The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20160719 06 - Arterial Walls and FencesRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 07/19/2016 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to review the Arterial Fences and Walls Assessment Report and to direct Staff to proceed with suggested solutions. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Review the Arterial Fences and Walls Assessment Report; (2) Direct Staff to proceed with the following short-term solutions to address private arterial fences and walls identified as being in "poor" condition in the Assessment Report: a. Remove damaged chain link fencing and associated debris within the public right-of-way along Hawthorne Boulevard; b. Initiate code enforcement for the 9% (26 properties) of arterial fences and walls in the City's single-family residential zoning districts identified as "unsafe" in the Assessment Report; and, C. Initiate code enforcement for all of the arterial fences and walls in the City's multi -family residential, commercial and institutional zoning districts identified in the Assessment Report. (3) Direct Staff to proceed with the Council -preferred long-term solution to address arterial fences and walls, based on the options described in the Assessment Report. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding to remove the damaged chain link fencing was included in the Council -adopted FY16-17 budget. Amount Budgeted: $500,000 Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): 330-3031-461-73-00 ORIGINATED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Community Development Director -t° Nicole Jules, Deputy Public Works Director REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager"All ' ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Arterial Fences and Walls Assessment (page A-1) B. September 15, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt (page B-1) C. RPVMC Section 8.24.060 (page C-1) D. RPVMC Section 17.76.030(F)(6) (page D-1) E. August 21, 2001, Hawthorne Beautification Staff Report (page E-1) F. August 21, 2001, Hawthorne Beautification Presentation (page F-1) G. 2001 Hawthorne Beautification Corridor Plan (page G-1) 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 15, 2015, the City Council received a summary report on the general condition of the fences and walls along the City's arterial roadways. Based on information presented that evening, the City Council, among other things, directed Staff to return with a strategic plan to repair and/or remove privately -owned fences and walls that are deteriorating or pose a public safety concern utilizing the City's code enforcement procedures, with an emphasis on addressing deteriorated chain-link fencing. The following report responds to the City Council's directive, suggesting short - and long-term strategies to address this issue. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Arterial Fences and Walls Assessment Reaort The City, with the assistance of an outside consultant, conducted a visual assessment of the condition of the private arterial fences and walls along the following 11 arterial streets in the City: • Hawthorne Boulevard • Palos Verdes Drive West • Palos Verdes Drive South • Palos Verdes Drive East • Miraleste Drive • Western Avenue • Montemalaga Drive • Crest Road • Crenshaw Boulevard • Silver Spur Road • Highridge Road Attached for the Council's review is the consultant's assessment report (Attachment A), which is based upon a survey of 300 properties with private arterial fences and walls in need of some level of repair as described below: The categories used for the survey are based on the aesthetic condition of the arterial fences and walls as defined below: Minor Issues — Fences and walls that are not visibly in disrepair when traveling along an arterial street, but at a closer inspection need cosmetic improvements (e.g., paint, etc.). 2 Number of Properties Linear Feet Linear Feet as a Percentage Minor Issues 114 13,286 41% Needs Improvement 36 4,293 13% Poor 150 15,076 46% Total 300 32,655 100% The categories used for the survey are based on the aesthetic condition of the arterial fences and walls as defined below: Minor Issues — Fences and walls that are not visibly in disrepair when traveling along an arterial street, but at a closer inspection need cosmetic improvements (e.g., paint, etc.). 2 Needs Improvement — Fences and walls that need more than cosmetic improvements but stopping short of a major repair or reconstruction. Poor — Fences and walls that are visually in a deteriorated condition as viewed when traveling along an arterial street, and in need of major repairs or reconstruction Of the 300 properties assessed, 96% percent (288 properties) are single-family homes. Additionally, of the 15,076 linear feet of fences or walls identified as being in poor condition, approximately 9% of the 288 single-family residential properties assessed (26 properties) may be considered "unsafe." This is based solely on field observations and not on any engineering survey. These "unsafe" structures are cinder block walls that are leaning, buckling, and/or severely cracking. The remaining properties are either multi -family homes (4 properties), commercial (3 properties) or institutional (5 properties). As added information, Table 3 in the Attachment A summarizes the types of fences and walls (block, chain link, wood, stucco, etc.) assessed in the report with their respective linear feet. The report also assesses pilasters, as summarized in Table 4 of Attachment A. In light of the options identified in the Assessment Report, Staff recommends approaching the solutions to the damaged arterial fences and walls in two phases: short-term and long-term, as discussed below. Short -Term Improvements Staff recommends proceeding with the following short-term improvements (approximately 1 year to implement) to private arterial fences and walls identified as being in "poor" condition in the Assessment Report: a. Remove damaged chain link fencing and associated debris within the public right-of-way along Hawthorne Boulevard As an immediate and tangible solution, Staff seeks City Council authorization to proceed with removing the damaged chain-link fencing and associated debris along Hawthorne Boulevard. The cost has been estimated at $500,000 and has been programmed in the FY16-17 budget. If authorized this evening, Staff will begin the process by contacting the property owners to obtain permission to access the portion of their property where the fencing and debris exists. Staff anticipates this program taking approximately six (6) months to implement because Staff will need to contact and secure access permission. The chain-link fencing removed will not be replaced. It should be noted that a good portion of the damaged chain link fencing is currently encroaching into the public right-of- way. b. Initiate code enforcement for the 9% of arterial fences and walls in the City's single-family residential zoning districts identified as "unsafe" I Because of the unsafe condition of 9% (26 single-family residential properties) of the arterial fences and walls, Staff recommends that the City Council authorize Staff to initiate code enforcement proceedings for these properties. If authorized, these property owners will be notified by the City's Code Enforcement Division that the condition of their arterial fence or wall does not comply with the City's property maintenance ordinance (Attachment C), and that it is their responsibility to improve the condition of the structure. These property owners will be notified that, pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.76.030(F)(6) (Attachment D), their arterial fence or wall will have to be repaired or replaced at the same height and location and with the same materials and color as the original uniform (tract) fence or wall (this includes replacing existing chain-link with new chain-link). The City will provide the property owner with three (3) separate notices establishing a deadline date to bring the arterial fence or wall into compliance with the RPVMC. If compliance is not achieved by the established deadline, the matter will then be forwarded to the City Attorney for processing. C. Initiate code enforcement for all of the arterial fences and walls in the City's multi -family residential, commercial and institutional zoning districts There are 12 non -single-family residential properties where "poor" condition arterial fences and walls exist. Similar to the code enforcement process described above for residential properties, Staff seeks the Council's authorization to initiate the code enforcement process to repair these arterial fences and walls. Long -Term Solution Options The Assessment Report provides the following long-term solution options to repairing arterial fences and walls: a. Code Enforcement — as previously described, this option will require property owners to repair or replace their deteriorated or damaged walls or fences. If the Code Enforcement option is chosen, prior to its implementation, it is advised that the City conduct an extensive public outreach campaign, such as workshops, to educate the property owners of arterial fences and walls of their responsibility to maintain these structures. This should occur prior to implementing the Code Enforcement option because it is likely that most of the property owners abutting an arterial street are not aware that the fence or wall is on their property and is their responsibility to maintain. Moreover, requiring these property owners to improve something that has little tangible benefit to their day-to-day living, and at considerable expense, will most likely not be received well. It is projected that these code enforcement cases will take more than a year to resolve especially if the matter is forwarded to the City Attorney. b. Replacement (City Funded): L Like -for -Like Replacement — Under this option, arterial fences or walls will be repaired using similar materials (e.g., chain-link for chain-link) at an estimated cost of $1,543,300, which is a "ball park" figure that will have to undergo a specific cost analysis if selected. This amount only includes replacing the existing fence or wall with the same material and is based on industry standards for the construction of retaining walls and fences and the removal of existing structures. This cost estimate does not include the removal of slough material collecting behind the fences and walls, along with improving some of the landscaping on the slope. It should be noted that this one-time replacement would not change the private ownership of the new fence or wall. ii. Arterial Fences and Walls Master Plan - Using information from the August 2001 Hawthorne Corridor Beautification plan (Attachments E, F & G), a Master Plan would be prepared that would modernize and create a uniform appearance of the City's arterial fences and walls. At a minimum, the Master Plan would establish a common and unique theme for the look and feel of City's arterial fences and walls. This can be achieved by combining existing and proposed materials, such as maintaining and improving the Palos Verdes stone pilasters; painting or stuccoing masonry walls with earth tone colors; or replacing the rusted chain-link fences with wrought -iron fencing or vinyl -coated chain-link fencing. Funding this option will vary depending on the selected materials. Thus, if this is selected as the preferred option, part of developing a Master Plan will include cost options based on a variety of materials for Council consideration at a later date. Staff would also need to come back to the City Council with a cost estimate to develop a master plan. The Master Plan would serve as an aesthetic blueprint to the overall look of the arterial corridor, but it will be the responsibility of adjacent property owners to adhere to the plan when they choose to replace/repair their private fences or walls. C. Removal (City Funded) — This option is for a City -funded project that simply removes the deteriorated arterial fences or walls without replacing them. The advantage of this option is that it provides an immediate and visible solution to the deteriorated condition of the arterial fences and walls at a relatively minimal cost to the City. The estimated cost for this option is $635,500, but more accurate cost analyses will be needed because in many cases the existing arterial fences and walls are supporting slough material. This option will require the consent of the adjacent property owner and may require access agreements to conduct the work. It should be noted that in some cases, it may not be possible to only remove a segment of a deteriorated fence or wall because doing so may result in a finished condition that appears incomplete or fragmented. d. Public/Private Partnership — Currently the law does not allow the use of public funds on private property. There is no legal funding mechanism that allows the use of public funds on private property. To foster a public/private partnership, private property owners will have to voluntarily decide to replace/repair/maintain V their fence or wall. The City could assist with coordinating an event or hosting public workshops to foster greater participation. Otherwise, the City would have to assume ownership of the fences and walls by securing right-of-way agreements with each and every property owner. It should be noted that this information differs from the Assessment Report because subsequent to the completion of the Assessment Report Staff obtained information that public funds cannot be used on repairing private fences or walls. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Direct Staff to proceed with code enforcement to address all of the private arterial fences and walls assessed in the report identified as needing some level of repair. 2. Identify additional long-term solutions for further analysis by Staff for consideration at a future meeting. 3. Direct Staff not to proceed with any short- or long-term solutions or repairs to the existing arterial fences and walls. S• Arterial Fences 8 Walls Assessment in Rancho Palos Verdes June 20, 2016 A-1 Arterial Fences & Walls Assessment in Rancho Palos Verdes The beautiful coastal city of Rancho Palos Verdes is referred to by many as "a place set apart" from the urbanized Los Angeles basin. The City has approximately 42,000 residents and encompasses 13.7 square miles. The City is the largest of the four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and is primarily residential comprised of approximately 15,000 single family residential properties, 40 multi -family properties and 155 commercial/institutional properties. A majority of the City and these properties were built prior to the City's incorporation in 1973, under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. There are 11 arterial streets in the City abutting private property that are improved with fences and walls. These fences and walls abut the City's arterial streets and were primarily constructed at the time residential tracts were developed under the jurisdiction of the County. Over the years, these arterial walls and fences have weathered, aged and deteriorated, thus detracting from the overall aesthetics of the City. This report provides an assessment of these deteriorated walls and fences, as well as a plan to address this problem. 1. SURVEY A visual survey of the fences and walls that abut the City's major arterial streets was conduct- ed in November 2015 (See Table 1). The surveyed fences and walls, which are located on private property, were assessed according to the following aesthetic scale (The fences and walls determined to be visually in good condition are not included in this survey): Minor Issues — Fences and walls that are not visibly in disrepair when traveling along an arterial street, but at a closer inspection need cosmetic Improvements (i.e. paint, etc.). Needs Improvement — Fences and walls that need more than cosmetic improvements but stop- ping short of a major repair or reconstruction. Poor — Fences and walls that are visually in a deteriorated condition as viewed from the arterial street and in need of major repairs or reconstruc- tion Table 2 summarizes how many private proper- ties abutting arterial streets have fences and walls in need of some level of repair, as well as the linear footage. Of the 300 properties assessed, 96% or 288 are single family homes. The remain- ing properties are either multi -family, commercial or institutional uses. Of the 15,076 linear feet of fences or walls identified as being in poor condition, approximate- ly 9% may be considered "unsafe." This is based purely on field observations and not on any en- gineering survey. These "unsafe" structures are cinder block walls that are leaning, buckling, and/ or severely cracking. It must be noted that this is not an engineering re- port. No claims are made about the structural integrity of the structures. The fences and walls not included in this survey should not be interpreted as structurally sound. The focus of this report is on the visual aesthet- ic quality of the fences and walls. Page 1 Table 1: Streets Surveyed Hawthorne Blvd. 30,149 Palos Verdes Dr. West 8,184 Palos Verdes Dr. South 26,400 Palos Verdes Dr. East 31,258 Miraleste Dr. 9,557 Western Ave. 11,088 Montemalaga Dr. 4,488 Crest Rd. West 8,290 Crenshaw Blvd. 6,389 Silver Spur Rd. 5,280 Highridge Rd. 2,798 A-2 Table 2: Types of Property Surveyed Minor Issues 104 3 3 4 114 Needs Improv. 35 0 0 1 36 Poor 149 1 0 0 150 Walls that Appear to be Unsafe Silver Spur Rd. Crest Rd. West 31031 ; -�- Hawthorne Blvd. Page 2 A-3 Table 3 summarizes the types of fences and walls assessed in the survey and where they are located. The following pictures are examples of the types of structures surveyed. Maps showing the locations of all the surveyed fences and walls are provided in the last sections of this report. Table 3: Types of Walls & Fences Hawthorne 30,149 11,333 1,294 0 293 0 0 367 1,620 14,907 PV Drive West 8,184 645 552 0 0 0 0 97 0 1,294 PV Drive South 26,400 3,301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,301 PV Drive East 31,258 1,055 15 1,599 65 0 97 0 0 2,830 Miraleste 9,557 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 36 Western 11,088 167 1,153 0 0 0 1,847 0 0 3,167 Montemalaga 4,488 215 313 0 0 0 0 0 0 528 Crest 8,290 1,498 1,553 0 93 42 0 0 0 3,186 Crenshaw 6,389 102 0 295 0 42 0 61 0 501 Silver Spur 5,280 2,136 141 0 0 200 0 151 0 2,628 Highridge 2,798 0 277 0 0 0 0 0 0 277 *Combination stucco & chain-link Page 3 PILASTERS A good portion of the City's arterial fences and walls are flanked by pilasters made from Palos Verdes stone or, in some cases, brick. To some, the pilasters may be considered a historically signature feature of the City's identification, while others may view these pilasters as dated. Nonetheless, over the years, these pilasters have deteriorated or collapsed. As part of this survey, the pilasters have also been as- sessed based on their visual condition. Table 4 summarizes the visual condition of the arterial pilasters similar to fences and walls. The following are several examples of pilasters in poor condition. Table 4: Pilasters Crest Rd. West 2 0 0 2 Hawthorne Blvd. 11 7 12 30 Palos Verdes Dr. West 2 0 0 2 Silver Spur Rd. 5 0 0 5 Page 4 A-5 CITY'S GIS SYSTEM This visual assessment was completed using the City's "Trimble" which is a GPS asset tracking device that collects data that can be integrated into the City's GIS program. Thus, data such as location information and length of the arterial fences and walls, as well as corresponding photographs have been incorporated into the City's GIS program. Storing this data within the City's GIS program will enable Staff to easily access specific property information (including photographs) as it pertains to arterial fences and walls, particularly as solutions are explored and information disseminated to the public. The above map is from the City's GIS system. The red lines indicate `poor" fences or walls. Clicking on any of the red lines brings up detailed information of the structures. Page 5 M 2. SOLUTIONS Addressing the deteriorating and aging con- dition of the City's arterial fences and walls will require some form of improvement consisting of either the repair, replacement, removal, or any combination thereof. Thus, the proposed options to approach a solution to this issue includes the following: A. Increased Code Enforcement B. City Funded — Replacement I. Like -for -Like Material Replacement 11. Arterial Fence and Wall Master Plan C. City Funded - Removal D. Public / Private Partnership The potential solutions discussed in this report are focused on the fences and walls rated as "poor" as identified in Table 5. Addressing these issues will essentially solve the visual blight prob- lem. Table 5: Fences / Walls in "Poor" Condition Chain-link 13,464 Cinder -block 954 Wood 42 Missing wall / fence 616 TOTAL 15,076 A. Increased Code Enforcement Option The arterial fences and walls are located on private property. According to Section 8.24.060 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), it shall be unlawful for any person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any property in the city to cause, or to permit, or to maintain thereon any condition which is at variance with the level of maintenance of surrounding properties, or which results in sub- stantial detriment to the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by others in the immediate vicinity thereof. In other words, fences and walls that are in disrepair are in direct violation of the City's Municipal Code. As indicated in Table 2, there are 150 proper- ties with arterial fences and walls that are in poor : condition. Under this option, these property own- ers will be notified by the City's Code Enforcement : Division that the condition of their arterial fence or wall does not comply with the City's property • maintenance ordinance, and that it is their respon- sibility to improve the condition of the structure. • According to Section 17.76.030(F)(6) of the RPVMC, the property owner will be asked to repair or replace the arterial fence or wall at the • same height and location and with the same mate- rials and color as the original uniform (tract) fence or wall (this includes replacing existing chain link with new chain link). The City will provide : the property owner with three separate notices establishing a deadline date to bring the arterial fence or wall into compliance with the RPVMC. If non-compliance by the established deadline oc- curs, the matter will then be forwarded to the City : Attorney for processing. • The immediate benefit of using the Code : Enforcement option is minimal construction costs incurred by the City. However, City Staff costs • may increase (possibly requiring overtime or hiring : contract or new personnel), as well as legal costs may be incurred if the matter is forwarded to the • City Attorney's office for resolution. If the Code Enforcement option is chosen, pri- or to its implementation, the City should conduct : an extensive public outreach campaign to educate the property owners of arterial fences and walls of their responsibility to maintain these structures. It is suggested that, at a minimum, informational • workshops be held and informational leaflets be : mailed to all property owners who have an arte- rial fence or wall. Additionally, Staff can present • information at a Council of Homeowners Asso- ciation (CHOA) meeting and air a public service announcement on the City's local cable channel. • This should occur prior to implementing the Code Enforcement option. Page 6 A-7 In considering the Code Enforcement option, it is likely that most of the property owners abutting an arterial street are not aware that the fence or wall is on their property and is their responsibility to maintain. This may be because the arterial fence or wall is located at the rear of their proper- ty (at the bottom or top of slope) and is probably "out of sight and out of mind." Often, these prop- erties have another wall or fence enclosing the useable portion of their lot. Moreover, requiring these property owners to improve something that has little tangible benefit to their day-to-day living, and at considerable expense, will most likely not be received well. It is projected that these code enforcement cases will take more than a year to resolve especially if the matter is forwarded to the City Attorney. B. City Funded — Replacement This option proposes to repair or replace the deteriorated arterial fences and walls at a cost incurred by the City because, although on private property, a strong case can be made that the whole community will benefit from this program. City funding options would have to be further explored, but may include appropriating General Fund or Beautification Grant money to implement this option in phases over a course of 5 to 20 years (depending on how funding allocation is ap- propriated). A license agreement between the City and each property owner will need to be signed granting the City permission to conduct work on private property. In considering this option, there are two possible choices to pursue: I. Like -for -Like Material Replacement -As previously noted, Section 17.76.030(F)(6) of the RPVMC requires that arterial fence or walls be repaired using similar materials (chain-link for chain-link). Under this option, the cost to replace deteriorating arterial fences or walls is estimat- ed to be $1,543,331. This amount only includes replacing the existing fence or wall with the same material (see Table 6). This estimate is based on industry standards for the construction of retain- ing walls and fences and the removal of existing structures. It should be noted that this is a "ball- park" estimate. If the City decides to embark on such a project, more specific cost analysis will be needed. For example, it may be necessary to remove the slough material collecting behind the fences and walls, along with improving some of : the landscaping on the slope, which will add to the cost of the project. • Table 6: Replacement Cost TotalLinear Per Feet LF : Installation • Chain-link 13,464 $20 $269,280 : Cinder -block 954 $350 $333,799 • Wood 42 $25 $1,050 Missing chain-link 519 $20 $10,380 : Missing block wall 97 $350 $33,950 Total Install $648,459 : Removal Cost* $453,921 • Total Install / Removal $1,102,379 : Construction Mgmt.** $220,476 • Contingencies (20%) $220,476 TOTAL $1,543,331 11. Arterial Fence and Wall Master Plan - This option requires the City to develop a Master Plan (using information in a previous study pre- pared for the City in 2000) that would modernize and create a uniform appearance of the City's ar- terial fences and walls. At a minimum, the Master Plan would establish a common and unique theme • for the look and feel of City's arterial fences and walls. This can be achieved by combining existing and proposed materials, such as maintaining and • improving the Palos Verdes Stone pilasters, paint- ing or stuccoing masonry walls with earth tone colors, or replacing the rusted chain link fences • with wrought iron fencing or vinyl coated chain link fencing. • Funding this option will vary depending on the selected materials for the Arterial Fence and Wall Master Plan. Thus, if this option is selected as the • preferred option, as part of developing a Master Plan, cost options will be provided based on a variety of materials for Council consideration at a later date, as well as who pays for the implemen- Page 7 tation, such as the City, the property owner, or any combination thereof. In addition to the above, if the City decided to incur maintenance responsibilities, an additional maintenance cost should be factored in consider- ing having the City replace existing arterial fences and walls. Depending on the replacement ma- terial (like -for -like or other uniform material), it is estimated that the annual maintenance cost could range between $60,000 and $100,000. If desired by the Council, this cost would be captured annu- ally in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) on a year-to-year basis. C. City Funded — Removal This option is a City -funded project that simply removes the deteriorated arterial fences or walls without replacing them. The advantage of this option is that it provides an immediate and visible solution to the deteriorated condition of the arte- rial fences and walls at a relatively minimal cost to the City. The estimated cost for this option is $635,500. This is a ball -park estimate that will need more analysis because in many cases, the existing arterial fences and walls are supporting slough material. Costs should factor the potential maintenance responsibility for the City to ensure slough material doesn't spill into the public right- of-way, including sidewalks, bike lanes, and vehi- cle lanes. Not withstanding, it should be the property owners' responsibility to ensure that no slough material spills into the public right-of-way. It should be noted that in some cases, it may not be possible to only remove a segment of a de- teriorated fence or wall because by doing so, the finished condition may appear incomplete or odd. D. Public / Private Partnership — Replacement This option is intended to soften the costs associated with implementing a replacement pro- gram to both the City and the residents with arte- rial fences and walls. A public/private partnership can be achieved by having the City establish a program to fund the costs of replacing and main- taining arterial fences and walls. Property owners with an arterial fence and wall will be billed an annual fee that could be spread over a 10 or 20 year span which may lessen public resistance. If maintenance is incorporated into the program, the City will be able to maintain the fences and walls for the benefit of the entire community and avoid on-going code enforcement issues with property owners. Furthermore, an agreement between the City and the fence -owners will have to be execut- ed allowing the City to maintain the arterial fences and walls on behalf of their owners. Additionally, if the City determines that the project has an overall City benefit, in addition to a specific benefit to the property owners, the City can contribute to the program thus lowering the costs for property own- ers. 3. PHASING In order to provide the most tangible and vis- ible aesthetic results of this program that occurs in an orderly and uniform manner, it is suggested that the City implement the preferred option in phases based on street block segments. This will avoid creating fragmented improvements within street blocks that will appear disorderly and in- complete. 4. SUMMARY The deteriorating condition of the arterial fences and walls have become significant visual problem in Rancho Palos Verdes. In consider- ing options to solve this visual problem along the City's arterial streets, implementing the Code En- forcement option would be the least costly method but the most time-consuming and difficult, and fragmented as repairs will occur at different times. The other three options involve City funding that could cost as much as $1.5 million, but render a quicker and more tangible result without fragment- ed improvements. Page 8 ARTERIAL FENCES AND WALLS MINOR ISSUES A-10 0 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) oHyy oo��T. "gam i31V�RSEYpR 4 O l �sr� ati� ti©, .y� G,Q40 iRbNwQOO ST-- - IR6.NWO' 0 5T— �a MANrTOWAC OR �LKMc]rYT DR-� `MgSS8ANK p a °' S[ j 7S E;90 CUNT P� o A 0 ©, s'r o c aEST. Q1P. �4: 1:5,645 BULLING HILLS ES i 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet The information on this © City of Rancho Palos Verdes map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-11 A-1 2 FAIN OMMOMMIli �I A-1 2 0 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) N P2 R. 'QGk- r E CT 0. ti f / DR PE F; 0C VO 4 n M � �s fls. SCGTMIST - G �� to x q ¢ m 'OCHVAI.>G DR q ISEAMOUND¢ phppNGATE DR 9 oDiNG} ILL DR - D A x GLLING HILI ; o404- A.BB_T�SW _ 3 rk GA SPR, GRD - O� COYf~ DF?" 3 5 0 G1R O .. -- AV- # VIAPERGOLA ��p�L1N� - r v < ok /Y "0 I �. Nfy 4 S -V>ERD� ft10 � I. 4~ 1:5,645 0 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-13 A-14 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) do N. a v W .o, V. tP 011 7A a o cy 'A v FS©� �r �� Ryon �aUrR b R Q �� V 4J R_ 1: 5,645 0 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-14 A-15 0 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) s '9t p►S �9. xx ID P VIA GAP�� d zJ TRAMO ►ATO _ �R n u� Ln 11�1 � OSS®Es �, • yr�p OSCE 14 Q�y0 �1A LViEW C -f `` 1: 5,645 OH 940.8 0 I 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-15 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) -1 0 q C, �• 9�G Oil\ d N I�Iq.VIC?,ca 'N J V 1ff 3 G� Q • fLUE_.FtE(j U i4lf �l1UA 4if 15. ti fl� �•t7 r� N N N G rpG G� � r C3 � C) � � ►r to � �� G� � �Z� 7 ti• +cn M � 1: 5,645 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-16 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) QQR \ D G \ � U., j. r DIGo PS x� QE(, Nv rt a Q5 g 10 EBNA pp c°o v° NARINO s 'x90 1< ba SEA'CLAIRe 4 �� 1:5,645 0 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-17 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) -620.1 6264 3812 6416 3816 6420 6424 6260 3817 3820 ' 6252 3821 651' 6246248 651 6509 62446244 V'A CANADA 6505 6216 6220 6200 4072 076 6501 650 4068 650 3001 29425 406C4064 3023 4052 4fl48 2973 40364036 4044�R�LpR 3020 2850 ' 4020 4028 4008 4016 OR 2959 r� 4004 2978 9<a�'�c�` �� 40534061 4101 4045 3046 2945 2866 MVRO-E5' 4 04'( O 4105 4037 4029403 Q M1�t 14005 025, 411 4011 4011 952 2946 2933 2886 2939 4007 651365176521 4004 6509 i� 6533 6321 6321 6501 %J1A LORENZO _ 6537 —_ yFA 29664 2938 a[ ,�' p 24 6508 6520-6541 6528 9652 2934 2892 �A��p�~ 16 6504 6516 654 6320 6320 6532 � 2890 29 65fl1 29666 2922 2908 29501 6408 6505 6540 6408/ 65096515 29702 2926 29680 2902 64166424 6517 6544 6416 9663 6432 �iq 6521 IFN 29711 29710 65004 1:2,822 0 650 6508 .654 29723. 29706 29704 29700 4100 4104 470.3 0 235.17 470.3 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. • LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) i PENINSULA VERDE DR , 9 F, PARK VIEW DR - R1O�`�� SER GOlVC Vl VV D 41�/ )b §7 � 9 V � Z U� O� ARRO yO l),g LAKE VIEW DR VEIYID . _A EELICIAIVO 1:5,645 0 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD-1983_StatePlane_California _V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-19 A-20 0 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) GA UCIAO DR,� `..... ��4`• rn A —� � A�E M d >, n �NTF� o Fo . II � LASiTA PL X EN16A ESTU_D A N7- pV _. VALLETa Dry , _ —DELASONDE DR WESr11ONrpR GALMITA DR 4 a l VELEZ DR ---ix� - SANTA RENA DR 1: 5,645 0 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-20 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) !M DR EN I I I � P iCANINI DR— J�¢®mac- Z Li 1-0A p 70 �� 11111L1►��' .. WO] 11111111 1: 5,645 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. !!!!! 1■t®! w. 11111111�11111�11111� �'��i��tiii�t 1: 5,645 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-22 WHO FA 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet C) City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information or this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD-1983-StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 -Feet contact the City for more information. A-22 0 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) i1AWriiORNE B HAWTHORNE BLVD LVD Q RIDGEPAT€i CT HAS .10 �4�� 0 ° ILL LL LLI �y Gi ❑ ct Cr fn oo a G1/ m x Z nLTOP SAN NICOLAS DR x 2 to p G' SAO VE CT�� TIN q�o I 00. SCaTM15T �}� ILL r . v►p �^ ce DR m { w �� A'HVAL'EOR .y LAiNT ELD.DR A �Q 9 k MOON+GATE DR MooNOP, — OR m GH iLL DR -SE EDDMN_ ID AMOUNT Ito= A� o kOIN P q Z .4 0 pJ >%' O y 'p r� pRMAGRSP'RING RD 1:5,645 p 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A -L3 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) ° o¢ �4tr R'-�' TARRAGON q ?SRO O' CRESTMONTi L4, r R P&OAQNPOpRVERnE�0 ppL ! VERDES_ DR�-ti_ q —� RP�OS 15,645 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-24 LA City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) �7 Pr"�P cr VIA CAPV- �a �+* , 6 +SVD 'ljPIR L CRESTMONTr TRFo�`A NTO 1:5,645 " r e ERO_C.r Q 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-26 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) t ti 'Lf3E a CT t� Q LVIEW CT-- P�ERpE'pi; CHP 5 PAL[}5 VE'Rp��;aR 1: 5,645 0 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet I The information on this map is for reference only © City of Rancho Palos Verdes and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-26 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) O �Co - SCflTWflDD.�R ' 0 �O ix A. 4 _� CREST RD k:7v G) G9 � AV74 A SANTA'CA'C O,P. t+ GG�A� Oce Q� Q e 1. 7,256 0 1,209.4 0 604.69 1,209.4 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet Please contact the City for more information. A -L7 LIN City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) 19 17 5446 23 21 15 5446 5446 5446 5446 53005300 535300 00 5446 5446 5446 55300 300 5 ��RppR 5300 5300 20 8 5465 5300 5300 ROLLING HI 5300 22 5453 5445 24 5431 5417 5405 5391 6 15 4 10 5379 5367 5355 VALLEy.VIEW 5341 5327 R� 5315 5303 5249 5235 ;5219 12 5207 17 �5408 5392 Gv� 5380 5366 VALLEY VIEW RD 19 rb 14 5354 5340 1 1 2 5326 5318 5306 5248 5234 5220 5206 20 4 5 22 18 3 3 7 9 24 1 CR>;sr 15 15 17 19 21 5 R 23 26 16 28 7 6 2 c+zs �1ND OR---_ 25 0 ��ys,�9 10 27 30 9 Off, 10 14 16 16 18 25 2 9� t-1 20 22 24 11 F 1 fi 26 32 ¢1214 16 24 18 20 1 34 22 24 4�y'�a 15 -- OCEA NAl,�E' D� �__ 22 26 17 19 5 2 21 23 1:2,822 0 5 1 4 470.3 0 235.17 470.3 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_ RPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-28 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) 5555 543754255417 5417 5405 5385 \ 5441 543 5353 5335 28507 ry \� 5457 Rp - �I1a 5325 � ¢ 5414 N' 5465 5430 RE TRD 5321 635 %®ti*c�' 5360 �R© 0 5450 5305 627 5504 5350 5407 5407 5336 5623 5504 5464 5401 \ 5615 5504 28602 5419 5324 5609 5603 5504 5504 28626 5330 5314 5304 5587558 5431 �•�f 5400 5575 28641 �P- 5406 5420 28762 5230 5615 5567 28666 �Qaa 5561 5224 5609 5555 28649 28724 287302873028742 28752 28780 5603 5549 5563'yrs 5541 28885 28802 2881 5555551id0 5535 - 5626 5529 28667 28812 5543 s�sra � 28705 28763 --63229200 5537 5521 c, Q8827 28725 28733 28747 28757 'c�,y Fy 5531 29203 29206 �rG4'r 5515 syr 28809 28830 5525 so,� �1 l 8207 '� 29216 554{] 551 5509 40 28817 2883 5511 28829 5532 29213 5505 28957 28951 w, � 29222 5522 5503 28$5728$4 29219 29226 5512 5501 28955 28819 9232r 29230 5504 (29234 28961 28853 28852 11 5543 5504 5510 28 24 28903 28879 5549 29242 5603 22 5516 - 28957 28949 28929 2885 p�,. 29252 5613 aap 5532 526 28;�>�/ 25 20 28963 28963 21 18 RSR 28868 2 1 �' 27 _ 30 CRF-STRIDGE 55465540 9313562756 29 13 167 28874 5602 932,1 5610 560756015802 32 i 31 11 14 28958 28928 28916 28908 28958 28950 12/2,954 �., 5618 34 35 - 1:2,822 651 56325626 56215613 5606 36 9 10 28954 470.3 0 235.17 470.3 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-29 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Minor Issues (Green) 28026 27989 27984 27988 28016 26012 12800227990 3 r 2800628003 I'll 28012 28009 28013 28016 28017 555 Q��g P pLy�p 5435 54175405 5437 5425 5365 2$500 28504 5441 5353 28503 28503 MrDpLi5335 2$507 5457 cRjesT�n 5325 28500r 5465 5430 5414 5321 28510 2$510 5360 5305 w� 5450 5350 28518 5407 5464 5419 5336 5401 53305324 �� 28518 1:2,822 28626 5431 5314 5330 x304 5225 5225 5219 0 470.3 0 235.17 470.3 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-30 ARTERIAL FENCES AND WALLS NEEDS IMPROVEMENT A-31 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Needs Improvement (Yellow) BARKSTONE DR ROLLING RIDGE RD G_RAYLOG ST-- WILDBRIAR [} SAYRIDGER D P�S:sN OOD DR -- e3v� MBANK r DIVERS y v�fiNN pN -1 ,yQN¢� - V!q Oq ,t 04, O t7 P �00t SRO ` Nw00 S71Ftot4wOL]0 S '� - � 0 MONTEMALAGA DR------ ^ rtrt rh . rn 01 /) i UI -ly z IL gNIT0WAC OR— MAnrrrOwgc w 1: 5,645 940.8 0 I 470.42 940.8 Feet I © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-,3 A-33 `,, �� , err■i,■■ �i,■ . �� ,��,��,� ,I� 1 illy► 'til■/r.I ��'�. :: � � son IN WA EM 1,881.7 0 940.83 1,881.7 Feet C) VerdesThe information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD-1983-StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 -Feet contact the City for more .. A-33 A-;34 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Needs Improvement (Yellow) DELUNA DR- ajapQ¢ v� y Z��'© SrGF-� �4) �. f �¢ LA y` LUNA p,Q j HAWK -'S X40 NFhF INO SOC' bjs '0, f 4CS/ M ti c R AAIR6,D 4 � SEAL R, 'sTy, � S, 1:5,645 01 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet I © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-;34 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Needs Improvement (Yellow) O .Ott r, �DQNyjELADR-- Qv tiuctio Z y y Qy Cr a IL S S AT D. In z v, 0 LU O� Q 'q LASITA PL vENIQ1IESTUDIAIIfr__- a � � U �VALLETA DIS f DELASONDE DR WESr'MONT DR �I Q GALERITA DR } Z a. cu 7. VELEZ DR ` 5_�1:5,645 Oj 4 I 940.8 0 I 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-35 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Needs Improvement (Yellow) 4 kRye � HAWTN4iE, BLV[ 1+1 U CRESiM Qy 1< q Z a� �1rc�D�� 05vtyF_LVIEW C 0 eA4 cyA 'A 1: 5,645 011 940.8 0 I 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-36 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences - Needs Improvement (Yellow) 7416 7412 7404 7392 73$6 7378 7321 17309 3022330229 30246 30211 `x.30230 7341, 333 7315 73033fl229 30235 30252 30219303 02 6'7< 3333 734T t%%j_LDR 7293/ X287 30241 30262 3fl235 �3431 7287 r 3fl233 24 7355 eEvR 728130249 3fl302 -30303 O� 7301 731 E`7306 72813fl257 30310 3fl311 3344'7369 733$7328 7292 \ /7273 7273 30265 by 3fl316 30317 7346 7284 7265 30324 30303 '� 7307 7301 7278 7270 7257 30305 0,Q 3032 f �� 7300 7249 30315 iq 30330 73 3400 3Q311 ftp 7313 7270/7204 30404 �► 30317 �oz v��a 7302 7264/ 7239 7227 30325 30408 a / 1258 �F f 77 1 a 30327 7310 7306 30466 7250 R�r'fRt� DR - 30405 3042 30402 5 �\ 30456 7242 '�79 � 85 �`A 304fl5 30418 3 7236 7228 7220 7212 3{1413 g�'G 89 ��od+ 3fl413 3fl438 30461363 30417 83 �'pi �� ` 30461 30423 o� 93 �4�s 30423 30457-,, 30457 0503 7277 7271 726572597251 30451 87 97 �'� 30429 30445 7285 72457239 30435 30509 91 30441 30517 ROE LA FLEUR Pa�¢o 30502 30504 30517 95 30525 �a 30525 'p' 3 � `' �34546 30507 51 � 5 SP4� IP.0 3053130531 30515 A 74%�2 30537 30537 30523 t 10 53 30545 30545 30531 9p,FR�F 9 55 30551 �{ 30535 341551 12 57 a 305 30557 S 30566 1:2,822 0 11 13 16 18 59 30557 470.3 0 235.17 470.3 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-3-1 ARTERIAL FENCES AND WALLS POOR CONDITION A-39 11 rqj • r • r i •' r i •• • • i '• . r�1� ♦'�� X11► f��r PEP * .r -� � ': � �� `' :ria►'► �': +�� ..Ilk ,� mill WE I WIN `t"'� �' 1�1►��r.. ��►' ■�`1*ice PAP I■�ti�r�lr! rL WSWE MONSOON," rte: ►�i■ _► A-39 6=1 • �r • �r • ` •` • �•• • • • �`• �■■■■■■■■■[� 1 �� .r �■■ !� ■■� r FEW �+■■■awe _ w • ,a � tt �� • �, WMA' lir �N�i � M � , • all Jul wool 11 �.� . . 6=1 A-41 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences in Poor Condition (Red) r �0RIDGE RD V ERD�C �4 Al I 4 es LOCKLENNA Lt1 a� O 4 0 Q4 GRES. r a' `4 v�EpN 1:4,725 0 787.5 0 393.75 787.5 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-41 A-42 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences in Poor Condition (Red) 30104 30019 30025 30026 6633 6523 6515 3012030134 30035 6543 6507 3fl126 p 6555 0107......-_. 41" 30130 30138 ti a SA ' R 6467 �p 30055 f LL c 30115 30063 6530 6530 6520 6457 30125 30140 �9E 6544 0130 30135 30150 6556 30003 6445 0 30140 30071 30021 1 30054 30145 � 30144 30079 30066 30047 30043 ii 6441 30155 30150 30004 30165 30080 30057 7 6425 0147 30158 30087 30012 rr 30175 6465 6465 13, 0157 30162 30092 6415 30095 6464 6457 6420 0165 30166 6464 30104 6403 30103 30111 6449 6405 30175 30170 6454 644 641' 6375 30113 30120 30121 6431 19 0189 30176 6448 6448��g' A' Q0- 30202 30123 7� 30130 30131 ) 6438 6406 '�- in 643$ 6351 �� 30154 ° 6418 30208 30131 30148 30143 6432 6360 30150 30150 6424 0215 30170 30216 30143 6350 O �= 3015330202 30176 30156 301160 30160 30210 0227 30177 y 30153 6338 30205 30224 lll pia 30161 30168 �y 633 30206 30162 30220 �1 0235 30161 30232 30203 30216 30169 (3(1169 30208 302 1:2,362 30178 0243 30242 30225 30215 30175 302053fl205 30216 393.7 0 196.83 393.7 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-42 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences in Poor Condition (Red) O , p �a S ��00 SCflTWflDD DF' Q ISUZiM�.Q _� CREST RD >) G9 SANTA'CA1 O,R y P t+ GG�A� OCEP34 Q� Q e 1: 7,256 0 1,209.4 0 604.69 1,209.4 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet Please contact the City for more information. A-43 M City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences in Poor Condition (Red) 0 coo k Cp 4 �►' 0 fr CAL1 �� G N 7 uj �p ren�'pZ� r cc+ r0 w FR P� BLVD jfA FO 787.5 0 I 393.75 787.5 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. M A-4 5 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences in Poor Condition (Red) jy,p,�tC155A QR >` 0- 0 u.E i7 _z C7 f r TARRAGON RRRpyy PALLS VERDES DR - PALOS VERDES DR G,�r'PD r m ;ID 00 0 �0 o v� Fs w A' PALOS VERDLIS a' 1:4,725 787.5 0 393.75 787.5 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-4 5 ori►►►■ 1►� . �� ;�� `. � �►� �►� '� �►!'►#� �i ice` �� . - . �� i�� , . i II�'f♦ �,. �r Itt��;�� +�►�' �s ''�'II�,'�il�' ` • • � .moi ' `•. .��1 tuft •. ,., ,. A-4-1 0 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Walls & Fences in Poor Condition (Red) C©RINNADR - fir,• , - .sirs �v� .:��Ey�- 'f' l], Cq�, y �� _G 05 tir 4 NAR IP&O Q 4r VIGI� [� 0 V jr D 4w O lip SF-ACL IRE D/? VISTA 0E{ 1:4,725 787.5 0 393.75 787.5 Feet I © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-4-1 moo �''�,I��r* 1''�� 11�r1� �► r� MEN �'' 1111 �'►�� ■� �r111t�1i► '�► ►� � �1�1111111111: I►� 11111111�� 1111 11111 � �------- rr11�� +� �■ `� �� million.►.a _—--,_:,_ - " 19 0 604.69 1,209.4- O City of • '. •Verdes moo ARTERIAL FENCES AND WALLS PILASTER ASSESSMENT A -5U LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Pilasters 1 26554 65$1 5465 5466 543154235417541154(}5 536? 26661 26559 21 1918 16 4 3 6589 26566 5437 ROLLING Hl��s EST,�� 11 ZZ 74 "A 5349 5349 26557 7 30 1 5343 26582 5520 5502 55145508 54525 26588 5337 446544fl 434 5 542654 5235 5344 5331 �4"r Legend 659441 4145402 5561 5529 5332 5323 5260 0 — Street Centerlines 5537 552355175509 5549 5503 5242 0 522 Minor Damage 560 5431 54175.411 :5,333 5320 5317 5423 5327 26603 • Needs Improvement t.t'rrr.�soW RD 5554 15248 54fl3 5319 ! 5313 5311 , 26609 * Poor El City Boundary 5544 5538; 5303 5248 2660 26613 � Adjacent Cities 5524 26603 5530 5520 5416 5305 2661*,3 >26612 � Parcel 5651 26613 5424' 540S5402� 26602 ' 5326 53185310 26619 5543 5531 552 a 26616 5302 26608 42662 26625 2663 Syfo ry 26619 Ns��p ® 26617 5525 558 26622 26616 26623 26616 26631 2663 f 26627 �, 26625 5544553$ 7 5521 - 0 2663fl �¢ 26624 26631 v 26622 26637 2664. 5530 5515 26633 26631 a 26630 26628 26645 6744 26705 \ 26636 26637 26637 5506 5509? 26752 26708 26636 a 26636 26703 26711 5502 26643 26645 0 26711 26756 5505 26717 26712 26649 26642 26705 26642 5500 267 26716 2664$ 26702 26717 . 26723 26703 26711 26804 5501 26724 26700 26710 26723 5503 26727 26707 26717 26810 ' 26708 26716 26730 26729 2681 26735 26715 26716 26723 6809 2682x 26803 2 � 26722 26738 26725 26803 2673 6$15 26722 26806 POLLING HILLS EST)" O 26828 26811 26804 26803 26809 f 26$06 6$2'1 i 2681 Q 26832 26829 26815 26815 26812 2.6809 2681fl 26816 26838 26819 1:2,822 Notes 26836 28846 26823 26$24 26815 26818 26$22 Enter Map Description 470.3 0 235.17 470.3 Feet ©City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A -5U A-51 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Pilasters 2 1 3 21 19 18 16 4 "12617 23 2A 30 1 4904901 4913 5141 4919 X26500 2.6500 Legend 5135 4925 — Street Centerlines 4931 2650426504 Minor Damage 5129 4937 4945 Improvement 5121 4951 26509 26508 26508 - Needs 138 �p 4957. 4922 Poor 5115 26515 'r 4963 26504 26514 26514 ❑ City Boundary a© d 5107 4969 p 5126 •p 26521 26524 2652[1 ❑ Adjacent Cities 5103 0' 5005 vtt ,494$ 2651 Q ❑ Parcel � .1P- 5116 26697 �` 5011 oG� 4954 26516 26527 4 4960 26528 26528 5108 �� 26693 5019 2651326520 26535 26505 26512 1/ 26534 26534 26656 26689 5025 / 26519 26545 266 2� 26540 26683 5033 5(}16'26511 2652 265216525 2655 26540 wry+rN°' 5026 26603 26530/ Q` 26677 5+039 "126563 "1¢`' 26546 5032 26609 26538 26659 26671 5047 5040 26615 2654�426569�J 5053 \ 26533 � 26552 .t�P 2655226546 � \ f 26665 50146 26623 26539 '1'10 26568 26560 /' r 671 5059 26629 p^�® 26618 26547 �4�p 26578 6552 1 6760 5054 `' 26553; 26764 26560 5061 26703 i 26624 26608 5060 ,' 1-, 26615 26616 26766 26711 % � 32 2662126605 26616 26641 26741 2673726725 � 04 26627 26615 26769 26745 26712 1�126635 266614 26622 26641 26767 26742 26 $ `` 26622 26623 26630 26703 26625 26625 267362673026724 28 26631 26765 I 26740 ` 26711 26634 26 69 2666631 X26827 268:05 26831 2681926813 26735 26721 26704 26673 2665826642 26625 1:2,822 � Notes .2671.2 26703 Enter Map Description 470.3 0 235.17 470.3 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-51 A-52 0 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Pilasters 2 690526904 5029 3 5037 5021501550095003 21 1918 16 4 26912 I 7 26916 sLACKN©Rs,E RD - 30 1 26922 5020 26926 50445038 5026 5014 5002 Legend 5008 26932 — Street Centerlines 5021 4995 50135007 '41987 Minor Damage 26942 5031 5021 • Needs Improvement 26946 5029 A� Q W Dp, • Poor 5037 5029 5�� ❑ City Boundary 5002 4992 EJ Adjacent Cities 27004 5045 5026 5014 ❑ Parcel \5026 V10 5053 5036 \ 2701927011 5036 .-7016 27025 ! 5057 5048 7022 5061 27031 5056 7028 5065 27035 27038 7104 5067 5058 27011 5071 506227 27041 2704041 4 5075 5066 27049 q 27102 27©49 072 27105 27108 50857 27105 o? 5074 4-9 27310/ 5087 27111 s 27116 27316 5091 5097 w4 g4`� 27117 27124 27322 z �' 51 Q9fl3 2733 �y 273/1 i1� 27326 27123 27 1 5113 5088 2731 'off 2713.. 5119 5092 27332 27129 27327 7� 5125 5096 2733827338 27135 2713 5131 5102 51175113 5105 5141 5106 27342 5121 —� 520351535147 5110 1:2,822 27346 Notes 522152175211 51225116 5123 512051165102 Enter Map Description 470.3 0 235.17 470.3 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-52 A -b3 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Pilasters 2 1 5914 27108 271131 27041 27125 ,, 27107 27131 7 16 27113 27100 27053 27046 27051 2ZO3827�2$ 2701727.01.1' 27052 27057 27046 2\117026 2693 3 21 130 rl 5920 a"�4p ` 0 27122 e 926 27137 �� 27117 27106 27065 27056 27033 27058 2\ 016 p o27128 27107 27123 pQ` 27112 � 27105 27064 270392703 27026 27102 Legend 27136 2771127705 27115 27108 27113 27104 270472 7 27034 27103 27131 T 27118 CO 0 27146`sem 27123 27119 p 27053 2705327044 27137 27130 27116 2711{] — Street Centerlines 27131 27109 y / w 27127 0 27107 27050 2711$ gwryQ�N 27136 2137 Q- 27122 Minor Damage Improvement 27135 �%1Z 27102 27117 27145 27128 27122 27113 533 PooNeer - __..y� 27134 27143 ,Z°0- 27125 w `' 27128 27123 27,10$ 27108 / 2` 149 Cit Boundary ❑ Y ❑ Adjacent Cities 5762 R,y� 2 7140 27134 27116 27131 cp2712 5757 6 27153 27131 p Epp ❑ Parcel 5727 27159 5523 \ q 27137 5515 27139 Q'k' 27124 27132 . 57,18 Q Q. 1'� 571857185718 5511 �P� 27132 27143 f 27146 5505 737' 5718`57,1857185718 775724571857185718'<,,,C' 5520 �� 27138\\27151 5516 < ''FO <-8�57184 5718 '-570057005700 5711 8-8557�1857�185718 570057005700 571857185718'' r� 6512 ` 5459 7_138 27167 6504 5451 54215413 570067005700 841��oa�� 87 57185700570057005700 546545$ 5445 O#Lf, vRl 5658 $6 n,� �� 8091 'S700570057005608a5658 ! 88 r► 93 57fl05700 565$ c► 5454 --�� 5402 54145408 .5658! 90 95 5700570058 565$ 563056305630 2 97,``� 5700570(] 5644 563056305630 565857fl0 5446 542b 5438 5434 57005700 56305630 112 1031[11 9' \56585700565$ '1 D5' 565856585658 563fl 5630 563fl 1091(j7 2.565856585658 563{J563056305fi30 117' .. 56305630 ' 113' F' ; 5644 56305f30 28125 28125 i;+_)LI IN IiILLI ESi "tiES� 28125 28125 28125 28125 2$129 Notes 28129 1:2,822 01 28129 Enter Map Description 470.3 0 235.17 470.3 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A -b3 A-54 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Pilasters 2 1 28816 28819 28731 28744 28705 2$717 2871628716 28627 28626 16 3 21 19T8-,,5E6: 661528823 28828 28737 28711 f 28726 28709 28704 28827 28748 ( 29 7 w°°�4i 28822 Abb°tts I '' 28832 28743 28717 28742 28713 c 28710 _219 3031 6514 6502 ! 28831 28836 28749 28804 28723 Shire Oaks or - 06508 28812 28718 28731S Legend w 28833 28907 28901 28803 28818 28737 28725r; 28724 6507 2.9000 V 6519651 6501 0 = 2$911 28811 6303 — Street Centerlines 29004 28917 28900 6309 28733 28730 8z 817 6301 Minor Damage Madeyt�`e Dove Dr., E � � a 0 f 28825 2.$741 2873$ * Needs Improvement p 29007 2900$ 6520 i 2$925 3 X28916 28904 6411 �ti° �� 6300 28835 A 28749 * Poor i 29014 28744 ❑ City Boundary 2901529018 28933 u°°i 6415 644128805 28907 6310 6304 28$05 28750 0 Adjacent Cities 9100 29021 29024 29026 3, 6433 6425 28$11\ I 28812 28917 28912 2$$11 2882 E] Parcel 290286419 29106 29031 ¢ 29034 6454 Seab 28819 2$810 28927 28`018 2882 29035 6440'�" 28905 2881628$15 29110 29040 6432 28926 28821 1 29041 29116 29102 6424 28913 2890228902 2883 6433 6414 29103 29122 29108 6408 29004 29001 6402 0` � 29109 64296425 2 14 28919 89 2$914 29000 29126 29114 a`" 29010 29003 29113 29132 29120 6436 64176409 1 29005 29004 29002 29119 6403 29020 29007 29202 29123 29126 P a'►Ynn 29015 29010 2900$. 29208 29129 29132 Qr 29026 29015 6447 6442 29018 29016 9209 29214 29135 6503 29105 29029 29034 a 29023 9217 29220 6509 6454 ?29024 29022 65296523``, � °' - 29113 29104 29105 29033 ar 9223 R 65416535 6462 °m` 29113 ca 29102 29030 verdeatcl�re 9229 65086502 w 6470 29110 29105 a 65206514 ° 29108 29036 29120 29121 65326526 6538 6544 6476 847'5 29115 29130 29104 2910 29210 29127 1:2,822 6602655 29 � Notes 29209 29131 Enter Map Description 470.3 0 235.17 470.3 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-54 A-55 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Pilasters 2 3 21 19 18 16 4 ,upc� 615e � � � L' 7 ?s 1 ns oma, Legend mQ �+ k Street Centerlines N' Minor Damage G • Needs Improvement * Poor e ei- W --�vian r�e�fl ❑ City Boundary � Ad jacent Cities 1 �_Ha � � ❑ Parcel a � ' 0 Via CaPTI Q;d CCi'.5 iiia ►� �, a 'I''la La Cres tt �avra- ,oy 4 � y►Ont L m ci I 4 1:5,645 � Notes Enter Map Description 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-55 A -b6 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Pilasters 2 1 ti 16 4 3 21 EM3031 pfd &nr, 7 . ery �Yyf c Legend Street Centerlines Minor Damage 0 * Needs Improvement ? co * Poor ❑ City Boundaryper,, ❑ Adjacent Cities Rue La pier i I ❑ Parcel �el N °r . ANG �l dl -0 VIS B. ods A OS -C Cail� o o m10 W I � ry l t AA U W 0 Notes o � 1:5,645 Enter Map Description 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A -b6 A-57 LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Pilasters 2 1 qac �'x poi 3 21 9 18 16 4 7 3031 Legend — Street Centerlines ai Minor Damage hfaMOO � r � • Needs Improvement vPoor ❑ City Boundary fie, °i ❑ Adjacent Cities m ❑ Parcel ted lffa & Olt °$ �►vd j18 _ alp VeCdeS 'Dr $ Tsam®nt° (7r � Verdi s []r � AIber6 Cit S 'Olt Crestmant Ln ae5 vec a,`°5 Sea Gate p pini Gt 1 eRd � c �enne{view_Ct 10, rY o I��y apt 1: 5,645 chv�gW Notes �e Enter Map Description 940.8 0 470.42 I 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. A-57 • VCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Pilasters 2 1 q epi FIQI 1- 1:111-1 3 21 198 16 4 425 7PI P7Crestiridge geasiy$ f f 9�� Rd Legend .• Street Centerlines a Q' Minor Damage ��Gg °apt Needs Improvement G° * Poor ❑ City Boundary a t V'i ❑ Adjacent Cities ❑ Parcel 1 1 0 ° v Qt vasey_Vre�, Rd K?� 4 — Valley View Rd — a A te5i17c'dr cres d O��d pr _. m _ 5an6"Catali6i m O �r Notes 1:5,645 Enter Map Description 940.8 0 470.42 940.8 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California _ V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. • RECESS AND RECONVENE: Mayor Knight called a brief recess from 8:58 P.M. to 9:13 P.M. REGULAR BUSINESS: Assessment of Arterial Street Walls and Fences along Major Corridors City Clerk Morreale reported that there was no request to speak regarding this item. Deputy Community Development Director Mihranian provided a staff report and PowerPoint presentation regarding the assessment of the condition of arterial street walls and fences along segments of Hawthorne Blvd., Crest Road, and Palos Verdes Drive West, including chain-link fences, stone and block walls, Palos Verdes stone columns, and wrought iron fences. He noted that the majority of the arterial walls were not engineered as retaining walls, and illustrated the failure of some walls due to the sloughing of material from the adjoining slopes, which has compromised the integrity of the walls. Deputy Director of Public Works Jules provided an overview of possible fence and wall improvement options, including voluntary repairs; beautification program which could be a public/private partnership; Right -of -Way improvements, including landscaping in front of the walls; proactive code enforcement; or maintaining the status quo, with the inclusion of two upcoming projects: Hawthorne Blvd. Beautification Project and Hawthorne Blvd. Pedestrian Linkage Project. She displayed an illustration from a 2001 Beautification Study that proposed robust landscaping along a portion of Hawthorne Blvd. Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff, and City Attorney Aleshire. City Clerk Morreale reported that a request to speak had been received. Ken Dyda, Rancho Palos Verdes, suggested that the early median improvement studies included the use of drought -resistant, non-invasive landscaping in the medians that does not obstruct views; and noted the work should be prioritized and performed in phases based on available funding. Mayor Pro Tem Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to direct staff to return with a strategic code enforcement plan to focus on the medians; repair chain-link fencing; work with the 2001 Beautification Study; and research the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for improvements where appropriate. Councilman Duhovic moved an amendment to the motion, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to immediately address all public safety issues with fencing; direct staff to move forward with median improvements; direct City Attorney Aleshire to look into legal issues involved with the removal of chain-link fencing on private property; direct staff to City Council Minutes September 15, 2015 Page 8 of 11 MR come back with a strategic code enforcement plan; and, direct staff to move forward with an overall beautification plan, with the location and possible utilization of components of the 2001 Beautification Study. Mayor Pro Tem Brooks and Councilman Misetich, as the maker and seconder of the motion, accepted this amendment. Mayor Knight suggested the inclusion of immediately addressing all encroachment issues in the public right-of-way. The maker and seconder of the motion accepted this amendment. The motion as amended is reiterated as the following: Mayor Pro Tem Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to immediately address all public safety and encroachment issues with fencing; direct staff to move forward with median improvements; direct City Attorney Aleshire to look into legal issues involved with the removal of chain-link fencing on private property; direct staff to come back with a strategic code enforcement plan; and, direct staff to move forward with an overall beautification plan, with the location and possible utilization of components of the 2001 Beautification Study. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Misetich and Mayor Knight NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Pro Tem Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Duhovic, to continue the meeting to 11:00 P.M. for the consideration of new business. Without objection, Mayor Knight so ordered. League of California Cities 2015 Annual Conference Resolutions Councilman Duhovic moved to waive the staff report. Councilman Misetich moved a substitute motion, seconded by Councilman Duhovic, to waive the staff report and approve the staff recommendation to: Authorize the City Council's Voting Delegate to support the adoption of League of California Cities General Assembly Resolution No. 1 (League Bylaw Amendment); League of California Cities General Assembly Resolution No. 2 (Overconcentration of Alcohol & Drug Treatment Facilities); League of California Cities General Assembly Resolution No. 3 (Residential Rentals, Support for SB 593 (McGuire)), and, League of California Cities General Assembly Resolution No. 4 (Compensation for Prolonged Electrical Power Outages). The motion passed on the following roll call vote: City Council Minutes September 15, 2015 Page 9 of 11 M 8.24.060 - Prohibited activities and unlawful conditions - Excerpt A. It shall be unlawful for any person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any property in the city to cause, or to permit, or to maintain thereon any condition which is at variance with the level of maintenance of surrounding properties, or which results in substantial detriment to the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by others in the immediate vicinity thereof. Such conditions include, but are not limited to, the following: Inadequately maintained landscaping visible from the public right-of-way or adjoining property, which shall include: a. Lawns with grasses which create an unsightly appearance due to lack of water or inadequate spraying, trimming, treatment or similar maintenance; b. Overgrown vegetation which is unsightly and likely to harbor rats or vermin; c. Trees, hedges, shrubs, plants or other vegetation which: i. Are dead, decayed, diseased, or infested with insects, or ii. Create a fire hazard or are otherwise dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare, or iii. Interfere with or impede the flow of traffic, whether vehicular or pedestrian, or obstruct visibility, on streets, intersections, sidewalks or other public rights-of-way, or iv. Create an unsightly appearance due to lack of water or inadequately spraying, trimming, pruning, treatment or similar maintenance; Buildings, structures or appurtenances thereto which are deemed to be "unsafe" as defined in Section 102 of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by Section 15.04.010 (Building Code Adopted) of this code; Building exteriors, walls, fences, driveways or walkways which are cracked, broken, defective, deteriorated, in disrepair, or defaced due to any writing, inscription or other marking commonly referred to as "graffiti"; B. It is unlawful for any person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any property in the city to fail or refuse to remove from any sidewalk or other public right-of-way abutting or adjoining such property all loose earth, mounds of soil, dry grass, weeds, dead trees, tin cans, abandoned asphalt or concrete, rubbish, refuse, and waste material of any kind, or any other unsanitary substance, object or condition which may endanger or injure neighboring property or the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the vicinity of such property, or which may obstruct such sidewalk or other public right-of-way and thereby endanger or injure persons traveling thereon. C. It is unlawful for any person to dump, move or place any earth, sand, gravel, rock, stone or other excavated material or debris so as to cause the same to be deposited upon or to roll, blow, flow, or wash upon or over any public place or way or the premises of another without the express written consent of the owner of such premises so affected. No person shall, when hauling any earth, sand, gravel, rock, stone or other excavated material or debris over any public street, alley or other public place, allow such material to blow or spill over and upon such street, alley, or place, or adjacent private property. (Ord. 390 § 2, 2003; Ord. 273 § 5 (Exh. A), 1991; Ord. 235 § 2 (part), 1988) (Ord. No. 511, § 1, 6-29-10; Ord. No. 553, § 2, 12-3-13) Page 1 C-1 17.76.030(F) - Fences, walls and hedges — General Regulations (Excerpt) F. 5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the front property line, in side yards between the street -side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line, and within a rear yard setback which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan: a. Crenshaw Boulevard; b. Crest Road; C. Hawthorne Boulevard; d. Highridge Road; e. Miraleste Drive; f. Palos Verdes Drive East; g. Palos Verdes Drive North; h. Palos Verdes Drive South; Palos Verdes Drive West; and Silver Spur Road. 6. Replacement of Privately Owned Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets. Any existing fence or wall that is part of an existing uniform fence or wall design and is located within a rear yard setback of a private property located along any of the arterial streets listed in Section 17.76.030(F)(5) shall be replaced or repaired at the same height and location and with the same materials and color as the original uniform fence or wall, to the satisfaction of the community development director. (Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 254 §§ 2-4, 1990; Ord. 194 § 10 (part), 1985; Ord. 175 §§ 1418, 1983; Ord. 150 §§ 15, 16, 1982; Ord. 132 § 3 (part), 1980; Ord. 90 § 5 (part), 1977; Ord. 75 (part), 1975) (Ord. No. 510, § § 13, 14, 16, 6-29-10; Ord. No. 540, § 6, 11-20-12; Ord. No. 546, § 1, 4-1-14; Ord. No. 559U, § 1, 6-17-14; Ord. No. 560, § 1, 7-15-14) Page 1 D-1 1W40taff Report Begins Here TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE:AUGUST 21, 2001 SUBJECT:HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD BEAUTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1.Approve the preliminary median and parkway landscape plan for Hawthorne Boulevard. 2. Authorize a contract amendment with Land Images Inc, to provide professional services in an amount up to $53,500 to prepare final construction plans for the first phase of landscape improvements for Hawthorne Boulevard. 3. Revise the expenditure plan for Recycling Fund, to reprogram funds from the neighborhood beautification program to Hawthorne Boulevard beautification efforts. 4. Request staff to prepare a fence / wall improvement program for Hawthorne Boulevard that establishes a fence / wall standard for Hawthorne Boulevard, and provides City funding for a portion of the cost of private fence/wall replacement. BACKGROUND The City Council established an adhoc committee to propose improvements that beautify the City. Mayor Lyon, and Mayor Pro tem McTaggart are members of that committee. Carolynn Petru and Dean Allison staff the committee. A number of potential projects were considered including undergrounding utilities along the City*s arterial roadways, increasing code enforcement activities, and constructing landscape improvements along the City*s arterial roadways. The committee concluded that constructing landscape improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard has the highest priority. The committee utilized the City#s on-call landscape architect, Land Images Inc., to review conditions along Hawthorne Boulevard, suggest improvements, and estimate costs. This staff report presents the results of that investigation. More specifically this report presents the landscape theme proposed for Hawthorne Boulevard, proposes a funding plan for the improvements and recommends the reach of Hawthorne Boulevard that will be the first reach to be improved. The report also proposes that a fencing program be established along Hawthorne Boulevard to reconstruct the private walls and fences along the roadway, and finally the report requests funding authorization to design the first phase of landscape improvements. If the staff recommendations are approved, landscape improvements for the first phase of Hawthorne Boulevard will be designed. The plans will be advertised and brought back to the City Council for award in early 2002, and construction can be underway by May of 2002. It will be the first step in a multi-year plan to beautify Hawthorne Boulevard, which has an estimated cost of $7.5 million. DISCUSSION The committee considered the following issues in the preparation of the plan: Issue Discussion Resolution E-1 Parkways To achieve the desired level of The plan proposes to landscape parkways as beautification, both the well as the medians. This will require portions of $ 100 parkways and medians must be sidewalks to be reconstructed. landscaped Walls and fencing along the edge of The walls and fences along Hawthorne Boulevard are A fencing program will be established to replace the existing walls and fences. The program will roadway private. The wall and fencing establish a fencing/wall standard, and the City type vary, and they are will participate in a portion of the costs. unattractive. Many need to be replaced. Views from private Trees can be installed along The plan proposes to include trees along both properties must be portions of Hawthorne medians and parkways where it is determined preserved. Boulevard without impacting that they will not impact views. views. Invasive Plant material The plan must avoid the use of At Aqua Armaga Canyon no invasive plants will invasive plants when there is be utilized. he possibility that the plants can spread to the native areas. Maintenance costs Plant selection should be such The plan proposes grasses and trees which hat maintenance costs do not require less maintenance when compared to turf, become burdensome. land groundcover. Which segment of The first segment to be Hawthorne Boulevard from Eddinghill Drive to Hawthorne Boulevard improved should be in a high Locklenna Drive will be the first segment should be improved traffic area, and should create a constructed. This is because traffic volume is first ? significant visual impact. high, and site preparation costs are relatively low. In May of 2001 the City Council established the Roadway Beautification Fund for the purposes of funding a beautification program along the City*s arterial roadways. The City Council began a program to set aside $200,000 from the City General Fund and $100,000 from recycling revenues each year for the next two years. The details of the Roadway Beautification Fund are as follows: Roadway Beautification Fund: Fund balance July 1, 2001 Revenues Transferred from the General Fund Transferred from the Recycling Fund Interest Estimated fund balance July 1, 2002 $ 200 $ 100 $ 6 $ 306 It is important to note that when the City Council established the Roadway Beautification Fund it was decided that before any Roadway Beatification Funds are spent the City Council must be comfortable that all health and public safety needs of the City are met and adequate reserves are on hand. E-2 The Recycling Fund, which is primarily funded from the proceeds of the cityQs curbside recycling program, provides funding for citywide beautification. The details of the Recycling Fund are as follows: Recycling Fund: Fund balance on July 1, 2001 Revenues $ 500,000 $ 146,000 Less Neighborhood beautification $ 96,000 Less Recycler of the month, admin, supplies, salaries $ 7,000 Less Block grant expenditures $13,000 Less Transferred to the Roadway Beautification Fund $ 100,000 Estimated Fund Balance July 1, 2002 $ 430,000 Funding Plan for first phase of improvements The estimated construction cost for the first phase of Hawthorne Boulevard is $550,000, plus the design costs of $53,500. Staff proposed the following funding plan: From the Roadway Beautification Fund: Transferred from the General Fund Transferred from the Recycling Fund Interest From the Recycling Fund: July 1, 2002 Balance $ 100 $ 6 $ 430 Neighborhood Beautification Funds Total Funding Available Total Funding Required $ 96 $ 632 $ 603 Excess Funding $ 28 Under this funding plan, the entire costs for the first phase of improvements will be funded with recycling funds. No General Funds are proposed. Included in the funding plan proposed above is the reprogramming of recycling funds from the Neighborhood Beautification Program to the Roadway Beautification Fund. This recommendation is made because staff believes that the Neighborhood Beautification Program has accomplished what it was created to do, improve the appearance of residential neighborhoods. Staff believes that Hawthorne Boulevard presents a greater need for beautification than the city*s neighborhoods. Future year costs Future year costs can be provided with a combination of Recycling Funds and General Funds. The amount of General Fund contribution can vary based the financial condition of the City. E-3 Staff estimates that recycling funds will be available to the City on an annual basis as follows: Recycling Fund: nticipated sources of Funds: $86,000 Collector Fee from haulers $80,000 State Block Grant $13,000 Redemption value of recyclables $120,000 Curbside Supplement Payment $40,000 otal Funding Available $253,000 Proposed uses of Funds: Neighborhood Beautification $0 Recycler of the Month $7,000 Use of State Block Grant for litter pick up $3,000 Roadway Beautification: 1 $233,000 The recycling fund provides a reliable revenue stream for the city to fund roadway beautification. Utilizing these funds alone will provide adequate funding for a significant roadway beautification project every two years. Under such a scenario it would take approximately 30 years to complete landscaping improvements of Hawthorne Boulevard. If this revenue stream were augmented with General Funds the schedule would accelerate. For example if the City Council were to annually contribute $200,000 of general funds toward beautification, a project could be completed each year, and it would take approximately fifteen years to complete landscaping improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard. Maintenance Costs Construction of Landscape Improvements will require funding for maintenance. Currently the costs to maintain medians citywide are as follows: M t C t am enance os s. Maintenance Contractor $86,000 Power $8,000 Water $52,000 otal $146,000 Funding for median maintenance is provided by a combination of General Funds, Gas Tax Funds, Proposition C Funds, and Landscaping and Lighting District Funds. Any cost increases must be borne by the General Fund. The estimated annual maintenance cost for landscape improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard is follows: E-4 Annual Maintenance Costs: Maintenance Contractor Power Water Total Fencing Plan Phase One Wnwf.horna $11,000 $ 1,000 $ 7,000 $ 19,000 All of Hawthorne $ 102,000 $ 9,000 $ 62,000 $173,000 The beautification committee concluded that to achieve the desired level of beautification along Hawthorne Boulevard many of the private walls and fencing at the edges of the roadway must be replaced. Since the improvements are private, one possibility is to require property owners to reconstruct the wall or fence through code enforcement activities. The committee believed that such actions would be protracted and may not be effective. Instead the committee suggested that a fencing program be established which encouraged property owners to upgrade their fencing and walls. The program would be voluntary and would establish standards, and contribute city funding towards replacement costs. If the staff recommendations are adopted staff will bring back to City Council a fencing program that proposes a standard fencing type and identifies a funding source. CONCLUSIONS Adopting the staff recommendations will begin the process to significantly improve the appearance of Hawthorne Boulevard. A landscape theme will be established and the design of the first phase of improvements will begin. Plans for the first phase will be completed in November. A construction project will be brought back to the City Council for consideration in February 2002, and if approved construction will be underway by May 2002. Adopting the staff recommendations will also result in staff to preparing a fencing replacement program for Hawthorne Boulevard. That plan will be brought back to the City Council in November 2001. This will allow the first phase of fencing improvements to move forward at the same time as the first phase of the landscape improvements. FISCAL IMPACT Adopting the staff recommendations will result in the expenditure of $53,500 for professional services to prepare final construction plans for phase one of landscape improvements for Hawthorne Boulevard. The cost of the phase one improvements are estimated at $550,000, and the cost of improvements for all Hawthorne Boulevard, from Palos Verdes Drive West to the northerly city limits is $7.5 million. Based upon previous City Council direction, to initiate a program of beautification along the City*s arterial roadways, the City Council must be comfortable that all health and public safety needs of the City are met and adequate reserves are on hand. Submitted by, Dean E. Allison Director of Public Works Reviewed by, Les Evans, City Manager E-5 Attachments: Preliminary Landscape Plans Power Point Presentation E-6 Hawthorne Boulevard B eautifi cation August 21, 2001 Goals for this evening • Landscape theme for Hawthorne Boulevard • Project costs • Funding Plan • Authorization to design phase one F-2 If approved .,. • Phase One design will begin • Fencing Program - Nov 2001 • Phase one Construction - May 2002. F-3 Beautification Subcommittee • Mayor Lyon and Mayor pro Tem McTaggart • Land Images Inc. • Meeting since August 2000. • Looked at several opportunities for beautification • Focussed on Hawthorne Boulevard. F-4 Hawthorne Boulevard wi th Numbers 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 t a� m J 15,000 10,000 5,000 F-6 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 m J 10,000 5,000 �o� F-7 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 a• Hawthorne Boulevard by the numbers • High traffic volumes • Access for all homes / business on west side F-9 I Ladoo Medians im 6 r l -;X IWO_ -Aso ■ bL ML ti r - - "low y� pr 1 { i 4 r 7 4 c_ � y �: �F4 y r • .�,,, F_1 A* '% 410 . t F-18 Conclusions • Medians focal point Parkways r a � .or 41 IL di 30 t T Q ?. S 1 ( 'w L F-26 a �'r. �� r ��' _ �rrr •+aJR t a i� -," s . _� - �t � j .f _ _ a �� '� V � �r _ � �_ _ 1,sy # t ~ Conclusions • Parkways will be included Walls and Fences a t X. r • - At • M►, f •!'r+M • 4Y� ✓� Ffij //}}__ is it y* . ,+('� r-' .. � �. `'i. P; qty . • ._- +,�7:w "'.r' ._ �:-`- ! ' e F-30 �. ;tea � �� +..`6tl�.' �,-_ � _, .. N - �x - - __ •�� ,� - 1 t Koo # y�.. �'�4 �'..^ �+�� fir+ 8� � 6 'e•, i - �"�� r_� tl a --r ti �#� � _ ' Si h�, ' ��as/.' _�•1} X, . �. i �� ' _ ` '� ` r �►'ti�. ,y N `�.. si moi' /il�r• Y` -� ` '' •"P "� syr �' .r r F-31 . r - hT `'- -i '+}� a _� • , •. ' ,V 'tr - _ - 31. lip- . a . ^. � W l 31. lip- lye- y�i r �,t y r � :"�s , i►+r V �} y��}J a +�1A �'I e'`i ` ',` + 1 tl . �- � ��.+.•R'li'.d, • [�1'y�` T*�y,,� �� el y RJ-��y>F 4�1� _ - � ��'"P `qif '�. a^'� .. � Y - " .r' '�,.` _ tr ` F - ;.!=I ;Y, lid i - v� TT !• !•^Y 1e e . • _ 46 • 4 `'' `+ - `�. + �"" iitl` .�d��b'- " ly'-�. ,,� Y * Id It 9 fIL �.' : t,�'�, its fe r r s ; i1j�'• Imo' 1t-•-}'� 40r 1'� - -'1Y i i MIK •_` in J 1 f �1' , r� 1��,i[!` .0}. . - + `•'� , s � : *� '+ -r 4 a °Ln Rte' - .. - •,s N - /` l� � _ '-� � 7 •+ ► 1 4F MA oil Y•, y► r , 3s y� r x � • � � r� G '� - ti --.may IY, M. .,r n. �' P► ��; ^ � I • '+�' � � w �� I� 401* � , 1 • - 'tib ��. a+. - +► • - (� _�'�+� � I` � ��y- dlobp } i + _4 i l r • • It ^ r<. .s 1•c = T�"Ft Fes' 7g� • 4 f ' � ` •- M , �y `y � � r �,/ r 4 a s -4.' fir 91 `jr�� i �� =� - � +'* `� I� *� •F�� ri �' s � . '"�... ;_ r x • � �F"' �i f_. � (�"�.� '!_Yei ` ,. !' a �'• i n '� {'.mss '��- • ��f f 4 tai Ap APO Apj ► •_ i "� ': +•, ` r AA ° ' � it T47 ! a.'1� „ �`\ •' �, -i it r6 s �1 'frau .e ','►-,Ay.r .' �„ =-'.� .. t�S]j�rFyy1_ �` `, � "� � �i �A��.`Il�r�` i•'Y i A , �r - + � . • �Y' 31 /v. f Jk\ j .A ' ♦ - - . - •- spy 1�Ar . LA i Tax ,14 �. l y1 r s .. v r �•o- � M• r" R f r of • " r L blop t•" It l t jppppp",- poor ' rim 2pr>. . t !�� w 2 4 M h_� � �i Y -t 1irtTha a � r 1 dii 'Or IL Fk&l Conclusions • Fencing is non-uniform • Fencing must be upgraded • Staff to prepare a fencing program. Views PAD SHOWN 29 Ff ABOVE BOVLEVARD (GENERALLY H IGHER). SIGHT LINE OCCURS TRAFFIC L TF.AFPI' BOULEVARD SECTION LOOKING SOUTH AT HESSE PARK F-43 Conclusions • Trees can be utilized without impacting views at many locations Other issues • Avoid invasive plants at key locations • Keep maintenance costs low • First phase must create impact Proposed Improvements 14 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD F-47 LM v vi--� 1 1 v 119 611GE TRAFFIC I TRAFFIC LANE. WHERE OCCURS �r BOULEVARD SECTION LOOKING WEST JUST WEST OF CITY LIMITS F-49 LMvvi-It I IvIIs A6 F-50 BOULEVARD SECTION LOOKING WEST JUST WEST OF INDIAN PEAK ROAD RIVE F-51 LOCATION 3 F-52 PAD SH/ AC3OVE I BOULEVARD SECTION LOOKING SOUTH JUST SOUTH OF GRANVIAALTAMIRA F-53 TO HOWSES LOCATION 4 F-54 PAD SHOWN 2O Fr. ABOVE BOULEVARD f 3ENERALLv H iGHEH9. SIGHT LIVE TRAFFIC TR - LANE, WHERE xeuns saw• _ _ BOULEVARD SECTION LOOKING SOUTH AT HESSE PARK F-55 LMvvi-It I IvIIs v F-56 BOULEVARD SECTION LOOKING SOUTH AT RYAN PARK F-57 16Mvv/11 ■vIIs v F-58 SIGHT LINE rr r�- SIGHT LINE r•ImFa� ?CGV��S w c _ PhD SHOWN 15 FT ABOVE BOULEVARD BOULEVARD SECTION LOOKING WEST JUST WEST OF VALLON DRIVE F-59 LOCATION 7 F-60 BOULEVARD SECTION LOOKING WEST JUST EAST OF VIA CAPRI F-61 Fr _VAgD All 1p � of, 4 Ada, A..V or "NO WNI� , fj LAI 6 AN. Yi x y^r i. f a ' yy., n r "•'A r ., ll .dk� i•. a F �u +. i 1 �' +! ...fir a•`��,�,yy.k i', d � 1q.. a N. r l 1� �. Echr'um fastuosum Plant Palette: Pink, Purple, Red, Silver Agave a. `Variegata" Variegated Agave Phorrniu+m species Red New Zealand Flax Miscanthus transmorrisonensis Evergreen Maiden Grass F-65 Araucaria heterophylla Norfolk Island Pine Plant Palette: Pink, Purple, Red, Silver F-67 Plant Palette: Screening & Massing Phormium species New Zealand Flax at oV PhOI-MiUffl species & Muhlenbergia species New Zealand Flax and Grasses Aloe species & Agave species Miscanthus transmorrisonensis Screening Shrubs & Succulent Ground Cover Evergreen Maiden Grass F-68 PLANTIN( 61% ONSTRUCTION 60/0 IRIGATION 17°!0 Hawthorne Boulevard Improvements ■ DEMOLITION ■ CONSTRUCTION o IRRIGATION G PLANTING Total Estimated Costs: $6,825,000.00 F-69 'r M3 RECOMMENDED PHASE I CONSTRUCTION LIMITS F-70 PL DEMOLITION 10% I<AVV DTION IRRIGATION 14% IV I %-f �ements M DEMOLITION ■ CONSTRUCTION G IRRIGATION O PLANTING Total Estimated Costs: $535,500.00 F-71 1 - - .t .s- �;-r ."y ,err �. � '�" � � .t}' ^':3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ♦/r\` ■ V ■ V ■ \` ■ ■ ■r\V/ F-74 K•' �. .Aia ON *a P, Y -il .%` It , ij& I Costs and a Funding Plan .710 AJ 68659000 BTw - AJ686590008 'Xmas RAI Vol AH 64323926 B x(11 i TIM ASS 64323926 B A L 55656566 C L12Oak W mr AL 55656566 C r AL 70977093) L.12 AL90977093J • How much will this cost ? • How will it be funded ? F-78 How much will it cost? • Complete project $7.5 Million • Phase One: $ 603,500 F-79 How do we pay for improvements ? • Roadway Beautification Fund • Recycling Fund 9M Phase One Costs $603,500 gmI F-83 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: $ - Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ 200,000 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: $ - Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ 200,000 Transferred from the Recycling Fund $ 100,000 F-85 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: $ - Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ 200,000 Transferred from the Recycling Fund Anticipated Interest $ 100,000 $ 6,000 9M Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: $ - Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ 200,000 Transferred from the Recycling Fund Anticipated Interest Expenditures: $ 100,000 $ 6,000 F-87 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ $ - 200,000 Transferred from the Recycling Fund Anticipated Interest Expenditures: Ending Fund Balance $ $ $ 100,000 6,000 306,000 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ Transferred from the Recvclina Fund Anticipated Interest Expenditures: Ending Fund Balance Recycling Fund: 9 L., 200,000 100,000 6,000 306,000 0 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ Transferred from the Recvclina Fund ' Anticipated Interest Expenditures: Ending Fund Balance Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 9 L., 200,000 100,000 6,000 306,000 0 F-90 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ $ - 200,000 Transferred from the Recycling Fund Anticipated Interest Expenditures: Ending Fund Balance Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 Revenues: Revenues $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 6,000 306,000 500,000 146,000 F-91 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ $ - 200,000 Transferred from the Recycling Fund Anticipated Interest Expenditures: Ending Fund Balance Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 Revenues: Revenues Expenditures: Neighborhood Beautification $ $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 6,000 306,000 500,000 146,000 96,000 F-92 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ $ - 200,000 Transferred from the Recycling Fund Anticipated Interest Expenditures: Ending Fund Balance Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 Revenues: Revenues Expenditures: Neighborhood Beautification $ $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 6,000 306,000 500,000 146,000 96,000 Recycler of the Month $ 71000 F-93 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund Transferred from the Recycling Anticipated Interest Expenditures: Ending Fund Balance Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 Revenues: U Revenues Expenditures: Neighborhood Beautification Recycler of the Month Litter pick up for curbside grant Fund $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 6,000 $ 306,000 $ 500,000 $ 146,000 $ 96,000 $ 7,000 $ 13,000 0 F-94 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund Transferred from the Recycling Fund Anticipated Interest Expenditures: Ending Fund Balance Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 Revenues: U Revenues Expenditures: Neiqhborhood Beautification Recycler of the Month Litter pick up for curbside grant Transfer to Roadwav Beautification $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 6,000 $ 306,000 $ 500,000 $ 146,000 $ 96,000 $ 7,000 $ 13,000 $ 100,000 1 F-95 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund Transferred from the Recycling Fund Anticipated Interest Expenditures: Ending Fund Balance Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 Revenues: U Revenues Expenditures: Neiqhborhood Beautification Recycler of the Month Litter pick up for curbside grant Transfer to Roadway Beautification Ending Balance 6/30/02 $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 6,000 $ 306,000 $ 500,000 $ 146,000 La 62 96,000 7,000 13,000 100,000 430,000 F-96 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund Transferred from the Recycling Fund Anticipated Interest Expenditures: Ending Fund Balance Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 Revenues: U Revenues Expenditures: Neiqhborhood Beautification Recycler of the Month Litter pick up for curbside grant Transfer to Roadway Beautification Ending Balance 6/30/02 $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 6,000 $ 306,000 $ 500,000 $ 146,000 La 62 96,000 7,000 13,000 100,000 430,000 Proiect: 0 F-97 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ 200,000 Transferred from the Recycling Fund _$ - Anticipated Interest $ 61000 Expenditures: , Ending Fund Balance $ 2065000 Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 �� $ 500,000 Revenues: Revenues Expenditures: Neighborhood Beautification Recycler of the Month Litter pick up for curbside grant Transfer to Roadway Beautification Ending Balance 6/30/02 Total $ 146,000 $ 96,000 $ 7,000 $ 13,000 $ 100,000 $ 430,000 Proiect: 1 $ 100,000 1 i $ 100,000 F-98 Roadway Beautification Fund: Project: Beginning Fund Balance: $ - Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ 200,000 Transferred from the Recycling Fund $ - $ 100,000 Anticipated Interest $ - $ 6,000 Expenditures: , Ending Fund Balance $ 200,000 Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 $ 500,000 Revenues: l Revenues $ 146,000 Expenditures: Neighborhood Beautification $ 965000 Recycler of the Month $ 7,000 Litter pick up for curbside grant $ 13,000 Transfer to Roadway Beautification $ 100,000 Ending Balance 6/30/02 $ 4305000 Total $ 106,000 Roadway Beautification Fund: Project: Beginning Fund Balance: $ - Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund $ 200,000 Transferred from the Recycling Fund $ - $ 100,000 Anticipated Interest $ - $ 6,000 Expenditures: , Ending Fund Balance $ 200,000 Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 $ 500,000 Revenues: l Revenues $ 146,000 Expenditures: Neighborhood Beautification $ - $ 96,000 Recycler of the Month $ 7,000 Litter pick up for curbside grant $ 133000 Transfer to Roadway Beautification $ 100,000 Ending Balance 6/30/02 $ 4309000 Total $ 202,000 F-100 Roadway Beautification Fund: Beginning Fund Balance: Revenues: Transferred from the General Fund Transferred from the Recycling Fund Anticipated Interest Expenditures: , Ending Fund Balance Recycling Fund: Beginning Fund Balance 6/30/01 Revenues: l Revenues Expenditures: Neighborhood Beautification Recycler of the Month Litter pick up for curbside grant Transfer to Roadway Beautification Ending Balance 6/30/02 Total Proiect: $ 200,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 6,000 $ 200,000 $ 500,000 $ 146,000 $ - $ 96,000 $ 7,000 $ 13,000 _ $ 100,000 0.00 $ $ 4303000 632,000 F-101 Conclusions • Phase One funded entirely with Recycling Funds; no General Funds • Neighborhood beautification funds programmed to roadway beautification Future Costs • Primary funding source is the recycling fund AJ 68659000 BTW J, - AJ686590008 L— 'Xmas =r_ .gni AH 64323926 B 7(11 i AX 64323926 B L12 A L 5563.1!K r AL 70977093) L.12 AL70977093J Future Costs • Primary funding source is the recycling fund Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund F-104 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund Revenues: F-105 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: Collector Fees from Haulers $ 80,000 F-106 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: ,Collector Fees from Haulers State Block Grant $ 80,000 $ 13,000 F-107 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: Collector Fees from Haulers $ 80,000 State Block Grant $ 137000 LRedem recyclables 120,000 F-108 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: , Collector Fees from Haulers State Block Grant Redemption value of recyclables Curbside Supplement Payment $ 80,000 $ 13,000 $ 120,000 $ 40,000 F-109 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: , Collector Fees from Haulers State Block Grant Redemption value of recyclables Curbside Supplement Payment $ 80,000 $ 13,000 $ 120,000 $ 40,000 ,Total Revenues 1 $ 253,000 , F-110 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: , Collector Fees from Haulers State Block Grant Redemption value of recyclables Curbside Supplement Payment ,Total Revenues Expenses: $ 80,000 $ 13,000 $ 120,000 $ 40,000 $ 253,000 F-111 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: ,Collector Fees from Haulers $ 80,000 State Block Grant $ 13,000 Redemption value of recyclables $ 120,000 Curbside Supplement Payment $ 40,000 ,Total Revenues $ 253,000 Expenses: [ . Litter pick up for curbside grant $ 13,000 F-112 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: , Collector Fees from Haulers State Block Grant Redemption value of recyclables Curbside Supplement Payment ,Total Revenues Expenses: Litter pick up for curbside grant i Recycler of the month $ 80,000 $ 13,000 $ 120,000 $ 40,000 $ 253,000 $ 13,000 $ 7,000 F-113 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: , Collector Fees from Haulers State Block Grant Redemption value of recyclables Curbside Supplement Payment ,Total Revenues Expenses: Litter pick up for curbside grant Recycler of the month Total Expenses Li $ 80,000 $ 13,000 $ 120,000 $ 40,000 $ 253,000 $ 13,000 $ 7,000 $ 20,000 F-114 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: , Collector Fees from Haulers State Block Grant Redemption value of recyclables Curbside Supplement Payment ,Total Revenues Expenses: Litter pick up for curbside grant Recycler of the month Total Expenses Excess Revenues $ 80,000 $ 13,000 $ 120,000 $ 40,000 $ 253,000 $ 13,000 $ 7,000 $ 20,000 $ 233,000 F-115 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: Collector Fees from Haulers State Block Grant Redemption value of recyclables Curbside Supplement Payment Total Revenues Expenses: Litter pick up for curbside grant Recycler of the month Total Expenses Excess Revenues $ 80,000 $ 13,000 $ 120,000 $ 40,000 $ 253,000 $ 13,000 $ 7,000 $ 20,000 $ 233,000 F-116 Annual Cash Flow Recycling Fund: Revenues: Collector Fees from Haulers $ 80,000 State Block Grant $ 13,000 Redemption value of recyclables $ 120,000 Curbside Supplement Payment $ 40,000 Total Revenues $ 253,000 Expenses: Litter pick up for curbside grant $ 13,000 Recycler of the month $ 7,000 .Total Expenses $ 20,000 Excess Revenues $ 233,000 F-117 Roadway Beautification Funding: F-118 Roadway Beautification Funding: Option One: Use only recycling funds F-119 Roadway Beautification Funding: Option One: Use only recycling funds Recyling Fund $233,000 F-120 Roadway Beautification Funding: Option One: Use only recycling funds Recyling Fund Time to complete: $233,000 30 Years F-121 Roadway Beautification Funding: Option One: Use only recycling funds Recyling Fund $233,000 Time to complete: 30 Years Construct a beautification project every other year F-122 Roadway Beautification Funding: Option One: Use only recycling funds Recyling Fund $233,000 Time to complete: 30 Years Construct a beautification project every other year Option Two: Use recycling and general funds F-123 Roadway Beautification Funding: Option One: Use only recycling funds Recyling Fund Time to complete: $233,000 30 Years Construct a beautification project every other year Option Two: Use recycling and general funds Recyclin�c Fund $233,000 F-124 Roadway Beautification Funding: Option One: Use only recycling funds Recyling Fund Time to complete: $233,000 30 Years Construct a beautification project every other year Option Two: Use recycling and general funds Recycling Fund $233,000 General Fund $2003000 F-125 Roadway Beautification Funding: Option One: Use only recycling funds Recyling Fund Time to complete: $233,000 30 Years Construct a beautification project every other year Option Two: Use recycling and general funds Recycling Fund $233,000 General Fund $200,000 Funding $433,000 F-126 Roadway Beautification Funding: Option One: Use only recycling funds Recyling Fund Time to complete: $233,000 30 Years Construct a beautification project every other year Option Two: Use recycling and general funds Recycling Fund $233,000 General Fund $200,000 Funding $433,000 Time to complete: 16 years F-127 Roadway Beautification Funding: Option One: Use only recycling funds Recyling Fund Time to complete: $233,000 30 Years Construct a beautification project every other year Option Two: Use recycling and general funds Recycling Fund $233,000 General Fund $200,000 Funding $433,000 Time to complete: 16 years Construct a beautification project each year F-128 Maintenance Costs • Currently $146,000 /year • Phase One $ 19,000 /year • All Hawthorne $173,000 /year • Funding source General Fund Conclusions and Recommendations • Approve landscape theme • Authorize phase one design • Adopt funding plan for phase one Includes re -programming funds from neighborhood beautification • Request a fencing program Schedule • Fencing Plan November 2001 • Phase One Construction can begin Spring 44S..s} f , !y ♦ .' .day �fVL -C`y�yft r '•C•� f, opp- Adizz t • L rt � '°r r Plant Alternate r - Cassia artemisioides Feathery Cassia 1` •.rte•-.:,'�' t s Echium fastuosum Liriope m. 'Silvery SunprooF Pride of Madeira Variegated Big Blue Lily Turf G_2 Plant Palette: Alternate #1 Agave a. 'Variegate' Variegated Agave Fhcrmium species Red New Zealand Flax 4Z Miscanthus transmarrisonensis Evergreen Maiden Grass G-3 v Plant Palette: Alternate #2 Phormium species & Muhlenbergia species New Zealand Flax and Grasses Miscanthus transmorrisonensis Evergreen Maiden Grass Phormlum species New Zealand Flax CAI -3 "I m: Aloe species & Agave species Screening Shrubs & Succulent Ground Cover G-6 mo — �Y r o� Hawthorne Boulevard at Eddinghill Drive: Alternate #1 m � ;�. ��\ � z . �� .� rte..-�--+►�, �, i �a ... s, �. ter. i � _.. 4 n.Dv a K AvV VW L�\ Nl w tl� V IXW r,pgq� . p� 15-T I rad pwo(C- �� -- - 0 ow iwe70)te" w ids AW Go uor,� HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS City of Rancho Palos Verdes � I ar.�eaY�S . Te- n4'LAFf^i TFO ice, If r• i 057 IAV-( Of, \/I r 50 (-off 1/e = I I -S, p'" 4pewt/ -?c r -r, k6ovi�,�-v, . STREET SECTIONS SHEET #1 XSS'15SM44*+ or:::;, 009TY&IAIJ Alf, LA N D IM A G ES LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TUR E 14025 PANAY WAY MARINA DEL REY CALIFORNIA 90292 (310) 822-0043 G�FAX:(3 )822-390 E -MAI nfo@la .net