RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_11_20_02_Future_Direction_Of_Neighborhood_Beautification_Grants_ProgramCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JAMES HENDRICKSON,INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PUBL~U.
WORKS V--
NOVEMBER 20,2012
FUTURE DIRECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
BEAUTIFICATION GRANTS PROGRAM
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER c02--:
Lauren Ramezani,Sr.Administrative Analyst '-11JZ--
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff regarding the option that the City Council prefers for the future
utilization of the Neighborhood Beautification Grants Program funds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Neighborhood Beautification Grants Program (NBG)has provided funding for some
groups in the City for close to two decades.The previous City Council expressed concerns
that a significant portion of the community never benefited from a program that was
designed to reward residents for recycling.Furthermore,there have been changes in State
law and the City's purchasing guidelines such that the existing NBG program does not
properly conform to those rules.Hence,per Council direction,the NBG program has been
on hiatus for two years pending modifications to the NBG guidelines to address those
deficiencies.
During the past six months staff has met and/or communicated with the City Council
Beautification Subcommittee comprised of Mayor Pro Tem Campbell and Councilwoman
Brooks.The Subcommittee members have differing opinions and approaches regarding
the future of the NBG.Hence,after much consideration,staff offers Council four viable
options regarding the future of the program.Staff requests the City Council provide staff
direction on how to proceed with respect to the future of the NBG program.
2-1
Neighborhood Beautification Grant Status
November 20,2012
Page 2 of 10
SUBCOMMITTEE INPUT
Several attempts have been made to convene meetings of the Subcommittee to determine
the future direction for the NBG program.We have only been successful in securing the
attendance of both members at one meeting.
Councilwoman Brooks has been responsible and readily willing to meet whenever
necessary.She feels prepared to make a decision on one of the options and move
forward as determined by the council majority this evening.
MPT Campbell has been less willing to meet in the Subcommittee setting,and thus has
only attended the first meeting.He has indicated he would prefer that the City Council
receive and file the staff report before you this evening,and set it for full Council
consideration at a date certain in the near future-in order to afford the various stake
holders the opportunity to review it and provide their input.He would like to have this take
place at a Council meeting in January or February 2013.
However,Councilwoman Brooks believes that in light of the fact that the Council has been·
awaiting deliberation on this issue for 10 months,and that a considerable amount of staff
time and resources have already been expended since the program was put on hiatus in
2010,the Council should not delay any further in taking action.
BACKGROUND
In 1989,two programs were initiated as a means to reward the community for their
recycling efforts.One was the Recycler of the Month drawing,and the other was the
Beautification Grants Program.The Council's intent was to encourage residential recycling
by "giving back"to residents who recycled.Thus,on October 3,1989,the first NBG
guidelines were adopted by City Council.and those guidelines established policies that
allowed the community to apply for grant funds for the beautification of their
neighborhoods.The NBG program continued annually for almost 20 years.
On October 21,2008,Council approved the last grant cycle,Cycle 19,which included 42
grant applications totaling $157,650.However,at that meeting,Council also expressed
concerns that the program funds were not equitably distributed City-wide,with some
groups benefitting more than other groups.They noticed a deficiency in reaching the non-
HOA groups that contributed to recycling,but were not benefitting from the NBG program.
Therefore,the Council directed staff to find ways to address the inequity issue as well as
other challenges and bring back program alternatives for Council consideration.
Therefore,on June 1,2010,staff presented a program overview and recommended
program changes that would modify the NBG guidelines to be in compliance with State law,
City purchasing policies and address the perception of "gifts of public funds."With the
concurrence of the City Attorney and City Finance Department,the City Council suspended
the grant program pending resolution of these issues and directed staff to work with the
Council Subcommittee to improve the program and report back to the Council.The
Council also authorized the creation of an Ad-hoc Beautification Committee that would
W:IPamlSlaff ReportsI2012111-20-12INBG programlNBG sR 111512 final .DOC 11/15/2012 2-2
Neighborhood Beautification Grant Status
November 20,2012
Page 3 of 10
consist of the Subcommittee members and five (5)appointed members of the public to
improve the program and prioritize beautification projects.To date,the members of the
Ad-hoc committee have not been formally appointed pending Council's direction.
Finally,at the January 3,2012 City Council team-building workshop,the Council approved
a motion "to reinstate the Beautification Recycling Grant Program and look at
modifications to the program as it goes forward".(See Attachment A -minutes of the
meeting).
DISCUSSION
Since 1989,the NBG guidelines and program implementation have evolved significantly to
a point where the program is no longer providing benefits in accordance with NBG's initial
intent.Since the goal of the NBG was to reward everyone who recycled,the program does
not seem to equitably provide that.It is apparent that larger and/or more organized groups
of households benefitted greatly from the program and have submitted applications
consistently year after year.Meanwhile,ad hoc groups do not appear to have had the
organizational structure or financing to successfully compete against the other groups.
As a result,staff estimates that approximately 1/3 of the City's households never received
a grant and were not beneficiaries of the beautification projects.The previous Council's
direction was to rectify the deficiency in the program design and the previous guidelines.
At the direction of City Council,over the past two years,staff and the City Attorney
reviewed the existing program guidelines and the City administration practices.The City
Attorney strongly suggested modifications to the program to ensure compliance with State
law and to protect the City against the perception that the program constituted "gifting of
public funds."The City's Finance Department,also recommended that changes be made
to the guidelines to comply with City purchasing policies.Incorporating their comments,
staff drafted revised program guidelines with the additional aim of providing an equitable
method of distributing the program funds.
Furthermore,during the past six months,staff has been working with the Subcommittee to
develop revised draft guidelines to move the program forward.The Subcommittee met on
April 18,2012 and member Susan Brooks participated in a field trip on June 25,2012.On
November 1,2012,staff discussed several options presented in this staff report with one
member (Brooks)of the Subcommittee and received comments.However,the
Subcommittee members have been unable to agree on a recommendation as to the future
of the program.Hence staff is requesting the full Council direction on how to proceed.
Revenue Source:The City's revenue source has been the Recycling Rebates it receives
from its two residential haulers.Under the new residential solid waste contracts effective
July 1,2010,the Council approved fixed annual recycling rebate amounts from EDCO
Disposal Corporation (EDCO)and Universal Waste Systems,Inc.(UWS)that total
$296,000.This fixed amount has helped create revenue and budget stability for the
Beautification-Recycling Fund (Recycling Fund).
W:lPamlSlaff Reports\2012111-20-12WBG programWBG SR 111512 final .DOC 11/15/2012 2-3
Neighborhood Beautification Grant Status
November 20,2012
Page 4 of 10
Programs and Budgets:Currently,the annual revenue of $296,000 is budgeted as
follows:
a.$96,000 for the NBGs program.This includes $75,000 for the grants,plus $21,000
for NBG administration and inspections.
b.$200,000 allocated to the median maintenance program.The median maintenance
program funds median utilities (water and electricity),landscape maintenance crew
activities (tree/bush trimming and pruning,plant refurbishment,irrigation system
repairs,and pest and disease control),and the purchase of related materials such
as fertilizer and pesticide,and replacement plants and irrigation parts.
During the FY 09/10 budget policy discussions,the City Council approved utilizing some
Recycling Fund revenues to pay for a portion of the City's median maintenance costs as a
way to offset General Fund expenditures.The City's annual median maintenance budget
exceeds $340,000.
Additionally,in response to public comments and requests,the Council approved
systematically budgeting median improvements along major corridors to enhance the City's
public rights-of-way.Median improvement projects include improving an undeveloped
center median by installing new irrigation and timers,landscaping and hardscaping.
Therefore,Recycling funds are transferred out to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
to offset median improvements project costs.Utilizing the Recycling Fund monies not only
offsets General Fund and Capital Improvement Program fund expenditures,but also helps
beautify the City for the benefit of all the residents.
In 2010 the City improved the medians at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive West and
Hawthorne Blvd.The next budgeted median improvement projects include Palos Verdes
Drive West to the City border with PVE,and Hawthorne Blvd to Civic Center.The City's
estimated FY 13-14 year end Recycling fund balance is $335,250.(See Attachment C)
Grant Expenditures:Since the NBG program inception in 1989,over 560 grants totaling
more that $1.68M have been awarded to approximately 123 applicant groups (groups).
Typically over 95%of applicants were awarded a grant.The total of 123 groups is
comprised of approximately 90 HOAs/neighborhood groups/ad hoc groups,in addition to
various local schools and PTA groups,recreation and park districts,a couple of churches,
a retirement community,community college,and one library.The grant funds were used
for beautification projects including neighborhood entry signs,landscaping,fencing,
irrigation and lighting.
Listed below are some statistics that highlight the disparity amount the groups:
•Groups belonging to CHOA and HOAs received grants totaling $1,436,300.I.e.they
received 86%of the total grant funds.
•30 grantees received grants totaling more than $958,000.I.e.24%of all of the
groups received 57%of the total grant funds.
W:lPamlSlaff ReportsI2012111-20-12INBG programlNBG SR 111512 ~nal .DDC 11/1512012 2-4
Neighborhood Beautification Grant Statu5
November 20,2012
Page 5 of 10
•29 grantees applied only once and received grants totaling $81,500.i.e.24%of all
of the groups received 5%of the total grant funds.
•Non HOA groups (i.e.ad hoc groups)received 5%of the total grant funds.
•Other groups (schools/PTA groups,library,Recreation and Park Districts,etc)
received 9%of the total grant funds.
Some groups are more organized with a defined organization and financial structure.Most
of them are members of the Council of Home Owners Association (CHOA)arid take
advantage of the grant opportunities.While there are other more loose'ly structured groups
that do not have the established organization and financial structure,The loosely
structured groups (non HOA,ad hoc groups)have received substantially fewer grants,(see
Attachment B-Summary of grant awards per group).
The chart below shows the distribution of the total grant amounts among the various
groups,
,-------------------------------,
Others (schools/PTA,
R&P,libraJy).5153.163
,9%
Ad-hoc Non-HOAs,
587.821 .5%
Non CHOA HOAs.
5201.093.12%
Distribution of Grant Allocation
Total Allocation =$1,680,291
(1989-2009)
OtOA_,
$1,235,214.74%
D CHOA Members
•Non CHOA HOAs
o Ad-hoc Non-HOAs
o OlhelS (schools/PTA.R&P.library)
Options:After much consideration,staff has identified four options for Council
consideration.Staff has highlighted the advantages and disadvantages to each of those
options.
Option 1.Restart the NBG Program for one year,with changes necessary to the
program guidelines to comply with current government code and City purchasing
policies.Upon completion of the one grant cycle,report findings to the Council and
get further direction.
Option 1 is a temporary and simplified one-year option.The goal of the Option is to restart
the NBG program while allowing Council time to review the fully updated guidelines for
approval and implementation in subsequent years.Option 1 includes improved fiscal
W:\PamI5Iaff Reports\2012111-20-12INBG programlNBG SR 111512 final .DOC 11/15/2012 2-5
Neighborhood Beautification Grant Status
November 20,2012
Page 6 of 10
safeguards and requires that projects funded by the City be fully compliant with the
Government code,City financial practices and purchasing guidelines.However,this
Option does not address the issue of a perceived "gift of public funds,"or achieving the
standard of providing broad,community-wide general public benefit mentioned previously.
If approved,upon completion of the grant cycle,staff would review the grant application
process and report its findings back to the Council for a decision on the future of the
program.
Under this Option some key prior grant requirements would remain unchanged.For
example,similar to previous grant cycles,the project would have to be visible from the
public rights-of-way,and the applicant's contractor must continue to secure applicable City
permits. However,it would more strictly enforce previous grant requirements including the
prohibition against making any payments prior to final inspection by City,the payment of
prevailing wages,and the requirement of submitting at least two competitive bids from all
applicants (including multi-family applicants).The main features of Option 1 are as follows:
Advantages:
•It is a temporary,stopgap approach that allows an immediate re-start of the
program.Grant Cycle 20,FY 12-13,can resume in January/February 2013.
•It increases the individual grant limit amount from $3,000 to $5,000 each.This
increase should help facilitate obtaining project estimates,and make the completed
project larger and more significant.
•It allows Council time to fully evaluate guidelines for the subsequent grant cycles.
Disadvantages:
•It does not address the concerns and issues for the long term,especially the
broader issue of a perceived "gift of public funds"raised by the City Attorney.
•It is likely to lead to a further concentration of grant awards to the larger and more
viable groups,at the expense of the smaller and more loosely organized ones.
(those that are not financially sound will struggle with the requirement prohibiting
pre-payments ).
•It requires the payment of prevailing wages to all workers conducting the work.(this
could increase the project costs).
•Groups may inadvertently believe that future grants will have the same guidelines,
leading to complaints or confusion when in subsequent years stricter compliance
with other factors may be incorporated into the NBG program.
Finally,at a meeting with the City Manager,a few members of CHOA offered to help reach
out to non CHOA and HOA members and encourage them apply for grants.Other
outreach methods would include the City's newsletter,list server,CH 33 PSAs,etc.
Option 2.Restart the NBG program following more extensive review of the
proposed revised program guidelines to safeguard against the perception of making
"gifts of public funds".Furthermore,the Council should consider soliciting
assistance from a Citizen's.Committee (Committee).
W:lPamlSlaff Reports\2012111-20-12INBG programINBG SR 111512 final .DOC 11/1512012 2-6
Neighborhood Beautification Grant Status
November 20,2012
Page 7 of 10
In this option,in addition to adhering to the current Government Code and City's
purchasing guidelines mentioned in Option 1,the City Attorney's more exacting
recommendations would also be incorporated.To that end,there are some important
differences between Option 1 and Option 2,which are:
•Projects must be located in a primary view corridor that is visible by the general
public.That means on,at the intersection of,or in the general vicinity of major
arterials,minor arterials,collector streets and streets that are adjacentto schools,
libraries,parks and other public use facilities so that they provide community-wide
and general public benefit.
By adding these requirements,the City would have a fully defensible position that the
award of these monies would not constitute a gift of public funds.The main features of
Option 2 are as follows:
Advantages:
•It completely addresses City Attorney and Finance Department concerns.
•It would be more equitable and fair to City residents.
•It is a long-term solution.
•It would not be a "redistribution"program.
•It increases the individual grant limit amount from $3,000 to $5,000 each.
This increase should help facilitate obtaining project estimates,and make the
completed project larger and more significant.
Disadvantages:
•Adhering to these guidelines would impact and restrict the locations of eligible
projects.Some projects awarded in the past would no longer be eligible for
funding.Projects on local streets,away from the primary view corridor,or
public-use facilities and schools would no longer qualify.These restrictions
may frustrate or disappoint some groups.
•Substantial public outreach would be required,delaying the re-start of the
NBG for possibly a year.It would be labor intensive.Safety projects would be
prioritized over aesthetically enhancing projects.
•It would further exacerbate the inequity in the distribution of funds in favor of
larger and more financially solid groups.
Additionally,if Council approves Option 2,this Option could proceed with input and
assistance from a citizens committee (Option 2a),or without a citizens committee (Option
2b).In 2010,Council approved a specific configuration for the Committee members.If
Council still prefers to receive input from a Committee,the Committee members should
optimally represent single-family units,multi-family units,CHOA members and areas not
represented by HaAs or ad hoc groups.
Staff has recently become aware that if Committee members are appointed by the Council,
the meetings are subject to the Brown Act and are open to the public.Hence,it would
require additional time for public notification,and the preparation of formal meeting
agendas and minutes,Staff estimates having three meetings with the Committee in order
W:IPamlStaff Reports\2012111-20-12INBG programlNBG SR 111512 final .DDC 11/1512012 2-7
Neighborhood Beautification Grant Status
November 20,2012
Page 8 of 10
to discuss and finalize the draft guidelines.Prior to that,the Committee's scope of the
work and charge would have to be determined and members selected by the City Council.
Staff estimates that this process would take approximately one year before we would have
finalized draft guidelines.
Finally,if Option 2b (proceed without a Committee)is selected,staff can present the
revised guidelines to the City Council and begin the new grant cycle almost immediately
after they are approved,and start public outreach in January/February 2013.
Option 3.Credit the funds set aside for the NBG program to the residents and
reduce their trash collection rates.
This option is in the spirit of a philosophy expressed by the current Council members many
times:"Less is More."It addresses reducing the amount of government and improving
governmental efficiency,fiscal control and transparency.
Based on the above,Option 3 recommends that on a "go forward basis",the total NBG
budget of $96,000 would be refunded to the City's residents in the form of a billing credit
(i.e.reduced trash rates).Staff will work with EDCO and UWS on the issuance of a
recycling credit to their single-farnily and multi-family residential accounts.This credit will
be issued annually as part of the rate adjustment process.Therefore,EDCO/UWS
customers will receive a reduced rate in their billing statement.It is estimated that this
would translate to an annual credit of approximately $6/per single-family account.Multi-
family accounts will receive a larger credit.The main features of Option 3 are as follows:
Advantages:
•It is the most fair and equitable solution.Monies are remitted equally to all
who receive residential trash services.
•It is simple,streamlined,direct and straightforward.
•Everyone is a winner and receives a credit.It reduces the residential solid
waste (trash)rates.No group is favored over the other.
•It is a long-term solution.
•It eliminates the City Attorney's and Finance Department's concerns and
promotes the goals of public transparency and full disclosure.
•It avoids the perception of a redistribution program,i.e.giving City funds to
specific groups rather than to everyone in the City.
•It eliminates a government bureaucracy and administrative cost of overseeing
the NBG that is present in Options 1 and 2.
•It entrusts the residents to make their own choice of how to spend their
recycling rebate (self determination).
•Issuing this credit does not negatively impact the General Fund.
W:lPamlStaff ReportsI2012111-20-12INBG programlNBG SR 111512 final .DOC 1111512012 2-8
Neighborhood Beautification Grant Status
November 20,2012
Page 9 of 10
Disadvantages:
•It eliminates a program that had provided funding for a segment of the
community.
•Groups would not be able to fund projects such as entry signs and
landscaping using City grant funds.They would have to pool their own
monies or use their new refuse collection credit towards area beautification
projects.
•There would be some EDCO/UWS and staff time spent in responding to
residents'questions regarding issuing a credit and reduced rates,when first
implemented.
Furthermore,if Council wishes,the full annual Recycling Rebate of $296,000 could be
credited to residents.The estimated annual credit (rate reduction)would be approximately
$18/year per single-family residents and more for multi-family residents.However,this is
not recommended by staff,since an annual budget reduction of $200,000 would negatively
impact the City's median maintenance and median improvement programs.If Council
desires to maintain the current level of the median maintenance program,the Council
would have to re-direct General Funds to offset the reduced funding.
Staff has discussed Option 3 with EDCO and UWS.Both indicated their ability to
implement the credit,if this Option is approved by Council.Issuing the credit will take
minimal staff time and cost;the work will be handled through EDCO,and UWS's billing
statements.The credit would be retroactive starting FY 12-13 and be implemented in
conjunction with the FY 13-14 rate adjustment process.Furthermore,if this Option is
approved,staff will report back to Council with the details of the credit implementation
steps.
The neighboring City of PVE preferred a similar option in 1989.After carefully considering
the relative merits of different opportunities,it chose to have its waste hauler reduce the
monthly residential rates by the amount of recycling revenue that was being saved.Their
City Council and residents have continued to be pleased with their decision and the results.
Option 4.Spend the full annual Recycling Rebate on median and rights-of-way
improvement projects.
This Option utilizes the full annual Recycling Rebate of $296,000 towards median and
street rights-of-way improvement projects.This would help speed up the completion of
desired projects,which cannot be budgeted due to lack of funds.This would improve the
medians and rights of way and beautify the City for the benefit of all of the residents.The
main features of Option 4 are as follows:
Advantages:
•Improves the City's main corridors and/or increases the number of median
improvement projects.
•It does not negatively impact General Fund.
•It is simple,fast and easy to implement.
W:\Pam\Slaff Reports\2012\1 1-20-12INBG programlNBG SR 111512 final .DOC 1111512012 2-9
Neighborhood Beautification Grant Status
November 20,2012
Page 10 of 10
•Everyone will benefit equally.
Disadvantages:
•Same disadvantages as Option 3.
•No credit would be issued to residents.
CONCLUSION
The NBG program,historically,has provided HOA and neighborhood groups an
opportunity to beautify certain areas of the City with funds from recycling revenues.
However,many grantees have applied multiple times over the course of the program and
are much better positioned to compete for the funds than other groups.It appears that the
program is not serving a vast swath of the City.To continue serving residents,staff
presents four options.Councilwoman Brooks believes they fairly represent the full range of
options available for consideration.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Modify one of the options and recommend implementation.
2.The City Council may choose any other alternative or option not discussed previously.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City receives fixed annual recycling rebate amounts from EDCO Disposal Corporation
(EDCO)and Universal Waste Systems,Inc.(UWS)totaling $296,000.In FY 12-13,
approximately $96,000 has been budgeted for NBG programs and $200,000 transferred
out to the Street Maintenance Fund to offset median maintenance costs.The estimated
FY 13-14 ending Fund balance is $335,250.
As requested by Mayor Pro Tem Campbell,attached is a copy of the Beautification-
Recycling Fund identifying the NBG expenditures and the Fund revenues for the past
decade.
Attachments:
A -January 3,2012 City Council Team Building Workshop Minutes (partial)
B -Beautification Grant Award Amounts Cycles 1-19
C-Recycling Fund Expenditures and Revenues FY 99-00 to FY 11-12
W:IPamlSlaff Report512012111-20·12INBG programlNBG SR 111512 final .DDC 1111512012 2-10
I\.ttachment "A"
link fences falling down along Hawthorne Blvd.He noted that the impr ements did not
have to be uniform,but could be certainly a lot better.He stated th ere has been a
great deal of discussion regarding the San Ramon Canyon impr ments,but he
reminded the Council of the need for technical and funding str egies towards an
ultimate solution to resolve the landslide issues in Portugue Bend area and along
PVDS.
Dave Tomblin,Rancho Palos Verdes,stated that th lanning Commission and City
Council used to hold joint workshops so that the could understand the direction that
the Council desired to go with their policies.H suggested that it would be a helpful
collaboration between the bodies so that the C could assist the Council in
accomplishing the goals of the City.
Tom Redfield,R &R Coalition,Ranc Palos Verdes,stated that he was pleased with
the work of the Sheriff's Departme over the past years.He stated that he was
concerned with the comments re arding the suggestion to switch the emphasis of the
Sheriffs Department to crime,oling that there was no question that there should be a
focus on that area.He state that the elimination of the one dedicated Traffic Deputy by
the previous Council has en detrimental to the City.He noted that there are three
shared deputies now se Ing the three Peninsula cities.He stated that the traffic
situation with speedin on PVDE is a real issue and there is not effective traffic
enforcement in the Ity as a result of the change.He added that the Sheriff Deputies
do not issue tick to drivers going 5-7 miles per hour over the speed limit.He stated
that the Sheriff'Department has information available so that the Council can
understand ere the resources are being utilized and whether the City is receiving its
fair share.
Dr.Ed ards stated that the Council was able to move through the designated
cat ories this evening,but there was also a miscellaneous category suggested.
Miscellaneous Goals
Beautification Grants
Councilwoman Brooks stated that the City's Beautification Grant Program was formed in
1989 and was a very effective program,although over time there may have been
disproportionate use by the different HOAs.She reported that the situation with the
fences falling down in the public right-of-way on Hawthorne Blvd.has been an issue for
over 20 years,and she considered this area blighted.She stated that all visitors who
pass through this area comment on the unsightly state of that stretch of road.She
stated that she would like to reinstate the use of the beautification recycling funds
without necessarily identifying that it would be for HOAs,but that the Council would look
into what would be the best use of those funds.
City Council Minutes
January 3,2012
Page 22 of 29
2-11
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell asked if she was talking about not allowing the HaAs or other
organizations to use the beautification grants.
Councilwoman Brooks clarified that she was willing to make a motion to reopen the
process to examine the idea of the use of the recycling funds for the beautification of
both the HaAs and public right-of-ways as part of the Beautification Recycling Grant
Program.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell stated that he is very aware of the state of the"fences along
the stretch of Hawthorne Blvd.that is being discussed,but noted these fences and walls
are privately owned by over 100 homeowners.He noted that to get them to agree on a
consistent look,design,and payment for the fences will be nearly impossible.He stated
that his HOA put together a three-year plan to plant foliage and install irrigation against
the wall along Hawthorne Blvd.He added that this project began from a few thousand
dollars through the Beautification Grant Program and that putting the money into the
hands of a few local HaAs that have a plan for improvements is a good practice.Mayor
Pro Tem Campbell stated he was in favor of reinstating the Beautification Recycling
Grant Program the way it was and modifying it to address some of the other concerns.
Mayor Misetich inquired of City Attorney Lynch regarding the issues of concern that
arose last year when this matter was discussed regarding the appropriate use of public
funds as part of the program.
City Attorney Lynch stated that the issue was where the funds could be properly utilized
in areas that would benefit the general common public,for example on arterials or major
collector streets.She noted that the original policy so stated,but there had been some
deviation over time from that policy by past Councils'directions.She reported that the
Council had gone back to the policy stating that the funds did need to be used in areas
that would benefit the whole public.She noted that she was not certain if the program
was suspended,but did recall that the legal issue was about the expenditure of monies
in a private neighborhood in a location where there would be no public view and no
general public benefit.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell stated that he did recall the situation,noting that he was on
the Beautification Grant Subcommittee,which was to explore how to bring the
Beautification Recycling Grant Program back and expand it to be available for a wider
range of organizations from small to large.He noted that he did not agree with one of
the criticisms of the program,which was that some HaAs were coming back year after
year to seek funding,while other HaAs that did not apply were somehow characterized
as victims.He stated that the whole program was suspended by a former Council
Member due to that issue,noting that the Beautification Grant Program Subcommittee
never met to actually make that happen.
City Council Minutes
January 3,2012
Page 23 of 29
2-12
Councilwoman Brooks stated that she was talking about a program such as this where
her HOA made improvements along Crest Road with plants covering the fence.She
stated that Council could work with staff to get the Beautification Recycling Grant
Program going again and she would be willing to make a motion to that effect.
Councilwoman Brooks moved,seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Campbell,to reinstate the
Beautification Recycling Grant Program and look at modifications as it goes forward.
City Manager Lehr stated that this issue had progressed in its development and
reached a point where the two-member Beautification Recycling Grant Program
Subcommittee was established,but never met.She stated that the Subcommittee was
going to assist staff in identifying priorities regarding improvements along major
corridors and collector streets.She stated that staff had completed quite a bit of work
on this program already and work could resume by convening the new Subcommittee.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell suggested adding Councilwoman Brooks to the Beautification
Recycling Grant Program Subcommittee.
Mayor Misetich noted that he had not yet made the Subcommittee appointments,but
thanked Mayor Pro Tem Council for his suggestion.
Councilman Knight suggested that Council could work with staff from a planning
perspective to develop uniform building standards for the walls that are along the City's
major corridors,such as those along Hawthorne Blvd.,to address the aesthetics so that
there is visual uniformity along the corridors.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell concurred regarding the development of aesthetic standards,
but stated it should be a separate motion.
Councilman Knight agreed that it could be a separate motion.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Brooks,Campbell,Duhovic,Knight and Mayor Misetich
None
None
None
Councilman Knight moved,seconded by or Pro Tem Campbell,to direct staff to
research the feasibility of establishing niform Development Code standard to
address aesthetic appearance of walls and fences along the City's major corridors,
with the suggestions to be br t back for Council consideration.
City Council Minutes
January 3,2012
Page 24 of 29
2-13
Neighborhood Beautification Grant (Cycles 1-19)Awards
Sorted by Most $Awarded
Attachment B
GRANT CYCLES APPLIED TOTAL #of TOTAL GRANT CHOAASSOCIATION/APPLICANTS FOR GRANTS FUNDING ($)MemberAWARDEDRECEIVED
1 Ridgegate HOA 5,6,7,8,9,10, 11, 12, 13,14 $47,00014,15,16,17,19 Yes
2 The Hill Community Assoc.1,2,5,6,8,9,11,12,13,14,15 $44,61015,16,17,18,19 Yes
3 SeaviewHOA 1,2,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 $43,69414,15,17,18,19 Yes
4 La Cresta HOA 3,5,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,14 $42,60015,16,17,18,19 Yes
5 Mira Verde HOA 7,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,12 $41,11017,18,19 Yes
6 Palos Verdes Bay Club 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,13 $38,42316,17,18,19 Yes
7 Mediterrania HOA 2,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,14 $38,22016,17,18,19 Yes
8 Lunada Pointe HOA 7,9,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,10 $37,86219 Yes
9 RPV Estates 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,11 $37,78516,17,18 No
10 Island View HOA 2,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,11 $36,01017,19 Yes
11 Monaco HOA 1,5,8,11, 12, 13, 14, 15,18 10 $36,000,19 Yes
12 Vista Pacifica 9,10,11,12,13,14,11 $35,02815,16,17,18,19 Yes
13 Silver Spur PTA 11,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 8 $33,664
N/A
14 Via LaCima 8,9,10,13,14,15,16,17,18,10 $31,72819 Yes
15 Sea Bluff HOA 7,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 8 $31,263
Yes
16 Armaga Springs 5,6,8,9,10,11,14,15,16,12 $31,19517,18,19 Yes
17 Mesa Palos Verdes HOA 2,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,15,11 $30,70017,18 Yes
18 Ladera Linda HOA 1,2,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,12 $29,22915,17,19 Yes
19 Seahill HOA 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,10 $27,91217,18,19 Yes
20 Sunset Ridge HOA 2,5,7,9,13, 14, 15,18,19 9 $27,827
Yes
W:IPamlStaff ReportsI2012111-20-12INBG programlBeautification -2012 Grant Awards By HOA Revised order of
most $final 111512 .xls 11/15/2012 2-14
Neighborhood Beautification Grant (Cycles 1-19)Awards
Sorted by Most $Awarded
Attachment B
21 Ocean Terrace 11,12,15,16,17,18,19 7 $27,500
Yes
22 Villa Capri HOA 9,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19 8 $26,500
Yes
23 West Port Bend Comm.Assoc.1,8,9,10,12,15,17,18 8 $25,550
Yes
24 Community Association Tract 8,10,12,13,17,18,19 7 $25,40016540 Yes
25 Seagate HOA 5,7,8,9,10,13,15,16,17,10 $25,10018 Yes
26 Cornerstone @ Pedregal 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 9 $22,477ElementarySch!.N/A
27 Seacliff Hilltop HOA 4,8,9,14,15,16,17,18 8 $21,974
Yes
28 Palos Verdes Penthouse 14,15,16,17,18,19 6 $21,527
Yes
29 Rancho Crest Comm.Assoc.7,8,15,16,17,18 6 $20,600
Yes
30 Monte Verde HOA 3,5,13,16,17,18,19 7 $20,199
No
31 Wallace Ranch HOA 12,13,15,16,17,19 6 $19,687
Yes
32 Sunnyside Ridge HOA 4,15,16,17,18 5 $19,500
Yes
33 Dei Cerro HOA 10,12,15,17,18,19 6 $19,118
Yes
34 Miraleste Hills HOA 1,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,15,18 10 $18,760
Yes
35 Pacific View HOA 8,9,13,15,17,18 6 $18,555
Yes
36 Ridgecrest Ranchos Parks &15,16,17,18,19 5 $17,080Rec.Dis!.N/A
37 La Pointe HOA 14,15,17,19 4 $16,500
Yes
38 Mira Catalina HOA 1,3,7,10,11,18 6 $16,375
Yes
39 Crestmount HOA 1,2,3,5,6,7,13,15 8 $15,500
Yes
40 Villa Verde 9,12,14,17,19 5 $15,500
Yes
41 Palos Verdes Villa #1 9,13,17,18,19 5 $14,920
Yes
W:\Pam\Staff Reports\2012\11-20-12\NBG program\Beautification -2012 Grant Awards By HOA Revised order of
most $final 111512 .xls 11/15/2012 2-15
Neighborhood Beautification Grant (Cycles 1-19)Awards
Sorted by Most $Awarded
Attachment B
42 Alta Vista HOA 10,11,13,15 4 $14,000
No
43 Chaparral Lane 9,12,18,19 4 $13,500
No
44 Courtyards HOA 13,15,16 3 $13,500
No
45 Seacrest HOA 16,18,19 3 $13,500
No
46 Palos Verdes Sunset Ridge 13,14 2 $13,500
Yes
47 Miraleste Rec.&Park District 17,18,19 3 $13,145
N/A
48 EI Prado Estates HOA 7,13,15,18,19 5 $12,899
Yes
49 Coach Road Area 1,7,8,11,13 5 $12,260
Yes
50 Rolling Hills Riviera HOA 2,12,15,18,4 $12,259
Yes
51 Vista Del Pacifica 13,16,19 3 $11,759
No
52 PV Park Place HOA 4,12,13,15 4 $11,500
No
53 Seabreeze 11,13,15,16 4 $11,500
Yes
54 Portuguese Bend Comm.1,2,9,17 4 $11,412
Yes
55 Peninsula Pointe HOA 13,14,18 3 $10,500
No
56 Stoneridge HOA 2,6,16,17,18 5 $10,448
Yes
57 Upper Rockinghorse 8,9,10,13 4 $10,345
Yes
58 Soleado Elementary School 11,12,13,14,15 5 $10,168
N/A
59 Grandview Country Club HOA 1,8,9 3 $9,606
No
60 Palos Verdes Panorama HOA 3,15,17 3 $9,000
Yes
61 Colt Road HOA 13,18 2 $9,000
Yes
62 Ocean Front Estates 17,18 2 $9,000
Yes
W:IPamlStaff ReportsI2012111-20-12INBG programlBeautification -2012 Grant Awards By HOA Revised order of
most $final 111512 .xls 11/15/2012 2-16
Neighborhood Beautification Grant (Cycles 1-19)Awards
Sorted by Most $Awarded
Attachment B
63 Ridgecrest Intermediate School 18,19 2 $9,000
N/A
64 Peacock Ridge HOA 14,18,19 3 $8,820
No
65 Upper Basswood HOA 7,13,16,17 4 $8,746
Yes
66 Strathmore HOA 5,8,12,17 4 $8,705
Yes
67 Lower Rockinghorse 8,9,10,13 4 $8,500
Yes
68 Island View Terrace HOA 10,11,12,13 4 $8,342 No
69 La Vista Verde HOA 1,9,10,13 4 $8,090
Yes
70 Portuguese Bend HOA 1,15 2 $7,500
Yes
71 Rockinghorse Road 11,16,17 3 $7,400
Yes
72 San Ramon 8,10,13 3 $7,344
Yes
73 La Cresta Pointe HOA 10,12,13 3 $7,290
Yes
74 Silver Spur HOA 11,12,16 3 $7,200
N/A
75 Roan Road Neighborhood 15,16 2 $7,200Group No
76 Grandview Silver Arrow HOA 11,14,17 3 $7,180 No
77 Santona Drive Comm.Org.14,15 2 $7,117
No
78 Vista Grande Elementary 11,14 2 $7,000School N/A
79 Miraleste Homes Assoc.2,10,17 3 $6,550
No
80 White Fox Drive HOA 13,15 2 $6,000
No
81 Miraleste Intermediate School 11,13 2 $5,500
N/A
82 Miraleste Library 10,16 2 $5,500
N/A
83 Yellow Brick Road HOA 2,13 2 $5,250
No
84 Ridgecrest HOA 8,11,15 3 $5,000
Yes
W:\Pam\Staff Reports\2012\11-20-12\NBG program\Beaulification -2012 Grant Awards By HOA Revised order of
most $final 111512 .xls 11/15/2012 2-17
Neighborhood Beautification Grant (Cycles 1-19)Awards
Sorted by Most $Awarded
Attachment B
85 Crestmount Comm.Assoc.8,10 2 $5,000
Yes
86 Blackhorse HOA 7,19 2 $4,846
No
87 Rockinghorse Comm.Assoc.1,3,11 3 $4,775
Yes
88 Headland Drive HOA 2,19 2 $4,500
Yes
89 Elkmont Neighborhood Assoc.16 1 $4,500
No
90 Martin Chiang -28019 15 1 $4,500Highridge No
91 Peninsula Montessori School 17 1 $4,500
N/A
92 Santona,(Hawth &Granvia 15 1 $4,500Altamira)No
93 SI.Peters By The Sea Church 14 1 $4,500
N/A
94 The Canterbury 13 1 $4,500
N/A
95 Palos Verdes Village HOA 1,10,15 3 $4,385
No
96 Dodson Middle School 18 2 $4,385
N/A
97 SI.Paui Lutheran Church 8,11 2 $4,013
N/A
98 Rockinghorse Prop.Owners 1,2 2 $4,000Assoc.Yes
99 Upper Grandview Comm.Org.14 1 $3,836
No
100 Peninsula Rim HOA 1,3,6 3 $3,800
No
101 Martin Chiang -29415 Peacock 15 1 $3,800Ridge No
102 Palo De Encino 11,13 2 $3,595
No
103 Coral Ridge HOA 4 1 $3,000
Yes
104 Crestwood HOA 13 1 $3,000
No
105 Littiebow Area HOA 2 1 $3,000
No
W:IPamlStaff ReportsI2012111-20-12INBG programlBeautification -2012 Grant Awards By HOA Revised order of
most $final 111512 .xls 11115/2012 2-18
Neighborhood Beautification Grant (Cycles 1-19)Awards Attachment B
Sorted by Most $Awarded
106 Marymount College 3 1 $3,000
N/A
107 Peninsula Verde HOA 4 1 $3,000
No
108 PV Monte Vista HOA 19 1 $3,000
No
109 Shadow Wood AdHoc 13 1 $3,000Committee No
110 Nautilus Palm 9 1 $2,500
No
111 Point Vicente PTA 10 1 $2,500
N/A
112 Portuguese Bend Beautification 8 1 $2,500Comm.Yes
113 Ridgegate Park District 1 1 $2,500
N/A
114 Eastview Townhomes 17 1 $2,264
Yes
115 Miraleste Elementary School 16 1 $2,155
N/A
116 Palos Verdes North 8 1 $2,100
No
117 Point Vicente Elementary 11 1 $2,076School N/A
118 Point Vicente Neighborhood 11 1 $2,050 No
119 Miraleste HOA 7 1 $1,500
No
120 Seamount Community 13 1 $1,500
No
121 Grandview Estates HOA 11 1 $1,180
No
122 Menominee Place 7 1 $800
No
123 Cross Streets Shorewood 13 1 $514Road/Hawth.Blvd.No
Total Grant Funding (Cycles 1 to 19)$1,677,291
124 Los Verdes Estates HOA 14 1 Withdrew Applicat No
W:IPamlStaff ReportsI2012111-20-12INBG programlBeautification -2012 Grant Awards By HOA Revised order of
most $final 111512 .xls 11/15/2012 2-19
Attachment C
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Beautification Revenue Fund
Revenues,Expenditures and Fund Balance Detail
Estimated
Actual
I Fiscal
Beginning Grant &NBG NBG Seed Money Ending
Fund RecYl::ling Interest Grant Other for Roadway Fund
Year Balance Revenue Revenue Expenditures Expenditures Medians Beautification Balance
FY99-00 461,416 154,778 56,488 61,055 12,626 77,058 -521,943
FYOO-01 521,943 201,386 110,481 98,194 23,097 62,021 -650,498
FY01-02 650,498 224,061 33,942 113,134 16,725 12,000 100,000 666,642
FY02-03 666,642 267,781 25,577 196,352 19,004 12,000 100,000 632,644
FY03-04 632,644 240,211 21,624 121,039 18,366 --755,074
FY04-05 755,074 254,837 17,064 165,682 8,735 --852,558
FY05-06 852,558 272,516 33,319 127,168 4,612 --1,026,613
FY06-07 1,026,613 309,130 31,794 188,526 4,311 12,000 -1,162,700
FY07-08 1,162,700 289,190 49,720 153,364 21,055 --1,327,191
FY08-09 1,327,191 198,398 22,672 143,875 24,351 12,784 -1,367,251
FY09-10 1,367,251 200,220 7,188 6,833 18,970 690,754 -858,102
FY10-11 858,102 296,000 4,254 -76,376 165,200 -916,780
FY11-12 916,780 308,387 3,347 -20,223 142,810 -1,065,481 I
FY12-13 see budgeted details below (including carryovers from previous fiscal year)335,252
Actual Fund Balance 6/30/12
Budgeted Activity FY12-13
1,065,482
(256,540)
(473,690)
335.252
2
-
2
0