Agenda 06/12/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 06/12/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda June 12, 2002

June 12, 2002

DISCLAIMER

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

...end of disclaimer...

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


BEGINNING OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 12, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

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

6:45 P.M.Interview Paul Christensen for Chair of Emergency Preparedness Task Force

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-40

NEXT ORD. NO. 376

RECYCLE DRAWING:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Minutes of Meeting of April 16, Adjourned Meeting of May 21, and Meeting of June 4, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



2. Contract Addendum No. 6 for the Long Point Resort Hotel Environmental Impact Report. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: Approve Contract Addendum No. 6 to the Agreement for Consulting Services between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF) for preparation of additional environmental studies for the Long Point Resort Hotel project, in the amount of $23,010.00.



3. Participation in the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize staff to begin the process of joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency for AB 939 diversion and disposal reporting purposes. (2) Approve an amendment to a professional services agreement with SCS Engineers, for consulting work related to joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency, and approve expenditures in an amount not to exceed $2,000. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE FUND.



4. Annual Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING THE CITY'S APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003.



5. Resolution Regarding Zone 2 Findings. (Lynch)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING "ZONE 2" OF THE LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM AREA BASED UPON THE REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED BY COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES



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

Recommendation: Receive and file.



7. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARINGS:



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

Recommendation: (1) Conduct a public hearing on the proposed levy and collection of assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and the Engineer’s Report prepared in connection therewith. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2002-2003 FISCAL YEAR IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE.



9. Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval of Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2279 (6528 Nancy Road). (Mihranian)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 930 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2279, AND DENYING MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 596, TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,921 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6528 NANCY ROAD.



10. Adoption of the City Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Petru)

Recommendation: After conducting a public hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget and after any further additions or deletions to the proposed budget, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A BUDGET APPROPRIATION AND ADOPTING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003.


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:



11. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statements No. 19 (Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive), No. 8 (Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane) and No. 3 (Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive). (Continued from April 16 meeting) (Fox)

Recommendation: Determine the maximum number of large domestic animals that may be "grandfathered" for keeping and/or boarding on the properties at 20 Vanderlip Drive, 6 Limetree Lane and 1 Peppertree Drive.



12. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Update. (Rojas)

Recommendation: Receive an update on the NCCP program and direct Staff to proceed with completion of the draft Plan with the new Alternative C as the basis for the plan.



13. Additional Grant Funding for the Expansion of Point Vicente Interpretive Center. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FOR ADDITIONAL EXCESS REVENUE GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,000 FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER.



14. Trail Repairs, and Fencing Construction at Inspiration Point and Shoreline Park. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract for trail repairs and fencing construction at Shoreline Park and Inspiration Point to Ryco Construction for an amount not to exceed $54,287 and authorize staff to spend an additional $5,428 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $59,715. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Ryco Construction, Inc. (3) Authorize the expenditure of up to $3,500 for inspection services with SA Associates. (4) ADOPT 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 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.



15. Border Issues Status Report. (Fox)

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



16. Applicants for View Restoration Mediator Positions – Set Date to Interview. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Set a date to interview the applicants for View Restoration Mediator positions.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



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



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to 5:00 P.M. on June 18 for a closed session to be followed by interviews for Emergency Preparedness Task Force Chair at 6:00 P.M.



CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST
Based on Government Code Section 54954.5
(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)



CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL


Existing Litigation
:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: James A. Kay, Jr. dba Lucky’s Two Way Radio; Communications Relay Corporation, v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al., Case No. 02-03922MMM(RZx)


RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 12, 2002 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK,

29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

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

6:45 P.M.Interview Paul Christensen for Chair of Emergency Preparedness Task Force

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-40

NEXT ORD. NO. 376


RECYCLE DRAWING:



APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Minutes of Meeting of April 16, Adjourned Meeting of May 21, and Meeting of June 4, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 16, 2002


The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file, and was immediately recessed to a closed session per the Brown Act Checklist. At 7:05 P.M. the meeting reconvened.

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

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

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


CEREMONIAL MATTERS:

Mayor McTaggart presented a proclamation to Shirley Borks, who was named Woman of the Year for the 54th District. Mayor pro tem Stern praised Ms. Borks for her service on the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy Board of Directors.


RECYCLE DRAWING:

Mayor McTaggart announced that recycling winners A.F. Rubino and John Doll would each receive a check for $250 and another card was drawn. He mentioned an Electronic Recycling Roundup on April 20 and a Hazardous Household Waste Roundup on May 4, both to be held at Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall. The Mayor also announced that Neighborhood Beautification Grant applications had been mailed to homeowners associations, schools, libraries, and condominium complexes and that the deadline for returning these applications was June 30.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

City Clerk Purcell announced that the Water Basin District had requested that their grant application item be removed from the agenda because of a change in the grant application process.

Councilman Clark asked that Oral City Council Reports be given before the public hearing, as it was a disservice to the public to hear these reports very late in the evening.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to adopt the agenda as amended. Motion carried.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, said that she had heard comments from residents opposing the signal to be installed at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive.

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

Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 19 and Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 2, 2002

Approved the minutes.

Claim Against the City by Marshall Tuck

Rejected the claim and directed the City Clerk to notify the claimant.

Signal Project at Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive

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

Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Overlay and Slurry Seal Program

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

Resol. No. 2002-25 - Acceptance Of Easements For The San Ramon Project

ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2002-25, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND CITY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTED USE COVENANTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT PROJECT.

Resol. No. 2002-26 - Register of Demands

ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-26, 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


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

Councilman Clark reported on a League of California Cities meeting the previous Thursday at which 54 cities were represented and at which a new representative for the Air Quality Management District was selected. He explained that 52 cities voted for the Mayor of Santa Monica, two cities voted for the Los Angeles City representative, but the L.A. City representative won because the vote is based on population. He said that there was an outcry to Sacramento to amend the statute to change this procedure and that he thought Rancho Palos Verdes should support the amendment. He described a Long Point subcommittee meeting he attended with Mayor pro tem Stern at which Bob and Rob Lowe and Mike Mohler summarized the plan they intend to present to the Council on May 7.

Mayor pro tem Stern reported on a dinner the previous Thursday with Assemblymember Alan Lowenthal and Senator Betty Karnette at which funding for acquisition for open space was discussed. He also discussed an Ocean Trails meeting that morning at which there was a presentation of a plan put together by the bank to rebuild Palos Verdes Drive South, with work expected to begin on June 1.

Mayor McTaggart, as a member of the SCAG Housing Committee, reported that SCAG prevailed in the lawsuit regarding the RHNA process. He said that the suit against the State Housing Authority had not yet been ruled upon.

Councilman Gardiner said that he and Councilman Clark had met with other members of the Neighborhood Compatibility subcommittee and felt that there was good participation by the community and that excellent progress was being made.

Councilman Clark added that the Neighborhood Compatibility subcommittee consisted of two Councilmembers and two Planning Commissioners and that input from homeowners associations representing residents showed good community involvement and that work done by other cities had been helpful as well.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Resol. No. 2002-27 - Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 (Appellant: James Kay, 26708 Indian Peak Road)

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of April 16 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution modifying certain conditions denying the appeal and conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 230. He provided a PowerPoint presentation and discussed Conditions 18 and 20.

Chuck Michel, attorney representing Mr. Kay, 407 North Harbor Boulevard, San Pedro, CA 90731, said that he was present to answer questions.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked Mr. Michel about the Getty Trust license for Mr. Kay’s site.

Mr. Michel said that there was never any Getty license issued, but only submission of an application. He said that Mr. Kay gave the Getty Trust permission to list his site but after eight months, the possibility of this license being issued was eliminated.

Mayor pro tem Stern emphasized that Mr. Kay had suggested, if not clearly stated, that the matter of the Getty license was without his knowledge or permission.

Mr. Michel said that Mr. Kay said that the Getty Trust never received a license with his permission because they never received a license. Mr. Kay had forgotten that his site was one which was listed on the Getty application.

Mayor pro tem Stern that a misleading impression was given which raised concerns of Mr. Kay’s candor.

Mr. Michel said that staff said Mr. Kay had a commercial license and he has none and that he had two amateur licenses to transmit from the interior of the house.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted that Mr. Kay considered one of the Planning Commission’s conditions for the Conditional Use Permit an invasion of his property and he wondered which condition he objected to.

Mr. Michel said that Mr. Kay objected to the requirement that antennas be placed in the master bedroom which made the second floor of the house unusable for other purposes.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that it was Mr. Kay’s decision to transmit commercially from his site and he is asking permission to do this.

Councilman Gardiner asked if understanding of the materials delivered to the Council right before the meeting was essential before voting on this item.

Mr. Michel said that a thorough review of these materials was not necessary if the Council believes that Mr. Kay is telling the truth when he says that he has no licenses in his name for commercial broadcasting.

Councilman Gardiner asked for a yes or no answer.

Mr. Michel said that the answer was no if the Council disregarded what staff said.

Councilwoman Ferraro clarified that if the Council found what staff was saying to be credible, a thorough review of the documents was unnecessary.

Mr. Michel replied that Mr. Kay was in no rush.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt no information should be ignored and he made reference to the judge’s decision in the recent FCC action against Mr. Kay.

Mr. Michel said that the judge said that the FCC’s actions toward Mr. Kay were egregious.

Councilman Gardiner said that the thick stack of documents provided right before the meeting should not have been provided to the Council if they were not important to make a decision.

Mr. Michel said that the documents were the quickest possible response to the staff report which they had received on Friday.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he would like to give Mr. Kay the benefit of reading these documents.

Mr. Michel apologized and said that he and the City Attorney were trying to anticipate information in the staff reports to avoid last minute submissions.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that the matter be continued to allow the Council time to study the material submitted.

City Attorney Lynch said that she felt the documents don’t bear directly on this matter and if the Council chose to move forward, there was a handout from Senior Planner Fox regarding fire sprinklers which was relevant.

Councilman Gardiner clarified that the late submission of documents provided information about Mr. Kay’s character.

Mr. Michel said that if Mr. Kay’s character is an issue, then the documents were important.

Councilman Gardiner asked how many hearings had been held thus far.

City Attorney Lynch said that there had been three or four.

Mr. Michel said that the matter would probably go to court.

Councilman Clark felt that the material he read the evening before was not at the center of the issue.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed and asked Mr. Michel if the four licenses for this site issued to Greene’s Redi-Mix Concrete were covered by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Mr. Michel said he was not sure because they were not Mr. Kay’s licenses and they were not there any longer and that there was no commercial transmission from this site.

City Attorney Lynch said that Dr. Richter believed that commercial transmission ceased because of the injunction.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if there was data regarding health impacts to people living on the first floor of the house with antennas on the second floor compared with the impact of antennas on the roof to people living on the second floor.

Mr. Michel said that the FCC did not address this issue and he had no specific data but it was his understanding that RF waves spread out horizontally but did not go up or down and would bounce off walls but less off windows. He felt that there was some protection to a person on the first floor when antennas were on the second floor. He said that the FCC requested that antennas be installed at the maximum height allowed and that Mr. Kay could have installed a tower on the roof but he had to build within a certain time frame of the issuance of the license or he would have had to reply.

Mayor McTaggart asked if Mr. Kay had ever a measurement with a non-ionizing signal, as there is an EPA standard for radiation.

Mr. Michel said he was not aware of any measurement and thought perhaps the FCC adopted the EPA standards. He suggested that Dr. Richter could be consulted.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that Dr. Richter would not know the conditions within the house.

Mr. Michel said that Dr. Richter could come into the house but Mr. Kay wanted to avoid a decision based on irrelevant information.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he was prepared to make a decision based on merit and even though he had concern about Mr. Kay’s candor, it would not affect his decision.

Larry Helfman, 26716 Indian Peak Road, felt it was important to produce evidence guaranteeing the safety of the neighbors. He said that an unoccupied house filled with antennas should be considered a vacant antenna facility, a commercial operation, and asked the Council if Mr. Kay would be required to live in the house as he stated in his declaration. He concluded by stating that the FCC ruling was relevant and if a judge felt the antennas were not being used appropriately, the Council should not approve the installation.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that the decision can be appealed to the courts and he could use his frequency throughout the appeal period and that the FCC decision was not in effect.

Mayor McTaggart said that there had been some confusion about the frequencies being used.

City Attorney Lynch said that based on information from Mr. Michel and from a review of the FCC data base, the two frequencies licensed by Mr. Storlie and Greene Redi-Mix Concrete were not being used by Mr. Kay but by those entities.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that a suggestion was made at a previous meeting that all antennas brought inside the home and allow Mr. Kay to broadcast commercially from the interior of the house but Mayor pro tem Stern was concerned about potential negative health impacts. He thought it made more sense to allow the two exterior antennas that the Planning Commission recommended and grant Mr. Kay the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions suggested.

Councilman Clark agreed and emphasized that if the CUP is granted it is Mr. Kay’s discretion how he uses the two antennas on the roof, either commercial or amateur but that one of the conditions is that someone must live in the house.

Councilwoman Ferraro addressed the issue of requiring a fire suppression system instead of a fire sprinkler system.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that this was a better approach because of the electronic equipment present.

City Attorney Lynch suggested that the appropriate fire suppression system be installed as determined by the director.

Councilman Clark clarified that the antenna blight would be eliminated by requiring that all antennas on the roof ridgeline except two be removed.

City Attorney Lynch noted that television antennas would be allowed as well.

Councilman Gardiner raised the issue of the requirement to have the house inhabited.

Councilman Clark said this is a residence in a residential zone and the property owner has asked for a commercial application. Mr. Kay would in compliance with the code at the present time if he were broadcasting as an amateur but his request for commercial broadcasting requires a CUP and a requirement for that permit must be that someone must reside in the home.

Councilman Gardiner noted that the City needed to be friendly to amateur radio operators and commercial broadcasting was allowed but there was a need to avoid antenna farms all over the City. He felt that the suggestion made was a good one and to let the FCC sort it out if necessary.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed that due to restraints, this was the best decision.

Councilman Clark agreed also and said that he was opposed to homes in residential communities being converted into commercial businesses under the guise of something else. He felt it was proper to allow a CUP with reasonable conditions.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that conditions be discussed.

City Attorney Lynch said that Condition No. 20 would be changed to indicate a requirement for a fire suppression system and she clarified that Condition No. 17 indicates that Mr. Kay must comply with FCC regulations and that Condition No. 19 states that Mr. Kay must live in the house.

Mayor McTaggart closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-27, AS AMENDED, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MODIFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS DENYING THE APPEAL AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230. The motion carried 4-1, with Councilman Gardiner dissenting.


RECESS:

At 8:20 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess.


INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS FOR THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSS COMMITTEE

Interviewed Jack Karp and Don Norton, applicants for the Emergency Preparedness Committee,


RECONVENE:

The meeting reconvened at 8:39 P.M.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Dr. Ron Melendez, 44 Paseo de Castana, representing Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Homeowners Association raised the issue of sidewalks being placed in the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates area. He said that the residents had been working with the Public Work Department for the last couple of years but there seemed to be little progress.

Mayor McTaggart said that the road might need to be modified to make room for sidewalks and he asked City Manager Evans to look into this situation and report to the Council.

Joseph Murat, #18 Avenida de Camelia, Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Homeowners Association Board Member, also spoke about sidewalks also, on Crest Road. He stressed that the sidewalks would be a benefit not only for members of his association but also for the general public who would use the sidewalks for exercising, walking, etc. He felt that the current conditions were dangerous and posed a liability for the City because people were forced to walk in the narrow street.

Mayor McTaggart said that the City should consider doing something to improve conditions.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, objected to Shirley Borks being honored and congratulated the president of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Association on the birth of his son,


REGULAR BUSINESS:

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

Senior Planner Fox provided the Council with a copy of the old code, gave a brief history of the City’s equestrian regulations and the nonconformity statement process.

At this time, an exchange of questions and answers between Councilman Gardiner and Senior Planner Fox provided clarifying details for review of this nonconformity statement.

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of April 16, and the recommendation to determine the maximum number of large domestic animals that may be "grandfathered" for keeping and/or boarding on the property at 20 Vanderlip Drive.

Mayor pro tem Stern referenced a letter from the applicant Jack Downhill which stated that he previously maintained 11 horses on his property prior to the incorporation of the City. Mayor pro tem Stern asked how many of these 11 horses could be grandfathered.

Senior Planner Fox said that they could all be grandfathered.

Don Burt, 79 Narcissa Drive, said that his property bordered on Narcissa; that he passed the subject site many times per day; that he had never seen more than four horses on the property; and, did not think that the intent was commercial boarding.

Sherree Greenwood, 2543 Sunnyside Ridge Road, a member of the Equestrian Committee, said that she hoped that the people in the equestrian community could try to understand each other and allow reasonable rights for those seeking grandfathering. She said that there were many families who want their children to have horses and a country life and the establishment of the Equestrian Community and the good judgment of City Council can contribute to this goal.

Charlene O'Neil, 38 Headland Drive, Chair of the Equestrian Committee, felt that when there was a large parcel of land such as this, approximately seven acres, 11 horses should not be considered excessive.

Jack Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive, explained that he was told when he bought the property he learned from the County that he could keep one horse per 15,000 square feet and one more for each 5,000, which would allow him 58 horses so 11 did not seem like that many.  He said that subdividing, which he did not intend to do, could provide seven contiguous lots, which would allow him 28 horses.  He said that he picked the number of 11 horses because when he had a fire in 1973, he knew he had that many and he felt he was entitled to that number.

Mayo pro tem Stern asked if staff had done a workup based on the provision which allows the Council to allow the number of horses an owner testifies he had anytime during the calendar year of 1997 if the owner does not have evidence of the number of horses he had. Senior Planner Fox replied that assuming that because of continuous ownership, this property qualified for the 1975 boarding exception.

Sepp Donahower, 3 West Pomegranate Road, said that he had lived in Portuguese Bend for 52 years; had been keeping horses for 40 years; and, knew that the County code had a limitation of six horses per parcel and that the City cloned that code.  He added that the old code forbade boarding for profit; that his father was cited by the County for keeping more horses than he was allowed which proved that the County code did have restrictions on boarding and the number of horses allowed and it was important to take into account those restrictions when considering grandfathering.

Senior planner Fox said that the County code was used in the interim when the City was incorporated but when the County code later placed restrictions of six horses per parcel, the City did not adopt this new provision.

In response to Councilman Gardiner's question if a copy of the County code was available for inspection during this hearing and Senior Planner Fox said no. Councilman Gardiner felt that this code should consulted before a decision could be made on this nonconformity statement.

City Attorney Lynch said that Senior Planner was saying that after the City adopted the County Code by reference, the County adopted horsekeeping standards which the City did not adopt until 1975 but prior to the City's incorporation, there were no horsekeeping standards in the County Code.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that it was important to sort out these details and moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern, to continue this item.  Motion carried.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 9:58 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:10 P.M.

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

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of April 16, and the recommendation to:  affirm Staff’s determination that the keeping of a maximum twelve (12) large domestic animals of which a maximum of seven (7) animals may be boarded may be grandfathered for the property at 6 Limetree Lane.

Councilman Gardiner and Councilman Clark asked about assertions about public health and aesthetics issues which were being investigated by Code Enforcement or County Animal Control.

Senior Planner Fox said that some Code Enforcement issues being investigated based upon assertions from Mrs. Strauss and Mrs. Deeble, but that he had not spoken to County Animal Control.

Councilman Gardiner asked if the Council was to consider only the number of horses allowed and not the care of the horses on this property.

City Attorney Lynch said that for a discretionary permit, care of the animals was considered but for this nonconformity statement, only the number of horses allowed was an issue.

Robert Maxwell, 7 East Pomegranate, pointed out that attorneys have stated that grandfathering is illegal and that it diminishes property values, ignores City rules, and violates CC&R's of the Portuguese Bend Community Association, allows illegal spot zoning, gives individuals rights at the expense of others.  He said that commercialism is contrary to the General Plan.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that the City does not enforce CC&R's but CC&R's are an agreement between property owners and those who enforce.  If CC&R's are more restrictive, they override what the Council decides based on code.

A discussion ensued between Senior Planner Fox and Councilman Gardiner regarding the counting of horses which were being illegally boarded under the old code and whether they would be included in the total number of horses to be kept or only in the number of horses allowed to be boarded.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that since it was difficult to determine if a profit had been made by boarding, this was not made an issue but that if a property owner was allowed to have a certain number of horses and all were being boarded, they were still allowed to have that many horses on their property.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if that meant only for keeping but not necessarily for boarding and she said yes.  She also clarified that boarding in perpetuity was considered only when the property had been owned in 1975 or prior.

Betty Strauss, 10 West Pomegranate Road, said that there were 100 to 150 horses in Portuguese Bend; she listed the number of horses in the Portuguese Bend Riding Club, Pony Club, and Ride to Fly; and, she said that no one was complaining about the number of horses used by these organizations.  However, she felt that many people had worked hard to ban commercialism in residential areas and she said her granddaughter had paid for riding at one facility which claims to be non-commercial and stated that many people boarding horses were not doing it to be nice but to make money and some did not even ride themselves.  She pointed out that another facility, a horse had died and when the County was contacted, the County representative said that property owners boarding horses should be licensed in order for the County to help monitor horsekeeping standards.  She said that after sitting through numerous hearings, her perspective on why four was chosen as the maximum number of horse allowed was that someone might have a couple of horse and then they might be willing to board a couple more for friends but this would eliminate large scale commercial boarding.

Mayor pro tem Stern pointed out that the present code does not eliminate or address the concept of commercial; it is merely called boarding. Ms. Strauss said that after the first few hearings, the concept of commercialism was eliminated.

Mayor pro tem Stern emphasized that, although he understood the distinction she was making, the Council was obligated to follow the code and that staff's interpretation of the code seemed correct.

Toni Deeble, 3 East Pomegranate Road, said that the nonconforming code stated that a nonconforming situation shall be found to be legal if the number of horses being kept previously was legal under the old code and she felt that Sunshine did not qualify for this grandfathering. She stated that profit was not the issue in determining a commercial venture; that a business could operate at a loss.  She objected also to the lack of verification which was required for a nonconformity statement; that the City took the word of the property owner and the number of horses she claimed was from illegal boarding so should not be a valid number.  She felt that the neighbors were not being listened too even when a horse had died.

Charlene O’Neil, 38 Headland Drive, said that horses die sometimes because they are ill and not necessarily because they are being neglected.  She referenced a study performed by the Equestrian Committee indicating the need for more boarding facilities based on the waiting lists at every riding club and boarding facility on the Peninsula.

Sepp Donahower, 3 West Pomegranate Road, suggested that the Council study the County code because it affects all three the nonconformity statement being considered.  He said that this code did have a ceiling of 6 horses and he knew this because his father was cited several times for violating this code. He said that the County code prohibited boarding for profit and that the Rancho Palos Verdes code was a clone of the County code. He felt that Sunshine should not be allowed to have 12 horses by grandfathering since legally she was not allowed to have 12 horses according to the previous code.

Joe Deeble, 3 East Pomegranate Road, felt that the small percentage of nonconformity statements submitted indicated that the City had provided a reasonable number of horses allowed for 90% of horse owners.  He said that some facilities obviously looked commercial by the size of the operation and by the traffic of strangers.

Sherree Greenwood, 2543 Sunnyside Ridge Road, said that she was a member of the Equestrian Committee but was also speaking as an individual and stressed that commercialism should not be confused with the legal right to own an animal.  With only three nonconformity statements to be considered, she felt it was important to try to resolve differences.

Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane, said that she agreed with the staff report and thought that her statement had been brought before the Council mainly because of code enforcement issues which were being dealt with separately.  She emphasized that she had never claimed to have lived in Rancho Palos Verdes in 1975 and that she had submitted designs for her barns which were approved by architectural committees.  She discussed sales of horses between residents, the use of her property by Ride to Fly, and the number of horses she had on her property on February 1, 1997.

Mayor pro tem Stern made reference to materials furnished to the Council by Toni Deeble and based on interpretation, it appeared that Sunshine is entitled to 12 horses, with seven boarded.

Councilwoman Ferraro agreed.

Councilman Gardiner said that he had attended a meeting held by the Deebles and spoken to Kay Bara on the telephone and he thought that the interpretation of how the animals were counted needed to be sorted out before he felt comfortable making a decision on this nonconformity statement.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 11:20 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess.  The meeting reconvened at 11:27 P.M.

At this time, because of the late hour, the Council decided to hear, after the nonconformity statements, agenda items which needed immediate decisions and to continue the remainder of the items on the agenda.

Discussion of the Nonconformity Statement No. 8 continued.

Councilman Clark and Mayor McTaggart agreed with Councilman Gardiner that interpretation of how horses were counted needed to be clarified.

On the subject of nonconforming statements that were not contested, City Attorney Lynch said that information as to how these statements were handled could be furnished to the Council.

Council consensus was that consistency was important.

Councilman Clark disclosed that he, like Councilman Gardiner was contacted by the Deeble family and met with them and some other neighbors; and, that he had been contacted by the Bara family and met with them also.

Mayor McTaggart said that he had spoke to Betty Strauss on the phone and bumped into Kay Bara at the market.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that the Baras had called him to see if he had questions and as he had none, there was no further discussion.

Council consensus was to continue this item.

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

Presentation of the staff report was waived.  Staff recommendation was to affirm Staff’s determination that the keeping of a maximum ten (10) large domestic animals of which a maximum of six (6) animals may be boarded may be grandfathered for the property at 1 Peppertree Drive.

Bridget Heller, 9 Fruit Tree Road, said that the Baras keep a lovely facility and she did not feel that commercialism was an issue because of their support of community horse groups.

Robert Maxwell, 7 East Pomegranate Road, felt that the Baras should not be allowed the ten horses they requested because that number of horses was not legal for them at the time because he felt they were receiving money for boarding over and above their expenses.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked Mr. Maxwell if he had proof of this and he said no but he suspected it was true.

Toni Deeble, 3 East Pomegranate, said that the Baras started with a commercial venture and a horse trainer and that when the relationship with the horse trainer dissolved, they continued to expand the commercial operation even when the neighbors protested.  She felt that they fought for commercialism at the Planning Commission hearings therefore theirs must be a commercial operation.  She said that the Baras said that their boarders became friends and that whether or not there was profit, there was commercial boarding and proof of this was that Betty Strauss' granddaughter paid for lessons at their site.  She said that their nonconformity should not be legalized because the legality of their facility in the past could not be verified.

Joe Deeble, 3 East Pomegranate Road, felt that the Baras should take their request before the Equestrian Committee using the current code to justify why they needed ten horses rather than requesting grandfathering.

Mayor pro tem Stern pointed out that the code did provide for grandfathering.

Charlene O’Neil, 38 Headland Drive, felt that this case should be decided by the same standards as the previous 17 nonconformity statements and said that the Baras' 12 acres was enough land for ten horses.

Councilman Clark pointed out that the Council was not involved in the determination on the previous 17 nonconformity statements.

Sherree Greenwood, 2543 Sunnyside Ridge Road, said that the Baras have a well-maintained facility with lots of open space in their 12 acres with plenty of stables and three arenas.  She felt it was not a commercial operation because they had helped many community groups and children and supported their request for ten horses.

Kay Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive, said that they requested permission to keep 10 horses, six of them boarded, and that under the old code with their three parcels, a total of 12 acres, they would have been allowed to keep 17 horses. Therefore, without grandfathering, their property value was greatly reduced. She said that they had ten horses on February 1, 1997; they knew which horses they were; they had boarding agreements with some of the people who were present at this hearing or who had submitted supporting letters.  She said that their fee was low and covered only reimbursement for food, water, shavings, shoveling once a day, and insurance and that although they had not been asked to keep records or show their records, they did have such records. She felt that the same standards should be applied to them as for the other nonconformity statements which were approved.

Richard Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive, said that the staff reports explains their situation clearly and that they never claimed to own the property in 1975 so he did not see why this issue kept being mentioned.  He described how their operation expanded with more horses acquired, some from friends and how they came to provide lessons for children because they had the rings.  He said that taking care of ten horses was reasonable but over that number, it was not.  He felt that the new code had been a compromise and took rights from people.

Dr. Chris Traughber, 26516 Crenshaw Boulevard, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274, said that the Baras did not have a business because they were not making a profit.  He described the need for boarding on the Peninsula and the long waiting lists at boarding facilities.

Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner to continue this item.  Motion carried.

Request for Proposals – City Hall Telephone and Voice Messaging System

Presentation of the staff report was waived. Staff recommendation was to approve the attached City of Rancho Palos Verdes Request for Proposal for VOIP Telephone System (the "RFP") for the replacement of the City Hall telephone system and authorize the Finance Director to negotiate the terms and conditions of the purchase of the system and related support agreement.

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

Resol. No. 2002- 28 - Professional Services Agreement For An Employees Benefit Study

Staff recommendation was to: (1) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Aon Consulting for an Employee Benefits Study in the amount of $27,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2) Adopt the proposed resolution amending Resol. No. 2001-35, the Budget Appropriation for Fiscal Year 01-02, for a Budget Adjustment to the City’s General Fund.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner to: (1) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Aon Consulting for an Employee Benefits Study in the amount of $27,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2) ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2002-28, AMENDING RESOL. NO. 2001-35, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 01-02, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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

Adjourned City Council Meetings

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

The following meeting dates were scheduled:

Saturday, April 27, after the Community Leaders’ Breakfast: Interviews for the Recreation and Parks Committee and Equestrian Committee applicants

Monday, May 20: New date for the Zone 2 Workshop

Saturday, May 18: Tentative date for a joint meeting with the School Board. City Manager Evans will confirm with the School Board.

Wednesday, June 12: Meeting to discuss Equestrian items

Resol. No. 2002-29 - Emergency Preparedness Committee

Staff recommendation was to adopt the proposed resolution amending Resolution No. 2002-11 to increase the members of the Emergency Preparedness Committee from seven (7) members to nine (9) members.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-29, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-11 TO INCREASE THE MEMBERS OF THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE FROM SEVEN (7) MEMBERS TO NINE (9) MEMBERS.

Due to time constraints, the following items were continued:

Equestrian Committee Workload Summary
Equestrian Committee Report on an Equestrian Facility
Recreational Vehicle Street Parking and Residential Storage
Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority
Senate Bill 633, Delay Prevention Act
League of California Cities Membership
League of California Cities Resolution


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

City Attorney Lynch reported that no action was taken on the first two items and that regarding the City Manager’s evaluation, a contract would be brought back on the next agenda.


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 12:28 A.M. to Saturday, April 27th to the Community Leaders’ Breakfast starting at 9:00 A.M., followed by the interviews of applicants for the advisory boards (Parks & Recreation and Equestrian Committee) starting at 11:00 A.M.


____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________
CITY CLERK


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

MAY 21, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 6:07 P.M. by Mayor John McTaggart in the Fireside Room at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

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

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

Interview of Appointees for Equestrian Committee (106)

Council interviewed the following appointees for the position of chair for Equestrian Committee. No action was taken.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 6:30 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 6:37 P.M.

Adjournment: At 6:38 P.M. the meeting adjourned on motion of Mayor McTaggart.


___________________
Mayor

Attest:


___________________
City Clerk


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 4, 2002

The meeting was called to order at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by City Clerk Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.


_______________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________
CITY CLERK






2. Contract Addendum No. 6 for the Long Point Resort Hotel Environmental Impact Report. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: Approve Contract Addendum No. 6 to the Agreement for Consulting Services between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF) for preparation of additional environmental studies for the Long Point Resort Hotel project, in the amount of $23,010.00.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: CONTRACT ADDENDUM NO. 6 FOR THE LONG POINT RESORT HOTEL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Contract Addendum No. 6 to the Agreement for Consulting Services between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF) for preparation of additional environmental studies for the Long Point Resort Hotel project, in the amount of $23,010.00.

BACKGROUND:

York Long Point Associates (applicant) submitted applications for a Specific Plan and related applications to the City on October 21, 1997, at which time the determination was made that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project. In light of this requirement, staff solicited requests for proposals, conducted interviews of environmental consulting firms, and ultimately selected Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (Consultant) to prepare the EIR. The City contracted directly with the Consultant in order to retain control over the document preparation. However, the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the document preparation. The applicant has established a trust deposit for the payment of preparation costs along with a 10% administrative fee assessed to cover City Staff’s management of the contract. A separate "Agreement to Pay Environmental Analysis Costs for a Proposed Specific Plan with Related Applications" was approved by the City Council and executed by the applicant to ensure that the City receives the necessary funds from the applicant. Although the applicant has since changed to Destination Development Corporation, York Long Point Associates as owner of the Long Point portion of the project site, continues to pay the EIR preparation costs.

As a result of the City Council’s October 16, 2001 motion to the deny the applicants’ use of the City owned Upper Point Vicente Park area, the applicants have significantly modified the project, which in turn has caused the EIR Consultant to revise the scope of its work. The cost of completing the environmental documentation has increased due to the longer term of the consultant’s services and the complex nature of the project.

The additional cost that is covered in Addendum No. 6 is $23,010. The proposed increase, as described in detail in the Consultant’s Addendum No. 6 proposal (see attachment), is to prepare additional environmental studies for the project revisions. The additional studies will be prepared as an addendum to the certified EIR. The additional cost brings the total cost for the EIR preparation to approximately $568,370.00. It should be noted that the addendum cost reflected in the consultant’s proposal includes preparing electronic copies of the environmental documents for the City’s website. The preparation of electronic copies of the EIR was requested by the City to provide improved public access to the project’s EIR documents and was not a part of the original contract.

The applicants have reviewed the increased amount identified in Addendum No. 6, and have agreed to pay this amount (see attachment). Furthermore, since the May 7th City Council meeting, the applicants have replenished the EIR trust deposit account to cover any previous deficient balances and costs associated with the addendum.

FISCAL IMPACT

The Contract Addendum will have no fiscal impact on the City due to the obligation of the applicant to cover all costs for the preparation of environmental documentation, including a 10% administrative fee to cover the City’s contract management costs.

CONCLUSION

Staff and the applicants have reviewed the proposed increase and find it appropriate given the changing circumstances associated with this complex project. Approval of Addendum No. 6 would result in no changes to the original contract other than the cost components discussed therein, and all other provisions of the contract would apply to the Addendum items. Therefore, based on the discussion above, staff recommends that the City Council approve Addendum No. 6 as presented.

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Deny the proposed Addendum No. 6; or,
  2. Adopt Addendum No. 6 with modifications as deemed appropriate by the Council.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

  • Contract Addendum No. 6 from RBF, dated May 21, 2002
  • Applicants Acceptance Letter



3. Participation in the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: (1) Authorize staff to begin the process of joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency for AB 939 diversion and disposal reporting purposes. (2) Approve an amendment to a professional services agreement with SCS Engineers, for consulting work related to joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency, and approve expenditures in an amount not to exceed $2,000. (3) ADOPT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA REGIONAL AGENCY

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Authorize staff to begin the process of joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency for AB 939 diversion and disposal reporting purposes.

  2. Approve an amendment to a professional services agreement with SCS Engineers, for consulting work related to joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency, and approve expenditures in the amount not to exceed $2,000.

  3. Adopt Resolution 2002- ___, which increases the Solid Waste Fund budget appropriation for FY 01-02 in the amount of $2,000.

BACKGROUND

On May 15, 2002, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) approved the City's 1999/2000 biennial review, with a diversion rate of 31% for 1999 and 47% for 2000. Although the City did not meet the 50% diversion mandate, the CIWMB recognized the City's recycling and waste reduction programs and approved the City's diversion based on "Good Faith Effort". This means that the CIWMB views the City in much the same manner they would have if the City had achieved the goal of 50% and that the City therefore, is not required to prepare a SB 1066, Time Extension Request. However, like all cities we must continue implementing various recycling and waste reduction programs, prepare annual reports and receive approval during future biennial reviews.

The City of Los Angeles (LA) has recently submitted a year 2000 Base Year Study to the CIWMB. If approved, the City of LA will have a diversion rate of 59%. In January 2002, the City of LA took initial steps toward the formation of a Los Angeles Area Regional Agency (Regional Agency) for AB 939 diversion and disposal reporting purposes. All the 88 cities in Los Angeles County, including Rancho Palos Verdes, were invited to attend meetings and consider joining the Regional Agency. In Northern California, cities and counties have banded together to form a total of 22 regional agencies. No regional agency currently exists in Southern California.

DISCUSSION

This item has been brought to the City Council at the request of Mayor McTaggart. The purpose of forming a Regional Agency is to report AB 939 diversion and disposal as one entity rather than by individual jurisdictions. Therefore, instead of 40 cities with 40 different annual reports and diversion rates, there will be one Regional Agency with one annual report and one diversion rate. This simplifies the annual AB 939 reporting process by averaging the diversion among participating jurisdictions. This is helpful for cities such as RPV that have not reached 50%. Through this Regional Agency, the City of LA is inviting other cities to benefit from LA's excess diversion and reach or exceed 50% when one combined Regional Agency annual report is prepared. At this time it is estimated that the Regional Agency's year 2000 diversion for all the participants will be approximately 53%.

The mechanism to form a Regional Agency is a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). This gives the Regional Agency the permission to put together the information for those jurisdictions, and submit a joint annual report each year. After the JPA is approved by all participating jurisdictions, the agreement will be taken to the CIWMB for approval. A draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been prepared and submitted to interested cities. The City of LA has allowed interested cities until June 10, 2002 to review the draft MOU. The City Attorney is currently reviewing the document and will provide comments or changes, if needed.

Currently there are approximately 30 cities considering joining the Regional Agency and are reviewing the draft MOU. The majority of these cities have a diversion rate below 50%; however, a few cities such as the Cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica have a diversion rate above 50%.

The Regional Agency could serve as an insurance policy for the City. In case the City's diversion fluctuates, or new laws and requirements come into effect, the City can protect itself by being a part of larger group that will have a diversion rate exceeding 50%.

Advantages to joining a Regional Agency:

  • A Regional Agency would have more influence at the State level than any single jurisdiction, and better negotiation power

  • CIWMB staff has stated that it is more efficient to serve cities collectively rather than attend individual city's meetings

  • Share costs and conduct new "regional level" base year studies, if required by proposed legislation

  • Small cities will not be as effected with fluctuations in the Disposal Reporting System (DRS). It reduces "bean counting" and worrying if the numbers add up to a 50% diversion or not
  • The cities can voluntarily withdraw from this Regional Agency by filing with the Regional Agency a written notice of intent.

  • Effect on RPV:
  • The City's year 2000 diversion rate will be the same as the Regional Agency, which is estimated at 53% (compared to the City's current 47%).
  • The City will no longer submit an individualized annual report. The Regional Agency will submit an annual report on behalf of all the members. This will reduce the time and expense of the City's consultant for this task in future years.
  • The City's diversion rate will not fluctuate as much as before. In the past, any large construction project in the City, or misreporting of neighboring cities activities shifted the City's reported disposal tonnage and therefore diversion rate significantly. The City's approved diversions for 1995 through 2000 show a lot of fluctuations. The diversion rates were: 28%, 20%, 38%, 44%, 31% and 47% respectively.
  • Each city will still be responsible for implementing programs outlined in its CIWMB approved Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Joining the Agency does not mean a City can slack off and not worry about their recycling programs.

  • The City will still be responsible for managing its own solid waste and recycling hauling contracts and programs. There will be no change.

  • In case of new laws or mandates, the City will be in a stronger position to meet them and implement needed programs.

  • Fines, if any, will be divided among Regional Agency members.

Cost:

  • There is a proposed fee of $.15 per ton based on each city's disposal tonnage. RPV's annual cost is estimated at less than $10,000. The Solid Waste Fund would fund this expenditure. It is anticipated that once the Regional Agency is set up, the cost will be lower in future years. The Agency will provide members annual financial statements and full accounting.

The specifics about the structure of the Regional Agency, how decisions will be made, how often members will get together, and what types of programs will be done will be decided by participants through consensus decision-making.

SCS Engineers is the City's solid waste/AB 939 consultant. They are also solid waste consultants for various other municipalities such as, Rolling Hills, Lakewood and Baldwin Park and have performed AB 939 implementation related work for the City and County of Los Angeles. The Cities of Lakewood and Baldwin Park are also interested in joining the Agency. SCS Engineers' proposed scope of work which will begin in FY 01-02 and continue into FY 02-03 includes: representing the City at Regional Agency meetings, reviewing upcoming documents or programs, working with Regional Agency staff and recommending course(s) of action to City staff. The contract amendment will be on a time and materials basis, in accordance with the existing contract between SCS Engineers and the City. The proposed fee will not exceed $2,000.

CONCLUSION

If staff recommendations are approved, the City will begin the process of joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency. The City will continue to implement programs in its approved SRRE, however, after joining the Regional Agency, the City's reported diversion would be the same as the Regional Agency.

The draft MOU is currently being reviewed by interested cities and comments are due. It is anticipated that a final MOU will be available in Fall 2002. Once the final MOU is prepared, staff will return to the City Council requesting final approval of the MOU. The City will then be responsible for its share of the Agency's annual administrative cost, which is estimated not to exceed $10,000 a year. At that time staff will also request budget appropriation for the City's share of FY 02-03 annual costs related to the administration of the Regional Agency.

FISCAL IMPACT

If staff recommendations are approved, the City will begin the process of joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency. Additional funds in the amount of $2,000 for FY 01-02 will be appropriated in the Solid Waste budget to fund the City's consulting expenses related to joining and working with the Regional Agency. The Solid Waste Fund is the funding source, which has projected June 30, 2002 ending fund balance of $760,500.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment: Resolution 2002- ___


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE 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 5, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2001-43, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2001-02 fiscal year: and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the fiscal year 2001-02 budget appropriation be increased as follows:

Solid Waste Fund:

Professional Services --- #113-313.35 --- $ 2,000

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

The following increase be made to the fiscal year 2001-02 Solid Waste Fund budget:

Solid Waste Fund:

Professional Services --- #113-313.35 --- $ 2,000

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 12th DAY OF JUNE, 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 June 12, 2002.

_____________________________
CITY CLERK



4. Annual Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING THE CITY'S APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: ANNUAL APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FY 2002-2003

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 2002- establishing the City's Appropriation Limit for FY 2002-2003.

BACKGROUND:

The Gann Initiative of 1979 amended the State Constitution to require cities to adopt an annual limit on the amount of tax revenue that can be appropriated for spending each fiscal year. Annually, prior to the adoption of the budget, the City follows statewide guidelines in preparing the Gann appropriation limit calculation. The calculation of the appropriation limit for FY 2002-2003 will be reviewed by the City's independent auditors in conjunction with the performance of the annual audit.

The appropriation limit establishes a ceiling on the amount of tax revenue the City can receive and appropriate for spending each year. The appropriation limit is computed using a base year amount calculated for 1979-80. The base amount is then adjusted each year using inflationary and population growth statistics provided by the State Department of Finance. The appropriation limit calculated for FY 2002-2003 is $16,427,410.

Based upon the proposed budget, staff has determined that $9,903,010 of projected tax revenue is subject to the appropriation limit in FY 2002-2003. As has historically been the case, the City has a very large margin between the projected tax revenue and the appropriation limit for FY 2002-2003.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has established its Appropriation Limit of $16,427,410 (Sixteen Million Four Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ten Dollars) for Fiscal Year 2002-2003; and

WHEREAS, by a letter, dated May 1, 2002, the California Department of Finance has provided the following factors relevant to the calculation of the Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2002-2003:

California Per Capita Personal Income change:

Minus 1.27% (- One Point Two Seven Percent).

City of Rancho Palos Verdes Population Adjustment:

Plus 1.42% (+ One Point Four Two Percent)

WHEREAS, the City Finance staff has calculated the Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 based upon the foregoing factors and the provisions of Article XIII B of the Constitution of the State of California. The working papers supporting the calculation are maintained in the files of the Finance department within the City.

WHEREAS, the Appropriation Limit for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes establishes the ceiling for which proceeds from taxes can be appropriated during Fiscal Year 2002-2003.

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

Section 1: The Appropriation Limit of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is $16,427,410 (Sixteen Million Four Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ten Dollars) for Fiscal Year 2002-2003.

Section 2: The Appropriation Limit of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in the amount of $16,427,410 (Sixteen Million Four Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ten Dollars) exceeds the proceeds from taxes, calculated in the amount of $9,903,010 (Nine Million Nine Hundred and Three Thousand and Ten Dollars) for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Therefore, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall be in compliance with the provisions of Article XIII B of the Constitution of the State of California.

Section 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 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 June 12, 2002.


___________________
CITY CLERK



5. Resolution Regarding Zone 2 Findings. (Lynch)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING "ZONE 2" OF THE LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM AREA BASED UPON THE REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED BY COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY ATTORNEY

DATE: June 12, 2002

SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT REGARDING RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH THE CITY COUNCIL’S FINDINGS REGARDING ZONE 2

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, which sets forth the City Council’s findings based on the report that was prepared by Cotton, Shires & Associates for the "Zone 2" area of the Landslide Moratorium.

BACKGROUND

The City Council directed that Cotton, Shires & Associates review existing geologic data to determine if there was sufficient information to analyze whether properties in the "Zone 2" portion of the Landslide Moratorium area could be developed safely. Cotton Shires issued its report on January 14, 2002. At the May 20, 2002 City Council meeting, the Council discussed the report and approved certain findings based on the Cotton Shires report. Mayor Pro Tem Stern subsequently requested that a resolution be prepared to memorialize the Council’s findings.

DISCUSSION

The attached resolution sets forth the findings that were discussed by the City Council. The findings in the resolution have been altered slightly to make it clear that the City is applying the Citywide standard of a factor of safety of 1.5 for residential development to land within the Moratorium area, including Zone 2. In addition, the order of presentation of some of the findings has been changed so that it is clear which findings in the Cotton Shires report were being approved by the City Council and which were not.

Finally, Section 3 of the Resolution directs Staff to deny requests to approve development permits for new homes within the Zone 2 area until a complete Landslide Moratorium Exclusion application is submitted, which is accompanied by adequate geologic data that demonstrates a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater of the Zone 2 area that is acceptable to the City Geologist; the City Council approves the Moratorium Exclusion application, and all other required permits are issued by the City.

CONCLUSION

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution so that the Council’s findings will be memorialized in the format that is typically used by the City Council for its significant decisions.

City Attorney Executive Director


RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING "ZONE 2" OF THE LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM AREA BASED UPON THE REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED BY COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES

WHEREAS, in 1991, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with Cotton, Shires & Associates to review existing geologic data to address certain issues regarding potential development in the area of the Landslide Moratorium that has been informally designated as "Zone 2"; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the direction of the City Council, Cotton, Shires & Associates prepared a report dated January 14, 2002; and

WHEREAS, on May 20, 2002, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes reviewed the report that was prepared by Cotton, Shires & Associates and discussed certain findings that should be made as a result of the report; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to prepare a resolution setting forth its findings;

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

1. The City Council hereby accepts the following conclusions of the Cotton, Shires & Associates, January 14, 2002 Technical Review that:

    1. There is insufficient subsurface information to properly characterize either the depth to the base of landslide, the strength properties of the landslide materials, or the groundwater levels. Without these data, no accurate slope stability analysis can be undertaken, no reliable factor of safety can be calculated and no dependable landslide mitigation scheme can be designed.

    2. One cannot quantitatively determine the factor of safety and, therefore, cannot judge the level of risk of development in the prehistoric landslide area, which includes Zone 2.

    3. The factor of safety of the landslide mass that underlies Zone 2 is above 1.00, but probably is less than the industry’s standard safety threshold of 1.50 for residential development, which also is the standard that is used by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

    4. The City Council finds that the accepted geotechnical standard for new residential construction, which is a Factor of Safety of 1.5 for slope stability that is applied throughout the City, also should be applied within the boundaries of the Landslide Moratorium Area. This is a common standard among geotechnical professionals and has been adopted by most, if not all, municipalities in Southern California. (Cotton Report page 5, 8-9, Cotton Jan. 30, 2002, letter page 1.)

    5. No recognized geological agency or standard-setting body has adopted as a standard for determining whether or not to allow residential development a standard or test that is based on an inquiry as to whether or not the development of the property would "further destabilize" an area, or such similar standard. Accordingly, Rancho Palos Verdes declines to adopt such a standard within its jurisdiction. (Cotton Jan. 30, 2002, letter page 1.)

    6. Geologically, the level of risk of allowing development of undeveloped residential lots in Zone 2 is presently unknown. The decision to allow new building upon undeveloped lots in that area, given the unknown level of risk, is a policy decision, which must be based on a willingness to accept the unknown risk. (Cotton Jan. 30, 2002 letter, page 1.)

    7. The guidelines suggested by Dr. Perry Ehlig in his Memorandum of May 26, 1993, appear to be based on Dr. Ehlig's subjective assessment, based on his experience and intuition. However, Cotton, Shires uncovered no geotechnical slope stability analyses of Zone 2 in Dr. Ehlig's files. (Cotton Jan 30, 2002 letter, page 2, Report page 2.)

    8. Although a number of mitigation measures have been employed, to date no quantitative geotechnical analysis to determine the effectiveness of these measures has been undertaken. (Cotton Report page 2.)

    9. It has been noted by various individuals that the apparent long period of there being no recorded land movement in Zone 2 suggests that the area is adequately stable to allow building on undeveloped properties in that Zone. Yet there is no clear evidence of the age of the landslide. Further, predicting the long-term stability of the landslide in advance of detailed surface and subsurface information is founded on ill-advised technical reasoning. (Cotton Report page 3.)

2. The conclusion noted in the Cotton, Shires January 2002 Report that the undeveloped ("vacant") lots could be developed "without further destabilizing the large regional landslide" is a conclusion that is not based on the application of the accepted standard that seeks a Factor of Safety of 1.5, but instead is based on the fact that it is feasible to construct new homes without significant redistribution of earth mass or contributing to groundwater rise. Hence, this conclusion is not based on an evaluation of the stability of the underlying geology. This response was the result of a request by the City Council that the report address the issue of whether or not the development would "further destabilize" the area. (Cotton Jan. 30, 2002 letter page 1-2.) Because this conclusion is not based on a standard that is recognized by a geological agency or standard-setting body, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes declines to adopt that conclusion.

3. Based on the foregoing, the City Council is directing City Staff to continue to deny requests for development permits for new homes in the Zone 2 area of the Portuguese Bend landslide complex, because of the current lack of evidence that the Zone 2 area has a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater, until an applicant submits a complete Landslide Moratorium Exclusion application that is supported by adequate geologic data demonstrating a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater of the Zone 2 area to the satisfaction of the City Geologist; the City Council approves the Landslide Moratorium Exclusion application, and all other required permits to develop are issued by the City.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _________ day of June 2002.


___________________
Mayor

ATTEST:


_____________________
City Clerk



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

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: APRIL 2002 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

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

BACKGROUND:

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

ANALYSIS:

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $27,503,273 at April 30, 2002. This represents a $2,089,663 increase during the month. The overall increase is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

General Fund – Cash in the General fund increased by over $1.4 Million during April. The most significant contributions to the increase were receipts of the April property tax apportionment of $971,592, the annual Southern California Edison franchise tax payment of $238,777, the annual California Water franchise tax payment of $139,013, and third quarter interest of $52,352.

Gas Tax Fund – Cash in this fund increased by more than $68,000 during April due to receipt of both the March and April Highway Users Tax apportionment.

1972 Act Fund – The cash balance in the 1972 Act fund increased by almost $75,000 due to the receipt of the April property tax apportionment.

1911 Act Fund – The cash balance in the 1911 Act fund increased by more than $65,000 during the month. This fund received $84,775 for the April property tax apportionment and $6,718 for third quarter interest earnings. Disbursements were limited to $22,527 for March street lighting and $3,333 for monthly General fund overhead charges.

Special Trusts Fund – The Special Trusts cash balance increased by over $72,000 during the month. Total deposits of approximately $105,500 included $60,000 from Portuguese Bend, LLC, $20,000 from Ocean Trails, and $12,000 from Marymount College. Total disbursements of approximately $33,500 included no significant items.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



7. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARINGS:



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

Recommendation: (1) Conduct a public hearing on the proposed levy and collection of assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and the Engineer’s Report prepared in connection therewith. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2002-2003 FISCAL YEAR IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT

Staff Coordinator: Judy A. Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

1. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed levy and collection of assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for fiscal year 2002-03 and the Engineer's Report prepared in connection therewith.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2002-____, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes confirming a diagram and assessment for the 2002-03 fiscal year in connection with the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

BACKGROUND

In 1992 the City Council formed an assessment district designated "Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District" (the "Citywide District") pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq.) (the "1972 Act"). Since 1992 the district has levied assessments to finance the operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, signal facilities, and appurtenant facilities. The Citywide District includes all of the assessable parcels in the City.

The 1972 Act requires that proceedings be undertaken on an annual basis for any year during which assessments will be levied and collected. The 1972 Act also requires the preparation of an engineer's report in connection with the annual levy of assessments.

On May 7, 2002 the City Council, by resolution, approved the fiscal year 2002-03 Engineer's Report, which establishes assessments and set this evening's public hearing on the proposed levy of assessments for fiscal year 2002-03.

ANALYSIS

The estimate of total District expense for fiscal year 2002-03 is $462,672. The

proposed total assessment is $327,616. Approximately $124,456 of accumulated reserves and $10,600 of General funds will be used to cover district expenditures in excess of the annual assessment.

The approved 2002-03 Engineer's Report groups parcels in the City into various zones which receive differing degrees of benefit from the operation of the district as a result of variations in the nature, location and extent of the proposed maintenance activities and improvements. The proposed FY 2002-03 assessments for a single family parcel range from $8.23 to $ 45.79. For all parcels citywide the FY 2002-03 assessment is equal to or less than the FY 2001-02 assessment.

CONCLUSION

To levy assessments for district operation, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of

1972 requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution confirming the assessment. By adopting the staff recommendation Council will be assessing single family parcels between $8.23 to $45.79. The majority of single-family households will be assessed approximately $20.00 for fiscal year 2002-03.

FISCAL IMPACT

By adopting the staff recommendation, Council will be approving total assessments of

$327,616 to fund the operation of the district for the maintenance of street landscaping, street trees, median landscaping, traffic signals, safety lighting, and district administrative expenses.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean Allison
Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager

Attachments:
Resolution 2002-
Engineer’s Report


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2002-03 FISCAL YEAR AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

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

Section 1. Pursuant to prior resolutions, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes initiated proceedings and declared its intention to levy an assessment against lots and parcels of property within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (the "District") pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "Act"), Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, and ordered the Engineer, Harris & Associates, to prepare and file a written report in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Act. The City Council, by prior resolution, approved such Engineer's Report.

Section 2. Following notice duly given in accordance with law, the City Council has held a full and fair public hearing regarding the Engineer's Report and the levy and collection of the proposed assessment within the District for fiscal year 2002-03 to pay for the costs and expenses of the improvements described in Section 4 hereof pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Act. All interested persons were afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard regarding protests and objections to the levy and collection of the proposed assessment against lots or parcels of property within the District. The City Council considered all oral and written statements, protests and communications made or filed by interested persons.

Section 3. Based upon its review of the Engineer's Report, a copy of which has been presented to the City Council and which has been filed with the City Clerk, and other reports and information, the City Council hereby finds and determines that (i) the land within the District will be benefited by the improvements described in Section 4 hereof and in such Engineer's Report, (ii) the District includes all of the lands so benefited, and (iii) the net amount to be assessed upon the lands within the District for the 2002-03 fiscal year in accordance with the Engineer's Report is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements. Any and all oral and written protests and objections to the levy and collection of the proposed assessment for fiscal year 2002-03 are hereby overruled by the City Council.

Section 4. The City Council hereby orders the proposed improvements to be made as described in the Engineer's Report, which improvements are briefly described as follows: the operation, maintenance and servicing of public streets and sidewalks within the District, including the operation, maintenance and servicing of public lighting facilities, including safety lighting and traffic signals, landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass and other ornamental vegetation, and appurtenant facilities, including irrigation systems, located along public roadways, streets and rights-of-way within the boundaries of the City. Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the landscaping, public lighting facilities, and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, public lighting facilities, or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti. Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of the landscaping and the maintenance of any of the public lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for the public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of landscaping or appurtenant facilities.

Section 5. The City Council hereby confirms the diagram and assessment set forth in the Engineer’s Report as filed.

Section 6. The assessment is in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the City Council has complied with all laws pertaining to the levy of an annual assessment pursuant to the Act.

Section 7. The assessment is levied without regard to property valuation.

Section 8. Public property owned by any public agency and in use in the performance of a public function which is included within the boundaries of the District shall not be subject to assessment to be made under these proceedings to pay for any of the costs and expenses of the improvements.

Section 9. The assessment is levied for the purpose of paying the costs and expenses of the improvements described in Section 4 hereof for fiscal year 2002-03.

Section 10. The improvements described in Section 4 hereof shall be performed pursuant to law. The County Auditor of Los Angeles County shall enter on the County Assessment Roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of the assessment and such assessments shall then be collected at the same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by the County, the net amount of the assessments shall be paid to the City Treasurer.

Section 11. The City Treasurer shall deposit all moneys representing assessments collected by the County to the credit of a special fund known as Improvement Fund, Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District.

Section 12. The adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of an assessment against the lots and parcels of land in the District for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003.

Section 13. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the diagram and assessment, or a certified copy of the diagram and assessment, with the County Auditor, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon its adoption.

Section 14. A certified copy of the assessment and diagram shall be filed in the Department of Public Works, with a duplicate copy on file in the office of the City Clerk and open for public inspection.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of June, 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 June 12, 2002.


____________________
City Clerk



9. Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval of Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2279 (6528 Nancy Road). (Mihranian)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 930 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2279, AND DENYING MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 596, TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,921 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6528 NANCY ROAD.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 930 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2279 (6528 NANCY ROAD)

Prepared By: Ara Michael Mihranian, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2002-__ upholding the Planning Commission’s approval to allow the demolition of an existing one-story residence in order to accommodate the construction of a new 3,921 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, at a proposed height of 24 feet, as measured from the lowest finished grade covered by structure (97.20’) to the highest roof ridgeline (121.20’) and a Grading Permit to conduct 781 cubic yards earth movement to accommodate the new residence.

BACKGROUND

On February 26, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the applicants’ request to construct a new, 3,921 square foot, single-family residence at 6528 Nancy Road. At the meeting, concerns were raised by residents, Staff and the Commissioners regarding the applicants’ proposal with respect to the design of the residence, its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and its potential impacts to views from neighboring properties. In response, the applicants presented a revised proposal to the Commission for consideration that evening. Based on the revised proposal and amendments to the Conditions of Approval, the Planning Commission approved the modified project with a vote of 3-2, with Commissioners Long and Mueller dissenting.

On February 27, 2002, a Notice of Decision was sent to all interested parties indicating that the project applications had been approved with modifications. Furthermore, the Notice of Decision informed the interested parties that within fifteen (15) calendar days, an appeal may be filed with the City for consideration by the City Council. On March 11, 2002, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed with the City on behalf of the Miraleste Neighborhood Coalition, which is comprised of several property owners* within the immediate neighborhood (see attachment). The basis of the appeal, which will be discussed in greater detail in the next section of this report, is the project’s incompatibility with City and neighborhood guidelines.

*The Miraleste Neighborhood Coalition includes the following property owners: Hutchings, Ralat, Viducic, Ciriello, Furriel, Andersen, Bradanovic, De Martini, Gerjets, Sheps, and Kawai

In accordance to the Development Code, a public notice of the City Council’s June 4th public hearing was sent to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property, the appellants, all interested parties, and published in the Peninsula News, thirty (30) days before the public hearing, informing the general public of the City Council’s consideration of the appeal and inviting any additional public comments. Furthermore, when it became evident that the June 4th meeting would not occur due to a lack of quorum, Staff mailed a courtesy notice to all property owners within the 500 foot radius, appellants and all interested parties, informing them that the appeal hearing would take place on June 12th.

A copy of the February 26, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report is attached. The Staff Report contains a complete and thorough analysis of the original project presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. Also attached is a copy of the adopted P.C. Resolution that covers the facts and findings made by the Commission in approving the project. Furthermore, attached are the approved minutes of the Commission’s February 26th meeting.

DISCUSSION

Project Description

The applicant’s proposal that was originally presented to the Planning Commission involved the demolition of an existing, 1,522 square foot, single-family residence built in 1939, to allow the construction of a new, 3,921 square foot, two-story residence, with 594 cubic yards of earth movement, that would have been constructed at a height of 26 feet, as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure to the top of the highest roof ridgeline. Based on several public comment letters and recommendations made by Staff, the Planning Commission determined that the design of the project should be enhanced to minimize impacts to neighboring properties. Therefore, the Planning Commission approved a modified project. The project before the City Council this evening is the revised project approved by the Commission, as discussed below.

The overall height of the proposed residence, as approved by the Planning Commission, is 24 feet, as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure to the top of the highest roof ridgeline, and 16’-4", as measured from the highest pre-construction grade covered by structure to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (a reduction of 2 feet from the original proposal). The new residence would measure 3,921 square feet; consisting of 1,566 square feet on the lower level, 1,629 square feet on the upper level and an attached, 726 square foot, two-car garage. Additionally, in order to reduce the overall height of the roof ridgeline, the applicants propose to conduct grading to lower the height of the building pad. According to the revised grading plans, 757 cubic yards of earth movement is proposed; consisting of 630 cubic yards of cut, 3 cubic yards of fill, and 124 cubic yards of removal and recompaction.

It should be noted that the project silhouette has also been modified to reflect the approved plan, so that the Council may evaluate the project approved by the Planning Commission.

Appeal Issues

The appellants’ letter requests that the City council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision because the project "does not meet City and neighborhood guidelines." More specifically, the letter appears to identify two major concerns with the Planning Commission’s decision. These concerns are that the home "is not compatible" and "over the height variance for our City." These issues are discussed in more detail below. All other issues related to the project are discussed in the attached February 26, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report.

The home "is not compatible" (Neighborhood Compatibility)

The appellants believe that the Planning Commission’s decision should be overturned because the project does not comply with the character of the immediate neighborhood. Specifically, the appellants have expressed a concern in past comment letters and public testimony that the proposed residence is incompatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood in terms of architectural style, height and massing. As noted in the attached P.C. Resolution and minutes, the Commission determined that the design of the residence is compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood.

The Commission found that the project is compatible with the character of the ten (10) closest properties in terms of total structure size, because the proposed project, at 3,921 square feet, will be 249 square feet smaller than the largest home located immediately to the West, at 6520 Nancy Road. Furthermore, the Commission determined that although the proposed residence will be 1,272 square feet larger than the average total structure size for the ten (10) closest homes on Nancy Road, by integrating design elements that characterize the Miraleste area and limiting the structure size, the project will be compatible with the neighborhood.

In terms of design elements, the Planning Commission found that the proposed residence has been designed to blend with the immediate neighborhood through the use of similar facade and roof materials, architectural details and color. Such design features include, Mission style roof tile, exposed roof rafters, smooth earth tone stucco, decorative wrought iron window bars and railing, wood windows and doors, and wood railing. The Commission determined that these architectural features can be found throughout the immediate neighborhood on both older and recently remodeled structures. In regards to height, the Commission found that the revised structure, at 24 feet in height, is not uncommon within the immediate neighborhood. As for mass and bulk, the Commission determined that the simple rectangular shape of the proposed residence does not appear out of character with the existing neighborhood because it resembles the "original" Mediterranean feel of the Miraleste area. Furthermore, the Commission found that this type of home is common within the neighborhood in that at least two other homes within the ten (10) closest homes also resemble a rectangular shape. Although this type of design is routinely discouraged throughout various neighborhoods within the City because of its boxy appearance, the Commission felt that integration of the proposed architectural features help balance the perceived weight of the structure, thereby visually softening the structure’s massive and bulky appearance. The Commission also noted that the design of the proposed project has been reviewed by the Palos Verdes Art Jury, and conceptually approved on May 14, 2001.

During public testimony at the February 26th Planning Commission meeting, several speakers indicated that the proposed project is located on a lot that is significantly smaller in size than the lot sizes for the immediate neighborhood, thereby exaggerating the proposed structure’s visual appearance (see attached P.C. minutes). It should be noted that although the subject lot is 8,178 square feet, which is 3,882 square feet less than the average lot size for the ten (10) closest properties, it is comprised of predominantly "developable" area. Whereas the neighboring properties contain much smaller "buildable" areas, since a majority of these lots consist of extreme slopes (35% or steep grade) where construction is prohibited by the Development Code. Furthermore, the subject lot’s "pie-shaped" configuration is better suited to accommodate the proposed structure because the street frontage of the lot is much greater than the neighboring properties.

Therefore, based on the above discussion, Staff believes that no new information has been introduced by the appellants to warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s determination that the project has been designed in a manner that preserves the "original" character of the Miraleste area and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of structure size, architectural style, and mass and bulk.

The home is "over the height variance for our City" (Building Height)

The appellants believe that the height of the proposed residence exceeds that which is permitted by the City and should therefore have not been approved by the Planning Commission. As indicated in the Planning Commission Staff Report, the subject property is defined by the Development Code as a "building pad" lot, which limits the "by right" height to 16 feet, as measured from the highest pre-construction (existing) grade covered by structure to the top of the highest roof ridgeline, and 20 feet, as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure to the top of the highest roof ridgeline. Notwithstanding, the City may allow a structure to exceed the "by right" 16 foot height limit, up to 26 feet, through the processing of a Height Variation application. The Height Variation process was adopted in order to provide guidelines and procedures for protecting views, minimizing an infringement of privacy, and maintaining neighborhood compatibility for such projects. Based on the previous discussion and the complete analysis contained in the attached P.C. Staff Report and adopted P.C. Resolution, the Planning Commission was able to positively make the required findings, and therefore approved the applicants’ Height Variation request with project modifications.

The Planning Commission determined that the Height Variation application may be approved provided that the design of the project is enhanced to further minimize the impairment of a view from neighboring properties. Therefore, the Planning Commission conditioned the project so that the following modifications are incorporated into the design of the proposed residence (a detail description may be found in the attached P.C. Staff Report):

  1. Reducing the roof pitch from a 3¼:12 slope to a 3:12 slope;
  2. Lowering the overall building pad by approximately four (4) feet; and,
  3. Reducing the interior ceiling heights for both the lower and upper levels.

By incorporating the above recommendations, the height of the proposed residence was reduced from 26 feet to 24 feet, and the roof ridgeline elevation was lowered by approximately 4.5 feet, from an elevation of 125.7 feet to 121.2 feet. Therefore, based on the project modifications, the Planning Commission determined that although a view impairment exists from surrounding properties, the impairment is not significant since the ocean and harbor views from neighboring properties would be obstructed by a structure constructed to the "by right" limit, which is depicted by the green flags on the project silhouette. For further information regarding the view analysis, please see the Planning Commission Staff Report.

Therefore, based on the above discussion, Staff believes no new information has been introduced by the appellants to warrant overturning the Commission’s determination that the project may exceed the City’s permissible height limit through the approval of a Height Variation application.

"The project does not meet City and neighborhood guidelines."

In addition to the neighborhood compatibility and height requirements discussed above, the Planning Commission found that the proposed residence has been designed to minimize infringement of privacy from neighboring properties by strategically locating second story windows in a manner that do not overlook neighboring yards. A detailed discussion on privacy can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report.

With respect to the remainder of the City’s residential development standards, the Planning Commission found that the proposed project has been designed to comply with the criteria for the RS-3 zoning district in terms of setbacks, parking and lot coverage.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Minor Exception Permit

At the time the Planning Commission considered the proposed project, the applicants requested a Minor Exception Permit application to allow a reduction in the required twenty (20) foot front yard setback to accommodate the construction of a balcony along the street facing facade. In its analysis, the Planning Commission found that the reduction in the required front yard setback is not warranted for an architectural feature, such as a balcony, that can be redesigned to adhere to the City’s residential development standards. Therefore, the Planning Commission denied the applicants’ Minor Exception Permit request.

Conditions of Approval

At the time the Planning Commission approved the proposed project with revisions, the exact grading quantities for the revised project were not known. Since that time, new grading quantities have been calculated. Therefore, the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval for consideration by the City Council have been updated to reflect the current proposal. The modifications to the draft Conditions of Approval are shown in a strikeout/underlined format.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-__, upholding the Planning Commission’s adopted motion by approving Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2279, to allow the demolition of an existing residence, to accommodate the construction of a new, 3,921 square foot, two-story single-family residence, and denying Minor Exception Permit No. 596.

FISCAL IMPACT

The proposed appeal will have no significant fiscal impact due to the payment of the required $940.00 appeal fee. Nonetheless, should the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision, the appellants are entitled to a refund of the appeal fee in accordance to RPVMC Section 17.80.120. Furthermore, if the City Council modifies the project, other than changes requested by the appellants, then one-half of the appeal fee is to be refunded to the appellants.

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Grant the appeal as requested by the appellants, thereby denying Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2279;
  2. Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, and provide the applicant with further direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain to review the project modifications; or,
  3. identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project and remand the project back to the Planning Commission for further analysis.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans
City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

  • C.C. Resolution No. 2002-__ and Draft Conditions of Approval
  • Appellants’ letter
  • February 26, 2002 P.C. Minutes
  • P.C. Resolution No. 2002-02
  • P.C. Staff Report with attachments
  • Architectural Plans

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, HEIGHT VARIATION N0. 930 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2279, AND DENYING MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 596, TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,921 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6528 NANCY ROAD.

WHEREAS, on May 2, 2001 the subject applications, Height Variation No 930, Grading Permit No. 2279 and Minor Exception Permit No. 596 were submitted to the Planning Department by the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Letvin of 6528 Nancy Road, to allow the demolition of an existing 1,522 square foot single-family residence to accommodate the construction of a new 3,921 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with 594 cubic yards of associated grading; and,

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2001 the City’s Geotechnical Engineer reviewed and conditionally approved the applicants’ geotechnical reports and studies; and,

WHEREAS, after several meetings attended by Staff and the property owners and their architect, revised plans were submitted and deemed complete for processing on November 5, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, on November 5, 2001, the required public notices for the December 11, 2001 Planning Commission meeting were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 10, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, in response to the public notice, the City received several comment letters from neighboring property owners expressing concern with the accuracy of the project silhouette. After further investigation, Staff re-measured the silhouette and determined that the footprint of the silhouette was incorrectly plotted by approximately five (5) feet, which directly impacted the depicted height. As such, the public hearing was continued to the January 22, 2002 Commission meeting to allow the applicants to revise the silhouette; and,

WHEREAS, on January 7, 2002 the applicants informed Staff that the project silhouette was revised. Soon thereafter, Staff measured the silhouette and determined it was plotted correctly, accurately depicting the proposed height of the structure. However, Staff was unable to re-notice the public hearing in time for the January 22, 2002 meeting, and therefore the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the February 26, 2002 Planning Commission meeting; and,

WHEREAS, on January 10, 2002, the required public notices for the February 26, 2002 Planning Commission meeting were re-noticed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on January 12, 2002; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et.seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Grading Permit No. 2191 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 3); and,

WHEREAS, after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 26, 2002, at which all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence: and,

WHEREAS, at their February 26th meeting, after hearing public testimony the Planning Commission adopted a motion, with a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Mueller and Long dissenting, approving Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2279 to allow the construction of a new single-family residence, and denying Minor Exception Permit No. 596; and,

WHEREAS, on March 11, 2002 an appeal was filed with the City on behalf of the Miraleste Neighborhood Coalition, requesting that the City Council overturn the decision of the Planning Commission; and,

WHEREAS, on May 2, 2002, the required public notices were mailed out to property owners within a 500’ radius of the subject property, the appellants, and interested parties informing them of the appeal and the scheduled City Council public hearing on June 4, 2002. Furthermore, a notice was published in the Peninsula News on May 4, 2002; and,

WHEREAS, on May 23, 2002, a courtesy notice was mailed out to property owners within a 500’ radius of the subject property, the appellants, and interested parties informing them that the date of the City Council meeting has been moved to June 12, 2002 due to the lack of a quorum at its June 4, 2002 meeting; and,

WHEREAS, after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 12, 2002, at which all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

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

Section 1: That in regards to Height Variation No. 930:

  1. The applicants have successfully complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process established by the City by obtaining 38 signatures (55%) out of the 69 properties within the 500’ radius, and 9 signatures (75%) out of 12 properties within the 100’ radius.
  2. The proposed structure does not significantly impair a view from public property which has been identified in the City’s General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan, since the subject property is located in a neighborhood developed with single-family residences that is not in an area designated as a public "viewing area" or within the City’s Coastal Zone.
  3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory in that the project site is located on a graded lot that was created when the surrounding neighborhood was development.
  4. That the proposed project will not create a significant view impairment to surrounding properties because as conditioned by the Planning Commission at its February 26, 2002 meeting, the project has been modified to further minimize any view impacts that may occur, as follows:

    1. Reduce the roof pitch from 3¼:12 to 3:12
    2. Conduct additional grading so that the existing building pad is lowered by approximately 2 to 4 feet
    3. Reduce the height of the interior ceiling for both the lower and upper level so that the overall structure is reduced in height by no less than 1’-6".

  1. The subject property is located in an area that consists of unique topography that has characterized the existing development within the neighborhood. As such, "protected views" as defined by the Development Code, vastly varies between lots since several of the existing homes within the immediate neighborhood are currently developed as two-story residences, but visually appear as single-story structures from the street because of the "down sloping" nature of these lots. Therefore, due to the topography of the immediate neighborhood coupled with the City’s height requirements for "building pad" and "down sloping" lots, future development projects involving an additional story within the immediate neighborhood will be limited. Furthermore, although some second story additions may result in potential view impacts, the impacts may not be from "protected viewing areas" due to the "by right" height requirements for the varying lot classifications nor considered a "significant" view impact. Therefore, in terms of cumulative view impacts, the granting of the proposed project will not cause a significant cumulative view impairment.
  2. The proposed structure, when considered exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel since the portion of the proposed structure that complies with the Development Code’s permitted "by right" height limit already impairs views. Views that are impaired by the "by right" height limit are not considered by the Development Code as protected views. Nonetheless, it is determined that the design of the proposed project may be enhanced to further minimize views, as identified in sub-section D of this Resolution, so that those properties which result in a view impairment caused by the proposed project may be partially restored. Therefore, the proposed second level does not create a significant view impairment beyond that which would result from a structure built to the maximum permitted "by right" height limit of 16’/20’. Therefore, the main impact is to "unprotected views," with only insignificant impacts to "protected views."
  3. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements, as it pertains to the RS-3 zoning district’s residential development standards for lot coverage, setbacks, parking and other code requirements stated in the Development Code. As for those components of the proposed project that the Development Code does not permit "by right," the respective applications have been requested and reviewed according to the appropriate guidelines, as discussed in subsequent Sections of this Resolution. Additionally, further approvals must be obtained from the City’s Geotechnical Consultant in the building stage, and building and grading permits must also be obtained for compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the Development Code and the City’s Municipal Code.
  4. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character because at 3,921 square feet, it will not be the largest home on Nancy Road and the structure is designed in a manner that resembles the original character of the Miraleste area by integrating architectural features such as clay tile roof, smooth stucco finish, wood doors and windows, and wrought iron. As for the "rectangular" shape of the proposed structure, it is found to be compatible with other similarly styled homes within the 10 closest homes on Nancy Road as well as within the Miraleste area. However, to balance the weight of the structure’s visual appearance, architectural features have been integrated into the design of the residence, such as the proposed street facing balcony, that softens the mass and bulk of the structure.
  5. The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy from the immediate neighboring properties because the natural sloping terrain of the neighborhood combined with the winding street configuration results in a staggered placement of neighboring yards and structures. The proposed structure is designed and plotted on the project site so that windows or balconies do not look onto a neighbors yard nor the interior of a neighbors home.

Section 2:That in regard to Grading Permit No. 2279:

  1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot in that the proposed 757 cubic yards of associated grading is necessary to prepare the project site for the construction of a single-family residence, which is considered the permitted primary use of the property. As proposed, the grading is to accommodate the demolition of an existing single-family residence to allow the construction of a new single-family residence. Furthermore, the grading proposed enhances the structure’s overall appearance in terms of mass and bulk by lowering the building pad.

  2. The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect visual relationships nor the views from neighboring properties since the proposed grading will not raise the height of the existing building pad, but rather cut into portions of the existing building pad to maintain a lower overall building height. Although lowering the building pad results in additional earth movement, including export, the change in the building elevation will result in a structure that is more compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood as well as enhance or preserve views that would be partially impaired by the "by right" height of the proposed structure.

  3. The nature of grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural in that the proposed grading is to occur on a portion of the project site that was previously graded to accommodate the existing residence. The proposed grading improvements will occur on a defined building pad that is relatively flat and will not require further disturbance to the site’s natural contours or finished contours, which are considered reasonably natural.

  4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slopes into the natural topography in that the majority of the grading requested will be conducted under the existing building footprint to further improve and reduce an existing pad elevation for the proposed structure. Furthermore, the proposed grading does not include any modification to the natural topographic features so that land sculpturing is required.

  5. The grading will not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation in that the proposed grading will be located on a lot that was disturbed at the time of the development of the original tract when the original residence was created on this lot, and is therefore devoid of native vegetation. In addition this project will not impact the bluff where native vegetation may exist. Therefore, the proposed grading will not significantly impact any natural vegetation or wildlife habitat.

  6. The grading conforms with the Development Code’s standards pertaining to grading on slopes, height of cut/fill and retaining walls in that the grading requested is necessary for the development of the subject property and complies with the Development Code’s criteria in that no earth movement will occur on slopes equal to or greater than 35% nor will the grading result in slopes exceeding a 50% gradient. Furthermore, the excavation required for the proposed structure will not exceed a height of five (5) feet.

Section 3: That in regard to Minor Exception Permit No. 597:

Pursuant to the Development Code, a Minor Exception Permit may be requested to allow a reduction in the required setback by no more than twenty (20) percent provided that one of the following findings can be made:

  1. The requested Minor Exception Permit is warranted by practical difficulties; or,
  2. The requested Minor Exception Permit is warranted by an unnecessary hardship; or,
  3. The requested Minor Exception Permit is necessary to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of this Title.

The intent of the setback criteria is to provide an adequate separation between property lines and development for air and light, and to enhance the aesthetic character of a neighborhood by maintaining a feeling of openness between the property lines and the residences. In reviewing the applicants’ request to reduce the required twenty (20) foot front yard setback to accommodate a proposed balcony, it was determined that none of the required findings can positively be made because the proposed balcony is not considered an integral component of the proposed structure nor the permitted use of the lot. Furthermore, the proposed balcony may be reduced in size so that it still serves its purpose as a "usable" decorative architectural feature while complying with the required setback criteria. Therefore, the City Council hereby denies the applicants’ Minor Exception Request.

Section 4: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby upholds the Planning Commission’s decision by approving Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2297, thereby allowing the construction of a new 3,921 square foot, two-story, single-family residence consisting of 1,566 square feet on the lower level, 1,629 square feet on the upper level and a 726 square foot attached two car garage at a height not to exceed 24’, as measured from the lowest finished grade (97.20’) adjacent to the structure to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (121.20’), subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A". Furthermore, the City Council also upholds the Planning Commission’s denial of Minor Exception Permit No. 596.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of June, 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, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on June 12, 2002.


__________________________
City Clerk


EXHIBIT ‘A’

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 930 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2279

GENERAL

  1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
  2. The approval shall become null and void after one (1) year from the date of approval by the City, unless the approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review process.
  3. The proposed project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans approved and stamped by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval.
  4. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions.
  5. Unless considered a minor modification, as defined in the above Condition No. 4, all modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approval set forth herein, shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission using the same noticing and hearing procedures as the original application.
  6. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.
  7. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays.
  8. The construction site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
  9. The subject property shall be securely enclosed with a temporary construction fence, not to exceed six (6) feet in height, during the duration of construction.
  10. HEIGHT VARIATION

  11. The proposed structure, as revised by the Planning Commission, shall not exceed 16’-4" in height as measured from the highest existing grade covered by structure (104.90’) to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (121.20’), and 24’-0" in height as measured from the lowest finished grade elevation adjacent to the structure (97.2’) to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (121.20’). A BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED.


  12. The project silhouette shall be removed no later than seven (7) calendar days from the project decision date.

  13. GRADING PERMIT

  14. The grading shall not exceed 757 cubic yards of earth movement, of which 630 cubic yards consists of cut, 3 cubic yards consists of fill and 124 cubic yards of removal and recompaction. The remaining 528 cubic yards of cut shall be exported off-site. The grading shall not exceed amount necessary to lower the building pad to the elevation of 97.2’. Any excess cut shall be exported off-site. The applicants shall provide the Planning Department with a finalized grading plan prior to submittal of plans to Building and Safety Plan Check for review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
  15. The City’s Geotechnical Consultant shall review the project in the "plan check" stage to determine whether further reports and investigation shall be required prior to issuance of building permits.
  16. The Director of Public Works shall review and approve a haul route for all exported earth prior to issuance of grading permits.

  17. MISCELLANEOUS

  18. The residence shall not exceed 3,921 square feet, of which 726 square feet will be in the form of a two car attached garage, 1,566 square feet will be situated on the lower level and 1,629 square feet on the upper level. A SQUARE FOOTAGE CERTIFICATION PREPARED BY A REGISTERED SURVEYOR INDICATING THAT THE NEW RESIDENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 3,921 SQUARE FEET, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, PRIOR TO A FRAMING INSPECTION.
  19. The lot coverage requirement for the subject property located in the RS-3 zoning district shall not exceed 45%. The proposed Lot Coverage is 32%.
  20. The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained for the proposed residence:
  21. Front Yard: 20'-0" minimum (proposed: 20’)
    Rear Yard: Not Applicable (wedge / triangular shaped lot)
    Side Yard: 5'-0" minimum (proposed: 7’)

    A SETBACK CERTIFICATION SHALL BE PREPARED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR INDICATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED SETBACKS PRIOR TO A FOUNDATION INSPECTION.

  22. A minimum of a two car garage shall be maintained at all times with a minimum depth of twenty (20) feet, a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet and a minimum vertical clearance of seven (7) feet, as measured from the interior finished walls.
  23. The proposed driveway shall not exceed a maximum gradient of 20%, as required by the City’s Development Code.
  24. The proposed residence shall be finished in an earth tone color deemed acceptable by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement prior to issuance of building permits.
  25. The proposed trash enclosure shall be visually screened from neighboring properties and the public right-of-way.
  26. The proposed front yard wall shall not exceed 42 inches in height, as measured from the lowest adjacent grade.
  27. All mechanical equipment, including but not limited to the spa equipment and air conditioning condenser units, shall be no closer than three (3) feet from the interior side property line and shall not exceed 6’ in height. Said equipment shall be adequately screened from the neighboring properties and the right of way.
  28. No mechanical equipment shall be permitted on the roof.
  29. All hardscape improvements, including the driveway curb cut, located within the public right-of-way (Nancy Road) shall require review and approvals from the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits.
  30. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to issuance of building permits. The Landscape Plan shall indicate: 1) The location and type of vegetation proposed for the subject property; and 2) How landscaping will visually screen the westerly facade. Additionally, the plans shall indicate the mature height of all foliage, which shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height or the top of the highest roof ridgeline, whichever is lower.
  31. The pine tree located in eastern portion of the front yard shall be removed prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
  32. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the property owner shall obtain approvals by the City of an Urban Stormwater Plan that is in conformance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
  33. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approvals shall be obtained from the Los Angeles County Fire Department for the proposed project.
  34. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted that is directed towards a parcel of property other than that upon which such light source is physically located. Additionally, no lighting shall be permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a building, above the line of the eaves, or if located on a standard or pole, more than ten (10) feet above grade. Individual, non-reflector, incandescent light bulbs shall not exceed 150 watts per bulb or an aggregate of 1,000 watts for a lot.

  35. PROJECT BUILDING MODIFICATIONS

  36. The applicant shall submit revised architectural plans that reflect all project modifications required by the Planning Commission for review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
  37. The proposed roof pitch shall be revised from 3¼:12 to a roof pitch no steeper than 3:12.
  38. The interior clearance between the finished floor and the top of the ceiling plate shall be revised as follows:
  39. Lower Level: 9’ in height as measured from the finished floor to the top of the ceiling plate.
    Upper Level:8’-6" in height as measured from the finished floor to the top of the ceiling plate adjacent to the interior building perimeter walls.

  40. The proposed balcony located along the street facing facade shall be modified to respect the required twenty (20) foot front yard setback criteria for the RS-3 zoning district.



10. Adoption of the City Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Petru)

Recommendation: After conducting a public hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget and after any further additions or deletions to the proposed budget, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A BUDGET APPROPRIATION AND ADOPTING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE CITY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003

RECOMMENDATION

After conducting a public hearing on the proposed FY 02-03 budget and after any further additions or deletions to the proposed budget, Adopt Resolution No. 2002- ; approving a budget appropriation and adopting the operating and capital improvement budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003.

BACKGROUND

In January 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 343 amending Municipal Code Chapter 3.32 to establish a two-year budget cycle. Starting in Fiscal Year 1999-2000, a budget document was produced during the first year of the two-year budget cycle that included the anticipated revenues and expenditures for the next two fiscal years. Although a two-year budget is received and reviewed by Council in alternate years, the City Council only adopts the budget for the upcoming fiscal year, rather than adopting the budgets for both fiscal years at the same time. For example, in June 2001, the City Council adopted the budget only for FY 01-02. This year, the City Council is considering the proposed budget for FY 02-03. By adopting the budgets one year at a time, the Council has the opportunity to make any modifications it deems necessary to the proposed budget for FY 02-03 based on any changes in circumstances that have arisen since the budget document was prepared a year ago.

DISCUSSION

The Council reviewed the proposed budget for FY 02-03 at a Budget Workshop held on April 30, 2002. At the conclusion of the workshop, the Council directed staff to prepare a "baseline" budget for FY 02-03, omitting discretionary expenditures and reserving them for later consideration. The "baseline" budget is the City’s general operating and capital improvements budget for the next fiscal year and does not contain any new programs. It assumes the same level of service in FY 02-03 as is shown in the two-year budget document, plus the specific increases to the budget totaling approximately $777,000 that were considered and tentatively approved by the City Council at the April 30th Workshop. The most significant increases were to the City Attorney’s contract, and additional professional support for the financial alternatives project already underway by staff and the Finance Advisory Committee and the new Emergency Preparedness Task Force. Subsequent to the workshop, staff became aware of another significant increase to the "baseline" budget regarding the Sheriff’s contract. The Sheriff’s contract increase is discussed in more detail below and is followed by a discussion of the discretionary expenditures that were omitted from the "baseline" budget, and the potential impacts these programs may have on the FY 02-03 City Budget and 2002 Five-Year Financial Model, if any or all of them are implemented.

1. SHERIFF’S CONTRACT

Two weeks ago, staff received information from the Los Angeles County Sheriff regarding pending contract increases that will be effective for FY 02-03. Three aspects of the Sheriff’s contract with the City will be increased:

  • Basic Services

  • Special Programs (Traffic Control at Miraleste Intermediate School)

  • COPS/LLESS program (grant deputies)

The cost for the Sheriff’s basic service contract has held fairly steady since FY 94-95, with only small increases (2% to 4%) over the last few years. While the cost of the COPS/LLESS program has increased since it started with one C.O.R.E. deputy in FY 96-97, this has been due to the addition of more deputies (there are now three), rather than because of rate increases. The pending FY 02-03 increase in Basic Services and the C.O.R.E. program is attributed to a general increase in the salaries paid to County law enforcement employees. The increase to provide traffic control at Miraleste Intermediate School is because the position was recently upgraded from part-time to full time due to recruitment difficulties. The pending increases, which include a 1% contingency, are shown in the chart below:

Sheriff’s Contract Services:

Proposed FY 02-03

Pending Sheriff Costs

Net Increase

Basic Services

$2,575,334

$2,760,202

$184,868

Special Programs

$22,094

$31,330

$9,236

COPS/LLESS

$199,000

$205,224

$6,224

TOTAL:

$2,796,428

$2,996,756

$200,328

The pending Sheriff’s cost for Basic Services is 7.2% higher than the proposed FY 02-03 Budget. However, the proposed FY 02-03 Budget includes a 3% increase over the adopted FY 01-02 Budget ($2,500,325). Therefore, the pending costs are 10.2% higher than the adopted FY 01-02 budget. The increased costs have been incorporated into the "baseline" budget for FY 02-03.

2. DISCRETIONARY BUDGET ITEMS

As discussed previously in this report, the Council directed staff to prepare a "baseline" budget, excluding discretionary expenditures. The discretionary items not included in the "baseline" budget, but proposed by the various City Departments are summarized in the following chart:

FY 2002-2003
DISCRETIONARY BUDGET ITEMS

DESCRIPTION

Department
Requested Budget

City Manager’s
Proposed Budget

Additional Full-Time Employees

$171,000

$171,000

PVDE Drainage Improvements – Sunnyside Ridge

$1,400,000

- 0-

Citywide Drainage Improvements

$100,000

$100,000

Residential Overlay Program

$1,000,000

$663,000

Master Planning

$200,000

$200,000

Sewer Maintenance

$350,000

$350,000

Traffic Signal Addition

$135,000

$135,000

Transfer to Building Replacement Fund

$100,000

$100,000

TOTAL:

$3,456,000

$1,719,000

Although staff and the Finance Advisory Committee have begun to study other potential funding alternatives for the City, currently the only source of funds available for these discretionary programs is the General Fund.

General Fund Reserve Policy

The City has attempted to maintain a General Fund Reserve balance based on 50% of the annual estimated General Fund revenue for each fiscal year. Accordingly, the General Fund Reserve balance for FY 02-03 is expected to be $6,451,870 (estimated FY 02-03 General fund revenue of $12,903,740 x 50%). The amount of the General Fund Reserve available for discretionary spending is calculated by comparing the projected ending General Fund Reserve balance with the minimum General Fund Reserve level set by policy. Based upon the 2002 Five-Year Financial Model, the projected ending General Fund Reserve balance will be $7,549,022 on June 30, 2002. Therefore, as shown in the left hand column of the chart presented on the next page, the amount of the projected General Fund Reserve available for appropriation as of June 30, 2002 is $1,097,152 (the projected ending General fund reserve balance of $7,549,022 less the General Fund Reserve policy level of $6,451,870).

The total General Fund Reserve available is expected to be further increased by the projected excess of General Fund revenue over proposed baseline expenditures for the FY 02-03. As shown in the right hand column of the chart presented on the next page, the estimated addition to the General Fund Reserve balance available as of June 30, 2003 is expected to be $934,827 (FY 02-03 estimated General fund revenue of $12,903,740 less budgeted baseline expenditures and net fund transfers of $11,968,913).

GENERAL FUNDS AVAILABLE IN FY 02-03

Projected General Fund Reserves Available as of June 30, 2002:

Estimated General Fund Revenues in Excess of Baseline Expenditures in FY 02-03:

Projected General Fund Reserve as of June 30, 2002

 

$7,549,022

Revenues

$12,903,740

Expenditures

($10,887,588)

Transfers-In

$101,510

Policy Reserve Level (50%)

($6,451,870)

Transfers-Out

($1,182,835)

Projected General Fund Reserve Available as of June 30, 2002

$1,097,152

Estimated FY 02-03 addition to General Fund Reserve Available

$934,827

The proposed source of funding for the discretionary items included in the City Manager’s Proposed Budget is shown below:

Use of Projected General Fund Reserves Available as of June 30, 2002:

Discretionary Items Included In the City Manager’s Proposed Budget:

Use of Estimated General Funds Revenues in Excess of Baseline Expenditures in FY 02-03:

$1,097,152

 

$934,827

 

Additional Employees -->

($171,000)

 

Residential Overlay-->

($663,000)

 

Building Replacement -->

($100,000)

($200,000)

<-- Master Planning

 

($100,000)

<-- Citywide Drainage

 

($350,000)

<-- Sewer Maintenance

 

($135,000)

<-- Traffic Signal

_________

$312,152

NET GENERAL FUND RESERVES AVAILABLE

$ 827

Staff believes that the Projected General Fund Reserve Available as of June 30, 2002 is best suited for "one-time" expenditures because these are funds that will soon be available, but the City cannot rely on as a continuing source of revenue in future years. The Estimated General Fund Revenues in Excess of Baseline Expenditures in FY 02-03 may be utilized for "recurring" expenditures because the total amount of baseline expenditures plus discretionary expenditures are within the annual estimated revenues. Below is an explanation of how staff divided the discretionary items listed in the "City Manager’s Proposed Budget" between the Project General Fund Reserves Available as of June 30, 2002 and the Estimated General Fund Revenues in Excess of Baseline Expenditures in FY 02-03:

One-Time Expenditures

Since the City’s General Plan update is not a recurring expenditure, staff feels comfortable in placing it in the One-Time Expenditure column and proposes the use of General Fund Reserves Available for this program. Staff has included the Citywide Drainage Improvement program and Sewer Maintenance in the one-time expenditure column because the City does not currently have a long-term revenue source to fund these high-cost, multi-year programs. Unless new funding sources are developed for them prior to June 30, 2003, these programs could not continue to be fully funded beyond FY 02-03.

Over the next year, staff and the Finance Advisory Committee will be working on a long-term financing plan for the City’s Drainage Improvement Program. Therefore, no drainage projects have been proposed for funding in FY 02-03. However, the "baseline budget" does include funds for completion of the studies for the Citywide Drainage Improvement program.

Staff recommends that the investigation of the condition of the City’s sewer system proceed with funding from the Projected General Fund Reserves Available in FY 02-03. On completion of the study, there may be options, such as negotiating with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District or forming a new sewer enterprise fund and user fee, to address the issue of the City’s long-term financing need for sewer maintenance.

The addition of a traffic signal at any intersections identified in the City Council-approved "Traffic Signal Study" is proposed for funding from the Projected General Fund Reserves Available. The FY 02-03 budget proposal assumes one traffic signal will be approved and funded as a result of the study.

Recurring Expenditures

Clearly the cost of funding additional employees, if approved, will be a recurring cost to the City. Although the City Manager’s Proposed Budget includes funding for all four positions proposed by the Department Heads (see attached report), the proposed Senior Engineer position will not be filled unless funding can be developed to continue the Capital Improvement Program at the same level maintained over the past four years. Staff recommends the City Council consider an annual appropriation to the Building Replacement Fund as a recurring expenditure. Setting aside money for building replacement, even at the relatively small sum proposed, will allow the City to make "life-extending" repairs and modifications to our facilities, although it will not generate adequate funds to actually replace the buildings. Finally, staff believes the residential pavement overlay program that has been a part of the City’s regular services to its citizens since the adoption of the Utility Users’ Tax in 1996 should be considered a recurring expenditure and be funded at the highest level possible annually.

For the budget items identified as "Recurring Expenditures", funds must be obtained from estimated additions to the General Fund Revenues in Excess of Baseline Expenditures in FY 02-03. The chart in the middle of Page 4 titled "Discretionary Items Included In the City Manager’s Proposed Budget" describes the funds that may be available for discretionary items.

Based on the Estimated General Fund Revenues of $12,903,740 for FY 02-03, there are insufficient resources available to implement the Department Requested Budget ($3,456,000). On the other hand, if the City Manager’s Proposed Discretionary Budget is adopted, it would provide a balanced budget for FY 02-03 and leave about $313,000 of General Fund Reserves Available through June 30, 2003. Of the recurring expenditures, only the $171,000 for Additional Employees requires an immediate commitment. Expenditures for both the Residential Overlay and the transfer to the Building Replacement fund would occur near the end of FY 02-03. Therefore, if revenues fall short of expenditures, a budget adjustment could follow eliminating the expenditures from the FY 02-03 budget.

REVISIONS TO THE 2002 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL MODEL

In coordination with the presentation of the "baseline" budget requested by City Council at the April 30th budget workshop, staff made the following changes to the 2002 Five-Year Financial Model:

  • Eliminated Annual Residential Overlay CIP Expenditures ($5,310,000);
  • Eliminated PVDE Drainage Improvements CIP Expenditures ($6,130,000);
  • Eliminated Signal Modification CIP Expenditures ($435,000);
  • Eliminated Sewer Investigation CIP Expenditures ($335,000);
  • Eliminated the annual General fund transfer to the Building Replacement fund ($500,000);
  • Eliminated Master Planning expenditures ($400,000);
  • Increased interest earnings as a result of decreased expenditures ($1,082,000); and
  • Increased Sheriff costs ($981,000).

The impact of these changes on the various fund balances are included in the attached 2002 Model summary chart labeled "April 30, 2002 Baseline Budget." The economic impact presented in brackets next to each revision stated above reflects their respective impact over the five years of the 2002 Model.

For comparison purposes, staff also prepared the attached 2002 Five-Year Financial Model summary chart labeled "City Manager’s Proposed Budget." This chart includes the $1,719,000 in discretionary expenditures proposed by the City Manager listed in the chart at the top of Page 3. The items identified as one-time expenditures are applied only to the first year of the 2002 Model (FY 02-03), while items identified as recurring costs are included in all five years of the 2002 Model. Two of the recurring expenditures (Additional Employees and Residential Overlay) have been increased by 3% in the last four years of the Model, while transfers to the Building Replacement Fund remained fixed at $100,000 per year. Based on Council’s actions this evening, staff can make further adjustments to the 2002 Five-Year Financial Model, as necessary.

CONCLUSION

Based on the direction provided at the April 30th Budget Workshop and the subsequent information received regarding pending increases to the Sheriff’s contract, staff has prepared a "baseline" budget resolution for the Council’s consideration. The City Budget for FY 02-03 is now being presented to the Council at a public hearing for review and adoption. If the Council desires to make any additional changes to the City Budget, such as including one or more of the "discretionary" expenditures discussed above, they can be read into the record during tonight’s budget hearing.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Resolution No. 2002- ; Approving a budget appropriation and adopting the operating and capital improvement budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Request for Additional Full-Time Employees
Discussion of Residential Overlay Program, Storm Drain Improvements and Sewer Maintenance


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A BUDGET APPROPRIATION AND ADOPTING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003.

WHEREAS, on April 30, 2002, the City Council conducted a public workshop to review the proposed budget for fiscal year 2002-2003; and

WHEREAS, on June 12, 2002, the City Council conducted an advertised Public Hearing to receive public input regarding the proposed budget for fiscal year 2002-2003;

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

Section 1: That an Appropriation-Expenditure Budgeting Program showing budgetary categories by department is hereby adopted. By fund the adopted budget is per the attached Exhibit A with a total Estimated Beginning Unreserved Fund Balance of $14,784,183 and a total Estimated Ending Unreserved Fund Balance of $15,007,638.

A. The City Manager is authorized to transfer certain Budget Appropriation Balances within functions and/or programs when he deems it necessary to do so in accordance with Chapter 3.32 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.

B. Council approval will be required for any significant changes involving increased or decreased service levels.

C. The Finance Director shall be responsible for constant monitoring of the budget and shall establish and implement appropriate control mechanisms necessary for said purpose, after approval of the City Manager.

D. Deflator - A deflator procedure, to be administered by the City Manager, is hereby established for reducing appropriations in the event that projected revenues are reduced due to a reduction in the State subventions or other revenues that may fluctuate downward due to changes in economic conditions. For Fiscal Year 2002-2003, if total revenues, as estimated by the Finance Director, are insufficient, the amount of total Operating and Capital Budget Appropriation shall be reduced, as determined by the City Manager based on his assessment of total City needs. The City Council will be notified of any action regarding the Deflator within 15 days.

Section 2: The 2002-2003 Revenue Budget is hereby adopted, establishing the following revenue and internal service fund contribution levels:

General Fund --- $13,038,740

Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund --- 923,600

Landscape/Street Lighting (1972 Act) Fund --- 331,420

Street Lighting (1911 Act) Fund --- 322,500

El Prado Lighting District Fund --- 1,390

Community Development Block Grant Fund --- 260,000

Recycling Fund --- 264,500

Solid Waste Fund --- 111,100

Air Quality Management Fund --- 49,600

Street Improvement/Transit (Proposition C) Fund --- 491,000

Transit (Proposition A) Fund --- 593,300

LLESS/COPS Fund --- 123,300

Habitat Restoration Fund --- 4,600

Subregion One Maintenance Fund --- 24,200

Parks/Building Maintenance (Measure A) Fund --- 65,000

Abalone Cove Sewer District Fund --- 20,250

Capital Improvement Projects Fund --- 492,600

Park Development (Quimby) Fund --- 29,900

Affordable Housing Set-Aside Fund --- 52,300

Development Impact Mitigation (EET) Fund --- 95,100

Bikeways Fund --- 16,000

Roadway Beautification Fund --- 6,000

Utility Undergrounding Fund --- 6,000

Operating & Capital Fund Total --- $17,322,400

Internal Service Funds Contributions & Revenue:

Equipment Replacement Fund--- $ 552,220

Building Replacement Fund --- 40,000

Employee Benefits Fund --- 567,270

Internal Service Fund Total --- $ 1,159,490

Section 3: The 2002-2003 Budget is hereby adopted, establishing the following transfers into the following funds:

General Fund --- $ 101,510

Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund --- 1,234,710

Abalone Cove Sewer District Fund --- 35,000

Capital Improvement Projects Fund --- 2,675,000

Roadway Beautification Fund --- 100,000

Equipment Replacement Fund --- 38,100

Building Replacement Fund --- 100,000

Improvement Authority Funds --- 95,000

Total Transfers In --- $ 4,379,320

Section 4: The 2002-2003 Budget is hereby adopted, establishing the following transfers from the following funds:

General Fund --- $ 3,305,695

Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund --- 115,000

Landscape/Street Lighting (1972 Act) Fund --- 270,000

Community Development Block Grant Fund --- 40,000

Recycling Fund --- 112,000

Street Improvement/Transit (Proposition C) Fund --- 461,115

Measure A Maintenance Fund --- 59,510

Bikeways/Pedestrian Fund --- 16,000

Total Transfers Out --- $ 4,379,320

Section 5: The 2002-2003 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget Programs are hereby adopted, establishing the following allocations and directing the City Manager to amend the preliminary budget to reflect said amounts:

City Council --- $ 96,794

City Attorney --- 1,000,000

City Manager --- 390,620

Administrative Services/City Clerk --- 540,919

Community Outreach --- 183,680

Personnel --- 70,360

Finance --- 703,080

Information Technology --- 286,967

Public Safety - Sheriff --- 2,575,334

Public Safety - Neighborhood Watch --- 4,360

Public Safety - Special Programs --- 76,050

Public Safety - Animal Services --- 152,100

Public Safety - Emergency Preparedness --- 133,280

Public Works - Administration --- 703,890

Public Works - Public Building Maintenance --- 325,570

Public Works - Park/Trail Maintenance --- 572,570

Planning and Code Enforcement --- 962,920

Building and Safety --- 699,100

Code Enforcement --- 132,730

View Restoration --- 289,930

Recreation - Administration --- 345,130

Recreation - Open Recreation --- 130,000

Recreation - Abalone Cove Shoreline Park --- 38,370

Recreation - Special Events --- 18,950

Recreation - Facility Use --- 83,790

Recreation - Point Vicente Interpretive Center --- 101,160

Recreation - REACH --- 75,830

Subtotal General Fund --- $ 10,693,484

Street Maintenance--- $ 1,505,410

Street Landscape Maintenance --- 342,480

Traffic Signal Maintenance --- 78,570

Portuguese Bend Road Maintenance --- 116,850

Subtotal Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund --- $ 2,043,310

Landscape/Street Lighting (1972 Act) Fund --- $ 60,885

Street Lighting (1911 Act) Fund --- 350,200

El Prado Lighting District Fund --- 900

Community Development Block Grant Fund --- 220,000

Recycling Fund --- 143,640

Solid Waste (AB939) Fund --- 107,440

Air Quality Management Fund --- 43,960

Street Improvement/Transit (Proposition C) Fund --- 3,370

Transit (Proposition A) Fund --- 498,843

LLESS/COPS Fund --- 278,241

Habitat Restoration Fund --- 7,500

Subregion One Maintenance Fund --- 39,500

Parks/Building Maintenance (Measure A) Fund --- 50,000

Capital Improvement Projects Fund --- 2,737,140

Park Development (Quimby) Fund --- 56,000

Roadway Beautification Fund --- 100,000

Utility Undergrounding Fund --- 20,000

Subtotal Allocations --- $ 4,717,619

Internal Service Funds:

Equipment Replacement Fund --- $728,372

Building Replacement Fund --- 70,000

Employee Benefits Fund --- 566,650

Subtotal Internal Service Allocations --- $ 1,365,022

Total Allocations --- $ 18,819,435

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED the 12th day of June 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 June 12, 2002.

___________________________
CITY CLERK

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FULL TIME EMPLOYEES

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize an increase to the authorized staffing schedule as follows:

1. In the Finance & Information Technology Department

Senior Administrative Analyst

2. In the Public Works Department:

Engineering Technician

3. In the Recreation & Parks Department

Administrative Staff Assistant

4. Authorize funding for an Additional Senior Engineer Position in the Public Works Department, but defer filling the position until the capital improvement program justifies the additional person.

BACKGROUND:

Rancho Palos Verdes has 42 full-time employees. Three employees have been added to the roster over the past ten years. In 1996 an additional Administrative Staff Assistant was hired in the City Clerk’s office. In 1998 a Staff Assistant II (now reclassified as Accounting Technician) was hired by the Finance Department. In 1999 two part-time clerical positions in the Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Department was made full-time positions, resulting in an effective increase of one additional employee. Overall, the City has fewer employees today than in did in 1990 when the staff was made up of 58 personnel.

DISCUSSION:

The Finance and Information Technology Department has requested the addition of a Senior Analyst to their staff. The current staffing includes seven employees. In addition to the Director, there is an Accounting Manager, an Accountant, two Account Clerks, an Accounting Technician and a Staff Assistant II.

The proposed Senior Analyst will enable the Accounting Manager to shift most of the Finance Department’s budget tasks to the new position. The goal is to enable the Accounting Manager additional time to assume more of the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) support effort. The Accounting Manager would share some of the responsibility to support the FAC with the new Senior Analyst. Currently, the Director performs most of the support for the FAC. The Director anticipates that the workload of the FAC will continue to increase in the future and that the Finance Department’s staffing needs cannot be satisfied by use of the services of a third party consultant similar to building and safety inspectors or a traffic engineer. Most of the work will require a working knowledge of the budgetary, financial and operational affairs of the City. The assignments are expected to include participation in the City’s budget process, long-range financial projections and complex "on-demand" tasks. The Department Director feels he can fill the position at a salary of about $54,000 a year. Benefits will add another 20% or about $11,000 to the City’s cost. Experience has shown that providing ergonomically correct office furniture and computer equipment will add about $3,000 to the initial cost of an employee and an annual cost of $600. Mr. McLean has stated that he has office space for this proposed employee.

The Public Works Department has two requests. They would like to substitute (or trade) their two Engineering Intern positions for a full-time Engineering Technician position. They would also like to hire a second Senior Engineer. Currently, the full-time staffing in the Department includes a Director, a Deputy Director, a Senior Engineer, a Senior Administrative Analyst, a Maintenance Superintendent, two Maintenance Workers, a Permit Clerk and an Administrative Staff Assistant. The Director feels that his Department workload has expanded to the point where he must spend too much time at project level meetings and not enough time at directing, problem solving and staff development.

The Deputy Director and one Senior Engineer are principally responsible for implementing the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The majority of the workday for these two positions – approximately 75% - is spent managing Capital Projects. The project team for each capital project includes specialists in engineering design, construction management, and inspection. Engineering consultants generally provide these services. The Deputy Director or Senior Engineer is responsible for the project budget, community interface, project schedule, and communications with City staff. Engineering consultants provide the technical services. The Department feels that assigning responsibilities such as project schedule, community interface, project budget, and communications with the City Council to consultants is counterproductive.

The Public Works Director feels that the workload for each project manager should be four to five projects with no more than two projects under construction at any one time. Attached is a "Project Timeline Chart" prepared by the Public Works Director. Clearly, the level of funding that the City Council authorizes for capital projects will have a significant impact on the need for an additional engineering position in the Public Works Department. If no funding is available for the PVDE Drainage projects next year, and the Altamira Canyon Drainage Project and the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement project are cancelled or deferred, the request for additional Public Works personnel should be deferred.

The chart below shows the relative expenditures for Public Works functions (salaries, maintenance contracts and professional services) and capital outlay projects compared with total City revenues.

Since 1996 Public Works Department expenditures have held fairly constant at about $4 million annually. The capital improvement program in the past four years has more than doubled ($3.36 million annually) over the previous four years ($1.38 million annually). These figures do not include $3.4 million in Redevelopment Agency Capital Outlay funds that were spent on the Abalone Cove Sewer project in 2001.

The combined cost of public works personnel wages and benefits (Salary) and the cost of professional services (Services) plotted against the amount of capital project work (Cap Out) constructed over the eight years are shown below.

As the graph shows, the cost of nine full-time staff members has remained fairly constant over the past eight years, but the cost of outside professional services has increased significantly. The increased cost is partly due to filling vacant full-time positions with expensive hourly rate engineers, but mainly is due to managing more capital projects. The costs associated with the Abalone Cove Sewer System project (RDA) are not included here, but add over $4 million in construction and professional service costs expended primarily in 2001. If the City is to continue the aggressive capital improvement program of the past four years, the new positions are justified.

The Public Works Department Director feels he can fill the Engineering Technician position at a salary of about $42,000 a year. Benefits will add another 20% or about $8,000 to the City’s cost. The Senior Engineer position will be more costly at about $85,000 in salary and $17,000 in benefits. The Department Director feels that he can reduce the cost of professional services by about $100,000 by adding these additional full-time staff positions. Providing ergonomically correct office furniture and computer equipment will add about $3,000 to the initial cost of each employee and an annual cost of $600 each. Mr. Allison has stated that he has office space for the proposed employees.

The Recreation and Parks Department would like to add an additional position to their staff. For the past ten years there has been no significant increase in the Recreation and Parks budget and no additional staff. During that time, however, the Department has experienced an appreciable increase in the scope of their responsibilities.

According to the Director, there have been a steadily rising number of special events, including 2-3 one-time events each year such as the California Contract Cities Conference, memorial services (e.g. Perry Ehlig), Forrestal Dedication, Tongva Indian Ceremony, and the RPV 25th Anniversary Celebration. Because they are brand new, these events require significant staff research and involvement. The number of new recurring special events such as Shakespeare By the Sea, Girls Softball Parade, monthly Forrestal Cleanups, Coastwalk, REACH Restaurant, Breakfast with Santa, rides, races, Earth Day and multiple beach cleanups, have also increased during this time, while long-time special events such as Whale of a Day, the Fourth of July Celebration, and the PV Marathon have experienced sizable growth as well.

Docent educational programs and community outreach activities have also expanded in recent years. Originally based solely at PVIC, docents now offer hikes at Abalone Cove, Forrestal, and Ocean Trails. The docents’ educational programs and accompanying staff involvement should grow even larger and more varied when the Interpretive Center re-opens. The cleanup and planned expansion of PVIC is just one example of Recreation and Parks working more closely than ever before with other City Departments on large-scale projects. Other inter-departmental projects staff is currently working on include Abalone Cove improvements, the Forrestal Committee, and youth sports issues. A number of park sites have also been added in recent years including Lower Hesse Park, Forrestal Nature Preserve, and Shoreline Park.

These added projects, events, and park sites have increased the workload for the Department’s current staffing which consists of the Director, two Administrative Analysts, a Recreation Manager and two Recreation Program Supervisors. The Department would like to add an administrative staff assistant, who could assist with smaller-scale special events, prepare staff and administrative reports, write grant requests, and also fulfill the basic clerical/customer service duties of that position. The additional staff member would enable higher-level staff to focus on more complex projects and issues.

The Recreation and Parks Department Director feels he can fill the Administrative Staff Assistant position at a salary of about $35,000 a year. Benefits will add another 20% or about $7,000 to the City’s cost. Providing ergonomically correct office furniture and computer equipment will add about $3,000 to the initial cost of each employee and an annual cost of $600 each. Mr. Rosenfeld has stated that he has office space for the proposed employee.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The costs of adding the four full-time staff members are summarized in the table below:

POSITION

SALARY

BENEFITS

OTHER

Senior Administrative Analyst

$54,000

$11,000

$3,000

Senior Engineer

$85,000

$17,000

$3,000

Engineering Technician

$42,000

$8,000

$3,000

Administrative Staff Assistant

$35,000

$7,000

$3,000

TOTALS

$216,000

$43,000

$12,000

There may be savings for the Public Works Department positions of up to $100,000 in reduced costs of outside professional services. However, even with these potential savings the cost of adding the four positions will increase annual City expenditures by about $171,000 during the initial year of employment and increase by approximately 5% each year thereafter.

Discussion of Residential Overlay Program, Storm Drain Improvements and Sewer Maintenance

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Since 1993 the City has sustained a very aggressive pavement maintenance program guided by a Pavement Management System. The System is based on numerous studies that have shown it is much more cost effective to maintain a pavement segment in good condition by performing regular maintenance activities, such as sealing or thin overlays, than it is to let it deteriorate to the point that it requires a major overlay or reconstruction. The cost of a seal coat (approximately $0.10 per square foot) every seven years or so and a thin overlay ($0.80 - $1.00 per square foot) every fifteen years will extend the life of most pavement sections indefinitely and avoid the cost of a major reconstruction ($3.25 - $6.00 per square foot). In order to provide the level of pavement maintenance required to sustain this program the City is spending approximately $1 million each year on its residential streets. In 1997, the voters in the City passed a utility users tax, the revenues from which were primarily committed to the pavement maintenance program. Now in the ninth year of the program, every street in the City has received some treatment and the costs of the program should start to decline slightly.

STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE

In 1997 the City completed its first comprehensive storm drain study. The study inventoried all the underground storm drain pipelines in the City and evaluated their hydraulic adequacy as well as their condition. As a result of the study serious deficiencies in the system, primarily along PVDE, were identified. In 2000 a more focused storm drain study was undertaken to more precisely identify the projects that needed to be undertaken on the eastern side of the City along PVDE. That study proposed the reconstruction or replacement of over $10 million in drainage facilities. Two of the facilities, the PVDE/Bronco Storm Drain and the San Ramon Storm Drain have been completed (the San Ramon project is nearly complete). The funds utilized for these two major projects (approximately $4 million) were appropriated from General Fund Reserves. Currently the Reserves are seriously depleted and no funds are available for an estimated $8 million of remaining projects.

SEWER MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

  • The County of Los Angeles sent a letter to the City’s Public Works department, dated March 28,2001, informing the City of new regulations developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that sanitary sewer system owners take a pro-active approach to minimize sanitary sewer overflows. Adoption of the new regulations, as currently proposed, are expected to occur during 2003, and will require the City to:
    • Apply for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit;
    • Evaluate the physical condition of all sewer facilities;
    • Identify and develop corrective action plans to address deficiencies;
    • Implement new programs for monitoring and reporting sewer overflows; and
    • Develop a Capacity Management Operation and Maintenance program.

The letter clearly states that the City is legally responsibility for compliance with the new regulations.

Staff is in the early stages of assessing the impact of the new regulations, especially the development of a revised sewer maintenance plan, the City’s role vs. the County’s role in continued maintenance of the sewer system and the possibility of establishing additional user fees. In anticipation of the new regulations, staff has included estimated costs of $335,000 for sewer cleaning, filming, and system evaluations during FY2002-2003. Staff will consider this matter in conjunction with the development of a financing plan associated with the preparation of the 2002 Model and the assignment made by the City Council.


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:



11. Review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statements No. 19 (Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive), No. 8 (Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane) and No. 3 (Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive). (Continued from April 16 meeting) (Fox)

Recommendation: Determine the maximum number of large domestic animals that may be "grandfathered" for keeping and/or boarding on the properties at 20 Vanderlip Drive, 6 Limetree Lane and 1 Peppertree Drive.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL NONCONFORMITY STATEMENTS NO. 19 (DOWNHILL, 20 VANDERLIP DRIVE), NO. 8 (SUNSHINE, 6 LIMETREE LANE) AND NO. 3 (BARA, 1 PEPPERTREE DRIVE)

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Determine the maximum number of large domestic animals that may be "grandfathered" for keeping and/or boarding on the properties at 20 Vanderlip Drive, 6 Limetree Lane and 1 Peppertree Drive.

BACKGROUND

On April 16, 2002, the City Council first considered these three disputed large domestic animal nonconformity statements. As a result of public testimony and City Council discussion, additional issues were raised that required clarification and further research. These included 1) the zoning of the Portuguese Bend community at the time of the City’s incorporation, 2) the City and County regulations regarding horsekeeping and the time of the City’s incorporation, 3) the appropriate standard(s) for determining the legality of boarding activities that were on-going in 1997, and 4) the potential impact of changing the review standard(s) upon the other twenty-three non-disputed nonconformity statements that were already reviewed by Staff. These issues are discussed below, followed by a discussion of their impact upon the three remaining disputed nonconformity statements.

At the April 16th meeting, Staff also presented an overview of the 8-step process that Staff used for evaluating the twenty-six nonconformity statements that were submitted to the City in 1997. Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked Staff to summarize the review of each of the disputed statements under the 8-step process. This is also included in the discussion below.

DISCUSSION

County Zoning and Horsekeeping Regulations at Incorporation

Staff has researched the City’s files regarding the zoning of the Portuguese Bend community prior to incorporation and the regulations regarding horsekeeping (if any) that were in effect at the time. According to the County maps reviewed by Staff, the Portuguese Bend community was zoned RA (Residential-Agricultural). Copies of the permitted uses and development standards for the RA zone from the County Zoning Ordinance are attached to this report. These are the development standards that were adopted by the City by reference as its interim zoning ordinance on January 15, 1974. The RA district standards make no reference to any requirements for the keeping of horses, nor do the development standards for any other residential zones in the County Zoning Ordinance. The County did finally adopt its own horsekeeping standards on September 24, 1974 (see attached copy of Ordinance No. 10977). However, Staff has reviewed the City’s files for any record of the subsequent adoption-by-reference of these County horsekeeping standards and has found none. Therefore, Staff concludes that the City had no horsekeeping standards until it adopted its own—which were based very closely upon the County standards in Ordinance No. 10977—on November 25, 1975 as Chapter 1, Part 6 (see attached copy).

Standards for Legal Boarding under the Pre-1997 City Code

Section 17.12.020(C) of the pre-1997 City Code read as follows:

C.Except as specifically provided in this chapter, all animals kept or maintained shall be for the personal use of members of the family of the owner or lessee of the property.

    1. Property owners may permit other persons to keep or maintain horses on such owner’s property, provided that such owner does not directly or indirectly receive payment other than expenses for such use;
    2. Incidental sales of animals, not constituting a commercial activity or the conduct of a business, is permitted;
    3. Animals may be raised for sale by members of 4-H Clubs, Future Farmers of America or similar organizations as part of a regular youth project.

This Code language had not changed since it was originally adopted on November 25, 1975 (although the Code section had been renumbered), and is the same language that was in effect on February 1, 1997. Section 17.46.080 (Nonconformities) of the current City Code states that:

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

With respect to the issue of boarded animals, the application requirements for a nonconformity statement in the current Code (Section 17.46.080(A)(2)) only required the person(s) filing the statement to provide "a statement identifying the owner of each animal kept on the subject property." The pre-1997 City Code provided no guidance for determining whether payments received for boarding activities did not exceed expenses, nor did it provide explicit definitions of "commercial activity" or "conduct of a business" with respect to the sales of animals. Based upon the ambiguity in the pre-1997 City Code regarding "quasi-commercial" activities in the City’s equestrian zones and the general direction of the City Council, Staff primarily focused on the numbers of animals kept on a property—both boarded and non-boarded—in its review of the nonconformity statements. In addition, the current City Code refers to "number of animals allowed" and "each animal kept" on a particular property with respect to the review of nonconformity statements.

In reviewing the number of animals to be grandfathered for a property, Staff first looked at the total number of animals kept—regardless of their ownership—under the pre-1997 and current City Codes. After determining a maximum number of animals to be grandfathered for keeping on a property, Staff then looked at that portion of the kept animals that were also boarded, compared them to the standards established in Section 17.46.080(C), and determined how many boarded animals could be kept and for how long. The persons who have disputed Staff’s interpretation in the Sunshine and Bara cases assert that, in determining the number of boarded animals to be "grandfathered," only those animals that were lawfully boarded under the pre-1997 City Code should be counted toward the total number of animals to be "grandfathered." However, given the ambiguity in the pre-1997 City Code regarding the definition of lawful boarding, Staff accepted property owners’ statements that their boarding activities were legal and relied upon the total number of animals kept on a property as the basis for "grandfathering."

If the City Council believes that it is necessary for property owners to provide more definitive proof that boarding activities being conducted on February 1, 1997 were legal under the pre-1997 City Code, possible sources for corroborating evidence might include (but not be limited to):

  • Sworn affidavits from property owners and/or boarders
  • Copies of leases or rental agreements
  • Receipts and invoices for boarding services
  • Bills for utilities, manure hauling, feed and other supplies and services
  • Income tax returns
  • Property tax and mortgage bills
  • Business licenses
  • Fictitious business name postings

Please note that the City Council would also need to decide which of these (or other) items would be counted toward revenue and expenses, as well as formulating a method for determining whether revenues exceed expenses.

As discussed above, Staff has not required this additional information in cases such as Sunshine’s and the Baras’. At the last City Council meeting, there was some concern voiced that "changing the rules" for reviewing nonconformity statements at this point would be unfair to the property owners in these unresolved cases since other property owners in similar circumstances were not required to provide additional proof simply because no one disputed their nonconformity statements. There was also concern that changing the standard of review would compel the City to reopen some resolved nonconformity statements out of fairness. Staff has reviewed all of the twenty-three nonconformity statements that have already been reviewed and finalized by Staff, and has found only one case that is substantially similar to the Sunshine and Bara cases. Staff’s determination in this case—which is also located in the Portuguese Bend community and involves the keeping and boarding of horses on multiple, contiguous lots under the same ownership—was not disputed by any of the interested parties who were notified of Staff’s determination.

Nonconformity Statement No. 19 (Downhill)

Mr. Downhill’s nonconformity statement was reviewed as follows under the 8-step process outlined by Staff at the April 16th hearing:

  1. Was a Nonconformity Statement filed with the City on or before October 3, 1997?

    • YES, Mr. Downhill’s statement was filed on September 29, 1997. Go to Step 2.

  1. Is the property located in an Equestrian Overlay (Q) district?

    • YES, the property is located in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District. Go to Step 3.

  1. Is the subject property developed and at least fifteen thousand square feet (15,000 SF) in area?

  • YES, the property is developed with a home and is nearly seven acres in size. Skip Step 4 and go to Step 5.
  1. Is the subject property vacant and at least five thousand square feet (5,000 SF) in area?

  • NOT APPLICABLE

  1. How many animals were legally kept on the subject property on February 1, 1997?

  • SIX animals were kept on the property on February 1, 1997 according to Mr. Downhill’s statement. This is greater than the number permitted by the current Code (4) and less than or equal to the number permitted by the pre-1997 Code (6). Therefore, the keeping of this number of animals is nonconforming and can be "grandfathered" in perpetuity. Go to Step 6.

  1. How many of the animals kept on the subject property are also boarded?

  • SIX animals that were kept on the property on February 1, 1997 were also boarded according to Mr. Downhill’s statement. Go to Step 7.

  1. Is the subject property under the same ownership or control as it was on July 1, 1975 and was the boarding of five or more animals being lawfully conducted on that date?

  • YES, Mr. Downhill has provided evidence that he owned or controlled the property on July 1, 1975, and Staff’s research of the City Code in effect at the time revealed that there were no regulations prohibiting the boarding of horses. Mr. Downhill has stated that he had at least eleven horses boarded on the property in 1975. If the City Council accepts this claim, then the boarding of this number of animals is nonconforming and can be "grandfathered" in perpetuity. Skip Step 8.

  1. How many animals were boarded on the subject property on February 1, 1997?

    • NOT APPLICABLE

The major unresolved issue in Mr. Downhill’s case was determining the City regulations regarding horsekeeping that were in effect on July 1, 1975. Mr. Downhill has stated that he had eleven (11) horses boarded on the property as of July 1, 1975. As discussed above, the City did not adopt any standards of its own for horsekeeping until November 25, 1975. Therefore, Staff believes that it may have been legal to board more than six (6) horses in 1975. Based upon Staff’s original inspection of the property, there appeared to be adequate facilities present—and more than adequate acreage—for the keeping of eleven (11) horses as requested by Mr. Downhill.

In summary, Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on the following issues with respect to Nonconformity Statement No. 19:

  • Was it legal for Mr. Downhill to keep and/or board as many as eleven (11) horses on the property in July 1975?
  • How many horses should Mr. Downhill be allowed to keep on the property now?
  • How many of the horses allowed to be kept on the property now can be boarded horses?

Nonconformity Statement No. 8 (Sunshine)

Sunshine’s nonconformity statement was reviewed as follows under the 8-step process outlined by Staff at the April 16th hearing:

1. Was a Nonconformity Statement filed with the City on or before October 3, 1997?

    • YES, Sunshine’s statement was filed on July 14, 1997. Go to Step 2.

2. Is the property located in an Equestrian Overlay (Q) district?

    • YES, the property is located in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District. Go to Step 3.

3. Is the subject property developed and at least fifteen thousand square feet (15,000 SF) in area?

  • YES, one of Sunshine’s three lots is developed with a home and is 26,400 square feet in area. However, the other two contiguous lots are vacant. Go to Step 4.

4. Is the subject property vacant and at least five thousand square feet (5,000 SF) in area?

  • YES, the two vacant lots are 19,800 and 22,120 square feet in area, respectively. Go to Step 5.

5. How many animals were legally kept on the subject property on February 1, 1997?

  • TWELVE animals were kept on the three combined lots on February 1, 1997 according to Sunshine’s statement. This is greater than the number permitted by the current Code (4) and less than or equal to the number permitted by the pre-1997 Code (14). Therefore, the keeping of this number of animals is nonconforming and can be "grandfathered" in perpetuity. Go to Step 6.

6. How many of the animals kept on the subject property are also boarded?

  • SEVEN animals that were kept on the property on February 1, 1997 were also boarded according to Sunshine’s statement. Go to Step 7.

7. Is the subject property under the same ownership or control as it was on July 1, 1975 and was the boarding of five or more animals being lawfully conducted on that date?

  • NO, Sunshine did not own the subject property in July 1975, nor has any evidence been presented to indicate that lawful boarding was (or was not) being conducted at that time. Go to Step 8.

8. How many animals were boarded on the subject property on February 1, 1997?

    • SEVEN animals were boarded on the property as of February 1, 1997. Therefore, the nonconforming boarding of this number of animals is allowed to continue until February 1, 2007 or until the subject property is sold or transferred, whichever occurs later.

The major unresolved issue in Sunshine’s case was the number of horses that were legally boarded on the site as of February 1, 1997. The persons who have disputed Staff’s determination in this matter assert that any horses that were not legally kept on the property as of February 1, 1997 should not be counted toward the number of animals "grandfathered" for the property. If the City Council accepts this argument and is not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been presented to support Sunshine’s claim that seven of the twelve horses were boarded legally, then the City Council might only "grandfather" the property for the keeping of five horses in perpetuity, which is the number that would have been legally kept (i.e., not boarded) on the property in February 1997 under the pre-1997 City Code. It is important to note that, under this scenario, four of the five "grandfathered" horses could still be boarded by right under the current City Code.

In summary, Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on the following issues with respect to Nonconformity Statement No. 8:

  • Was it legal for Sunshine to board as many as seven (7) horses on the property in February 1997?
  • How many horses should Sunshine be allowed to keep now on the property?

  • How many of the horses allowed to be kept on the property now can be boarded horses?

Nonconformity Statement No. 3 (Bara)

The Baras’ nonconformity statement was reviewed as follows under the 8-step process outlined by Staff at the April 16th hearing:

1. Was a Nonconformity Statement filed with the City on or before October 3, 1997?

    • YES, the Baras’ statement was filed on July 14, 1997. Go to Step 2.

2. Is the property located in an Equestrian Overlay (Q) district?

    • YES, the property is located in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District. Go to Step 3.

3. Is the subject property developed and at least fifteen thousand square feet (15,000 SF) in area?

  • YES, one of the Baras’ three lots is developed with a home and is over ten acres in size. However, the other two contiguous lots are vacant. Go to Step 4.

4. Is the subject property vacant and at least five thousand square feet (5,000 SF) in area?

  • YES, the two vacant lots are 52,272 and 24,829 square feet in area, respectively. Go to Step 5.

5. How many animals were legally kept on the subject property on February 1, 1997?

  • TEN animals were kept on the three combined lots on February 1, 1997 according to the Baras’ statement. This is greater than the number permitted by the current Code (4) and less than or equal to the number permitted by the pre-1997 Code (17). Therefore, the keeping of this number of animals is nonconforming and can be "grandfathered" in perpetuity. Go to Step 6.

6. How many of the animals kept on the subject property are also boarded?

  • SIX animals that were kept on the property on February 1, 1997 were also boarded according to the Baras’ statement. Go to Step 7.

7. Is the subject property under the same ownership or control as it was on July 1, 1975 and was the boarding of five or more animals being lawfully conducted on that date?

  • NO, the Baras did not own the subject property in July 1975, nor has any evidence been presented to indicate that lawful boarding was (or was not) being conducted at that time. Go to Step 8.

8. How many animals were boarded on the subject property on February 1, 1997?

    • SIX animals were boarded on the property as of February 1, 1997. Therefore, the nonconforming boarding of this number of animals is allowed to continue until February 1, 2007 or until the subject property is sold or transferred, whichever occurs later.

As with Sunshine above, the major unresolved issue in the Baras’ case was number of horses that were legally boarded on the site as of February 1, 1997. The persons who have disputed Staff’s determination in this matter assert that any horses that were not legally kept on the property as of February 1, 1997 should not be counted toward the number of animals "grandfathered" for the property. If the City Council accepts this argument and is not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been presented to support the Baras’ claim that six of the ten horses were boarded legally, then the City Council might only "grandfather" the property for the keeping of four horses in perpetuity, which is the number that would have been legally kept (i.e., not boarded) on the property in February 1997 under the pre-1997 City Code. It is important to note that, under this scenario, all four of the "grandfathered" horses could still be boarded by right under the current Code.

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

  • Was it legal for the Baras to board as many as six (6) horses on the property in February 1997?
  • How many horses should the Baras be allowed to keep now on the property?

  • How many of the horses allowed to be kept on the property now can be boarded horses?

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

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

CONCLUSION

Based upon the available evidence and additional research, Staff concluded that the City had no horsekeeping standards of its own until November 1975, and that the pre-1997 City standards regarding legal boarding activities were vague and ambiguous. As such, Staff focused primarily on the number of animals requested in reviewing the twenty-six nonconformity statements that were submitted in 1997, and did not require additional evidence to support the legality of pre-1997 boarding activities. Staff has suggested additional sources of such evidence that the City Council may wish to consider in verifying the legality of these boarding activities. Finally, Staff has requested direction from the City Council regarding the number of animals to be "grandfathered" for the three remaining dispute nonconformity statements.

FISCAL IMPACT

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

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Grant the property owners’ request to "grandfather" the requested numbers of animals for the subject properties.
  2. Determine different numbers of animals to "grandfather" for the subject properties.
  3. Request additional supporting information from the property owners, and continue these matters to a date certain.
  4. Request additional research and information from Staff, and continue these matters to a date certain.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
RA district standards from the County Code (1974)
County Ordinance 10977
Development Code Section 1, Chapter 6 ("Original Code")
Development Code Chapter 17.12 ("Pre-1997 Code")
Development Code Chapter 17.46 ("Current Code")
Nonconformity Statement flowchart
Additional correspondence



12. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Update. (Rojas)

Recommendation: Receive an update on the NCCP program and direct Staff to proceed with completion of the draft Plan with the new Alternative C as the basis for the plan.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLANNING (NCCP) UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION

Receive an update on the NCCP program and direct Staff to proceed with completion of the draft Plan with the new Alternative C as the basis for the plan.

BACKGROUND

For the last 4 years the City has been trying to develop a preliminary preserve design for the City’s NCCP. In 1998, two draft preserve alternatives were developed. One preserve design (Alternative A) was developed primarily based on input from environmental organization representatives, and the other preserve alternative (Alternative B) was developed primarily on input from the two major landowners affected by the NCCP (Barry Hon and Jim York). In order to try to strike a compromise between the two alternatives, Staff attempted to develop a "compromise alternative" (Alternative C). Alternative C was presented to the City Council on December 5, 2000, at which time the Council requested a more detailed analysis and comparison of the three main NCCP preserve alternatives.

The alternative comparison was presented to the City Council on March 6, 2001. At that time, the Council authorized Staff to proceed with a biological and economic analysis of the three draft alternatives in order to identify the City’s preferred alternative preserve design. However, in May 2001, the City struck a deal with the two largest landowners to purchase approximately 625 acres of the Portuguese Bend open space. At around the same time, the Long Point Resort Project was being heard by the Planning Commission, with the primary focus being the use of the City’s Upper Pt. Vicente property—property that the resource agencies sought to be included in the NCCP preserve. Given the circumstances, the NCCP process was placed on hold until a decision could be made on the use of the Upper Pt. Vicente property. In October 2001, the City Council agreed to exclude the Upper Pt. Vicente property from the Long Point Resort project and work on finalizing the City’s preferred alternative (Alternative C) re-commenced.

The purpose of this item is to provide the City Council and the public with a status update of the City’s NCCP Program.

DISCUSSION

The City’s compromise preserve alternative (Alternative C) has been amended to reflect the proposed land open space acquisition deal, as well as the City Council’s decision to not include the City’s Upper Pt. Vicente property as part of the Long Point Resort project. In addition, the alternative has been amended to exclude a portion of the Lower Filiorum property from the preserve. The key elements of the new Alternative C design (as shown on the attached map) are as follows:

  1. With the exception of approximately 9-10 acres of Upper Pt. Vicente, which constitutes the most level, usable and disturbed portion of the property, the Upper Pt. Vicente property would be designated as habitat preserve.
  2. All of Barry Hon’s Portuguese Bend property (422 acres) and all of York Associates Upper and Middle Filiorum properties (approx. 220 acres) would be designated as habitat preserve.
  3. Approximately one half of the 85-acre Lower Filiorum property (the Western portion) would be designated as preserve. The area excluded from the preserve corresponds to the area that is the subject of a Moratorium Exclusion application that has been filed by York Long Point Associates.

Also attached is a table that compares the new Alternative C design with previous Alternatives A and B. As shown on the table, Alternative C would preserve 92.8% of the existing Coastal Sage Scrub habitat, as compared to Alternative A (92.6%) and Alternative B (88.7%). Revised Alternative C was presented to the Resource Agencies in a recent meeting held on May 28th. It is the Resource Agencies’ position that the new Alternative C design addresses issues of concern that they had with previous compromise preserve designs and is clearly their preferred alternative design.

The City’s NCCP consultant is currently in the process of finalizing the draft NCCP document. The document will contain a biological and economic analysis of the preserve design, a discussion of management of the preserve, and an assessment of the impact of future private and public projects and activities in and around the preserve. It is Staff’s intent for Alternative C to be the basis for the NCCP document. Staff expects the draft NCCP document to be completed sometime in early July, at which it will be made available to the public and presented to the City Council for discussion.

Also attached is the current schedule for completing the NCCP. It should be noted that the Resource Agencies have represented to City Staff that a commitment for State or Federal funding for the proposed open space acquisition component of the NCCP cannot occur until

a draft NCCP is reviewed and accepted by the Resource Agencies. According to the schedule, this is anticipated to occur sometime in August of this year.

FISCAL IMPACT

Thus far, the City has expended approximately $250,000 on the NCCP program. The City has also received state and federal funding to assist in preparing the NCCP. Thus far, the City has received 2 Federal Grants totaling $275,000 and 1 State Grant for $20,000. Since the federal grant requires a dollar for dollar match by the City, the revenue is recognized at a rate of 50% of total expenditures. The State grant does not have a matching requirement and can be used to match the federal funding. It is estimated that it will cost approximately $150,000 to complete Phases II and III of the NCCP. The City’s current budget contains a balance that is sufficient to finish the NCCP.

CONCLUSION

The City’s NCCP program has been underway since February 1997 and as a result of the effort, three draft preserve alternatives have been identified for review and discussion. As a result of the City’s open space acquisition efforts, as well as the City Council’s decision to not include the City’s Upper Pt. Vicente property as part of the Long Point Resort project, the City’s preferred alternative (Alternative C) has been amended to reflect these City actions. It is the Resource Agencies’ position that the new Alternative C design addresses issues of concern that they had with previous compromise preserve designs and is clearly their preferred alternative design. As a result, it is Staff’s intent for Alternative C to be the basis for the NCCP document, which Staff expects to be completed sometime in early July, at which it will be made available to the public and presented to the City Council for discussion.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans
City Manager

Attachments:
New Alternative C
Preserve Comparison Table
Proposed NCCP schedule



13. Additional Grant Funding for the Expansion of Point Vicente Interpretive Center. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FOR ADDITIONAL EXCESS REVENUE GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,000 FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL GRANT FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION OF POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER

STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution 2002- ___ authorizing the application for grant funds from the County of Los Angeles Regional Park and Open Space District for additional excess revenue grant funds in the amount of $120,000 for the expansion of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center.

BACKGROUND

The Safe Neighborhood Parks Proposition of 1992 provides $540 million Countywide for park and open space improvement projects. In November 5, 1996, voters of Los Angeles County approved the 1996 Proposition A funds. The 1996 Proposition added $319 million in project funds and increases emphasis on youth employment. In 1992 voters also approved an assessment district for maintenance and servicing funds for cities to offset increased maintenance costs resulting from Proposition-funded projects. For the purposes of this staff report, the Proposition A will be referred to as Measure A.

The Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District administers Measure A funds. The City of RPV has received approval and Measure A funds for the following projects:

  • Point Vicente Interpretive Center Expansion (PVIC)
  • Lower Hesse Park Development
  • Abalone Cove Beach Improvement
  • Acquisition of Open Space at Forrestal Drive
  • Acquisition of Open Space at the Portuguese Bend Area- Barkentine Property

DISCUSSION

In May 2002, the County Board of Supervisors notified the City of the availability of additional excess revenue funds in the amount of $120,000. Funds can be used for park, recreation and open space acquisition or capital improvement projects of the City's choice. Staff recommends utilizing the funds for the PVIC project. However, this will not increase the total PVIC project budget which is funded by Measure A, Quimby and Development Impact Mitigation Fund (EET). If approved, Measure A funding for the PVIC project would increase and the EET funded portion of the project would decrease accordingly. The EET fund, rather than Quimby, was chosen because EET is less restrictive than Quimby, and it can be used to fund a wider range of projects in future years.

The PVIC project has been temporarily on hold since September of 1999 when contaminated soil was discovered on PVIC. Staff anticipates completion of the soil cleanup by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sometime this summer, with the project under construction in the Fall of 2002. Construction completion is expected by the Fall of 2003.

Typically, the City is required to assure that at-risk youths (ARY) are employed as a condition for the Measure A funds it receives. The City adopted a Youth Employment Plan in July 1998. This additional funding will increase the City's ARY by $12,000. The new ARY total would increase from $328,502 to $340,502. Staff will submit its updated annual ARY plan to the City Council in early Fall of 2002.

FISCAL IMPACT

If approved, the recommended action will provide the City additional Measure A funds for the expansion of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center in the amount of $120,000. However, the total project budget will not change. The current FY 01-02 PVIC project budget is:

Fund

Current Budget

Recommended Budget

Change

Measure A

$2,129,075

$2,249,075

$120,000

Quimby

$ 282,900

$ 282,900

$ 0

EET

$ 776,200

$ 656,200

($120,000)

Total

$3,188,175

$3,188,175

$ 0

The current projected FY 01-02 year-end fund balance for Quimby and EET are $108,978 and $355 respectively. Staff's recommendation will not change the Quimby fund balance but will change the EET projected fund balance to $120,355.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager
Attachment:Resolution 2002- ___


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EXCESS REVENUE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FOR THE EXPANSION OF POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER

WHEREAS, the people of the County of Los Angeles on November 5, 1996, enacted Los Angeles County Proposition A, Safe Neighborhood Parks, Gang Prevention, Tree-Planting, Senior and Youth Recreation, Beaches and Wildlife Protection (the Proposition), which provides funds to the County of Los Angeles and other public agencies in the County for the purposes of acquiring and/or developing facilities for public recreational facilities and open space; and

WHEREAS, the Proposition also created the County of Los Angeles Regional Park and Open Space District (the District) to administer said funds; and

WHEREAS, the District has set forth the necessary procedures governing local agency applications for grant funds under the Proposition; and

WHEREAS, the District’s procedures require the City as the Applicant to certify, by resolution, the approval of the application before submission of said application to the District; and

WHEREAS, the Project is an important park and recreation project for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and

WHEREAS, said application contains assurances that the City must comply with; and

WHEREAS, the City will enter into an Agreement with the District for the development of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center Expansion project;

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

    1. Approves the filing of an application with the County of Los Angeles Regional Park and Open Space District for funds for additional excess revenue of the Proposition for the above Project; and

    2. Certifies that the City understands the assurances and certification in the application form; and

    3. Certifies that said City has, or will have, sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project in perpetuity; and

    4. Appoints the Director of Public Works, to conduct all negotiations, and to execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so forth, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned Project.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED ON THE 12th DAY OF JUNE, 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 June 12, 2002.


____________________
CITY CLERK



14. Trail Repairs, and Fencing Construction at Inspiration Point and Shoreline Park. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract for trail repairs and fencing construction at Shoreline Park and Inspiration Point to Ryco Construction for an amount not to exceed $54,287 and authorize staff to spend an additional $5,428 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $59,715. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Ryco Construction, Inc. (3) Authorize the expenditure of up to $3,500 for inspection services with SA Associates. (4) ADOPT 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 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: TRAIL REPAIRS, AND FENCING CONSTRUCTION AT INSPIRATION POINT AND SHORELINE PARK

STAFF COORDINATOR: Bindu Vaish, Project Manager

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Award a contract for trail repairs and fencing construction at Shoreline Park and Inspiration Point to Ryco Construction for an amount not to exceed $54,287 and authorize staff to spend an additional $5,428 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $59,715.
  2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Ryco Construction Incorporation.
  3. Authorize the expenditure of up to $3,500 for inspection services with SA Associates.
  4. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes amending Resolution No. 2001-43, the budget appropriation for fiscal year 2001-2002, for a budget adjustment to the City’s General Fund.

BACKGROUND

Inspiration Point and Shoreline Park are open space sites directly adjacent to the ocean.

Inspiration Point is an unimproved shoreline cliff with several dirt trails leading from Palos Verdes Drive South to the end of the point overlooking the ocean. Portions of these trails are within several feet of very steep canyon walls. As of this date, there is no fencing along these edges nor are these areas signed to advise hikers that they should proceed with caution. Typically post-mounted signs could be installed; however, they would likely be maliciously removed, as were the location stakes for the preliminary fencing layout. Therefore, warning signs will be permanently mounted to the new fencing and gates.

Shoreline Park is directly adjacent to the San Pedro City limits and the ocean. Several trails traverse this site. One trail runs perpendicular to Palos Verdes Drive South and is accessible via an entrance at Palos Verdes Drive South/25th Street. The other major trail runs directly parallel to an ocean edge bluff and is accessible from the City of San Pedro (to the south) and the Ocean Trails Golf Course (to the north). This natural dirt trail is rutted, without fencing along the ocean side and there is no signage advising bikers, hikers, and other visitors to the park to proceed with caution along the trail and respect the wildlife in the park.

ANALYSIS

The 2001/2002 City budget includes $60,750 for the construction of fencing/signage and trail improvements at Inspiration Point and Shoreline Park. During the design process, the project expanded to include the installation of additional fencing at Inspiration Point and the reconstruction of the bluff edge trail at Shoreline Park. The cost of this additional work is not included in the approved budget; therefore, the project was split into separate bid items with the understanding that Shoreline Park would be the Base Bid and Inspiration Point an Alternate Bid item. On April 10, 2002 staff received three bids, as summarized below, for the needed improvements and repairs at Inspiration Point and Shoreline Park.

BID SUMMARY

CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

SHORELINE PARK

INSPIRATION POINT

TOTAL

RYCO CONSTRUCTION

$41,575.00

$12,712.00

$54,287.00

DORAL’S CONSTRUCTION

$42,306.10

$21,957.00

$64,263.10

ZONDIROS CONSTRUCTION

$86,240.00

$18,790.00

$105,030.00*

* Audit Total

Ryco Construction is the lowest responsive bidder. Additionally, the services of this firm were previously retained by the City to install playground equipment and ground cover at Hesse Park. Ryco completed this work on time and within budget. Therefore, staff recommends the award of a construction contract to Ryco for the Shoreline Park and Inspiration Point improvements. Based on a bid amount of $54,287, plus a 10% contingency (i.e. $5,428) for possible extra work, the total estimated cost of construction is $59,715.

The construction of these improvements will require periodic inspections. SA Associates has been retained by the City to provide inspection services for other Public Works projects and has agreed to provide the necessary inspections for this project at a cost not to exceed $3,500. Staff recommends that SA Associates be retained to inspect these improvements.

The total estimated cost, as summarized below, of constructing these improvements is $70,215.

    • $ 7,000 design costs
    • $59,715 for construction
    • $ 3,500 for inspection services

-----> $70,215

This expenditure exceeds the current project budget of $60,750 by $9,465. Therefore, it is recommended that Council adopt Resolution 2002-___, a budget adjustment to transfer $9,465 from the Quimby Fund to the General Fund and increase the budget for maintenance services in the City’s General Fund Parks and Trails Maintenance Fund by $9,465.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the construction of the trail repair on Shoreline Park, and new fencing at Inspiration Point and Shoreline Park.

ALTERNATIVES

  1. Award a construction contract for the base bid (Shoreline Park) improvements and forego Inspiration Point. The total estimated project cost for constructing the Shoreline Park improvements is $54,482, and includes following expenditures:
    • $ 7,000 design costs
    • $41,575 construction costs
    • $ 4,157 is10% contingency for possible extra work
    • $ 1,750 for inspections

    -----> $54,482

    The amount of $54,482 is with in budget; and therefore, no additional funds are required.

  2. Postpone the construction of improvements at both locations until funds, other than Quimby Act monies, can be obtained.

FISCAL IMPACT

Staff recommends that Council authorize additional expenditures of $9,465 for the construction of improvements at Inspiration Point and Shoreline Park. The funding source for these additional expenditures is the Quimby fund. The projected fund balance through June 30, 2002 is $108,978. An expenditure of $9,465 would reduce this amount to $99,513. The projected fund balance through June 30, 2003 is $82,878. An expenditure of $9,465 would reduce this amount to $73,413.

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 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.

WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the City of 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 5, 2001, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2001-43, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2001-2002 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to allocate additional funds to trail repairs and fencing construction at Inspiration Point and Shoreline Park; and

WHEREAS, a budget increase in the General Fund is necessary to authorize the expenditure of additional funds for the project.

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

That the following adjustment be made to the General Fund – Parks and Trails Maintenance fund budget:

General Fund

001-341-.30

Maintenance

$9,465

General Fund

001-391-.10

Transfer in from Quimby Fund

$9,465

Quimby

334-391-.20

Transfer out to General Fund

$9,465

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 12th day of June, 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 21st 2002.

________________________
City Clerk



15. Border Issues Status Report. (Fox)

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

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

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

DISCUSSION

On May 13, 2002, Staff attended the City of Lomita Planning Commission hearing for the Harbor Hills Community Center. Several residents of the Peninsula Verde neighborhood addressed the Planning Commission with their concerns, including noise, geology, security and construction impacts. Staff also addressed the Planning Commission, suggested modifications to some of the proposed conditions of approval, and provided copies of letters from Supervisor Knabe and our geotechnical consultant, Zeiser Kling, to be included in the public record. The Planning Commission decided that it needed additional information from the County with respect to previous environmental analysis, noise, crime statistics for Harbor Hills and an alternate site plan suggested by Lomita Planning Staff. The matter was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting, which will be held on Monday, June 10, 2002. Staff plans to attend this meeting and present an oral summary to the City Council tonight.

On May 20, 2002, Staff received a copy of the response to comments for the draft EIR for the special reorganization of the harbor area (see attachments). It should also be noted that the LAFCO public hearing to consider the EIR—originally set to be heard on May 22, 2002—was rescheduled for May 29, 2002. The final EIR was revised to address some but not all of the City’s concerns regarding arbitrary and irregular boundaries along Western Avenue. At the May 29th hearing, LAFCO did not certify the EIR and postponed a possible ballot measure for harbor area secession until November 2004. Therefore, Staff intends to place the monitoring of this matter on hold until a revised draft EIR is available for review.

Also on May 20, 2002, the City received notice from the City of Los Angeles of the approval of a zone boundary adjustment (ZBA) for the Garden Village shopping center. The conditions of approval for the shopping center renovations required the adjustment of the boundaries between the three zoning designations that cover the shopping center site so that they conform to the footprint of the renovated shopping center. The Planning Director for the City of Los Angeles approved the ZBA on May 17, 2002, and the appeal period for this action expired on May 31, 2002. The notice and related exhibits are attached to this report.

As mentioned in the last Border Issues Status Report, the City received an NOP for a proposed EIR for the reconstruction of the REMAX office building at the northeast corner of Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive North in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. Staff has reviewed the NOP and identified potential issues of concern in the areas of geological problems, transportation and circulation and hazards. On May 21, 2002, Staff forwarded the attached comments on the NOP to the City of Rolling Hills Estates.

Finally, Staff has noted two new potential border issues that the City Council may want to follow:

  • Office Building at 5883 Crest Road – The owner of the vacant property at the northeast corner of Crest Road and Highridge Road in the City of Rolling Hills Estates is proposing a small office building. Recently, one- and two-story silhouettes have been erected on the property in order to assist Rolling Hills Estates’ planning staff in evaluating the view impact of the project upon the adjacent Seaview Villas townhomes. At this point, we do not know what impacts this project may have upon Rancho Palos Verdes residents along the south side of Crest Road. Rolling Hills Estates will be preparing and circulating an Initial Study for comments in the near future, which we will present to the City Council upon our receipt.
  • Slope above "Little" Silver Spur Road – At the May 20, 2002 City Council meeting, Mayor McTaggart mentioned his conversation with Rolling Hills Estates Mayor Seamans regarding the slope problems above and behind businesses on "Little" Silver Spur Road in Rolling Hills Estates. As the City Attorney mentioned at that meeting, there has been a civil suit and settlement between the owner of the slope (which is in Rancho Palos Verdes) and the owner of the properties along "Little" Silver Spur Road in Rolling Hills Estates. According to the settlement agreement, the property owner in Rolling Hills Estates must repair the retaining wall and lower portion of the slope. However, it is Staff’s understanding that the property owner in Rolling Hills Estates does not want to initiate the wall and slope repairs without a commitment from Pemba to re-grade the upper portion of the slope. Since Pemba is not compelled by the court decision to take action on its portion of the slope, Pemba has elected not to re-grade this property.

Although Staff has had previous conversations with Pemba Properties about submitting a grading plan to re-grade its slope, no application has yet been submitted to the City. Since this is a civil matter between two private property owners and there is no known code violation or threat to public property in Rancho Palos Verdes, Staff has not taken a proactive role to force Pemba to re-grade the slope. Nonetheless, Staff has been involved in discussions with Pemba to try to broker a resolution to this matter.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Border Issues Status Report
Response to City comments on Harbor Area Special Reorganization EIR
Notice from City of Los Angeles regarding the ZBA for the Garden Village shopping center
Comments on the REMAX Office Building NOP


BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT

Revised June 12, 2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 13, 2002, Staff attended the City of Lomita Planning Commission hearing for the Harbor Hills Community Center (Site Plan Review No. 954). Several residents of the Peninsula Verde neighborhood addressed the Planning Commission with their concerns, including noise, geology, security and construction impacts. Staff also addressed the Planning Commission, suggested modifications to some of the proposed conditions of approval, and provided copies of letters from Supervisor Knabe and our geotechnical consultant, Zeiser Kling, to be included in the public record. The Planning Commission decided that it needed additional information from the County with respect to previous environmental analysis, noise, crime statistics for Harbor Hills and an alternate site plan suggested by Lomita Planning Staff. The matter was continued to the next Lomita Planning Commission meeting, which will be held on Monday, June 10, 2002.

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

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

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

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

City staff, has attempted to find out which Department or person in the City of Los Angeles hierarchy has been assigned the responsibility for inspection and monitoring conditions of the development related to settlement and possible storm drain damage. Although we have talked with many City of Los Angeles employees and have been treated courteously, no one has accepted the responsibility. Accordingly, Staff has prepared letters to:

Andrew Adelman, General Manager
Department of Building and Safety

Vitaly B. Troyan, City Engineer

Con Howe, Director
Department of Planning

The letters are all similar in that they express the City’s concern over the repair and inspection of the storm drains and ask who is responsible for insuring that the lines are properly monitored. Should we not receive an appropriate response we will recommend that the City Attorney take up the matter. The letters were mailed on November 29, 2001. We did receive a telephone call from Tom Stevens from the office of the General Manager of Building and Safety on December 19, 2001 offering assistance. A follow-up call to Mr. Stevens on January 2, 2002 was made in which we were assured that he was still working on a response to our inquiry.

In addition, Staff has maintained contact with the San Pedro Office Manager of the Department of Building and Safety and the Plan Checker for the Albertson’s Market. No building permit for the market has been issued, although the plan checker has approved the plans.

On January 16, 2002, the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, Grading Section required that the developer of the Garden Village Shopping Center agree to the following condition in order to proceed with placing caissons:

Prior to commencement of structural framing, all underground utilities located within or adjoining the site shall be inspected, repaired or replaced, and sealed to prevent infiltration, as recommended.

Before proceeding with the caisson work the developer was required to sign an Affidavit guaranteeing the maintenance of the Albertson’s building site. The Affidavit (attached) states:

I am (We are) fully aware of Settlement and Cracking may occur in the parking lot and hardscape areas due to underlying fill and alluvial deposits and assume full responsibility for periodic inspection, maintenance and repair.

The Shopping Center developer also agreed (attached letter) that he/they would inspect, or arrange for the inspection, of the public storm drain and sewer line on the property during the course of construction. The developer does not agree to assume responsibility for any repair of these utilities. Prior to commencement of structural framing, all underground utilities located within or adjoining the site shall be inspected, repaired or replaced, and sealed to prevent infiltration, as recommended.

According to Mr. Richard Fortner, Senior Building Inspector for Special Projects, the developer has completed the inspection, however, the report has not yet been submitted. It is Mr. Fortner’s position that any deficiencies in the subsurface utilities will have to be repaired either by the City or by the developer prior to occupancy of the new market. As of June 6, 2002, the final inspection report was not yet complete.

On May 20, 2002, the City received notice from the City of Los Angeles of the approval of a zone boundary adjustment (ZBA) for the Garden Village shopping center. Apparently, the conditions of approval for the shopping center renovations included the requirement for the adjustment of the boundaries between the three zoning designations that cover the shopping center site. The purpose of ZBA is to adjust the existing zoning boundaries—which are based upon the previous configuration of the shopping center—so that they conform to the footprint of the renovated shopping center. The Planning Director for the City of Los Angeles approved the ZBA on May 17, 2002, and the appeal period for this action expired on May 31, 2002.

PROPOSED EXPANSION OF ROLLING HILLS COVENANT CHURCH, 2222 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

The project is still in the information-gathering phase. According to our information, the applicant has been making changes to the project so the exact proposal has not been finalized. Generally, the project involves the construction of a new sanctuary building that would accommodate 2,050 seats, along with a new 3-5 level parking structure with 500 parking spaces. The Church also proposes to convert the existing sanctuary to a gymnasium/multi-purpose room for events such as wedding receptions. The preparation of the Initial Study is still underway which will determine whether the project will necessitate an EIR or Negative Declaration. We will receive a notice when either document is prepared and circulated to the public.

On February 9, 2002 an article appeared in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News regarding an upcoming EIR scoping meeting for the Rolling Hills Covenant Church expansion project. Although Staff did not attend the scoping meeting on February 12, 2002, we did download a copy of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study from the Rolling Hills Estates’ web site (www.rollinghillsestates.com). The Initial Study identified a number of potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, noise, public services, utilities, aesthetics and transportation/traffic. The deadline for public comments on the NOP was February 28, 2002, so on February 22, 2002 Staff forwarded the attached comments to the City of Rolling Hills Estates. We expect that a draft EIR for the project will be available for further public comment some time this summer.

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52666, 3200 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (MARSHALL ESFAHANI AND CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES)

City Staff has been in contact with the City of Palos Verdes Estates to discuss the construction traffic that will be generated from the newly-approved residential tract on Palos Verdes Drive West at the border of our City. The City of Palos Verdes Estates indicates that they will allow construction traffic related to grading to enter their city since the disposal site for the project will be within the City of Palos Verdes Estates. However, any other construction traffic leaving the site will not be permitted to travel through the City. The City of Palos Verdes Estates is insisting that a cut be made in the median to accommodate the construction traffic. Mr. Esfahani seems confident that he can negotiate more reasonable terms with the City of Palos Verdes Estates. So far he has apparently not been able to do so.

PROPOSED SOUTH COAST COUNTY GOLF COURSE ON FORMER PALOS VERDES LANDFILL (COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

On November 26, 2001, Planning Staff attended an environmental impact report (EIR) scoping meeting for the proposed Palos Verdes Golf Course in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The County’s Parks and Recreation Department is the lead agency for the EIR, with the actual document preparation being handled by the consulting firm, ESA. The project proponent is a development consortium, headed by Rob Katherman, which has a 2-year contract with the County to complete the land use entitlement process for the golf course.

The project site is the 160-acre former landfill located between Crenshaw Boulevard and Hawthorne Boulevard. Existing activities on the site include a co-generation and recycling facility for the old landfill, as well as the City of Rolling Hills Estates’ equestrian center. The developers propose an 18-hole, par-72 golf course and a 29,000-square-foot clubhouse. The contract with the County also requires the developer to provide a 7,000-square-foot area for an equestrian center in the immediate area surrounding the golf course, although the exact location of the new equestrian center has not been determined.

A major issue of concern raised by the ±150 people in attendance was the disposition of the existing equestrian center and trails on the site. Additional issues of concern included drainage problems for downslope properties in the City of Torrance; geologic concerns about the stability of the old landfill; health concerns regarding toxic materials and methane gas from the old landfill; concerns about the operation of the golf course such as noise, lighting, traffic and security; and construction-related impacts such as air quality, noise, vibration and truck traffic.

The developer’s consultant, ESA, anticipates that the Initial Study (IS) will be complete in early December 2001 and that a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR will be released at that time. The 30-day comment period for the NOP would end in early-to mid-January 2002, with expected public release of the draft EIR in late Spring 2002 and possible action by the County in Summer 2002. It was Staff’s impression that the November 26th scoping meeting was somewhat premature since the IS was not complete and the NOP had not been released. Staff also believes that this schedule may be overly optimistic, given the level of public concern expressed at the scoping meeting, and that it is more likely that the County will make no decision until some time next fall. As of the end of January 2002, Staff had yet to receive a copy of the NOP for this project.

On February 11, 2002, the City received a copy of the NOP and Initial Study for this project. The deadline for public comment on the NOP is March 12, 2002. The Initial Study identifies a number of potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, noise and transportation/traffic. Based upon the review of the Initial Study, Staff has identified further significant concerns in the areas of hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality and recreation. These concerns were reflected in a draft comment letter that was reviewed by the City Council on February 23, 2002. Since that date, Staff has received additional information regarding the former Palos Verdes landfill, and the draft NOP comment letter has been revised to incorporate this additional information. Also, Staff contacted the County on February 26, 2002 to request a 30-day extension of the comment deadline for the NOP. As of the date this report was completed, the County had not yet responded to the City’s request. Therefore, Staff is requesting the City Council’s final input on the draft NOP comment letter on March 11, 2002 so that the comments can be submitted to the County Parks and Recreation Department by the March 12th deadline in the event that an extension is not granted.

On March 6, 2002, the County informed us that a 30-day extension of the NOP comment period had been granted. The new deadline for comments is April 11, 2002. The City Council will take a final look at the draft NOP comment letter for this project on April 2, 2002. Based upon the City Council’s comments, a final comment letter on the NOP was forwarded to the County on April 5, 2002.

PROPOSED SPECIAL REORGANIZATION OF THE HARBOR AREA (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

On January 31, 2002, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the County of Los Angeles conducted a public scoping meeting on the EIR for the proposed "special reorganization" (i.e., de-annexation) of the harbor area of the City of Los Angeles. The project area abuts the easterly boundary of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and includes all portions of the City of Los Angeles located south of Lomita Boulevard, encompassing the communities of Wilmington, Harbor City and San Pedro. Potential environmental effects identified in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) include impacts to public services, traffic and transportation, utilities and service systems, and the cumulative effects of this proposal with other pending special reorganizations in the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood areas of the City of Los Angeles. The project applicant, Harbor Study Foundation, Inc., is proposing that the election on the question of the special reorganization be held November 5, 2002.

Public comments on the NOP are due to LAFCO by February 19, 2002. Since the City Council has requested that Staff investigate the possibility of adjusting the City boundary along Western Avenue, Staff intends to forward comments to LAFCO requesting that these boundary issues and/or adjustments be considered in conjunction with any future special reorganization of the harbor area. Staff would also appreciate input from the Border Issues subcommittee and/or the full City Council regarding other appropriate comments on the NOP for this project.

Based upon input from the City Council at the February 5, 2002 City Council meeting, Staff forwarded the attached NOP comments to LAFCO on February 14, 2002. Along with the Western Avenue boundary issues identified by Staff, the letter also discusses the City Council’s concern regarding possible future school district boundaries and attendance policies with respect to students in the Eastview area. In addition to Staff’s comments to LAFCO, a letter from the Mayor was also sent to Harbor Study Foundation, Inc.

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

On April 30, 2002, Staff forwarded comments on the EIR to LAFCO. Staff received a copy of the response to comments for the EIR on May 20, 2002, along with notification that LAFCO’s public hearing had been rescheduled for May 29, 2002. At the May 29th hearing, LAFCO voted to postpone a decision on harbor area secession until a revised fiscal analysis is completed. LAFCO expects that a ballot measure for secession of the harbor area will not appear for voter consideration until November 2004.

PROPOSED DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF REMAX OFFICE BUILDING, 2483 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

On April 16, 2002, the City received a copy of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study for the REMAX office building project in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The project proposes the demolition of the existing, single-story 2,000-square-foot building and parking lot, and the construction of a new, single-story 5,950-square-foot office building. The project requires a number of discretionary approvals by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, including a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, a Minor Deviation from the minimum site area for commercial development, a Precise Plan of Design and a Grading application for the importation of 5,700 cubic yards of fill.

The Initial Study identifies a number of potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas of land use and planning, earth resources, water, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, risk of upset, noise, public services, utilities, aesthetics, cultural resources, and recreation. It should also be noted that this project is just down the street from the Rolling Hills Covenant Church, which is also proposing a major expansion (see discussion above). The deadline for public comments on the NOP for the REMAX project is June 3, 2002. Staff will prepare comments on the NOP and forward them to the City of Rolling Hills Estates.

On May 21, 2002, Staff forwarded the NOP comments to the City of Rolling Hills Estates. These comments identified potential issues of concern in the areas of geological problems, transportation and circulation and hazards. Staff intends to review the draft EIR once it is available and provide further comments on this project.



16. Applicants for View Restoration Mediator Positions – Set Date to Interview. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Set a date to interview the applicants for View Restoration Mediator positions.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: APPLICANTS FOR POSITION OF VIEW RESTORATION MEDIATORS – SET DATE TO INTERVIEW

RECOMMENDATION

Set a date to interview the applicants for the position of View Restoration Mediators.

BACKGROUND

Interview and appointment of these candidates for the position of View Restoration Mediators will bring to a near completion the recruitment and interview process for the City’s advisory boards. The next step in the appointment process will be for the Council to interview and appoint a chair to the Emergency Preparedness Task Force. That matter will be presented on the June 18th City Council agenda.

The City is in receipt of six applications from candidates for the position of View Restoration Mediators. (Please see attached roster and applications.) While previously consisting of ten members (seven regular and three alternates), the City Council on April 2nd decided that because most of the View Restoration Commission work had been done, that the service of the Commission could be accomplished in a more cost-effective manner by designating mediators. These mediators would serve as a adjunct to the Planning Commission. Furthermore, it was the consensus of the Council that a mediation team of five members would be sufficient to process the view applications now being received by the City.

CONCLUSION

The City is in receipt of six applications from residents who wish to serve as View Restoration Mediators. Council should now set a date to interview those candidates and make appointments as soon thereafter as possible.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell
Administrative Services Director/City Clerk

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

VIEW RESTORATION MEDIATOR CANDIDATES

Drages, Neva H. (Incumbent)

28723 Rothrock Drive
Home: 541-2834
No E-mail

Dyda, Kenneth J. (Incumbent)

5715 Capeswood Drive
Home: 375-3932
E-mail: kdyda@earthlink.net

Ortolano, Jr., Ralph J.

 

3778 Coolheights Drive
Home: 377-8233
E-mail: ortolano@hotmail.com
Fax: 310-377-8233

Pole, Debra E.

5241 Rolling Ridge Road
Home: 375-3524 Bus.: 213-745-3336
E-mail: dpole@brobeck.com
Fax: 213-239-1323

Weber, Paul R., M.D., PhD. (Incumbent)

Other choices: 2nd Planning Commission; 3rd Finance Advisory Committee; 4th Recreation and Parks Committee; 5th Traffic Committee; 6th Equestrian Committee

3502 Via Campesina
Home: 378-5571 Bus.: 562-595-5380
E-mail: dontfly@aol.com
Fax: 310-378-7972

Wenning, Connie

30002 Avenida Classica
Home: 541-4323 Bus.: 540-0072
Fax: 310-540-8336
No E-mail

 

VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION ROSTER

Gilbert Alberio, (Chair)
2177 Rocking Horse Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
phone: 833-2961
fax: 833-0416

John Monks
32200 Schooner Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 377-3803
Fax: (310) 541-4941


Luis De Moraes
27010 Springcreek Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 544-2909
Fax: (310) 452-5805
E-Mail: demoraesfamily@msn.com


Jim Slayden
7 Mela Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 377-2033


Neva H. Drages
28723 Rothrock Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 541-2834

S. Bruce (Bud) Franklin
15 Oceanaire Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 541-7177
E-Mail: frank4@gateway.net

 

Charlotte Iseda
6781 Verde Ridge Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: 310-377-7154
Fax: 310-541-3984
E-mail: kB6FXS@aol.com

Alternates:

Ken Dyda
5715 Capeswood Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 375-3932
E-Mail: kdyda@earthlink.net


Russell T. Ginise
26404 Birchfield Avenue
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Home: (310) 375-6148
Work: (310) 772-6138
Fax: (310) 772-6600
E-Mail: rtginise@aol.com


Dr. Paul Weber
3502 Via Campesina
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Home: (310) 378-5571
Work. (562) 426-2105


Meetings 1st Thursday of each month – Hesse Park Community Room:

Name Term Begins Term Expires

First Appointed

Alberio, Gil 05/16/00 04/02/02 05/16/00
De Moraes, Luis 04/03/01 04/02/02 04/03/01
Drages, Neva 05/16/00 04/02/02 01/20/98
Dyda, Ken, (Alt.) 05/16/00 04/02/02 05/16/00
Franklin, Bruce 05/16/00 04/02/02 05/16/00
*Ginise, Russell (Alt.) 04/03/01 04/02/02

04/03/01

Iseda, Charlotte 05/16/00 04/02/02 05/16/00
*Monks, John 05/16/00 04/02/02

05/16/00

Slayden, Jim 05/16/00 04/02/02 05/16/00
Weber, Paul, (Alt.) 05/16/00 04/02/02 05/16/00


*Moved


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



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



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to 5:00 P.M. on June 18 for a closed session to be followed by interviews for Emergency Preparedness Task Force Chair at 6:00 P.M.



CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5

(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

Existing Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: James A. Kay, Jr. dba Lucky’s Two Way Radio; Communications Relay Corporation, v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al., Case No. 02-03922MMM(RZx)



RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

AGENDA

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 12, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


CALL TO ORDER

NEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2002-07


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


A. Minutes of May 7 and June 4, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MAY 7, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 12:17 A.M. by Chair McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

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

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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

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

Minutes (301)

Approved the minutes of April 2, 2002.

March 2002 Treasurer’s Report (602 x 1900)

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. RDA 2002-06 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002-06, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

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


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

There were no requests to speak.


ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 A.M. on motion of Chair McTaggart.


__________________
Chair

ATTEST:


_________________________
Agency Secretary


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 4, 2002

The meeting was called to order at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by Agency Secretary Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.


_______________________
CHAIR

ATTEST:


______________________
AGENCY SECRETARY


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

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: APRIL 2002 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the April 2002 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of April 2002 for the Redevelopment Agency.

ANALYSIS:

The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency increased by $6,422 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $1,152,459 at April 30, 2002. The majority of the month’s expenditures were related to ongoing progress payments for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. Expenditures were offset by receipt of third quarter interest and April property tax increment. It is expected that the Agency will continue to experience monthly decreases in cash until the completion of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Agency Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Executive Director


C. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARING:


D. Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003, WHICH BEGINS ON JULY 1, 2002.

TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt RDA Resolution No. 2002- ; adopting the operating and capital improvement budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003, which begins on July 1, 2002.

DISCUSSION

In 2001, the City prepared its second two-year budget covering fiscal years 01-02 and 02-03. On June 5, 2001, the Redevelopment Agency adopted the budget for FY 01-02 and the budget for FY 02-03 was shown in the budget document as "proposed." The budget for FY 02-03 has been revised by staff and is now being presented to the RDA at a public hearing for review and adoption. There are two changes to the figures that were shown as "proposed" in the two-year document:

  • $17,000 reduction in interest earnings in the Housing Set-Aside fund

  • $410,000 in reduced interest expense in the RDA Debt Service fund and the corresponding reduction in the advance from the General fund to cover that interest.

The reduction in the interest earnings in the Housing Set-Aside fund is because the proposed budget was based on an assumed interest rate of 6.5%, but current earnings from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) are less than 3%.

With regards to the RDA Debt Service fund, the proposed budget was based on a 9.5% interest rate, which is derived from the 6.5% LAIF interest rate, plus 3% as required by the Loan Agreement between the City and the RDA. Because of the significant reduction in the LAIF interest rate, the accrued interest payable for the RDA Debt Service fund will be significantly less than originally estimated. For the adopted FY 02-03 RDA Budget, staff is proposing that a 6% interest rate be used (3% LAIF + 3% Loan Agreement = 6%). The chart below illustrates the expected reduction in accrued interest:

RDA Debt Service Fund

"Proposed"
FY 02-03 Budget

Revised
FY 02-03 Budget

Estimate Fund Balance on 6/30/02

$11,218,400

$10,950,833

Interest Rate

X 9.5%

X 6%

Interest Earnings in FY 02-03

= $1,065,748

= $657,050

Difference in Interest Earnings

($408,698)

Since its creation, the City has made periodic loan transfers from the City’s General fund to provide funding for the RDA. The unpaid loan principal and accrued interest constitutes the balance owed under the Loan Agreement between the City and RDA.  Because the RDA has had insufficient funds for repayment, the accrued interest is added to the balance owed. Because the projected accrued interest will be $657,050 in FY 02-03, instead of the $1,065,748 estimated last year, the advance from the General fund to the RDA Debt Service fund will be $410,000 less than was originally estimated for FY 02-03.

CONCLUSION

The Revised RDA Budget for FY 02-03 is being presented to the City Council for review and approval. Because interest earnings have been less than expected when the proposed budget was prepared a year ago, adjustments to the balances in the Housing Set-Aside fund and the RDA Debt Service fund are necessary. If the Council desires to make any further changes to the RDA Budget, they can be read into the record during tonight’s budget hearing.

Respectfully submitted
Carolynn Petru
Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans
Chief Administrative Officer

Attachment:
RDA Resolution No. 2002- ; Adopting the operating and capital improvements budget for Fiscal Year 02-03


RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003.

WHEREAS, the Board of the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency desires to adopt the following resolution adopting the capital budget for the 2002-2003 fiscal year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE BOARD OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES HEREBY ADOPT THE FOLLOWING 2002-2003 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET.

Section 1: The 2002-2003 Revenue Budget is hereby adopted, establishing the following revenue levels:

2002-2003 PROGRAM
ADOPTED BUDGET

Portuguese Bend Project Area --- $ 15,500

RDA Housing Set Aside Fund --- 133,000

Abalone Cove Debt Service Fund --- 1,142,650

TOTAL REVENUES --- $ 1,291,150

Section 2: An operating and capital budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 is hereby adopted as contained in the Annual Budget of the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency attached hereto and incorporated and referenced as part of this resolution. The following expenditure levels are hereby established:

2002-2003 PROGRAM
ADOPTED BUDGET

Portuguese Bend Project Area

Administration --- $ 49,810

RDA Engineering --- 45,000

Agency Attorney --- 10,000

Capital Projects --- 55,200

RDA Housing Set-Aside Fund --- 50,000

Abalone Cove Debt Service Fund --- 1,065,300

TOTAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES --- $ 1,275,310

Section 3: Upon adoption of said Budget, the Board may revise and/or update said Budget in part or in its entirety, depending on the Agency's fiscal resources, circumstances, and needs.

Section 4: The Executive Director of the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency shall be responsible for administration and execution of said Budget.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED the 12th day of June 2002.


___________________________
AGENCY CHAIRPERSON

ATTEST:


______________________
AGENCY SECRETARY

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

I, JO PURCELL, Agency Secretary of the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. RDA 2002- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said Redevelopment Agency at regular meeting thereof held on June 12, 2002.


__________________________
AGENCY SECRETARY


PUBLIC COMMENTS: For items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes.



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




RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

AGENDA

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 12, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

CALL TO ORDER:NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2002-06


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1. Minutes of May 7 and June 4, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

MAY 7, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 12:20 A.M. by Chair McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

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

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


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

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

Minutes (301)

Approved the minutes of March 11, 2002.

March 2002 Treasurer’s Report (602 x 2200)

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. IA 2002-05 - Register of Demands (602 x 2200)

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. IA 2002-05, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

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

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


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

There were no requests to speak.


ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 12:21 A.M. on the motion of Commissioner Stern.


________________
Chair

Attest:


_____________________
Commission Secretary


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 4, 2002

The meeting was called to order at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by Commission Secretary Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.


_______________________
CHAIR

ATTEST:


_________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY


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

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: APRIL 2002 TREASURER'S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the April 2002 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer's report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of April 2002 for the Improvement Authority.

ANALYSIS:

The Improvement Authority's cash increased by $22,865 during the past month; ending with an overall balance of $1,618,105 at April 30, 2002. Receipts were comprised of third quarter interest of $16,173 and the monthly General fund transfer of $7,917.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis McLean
Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

Reviewed:

Les Evans
Chief Administrative Officer


3. Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


PUBLIC HEARING:


4. Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. IA 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ADOPTING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003, WHICH BEGINS ON JULY 1, 2002.

TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE JOINT POWERS IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: JUNE 12, 2002

SUBJECT: ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt IA Resolution No. 2002- ; adopting the operating and capital improvement budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003, which begins on July 1, 2002.

DISCUSSION

In 2001, the City prepared its second two-year budget covering fiscal years 01-02 and 02-03. On June 5, 2001, the Improvement Authority adopted the budget for FY 01-02 and the budget for FY 02-03 was shown in the budget document as "proposed." The budget for FY 02-03 is now being presented to the Improvement Authority at a public hearing for review and adoption. The only changes to the figures that were shown as "proposed" in the two-year document is a $25,000 reduction in interest earnings in the Abalone Cove fund. The proposed budget was based on a 5% interest rate, but current earnings are less than 3%. If the Council desires to make any further changes to the IA Budget, they can be read into the record during tonight's budget hearing.

Respectfully submitted:

Carolynn Petru
Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,

Les Evans
Chief Administrative Officer

IA Resolution No. 2002- ; Adopting the operating budget for Fiscal Year 02-03


RESOLUTION NO. IA 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES JOINT POWERS IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003

WHEREAS, the Commission of the Rancho Palos Verdes Joint Powers Improvement Authority desires to adopt the following resolution adopting the operating budget for the 2002-2003 fiscal year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES JOINT POWERS IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY ADOPT THE FOLLOWING 2002-2003 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET.

Section 1: The 2002-2003 Revenue Budget (inclusive of transfers from the City's General Fund) is hereby adopted, establishing the following revenue levels:

PROGRAM
2002-2003
ADOPTED BUDGET
   
Maintenance - Portuguese Bend
$ 101,000
Maintenance - Abalone Cove
41,000
   

TOTAL REVENUES


$ 142,000

Section 2: An operating budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 is hereby adopted as contained in the Annual Budget of the Rancho Palos Verdes Joint Powers Improvement Authority attached hereto and incorporated and referenced as part of this resolution. The following expenditure levels are hereby established:

PROGRAM
2002-2003
ADOPTED BUDGET
   
Maintenance - Portuguese Bend
$ 99,100
Maintenance - Abalone Cove
103,700
   

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES

$ 202,800

Section 3: Upon adoption of said Budget, the Authority may revise and/or update said Budget in part or in its entirety, depending on the Authority's fiscal resources, circumstances, and needs.

Section 4: The Chief Administrative Officer of the Rancho Palos Verdes Joint Powers Improvement Authority shall be responsible for administration and execution of said Budget.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED the 12th of June 2002.


___________________________
AUTHORITY CHAIRPERSON

ATTEST:


______________________
AUTHORITY SECRETARY


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

I, JO PURCELL, Authority Secretary of the Rancho Palos Verdes Joint Powers Improvement Authority, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. IA 2002- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said Joint Powers Improvement Authority at regular meeting thereof held on June 12, 2002.



___________________________
AUTHORITY SECRETARY


PUBLIC COMMENTS: For items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes.



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