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

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

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

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

1. Property: Address Not Assigned

2. Property: 11 Figtree Drive

3. Property: 10± Figtree Drive

4. Property: 9 Figtree Road

5. Property: 8 Thyme Place

6. Property: 7± Thyme Place

7. Property: 5± Thyme Place

8. Property: 14 Cinnamon Lane

9. Property: 26 Sweetbay Road

10. Property: 28± Sweetbay Road

11. Property: 33 Sweetbay Road

12. Property: 60 Narcissa Drive

13. Property: 27± Sweetbay Road

14. Property: Address Not Assigned

15. Property: 22± Sweetbay Road

16. Property: 20± Sweetbay Road

17. Property: 18± Sweetbay Road

18. Property: No Street Access

19. Property: 10 Pomegranate Road

20. Property: 8± Pomegranate Road

21. Property: 6± Pomegranate Road

22. . Property: 3± Peppertree Drive

23. Property: 1 Narcissa Drive

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)

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.

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

___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________
CITY CLERK

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Staff could identity no alternatives.

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

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

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

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.

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.

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).

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:

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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-

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.

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: MAY 21, 2002

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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-

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.

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

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

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21^st 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 -

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.

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 21^st 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

Project Coordinator: Trayci Nelson

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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. _____

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

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

(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 4^th as the date to interview appointees for the position of chair for this board; and (3) Appoint a chair for the Equestrian Committee.

One member of Council was absent from the May 7^th 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 23^rd. Those applications will be presented to the City Council the week of May 27^th.

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 27^th the City Council interviewed 16 candidates for that committee: two candidates (Sunshine and James M. Juneau) did not interview.

At the May 7^th 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.

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

* Did not re-apply

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

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

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

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

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.

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

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).

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

* 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.

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.

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.

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

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 31^st. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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, 36^th 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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."

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

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

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 1^st Division General Membership meeting. The resolutions sponsored by the Division will be presented at the Annual League Conference in October.

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

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.

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:

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 26^th.

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

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

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

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

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

1. Property: Address Not Assigned

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)