RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_01_15_01_Border_IssuesCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:CAROL YNN PETRU,AICP,DEPUTY CITY MANAGER®
DATE:JANUARY 15,2013
SUBJECT:REVIEW OF BORDER ISSUES POLICY RELATED TO
INTERJURISDICTIONAL TRAIL IS~UES
REVIEWED:CAROL YN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Project Manager:Kit Fox,AICP,Senior Administrative Analyst
RECOMMENDATION
Consider a citizen request to revise the Border Issues policy (City Council Policy No.34)to
include the monitoring of interjurisdictional trail issues as a part of the regular Border
Issues Status Reports;and provide direction to Staff.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For several years,Sunshine has periodically inquired of Staff as to why issues related to
conflicts arising from the realignment and/or closure of trails along the City's borders are
not tracked in the regular,bi-monthly Border Issues Status Report.Staff has consistently
replied that trail issues do not fall within the scope of the Border Issues policy (as
articulated in City Council Policy No.34),but has suggested Sunshine ask the City Council
to consider amending the policy or taking other appropriate action to address this issue.
On December 4,2012,Councilman Misetich asked for this matter to be agendized for a
future City Council meeting.While Council certainly has the ability to amend Policy No.34
to reinterpret and/or broaden the definition of what constitutes Border Issue "projects,"Staff
believes that unless Council is also interested in purchasing trail easements outside its
boundaries or using legal means to influence or reverse trail closures in adjacent
jurisdictions,such a change would be informational only and perhaps of little practical
value.
BACKGROUND
On April 17,2001,the City Council first considered a proposal to monitor so-called "border
1-1
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Policy related to Interjurisdictional Trail Issues
January 15,2013
Page 2
issues"in surrounding jurisdictions.The impetus was a request from the Rolling Hills
Riviera Homeowners'Association for the City to be more proactive about issues related to
development proposals in adjoining cities.At that meeting,an ad hoc City Council
committee was formed to study Border Issues,consisting of then-Mayor Marilyn Lyon and
then-Mayor Pro Tem John McTaggart.
On September 4,2001,the City Council adopted City Council Policy No.34 (see
attachment),which set forth the policy of presenting to the City Council as a regular
agenda item a report on Border Issues that had "the potential to adversely impact residents
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes."Among the first issues that were monitored in the
Border Issues Status Report were the renovation of the Garden Village shopping center on
Western Avenue in San Pedro;the construction of a gymnasium/community center at the
Los Angeles County Housing Authority's Harbor Hills facility in Lomita;and the County's
proposal to develop a golf course on the former Palos Verdes landfill in Rolling Hills
Estates.
For several years,Staff has been aware of Sunshine's concern that issues related to actual
and conceptual trail crossings at the City's boundary (i.e.,"border")with Palos Verdes
Estates,Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates have not be monitored or reported upon as a
part of the Border Issues Status Report.Staff has repeatedly advised Sunshine that these
types of trail issues do not fall within the scope of the Border Issues Status Report (as
articulated in City Council Policy No.34),suggesting instead that she ask the City Council
to consider amending the policy or taking other appropriate action to address this issue.At
the December 4,2012,City Council meeting,Councilman Misetich asked for this issue to
be agendized for City Council discussion at a future meeting.Therefore,Staff has
prepared this report for the City Council's review and consideration.
DISCUSSION
City Council Policy No.34 currently defines "border issues"as
individual projects that are likely to have direct adverse impacts on City
residents on their own,as well as projects that,together with other projects,
could create cumulative impacts to City residents.
The policy goes on to state:
Such proposed projects shall include,but not be limited to,proposed land
use development projects,events,or special uses in the neighboring cities
and communities of Rolling Hills,Rolling Hills Estates,Palos Verdes Estates,
San Pedro,Lomita and unincorporated [Los Angeles]County.
Staff's role on monitoring projects in the Border Issues Status Report has generally been
1-2
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Policy related to Interjurisdictional Trail Issues
January 15,2013
Page 3
limited to reviewing and commenting upon development proposals and their related
environmental analyses (Le.,environmental impact reports,etc.).In many cases,the City's
comments result in a final project that reduces or eliminates adverse impacts upon our
residents,but in some cases they have little or no impact upon the final decision on the
project.Ultimately,the City has no jurisdiction or direct control over any of the projects that
are monitored on the Border Issues Status Report.
Given that Border Issues would "not be limited to"development projects,events or
activities in abutting jurisdictions,it is not unreasonable interpret that the interjurisdictional
trail conflicts that Sunshine has raised might be included in the regular Border Issues
Status Report.Specific examples that Sunshine has cited in the past include:
•The closure of several designated trails where they cross into the City of Rolling
Hills (i.e.,Martingale Trail,Packsaddle Trail,Fire Station Trail,etc.);and,
•The blockage of an undesignated trail 1 between Marguerite Drive in Rancho Palos
Verdes and Paseo del,Mar in Palos Verdes Estates.
In cases where such trail conflicts occur within the City's boundary,Staff in the Community
Development and/or Public Works Departments may have the ability to resolve these
issues if there are development conditions and/or dedicated easements related to these
trails.Under these circumstances,Staff believes that it is most appropriate to resolve
these issues through the City's regular code enforcement process or project management
activities,rather than adding these matters to the Border Issues Status Report.
However,in most instances,trail closures that occur within an adjacent city are not the
result of an identifiable "project,"but occur through the actions of individual property
owners or an independent community association.In addition,Staff frequently becomes
aware of trail closures only after they have occurred.This situation makes it extremely
difficult for the City to identify,track and influence the outcome of such trail closures.While
these matters could be added to the Border Issues Status Report,it is not clear what
benefit this would provide to the City as a whole,since it appears the City would have only
two possible courses of action to prevent or reverse a trail closure in another jurisdiction.
One option would be to offer to purchase a public trail easement from the property owner
or community association.The other would be in initiate some kind of legal action (or
threat thereof)against the private property owner or the community association.
Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph,there have been occasional cases where a
potential trail closure in an adjacent city was addressed in the Border Issues Status Report.
For example,in the fall of 2005,Staff was monitoring a proposal to build a new house on
Via Castilla in Palos Verdes Estates that had the potential affect the Clovercliff Park Trail,a
1 Sunshine asserts that this is a segment of the California Coastal Trail (CCT),but it is not depicted
as such on CCT maps reviewed by Staff on December 19,2012 (www.californiacoastaltrail.info).
Furthermore,this trail segment is not identified in the City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP).
1-3
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Policy related to Interjurisdictional Trail Issues
January 15,2013
Page 4
historic "cut-through"that serves students at Vista Grande Elementary School.In this
case,Staff sent letters to and worked with the Palos Verdes Estates Planning Director to
ensure that the connection from Clovercliff Park to the public right-of-way of Via Castilla
was maintained as part of the new construction.
The City Council certainly has the authority to amend City Council Policy No.34 to re-
interpret and/or broaden the definition of Border Issue "projects"to be monitored to include
interjurisdictional trail issues.However,Staff believes that unless the City Council is
interested in purchasing trail easements outside the City's boundaries or using legal means
to influence or reverse trail closures in adjacent jurisdictions,Staff is unsure of the value of
such an action.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Sunshine has been advised of the City Council's review of this matter at tonight's meeting
and was provided with a copy of this report.In addition,two recent emails exchanges with
Sunshine on this topic are attached for the Council's information.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion,the City Council is asked to consider Sunshine's request to revise the Border
Issues policy to include the monitoring of interjurisdictional trail issues as a part of the
regular Border Issues Status Reports;and to provide direction to Staff as deemed
appropriate.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternative courses of action are available for the City Council's
consideration:
1.Direct Staff to revise City Council Policy No.34 to explicitly include the monitoring of
interjurisdictional trail issues,to be presented for the City Council's review and
approval at a future meeting.
2.Direct Staff not to revise City Council Policy No.34 to explicitly include the
monitoring of interjurisdictional trail issues.
3.Direct Staff to work with Sunshine to identify some other appropriate venue,forum
or means by which the City can monitor and work to resolve conflicts related to
interjurisdictional trail issues.
Based upon public testimony and City Council discussion at tonight's meeting,different
and/or additional alternative courses of action may be identified.
1-4
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Policy related to Interjurisdictional Trail Issues
January 15,2013
Page 5
FISCAL IMPACT
If the City Council wishes to take a more aggressive role intervening in trail issues with
private property owners and/or community associations in adjacent cities,Staff anticipates
that there will be significant additional expenditures of Staff time and City Attorney
resources required.Such expenditures were not included in the FY 2012-13 Budget and
cannot be reliably estimated at this time.
Attachments:
•City Council Policy No.34 (Border Issues)
•Recent email exchanges with Sunshine
1-5
.I
\:-".
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
NUMBER:34
DATE ADOPTED:September 4,2001
SUBJECT:Border Issues
POLICY:
It shall be the policy of the City Council that at least once a month,the City
Council agenda shall contain an item to discuss "Border Issues"that have the
potential to adversely impact residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
"Border Issues"consist of individual projects that are likely to have direct adverse
impacts on City residents on their own,as well as projects that,together with
other projects,could create cumulative impacts to City residents.The procedure
for addressing such issues shall be as follows,which is summarized in the
attached flow chart:
1)When City Staff receives notices or other information regarding proposed
projects that are located outside of the City's borders but with the potential to
impact City residents,City Staff shall report such information to the City
Council as part of the Council's monthly "Bord~r Issues"agenda item.Such
proposed projects shall include,but not be limited to,proposed land use
development projects,events,or special uses in the neighboring cities and
communities of Rolling Hills,Rolling Hills Estates,Palos Verdes Estates,San
Pedro,Lomita and unincorporated LA County.
2)The Staff Report to the City Council on any such "Border Issue"proposed
project shall include a description of the proposed project and the current
status of the proposed project.
3)A copy of the Staff Report on such proposed projects shall be mailed to the
Council of Homeowners Associations and any Homeowners Associations on
file with the City that are located in the proximity of the proposed project.
4)Upon receipt of the Staff Report,the City Council shall consider any public
testimony and take one of the following actions:
A)Determine that no potential adverse impacts would result to City
residents and direct that no further action be taken on the item;
B)Determine that potential adverse impacts may result to City residents
and direct the Border Issues sub-committee to monitor the proposed
project and make a recommendation to the City Council as to what,if
any,position the City should take on the project.
1-6
(:,~.,....
';'•....
City Council Policy No.34
Border Issues
Page 2
C)Determine that adverse impacts will result to City residents and
establish a City position on the proposed project and give specific
direction to the sub-committee and/or Staff.
5)Unless otherwise directed by the City Council,when a project is referred to
the sub-committee for monitoring,the sub-committee will have the ability to
take one or more of the following actions:
A)Direct Staff to respond to any CEQA notices:
B)Direct Staff to draft a letter to the lead agency stating the City's position
:on the project;
C)Attend or direct Staff to attend any public hearings,workshops or any
other informational meetings on the proposed project;
D)Meet with representatives of the lead agency proposing the project.
6)The sub-committee shall monitor projects,when directed to do so by the City
Council,until the City Council deems otherwise.Unless otherwise directed by
the City Council,monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City Council as
part of the monthly "Border Issues"agenda item and may be accompanied by
oral reports from the sub-committee members.
7)Projects shall remain on the monthly status report to the City Council until the
City Council removes the item or deems the item closed.
1-7
City Staff receives notices or other information
regarding proposed projects located outside of
the City's borders but with the potential to impact
City residents. Such proposed projects shall
include,but not be limited to,proposed land use
development projects,events,or special uses in
the neighboring cities and communities of Rolling
Hills,Rolling Hills Estates,Palos Verdes Estates,
San Pedro,Lomita and unincorporated LA
County.
Step 2:
City Staff shall report such information to the City
Council as part of the Council's monthly "Border
Issues Status Report"agenda item.Issues will
remain on the Status Report until the Council
removes the item or deems it closed.The Staff
Report to the City Council on any such "Border
Issuen proposed project shall include a
description of the proposed project and the
current status of the proposed project.
Step 3:
A copy of the Staff Report on such proposed
projects shall be mailed to the Council of
Homeowners Associations and any Home-
owners Associations on file with the City that are
located in the proximity of the proposed project.
/1 "',--
Step 4:
Upon receipt of the Staff Report,the City Council
shall consider any public testimony and take one
of the following actions:
A:Determine that no potential adverse impacts
would result to City residents and direct that no
further action be taken on the item.
B:Determine that potential adverse impacts
may result to City residents and direct the Border
Issues sub-committee to monitor the proposed
project and make a recommendation to the City
Council as to what,if any,position the City
should take on the project.
The sub-committee shall monitor projects,when
directed to do so by the City Council,until the
City Council deems otherwise.Unless otherwise
directed by the City Council,monitoring reports
shall be submitted to the City Council as part of
the monthly "Border Issuesn agenda item and
may be accompanied by oral reports from the
sub-committee members.
c:Determine that adverse impacts will result to
City residents and establish a City position on
the proposed project and give specific direction
to the sub-committee and/or Staff.
.~<..---~,
Unless otherwise directed by the City
Council,when a project is referred to
the sub-committee for monitoring,the
sub-committee will have the ability to
take one or more of the following
actions:
1 -Direct Staff to respond to any CEQA
notices;
2 -Direct Staff to draft a letter to the lead
agency stating the City's position on the
project;
3 -Attend or direct Staff to attend public
hearings,workshops or any other
informational meetings on proposed
project;
4 -Meet with representatives of the lead
agency proposing the project.
1-8
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Kit,
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Wednesday,December 19,2012 5:04 PM
Kit Fox
Carolynn Petru;Carla Morreale;CC
Reply Re:City Council review of Border Issues policy
Thank you for the heads up.
So sorry your focus will be only on trails related issues.I was rather expecting that the City Manager would
simply make the decision that "projects"in other cities which are ...likely to have direct adverse
impacts on City residents ...would no longer be limited to only those which are in some sort of
entitlements process.
Since the decision has been made to take up both Staffs and the Council's time for this "interpretation"
decision,I strongly request that your Staff Report include a discussion of the Public Works Dept.'s present
philosophy on the Policy about maintaining trails on City property "to the jurisdiction line".As in,this is not
being done.
Staff has been involved in negotiations with other jurisdictions without informing the City Council and the
public about what sort of deals are being considered.We should be kept informed.Monthly is nice.Heaven
forbid.We might have something constructive to offer....S
In a message dated 12/19/20122:36:14 P.M.Pacific Standard Time,KitF@rpv.com writes:
Dear Sunshine:
I just wanted to let you know that we have agendized the review of the Border Issues policy (as it relates
to trail issues)for the City Council's consideration on January 15,2013.I'll e-mail you once the Staff
report is posted on the City's website next month.The City Clerk will also be sending you a copy ofthe
Staff report.
I hope that you have a happy holiday season.
Sincerely,
Kit Fox,AICP
1 1-9
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Manaaer's OHice
City o£RanchoPalos Verdes
30940 Iiawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
T:(31O)544-5226
F:(310)544-5291
E:kit£@rpv.com
2 1-10
Carolynn Petru
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Anthony-
Carolynn Petru
Thursday,November 29,2012 12:00 PM
Anthony M.Misetich
Carolyn Lehr;Jim Hendrickson;Siamak Motahari;Ara Mihranian;Joel Rojas;Kit Fox
RE:Questions.Fwd:Only you can save a ...which includes off-road human circu ...
20010904_COUNCIL POLICY 34_border issues.doc
I would only add to Joel's response that when the Border Issues reports were first established in 2001,the City
Council adopted Policy No.34 (see attached)regarding their purpose and the procedure for monitoring
them."Border Issues"are characterized as individual projects located outside of the City's borders that are
likely to have direct adverse impacts on city residents on their own,as well as a project that,together with
other projects,could create cumulative impacts to City residents.
Often times,trails closures that occur in an adjacent city are not the result of an identifiable "project,"but occur
through the actions of individual property owners or an independent community association.This situation
makes it extremely difficult for the City to identify,track and influence the outcome of trail closures.In addition,
often times,staff only becomes aware of trail closures after they have occurred.I can recall only one case that
happened a few years ago where a potential trail closure was included as a Border Issue.It involved the
development of a vacant residential lot in Palos Verdes Estates that impacted a historic neighborhood cut-
through from one of our City parks.An adjacent property owner notified staff of the proposed development and
staff monitored the planning application through the Border Issues report to ensure that the connection from
Clovercliff Park to Via Castilla was maintained as part of the new construction.
The City Council certainly has the authority to amend Policy No.34 to broaden the definition of Border Issues
"projects."However,unless the City Council is interested in using legal means to influence or reverse trail
closures in adjacent cities,staff is unsure of the value in this exercise.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this issue.
-Carolynn
From:Joel Rojas
Sent:Monday,November 26,2012 12:32 PM
To:Anthony M.Misetich
Cc:Carolyn Lehr;Carolynn Petru;Jim Hendrickson;Siamak Motahari;Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE:Questions.Fwd:Only you can save a ...which includes off-road human circu ...
Anthony
I have provided responses to Sunshine's questions below.
Joel
From:Anthony M.Misetich [mailto:mizie@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,November 26,20127:53 AM
To:Joel Rojas
Cc:Carolyn Lehr
Subject:FW:Questions.Fwd:Only you can save a ...which includes off-road human circu ...
Hi Joel,
Perhaps either you or Ara can help me with some of the questions from Sunshine.
1
1-11
Thanks.
Anthony Misetich
From:SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com]
Sent:Sunday,November 25,2012 12:58 PM
To:mizie@cox.net
Subject:Questions.Fwd:Only you can save a ...which includes off-road human circu ...
Dear Mr.Mayor,
You asked me if I have any more questions to which Staff has not yet responded.Here is one and
four more:
Where is there a trail that you care about?If there are none,just say so.
I don't know what this question refers to.
Given the Municipal Code which prohibits equestrian use of trails on City parks,(except on
specifically designated equestrian trails)...When did the City Council officially designate the trail
across the Martingale Trailhead Park as equestrian permitted and to be maintained as such?And,
Why has this maintenance not been done?
I have not seen this question before and didn't realize it was an issue for Sunshine.The Martingale Trail at Martingale
Trailhead Park is identified in the City Council approved Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP)for pedestrian and equestrian use.
Although I am not aware of a previous City Council formally designating the current trail as either equestrian or
pedestrian,because the CTP identifies it as a pedestrian/equestrian trail,pedestrians and equestrians are allowed to use
the trail.Because the trail is not in the Preserve,the City's Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the
trail.About 3 years ago,a small landslide on an adjacent private property impeded passage on the trail.After much
involvement by the City Geologist,City Attorney and Public Works Department,City crews were finally able to go out and
restore passage through the landslide debris about a year ago.If there are new trail maintenance issues to resolve,they
should be reported to the Public Works Department.I should note that the trail leads to the City of Rolling Hills and
passage onto the City of Rolling Hills is prevented by a fence erected by either the City of Rolling Hills or their
Homeowners Association.
Who is going to do something about permitting volunteers to repair the Yokota Ford?
This is the trail repair project on City property that Sunshine was caught working on by the PVPLC,US Fish &Wildlife
officials and I back in April of this year.As I informed Sunshine recently,now that the trail is an officially approved
Preserve trail (it is part of the trails network on the Filiorum property approved by the City Council in September),it can be
actively managed by the PVPLC.I informed Sunshine that we intend to discuss this repair project at the next City/PVPLC
team meeting.
What is being to be done about reporting the "border issues"trail closures to City Council?
My understanding is that for some time now,Sunshine has wanted the "border issues"report that is presented to the City
Council every other month to include reports on trail issues that involve other neighboring jurisdictions.I believe Carolynn
Petru,who oversees the "Border Issue"report and have copied on this email,may have more information about this
particular issue.
I have asked lots more questions.If you have done all that you can do as a City Councilman......S
2
1-12