M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Lyon at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard and was immediately recessed to a closed session per the Brown Act Checklist. At 7:04 P.M. the meeting reconvened.
After the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call was answered as follows:
Also present were City Manager Les Evans; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Senior Planner Kit Fox; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to approve the agenda, with the addition of the presentation by telecommunications providers which was on a posted agenda addendum. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
City Clerk Purcell announced that staff had requested that the resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards matter be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, commented on the following subjects: the Palos Verdes Drive South drainage repair project, resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards, approval of the lease extension between the City and the Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the award of the contract for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Sidewalk Repair Program.
Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to approve the amended 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.
Informal Bid and Pre-Ordering of HDPE Pipe and issuance of a Notice of Exemption for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project (1204 X 604)
Reviewed and reconfirmed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s action on September 4 to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project. (2) Adopted the Notice of Exemption for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project and direct staff to post notice of this action as required by law.
Resol. No. 2001- 75 - California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) (1103 X 1206)
Approved 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 Fiscal Year 2000-2001 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 data base. (2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-75, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSMENT TO THE CITY’S LLESS/COPS./CLEEP FUND
Approval of Lease Extension Between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes (1201)
Approved and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the lease agreement extension between the City and Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Award of Contract for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Sidewalk Repair Program (1204 X 1405)
Awarded a contract to Damon Construction in the amount of $44,175 and authorized staff to spend up to $5,825 for possible extra work, thereby approving a $50,000 construction budget. (2) Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Damon Construction. (3) Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with SA Associates in the amount of $12,000 to provide the necessary inspection and contract administration services.
Resol. No. 2001-76 - Register of Demands (602)
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-76, 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:
Mayor Lyon opened the discussion of this request to consider a proposed amendment to Ocean Trails Development Agreement and an amendment to Declaration of Restrictions. City Clerk Purcell announced that was a continued public hearing from the September 4, 2001 meeting. City Clerk Purcell noted that a revised copy of the development agreement had been submitted to the Council, with changes to Section 6.
Director McLean presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to approve the proposed amendment to Ocean Trails development agreement and the amendment to declaration of restrictions regarding the determination of Ocean Trail’s golf tax liability and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the documents on behalf of the City.
City Attorney Lynch discussed changes she made such as reorganizing the agreement for a better flow, minor changes, and correction of some typographical errors. She discussed bundling of services including, for example, a promotion with a meal included with golf. She said that, based on direction from the Council, the amount of the golf tax would be imputed based on typical golf fee and that in no event could fees charged separately from golf fees, like golf carts and caddies, exceed 25% of the golf fee. She added that Mr. Zuckerman indicated that his bankruptcy attorney said that Section 6 would not become effective until the bankruptcy court approves and Ms. Lynch stated that if the court does not approve the agreement by December 20, the amendment will not be binding on either side and that if the Court approved the agreement Ocean Trails would be required to pay retroactive fees.
Council discussion centered on packages which might be offered in the future to include a stay in the proposed Long Point Hotel or blocks of tee times which might be purchased by a business entity. It was understood that the agreement did address these issues to make sure that the appropriate golf tax was received and also that this agreement, if approved, would run with the land and would be binding on any future operator of the golf course; but if the proposed agreement was not approved by the bankruptcy court, then the original development agreement would remain in place unless renegotiations took place. Further clarification indicated that any tee times sold by someone who bought a block of tee times at a discounted rate would require that golf tax be paid on the actual amount for a round of golf unless the discounted price was greater.
Barbara Dye, representing Ocean Trails, One Ocean Trails Drive, said that she was speaking for Ocean Trails since Ken Zuckerman was out of town. She questioned the procedure that discount golf tickets bought at a discount rate and sold at a different price would be taxed at the regular rate.
After much discussion between Ms. Dye, the Council, and staff, it was clarified that Ocean Trails would not pay additional tax but would be merely the pass through for the tax to be paid by the ultimate user of the tee time, the golfer. An exception noted would be charitable donations, which were not taxable.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, to approve the proposed amendment to Ocean Trails development agreement and the amendment to declaration of restrictions regarding the determination of Ocean Trail’s golf tax liability and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the documents on behalf of the City. Motion carried.
City Attorney Lynch presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to introduce the proposed ordinance which makes a few minor amendments to the City’s golf tax. It should be noted that the revisions contained in the proposed ordinance did not address the amount of the golf tax or the issue of approval of the tax by the voters; those issues have been addressed in the ordinance that the City Council directed be submitted to the voters at the upcoming election in November. She suggested that the ordinance be revised to make it consistent with the suggestions in the previous item on the agenda, the Proposed Amendment to Ocean Trails Development Agreement and Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions.
Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 370, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S GOLF TAX.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
Amendment to the August 21st Minutes (301)
City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to consider Councilman Stern’s amendment to the August 21, 2001 minutes.
Councilman Stern moved to adopt the Minutes of August 21 as amended. He felt that the Council’s decision to delay action in Zone II was based on Council discussion and not on information in the staff report; consequently, a complete record was needed to reflect what was said. He added that in general he felt that minutes as currently prepared deprive the Council and the public of what was learned in discussions.
Council discussion centered on the Council policy which determines the current format for the Minutes and a quote was given from Roberts Rules of Order which states "If they [minutes] are to be published, it is often of far more interest to know what was said by the leading speakers than to know what routine business was done, and what resolutions adopted. In such cases, the duties of the secretary are arduous, and he should have at least one assistant".
Councilman Stern read samples from the current Council minutes and from current Planning Commission minutes, which actually stated the substance of what each person said.
Additional Council discussion included comments that the last several City Attorneys and the League of California Cities have advised the Council to have action minutes prepared; althought it was also commented by Councilman Stern that the City Attorney had given him contrary advice to that by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart and that two Councilmembers would like to have more detail than action minutes.
Councilman Stern said that sometimes there have been issues that arose from a prior decision and there was not enough detail to understand why the decision was made although recollections from Councilmembers were helpful.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to delay approval of the August 21 minutes to October 2 when discussion of the Council policy on minutes would be agendized.
Purchase of Pipe for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project (1101 x 604)
Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Authorize the purchase of RCP pipe from Rialto Concrete Pipe for a cost of $7,165. (2) Authorize the purchase of HDPE pipe from P&F Distributors for a cost of $45,557. (3) Authorize an expenditure of $96,862 for P&F to provide fitting and fabrication of HDPE pipe at the factory in order to reduce the overall cost and construction time of the project.
Council discussion centered on the pipe prefabrication aspect of the project which would result in a safer project with an earlier completion date.
Sam Van Wagner, 2763 San Ramon Drive, expressed his appreciation for the Council’s placing a priority on this project, the three community meetings which were held. He said that completion of this work before the rainy season begins would be very beneficial to homeowners in the neighborhood.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilmember Gardiner to (1) Authorize the purchase of RCP pipe from Rialto Concrete Pipe for a cost of $7,165. (2) Authorize the purchase of HDPE pipe from P&F Distributors for a cost of $45,557. (3) Authorize an expenditure of $96,862 for P&F to provide fitting and fabrication of HDPE pipe at the factory in order to reduce the overall cost and construction time of the project.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification (1204 x 1404)
Director Allison presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Approve the preliminary median and parkway landscape plan for Hawthorne Boulevard. (2) Authorize a contract amendment with Land Images, Inc., to provide professional services in an amount of up to $53,500 to prepare final construction plans for the first phase of landscape improvements for Hawthorne Boulevard. (3) Revise the expenditure plan for the Recycling Fund to reprogram funds from the neighborhood beautification program to Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification efforts. (4) Request staff to prepare a fence/wall improvement program for Hawthorne Boulevard that establishes a fence/wall standard for Hawthorne Boulevard, and provides City funding for a portion of the cost of private fence/wall replacement.
Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, expressed her desire that walls along Hawthorne Boulevard be built of native Palos Verdes stone.
Council discussion centered on the need for beautification, the high cost of the project, whether enough other options had been pursued, landscaping on public property to screen unattractive walls on private property; the importance of selecting trees of a type or location which will not interfere with views; funds set aside in the current budget for beautification; a request to staff to bring back cost-saving measures and more details of plants to be selected; the offer from Dawn Henry to provide plants grown in the Miraleste Parks and Recreation District; the requirement to avoid using invasive plants, particular near a canyon; whether the proposed plan met the goal of the City to maintain a semi-rural atmosphere; whether other arterials should be considered for beautification; the impact of taking recycling funds away from the Homeowners Associations; the hope that additional funding, maybe donations, etc., will shorten the time to complete the project; and the need to follow through with a fence/wall program on private property.
Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Lyon to adopt the staff recommendation with the caveat that the Public Works Director report on a regular basis on the progress of the project, that input be sought from the public, and that Council will make decisions regarding trees and vegetation as the project moves forward.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
RECESS & RECONVENE:
Dick Brunner, 1906 Peninsula Verde Drive, spoke about Harbor Hills, a development which was a border issue. He was concerned that cutting into the toe of a slope might jeopardize nearby homes in Rancho Palos Verdes and said that it appeared that the City of Los Angeles was not complying with the uniform building code.
Council replied that this was a border issue that was being monitored by the ad hoc committee; that it seemed the cut into the slope might be eliminated; that this project was on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors agenda for September 25 and that the Committee would investigate what aspect of the project would be discussed at that time. It was known that Supervisor Don Knabe was making a motion that notification to the cities was a necessity.
Don Shults, 2129 Velez Drive, discussed vendors offering to paint house numbers on curbs. He said that Neighborhood Watch said that homeowners should call the sheriff. He questioned whether these painters had permission to provide this service and whether they had business licenses and said that he planned the question the man who was going to be in his neighborhood the next day.
City Manager Evans replied that the problem seemed to be intimidation, rather than the lack of a license and a permit. He said that the City was no longer issuing permits to these type of vendors and that the Public Works Department was looking for an alternative.
Gloria Anderson, 6818 Los Verdes, Member of the Executive Board of the Peninsula Seniors invited the Council to a presentation on September 24 at the Senior Center by California State University at Long Beach at which results of a Senior Needs Assessment Survey would be discussed.
Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, described her experience attending the Zone II geologists’ meetings.
Resol. No. 2001- 77 - Resolution Approving the Installation of a Traffic Signal at Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive (1204 x 1503)
Director Allison presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution directing staff to install a traffic signal, with design features recommended by the City’s Traffic Engineer, at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive.
Council discussion focused on no mention of the additional criteria for installing signals which was requested by Council at the last meeting and staff’s reply that this subject was being placed on the Traffic Committee’s next agenda; whether Long Point could be required to pay a portion of the cost of this traffic signal installation because of increased traffic should their project be approved and City Attorney Lynch’s reply that this would have to be made a part of the development agreement but there were no findings at this time; whether a light which changed from amber/red/green during the day could be changed to a blinking amber or red light in the evening; the demand only feature of this signal which meant that the signal would not turn red on Hawthorne Boulevard unless there was cross traffic; and, the need to keep the traffic signal simple and predictable and the potential nuisance of having a blinking light shining into someone’s home.
Cathy Khaledi, 30524 Via La Cresta, spoke in opposition to installation of a traffic signal and asked that this item be continued because she felt there was inadequate notice. She was interested in safety and said that she felt compassion to those who had been victims of accidents at this intersection; however, she felt that alternatives have not been fully investigated. She believed that the three-week experiment involving the signal up the hill on Hawthorne Boulevard at Dupre turning red occasionally even though there was no cross traffic was too short and that the current flashing light was too close to the warning sign of an upcoming intersection to be helpful. Ms. Khaledi hoped that other methods would be tried short of a traffic signal and was opposed to flashing lights which might shine into her bedroom views. She expressed concerned about view impact and distributed photographs to the Council to illustrate that concern.
The Council discussed possibly making the signal pole more attractive and limiting the length of the mast arm, perhaps seeking advice from the company working with the City to beautify Hawthorne Boulevard.
Director Allison replied that there was very little flexibility in the length of the mast arm. He said that that possibly the metal pole could be painted or the pole could be made of wood painted white and that perhaps the illuminated street sign which was usually affixed to the mast arm could be eliminated.
Additional Council comments were that the traffic engineer report served a legal purpose in protecting the City; that it might be possible to place the taller signal pole a little further up the hill and put a shorter post at the intersection; and, the need to avoid unusual aspects of this traffic signal to eliminate driver confusion.
Robert King, 30764 Via La Cresta, spoke in favor of installation of the traffic signal and estimated that an informal poll indicated that 90 out of 104 homeowners in the La Cresta area were in favor also. He described a possible solution he observed in Reno, Nevada, which included installation of a warning light placed approximately 200 yards up the hill from this intersection which would flash when the signal below was yellow, would be a solid light when the signal was red and which would not be on at all when the signal was green. He said that the reasons the signal was needed were discussed at the last Council meeting and he believed installation would improve safety.
Christina Bothamley, 30714 Via La Cresta, said that he concern was safety and she urged the Council to listen to the Traffic Committee and the Homeowners Association. She was in favor of installation of the traffic signal and suggested the Council work with Tom Luckett of Land Images for suggestions in improving the aesthetics of the signal.
Thomas Cowell, 6780 Vallon Drive, spoke in favor of installation of the traffic signal because he felt it would prevent another tragic accident.
Council discussion centered on traffic devices which might be installed such as the one observed in Reno Nevada and the reply from staff that it was unlikely this would be recognized as an approved traffic device in California; relocation of the flashing beacon and intersection warning sign for better notification of the signal ahead; the possibility of a training program for speeders; appropriate placement of a speed board; and installation of different devices to alert drivers to slow down as they approach the signal.
Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem McTaggart to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-77, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DIRECTING STAFF TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, WITH DESIGN FEATURES RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY’S TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AT THE INTERSECTION OF HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD AND VALLON DRIVE AND TO CONSIDER VIEWS OF NEARBY RESIDENTS.
Resol. No. 2001-78 - Resolution Approving Funding for the Hawthorne Boulevard/ Vallon Drive Signal (1204 x 1503)
Director Allison presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution amending Resolution 2001-43, the Budget Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 for a budget adjustment to the City’s Capital Improvement Project Fund.
Councilmember Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-78, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
Gardiner, McTaggart, Stern, and Mayor Lyon
Request for Waiver of the Penalty Fee related to Conditional Use Permit No. 230 (1203 x 1804)
Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to deny the requested fee waiver.
Council noted that it seemed odd that the installer of the antenna had asserted under oath in a legal brief provided to the City that the applicant Mr. Kay had confined his commercial transmissions to the use of interior antennas but that Mr. Kay had not submitted this in writing to the City.
Carmen Trutanich, 407 North Harbor Boulevard, San Pedro, CA 90731, Trutanich and Michael, speaking for Bruce Bartram of his firm, stated that the question just posed was addressed in the California v. Kay lawsuit regarding an alleged 1999 violation of the municipal code and that the lawsuit was resolved in Mr. Kay’s favor. He said that the issue in question at this time was rooftop antennas, not interior, and that the allegation by Mr. Richter in 1999 that he had monitored transmission from Mr. Kay’s residence which he concluded was commercial transmission from a rooftop antenna was because Mr. Richter was unaware that the interior antennas were commercial. Mr. Trutanich stated that the City’s code dealt with aesthetics and safety but not frequencies, which were regulated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).
City Attorney Lynch stated that there has not been a ruling in the case in Mr. Kay's favor, as indicated by his attorney. The case is set for trial in November. She said that if a CUP were granted, there would be no need for the City to go to trial to obtain a permanent injunction. She indicated that Mr. Kay has applied for a CUP and was now making this request for a fee waiver. She clarified that the municipal code regulates the use of commercial antennas whether they are exterior or interior, although an interior antenna would have no visual impact to neighbors and would be more likely to be approved. She closed by saying that there was evidence, according to FCC licenses that had been issued for this property, that there were commercial uses at this site prior to installation of the interior antenna in 1998, and that the City believed that exterior antennas were being used.
Carmen Trutanich said that originally there were exterior antennas only and the CUP was to allow commercial use. When it was discovered that were interior commercial antennas, City staff changed the focus and required a CUP for the interior as well as the exterior antennas. He said that he felt the municipal code was not intended to address interior antennas.
City Attorney Lynch emphasized that Mr. Kay has no CUP at all.
Council noted that even though an interior antenna would not impact neighbors’ news, there was still a requirement for a CUP.
Carmen Trutanich stated that the City had the power to regulate certain aspects of antennas but he felt that regulations did not apply to an interior antennas based on what Mr. Richter was detecting as transmission from an exterior antenna. He said that Mr. Kay had applied for a CUP on June 21, 2001 and probably would have been granted the CUP if he had not delayed the process to request a fee waiver.
City Attorney Lynch said that this matter was on the Planning Commission’s agenda in October and it was presumptuous to say what its decision would be.
When Council asked if Mr. Kay had broadcast commercially using his interior antennas during the time period of 1995-1999, Mr. Trutanich replied that that Mr. Kay had been granted a license in 1995 but there was no evidence that he had transmitting until 1999 and that Mr. Kay had to be considered innocent until proven guilty. He reiterated that the City interpreted the municipal code differently and he and his client felt that the municipal code regulated mostly aesthetic aspects of antennas. He emphasized that that the fee waiver was the issue before the City Council.
Council discussion focused on the absence of a statement from the applicant regarding the use of his antennas; the requirement for a CUP for interior antennas; the lack of a CUP for an interior antenna, which would mean that neighbors’ experiencing interference for which the source was unknown; and, the after-the-fact application of a CUP which requires additional fees.
Mr. Trutanich argued that there was no evidence that Mr. Kay had transmitted using an exterior antenna and felt that the additional fee was unjust because the initial complaint was based on use of external antennas.
Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to deny the requested fee waiver. Motion Carried.
Traffic Study – Highridge Road at Hawthorne Boulevard (1204 x 1503)
Director Allison presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to provide direction regarding the scope of the traffic study to be conducted at the intersection of Highridge Road at Hawthorne Boulevard.
Director Allison explained that up until a few months ago, a U-turn was never allowed at the first opportunity on Highridge Road at Ridgegate to come back down Highridge Road to enter the car wash from that street but it had been determined that this was an unsafe U-turn because of the single lane of traffic on Highridge Road. He said that the issue was brought to the attention of the Public Works Department and then to the Traffic Engineer, who investigated and suggested this action.
Council discussion focused on a Councilmember site visit which produced the suggestion that a scaled drawing and perhaps a PowerPoint presentation be provided at a future Council meeting to give a sense of the site and the surrounding area; a suggestion to pose the question to be answered by the Traffic study, such as would allowing a U-turn make the intersection less safe, more safe, or the same; an opinion that the U-turn at Ridgegate was unsafe because it sometimes required stopping and backing up in order to execute the U-turn; and, whether it would possible to require Mr. Govani, the owner of the car wash, to bear all or part of the expense of the additional traffic study.
City Attorney Lynch clarified that there was no vehicle for this requirement since Mr. Govani had no application to make any changes at his site.
Christian Faulk, 22497 Kent Avenue, Torrance, CA 90505, spoke in support of allowing a U-turn at this intersection when traveling up the hill on Hawthorne Boulevard, stating that he found it inconvenient to gain access when he came to the location for business purposes in his capacity as a consultant. He said that U-turns were allowed on Hawthorne Boulevard in both directions at Palos Verdes Drive North as well as in both directions at the Mobil station on Hawthorne Boulevard at Granvia Altamira. He stated that Mr. Govani’s business would probably not increase by allowing a U-turn but his customers and the residents at the apartments/condominiums directly up the hill would benefit by easier access.
Additional Council discussion centered on the location of the driveway off Hawthorne Boulevard which necessitates a very quick right turn immediately after a U-turn going up the hill on Hawthorne Boulevard at Highridge Road; a suggestion to provide to the Traffic Committee scaled diagrams and traffic data, including visibility, of other intersections to compare conditions;
Shiraz Govani, 6945 Alta Vista Drive, owner of the car wash at the corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road, stated that he had signatures from over 50 of his customers who wished to have a U-turn allowed for easier access to the car wash.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to perform a traffic study incorporating Council comments. Motion carried.
Status of Review of Geologic and Geotechnical Data for Zone II (1101 x 1801)
City Manager Evans presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to receive a draft report from Cotton, Shires & Associates. He indicated that the peer review consultants had not had an opportunity to review Mr. Cotton’s report and suggested that the final report with the peer group’s input might be available in about a month.
Bill Cotton, Cotton, Shires & Associates, 300 Village Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95030, said that his firm was retained to review the large variety of documents and technical information on the Abalone Cove region and the area directly upslope known as Zone II. He explained that they were studying information developed by other groups to determine if there was sufficient information to make a judgment of the stability of Zone II and the feasibility of adding additional residential structures. Mr. Cotton felt there was insufficient information to judge the stability of the land but he did not believe that by adding individual homes with tight restrictions on grading, construction, drainage, etc, the equilibrium would be upset. However, he clarified that the land might move on its own. He emphasized that the best course of action to maintain stability was to prevent water from entering the ground and using dewatering wells to remove water.
Responding to Council queries, Mr. Cotton stated that the risk of land movement was the same to homeowners currently residing in Zone II as it would be to owners of newly constructed homes in Zone II; that any or all of the land might move but he could not predict; that more subsurface information obtained by drilling might provide a characterization of the slide; that water was the most important factor in a landslide; that whether there was additional building or not, the land might move or not; and, that the best approach to dealing with a landslide was to follow through with suggestions made by Dr. Perry Ehlig.
Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, disagreed with action being taken on Palos Verdes Drive South.
Christopher Smith, 1236 Via Landeta, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274, a lot owner in Zone II, urged the Council to absorb the information being provided to them and act on it. He said that Mr. Cotton said that additional homes would not cause destabilization and Mr. Smith asked that the Council keep the decision regarding allowing additional homes in Zone II as a priority since the property owners who wished to build had been waiting for so long.
Jack Monks, 32200 Schooner Drive, a lot owner in Zone II, said that he had hoped his children would have been able to grow up in a home in this area and when he bought the land seven years ago, he believed from his discussions with Perry Ehlig that he would be able to build within a reasonable time. He said that the City had been aware of the geological problems for some time and he felt that the property owners deserved an answer.
Chris Haber, 8720 Bleriot Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90045, a lot owner in Zone II, said that he too had hoped his children could have grown up in a home in this area and he described conversations at the time he purchased his lot with the Public Works staff regarding installation of sewers which are finally being installed seven years later. He said that the property owners were willing to accept the level of risk of the current homeowners in Zone II and was reassured by Mr. Cotton’s statement that new homes would not increase the possibility of land movement.
Council discussion centered on the Council hearing schedule to be followed to allow review by the peer review group and a final report to be prepared with those comments as well as comments by the public. It was reiterated that geologists who had not previously been involved in the geology be consulted.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to receive the report; direct staff to provide the peer group report and provide information on disinterested geologists; and, continue this item to a fifth Tuesday meeting on October 30. Motion carried.
Presentation by Telecommunications Providers Regarding Placement of Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (1601)
Director Allison reported that he and City Attorney Lynch had been working with Sprint, who was giving tonight’s presentation, and three other companies which have applications before the City. He said that the City has no policy right now regarding telecommunications facilities being installed in the right-of-way and that tonight the Council would hear from Sprint, staff, and residents in order to work toward the formulation of a policy. Mr. Allison provided a computer generated visual presentation which showed typical current installations and proposed sites.
Councilman Stern disclosed that he had received a notice from Miraleste Intermediate School with indicated that an entity desired to install such a facility near their property.
Rob Searcy, Terra Firma Services, 5757 Century Boulevard, #604, Los Angeles, CA 90045, representing Sprint, gave a computer generated visual presentation showing statistics about the growth in wireless communication, the facilities require for coverage, the types of sites required, aesthetics, and examples of underground and above ground facilities.
Councilwoman Ferraro left the meeting at 12:15 A.M.
A question and answer with Council ensued with the following information being obtained: Director Allison has a map with all the proposed sites on the Peninsula. The other providers besides Sprint who have applied to the City are Nextel, AT & T, Verizon, and Cingular. Sprint has approached all the Cities on the Peninsula and has had applications in to Rancho Palos Verdes since October 2000. Sprint may need a few more sites over the years but mostly will be able to increase capacity at the currently proposed sites.
Charles Hillinger, 3131 Dianora, representing the Mira Catalina Homeowners Association, stated that a pole was placed in cement without warning near his back yard and near two other neighbors for whom he was speaking. He said that he had spoken with the City and was told that the pole would be removed and that another would not take its place.
Director Allison replied that the pole would be removed within two weeks.
Greg Sanders, 18101 von Karmann, Suite 1800, Irvine, 92612, attorney representing Spring PCS, said that Sprint wished to cooperate with the City as much as possible according to the Federal Communications Act to provide facilities for users of wireless communication.
Council discussion focused on the need for City guidelines to install these facilities in the most efficient, aesthetically pleasing way given the limitation of the City’s powers per the Federal Communications Act. Council consensus was to direct staff to provide at the next meeting demands, restrictions, and issues on which the City could make decisions.
City Council Assignments (306)
City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of September 18, 2001 and the recommendation to make Council assignments to certain delegate and alternate positions previously held by former Councilman Byrd.
Councilman Gardiner agreed to take all Council assignments to certain delegate and alternate positions previously held by former Councilman Byrd, as follows: Delegate for Palos Verdes Transit. Alternate for California Joint Powers Authority, Contract Cities, and West Basin Water District.
Resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards (1204 x 1404)
Staff recommendation was to (1) Award a $634,534 construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company for the resurfacing of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards and authorize staff to spend an additional $63,453 for possible extra work, thereby approving a $697,987 construction budget. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company. (3) Award a $43,600 professional services agreement to DMc for construction management and inspection services. (4) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract for a professional services agreement with DMc Engineering.
Council consensus was to continue this item to October 2, 2001.
2001 Progress Report on the Implementation of the General Plan (1203 x 701)
Staff recommendation to Direct staff to forward the City’s Annual Progress Report on the General Plan to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and to the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the current status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during Calendar Year 2000 and through June 30, 2001.
Council consensus was to continue this item to October 2, 2001.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT:
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 12:47 A.M. on motion of Mayor Lyon to Saturday, September 29, at 9:00 A.M. for the Community Leaders’ Breakfast at Hesse Park.