City Council Minutes 04/18/2000 RPV, City, Council, Minutes, 2000, Meeting RPV City Council Minutes for the 04/18/2000 Meeting APRIL 18, 2000

 

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 18, 2000

 

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Byrd at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, and was immediately recessed to a closed session per the Brown Act Checklist. At 7:18 P.M. the meeting reconvened. After the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call was answered as follows:

PRESENT: Ferraro, Lyon, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Byrd

ABSENT: None

Also present were City Manager Les Evans, Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Principal Planner Dave Snow; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and, Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

Mayor Byrd announced that the City’s web site had been expanded and suggested that residents view it at www.palosverdes.com/RPV

RECYCLING DRAWING:

The winner from the last drawing was John Turner who will receive a check for $250, which represents the cost of refuse service for a year. Another card was selected.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

City Clerk Purcell said that staff had requested that the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District item be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed after the last Regular Business item. Councilman McTaggart asked that the Interfaith Walk item be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lyon, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried.

 

 

 

 

 

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

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

Motion to waive full reading

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

Request for proposal for audit services (602)

Authorized staff to issue the Request For Proposal (RFP) to interested public accounting firms for services associated with the audit of the financial statements of the City.

Resol. No. 2000- 16 - Register of Demands (602)

ADOPTED RESOL. NO. 2000-16, 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 carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Lyon, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Byrd

NOES: None

# # # # # # # # # # #

REGULAR BUSINESS:

Interfaith Walk, Jointly Sponsored by the Retreat Center of the Daughters of Mary and Joseph and the South Coast Ecumenical Council (1204 x 1201)

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of April 18, 2000 and the recommendation to consider Councilman McTaggart’s request that the City Council consider co-sponsoring the Interfaith Walk by agreeing to the following: (1) Closing portions of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge Road between St. John Fisher and Congregation Ner Tamid during the walk; (2) Coordinating the services of the Sheriff's Department for traffic control during the event; (3) Coordinating a parking plan and providing shuttle service for walk participants; (4) Providing appropriate notices to any residents who may be impacted by the walk; and (5) Offsetting any cost of Sheriff's Department service and/or shuttle service to a maximum of $2,000.

City Attorney Lynch advised that the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution prohibited the City from making a monetary contribution to this activity.

Council discussion centered on the anticipated hours of the walk (5:00 P.M. to 9:30 P.M.), the safety of walkers, and the required supervision for those under 18 years of age.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, was opposed to the City’s support of this event.

John Traxler, 4172 Rousseau Lane, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274, listed some of the groups and individuals from about 35 congregations and denominations who met at an ecumenical forum where this event was conceived. He described the significance of the date and the sequence of activities associated with this walk. He assured the Council that they had a traffic safety plan in place. (A statement from Mr. Traxler is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

Mr. Traxler said that the walk should take approximately 20 minutes unless there were over 500 people, which would increase the time to about 45 minutes. He said that bus transportation was being arranged for return to the origin of the walk; he anticipated that the event would be complete by 8:30 P.M.

Council discussion focused on recognition of Church and State separation, stating that the City’s responsibility was to deal with traffic and public safety as it would with any other event on public streets, such as the Palos Verdes marathon. It was noted that the permit requirement had been met and that the City would not provide the shuttle service but that possibly MAX or PV Transit would be able to accommodate this activity.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to adopt the staff recommendation except for Item No. 5, and to clarify that the City is not paying for the shuttle service. Motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING:

Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "A", et al – Mobil Car Wash (1203 x 1804)

Mayor Byrd opened the discussion of this request. City Clerk Purcell announced that this was a continued public hearing from the April 4th meeting.

Principal Planner Snow presented the staff report of April 18, 2000 and the recommendation to continue the public hearing to May 2, 2000 to discuss the proposed demonstration plan.

Mayor Byrd asked Council if they wanted to continue to item and if they wanted to hear the speakers.

Council discussion focused on questions they had about details of the demonstration project which could be addressed and the value of speaker input on this subject also; the written testimony from experts received since the hearing on April 4 which might enable the Council to make a decision at this meeting; the difficulty in envisioning the physical layout of the project since the plan submitted was not to scale; the need for accurate sound measurements with the current uses on the property; the lack of a clear list of equipment; analysis from staff on the demonstration project which would not be available for another two weeks; and, whether a decision could be made at this meeting.

City Attorney Lynch clarified that the Council could make a decision at this meeting if they wished.

Council consensus was to hear the speakers and ask them to direct their comments to the demonstration project.

B. G. Peterson, 28067 Santona Drive (appellant), was opposed to a demonstration project because he felt it would not be inclusive enough to simulate conditions and to analyze the full impact to the neighborhood.

Christian Faulk, 22497 Kent Avenue, Torrance, CA 90505, a construction management consultant and permit expediter, described his professional credentials and gave his analysis of the proposed car wash which he prepared on behalf of the residents. He felt the demonstration project could not accurately define the noise, traffic, and environmental impacts to the neighborhood; that the site was inadequate for the car wash; that the plan submitted was not to scale and had not been developed completely or accurately; and, he stated his opinion that all the elements of the current and proposed businesses on the site must be considered at the time of a Conditional Use Permit revision. He discussed the advisability of installing fossil fuel filters and how they are used in other coastal cities.

Gene Fisher, 4233 Don Ortega Place, Los Angeles, CA 90008, a past member of the South Coast Air Quality Board for 30 years, described his professional credentials and gave his analysis of the proposed car wash on behalf of the residents. He focused on air pollution and health hazards caused by the current and proposed uses of the site and he felt that the conditions of a car wash could not be replicated in a demonstration project. He requested denial of the project.

Speaking in opposition to the proposed car wash and in support of the appeal were the following persons: Peter Kappelos, 830 Camino Real, Apt. 101, Redondo Beach, CA 90277; Jeff Jordon, 1713 Huntington Lane, "D", Redondo Beach, CA 90278; William Glantz, 28070 Santona Drive; William E. Haines, 28208 Ridgefern Court; Marvin Lubofsky, 28925 Golden Meadow; Mary Ann Zwieback, 28042 Santona Drive; Christy Beggens, 28038 Acana Road; Paul Hayden, 6538 La Garita Drive; Phyllis Glantz, 28070 Santona Drive; Angie Paik, 28057 Santona Drive; Yongsun Paik, 28057 Santona Drive; Jeff Goodman, 28060 Santona Drive; Rahim Govani, 6945 Alta Vista; and, John Freeman; 6850 Faircove Drive.

The concerns and opinions of the speakers centered on the following: (1) the excessive noise that would emanate from the car wash, even though it was a hand car wash; (2) the possible increase of car accidents at this intersection; (3) the non-compliance of the City requirement that a masonry wall rather than a chain link fence be installed to prevent cars from rolling down onto the property below; (4) the inadequacy of the number of parking spaces; (5) the difficulty in providing an accurate demonstration project; (6) the danger to school children disembarking from the bus on this corner; (7) the importance of maintaining a peaceful community regardless of the dBA level; (8) The overall inadequacy of the site for the mix of uses proposed; and the inappropriateness of the proposed use in a predominantly residential area.

The applicant Bill Myers, 28103 Hawthorne Blvd., distributed a sound report from Gordon Bricken & Associates and pointed out inaccuracies which misrepresented his plan. (Said report is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

Mr. Myers explained that he was unaware that the plan he submitted was not to scale but that it was intended to be a conceptual plan only. He said that a previously existing masonry wall had been removed at the request of residents so they could monitor any undesirable activities that might take place behind the wall.

Staff clarified that the code allowed the Planning Commission to waive the requirement for a masonry wall.

RECESS & RECONVENE:

Recess and Reconvene: At 8:50 P.M., Mayor Byrd declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:02 P.M.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, described activities on the vacant property adjacent to her home and the vandalism to her property.

Mobil Gas Station (1203 x 1804)

Additional Council comments centered on the fact that Council had not discussed the details of the demonstration project and that the site currently supports a successful business and has been developed to its full potential.

Mr. Myers agreed that the car wash conditions would be difficult to re-create for a demonstration project.

Council discussion centered on the importance of measuring current ambient sound; determining sound levels at other gas stations and car washes; and, whether an outline of the car wash area (including the queuing area leading in to the car wash and the drying area) could be drawn on the ground, and then a car driven through the area to determine if there was adequate space. Concern was expressed about whether the current signage complies with City requirements and if a demonstration project would provide enough information to make a more informed decision.

Mayor Pro Tem Lyon moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to uphold the appeal and deny the project. The bases for the motion included: (1) the site is inadequate to accommodate the additional use; (2) the property already enjoys substantial use; (3) the proposed car wash would be located at the back side of the existing building which is closest and most impactful to neighboring residential property; (4) the request is for revision of a Conditional Use Permit which is discretionary; (5) the proposed use would adversely affect the quality of life in the area; (6) the impact of increased traffic and noise; and, (7) the unwarranted intensification of an existing use.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Lyon, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Byrd

NOES: None

RECESS & RECONVENE:

Recess and Reconvene: At 9:28 P.M., Mayor Byrd declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 P.M.

Code Amendment No. 48 – A City initiated code amendment revising Section 17.86.050.A (Enforcement) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code (1203 x 1801 x 1806)

Mayor Byrd opened the public hearing on this request to introduce an ordinance related to amending Section 17.86.050.A of the Municipal Code. City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that correspondence from the public were included in the agenda packet and that some has been distributed to the Council at the beginning of the meeting.

Principal Planner Snow presented the staff report of April 18, 2000 and the recommendation to introduce the proposed ordinance, a city initiated proposal, to amend Section 17.86.050.A (Enforcement) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code to prohibit the filing or processing of a view restoration, view preservation, city tree review or other development or use applications by a property owner of a lot that is in violation of the Municipal Code.

Council discussion of the process for contacting a property owner when there is a code violation clarified that there is a first notice, after which a property owner can dispute the charge, then a second notice, and then a third, final notice before the City Council considers whether to direct the City Attorney to pursue legal remedies. It was suggested that there should a provision included in the ordinance which spells out the property owner’s right of appeal to the City Council even though this is always an option.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, Mayor Pro Tem Lyon seconded, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

The Council delayed until later in the meeting introduction of the ordinance to provide the City Attorney time to work out the appeal language for the ordinance.

REGULAR BUSINESS:

Amendment to City Council Policy Number 31 regarding encroachments of fences, walls pilasters and similar structures into the City's public rights-of-way. (306 x 1408)

Principal Planner Snow presented the staff report of April 18, 2000 and the recommendation to review and adopt amendments to the existing City Council Policy No. 31 regarding Encroachments into the Public right-of-way to include a simplified, staff level permitting process to address certain structures built within the City’s public rights-of-way that do not present any hazards for pedestrians, equestrians, and traffic, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and to change Section I of City Council Policy No. 31 from "Fences and Walls in the Right-of-Way" to "Fences, Walls, Pilasters and Other Similar Structures in the Right-of-Way." He indicated some minor revisions to the policy for clarification purposes.

Council discussion focused on making sure that this new procedure does not enable someone to build in the right-of-way too easily. It was clarified that findings specified in the policy had to be met to approve such encroachment. It was stressed that this change was intended for situations in which an encroachment was the fault of a developer, a homeowner’s honest mistake, or a prior owner’s unpermitted work, and would simplify legalization and reduce expense.

Councilman Stern moved to adopt staff recommendation as amended.

Michael Cicoria, 62 Oceanaire, spoke in support of the amendment, discussed how such structures were handled before incorporation, and mentioned that both safety and aesthetics were factors in considering whether pilasters were built. He mentioned a grandfathering approach to legalize existing encroaching structures that don’t constitute safety issues. (Mr. Circoria’s statement is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

Don Ferrara, 6301 Via Ciega, felt that the size of pilasters should be controlled and should not be installed merely as a barrier but as part of a fence to avoid a "barricade" appearance. He questioned the reduction of costs because he felt there was not a financial hardship in most cases.

Council inquired about space availability if pilasters were installed in the public right-of-way and what happens in the event of an undergrounding utility project. Staff clarified that a covenant would be recorded enabling removal of encroachments with ten days’ notice. In the case of an emergency requiring removal, no notice would be required.

The matter of lights on these structures was next discussed and it was clarified that lights would be allowed with a building permit and only if they did not impact adjacent properties.

Council discussion then centered on the balance of light which might shine in the eyes of drivers versus the safety that lights would provide for pedestrians walking at night. Staff noted that wattage, shielding, and opaque glass were conditions which could achieve that balance on a case-by-case basis.

Councilwoman Ferraro seconded Councilman Stern’s motion to adopt staff recommendation, as amended. Motion carried.

Ordinance 356 - Continuation of Code Amendment No. 48 (1203 x 1801 x 1806)

City Attorney Lynch read revised language to the amendment to indicate the right to appeal to the City Council.

Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to introduce Ordinance No. 356, A CITY INITIATED PROPOSAL, TO AMEND SECTION 17.86.050.A (ENFORCEMENT) OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE FILING OR PROCESSING OF A VIEW RESTORATION, VIEW PRESERVATION, CITY TREE REVIEW OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT OR USE APPLICATIONS BY A PROPERTY OWNER OF A LOT THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Lyon, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Byrd

NOES: None

Senate Bill 1714 (Brulte) - Regulation of Amateur Antennae (306 x 1801)

Principal Planner Snow presented the staff report of April 18, 2000 and the recommendation to discuss potential ramifications of this legislation and provide staff with direction on what action, if any, should be taken.

City Clerk Purcell mentioned that late correspondence had been distributed to the Council just prior to the meeting.

Dodie Clarkson, 6424 Seabryn Drive, stated that there was little time to prepare and that it would have been a courteous gesture to notify the Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Club that this item would be on the agenda. She emphasized the importance of amateur radio in the event of an emergency. She said that this bill would not preclude the City ordinance regulating antennas but that Federal law prohibited the City from restricting antennas and she explained this important difference.

Staff explained that this legislation was discovered on the Internet and that Senator Brulte’s office had not notified Rancho Palos Verdes and the Senator’s office was unable to provide background information on the Bill.

John Freeman, 6850 Faircove Drive, explained that the State’s motivation for this bill, which was very close to the Federal PRB-1, was to provide consistency throughout the state because some cities had ordinances which did not comply with Federal law. He said that even though Federal law pre-empted state and local law, it was easier for a private citizen to object to a local ordinance at the State level, rather than at the Federal level. He felt that the City’s ordinance, which had been carefully developed over a long period of time, was good and complied with PRB-1, the Federal regulation.

Mayor Byrd left the dais at 10:35 P.M.

Council discussed the fact that there might be room for interpretation between this bill and the City’s ordinance, but there appeared to be a major problem with inconsistency.

RECESS & RECONVENE:

Recess and Reconvene: At 10:37 P.M., Mayor Pro Tem Lyon declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:40 P.M. with Mayor Byrd back at the dais.

City Attorney Lynch said that she was concerned that the Brulte bill would be redundant since the Federal PRB-1 pre-empted any State or local ordinance. She stated that there was an inconsistency because this Bill could be construed to not allow antennae over 75 feet, whereas PRV-1 would allow for antennae over 75 feet depending on the outcome of the required balance test.

Herb Clarkson, 6424 Seabryn Drive, felt that the passing of this bill would have an impact on the Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Club. He said that the City’s ordinance was a good one that meets the federal regulations in PRB-1 but that the FCC does not want to enforce its regulations, preferring to leave this to the states and cities.

Council discussion centered on the section of the bill limiting local control of antennae up to 75 feet in height, deletion of which would make the bill more acceptable; the redundancy and inconsistency with the federal regulations; why the Federal government is not enforcing its antenna regulations, and that approval of this bill might put the City in a position of having to defend its antenna ordinance.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Byrd, to have the Mayor sign a letter, composed with assistance from City Attorney Lynch, with a copy to Senator Betty Karnette, expressing concerns that bill may be redundant and cause confusion with City ordinance, which was drafted with the assistance of the Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Club. Motion carried.

Resol. No. 2000-17 - Resolution in support of the City of El Segundo’s complaint against Los Angeles World Airports (306 x 1505)

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of April 18, 2000 and the recommendation to consider adoption of the proposed resolution in support of the city of El Segundo’s efforts to cause Los Angeles World Airports to cease its pattern and practice of approving projects that expand the capacity and/or operations of the airport without adequate environmental review.

Mayor Pro Tem Lyon moved, seconded by Mayor Byrd to ADOPT RESOL. No. 2000-17 IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO’S EFFORTS TO CAUSE LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS TO CEASE ITS PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF APPROVING PROJECTS THAT EXPAND THE CAPACITY AND/OR OPERATIONS OF THE AIRPORT WITHOUT ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED. Motion carried.

Community Leaders’ Breakfast Meeting – Change of Date (301 x 305)

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of April 18, 2000 and the recommendation to select a date for the fall Community Leaders’ Breakfast meeting.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, objected to the use of Marymount College for a City event because she felt it was contrary to the separation of Church and State.

Council consensus was to reschedule the fall Community Leaders Breakfast meeting for October 7, 2000, to be held at Marymount College.

First Amendment to Employment Agreement between the City and City Manager Les Evans (1202 x 1101)

City Attorney Lynch presented the staff report of April 18, 2000 and the recommendation to approve the amendment.

Council discussion focused on the effective date of the amendment.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman McTaggart, to approve the amendment with a different effective date of April 18, 2000.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Ferraro, Lyon, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Byrd

NOES: None

Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (901 x 1204)

Director Allison presented the staff report of April 18, 2000 and the recommendation to adopt the following proposed resolutions: (1) INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 AND ORDERING THE ENGINEER TO PREPARE A REPORT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. (2) APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001. (3) DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO.

Councilman Stern, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lyon, to continue this item to May 2, 2000. Motion Carried.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

City Attorney Lynch reported that the Council unanimously directed her to prepare a letter regarding Ocean Trails and to have staff agendize this item for a future meeting.

ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

Councilwoman Ferraro said that she and Councilman McTaggart had met with legislators and discussed hearings being held which gave them encouragement that the City might be able to receive credit for recycling before the State Mandate.

Councilman McTaggart and Councilwoman Ferraro both commented on progress with the aircraft noise problem and said that there would be two more meetings of the task force and then there would be a "round table" established for further discussion. Councilman McTaggart said that he would be attending a COG meeting on April 27 at which this topic would be discussed and he encouraged others to attend.

Councilman Stern reported that on March 31 he met with Robert Lowe and Robert Lowe, Jr. of Destination Resorts, and Mike Mohler regarding a modified plan for the Long Point project. He said that he also met on March 10 with Barbara Dye of Ocean Trails regarding a sewer pipe exposed by rain, and on April 7 with Jim York, Gary Weber and City staff regarding a revised proposal for the Filiorum property.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 11:17 P.M. on the motion of Mayor Pro Tem Lyon.

 

 

 

________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:

 

 

__________________

CITY CLERK

 

 

 

 

W:\2000 City Council Minutes\04182000 cc min.doc