CC MINS 20040406MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 6, 2004
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Gardiner at Fred Hesse
Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard and was immediately recessed to a
Closed Session. At 7:05 P.M., the meeting was reconvened.
Roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Clark, Long, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Gardiner
None
Also present were City Manager Les Evans; Assistant City Manager Petru; Assistant
City Attorney Carol Lynch; Assistant to the City Manager Park; Director of Finance
Dennis McLean; Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas;
Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Deputy Planning Director Pfost; Senior Planner
Ara Mihranian; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and Recording
Secretary Denise Bothe.
FLAG SALUTE
The flag salute was led by Councilman Wolowicz.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Gardiner advised that a free composting workshop would take place in the Hesse
Park's Activity Room on Saturday, April 17, 2004, from 9:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M.; and
stated that residents may purchase discounted composting and worm bins at the
workshop.
Mayor Gardiner announced that anyone wishing to dispose of household hazardous
waste and e-waste may do so on Saturday, April 17, 2004, from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.
at the Compton Airport, 901 West Alondra Boulevard.
RECYCLE DRAWING:
Mayor Gardiner announced the recycle winner for the month of February was Mrs. June
Sharp who will receive a check for $250, which represents a year of free refuse service.
He encouraged everyone to recycle.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 1 of 40
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Councilman Stern moved to approve the Agenda as submitted.
Mayor pro tem Clark suggested that Agenda Item No. 18, Appointment of Chair to the
Emergency Preparedness, be taken up after Public Comments.
There being no objection, Mayor Gardiner so ordered the approval of the Agenda as
amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jack Downhill, 20 Vanderlip, commented on the many varieties of native plants on the
peninsula which have not been considered in the NCCP; and expressed his belief that
there are a lot of other flora that deserves attention or protection, such as the lemonade
berry, California lilac, California holly, acacia -- pointing out that some acacia is too
prolific and grows too rapidly.
Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, expressed her belief that the Public Comments item
should be located elsewhere on the agenda; stated that the meeting was supposed to
start at 6:45 P.M.; happily announced that she celebrated her 82nd birthday yesterday;
and noted her delight in being the mother of Mr. Dave Larue, the geologist who
discovered the Abalone Cove Landslide. She stated that Mr. Dave Larue had written a
letter to the Council.
Mayor Gardiner confirmed that the Council was in possession of the letter written by Mr.
Larue.
The City Council wished Lois Larue a happy birthday.
Mayor Gardiner, in response to Ms. Larue's comment regarding the start of the meeting,
noted that the City Council did meet at 6:45 P.M. and that the regular session started
slightly after 7:00 P.M.
Appointment of Chair to the Emergency Preparedness Committee. (106)
City Clerk Purcell advised that with the completion of the interview of candidates Mel
Hughes and Richard Smith for chair of the Emergency Preparedness Committee, the
Council should now make an appointment to that position. She distributed ballots to the
Council members.
Voting was as follows:
Mayor Gardiner — Mel Hughes
Mayor Pro Tem Clark — Mel Hughes
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 2 of 40
Councilman Long — Mel Hughes
Councilman Stern — Mel Hughes
Councilman Wolowicz — Mel Hughes.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Gardiner noted his admiration for both Mel Hughes
and Richard Smith; and he congratulated Mr. Hughes on his appointment as chair of the
committee.
CITY COUNCIL ORAL REPORTS:
Mayor pro tem Clark commented on the successful City Council Community Leadership
Breakfast on Saturday; and he highlighted the fact that there were a good number of
community leaders and elected officials from the entire peninsula present at this event.
He thanked and complimented School Board President Barbara Lucky, along with
Board Member Dave Tomlin, and, in particular, Rolling Hills Estates Mayor Judy
Mitchell, Mayor pro tem John Addleman, Councilwoman Susie Seamans, Councilman
Steve Zukerman -- highlighting his desire to see an established peninsula wide
leadership breakfast event one day. He advised that Chris McKenzie, Executive
Director of the League of California Cities, spoke about the League's sponsored ballot
initiative for November, which is the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act --
an initiative that is fundamentally structured to preserve in the future local revenues
staying local at the county and city levels. He stated that the ballot initiative is in the
process of attempting to qualify for the November ballot; and that by April 15th, it will be
known whether enough signatures have been gathered for support of this measure. He
advised that Sheriff Lee Baca also addressed those attending the Community Leaders
Breakfast meeting about his County ballot initiative for November, which is to increase
the county sales tax by one -half percent; and advised that these funds would be
dedicated to local safety protection, both County, City of Los Angeles, and surroundings
cities.
Mayor pro tem Clark stated that on Thursday, March 18th, he attended the L.A.
Division's League of California Cities dinner meeting in Lakewood, commemorating this
month the 50th anniversary of Lakewood's incorporation; advised that City Attorney John
Todd gave a touching tribute and historic presentation — pointing out that Mr. Todd has
been and currently is the only City Attorney Lakewood has had, starting his service to
Lakewood in 1954. He noted that Mr. Todd is considered the father of the Lakewood
Plan that developed into Contract Cities. He mentioned that he obtained a disc
reflecting the actual City Council meeting in 1954 where the City Council, City Manager,
and City Attorney were discussing the incorporation of that city; and he congratulated
the City of Lakewood on this anniversary and thanked Lakewood for pioneering the way
for cities such as Rancho Palos Verdes to venture into contract service.
Councilman Stern stated that on Friday, March 19th, Mayor pro tem Clark, himself, and
City Manager Evans met with Robert Lowe, Sr., and Robert Lowe, Jr., to obtain an
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 3 of 40
update on the progress of the Long Point Hotel project; and advised that there is not a
lot that has changed on the project; advised that the Lowes are currently seeking
funding for the project; and mentioned that the Lowes were encouraged to provide a
more detailed report to the City Council within the next couple months.
Councilman Stern advised that every Thursday, the Open Space Acquisition group
conducts a telephonic meeting to make sure things are adequately moving forward;
advised that Mayor pro tem Clark, along with staff representatives, and himself all
participate in these telephonic discussions along with the Land Conservancy; and noted
that there was nothing new to report at this time.
Councilman Wolowicz highlighted the following events /meetings he attended:
• March 17th, attended a meeting of the California Contract Cities in Huntington
Beach; stated that officers were presented for the new year; and that discussion
ensued regarding support for the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection
Act, an initiative trying to qualify for the November ballot.
• March 25th, met with Chief Administrator John Meyers of the Palos Verdes
Transit Authority to discuss the financial pressures that are facing and their
efforts to incorporate his suggestions into their financial statements.
• March 26th, advised that there is now a traditional Friday lunch meeting wherein
many electeds from various parts of the South Bay attend, including electeds
from the County and City of Los Angeles; noted that the routine lunch meetings
take place at the Dalmation American Club in San Pedro; and stated that this
provides a relaxing and enjoyable opportunity to discuss those items of interest
to all cities.
• March 31St, attended the League of California Cities meeting in Redondo Beach
relating to the support of the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act
initiative; pointed out that an elected representative from each of the South Bay
Cities, along with County representation, was present at the meeting; and noted
that during the meeting, City Manager Evans and Mayor pro tem Clark were
recognized for their personal support and contribution to the effort.
Councilman Long highlighted the following events /meetings he attended:
• Attended the Community Leadership Breakfast.
• March 26th, attended a lunch meeting with the Los Angeles Current Affairs
Forum — noting that his firm is one of its sponsors; advised that the guest
speaker was Supervisor Don Knabe, who expressed some frustration with the
way the State has handled County funding; and noted that Supervisor Knabe
expressed support of the upcoming November taxpayers imitative.
• Participated in a tour of the Sheriff's station and a ride -along organized by
Sheriff's Deputy John Despot; stated that he was shown the facilities that the
Sheriff's deputies use to respond to emergencies; and advised that the deputies
discussed with him some of their concerns, such as drug - related crimes, school
safety, and issues of fines being too low to effectively enforce some of the things
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 4 of 40
they need to enforce. He noted that he encouraged the deputies to continue to
identify things that the County can do to help them in their enforcement efforts.
Having recently been out of the country, Mayor Gardiner noted that Prague is a lovely
city.
OLD BUSINESS /CITY MANAGER REPORTS:
City Council agenda format and procedures. (307)
Barbara Sattler, RPV resident, stated that she read Councilman Stern's memorandum
regarding the proposed changes in the procedure; and noted that she agrees with all
the points that Councilman Stern addressed in his memo. She stated that it was of
particular importance and value to her for the Council to continue the procedure wherein
the Council raises issues and asks questions before the public hearing is opened for
public comment -- expressing her belief that this enables the public to prepare
themselves to speak on various matters and that in some cases, it allows the public to
decide if they want to address the Council at all. Ms. Sattler stated that she is not
supportive of requiring a second on a motion before discussion; noted her belief that it
tends to prematurely focus the discussion; that it loses very important aspects of an
item up for discussion by focusing it on a motion that is very tightly defined. She noted
her preference that Council members flush out the full range of an issue prior to putting
forth a motion.
City Clerk Purcell advised that Council members were provided late correspondence
from Councilman Wolowicz and Councilman Long on this matter.
City Manager Evans stated that on December 16, 2003, the City Council had adopted
the new agenda format and a new way to conduct its meetings; and that the Council
had agreed to revisit this issue for the purposes of addressing its effectiveness down
the road and to decide whether or not to maintain the changed format.
Mayor Gardiner advised that Councilman Stern prepared a 16 -page memorandum on
this matter, a memo which suggests a number of changes; and stated that the Council
would deliberate on which of the changes Council wanted and how to proceed. He
pointed out that reasonable people can differ on this topic; and noted the importance in
finding the best way to get the Council's work done without running the risk of doing
things too business like, too quickly, or conducting a seminar versus a meeting.
Councilman Stern noted his support for having Public Comments more towards the
beginning of the meeting.
There was unanimous agreement to keeping the Public Comments at the beginning part
of the agenda.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 5 of 40
Councilman Stern noted his support for placing City Council Oral Reports after the first
break, believing that this would launch this body a little faster into the business at hand.
He noted his concern that the current agenda is front - loaded with comments and reports
and that Council doesn't seem to get into business very quickly.
Hearing no objection, Mayor Gardiner ordered the City Council Oral Reports to be
placed after the first break, which is typically around 8:30 P.M.
Councilman Stern noted his support for a City Manager's Report item, but expressed his
belief that the Old Business category serves no purpose; and stated that it should be
deleted.
Councilman Long noted his concurrence with Councilman Stern's comment concerning
the Old Business category, believing that it can lead to some confusion and impression
that Council will substantively address a particular item on the list of Old Business at
that meeting. He stated that the genesis of this topic was to put in place a mechanism
for keeping track of things as they were progressing through.
Councilman Wolowicz noted his support for finding a mechanism to track items for old
business, but suggested that the item be renamed "Topics Previously Discussed and
Continued or Tabled to a Date Certain."
Councilman Stern questioned the need for such an item, including the subcategories
Miscellaneous Items for Action and Continued Items for Action, and stated that these
are things Council will not be acting on at that particular meeting and that it should not
be on the agenda.
Mayor Gardiner noted his support for Councilman Wolowicz' suggested language;
stated that it was his intent to keep before the Council and public business that has not
yet been finished but is intended to be finished; explained that after 2.5 years on the
Council, he is not sure what items were supposed to come back to Council for
reconsideration; and stated that there is a need for a mechanism to keep track of these
items. He reiterated that Council and the public should be able to view a list which
reflects what items have yet to receive closure.
Councilman Long stated that he shares Mayor Gardiner's concern for keeping track of
unfinished items; noted his concern with including items on an agenda where there is no
intention to discuss that item; and suggested that this category be removed from the
Agenda, but that it be placed on the Council's website for unfinished agenda items, a
location next to Council's goals.
Councilman Wolowicz suggested that if not on the agenda, that these items then be an
attachment for Council.
Noting his concurrence with the need for tracking, Mayor pro tem Clark stated that he
would be amenable to placing this list on the Council's website; but suggested that
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 6 of 40
language could be added to the agenda that makes it clear that these are items that will
not be dealt with at that particular meeting; that they are used as a tracking list for future
items that will be considered at a different meeting and then to follow with the list,
thereby leaving it on the agenda.
Councilman Stern noted the value in keeping track of these items, but reiterated his
opposition to including them on the agenda. He pointed out that the agenda is a legal
document that defines what can be addressed at that meeting -- noting that a resident
may address any agenda item. He noted his support for placing this information on the
Council's website, believing that it will improve the clarity of agenda items to discuss.
City Attorney Lynch confirmed for Councilman Stern that even if listed under this
category, a public speaker may address the item.
City Manager Evans suggested that it be included under the Consent Calendar.
Councilman Long noted his support for taking it off the agenda; and that the agenda
include the following language: "For City Council goals and future agenda items or
tracking items, visit the Council's website at..."
There was concurrence to maintain a City Manager's Report category.
Councilman Wolowicz noted his preference that the agenda reference the location of
future agenda items on the Council's website and that it also be included somewhere in
the Council's packet. He noted his support for City Manager Evan's suggestion to place
it under Consent Calendar.
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to exclude the Old Business
item from the Agendas; to leave City Manager's Report on the agenda; to place the Old
Business item on the City Council website and to list on the agendas an indication that
the City Council goals and Old Business items are available on the Council's website,
indicating the links; and to adopt the new wording "Topics Previously Discussed and
Continued or Tabled to a Date Uncertain." Without objection, Mayor Gardiner so
ordered.
Councilman Stern stated that he supports the agenda item "Council Discussion of
Future Agenda Items & Suggestion of Future Agenda Items."
Mayor Gardiner explained that this category allowed the Council to discuss something
that one would like to see on the agenda.
There being no objection, Mayor Gardiner so ordered the title "Council Discussion of
Future Agenda Items & Suggestion of Future Agenda Items" to remain on the agenda.
Councilman Stern stated that he does not see a value in listing the approximate times
next to each agenda item.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 7 of 40
Mayor Gardiner expressed his belief that the estimated times are a handy way for the
Council to pace itself; noted that he started this procedure with having himself and
Mayor pro tem Clark work with City Manager Evans to prepare an agenda item for its
estimated discussion time; and stated that if they have estimated approximately correct
in the aggregate, the meetings should run around 3 hours — pointing out that so far, this
body is not doing very well at keeping the meetings around that estimated time. He
reiterated that the intent is to provide some guidance for the length of Council
discussion; that if the Council spends twice as long on one topic, this body needs to
either spend half as long on another topic or the meeting will go much longer than is
reasonable; and he stated that it is sensible to pace the discussion of this body.
Councilman Wolowicz noted the importance of giving everyone an opportunity to speak;
stated that there is a necessary and practical requirement that is incumbent upon the
management in its leadership role; and expressed his belief that it becomes insensitive
to the public not to have some expectation as to when an item is going to be discussed
and that this body should attempt to stay on track. He suggested inserting on the
agenda, "The times presented are only for purposes of estimate in order to aid in the
monitoring of the process of the respective meeting." He noted that there may be times
where the meetings will be shorter and longer than expected; and reiterated that in his
leadership role, Mayor Gardiner is charged with keeping this body on track; and he
commended Mayor Gardiner in this effort.
Councilman Long stated that it is a noble quest to keep the meetings from going into the
morning hours — noting that it is certainly something worth pursuing; that on the flip side,
no matter how many times Council tells the public that the times placed next to a
particular agenda item do not mean that Council will not take any more testimony after
the allotted time, the public will still get that impression. He suggested that it would be
nice if the City Council could view an agenda that has the times on it and that the
agenda the public views be void of these estimated times — noting his preference that
the public be free to spend the Council's time, but he thought that such an approach
might not be permitted by law. He stated that he would like to know what the estimates
are; and that despite this noble goal, it is his belief that no matter how many disclaimers
there are on the agenda, he believes it will create a problem for the public.
Responding to Councilman Long's suggestion on an agenda void of the estimated times
that the public will view and an agenda that will include the estimated times that the
Council will view, City Attorney Lynch confirmed that the agenda would have to be the
same for the public and the City Council.
Mayor Gardiner pointed out that of all the things said about this City Council, he is not
aware of anyone stating that this body works too quickly.
Mayor pro tem Clark stated that he can see the merits for both sides of this issue;
suggested that for the time being, the agendas continue to indicate the estimated times,
but to put in a statement to explain for the public that the times are estimates; and that if
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 8 of 40
it is determined down the road that this is truly confusing to the public in terms of the
intent, that this issue be readdressed.
Without objection, Mayor Gardiner so ordered the estimated times to continue to be
reflected on the agenda with an annotation on the agenda that the times are estimates
posted only for the intent to aid in monitoring the progress of the meeting and that this
item be reconsidered if some confusion should arise in the future.
With regard to the intent to complete the City Council meetings around 10:00 P.M.,
Mayor Gardiner pointed out that the intent is to keep the meetings from going into the to
late hours sometimes up until 2:00 A.M.; stated that no one is served well by conducting
the meetings into the late hours; expressed his belief that staff is presumably exhausted
the next day after the meeting; and that the Council members' decision - making is not as
keen at those late hours into the morning. He noted that the public who attends the
Council meetings have an expectation of being able to speak on an agenda matter —
pointing out that he has personally seen audience members who intended on
addressing the Council give up at the late hour and go home without speaking. He
noted that he does not expect every meeting will end at 10:00 P.M.; but expressed his
concern that if the target is moved later to 11:00 P.M., then it will be stretched to 12:00
A.M.
Councilman Stern stated that this body needs to find an acceptable way to get out of the
meetings a little earlier and suggested that additional meetings be added if necessary.
Councilman Long expressed his belief that a more realistic goal to end the meetings is
midnight; explained that the Planning Commission usually achieved this same midnight
goal by not taking on any new business after 11:00 P.M. and no business after
midnight, albeit if they were nearing a finishing point. He stated that around 9:00 P.M.,
the Commission would look at what was remaining on the agenda and that they noted
for the audience members whether or not their agenda item of interest would be heard
that evening — pointing out that this rule would provide a framework to end the meetings
at a time when the members were effectively able to make decisions. He stated that
his effectiveness after midnight is often impaired.
Mayor pro tem Clark stated that in terms of the decision - making process, conducting
meetings late into the evening and early morning hours does not serve this body well
nor staff or the community; explained that a late- ending meeting has a lingering effect
on Council members and staff — pointing out that for many, it takes a day or two to
completely rebound from the late meeting. He noted his concurrence with Councilman
Long's comments of the Planning Commission's rule to end by a certain time and not to
take on any new business, but pointed out that even with this rule, the Planning
Commission meetings continued to go beyond the targeted time. He noted his
preference that this body institute a firm rule that it absolutely conclude the meeting by
11:00 P.M.; that in so doing, this body have another rule that if Council is to do that, that
they continue the unfinished agenda items to the next night — noting that there are other
cities that conduct the remainder of their meetings the next evening. He expressed his
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 9 of 40
belief that if this body tries this, two things would happen: 1) Council, staff and the
audience members would not be exhausted the next day or two and, 2) it would focus
this body more with respect to business that is to be accomplished between 7:00 P.M.
and 11:00 P.M.
Councilman Wolowicz noted his concurrence with Mayor pro tem Clark, but noted that
continuing the meeting to the next evening may conflict with other scheduled meetings
and other calendars. He stated that he would be amenable to trying the Planning
Commission's model for a while to see how it works, with the objective of incorporating
Mayor pro tem Clark's timeframe. He noted his support for the idea that Council has a
certain stopping point along the way for announcements of whether an agenda item is
likely to be considered at that meeting as agendized or continued to another agenda.
He noted his support to set a limit as to a cutoff period for taking on any new business.
Councilman Long stated that technically, whatever rule this body chooses in a sense
will be a fairly hard rule unless there is consensus to change it; that if Council says no
new business after 11:00 P.M., if someone wants to take the item up after that time,
Council has to suspend the rule with a two- third's vote; and that except in
circumstances where there is a strong consensus, Council would not be taking up new
business after 11:00 P.M. and it would be finishing up by midnight. He stated that he
would like to see what this would achieve; that if it does not achieve the desired effect,
that he would propose Mayor pro tem Clark's suggestion to end the meeting at 11:00
P.M. and find another meeting date /time to finish the agenda items, be it the next day or
the following Saturday.
Mayor Gardiner stated that this is a talented body that should be able to spend a
reasonable period of time to complete an item in the approximate allotted time;
explained that the challenge is to get the business done with sufficient discussion, to
receive sufficient input from the public; that barring an unusual meeting wherein many
members of the public want to speak to the Council, where the meeting would be
expected to go longer because the public wants to speak and they should have the
opportunity to speak; this would not be the usual case. He expressed his belief that if
this body plans for a 3 -hour meeting -- realizing full well that it may go to 4 hours -- it
can discipline itself to get the business done in the allocated timeframe, given that the
agenda has been prepared properly and if it is not overloaded with items. He reiterated
that no one has accused this City Council of under - discussing an item; and expressed
his belief that there is a need for this body to be self - disciplined in getting its work done
in an efficient and timely manner. He suggested that if unfinished business piles up,
that the 5th Tuesday be utilized to complete the unfinished agenda items; and stated
that he is not in favor of continuing the meeting to the following evening.
Councilman Stern noted his support for Councilman Long's suggestion concerning the
Planning Commission's rule; stated that properly setting an agenda, assuming this body
is disciplined, to him implies that there will be business that this body chooses not to
take up because it will cause Council to go beyond that time; and noted his concern that
if Council has enough business on an agenda, more time may be necessary to
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 10 of 40
complete business and stated that it may then be necessary to conclude the remainder
agenda items on the following evening. He stated that he does not believe this body
can manage the agenda by delaying things to any significant degree.
Mayor Gardiner illustrated a case in point with Councilman Stern having written one
memorandum with 12 sections in it relating to the agenda; and pointed out that at this
point in the meeting, this body has only discussed the first 6 and the memorandum of
how to conduct the meeting was taking much longer than what was expected.
Councilman Stern pointed out that the agenda estimated this topic to take 20 minutes.
Mayor Gardiner noted his expectation that discussion of this agenda could have been
more time efficient; stated that while this body is having a meaningful discussion, he
stated that this body needs to come to grips with its use of meeting time; and noted that
if everyone on this body agrees with the need to shorten the length of the Council
meetings, he questioned why this body is having difficulty with coming to an agreement
on improving the situation. He stated that he is in favor of attempting to end the
meetings by 10:00 P.M., realizing that sometimes the meetings will have to go to 11:00
P.M.; and that if the public wants to address the City Council, then the meeting will go
longer until the public has had their input. He urged this body to make a strong effort to
become more effective and efficient with the meetings.
Councilman Stern noted his support for Councilman Long's suggestion to use the
Planning Commission's model.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to adopt the rule that Council
will not take up any new matters beyond 11:00 P.M., absent suspending the rule by way
of vote; that this body not take up any business after midnight, absent suspending the
rule by way of vote; and that Mayor Gardiner and City Manager Evans do whatever they
can to shorten the meetings even further.
Mayor pro tem Clark noted his support for the motion; asked that this situation be
monitored and that if it is determined the rule is not being adhered to, that this matter be
readdressed.
Councilman Long noted his concurrence with the suggestion to monitor the adherence
to the rule and suggested that this be reviewed in 6 months to determine its success.
There being no objection, Mayor Gardiner so ordered.
Councilman Long stated that Councilman Stern's discussion was persuasive regarding
the difficulty with starting off a discussion with a motion; and expressed his belief that
what this body has gone through with the previous discussion was an illustration of how
helpful it can be to first have discussion and then a motion.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 11 of 40
Mayor Gardiner expressed the opposite position, pointing out that this body had taken
approximately 50 minutes to discuss Item No. 1, City Council Agenda Format and
Procedures for the Conduct of Business; and that not having a motion to focus the
discussion, the Council's time is not well spent. He explained that it is not always
possible to have a perfect motion first off, but reiterated that a motion focuses the
discussion. He pointed out that Robert's Rules of Order allows one to amend the
motion and fine -tune it as a result of discussion.
Councilman Wolowicz stated that he likes the formality of first having a motion, but
noted that there are times when he needs to formulate his thoughts more prior to
participating in the conversation that would follow a motion.
Mayor Gardiner stated that in his experience with public hearings, it is useful to have the
motion first; advised that after the motion is made, there are only two bases for stopping
discussion: 1) Council moves for the question and votes, or 2) the Mayor states that the
body is repeating itself and asks for a vote. He stated that after a motion is made, there
is no limit on the ability to amend it or discuss it. He highlighted an example of a recent
City Council workshop, wherein the Council worked for two hours and only put forth two
motions because the discussion was not focused.
Councilman Stern stated that there are times when it is helpful to first start the
discussion, hear the public's input, address various ideas /positions before a motion is
made; expressed his belief that it is very beneficial to have discussion before a motion;
and stated that this body is focused by staff report, focused by public input; and stated
that he has not found that this body's discussions are so unfocused that the motion
makes it all clear, but quite the opposite — highlighting recent history of this Council
making motions first that, in his opinion, focused this body too narrowly and created a
need for numerous amendments which created lack of clarity. He stated that when this
body needed a broader approach to see where the consensus seemed to be on some
of the more difficult issues, there has been tremendous benefit in this body putting its
ideas on the floor and seeing what the reaction is and letting it build from there, ending
up with a neat and concise motion.
Mayor pro tem Clark commended Mayor Gardiner for this recent experiment of first
putting forth a motion; but expressed his opinion that for this group, based on his
experience on various bodies, he does not believe this body is well served by putting
forth a motion prior to discussion.
Councilman Long stated that the discussion first helps him to see all sides of an issue
as opposed to his coming in and making a motion from the outset; and expressed his
belief that this body needs to have deliberation before a motion.
Councilman Stern stated that this body should not be required to discuss a matter
before making a motion; that if a Council member feels he wants to make a motion
before discussion, that he be able to do so; and expressed his belief that in the past
three months, he has not seen a benefit to first putting forth a motion prior to discussion.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 12 of 40
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to continue with the
procedure that existed prior to December 16th, that after this body has heard from the
public, had its questions answered, that it could either make a motion or discuss the
matter. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Clark, Long, Stern, Wolowicz
NOES: Gardiner
ABSENT: None.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Mayor Gardiner recessed the meeting at 8:35 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:50
P.M.
Councilman Wolowicz moved that the Council suspend further discussion of Agenda
Item No. 1 until the next meeting. Without objection, Mayor Gardiner so ordered.
Update on Girls' Softball Fields. (1201)
City Manager Evans reported that staff was working on the Girls' Softball Fields site
study; that staff had received some site plans from the engineer; that those site plans
have been provided to Mr. Anderson, who is representing the girls' softball league; and
advised that because Mr. Anderson is out of town this week, staff hoped to have a final
report ready for the City Council meeting on May 4, 2004.
There was no objection to receive and file this report.
Miscellaneous Items for Action:
None.
Continued Items for Action:
None.
Continued Items Listed for Information Only:
None.
NEW BUSINESS:
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor pro tem Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to
Calendar as submitted.
accept the Consent
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 13 of 40
Councilman Stern questioned if City Clerk Purcell received his suggested revisions to
the Minutes.
City Clerk Purcell noted that she had not received any revisions from Councilman Stern.
Councilman Stern asked that the Minutes be pulled from the Consent Calendar and
considered at the next meeting.
With regard to the materials distributed this evening, Councilman Stern asked that staff
take another look at Item No. 7, Professional Services Agreement, stating that
Paragraph 4.1 needs to be looked at, referring to Article 6.12.
Councilman Stern requested moving Item 11, Professional Services Agreement with
Emergency Planning Consultants to Prepare the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, from
the Consent Calendar.
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.
NCCP Phase 3 Contract Amendment. (1203)
Approved an amendment to the contract with the City's NCCP consultant (URS
Corporation) in an amount of $27,304 for completion of the third and final phase of the
City's NCCP.
Claim against the City by Werner Meissner. (303)
Rejected the claim and directed staff to notify the claimant.
FY 03 - 04 Arterial Slurry Program. (1404 x 1204)
(1) Approved change order number one to an existing professional service agreement
with Harris & Associates for additional services related to the FY 03 - 04 arterial slurry
program; and, (2) Authorized the expenditure of up to $10,160 for this effort.
Resol. No. 2004 -23: Funding request for beverage container recycling and litter
cleanup activities for Fiscal Year 2004 -05. (1301)
(1) Authorized the submittal of the funding request to the Department of Conservation's
Division of Recycling for funding programs related to beverage container recycling and
litter cleanup activities for Fiscal Year 2004 -05; and (2) ADOPTED RESOL. NO. 2004-
23, AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE ALL
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 14 of 40
NECESSARY FORMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING PAYMENTS AND
IMPLEMENTING AND CARRYING OUT THE PROGRAMS.
Authorization for Cingular Wireless to file a Conditional Use Permit Application
for a telecommunications facility at Ryan Park. (1203 x 1804)
Authorized the City Manager to sign a Conditional Use Permit application on behalf of
the City for a telecommunications facility proposed by Cingular Wireless at Robert E.
Ryan Park, thereby allowing the application to proceed through the required permit
review process.
Awarded Professional Services Contract for Engineering Services. (1204 x 1405)
(1) Approved the selection of Harris & Associates for the preparation of a Preliminary
Methodology and Rate Analysis for the possible formation of a storm drain user fee;
and, (2) Approved the proposed professional services agreement with Harris &
Associates for performing the Rate Analysis.
Change Order to Storm Drain Investigation. (1405)
Approved change order number one to a contract with AKM consultants in the amount
of $13,196 to provide additional engineering services to the update to the storm drain
master plan.
February 2004 Treasurer's Report. (602)
Received and filed the February 2004 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
Resol. No. 2004 -24: Register of Demands.
ADOPTED RESOL. NO. 2004 -24, 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.
Mayor pro tem Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to approve the Consent
Calendar as amended. Motion carried as follows:
AYES: Clark, Long, Stern, Wolowicz, Mayor Gardiner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 15 of 40
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan: Professional Services Agreement. (401 x 1101)
Recommendation to (1) Authorize staff to work with the City of Rolling Hills Estates on a
multi - jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan; (2) Award a Professional Services
Agreement to Emergency Planning Consultants in the amount of $8,000 to prepare the
City's portion of the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan; and, (3) Authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute the Agreement with Emergency Planning Consultants.
Councilman Stern questioned the dramatic disparity in the bids that were submitted.
Assistant City Manager Petru explained for Councilman Stern that the difference in the
bids was attributable to various factors; advised that the four firms with the high bids are
large consulting firms that have a lot of staff members, a lot of overhead, as opposed to
the company that staff is recommending, which is essentially a one - person operation;
advised that the four firms with the high bids proposed very elaborate processes to
create the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, which would include a lot of meetings; and
explained that the firm staff is recommending offered a very streamlined approach to
preparing the plan, minimizing the number of meetings, and heavily relying on the
workgroup to do a lot of the work. She added that the four high- bidding firms proposed
very elaborate and new GIS mapping in association with the preparation of this plan,
which is very costly. She advised that the person staff is recommending has applied
this same streamlined approach to a number of other cities. Assistant City Manager
Petru stated that Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates will also be using this same
consultant; advised that Rolling Hills has recently decided not to participate in the multi -
jurisdictional plan, but to prepare its own separate plan — noting that this venture will be
shared between Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates. She added that some
of the remaining monies that the City has in its Emergency Preparedness Program will
be used for some of the GIS mapping as well as for some additional data gathering the
City needs to complete the plan.
Councilman Stern noted his delight to see the lower bid.
Councilman Stern moved to approve staff recommendation.
Mayor pro tem Clark complimented staff for their work on this project, expressing his
delight with the out -of -the -box thinking and problem solving and for not only saving the
City money, but also for putting the City in the position for possibly obtaining future grant
monies.
Mayor pro tem Clark seconded the motion. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Clark, Long, Stern, Wolowicz, Mayor Gardiner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 16 of 40
Because of the large number of audience members wishing to speak on Item No. 16,
Mayor Gardiner requested that it be the next order of business. No objection was
noted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ZON2003 -00417 (16 -FOOT HEIGHT CODE AMENDMENT). (1203 x 1801)
Councilman Stern pointed out that one of the things the Planning Commission has
indicated is that it would still like to work on this issue; expressed his preference that the
Planning Commission continue to work on this matter; and stated that the audience
comments were welcome but that the Planning Commission should keep this item until
it has a final recommendation to City Council.
Councilman Long noted the Planning Commission's desire to do further work on this
issue and to further comment on this issue; stated that he is inclined to concur with
Councilman Stern that this matter be returned to the Planning Commission for further
recommendations; and questioned if there is a compelling reason for the City Council to
undertake this matter as opposed to sending it back to the Planning Commission for a
final recommendation to City Council.
Noting that it may take the Planning Commission one or two meetings to resolve the
issues of concern to the Commission, City Attorney Lynch questioned whether the City
Council would like to repeal Urgency Ordinance No. 400U in the meantime so that the
old rules continue in effect while the deliberations are ongoing. She stated that this
would be beneficial because of the historic process; that whatever the Council ultimately
decided would be a matter of policy; and that by repealing the ordinance, the City will
not be having an intervening period of time where different rules would apply to some
residents that would not apply later.
Mayor pro tem Clark expressed his belief that Urgency Ordinance No. 400U should be
repealed if this matter is to be debated further; and stated that there is a great deal of
consideration that needs to be undertaken and settled before this fundamental policy
issue is adopted.
At this time, Senior Planner Ara Mihranian presented the staff report and the following
recommendation: (1) Determine whether to continue the discussion on the proposed
code amendment language, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and the
amendments that were introduced at the City Council meeting, until after receiving a
comprehensive recommendation from the Planning Commission; and, (2) If the Council
wishes to discuss the matter this meeting, review the Planning Commission's concerns,
as summarized by Staff, and provide Staff with further direction regarding specific
language amendments.
Councilman Stern noted his understanding that the tear - down /rebuild issue is a pre-
existing issue that was not clear even under the old code.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 17 of 40
Senior Planner Ara Mihranian stated that in the original language, prior to the adoption
of the urgency ordinance, if someone was voluntarily proposing to tear down and rebuild
a two -story structure, that portion above 16 feet would be subject to a height variation
application and a view analysis, but not that portion below the 16 feet; and advised that
the property owner did not have the right to rebuild up to their old envelope.
Senior Planner Mihranian noted for Councilman Long that the 3 major issues of concern
by the Planning Commission were the tear - down /rebuild structures, phasing a project,
and the ambiguity with the term "proposed construction."
Councilman Long inquired of staff that looking at the chart on Circle Page 4, one of the
Planning Commission's concerns is that with the tear - down /rebuild, if the existing
residence within the chart is torn down as part of the remodel, because it goes above 16
feet currently, would the view analysis would be required if it went outside the pre-
existing envelope as a voluntary tear - down /rebuild?
Senior Planner Mihranian noted for Councilman Long that even if the existing structure
were over 16 feet in height, it would not be subject to the view analysis; if it was an
involuntary situation, as long as the structure is rebuilt within exactly the existing
envelope, it would not require a view analysis; however, if just a small sliver of
additional square footage extended beyond the original structure, a view analysis would
be required for the entire portion over 16 feet, including the previously existing structure.
Jon Cartwright, 30630 CaIIe de Suenos, highlighted his privilege in serving on the
Planning Commission for the past 8 years; and thanked the City for allowing him the
opportunity to serve his community. Mr. Cartwright noted his pleasure that a view
analysis is not triggered on the grading permit when the grading is proposed to grade
down; noted his pleasure that at the July 15, 2003 City Council meeting, it had
reaffirmed the historic interpretation that one had the absolute right to build to 16 feet
and that the Council had adopted new language codifying that right in February of this
year; but noted that he is concerned if the City is now saying that one does not have the
absolute right to build to 16 feet if an owner has to do so at the same time that a height
variation applies. He stated that in his opinion, this action is inconsistent with what has
been approved and that it erodes the 16 -foot- by -right rule. Mr. Cartwright stated that
this logic is tough to follow, believing that one either has the right to build to 16 feet or
does not have the right to build to 16 feet; he highlighted his support for protecting
views, but asked that the City reconsider the decision to require a view analysis below
16 feet on a height variation as well as a view analysis on any other unrelated structure
below 16 feet if applied for at the same time as the height variation. He stated that this
decision is a major departure from the current code; that it takes away property rights
and misses the mark of the intent to protect views from a proposed structure; that it is
also in conflict with Proposition M, which applies to one having a right to build or grow
foliage to 16 feet before it encroaches onto a view. He stated that every reference to
height in Proposition M is above 16 feet and that the new language in the height
variation findings is in conflict with the purpose of Section 2 of Proposition M which was
to retain the pre- existing right to build to 16 feet. He stated that if City Council wishes to
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 18 of 40
eliminate the right -to- build- to -16 -foot rule, it would be his opinion that it would require
voter approval.
Mr. Cartwright noted that since the City's inception, over 1,000 height variation
applications have been processed and approved by staff, the Planning Commission and
by City Council on appeal; and stated that view analyses were not required below 16
feet on the height variation, nor were they required for any other structure below 16 feet
that were applied for at the same time. He stated that this allowed applicants, staff and
the Planning Commission to consider everything at once in a very efficient and cost -
effective way. He explained the irony of all this is that the decision which requires a
view analysis below 16 feet on a height variation or any other unrelated structure below
16 feet applied for at the same time as the height variation can be circumvented simply
by processing the permits one at a time — pointing out that this will result in the applicant
and the City spending additional time and money processing permits sequentially as
opposed to at the same time. He urged the City Council to reconsider the decision to
analyze views below 16 feet and to re- establish the historic interpretation that views
below 16 feet are not considered on the height variation, that doing so will allow a 16-
foot -by -right standard as well as protect a homeowner's right to improve his /her
property.
Mr. Cartwright provided his own power point illustrations (see Exhibit A) for the
Council, which he believed showed the impacts of Urgency Ordinance 400U. He
advised that the first graph is a takeoff of the graph shown in the staff report. Referring
to the first graph, he stated that there is no view impairment in the height variation
segment; that before this ordinance was put in place, if one applied for a height variation
and the proposed room extension, it would have been approved; that after Urgency
Ordinance 400U was adopted, it would have been denied; that if one then went back
and processed an application for the room addition, it would have been approved; that if
one applied for a height variation, it would have been approved. He stated that there
would be no views saved; and that there would be considerably more time and cost on
the part of the applicant and staff. He stated that the chart indicates what would happen
when an applicant had the right to develop to 16 feet, he could do it; that when that right
was taken away and given to the neighbors as view rights across his entire property
from ground level to 26 feet, he lost that right to build. He stated that one has to ask,
did it make sense to deny a height variation when view impairment is in an unrelated
structure not attached to the height variation; and expressed his belief that in the future,
the City will only see one permit submitted at a time.
Councilman Stern noted the helpfulness of Mr. Cartwright's presentation; highlighted the
proposed ordinance language that came before the Council about a month ago, wherein
the Planning Commission was suggesting that the City would do the analysis of view
impairment below 16 feet in that area — referring to the graph that says "height variation"
to the right; and questioned if Mr. Cartwright would feel that to be inappropriate.
Addressing Councilman Stern's inquiry, Mr. Cartwright stated that yes, it would be
inappropriate. Mr. Cartwright explained that this whole discussion started over 4 years
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 19 of 40
ago; advised that the Planning Commission has gone through 4 years of these same
discussions when then Planning Commissioner Long was advocating views below 16
feet and the rest of the Planning Commission was not; and stated that it eventually
became an operational problem because the discussion of height variation would come
up. He stated that the Planning Commission then asked for a joint workshop with City
Council in order to gain some clarification on this issue — pointing out that by that time,
there were various problems with issues such as build -by- right. He stated that at this
workshop, there was concern on the Council's part that the Planning Commission may
have been negotiating views below 16 feet and that Council believed that if this were
true, that it should be codified and put into the code. He stated that he personally does
not believe that the Planning Commission ever negotiated a view impairment below 16
feet; explained that oftentimes, there were a couple of Planning Commissioners who
would ask if an applicant would be willing to move their house or structure, willing to get
with their neighbor to work out an issue; but advised that as a Commission, they never
negotiated below 16 feet. He stated that nevertheless, that concept went forth. Mr.
Cartwright stated that when this got to the City Council in July 2003, Council affirmed
the absolute right to build to 16 feet; that at that time, there was discussion about
whether the Council should remand the matter to the Planning Commission; and stated
that it is his recollection that the City Council did not believe that the Planning
Commission could resolve the matter after 4 years of discussing the it; that there was
no reason to remand it to the Planning Commission at that point; and that it should be
kept at the City Council level. He stated that it was extremely important to some of the
Planning Commissioners to put this issue in the hands of the City Council because of
the Planning Commission's dissension on this issue.
Councilman Stern noted his recall of the discussion and stated that the word "may" has
caused some of the confusion in the decision.
Referring to Chart No. 6, lot 2, Councilman Long questioned whether Mr. Cartwright is
assuming that the ridgeline on the house is also 16 feet.
Mr. Cartwright stated that Proposition M states that one can grow foliage to 16 feet
before it encroaches into a view; that the City now has view restoration guidelines that
state that one can grow foliage to 16 feet or the highest roof ridge line, whichever is
lower; that the guidelines for the structure state that if a view is impaired at 2 feet, then it
can be denied; that foliage and structures now lack harmony when considering the
guidelines; and stated that he would prefer that structures and foliage be harmonious,
that there be an absolute right to either build a structure to 16 feet or to grow foliage to
16 feet.
Ted Paulson, 5248 Valley View Road, former Planning Commissioner, stated that this
issue was discussed and debated many times by the Planning Commission, with the
consensus almost every time that the 16 -foot rule should apply and that it should not be
changed. Mr. Paulson noted his concurrence with the statements made by Mr.
Cartwright. He stated that he is not aware of any great groundswell in the past, which
dictates that this needs to be changed, and noted his confusion in why it keeps getting
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 20 of 40
revisited — pointing out that City Council had previously approved the 16- foot -by -right
rule. He expressed his belief that at this point in time, this has become a policy issue
that needs to be taken up by City Council. Mr. Paulson noted his concern that if this is
sent back to the Planning Commission for further debate, it will open up new public
hearings on this matter and that it will not just be taken up as a discussion item; and he
noted that it was his understanding that the proper process was followed and that
Council had already decided the matter, but that he understood what was passed by the
City Council at the last hearing, based on the discussion dialogue, was not what was
submitted for recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Referring to the first chart, Councilman Long asked Mr. Paulson if his biggest concern is
that the extension below 16 feet would be considered as part of the height variation
permit.
Responding to Councilman Long's inquiry, Mr. Paulson stated that in the first chart, yes;
noted that the way he understands the new ordinance as rewritten is that the height
variation issue would now address everything on this chart below and above 16 feet;
stated that his concern is if one were submitting a plan to build a two -story house,
automatically it would be subject to height variation review; and that if the view
impairment was below 16 feet, one could be denied under the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Gardiner asked Mr. Paulson if he believes some property rights have been taken
away by the urgency ordinance.
Mr. Paulson stated that yes, he believed some property rights had been taken away by
the urgency ordinance; that the City would be taking away property rights because the
City could deny a project with a view impairment below 16 feet; and stated that he does
not believe this matter should be debated any further by the Planning Commission,
believing that the Commission cannot resolve this issue.
Mr. Paulson noted for Mayor pro tem Clark that his primary message is that the City
should revert back to the old code, and that the City should only take into account a
view above 16 feet.
Councilman Stern asked Mr. Paulson to ignore the portion on the diagram to the left
where the room extension was placed, and to assume the view was directly underneath
the portion where the height variation was sought, the box that goes from 0 to 16 feet
where one wants to build up. He asked Mr. Paulson if it is his belief that the City should
ignore what falls below 16 feet even though it will block the view and is obviously part of
the height variation of that structure.
Responding to Councilman Stern's question, Mr. Paulson noted his belief that the
process which is currently in place, prior to City Council making the changes,
adequately addresses that type of situation to be addressed by the Planning
Commission as it is evaluating a project; and stated that if a project, as noted on the first
chart, came before the Planning Commission for consideration, if there was a view
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 21 of 40
impairment defined by staff under the view review process, that particular project --
forgetting existing residence and room extension -- would probably be recommended for
denial because of view impairment.
Councilman Stern stated that in his hypothetical example the view impairment appears
from 0 to 16 feet underneath the part that is built up to 26 feet and questioned if staff
would have denied that. Councilman Stern noted that he understood Mr. Cartwright's
statement regarding his understanding of the ordinance to have a different outcome and
expressed his belief that because of this confusion, this is why it is necessary to send
this back to the Planning Commission to clarify the matter.
Bruce Franklin, 15 Oceanaire Drive, former Planning Commissioner, stated that he
concurs with Mr. Cartwright's statements; expressed his belief that every resident
should have the right to build to 16 feet under all conditions; otherwise, the City would
be subjecting its residents to a 2 -step process and add additional cost and time to
complete a project. He urged the Council to maintain the 16- foot -by -right rule, as
approved by the City Council last July.
Don Vannorsdall, 29513 Windport Drive, former Planning Commissioner, read a
message faxed by former View Restoration Commissioner Gil Alberio stating his opinion
that there were issues with the urgency ordinance and that any major changes of Prop
M should be made under due process. (Mr. Alberio's fax is on file with the City Clerk's
Office.)
Mr. Vannorsdall stated that he concurred with Mr. Cartwright's statements and those of
the previous speakers; advised that he served on the subcommittee that considered the
entire code many years ago; noted his recollection that this issue was thoroughly
addressed at that time; and he urged the City to keep the code as written.
Referring to the first graph, Councilman Stern asked Mr. Vannorsdall to ignore the
structure to the left, to assume the view is to the right, that the applicant has an existing
building up to 16 feet, that the applicant is requesting to go up to 26 feet; and
questioned of Mr. Vannorsdall if the view is between 0 and 16 feet directly beneath the
portion where the height variation is sought, based upon his experience, what would
have been the outcome under the old code before the urgency ordinance.
In response to Councilman Stern's inquiry, Mr. Vannorsdall stated that the Planning
Commission would not have disapproved anything below 16 feet; that they could not
have approved it above 16 feet.
Mayor pro tem Clark stated that if the new portion of the house were two stories, but
there was no view impairment that was determined above 16 feet, would Mr.
Vannorsdall have denied the case if there was a view impairment below the 16 feet.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 22 of 40
Mr. Franklin cited a case that was considered, wherein the owners of a house 13 feet
high wanted to build to 20 feet; that there was a view between 13 and 15 feet, with no
view above that; and he indicated that the Planning Commission approved it.
Craig Mueller, 3559 Seaglen Drive, Chairman of the Planning Commission, commented
on the history of this issue, the various discussions that have taken place thus far; and
stated that the Planning Commission came up with a recommendation, passed 4 -3, to
recommend that City Council adopt certain language. He stated that that
recommendation was ignored by the City Council and that the Council had sent the
matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. He urged the
Council to carefully consider sending this matter back to the Planning Commission;
pointed out that there are five new Planning Commissioners; and noted his belief that
this Council will not accept the ultimate decision of the Planning Commission. He stated
that there is not likely to be a unanimous decision on the part of the Planning
Commission. He urged the Council to put themselves in the place of a homeowner who
is attempting to make improvements and rebuild his /her home.
Mr. Mueller stated that in addition to supporting the repeal of the urgency ordinance, he
was present to advocate two things. He asked the Council to modify the grading permit
when pertaining to grading down, which is a recommendation of the Planning
Commission. He stated that it is important to allow a homeowner to grade down and
still have his /her home 16 feet above the existing grade, believing that this would
encourage the homeowner to grade down. He stated that the residents should be
discouraged from building artificial ridges or promontories, believing that they have a
negative impact upon the landscape contours. Mr. Mueller stated that the second -story
trigger should be deleted and highlighted the existing neighborhood compatibility rules
that were adopted in 1996; and he encouraged the Council to make these two small
corrections to the code. Mr. Mueller stated that if Council chooses to send this back to
the Planning Commission, Council should keep in mind that this will take some time for
discussion and public input; that the Planning Commission meetings will go longer and
that debate will continue for some time before a recommendation is made to the
Council; and reiterated his concern that the Planning Commission may not come up
with a desirable solution for the Council — believing that the Planning Commission
cannot come up with a better solution than what is outlined this evening.
Councilman Stern stated that the staff report indicates that "therefore the Planning
Commission is recommending that the City Council continue this item to allow a second
opportunity for the Commission to provide more comprehensive input "; and questioned
what was the vote of the Commission.
Mr. Mueller stated, "5 new Commissioners in favor, 1 experienced Commissioner
dissenting."
Councilman Stern questioned Mr. Mueller if he felt the prior code was so clear that
everyone knew the outcome for that homeowner wanting to build the structure — now
referring to the right of the first diagram. Councilman Stern expressed his opinion that
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 23 of 40
the outcome is not clear under the old code; stated that he has faith that the Planning
Commissioners will listen and reason through a well- thought out recommendation; and
stated that there has been some ambiguity in the statements of some of the speakers.
He noted that staff has identified some of the things that need to be clarified, for
instance, the situation where there is a present ridge line of 18 feet, where the
homeowner wants to tear down and rebuild; stated that the existing code would trigger
an analysis; and noted the Planning Commission's desire to look at this issue. He
expressed his belief that this matter should not have come before the Council before a
final and complete recommendation had been made by the Planning Commission —
pointing out that the Planning Commission had not fully addressed some of the issues
of concern prior to it coming before City Council.
Mr. Mueller stated that cumulative view impairment needs to be addressed and its
relation throughout the neighborhood; and suggested language for modifying the
urgency ordinance, which incorporates his concerns with the grading permit and the
deletion of the second -story trigger. He stated that he is in favor of repealing the
urgency ordinance; and stated that if it is the Council's desire, the Planning Commission
will take up the matter once again. Mr. Mueller stated that many of the view lots have
unusable land, buildable space, with setbacks that cannot be built upon because of
restrictions; and noted that it should be realized that it might not be fair for all residents
depending on the topography of their lots.
Paul Tetreault, 32232 Phantom Drive, new Planning Commissioner, noted the necessity
to clear up this matter; stated that Mr. Cartwright brought forth many of his same
concerns and problems that he envisions in the urgency ordinance; commented on
residents who are denied a project, only to redesign their homes to be more expansive
one -story structures, creating smaller setbacks; and stated that time and time again, he
sees examples where the urgency ordinance as presently worded fails to protect
valuable views. He stated that the ordinance encourages applicants to phase in the
construction projects; and expressed his belief that the City needed to reword the
ordinance so that it eliminated this phasing of projects that would otherwise have been
denied if submitted at the same time.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Gardiner recessed the meeting at 10:14 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at
10:20 P.M.
Pang Mueller, 3559 Seaglen, noted her concern with the length of time the Planning
Commission has already spent on this issue; addressed her concern with the
increasingly more complex municipal codes developed under the urgency ordinance,
stating that the ordinance seems to protect views in some instances and not in other
instances; and stated that such complexity could lead to more interpretation problems.
She expressed her belief that the City Council members have enough knowledge and
understanding of this issue to make a sound policy decision at this time. She stated
that it is not a productive use of time and energy to send this issue back to a fairly new
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 24 of 40
Planning Commission to start the proceedings all over again -- pointing out that the
previous Planning Commission had thoroughly discussed this issue for many months.
She urged the City Council to reaffirm the historical interpretation of the existing
ordinance and to repeal the sections in the urgency ordinance that address the view
impairment in the 0 to 16 -foot areas; stated that she does not believe it is necessary to
include the language "may" or "shall" to create an opportunity to consider views in the
portion below 16 feet; and urged the City Council to make a decision on this policy, one
that is not complex.
Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive, stated that this City has dealt with view issues for
many years; advised that one of the first principles that Council made clear was the by-
right-to- build -to -16 -foot rule outside the required setbacks; noted that the setbacks are
there to provide the possibility for corridor views; mentioned that the development code
also indicates that there are limits to lot coverage; and that anyone coming to the City
wanting to build new or add -on can interpret the code clearly that they can build
anything up to 16 feet outside the setbacks on the property so long as they follow all the
other building codes and that they will not fall into any other traps /triggers. Looking at
what was structured in the urgency ordinance, whether rebuilding voluntarily or
involuntarily, he stated that the expectation is that one should at least be able to build
what they had prior, whether 16 feet or 17 feet — pointing out that the neighborhood has
lived with that building for many years; and that it is unfair to say that the City must
review everything. He stated that allowing phasing costs both the applicant and the City
additional time and money and noted the importance of completing a construction
project in a timely manner. He stated that the rule should be maintained at 16 feet.
Councilman Long noted Mr. Dyda's involvement with the creation of the code from the
outset; stated that the ordinance requires that findings be made as to the degree of view
impairment, but noted that there is nothing in the ordinance that says view is only that
which is above 16 feet; and questioned Mr. Dyda if that wording was just adopted or left
out when one analyzes view in a height variation.
Mr. Dyda stated that if the City says one can build to 16 feet and not have any problem,
an applicant could have built a one -story and wider house; and that if a structure is up to
16 feet within permitted setbacks and lot coverage, the neighbors don't have a right to a
view.
Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane, advised that when the view ordinance was first drafted, the
language indicated that there is no significant view in the space between 0 and 16 feet;
that no one had any opportunity to address a view within the 16 feet — stating that the
code was specifically developed for that purpose. She stated that it was understood
that if someone purchased a property, they would have the right to build up to 16 feet
regardless of view impact. Sunshine noted for Councilman Long that the ordinance
defined the view to exclude everything below 16 feet.
Councilman Long questioned if specific wording is so indicated in the original ordinance
to exclude everything below 16 feet.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 25 of 40
Sunshine noted for Councilman Long that excluding everything below 16 feet was the
intent of the ordinance and she apologized if the original ordinance is not clear on that
fact.
Mr. Cartwright noted his complete concurrence with Sunshine's statement; and stated
that it also is staff's interpretation that view impairment cannot be considered below 16
feet. Mr. Cartwright stated that since all the triggers are above 16 feet, it is the view of
the majority of people who read the language that the language indicates the significant
view is above 16 feet.
Councilman Long noted that staff has used the term "protected views" in its staff reports
as an excuse for refusing to provide view protection but that the ordinance did not
contain any reference to or any definition of "protected views ": and instead merely
required by its plain language a view analysis of all views anytime a structure exceeded
16 feet.
Mr. Cartwright stated that the language should then be changed, not the ordinance; and
expressed his belief that most everyone on the Planning Commission knew what the
historic interpretation was.
Mr. Dyda stated that the original intent was to allow people to build homes up to 16 feet
within the setbacks and the lot coverage; that any foliage which fell within that envelope
did not affect the view, therefore it was permitted; that if foliage outside the envelope
could impact the view, such as the ocean or Catalina, it would not be permitted outside
of that 16 -foot envelope.
Mr. Paulson pointed out that the Council has heard comments from people who were
involved in writing the original material that set the ground rules for the ordinances that
exist; and he urged Council to listen to these people who have been responsible for
operating and implementing these rules under the ordinance. Mr. Paulson stated that
looking back on what he had said earlier this evening, the 16 feet applies all the way
across the property; and he encouraged the Council not to send this back to the
Planning Commission, but to keep it at the Council level and do what needs to be done
as a matter of policy.
Mr. Mueller asked that as the Council considers what to do, that it not throw out all the
language in the urgency ordinance should this body decide to repeal the ordinance;
commented on his proposed changes to the ordinance; explained that when reverting
back to the original ordinance, the Council could get there by simply deleting the
reference to the portion below 16 feet and basically retain the remaining flow of the
language, and to take the 3 findings and put them in logical order. He suggested
leaving Nos. 4 and 5 in the ordinance, but to place them in a different order; and
reiterated his suggested change to delete the reference to the portion below 16 feet in
all clauses, including Finding No. 6; that the grading permit sections be included as
modified by the Planning Commission, which relate to grading down, and to delete the
reference to the two -story trigger below 16 feet with a 20 -foot requirement.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 26 of 40
Councilman Long asked for a hard copy of Mr. Mueller's proposed language for the
urgency ordinance.
Mr. Mueller stated that altering the ordinance and including his proposed language
would create an alternative to either leaving the urgency ordinance in place as it's
written or to repeal the urgency ordinance altogether.
Councilman Long noted that the current recommendation of the Planning Commission,
5 -1, is that Council send this matter back to the Commission.
Councilman Long stated that in the chart that Mr. Cartwright used, the recommendation
of the Planning Commission immediately prior to the adoption of the urgency ordinance,
the 4 -3 recommendation, was that the City should not include the area of the room
extension to the extreme left in the diagram in the view analysis, but that the City should
include the entirety of the structure to the right, which is the portion directly below the
portion for which a height variance is sought.
Responding to Councilman Long's statement, Mr. Mueller indicated that, yes, the
Planning Commission vote was 4 -3 in September.
Councilman Long stated that the chair of the planning commission made a comment
about the Council not accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation in
adopting the urgency ordinance; but questioned if the chair of the Planning Commission
wants Council to follow that recommendation now.
Chairman Mueller had no response to this inquiry.
Councilman Wolowicz asked Mr. Mueller if he approves of the language contained in
Finding No. 4 of the February staff report.
Responding to Councilman Wolowicz' inquiry, Mr. Mueller explained that the
recommendation was only reached in order to come to some sort of a compromise in
September 2003; that the Commission believed that was the best it could do based
upon the information they had; and stated that as a citizen instead of a Commissioner,
he would not be supportive of the recommendation.
Councilman Stern asked if Mr. Mueller had discussed his recommended language with
the Planning Commission prior to this meeting, and, if not, would he be opposed to
having the Planning Commission review his recommended language.
Mr. Mueller stated that he had not reviewed the proposed language changes with the
Planning Commission; noted that the proposed wording could be presented to the
Planning Commission, but reiterated that these are policy decisions that need to be
made by the City Council.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 27 of 40
Councilman Stern noted that the Planning Commission is in concurrence with the
grading issue; noted his support for deleting the reference to the two -story trigger; but
with regard to the 16 -foot rule, he stated that the Planning Commission should
reconsider it and come back to the Council with its best recommendation.
Mr. Mueller stated that if it's the Council's decision to send it back, the Planning
Commission will take on the challenge; but noted that in the meantime, the Planning
Commission needs something in the ordinance so that it can continue to process
applications.
Mayor pro tem Clark questioned that if it was the inclination of the Council to reaffirm
the policy on the 16 -foot rule being the point at which the City considers the view
impairment, did staff have suggested language based upon the discussion.
City Attorney Lynch suggested the following language: Circle Page 17, Section 8Cii,
"The portion of a new structure that is above 16 feet does not significantly impair
view..."
Circle Page 17, Section 8Civ, "The area of the proposed new structure or addition to an
existing structure that is above 16 feet," and to strike everything else up to "when
considered exclusive..."
Circle Page 17, Section 8Cv, "...addition to an existing structure that is above 16 feet is
designed and situated in such a manner..."
Circle Page 17, Section 8Cvi, "...view impairment caused by the proposed structure that
is above 16 feet."
Circle Page 17, Section 8Cii, "The proposed structure above 16 feet does not result in
an unreasonable..."
City Attorney Lynch clarified that it is the voluntary demolition that is not addressed;
stated that Council has the option of repealing the urgency ordinance, sending this back
to the Planning Commission or to make the amendments as described above.
Councilman Long noted that some of his concerns and questions have still gone
unanswered, for example, the burning down of a house, proposed to be built precisely
within the pre- existing envelope with no expansion, believing that this is an approved
situation; but that if one goes outside the envelope at all, a height variation permit is
then required that then takes into account a view analysis of the existing structure
above 16 feet. He stated that this becomes problematic and that he would like the
Planning Commission to take a look at it -- noting that this is one of the issues he
addressed in his memorandum. He stated that the same issue is apparent all across
the board on the voluntary teardown.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 28 of 40
Councilman Stern stated that he is coming to the conclusion that Council should stick to
something more closely akin to what Mr. Cartwright articulated, however, he questioned
if there is some way to give the Planning Commission the authority not necessarily to
deny the permit, not necessarily to review the view impact in terms of denial, but some
authority to make a suggestion when it sees that moving a building a couple feet might
help a situation.
In response to Councilman Stern's inquiry, City Attorney Lynch stated that she did not
see that as an option; and pointed out that in that particular circumstance, the applicant
had worked with the neighbors for negotiation; and that it was not something that was
insisted upon by the Planning Commission.
Mayor pro tem Clark noted that in the 12 years he served on the Planning Commission
and View Restoration Commission, there were oftentimes when applicants would
negotiate with their neighbors prior to coming before the Planning Commission, many
times an applicant would be willing to modify plans in order to minimize view impairment
to the surrounding neighbors.
Councilman Wolowicz stated that this body owes it to the former Planning Commission
that discussed this issue at length, a blue ribbon panel or former and current members
who spoke this evening, to support their recommendation.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Gardiner recessed the meeting at 11:10 P.M and reconvened the meeting at
11:13 P.M.
Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Clark, to rescind existing
Urgency Ordinance No. 400U and introduced Ordinance 404U; that the City revert back
to the original language presented to Council on February 17, 2004, by staff and the
Planning Commission, along with the proposed changes as reflected above by City
Attorney Lynch.
Councilman Wolowicz clarified the motion to include the adoption of the resolution,
excluding reference to considering views under 16 feet.
Councilman Long expressed his belief that what the motion proposed to do is actually
reject the Planning Commission recommendation because the area marked "A" should
be considered under that recommendation; and noted his concern that the motion
proposed to add language to the ordinance that is incompatible with Proposition M,
possibly constituting a major change in the ordinance, which would compel future
Planning Commissions to routinely grant the vast majority of height variation permit
applications. He expressed his belief that the proposed change to the ordinance will
seriously dilute an important protection of views adopted by the majority vote of this
City; and urged the Council to vote against the ordinance. He stated that nothing in the
ordinance and nothing in Proposition M that was originally passed stated that the City
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 29 of 40
should ignore the view below 16 feet; pointed out that he is not challenging the absolute
right to build to 16 feet in the absence of a need for a height variation permit, but stated
that at some point, a line needs to be drawn and that at that point, the project should be
discretionary. He noted his concern with the ordinance being diluted /weakened on the
appearance that there was never any protection for views under 16 feet was simply
false since the ordinance clearly protects view obstructed by foliage that exceeds the
ridgeline of a house even when a house is Tess than 16 feet in height and that the
ordinance at one time required height variation permits and view analyses for two -story
structures that were less than 16 feet. The ordinance was designed to allow someone
to build a one -story house up to 16 feet without accommodating their neighbors' views
but not more. Now the majority of impaired views will be routinely ignored.
Councilman Stern stated that he would take responsibility for the development of the
urgency ordinance; noted that it was a good trade -off to see if Council could minimize
impact on views below 16 feet when someone is asking for permission to go above 16
feet; and advised that he will be voting in favor of the motion that puts in place the
expressed language to consider portions only above 16 feet because he believes some
of the arguments that have been presented and some of the unfortunate loopholes that
people may exploit, that it makes sense to essentially block out that area below 16 feet,
believing that this also will create more clarity.
Mayor pro tem Clark noted that he was one of the drafters of Proposition M; explained
that it was not the intent to bring view impairment under 16 feet; and expressed his
belief that supporting the motion is the right direction.
Councilman Long stated that because the rest of Council will be supporting the motion,
he suggested taking the motion one step further to specify that foliage be permitted to
grow to 16 feet regardless of what improvements are present on the property so that the
public knows there is absolutely no protection of views under 16 feet. He mentioned
that making this suggestion does not indicate he is in support of the motion but that it
would be consistent with the views of some of the speakers and would provide a
consistent means of disregarding views.
City Attorney Lynch explained that staff will bring back at the Council's next meeting the
altered ordinance or the second option of an urgency ordinance that would amend the
prior one, making the changes that were read above.
Councilman Stern noted his preference to repeal the urgency ordinance and to allow
staff to bring back the new ordinance with suggested language and to go on from there.
Mayor Gardiner noted his preference to amend the existing urgency ordinance, deleting
the below 16 -foot view consideration.
Councilman Wolowicz amended his motion to include the teardown items that need to
be addressed further and the two -story trigger and to have staff bring back all the
language at one time.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 30 of 40
City Attorney Lynch suggested adding in the issue of what happens when there is a
voluntary tear -down versus an involuntary tear -down as well as a couple other issues
that were mentioned; and noted that it would be her recommendation to repeal the
urgency ordinance at this meeting and allow staff to bring back everything to the
Council, not the Planning Commission.
Councilman Wolowicz amended his motion by rescinding the existing urgency
ordinance and to direct staff to redraft the ordinance, including the proposed changes
discussed this evening.
Mayor pro tem Clark noted that the primary effect is to take out of the code the review of
view under 16 feet.
Mayor Gardiner noted that the ordinance should maintain the beneficial features, such
as the grading issue.
City Attorney Lynch read into the record Urgency Ordinance No. 404U.
The motion to repeal the original urgency ordinance carried as follows:
AYES: Clark, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Gardiner
NOES: Long
ABSENT: None
City Clerk Purcell noted her understanding of Councilman Wolowicz' prior motion to go
back and adopt Section 17.02.040C -1 -4, reverting to the original language presented to
Council on February 17, 2004, but to exclude the boundaries of the additions up to 16
feet, including both Part A and B.
Councilman Stern noted his understanding that the grading issue will be addressed so
that a view analysis will not be necessary when grading down; that consistent with staff
recommendation, a new provision will be included making it clear that the voluntary
demolition will allow a homeowner to build back into the existing envelope; and that the
two -story trigger will be eliminated.
Councilman Long suggested that if there is voluntary /involuntary removal of a structure,
that even if the replacement structure goes outside the envelope, the portion of the
replacement structure that is within the envelope — regardless of how high it may be or
what it is — should not be considered in any height variation analysis — stating that he
would support that component of the motion.
Councilman Long reiterated that in his judgment, this City is in the process of
significantly diluting and weakening the ordinance for years to come.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 31 of 40
The second part of the motion carried as follows:
AYES: Clark, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Gardiner
NOES: Long
ABSENT: None
Councilman Stern requested that Mr. Cartwright's graphs be attached to the minutes.
Without objection, the Council agreed.
Appeal of View Restoration Permit No. 157 [Appellant: Mr. Yoshiya Watanabe, 15
Amber Sky Drive]. (Carryover from March 2nd.) (1203 x 1806)
Recommendation to accept the withdrawal of the appeal, thereby letting the Planning
Commission decision on View Restoration Permit No. 157 be the final decision on the
matter.
No objection was noted.
Appointment of Chair to the Equestrian Committee. (Carryover from March 16th
meeting.) (106)
Staff recommendation was to make an appointment for Chair of the Equestrian
Committee.
The Council noted that the candidates are very talented and qualified to serve on this
Committee. Voting was as follows:
Mayor Gardiner — Gordon Leon
Councilman Stern — Gordon Leon
Councilman Long — Gordon Leon
Mayor pro tem Clark — Richard Bara
Councilman Wolowicz — Richard Bara
Gordon Leon was selected as the Chair of the Equestrian Committee.
Los Angeles County West Vector Control District - City Representation.
(Carryover from March 2nd.) (306)
City Manager Evans briefly presented staff report and the recommendation to (1)
Decide who is going to represent the City on the West Vector Control District Board of
Directors for the new term of office beginning July 16, 2004, said term to run through
July 16, 2006; and, (2) Direct staff to notify the District of the Council's decision.
Councilman Stern noted his interest in serving as the City's representative to the Los
Angeles County West Vector Control District, assuming the position in June 2004.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 32 of 40
Mayor Gardiner expressed his support of keeping John McTaggart as the City's
representative until January 13, 2005.
Councilman Stern stated that one of the consequences of allowing Mr. McTaggart to
remain as the representative would put the appointment process on a different cycle;
explained that currently, by and large, Council appoints members to various
organizations when a new Council is seated; that if Council delays this and throws it into
next year, the City will be on a cycle that is almost a year out of sync with the seating of
a new Council.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Clark, to appoint Councilman
Doug Stern to the Los Angeles County West Vector Control District in June 2004 and to
serve a 2 -year term. Motion carried as follows:
AYES: Clark, Long, Stern and Wolowicz
NOES: Gardiner
ABSENT: None
Councilman Wolowicz, echoed by the rest of Council, expressed appreciation of John
McTaggart for his service to the Vector District, both during his tenure on Council and
after.
Border Issues Status Report. (310)
Recommendation to review the current status of border issues, and provide direction to
the City Council Committee and Staff.
Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane, requested that staff include in its Border Issues reports the
issues concerning the City of Rolling Hills policy to block all the trails that lead out of
their City, other than at their gates -- noting her interest in keeping informed on this
issue.
Director Rojas advised that staff has prepared draft comments in regard to the Los
Angeles Unified School District Draft Program EIR for the New School Construction
Program; and stated that staff included comments that the School District consider
some mitigation measures that would obligate them to go through the appropriate
planning process.
Mayor Gardiner stated that the United States Environmental Protection Agency sent a
letter to Mr. James Stahl, Chief Engineer and General Manager of the County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County, dated March 16, 2004; and requested that the letter be
included in the record as follows:
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 33 of 40
"Dear Mr. Stahl:
"It has come to our attention that various parties seem to be misinterpreting the
conclusion reached by EPA in the July 2003 Superfund Site Reassessment Report for
the Palos Verdes Landfill site. The Reassessment was conducted to determine whether
the Palos Verdes Landfill qualified for inclusion on the Superfund National Priorities List.
We concluded that while the site does have groundwater contamination and generates
landfill gas, the site does not, at this tie, qualify for federal Superfund intervention. We
did not assess whether the landfill is an appropriate location for a golf course nor did we
conclude that the site was `safe' for development as has been reported in the press and
on the Meritage Golf website. Further, our conclusion that the site does not qualify for
the NFL was based on our assessment of current conditions, and did not anticipate
future uses. Your cooperation to assure that our report is interpreted correctly for the
limited purposes for which it was designed is greatly appreciated. If you have any
questions, please contact Jere Johnson, Site Assessment Manager, at 415 - 972 -3094.
Sincerely, Betsy Curnow, Chief States, Tribes and Assessment Section."
Councilman Wolowicz briefly commented on the Los Angeles Unified School District's
plans regarding the expansion at the Dotson School; and urged the City to see what can
be done about the District's lack of concern with the complaints regarding the on -going
construction and the lack of site maintenance.
Mayor pro tem Clark suggested that staff meet with School Board Member Mike
Lansing.
Councilman Stern noted that since Councilman Wolowicz is acquainted with Mike
Lansing and is aware of the concerns, that Councilman Wolowicz accompany staff to
meet with Mr. Lansing.
Mayor pro tem Clark offered to accompany Councilman Wolowicz on his visit to meet
with Mr. Lansing and is also familiar and has met with Board Member Lansing on other
matters.
Open Space, Park and Recreation Master Plan. (1201)
City Manager Evans presented the staff report and the recommendation to (1) Receive
the Open Space and Park Planning Summary Report and direct staff to post it to the
website; (2) Determine whether to continue with the current Task Force or recruit new
members; and (3) Set a Joint Workshop with the Task Force (or successor to the Task
Force) for a date to be determined.
City Manager Evans suggested that the joint workshop be scheduled for the 5th
Tuesday in June.
Mayor Gardiner stated that Council could either meet with a reconstituted task force or
meet with a re- established Open Space and Parks Committee.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 34 of 40
Councilman Long stated that Council should select from one or two options; noted that
he does not believe he has enough information presented to him to figure what options
are being offered; suggested that it would be logical to say here is the work product we
have, that it is sufficient for Council to take action, and that here is a proposal as to
when and how it can be agendized and to note precisely what issues need action based
on the work product; or to say the work product is not sufficiently complete for Council to
take action and here are the additional things that need to be done to finalize the work
product. He stated that right now, no other approach seems logical.
Mayor pro tem Clark noted the necessity to comprehensively help City Council assess
what open space, parks and recreation Rancho Palos Verdes has in its inventory and
what could be done to effectively meet the community needs in the future with respect
to that total inventory; stated that the Council did not delegate to the Task Force the
responsibility or the authority to make decisions on how that inventory of open space
and parks ought to be used; and he pointed out that clearly, the Task Force went
through a great deal of work. When the Council decided as a first order to focus on
Lower Point Vicente and for the purposes of policy decision to rule out active recreation,
it was an appropriate first step, but noted that there are more steps to be taken; and he
expressed his belief that the City's inventory of open space and parks is one of the most
important issues that this Council will be considering over the coming years; and that it
is one of Council's goals to work systematically through this process. He stated that
before Council proceed any further, that it ought to have an engagement with the
members of the Open Space Task Force; and recommended that the Council schedule
that meeting with the Task Force and then make a decision with respect to whether
there will be a subsequent committee, a reconstituted Task Force, or whether staff will
assist Council in following the path that has been laid out in terms of Council's goals.
Councilman Stern noted his concurrence with Mayor pro tem Clark's comments, stating
that a lot of time has been expended and a lot of hard work has been done thus far, but
noted that Council does not have any work product. He stated that there is value in
conducting a short meeting, getting the value and the ideas of the committee; and
stated that he would be willing to chair the group in order for it to produce a final
product.
Mayor pro tem Clark noted his support of Councilman Stern chairing the committee in
the interim.
Councilman Long stated that if the concept of the Task Force is to be independent and
to give Council independent advice, that he would not be supportive of appointing a
Council member to the Task Force; and suggested that the best way to address that is
to have the workshop as expeditiously as possible so that Council as a whole can give
direction.
Councilman Wolowicz noted the necessity to at least schedule a meeting; and noted
that because of Councilman Stern's ability to coalesce a group so that they can make
their presentation, he would support appointing him to the committee.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 35 of 40
Mayor Gardiner noted his support for Councilman Stern's offer to chair the group,
guiding it and bringing the work product forward to Council; and explained that
Councilman Stern will not interpose his ideas upon the group, but that he will be using
his organizational skills that will get them focused and get their work product ready for
Council consideration.
Councilman Stern stated that he envisions just working to try and pull together whatever
the group has developed so that the joint meeting can be a productive one.
Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane, stated that the Task Force has been spending its time
gathering information and essentially waiting for the consultant to finish the results of
the community outreach assessment; that once the Task Force gets those results, they
will be ready to make their priority decisions and generate a list of properties to be
acquired, prioritizing potential acquisitions. She stated that the Task Force is ready to
pull its information together as the Updated Open Space, Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, but indicated that the group has not been allowed to hold any meetings due to the
lack of a chair.
Barbara Sattler stated that Councilman Stern's suggestion to chair the committee for the
short term would be acceptable; noted that she has lingering concerns with the balance
of the representation on the committee among active recreational use, more passive
recreational use, and open space preservation — pointing out that the committee is
strongly weighted towards active recreational use. She noted the need to work together
with the NCCP program, passive recreation, and preservation of habitat, which are key
parts of what the committee has to be aware of and consider. She stated that another
complication is that in that context, the committee has to be coordinated with other
committees, such as the Forrestal Steering Committee, and that the members of the
Task Force have found this to be somewhat tricky -- noting that the individuals are not
working together on the trail issues; and suggested that this might be a good time to
review the makeup of the committee.
Sunshine stated that the Task Force will be basing its decision on the input from the
consultant; and expressed her belief that it doesn't matter who is most interested in
which topics.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Wolowicz, that he serve as the
interim chair of the Task Force for the purpose of allowing the committee to finalize its
work product; that the joint session be scheduled for the fifth Tuesday in June, with the
idea of having the work product presented; and at that time, the Council will make
whatever appropriate decisions there are on a going - forward basis.
Councilman Long stated that there is no question that Councilman Stern would be
excellent at chairing the committee; but noted his concern with creating a precedent that
takes a committee or task force that was originally established to be independent from
the Council and removing that independence; and, similarly, he noted his concern when
workshops do not just give general guidance as to what the deliverables are to be, but
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 36 of 40
try to shape or guide the committee's decision -- stating that he would want to avoid
shaping or guiding what the particular outcome is. He stated that if Council does not
want a committee or commission to be independent, the Council should dissolve it and
take the decision back into its own hands or establish it as dependent in the first place;
that if Council wants the committee or commission to be independent, the Council
should make it truly and completely independent; and reiterated his concern with this
process and the precedent it would set.
Commenting on a meeting wherein Council considered the Task Force's report, Mayor
pro tem Clark stated that there was a sentiment in the community a couple months ago
that Council was not willing to deal with all that it had asked the Task Force to
undertake -- pointing out that this was clearly not the case; and explained that it was not
appropriate for Council to deal with the magnitude of the scope of work in that one
evening. He stated that one of the lingering facets of that can be put to bed by what is
been proposed by Councilman Stern, that someone from this body work with the Task
Force as it moves towards a product, clearly not steering it towards personal bias but
just leadership. He noted his support of Councilman Stern's motion.
Mayor Gardiner noted his support of the motion, and requested that an agenda be
prepared for the joint workshop.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Clark, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Gardiner
NOES: Long
ABSENT: None
Letter of Support for the State Assembly Bipartisan Group. (1101)
City Manager Evans presented staff report and the recommendation to consider
authorizing the Mayor to send a letter in support of the California State Assembly
bipartisan group. He advised that he added into the body of the letter Councilman
Long's recommendation in the last paragraph, which states, "While we are not
endorsing any of the specific positions of your group on any particular issues, we
applaud your bipartisan approach to addressing the issues on behalf of the residents of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. We commend you for your political courage and will
to lead in the informal bipartisan group."
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Wolowicz, to send the letter as
amended. Without objection, Mayor Gardiner so ordered.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 37 of 40
Request to Support Los Angeles County Public Safety and Homeland Security
Sales Tax Initiative. (1101)
City Manager Evans presented staff report and the recommendation to consider
authorizing the Mayor to send a letter in support of the Los Angeles County Public
Safety and Homeland Security Sales Tax Initiative.
Councilman Wolowicz noted that he is not supportive of raising taxes, but stated that he
believes protective services loom large in the responsibility of government; and that of
all the things government provides, this needs to be the highest priority. He noted his
concern with the cutting of budgets from both the police and fire departments
throughout the state; and stated that these funds will go directly to these agencies, that
they will be specially earmarked for protective services. He noted that he had hoped for
a sunset on the tax increase.
Councilman Stern concurred with Councilman Wolowicz' concern with having adequate
public protective services; but noted his concern that the City's budget with the Sheriff's
Department is a bit under $3 million; that this initiative would raise that allocation by
$2.35 million -- pointing out that the initiative also requires that the City may not
substitute these funds for the $3 million; and that RPV's Sheriff Department budget will
be $5.3 million. He noted that the City will be able to bank the unused funds and
hopefully be able to spend the remainder wisely; and stated that one of the by- products
of the way this initiative is formulated because of politics is a great potential for wasting
additional money that is earmarked for this cause.
Mayor Gardiner stated that as a matter of principle, he does not believe City Council
should recommend or endorse tax matters; that if Council members want to do this
individually, that is fine, but that the Council as a whole should not be taking a position
on this initiative and be speaking on behalf of all of the residents of the City.
Mayor pro tem Clark stated that he listened to Sheriff Baca's presentation on this
initiative; noted that he signed the petition supporting the initiative; commented on
Councilman Stern's excellent observation that the City does not have the ability to
substitute funds, but mentioned that what came to mind is that the leftover funds may be
able to support traffic- related issues of concern to RPV.
Councilman Long stated that there are times when the Council should take a position on
state issues that affect cities; noted that the funds may possibly be more than the City
can reasonably use; and suggested that surpluses possibly could be used for a police
substation in RPV.
Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Councilman Long, that the City indicate its
support of the Los Angeles County Public Safety and Homeland Security Sales Tax
Initiative.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 38 of 40
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Clark, Long, Stern, Wolowicz
NOES: Gardiner
ABSENT: None
City Foundation. (1101)
Recommendation to consider formation of a City non - profit foundation to receive
donations.
Due to the late hour of the meeting, Councilman Wolowicz requested that this item be
continued to another meeting date.
Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to postpone discussion
of this matter to a future agenda. No objection was noted.
City Council Team Building Workshop. (1101)
City Manager Evans presented staff report and the recommendation to set a date for a
City Council /Senior Staff Team - Building.
Councilman Long stated that he would not be able to attend any meetings scheduled for
June 26 through July 1st and July 17th through July 30th.
It was the consensus of the Council to contact City Manager Evans about Council
availability.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Clark, to support scheduling the
workshop.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Clark, Long, Stern, Wolowicz, Mayor Gardiner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council Discussion Of Future Agenda Items & Suggestion Of Future Agenda
Items:
None.
Closed Session Report:
City Attorney Lynch stated that no action was taken.
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 39 of 40
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 12:53 A.M.
•
16'
A'
Existing Residence
A
ZON2003 -00417 (16 -FOOT HEIGHT CODE AMENDMENT) Staff Illustration.
Attest:
W:\2004 City Council Minutes \04062004 CC MINS.doc
City Council Minutes
April 6, 2004
Page 40 of 40
Exhibit A
April 6, 2004 City Council Minutes
Height Variation Ordinance
April 6, 2004
J. Cartwright
Height Variation
Unrelated Room Extension
view
Before
After
Permit processed
\
Yes
No
Oneatatime
Yes
Yes
26'
16'
Height Variation & Second Unit
Se'
• •
• ••• • • • • • • •
tee.
A.,•••
tre.Are.,..
te. tom
ti.e. tie. tie, tee. sr, sde.
tee.' twe. tee, 1.1e.
•
•
1
• • • • • • •
• • •
%dm sam N."
• 2nd unit
• Guest hous
• Studio
Before
After
Permits Processed
Together
Yes
No
One at a time
Yes
Yes
High Cost - No View Saved 3
26'
16'
Second Story
New or Teardown Rebuild
•
5,.► '` S.� v-. S,.•...,,.- „n .•,r..,,r..•r ..,� ; f..•�• •.�• Sir• s.�'� Sd " 5.x" S.r S.
'..fz •,.r • �.h. r,.,, e�.,,.-..,, r..•, r..,, r ..,,r..,,r..,,r..,,r..�r..�r..� .,�•s ter-. S„r• %," S„• S." SP.
......................................
....... ...............................
....... ...............................
...... ...............................
....... ...............................
...... ...............................
....... ...............................
...... ...............................
..... ...............................
..... ...............................
view
Before
After
\
Permits Processed
_„.„....„ . . _ . .. . . ... _ ._ ..,.. __
Height Variation
"' e6��
Yes
No
���'��� � � �
One at a time
Yes
Yes
High Cost - No View Saved
4
26'
Two Houses
Same View Below 16 Feet
2 -story
Lot 1
mow
Jr / Jb fJJ''r"yf,f%i
view
gig
Before
Lot 2
After
View Between
14' - 16'
16 feet
Yes
Yes
26 feet
Yes
No
HiqS•7 Cost - No View Saved
5
26'
16'
14'
Prop "M" Height Limits
Height Variation
(View below 16 feet)
view
Fr"
*ol& gig'
Ht. Var.
.4"
MEM ■I MIN
Lot 1
Lot 2
Before
Lot 3
After
Stucture
16 feet
Yes
26 feet
Yes
Yes
No
Foliage
16 feet
Yes
Yes
C
I (.7i Li
ia3ae: Foliage
ructure
6