Agenda 07/02/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 07/02/2002
June 2, 2002 6:00 PM

DISCLAIMER

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

...end of disclaimer...

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


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.


AGENDA

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

JULY 2, 2002 @ 6:00 P.M.

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

CALL TO ORDER:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


1.Interview applicants for position of View Restoration mediators. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Interview the nine candidates who have applied for the View Restoration mediator positions.

 


ADJOURNMENT:

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 2, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


 

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-51

NEXT ORD. NO. 378

CEREMONIAL MATTERS:

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1.Motion to waive full reading.

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


2.Minutes of April 30, May 20, May 21, and June 12, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


3.Claim against the City by Jelena Berkovich. (Purcell)

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


4.Notice of Completion for the fiscal year 2001-2002 arterial rehabilitation program. (Noble)

Recommendation: (1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and, if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance Bonds. (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Sully-Miller Contracting Company 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent upon claims being filed against the project.


5.Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2002-00228): Wind Energy Ordinance. (Fox)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 377 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ENACTING A WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 1207. (This ordinance was introduced at the June 18th meeting.)


6.Re-appropriation of Funds for the Tree Trimming for View Restoration and View Preservation Program. (Noble)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2002-45, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S VIEW RESTORATION PROGRAM WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND.


7.Resolutions for Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3 (Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive), No. 8 (Sunshine 6 Limetree Lane) and No. 19 (Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive). (Fox)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NOS. 2002-__, 2002-__ AND 2002-__, MEMORIALIZING THE CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION OF JUNE 12, 2002 WITH RESPECT TO LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL NONCONFORMITY STATEMENT NOS. 3, 8 AND 19, RESPECTIVELY.


8.Peninsula Seniors Grant Extension. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__ AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING TO OBTAIN THE REMAINING BALANCE OF A $25,000 GRANT FOR THE PENINSULA SENIORS DURING FY 02-03.


9.May 2002 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.


10.Appeal of Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2279. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 930 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2279, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS (MIRALESTE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION) AND DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE PROJECT’S APPLICATIONS.

 


11.Register of Demands. (McLean)

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


REGULAR BUSINESS:


12.Appointment of View Restoration Mediators. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Select five candidates from the group interviewed at the 6:00 P.M. meeting.


13.Request for City Grant for S.H.A.W.L. (Petru)

Recommendation: Award a grant in the amount of $3,000 to S.H.A.W.L. (Support for Harbor Area Women’s Lives).


14.Contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. (Petru)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for FY 02-03.


15.California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (Cleep). (Evans)

Recommendation: Approve the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Los Angeles County Sheriff and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes authorizing payment of the City’s $115,538 2000-01 CLEEP Grant, in two equal installments, to the Los Angeles County Sheriff for the purpose of designing, building, and adapting the hardware and software and converting and warehousing the data for the LARCIS database.


16.Resolution establishing salary and hourly ranges for all competitive and management job classifications. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider adopting RESOLUTION NO. 2002-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING SALARY AND HOURLY RANGES FOR ALL COMPETITIVE AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AT THE 75TH PERCENTILE.


17.Cable Television Rate Increases. (Petru)

Recommendation: Review the cable television rate increase complaint forwarded to the City Council by Mayor John McTaggart and provide staff with direction.


18.Border Issues Status Report. (Fox)

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


19.Roof repair and replacement project. (Noble)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract for the repair and replacement of roofs on City owned buildings to Commercial Roofing for an amount not to exceed $67,978 and authorize staff to spend an additional $6,797 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $74,775. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Commercial Roofing. (3) Authorize the expenditure of up to $2,500 for inspection services with Charles Abbott Associates, Inc. (4) ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2002-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S BUILDING REPLACEMENT FUND.


20.Open Space Planning And Recreation And Parks Task Force Scope Of Work and Funding Proposal. (Evans)

Recommendation: Approve a scope of work for the newly formed Open Space Planning, Recreation and Parks Task Force and establish a budget of $100,000 for contract assistance for the Task Force.


21.November 2002 election: term limits ballot initiative. (Evans)

Recommendation: Approve a description of the Council’s request for citizen input regarding a possible November ballot initiative establishing term limits for posting on the City’s website.


.22.Amendment to City Council Policy No. 30 (Removal of View Covenants

Recommendation: Amend City Council Policy No. 30, thereby establishing a procedure for the removal of view covenants that have been recorded against properties, on a case-by-case basis.

 


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

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


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

 


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.

View the agenda at www.palosverdes.com/RPV or

A full copy of the agenda package is at the counter at Hesse Park.


AGENDA

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 2, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


 

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-51

NEXT ORD. NO. 378

CEREMONIAL MATTERS:

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1.Motion to waive full reading.

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


2.Minutes of April 30, May 20, May 21, and June 12, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

AND FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 30, 2002

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

PRESENT:Clark, Gardiner,Stern,Mayor McTaggart

LATE ARRIVAL:Ferraro at 7:02 P.M.

ABSENT:None

FAC PRESENT:Butler, Clark, Curtis, McLeod, Smith, Wallace, Chairman Wolowicz

ABSENT:None

Also present were: City Manager Les Evans; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Counselor Mark Mandell, from Richards, Watson & Gershon; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and Recording Secretary Denise Bothe.

Finance Advisory Committee Chairman Wolowicz led the Salute to the Flag.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None.


REGULAR BUSINESS:

2002 Five-Year Financial Model

City Manager Evans commented on the busy schedule of the FAC and City staff to discuss and study the City’s financial situation and to fine-tune the City’s 5-Year Financial Model, helping to provide a clear picture on the outlook of the City’s financial position for the next five years. In addition, he explained that the FAC has been studying/investigating various alternatives for meeting revenue demands.

By way of a Power Point presentation, Director McLean presented the staff report of April 30, 2002, and the recommendation to review and file the 2002 Five-Year Financial Model.

Director McLean highlighted the key places in the General Fund that transfers are made to; he stated that looking forward, the 2002 Five-Year Financial Model indicates that the transfers from the General Fund and the CIP Fund will be approximately $2.5 million per year; and advised that the second largest amount that will be transferred from the General Fund will be the Gas Tax Fund, with an average of $800,000 annually.

Director McLean highlighted the following projects that are not included in the 2002 Five-Year Financial Model: preliminary Citywide Sewer Maintenance Plan;

Citywide Storm Drain Plan; transfers from the General Fund for the Utility Undergrounding Fund; transfers to the Roadway Beautification Fund; salary range adjustments and request of additional full-time staff; infrastructure wishlist, such as athletic fields, park and trail improvements, equestrian park, civic center; TOT or sales tax revenue from the proposed Long Point Resort project; the menu of infrastructure financing alternatives; the purchase and financing of 722 acres of open space along PVDS; and several one-time or possibly over two-year period type policy issue costs, such as Building and Safety Division Personnel Study, purchase of ergonomic furniture, consulting and advisory services, and additional City grants to community organizations. Director McLean mentioned that the model does include reduced transfers to the Building Replacement Fund, explaining that it ultimately will be reduced to $100,000 annually.

Director McLean stated that the expenditure assumptions have generally been set at a 3-percent increase annually; noted that the model includes increased costs for the City Attorney services as a result of increased litigation; and that the model includes provisions for a cost-based fee study to be performed next year, at an approximate charge of $25,000 -- pointing out that staff believes fee revenue will increase by $100,000 a year, perhaps more, if the cost-based fee study is performed.

Believing that these fees were based on a study that is approximately a decade old, Mayor pro tem Stern questioned if the City has a policy for updating this study.

In response, Director McLean stated that there currently is no set policy to update this study, but noted that the fees are based upon the actual costs incurred.

Mayor pro tem Stern questioned whether it is possible to build in some type of inflator, such as CPI.

City Manager Evans stated for Mayor pro tem Stern that a CPI-type inflator could be built into any of the expenditure assumptions, including lighting and landscaping.

It was the consensus of the City Council that staff investigate how to build in an inflator into this study.

Director McLean stated that with the approval of the cost-based fee study, one thing that can be done with the implementation of it is to create automatic indexing; and mentioned that some of the fees and some of the taxes, such as business license tax, already have an indexing feature.

Councilman Gardiner questioned whether a baseline model is available, indicating where the City has not exercised any discretion if it chooses to do nothing; and stated that it would be helpful to have external influences put into the model so that the City Council can then see the impact of actually making its decisions.

City Manager Evans explained that staff is looking for direction from the City Council as to what it believes should remain and what should be deleted from the figures.

Councilman Gardiner suggested, for example, to include all the inflators, put in all the things the City has no control over; and that the City start with a commitment baseline in order to help the City Council make a clear assessment of where they want additional revenues and expenditures to go.

In response to Councilman Gardiner’s request, Director McLean stated that staff could take the model that exists today and bring it back to a baseline model, doing things such as excluding the cost of Master Planning, excluding the cost of the cost-based fee study.

In response to Mayor pro tem Stern’s question, Director McLean stated that the model includes a traffic signal project every other year at a cost of $450,000.

City Manager Evans stated that the City Council had previously agreed to study the traffic signals throughout the entire City; and advised that the way things appear to staff, there will be the need for additional traffic signals over the next five years.

Councilman Gardiner stated that the traffic signal issue is an example of one item he would not include in the baseline, that it is a policy decision.

With regard to the sewer program and the current sewer infrastructure, Councilman Clark expressed his desire to get a clear understanding of where the City is assessing its responsibility versus the County’s responsibility.

Addressing Councilman Clark’s inquiry, City Manager Evans explained that currently, the County will respond if there is a break in the system, an emergency repair on the sewer; that the County will continue to do that into the future; and explained that the City was not aware that the County had no preventative maintenance program.

Councilman Clark noted his desire that this body look at the projects with staff and decide from a risk management standpoint where these projects have to be done and which ones can be deferred.

Mayor McTaggart highlighted the mandate by the EPA to reduce debris flowing into the ocean; and noted his preference that the City do all it can to comply with this law, suggesting that those areas be dealt with first which have the greatest potential to create a problem.

Director Allison noted for Mayor McTaggart that this City is in compliance with the EPA law more so than most cities as far as already having put debris catchers into the drains; and further stated that staff has been methodical in the placement of these basin catchers, generally placing them in high commercial traffic areas and parking lots.

Councilman Clark suggested that this City enlist the assistance of COG to help this City sort out how to most effectively reach compliance with the EPA and NPDES program.

Responding to Councilman Clark's comment, FAC Chairman Wolowicz explained that FAC has had several discussions regarding the uniqueness of being a coastal community and FAC’s continuing investigations into financial opportunities related to coastal communities -- pointing out that information is still being sought in this area.

Councilman Clark suggested that FAC contact the California League of Cities to obtain related information as to its Environmental Policy Committee -- noting that FAC should be able to ferret out some of the needed information from that Committee’s databases.

Addressing Mayor McTaggart’s inquiry, City Manager Evans stated that the City had applied for a storm drain grant from the Coastal Conservancy but that the request was denied.

With regard to storm drain projects, Director Allison noted for Councilman Clark that the Sunnyside Drive Storm Drain Project rated Priority No. 2 out of 30 projects in the study.

Councilman Clark noted his interest in understanding the risk of tradeoff with deferring that kind of project, particularly with it already being prioritized as the No. 2 project in terms of the need for action.

Director McLean explained that the 2002 Model indicates that this City needs to increase its revenue sources in the future to adequately maintain its infrastructure, to improve its park facilities, to act on a wishlist of improvements, and that it needs revenue sources to get its cash flow to a break-even level so that the City can put itself in a position to take out long-term debt if the City chooses to do so.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted his preference for non-volatile revenue streams that are very predictable year-end and year-out.

Director McLean provided input concerning the Comprehensive Citywide Sewer Maintenance Plan and a possible sewer user fee plan -- pointing out that the Citywide Sewer Maintenance Plan will be a supplement to the limited effort provided by the County of Los Angeles.

With regard to a Citywide Sewer Maintenance Plan, Mayor McTaggart noted his preference that cul-de-sacs, hillsides and those areas that have exhibited problems in the past be addressed first for storm drain improvements -- stating that he is not certain whether it’s necessary to study the entire City.

Councilman Gardiner expressed his preference that ultimately, the City accomplish a mix of the necessary projects and some of the interesting proposals.

FAC Member Butler explained that after much study and deliberation, the FAC is close to coming back to the City Council with recommendations for alternative financing vehicles to address for the City’s storm drains, roadways and sewer projects.

Addressing financing alternatives, Director McLean noted that a Citywide Storm Drain User Fee would provide a revenue stream, and he commented on the possibility of the City sharing this fee with the property owners.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 8:45 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 8:56 P.M.


PUBLIC COMMENT:

Karen Carr, 320 Knobhill, Redondo Beach, representing the South Bay Youth Project, expressed the agency’s appreciation of the City’s past support; noted that this agency has been providing youth counseling services to the youth from Rancho Palos Verdes; advised that in 2001, the agency served 153 children from RPV, 23 percent of the agency’s clientele; and explained that the agency also assists with family counseling.

Highlighting the Requests for City Grants, City Manager Evans advised that all three groups have requested grants from RPV; advised that Shakespeare by the Sea has changed its request to $1,200 and that Peninsula Seniors has submitted a letter requesting a grant increase from $8,040 to $11,256.

Mayor McTaggart expressed his strong opposition to this City subsidizing the participation of residents from Palos Verdes Estates in the Peninsula Seniors program and PVE not offering any support.

Bill Baumann, representing Peninsula Seniors, advised that this agency has incurred a 37-percent increase in its anticipated budget from last October; explained that as a result of the recommendations in a needs assessment study, a lot of activities have been increased; commented on the agency’s various activities; stated that one additional employee has been hired to work with the travel section; and noted that the rent has significantly increased.

Responding to Councilman Clark’s inquiry, Mr. Baumann stated that the agency receives grants from Rolling Hills Estates, Rolling Hills, RPV, and none from Palos Verdes Estates; advised that the agency has approximately 301 members from Palos Verdes Estates; 922 from RPV; 244 from Rolling Hills Estates; 31 from Rolling Hills, for a total membership of 1,942.

Reiterating his objection to subsidizing agency membership from PVE, Mayor McTaggart suggested that residents from PVE be charged more membership dues.

Addressing Mayor pro tem Stern’s inquiry in regard to increasing the dues to make up for the increased fees and rent, Mr. Baumann stated that a number of seniors have dropped out of the program because of the increase; noted that the annual dues are $25 per individual and $45 dollars per couple; and stated that repeated requests for assistance from PVE have been denied. Mr. Baumann stated that this agency provides beneficial service to the seniors.

Councilman Clark stated that this City Council should take direct action once again to urge PVE to support its seniors in this program; that the PVE City Manager should be encouraged to discuss this matter with the City Council to cease their ignoring these groups; and he encouraged constructive action by the seniors themselves to take this message back to the senior leadership.

In response to the needs assessment survey, the City Council suggested raising the fees for various services.

In exchange for amending the grant to Shakespeare by the Sea, City Manager Evans stated that the group will put on a performance at the Civic Center.

(Resumed discussion concerning the 2002 Five-Year Financial Model)

Director McLean explained that the City could substantially reduce a storm drain user fee with the use of long-term debt.

Councilman Clark stated that where the current residents are making improvements to the City’s infrastructure that will last decades, the costs shouldn’t be borne just by the current residents, but borne over a longer period of time with the residents who will benefit from it.

Councilman Gardiner stated that as a general principle, he’d prefer long-term projects have long-term money and short-term projects have short-term money, that the money and project ought to have similar timelines.

Director McLean noted for Mayor pro tem Stern that revenue derived from the Citywide Park Benefit Assessment could offset approximately 50 percent of existing park maintenance costs; stated that the Park Benefit Assessment would be ongoing, year after year; that the assessment would be added to the property tax roll; that it would not be a deductible expense to the residents; and that it would require a ballot process requiring a majority vote.

Councilman Clark, echoed by the City Council, commended staff and FAC for an excellent presentation.

Councilman Clark stated that he did not see in the conclusion or recommendations anything on the expenditure side, nothing to suggest that this City needs to look closely at the expenditure side of the equation; and stated that he would like to look at the expenditure side and see where the City is spending the money and where there may be belt-tightening possibilities.

Mayor McTaggart stated that at some point in time, consideration needs to be given to increasing staff as opposed to having a continual turnover of consultants.

The FAC expressed its support for additional staff to alleviate the increasing workload that staff has been undertaking -- noting that the FAC members have taken on various assignments to help alleviate the charges placed upon staff.

Responding to Councilman Gardiner’s inquiry, City Manager Evans explained that the increasing responsibilities and tasks being placed upon various staff and Commissions/Committees will most likely last throughout the next five years and that it is his opinion that more staff will be needed, whether permanent or temporary.

Councilman Clark highlighted the fact that this City has less staff than it had a decade ago.

FAC Member McLeod stated that studying this matter for the last six weeks while serving on the FAC has indicated to her that there is some urgency to some of these CIP projects; and expressed her opinion that even if Long Point would generate a larger sum of money for the City, it would still be a sound fiscal policy to have in place some type of user fee for putting these CIP projects in place -- pointing out that this City is most likely not in line with what other cities are doing with respect to assessing those fees for their CIP projects.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted his concurrence with FAC Member McLeod’s comment; stated that philosophically, he is concerned with taking present residents’ money and putting it in the bank, raising millions of dollars to purchase something years later -- noting that the current residents would never derive the benefit of those fees.

Mayor McTaggart stated that the City should not use the proposed resort as a funding source and that it should proceed with the infrastructure improvements that are needed.

Given the uncertainty of when and if the hotel will be built, FAC Member Clark agreed with Mayor McTaggart’s comment that the City should ignore counting on the hotel as a funding source at this point, stating that there are too many uncertainties.

Councilman Gardiner expressed his preference to see a matrix, reflecting various columns with projects, some way to highlight sources of dollars and timing.

FAC Chairman Wolowicz stated that the FAC has placed a strong emphasis on alternative funding to be addressed at each FAC meeting.

Councilman Clark stated that as a new City Council, they are open philosophically in looking at a shift from the past philosophies of pay as you go to one that supports debt financing in certain categories with understandable logic and rationale.

In terms of pursuing the financial model for the future, City Manager Evans noted for Councilman Clark that additional staff will be needed to support the FAC and/or working the day-to-day financial operations of the City.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 10:28 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:36 P.M.


BUDGET POLICY ISSUES FOR FY 2002-2003

City Manager Evans presented staff report (of record); commented on the request for additional employees within various departments due to increasing workloads; and stated that in some cases, it would be more cost-effective to hire on a full-time basis rather than an hourly contract basis.

It was the consensus of the City Council to go ahead with the 30th anniversary celebration. Councilman Gardiner suggested that corporate donations be sought.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that the City consider hiring a retired County senior building official who is looking for additional income.

Councilman Clark questioned if the City has looked at a combination of in-house and contracting out for its legal services, whether financial alternatives have been studied; and suggested that the City consider hiring an in-house City attorney to handle the basic and customary business and that the City contract out for specialized support.

City Manager Evans explained that a cursory study had been done in the past and that the result of the study indicated it would cost more than what the City is currently paying for its legal services.

Mayor McTaggart commented on the current firm’s good track record, noting that it has been extremely successful for this City.

City Manager Evans noted for Councilman Clark that he would check with the city of San Juan Capistrano as to what it pays for its in-house counsel.

Mayor pro tem Stern stated that an economic analysis versus a qualitative analysis should be included.

City Manager Evans stated that he will get some preliminary information and present it to City Council.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that consideration be given to retractable camera mounts in Council Chambers.

City Manager Evans summarized the City Council’s input concerning the Budget Policy Issues:

Issues to be included in the budget:

    Emergency Preparedness and FAC staff support;

    Building and Safety Division Personnel Study;

    Fee for Service Study; 30th anniversary celebration;

    Ergonomics retrofit of City Hall furniture;

    Facility improvements for Building and Safety Division; and

    City grant requests -- Shakespeare by the Sea, $1,200 and Peninsula Seniors. (Amount to be determined.)

Issues to be excluded from the budget:

    City Council Chambers screen and the Power Point improvement

Issues to be brought back to City Council for further consideration:

    Request for additional full-time employees;

    Request to take a look at the City Attorney position;

    Sewer Maintenance Study;

    Review and update of the Master Plans; and

    New partition behind the Council members.


REVISIONS TO PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 02-03

City Manager Evans stated that the most significant increase is in the City Attorney’s Office because of the litigation costs beyond what was originally estimated; and explained that the City Attorney’s budget needs to be increased by $451,000.


ADJOURNMENT:

At 11:24 P.M. the meeting was formally adjourned to Monday, May 6, 2002, 6:00 P.M., at Hesse Park for interviews of Emergency Preparedness Committee applicants.

_____________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________________

CITY CLERK


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

MAY 20, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Mayor McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

Following the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Councilman Clark, roll call was answered as follows:

PRESENT:Clark, Ferraro (arrived during closed session) Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart

ABSENT:None

Also present were City Manager Les Evans, City Attorney Carol Lynch, Director of Public Works Dean Allison, City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell, and Recording Secretary Denise Bothe.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to approve the Agenda as submitted. Motion carried (Councilwoman Ferraro had not yet arrived).


RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION:

The meeting was recessed at 7:07 P.M. to a closed session per the Brown Act Checklist.


RECONVENE:

At 7:25 P.M. the meeting reconvened.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

City Attorney Lynch reported that no action had been taken.


REGULAR BUSINESS:

Review of Geologic and Geotechnical Data for Zone 2

City Manager Evans presented staff report (of record) of May 20, 2002, and staff’s recommendation to:

A) Accept the 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 landsliding, strength properties of the landslide materials, or the ground water 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.

3.The factor of safety of the landslide mass that underlies Zone 2 is above 1.00, but likely less than the industry’s standard safety threshold of 1.50.

B)Continue to deny requests for development permits for new homes in the Zone 2 area of the Portuguese Bend landslide based on the current lack of evidence that the subject land has a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater, unless an applicant submits a complete Landslide Moratorium Exclusion application that is supported by adequate geologic data.

City Manager Evans provided a brief history of the landslide areas in the Abalone Cove/Portuguese Bend landslide area; stated that the landslide was first discovered in 1974; that by 1978, it became clear that it was a serious problem, which prompted the City Council to adopt a building moratorium on September 5, 1978, for the Abalone Cove area. He commented on the installation of wells to remove ground water and other internal improvements to divert water out of the landslide area; and noted that there is no evidence of any significant movement in the area of the Abalone landslide after approximately 1985 and no record of any appreciable movement in the Zone 2 area of the Abalone Cove landslide. Highlighting Dr. Ehlig's May 1993 memorandum to the City, he explained that Dr. Ehlig had divided the Abalone Cove landslide into 8 zones, describing the geological characteristics of each zone and a scenario under which the properties in these zones could be developed. He explained that it wasn’t until February 21, 1995, that the City Council actually approved the appropriation for the environmental documents to consider a Zone 2 landslide exception project.

City Manager Evans stated that in early 2000, Jack Monks wrote a letter to the City to again address the Zone 2 issues; advised that the City Council had agreed to do so and, therefore, hired Cotton, Shires & Associates to study the existing data relating to in and around Zone 2 and to advise the City on various issues, including whether or not it would be advisable to allow building on the vacant lots in Zone 2.

Bill Cotton presented the results of his company's study; advised that he was hired to collect all the geologic/geotechnical data that pertains to the Zone 2 Abalone Cove and the Zone 1 area immediately surrounding the Abalone Cove landslide and to evaluate that data and see if that data was of sufficient technical merit to come to some reasonable conclusion about the stability of the landslide and the area that underlies Zone 2. Mr. Cotton stated that the data was collected from a variety of sources; stated that he researched 20 to 30 different references -- expressing his belief that he had collected all data that is available in order to judge how sound the data is. With the aid of slides, he highlighted the areas that had been addressed. Mr. Cotton stated that he concluded the existing data is insufficient to make a declarative statement about the long-term stability of the landslide as far as the standard of care in the industry to compute a factor of safety that would be recognized as being safe for development; explained that the level of risk is unknown, that the subsurface conditions are unknown and, therefore, he could not arrive at a level of risk.

Mr. Cotton stated that he also concluded that the building of several homes is not likely to cause enough aggravation to affect the landslide area; and explained that with a certain amount of restriction, just by constructing homes on the landslide is probably not likely to cause enough aggravation on the landslide to cause the landslide to move.

With the aid of a slide presentation, Mr. Cotton highlighted the various areas of the Abalone Cove area and Portuguese Bend area; stated that as you get down into the Abalone Cove landslide, you begin to see a repeated pattern to indicate a small displacement, about 4/10ths of an inch in movement -- a slow pattern which suggests that all the bore hole stations are moving towards the ocean, an active landslide that continues to creep. He stated that in Zone 2, there are some similar situations where things are moving down at the head of the landslide, that displacement is heading towards the ocean.

Highlighting the water well data, Mr. Cotton stated that he found that a lot of the water had been pumped out of the ground, which is a critical criterion for the long-term stability of the landslide.

Mr. Cotton stated for Mayor pro tem Stern that the accepted geotechnical standard is to look for a 1.5 factor of safety; explained that the lots could be developed without further destabilizing the large regional landslide, but confirmed that that’s not a standard that has been adopted by any standard-setting agency.

Mr. Cotton explained for Councilman Gardiner that the underlying landslide encompasses everything inside the larger boundary line as shown on the map of the Portuguese Bend Landslide Building Moratorium Area; stated that he does not know enough about this underlying landslide to make any comments about the subsurface being segmented or similar to various parcels within this zone. He confirmed that Zone 2 has one bore hole; that Zone 5 has two bore holes; and that Zone 1 has one bore hole and that they are deep enough to provide valuable information. Mr. Cotton reiterated his belief that building a house in this area, under certain controlled conditions, would not cause an aggravation to the larger Zone 2 region, would not cause it to be destabilized; and that it’s reasonable to suggest that the stability in the landslide 2 region isn’t so critical at that point where a house would destabilize it by itself, but pointed out once again that the risk is unknown.

Responding to Councilman Clark’s inquiry, Mr. Cotton stated that at this point, there isn’t enough subsurface data to determine a building safety factor; and that it’s clear there is no way to ascertain a building safety factor of 1.5, which is the standard for building in the gross landslide area.

Because a 1.5 factor cannot be reached at this point, Councilman Clark noted his concern with the Cotton report reflecting that it potentially would be okay to build in Zone 2, even under tight conditions.

Responding to Councilman Clark's comment, Mr. Cotton explained that it is a policy issue; that the level of risk is unknown, whether the risk is high or low; and that in his qualitative judgment, one house will most likely not destabilize the landslide. Mr. Cotton explained that he knows the factor of safety is above 1.00, that it is somewhere in between 1.00 and 1.5; and that from what he has seen in the Abalone Cove landslide itself, he would surmise that it probably hovers around 1.00. He explained that the land above this area will be a higher figure or else you wouldn’t see evidence of it moving.

Mr. Cotton explained for Mayor McTaggart that it would be expensive to investigate and determine what the factor of safety is in Zone 2; that it would require a great deal of sub-surface analysis to try to ferret out different parts of the landslide; that a drilling program would have to be developed; and that ground water and soil information would need to be obtained.

Mr. Cotton explained for Mayor McTaggart that exploratory holes could be used for extraction if they were designed for that purpose; that in determining the depth of the slide plane and the strength of materials, you’d probably run into water; and that the ultimate benefit would be to be able to extract water from that exploratory well or use it for monitoring the water level.

By way of a Power Point presentation, Mayor pro tem Stern addressed what he believes are appropriate determinations for this City Council to make based upon what has been heard and presented in regard to this matter. He highlighted the following facts: that the accepted geotechnical standard is 1.5; that there’s no recognized standard to not further destabilize; that the conclusions that the lots could be developed is not based on any recognized geotechnical standard; that the level of risk is unknown; and that there’s inadequate backup data from Dr. Ehlig’s 1993 recommendations. He pointed out that what is known is that some of the work that has gone on was designed to mitigate the impacts, particularly dewatering, sewers, yet the Cotton report points out there’s been no quantification of those mitigation measures. Lastly, he stated that the predictability of a future landslide is unclear.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked the City Council to make a determination that it find that the accepted geotechnical standard is a 1.5, noting that this is common in the geotechnical profession; that no recognized geological agency or standard-setting body has adopted a standard whether the development of the property would further destabilize; that the conclusion is not based upon the stability of the underlying geology, a conclusion that it wouldn’t further destabilize; that the level of risk is presently unknown; that the decision is a policy decision based upon the City’s willingness to accept the unknown level of risk; that Dr. Ehlig’s report lacks certain data or no quantification of the mitigation measures; and that there exists a fallacy in the conclusion that because of the age of this prehistoric landslide, that it is somehow stable. He noted his conclusion that the City should require that the development comply with the established standard of 1.5; that the City should not apply a standard which merely seeks to determine if the proposed development will further destabilize; and that the City should continue to follow a policy that would protect individuals who would inhabit structures built in Zone 2, not just be concerned about the impact of the development upon others.

Joan Kelly, 6 Fruit Tree Road, Zone 2, urged the City to continue its building moratorium in the Zone 2 area; and questioned if earthquakes are taken into consideration when making a determination.

Mr. Cotton noted for Ms. Kelly that yes, seismic issues are taken into consideration when determining slope stability.

Tim Kelly, 6 Fruit Tree Road, noted his objection to building any structure on any land less than a 1.5 stability factor.

Joe Gallagher, 9 Ginger Root Lane, RPV, asked that his e-mail letter of May 17th the City Council be entered into the record, noting that he recommends against the development of new homes in Zone 2. (This e-mail is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

Bob Halderman, 88 Narcissa Drive, RPV, urged the City to maintain the existing building moratorium until such time that a determination can be made that the factor of 1.5 has been reached.

John Monks, 107 Aspen Way, RHE, stated that the geologist and soils engineer he hired to investigate his 3 lots in Zone 2 came to the absolute conclusion that his properties exceed the 1.5 stability factor; that a determination had been made that building a house on his properties will have no destabilizing effect on his land or any land adjacent to it; and commented on his understanding that the Cotton report indicates that building on his property would not destabilize the hillside or do any harm to anyone.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, upper Abalone Cove, noted her concurrence with Mr. Cotton’s conclusion.

Denise who resides at 42 Oceanair Drive, supported the City maintaining a 1.5 standard for building in a known landslide area.

Monte Ray, geologist, cautioned the City that engineers make subjective judgments to be used in their calculations for the 1.5 factor of safety; explained that there may be a valid reason to look at ways that the City can go on developing in this area as it has a need to, taking other considerations into account. He noted the expense the City will incur if it decides to do this additional investigation; and expressed his belief that the final study will never yield a 1.5 factor of safety in this zone. He stated that there might be ways to do some building in this zone, that there are ways to do it in a relatively safe manner. He concurred with Mr. Cotton's statement that the level of risk is unknown in this zone.

In response to Councilwoman Ferraro’s inquiry, Mr. Ray explained that pumping ground water out of this zone has slowed the movement over the years; stated that there are structural design measures that one can use to combat the effects of land sliding if it were to occur.

Councilwoman Ferraro questioned what should be concluded from the extensive studies done on Mr. Monk's 3 lots that indicate stability of 1.5.

Responding to Councilwoman Ferraro's inquiry, Mr. Cotton explained that there are two different tests: one is for local stability, stating that that was part of the language -- that if there were going to be development on individual lots, they had to demonstrate that there would be local stability of 1.5. He noted that one could do that if one were on a slope, to come up with values for local geologic conditions. He pointed out that that situation only applies to building sites; and stated that that is totally different than what he is addressing in his report, which is the underlying stability of the larger mass. He added that one could probably demonstrate that there is local stability on one of those sites, but that the whole mass is moving; and that it doesn’t address the deep, underlying landslide mass and how it may come about in the future.

Mayor pro tem Stern stated that it is important for the City Council to start setting standards; explained that he sees no reason to deviate from the accepted standard of 1.5 -- pointing out that there are valid concerns for the stability of whatever structure is placed there for the current resident and any future resident; and advised that he would not support a change at the present time given the unknown level of risk.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to concur with staff's recommendation and moved to include the 7 additional findings he presented during his Power Point Presentation.

Councilman Clark echoed Mayor pro tem Stern' position; and stated that in light of the information presented, it would be prudent for this City to reject any building construction in the moratorium area.

City Attorney Lynch suggested that with respect to Mayor pro tem Stern’s suggestion Nos. 3 and 4, that we add the proviso in the conclusion noted in Cotton January 2002 report, add the words "undeveloped lots"; and the same type of change in No. 4, geologically, the level of risk of development of undeveloped lots in Zone 2 presently is unknown, the decision to allow new residential development in that area given the unknown level of risk is a policy decision which must be made by the City Council.

Councilman Gardiner expressed his belief that the potential for risk could negatively impact the finances of the City.

Councilman Clark pointed out that it is very clear in the Cotton report that Dr. Ehlig did not base his recommendations on specific geotechnical analysis and that it is his belief that therein lies the weakness in those recommendations; and stated that some of the more recent data calls into question some of those assumptions that were made several years ago.

Hearing no objection to the motion, it was so ordered by Mayor McTaggart.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Cathy Snell, 8 Vanderlip Drive, stated that due to the City Council's vote to continue on with the building moratorium in Zone 2, she urged the City to abandon its RDA plans to build over 200 new homes in the blighted/landslide area.

Mayor McTaggart stated that the Mayor of Rolling Hills Estates was asked to approach him concerning a border and landslide issue which is negatively impacting Rolling Hills businesses; and that the Mayor of Rolling Hills Estates suggested that both cities hire a consultant to address this border/landslide issue.


ADJOURNMENT:

At 9:20 P.M. the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, May 21, 2002, 6:00P.M., at Hesse Park to interview candidates for the Equestrian Committee Chair.

_______________________________

Mayor

Attest:

_____________________

City Clerk


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

MAY 21, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, and was immediately recessed to a closed session per the Brown Act Checklist. At 7:32 P.M., the meeting was reconvened.

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

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

ABSENT:None

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


RECYCLE DRAWING:

There were two cards drawn to receive a check for $250.00, representing a year of free refuse service. Last month, there were no winners.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Councilman Clark moved for removal of items 3, 4 and 8 from the consent calendar. Mayor McTaggart indicated discussion of these items after the approval of the Consent Calendar.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by , for approval of the Consent Calendar as follows:

Minutes

Approved the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 2nd and the Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 6th with minor corrections.

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

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

Resol. No. 2002-35 - Sewer and Storm Drain Transfer and Bond Exoneration/Reduction – Tract 45667; Location: PV Dr. So. And Tramonto

(1) ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2002-35, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TO ACCEPT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF THE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES KNOWN AS MTD 1353 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FOR FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF. (2) Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Quitclaim of Easements for the subject storm drain improvements to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. (3) Authorized Staff to notify the surety company to exonerate, or reduce as appropriate, the Payment and Performance bonds upon confirmation from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Department and Los Angeles Flood Control District that the storm drain and sewer facilities have been accepted and that maintenance has been transferred to the County.

Acceptance of the Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee for Final Parcel Map No. 19062; Location: 18 Rockinghorse Road

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

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

(1) Authorized the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to continue its participation in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Federal Fiscal Years 2003-2005. (2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2002-36, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM, AND ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS. (3) Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the proposed Agreement with the County of Los Angeles Community Development Commission (CDC).

Resol. No. 2002-37 - Budget Adjustment for California Contract Cities Conference

ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2002-37, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A $10,000 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR FY 01-02 TO THE RECREATION & PARKS – SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM FOR EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE.

Resol. No. 2002-38 - Request to Extend the Use of Temporary Personnel

ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2002-38, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REQUESTING THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS) TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF ALLOWED EMPLOYMENT FOR A RETIRED EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE; AND, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-21.

Resol. No. 2002-39 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-39, 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.

############

Rejection of Bids and Request to Readvertise

Staff recommendation was to reject all bids for the maintenance of City owned parks/trails and authorize staff to re-advertise.

Director Allison introduced reasons as to why the bids were rejected, indicating the surplus of work over and above keeping grounds neat, i.e., any extra labor for special projects or special tasks, was not addressed, nor a bid sought for, in the original requisition of bids. The proposed solution was to declare a place on the applications for contractors bidding to indicate the price of labor for such undefined items.

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

Commercial Refuse and Collection Agreement with United Pacific Waste

Staff recommendation was to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Nonexclusive Franchise Agreement for Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal Services with United Pacific Waste to be effective through December 31, 2002, with amendment to include the five-year notice.

Director Allison responded to inquiry by Councilman Clark regarding the addition of another waste hauler, with 13 being the current number, as to why there are 13 haulers currently.

Director Allison pointed out that the City has a history of maintaining a non-exclusive franchise for solid waste contracts. The indication that anyone possessing a valid business license and the requisite insurance is permitted to provide commercial solid waste service.

Director Allison iterated the previous decision by the Council to allow a five-year period in which commercial solid waste service is provided on a non-exclusive basis. He said we are two years into this period regarding commercial hauling.

City Attorney Lynch pointed to the law regarding a five-year requirement notice be given to all commercial haulers advising that said haulers will no longer be able to do business in the subject area. City Attorney Lynch also indicated that in the contract with this hauler, United Pacific Waste, provision for those five years to end concurrent with all other haulers was included, effectively giving this hauler less than a five-year notice.

Councilman Clark inquired as to when in time the Council would be able to consider inviting new haulers. City Attorney Lynch responded in December 2005, which is four years after the original notification. A new contract is prohibited until this five-year period is concluded; however, negotiations taking up to nine months to fulfill, can take place in the last year of that contract.

Mayor pro tem Stern voiced concern over the fiscal impact, pointing out that the five percent of the franchise fees; however, indicating that it’s the same regardless of which hauler is involved. Director Allison indicated in the affirmative. Mayor pro tem Stern indicated that the five percent would end up being lower as a result of the bidders competitively pricing their service, often only to have the fees for service being lower.

Mayor McTaggart indicated that it would be a positive cash flow, and requesting the proper reporting desperately needed to get the percentage up.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to adopt the staff recommendation. Motion carried.

Street Sweeping Services for Fiscal Year 2002-2003

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

Councilman Clark made inquiry to Director Allison with respect to granting an unusually long contract. Director Allison explained that there are very few companies performing street sweeping activities and also his approval of their services. Reporting is also very positive. His indication was that there would be a re-advertising of a new contract in July 2003.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro to adopt the staff recommendation.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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

NOES: None


PUBLIC HEARINGS:

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

Mayor McTaggart opened the public hearing on this request to hear the appeal of View Restoration Permit No. 118. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that written comment letters were distributed to the Council.

Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report of May 21, 2002 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution affirming the decision of the View Restoration Commission and approving View Restoration Permit No. 118 upon finding that all applicable findings have been correctly made and all provisions of Section 17.02.040(c)(2) have been complied with.

Ms. Nelson reported the View Restoration Permit No. 118 was presented to the City in August of last year, there being a stipulation that the meeting was held. At that meeting, essentially the parties were trying to negotiate in an attempt to reach a settlement regarding the removal of trees without a formal filing with the city. The indication was that Ms. Doran was currently re-landscaping her back yard in an attempt to appease this issue.

Despite their attempts, an agreement was not reached and a formal application was filed, bringing this issue before the VRC in March of this year. When the application was originally filed, it was six trees that were creating a problem. She believed that Ms. Doran removed three trees, indicating that five trees remained. One of the five trees is an Italian Stone Pine. Pictures were shown to indicate subject tree.

This Italian Stone Pine it was determined was the greatest in terms of view impairment. However, tree no. 5, the holly tree, was also shown as creating a significant impairment, and it was ordered that the tree be lowered to the ridge line or the lowest point of the residence which was indicated in the resolution as the garage.

The foliage owner subsequently appealed its decision, outlining the reasons contained in the appeal. Without addressing each one individually, Ms. Nelson indicated the staff contended that there was no basis in support of the appeal and recommended the Council uphold the VRC’s decision.

Mayor pro tem Stern indicated a concern regarding the cost of removal of trees borne by the foliage owner, suggesting that the applicant perhaps pay for the restoration of their view. He also addressed the city attorney regarding reimbursement to the foliage owner by the applicant. City Attorney Lynch indicated that there was nothing that would require reimbursement for foliage that was "voluntarily" removed.

Councilman Clark disclosed his inspection of the site. There was negotiation type discussion regarding the removal of some trees and whether or not remaining trees would still be view impairment. Ms. Nelson, referencing the staff report, indicated there was discussion regarding those trees. She mentioned the fact that the trees that are currently not a view imposition will have to be maintained in order to prevent this type of claim from arising again.

Councilman Clark was also interested in the definition of the "ridge line of the house." There was discussion of the differences between the ridgeline of the garage and the ridgeline of the house, which was variable by two feet.

City Attorney Lynch allayed concerns regarding the limitations placed by Prop M when she suggested that the City Council be allowed to make amendments to the ordinances. The suggestion was to add the word "significant" to the ordinance. It was determined that adding the word "significant" was too vague, and invited numerous requests for small amounts of foliage to be ordered removed.

City Attorney Lynch offered that in disputes regarding privacy versus view restoration, it is often not the privacy that is the issue, but that of the significant view.

Mayor McTaggart added that the reason "significant" was added was so that the VRC would have a tool to work with. Councilman Gardiner suggested discussing the issue of "significant" on another day, with Councilman Clark in agreement.

There was discussion regarding the removal of various trees and what would be left vis-à-vis the view.

Councilman Gardiner, Ms. Nelson and debated the meaning of the word "ridgeline of the house." There was discussion of the attached garage, which is two feet taller than the house, being the ridgeline. Mayor McTaggart suggested this be clarified at a subsequent time.

Mayor pro tem Stern raised a question with regard to the entry of Mr. Alberio not reviewing the materials that had been presented by the foliage owner as a result of not having his glasses. Ms. Nelson indicated that while the staff exercised their right not to have the information read again, they did read it independently. Although Chairman Alberio did not read the information, he participated in the hearing.

Jim Beck, 4110 Maritime Drive, presented slides of the obstructed view from his dining room as well as his kitchen.

His presentation was interrupted by the Council’s discussion regarding removal of Tree No. 2 becoming a "blocker."

Mr. Beck continued his presentation of slides, pointing out the view of the shoreline in question, the view referred to as the "white water" view. He then moved on to slides of the view taken from his living room. There was more discussion between Councilman Clark, and Mayor McTaggart regarding the issue of the ridgeline of the house vis-à-vis the roof.

Mr. Beck proceeded to address the ridgeline. He quoted from Proposition M, spurring discussion regarding the ridgeline, and was it applicable to the entire structure or just the main residence.

Mr. Beck continued his remarks by stating that both his wife and himself applaud the passing of Proposition M. He encouraged the Council to deny the appeal, as there was a unanimous decision. He stated their application is clear in its request and fulfills every point of the law and guidelines. He indicated that the appeal is unfounded, contending that the VCR made mistakes in finding views and viewing areas, the viewing area has already been established on some multicomponent view, and that the VRC abused its discretion in establishing a remedy that was within the law.

Mr. Beck further addressed the replacement of the trees with three 24-inch box trees, indicating that that will provide more privacy than the current trees. He again provoked discussion regarding the ridge line, and that the two-foot difference between the garage and the main residence, assuming the Council allowed the ridge line to be the garage at 15 feet, would impair his white water view.

Mr. Beck finally, in answer to Councilwoman Ferraro, indicated that he would like the Council to uphold their decision with two conditions; first, to approve the ridge line definition as that of the primary residence; secondly, that Item No. 2 on Exhibit "A" of VRC Resolution No. 2002-04 should include all of the trees.

Mayor pro tem Stern inquired of Ms. Nelson what was done with Trees 2, 3 and 4. Ms. Nelson pointed out that they were insignificant as long as they were maintained.

Mr. Beck, in opposition, explained that Tree 2 is only two feet shorter than Tree 1, and that it poses a threat as well.

Peggi Collins, 5411 Manitowoc, Rancho Palos Verdes, counsel for Ms. Doran, spoke in her behalf, indicating that the reason for the appeal is that Ms. Doran did not feel she received a fair hearing. Indicating that Mr. Alberio did not have his glasses on for the reading of the information submitted by Ms. Doran; also that they believe there are some ambiguities in the interpretations of the language that are in the guidelines as opposed to the ordinance. Ms. Collins opined that the obstruction being claimed by the Becks is only on one end of a 180-degree view; that, in fact, it is only a small amount of impairment.

To Mayor pro tem Stern’s question as to whether they should decide based on a person’s total view as a percentage, the response by Ms. Collins was that the only view impairment that the Becks suffered was that of one only enjoyed while standing up in the kitchen. She compared that to an illustration of protecting 180-degree views; that the Council will have to contend with someone who has a four-sided home hoping to protect their 360-degree view. She pointed out that the Italian Stone Pine was a protector of Ms. Doran’s privacy.

Ms. Collins indicated that a portion of the package for the Council’s review was omitted until shortly before this meeting commenced and would not oppose a continuance in that regard.

Lynn Doran, 4115 Maritime Drive, owner of the foliage, indicated that the Italian Stone Pine was 30 to 40 years old; that it is an integral part of her landscaping which provides privacy and shade for her front yard and home, and also beauty for the neighborhood. She outlined the different trees that were sacrificed at her expense for the sake of the Italian Stone Pine.

Ms. Doran requested that if the appeal should be denied and the Beck’s application upheld, that she be allowed to replace the Italian Stone Pine with two 36" box trees to replace the Italian Stone Pine and one 24" box tree to replace the holly.

Inquiry from Mayor McTaggart revealed that the Italian Stone Pine has never accomplished any damage, with the Mayor indicating the contrary; that is, his Italian Stone Pine had done considerable damage to his home. Again, Ms. Doran affirmed that she has had no problems.

Councilman Clark moved, to continue the matter until all council members have an opportunity to visit the site, visually assessing it, and then pick up the decision process on June 18th at Miraleste. Mayor pro tem Stern seconded the motion.

Councilman Gardiner added to the motion that the word "significant" is revisited before the decision is made. Mayor pro tem Stern pointed out that an ordinance cannot be discussed while there is an application or appeal pending. Councilman Gardiner proposed to add it as a second agenda item to which there was no objection. Motion carried.


PUBLIC COMMENTS

Albert Roman of Palos Verdes Peninsula, and Amy Lynn from Rancho Palos Verdes, invited everyone to watch a free demonstration of Chinese Falun Gong techniques at the Memorial Day Celebration in Hermosa Beach.

Ocean Trails – Report

Mayor pro tem Stern described the meeting that he and Councilman Clark attended that morning. He indicated that the Council will be receiving a copy of the package of materials that were distributed at that meeting, and should be included in the weekly report submitted by City Manager Les Evans.

The information contained references to the contractor being contacted and given permission to resume work on the remediation of the landslide. Also discussed at that morning’s meeting was the rebuilding of Palos Verdes Drive South. Without delving into detail, indicated that it was to be a long and drawn out process. He encouraged various types of communication so as to keep the residents informed, e.g., a dial in number, for people to receive updates on the construction. A Web page was suggested for residents to keep updated.

Councilman Clark indicated that the team of peoples now serving this project are eager and have "hit the ground running."

Mayor McTaggart shared that he attended a meeting last week on the subject of using landfill for a golf course. The gist was that everything done there would be consistent with safety. Another issue brought up at that meeting was the equestrian emergency response team training that takes place up in Calabasas. It is a two-hour ride, and the equestrians that are interested in being involved would like to see the trainers brought down here since 17 of them commute to Calabasas. Mayor McTaggart indicated that a fee was paid to County Animal Control and also for liability insurance, the money staying with the county, so they ought to be able to find the funding to do that.

Councilman Gardiner reported that Jim Stahl, Sanitation Chief Engineer, was kind enough to have himself and two members of his staff available. Councilman Gardiner went over and exchanged information, things that have been reported to him as areas of concern he passed along. Mr. Stahl wanted from an engineering perspective to get as much factual information and address as many of the factual concerns that he could.

Councilman Gardiner expressed concern over the kids in Rancho Vista and their safety.

Councilman Clark briefly reported on his trip to Sacramento to attend the League of California Cities Technology Committee, of which he is a member. It was formed basically to look at how to bring the cities of California into leveraging the electronic and information technology across the state being utilized by various cities to the various other cities. The committee about a month and a half ago put out a technology survey to all the county and city managers in the state receiving an impressive return rate of city managers and council members. Councilman Clark encouraged the Council members that have not yet had a chance to respond to please take time to return their surveys, indicating that the cut-off date was extended until the end of May.

Councilman Clark indicated an exhibition at the Forum of this information technology. He suggested or proposed that this Council showcase the video streaming of council meetings on the website. He indicated excitement was expressed.

Moving on, May 15th and 16th were legislative action days, where city, county and special districts made a collective presence to the May Revised Governor’s Budget and the concern that the local officials have elected officials over the potentiality of taking from the municipalities and counties to resolve the deficit. He pointed out the deficit of 23.6 billion dollars this year, and as such the City’s interests will be at stake. There was a group of elected officials from South Bay that attended; three from Rolling Hills Estates were included.

Although Senator Vincent was not present, his Chief of Staff was, and an invitation was extended for them to visit our city soon. There was mention of acquisition of open space in the Portuguese Bend. There was also indication that this was a focused area that would be of regional interest to the Senator.

Mayor McTaggart ordered that a letter prepared by the City Clerk with an invitation to the 4th of July festivities is forwarded. agreed.

Mayor McTaggart announced that the Independent Cities had invited him as incoming President of the Contract Cities Association to their conference to be held on July 11-14 in Rancho Bernardo, San Diego County. The Contract Cities will be paying for his hotel room, and the $650.00 cost of the conference is also waived. The only cost incurred will be mileage.


RECESS AND RECONVENE

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


REGULAR BUSINESS

Appointment of Members to the Recreation & Parks Committee and Appointment of a Chair for the Equestrian Committee

City Clerk Purcell presented the May 21 staff report and the recommendation: (1) Appoint seven members to the Recreation & Parks Committee: Four members with a term of office until March 7, 2006; and, three members with a term of office until March 2, 2004; and (2) Set 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, June 4th as the date to interview appointees for the position of chair for this board. (3) Appoint a chair for the Equestrian Committee.

Discussion was held as to the induction of a task force, to be voted on this evening, and for such task force to have a tenure of one year. Decision was made to appoint Carol Hildreth as Interim Chair.

The votes cast for the candidates as members to the Equestrian Committee were as follows:

Mayor McTaggart – Charlene O’Neil
Mayor pro tem Stern – Charlene O’Neil
Councilmember Clark – Charlene O’Neil
|
Councilwoman Ferraro – Richard Bara
Councilman Gardiner – Richard Bara and Charlene O’Neil as co-chairs
Charlene O’Neil was selected as the new Equestrian Committee Chair.

Equestrian Committee Report on a Possible City Equestrian Facility

Charlene O’Neil introduced Don Burt, outlining his various accomplishments and appointments among the equestrian community.

Mr. Burt acknowledged all members of Council, and indicated that he has lived in Portuguese Bend for 40 years. Mr. Burt advised that there are about 200 horses living in the Portuguese area alone. With the help of the handout submitted, the proposal in Mr. Burt’s opinion is viable.

The cost to the City will be limited to donating land and providing necessary insurance for the City’s protection.

Mayor pro tem Stern inquired about the availability of land, to which Mr. Burt responded that there are parcels that have been chosen as possible locations.

Mr. Burt asked the Council if there was interest in the project and should he research in more detail what is required. All Councilmembers indicated an interest.

Roadside Maintenance Contract

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to waive the staff report. Motion carried.

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

Motion carried on the following roll call vote:

Ayes:Ferraro, Stern, Gardiner, Clark & Mayor McTaggart

Noes:None

Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Rate Adjustments for the Fiscal Year 2002-2003.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to waive the staff report. Motion carried.

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

Recreational Vehicle Street Parking and Residential Storage

Director Rojas presented the staff report of May 21 and the recommendation to provide staff with direction as whether to initiate any code amendments to address the issues associated with RV parking and storage on public streets and private property. He reported that the genesis of this agenda item was the result of letters that were received by staff early this year, complaining about R.V. parking on the streets and R.V. parking on private property. He outlined two issues.

One, the Code currently requires that no vehicle remain on the street beyond 72 hours. The residents have shown that the other cities on the Peninsula maintain stricter requirements, e.g., Rolling Hills Estates prohibits overnight parking of R.V.’s on the streets.

The Code allows R.V. parking on private drives providing it is on a legally paved surface. They also have prohibition vis-à-vis the distance an R.V. must be from an easement, and that parking will only be allowed in the front yard if the back yard lacks sufficient space.

Mr. Rojas indicated that the City of Costa Mesa recently attempted stricter regulations for R.V.’s. Mayor McTaggart offered that it would result in a room filled with people who use R.V.’s as their only means of transportation. This concern especially is relevant to those living in condominiums where parking is limited.

Councilwoman Ferraro expressed concern over R.V.’s being parked around curves and indicated an inherent danger in that children playing cannot be seen when driving around an R.V.

Tom Dosdall, 3534 Hightide Drive, discusses a new type of view impairment. His indication that he lives next door to a 31-foot camper permanently parked in the front yard is an imposition on his view. Mr. Dosdall circulated pictures showing the camper.

Mr. Dosdall indicated that the owner of the camper merely moves it every 72 hours just a couple of feet to avoid an infraction. He also pointed out that a petition was circulated around the neighborhood that gathered numerous signatures. The petition was then sent to the Sheriff’s office. Unfortunately, there were loopholes that the owner of the camper was able to assert.

Mr. Dosdall indicated that the owner has the camper plugged into electrical outlets and is currently using it for an office.

Councilwoman Ferraro inquired into changing the Code. City Attorney Lynch indicated that the Code can be changed, or rewritten, to reflect different ways of dealing with this issue.

Tom Redfield, 31273 Granada Drive, encouraged the Council to get homeowners involved. He also supported active participation on the part of the city to strictly enforce new ordinances referencing either R.V.’s or unwanted, parked cars.

Mayor McTaggart brought to the attention of the Council that among these unwanted parked cars are gardeners who park their trucks in one place, fill them with debris, which could take up to three weeks, and then empty them once they are full. He indicated getting the Sheriff involved, after which he has not observed those gardeners again.

Mayor McTaggart proposed a parking permit, to which Councilman Gardiner agreed there would be some control in that the permit could be revoked in the absence of compliance with the code.

Don Shults, 212 Velez Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, introduced the idea of using unoccupied land to house R.V.’s that have no legal parking.

Mayor McTaggart supported the idea, that it would be a viable business.

Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, that this area of review be remanded to the Planning Commission as an area to explore possible revisions to the code. Motion carried.

Letter of Support for I-405 Arterial Improvement Initiative

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to waive reading the staff report and adopt the recommendation to support the request for $750,000 in the FY02-03 transportation appropriation bill for the South Bay I-405 arterial improvements initiative. Motion carried.

Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of May 21, 2002 and the recommendation to consider the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority program to install surveillance cameras in certain buses and advise the City Council representatives to the Transit Authority on whether or not to support the practice when consideration of the issue is before the Authority Board.

Councilman Gardiner addressed surveillance cameras on buses. There was an indication that the cameras were installed on Bus No. 1022 after they had experienced several acts of vandalism. It being a large bus, it was difficult to monitor the passengers’ activity in the rear of the vehicle. The system is installed next to the driver and faces the rear of the vehicle, and includes an audio recording. The system was installed in September 2001 and has been in operation since then. Videotapes are changed every day and kept in the Authority’s office, where they may be reviewed. The law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon advised that the system is allowable under state and federal law, with a recommendation of appropriate signage to be installed on transit vehicles.

Council also recommended against publicly showing any videotapes as it would invade the public’s right to privacy.

There currently is a request to install surveillance cameras on three more buses.

Councilman Gardiner proposed alternative solutions. One would be to offer a reward to those who find people vandalizing buses. Another is to inspect the seats at the end of every workday. A third is to issue seat assignments.

Mayor McTaggart expressed grave concern over taking pictures of people without their permission, and the accompanying liability should the system fail.

Councilwoman Ferraro advocated the use of surveillance cameras indicating that all those who ride the bus will know that it is there; including, but not limited to, the parents of children who ride the bus. She also pointed out the decline in vandalism since the video surveillance was installed; that it acts as a deterrent.

Councilman Gardiner, together with Mayor McTaggart, expressed that video surveillance should be employed as a last resort. Mayor pro tem Stern and Councilman Clark agreed that we live in a world of surveillance; that it is present at City Council meetings, banks, convenience stores, and that we are even being watched from space.

Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to position surveillance cameras in buses as a last resort after all other options, including other cities’ solutions, are fully explored.

School District Liaison

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of May 21, 2002 and the recommendation to consider the appointment of a City Council liaison committee to meet with a similar committee representing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District or select some potential dates in July and August for a joint meeting of the City Council and the School Board.

Mr. Evans relayed the desire of the school district to meet with the council to discuss items of mutual interest. At this point, they are otherwise engaged as it is near the end of the school year. They also proposed forming a committee, with two members from each entity. Mayor pro tem Stern and Councilman Clark dismissed the proposal of a committee indicating there are important issues to address.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to bring everyone’s calendars to the next meeting to schedule time with the school district.

League of California Cities Membership

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of May 21, 2002 and the recommendation to consider Councilmember Gardiner’s proposal to withdraw from membership in the League of California Cities.

Councilman Gardiner expressed belief in withdrawing from the League of California Cities, indicating that the South Bay is a source of funding without having a large voice. His concern is that with the election coming up, the State of California is cooperating now; however, post election is when we will see them "stealing" for their own agenda.

Councilman Clark proposed that the Council remain in the League of California Cities, claiming that having a collective voice with the neighboring cities would be more effective than dropping out of the League. Councilman Clark also opined that getting appointments on meaningful committees is significant in changing policy.

Mayor pro tem Stern concurred with Councilman Clark that an aggressive role is more effective, as the league is the most influential entity in representing cities.

Mayor McTaggart offered an experience he had with the League supporting him and his belief that it is important to stay allied with the League.

Councilman Gardiner maintained his position.

Councilwoman Ferraro advised that withdrawal from the League will not stop the State of California from taking out money. She expressed that you can’t change organizations from the outside; rather, being involved from the inside is the way to make changes.

Tom Redfield, 31273 Granada Drive, complimented the Council on their excellent work. He continued by pointing to problems with sister cities. He also expressed his communion with Councilman Gardiner and warned about putting effort into organizations that aren’t fruitful. However, he agreed that you cannot change things from the outside and proposed to allow Councilman Clark a chance to become involved and see where we are a year from now.

League of California Cities Resolution

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of May 21, 2002 and the recommendation to consider Councilmember Clark’s proposal to submit a resolution to the League of California Cites for consideration at the annual conference in October.

Councilman Clark spoke on the issue of undergrounding the whole city, by allowing the League of California Cities to negotiate with the utility companies in terms of paying the costs for underground utilities.

Mayor McTaggart expressed agreement with Councilman Clark.

Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to approach the League regarding this agenda item. No objections noted.

Los Angeles County West Vector Control District

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of May 21, 2002 and the recommendation to determine who is to be the City’s representative to the Vector Control District Board for the new term of office beginning June 26, 2002.

Mayor McTaggart expressed his chagrin at retiring this position. Mayor pro tem Stern indicated that the position should be rotated, as Mayor McTaggart has served for eight and a half years.

Mayor pro tem Stern queried Mayor McTaggart regarding the position and what it involves. Mayor McTaggart explained that the various pests, including mosquitoes, black flies, Africanized bees, and imported fire ants, etc. The Mayor indicated that L.A. County is looking for a way to deal with these pests. He is willing to fill the position again.

Mayor pro tem Stern, indicating all due respect to the Mayor, indicated that there has been a lack of information brought back to the Council regarding this issue. The Mayor outlined several things, including brochures and a website, that he has shared with the Council. There was discussion about the various terms of offices.

Councilman Clark inquired of the Council if any was interested in serving. There was a negative response from all.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to maintain the appointment of Mayor McTaggart to the Los Angeles County West Vector Control District. Motion carried.


ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 11:22 P.M. 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

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 12, 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 7:08 P.M. the meeting reconvened.

After the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Lauren Whiteley, a student at San Pedro High School, roll call was answered as follows:

PRESENT:Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart

ABSENT:Clark

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; Senior Planner Ara Mihranian, City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.


CEREMONIAL MATTERS:

Mayor McTaggart presented a proclamation in memory of Jeannette Mucha to Valerie Mucha, and said that he was going to propose to the Council that the Forrestal Preserve be renamed the Jeannette Mucha Preserve.


RECYCLE DRAW

Mayor McTaggart announced that there was no winner for the last drawing. Two more cards were drawn.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

City Manager Evans said that Betty Strauss had requested that the equestrian item be delayed. After input from applicants present, Dick Bara and Jack Downhill, indicating that they would prefer to move forward and after Council discussion, it was the consensus to hear the item because of delays in the past and the fact that Ms. Strauss had given testimony many times and it was felt that her viewpoint was known to the Council.

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


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he had a question about the item concerning Participation in the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency and that he would like the resolution concerning Zone 2 findings removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he understood the benefits of the City’s participation in the proposed joint powers regarding the waste diversion legislation AB 939, and asked about the downside.

Director Allison explained that if Rancho Palos Verdes had more than 50% diversion, the overage could be applied to a City which did not meet that requirement but, if this was not the case, the City could opt out of the program. Therefore, there was no disadvantage to participating.

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

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, noted that the Minutes of the Adjourned meeting of May 21 and the meeting of June 4 were not included in the agenda packet, and she asked questions and provided suggested corrections to the minutes of April 16.

Learning that copies of the minutes had inadvertently been omitted from the agenda packet, Mayor pro tem Stern amended his motion to approve the Consent Calendar to delete approval of these minutes.

Minutes of Meeting of April 16

Approved the minutes of April 16 as amended.

Contract Addendum No. 6 for the Long Point Resort Hotel Environmental Impact Report (1203 x 1804)

Approved 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.

Resol. No. 2002-40 - Participation in the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency

(1) Authorized staff to begin the process of joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency for AB 939 diversion and disposal reporting purposes. (2) Approved an amendment to a professional services agreement with SCS Engineers, for consulting work related to joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency, and approved expenditures in an amount not to exceed $2,000. (3) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-40 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.

Resol. No. 2002-41 - Annual Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2002-2003

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-41, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING THE CITY'S APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003.

April 2002 Treasurer’s Report

Ordered received and filed.

Resol. No. 2002-42 - Register of Demands

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-42, 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:Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart

NOES:None

ABSENT:Clark

Resol. No. 2002-43 - Resolution Regarding Zone 2 Findings

Mayor pro tem Stern commented on the changes in the revised staff report and resolution which were presented to the Council at the outset of the meeting. He said that there was a correction of the year referenced in the first paragraph of the resolution and that other changes were underlined for clarification and he read these revised portions.

City Attorney Lynch noted that typographical errors were corrected and some reordering and minor changes were made.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that changes were incorporated to be consistent with Council action at the May 20 meeting.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked why a resolution was being adopted.

City Attorney Lynch said that the Council typically documents its action in this manner and it would make the action easier to locate in the future.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that the documents said that information attributed to Dr. Perry Ehlig was based on experience and intuition. She suggested that it should say education and experience since he was an expert in this field and the current language made it sound like the information was not based on documentation.

City Attorney Lynch said that this change could be made.

Mayor pro tem Stern said the words came from the report from Bill Cotton.

Councilman Gardiner said that it appeared that Dr. Ehlig’s comments were based on subjective judgment rather being supported by data.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that just because Cotton Shires uncovered no geotechnical slope stability analysis did not mean that Dr. Ehlig did not have some data. She said that the wording almost implied that he made it up and that he certainly did have expertise and knowledge.

Councilman Gardiner said that an example to illustrate this was that the depth of the slide was twice what Dr. Ehlig had estimated. This meant that some data was incomplete or in error and he was using subjective judgment, which was perfectly acceptable and used by experts all the time.

Mayor McTaggart that that the issue seemed to be that data could not be found, not that it was never discovered, and that it was appropriate to use expert judgment in this case.

Councilwoman Ferraro confirmed that Dr. Ehlig said that this data was not in his files.

Mayor pro tem Stern had no problem with making the changes suggested by Councilwoman Ferraro and believed that the major concepts were presented.

City Attorney agreed that because Dr. Ehlig had studied the area for years that he had expertise and she suggested that the words judgment and experience could be used.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked if there was GPS data related to movement in this area.

Director Allison responded that there was.

City Attorney Lynch said that there was evidence of minor creep but no major event.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he agreed that it was hard to connect cause and effect and that Bill Cotton said there was no quantitative data on the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked if the GPS data was not significant.

City Attorney Lynch said that it was not significant in reference to cause and effect.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if there was GPS data to indicate possible benefits of the sewer system being on line.

Director Allison said that there was raw data but no analysis had been performed.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that the installation of dewatering wells was based on GPS data.

Mayor McTaggart said that water was extracted and there was a slowdown in movement so how could it be said that there was no cause and affect.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that it was not possible to determine if improvement was caused by the dewatering wells or by the lack of rain.

Councilman Gardiner stressed the importance of learning the cause of this slower movement.

Mayor pro tem Stern reiterated that the resolution reflected what the Council had adopted with slight revisions made by City Attorney Lynch for clarification.

Councilman Gardiner questioned Bill Cotton’s statement regarding response to public comments.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that public comments were taken into account when Bill Cotton’s final report was prepared but he did not necessarily address these comments point by point.

Councilman Gardiner said that the language inferred that he actually responded.

City Attorney Lynch said that a change would be made to indicate that public comments were reviewed and considered by Cotton Shires and also the change suggested by Councilwoman Ferraro regarding Dr. Ehlig’s experience and judgment would be incorporated into the resolution.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-43, as amended, 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. Motion carried.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Resol. No. 2002-44 - Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District

Mayor McTaggart opened the public hearing on this request to consider the proposed levy and collection of assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that there were no written comments received by the City.

Presentation of the staff report was waived.

Staff recommendation was to (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 the proposed resolution 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.

There being no response to the Mayor’s call for public testimony, he closed the public hearing.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-44, 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. Motion carried.

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

Mayor McTaggart opened the public hearing on this request to hear the appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2279. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that all written comments had been forwarded to the Council and made a part of the agenda package.

Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report of June 12, 2002 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution 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.

He added that there were two properties which were not considered in the analysis of the ten closest on the street for the purposes of neighborhood capability. Nonetheless, the revised neighborhood compatibility table had been revised to include these properties not mentioned in the staff report. He said that the green silhouette flags indicate the structure by right and the multicolor flags indicate the structure as approved by the Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that it appeared that even construction by right would impair views and she asked the height of the current structure.

Senior Planner Mihranian agreed with Councilwoman Ferraro’s evaluation and said that the current structure is approximately 12 feet from the highest grade on the pad on which it sits. He said that the lot slopes and the 16 feet allowed was measured by the highest existing grade covered by a structure.

Councilman Gardiner noted that if the proposed home was compatible with the neighborhood why were so many neighbors opposed. He felt that there would be significant view blockage and asked if any other home on Nancy Road had been dug down four feet.

Senior Planner Mihranian said he was aware of none.

Councilwoman Ferraro suggested that the structure itself could be made lower, rather than digging down four feet.

Councilman Gardiner said it appeared the house would be a big box on a small lot and he said that two out of the three Planning Commissioners who had visited the site had voted to deny the project.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern felt that more houses should have been included in the neighborhood comparison, including homes on Lorraine.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that the houses on Lorraine seemed larger and she asked if the lots were larger.

Senior Planner Mihranian said that those properties had not been analyzed but it was possible the homes and lots were larger.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that this was a small lot and unusual in size.

Senior Planner Mihranian said it was the smallest lot included in the analysis.

Councilman Gardiner asked where the height was measured for a sloping lot such as this.

Senior Planner Mihranian said it was measured from the existing building pad to the top of the highest ridgeline.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern agreed that views were impaired but he wondered at what point was the impairment considered significant.

Senior Planner Mihranian said that a viewing frame was established to determine how much view was lost and that even if the proposed structure were lowered, views would be impaired to some degree.

Councilman Gardiner said that when he stood on the property at 6521 Nancy Road, it appeared that the flags (green or multi-colored) blocked the harbor view completely.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern said that it appeared it would be difficult to design any house on this lot without some view impairment.

Mayor McTaggart said that the lot size should be a determining factor in the size of the house allowed.

Ron Kuwai, 6533 Nancy Road, felt that the Planning Commission did not properly assess the situation and that not all of them had visited the site, although Mr. Rojas was helpful in providing guidance. He referenced the Municipal Code and did not feel the project was in compliance. He mentioned that there were houses in the neighborhood which should have been included in the comparison; he discussed the massiveness of the proposed home and its incompatibility with the rest of the neighborhood. He said that the whole neighborhood objected; that the silhouette did not illustrate all aspects of the project; and, that the required excavation would require too many trucks traveling over the streets.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked Mr. Kawai about Commissioner Vannorsdall's comment that this was a neighborhood in transition.

Mr. Kawai said that it appeared to some of the Commissioners that the neighborhood was in transition which seemed to mean that compatibility was not important.

Councilman Gardiner said that when he visited the neighborhood he did not sense that it was in transition.

Jane Anderson, 6517 Nancy Road, was concerned about safety issues originating from the large house which she felt would obstruct the view of traffic on this tight corner. She felt the large house on the tiny pie-shaped lot was not compatible with the neighborhood and blocked the neighbors' views. She did not feel the neighborhood was in transition.

Bob Ciriello, 6545 Nancy Road, said that he had lived in the neighborhood for 40 years; did not feel it was in transition; and, that he was amazed that the Planning Commission has ignored the basic issues of the large house on the small lot; the blocking of neighbors' views; and, the large volume of earth to be removed. He felt that the City's job was to protect neighborhoods.

Al Hutchings, 6520 Nancy Road, who lives next door to the proposed structure, said that he followed all the codes when he built his home in 1994 in this neighborhood that he really liked; said that people were outraged by the Planning Commission’s approval of this project; and, did not begrudge a homeowner making money, but not at the expense of his neighbors.

Councilwoman Ferraro stated that she visited Mr. Hutchings’ home and from his kitchen, it appeared that all light coming in would be blocked by the proposed home.

Councilman Gardiner asked if the property owners of this lot planned to live in the home they built.

Al Hutchings said that he had heard they had a number of houses.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he understood the house was being built for a son or a son-in-law.

Mary Bradanovic, 6505 Nancy Road, said that in the past she wanted to add a second story so that their mother could live with them and even though the neighbors did not object, the City and the Art Jury did not approve their plan. She felt the proposed structure was too large for the lot and she objected to someone building a home, which was incompatible with the neighborhood and then not even living in it. She read from a booklet published in 1935 by the Art Jury, which assured homeowners of a bright, open neighborhood with sunshine and the avoidance of the jamming of one house against another that has spoiled so many residential developments.

Bonina Bradanovic, 6505 Nancy Road, said that even though they could not see the property from their home, they thought the neighborhood was beautiful and wanted to keep it that way.

Victor Furriel, 6521 Nancy Road, said that the flags indicated that he would lose his view if this house were built.

Horst Gerjets, 4112 Miraleste, opposed the project because of view impairment and he referenced 30 written objections and 60 speakers at the Planning Commission meeting. He did not understand why the large home was approved.

Nancy Sheps, 4101 Lorraine Road, was concerned about her loss of privacy if the proposed home was built and she compared sizes of homes in the neighborhood in ratios of structure size to lot size and said that this would not compare favorably. She objected to the excavation of four feet of soil for the building pad and to the massiveness of the proposed structure.

John McKeel, 4105 Lorraine Road, felt the proposed home would look like an apartment building on a very small lot and would not be compatible with the neighborhood.

Blanca Letvin, 1821 Leland Street, San Pedro, CA 90731, owner of 6528 Nancy Road, said that she and her husband had been waiting for two years to remodel this home in order to live near their grandchildren and she said that they would be good neighbors.

Ron Letvin, 1821 Leland Street, San Pedro, CA 90731, owner of 6528 Nancy Road, said that they lived in West Covina for 30 years and had a home that was 2800 square feet with a two-car garage, which was similar to the one they wished to build. He explained that his children who moved to the Palos Verdes Peninsula several years ago had been asking them to move down to be near the grandchildren and they finally agreed and purchased a residence on Nancy Road. He said that they were excited about building and did not perceive any problems since one neighbor was well below the property, the rear property was about 25 to 30 feet below, the neighbor to the west was about 10 feet above the property, and the house of the neighbor across the street protruded only about eight to ten feet above street level. He said about a year later they had received approval from the Art Jury; had done everything by the book; had tried very hard to please everyone; and, thought they were ready to build their dream house and become upstanding members of the community.

Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254, architect representing Mr. and Mrs. Letvin, said that the ridge height had been dropped 4.5 feet from the original silhouette but the grading only reduced the pad 2.5 feet.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern said that he had understood the grading would lower the pad four feet.

Larry Peha said that this was not true and that additional reduction in height had been achieved by lowering other elements of the house such as ceiling heights and the pitch of the roof.

.

Senior Planner Mihranian confirmed that the proposed grading was not four feet but 2.5 feet, and that the roof ridge was lowered two feet by the Commission.

Larry Peha said that an attempt was made to minimize grading and maintain views and that the lot created a challenge. He explained that the lot was pie shaped, narrowing to the rear of the property, but that there was 153 feet of frontage that made the lot look larger from the street and mitigated the appearance of a large house on a small lot. He added that the buildable area on this lot was actually larger than most of the larger lots in the neighborhood and that there plenty of two-story homes nearby.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked if he knew the size of that existing two-story home.

Larry Peha said that he did not know but he estimated about 3100 square feet. He emphasized that the home he had designed at 3,195 square feet was not a mansion, that it was a normal size home for today and that many of the homes in the neighborhood were much older. He said that building smaller homes would reduce property values.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern said that the size of the proposed home was impacting residents who had lodged complaints.

Mayor McTaggart stressed that the Code did not take into account economic considerations.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that the home was not large by Rancho Palos Verdes and Peninsula standards but it was a large home for this small lot.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern noted the wonderful, quaint characteristics of the older homes in the Miraleste community which defined the neighborhood and even though times may change, it should not mean that those who live there should be forced to see their established neighborhood change.

Larry Peha said that he, the applicants, and the Art Jury had all been sensitive to this.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern said that he imagined the concern had been to build a home with a style compatible with the neighborhood.

Councilwoman Ferraro agreed that the focus of the Art Jury was on style but that in Rancho Palos Verdes views were very important and that the View Ordinance was not something created by the City Council but an initiative that the residents had put on the ballot. She said that when she sat on sofas in the current homes, she saw nothing but flags from the silhouette of the proposed structure and she felt the house needed to be designed so that current neighborhood views were not impacted.

Larry Peha said that meetings had been held with the neighbors but the only type of home that seemed acceptable was a single-story one and this would restrict the home to about 1800 square feet. He reiterated that there were other two-story homes in the neighborhood, one only three houses away and he felt that this lot could not developed without impacting someone.

Nick Mowlds, 6832 Verde Ridge Road, former Planning Commissioner, offered his assessment based on his experience and felt that the house should be redesigned.


RECESS AND RECONVENE:

At 9:15 P.M. Mayor McTaggart called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:27 P.M.

Councilman Gardiner thought it was appropriate to uphold the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that the project should be denied without prejudice so that the applicant would not have to wait a year to resubmit a new design.

Mayor McTaggart added that denying without prejudice would mean that additional fees would not have to be paid.

After additional input from staff, it was decided that the project should not be remanded to the Planning Commission.

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

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to uphold the appeal and to deny the project without prejudice. Motion carried.

Resol. No. 2002-45 - Adoption of the City Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003

Mayor McTaggart opened the public hearing on this request to adopt the City Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that there were no written comments received by the City.

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of June 12, 2002 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution approving a Budget Appropriation and adopting the Operating and Capital Improvement Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 after conducting a public hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget and after any further additions or deletions to the proposed budget. She added that a revised budget resolution had been presented to the Council at the outset of the meeting.

City Manager Evans explained the apparent 10.2% increase in Sheriff’s Department costs and said that the increase was not really that high. He explained that the situation was not as dire as it had originally seemed and the fault did not lie with the Sheriff’s Department. He said that Lt. John Herrara was present to answer questions and that a contract with the Sheriff’s Department would be brought back at a later date. He described the effect of the funds reimbursed to RPV by other Peninsula cities who used the Sheriff’s Department services and suggested that the Council approve the budget in reference to Sheriff’s Department costs and he and the Finance Director were convinced that the situation would be worked out satisfactorily.

Lt. John Herrera discussed the percentage of costs to the three Peninsula cities that used the Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement and how the percentage was recalculated each year based on the prior year’s experience of incidents in each City.

In reply to Mayor McTaggart’s inquiry, City Manager Evans replied that funding for the Joint Powers Liability Trust Fund was covered by a 6% surcharge on all costs.

Councilman Gardiner asked if a speeding ticket was added to the record of the City in which the resident lived or to the City in which the violation occurred.

Lt. Herrera said that it was charged to the City in which the violation occurred.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked how the percentage tracked with the population of the cities.

City Manager Evans said that the expenses are divided 60% for Rancho Palos Verdes, 30% for Rolling Hills Estates and 10% for Rolling Hills.

Lt. Herrera said the population broke down as 65% for RPV, 30% for Rolling Hills, and 5% for Rolling Hills.

Mayor McTaggart commented on the efficiency created by the Joint Powers situation.

City Manager Evans said that additional details would be brought back to the Council regarding the actual increase in cost for the Sheriff’s Department services.

A discussion between Councilman Gardiner, Assistant City Manager Petru, and Finance Director McLean resulted in the decision to attach the Five-Year Model spreadsheet, showing the City Manager’s proposed budget, to the Budget resolution.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, commented on a number of items: the Mayor’s picture on the front page of the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, the budget in reference to the Sheriff’s Department, the concept of a two-year budget, and the five-year model.

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

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-45, 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, with the five-year model spreadsheet, showing the City Manager’s proposed budget, attached as an exhibit.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart

NOES:None

ABSENT:Clark


REGULAR BUSINESS:

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)

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of June 12, 2002 and the recommendation to 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. He provided a PowerPoint presentation illustrating the history of the Code and boarding and summarized the requests in these three nonconformity statements.

Mayor pro tem Stern raised the issue of legal boarding and inquired if the Council might want to consider asking the speakers to address this, including submission of a statement that there was no payment received other than to cover expenses.

Councilman Gardiner felt it was unfair to request financial information.

Councilwoman Ferraro agreed and said that given the history and all past hearings, she did not see how the Council could require this type of information.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that the Council advised staff not to ask questions of the applicants regarding the profit or non-profit status of boarding but to consider what is legal nonconforming because it seems this information would be relevant even though the current code does not address the legality of boarding by these standards.

Councilman Gardiner reiterated that it would not be fair to change the rules at this time.

Richard Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive, spoke in support of Alternative No. 1 in the staff report and felt it was important the Council not change the rules for analyzing these statements. He pointed out that letters submitted at the previous Council meeting had become part of the agenda packet for this meeting and these letters consisted of statements from several people who formerly boarded at their site and who now boarded their horses at the Portuguese Bend Riding Club and pointed that that these letters contrasted the concept of backyard boarding with a commercial boarding operation. He said that the nonconformity statement he and his wife had submitted was based on how many horses were allowed before and the count of the number of horses present and which of these were boarded, and that made up the request submitted in their statement.

Kay Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive, said that the prior code allowed 17 horses on their property and the new code allowed four. She said that their request was for ten horses and without grandfathering, they suffered a substantial loss of property value and she emphasized that the concern was with horse keeping, not horse boarding. She said that since the last Council meeting on April 16 when their nonconformity statement was discussed, she had attended a Peninsula Emergency Response Team (PERT) class, and participated in the Equine Response Team sponsored by Los Angeles County Animal Control to protect animals in the event of a disaster. She said that their property was listed as one of the sites where horses could be relocated temporarily in the event of a fire or other disasters, and that grandfathering would allow them to help with this effort.

John Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive, said that with his seven acres, he felt that keeping 11 horses was a modest request.

Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane, said that she supported Alternative No. 1 in the staff report and that even though she probably would be justified to ask for even more horses, she was content with seven being allowed to be boarded.

Robert Maxwell, 7 East Pomegranate Road, submitted photographs taken that morning to indicate, in his opinion, that horses being kept in slide areas should not be allowed. He was opposed to grandfathering and to turning Portuguese Bend into a commercial stable. He made reference to ads placed by the Baras which indicated to him that they had a commercial boarding operation. He felt that corrals were an eyesore and lowered property values, and asked the Council if they would like them to be on a property in their neighborhoods. He referred to his photographs again and expressed his opposition to the proposed Community Horse Park, Pony Club, and Ride to Fly. He felt that the decrease in property value was reason to deny their legality, and noted that the Portuguese Bend CC&R’s prohibited commercial activity.

Joe Deeble, 3 East Pomegranate Road, concurred that the number of nonconformity statements represented a small number of people and said that the reason the statements submitted by the Baras and Sunshine were contested from the beginning was because of the commercialism in which they were engaged, whether or not they made a profit. He felt that instead of grandfathering, the Baras and Sunshine should submit an application to the Equestrian Committee to explain why they needed to be allowed more horses than the Code allowed.

Mayor pro tem Stern stressed that Council is not legislating at this time, nor adopting any rules, but merely applying the rules to the circumstances and he felt that Mr. Deeble’s comments did not address the proper issues.

Joe Deeble said that he felt a new category was being created for the Baras and Sunshine which was commercial but not like the Pony Club or the Portuguese Bend Riding Club which required monitoring.

Toni Deeble, 3 East Pomegranate Road, said that she regretted that she did not have tapes of all the meetings because if she did, these nonconformity statements would not be considered. She spoke in opposition to commercial horse boarding or any other commercial endeavor in this residential area and said that it was impossible to prove which horses were being boarded; therefore, the old code was abused by illegal commercial boarding. She said that when it was announced that any disputed nonconformity statements would be coming before the City Council, she knew which properties would be involved. She said that if legality could not be proven in the past, grandfathering should not be allowed and she said that City Attorney Lynch had written a letter to the Mayor years ago which said that the Baras and Sunshine were not legal at the time.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that there was never any proof submitted that these were illegal operations and that she had not seen any indication of massive commercialism.

Toni Deeble said that there had been 17 horses on the Bara property and the neighbors had been up in arms about the situation. She said that ads were submitted to the Council to prove commercialism.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that she had never seen 17 horses on the Bara property and that she saw ads for other properties but not for the Baras’ property.

Sherrie Greenwood, 2543 Sunnyside Ridge Road, said that she was an Equestrian Committee Member but was also speaking as an individual, and that she supported Alternative No. 1 and felt that this action would result in fair resolution at last. She discussed the equestrian lifestyle available in the City and activities for students of all ages which contributed to the ambiance on the Peninsula which in addition to equestrian activities included a loving family upbringing and good schools. She felt that the establishment of the Equestrian Committee had improved equestrian conditions and taken care of major complaints even though some people did not acknowledge that there had been changes.

Discussion ensued between Mayor McTaggart and Ms. Greenwood in which she stated that she was not boarding horses at the moment and would not mind if her neighbors were boarding horses as long as they had ample room for the number of horses on their property. Mayor McTaggart felt it was irrelevant to bring up the value of equestrian activities to children and that the question for him had always been about commercialism in a residential neighborhood.

Ms. Greenwood said that the Pony Club and Ride to Fly had cooperated with the community but there were personal conflicts between neighbors in the Equestrian area which had drawn the City in. She said that the result of past hearings and adoption of the new Code has resulted in the reduction of the number of horses in the City and that every time there was one less horse, the dream of the equestrian lifestyle was diminished.

Mayor McTaggart asked if Ms. Greenwood would want a commercial venture next door to her home.

Ms. Greenwood said that there was a horse next door to her and that there were things that were more irritating than that situation. She urged the Council to make a good judgment call on the cases before it.

Madeline Ryan, 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East, said that she did not support or oppose the applicants with their respective issues because she was not sure which code, which date, what number of horses applied and would trust the Council to decide what was right. However, she felt that if the size of a property could accommodate a larger number of horses this should be an element in the Council’s decision. She supported the concept of an Equestrian Park and believed it might solve the boarding issue. She praised the Ride to Fly program, which was reviewed every six months, and said that homeowners in the area felt the property had never looked as good.

Charlene O’Neil, 38 Headland Drive, spoke in support of Pony Club and the Ride to Fly programs and urged the Council to approve the requests submitted in these last three nonconformity statements using the same judgment which permitted approval of other prior statements.

Mayor pro tem Stern reiterated that the Council was not legislating and that appeals to what should have been done in the past were of no value, but only whether the law was being applied fairly and consistently to everyone. He felt that staff performed the correct analysis and that possibly the only issue which might be helpful to determine if the operations were legal in the past would be the profitability issue, but the new Code did not address that issue so it was not part of the analysis. Therefore, he felt that adoption of Alternative No. 1 in the staff report was the appropriate action.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro to adopt Alternative No. 1 in the staff report which is to grant the property owners’ request to "grandfather" the requested numbers of animals for the subject properties as follows: 20 Vanderlip Drive-11 horses, all of which may be boarded in perpetuity; 6 Limetree Lane-12 horses, seven of which may be boarded until February 2007 or the sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs later; 1 Peppertree Drive-10 horses, six of which may be boarded until February 2007 or the sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs later. Motion carried (4-0) with Councilman Clark absent.

Mayor McTaggart said that to him important issues were the effect of commercialism in a residential area and if it would increase traffic and parking. He said that these were issues that had to be addressed when approval of a home business was being considered. He said that he was not anti-equestrian but he felt that the number of horses requested was a little high.

Councilwoman Ferraro felt that Mayor pro tem Stern was correct in saying that the Council is not legislating at this time. She noted that it was the same people arguing the same issues and in a sense they had prevailed because the code was changed due to their complaints. She said that these were properties located in the equestrian zone and therefore it was appropriate to allow horses and, in a way, property values were diminished when fewer horses were allowed with the new code. She stated that the previous Council could not resolve the issue of legal boarding four years ago, so the nonconformity statements were a way to try to achieve some kind of equity.

Councilman Gardiner asked for a clarification of the concept of boarding in perpetuity.

City Attorney Lynch said that boarding in perpetuity would effectively be allowed if the property was never sold or transferred.

Senior Planner Fox added that even then only the number of boarded animals would be reduced.

Councilwoman Ferraro noted that the old code allowed a certain number of horses per parcel that the new code allowed a certain number of horses per property owner and said that the properties in question were large.

Councilman Gardiner asked if the smaller properties in the equestrian zone on the east side of the City were allowed the opportunity for grandfathering.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that they were but the opportunity to apply for grandfathering had expired.

Senior Planner Fox said that the deadline had been extended twice.

City Attorney Lynch said that there was a concern that people were not aware of the opportunity because of the small number of applications received.

Mayor pro tem Stern added that the application did not ask for financial information but only if horses were boarded.

Councilman Gardiner was satisfied that everyone was treated in a consistent manner and he then asked about the issue of adequacy of care for the animals.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that this was an issue for code enforcement and she called for a vote on the motion.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed that safety and health issues were not relevant in the item before the Council.

Mayor McTaggart said that he believed there was commercial boarding taking place and he was not sure the horses were being treated well.

Mayor pro tem Stern reiterated that these were not relevant issues and the Council must simply apply the law as it related to these nonconformity statements.

The motion carried (4-0-1) without a roll call vote.


RECESS AND RECONVENE:

At 11:25 P.M. Mayor McTaggart called a recess. Councilwoman Ferraro left the meeting at this time. The meeting reconvened at 11:38 P.M.

Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Update

Director Rojas presented the staff report of June 12, 2002 and the recommendation to 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.

Larry Vivien, 2324 West 37th Street, San Pedro, CA 90732, said that he was still receiving NCCP staff reports even though the new Sierra Club Conservation Chairman was Barry Holchin. He provided Mr. Holchin’s address (3949 Via Valmonte, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274). He congratulated the City Council on NCCP progress and felt the program was moving in the right direction.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner to direct staff to proceed with completion of the draft Plan with the new Alternative C as the basis for the plan. Motion carried 3-0-2.

Resol. No. 2002-46 - Additional Grant Funding for the Expansion of Point Vicente Interpretive Center

Presentation of the staff report was waived.

Staff recommendation was to adopt the proposed resolution 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.

Councilman Gardner asked why the Point Vicente Interpretative Center was chosen to receive these funds.

City Manager Evans explained that because of restrictions on funds, it was appropriate to use these funds for a project like Point Vicente Interpretative Center and retain unrestricted funds for other needs.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-46, 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. Motion carried 3-0-2.

Resol. No. 2002-47 - Trail Repairs, and Fencing Construction at Inspiration Point and Shoreline Park

Presentation of the staff report was waived.

Staff recommendation was to (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 the proposed resolution amending Resolution No. 2001-43, the Budget Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001-2002, for a budget adjustment to the City’s General Fund.

Council Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Stern to (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. 2002-47, 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 GEN ERAL FUND.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES:Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart

NOES:None

ABSENT:Clark, Ferraro

Border Issues Status Report

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of June 12, 2002 and the recommendation to review the current status of border issues, and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.

Details of his report included RPV representatives attending the Lomita Planning Commission meeting at which the Commission approved the Harbor Hills project, adopting a resolution in the month of July which will start the 15-day appeal period. He said that RPV had influenced some of the conditions of approval having to do with lighting and geotechnical investigation. He said that LAFCO had put a hold on the secession of the Harbor Area from the City of Los Angeles so this portion of the status report would be put on hold until the issue is taken up again. He said that the Garden Village shopping center would continue to be monitored as conditions of approval were established for renovation.

When Mayor McTaggart inquired about the proposed office at 5883 Crest Road in Rolling Hills Estates, Senior Planner Fox replied that it was not known if there would be an impact to RPV but the City would be receiving a copy of the initial study.

Senior Planner Fox said that at the Council meeting on May 20th, Mayor McTaggart mentioned his meeting with Mayor Seamans from Rolling Hills Estates regarding the slope problems above and behind the businesses on little Silver Spur Road. The City Attorney mentioned also at that meeting that there was a civil lawsuit and a settlement between the owner of the slope, Pemba Properties in Rancho Palos Verdes and the owner of the properties on Silver Spur. According to the settlement agreement the property owner on Silver Spur must repair the retaining wall on the lower portion of the slope but it appears that this property owner does not want to begin these repairs without some commitment from the owner of the upper portion of the slope to regrade that area, but since Pemba, the owner of the upper slope, is not compelled by the settlement agreement to do anything, they have not. He stated that staff has had some discussions to try to broker some kind of resolution and discussed with Pemba the submittal of a grading plan to regrade their portion of the slope but at this point Pemba has not submitted anything officially. He stated that since this is a civil matter between two property owners and there is no known code violation or threat to public safety in Rancho Palos Verdes, staff has not taken a more proactive role in trying to force Pemba to regrade the slope.

Mayor McTaggart asked about access to this property from Little Silver Spur.

Senior Planner Fox replied that a portion of the property comes down and abuts the Little Silver Spur right of way, in the curve to the west, and he believed that there was a blanket use restriction over the whole property.

Mayor McTaggart commended Senior Planner Fox on his presentation to the Lomita Planning Commission.

Councilman Gardiner asked about the project kitty corner from Ralph‘s on Hawthorne and Crest and asked if there would be an exit on Crest as well as on Hawthorne. He said that without a Crest exit, it would be impossible to make a left turn onto Hawthorne.

City Manager Evans said that there would be no exit onto Crest as the concept was rejected at all levels at the City of Rolling Hills Estates.

Mayor McTaggart said that Rolling Hills Estates residents were opposed to the plan and he felt it was important to make sure that views in the Monaco housing development in RPV were protected.

Director Allison reported that the Traffic Committee had reviewed the situation but that the access issue was not before the City of RPV.

Applicants for View Restoration for Mediator Positions – Set Date to Interview

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of June 12, 2002 and the recommendation to set a date to interview the applicants for View Restoration Mediator positions.

Council consensus was to continue this item to enable absent Councilmembers to participate.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

City Attorney Lynch reported that regarding the Kay lawsuit, the Council voted unanimously (4-0-1; Councilmember Clark was absent) to indemnify individual Councilmembers and the Planning Commissioners and direction was given to the City Attorney's office not to enter into any sort of stipulation with Mr. Kay.

She also reported that the City Council voted unanimously (3-0-2; Councilmember Ferraro had not yet arrived, and Councilmember Clark was absent) to add an item to the Closed Session agenda regarding the cleanup of the Pt. Vicente Interpretative Center. The issue came up after the agenda was posted and there was an immediate need for the Council to take action due to information that was received from the Army Corps of Engineers. The Council voted unanimously (4-0-1; Councilmember Clark was absent) to proceed with an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to settle the City's claim against the Corps so that the cleanup of the site by the Corps can proceed. She said that this agreement would be placed on the next Council agenda.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

Mayor McTaggart mentioned that he and Mayor pro tem Stern, along with their families, had attended the Green Hills Memorial Day service. He also reported on a meeting with APA Region 9 regarding NPDES permits. Mayor McTaggart thanked the Council and staff members for the great success of the recent California Contract Cities event in Indian Wells, which was hosted by the City. He learned at the June 3 MAX meeting in Torrance that there were surplus buses for sale at low prices, and that could possibly be used by the City’s Reach program. He said that at the June 5 meeting of the L.A. County Liability Trust Fund Oversight Committee it was reported that the disaster on September 11, 2001 had had a strong impact on excess insurance, which explained why the cost for excess insurance doubled, but he explained the critical need for this excess insurance because of situations such as the $26 million the City of Cerritos incident had and he felt the group was lucky to get the coverage at all. Mayor McTaggart described a tour of the new Cerritos Library where a League of California Cities meeting was held on June 6. He also discussed a meeting with speaker Herb Wesson attended by Gina McLeod of RPV’s Finance Advisory Committee and he commended her on her volunteerism. Lastly, he said that on June 10 he had attended his second meeting of the Composting Authority and that he had also attended the previously mentioned Lomita Planning Commission meeting.

Councilman Gardiner said that he learned at its last meeting that the Palos Verdes Transit Authority is holding in abeyance introduction of camera use on their buses until information was forwarded to the Council for evaluation.


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned in the memory of Jeannette Mucha at 12:08 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on June 18 for interviews for Emergency Preparedness Task Force Chair.


____________________          

MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________

     CITY CLERK


3.Claim against the City by Jelena Berkovich. (Purcell)

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

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY JELENA BERKOVICH

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

The claimant in this matter alleges that paint was stripped from the surface of the front door at 3146 Crownview when the City’s "Stop Work Order" was removed. The claimant has submitted two estimates for the repair of the damage: Bozulich & McLean - $290.00; and, Coric’s Painting - $275.

Carl Warren & Co., the City’s insurance administrators, has investigated this matter and has advised that the claim be rejected.

Respectfully submitted,

Jo Purcell

Administrative Services Director/

City Clerk

Reviewed:

Les Evans, City Manager


4.Notice of Completion for the fiscal year 2001-2002 arterial rehabilitation program. (Noble)

Recommendation: (1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and, if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance Bonds. (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Sully-Miller Contracting Company 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent upon claims being filed against the project.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Arterial Rehabilitation Program

STAFF COORDINATOR: Don Noble, Deputy Director of Public Works

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accept the work as complete.

Authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance Bonds.

Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Sully-Miller Contracting Company 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent on no claims being filed on the project.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

On October 2, 2001, Council awarded a construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company for the resurfacing of Crenshaw Boulevard (Crest Road to Indian Peak Road) and Hawthorne Boulevard (Dupre Drive to Verde Ridge Road). The authorized budget for this project was $1,067,399 and included the following approved expenditures.

ORIGINAL BUDGET

 

EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION

APPROVED AMOUNT

Sully-Miller Construction Contract

$919,727

Possible extra work

$91,972

Construction Management & Inspection Services

$55,700

Total Budget

$1,067,399

On January 8, 2002, construction was stopped because completion of the project required additional funding for the removal of fabric material beneath the pavement on Hawthorne Boulevard. On February 19, 2002, Council approved additional funding of $257,000 to cover the costs of removing the fabric and inspecting/overseeing the work. The revised project budget totals $1,324,399 and includes the following approved expenditures.

REVISED BUDGET

 

Expenditure Description

APPROVED AMOUNT

Sully-Miller Construction Contract

$919,727

Possible extra work

$323,972

Construction Management & Inspection Services

$80,700

Total Budget

$1,324,399

The reconstruction of this project was completed on June 11, 2002 at a cost of $1,293,925 as summarized below.

Final Construction Costs

 

Expenditure Description

Actual Expenditure

Sully-Miller Construction Contract

$836,468

Extra work

$377,951*

Construction Management & Inspection Services

$79,506

Total Project Cost

$1,293,925

* Extra work expenditures included public notification signage, resurfacing the intersection at Crest Road and Crenshaw Boulevard, and the removal of two layers of fabric beneath the pavement along Hawthorne Boulevard. Although these expenditures exceed budget, the total cost of construction is significantly less than the approved amount.

Staff has filed a $142,000 claim with Nichols Consulting Engineers to recoup the cost of removing the pavement fabric, as this firm failed to detect the presence of fabric during the testing and evaluation process of Hawthorne Boulevard. As result, no reference to removal was included in the project plans and specifications.

CONCLUSION

Sully-Miller Contracting Company has successfully completed all work in accordance with the plans and specifications. Therefore, the work should be accepted as complete and a Notice of Completion filed.

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended action will have no fiscal impact.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean E. Allison

Director of Public Works

Reviewed,

Les Evans

City Manager


5.Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2002-00228): Wind Energy Ordinance. (Fox)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 377 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ENACTING A WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 1207. (This ordinance was introduced at the June 18th meeting.)

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO. ZON2002-00228): WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Ordinance No. 377 to enact a Wind Energy Ordinance pursuant to Assembly Bill 1207.

DISCUSSION

On June 18, 2002, the City Council conducted the first reading and introduced Ordinance No. 377 to adopt a Wind Energy Ordinance, as mandated by Assembly Bill 1207 (Longville). Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 377.

Respectfully submitted:

Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Draft Ordinance No. 377

ORDINANCE NO. 377

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: California has a shortage of reliable electricity supply. In 2001, the Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1207 in response to this shortage. Assembly Bill 1207 encourages the use of wind energy by requiring local governments to adopt ordinances that provide for the installation and operation of small wind energy systems in locations outside of "urbanized areas" in the jurisdiction. Each local agency has until July 1, 2002, to adopt such an ordinance. If a local agency fails to adopt an ordinance which provides for the installation and operation of small wind energy systems in non-urbanized areas, the local agency must approve applications for small wind energy systems if they comply with the criteria set forth in Assembly Bill 1207. In order to retain maximum control over land use decisions within its borders, the City desires to enact appropriate regulations to govern the installation of small wind energy systems within its jurisdictional borders.

Section 2:Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.76.150 to Chapter 17.76 to read as follows:

"17.76.150Small Wind Energy Systems.

    Purpose. The purposes of this Section are as follows:

    (1)To provide for the installation and use of small wind energy systems in certain non-urbanized areas of the city to encourage the use of alternative energy sources;

    (2)To minimize visual impacts of wind energy towers through careful design, siting and vegetation screening;

    (3)To avoid damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through careful design and siting of tower structures; and,

    (4)To ensure that wind energy towers are compatible with adjacent uses.

     

    Conditional Use Permit Required. The installation and/or operation of a small wind energy system, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) of this title, shall require a conditional use permit reviewed and approved by the planning commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits). Except as modified by the provisions of this Section, all applications for a conditional use permit for a small wind energy system shall comply with the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.60.

     

    Permissible Zones. The development of small wind energy systems shall be permitted in the following zones on lots that are one (1) acre or greater in size: CL (Commercial Limited), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CP (Commercial Professional), CG (Commercial General), I (Institutional), C (Cemetery) and OR (Open Space Recreation).

     

    Requirements. Each small wind energy system shall comply with the following requirements:

    Lot Size. A small wind energy system may be installed on a lot with a minimum size of one (1) acre.

     

    Tower Height. Tower height, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) shall be measured from lowest finished grade immediately adjacent to the base of the tower. For parcels between one (1) acre and five (5) acres in size, tower height shall be no more than 65 feet. For parcels greater than five (5) acres, tower height shall be no more than 80 feet. Under no circumstances may the height of a tower exceed the height recommended by the manufacturer or distributor of the system. The application shall include evidence that the proposed height of the system does not exceed the manufacturer’s recommended height for the system.

     

    Setbacks. All small wind energy systems shall comply with the following setback requirements:

    At a minimum, a wind energy system shall be set back from any property line a distance equal to the height of the system. No part of the system, including guy wire anchors, shall extend closer than 30 feet to any property line. In addition, all setbacks comply with applicable fire setback requirements pursuant to Section 4290 of the California Public Resources Code or its successor statute.

    Placement of more than one tower on a lot may be permitted, provided that all setbacks and all other standards set forth in this Section are met by each tower.

    The towers may be located as close to each other as is technically feasible.

    Any accessory structures used in association with the towers shall meet the setbacks required in the applicable zoning district.

    Turbine. Any wind energy system installed pursuant to this Section must have a turbine. The system’s turbine must be approved by the California Energy Commission as qualifying under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Energy Commission’s Renewables Investment Plan, or certified by a national program recognized by the Energy Commission.

     

    Noise Level. Noise levels for the system shall be no greater than either 60 decibels measured at the closest neighboring inhabited dwelling or any existing maximum noise levels in the general plan, whichever is lower. The noise levels established by this subsection shall not apply during short-term events such as utility outages and severe windstorms.

     

    Safety Standards. A small wind energy system installed pursuant to this Section must be designed to meet the most stringent wind requirements (as established by the UBC), the requirements for the worst seismic class (Seismic 4), and the weakest soil class, with soil strength of not more than 1,000 pounds per square foot. The application shall include evidence sufficient to demonstrate the system complies with these standards.

     

    Roof Mounting Prohibited. A small wind energy system may not be mounted on the roof of any structure.

     

    Aviation Regulations. The system shall comply with all applicable requirements imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including Subpart B (commencing with Section 77.11) of Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the California Aeronautics Act (Part 1, commencing with Section 21001, of Division 9 of the Public).

     

    Primary Use. A wind energy system installed pursuant to this Section shall be used primarily to reduce onsite consumption of utility power.

     

    Visual Impacts. A wind energy system may not impair a view from an adjoining property or create other adverse aesthetic impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant shall demonstrate that the tower will comply with all applicable provisions of Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title. The applicant shall further demonstrate that the tower can be expected to have the least visual impact on the environment, taking into consideration technical, engineering, economic, and other pertinent factors. Towers clustered on the same site shall be of similar height and design whenever possible.

     

    Maintenance Impacts. The applicant shall describe anticipated maintenance needs for each wind energy system requested, including the frequency of service, personnel needs, equipment needs, and traffic, noise or safety impacts of such maintenance.

     

    Parking. A minimum of two parking spaces shall be provided on each site. An additional parking space for each two employees shall be provided at facilities that require on-site personnel. Storage of vehicles or equipment on a site housing a small wind energy system requires approval of the director or planning commission. Vehicle and equipment storage must conform to landscape and screening requirements.

     

    Landscaping. The applicant shall provide a landscape plan to be approved by the director or planning commission. The plan shall note specifications for landscape and screening, including plantings, fences, walls and other features designed to screen and buffer towers, accessory uses and stored equipment. Native vegetation shall be preserved to the greatest extent practicable and incorporated into the landscape plan.

     

    Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall include only such buildings and facilities permitted by the underlying zoning or necessary for the operation and maintenance of the wind energy system.

     

    Application of Underlying Zoning Standards. Except as otherwise provided by this Section, a small wind energy system shall comply with all applicable development standards for the underlying zone to the extent such standards do not conflict with paramount federal or state law.

     

    Coordination with Electric Utility Service Provider. Unless the applicant does not intend to connect the wind energy system to the electricity grid, the applicant shall demonstrate that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has been informed of the applicant’s intent to install an interconnected, customer-owned electricity generator.

E.Prohibited Sites. A small wind energy system shall not be allowed on any of the following locations:

    A small wind energy system shall not be allowed on any site subject to the city’s coastal specific plan and/or the California Coastal Act (commencing with Section 30000 of the California Public Resources Code).

    A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any site that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1 of the Public Resources Code.

    A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any parcel that is part of an open space easement entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 815) of Division 2 of Part 2 of the Civil Code.

    A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any parcel that is part of an open space easement entered into pursuant to the Open-Space Easement Act of 1974, Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 51070) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code.

    A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any site designated as an Alquist-Priolo Hazard Zone pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (commencing with Section 2621 of the California Public Resources Code).

F.Requirements for Application. Each application for a small wind energy system shall include the following information:

1.A completed conditional use permit application on a form prescribed by the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement;

2.Site plan(s) to scale, specifying the location of the tower(s), guy wires, equipment building and other accessory uses, access, parking, fences, landscaped areas and screening;

3.Scaled elevation plans of the proposed tower(s), equipment building, and other accessory uses and related landscaping and screening;

4.Standard drawings and an engineering analysis of the tower showing compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) or the California Building Standards Code (BSC), and certification by a professional mechanical, structural or civil engineer licensed by the State of California;

5.A line drawing of the electrical components of the system in sufficient detail to show that the manner of installation conforms with the National Electric Code and evidence that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has been informed of the applicant’s intent to install an interconnected, customer-owned electricity generator;

6.Evidence demonstrating that the proposed height of the wind energy system does not exceed the manufacturer’s recommended height for the system;

7.Sufficient evidence of the structural integrity of the tower(s) demonstrating compliance with the safety standards set forth in subsection (D)(6) of this section;

8.An affidavit that the primary purpose of the wind energy system is to reduce onsite consumption of utility power;

9.A completed environmental assessment application;

10.A scaled landscape plan indicating size, spacing and type of plantings as required in subsection (D)(13) of this section;

11.Any additional information requested by the director and reasonably necessary to evaluate the application.

G.Notice. Notwithstanding the notice provisions of Section 17.60.040 (Public Hearing), notice of any application for a Conditional Use Permit for a wind energy system shall be provided to property owners within 300 feet of the property on which the system is to be located.

H.Findings. In addition to the findings required by Section 17.60.050 (Findings and Conditions) of this title, the planning commission may grant a conditional use permit for a small wind energy system only if it finds:

1.The wind energy system will not impair a view from an adjoining property or create other adverse aesthetic impacts on adjacent properties; and,

2.The wind energy system complies with all applicable safety requirements and will not expose the public to any undue safety risk.

I.Appeal. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title."

Section 3:Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.96.2355 to Chapter 17.96 to read as follows:

"17.96.2355Wind energy system, small.

For the purposes of this Section, ‘small wind energy system’ shall mean a wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine (approved by the California Energy Commission as qualifying under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Commission's Renewable Investment Plan or certified by a national program recognized and approved by the California Energy Commission), a tower, and associated control or conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity that does not exceed the allowable rated capacity, as defined under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Renewables Investment Plan, and which is used primarily to reduce onsite consumption of utility power."

Section 4:Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.96.2105 to Chapter 17.96 to read as follows:

"17.96.2105Tower height, small wind energy system.

Tower height means the height above grade of the fixed portion of the tower, excluding the wind turbine."

Section 5:Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.14.030 of Chapter 17.14 (Commercial Limited (CL) District) to read as follows:

"17.14.030Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses and development may be permitted in the commercial limited (CL) zone, if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.14.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A.Automobile service stations, pursuant to Section 17.76.090 (Automobile service stations);

B.Flower and produce stands and similar commercial/agricultural retail uses;

C.Convenience stores, pursuant to Section 17.76.080 (Convenience stores);

D.Bed and breakfast inns;

E.Outdoor sale, storage or display of merchandise and/or provisions of services, only in conjunction with a permanent use in a building, except for temporary outdoor uses which may be permitted with a special use permit or temporary vendor permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits), by the director;

F.Cleaners/laundry uses which have cleaning operations on site;

G.Churches;

H.Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

I.Concurrent sales of alcohol and motor fuel;

J.Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

K.Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

L.Governmental facilities;

M.Private educational uses, including nursery schools and day nurseries;

N.Public utility structures;

O.Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

P.Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

Q.Such uses as the planning commission deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 6:Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.16.030 of Chapter 17.16 (Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District) to read as follows:

"17.16.030Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the commercial neighborhood (CN) zone if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.16.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A.Wholesale plant nurseries;

B.Outdoor sale, storage or display of merchandise and/or provisions of services, only in conjunction with a permanent use in a building, except for temporary outdoor uses which may be permitted with a special use permit or temporary vendor permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits), by the director;

C.Car washes;

D.Automobile service stations, pursuant to Section 17.76.090 (Automobile service stations);

E.Flower and produce stands and similar commercial/agricultural retail uses;

F.Convenience stores, pursuant to Section 17.76.080 (Convenience stores);

G.Bed and breakfast inns;

H.Cleaners/laundry uses which have cleaning operations on site;

I.Veterinary clinics involving the boarding of animals;

J.Churches;

K.Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

L.Concurrent sales of alcohol and motor fuel;

M.Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

N.Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

O.Governmental facilities;

P.Private educational uses, including nursery schools and day nurseries;

Q.Public utility structures;

R.Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

S.Restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and have dancing, live entertainment, or four or more billiard tables, dart boards, or other games which may be used for competition and/or recreation; restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and change the type of retail license classification they hold under authority of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; and restaurants that provide drive-through window service for vehicles;

T.Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

U.Such uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 7:Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.18.030 of Chapter 17.18 (Commercial Professional (CP) District) to read as follows:

"17.18.030Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the commercial professional (CP) zone, if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.18.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A.Bed and breakfast inns;

B.Churches;

C.Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

D.Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

E.Governmental facilities;

F.Private educational uses, including nursery schools and day nurseries;

G.Public utility structures;

H.Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

I.Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

J.Such uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 8:Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.20.030 of Chapter 17.20 (Commercial General (CG) District) to read as follows:

"17.20.030Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the commercial general (CG) zone if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission, that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.20.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A.Automobile service stations, pursuant to Section 17.76.090 (Automobile service stations);

B.Automobile service stations and car washes accompanying auto service stations, as per Section 17.76.090 (Automobile service stations);

C.Car washes;

D.Wholesale plant nurseries;

E.Flower and produce stands and similar commercial/agricultural retail uses;

F.Hotels;

G.Movie theaters, billiard halls, bowling alleys, skating rinks and other similar commercial-recreational uses;

H.Fitness studios, dance schools, computer schools and other similar educational activities or uses;

I.Convenience stores as per Section 17.76.080 (Convenience stores);

J.Recycling drop-off/collection facilities and community service recycling programs pursuant to Chapter 17.58 (Recycling);

K.Outdoor sale, storage or display of merchandise and/or provisions of services, only in conjunction with a permanent use in a building, except for temporary outdoor uses which may be permitted with a special use permit or temporary vendor permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits), by the director;

L.Bed and breakfast inns;

M.Cleaners/laundry uses which have cleaning operations on site;

N.Churches;

O.Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

P.Concurrent sales of alcohol and motor fuel;

Q.Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

R.Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

S.Governmental facilities;

T.Public utility structures;

U.Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

V.Restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and have dancing, live entertainment, or four or more billiard tables, dart boards, or other games which may be used for competition and/or recreation; restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and change the type of retail license classification they hold under authority of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; and restaurants that provide drive-through window service for vehicles;

W.Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

X.Such uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 9:Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.26.030 of Chapter 17.26 (Institutional (I) District) to read as follows:

"17.26.030Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the institutional district, pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A.Public facilities owned or used and operated for governmental purposes by the city, the county, the state and the government of the United States of America, and any special district or other local agency;

B.Educational facilities used and operated for educational purposes, including ancillary uses and developments which are operated by the educational institution and are part of, and necessary to, the educational program of the institution;

C.Churches, temples or other places used primarily for religious services, including parochial schools and convents;

D.Clinics and sanitariums, including animal hospitals;

E.Sanitariums, nursing homes, rest homes, homes for the aged, homes for children and homes for mental patients;

F.Recycling drop-off/collection facilities and community service recycling programs, pursuant to Chapter 17.58 (Recycling);

G.Bed and breakfast inns;

H.Cemeteries;

I.Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

J.Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

K.Helistops, in conjunction with another use allowed by this chapter;

L.Public utility structures;

M.Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

N.Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

O.Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 10:Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.28.030 of Chapter 17.28 (Cemetery (C) District) to read as follows:

"17.28.030Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the cemetery district, pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A.Burial park for earth interments, mausoleums for vault or crypt interments and/or columbarium for cinerary interments;

B.Mortuary;

C.Associated sales and office uses directly related to the operation of the cemetery, including flower sales;

D.Churches;

E.Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

F.Public utility structures;

G.Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

H.Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 11:Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.34.040 of Chapter 17.34 (Open Space Recreation (OR) District) to read as follows:

"17.34.040Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the open space recreation district pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A.Privately-owned recreational areas of an open nature, stables, parks, playgrounds, wildlife preserves and such buildings and structures as are related thereto;

B.Residential structures for a caretaker and family;

C.Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

D.Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

E.Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

F.Helistops, in conjunction with another use allowed by this chapter;

G.Public utility structures;

H.Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

I.Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 12:Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 13:The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.

Section 14:This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 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 whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. 377 passed first reading on June 18, 2002, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on __________, 2002, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

EXHIBIT ‘A’ TO ORDINANCE NO. 377

ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/

NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA/ND) NO. 694

EXHIBIT ‘A’ TO ORDINANCE NO. 377

ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/

NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA/ND) NO. 694

__________, 2002

On April 1, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-25, thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 694 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code. Prior to its adoption, the Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment from March 4 through March 24, 1997 and no substantive comments were received from any persons or responsible agencies. In adopting the Negative Declaration, the City Council found: 1) that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the adoption of the amendments; 2) that many of the amendments were clarifications and minor non-substantive revisions; and 3) that the substantive amendments would reduce impacts on the environment since the requirements and regulations governing development in the City would generally be strengthened, thereby further reducing any adverse impacts to adjacent properties, and therefore, upon the environment.

The City Council is currently considering the adoption of an Ordinance that would approve an amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code to enact a Wind Energy Ordinance, as mandated by Assembly Bill 1207. The proposed amendment would give the City the discretion to review the installation and operation of small wind energy systems through a conditional use permit process. Without the adoption of this Ordinance, the City would be obligated to approve applications for small wind energy systems "by right," subject to standards established by State law. As such, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendment would not result in new significant environmental effects, but would actually serve to reduce impacts upon the environment by allowing the City to exercise local control over land use issues. Furthermore, the City Council believes that the amendment is within the scope of EA/ND No. 694 that was prepared and adopted in conjunction with the amendments to Titles 16 and 17 that were adopted on April 19, 1997 by the City Council. As a result, no further environmental review is necessary.


6.Re-appropriation of Funds for the Tree Trimming for View Restoration and View Preservation Program. (Noble)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2002-45, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S VIEW RESTORATION PROGRAM WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:RE-APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR TREE TRIMMING FOR VIEW RESTORATION AND VIEW PRESERVATION

RECOMMENDATION

That the City Council adopt Resolution 2002 - , a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, amending Resolution 2002-45, the budget appropriation for fiscal year 2002-03, for a budget adjustment to the City’s View Restoration Program within the General Fund.

  

BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION

The adopted FY 2002 – 03 budget includes a total of $138,000 for contract tree trimming services. This includes $103,000 for the maintenance of city trees that is managed by the Public Works Department, and $35,000 for tree trimming and tree removals related to the view restoration and preservation process that is managed by the Building Planning and Code Enforcement Department.

In an effort towards better project management it is requested that the appropriation currently included in the budget for the Public Works Department for view matters be re-appropriated to the budget for the Building Planning and Code Enforcement Department. The attached budget resolution accomplishes this.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will re-appropriate funds in the FY 2002 – 03 budget for view preservation and restorations matters from the Public Works Department to the Building Planning and Code Enforcements Department.

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended actions are fiscally neutral.

Respectfully submitted

Dean E. Allison

Director of Public Works

Respectfully submitted

Joel Rojas

Director of Building Planning and Code Enforcement

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 2002-45, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S

VIEW RESTORATION PROGRAM WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND

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

WHEREAS, on June 12, 2002, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2002-45, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2002-03 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to provide tree trimming services to meet View Restoration guidelines; and

WHEREAS, a decrease in the Gas Tax Tree Trimming Maintenance appropriation and an increase in the View Restoration Professional/Technical appropriation is necessary to authorize the expenditure of funds for these tree trimming services.

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

The following adjustments be made to the following budget appropriations:

View Restoration#001-404-35Professional/Technical $35,000

Gas Tax#102-303-30Maintenance-Tree Trimming($35,000)

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2002.

___________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:

_____________________

CITY CLERK

Resolution No. 2002-

Page 1 of 2

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 July 2, 2002.

_____________________________

CITY CLERK

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES


7.Resolutions for Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3 (Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive), No. 8 (Sunshine 6 Limetree Lane) and No. 19 (Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive). (Fox)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NOS. 2002-__, 2002-__ AND 2002-__, MEMORIALIZING THE CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION OF JUNE 12, 2002 WITH RESPECT TO LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL NONCONFORMITY STATEMENT NOS. 3, 8 AND 19, RESPECTIVELY.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:CITY ATTORNEY AND DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

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

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution Nos. 2002-__, 2002-__ and 2002-__, memorializing the City Council’s action of June 12, 2002 with respect to Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement Nos. 3, 8 and 19, respectively.

BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2002, the City Council approved the three above-mentioned Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statements, via Minute Order. Due to some confusion on the part of the public about what action was taken, and to ensure that the bases for the Council’s determinations are memorialized, the City Attorney has advised Staff that it would be prudent to memorialize the City Council’s actions in separate resolutions for each statement. As such, Staff has prepared the attached draft Resolutions for the City Council’s adoption.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The property owners and the interested parties have been advised of the City Council’s consideration of these draft Resolutions. However, because the hearings on each of these matters have been closed, the only public input that can be provided is on the issue of whether the content of the resolution accurately reflects the decision that was made by the City Council. Thus, the public will not be able to re-argue the substantive issues that were raised in each case.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the previous City Council discussion, Staff reports, Minutes and other record of these proceedings, Staff recommends adoption of the three draft Resolutions approving Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement Nos. 3, 8 and 19.

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:

Adopt the draft Resolutions as proposed by Staff.

If the Council finds that the resolutions are inaccurate or do not reflect accurately the Council’s decisions, give direction to Staff to modify the resolutions, which could be read into the record at the July 2nd meeting, or if the revisions are extensive, continue consideration and adoption of the resolutions to the next City Council meeting.

Respectfully submitted:

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

Reviewed by:

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Resolution No. 2002-__ (Nonconformity Statement No. 3, Bara)

Resolution No. 2002-__ (Nonconformity Statement No. 8, Sunshine)

Resolution No. 2002-__ (Nonconformity Statement No. 19, Downhill)

BARA RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL NONCONFORMITY STATEMENT NO. 3 FOR THE KEEPING OF TEN HORSES, OF WHICH A MAXIMUM OF SIX HORSES MAY BE BOARDED, ON THREE CONTIGUOUS PARCELS TOTALING 12.145 ACRES IN AREA, LOCATED AT 1 PEPPERTREE DRIVE

WHEREAS, Section 17.46.080 (Nonconformities) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code provides for the filing of nonconformity statements related to the keeping and/or boarding of large domestic animals in the City; and,

WHEREAS, on July 14, 1997, Richard and Kay Bara, the owners of three contiguous parcels at 1 Peppertree Drive in the Portuguese Bend community, submitted Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3 to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, pursuant to Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and,

WHEREAS, Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3 stated that, as of February 1, 1997, ten horses were kept on the Baras’ combined parcels, of which six horses were boarded, and requested permission to "grandfather" these numbers of kept and boarded horses for the combined properties; and,

WHEREAS, on December 14, 1998, Staff conducted a site investigation and verified the numbers of animals described in Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3; and,

WHEREAS, in 1999, Staff sought direction from the City Council regarding the final disposition on any disputed nonconformity statements, and the City Council determined that it would make the final determination on any such disputed statements; and,

WHEREAS, on February 13, 2002, Staff completed its review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3 and determined that, based upon the provisions of Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay (Q) District) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, a maximum of ten horses could be kept on the Baras’ property in perpetuity, of which a maximum of six horses could be boarded until February 1, 2007 or the sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurred later; and,

WHEREAS, on February 27, 2002, Staff’s determination regarding Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3 was contested separately by Joe Deeble and Toni Deeble; and,

WHEREAS, after providing notice to all interested parties, the City Council discussed Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3 at a regular public meeting on April 16, 2002 and June 12, 2002, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;

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

Section 1:The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3:

A.The Baras filed Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3 timely on July 14, 1997, and prior to the October 3, 1997 deadline established by Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Pursuant to Section 17.46.080(A) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Baras’ statement included:

1.Proof of the ownership of the lot or parcel;

2.A statement identifying the owner of each animal kept on the subject property as of February 1, 1997;

3.A statement of any other conditions for which a waiver was requested; and,

4.Permission from the Baras for a City representative to enter upon said lot or parcel to verify the nonconforming condition(s).

B.The Baras’ property at 1 Peppertree Drive is located in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District, one of four Equestrian Overlay (Q) districts established pursuant to Section 17.46.090 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.

C.The Baras’ property consists of three parcels, of which one is developed with a home and the other two contiguous parcels are "vacant", as that term is defined in Section 17.46.020 and is used throughout Chapter 17.46 of the Municipal Code. The developed parcel is 10.375 acres in area and the vacant, contiguous parcels are 52,272 and 24,829 square feet in area, respectively. All three parcels exceed the minimum size requirements for the keeping of large domestic animals, as established by Section 17.46.020 of the current Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and Section 17.12.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, which was in effect prior to May 1997. The City Council hereby finds that the size and shape of these three parcels is adequate for the keeping of ten horses.

D.The Baras legally kept ten horses on the three combined parcels on February 1, 1997, based upon the size of the combined parcels. This is greater than the four horses permitted by Section 17.46.020 of the current Development Code and fewer than the seventeen horses that could have been kept on the combined properties under the provisions of Section 17.12.020 of the Development Code, which was in effect prior to May 1997.

E.The Baras legally boarded six horses on the three combined parcels on the property on February 1, 1997, based upon the Baras’ written statement, their oral testimony, which was presented at the hearings (to the effect that they were not making a profit from the boarding that they had been conducting at the property), and pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.12.020(C) of the Development Code, which was in effect prior to May 1997. The City Council finds that although some of the speakers disagreed with the Baras’ testimony, no compelling or credible evidence to the contrary was presented by any interested party. In addition, the City Council finds that neither Section 17.46.080(A) of the current Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code nor Section 17.12.020(C) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, which was in effect prior to May 1997, established definitive standards for determining the legality of boarding activities that were being conducted on or before February 1, 1997.

F.The Baras did not own the subject parcels in July 1975, nor has any evidence been presented to indicate that lawful boarding was (or was not) being conducted on the property at that time.

Section 2:Based upon the foregoing discussion, the Staff reports, Minutes and other records of these proceedings, the City Council finds that the following horsekeeping activities shall be "grandfathered" for the Baras’ property at 1 Peppertree Drive:

A.A maximum of ten (10) horses may be kept on the property in perpetuity; and,

B.Of the ten (10) horses allowed to be kept on the property, a maximum of six (6) horses may be boarded until February 1, 2007 or until the sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs later. When the later of these two dates passes, then a maximum of four of the ten horses may be boarded thereafter in perpetuity.

Section 3:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________ 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 a regular meeting thereof held on ________, 2002.

_________________________________

City Clerk

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

SUNSHINE RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL NONCONFORMITY STATEMENT NO. 8 FOR THE KEEPING OF TWELVE HORSES, OF WHICH A MAXIMUM OF SEVEN HORSES MAY BE BOARDED, ON THREE CONTIGUOUS PARCELS TOTALING 1.559 ACRES IN AREA, LOCATED AT 6 LIMETREE LANE

WHEREAS, Section 17.46.080 (Nonconformities) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code provides for the filing of nonconformity statements related to the keeping and/or boarding of large domestic animals in the City; and,

WHEREAS, on July 14, 1997, Sunshine, the owner of three contiguous parcels at 6 Limetree Lane in the Portuguese Bend community, submitted Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 8 to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, pursuant to Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and,

WHEREAS, Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 8 stated that, as of February 1, 1997, twelve horses were kept on the Sunshine’s combined parcels, of which seven horses were boarded, and requested permission to "grandfather" these numbers of kept and boarded horses for the combined properties; and,

WHEREAS, on October 1, 1998, Staff conducted a site investigation and verified the numbers of animals described in Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 8; and,

WHEREAS, in 1999, Staff sought direction from the City Council regarding the final disposition on any disputed nonconformity statements, and the City Council determined that it would make the final determination on any such disputed statements; and,

WHEREAS, on April 12, 2001, Staff completed its review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 8 and determined that, based upon the provisions of Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay (Q) District) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, a maximum of twelve horses could be kept on Sunshine’s property in perpetuity, of which a maximum of seven horses could be boarded until February 1, 2007 or the sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurred later; and,

WHEREAS, on April 27, 2001, Staff’s determination regarding Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 3 was contested jointly by Toni Deeble and Betty Strauss; and, on May 21, 2001, Jeanne Smolley contested the number of horses that Sunshine claimed to have kept on the property as of February 1, 1997; and,

WHEREAS, after providing notice to all interested parties, the City Council discussed Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 8 at a regular public meeting on June 19, 2001, July 17, 2001, August 21, 2001, September 4, 2001, October 2, 2001, April 16, 2002 and June 12, 2002, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;

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

Section 1:The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 8:

A.Sunshine filed Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 8 timely on July 14, 1997, and prior to the October 3, 1997 deadline established by Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Pursuant to Section 17.46.080(A) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, Sunshine’s statement included:

1.Proof of the ownership of the lot or parcel;

2.A statement identifying the owner of each animal kept on the subject property as of February 1, 1997;

3.A statement of any other conditions for which a waiver was requested; and,

4.Permission from Sunshine for a City representative to enter upon said lot or parcel to verify the nonconforming condition(s).

B.Sunshine’s property at 6 Limetree Lane is located in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District, one of four Equestrian Overlay (Q) districts established pursuant to Section 17.46.090 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.

C.Sunshine’s property consists of three parcels, of which one is developed with a home and the other two contiguous parcels are "vacant", as that term is defined in Section 17.46.020 and is used throughout Chapter 17.46 of the Municipal Code. The developed parcel is 26,400 square feet in area and the vacant, contiguous parcels are 19,800 and 22,120 square feet in area, respectively. All three parcels exceed the minimum size requirements for the keeping of large domestic animals, as established by Section 17.46.020 of the current Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and Section 17.12.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, which was in effect prior to May 1997. The City Council hereby finds that the size and shape of these three parcels is adequate for the keeping of twelve horses.

D.Sunshine legally kept twelve horses on the three combined parcels on February 1, 1997, based upon the size of the combined parcels. This is greater than the four horses permitted by Section 17.46.020 of the current Development Code and fewer than the fourteen horses that could have been permitted by Section 17.12.020 of the Development Code, which was in effect prior to May 1997. The City Council finds that although other individuals presented testimony that contradicted Sunshine’s testimony about the number of horses that were kept on the subject property, the Council found that the applicant presented the preponderance of the evidence demonstrating that twelve horses were present on February 1, 1997.

E.Sunshine legally boarded seven horses on the three combined parcels on the property on February 1, 1997, based upon Sunshine’s statement, her oral testimony and the provisions of Section 17.12.020(C) of the Development Code, which was in effect prior to May 1997. The City Council finds that although other individuals presented testimony that contradicted Sunshine’s testimony about the boarding that occurred at the property and whether the boarding had been conducted legally, the Council found the applicant’s testimony, which was based on her personal knowledge, was entitled to greater weight, and that the preponderance of the evidence was presented by the applicant. In addition, the City Council finds that neither Section 17.46.080(A) of the current Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code nor Section 17.12.020(C) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, which was in effect prior to May 1997, established definitive standards for determining the legality of boarding activities that were being conducted on or before February 1, 1997.

F.Sunshine did not own the subject parcels in July 1975, nor has any evidence been presented to indicate that lawful boarding was (or was not) being conducted on the property at that time.

Section 2:Based upon the foregoing discussion, the Staff reports, Minutes and other records of these proceedings, the City Council finds that the following horsekeeping activities shall be "grandfathered" for Sunshine’s property at 6 Limetree Lane:

A.A maximum of twelve (12) horses may be kept on the property in perpetuity; and,

B.Of the twelve (12) horses allowed to be kept on the property, a maximum of seven (7) horses may be boarded until February 1, 2007, or until the sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs later. When the later of these two dates passes, then a maximum of four of the twelve horses may be boarded thereafter in perpetuity.

Section 3:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________ 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 a regular meeting thereof held on ________, 2002.

_________________________________

City Clerk

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

DOWNHILL RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL NONCONFORMITY STATEMENT NO. 19 FOR THE KEEPING OF ELEVEN HORSES, ALL OF WHICH MAY BE BOARDED, ON A 6.940-ACRE PARCEL, LOCATED AT 20 VANDERLIP DRIVE

WHEREAS, Section 17.46.080 (Nonconformities) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code provides for the filing of nonconformity statements related to the keeping and/or boarding of large domestic animals in the City; and,

WHEREAS, on September 29, 1997, Jack Downhill, the owner of a parcel at 20 Vanderlip Drive in the Portuguese Bend community, submitted Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19 to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, pursuant to Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and,

WHEREAS, Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19 stated that, as of February 1, 1997, six horses were kept on Mr. Downhill’s parcel, all of which were boarded, and requested permission to "grandfather" the keeping and boarding of up to eleven horses for the property, which was the maximum number previously kept on the property in July 1975; and,

WHEREAS, on October 1, 1998, Staff conducted a site investigation, verified the numbers of animals described in Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19, and verified the presence of a barn, corral, fenced pasture and sheltered enclosures as legal nonconforming structures; and,

WHEREAS, in 1999, Staff sought direction from the City Council regarding the final disposition on any disputed nonconformity statements, and the City Council determined that it would make the final determination on any such disputed statements; and,

WHEREAS, on October 12, 2000, Staff completed its review of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19 and determined that, based upon the provisions of Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay (Q) District) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, a maximum of six horses could be kept and boarded on Mr. Downhill’s property in perpetuity because this was the number of horses actually present on the property as of February 1, 1997; and,

WHEREAS, on November 9, 2000, Staff’s determination regarding the number of animals to be "grandfathered" pursuant to Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19 was contested by Mr. Downhill, but Staff’s determination regarding the various legal nonconforming structures described above was not contested; and,

WHEREAS, after providing notice to all interested parties, the City Council discussed the contested provisions of Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19 at a regular public meeting on May 1, 2001, April 16, 2002 and June 12, 2002, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

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

Section 1:The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19:

A.Mr. Downhill filed Large Domestic Animal Nonconformity Statement No. 19 timely on September 29, 1997, and prior to the October 3, 1997 deadline established by Section 17.46.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Pursuant to Section 17.46.080(A) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, Mr. Downhill’s statement included:

1.Proof of the ownership of the lot or parcel, including proof of ownership or control of the property on or prior to July 1, 1975;

2.A statement identifying the owner of each animal kept on the subject property as of February 1, 1997;

3.A statement of any other conditions for which a waiver was requested; and,

4.Permission from Mr. Downhill for a City representative to enter upon said lot or parcel to verify the nonconforming condition(s).

B.Mr. Downhill’s property at 20 Vanderlip Drive is located in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District, one of four Equestrian Overlay (Q) districts established pursuant to Section 17.46.090 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.

C.Mr. Downhill’s property consists of a developed parcel of 6.940 acres in area. The parcel exceeds the minimum size requirements for the keeping of large domestic animals, as established by Section 17.46.020 of the current Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and Section 17.12.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, which was in effect prior to May 1997. The City Council hereby finds that the size and shape of this parcel is adequate for the keeping of eleven horses.

D.Mr. Downhill legally kept six horses on the parcel on February 1, 1997, based upon the size of the parcel. This is greater than the four horses permitted by Section 17.46.020 of the current Development Code and equal to the six horses that could have been permitted by Section 17.12.020 of the Development Code, which was in effect prior to May 1997. Mr. Downhill also states that he kept as many as eleven horses on the property on July 1, 1975 and earlier. Based upon additional research conducted by Staff, it was determined that the City’s interim zoning regulations that were in effect in July 1975 did not establish a maximum number of horses permitted to be kept on the subject property.

E.Mr. Downhill legally boarded six horses on the parcel on the property on February 1, 1997, based upon Mr. Downhill’s statement and the provisions of Section 17.12.020(C) of the Development Code, which was in effect prior to May 1997. Mr. Downhill also legally boarded as many as eleven horses on the property on July 1, 1975 and earlier, based upon the City’s interim zoning regulations that were in effect in July 1975. The City Council finds that no compelling or credible evidence to the contrary was presented by any interested party. In addition, the City Council finds that neither Section 17.46.080(A) of the current Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code nor Section 17.12.020(C) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code prior to May 1997 established objective standards for determining the legality of boarding activities that were being conducted on or before February 1, 1997.

F.Mr. Downhill has presented evidence that he owned or controlled the subject parcel in July 1975. Based upon additional research by Staff, the City Council determined that it was lawful to board as many as eleven horses on the property at that time, based upon the City’s interim zoning regulations that were in effect in July 1975.

Section 2:Based upon the foregoing discussion, the Staff reports, Minutes and other records of these proceedings, the City Council finds that the following horsekeeping activities shall be "grandfathered" for Mr. Downhill’s property at 20 Vanderlip Drive:

A.A maximum of eleven (11) horses may be kept on the property in perpetuity;

B.All of the eleven (11) horses allowed to be kept on the property may be boarded in perpetuity; and,

C.Staff’s determination that the barn, corral, fenced pasture and sheltered enclosures may be maintained in perpetuity as legal nonconforming structures, which was not contested by Mr. Downhill or any interested party, is upheld.

Section 3:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________ 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 a regular meeting thereof held on ________, 2002.

_________________________________

City Clerk

City of Rancho Palos Verdes


8.Peninsula Seniors Grant Extension. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__ AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING TO OBTAIN THE REMAINING BALANCE OF A $25,000 GRANT FOR THE PENINSULA SENIORS DURING FY 02-03.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:PENINSULA SENIORS GRANT EXTENSION

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2002- ; authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract extension with the California Department of Aging to obtain the remaining balance of a $25,000 grant for the Peninsula Seniors during FY 02-03.

BACKGROUND

Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal was successful in including funds in the 2000-01 State Budget for a $25,000 grant to the Peninsula Seniors. The grant, which is administered through the California Department of Aging, included $15,000 for the Peninsula Seniors to complete a Needs Assessment Study and $10,000 to supplement current programs and services offered by the Peninsula Seniors.

In order to obtain the grant funds, the City was required to enter into a contract with the California Department of Aging. The contract enabled the City to act as the conduit for the funds between the state and the Peninsula Seniors. On March 20, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-26, authorizing staff to enter into the initial contract for FY 00-01. On October 2, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001- , authorizing staff to enter into a new contract for FY 01-02.

DISCUSSION

During FY 00-01 and FY 01-02, the City successfully processed a total of $14,227.18 in reimbursements to the Peninsula Seniors ($13,647 in the first year and $ 580.18 in the second year). A total of $10,772.82 remains to be reimbursed during FY 02-03. Rather than entering into a new contract, this time the Department of Aging is requiring the City to amend the FY 01-02 contract in order to extend it into FY 02-03. One of the requirements of the extension is that the City Council adopts a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract amendment with the Department of Aging for FY 02-03. To that end, the draft resolution is attached for the Council’s review.

FISCAL IMPACT

Other than the staff’s time required processing the grant extension, the City will not incur any other expenses in facilitating the state grant for the Peninsula Seniors.

Respectfully submitted:

Carolynn Petru

Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,

Les Evans

City Manager

Attachment:

Resolution No. 2002 - ;

Letter from the Department of Aging dated June 20, 2002


9.May 2002 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT: MAY 2002 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the May 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 May 2002.

ANALYSIS:

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $27,227,681 at May 31, 2002. This represents a $275,592 decrease during the month. The overall decrease is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

Gas Tax Fund – Cash in the Gas Tax fund decreased by more than $80,000 during May due to disbursements for non-routine maintenance activities such as sidewalk grinding, slurry seal prep, PVDS road maintenance and additional arborist services.

CDBG Fund – The cash balance in the CDBG fund decreased by more than $55,000 due to disbursements of $45,889 during May for engineering related to the Altamira Canyon storm drain project.

Recycling Fund – The cash balance in the Recycling fund increased by more than $53,000 during the month due to receipt of the third quarter recycling revenues from Waste Management and Ivy Disposal.

CIP Fund – The CIP cash balance decreased by almost $560,000 during the month. This fund disbursed $457,056 for the San Ramon drainage project and $171,902 for arterial resurfacing. Receipts were limited to the monthly General fund transfer of $152,833.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis McLean

Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:

Les Evans

City Manager


10.Appeal of Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2279. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 930 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2279, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS (MIRALESTE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION) AND DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE PROJECT’S APPLICATIONS.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:JULY 2, 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-__ overturning the Planning Commission’s approval of Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2279, thereby upholding the appeal filed on behalf of the appellants (Miraleste Neighborhood Coalition) and denying, without prejudice, the project applications.

BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2002, the City Council, after considering public testimony, determined that the proposed residence, at a height of 24 feet, creates a significant view impairment from neighboring properties and is designed in a manner that is incompatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, the Council unanimously agreed to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval, thereby denying the project applications, without prejudice.

In response to the Council’s action, Staff has prepared the appropriate resolution, denying the project applications without prejudice, for adoption at tonight’s meeting.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Silhouette

Pursuant to the Height Variation Guidelines, a project silhouette must be removed within seven (7) days from the date of the project decision. Staff has informed the applicants of this requirement, and have been informed that the silhouette will be removed immediately.

CONCLUSION

Based on the City Council’s action at its June 12, 2002 meeting, Staff recommends that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-__, overturning the Planning Commission’s approval of Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2279, thereby upholding the appeal by denying, without prejudice, the project applications.

FISCAL IMPACT

Section 17.80.120 of the RPVMC states that in the event the City Council overturns the Planning Commission’s decision, the appellants are entitled to a full refund of the appeal filing fee. As such, since the City Council upheld the appeal, Staff has processed a full refund of the appeal filing fee, in the amount of $940.00.

Respectfully submitted,

Joel Rojas

Director of Planning, Building and

Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:

Les Evans

City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

C.C. Resolution No. 2002-__

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, HEIGHT VARIATION N0. 930, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2279, AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 596, THEREBY OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL 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, AND UPHOLDING THE APPELLANT’S (MIRALESTE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION) APPEAL.

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;

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

Section 1: With regard to Height Variation No. 930:

The proposed project has not been designed and situated in a manner as to adequately minimize the impairment of views from surrounding properties. The Planning Commission, at its February 26, 2002 meeting, modified the design of the structure in order to reduce view impacts that would result from the proposed project as set forth below:

    Reduce the roof pitch from 3¼:12 to 3:12

    Conduct additional grading so that the existing building pad is lowered by approximately 2 to 4 feet

    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".

However, based upon the evidence that was presented at the public hearing, and the record that is on file in this case, the City Council finds that the proposed modifications will not adequately minimize the view impairment that will be caused by the proposed project because the portion of the structure that exceeds sixteen feet in height will still significantly impair the views of the harbor and the ocean from neighboring properties. Furthermore, the City Councils finds that the design of the structure can be further modified to minimize view impacts to neighboring properties by further reducing the height, bulk and mass of the overall building. Accordingly, the City Council cannot make the required finding that the structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of a view from neighboring properties.

The proposed structure, when considered exclusive of foliage, does significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. The design and height of the proposed project creates a significant view impairment from neighboring properties beyond that which would result from a structure built to the maximum permitted "by right" height limit of 16’/20’ because the portion of the structure that exceeds sixteen feet in height will significantly impair the views of the harbor and the ocean from properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Therefore, the City Council hereby finds that another finding that is required by Section 17.02.040 to issue a Height Variation for a structure cannot be made.

The proposed structure is not compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood because at 3,921 square feet, although not the largest home on Nancy Road, the design of the structure will create a bulky structure that visually appears imbalanced and disproportional to the size of the project site and the homes that are located on neighboring properties. Therefore, the required finding regarding compatibility of the proposed structure with the character of the immediate neighborhood cannot be made.

The proposed structure does result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy from the immediate neighboring properties because the height of the proposed structure and its close proximity to the property lines situates the windows on the upper level in a manner that would allow one to overlook onto the yard area of the neighboring properties, thereby creating an unreasonable infringement of privacy. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

Section 2:With regard to Grading Permit No. 2279:

The construction that is proposed for this project has been found to significantly adversely affect visual relationships and views from neighboring properties, as discussed in Section 1 of this Resolution. Therefore, the City Council also hereby finds that the grading that was proposed for this project to minimize view impacts from neighboring properties still creates a significant view impairment from neighboring properties because although the requested earth movement is to lower the overall grade elevation of the building pad, due to the size of the proposed structure, views of the ocean and harbor still will be significantly impaired from neighboring properties. Therefore, the finding that the grading and related construction will not adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from neighboring properties, cannot be made for this project.

Section 3:With 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:

The requested Minor Exception Permit is warranted by practical difficulties; or,

The requested Minor Exception Permit is warranted by an unnecessary hardship; or,

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, the Planning Commission determined that none of the required findings can 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.

The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission’s denial of the Minor Exception Permit. Therefore, the City Council hereby denies the applicants’ Minor Exception Request and affirms the Planning Commission’s decision on that issue.

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 overturns the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Height Variation No. 930 and Grading Permit No. 2297, and thereby denies the applicants request to construct 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. Furthermore, the City Council also upholds the Planning Commission’s denial of Minor Exception Permit No. 596. This denial is without prejudice to the applicant’s right to re-file another application to develop on this property within the one year period specified in Section 17.80.110 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.

Section 5. The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 2002.


11.Register of Demands. (McLean)

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



REGULAR BUSINESS:


12.Appointment of View Restoration Mediators. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Select five candidates from the group interviewed at the 6:00 P.M. meeting.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:APPOINTMENT OF VIEW RESTORATION MEDIATORS

RECOMMENDATION

(1) Appoint five mediators to carry out the work of the View Restoration Commission consistent with the policy set by the Council on April 2nd that these mediators would serve as an adjunct to the Planning Commission. (2) Determine if three mediators should be appointed for a term of office for four years and two mediators appointed for a term of two years.

BACKGROUND

With the appointment of these View Restoration mediators, this will complete the

recruitment and appointment process for all of the City’s advisory boards. While the View Restoration Commission consisted of ten members (seven regular and three alternates), at the April 2nd meeting the City Council decided that a mediation team of five members would be sufficient to process the view applications now being received by the City.

The City is in receipt of applications from eight candidates: Gil Alberio, Neva Drages, Ken Dyda, Bruce Franklin, Ralph Ortolano, Debra Pole, Jim Slayden and Paul R. Weber.

CONCLUSION

With the appointment of these five View Restoration mediators, the interview and appointment process for all of the City’s advisory boards and tasks forces will be complete.

Respectfully submitted,

Jo Purcell

Administrative Services Director/City Clerk

Reviewed:

Les Evans, City Manager

VIEW RESTORATION MEDIATOR CANDIDATES

Alberio, Gilbert (Incumbent)

2177 Rockinghorse Road
Home: 833-2961|
Fax: 833-0416
No E-Mail

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

Franklin, Bruce (Incumbent)

15 Oceanaire Drive
Home: 541-7177
E-mail: bfranklin4@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

Slayden, Jim (Incumbent)

37 Mela Lane
Home: 377-2033
No E-Mail

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

*Withdrew name.

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
37 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:

NameTerm BeginsTerm ExpiresFirst Appointed

Name Term Begins Term Expires First Appointed
Alberio, Gil 05/16/000 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

CITY COUNCIL VOTE TALLY SHEET

Candidate

Councilman Clark

Councilwoman Ferraro

Mayor Pro Tem Stern

Councilman Gardiner

Mayor McTaggart

Total

Alberio, Gil

           

Drages, Neva

           

Dyda, Ken

           

Franklin, Bruce

           

Ortolano, Ralph Jr.

           

Pole, Debra

           

Slayden, Jim

           

Weber, Paul

           


13.Request for City Grant for S.H.A.W.L. (Petru)

Recommendation: Award a grant in the amount of $3,000 to S.H.A.W.L. (Support for Harbor Area Women’s Lives).

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR CITY GRANT FOR S.H.A.W.L.

RECOMMENDATION

Award a grant in the amount of $3,000 to S.H.A.W.L. (Support for Harbor Area Women’s Lives).

BACKGROUND

On May 16, 2002, the City Manager received a written request from Support for Harbor Area Women’s Lives (SHAWL) for a City grant (see attached letter). Because this request was received after the April 30, 2002 Budget Workshop, it was not part of the FY 02-03 Budget hearings, but is being presented to the City Council following the adoption of the City Budget on June 12, 2002.

As part of the annual City Budget, the Council has funded grants for non-profit agencies in the South Bay area. The following chart indicates the twelve organizations and their grant amounts that the City has made as part of the current FY 02-03 budget:

ORGANIZATION

FY 02-03 Funding Level

Community Helpline

$3,250

Dance Peninsula

$1,500

Harbor Free Clinic

$4,000

Palos Verdes Symphonic Band

$1,000

Peninsula Pet Rescue

$1,500

Peninsula Seniors

$8,040

Peninsula Symphony

$1,500

Peninsula Chamber Orchestra

$1,500

Shakespeare by the Sea

$1,200

South Bay Chamber Music Society

$1,000

South Bay Family Health Care

$3,000

South Bay Youth Project

$12,600

TOTAL:

$27,490

In addition to the designated grant recipients listed above, the City Budget also includes $6,850 for other grants as determined by the City Council throughout the year.

DISCUSSION

SHAWL began in the late 1980’s as an emergency food pantry and drop-in center for low-income and homeless women in the Harbor area. Because virtually all of the women receiving services at the center were addicted to drugs or alcohol, SHAWL House was established in 1991 as a residential chemical dependency treatment facility. Located in San Pedro, this facility has the capacity to house twelve women. In 1998, a transitional residential facility called Haviland House was opened across the street from SHAWL House and provides living space for up to eight women. SHAWL’s programs include community outreach, intensive residential rehabilitation and outpatient programs aimed at reducing homelessness, substance abuse and unemployment among Harbor area women.

SHAWL is requesting a City grant in the amount of $3,000. As shown in the chart on the first page, the City currently supports three organizations at similar funding levels: Community Helpline ($3,250), Harbor Free Clinic ($4,000) and South Bay Family Health Care ($3,000). Given the amount of support provided to these three organizations, staff recommends that the Council award the requested $3,000 grant to SHAWL. In addition to receiving a grant during the current fiscal year, SHAWL would have the ability to apply for another grant as part of the next two-year budget cycle (FY 03-04 & 03-04). If the grant were approved by the City Council, SHAWL would be required to provide staff with proof of its status as a non-profit agency prior to receiving the funds.

FISCAL IMPACT

There are sufficient unencumbered funds available in the City Grant program to fulfill the request.

Respectfully submitted:

Carolynn Petru

Assistant City Manager

Reviewed:

Les Evans

City Manager

Attachment:

Letter from SHAWL dated May 16, 2002


14.Contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. (Petru)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for FY 02-03.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:CONTRACT WITH LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for FY 02-03.

BACKGROUND

At the June 12, 2002 meeting, staff presented the FY 02-03 Budget to the City Council for adoption. Staff indicated that the baseline budget had been increased subsequent to the April 30th Budget Workshop to incorporate a previously unanticipated increase in the cost of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s services. Staff reported that 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, staff concluded that the pending costs would be 10.2% higher than the adopted FY 01-02 budget.

After speaking with the representative from the Sheriff’s Department at the meeting, it appeared that staff overstated the magnitude of the increase in the staff report. The City Council adopted the proposed baseline budget (including $2,996,756 for the Sheriff’s contract), based on staff’s assurance that the adopted budget would be sufficient to cover the cost of the pending contract. Staff indicated that it would agendize the Sheriff’s FY 02-03 contract at this evening’s meeting for Council review.

DISCUSSION

On June 20, 2002, City staff met with Lieutenant John Herrera to review the City’s contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Based on the information exchanged at the meeting, staff prepared the chart on the next page, which compares the contract amounts with the FY 02-03 budget and the actual costs that have occurred during the three previous fiscal years:

CONTRACT AMOUNT VS. ANNUAL EXPENDITURES

Fiscal Year

Contract Amount

Adopted Budget

Actual Cost

FY 02-03

$2,918,089

$2,996,756

N/A

FY 01-02

$2,809,839

$2,725,515

$2,640,000

FY 00-01

$2,738,076

$2,696,197

$2,554,998

FY 99-00

$2,648,923

$2,630,917

$2,526,450

The difference between the FY 01-02 contract ($2,918,089) and the FY 02-03 contract ($2,809,839) represents a 3.8% increase in the cost of law enforcement services. The items impacting the increases to the attached Sheriff’s contract for FY 02-03 are as follows:

A 2% salary increase

An increase in vehicle related costs, including increased vehicle purchases and gasoline prices

Increased benefit costs, primarily the result of increased health insurance, retirement and worker’s compensation costs

An 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 latest contract increase is consistent with increases the City has seen since FY 94-95, which have been in the 2% to 4% range. As shown in the chart, the City’s actual costs for law enforcement services have consistently been less than the contract amount and the budget. Based on past history, staff is comfortable that the costs that will be incurred in FY 02-03 for law enforcement services will not exceed the proposed contract or the approved budget. In the coming months, staff will carefully monitor the invoices from the Sheriff’s Department and report back to the City Council during the mid-year budget review. In addition, staff will include review of the Sheriff’s contract as part of the budget process to avoid any discrepancies between the contract and the budget in the future.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Because the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes. Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills are all served by the Lomita Sheriff’s station, payment of each monthly invoice is divided between the three cities. The percentage paid by each city is recalculated each year based on a five-part formula that is based largely on the number of service calls that were received in each jurisdiction during the previous year. For FY 02-03, the percentages will be as follows: Rancho Palos Verdes (67%), Rolling Hills Estates (28%) and Rolling Hills (5%). Being the largest city, Rancho Palos Verdes is billed for the entire amount, but receives reimbursement from the other two cities (Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates) based on these established percentages. However, the City’s adopted budget only shows our net cost because the Rancho Palos Verdes is merely acting as the pass-through agency for the other two Peninsula cities.

Respectfully submitted:

Carolynn Petru

Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,

Les Evans

City Manager

Attachment:

FY 02-03 Sheriff’s Contract


15.California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (Cleep). (Evans)

Recommendation: Approve the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Los Angeles County Sheriff and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes authorizing payment of the City’s $115,538 2000-01 CLEEP Grant, in two equal installments, to the Los Angeles County Sheriff for the purpose of designing, building, and adapting the hardware and software and converting and warehousing the data for the LARCIS database.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT PROGRAM (CLEEP)

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Los Angeles County Sheriff and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes authorizing payment of the City’s $115,538

2000-01 CLEEP Grant, in two equal installments, to the Los Angeles County Sheriff for the purpose of designing, building, and adapting the hardware and software and converting and warehousing the data for the LARCIS database.

BACKGROUND

At their meeting of September 18, 2002 the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Los Angeles County Sheriff to allocate the entirety of their California Law Enforcement Equipment Program ("CLEEP") funds to the Los Angeles County Sheriff for the purpose of funding their portion of the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System ("LARCIS"). Since that time the County Counsel has rewritten the Memorandum of Understanding and the Sheriff has requested that the City execute the document.

The State Budget for FY 2000-01 contained a single line item for "California Law Enforcement Equipment Program – High Technology Grants." The item appeared, without guidelines or direction, as Budget Item 9201-106-0001 in the State Budget. The State Controller’s Office has taken the position that the CLEEP funds must be paid, " …to each city police chief, [or] county sheriff…," and that the money may only be used "…for purchase of high technology equipment." Distribution of CLEEP funds was made to cities based on population. All cities received a minimum of $100,000. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes received $115,538.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff requested that all Contract Cities contribute their allocations into the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System (LARCIS) account.

LARCIS is a large data base system. It will integrate data from several Los Angeles Sheriff Department systems, and from 50 independent cities, into a single system. It will literally be possible for a Deputy in Rancho Palos Verdes to look at the name of a suspect and find his "street name," together with an incident report in Torrance from the prior year, and the fact that his vehicle license turned up at the scene of an investigation in Los Angeles. The Deputy would have instant access to all incident reports involving the suspect or the vehicle, regardless of whether they arose in Rancho Palos Verdes or any other city in the county.

In all, LARCIS will integrate more than 50 databases, some of which are now accessible only from single terminals in individual police departments.

LARCIS is based on reliable technology with years of testing, and should give many years of satisfactory performance. It is also a "generalizable technology," so that future upgrades should be less expensive than they might be with a more "cutting edge" technology.

The Sheriff’s Technology Division has a firm budget of $30 million for the entire project. The Sheriff’s Department has already spent $20 million on LARCIS, of which $4 million was for hardware. The remaining $10 million is needed to develop software and convert existing data into a coherent whole and transfer it into a big hard drive called a "Data Warehouse."

DISCUSSION

The County has revised some of the wording in Paragraph 5 of the Agreement since the City Council approved it on September 18, 2001. The new wording and the old wording are compared below:

New Wording in Paragraph 5:

"This account will enable access to run statistical reports, informational queries, and case status and ssignment information specific to their city. Full city access does not involve access to statistical information relative to any other city nor does it include crime/case "specific" information. The data available in this access shall be in compliance with federal and state law and the Sheriff’s Department’s Policy."

Old Wording in Paragraph 5:

"The account will enable access by these City employees to run statistical reports, informational queries, and case status and assignment information specific to the City to assist the City with investigations of criminal activity within the City and other related matters, such as code enforcement investigations. Full city access does not involve access to statistical information relative to any other city nor does it include crime/case "specific" information. The law enforcement data contained in LARCIS is information, which is exempt from disclosure under state and federal law and the Sheriff’s Department Policy. The City shall promptly notify the Sheriff’s Department in writing of any lawsuit filed against the City seeking to gain access to the LARCIS data."

The differences in the wording of the previously approved Agreement was proposed by our City Attorney and was intended to better define whether or not LARCIS information was subject to public disclosure. The wording in the "new" Agreement leaves the decision up to the County regarding disclosure issues.

Respectfully submitted,

Les Evans

City Manager


MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
TO THE ALLOCATION OF CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT
PROGRAM (CLEEP) FUNDS BETWEEN

THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
AND
THE CONTRACT CITIES

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) made and entered into this ________________, 2001, by and between the City of (Name of Contract City), a chartered municipality/general law city organized under the laws of the State of California ("City") and the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), and both of whom are collectively referred to as the "Parties."

WHEREAS, the City of (Name of Contract City) and the County have given high priority to the need for a coordinated approach to address the need for a County wide crime information system;

WHEREAS, in September 2000, the City of (Name of Contract City) accepted funding through the State Budget Act Fiscal Year 2000-1, a single line item as Budget Item 9201-106-0001 in the Budget (Ch. 52, Stat. 2000) for "California Law Enforcement Equipment Purchase Program - High Technology Grants ("CLEEP or CLEEP Grant").

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to participate in the coordination, development and implementation of a County wide crime records management and information system hereafter referred to as the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System (LARCIS).

WHEREAS, the City of (Name of Contract City) agrees to commit all funds obtained from CLEEP to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s LARCIS Account.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein set forth and the mutual benefits to be derived therefrom, the Parties agree as follows:

Purpose

The purpose of this Agreement shall be for the City of (Name of Contract City) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to participate in the coordination, development and implementation of the LARCIS Program.

Responsibility of the City

The City of (Name of Contract City) shall allocate the entirety of the city’s CLEEP grant to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for the purpose of funding their portion of LARCIS. The City will be responsible for the purchase and maintenance cost of the LARCIS telephone data circuit. Furthermore, the City will be responsible for additional computer terminals and any future relocation of access lines for the City. The LARCIS terminals must be used for LARCIS access only and cannot be connected to any other network including the Internet.

Responsibility of the County

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will expend the CLEEP funds provided from the City of (Name of Contract City) on and for the sole purpose of designing, building and adapting the hardware and software and storing the data for the LARCIS database. In addition, the CLEEP funds will be used to purchase Sheriff’s Data Network hardware and one computer terminal for the sole purpose of providing the city with access to LARCIS. The County will provide management for the network connection and system user support for access to LARCIS.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will provide hardware and the following online access to city hall by the dates listed below:

June 1, 2002- Wide Area Network Connection to Sheriff’s Department

- LARCIS Statistical Reports on City Crime Activity

December 31, 2002 - LARCIS Ad Hoc Crime Query on City Crime Activity

- Crime Mapping of Ad Hoc Query

- Status and Case Assignment of Crime Reports

Payment Terms

The City of (Name of Contract City) will pay an amount equal to the city’s CLEEP Grant to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Administrative Services Headquarters, Fiscal Section, 4700 Ramona Boulevard, Monterey Park California 91754, in a single payment or in two equal installments, on September 30th of 2001 and 2002, respectively. Payment should be accompanied with a memorandum explaining that the payment is for the specific purpose of developing LARCIS. The following account has been set up to accept payment:

Budget/Unit Organization No. 15687/15759General Support/Data Systems Bur.

Revenue Code: 9857Contract Cities

FIS/Service Code: 414 LARCIS/CLEEP Funds

If for any reason the June 1, 2002 deliverables, in accordance with Section Three (3), have not been met by the September 30, 2002 payment date, the City of (Name of City) may postpone its second payment until the deliverables are complete.

Access to LARCIS

Each Contract City’s Sheriff’s Department’s personnel will have "complete access" to LARCIS in accordance with the users manual. The Sheriff’s Department’s personnel will use LARCIS for law enforcement functions within the contracting city.

The City of (Name of Contract City) by contributing to LARCIS will get "full city access" for the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Director of Public Safety. Full city access is defined as receiving an electronic account via the Sheriff’s Data Network. This account will enable access to run statistical reports, informational queries, and case status and assignment information specific to their city. Full city access does not involve access to statistical information relative to any other city nor does it include crime/case "specific" information. The data available in this access shall be in compliance with federal and state law and the Sheriff’s Department’s Policy.

Cost of Maintaining and Staffing LARCIS

LARCIS will not increase the cost of the existing Service Contract as a result of the expenses associated with the maintenance or operation of the system. Furthermore, these costs will be managed within the existing cost formula, and will not be passed on to the contracting city.

The Sheriff’s Department will not bill any additional sums for the cost of the LARCIS hardware or software, either newly installed or as upgraded over time. This guarantee does not apply to the replacement of mobile digital terminals with in car computers.

Warranty and Hold Harmless

There are no express or implied representations or warranties regarding this agreement or the services provided hereunder, including, but not limited to, the implied warrantee of fitness for a particular purpose. The County also disclaims any liability for information contributed to the LARCIS database by law enforcement agencies not operated and controlled by the County.

Except as set forth hereinabove, each party agrees to hold the other harmless from all liability, in any form, which results from negligence or misuse of the LARCIS system. The California Contract Cities Liability Trust Fund is not applicable to this particular MOU.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles has caused this Agreement to be subscribed by the County Sheriff and the Council of the City of (Name of Contract City) by its duly authorized officers, the date(s) being written thereafter.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (NAME OF CONTRACT CITY)
A municipal corporation
By _________________________
LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF

By _________________________
Mayor

Date: _________________, 2001 Date: _________________, 2001

APPROVE AS TO FORM
LLOYD W. PELLMAN, COUNTY COUNSEL

By ______________________
Deputy City Clerk

By ______________________
Deputy City Counsel
 
Date: _________________, 2001  


16.Resolution establishing salary and hourly ranges for all competitive and management job classifications. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider adopting RESOLUTION NO. 2002-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING SALARY AND HOURLY RANGES FOR ALL COMPETITIVE AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AT THE 75TH PERCENTILE.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SALARY AND HOURLY RANGES FOR ALL COMPETITIVE AND MANAGEMENT JOB CLASSIFICATIONS

RECOMMENDATION

Consider adopting Resolution No. 2002- __ establishing salary and hourly ranges for all competitive employee job classifications at the 75th percentile.

BACKGROUND

At their June 18, 2002 meeting, the City Council received a salary survey and a recommendation from Staff that salary ranges for non-management positions be established at the 60th percentile and be adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index for fiscal year 2002-2003. The Council approved the staff recommendation and in addition identified eight professional engineering, planning and accounting positions for which they directed staff to establish salaries at the 75th percentile.

DISCUSSION

The impact of the City Council’s decision on June 18, 2002 was twofold. First, virtually every employee expressed his or her appreciation, through his or her Department Head or my office, to the Council for setting salaries above the market median. This gesture of value that the Council made to their employees dominated employee conversations and staff meetings for two days. The second impact has remained unspoken, but it is clear that the 60th percentile employees feel less valued than their 75th percentile colleagues.

Although there is evidence that recruiting and retention has been most difficult for the eight engineering, planning and accounting positions, some of the City’s most valued employees, who have been with us for many years, are disappointed to be set apart as "less valued" by the two-tiered approach.

Attached are two resolutions. One resolution establishes salary ranges for all non-management employees at the 60th percentile for most positions and the 75th percentile for the eight engineering, planning and accounting positions. The second resolution establishes salary ranges for all non-management employees at the 75th percentile. Staff recommends that the City Council extend their appreciation to all non-management employees by adopting the resolution establishing salary ranges at the 75th percentile.

FISCAL IMPACT

The monetary difference between establishing all non-management salaries at the 75th percentile, rather than just the eight engineering, planning and accounting positions, is a maximum of $41,074 a year, assuming each employee is at the top of his/her salary range.

It should be noted that an adjustment to the salary ranges does not necessarily impact actual employee salaries. The approved City Operating Budget provides limits to merit raises each year. For FY 2002-03 salary increases are limited to approximately $135,000 or about 5.7% of payroll. The City awards salary increases based upon performance and only at the time of an employee’s annual performance review.

Respectfully submitted,

Les Evans

City Manager

Attachments:

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING SALARY AND HOURLY RANGES FOR ALL COMPETITIVE AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-44.

WHEREAS, as part of the 1995-96 fiscal year budget, the City Council directed staff to conduct certain compensation studies measuring compensation data from both the public and private sectors; and,

WHEREAS, the compensation studies indicated that most of the City's job classifications were below the market median; and,

WHEREAS, on March 1, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-21 amending certain salary ranges for all full-time employees and establishing the merit pool compensation system; and,

WHEREAS, the success of any plan in the public or private sector is dependent upon occasionally adjusting the salary ranges to be competitive with the marketplace; and,

WHEREAS, on July 15, 1997, following the adopting of the FY 1997-98 City budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-69 which adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by two (2) percent; and,

WHEREAS, on June 3, 1998, following the adopting of the FY 1998-99 City budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-48 which adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by one and a half (1.5) percent; and,

WHEREAS, in late 1998, staff conducted a salary survey modeled after the 1995 study using the same survey pool of public agencies and, when possible, the same comparable positions. Based on the results of the updated survey, staff determined that the salary ranges for 16 positions required adjustment in order to be within 5% of the market median so that all City's salary ranges continue to be competitive with the marketplace; and,

WHEREAS, with the adoption of the FY 99-00 City budget, the City Council directed that the salary ranges for 16 job classifications be modified based on the 1998 salary survey. Further, the City Council directed that all City's salary and hourly salary ranges be adjusted two (2) percent based on the Consumer Price Index, so that all City's salary ranges continue to be competitive with the marketplace; and

WHEREAS, on June 1, 1999, following the adoption of the FY 1999-00 City budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-42, which modified the salary ranges for 16 job classifications based on the 1998 salary survey, adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by two (2) percent based on the Consumer Price Index and provided a monthly care allowance for certain job classifications; and,

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2000, following the adoption of the FY 2000-01 City Budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-34 which adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by three and four tenths (3.4) percent based on the Consumer Price Index; and,

WHEREAS, with the adoption of the FY 01-02 City budget, the City Council directed that all City's salary and hourly salary ranges be adjusted three and six tenths (3.6) percent based on the Consumer Price Index for the preceding twelve month period, so that all City's salary ranges continue to be competitive with the marketplace;

WHEREAS, on July 2, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002- , which established the salary and hourly ranges for selected classifications at the 75th percentile and by the Consumer Price Index of 2.8% for FY 02-03; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of the new salary ranges will not automatically result in the adjustment of any employee salaries.

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

Section 1: The salary and hourly ranges for City job classifications are adopted as outlined in the attached Exhibit "A."

Section 2: Resolution No. 2001-44 is hereby rescinded.

Section 3: A monthly car allowance for certain job classifications is adopted as outlined in the attached Exhibit "B."

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of July 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 July 2, 2002.

___________________________

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING SALARY AND HOURLY RANGES FOR ALL COMPETITIVE AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-44.

WHEREAS, as part of the 1995-96 fiscal year budget, the City Council directed staff to conduct certain compensation studies measuring compensation data from both the public and private sectors; and,

WHEREAS, the compensation studies indicated that most of the City's job classifications were below the market median; and,

WHEREAS, on March 1, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-21 amending certain salary ranges for all full-time employees and establishing the merit pool compensation system; and,

WHEREAS, the success of any plan in the public or private sector is dependent upon occasionally adjusting the salary ranges to be competitive with the marketplace; and,

WHEREAS, on July 15, 1997, following the adopting of the FY 1997-98 City budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-69 which adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by two (2) percent; and,

WHEREAS, on June 3, 1998, following the adopting of the FY 1998-99 City budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-48 which adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by one and a half (1.5) percent; and,

WHEREAS, in late 1998, staff conducted a salary survey modeled after the 1995 study using the same survey pool of public agencies and, when possible, the same comparable positions. Based on the results of the updated survey, staff determined that the salary ranges for 16 positions required adjustment in order to be within 5% of the market median so that all City's salary ranges continue to be competitive with the marketplace; and,

WHEREAS, with the adoption of the FY 99-00 City budget, the City Council directed that the salary ranges for 16 job classifications be modified based on the 1998 salary survey. Further, the City Council directed that all City's salary and hourly salary ranges be adjusted two (2) percent based on the Consumer Price Index, so that all City's salary ranges continue to be competitive with the marketplace; and

WHEREAS, on June 1, 1999, following the adoption of the FY 1999-00 City budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-42, which modified the salary ranges for 16 job classifications based on the 1998 salary survey, adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by two (2) percent based on the Consumer Price Index and provided a monthly care allowance for certain job classifications; and,

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2000, following the adoption of the FY 2000-01 City Budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-34 which adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by three and four tenths (3.4) percent based on the Consumer Price Index; and,

WHEREAS, with the adoption of the FY 01-02 City budget, the City Council directed that all City's salary and hourly salary ranges be adjusted three and six tenths (3.6) percent based on the Consumer Price Index for the preceding twelve month period, so that all City's salary ranges continue to be competitive with the marketplace;

WHEREAS, on July 2, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002- , which established the salary and hourly ranges for selected classifications at the 60th or 75th percentile and by the Consumer Price Index of 2.8% for FY 02-03; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of the new salary ranges will not automatically result in the adjustment of any employee salaries.

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

Section 1: The salary and hourly ranges for City job classifications are adopted as outlined in the attached Exhibit "A."

Section 2: Resolution No. 2001-44 is hereby rescinded.

Section 3: A monthly car allowance for certain job classifications is adopted as outlined in the attached Exhibit "B."

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of July 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 July 2, 2002.

  EXHIBIT "A" (TWO-TIER, 60TH/75TH PERCENTILE)                        
                           
    60th Perc Monthly Salary     Annual Salary  
  POSITION MAX BOTTOM TO TOP   Salary BOTTOM TO TOP      
  Account Clerk     2,580 -- 3,350       30,956 -- 40,203  
  Account Technician     2,978 -- 3,867       35,734 -- 46,408  
  Accountant     3,919 -- 5,090       47,028 -- 61,080  
  Accounting Manager     5,085 -- 6,604       61,021 -- 79,248  
  Administrative Analyst     3,472 -- 4,509       41,664 -- 54,108  
  Administrative Analyst II     4,026 -- 5,228       48,310 -- 62,741  
  Administrative Staff Assistant (Secretary)     2,910 -- 3,779       34,917 -- 45,347  
  Assistant City Manager     6,203 -- 8,055       74,432 -- 96,665  
  Assistant Planner     3,692 -- 4,795       44,306 -- 57,540  
  Assistant to the City Manager     5,050 -- 6,558       60,597 -- 78,698  
  Associate Engineer     4,865 -- 6,318       58,378 -- 75,816  
  Associate Planner     4,195 -- 5,448       50,340 -- 65,376  
  City Clerk     5,286 -- 6,865       63,432 -- 82,380  
  Code Enforcement Officer     3,454 -- 4,485       41,443 -- 53,822  
  Deputy City Clerk     3,472 -- 4,509       41,661 -- 54,106  
  Deputy Director of PBCE     5,212 -- 6,769       62,549 -- 81,233  
  Deputy Director of Public Works     5,212 -- 6,769       62,549 -- 81,233  
  Director of Administrative Services     5,619 -- 7,298       67,431 -- 87,573  
  Director of Finance     6,203 -- 8,055       74,432 -- 96,665  
  Director of Planning, Bldg, & Code Enforcement     6,684 -- 8,680       80,207 -- 104,165  
  Director of Public Works     6,684 -- 8,680       80,207 -- 104,165  
  Director of Recreation and Parks     5,619 -- 7,298       67,431 -- 87,573  
  Engineering Technician     3,381 -- 4,391       40,569 -- 52,687  
  Executive Staff Assistant (Executive Secretary)     3,472 -- 4,509       41,661 -- 54,106  
  Maintenance Superintendent     4,722 -- 6,133       56,669 -- 73,597  
  Maintenance Worker     2,239 -- 2,908       26,874 -- 34,901  
  Maintenance Worker II     2,545 -- 3,305       30,538 -- 39,660  
  Permit Clerk     2,557 -- 3,320       30,681 -- 39,845  
  Recreation Leader     1,186 -- 1,540       14,229 -- 18,479  
  Principal Planner     5,262 -- 6,834       63,146 -- 82,008  
  Recreation Program Supervisor II     3,551 -- 4,612       42,611 -- 55,339  
  Recreation Services Manager     4,294 -- 5,577       51,531 -- 66,923  
  Senior Code Enforcement Officer     3,868 -- 5,024       46,420 -- 60,286  
  Senior Engineer     5,449 -- 7,077       65,391 -- 84,924  
  Senior Planner     4,699 -- 6,102       56,382 -- 73,224  
  Senior Administrative Analyst     4,509 -- 5,855       54,105 -- 70,266  
  Staff Assistant I (Clerk Typist I)     2,250 -- 2,922       26,999 -- 35,064  
  Staff Assistant II (Clerk Typist II)     2,557 -- 3,320       30,681 -- 39,845  
                           
      HOURLY RATES            
  POSITION   BOTTOM TO TOP            
  Administrative/Cable/TV/Public Works Intern     11.04 -- 14.34              
  Crossing Guard     8.15 -- 10.58              
  Permit Clerk     14.75 -- 19.15              
  Recreation Leader     7.44 -- 9.66              
  Recreation Leader II     8.46 -- 10.99              
  Recreation Specialist     11.04 -- 14.34              
  Staff Assistant I     12.98 -- 16.86              
  Staff Assistant II     14.75 -- 19.15              
                           
                           
  EXHIBIT "B"                        
      MONTHLY CAR ALLOWANCE      
  POSITION                        
  Assistant City Manager         150.00              
  Director of Administrative Services         150.00              
  Director of Finance         150.00              
  Director of Planning, Bldg, & Code Enforcement         150.00              
  Director of Public Works         150.00              
  Director of Recreation and Parks         150.00              
  EXHIBIT "A" (75TH PERCENTILE)                        
                           
                           
                           
    75TH Monthly Salary     Annual Salary  
  POSITION MAX BOTTOM TO TOP   Salary BOTTOM TO TOP      
  Account Clerk     2,697 -- 3,502       32,362 -- 42,029  
  Account Technician     3,034 -- 3,940       36,409 -- 47,284  
  Accountant     3,919 -- 5,090       47,028 -- 61,076  
  Accounting Manager     5,085 -- 6,604       61,020 -- 79,246  
  Administrative Analyst     3,577 -- 4,646       42,924 -- 55,752  
  Administrative Analyst II     4,137 -- 5,373       49,650 -- 64,480  
  Administrative Staff Assistant (Secretary)     3,013 -- 3,913       36,152 -- 46,951  
  Assistant City Manager     6,203 -- 8,055       74,432 -- 96,665  
  Assistant Planner     3,692 -- 4,795       44,302 -- 57,535  
  Assistant to the City Manager     5,190 -- 6,740       62,278 -- 80,881  
  Associate Engineer     4,865 -- 6,318       58,379 -- 75,817  
  Associate Planner     4,195 -- 5,448       50,343 -- 65,381  
  City Clerk     5,286 -- 6,865       63,432 -- 82,380  
  Code Enforcement Officer     3,577 -- 4,646       42,925 -- 55,746  
  Deputy City Clerk     3,605 -- 4,682       43,257 -- 56,178  
  Deputy Director of PBCE     5,212 -- 6,769       62,549 -- 81,233  
  Deputy Director of Public Works     5,212 -- 6,769       62,549 -- 81,233  
  Director of Administrative Services     5,619 -- 7,298       67,431 -- 87,573  
  Director of Finance     6,203 -- 8,055       74,432 -- 96,665  
  Director of Planning, Bldg, & Code Enforcement     6,684 -- 8,680       80,207 -- 104,165  
  Director of Public Works     6,684 -- 8,680       80,207 -- 104,165  
  Director of Recreation and Parks     5,619 -- 7,298       67,431 -- 87,573  
  Engineering Technician     3,433 -- 4,458       41,196 -- 53,501  
  Executive Staff Assistant (Executive Secretary)     3,605 -- 4,682       43,257 -- 56,178  
  Maintenance Superintendent     4,892 -- 6,353       58,702 -- 76,236  
  Maintenance Worker     2,256 -- 2,930       27,074 -- 35,162  
  Maintenance Worker II     2,564 -- 3,330       30,766 -- 39,956  
  Permit Clerk     2,640 -- 3,428       31,678 -- 41,141  
  Recreation Leader     1,186 -- 1,540       14,229 -- 18,479  
  Principal Planner     5,263 -- 6,834       63,151 -- 82,014  
  Recreation Program Supervisor II     3,770 -- 4,896       45,242 -- 58,756  
  Recreation Services Manager     4,426 -- 5,749       53,117 -- 68,983  
  Senior Code Enforcement Officer     4,006 -- 5,203       48,073 -- 62,432  
  Senior Engineer     5,449 -- 7,077       65,389 -- 84,921  
  Senior Planner     4,699 -- 6,102       56,384 -- 73,226  
  Senior Administrative Analyst     4,634 -- 6,018       55,606 -- 72,215  
  Staff Assistant I (Clerk Typist I)     2,323 -- 3,017       27,877 -- 36,204  
  Staff Assistant II (Clerk Typist II)     2,640 -- 3,428       31,678 -- 41,141  
                           
      HOURLY RATES            
  POSITION   BOTTOM TO TOP            
  Administrative/Cable/TV/Public Works Intern     12.01 -- 15.59              
  Crossing Guard     8.71 -- 11.31              
  Permit Clerk     15.23 -- 19.78              
  Recreation Leader     7.69 -- 9.99              
  Recreation Leader II     8.74 -- 11.35              
  Recreation Specialist     12.01 -- 15.59              
  Staff Assistant I     13.40 -- 17.40              
  Staff Assistant II     15.23 -- 19.78              
                           
                           
  EXHIBIT "B"                        
      MONTHLY CAR ALLOWANCE      
  POSITION                        
  Assistant City Manager         150.00              
  Director of Administrative Services         150.00              
  Director of Finance         150.00              
  Director of Planning, Bldg, & Code Enforcement         150.00              
  Director of Public Works         150.00              
  Director of Recreation and Parks         150.00              
                           
                           

 

 


17.Cable Television Rate Increases. (Petru)

Recommendation: Review the cable television rate increase complaint forwarded to the City Council by Mayor John McTaggart and provide staff with direction.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:CABLE TELEVISION RATE INCREASES

RECOMMENDATION

Review the cable television rate increase complaint forwarded to the City Council by Mayor John McTaggart and provide staff with any direction.

BACKGROUND

Mayor McTaggart recently received a complaint from a resident regarding Cox Communication’s latest rate increase and directed staff to place the issue on this agenda.

DISCUSSION

The rates charged for cable television service break down into four categories: basic service, expanded/premium service, equipment rental and installation. Pursuant to the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the rates for expanded/premium cable service (i.e. CNN, HBO or Disney) may not be regulated by any federal or local agency, and are controlled instead by market demand. With regard to basic service (i.e. over the air channels such as ABC, CBS and PBS), equipment rental (such as converter boxes) and installation, only the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the authority to regulate the rates charged for these services. To do this, the FCC has established "benchmark" rates that serve as a cap for the rates cable companies nationwide may charge for basic cable service, equipment rental and installation. Therefore, cable service providers like Cox Communications may set their rates for these services any place at or below the maximum established benchmark rate.

City records indicate that Cox Communications has not increased its rates for basic cable service in the last three years. The rate Cox charges for basic service is below the established FCC cap. The current FCC cap for basic service is in the $18 to $19 per month range, while Cox Communications charges its subscribers $15.55 per month for this service. With regards to rental of a converter box, the current FCC cap is $4.12 per month, while Cox is currently charges $3.00 per month. In speaking with Steve Fowler, Cox Communication’s General Manager, he cited the rapidly escalating cost of purchasing expanded/premium programming as the primary cause of the rate increases that have occurred in recent years. Mr. Fowler indicated that the costs Cox must pay for this type of programming are increasing approximately 20% per year. Because the rates charged for expanded/premium services are controlled by market demand, the increased cost for programming is largely passed on to the subscribers who select these channels.

While the City was negotiating the cable franchise renewal agreement with Cox Communications in 2000, staff informed the Council that the FCC has a procedure by which the City can become certified to review rate increases pertaining to basic cable, equipment rental and installation. Both the Cities of Los Angeles and Rolling Hills Estates are certified to review cable rate increases. However, the federal law stipulates that, if the increase is at or below the benchmark, the certified local agency would have no authority to deny or block the increase. Because City certification would not result in any benefit to our residents, the City Council has chosen not to pursue certification with the FCC in the past.

Respectfully submitted:

Carolynn Petru

Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,

Les Evans

City Manager

Attachment:

Letter from Ihsan Majid dated June 18, 2002


18.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:JULY 2, 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 June 4, 2002, the City received a packet of information from the County Sanitation Districts regarding the Palos Verdes Landfill, the site of the proposed South Coast County Golf Course. The packet contained eight fact sheets issued by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) between May 1990 and October 1995, which were prepared in order to inform the public of the plans to identify, investigate and remediate any potential migration of contaminants from the Palos Verdes Landfill.

On June 20, 2002, the City received confirmation from the City of Los Angeles Building and Safety Department (LABSD) that all of the underground utilities on the site were "in good condition, with no repairs needed" (see attached letter from Leighton and Associates). As such, consistent with Staff previous discussions with LABSD, the developer will be able to obtain a certificate of use and occupancy for the new market once it is complete.

Respectfully submitted:

Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Border Issues Status Report

Palos Verdes Landfill Fact Sheets

Letter from Leighton and Associates regarding Garden Village shopping center

BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT

Revised July 2, 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 then-Mayor Lyon and then-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 then-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 then-Mayor Lyon and then-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 then-Mayor and then-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 then-Mayor Lyon and then-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 proposed relocating the 75-space parking lot away from the Peninsula Verde homes. In addition, they proposed 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 would expire 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 2001. Mr. Odom was aware of the project and said the proposed parking lot revisions were 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. 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 schedule for the Harbor Hills Community Center. The project was 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 intended 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 was held on Monday, June 10, 2002.

At the June 10th Lomita Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission heard additional testimony from the County and from Rancho Palos Verdes and Lomita residents. As a result, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the project, including conditions of approval that were recommended by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Lomita Planning Commission is scheduled to adopt a resolution finalizing this decision—and starting the 15-day appeal period—on July 8, 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 Drive, 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 Garden 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 advised us that we have no recourse from that avenue. Bill Cotton, the geologist who reviewed 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 Garden Village’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 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 were all similar in that they expressed the City’s concern over the repair and inspection of the storm drains and asked who is responsible for ensuring 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 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 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 was 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.

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.

On June 20, 2002, the City received confirmation from the City of Los Angeles Building and Safety Department that all of the underground utilities on the site were "in good condition, with no repairs needed." As such, consistent with the discussion above, the developer will be able to obtain a certificate of use and occupancy for the new market once it is complete.

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

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

On February 9, 2002 an article appeared in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News regarding an 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 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 at the scoping meeting 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, anticipated that the Initial Study (IS) would be complete in early December 2001 and that a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR would 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 believed 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 in the 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 was originally March 12, 2002. The Initial Study identified 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 received additional information regarding the former Palos Verdes landfill, and the draft NOP comment letter was 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 late February 2002, the County had not yet responded to the City’s request. Therefore, Staff requested the City Council’s final input on the draft NOP comment letter on March 11, 2002 so that the comments could be submitted to the County Parks and Recreation Department by the March 12th deadline in the event that an extension was 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 was April 11, 2002. The City Council took 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.

On June 4, 2002, the City received a packet of information from the County Sanitation Districts regarding the Palos Verdes Landfill. The packet consisted of eight fact sheets issued by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) between May 1990 and October 1995. The fact sheets were prepared and distributed in order to inform the public of the plans to identify, investigate and remediate any potential migration of contaminants from the Palos Verdes Landfill.

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 identified 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 was June 3, 2002. Staff intended 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.


19.Roof repair and replacement project. (Noble)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract for the repair and replacement of roofs on City owned buildings to Commercial Roofing for an amount not to exceed $67,978 and authorize staff to spend an additional $6,797 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $74,775. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Commercial Roofing. (3) Authorize the expenditure of up to $2,500 for inspection services with Charles Abbott Associates, Inc. (4) ADOPT RESOLUTION 2002-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2002-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S BUILDING REPLACEMENT FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT: ROOF REPAIR/REPLACEMENT PROJECT

STAFF COORDINATOR: Don Noble, Deputy Director of Public Works

RECOMMENDATIONS

Award a contract for the repair and replacement of City roofs to Commercial

Roofing for an amount not to exceed $67,978 and authorize staff to spend an additional $6,797 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $74,775.

Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Commercial

Roofing.

Authorize the expenditure of up to $2,500 for inspection services with Charles Abbott Associates, Inc.

Adopt Resolution 2002___, a resolution of the City Council for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, amending Resolution 2002-45, the budget Appropriation for fiscal year 2002-2003, for a budget adjustment to the City’s Building Replacement Fund.

BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2002, the Garland Company completed the inspections of all City owned roofs. Based on these inspections, it is evident that the roofing materials at each facility have deteriorated and failures are forthcoming. However, it is not necessary that all repairs or replacements be completed immediately.

DISCUSSION

On March 11, 2002, Council accepted the Roof Inspection Report prepared by the Garland Company and authorized staff to implement a Five-Year Roof Repair and Replacement Plan. The first year of this plan includes the following locations and estimated program costs.

Estimated Cost for 2002/2003 Roof Repair/Replacement Plan

Location

Description of Required Work

Estimated Cost

Hesse Park

Replacement

$50,000

Eastview Park

Replacement

$1,450

Abalone Cove (Nursery)

Replacement

$1,100

Ladera Linda

Repair

$960

Other roofs

General Maintenance

3,000

Estimated Construction Costs

$56,510

10% Construction Contingency Budget

$5,651

Contract Administration & Inspection

$5,000

Estimated Total Costs for 2002/2003 Plan

$67,161

Bid Summary Results for 2002/2003 Plan

On June 7, 2002, staff received the following five bids for the 2002/2003 Roof Repair and Replacement Plan.

Contractor

Bid Amount

Golden State Roofing

$52,600*

Commercial Roofing

$67,978

Best Roofing

$78,032

Lavey Roofing Services

$102,000

Coast Roofing

$115,640

*On May 29, 2002, staff issued an Addendum to the bid documents wherein the each bidder is to include a unit cost for the removal and replacement of wood decking. The bid received from Golden State Roofing did not include a unit cost for wood decking. Therefore, their bid was rejected.

Based on the rejection of the Golden State Roofing bid, staff recommends that a contract for the repair and replacement of city roofs be awarded to Commercial Roofing for an amount not to exceed $67,978 and that staff be authorized to spend an additional $6,797 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $74,775.

The repair and replacement of these roofs will require periodic inspections. The firm of Charles Abbott Associates, Inc has been retained by the City to provide professional services including on-site inspections and is willing to assume this responsibility at a cost not to exceed $2,500. Therefore, staff recommends that Charles Abbott Associates be authorized to provide the necessary inspections for this project.

The total cost of this project, as recapped below, is $77,275.

Construction Cost For 2002/2003 Roof Repair/Replacement Plan

Cost Description

Amount

Construction Contract

$67,978

Budget for unanticipated extra work

$6,797

On-site inspections

$2,500

Total Cost

$77,275

The 2002-2003 approved budget for this work is $55,000. The bid amount for this year’s work, is $67,161, however the total estimated cost is $77,275. The five-year plan concluded that all the roof repairs included in this year’s work are necessary and cannot be delayed. The proposed project cannot be completed without additional funding of $22,275.

Sufficient funds are available in the City’s Building Replacement Fund to cover $22,275. Therefore, staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution 2002-__, a resolution of the City Council for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, amending Resolution 2002-45, the budget Appropriation for fiscal year 2002-2003, for a budget adjustment to the City’s Building Replacement Fund.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the repair and replacement of all City roofs per the first of the five-year plan.

FISCAL IMPACT

The appropriation of additional $22,275 from the City’s Building Replacement Fund will reduce the projected ending FY 02-03

fund balance to $1,460,777.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean E. Allison

Director of Public Works

Reviewed,

Les Evans

City Manager

Attachments: Resolution 2002-__

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-45, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S BUILDING REPLACEMENT 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 12, 2002, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted

Resolution 2002-45, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation

for the 2002-2003 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to allocate additional funds to roof Replacement/Repair Project; and

WHEREAS, a budget increase in the Building Replacement 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 Building Replacement Fund – Roof Repair/Replacement Project.

Building Replacement Fund

786-386-82

$22,275

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 2nd day of July, 2002.

ATTEST:

MAYOR

CITY CLERK

State of California)

County of Los Angeles) ss

City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002-___ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 2nd , 2002.

________________________

City Clerk

State of California)

County of Los Angeles) ss

City of Rancho Palos Verdes)


20.Open Space Planning And Recreation And Parks Task Force Scope Of Work and Funding Proposal. (Evans)

Recommendation: Approve a scope of work for the newly formed Open Space Planning, Recreation and Parks Task Force and establish a budget of $100,000 for contract assistance for the Task Force.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:OPEN SPACE PLANNING AND RECREATION AND PARKS TASK FORCE SCOPE OF WORK AND FUNDING PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION

Approve a scope of work for the newly formed Open Space Planning, Recreation and Parks Task Force and establish a budget of $100,000 for contract assistance for the Task Force.

BACKGROUND

The City Council met on May 21, 2002 to consider applicants for the Recreation and Parks Committee. At that meeting, the Council decided to establish an Open Space Planning and Recreation and Parks Task Force to advise the Council on a range of recreation and open space issues affecting residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Council appointed seventeen applicants for the Recreation and Parks Committee to serve on the Task Force, which is scheduled to last for approximately one year. Staff anticipates that the role of this task force will be wide-ranging, exploring a variety of community issues including youth athletics, civic facilities, Upper Point Vicente Park, and equestrian facilities. The size and scope of work of this Task Force represents a significant increase from the role previously undertaken by the Recreation and Parks Committee.

ANALYSIS

Based on City Council discussion over the past year and input from the Community, staff has identified a list of at least seven tasks that the Council may wish to assign to the Task Force. In addition to these tasks, there may be others that the Council would like to add to the list.

Suggested Tasks to be Accomplished:

    Develop a plan to improve youth athletic facilities (fields, pool, gymnasium, etc.).

    Develop a plan for the utilization of Upper Point Vicente Park and Open Space.

    Update the Conceptual Trails Plan.

    Develop a plan for a Senior Citizen Center.

    Develop a Plan for an Equestrian Center.

    Develop a Plan for a Civic Center and Cultural Facilities (theater, museum).

    Update the Parks Master Plan

Clearly undertaking all these tasks is a massive effort that would take longer to accomplish and should not be commenced without first developing a process to insure that the needs of the community are addressed as accurately as possible through both survey and public input. Once the needs are clearly identified for each of the "tasks" or "assignments" the process of plan preparation can begin. The process may be similar to the following:

Possible Process:

Consider a process for determining needs and desires for open space, parks, recreation and cultural facilities within the community.

    Perform a statistically valid opinion survey.

    Perform a professional assessment of needs based on demographics and existing facilities.

    Meet with organized interest groups to receive input on their needs.

    Hold public meetings for community wide input.

    Designate subcommittees and assign tasks.

    Set tentative dates for presentations by subcommittees to the Open Space Planning and Recreation and Parks task Force and presentation of status reports to the City Council.

The number of tasks assigned may be better undertaken by subcommittees with the Open Space Planning, Recreation and Parks Task Force acting more as a Steering Committee.

Consider Forming Subcommittees:

Each subcommittee would take on a specific task such as developing a plan for an Equestrian facility. The subcommittee would meet informally (no legal notice, formal minutes or City staff) and prepare a study/report to be presented to the larger Open Space Planning, Recreation and Parks Task Force. The study/reports would include as a minimum:

    A conceptual plan, preferably with a graphic component.

    Cost estimates for construction and maintenance including potential funding sources.

    Estimated time frames and phasing of implementation.

    Comment by Planning Department/City Attorney on possible environmental, general plan or zoning issues.

    Comment by Public Works Department on adequacy of cost estimates.

    Comment by Financial Advisory Committee on proposed financing plan.

Resources:

    Considering Recreation and Parks’ current staffing levels and resources, consulting services will be needed to take the lead in coordinating staff and Task Force efforts in compiling research, assessing community input, and drafting reports related to planning options for current recreation sites and vacant City-owned property. Relevant open-space sites could be analyzed for potential strengths and weaknesses, assessing their appropriateness for a number of possible recreation uses. The consultants would then play an essential role in assisting staff and members of the Task Force in finalizing reports before presenting all relevant information to the City Council. Consultant could conduct surveys, develop demographic information related to facility needs, work with stakeholders, conduct charettes, and assist subcommittees with final work products and presentations to the Open Space Planning, Recreation and Parks Task Force. Staff considered hiring full-time employees for this role, but the limited duration of the Task Force makes the use of short-term consultants the more prudent and appropriate approach.

    Recreation and Parks Department staff to support one meeting a month of the Open Space, Park and Recreation Task Force, to administer consultant contracts and serve as the contact point for subcommittees.

    Planning staff, Public Works staff and Finance Department staff to participate in support roles that may involve reviewing Committee work or subcommittee work and would rarely involve attending meetings of the Committee or subcommittees and the preparation of any in-house studies, reports or other documents.

FISCAL IMPACT

The cost of professional consulting services is estimated to be $100,000 for FY 02-03. These funds are available in the "available" General Fund Reserve.

CONCLUSION

The appropriate use of open space is one of the most vital issues for residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The current level of Recreation and Parks Department resources necessitates the use of a professional consulting service to facilitate this project, coordinating efforts of staff and the Open Space Planning and Recreation and Parks Task Force in analyzing and comparing all of the relevant sites and options. Their expertise and experience would be vital in every step of the process, from the research and community input stages to the eventual presentation of the Task Force’s findings to the City Council.

Respectfully submitted,

Les Evans

City Manager


21.November 2002 election: term limits ballot initiative. (Evans)

Recommendation: Approve a description of the Council’s request for citizen input regarding a possible November ballot initiative establishing term limits for posting on the City’s website.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:OPEN SPACE PLANNING AND RECREATION AND PARKS TASK FORCE SCOPE OF WORK AND FUNDING PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION

Approve a scope of work for the newly formed Open Space Planning, Recreation and Parks Task Force and establish a budget of $100,000 for contract assistance for the Task Force.

BACKGROUND

The City Council met on May 21, 2002 to consider applicants for the Recreation and Parks Committee. At that meeting, the Council decided to establish an Open Space Planning and Recreation and Parks Task Force to advise the Council on a range of recreation and open space issues affecting residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Council appointed seventeen applicants for the Recreation and Parks Committee to serve on the Task Force, which is scheduled to last for approximately one year. Staff anticipates that the role of this task force will be wide-ranging, exploring a variety of community issues including youth athletics, civic facilities, Upper Point Vicente Park, and equestrian facilities. The size and scope of work of this Task Force represents a significant increase from the role previously undertaken by the Recreation and Parks Committee.

ANALYSIS

Based on City Council discussion over the past year and input from the Community, staff has identified a list of at least seven tasks that the Council may wish to assign to the Task Force. In addition to these tasks, there may be others that the Council would like to add to the list.

Suggested Tasks to be Accomplished:

    Develop a plan to improve youth athletic facilities (fields, pool, gymnasium, etc.).

    Develop a plan for the utilization of Upper Point Vicente Park and Open Space.

    Update the Conceptual Trails Plan.

    Develop a plan for a Senior Citizen Center.

    Develop a Plan for an Equestrian Center.

    Develop a Plan for a Civic Center and Cultural Facilities (theater, museum).

    Update the Parks Master Plan

Clearly undertaking all these tasks is a massive effort that would take longer to accomplish and should not be commenced without first developing a process to insure that the needs of the community are addressed as accurately as possible through both survey and public input. Once the needs are clearly identified for each of the "tasks" or "assignments" the process of plan preparation can begin. The process may be similar to the following:

Possible Process:

Consider a process for determining needs and desires for open space, parks, recreation and cultural facilities within the community.

    Perform a statistically valid opinion survey.

    Perform a professional assessment of needs based on demographics and existing facilities.

    Meet with organized interest groups to receive input on their needs.

    Hold public meetings for community wide input.

    Designate subcommittees and assign tasks.

    Set tentative dates for presentations by subcommittees to the Open Space Planning and Recreation and Parks task Force and presentation of status reports to the City Council.

The number of tasks assigned may be better undertaken by subcommittees with the Open Space Planning, Recreation and Parks Task Force acting more as a Steering Committee.

Consider Forming Subcommittees:

Each subcommittee would take on a specific task such as developing a plan for an Equestrian facility. The subcommittee would meet informally (no legal notice, formal minutes or City staff) and prepare a study/report to be presented to the larger Open Space Planning, Recreation and Parks Task Force. The study/reports would include as a minimum:

    A conceptual plan, preferably with a graphic component.

    Cost estimates for construction and maintenance including potential funding sources.

    Estimated time frames and phasing of implementation.

    Comment by Planning Department/City Attorney on possible environmental, general plan or zoning issues.

    Comment by Public Works Department on adequacy of cost estimates.

    Comment by Financial Advisory Committee on proposed financing plan.

Resources:

    Considering Recreation and Parks’ current staffing levels and resources, consulting services will be needed to take the lead in coordinating staff and Task Force efforts in compiling research, assessing community input, and drafting reports related to planning options for current recreation sites and vacant City-owned property. Relevant open-space sites could be analyzed for potential strengths and weaknesses, assessing their appropriateness for a number of possible recreation uses. The consultants would then play an essential role in assisting staff and members of the Task Force in finalizing reports before presenting all relevant information to the City Council. Consultant could conduct surveys, develop demographic information related to facility needs, work with stakeholders, conduct charettes, and assist subcommittees with final work products and presentations to the Open Space Planning, Recreation and Parks Task Force. Staff considered hiring full-time employees for this role, but the limited duration of the Task Force makes the use of short-term consultants the more prudent and appropriate approach.

    Recreation and Parks Department staff to support one meeting a month of the Open Space, Park and Recreation Task Force, to administer consultant contracts and serve as the contact point for subcommittees.

    Planning staff, Public Works staff and Finance Department staff to participate in support roles that may involve reviewing Committee work or subcommittee work and would rarely involve attending meetings of the Committee or subcommittees and the preparation of any in-house studies, reports or other documents.

FISCAL IMPACT

The cost of professional consulting services is estimated to be $100,000 for FY 02-03. These funds are available in the "available" General Fund Reserve.

CONCLUSION

The appropriate use of open space is one of the most vital issues for residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The current level of Recreation and Parks Department resources necessitates the use of a professional consulting service to facilitate this project, coordinating efforts of staff and the Open Space Planning and Recreation and Parks Task Force in analyzing and comparing all of the relevant sites and options. Their expertise and experience would be vital in every step of the process, from the research and community input stages to the eventual presentation of the Task Force’s findings to the City Council.

Respectfully submitted,

Les Evans

City Manager

21.TO:HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:NOVEMBER 2002 ELECTION: TERM LIMITS BALLOT INITIATIVE

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve a description of the Council’s request for citizen input regarding a possible November ballot initiative establishing Term Limits for posting on the City website.

BACKGROUND:

At the June 18, 2002 City Council meeting, Councilmember Clark proposed that:

Rancho Palos Verdes City Council sponsor a Term Limits Ballot Initiative for inclusion in the November 2002 election, that will give the residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes the opportunity to vote for or against the institution of a two (2) consecutive terms, no life time ban, term limit applicable to Rancho Palos Verdes council members in the future.

The City Council agreed that they would not take action on Councilmember Clark’s proposal that evening, but would reconsider the matter at their July 16, 2002 meeting. During the four-week interval they encouraged citizens to contact City Hall and express their views on Councilmember Clark’s proposal.

DISCUSSION:

The City has been receiving several e-mail messages each day with comments on Councilmember Clark’s proposal. Many of the e-mail messages do not specifically address the two issues that seem most important. They are: (1) should the Council sponsor a term limits ballot initiative, and (2) should the initiative appear on the November 2002 ballot?

Councilmember Clark has asked that we pose the term limits question to our citizens by asking the question on our website. The term limits information could appear as a "quick link" on the City Council page and take the user to a page describing the question posed by the Council and include links to Councilmember Clark’s memorandum to the City Council, the Daily Breeze and Peninsula News articles on the subject and other information the City Council deems appropriate.

To insure the "question" is properly posed, and additional information provided to the website visitor is in keeping with the City Council direction on the matter, staff requests that the City Council review and approve, or revise, the following wording:

The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council is considering sponsoring a Term Limits Ballot Initiative for inclusion in the November 2002 election, that will give the residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes the opportunity to vote for or against the institution of a two (2) consecutive terms, no life time ban, term limit applicable to Rancho Palos Verdes City Council members in the future.

The issue was proposed by Councilmember Larry Clark at the June 18, 2002 City Council meeting. A copy of his report to the City Council on the subject can be accessed by clicking on the "Councilman Clark’s Report" link below. Clicking on the "Daily Breeze" and "PV News" links below can access recent newspaper articles on the issue.

The City Council is interested in hearing from you on the following questions:

    Should the Council sponsor a term limits ballot initiative?

    Should the initiative appear on the November 2002 ballot?

Responses should be forwarded to citycouncil@rpv.com

Respectfully submitted,

Les Evans,

City Manager

.


22.Amendment to City Council Policy No. 30 (Removal of View Covenants

Recommendation: Amend City Council Policy No. 30, thereby establishing a procedure for the removal of view covenants that have been recorded against properties, on a case-by-case basis.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:JULY 2, 2002

SUBJECT:AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 30 (Removal of View Covenants)

RECOMMENDATION

Amend City Council Policy No. 30, thereby establishing a procedure for the removal of view covenants, that have been recorded against properties, on a case-by-case basis.

BACKGROUND

City Council Policy No. 30 (attached) sets forth the policy that the City will not enforce any "Covenant to Maintain Property to Protect Views" (View Covenant) that has been submitted to the City and recorded by the L.A. County Recorders Office. The policy was adopted in 1996 after the City Council amended the Height Variation Permit Guidelines to no longer allow the submittal of "view covenants" as an option for satisfying the Proposition ‘M’ requirement of "Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance". During the time the view covenant option was available (1990 – 1996), Staff believes that approximately 900 such view covenants were recorded on properties.

On December 12, 2001, the City Council considered an individual property owner’s request for the City to remove the view covenant that had been recorded against his property (Mr. Scalfaro – 3027 Crest Road). At that time, the Council agreed to remove the covenant and establish a procedure for dealing with future requests by property owners to remove view covenants on a case-by-case basis (approved excerpt minutes attached). Staff has amended City Council Policy No. 30 to establish such a procedure and is presenting the amended policy to the Council for its review and consideration.

DISCUSSION

Attached is amended City Council Policy No. 30. The amendment language is shown in strike-out text (language to be removed) and underlined text (language to be added). In summary, the amended policy creates a procedure where Staff can remove a recorded covenant, if requested to do so by a property owner, and if the following conditions are met:

The written request is signed by all individuals who own title to the property.

A Trust Deposit fee is submitted to cover the cost of processing the covenant removal request.

The covenant that is the subject of the removal request was a result of an over-the-counter approval pursuant to the "Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance" provisions of the View Ordinance, as opposed to a covenant that was recorded as a result of a condition of approval of a discretionary decision.

It is determined that no significant view impairing foliage, which exceeds sixteen (16) feet or the ridgeline, whichever is lower, exists on the property, or if such significant view impairing foliage does exist, it is removed and/or trimmed, as directed by City Staff, prior to the removal of the covenant.

A "Notice of Termination of Covenant" is executed by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and City Clerk, which contains the notarized signatures of all the individuals who own title to the property, and is recorded by the County Recorders Office.

It should be emphasized that the removal of a covenant will not occur until a foliage analysis is performed to determine if the subject property contains any significant view impairing foliage, which exceeds sixteen (16) feet or the ridgeline, whichever is lower and if such significant view impairing foliage does exist, it is removed and/or trimmed, as directed by City Staff. This is the action that would have occurred, as dictated by the View Ordinance, if the covenant option was not available between 1990 and 1996. The Code does not require that surrounding property owners be notified when such foliage analyses are performed. As such, no noticing occurs when Staff performs the routine foliage analyses (approximately 4-5 per week) and conversely no noticing requirements are included in the procedure for covenant removal. This is because any action to remove a covenant will not preclude any other property owners from filing a View Restoration or View Preservation application against the property that is subject to the covenant removal.

CONCLUSION

Between 1990 and 1996, the City’s Height Variation Permit Guidelines allowed the submittal of "view covenants" as an option for satisfying the Proposition ‘M’ requirement of "Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance. In 1996, the City Council eliminated the view covenant option and adopted City Council Policy No. 30 that sets forth the policy that the City will not enforce any recorded view covenants. In December 2001, the City Council agreed to remove a recorded covenant, as requested by an individual property owner, and agreed to establish a procedure for the removal of view covenants on a case-by-case basis. Staff has amended the policy to establish such a procedure and is presenting the amended policy to the Council for its review and consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT

With the establishment of a processing fee for the removal of recorded covenants, the costs associated with the removal process would not be borne by the City’s General Fund. However, the removal of a recorded view covenant from a property would shift the remedy for surrounding property owners who wish to have their view protected from a civil suit solution to a solution through the City’s View Restoration and Preservation process. Although there are some fees collected for processing View Restoration Permits, no fees are collected for processing View Preservation Applications. Therefore, all costs associated with the Staff functions not covered by current fees would be borne by the City’s General Fund.

ALTERNATIVES

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

Direct Staff to make specific revisions to the draft policy and to bring back the revised policy at a future City Council meeting for adoption.

Direct Staff to propose a different method for abandoning recorded covenants.

Respectfully submitted,

Joel Rojas,

Director of Planning, Building

and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:

Les Evans

City Manager

Attachment:

Amended City Council Policy No. 30

December 18, 2001 Approved Excerpt Minutes

CITY COUNCIL POLICY

NUMBER: 30

DATE ADOPTED: December 17, 1996

DATE AMENDED:July 2, 2002

SUBJECT: Enforcement of "Covenants to Maintain Property to Protect Views"

POLICY:

It shall be the policy of the City Council that the City not enforce any "Covenant to Maintain Property to Protect Views" that has been submitted to the City and recorded by the L.A. County Recorders Office. It shall also be the policy of the City Council that recorded "Covenants to Maintain Property to Protect Views" may be removed by the City, on a case-by-case basis, provided that all of the following requirements can be met for each individual request of abandonment:

A written request is submitted to the City requesting that a covenant be removed. The written request must be signed by all individuals who own title to the property that is subject to the covenant.

A Trust Deposit fee is submitted to cover the cost of processing the covenant removal request. The amount of the Trust Deposit shall be determined by City Staff and shall be sufficient to cover the cost of staff’s analysis of the request and the cost of preparing and recording a "Notice of Termination of Covenant" with the County Recorders Office.

The covenant that is the subject of the removal request was recorded in lieu of Staff performing a foliage analysis of the applicant’s property as a result of an over-the-counter approval pursuant to the "Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance" provisions of the View Ordinance (Development Code Section 17.02.040). This removal process shall not apply to covenants that were recorded as a result of a condition of approval of a discretionary decision made by the City through a public hearing.

Based on a foliage analysis performed by Staff it is determined that no significant view impairing foliage, which exceeds sixteen (16) feet or the ridgeline, whichever is lower, exists on the property. If significant view impairing foliage exits, it shall be removed and/or trimmed, as directed by City Staff, prior to the removal of the covenant.

If requirements Nos. 1 through 4 are met, a "Notice of Termination of Covenant" is prepared and executed by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and City Clerk, which contains the notarized signatures of all the individuals who own title to the property that is subject to the covenant, and is recorded by the County Recorders Office.

Any action to remove a covenant will not preclude any other property owners from filing a View Restoration or View Preservation application against the property that is subject to the covenant removal.

BACKGROUND: