CC MINS 20050517MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 17, 2005
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Clark at Fred Hesse Community
Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes.
Roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Stern, Long, Wolowicz, Clark
ABSENT: Gardiner (excused absence)
Also present were City Manager Les Evans; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Assistant City
Manager /City Clerk Carolynn Petru; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Director of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean
Allison; Senior Planner Ara Mihranian; Senior Administrative Analyst Lauren Ramezani;
Associate Planner Eduardo Schonborn; and Minutes Reporter Debra Presutti.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by retired Captain Robert Barry, Sr.
RECYCLE DRAWING:
Mayor Clark announced John Yoshida as recycler of the month and encouraged the
City's residents to continue recycling.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS:
The Mayor's Did You Know presentation focused on wildlife on the Peninsula. He
noted the beneficial qualities of skunks, raccoons, and possums in reducing garden
pests, such as slugs and snails, and encouraged the City's residents to exercise
tolerance and respect for their fellow cohabitants, he advocated that people modify their
property to discourage nesting and utilizing deterrents such as removing temptations,
i.e., pet food and fallen fruit, to discourage unwanted visits rather than trapping these
animals. He reminded the audience that it was rattlesnake season and advised
everyone to exercise caution when in open space areas or vacant lots to avoid getting
bitten.
CEREMONIAL MATTER:
Recognition of a Blue Star Family
Mayor Clark presented the City's first Blue Star recognition to the family of Air Force
Captain Robert M. Barry, Jr. The presentation was made to his parents, Joan and Bob
Bar with the assistance of Arm Master Sergeant Roy Beal, from the Army's 104th
Barry, Y g y
Division. Mayor Clark urged other RPV residents with family members serving in the
military to inform the City staff so they and their families could be recognized for their
service.
AP P ROVAL O F AG E N DA:
Mayor Clark suggested moving Item No. 17, Proposal for Increased Traffic
Enforcement on the PV Drive East Switchback area, before Item No. 12, Appeal of a
Grading Permit for property located at 49/4 Rockinghorse.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz to approve the
Agenda, as amended. There being no objection, Mayor Clark so ordered.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS:
None.
OLD BUSINESS:
City Clerk Petru reminded the audience that items previously discussed and continued
to a future meeting were posted on the City's website at www.palosverdes.com/
BUSINESS:
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilman Long requested that Item No. 9, Claim Against the City by Ara M. Boyajian,
be removed from the Consent Calendar for comment.
Assistant City Manager /City Clerk Petru advised Council that late correspondence had
been received and distributed on Item No. 7, Award of Professional Services Contract
for Public Information Services Regarding Proposed Water Quality and Flood
Protection Program.
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 Council Members after
the reading of the title.
Approval of the Minutes (301)
Approved the minutes of March 1, 2005.
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 2 of 31
Repair of the Tarapaca Storm Drain (604 x 1204)
Reviewed and reconfirmed by a four /fifths (4/5) vote, the Council's previous action on
December 21, 2004 to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process to repair the
Tarapaca Storm Drain.
Reso. No. 2005 -44: Adoption of Findings for the Second System Performance
Audit of the 2000 Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Cox
Communications (605)
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -44, MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING THE
SECOND SCHEDULED SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE 2000 CABLE
TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.
Reso. Nos. 2005 -45, 2005 -46, and 2005 -47: Citywide Landscaping and Lighting
Maintenance District (901)
1) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -45, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2005 -2006 AND ORDERING THE ENGINEER TO PREPARE A REPORT IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH; 2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -46, 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 2005 -2006; and, 3) ADOPTED
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -47, DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO
LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 -2006 AND SETTING
A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO.
Award of Professional Services Contract for Engineering Services Regarding
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program -- Proposed Storm Drain User Fee
(602 x 604)
Approved the attached Professional Services Agreement for Engineering Services with
Harris & Associates for services associated with the process for the mail -back ballot for
the proposed Storm Drain User Fee for the Water Quality and Flood Protection
Program for an amount "not to exceed" $50,100.
Award of Professional Services Contract for Public Information Services
Regarding Proposed Water Quality and Flood Protection Program (602 x 604)
Approved the revised Professional Services Agreement with Moore lacofano Goltsman,
Inc. for public information consulting services regarding the proposed Water Quality and
Flood Protection Program for an amount "not to exceed" $37,150.
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 3of31
Award of Professional Services Contract for Independent Audit Services (602)
Approved the attached Professional Services Agreement for Independent Audit
services with Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP for an amount "not to exceed" $29,900.
Claim Against the City by Ara M. Boyajian (303)
Removed from the Consent Calendar for comment. (See below.)
On -Call Professional Service Agreements —Limit Increase (1204)
1) Authorized the contract limit increase from $ 60,000 to $90,000 and the per task limit
from $25,000 to $40,000 for on -call engineering services with Charles Abbott and
Associates; and, 2) Authorized a contract limit increase from $60,000 to $90,000 and
the per task limit from $25,000 to $30,000 for on -call engineering services with DMc
Engineering Inc.
Reso. No. 2005 -48: Register of Demands
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -48, 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.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz, to approve the
Consent Calendar, as amended.
The motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Wolowicz, Long, Stern, Clark
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Gardiner
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR:
Claim Against the City by Ara M. Boyajian (303)
Councilman Long, noting that he had raised this issue previously, advised his
colleagues that rather than evaluating the merits of the claim, Council was being asked
to expedite its disposition, saying that he did not believe that was the intention or design
of the claims procedure under the Tort Claims Act. He stated that he would prefer not
to have the claims of RPV's citizens denied as a matter of course without the City's
claims adjuster evaluating the claim and providing an assessment. He remarked that
the City would likely receive numerous claims related to recent storm damage and he
was very displeased with the operation of the current system.
Councilman Stern agreed, saying his understanding of the claims statute adopted by
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 4 of 31
the State was that it was designed to provide an opportunity for governments to act on
claims and settle them in good faith without the burden of litigation. He noted the trade-
off was a shorter statute of limitations being imposed on claimants, saying that, while
there was certainly a benefit to that, he wholeheartedly agreed that the City should
evaluate the merits of individual claims. He declared that this option was not being
provided by the insurance structure under which the City was currently operating.
City Manager Evans reminded the Council that the Executive Director of CJPIA would
be presenting a session dealing with risk management at the upcoming California
Contract Cities conference on May 21St and suggested that all four Council members
attend that session and discuss the situation with the other representatives in
attendance.
Councilman Long, noting that he felt it was a good suggestion, advised that he would
attempt to effectuate some change as the City's representative to the CJPIA.
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to reject the claim and direct
staff to notify the claimant. The motion passed without objection.
REGULAR NEW BUSINESS (Item taken out of order):
Proposal for Increased Traffic Enforcement on the Palos Verdes Drive East
Switchback Area (1502)
City Manager Evans provided Council with a brief introduction of the topic and indicated
that Captain Jay Zuanich, of the Lomita Sheriff's Station, was present to provide a more
thorough presentation or to answer any questions.
Councilman Long requested that the specific hours of enforcement activity be removed
from the website, suggesting it would be more appropriate if that information were not
easily accessible by the public.
Captain Zuanich agreed that the specific times should not be posted on the website,
saying the intent of that information in the staff report was to provide Council with a
basic idea of the cost involved, with the actual hours of enforcement remaining flexible.
He reported that traffic problems on this particular stretch of roadway had plagued the
City for some time but had not been given focused attention. He advised Council that
the Lomita Sheriff's Station was currently responding to 15 directed patrol requests in
the region; that the City pays for approximately 60 percent of two deputies strictly
devoted to traffic enforcement or the equivalent of 1.2 deputies with some assistance
from CORE and patrol deputies; and, that it was impossible for these officers to be
everywhere the were needed at the same time. He indicated they had been aware of
� Y
the motorcycle racing problems on PV Drive East and had tried to maintain a presence
in the area but, due to staffing constraints, they had only been able to deal with the
situation on a reactive rather than a proactive basis. He stated that the recent death of
a motorcyclist put particular emphasis on the situation compelling Mayor Clark to
contact the Lomita Station and request that a program be developed to address the
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 5 of 31
problem. Captain Zuanich indicated that the patrol and CORE deputies were directed
to spend more time on PV Drive East in response to the Mayor's request, which
resulted in 127 citations being written between Marymount College and PV Drive South
from March 15th to May 17tH.
Councilman Long, agreeing that PV Drive East was obviously a problem with the
switchbacks in particular being one of the most dangerous areas for speeding on the
Peninsula, noted that there were other major downhill sections, i.e. Hawthorne and
Crenshaw Boulevards, that also struck him as particularly dangerous roadways in terms
of excessive speeding. He remarked that he had observed some periodic enforcement
on the downhill portion of Hawthorne Boulevard and inquired how the Sheriff would
respond to the potential needs in some of these other areas.
Captain Zuanich answered that the Lomita Sheriff's Station received more complaints
regarding the switchbacks on PV Drive East than for Hawthorne or Crenshaw. He
advised that one of the primary difficulties was when there was an enforcement
presence motorists did slow down and fewer accidents occurred but as soon as that
presence was gone, traffic speeds went back up and that was, unfortunately, likely to
be a recurring problem.
Mayor Clark commented that residents living in proximity to the PV Drive East
switchbacks had noticed over the last few years that motorcycle racing clubs were using
this area in large numbers, particularly on weekends, saying that he had been informed
by some of the deputies that certain Internet sites had posted information identifying the
switchbacks as one of the preferred racing spots in Southern California. He noted it
was a very unique problem and that the City's residents were becoming increasingly
concerned for their safety when traveling on this section of the roadway.
Councilman Wolowicz declared that he appreciates the proactive nature of the
proposed program, saying that he was heartened by it and grateful to the CORE
deputies and other deputies who were willing to adjust their schedules to accommodate
this plan. He reminded his colleagues that the City had been advised of another
problem area that needed to be addressed, saying that he was alarmed to learn of the
number of tickets issued and the severity of accidents occurring along Hawthorne
Boulevard and, as the City prepared to take action on the PVDE switchbacks, he was
equally concerned about those sections of Hawthorne Boulevard. He inquired if there
might be some benefit in rotating this program among the other cities and roadways on
the Peninsula.
Captain Zuanich responded that the program as currently designed would attempt to
provide enforcement on both Saturdays and Sundays throughout the summer months
and, if it was successful in preventing accidents and keeping individuals from speeding,
the program can be moved around to address other problem areas. He indicated the
Lomita Station had titled the program RPV Summer Operations Switchback or RPV
SOS, saying that the goal was to work the entire summer, focusing on the switchbacks
first then moving to Hawthorne and Crenshaw Boulevards or wherever else
enforcement was needed. He advised Council that the plan was to begin
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 6 of 31
implementation of RPV SOS on June 18th with a DUI checkpoint and after that the
CORE and traffic deputies as well as the Station's uniformed reserve deputies would be
asked to readjust their schedules to work every Sunday. He reported they would pool
their resources during the summer to provide coverage on Sundays but would need
financial support from the City in order to implement the program on both Saturdays
and Sundays. He stated that they believed that the best mechanism to address the
problem would be to position three radar - equipped deputies at various positions along
the switchbacks, and constantly rotating that coverage as citations were written.
Captain Zuanich noted the possibility there may be no coverage or only limited
coverage on a particular Saturday or Sunday, saying that due to staffing constraints he
could not guarantee three deputies on both weekend days every week. He advised
Council that Sheriff's stations across the County were confronted with tight budgets and
a shortage of deputies which meant officers were already working many overtime hours
and there may be instances when they would be unable to provide the desired level of
coverage, noting that the City would not be charged if that occurred. He indicated that
the availability of CORE deputies would also be affected when school was back in
session but, between June 18th and Labor Day, they would make a concerted effort to
implement the program and send the message out to the community that proactive
steps were being taken to improve public safety.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz inquired if the officers would have the discretion to conduct
enforcement in other locations of the City.
Captain Zuanich answered in the affirmative and indicated that their initial focus would
be on PV Drive East and, once that problem was satisfactorily resolved, the program
could be relocated to different areas to address other trouble spots. He indicated that
the Sheriff would also provide weekly reports to the City outlining the number and
location of citations issued during the program.
Mayor Clark stated that Council and staff would appreciate that feedback as the
program progressed over the summer. He inquired whether the deputies would have
the ability to apply some of the DMV Codes associated with street racing, given the fact
that there were motorcycle racing clubs involved. He noted his understanding that by
utilizing sections of the Vehicle Code related to racing on public streets vehicles could
be impounded and the drivers could be detained, saying that he would like those
applicable sections studied and implemented as part of the proposed program.
Captain Zuanich indicated that there was a deputy from the Carson Station who was
well versed in the relevant Vehicle Code sections and would be training the Lomita
deputies. He affirmed that vehicles could be impounded as a consequence of street
racing, saying that a section of the Vehicle Code allowed cities to charge for towing
vehicles. He advised Council that the City of Lomita charged $85 and the City of
Carson charged $125 for each car towed, noting this information had been submitted to
staff and an analysis would have to be made to determine what would be a fair amount
in RPV.
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 7 of 31
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz queried if it would be possible for staff to make some
recommendations regarding charges for vehicle towing and any other appropriate fees
concurrent with the beginning of the program.
City Manager Evans replied that staff had a copy of Lomita's ordinance and would bring
back a recommendation to Council.
Tom Redfield, speaking on behalf of the Mediterranean Homeowners' Association,
indicated that their HOA was the most impacted by the speeding on PV Drive East,
saying that the danger was not limited to only their residents, but included anyone using
the switchbacks. He strongly urged Council to support the proposed three -month RPV
SOS program and reminded the Council members that this was only one of several
problem traffic areas that had been identified on the Peninsula. He suggested
expanding the definition of the switchbacks to include the area north of Marymount
College rather than limiting it to the intersections of PVDE and PVDS, saying that much
of the speeding occurred further up the roadway. He also suggested that strong
penalties be applied to violators as the Mayor had recommended. He thanked
everyone for their attention to the matter and, speaking as Chair of the Revival and
Renaissance Coalition, commended Council for the progress it had made toward
achieving its strategic goals and the major steps taken with respect to the Mira Vista
traffic calming study and the creation of the new Traffic Safety Commission.
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to 1) Approve the "RPV
Summer Operations Switchback" temporary traffic enforcement program at Level 2, as
described in the staff report; 2) Request the Sheriff to provide City staff with weekly
citation reports during the enforcement period; 3) Direct staff to bring back an item to
Council to establish traffic fines for towing of vehicles and other citations associated
with street racing; 4) Expand the enforcement area on Palos Verdes Drive East to
include the four -lane section located between Ganado Drive and Diamonte Lane;
Provide the Sheriff with leeway to adjust the specific times for the six -hour weekend
shifts; and 5) Establish a not to exceed cost of $14,479.90.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Long, Wolowicz, Stern, Clark
NOES: None
ABSENT: Gardiner
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal of a Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2003- 00088), for property located at
491/4 Rockinghorse [Applicant/Property Owner /Appellant: Stan Rinehart]
(Continued from February 1, 2005) (1801 x 1203)
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to receive and file
the applicant's request to withdraw the appeal.
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 8 of 31
Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Rate Adjustments for Waste Management
of Los Angeles for FY 05 -06 (1301)
Assistant City Manager /City Clerk Petru advised Council that late correspondence on
the item had been distributed earlier in the meeting.
Senior Analyst Ramezani made a brief presentation of the staff report.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz requested a history of rate increases since July 2000.
Senior Analyst Ramezani advised Council that trash rates remained the same for the
first two years, as required by the contract; that the rate was decreased during the third
year; that there was a rate increase of less than three percent the previous year; and,
that the proposed increase for the current year was less than three percent.
Councilman Stern remarked that he was particularly pleased to see that electronic
waste had been added, noting that this service was of great benefit to RPV's residents.
Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing open.
Doug Falkenberg, representing Waste Management, introduced himself and indicated
that he was available to answer any questions.
Mayor Clark inquired why the City was seeing this rate increase and asked for a status
report on the trucks servicing RPV in terms of their becoming more environmentally
friendly and fuel- efficient.
Mr. Falkenberg explained that the rate increase was in response to increased basic
operational costs and tipping fees (the cost to dump trash at certain facilities). He
noted that there was currently a move in the waste collection industry to replace diesel
fuel with natural gas vehicles, saying that all of Waste Management's vehicles had
been or were in the process of being retrofitted with clean air devices to meet current
emission standards. He commented that some of the new franchise agreements were
mandating clean air restrictions, adding that all refuse collection companies would have
to comply with these restrictions at some point.
Councilman Long reported that Waste Management now serviced RPV and RHE which
meant that in his neighborhood on Browndeer Lane and Whitley Collins Drive instead of
eight trucks from two different haulers being in the area on two days, there were now
seven Waste Management trucks in the area on three different days. On behalf of
residents in the area, he inquired if an improvement could be made by better
coordination of the pickups between the two cities.
Mr. Falkenberg responded that the matter was being was discussed at a recent meeting
of the Rolling Hills Estates City Council and a subcommittee of that Council had been
formed to study the matter with Waste Management to determine how best to address
the situation. He indicated that the RHE City Council was very sincere about resolving
this problem, particularly Councilman Zuckerman, adding that he was not sure of the
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 9of31
specific outcome yet, but that it would definitely involve a reduction in the number of
vehicles.
Councilman Stern suggested that Mayor Clark coordinate with the City of RHE, saying
that RPV's participation in their subcommittee to find a solution to this problem was
certainly appropriate.
Mayor Clark agreed with Councilman Stern, saying that he would be open to a motion
proposing that he and Councilman Long join the RHE subcommittee.
City Attorney Lynch recommended that the item be placed on an upcoming agenda.
Mr. Falkenberg reported that the preliminary results from the pilot program, which
introduced three -cart automated trash recycling and green waste collection, was very
favorable, saying that trash volumes were down and recycling was up approximately ten
percent. He noted that there were also about 200 outstanding cart orders, two- thirds
were for recycling and green waste carts, saying that it appeared the trend of diverting
trash to recycling would continue to improve.
Councilman Long remarked that as someone who resided in one of the test areas he
had the opportunity to attend the kickoff meeting, saying that the information provided
was extremely helpful. He noted that bin orders had been amazingly quick, particularly
given the high number of exchanges at the beginning of the program, and that the
quality of the new bins was vastly superior to their predecessors.
Mayor Clark closed the Public Hearing.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to 1) Approve the maximum
rate that Waste Management of Los Angeles can charge single - family customers in FY
05 -06; 2) Approve the maximum rate that Waste Management of Los Angeles can
charge multi - family customers in FY 05 -06; and, 3) Approve the revised first
amendment to the agreement to include free curbside collection of electronics waste,
subject to a $10 handling /assistance fee if the customer requested that the item to be
collected at a location other than curbside due to its large size or heavy weight.
Without objection, Mayor Clark so ordered.
Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Rate Adjustments for Universal Waste
Systems, dba Ivy Rubbish Disposal for FY 05 -06 (1301)
Mayor Clark suggested dispensing with the staff report. All Council members agreed.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz asked for the recent history of rate increases.
Senior Analyst Ramezani indicated that the disposal locations for Ivy Rubbish were
different than Waste Management's, which explained the slight difference in
percentages between the rates, saying that the rate increases were calculated based
on the tipping fee for the disposal facilities used. She indicated that the rates remained
the same for the first two years of the contract; that Ivy Rubbish did have a slight
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 10 of 31
increase in their costs during the third year but waived any rate increase; that there was
a slight increase the previous year; and, that an increase of less than three percent was
proposed for the current year.
Mayor Clark opened the Public Hearing.
Assistant City Manager /City Clerk Petru stated that there were no requests to speak.
Mayor Clark closed the Public Hearing.
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to 1) Approve the maximum
rate that Universal Waste Systems, Inc. dba Ivy Rubbish Disposal can charge single -
family customers for FY 05 -06; 2) Approve the maximum rate that Universal Waste
Systems, Inc. dba Ivy Rubbish Disposal can charge multi - family customers in FY 05 -06;
and, 3) Approve the revised first amendment the agreement to include the free
collection of electronics waste, subject to a $10 handling /assistance fee if the customer
requested that the item to be collected at a location other than curbside due to its large
size or heavy weight. Without objection, Mayor Clark so ordered.
Recess and Reconvene: Mayor Clark recessed the meeting at 8:32 p.m. and
reconvened the meeting at 8:51 p.m.
Mayor Clark inquired if his colleagues had any proposed changes to the remainder of
the Agenda.
Noting the time and number of requests to speak, Councilman Long moved, seconded
by Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz, to consider Regular Business Item No. 18, the Long Point
Resort Project, as the next item. The motion passed by acclamation.
Long Point Resort Project (Conditional Use Permit No. 215, et. al) (1804)
Senior Planner Mihranian provided the staff report with the assistance of a PowerPoint
presentation.
Councilman Stern, noting that an email had been received from Dena Friedson and
Ann Shaw questioning the aggregate number of hotel rooms, requested clarification of
that issue.
Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the total number of hotel rooms was the same
as in the original request in 2004, noting that 51 rooms would be for sale with a
breakdown as follows: 19 individual hotel rooms and 16 suites. He indicated that
because each suite had two keys, these counted as 32 units for sale, arriving at the 51
total when added to the 19 individual rooms
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz clarified the numbers in terms of the number of keys instead
of the number of units and explained that the hotel would 400 keys, the casitas would
have 150 keys and the villas would have 32 keys for a grand total of 582. He indicated
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 11 of 31
that number had remained consistent, saying what had changed was the number of
rooms to be financed through private investment ownership.
In response to a question from Councilman Long, Senior Planner Mihranian clarified
that the developer was not requesting a change in the number of for -sale units in the
hotel as part of the request currently before the City Council.
Bob Lowe, Lowe Enterprises, thanked Planner Mihranian for his hard work and clear
understanding of the proposed improvements, saying that staff's efforts were very much
appreciated. He reported that each Council member recently spent time visiting the
project to better familiarize themselves with the plan and improvements.
Councilman Stern noted that he was grateful for the invitation to visit the site, saying
that it provided him the distinct advantage of having many questions answered as well
as the ability to explore the project in great detail.
Councilman Long concurred, saying that he appreciated the time Mr. Lowe and his staff
spent discussing the project and answering his questions. He declared that the public
should make themselves aware of the greater scope of what was happening with the
project, i.e. that public views were being improved; the size of the hotel footprint was
actually being reduced; and, ocean views from the hotel were being expanding
dramatically. He maintained that he could not find anything detrimental, only favorable
improvements to a plan that was already quite good. He complimented Mr. Lowe and
his organization for making such outstanding improvements to the project.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz echoed Councilman Long's sentiments, saying that the City
and Council had watched the plans for this hotel project develop over the years, and
while he felt some of the changes were significant and complex, overall they would
improve the project. He noted that Council had been assured that none of the changes
would encroach into the coastal setback areas and indicated that that a project
showroom would be opening shortly, thereby allowing the public the opportunity to
observe what was happening on the property and satisfy themselves that these latest
changes to the project were being done in a manner that was consistent with the 200 -
plus requirements that had been placed on the project.
Mr. Lowe indicated they plan to have the viewing room or "Discovery Center" open by
July 15th and encouraged everyone in the community to stop in.
Mayor Clark inquired if there were plans to create a new name for the resort and
requested a status report on the golf amenity.
Mr. Lowe answered that they were currently working on a new name for the resort,
which would be announced in the near future. He reported that they were investigating
the pros and cons of converting the existing three golf holes and driving range into a
ten -hole teaching academy, saying they believed it would provide some interesting
instructional aspects for guests of the resort as well as the community, enhance the
landscaping on that portion of the property, and allow more natural areas than the
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 12 of 31
current plan. He added that they were working with the City's golf safety expert, noting
they would bring the new design back to Council if everything went according to plan.
Mayor Clark remarked that the Discover Center was a wonderful idea and strongly
encouraged Mr. Lowe and his team to continue their public outreach, saying that there
had been a great deal of anticipation in the community to see this major project become
a reality.
Bob Nelson, representing the Sea Bluff Homeowners' Association, voiced support for
the project and indicated his HOA was looking forward to seeing the project's
completion. He urged Council to adopt staff's recommendation to approve the
proposed modifications.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz, to accept the project
revisions as minor modifications in substantial compliance with the original City Council
approvals.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Long, Stern, Wolowicz, Clark
NOES: None
ABSENT: Gardiner
Appeal of the denial of Case No. ZON2004- 00174, a Site Plan Review, for property
located at 6311 Tarragon Road [Applicant/Land Owner /Appellant: Lenee Barden]
(1203)
Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing open.
Associate Planner Schonborn provided the staff report.
Phillip Balikian, representing Emil Leveniec and Lenee Barden, advised Council that the
structure under consideration was the replacement of an older balcony which was
permitted and built in 1982; that the former balcony was in poor condition and the wood
was rotting; that the property owners decided to repair and replace the necessary
timbers and hired a reputable contractor to perform the work; that plans were submitted
to the City's Planning Department on April 8, 2004; that the project was already
underway when an anonymous complaint was received by the City; that the project was
subsequently halted for approximately a month and a half due to the complaint; that
communication took place between the homeowners and the City during the hiatus and
it was the contractor's understanding that he could proceed; and, that the contractor
moved forward, completing the project.
Mr. Balikian professed that the structure was not an addition and that a misnomer had
been used in the staff reports referring to it as an "enclosed patio ". He maintained it
was not; it was the replacement of a pre- existing balcony, the only difference being that
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 13 of 31
the older balcony had a railing approximately four feet high around its perimeter
whereas the new structure was surrounded by a facade of paneling and glass with
screens to facilitate air movement. He noted that the previous structure had an partial
overhang from the roof which was extended to the perimeter of the balcony thereby
enclosing it; that the balcony was structurally sound, earthquake proof, and easily
inspected; that the scale was identical to the prior structure; that it was located in the
same area as the original balcony, did not block anyone's view nor infringe on anyone
else's property rights; that the architectural style was close to the Monterey style
depicted in the Planning Department's pamphlets; that it was an attractive structure
which did not alter the streetscape; and, that it was painted and had widows which were
identical to the rest of the house so there was no mismatching. He advised Council that
the balcony was enclosed for safety reasons to prevent individuals, particularly children,
from falling over the railing as well as to help eliminate traffic noise and that the majority
of the adjacent neighbors were favorably disposed to the new structure.
Mr. Balikian reported that the property owners had spent $30,000 thus far in addition to
the appeals fees; that they had substantially complied with the City's ordinances, the
modification was minor, and they did not believe that they had violated any County
regulations or codes; and, that the decision made in this case was arbitrary and
capricious which was susceptible to being overruled in a court of law. He implored
Council to allow the appellants to retain the new structure.
Councilman Stern, noting the staff report indicated that a 240 square foot balcony was
permitted in 1982, asked about the extent of the overhang and whether it extended
beyond that permitted balcony.
Mr. Balikian answered it was a standard three -foot overhang.
Councilman Stern remarked that the diagram on circle Page 17 of the staff report
indicated that the overhang was ten feet, noting that it appeared to have been
substantially extended with the new roof, and the diagrams also appeared to show that
the entire balcony was now enclosed with double -paned glass.
Mr. Balikian replied that the original overhang was removed and replaced by the roof
and the lower two feet of the enclosure consisted of wood paneling topped by
approximately four feet of glass.
Councilman Stern stated his understanding of the Planning Commission's decision was
that the appellants failed to obtain a permit for the rebuild of the preexisting balcony; it
required that the enclosure be removed - not the balcony; and, if Council upheld that
decision, the appellants still had the opportunity to seek approval to permit the
rebuilding of the preexisting balcony.
Associate Planner Schonborn concurred with Councilman Stern's statements.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz questioned whether the contractor working on the project
represented to the homeowners that as -built plans had been submitted to the City.
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 14 of 31
Mr. Balikian stated that he had a copy of that document which was stamped by the
Planning Department.
Councilman Stern noted that the plan was actually submitted to the City after the
structure was built in 2003.
Mr. Balikian indicated that there was communication with the City once construction had
started on the project and was subsequently halted, saying that the plans were
submitted during this hiatus in the building process.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz remarked that it appeared the City was in possession of
documents for approval prior to the onset of construction.
Director Rojas explained the matter was brought to staff's attention by an inspector who
visited the project in 2003 and determined that an enclosure was being built without the
requisite permits; that the inspector advised the owners they could go through the
process and attempt to legalize the structure; that the owners then submitted an
application for approval; and, that application was subsequently denied.
Associate Planner Schonborn advised Council that the City's Building Inspector visited
the site to verify whether there was in fact no- permitted work being performed on the
reconstructed balcony and it was concluded that a new patio enclosure was being built.
City Attorney Lynch pointed out that the Planning Department's stamp only indicated
the date that the plan had been submitted to the City and was not the same as a stamp
of approval.
Lois Hendricks-Class, RPV, indicated that her property was located diagonally across
from the property in question, saying that she and her family had the best view of the
subject home and were the most affected by it. She opined that the porch was
beautiful, enhanced the neighborhood, and did not interfere with anyone's views or
cause any other problems. She reported that all the homes on the street were very
unique and original in appearance and, since there was so much diversity, the
appellants' home blended in nicely. She urged Council to allow them to keep their
porch as constructed.
Lois Larue, RPV, opined that the Planning Commissioners made a great mistake in this
instance. She commented that, while she had a tremendous amount of admiration for
Director Rojas, she was disappointed that he upheld the Commissions denial of the
appellants' permit.
Emil Leveniec, RPV, responding to the reason for the delay in the construction of the
project, referred to a meeting he had with City Manager Evans and Planner Schonborn
about a mistake that the City had made in issuing the permit. He stated that the person
who was handling the case was no longer in the City's employ and that he was
informed that the City mistakenly issued the permit and subsequently waived his fee,
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 15 of 31
although he was not clear as to why this was done. He disagreed that the enclosed
balcony was incompatible neighborhood compatibility, saying that his house was in an
older area that consisted of individually styled homes — one with a pool in the front yard,
another with a large irregularly shaped tennis court, one with a paddle ball court in the
front yard, and 7,000 square foot French /Mediterranean chateau -style house at 6375
Palos Verdes Drive South which was certainly incompatible with the other smaller
homes in the area. He opined that there appeared to be a double standard being
applied to the subject property when all of these factors were taken into consideration.
Councilman Long noted that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
addressing the matter do not reflect that Mr. Leveniec had spoken and inquired if he
attended that meeting.
Mr. Leveniec stated that he had received no notice of the meeting and was informed
after the fact by a neighbor that it had taken place and what had transpired.
Councilman Stern requested verification of the sequence of events. He understood that
in 1982 a permit was granted for a 240 square foot balcony with a roof overhang, but
that no permit was applied for when reconstruction of the balcony commenced in 2003.
Mr. Leveniec indicated that they believed no permit was necessary since they were
merely replacing the existing balcony.
Councilman Stern noted that the roof was extended and the balcony was fully enclosed
with wood paneling and glass; that a permit still had not been applied for and then, at
some point during construction, the appellants were notified there was a zoning
violation.
Mr. Leveniec explained at that point the contractor submitted the plans and the matter
went to the Planning Commission but there was no record that the plans had been
received.
Councilman Stern advised Mr. Leveniec that the decision of the Planning Commission
obligated the property owner to remove the enclosure but left open the possibility of
applying for the balcony to be approved.
Paul Tetreault, Chair of the Planning Commission, indicated that the staff report
accurately reflected the decision - making process of the Commission, saying its decision
was made on the grounds of neighborhood compatibility and the finding that there was
a distinct difference between an open balcony and an enclosed space. He noted that
there was now some discussion whether the enclosure was actually a balcony with a
high rail, saying that these arguments were not presented to the Commission and that
the Commission had considered it to be, as staff has also concluded, an enclosed
space and not a balcony, and it therefore must comply with the Neighborhood
Compatibility requirements of the City's ordinance.
Lenee Barden, 6311 Tarragon Road, reported that the balcony was so infested with
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 16 of 31
termites that an entire side had fallen down; that the floor was rotten; and, that the
structure was very weak and she that feared for the safety of the family's children.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz, remarking he was disturbed by the timing, queried if the
structure as currently built was considered to be safe, given its weight, and whether it
would meet the existing codes for a habitable room since it appeared that was how it
was currently being used.
Planner Schonborn answered that the answer to these questions could only be
answered by sending a Building Inspector out to investigate the structural integrity of
the enclosure.
Councilman Stern declared that it was extremely unfortunate that the appellants did not
proceed in the correct order by obtaining the necessary permit to rebuild the balcony
prior to its construction. He stated that, while he appreciated the fact that the balcony
was old, decrepit, termite infested, and badly in need of a rebuild, none of that excused
the property owners' failure to comply with the City's permit process. He concurred with
the Planning Commission's analysis, noting that what was now built appeared to be
stuck on and in his opinion was not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He
indicated he would move to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, noting
that it would not preclude the property owner from applying for a permit to rebuild the
preexisting balcony. He noted that, while he appreciated the comments of applicant's
counsel, he could not accept the representation that the overhang was merely
extended, saying that the pictures represent something dramatically different.
Mr. Balikian requested time for rebuttal and avowed that the picture of the old balcony
clearly depicted the overhang, saying that he was not exaggerating when he stated it
was there and appeared to be a standard three -foot overhang. He implored Council to
reconsider and find some mechanism to save the project by allowing his client to apply
for a permit, albeit after the fact, and pay for that permit and any required inspection
fees. He reiterated that the issue of neighborhood compatibility was a matter of opinion
and pleaded that his clients be allowed to salvage their project by doing now what they
arguably should have done at the outset.
Mayor Clark closed the Public Hearing.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Case No. ZON2004 -00174 for a Site Plan
Review. The Resolution for this item would be brought back for adoption on May 31,
2005.
Councilman Long observed that this appeared to be a situation where the balcony was
decayed and in need of major reconstruction, but rather than replace the balcony, a
decision was made to build a room there instead. He agreed with the Planning
Commission's finding that while it may have been an appropriate place for a balcony it
was not appropriate for a room. He asserted that unless decisions like this were made
and upheld, an incentive was created for people to build whatever they choose thereby
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 17 of 31
making the City's Planning Ordinances impossible to effectively enforce.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz echoed Councilman Long's statement, adding that,
unfortunately, someone got it backwards and attempted to build a room before it was
approved. He noted that, although the City's building compatibility guidelines were very
clear, he did not find the structure in question objectionable in the context of the rest of
the neighborhood. He opined that things might have turned out differently for the
appellants if matters had proceeded in the proper order, saying that they surely would
have known that extending the overhang an additional ten feet and enclosing the room
was inconsistent with the previous structure.
City Attorney Lynch advised Council that she would fine tune and add additional
findings to the resolution before it was presented again to Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Wolowicz sated that he would vote to uphold the Planning
Commission's decision, albeit it reluctantly.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Wolowicz, Long, Stern, Clark
NOES: None
ABSENT: Gardiner
Recess and Reconvene: Mayor Clark recessed the meeting at 10:13 p.m. and
reconvened the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
ZON2004 -00589 (Weed Abatement Request for Lower Filiorum) — An Appeal of the
Director's Determination that a proposed Weed Abatement Action, as
Conditioned, is Exempt from the Prohibitions of the City's Coastal Sage Scrub
Urgency Ordinance (Appellants: York Long Point Associates, California Native
Plant Society and the Sierra Club) (1203)
Discussed immediately following City Council Oral Reports (see below).
CITY COUNCIL ORAL REPORTS:
Councilman Stern met the preceding week with Mr. Lowe and his organization to
discuss the Long Point project; on May 14th he attended the League of Women Voters
presentation with guest speakers former RPV Mayors Marilyn Ryan and Ann Shaw
along with Barbara Gleghorn and Barbara Dye. He indicated it was an absolutely
excellent program that provided a great deal of history regarding the formation of the
City, the many challenges that were faced, and the role a number of women played in
the process.
Councilman Long indicated that he had also met with Mr. Lowe the preceding week;
attended the League of Women Voters meeting on May 11th as well as their
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 18 of 31
presentation on the May 14th. He indicated it was a very interesting lesson on the
history of the Peninsula and the formation of the City. Under the leadership of Gabriella
Holt and her team, he attended the taping of a RPV City Talk with Barbara Dye to
discuss the City's efforts to purchase open space.
the Schweitzer School luncheon on May Mayor Pro Tem Wolowicz attended e S h y 11 th
honoring women of the year for their community leadership in the greater South Bay
area; on May 13th he celebrated the news that there would be no closure of the L.A. Air
Force Base; on May 14th he attended the League of Women Voters salute to the
founding women of RPV. He noted that the City owes a tremendous amount to these
leaders who were indeed visionaries. Along with Mayor Clark, he met with Mr. Lowe
regarding the Long Point project that morning.
Mayor Clark indicated that he had met that morning with Mr. Lowe and his group
regarding the status of the Long Point project; attended the League of Women Voters'
luncheon honoring the founders of the City. He indicated that these women were
instrumental in saving the Peninsula from over development and stated that he was
sorry it was not telecast or tape recorded. He indicated that it would be wonderful to do
interview them on tape before too much more time had past to share their memories
regarding the fight for local control on the Peninsula with future generations. He also
attended the annual Del Cerro Homeowners' Association meeting on May 11 th.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued):
ZON2004 -00589 (Weed Abatement Request for Lower Filiorum) -- An Appeal of the
Director's Determination that a proposed Weed Abatement Action, as
Conditioned, is Exempt from the Prohibitions of the City's Coastal Sage Scrub
Urgency Ordinance (Appellants: York Long Point Associates, California Native
Plant Society and the Sierra Club) (1203)
Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing open.
Director Rojas presented the staff report, noting that a letter had been received
questioning why Dr. Mock's recommendation to require the applicant to conduct a
grassland assessment and rare plant survey after completion of the weed abatement
and submit those findings to the City had not been included in the conditions of
approval. He explained that Dr. Mock indicated that if the weed abatement was
performed in accordance with the conditions, it could provide an opportunity to discover
rare and sensitive plants that were exposed by the mowing and advised that staff was
now recommending inclusion of this requirement as a condition of approval.
City Attorney Lynch stated that staff was also suggesting that additional language be
added to the conditions to require replacement if any native cactus were removed from
the property. She noted that staff could include this language into the resolution if
Council so desired.
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 19 of 31
Councilman Long commented that the acacia trees mentioned in Condition No. 7 were
fairly numerous, non- native, and not protected in any way, yet the applicant had
indicated that he did not want to remove them.
Director Rojas clarified the applicant did not want to be required to remove them.
Councilman Long, noting his understanding that acacias were the most flammable plant
on the property, inquired if the applicant had offered any explanation as to why he was
opposed to such a requirement, if the motivation for the permit was fire control.
Director Rojas answered that he heard an explanation from the applicant indicating that
he did not want to be forced to remove all of the acacias from the site at the same time.
Councilman Stern remarked that he, too, found this perplexing. He stated that he could
not understand why, if the applicant's intent as the owner and steward of the property
was to manage it by removing fire fuel, maintaining existing fire roads, et cetera, the
applicant was objecting to removing the most combustible material on the property. He
advised that he would be listening intently for an explanation.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz requested that staff address the CEQA issues, saying that he
would like to make certain that everything remained consistent with the NCCP
requirements.
Director Rojas explained that the project did require CEQA review, noting that there
were different levels of that review under the law. He advised that staff, in consultation
with the City Attorney, determined that this particular action qualified for an exemption
under CEQA because the vegetation would be mowed down rather than turned into the
soil and would be subject to the conditions the City had imposed on the permit, saying
that it was therefore unnecessary to perform a formal Initial Study for the project.
City Attorney Lynch clarified that because the latest weed abatement was proposed
within the same parameters as prior weed abatements that had been conducted
routinely on the property, it was not subject to the preparation of an EIR, unlike the
proposed Point View grading project which was much more massive in scale and
involved the re- grading and re- compacting of a significant portion of the property.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz indicated that, while he noticed some changes in the staff's
recommendation compared to its recommendations a year earlier, the changes were
not inconsistent with the City's previous concerns and what could and could not be
mitigated would be determined by a botanist or biologist of the City's choosing.
Gary Weber, representing York Long Point, distributed exhibits to Council including
some photographs and indicated that, while the staff report was very complete and his
client appreciated the efforts of Director Rojas and City Attorney Lynch, the property
owner continued to object to some of the conditions. Noting that the conditions had
been renumbered, he indicated that they were objecting to the following conditions as
originally numbered: No. 4, requiring that a biologist monitor all weed abatement on the
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 20 of 31
property. He asserted this was burdensome and unnecessary because Condition No. 3
required that all coastal sage scrub (CSS) be staked out and identified; therefore, it was
unnecessary to require both activities. He indicated that they objected to Condition No.
5, which required that a biologist perform a nest survey if weed abatement was
performed between February 15th and September 1St. He reported the application was
filed last September specifically to avoid having to perform the weed abatement during
the gnatcatcher breeding season. He contended that the ensuing delay had placed the
abatement well into the breeding season, noting that this situation would not have
occurred if the application had been processed in a reasonable period of time; hence, it
was unreasonable to require the nest survey.
In response to an unnumbered condition requiring the replacement of cactus, Mr.
Weber directed Council's attention to a photograph from the City's aerial photograph
system taken in August 2003 in an area where Director Rojas discovered evidence that
prickly pear cactus had been removed. He contended that York Long Point had nothing
to do with the removal of the cactus, noting the photographs clearly show Edison power
poles present in each of those locations. He reported that in conversation with Scott
Gobble of the Edison Company, he was advised that Edison annually cleared a 10- to
12 -foot diameter around every pole on the Peninsula, saying that, while they have no
proof the cactus was removed by Edison, it seemed reasonable to conclude that the
utility company had removed, damaged, or knocked down the cactus which were fragile
and relatively easy to break, while performing brush clearance around the poles. He
remarked that the staff report indicated that York Long Point, as the property owner,
should have controlled this activity and countered that they wholeheartedly disagreed
with this conclusion because the utility easement allowed the Edison Company to come
onto the property at any time to perform maintenance to its facilities.
In closing, Mr. Weber emphasized they were not removing any CSS and were
attempting to perform the weed abatement because they believed there was a serious
fire hazard that extended well beyond the perimeter of the property.
Councilman Stern asked why York Long Point was objecting to the condition requiring
removal of the most flammable material on the property if fire safety was the purported
motive for the application.
Mr. Weber answered that he did not necessarily agree that acacia was the most
flammable plant, saying that, while it was highly ignitable, so too were the six -foot high
dry fennel and mustard plants. He asserted that staff would not have required this
condition if York Long Point had not stated in writing over the last few years that they
would voluntarily remove the acacia as part of an ongoing maintenance program. He
reported that crews had been proceeding with the removal but that it was very costly
and required significant effort, which made the removal of acres of acacia prohibitively
expensive. He contended that there was less likelihood that a fire would reach these
plants if the fire fuel around them were removed.
Councilman Stern asked if the applicant would be willing to implement some type of
phased removal program.
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 21 of 31
Mr. Weber responded that York Long Point had already indicated they would voluntarily
initiate an ongoing acacia removal program, saying that they would prefer not to be held
to a specific phasing plan because it was a very expensive operation.
Councilman Stern, noting that the staff report related that some of the resource
agencies had informally expressed concern about the applicant's motives, queried if
York Long Point had some ulterior motive in seeking this permit.
Mr. Weber declared that the property owner had the right to maintain the property and
intended to maintain it by reducing the fire danger.
Scott Sommer, representing York Long Point, claimed that despite use of the word
"clearing" in the staff report, what was actually under consideration was "mowing,"
which left the plant's root systems intact. He emphasized that this application was
originally submitted September 20, 2004 and was subsequently processed by City staff
until February 15, 2005, which just happened to coincide with the start of the
gnatcatcher breeding season. He opined that the five -month period it took to process
the matter went unexplained, that is was unreasonable and, had the matter been
subject to the permit streamline act requirements, that amount of time would be both
unlawful and excessive. He remarked that the staff report indicated the ordinance was
written to exempt legitimate weed abatement activities necessary for public safety such
as fire protection, saying the statute the City had enacted defined weed abatement as
the removal of vegetation by any means with no minimum area defined, thereby
including the removal of any vegetation in its definition. He pointed out that under
Development Code Section 17.41 it was unlawful to perform weed abatement on any
property greater than two acres containing CSS habitat, saying the definition of the
exemption was that it constituted removal of CSS or any other form of habitat
modification or weed abatement whether the plants were endangered, threatened or
not, with the only modest exception being the "exotic woodland" definition.
Mr. Sommer maintained that the City's ordinance made it a misdemeanor for a property
owner to simply pull a weed without a permit, saying that it was a property right enjoyed
by anyone in the state, that it was not a violation of any federal or state statutes, but it
constituted a criminal act in RPV. He claimed that the provision was overly broad,
unnecessary and far in excess of the City's powers and opined that the definitions of
the exemptions reflected a carefully crafted exception to a written order by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department.
He agreed with staff report findings that this was an exempt proceeding under CEQA;
that no coastal sage scrub is involved; that the project was not within 50 feet of the
drainage swale; that no trees were involved; and that the proposed method of removal
was mowing. He stated that this exemption had required five months for staff to
process the permit, as well as an additional three months of appeals, and warned that
what had not being given adequate consideration was the very real fire hazard on the
property, saying that there was nothing in the City's ordinance that provided mitigation
for fire hazards, other than extreme action taken by the City itself.
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 22 of 31
Mr. Sommer advised Council that several questions had arisen such as the need for an
additional plant survey once the mowing was completed, saying that this requirement
was not present in any of the applications and they object to that condition as well as
the requirement for three to one replacement of the cactus.
City Attorney Lynch indicated that staff needed to verify with Edison the issue regarding
the utility easement and removal of the cactus, saying that she would recommend
deleting that condition.
Mr. Sommer noted that as far as the acacia were concerned, the City had no ordinance
prohibiting acacias and there was no action before the Council with regard to that issue.
He contended that staff was attempting to go far beyond the scope of the ordinance,
saying that it should not have taken five months to process the permit and that the City
was uniquely applying the ordinance to York Long Point.
Councilman Long remarked that Mr. Sommer's appeal letter appeared to enumerate
and find nearly every condition to be unreasonable, unnecessary, burdensome, et
cetera; however, Mr. Weber indicated York Long Point was not objecting to every
condition and had even acknowledged some of them to be reasonable. He inquired if
Mr. Weber had misspoken or if there were any conditions he, too, thought were
reasonable.
Mr. Sommer answered that they did not agree the conditions were reasonable, but that
they did not object on practical grounds to Condition No's. 1 and 3 and No. 7 as
renumbered, noting that they did object to the previous Condition No. 7 dealing with the
removal of acacias and the new requirement for a post- mowing plant survey.
Councilman Stern, again noting his understanding that the motivation for the weed
abatement was purportedly fire prevention /protection, indicated that when staff
conferred with the Fire Department personnel, they did not perceive the ordinance as
an impediment to wildfire prevention. He asked if there was some other motivation for
performing the weed abatement throughout much of the area.
Mr. Sommer responded the sole motivation was to avoid tort liability for wildfires and
indicated that the area had a documented history of wildfires.
Councilman Stern, noting that Mr. Sommer had asserted in a number of letters that
preventing Mr. York from performing the weed abatement constituted a taking,
requested clarification of how the City limiting the removal of weeds on the property
constituted an impediment of property rights.
Mr. Sommer responded that the City was interested in purchasing the Upper Filiorum
property as open space and was using the weed abatement permit as a method of
restricting development on the entire York property
Councilman Stern remarked that the Point View project, which was the subject of a
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 23 of 31
soon- to -be- released EIR, was actually a separate project from this weed abatement
request and was proceeding through the normal process. To the best of his knowledge,
he indicated that the weed abatement permit had nothing to do with the Point View
project. He asked Mr. Sommer again how the City's action on the weed abatement
permit constituted a taking.
Mr. Sommer indicated that the City had allowed the landslide moratorium to continue
for years after satisfactory geological evidence had been provided to the City that the
property was stable. He professed that they believed the NCCP process the City had
embarked on was a misapplication of certain elements of the Fish and Game 2800
Series Statutes, and he reminded Council that the issue at hand was the City's
interference with a land owner's right to perform routine fire prevention and weed
clearing on his property. He cited the Del Monte Dunes case in Monterey County as an
example where a city repeatedly interfered with a property owner's property rights.
Councilman Stern declared that the other project had never come before Council; the
Council had made no decision or pronouncement on it; and, he did not understand how
limiting the ability to abate weeds on Lower Filiorum constituted a taking. He requested
that Mr. Sommer focus his answer and not include those aspects of the project that
were not currently before Council.
Mr. Sommer advised Council that his answer had taken those elements into
consideration because it was a comprehensive matter.
Councilman Stern respectfully disagreed.
Barbara Sattler, President of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), related that
Lori Kestler, of the Sierra Club, was planning to attend the meeting but was ill and
would not be present. She urged Council to deny the project, saying that it was
essentially the same application Council denied in 2003. She advised Council that in
the opinion of CNPS's attorney, who was an expert in CEQA law, this project did not
qualify for a Class 4 exemption, noting that clearing 54 acres could not be considered a
minor clearing and the project could impact endangered, rare, or threatened species.
She indicated that CEQA had exceptions to exemptions, and because the subject
property was an important habitat refuge for the gnatcatcher, it would qualify as an
exception to a categorical exemption and would therefore require a full review under
CEQA. She reported that CN PS's attorney felt that the weed abatement was very
closely related to the Point View project and there were impacts from this permit that
could affect the conclusions of the Point View EIR; that the EIR was required to
evaluate the on -site conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued
in October 2003, and therefore, the condition of the property could not be modification
without violating the EIR Process; that the mitigation options and alternatives in the EIR
would be limited if the vegetation was altered prior to that review; that it would change
the baseline conditions of the site; and, that fragmenting a project, which was exactly
what was occurring, was not allowed under CEQA.
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 24 of 31
Ms. Sattler reported that there were also new issues of concern related to the current
project regarding the biologic report submitted by the applicant. She specified that
there were serious problems with the adequacy of the applicant's report, which made it
impossible to assert that there would be no impacts to sensitive species on the site; that
there was an inherent conflict of interest in the report since it was funded, staffed, and
directed by the applicant; that it came to the City from the applicant rather than directly
from the consultant; that it did not follow California Department of Fish and Game
guidelines; that it did not reference whether sensitive species would be visible on -site;
_and, that it did not include any mapping of the findings of the vegetation survey. She
advised Council that surveys were performed simultaneously for sensitive birds and
vegetation on 94 acres of property in 9.5 hours, which equated to just over six minutes
per acre to locate sensitive species; that many plants should have been surveyed for
but were never mentioned in the report, creating critical omissions in the report; that a
source of plant food for the endangered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly was located but
there was no mention that a survey for the butterfly was performed; and, that there
were many species previously known to occur on the property which were not cited in
the report.
Ms. Sattler advised Council that CNPS and the Sierra Club believed that there were a
number of serious flaws in the applicant biology report. She reiterated that it was
certainly not adequate to assert that no impacts to sensitive species would result from
clearing the vegetation and she strongly urged Council to deny the application and wait
for the Point View project EIR to run its full course before making any further
determinations regarding vegetation clearance on this site.
Councilman Long asked staff to comment on Ms. Sattler's allegations regarding the
biological survey.
Director Rojas responded that the comments related to the survey were similar to ones
made previously and, although Dr. Mock had not reviewed these specific comments, his
response had been that the risk of disturbing sensitive plants being could be avoided by
adding a condition requiring a biological monitor to be at the site during clearing.
Councilman Long remarked that there was valid reason to question the credibility of a
survey if the structure was such that the applicant hired the company to perform it,
received the draft report, and then had the opportunity to make changes to it before it
was submitted to the City. He questioned if the City could actually rely on the accuracy
of the report being presented.
City Attorney Lynch advised Council that reports such as EIRs and geology reports
were typically prepared by an applicant's or developer's expert and then submitted to
the City for review. She reported that Dr. Mock reviewed the report after it was
submitted and found the methodology utilized to be acceptable.
Recess and Reconvene: Mayor Clark recessed the meeting at 11:21 p.m. and
reconvened the meeting at 11:29 p.m.
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 25 of 31
Councilman Stern asked if biology reports were typically submitted directly to the City.
City Attorney Lynch answered they were generally submitted to the City by the
applicant, therefore, she could not say with any certainty that there was no opportunity
for the applicant to qualify or modify the information first. She indicated that the
requirement to have a City biologist present on site during vegetation removal to
monitor the situation and ascertain that no sensitive plants or animals were affected
was specifically inserted to address the concerns raised by CNPS and the Sierra Club.
Councilman Long reiterated that the process on which the City relied, in which the
applicant retained a consultant and the consultant's report was submitted to the
applicant first rather than directly to the City, caused him to question the veracity and
independence of the report provided. He claimed that being required to attach a
condition because a report cannot be relied upon essentially defeated the purpose of
obtaining that report in the first place.
Director Rojas explained that staff believed the biology report was adequate since the
survey was performed and subsequently reviewed by the City's biologist. He reiterated
that the condition was inserted in response to the suspicions raised by CNPS.
Councilman Long stated that he shared those suspicions and agreed the condition
addressed them but claimed that numbers like six minutes per acre seem woefully
inadequate to perform such an extensive survey.
Mayor Clark closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz stated that the issue of fire control was critical, noting a
number of extremely compelling letters that were received from residents expressing
their concerns about that topic when this matter was addressed the previous year. On
the other hand, he noted that Council must also consider some very important issues
regarding maintaining a fragile ecosystem for a variety of plants and endangered animal
species. He declared that he was torn between these points of view, saying that fire
control was absolutely necessary but he also wanted to make certain that species were
protected, making him conclude that he preferred the idea of having the weed
abatement performed under the strict supervision of the best possible expert to
determine from an ecological and safety point of view what was and was not
appropriate to cut down. Referring to the acacia, he indicated if it was not the most, it
was certainly near the top of the fire hazard list, noting that he was almost persuaded to
include some type of phased removal program as part of the permit, but, for now, he
would accept the applicant's promise at face value that they planned to remove the
acacia over time.
Councilman Stern stated that the CSS removal ordinance was elegantly tailored with a
relevant purpose and function, and clearly addressed appropriate fire prevention,
saying that the fact this particular property was so far removed from surrounding
structures did not necessarily translate into a flaw in the ordinance. He remarked he
was deeply troubled by the applicant's statement that their sole motive was fire
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 26 of 31
protection when they objected to removing the acacia which were an obvious and
significant fire hazard; however, since the current ordinance did not specifically address
that issue, he did not believe it was appropriate to require the applicant to remove all
the acacia from his property. He noted that he continued to believe that a good citizen
with the applicant's purported motive would do exactly that, saying that he would not
impede their right to object but rather encourage them to make every effort to move
forward and complete that removal.
Councilman Stern indicated that he believed the applicant in fact had a different motive;
that it was simple and had been the same for a number of years, and that was a
conscious, deliberate program to create conditions on the property so there was no
possibility of endangered species being there to create any problems for the future
Point View project. He indicated that based on the ordinance he believed the applicant
was entitled to do the mowing consistent with the conditions and, as such, he would
unhappily cast his vote to allow it to go forward.
Councilman Long remarked that he shared many of Councilman Stern's views, saying
that he, too, was suspicious of the applicant's motives and did not believe it was
actually to control fire. He stated that it would be appropriate to attach Condition No. 7
because it did not relate to the stated purpose of the ordinance nor was it part of it; and
therefore he concluded that it was unreasonable. He affirmed that staff had
appropriately applied the ordinance and that the applicant was entitled to the permit.
Councilman Long stated that he preferred to make important judgments when he was
assured of the actual motives, saying that it may be perfectly legal for the applicant to
indicate that the motive was to turn this 54 acres into a killing field for endangered
species, but to suggest the motive was fire control when the most flammable material
was left behind on the property in terms of quality and quantity, according to the Fire
Department, seems quite dubious to him.
Councilman Stern requested that the City Attorney restate the conditions.
City Attorney Lynch responded that staff would delete the condition requiring acacia
removal and add the language from Dr. Mock's letter indicating that the applicant shall
conduct a grassland assessment and rare plants survey after the weed abatement was
completed and submit those findings to the City. She noted that since there would be a
City monitor present on site to monitor the activities, the condition requiring an
additional survey after the mowing was completed would also be deleted.
Councilman Stern asked if staff knew how the mowing would be conducted and if staff
was comfortable that one person would be able to adequately monitor the activities.
City Attorney Lynch suggested requiring that one or more on -site monitors be present,
saying that more than one biologist would probably be needed if multiple operations
were taking place simultaneously, such that one person could not effectively observe
them at the same time.
Councilman Stern requested that the conditions include a requirement that the
applicant submit a plan of operation some appropriate period in advance of the mowing
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 27 of 31
to allow staff to make an educated guess as to how many monitors would be necessary
to fully oversee the project.
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to approve the proposed
weed abatement permit subject to new and modified conditions of approval. The
Resolution for this item would be brought back for adoption on May 31, 2005. Without
objection, Mayor Clark so ordered.
REGULAR NEW BUSINESS:
Proposal for Increased Traffic Enforcement on the Palos Verdes Drive East
Switchback Area (1502)
Discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. (See above.)
Long Point Resort Project (Conditional Use Permit No. 215, et. al) (1804)
Discussed immediately following the first recess. (See above.)
Ord. No. 421: ZON2005 -00233 — An Ordinance of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Establishing Regulations Governing the Use of Public Parks and Open Space by
Equestrians, Bicyclists and Pedestrians and Amending the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (701 X 1201)
City Attorney Lynch provided a brief overview of the ordinance.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz, to INTRODUCE
ORDINANCE NO. 421, AS AMENDED, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF
PUBLIC PARKS AND OPEN SPACE BY EQUESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS AND
PEDESTRIANS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL
CODE." The motion passed without objection.
Councilman Long requested clarification, saying that the ordinance would prevent
bicycles from traveling on paved roads and parking lots within City parks unless written
permission had been granted, but would include areas where cars were allowed without
written permission.
City Attorney Lynch explained that bicycles were considered to be vehicles and, as
such, would be allowed where cars were allowed, saying that bicycles would not
allowed within recreational areas in City parks.
Councilman Long stated he has been advised that individuals were being told by City
park staff that they could not teach their children to ride bikes in City parking lots and
questioned if that was a violation of State law.
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 28 of 31
City Attorney Lynch responded that the City had the ability to regulate the use of its
parks and properties, which included precluding bicycles in certain areas, saying that
her understanding was that the City had allowed bicycles in areas where cars were
allowed.
Barbara Sattler, RPV, reminded Council that the Traffic Code also considered horses to
be vehicles, saying that steps should be taken to equally address equestrians if the City
was clarifying that bicycles were allowed on roads because they are vehicles.
Residential Undergrounding Program (901 x 1204)
Director Allison provided a brief summary of the staff report.
Mayor Clark requested that staff query other staff members in the League of California
Cities to determine whether any advancements had been made in implementing the
League's policy to encourage utility companies to work creatively to define incentives
and financing approaches to undergrounding utility lines.
Councilman Long noted that he was frequently asked why Edison could not pay for
undergrounding, saying that if the utility companies to pay the cost of undergrounding, it
becomes part of the rate base and then everyone pays, including those who did not
benefit from the undergrounding project. He remarked that the City needed some
assurance that if residents paid for undergrounding, they did not end up paying again
as part of the rate base. He recommended that people interested in undergrounding in
their neighborhoods should start going through the program now rather than waiting in
the hope that someone else will take responsibility for the bill, saying that was not likely.
Mayor Clark requested an update of the efforts of the Sea View and Grand View
neighborhoods to form utility undergrounding assessment districts.
Director Allison answered that these neighborhoods were provided with the necessary
paperwork, but that petitions had not yet been returned. He advised Council that there
may actually be three viable projects on the horizon and explained that he attended a
meeting on Coolheights Drive two weeks earlier with only 12 or 13 property owners and
about half of them were at the meeting and had expressed interest in the concept.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to adopt the
guidelines to underground utilities in residential neighborhoods.
Reso. No. 2005 -49: Point Vicente Interpretive Center IT Equipment — Computers,
Phones, Voice Messaging, Security and Audio Visual (1201)
Councilman Wolowicz remarked that the original approval of the PVIC expansion
excluded this type of equipment and wondered what other expenditures were excluded
that were likely to come back to Council for a decision. He requested that staff return to
Council with an overall projection of future costs associated with this project.
Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to 1) Authorize the
expenditure of $80,000 in the Equipment Replacement fund, partially funded with
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 29 of 31
$60,000 from the Environmental Excise Tax ( "EET ") fund, for replacement of
Information Technology ( "IT ") equipment at Point Vicente Interpretive Center ( "PVIC")
and to extend the existing City Hall data and voice network to the PVIC using fiber
cabling; 2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -49, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
45, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY04 -05, TO ADJUST APPROPRIATIONS
IN THE EET FUND AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND; 3) Authorize the
Request For Proposals (the "RFP ") for selection of an IT fiber cable contractor to
perform the installation of fiber cabling between City Hall and PVIC; 4) Approve the
Professional Services Agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the
Vendor who will be subsequently selected to perform the fiber installation between City
Hall and PVIC; and 5) Authorize execution of the attached Pole Lease Agreement
between Southern California Edison ( "Edison ") and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to
run fiber cabling above ground between City Hall and the PVIC by leasing utility poles
owned by Edison. The motion passed without objection.
Station No. 53 Paramedic Service (603)
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to waive the staff report and
authorize the Mayor to sign a letter requesting that the Los Angeles County Fire
Department provide paramedic service at Station 53.
Locomotive and Rail Yard Emissions Reduction and Mitigation Bills AB 888 (De
La Torre), AB 1222 (Jones), and SB 459 (Romero) (1101)
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Clark, to authorize the Mayor to sign a
letter supporting legislation to reduce and mitigate locomotive and rail yard emissions of
air contaminants.
Cable Television Committee (305)
Councilman Long noted that the staff report indicated the subcommittee had the
authority to decide whether to allow Council as a whole to hear an appeal of one of its
decisions, saying that there was no mechanism for Council to take up an appeal without
the subcommittee's permission. He inquired if that form of delegation was permissible.
City Attorney Lynch indicated it was allowed, saying the rationale behind it was that
Council would likely prefer not to hear these matters on a routine basis given the
amount of other business it conducted, coupled with the fact that most issues could
probably be decided at the committee level.
Mayor Clark stated that he could not support the requirement to obtain the agreement
of the committee in order to have a matter appealed to the Council as a whole.
City Attorney Lynch advised Council that this specific issue was not on the Agenda but
staff would be bringing it back for Council's determination at a later time.
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz, to 1) Establish a
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 30 of 31
standing Cable Television Committee; 2) Appoint Councilman Gardiner and
Councilman Stern to serve on the Cable Television Committee; and 3) Direct staff to
bring back the City Council policy regarding the operation of the Channel 33 Cable
Television Committee at a future meeting.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS & SUGGESTION OF FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS:
None.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT:
City Attorney Lynch advised the audience that no action was taken on either item.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 12:17 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 at
Fred Hesse Community Park for a Budget Meeting.
&ii:Ir 04--v
Kkayor
Attest:
am.. R. T�11 P lk wb,- so, �&WZVIW
W ACity Council Minutes\2005\20050517 CC MI NS.doc
City Council Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 31 of 31