site from its current use to a use that allows housing on it; and expressed his belief that not enough information has been presented for him to make a well-informed decision that could have an impact on the water supplies.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted his concurrence with Councilmen Clark’s and Gardiner’s statements; noted his support that this proposal be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration; and commented on his preference for smaller homes with more open space on this parcel.

Mayor McTaggart pointed out that even if this remains a public utility infrastructure, the City can’t compel the water company to build another reservoir; and addressed his concerns with the inconvenience and nuisance of excavation activities – questioning how the applicant plans to do the ground moving activities.

Councilman Clark suggested that the Planning Commission look at the density factor with regard to neighborhood compatibility.

Councilman Clark moved that this application be sent back to the Planning Commission for review of its altered proposal; that the City Council review the analysis which was conducted by California Water relative to water supply capability and the reservoir concept and planning over the next ten years, of which was outlined to City Council by the Applicant at this evening’s meeting.

Councilman Gardiner offered two friendly amendments:  that the developer be given the option of going back to the Planning Commission with the understanding that the City Council may or may not make that land suitable for development of housing, and; 2, rather than just limit the motion to review the Cal Water study, that other agencies/resources be consulted and that the Emergency Preparedness Committee provide suitable guidance and recommendations. 

Councilman Clark supported the friendly amendments.

The motion was seconded by Councilman Gardiner.

Councilwoman Ferraro questioned whether consulting with the Emergency Preparedness Committee will unnecessarily delay the process and subject the City to a challenge.

City Attorney Lynch explained that because this is a General Plan Amendment, the City is not under the Permit Streamlining Act requirement to take action within the time constraints set forth.

There being no objection, the motion carried.

Councilwoman Ferraro departed the meeting at10:45 P.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

David Cobb, 5485 Spring Street, Los Angeles, representing the West Basin Municipal Water District, requested a letter of support from the city of Rancho Palos Verdes on Proposition 13 (Water Bond Grant Application), which is to support its effort to expand West Basin’s recycled water plant in El Segundo; and stated that in addition to various environmental agencies, every city in the West Basin Water District, with the exception of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates, has indicated its support of this proposition.  He explained that this proposal will bring additional potable water supplies to the region and that it will help protect the ground water in the Torrance area from seawater intrusion.

Because this matter cannot be voted on this evening, Mayor McTaggart requested that staff place this matter on the next City Council Agenda.

Overview of the Current View Restoration and Preservation Process  (1203 x 1806)

Councilman Gardiner moved to waive staff’s presentation.  Councilman Clark seconded the motion to waive.

Because much of the work of the View Restoration Commission has been done, Councilman Gardiner suggested that the City can provide this service in a more cost-effective manner by designating some mediators who will serve as an adjunct to the Planning Commission.

Councilman Clark noted his support of Councilman Gardiner’s suggestion.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted his support for the creation of a mediation team at the Planning Commission level; and questioned whether the City has the legal authority to mandate trimming trees below the 16-foot height or ridgeline.

While creating this mediation team, Councilman Gardiner asked that no current permits in the process be disrupted while this change is taking place.

Councilman Clark noted his support for two or three volunteers to be selected to serve on the mediation team.

Following discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council that five volunteers be selected to serve on this mediation team.

City Manager Evans advised that, if necessary, the City would provide training opportunities for members of the mediation team.

Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive, noted his support for a mediation team; suggested that some of the experienced members from the View Restoration Committee be considered to serve as the mediators; and addressed the necessity for the City to establish and define clear-cut criteria for this program – noting that this criteria should apply both to restoration and preservation.  Mr. Dyda commented on some of the conflicting criteria, wherein one section states that the VRC can order removal and that another section states that the removal is at the discretion of the foliage owner.  He highlighted other conflicts which places unfair financial obligations upon an applicant.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that before the VRC is officially retired, that the members identify the minor ambiguities and present these ambiguities to City Council.

Mayor pro tem Stern suggested that the VRC also provide to City Council its recommendations on how some of those conflicting issues can be dealt with.

Martin Dodell 5751 Capeswood Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, encouraged the City to be more specific and to better define what it means when it states “integrity of the landscape” and “aesthetics”; and expressed his preference that members of the mediation team be experienced and knowledgeable with all of the work the VRC has accomplished to date.

Mayor pro tem Stern stated that a photo album depicting various before-and-after photos would be beneficial and that these photos be made available to the residents when dealing with these matters.

Bruce Franklin, 15 Oceanaire Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, volunteered to serve as one of the mediators; and offered his assistance on modifying some of the suggested guideline modifications.  Mr. Franklin noted his opposition to trimming trees back to 4 feet after growing above 16 feet; and suggested that the applicant and foliage owner be given a copy of the guidelines so that they know what is required.

City Attorney Lynch noted that some minor guideline adjustments would be made and presented to City Council at a future meeting.

REGULAR BUSINESS:

Appointment of Advisory Board Chairs  (106)

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of April 2, 2002 and the recommendation to appoint the Chairs for the Planning Commission, Finance Advisory Committee and Traffic Committee. 

The votes cast for the candidates for Planning Commission Chair were as follows:

Mayor McTaggart - Jon Cartwright
Mayor Pro Tem Stern - Thomas Long
Councilman Clark - Jon Cartwright
Councilwoman Ferraro - Jon Cartwright
Councilman Gardiner - Thomas Long

Jon Cartwright was selected as the new Planning Commission Chairman.

The votes cast for the candidates for Finance Advisory Committee Chair were as follows:
 
Mayor McTaggart - Steve Wolowicz
Mayor Pro Tem Stern - Steve Wolowicz
Councilman Clark - Steve Wolowicz
Councilwoman Ferraro - Steve Wolowicz
Councilman Gardiner - Steve Wolowicz

Steve Wolowicz was selected as the new Finance Advisory Committee Chairman.

The votes cast for the candidates for Traffic Committee Chair were as follows:
Mayor McTaggart - Bill Schurmer
Mayor Pro Tem Stern - Bill Schurmer
Councilman Clark - Bill Schurmer
Councilwoman Ferraro - Bill Schurmer
Councilman Gardiner - Bill Schurmer

Bill Schurmer was selected as the new Traffic Committee Chairman.

Ocean Trails – Extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 (1203 x 1411)

Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report of April 2, 2002 and the recommendation to extend the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 for the Ocean Trails project for one year until April 15, 2003.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to adopt staff recommendation.  Motion carried.

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

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

Christian Faulk, 22497 Kent Avenue, Torrance, addressed his concerns that motorists can make a U-turn at Hawthorne Boulevard going eastbound at Highridge Road, but that no U-turn is allowed for those motorists traveling in the westbound direction at Highridge; stated that with the increasing number of “No U-turn” signs in this area, motorists will be forced to go all the way down to Grand Via Altamira to make a U-turn; and explained that a U-turn is allowed at Grand Via Altamira, which is much closer to the corner than the driveway at Highridge – advising that the driveways on Hawthorne Boulevard at the Highridge Carwash have been relocated to be further away from the corner.

Mr. Faulk noted for Mayor pro tem Stern that the new driveway for the Highridge Carwash is approximately 40 feet away from the intersection.

Director Allison confirmed for Councilman Gardiner that the Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road intersection has a higher collision rate along Hawthorne Boulevard; and that it is staff’s recommendation that the green right-turn arrow at this location on Highridge Road needs to be removed.

Director Allison clarified that staff’s recommendation is to bring this and other intersections back to the Traffic Committee and come back to the City Council with a prioritized list that will focus on the City’s needs.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to concur with staff’s recommendation that a study be conducted.  There being no objection, motion carried.

Ladera Linda Community Center and Portuguese Bend Fields (1101 x 1201)

City Manager Evans presented staff report and the recommendation to schedule a joint meeting with the Palos Verdes Peninsula School Board to discuss the possible relocation of School District Administrative Offices to Ladera Linda.

Thursday, May 16, 2002, 7:00 P.M., was selected for the first joint meeting of City Council and the Palos Verdes Peninsula School Board at Ladera Linda. 

Border Issues Status Report (310 x 1203)

Senior Planner Fox presented staff report and the recommendation to review the current status of border issues and to provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.

In regard to the Harbor Hills project, Senior Planner Fox mentioned that the Traffic Committee for the city of Lomita will be reviewing a traffic study related to the addition of the recreation facility at Harbor Hills; and stated that staff will keep the City Council apprised of those hearing dates.  In regard to the revitalization activities at the Garden Village Shopping Center, he stated that no additional complaints have been received from the neighbors and that an update to City Council is anticipated to be provided next month.

Councilman Gardiner complimented staff for providing the new written material in regard to the golf course; and suggested that a question be included in the documents with respect to what are the potential consequences if mitigation strategies fail at this golf course site.

Director Rojas stated that that question could be included/answered at the end of Section 9.

City Manager Evans advised that staff report will be revised to reflect that there is no longer an ad hoc committee.

General Plan Update – Steering Committee Formation   (1203 x 701)

Council consensus was to waive presentation of the staff report.

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

Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive, expressed his desire that there be a provision made in the schedule he presented at the City Council’s March 9, 2002, meeting to allow time for citizen input from the Council of Homeowners; and advised that he has been asked to present this plan to the Council of Homeowners at its next meeting.

Pointing out that this matter will be coming before the City Council for consideration, Councilman Gardiner suggested cutting back on the number of City Council members to serve on this Committee and to replace these vacancies with members from the Council of Homeowners or the general public.

Councilman Clark questioned whether any Councilmembers should be on this Committee since this matter will be coming to City Council for final determination; and suggested that two Planning Commissioners be appointed to the Steering Committee -- one new member and one seasoned member.

Mayor McTaggart noted his concurrence, but suggested that the criteria for serving on the Committee should be that they are familiar with the City.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern, to delete the two City Councilmember positions and to replace them with two Planning Commissioners.  There being no objection, Mayor McTaggart so ordered.

Agenda for the Joint Workshop with the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee Concerning the Crestridge Properties      (1203 x 602)

Deputy Planning Director Pfost briefly presented staff report and the recommendation to approve the proposed Draft Agenda for the joint workshop between the City Council, Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee on May 7, 2002.

Councilman Clark expressed his desire that the focus should be placed on the alternative uses for the Crestridge property and where does the City go from this point forward.

With regard to Paragraph 4 on Circle Page 5, Councilman Gardiner requested that the park suggestion/comparison be included as a topic for consideration.

City Manager Evans stated that that comparison would be provided.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that a provision be included for City Council to exercise its direction.

City Manager Evans explained that due to the limited time to complete the meeting, staff is handling this as an information gathering session; that it would be very difficult for City Council to hear all of the new information and presentations; and that it is anticipated that the City Council would have to come back for a second meeting.  He suggested that No. 7 could include a provision that City Council make a decision.

There being no objection, the Draft Agenda was approved.

In Lieu Fee Agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for Off-Site Wetlands Mitigation for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.  (1204 x 305 x 604)

Assistant City Manager Petru briefly presented staff report and noted staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the In Lieu Fee Agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for off-site wetlands mitigation at Chandler’s Preserve associated with the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.

Mayor pro tem Stern advised that he was on the Board of Directors of the Land Conservancy; and stated that as far as he is aware, he is not required to excuse himself from consideration of this matter.

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

Quarterly Off-Site Council Meeting Schedule  (1101 x 307) 

Assistant City Manager Petru presented staff report and the recommendation to select dates for the spring and summer off-site City Council meetings for 2002 and select a location for the Saturday, May 18, 2002, meeting regarding the Zone 2 Report.

 Mayor pro tem Stern stated that it would be preferable to select the meeting site in conjunction with an Agenda matter that is near the same meeting venue.

 It was the consensus of the City Council that the site selections be left to the discretion of staff.

 Oral City Council Reports  (1101 x 310)

 Mayor McTaggart advised that he attended the MAX Transit meeting on Monday night; that a mid-year financial report was provided; and he noted his delight that they are on budget and that they have done a good job with their projections.  He urged those in Rancho Palos Verdes to use the MAX transit system; explained that a consultant had proposed removing a couple of stops for efficiency purposes – one of those stops being at Valley Drive; and he commented on the new buses which are roomier, more comfortable and more accommodating to the passengers’ needs.

With regard to Ocean Trails, Mayor pro tem Stern noted that Credit Swiss is now the new major creditor for Ocean Trails and that if everything goes as planned, the bank should be in control of Ocean Trails in approximately five weeks.

Councilman Gardiner advised that the Neighborhood Compatibility Committee is moving along in its activities.

Mayor McTaggart advised that he received a communication from the Mayor of El Segundo asking for the City’s support to oppose Senate Bill 633, a bill which would allow the Federal government to have some input over the local airport planning decisions; stated that this bill is currently pending in the Senate; and he requested that this matter be placed on the next City Council Agenda.

Councilman Clark advised that Cox Cable TV has offered to provide a 15- to 20-minute interview of a City Councilmember following every meeting to discuss the key issues that are being tackled by the Council at that particular meeting – pointing out that this will be done a couple days after each City Council meeting; he suggested that Council rotate the interviews so that it does not become a burden for any one Councilmember; and he requested staff to interface with Cox Cable TV on setting up an interactive format.

Councilman Clark highlighted some of the issues which were discussed at the March 28, 2002, South Bay COG meeting:  1) South Bay Railroad presentation was provided of its 26-mile rail corridor north of LAX all the way down to Wilmington and its reducing of truck trips in relation to the Alameda Corridor.  2)  Addressed MTA’s management reorganization to improve its service to its customers using MTA buses and its intent to hire four new GM’s.  He stated that an MTA representative would be present at the next COG meeting to discuss the management restructuring in more detail.  3)  And he commented on the proposed COG cities dues increase and stated that the members from various cities had recommended that it be studied further and that more explanation be given on the increased revenues and expenses. 

City Manager Evans highlighted the inequity in how the cities are allocated funds; and expressed his belief that the city managers group will be proposing a new form of distribution.

Councilman Clark commented on the Playa Vista project elected officials’ tour scheduled for Thursday, May 9, 2002.  He noted that this project is a good model of a future livable communities planned development/concept.

 City Clerk Purcell mentioned that City Council is scheduled to attend the Regional Police Committee meeting on Thursday, May 9, 2002.

Councilman Clark noted the League of California Cities sponsorship of the May 15 and 16, 2002, Legislative Action Days in Sacramento; and suggested that it would be useful to send some of this body’s members to attend this event.

Conference with Legal Counsel

City Attorney Lynch advised that no action was taken on any of the items.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 12:24 A.M. on motion of Mayor McTaggart.

__________________

MAYOR

ATTEST

__________________

CITY CLERK

 






2. Crossing Guard Services for the 2002-2003 School Year: Amendment No. 10 to All City Management Services Contract. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 10 to the agreement with All City Management Services, Inc. (All City), for an amount not to exceed $8,376.00 to provide crossing guard services at Miraleste Intermediate School for the 2002-2003 School Year.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: CROSSING GUARD SERVICES FOR 2002-2003 SCHOOL YEAR: AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 10 to the agreement with All City Management Services, Inc. (All City), for an amount not to exceed $8,376.00 to provide crossing guard services at Miraleste Intermediate School for the 2002-2003 School Year.

BACKGROUND

Beginning with the 1991-92 school year, the City began providing a crossing guard and a traffic control officer (L. A. County Sheriff’s Community Services Officer with vehicle) at the Miraleste Intermediate School. The need for these services arose when the school converted from a high school to an intermediate school; this resulted in an increase in the student pedestrian traffic crossing Palos Verdes Drive East to get to the bus stop. The School District fully reimburses the City for the cost of the crossing guard services provided by All City. This year we have been advised by All City that for the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 they will increase their rate by three and a half percent. That will bring their hourly rate to $13.96.

The traffic control services are provided by an L. A. County Sheriff’s Department Community Services Officer, the cost for which is borne by the three regional Cities (RPV, RHE and RH) on a 75/22/3 basis. The City’s share is $20,817.

DISCUSSION

All City Management proposes to continue providing crossing guard services at a rate of $13.96 per hour; this is the first rate increase since 1994. The rate includes costs for training, supervision and any necessary back-up personnel. Based on a 180-day school year, the cost for this service is estimated not to exceed $8,386.00.

FISCAL IMPACT

The City is fully reimbursed for this service by the PVPUSD.

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

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Letter from All City Management Services

Amendment to Agreement



3. Rejection of Bids and Request to Readvertise. (Still)

Recommendation: Reject all bids for the maintenance of City owned parks/trails and authorize staff to re-advertise.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: REJECTION OF BIDS AND REQUEST TO READVERTISE

RECOMMENDATIONS

Reject all bids for the maintenance of City owned parks/trails and authorize staff to re-advertise.

BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2002, staff received bids for the maintenance of City owned parks/trails. Subsequent to the receipt of bids, it became apparent that the specifications include several ambiguities with respect to the payment for labor and materials for work outside the scope of the contract. The City attorney was asked to review the specifications for extra work payment whereupon it was recommended that this item be clarified and the project re-advertised. It is anticipated that during the course of the contract, the need for extra work will arise; therefore, the contract language must clearly define the basis for payment. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council reject all bids and authorize staff to re-advertise the project.

CONCLUSION

All bids should be rejected, the specifications changed to clearly define the basis of payment for extra work, and the project be re-advertised.

ALTERNATIVE

Staff could identity no alternatives.

FISCAL IMPACT

It is expected to cost approximately $3,000 to re–advertise this contract.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager




4. Commercial Refuse and Collection Agreement with United Pacific Waste. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Nonexclusive Franchise Agreement for Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal Services with United Pacific Waste to be effective through December 31, 2002.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT:COMMERCIAL REFUSE AND COLLECTION AGREEMENT WITH UNITED PACIFIC WASTE

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Nonexclusive Franchise Agreement for Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal Services with United Pacific Waste to be effective through December 31, 2002.

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION

United Pacific Waste has requested a business license to provide commercial and industrial roll-off and recycling services. As required since 1992, they must enter into a Nonexclusive Franchise Agreement and meet those requirements to perform this type of service in the City. United Pacific Waste has agreed to meet the requirements of the agreement, which include providing source reduction and recycling reports, submitting franchise and AB 939 fees, and submitting required insurance documentation. The addition of United Pacific Waste would authorize a total of 13 firms to conduct commercial refuse service in the City.

FISCAL IMPACT

The City will receive five percent in franchise fees and five percent in AB 939 fees, although the actual amount of revenue cannot be determined at this time.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager



5. Sewer and Storm Drain Transfer and Bond Exoneration/Reduction – Tract 45667; Location: PV Dr. So. And Tramonto. (Massetti)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TO ACCEPT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF THE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES KNOWN AS MTD 1353 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FOR FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Quitclaim of Easements for the subject storm drain improvements to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. (3) Authorize Staff to notify the surety company to exonerate, or reduce as appropriate, the Payment and Performance bonds upon confirmation from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Department and Los Angeles Flood Control District that the storm drain and sewer facilities have been accepted and that maintenance has been transferred to the County.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: SEWER AND STORM DRAIN TRANSFER AND BOND EXONERATION / REDUCTION – TRACT 45667

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Adopt Resolution 2002-__ requesting the Board of Supervisors of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to accept a transfer and conveyance of the storm drain facilities known as MTD 1353 in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for future operation, maintenance, repair, and improvement and authorize the transfer and conveyance thereof.

  2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Quitclaim of Easements for the subject storm drain improvements to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District.

  3. Authorize Staff to notify the surety company to exonerate, or reduce as appropriate, the Payment and Performance bonds upon confirmation from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Department and Los Angeles Flood Control District that the storm drain and sewer facilities have been accepted and that maintenance has been transferred to the County.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

In 1991, the City Council adopted a resolution for a subdivision agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Haesko Townhomes Inc. This resolution required the posting of various securities for both public and private improvements required by the conditions of approval for Tract 45667.

The current project proponent, Vintage Communities, has requested exoneration of remaining bonds. All construction work has been completed and a Notice of Completion for the storm drain was issued by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works was issued October 10, 2001 per a March 27, 2002 letter from LACDPW. Upon full acceptance, conveyance and transfer of the facilities, exoneration of bonds is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Upon conveyance and transfer of the facilities to the County, it is recommended that the bonds currently posted for Tract 45667 be reduced or exonerated as appropriate.

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended action will have no fiscal impact. Upon conveyance and transfer of the facilities to the County, no remaining security will be required because no work will remain to be completed in the future.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY RANCHO PALOS VERDES REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF SAID DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS MTD 1353 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FOR FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF.

WHEREAS, there have been dedicated to, or the City has otherwise acquired, the storm drain improvements and drainage system known as MTD 1353, described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and

WHEREAS, the City is authorized and empowered to transfer and convey to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District any storm drain improvements and drainage systems for future operation, maintenance, repair, and improvement; and

WHEREAS, the City and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District entered into an agreement recorded April 16, 1981, as Document Number 81-384580, of the Official Records in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Los Angeles, whereby, the City made certain warranties about its future transfers and conveyances of Flood Control facilities to the District; and

WHEREAS, the best public interest will be served by the transfer and conveyance of the storm drain improvements and drainage system described in Exhibit A attached hereto from the City to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for future operation, maintenance, repair and improvement.

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

That the City does hereby request the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to accept the transfer and conveyance of the storm drain improvements and drainage system described in said Exhibit A;

That, subject to the acceptance thereof of the Board of Supervisors of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the Director of Public Works is directed to prepare all necessary instrument and documents, including deed, to effectuate said transfer and conveyance, and that the Mayor is authorized and instructed to execute said deed and other instruments and other documents. District shall have no obligation or responsibility to maintain said storm drain, improvements, and drainage until all rights now vested in the City and all other necessary rights of way therefore have been conveyed to and accepted by the District.

Reference is hereby made to District Drawing No. MTD 1353 (Tract 45667), the plans and profile of said storm drain system on file in the office of the Director of Public Works and on file in the office of the Chief Engineer of the District for further data as to the exact location, extent, and description of said storm drain improvements and drainage system;

That the transfer and conveyance hereby requested are subject to each of the warranties described in the Agreement between the City and the District recorded April 16, 1981, as Document Number 81-384580, of the Official Records in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Los Angeles. Such warranties by the City are incorporated herein by reference.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 7th OF MAY, 2002.

ATTEST:

_______________
MAYOR

________________
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 passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least four-fifths of the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 7, 2002.

 

_________________
City Clerk


Resolution No. 2002-

Exhibit "A"

Storm Drain No. MTD 1353

Storm Drain in Tract No. 45667

A total of 2200 feet more of less of various size reinforced concrete pipe and appurtenances thereto extending from approximately Palos Verdes Drive South and Albero Court to Nuvola Court and Tramanto Drive and to Palos Verdes Drive South and Tramanto Drive all in Tract 45667 in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes As shown on District Drawing No. MTD 1353.



6. Acceptance of the Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee for Final Parcel Map No. 19062; Location: 18 Rockinghorse Road (Planning Case No. SUB2002-00001). (Fox)

Recommendation: Accept the parkland dedication in-lieu fee for Final Parcel Map No. 19062 in the amount of $4,943.05.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE FOR FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 19062 (PLANNING CASE NO. SUB2002-00001)

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Accept the parkland dedication in-lieu fee for Final Parcel Map No. 19062 in the amount of $4,943.05.

BACKGROUND

On June 9, 1992, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 19062. This map proposed to subdivide a developed, 48,442-square-foot lot into a 21,937-square-foot lot and a 26,505-square-foot lot, as depicted in the attached diagram. The City’s approval was initially valid for two (2) years under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. Pursuant to special State legislation in 1993 and 1996, however, the map was automatically extended for three (3) additional years to June 9, 1997. In addition to these extensions, the State legislature also increased the maximum allowable number of 1-year extensions from three (3) to five (5). As depicted in the table below, the applicant, Rob Katherman, has been granted five (5) 1-year extensions by the Planning Commission. The tentative parcel map is currently set to expire on June 9, 2002.

Date

Action

Expiration Date

June 9, 1992

Initial Planning Commission approval

June 9, 1994

September 13, 1993

Automatic 2-year extension by State Legislature

June 9, 1996

May 15, 1996

Automatic 1-year extension by State Legislature

June 9, 1997

July 8, 1997

1st 1-year extension by Planning Commission

June 9, 1998

June 23, 1998

2nd 1-year extension by Planning Commission

June 9, 1999

June 8, 1999

3rd 1-year extension by Planning Commission

June 9, 2000

July 11, 2000

4th 1-year extension by Planning Commission

June 9, 2001

June 12, 2001

5th 1-year extension by Planning Commission

June 9, 2002

On January 11, 2002, the applicant applied for a final parcel map. Among the conditions of approval to be satisfied prior to the City’s approval of the final map is the payment a parkland dedication in-lieu fee. Section 16.20.100 of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance requires the City Council to determine and accept the amount of this fee.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to RPVMC Section 16.20.100(D), the City requires parkland dedication or payment of in-lieu park fees in order to achieve the goal of providing four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. For areas of the City with a density of less than 6.1 dwelling units per acre, the parkland dedication requirement is 0.014 acre per new lot or dwelling unit. The subject property is zoned RS-2 (Residential Single-Family, 2 dwelling units per acre).

In cases where an in-lieu fee is to be paid, the fee is based upon the fair market value of undeveloped property. RPVMC Section 16.20.100(G) states that, for the purpose of determining the in-lieu fee, the fair market value of the land at the time that the tentative parcel map was filed is to be used. Since this map was originally filed in 1992, the 1992 value must be used as the basis for setting the in-lieu fee. Mr. Katherman has provided a copy of his 1990-1991 property tax bill, which lists the land value of his entire 48,442-square-foot property at 18 Rockinghorse Road as $392,646. This is the value that has been used to calculate the in-lieu fee.

Pursuant to RPVMC Section 16.20.100(D), in cases where a new parcel is created where there is an existing dwelling unit and the dwelling unit will remain on the new parcel, that new parcel will be exempt from the requirement for parkland dedication or in-lieu fee payment. In the case of Final Parcel Map No. 19062, the Katherman’s existing home will remain on the larger, 26,505-square-foot lot. Although an existing guesthouse will remain on the smaller, 21,937-square-foot lot, this structure does not constitute an existing legal dwelling unit, so the smaller lot will be subject to the assessment of the in-lieu fee.

Based upon the foregoing information, the in-lieu fee for Final Parcel Map No. 19062 was calculated as follows:


$392,646 land value

48,442 SF

 

X


43,560 SF

1 acre

 

X


0.014 acre

1 new dwelling unit

 

=


$4,943.05

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Mr. Katherman has been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this matter.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council approve and accept the parkland dedication in-lieu fee for Final Parcel Map No. 19062 in the amount of $4,943.05.

FISCAL IMPACT

The acceptance of the parkland dedication in-lieu fee will have a positive fiscal impact upon the City.

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Determine that a different parkland dedication in-lieu fee should be assessed to Final Parcel Map No. 19062.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

 

Attachments:
RPVMC Section 16.20.100
Applicant’s 1990-1991 property tax statement
Diagram of proposed lot split

 



7. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Three-Year Cooperation Agreement. (Huey).

Recommendation: (1) Authorize the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to continue its participation in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Federal Fiscal Years 2003-2005. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM, AND ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS. (3) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the proposed Agreement with the County of Los Angeles Community Development Commission (CDC).

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) THREE YEAR COOPERATION AGREEMENT

Staff Coordinator: Judy Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Authorize the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to continue its participation in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Federal Fiscal Years 2003-2005.

  2. Adopt Resolution No. 2002-____, approving and authorizing an agreement by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the County of Los Angeles to participate in the Community Development Block Grant Program, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and Assisted Housing Programs.
  3. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed Agreement with the County of Los Angeles Community Development Commission (CDC).

BACKGROUND

The City recently received a letter from the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission (CDC) inviting us to continue participating in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. To continue receiving annual CDBG funds, the City is required to execute a three-year Cooperation Agreement with the County of Los Angeles. Our existing three-year Agreement expires on June 30, 2003. To remain eligible, the City is required to adopt a resolution approving the new Agreement for Federal Fiscal Years 2003-2005 (CDC funding cycle would be July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2006) by June 10, 2002. Once approved, the City cannot drop out of the CDBG Program during the three year period.

By participating in the County CDBG Program, the City automatically participates in the County HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Assisted Housing Programs. Neither of these programs require City staff support nor funding; the City simply provides information to interested residents regarding these County programs.

ANALYSIS

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has been allocated approximately $4,050,000 in CDBG funds since 1986. The City currently receives an annual allocation of approximately $250,000 and uses these funds for the REACH Program, the Home Improvement Program, Americans with Disability Act (ADA) projects, and qualifying capital improvement projects. To continue receiving CDBG funds, and to maintain flexibility in the use of all available funding sources, it is in the City’s best interest to continue its cooperative agreement with the County of Los Angeles.

CONCLUSION

Adopting staff recommendations will authorize the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to continue its participation in the CDBG Program.

FISCAL IMPACT

The loss of these funds would cause CDBG projects to be discontinued or funded by the General Fund or other sources. The estimated three-year loss of funds would be approximately $750,000 (estimate based on prior year funding levels). Continuing our Agreement with the CDC will ensure a potential three-year revenue source for eligible CDBG projects.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
County of Los Angeles Cooperation Agreement
Resolution 2002-


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM AND ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has participated in the Los Angeles Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program; and,

WHEREAS, this program is utilized by forty-eight (48) other public agencies that are not entitlement cities under the regulation of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will continue to be a participating city under the Los Angeles Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and Assisted Housing Programs.

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

Section 1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes approves an Agreement by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Los Angeles County for Community Development Block Grant Program, HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Assisted Housing Programs, which is hereby attached as Exhibit "A".

Section 2. The City Council approves and authorizes the execution of this Agreement and directs the City Manager or his representative to take any action necessary to implement this Agreement.

Section 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute this Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and directs the City Clerk to attest thereto.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st 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 21, 2002.


______________________________
City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes



8. Street Sweeping Services for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Approve a one-year extension to an existing contract for street sweeping services with R.F. Dickson and Company. (2) Approve a five percent cost increase for the street sweeping services contract for Fiscal Year 2002-2003.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: STREET SWEEPING SERVICES FOR FY 02 – 03

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Approve a one-year extension to an existing contract for street sweeping services with R.F. Dickson and Company.

  2. Approve a five percent cost increase for the street sweeping services contract for FY 02 – 03.

BACKGROUND

The City’s current contract for street sweeping service will expire on June 30, 2002.

In June of 1994 a contract for street sweeping services was awarded to R.F. Dickson of Downey for a period of two years. The contract has been extended and amended several times as follows:

  • In June of 1996 a one-year option to renew (through July 1997) was exercised by the City with no cost increase.
  • In June of 1997, a one-year extension (through July 1998) was approved with no cost increase.
  • In June of 1998 a four-year contract extension (through July 2002) was approved. This included annual adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index.
  • In June of 2001 a five percent cost increase was granted.

DISCUSSION

At this time the City may elect to either advertise for bids and award a new contract, or extend the current contract.

If the City advertises for bids and awards a new contract, there will be a significant price increase. This is because under the provisions of new air quality regulations, Rule 1186.1 Less Polluting Sweepers, any contract for street sweeping services with an effective date of July 1, 2002 or after must utilize alternative fuel sweepers. See attached regulations. In speaking with our contractor as well as other street sweeping contractors, the new regulation will increase costs by approximately 30%. The new regulation does not apply to contracts that are extended. Based on this staff concludes that extending the current contract for another year is the most attractive solution.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting the staff recommendations will extend an existing contract for street sweeping services.

FISCAL IMPACTS

The recommended actions will increase costs for street sweeping services by 5%. There are adequate funds in the proposed FY 02 – 03 budget for this increase.

The total budget for street sweeping services for FY 02 – 03 is $73,700. The funding source is the Gas Tax Fund.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager



9. Budget Adjustment for California Contract Cities Conference. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A $10,000 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR FY 01-02 TO THE RECREATION & PARKS – SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM FOR EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: MAY 21, 2001

SUBJECT: BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES CONFERENCE

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2002 - ; Approving a $10,000 budget adjustment for FY 01-02 to the Recreation & Parks – Special Events Program for expenses associated with the California Contract Cities Association Annual Conference.

DISCUSSION

On May 7, 2002, the City Council authorized an additional $10,000 to the Recreation & Parks – Special Events program in order to allow three Planning Commission members and one member from each of the City’s other five Committees and Commissions to attend the California Contract Cities Association Annual Conference. The funds shall be used for the conference registration, lodging, mileage and other miscellaneous expenses for up to eight Commission/Committee members to attend the conference. Staff has prepared the attached resolution to make the necessary adjustment to the adopted FY 2001-2002 City Budget.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Resolution No. 2002- ;


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

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

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

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

WHEREAS, certain expenditures authorized by the City Council on May 7, 2002 associated with the Annual California Contract Cities Association Annual Conference will cause total fiscal year 2001-2002 expenditures in the Recreation and Parks – Special Events Program to exceed the amount budgeted; and,

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

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

Section 1: The following increase be made to the fiscal year 2001-2002 General Fund budget:

General Fund:

Meetings & Conferences - - - #001-540.71 - - - $10,000

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st 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 regular meeting thereof held on May 21, 2002.


__________________________
CITY CLERK



10. Request to Extend the Use of Temporary Personnel. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002- , 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; AND, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-21.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: REQUEST TO EXTEND THE USE OF TEMPORARY PERSONNEL

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2002 - ; 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; and, Rescinding Resolution No. 2002-21.

BACKGROUND

On March 19, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-21, requesting that the CalPERS Board of Administration approve a one-year time extension for a retired employee who is currently serving as the City’s Deputy Director of Public Works. As the Council may recall, the City has been struggling for some time to fill this position with a regular full-time employee. Mr. Don Noble, who retired from the City of Huntington Beach, has been filling the position on a temporary basis since June 2001. The purpose of the Resolution was to request approval from the CalPERS Board to allow Mr. Noble to work more than the 960 hour limit stipulated in Government Code Section 21221(h) during 2002, so that the City can complete a new recruitment for a permanent employee to fill the position before the end of the year.

DISCUSSION

On May 9, 2002, CalPERS staff contacted the City staff to discuss the submitted request. CalPERS staff felt that the language in the Resolution was not specific enough and requested that the Resolution be amended to include the following clarifying information:

  • The date Mr. Noble began work for the City in 2002
  • The date Mr. Noble is expected to reach 960 hours of employment in 2002
  • The date when the City expects to permanently fill the position currently held by Mr. Noble

In response to CalPERS’ request, staff has prepared a new Resolution with the deletions in the language from Resolution No. 2002-21 indicated in strike out text and additions shown in underline text. In addition to the specific information requested by CalPERS, staff has also included language describing the difficultly the City has had in filling this key position in the Public Works Department and the City’s current recruitment efforts.

CONCLUSION

The City has submitted a request to the CalPERS Board of Administration to allow a retired employee currently filling the Deputy Director of Public Works position to work more than the 960 hour per year limitation stipulated in the California Government Code. CalPERS staff has requested some amendments to the Resolution previously adopted by the City Council on March 19, 2002. Because the amendments involve the addition of new information into the text of the Resolution, staff has prepared a revised document for the City Council’s review and adoption.

ALTERNATIVE

Do not adopt the revised Resolution, thereby limiting Mr. Noble’s work for the City to 960 hours during 2002.

FISCAL IMPACT

Approval of the City’s request by the Board of Administration would not have a neutral impact on the City’s finances because the current personnel schedule for the Public Works Department already includes funding (salary and benefits) for a Deputy Director of Public Works position.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Resolution No. 2002 - ;


RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REQUESTING THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF ALLOWED EMPLOYMENT FOR A RETIRED EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

WHEREAS, over the last three years, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes had two high level vacancies in the Public Works Department (Deputy Director of Public Works and Senior Engineer) that proved to be very difficult to fill. Applicants either did not meet the minimum qualifications for the positions, or qualified applicants declined the City’s job offers; and,

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 21221(h) allows a city to hire a retiree from the California Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to a position requiring specialized skills on a temporary basis. The retired person will not be subject to reinstatement from retirement or loss of benefits so long as such employment does not exceed 960 hours in a calendar year; and,

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2001, in order to assure the continued efficient operation of the Public Works Department, the City hired Mr. Donald R. Noble, a CalPERS retiree who has significant experience as a public works employee, to serve as interim Deputy Director of Public Works. Pursuant to California Government Code requirements, Mr. Noble worked less than 960 hours for the City during 2001; and,

WHEREAS, the City filled the vacant Senior Engineer position ion January 7, 2002 with a regular full-time employee. In addition to the need to provide immediate training for this new employee, the Public Works Department continues to require an interim Deputy Director of Public Works with a high level of experience and knowledge to management a number of major capital improvement projects, as well as day-to-day supervision of the Department’s other critical functions. Therefore, Mr. Noble resumed work for the City on January 2, 2002

WHEREAS, Mr. Noble’s service to the City in 2002 has not yet exceeded the 960 hour limitation set forth in Government Code Section 21221(h). However, based on his current work schedule, he would exceed reach this limitation at the end of on June 14, 2002. In addition, bBased on the City’s past experience, this would not allow sufficient time for the City to complete a new recruitment for a permanent Deputy Director of Public Works. After allowing a "rest period" following the last unsuccessful recruitment in 2001, the City reissued the job announcement for the Deputy Director of Public Works position on May 20, 2002. The City hopes to fill the position by December 20, 2002.

WHEREAS, on March 19, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-21 requesting the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System to approve an extension of allowed employment for a retired employee pursuant to the California Government Code. On May 9, 2002, CalPERS staff contacted the City and requested specific amendments to Resolution No. 2002-21, which require subsequent review and approval by the City Council.

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

Section 1: Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 21221(h), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requests that the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System allow the employment extension for Donald R. Noble with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for an additional period not to exceed a total of one (1) year.

Section 2: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit a conformed copy to the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System.

Section 3: Resolution No. 2002-21 is hereby rescinded.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st 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 21, 2002.


____________________
City Clerk



11. 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:



12. View Restoration Permit No. 118 - Appeal (Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. James Beck, 4110 Maritime Drive; Foliage Owner: Ms. Lynn Doran, 4115 Maritime Drive). (Nelson)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION AND APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 118 UPON FINDING THAT ALL APPLICABLE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY MADE AND ALL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.02.040(C)(2) HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: May 21, 2002

SUBJECT: VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 118 - APPEAL (APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. JAMES BECK, 4115 MARITIME DRIVE; FOLIAGE OWNER: MS. LYNN DORAN, 4110 MARITIME DRIVE)

Project Coordinator: Trayci Nelson

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 02- ; affirming the decision of the View Restoration Commission and approving View Restoration Permit No. 118 upon finding that all applicable findings have been correctly made and all provisions of Section 17.02.040(C)(2) have been complied with.

BACKGROUND

After conducting a duly noted public hearing, the View Restoration Commission approved View Restoration Permit No. 118 on March 7, 2002. Specifically, the commission directed that two trees located at 4110 Maritime Drive (Doran Property - appellant) be trimmed/removed so as to restore a view from 4115 Maritime Drive (Beck property). The Conditions of Approval memorializing the VRC's decision were distributed to the interested parties on March 13, 2002, which was then considered the beginning of the appeal period. On March 26, 2002, within the fifteen-day appeal period, Ms. Doran via her attorney, Ms. Peggi Collins, appealed the Commission's decision to the City Council. The appeal hearing is now before the City Council for consideration.

DISCUSSION

View Restoration Commission Decision

In considering the appellant's request for view restoration, the Commission found that two trees, one Italian Stone Pine tree and one Holly tree, planted in the front yard at the property located at 4110 Maritime Drive (Doran property) significantly impair the applicant's view. As a result, the Commission ordered that the Italian Stone Pine tree must be either removed, with the consent of the foliage owner, or trimmed to the height of the highest ridgeline of the foliage owner's structure, which is the garage, to restore the applicant's view. The Commission also ordered that the Holly tree be reduced to the height of the foliage owner's ridgeline in order to restore the applicant's view (Location Map- exhibit "D"). A description of the applicant's view and viewing area is contained on page two of the attached Staff Report to the View Restoration Commission (VRC), dated February 7, 2002. Also contained in the attached Staff Report (pages 3 through 5) is a summary of Staff's recommendation to the Commission. A summary of the VRC's decision is contained in attached VRC Resolution 2002-04.

Appeal Issues

The grounds of the appeal as noted in the letter of appeal and supporting memorandum dated March 26, 2002, are repeated below (in bold), followed by staff's discussion of the appeal points.

1. "You will recall that the Commission took a short recess to read what [Ms. Doran] had submitted as her argument against removal of the trees. Then, when she tried to read her presentation, [she was told] it was not necessary because the members had already read it. In fact, I watched the members during that recess. Most of them barely perused the materials and Mr. Alberio, you will recall, had forgotten his glasses and apologized that he could not read without them. Therefore, it is my contention that the Commission failed to give my client a fair hearing."

Prior to speaking to the Commission, the foliage owner, Ms. Doran, distributed a copy of written comments to the Commission. The commission then proceeded to take a 15- minute recess to review the written comments. During her oral testimony, Ms. Doran began to read the written comments she had distributed to the Commission. Ms. Doran was discouraged from reading her submitted comments in accordance with Section 2.5, paragraph 5 of VRC Resolution 2000-03, a resolution of the VRC adopting procedures for the conduct of public hearings, which states that "repetition of comments should be avoided and speakers will be discouraged from reading a submission which has been… distributed to the Committee…". Furthermore, VRC Resolution 2000-03, section 2.3, states that "the Chairperson may exclude irrelevant or redundant testimony and may make such other rulings as may be necessary for the orderly conduct of the Proceedings while ensuring basic fairness and full consideration of the issues involved." The V.R.C exercised its right to not receive audibly what they had recessed the public hearing to read.

Ms. Doran was allowed the usual five (5) minute presentation and a three (3) minute rebuttal. Chairman Alberio was present during the testimony. In summary, all of the Commission members present were eligible to vote, with the exception of one alternate who, according to VRC Resolution 2000-03, section 1.3, was ineligible to vote, and all eligible members were present during the foliage owner's testimony. Therefore, staff believes that the foliage owner received a fair hearing.

2. "The configuration of viewing areas attached to staff's report describes two separate and distinct views. To the south, the view is of the ocean and Catalina Island. To the west, the view is of the ocean, shore, whitewater, bluffs and city lights… [The applicants] must decide which of the two separate and distinct views is their best and most important. They cannot have both views protected."

In the VRC report, Staff made reference to the fact that "section (II)(B) of the Guidelines and Procedures for Restoration of Views Where Foliage is Involved… states 'A view may extend in any horizontal direction (three hundred and sixty degrees of horizontal arc) and shall be considered as a single view even if broken into segments by foliage, structures or any other interference.'" The report goes on to state that "the applicant has a multi-component view of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, whitewater/shoreline, bluffs and city lights." The applicant's viewing area may consist of multiple rooms "if those locations share the same view." (Guidelines and Procedures, page 4) The view of the aforementioned landmarks is not described as two separate and distinct views, rather, one view with multiple components.

3. "The Applicant's living area, their dining area, and their balcony all have a clear unobstructed view of the ocean and Catalina Island from both sitting and standing positions… The view from the Applicant's property, looking westerly over my client's property, can only be enjoyed from their dining room and kitchen, and only from a standing position… Compared to their views to the south and southeast, the view over my client's property is clearly not their best and most important view."

The applicant's living area, dining area and balcony share the same view with the kitchen that is just off of the dining area. As stated in the response to appeal point Number 2 above, the entire view includes not only the ocean and Catalina Island, but also the whitewater/shoreline and city lights. The VRC determined that while the view of the ocean and Catalina Island is not significantly impaired, the subject tree significantly impairs the other elements of the expansive view, namely the whitewater/shoreline, bluffs and city lights.

The applicant's living room is directly adjacent to the dining area. There are no partitions separating the three major living areas. The view looking westerly over the foliage owner's property can be enjoyed from the living room, as well as the dining area and kitchen. The VRC determined that the view over the foliage owner's house is part of the applicant's best and most important view.

4. "… the 30-year old Italian Stone pine tree recommended for removal does not 'significantly' impair the view… as you can see from the photographs… when the tree is laced as my client has voluntarily maintained it, none of the components of the Applicant's view is entirely obscured… Moreover, as there are no 'prominent landmarks or other significant features' in the view frame, no additional scrutiny is necessary."

While the foliage owner voluntarily removed several trees and trimmed the Italian Stone Pine tree, the VRC determined that portions of the applicant's whitewater/shoreline and city lights view are still significantly impaired by the tree.

5. "The Italian Stone pine provides shade and privacy to my client's outdoor patio... If the Stone Pine tree is removed, not only will Ms. Doran lose its shade, but the Applicant's will have an unobstructed view of her patio and the activities on it."

The VRC Determined that removal of the Stone Pine tree would not cause an unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the foliage owner in that there is a fence in front of the foliage owner's residence that currently provides screening for the patio area. Additionally, the VRC provided for up to three 24-inch box replacement trees, should the foliage owner decide to remove the tree. The replacement foliage ordered to be planted will grow to provide for additional privacy for the outside patio area of Ms. Doran's property.

CONCLUSION

Staff has found no basis contained in Ms. Doran's appeal, nor uncovered any other information since the March 7, 2002 View Restoration Commission hearing, that would warrant altering the View Restoration Commission's original decision. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council dismiss the appeal, and affirm the View Restoration Commission's decision memorialized in VRC Resolution No. 2002-04.

ALTERNATIVES

As an alternative to Staff's recommendation, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(g), the City Council may wish to consider the following options:

1. Approve View Restoration Permit No. 118, but impose additional or different conditions as the City Council deems necessary to fulfill the purpose of Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(2).

2. Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings cannot be made or all provisions of Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(2) have not been complied with.

3. Refer the matter back to the View Restoration Commission to conduct further proceedings. If this alternative is selected, the City Council shall state the grounds for the remand and shall give instructions to the View Restoration Commission concerning any error found by the City Council in the Commission's prior determination.

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

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments
Exhibit "A" - Letter of appeal and supporting memorandum from Ms. Collins dated March 26, 2002
Exhibit "B" - View Restoration Commission Staff Report of February 7, 2002
Exhibit "C" - V.R.C. Resolution No. 2002-04
Exhibit "D" - Site / plot plan and configuration of viewing area
Exhibit "E" - Certified arborist memo
Exhibit "F" - View Restoration Commission Minutes, March 7, 2002
Exhibit "G" - Additional file correspondence
Exhibit "H" - City Council Resolution No. _____


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:



13. Appointment of Members to the Recreation & Parks Committee and Appointment of a Chair for the Equestrian 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; and (2) Set 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, June 4th as the date to interview appointees for the position of chair for this board. (3) Appoint a chair for the Equestrian Committee.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: A PPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE RECREATION & PARKS COMMITTEE AND APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIR FOR THE EQUESTRIAN 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) Set 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, June 4th as the date to interview appointees for the position of chair for this board; and (3) Appoint a chair for the Equestrian Committee.

INTRODUCTION

One member of Council was absent from the May 7th meeting and it was the consensus that this matter should be continued to the next meeting when all members would be present.

Appointment of the Recreation & Parks Committee will bring to near completion the recruitment and interview process for the City’s advisory boards. Remaining to be interviewed are the View Restoration mediators; the deadline for applications is May 23rd. Those applications will be presented to the City Council the week of May 27th.

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 as well as a copy of the current committee roster. 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

At the May 7th Council meeting, the City Council confirmed the appointment of seven members to the Equestrian Committee. Council now needs to appoint a chair for that Committee.

CONCLUSION

The interview and appointment process for the City’s various advisory boards is now nearing completion and the only interviews remaining are for the View Restoration mediators.

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

Christina Bothamley

Ken Delong

Carol Hildreth

Kamal V. Inamdar

Jean Longacre

Lois Vannorsdall

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

* Did not re-apply


RECREATION & PARKS COMMITTEE

BALLOT

COUNCILMEMBERS

APPLICANTS

MAYOR MCTAGGART

GARDINER

STERN

FERRARO

CLARK

TOTAL

Block, Arlene G.

           

Borks, Shirley

           

Brown, Stuart

           

Coppertino-Minn, Dr. Maria Ann

           

Eldridge Jr., Leo Lawson

           

Hildreth, Carol

           

Inamdar, Kamal V.

           

Knight, Jim

           

Longacre-Singh, Jean

           

Morgan, Glyn

           

Stephenson, Donald G.

           

Swank, Lyn Peterson

           

Torres, Juan A.

           

Vannorsdall, Lois

           

Woods, Jo

           

Yourman, Kevin

           

EQUESTRIAN COMMITTEE

 
Richard Bara
Carolyn Ann Bojorquez
Daphne E. Clarke
Sherree GreenwoodGordon LeonCharlene O’NeilMadeline Ryan

Meetings at City Hall Community Room, 2ND Wednesday of the month.

Name Term Begins Term Expires First Appointed
Bara 05/07/2002 03/02/04 1/20/1998
Bojorquez 05/07/2002 03/07/06 4/03/2001
Clarke 05/07/2002 03/07/06 4/04/2000
Greenwood 05/07/2002 03/02/04 1/20/1998
Leon 05/07/2002 03/07/06 5/07/2002
O’Neil 05/07/2002 03/02/04 1/20/1998
Ryan 05/07/2002 03/02/04 1/20/1998


 
14. Equestrian Committee Report on a Possible City Equestrian Facility. (Fox)

Recommendation: Receive a presentation on the findings of the Equestrian Committee subcommittee regarding the feasibility of a City Equestrian Facility, and provide direction as appropriate.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: EQUESTRIAN COMMITTEE REPORT ON A POSSIBLE CITY EQUESTRIAN FACILITY

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Receive a presentation on the findings of the Equestrian Committee subcommittee regarding the feasibility of a City Equestrian Facility, and provide direction as appropriate.

BACKGROUND

In 1999, the Equestrian Committee determined that there was a need in the City for an equestrian center. In response, a subcommittee was formed to evaluate the scope, location, and feasibility of such a facility. The subcommittee also considered the potential for City ownership of the facility. Over the past three years, the Equestrian Committee subcommittee has explored this issue and has reached a point where it would like to make a presentation of its findings to the City Council. Therefore, at the request of the Equestrian Committee, this item was placed on the Council’s agenda for April 16, 2002, and was continued to tonight’s meeting. Equestrian Committee Chairperson Charlene O’Neil and Don Burt, a former Committee member, will make the presentation.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager



15. Roadside Maintenance Contract. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Award a three-year contract for roadside maintenance services to U.S. Landscape, Inc, in an amount equal to $156,000. (2) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with U.S. Landscape, Inc. (3) Authorize the expenditure of up to $194,200. for Fiscal Year 2002-2003.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCILFROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: ROADSIDE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Award a three-year contract for roadside maintenance services to U.S. Landscape, Inc, in an amount equal to $156,000.

  2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with U.S. Landscape, Inc.

  3. Authorize the expenditure of up to $194,200 for FY 02-03.

BACKGROUND

On June 3,1997, a contract was awarded to (Landscape West, Inc.) TrueGreen Landcare, Inc. for Road and Landscape Services. That contract was a three year contract with the option for 3-one year extensions.

On April 13th, 2002 the City advertised for bids for a new Roadside Maintenance Services contract.

Bids were opened on April 23, 2002 and the results are as follows:

Total Cost

Company

Bid # 1
Lead worker

Bid # 2
Lead worker

Bid # 3
Laborer

Bid # 4
Laborer

Total Bid

U.S. Landscape, Inc.

$44,720.

$44,720.

$33,280.

$33,280.

$156,000.

Tru Green Landcare

$45,760

$45,760.

$33,280.

$33,280.

$158,080.

Bennett Landscape

$51,896.

$49,816.

#33,280.

$33,280.

$168,272.

The terms of the advertised contract is three years with three one-year extensions. The proposed contract includes an annual price adjustment, based on the Producer Price Index for finished goods.

DISCUSSION

Staff has no experience with U.S. Landscape, Inc., the low bidder. Staff is familiar with the principal of U.S. Landscape, Inc., as he was formerly a principal with our current landscape maintenance firm.

Staff did contact references and found that the contractor is performing well at other cities on similar contracts.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of the staff recommendation will award a three-year contract to U.S. Landscape, Inc. for Roadside Maintenance Services

ALTERNATIVE

Do not award a contract and re-advertise the contract. Staff recommends against this since it is unlikely that a lower price will be achieved.

FISCAL IMPACT

The adopted FY 02/03 budget includes adequate funding for the recommended actions. The funding sources for the contract are :

Gas tax fund

$174,000

Prop A fund

$10,000

RDA fund

$10,000

Total

$194,000

 

 

 

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



16. Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Rate Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: (1) Maintain the current monthly residential solid waste and recycling rates for Waste Management of Los Angeles and Ivy Rubbish Disposal during FY 02-03. (2) Apply the estimated $18,480 excess collection due from the Waste Management of Los Angeles contract for the period of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, to offset any future rate increases. (3) Request the Director of Finance to establish a new account in the Solid Waste Fund to deposit excess collection from the Waste Management of Los Angeles contract.

**CLICK HERE FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATIONS

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING RATE ADJUSTMENTS FOR FY 02-03

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Maintain the current monthly residential solid waste and recycling rates for Waste Management of Los Angeles and Ivy Rubbish Disposal during FY 02-03.

  2. Apply the estimated $18,480 excess collection due from the Waste Management of Los Angeles contract for the period of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, to offset any future rate increases.

  3. Request the Director of Finance to establish a new account in the Solid Waste Fund to deposit excess collection from the Waste Management of Los Angeles contract.

BACKGROUND

Waste Management of Los Angeles (Waste Management) and Ivy Rubbish Disposal (Ivy) operate under exclusive residential agreements that have been in effect since July 2000. The term of each agreement is for 7 years, with a possibility of three one-year extensions. Per the terms of the agreements, rates are fixed for a period of two-years (July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2002) with possible annual adjustments thereafter. Waste Management and Ivy were required to notify the City by April 1, 2002 of rate adjustment requests for the upcoming fiscal year. See attached correspondence from Waste Management and Ivy

DISCUSSION

IVY RUBBISH DISPOSAL: Ivy services approximately 550 customers in the Portuguese Bend Community and the area southerly of PVDS. In accordance with the City's rate adjustment formula, Ivy Rubbish is entitled to an increase of 0.27%. This rate increase is approximately $0.12 a month, or an annual increase of $1.44 for the majority of customers (backyard twice a week).

Service

Current monthly rate

Possible Adjusted/ New Monthly Rate

Monthly Rate Increase

Curbside 2x/wk

$21.55

$21.61

$0.06

Backyard 2x/wk

$43.28

$43.40

$0.12

Backyard 1x/wk

$26.58

$26.65

$0.07

Multi-family 2x/wk

$20.87

$20.93

$0.06

Ivy declined to request a rate increase because the increase was nominal and not worth the additional administration cost related to rate changes to Ivy. The rate increase would have added approximately $600 in FY 02-03 to Ivy Rubbish’s operating revenues.

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Waste Management, however, is not entitled to a rate increase, but rather a small rate decrease. Since Waste Management takes the majority of its solid waste to Waste Management owned landfills, there is a restriction on the amount of pass-through relating to disposal costs. As a result, this impacted Waste Management's rate calculations negatively. See attached rate calculations

Service
S/F= Single-family
M/F= Multi-Family

Current monthly rate*

Possible New/ Decreased Monthly Rate

Monthly Rate Decrease

S/F Curbside 2x/wk

$19.10

$18.97

$0.13

S/F Pup Route 2x/wk

$22.89

$22.74

$0.15

S/F Backyard 2x/wk

$24.10

$23.94

$0.16

S/F Low Income 1x/wk

$15.00

$14.90

$0.10

M/F 2x/wk
2 cubic yard bin

$73.95

$73.62

$0.33

* Staff recommends maintaining the current monthly rates.

Waste Management’s rate adjustment is equal to a rate decrease of 0.67% for single-family customers. This rate decrease is approximately $0.13 a month, or $1.56 per year for the majority of customers (curbside twice a week). There are approximately 11,000 single-family customers serviced by Waste Management. The calculated rate adjustment equals $16,875 for all the single-family customers.

Additionally, Waste Management's rate adjustment is equal to a rate decrease of 0.44% for multi-family customers. There are approximately 42 multi-family accounts serviced by Waste Management, with each having several bins throughout their complex. The calculated rate adjustment equals $1,605 for all the multi-family accounts. The average rate decrease is approximately $3.18 a month, or $38 per year for a multi-family account. Therefore, Waste Management’s total residential rate adjustment for FY 02-03 is approximately $18,480.

Staff has concluded that although Waste Management customers are entitled to a slight rate decrease, given the City administrative costs associated with a rate adjustment (answering calls and e-mails to City Hall), the excess collected should be placed in a

City account and be applied against any future rate increases in the Waste Management contract. Waste Management will be required to remit quarterly to the City, a check for the excess payments with the calculation and a full accounting attached.

Staff has contacted both Waste Management and Ivy Rubbish about the staff’s recommendation. Both haulers concur with the staff’s recommendations.

ALTERNATIVES

  1. Pass on the calculated rate reductions of 0.67% to Waste Management's single- family and 0.44% to multi-family customers. Reduce Waste Management’s monthly rates and the City's Collector Fee accordingly. However, staff does not recommend this due to the additional City administrative cost, of approximately $500.

  2. Request Waste Management to add the total rate adjustment of $18,480 to the annual FY 02-03 Collector Fee paid to the City. The amount of $18,480 would be deposited in the City's Recycling Fund for use toward City-wide beautification/ recycling grants and/or median improvements. However, staff does not recommend this because this alternative is not equitable since not all of Waste Management customers participate in the recycling grant program.

CONCLUSION

Approving the staff recommendation will maintain the current solid waste rates for customers of both Ivy and Waste Management for FY 02-03. Ivy, who is entitled to a slight increase, has decided to forgo the rate increase given the administrative costs of a price change and the relatively small rate increase. With respect to Waste Management, the City has concluded although their customers are entitled to a slight rate decrease, given the City's administrative costs of a price change, and the relatively small rate decrease, the excess collected should be placed in a City account and be applied against any future rate increases in the Waste Management contract.

FISCAL IMPACT

Approving the staff recommendation will maintain the monthly rates for Waste Management and Ivy Rubbish customers and the City Collector Fee for FY 02-03. A new account will be established in the Solid Waste Fund to hold the excess Waste Management payments until they are used to offset future rate increases.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager


RATE ADJUSTMENT FORMULA EXPLANATION

The adjustment is based on a formula involving these factors:

  • Actual service revenue and disposal expense
    • The total disposal expense and total rate revenue of the hauler is for the twelve-month period ending on the most recent December 31st. i.e. January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001.
  • Producer Price Index (PPI) for Finished Goods
    • The percentage change in the PPI is for the twelve-month period ending on the most recent December 31. i.e. December 2001 vs. December 2000
    • The PPI was selected as the indicator in the contract, instead of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), because the PPI more closely tracks changes and places greater emphasis on items like cost of labor and durable manufacturing equipment rather than consumer goods like food or housing. Additionally, in recent history the PPI changes have increased at a lower rate than the CPI.
    • Typically, the trend for CPI or the PPI is an increase, which leads to rate increases. However, the PPI had a decrease of 1.8% in December of 2001 compared with December of 2000.
  • Disposal tipping fee per ton
    • The percentage change in the solid waste disposal tipping fee is based on the change between the most recent tipping fee on which rates were based in FY 99-2000 and the new tipping fee in FY 01-02.
    • If, however, the haulers are the owner/operator of the disposal site/s, then the maximum annual increase in the tipping fee is equal to the annual percentage change in the PPI.
    • Waste Management took 60% of the total disposed waste to company owned landfills such as Bradley. The remaining 40% of the waste was disposed at a non-company owned facility, SERRF (a waste to energy transformation facility in Long Beach owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles). Therefore, a weighted average of these disposal facilities was used in the calculations. Since SERRF raised rates in FY 00-01 and FY 01-02, SERRF related tonnage showed a tipping fee increase, while Waste Management owned facility tonnage was restricted by the PPI decrease. Therefore, Waste Management's calculated rate adjustment showed a decrease, not a rate increase.
    • Ivy took all their disposed waste to SERRF, which had a tipping fee increase. Therefore, Ivy's calculated rate adjustment showed an increase.



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

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STREET PARKING AND RESIDENTIAL STORAGE

Staff Coordinator: Jan Neth, Senior Code Enforcement Officer

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

DISCUSSION

RV Parking on City Streets

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

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

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

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

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

RV Parking on Private Property

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

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

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

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

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

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

The City of San Jose is currently proposing an ordinance that addresses both property maintenance and the storage of RV's on residential properties. A recent newspaper article is attached.

CONCLUSION

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

FISCAL IMPACT

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

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

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



18. Letter of Support for I-405 Arterial Improvement Initiative (Park)

Recommendation: Consider supporting the request for $750,000 in the FY02-03 transportation appropriation bill for the South Bay I-405 arterial improvements initiative.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM: SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR I-405 ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE

RECOMMENDATION

Consider supporting the request for $750,000 in the FY02-03 transportation appropriation bill for the South Bay I-405 arterial improvements initiative.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION

The El Segundo Employers’ Association and the South Bay Cities Economic Development Partnership and the South Bay Cities Council of Governments have jointly requested Congresswoman Jane Harman to advocate the allocation of $750,000 from the National Corridor Planning and Development Program for the I-405 arterial improvements initiative in the current transportation appropriations bill. The coalition is requesting letters of support from the South Bay Cities.

The I-405 arterial improvements initiative will analyze and prioritize a list of needed improvements, such as signage and freeway access improvements, for the I-405 corridor in the South Bay region. The analysis is needed to rank these projects into an overall plan for short, medium and long-term improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT

None associated with this report.

PREPARED BY
Gina Park, Sr. Administrative Analyst

APPROVED BY
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Draft Letter


DRAFT LETTER

The Honorable Jane Harman
Congresswoman, 36th District
U.S. House of Representatives
229 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
RE: Support for South Bay I-405 Arterial Improvements Initiative

Dear Honorable Congresswoman Harman:

On behalf of the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes, I would like to express the City’s appreciation and support for your efforts to secure $750,000 for the South Bay I-405 Arterial Improvements Initiative under the National Corridor Planning and Development Program in the FY03 U.S. Department of Transportation appropriations bill.

This initiative, which is a collaborative effort of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, the El Segundo Employers Association and the South Bay Economic Development Partnership, will make it possible to analyze and prioritize needed improvements for the I-405 Corridor in the South Bay region of Los Angeles County. These improvements are critical to reducing congestion in the Corridor and to supporting economic development and job creation in the South Bay.

We realize that competition for these funds is very intense, but we are hopeful that your efforts on behalf of this important initiative will be successful. Again, thank you for your advocacy to secure these funds.

Sincerely,

John C. McTaggart
Mayor

cc: South Bay Cities Council of Governments



19. Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority. (Evans)

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: PALOS VERDES PENINSULA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

RECOMMENDATION:

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

BACKGROUND:

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

DISCUSSION:

In response to the disciplinary problem the Transit authority staff has developed a Passenger Disciplinary Policy. A draft copy of that Policy is attached. In an attempt to provide definitive documentation in an instance of a disputed disciplinary action, Transit Authority staff has installed a surveillance camera in one of the busses to monitor potential disruptive passenger activities. The videos are used only to document incidents. The camera was installed in September, 2001.

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

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Draft Passenger Disciplinary Policy



20. School District Liaison. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider the appointment of a City Council liaison committee to meet with a similar committee representing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District or select some potential dates in July and August for a joint meeting of the City Council and the School Board.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: SCHOOL DISTRICT LIAISON

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider the appointment of a City Council liaison committee to meet with a similar committee representing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District or select some potential dates in July and August for a joint meeting of the City Council and the School Board.

BACKGROUND:

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

The Superintendent and the City Manager discussed the possibility of bringing the Ladera Linda matter, and topics of mutual concern such as school traffic, before the proposed new Peninsula Issues Committee. However, after discussing the matter with School Board President Perkins and Mayor McTaggart, there was a feeling that a joint meeting of the School Board and City Council might be more appropriate. The dates proposed for the joint meeting were Thursday, May 9, 2002 and Thursday, May 16, 2002. Those dates were considered by the City Council at their meeting on April 2, 2002 and determined to be unsuitable for several Councilmembers. The Council suggested the date of Saturday, May 18, 2002 for the joint meeting. Last week the School Board advised us that that they would not have a quorum on that date.

DISCUSSION:

The School Board is interested in a joint meeting with the City to discuss issues of mutual concern. However school events that require Board attendance in the May – June time frame make the possibility of scheduling a meeting before July unlikely. The School Board suggests that either a joint liaison committee made up of two elected officials from each agency meet soon to discuss the most important issues, or that some dates in July and August be explored for a joint meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager



21. League of California Cities Membership. (Evans)

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MEMBERSHIP

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

The cost of the City’s League membership is $11,590 annually. For comparison purposes, the California Contract Cities annual membership is $2,800, South Bay Cities Council of Governments is currently $7,818 and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is $3,318.

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

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Status Report on Proposed Ballot Measure

2001-02 Strategic Plan



22. League of California Cities Resolution. (Evans)

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES RESOLUTION

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Letter from Scott Gobble of 6/12/2001

Rules 20A and 20B



23. Los Angeles County West Vector Control District – City Representative. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Determine who is to be the City’s representative to the Vector Control District Board for the new term of office beginning June 26, 2002.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

SUBJECT: LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST VECTOR CONTROL

DISTRICT – CITY REPRESENTATIVE

RECOMMENDATION

Determine who is to be the City’s representative to the Vector Control District Board for the new term of office beginning June 26, 2002.

BACKGROUND

The City is a member of the Los Angeles County West Vector Control District, which is responsible for making policy concerning the eradication of various vectors such as mosquitoes, rats and the Africanized honeybees. The District covers approximately 600 square miles, contains 23 cities and unincorporated territory of the County of Los Angeles and provides services for 2,866,000 people. The attached "Overview" published by the District gives a summary of the District’s functions and the responsibilities of the trustees.

Following are some of the facts pertaining to the trustee appointment process for the District:

1. Regular meetings of the Board of Trustees are held every second Thursday of the month at 7:30 P.M. at the District’s headquarters in Culver City.

2. The California Health and Safety Codes restricts the first time appointments of a Trustee to a two (2) year term. Following that term, a Trustee may be reappointed to a two (2) or four (4) year term at the discretion of the City Council.

3. Trustees who attend the regularly scheduled meetings are compensated with a payment of $50 in lieu of expenses.

4. A Trustee appointed by the City Council must be a resident and an elector of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

5. If a reappointment is not made prior to the end of the Trustee’s term, the Trustee will continue to serve and represent that entity until officially reappointed or replaced.

6. Verification of the reappointment or replacement is to be done by written notice certified by the City Clerk and mailed to the District for filing.

Mayor McTaggart was appointed as a trustee in July 1996 and was reappointed in June 1998. His term of office is due to expire on June 26th.

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

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager


CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

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


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property:Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029, 7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators: City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

Property: APN 7564-005-001, 7572-001-001 TO 004, 06 AND 07, 7581-023-011

City Negotiators: City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

(Government Code Section 54956.8)


CLOSED SESSION TO SET JUST COMPENSATION

ALTAMIRA CANYON ACQUISITION

City Negotiators: Les Evans, City Manager; Carol Lynch, City Attorney; Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

1. Property: Address Not Assigned

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-003
Negotiating Parties: Alan H. Mendel

2. Property: 11 Figtree Drive

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-002
Negotiating Parties: Michael Chiles and Jayne Chiles

3. Property: 10± Figtree Drive

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-001
Negotiating Parties: Michael Chiles and Jayne Chiles

4. Property: 9 Figtree Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-009
Negotiating Parties: Charles D. and Mary E. Oreb, Trustees of the Oreb
Family Trust

5. Property: 8 Thyme Place

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-015
Negotiating Parties: John D. and Sallie M. Reeves, Trustees of the Reeves Family Trust

6. Property: 7± Thyme Place

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-014
Negotiating Parties: John D. and Sallie M. Reeves, Trustees of the Reeves Family Trust

7. Property: 5± Thyme Place

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-010
Negotiating Parties: Neil G. Siegel, and Robyn C. Friend

8. Property: 14 Cinnamon Lane

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-011
Negotiating Parties: Charles E. Parks, Jr., Trustee of the Parks Family Trust

9. Property: 26 Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-015
Negotiating Parties: Michele A. Smith

10. Property: 28± Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-016
Negotiating Parties: Michele A. Smith

11. Property: 33 Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-011-031
Negotiating Parties: Robert G. Douglas, Trustee of the Douglas Woodruff Family Trust

12. Property: 60 Narcissa Drive

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-011-027
Negotiating Parties: Robert B. and Rae A. Bauer, Trustees of Bauer Trust

13. Property: 27± Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-011-028
Negotiating Parties: Robert B. and Rae A. Bauer, Trustees of The Bauer Trust

14. Property: Address Not Assigned

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-017
Negotiating Parties: William M. and Lynn B. Petak/ Mark C. and Katherine M. Fairchild

15. Property: 22± Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-017
Negotiating Parties: Mark C. and Katherine M. Fairchild

16. Property: 20± Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-018
Negotiating Parties: Mark C. and Katherine M. Fairchild

17. Property: 18± Sweetbay Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-013-019
Negotiating Parties: Betty A. Turner

18. Property: No Street Access

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-022
Negotiating Parties: Hale J. Field and Chapin E. Field

19. Property: 10 Pomegranate Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-021
Negotiating Parties: Hale J. Field and Betty E. Strauss

20. Property: 8± Pomegranate Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-016-020
Negotiating Parties: Hale J. Field and Betty E. Strauss

21. Property: 6± Pomegranate Road

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-019
Negotiating Parties: Sepp Donahower

22. . Property: 3± Peppertree Drive

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-035
Negotiating Parties: Patricia M. Brown

23. Property: 1 Narcissa Drive

Assessor Parcel Number: 7572-017-034
Negotiating Parties: Vicki Pinkham

Existing Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: People of the State; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Mark J. Abrams

Case No: California Court of Appeal Case No. B151086

Name of Case: Mark J. Abrams v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes

Case No: United States District Court Case No. 00-09071 SVW (RNBx)