Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes 02/07/2002 RPV, City, Council, Adjourned, Minutes, 2002, Meeting RPV City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes for 02/07/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Minutes February 7, 2002


M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 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.

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

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

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; Accounting Manager Kathryn Downs; Senior Planner Kit Fox; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.

RECYLE DRAWING

A card was drawn and Mayor McTaggart mentioned details of an electronic roundup to be held in Carson on February 23, 2002, from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.

CEREMONIAL ITEM

On behalf of the City Council, Councilman Clark presented chrome license plate frames to Mayor McTaggart inscribed with Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor 2002.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to approve the agenda, as presented.  Motion carried.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Mayor Pro Tem Stern, Councilman Clark, and Councilman Gardiner made corrections to the minutes and Mayor Pro Tem Stern asked that the item regarding the Agreement for Professional Services with Geotechnical Review Panel Members be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed before the first Regular Business item.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern 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.

Minutes of January 12, 2002 (301)

Approved the minutes, as amended.

Award Contract for Services to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Construction of a New Single-Family Residence (1203)

Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional services agreement in an amount not to exceed $18,380 with RBF Consulting to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for proposed construction of a new single-family residence on vacant property located at 3787 Coolheights Drive.

December 2001 Treasurer’s Report (602)

Ordered received and filed.

Register of Demands (602)

ADOPTED 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.


Agreement for Professional Services with Geotechnical Review Panel Members (1203 x 201)

Staff recommendation was to approve agreements for professional services with Bing Yen, Glenn Brown and Monte Ray.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern pointed out that there might be fiscal impact from potential liability, suggesting that the consultants might have insurance which would be the primary means of protection for them, and asked that language be added to clarify that work cannot be subcontracted or assigned to other individuals.

City Attorney Lynch replied that the assignment of work would be clarified and that none of the consultants had insurance and clarified that the indemnification covered their professional services not such incidents as car accidents while on City business.

Councilman Clark asked how the rate of compensation was determined.

City Attorney Lynch indicated that there was no change in their rate of compensation and it had been determined initially by discussions with the consultants.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, was opposed to different hourly rates for the three Geotechnical Review Panel Members.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to approve agreements, as amended, for professional services with Bing Yen, Glenn Brown and Monte Ray.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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


REGULAR BUSINESS:

Beautification Grant Funding and Program Options (1204 x 602)

Director Allison presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to provide direction to staff regarding the characteristics of the neighborhood beautification grant program.

Councilman Clark asked if the $100,000 in the budget had been earmarked for a specific project.

Director Allison replied that it had not been and that money was being put aside for future projects.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that grants might be for different amounts because sometimes funding for large projects required grants for two or three subsequent years.

Mayor McTaggart said that some projects require less than the normal grant amount also.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that instead of sequential funding, possibly a fund could be established for larger projects.

Mayor pro tem Stern discussed input he received from the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Association and said that they were in favor of association matching funds, and preferred Option No. 3. which allowed the larger associations to take on larger projects because fund raising was relatively easy. He said this was not the same procedure as suggested by Councilman Gardiner but would provide the same result.

Mayor McTaggart clarified that neighborhoods could receive grants without being a homeowners association.

Councilman Clark felt it would be helpful to determine which areas of the City were not associated with a homeowners association.

Mayor pro tem Stern indicated that when he was President of the Homeowners Council, there were 35 association members and that some of those groups were not particularly active. He said that it might be easy for some groups to form an entity to apply for a grant, such as a condominium development.

City Manager Evans stated that there had been announcements in the City Newsletter and through other means of communication emphasizing that it was not necessary to form a homeowners association to apply for a grant. He explained that the grant amount set by the Public Works Department met the needs of most projects but there had been a precedent set for funding of a meaningful project such as the $40,000 granted to the Miraleste Recreation and Park District.

Council consensus was that applications should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that there had been a history of phased projects funded over several years but they were not necessarily submitted in that fashion originally. He said that maybe they could be in the future.

Councilman Gardiner asked what happened if there were requests for more funds than were available.

City Manager Evans replied that this had not happened and he referenced a point system for evaluating projects.

Councilman Clark said that how recently a group had received a grant might be a factor.

Mayor McTaggart was in favor of increasing the base grant amount as mentioned at previous meeting.

Don Shults, 2129 Velez, discussed a phone call with Brian Campbell (President of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations) during which they talked about a concern regarding the same groups receiving grants repeatedly, however, if there were sufficient funds and not too many requests, he felt this should not be a problem. He agreed that it should be made clear that it was not necessary to form a homeowners association to apply for a grant. However, he said that he and Mr. Campbell agreed that some of the larger homeowners associations might have larger projects which would require additional funding.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner to approve Option No. 3.

Councilman Clark felt it was important to increase the individual grant amount and Option No. 3 did not provide this increase.

Mayor pro tem Stern withdrew his motion and moved to approve a modified Option No. 4 which provides a base grant of $3,000, and provides a dollar for dollar match up to an additional grant amount of $1,500, which allows for a total project amount of $6,000, with the total allowable funding for matching part of the grant limited to $30,000 overall for all grants.
 
Councilman Clark felt the motion should include an outreach to residents who are not members of a homeowners association.

The maker and seconder of the motion agreed to this addition. Motion carried.

Traffic Calming on Via Rivera (1204 x 1502)

Director Allison presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to (1) Approve the installation of a series of speed humps along Via Rivera Avenue between Rue De La Pierre and Via Del Mar in accordance with the City’s Traffic Calming Program. (2) Authorize the expenditure of up to $40,000 for the engineering and construction of speed humps, signs and pavement markings along Via Rivera. (3) Adopt the proposed resolution amending Resolution 2001-43, the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 for a budget adjustment to the City’s General Fund.

Director Allison stated that because the meeting was rescheduled to February 7 from February 5, a continuance to February 19 was necessary to fulfill noticing requirements and that the Council could hear testimony but speakers were encouraged to wait until February 19 to give their comments.

Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts – Proposed Assessment Deferral Loans (602 x 901)

Director McLean presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 including the Finance Advisory Committee’s recommendations as listed on Page 7 of their report.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if there was any data available to assess when loans would be repaid. He further elaborated that it appeared as though the financial model contained in the staff report was based upon the worst case scenario; that property owners participating in a loan deferral program would continue to own the property throughout the entire duration of the term debt obligation, therefore, the City would pay the assessments until the end of the term of the district debt obligation.

Director McLean said that because no information regarding the frequency of property sales was easily available, the financial models were based upon the assumption that some properties would transfer within a 20-year period based on mortality rates only. Other sales frequency trends would be completely unpredictable.

Councilman Gardiner asked if the 1913 Act required the City to set aside this large fund up front for a 20-year stream and he wondered why there could not be a deferral fund enabling annual contributions to it over a period of time.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell, Deputy City Attorney, explained that there were legal limitations in the City’s ability to make contracts for future years but there were two options. The City could: (1) create a deferral fund which would be sufficient to make assessment payments on behalf of participating property owners over the life of the term debt and enter into an agreement with the property owner to make those payments on behalf of the property owner or (2) enter into an agreement in which the City makes a commitment to make the assessment payment on behalf of the property owner for only one year at a time.

Councilman Gardiner expressed the concern that a long-term agreement would be established; the home might sell a short time thereafter. He further stated that although the funds would be released, it seemed like a lot of money to set aside at the outset.

Councilman Clark pointed out that there were not mutually beneficial results by implementing the deferral fund.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt that the two options seemed to be two extremes and that ideally, perhaps the City would like to be able to say that as long as a property owner continues to qualify, the City would commit to make payments for that year only.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell explained that the annual option provided something close to that arrangement because the City could enter into an agreement with the homeowner at the outset to pay their assessments from year to year but the City still reserved the right to discontinue paying the assessment after any year. He clarified that the City could use either option in the same Undergrounding District.

Mayor pro tem Stern pointed out that it was not just a matter of trusting the City but that sometimes circumstances change and options could be eliminated.

Mayor McTaggart raised the idea of reserving cash funds and dedicating the interest earnings for deferral loans.

Director McLean indicated that interest currently earned was less than 4%; therefore, a substantial amount of monies would have to be reserved.

Mayor pro tem Stern speculated that this would not provide enough income.

Councilman Clark asked if other cities have successful mechanisms like this.

City Manager Evans said that Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach have been involved with undergrounding utilities, but they don’t have a loan deferral programs like this one under consideration.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell noted that Berkeley has created an elaborate procedure for financing but it did not involve any loan assistance from the City. He said that undergrounding utilities was relatively rare and generally did not include provisions for deferral loans.

Councilman Clark asked if technological advances had reduced the cost of undergrounding utilities to the point that the cost estimates include in the financial models were overstated.

Director Allison replied that in his regular conversations with Scott Gobble of Southern California Edison, there had been no indication of cost reductions now, or in the future.

Mayor McTaggart felt the opposite was true and that costs were much higher than just a few years ago.

Councilman Clark said that there was a miniscule contribution from Southern California Edison which did not take into account significant lifelong cost savings sustainment of the system and maintenance of the infrastructure.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell agreed that the Southern California Edison would provide a credit but the amount was small, only about 10-15%.

Councilman Clark felt that Edison’s contribution did not cover the benefit they would be receiving in terms of reduced costs for maintaining the overhead system.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell clarified that Southern California Edison’s contribution was governed by rules set by the Public Utilities Commission.

Councilman Gardiner recalled that Scott Gobble had mentioned a figure of $9.00 credit for a cost of $300.00 per foot.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt that there could be no change other than through lobbying.

Councilman Clark said he would like to see the City participate in this lobbying.

Councilman Gardiner said that he had heard of money available in San Diego for a project by Pacific Gas & Electric and asked if there money available for undergrounding projects.

Mayor McTaggart said this would apply only to major arterial undergrounding.

Deputy City Attorney Mandell indicated that a portion of each ratepayer’s utility bill went into a fund for undergrounding projects of substantial community benefit but the City’s fund currently had a negative balance.

Director McLean then summarized the recommendations from the Finance Advisory Committee as detailed in the staff report.

Councilman Gardiner pointed out that were two types of financial hardship. One was for someone on a fixed income and the other might be for someone with a temporary setback. He noted that the City Council had the ability to not approve an Undergrounding District if there too many homeowners adversely impacted.

Councilman Clark asked if there was sufficient interest in pursuing an undergrounding process and an assessment deferral process or was this merely a hypothetical debate.

Director Allison indicated that there were usually four to five inquiries per year and that after the procedure was discussed by the Council last fall, there had been three to four calls.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt that the mechanism should be established and until there is publicity, the City will not know how many successful districts could be established. However, the benefits of undergrounding were many and it was worth pursuing.

Councilman Gardiner asked about the undergrounding of high voltage wires and if this was including in undergrounding and Director Allison stated that they could not be included because they provide general benefit.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern noted that the cost to underground these wires was astronomical compared to the ones being addressed in this process.

City Attorney Lynch confirmed that the wires were not included and that it would be important for the residents to know that these wires would remain when making a decision to underground their neighborhood.

City Attorney Lynch indicated that the procedure itself would have to be brought back to the Council because approval of the proposed guidelines was delayed until the loan deferral procedure was established.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked about interest charge.

Director McLean said it could be a little over the city’s LAIF, approximately 1-4% greater than the City’s LAIF rate.

Councilman Gardiner inquired about the percentage of the City which was already undergrounded and Director Allison replied that it was approximately 60%.

Director McLean added that Chair Butler of the Finance Advisory Committee had expressed an opinion that the frequency of undergrounding and requests for loan deferrals would probably be less than expectations.

Council consensus was to adopt the Finance Advisory Committee’s recommendations with a provision to charge interest a few points above the LAIF rate and agendize Council review of the process to establish an Undergrounding Assessment District.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 8:52 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Alexander Barth, a high school Peninsula Library Board Trustee explained that the student trustees were getting out into the community to make citizens aware of their activities, as well as those of other student appointees; and, to become more aware of the focus of local government. He made reference to an article in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News about student appointees.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, spoke in protest of the fee charged to her for receiving the agenda packet. She asked that this ordinance be overturned.

Ordinance No. 373 establishing new regulations applicable to the issuance of business permits and the regulation of massage establishments and massage technicians operating in the City (1101 x 1103)

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to (1) Adopt, by reference, Los Angeles County’s current regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians. (2) Adopt Los Angeles County’s licensing procedures in addition to the regulations for massage establishments and massage technicians. (3) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 (GENERAL LICENSING PROCEDURES) AND CHAPTER 7.54 OF DIVISION 2 OF TITLE 7 (MASSAGE) OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CODE. (4) Enter into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office to license massage establishments and massage technicians within the City. (5) Modify the City’s agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to perform background investigations of applicants for business permits for massage establishments and massage technicians within the City.

Darlene Morales, owner of The Nail Nook, 28731 Western Avenue, said that her business had been at its present location for 14 years and provided mostly nail and skin care but for ten years had also been providing massage therapy services. She explained delays and the lack of cooperation from Los Angeles County regarding the performance of background checks which were required for a massage therapist license.

City Manager Evans hoped, assuming the City Council accepted staff recommendation, that the City would be able to assist Ms. Morales in expediting this process.

City Attorney Lynch outlined the problems and delays associated with adopting the County ordinance or having the City handle the licensing process on its own. She recommended that the Sheriff’s Department perform the background checks and she estimated that each background check would take about three months. She clarified that the business as well as the therapist required separate background checks and licenses.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern felt that having the Sheriff’s Department perform the background checks was logical because, given the small number of massage establishments in the City, it did not make sense to train someone at the City to handle this task. However, he did see the importance of providing public protection in establishing that these businesses and the individual therapists were legitimate.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that Ms. Morales seek assistance from Dick Simmons in his San Pedro office. Mr. Simmons works for Don Knabe, the Fourth District Los Angeles County Supervisor.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to (1) Adopt, by reference, Los Angeles County’s current regulations governing massage establishments and massage technicians. (2) Adopt Los Angeles County’s licensing procedures in addition to the regulations for massage establishments and massage technicians. (3) Introduce Ordinance No. 373, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 (GENERAL LICENSING PROCEDURES) AND CHAPTER 7.54 OF DIVISION 2 OF TITLE 7 (MASSAGE) OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CODE. (4) Enter into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office to license massage establishments and massage technicians within the City. (5) Modify the City’s agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to perform background investigations of applicants for business permits for massage establishments and massage technicians within the City.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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

Border Issues Status Report (1203 x 310)

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to review the current status of border issues and provide direction.

Senior Planner Fox discussed new developments and action taken as detailed in the staff report for the Harbor Hills project, the Garden Village Shopping Center, and the proposed golf course in Rolling Hills Estates. He also mentioned the possibility of San Pedro, Wilmington, and Harbor City joining together to break away from the City of Los Angeles to form a separate city.

Councilman Gardiner asked about the status of Mr. Esfahani’s situation with the City of Palos Verdes Estates and whether it would be necessary to make a cut in the median in order to haul through that City the necessary dirt associated with the project for his Rancho Palos Verdes home.

Director Allison replied that Mr. Esfahani is convinced he can negotiate an arrangement with the City of Palos Verdes Estates to avoid this cut but, to date, this has not been accomplished.

Councilman Clark raised the issue of the formation of a new city having a potential impact to Eastview residents who have children attending Los Angeles Unified District schools. He asked staff to investigate whether it was expected that a new school district would be formed.

Mayor pro tem Stern suggested that groups which are in favor of this new city being formed be contacted to determine this information.

City Manager Evans said that he would prepare a letter for the Mayor’s signature.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted that the January 12 minutes mentioned postponement of appointment of ad hoc committees for specific border issues and asked if the entire Council would continue to address each issue.

Mayor McTaggart indicated that until other specific border issues ad hoc committees were established, he and Councilman Gardiner would act as a general border issues committee in the interim and that the Council would continue to determine border issues to be addressed.

Don Shults, 2129 Velez, representing Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association, thanked the author of the staff report for the status update and expressed concern about establishing a border along Western Avenue between San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes if a new city is formed.

Mayor McTaggart felt that borders would not be changed but that some discrepancies might be corrected, such as a sign being in the City of Los Angeles (San Pedro) and the business associated with that sign being located in Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as a border error at one intersection.

Don Shults felt that Eastview children attending L.A. Unified schools would not be greatly impacted because there weren’t that many attending.

City Manager Evans said that the next border issues status would be on a Council agenda in March.

Interview Schedule for Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee Applicants (106)

City Clerk Purcell presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to (1) Approve the interview schedule for applicants for the Planning Commission. (2) Approve the interview schedule for applicants for the Finance Advisory Committee.

City Clerk Purcell explained that a schedule had been established to interview Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee applicants on two upcoming Saturdays, February 9 and 23, and that applicants had been advised of their appointments. Binders distributed to the Council contained applications for all advisory boards for interviews to be scheduled over the next few weeks.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, recommended that the Chair of the Planning Commission receive $100 a month for expenses instead of the amount of $50 which all the Commissioners receive, since the Chair has a responsible position and it would duplicate the concept that the Mayor receives more money for expenses than the other Councilmembers.

Modification of City Council Rules of Procedure (306 x 307)

Mayor Pro Tem Stern presented the staff report of February 7, 2002 and the recommendation to consider the suggestion of Mayor Pro Tem Stern to add a new item 5 to Rules 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure, which shall read: 5. Prior to hearing public testimony or comments Councilmembers are encouraged to raise questions or articulate issues of concern which they may have which may assist members of the public to focus comments upon those questions or issues.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt that public comments and questions often help the Council make a decision and if they know the issues Council is concerned about, the public can comment on these specific topics. He explained that this proposed policy was not intended to stifle public comment but to provide the best input.

Mayor McTaggart was concerned that the public might feel that this would indicate the Council had a certain mindset about a project that would hinder honest deliberations.

Mayor pro tem Stern believed this would accomplish the opposite and would simply allow the public to see what was going on in the minds of the Council, and help answer Council questions.

Mayor McTaggart felt that questioning staff was sufficient and to give an indication to the public of Council’s viewpoint might negate the public hearing.

Councilman Gardiner saw the value in directing public comments to a particular aspect of a project which might be of concern to a Councilmember.

Mayor McTaggart read the section of the policy which referred to Council questioning staff.

Councilman Gardiner felt that staff might not have all the answers; that the public might offer a different perspective. He was concerned, however, that a member of the public might have a prepared speech and that it was important that this not be replaced by addressing specific Council concerns. He believed that the worst thing that might happen would be duplication of information and that the best thing would be more focused public comments.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that questions of staff and the public would often be different and that this policy would create more dialogue between the public and the Council.

Councilman Clark stated that he was initially concerned about the public leaping to the conclusion that the Council might have already made up their minds and that their concerns might offer evidence of a predetermined decision, but then he understood that this policy might elicit focused input from the community.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that Council comments before taking public testimony would also allow the project applicant to see what concerns the Council had and give the applicant an opportunity to possibly explain away those concerns. He agreed that this policy should not take away their right to present their planned remarks.

Mayor McTaggart was concerned that there could be legal problems.

City Attorney Lynch said that it was acceptable to ask speakers to focus on particular aspects of a project but that the Council would have to make sure their own comments did not indicate the support or opposition to a project.

Councilman Clark suggested that explicit language be added to the policy to indicate that the Council would not prejudge a project before the public hearing was closed.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed, and said that this would indicate that the Council would not be stating their vote but merely encouraging speakers to assist in the Council’s decision making process by providing focused input.

Mayor McTaggart felt that, with clarification, the policy would be acceptable, however, he felt the current policy was sufficient.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to add a new item 5 to Rules 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure, which shall read: 5. Prior to hearing public testimony or comments Councilmembers are encouraged to raise questions or articulate issues of concern which they may have which may assist members of the public to focus comments upon those questions or issues and to request that City Attorney Lynch draft language to indicate that the Council would not make their possible vote known before the public hearing was closed.

Barbara Statler 1904 Avenida Aprenda, felt it was important for people speaking before the Council to be allowed to give their prepared remarks and with the constraint of three minutes to speak, she hoped there would be enough time for their remarks and to also address Council concerns. She stated that she was in favor of dialogue between the Council and the speakers.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

Mayor Pro Tem Stern stated that he had lunch the previous Friday with Todd Anderson and two other representatives from the Girls’ Softball League, and they told him about their interest in having a playing field at lower Point Vicente Park.

Mayor McTaggart said that he also had been contacted by Todd Anderson previously and had already reported this conversation.

Councilman Gardiner reported that he was having breakfast the following morning with Todd Anderson and Brent Eads and two others regarding the same issue.

Mayor McTaggart described a Contract Cities Executive Board Meeting at which the collective cost of the NPDES permit for the County of Los Angeles was discussed. He said that there was a report prepared by an independent group which was expected to be available at a Contract Cities meeting on April 24 and that that Contract Cities was hoping for attendance from cities and businesses to show support and to make known the problems with compliance.

Mayor McTaggart, a member of the SCAG Housing Committee, explained the critical need for cities to provide information to SCAG for the affordable housing issue.


RECESS, RECONVENE, CLOSED SESSION REPORT, AND ADJOURNMENT:

At 10:15 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess to the Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority, and Closed Session meetings. The regular Council meeting reconvened at 10:30 P.M. and, after a closed session report from City Attorney Lynch in which she reported no action was taken, the meeting was immediately adjourned in honor of James Ishibashi to Saturday, February 9 at 9:00 A.M. at Hesse Park for Advisory Board Interviews.


____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________

CITY CLERK