The URL can be used to link to this page

20100119 Late CorrespondenceRANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: Kathryn Downs and Dennis McLean FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carolyn Lehr DATE: January 19, 2010 SUBJECT: CAFR FYE 6/30/09 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Kathryn and Dennis, Here are some questions about the latest CAFR: 1. Although we have had a pleasant surprise with the positive variance in the General Fund Reserve of $1,265,382 our General fund reserve has had the following trend the last three years: FYE Amount Change 6/30/09 10,440,256 (1,731,076) 6/30/08 12,171,332 (2,204,819) 6/30/07 14,376,151 How much of the Transfers Out of $5.1 million is due to storm drain protection work and is this decreasing trend expected for FYE 6/30/10? Staff Reply — No transfers were made from the General fund to the Water Quality and Flood Protection fund during FY08-09. General fund transfers to other funds included $3.0 million to establish the CIP reserve and $1.5 million for the residential pavement program. Transfers to the Water Quality and Flood Protection (storm drain) fund for the recently completed McCarrell Canyon storm project, totaling $7.4 million, were made from the General fund during prior fiscal years. On page 11 it is cited that we adopted a CIP reserve policy of $3.0 million for emergency infrastructure projects — is that part of the $5.6? Staff Reply — Yes. See the explanation above. 2. On pages 20 and 21 the "combined" Statement of Activities, expenses for Administration increased $1.6 million (35%) and Public works increased $1.5 million (17%). How much of this increase is attributable to the increase in infrastructure repairs and will these increases decrease in the next few years. Page 1 of 4 01/19/10 5:39 PM Staff Reply — The increase in both program areas include significant one-time expenditures. The Administration increase of about $1.6 million included about $150K for the new Senior Accountant and Human Resources Manager positions (half-year salaries & benefits in FY08-09), about $350K for litigation, $702K for the lump sum pension side -fund liability pay -down, with the remainder spread across many programs. The Public Works increase of about $1.5 million included acquisition of the 2 affordable housing condos ($761 K), improvements to the Planning building at City Hall ($104K), an increase of open space maintenance (fire fuel modifications of $141 K), assistance with the waste hauler contract ($101 K), and preparation of the sewer master plan ($103K). 3. A related increase in personnel is note on page 136. During the ten year period shown total FTE's increased by 26 or 50%. Are these all due to the organizational Assessment program completed this last year and are these all considered permanent increases? Staff Reply — Many of the FTE additions over the last 10 years were required to serve new or expanded City services, or the conversion of contracted services to in-house services. The General Government increase from 2008 to 2009 (3 FTEs) was a direct result of recommendations made by Management Partners in their Organizational Assessment. The positions added were Human Resources Manager, Senior Accountant, and a Senior Engineer. The General Government increase from 2007 to 2008 (5 FTEs) included the new Senior Information Technician and 2 Building Inspectors (moving to in-house vs. contracting), as well as the Open Space Trails Manager and Public Works Senior Administrative Analyst (referred to as Business Manager) positions that were recommended by Management Partners. The Recreation Part -Time increase from 2008 to 2009 (8.5 FTE) is a result of correcting the presentation of part-time FTE's. Prior to -2009, the Recreation Department managed a pool of about 25 to 30 part-time employees. Many of these part-time employees work less than 20 hours per week. Without a full analysis, it was estimated that these 25 to 30 part-time employees were equivalent to about 10 FTE. In 2009, a full analysis was performed, and it was determined that in actuality the hours worked by the 25 to 30 part-time employees was closer to 18.5 FTE. Actual Recreation part-time staffing levels have not changed in many years. The remaining 9.5 FTE increase from 2000 to 2007 would require more analysis, but include the addition of a Code Enforcement Officer, an Analyst in Recreation, a Senior Engineer that has managed the City's storm drain program, the Building Page 2 of 4 01/19/10 5:39 PM Official (previously contracted out), 2 View Restoration Planners, and other professional staff. 4. The pension expenses cited in Note 7 on page 59 is a 102% increase over the prior year and an 800% increase over the amount in 2003. Does this include the extraordinary adjustment which will now result in a return to lower amounts? The following table is a summary of these costs since 2003: FYE 6/30 Expense Change Percent 2003 167,423 2004 267,684 100,261 60% 2005 411,412 143,728 54% 2006 590,591 179,179 44% 2007 631,220 40,629 7% 2008 747,183 115,963 18% 2009 1,508,304 761,121 102% Staff Reply — the 2009 Expense includes the $702K lump -sum pay down of the side -fund liability. Although the 2010 Expense is budgeted at $984K, actual 2010 Expense will likely be less than budget, consistent with prior years. 5. Does the explanation of the decrease of $2.1 million in grants and contributions along with the charges for services (shown on pages 20 and 21) indicate an expected reduction in the activities to the related expenses? Staff Reply — Grant revenues fluctuate significantly from year to year, depending upon the size and cost of projects for which they fund. By way of example, the $5.5 million grant from the California Wildlife Conservation Board for the recent open space purchase will be recorded in FY09-10 and dwarfs total grant revenues recorded in previous fiscal years. The FY09-10 budget includes about $7.9 million of grant revenue. The decrease in grants and contributions revenues from FY07-08 to FY08-09 was about $1.4 million. Grant revenues in FY07-08 included $360K of Prop 12 money used for the PVIC Exhibits and $673K of federal STPL money used for arterial overlay. 6. Note #1 H on page 45 states "The General Fund will primarily be used to liquidate the liability for compensated absences in future years. This is a new comment over prior years. Does this represent a change in policy and what alternatives are there to this funding? Staff Reply - This sentence was added as a response to a GFOA award comment for improvement (to provide a fuller understanding of how this is paid). There is no change in the City's fiscal, budget or accounting policies. Most Page 3 of 4 01/19/10 5:39 PM salaries are paid from the General fund; therefore, most compensated absences (vacation & sick time) will also be paid from the General fund. Based upon past trends, it is expected that vacation and sick time use will remain stable. 7. CAFR Page 28 —Licenses and permits (shown as "Planning, building, safety and other permits in the staff report on page 9-4) — Are these reported "Program Revenues" (as the contra expense) on the Statement of Activities (pages 20 and 21)? Staff Reply — Yes, as shown in the Charges for Services column on page 20 of the CAFR. 8. Footnote #9 regarding AB 26 4x. Is the entire $330,125 the responsibility of the RDA and therefore has no impact to the City's General Fund? Staff Reply — Staff has attached the Weekly report, dated December 9, 2009, that summarizes the potential fiscal issues regarding AB26 4X. Page 4 of 4 01/19/10 5:39 PM L IR k.... RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER FROM: DENNIS McLEAN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2009 SUBJECT: WEEKLY ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT LAWSUIT FILED FOR ERAF SHIFTS The California Redevelopment Agency (CRA) filed a lawsuit in the Sacramento Superior Court in late October challenging the constitutionality of ABX4-26, the state budget trailer bill authorizing the $2.05 billion raid of local redevelopment funds, including $1.7 billion in FY09-10 and another $350 million in FY10-11. As described in a previous report, this would be a loss of $329,810 in FY09-10 and $67,902 that may require payment from the City's General fund. Staff will continue to monitor any impact of the lawsuit to the City. Staff still recommends that the Council continue to watch the legal developments before making any revisions to the FY09-10 budget. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the State from taking redevelopment funds for non - redevelopment purposes. By filing the lawsuit now, CRA is hoping that the court will rule prior to May 10, 2010, the date the first SERAF payment is due. CRA recommends that no payments be made early, and that agencies should continue to follow the progress of the case. This is the second year CRA has had to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of State budget raids of redevelopment funds. In April 2008, the Sacramento Superior Court ruled in favor of CRA and invalidated 2008 budget language that would have shifted $350 million in redevelopment funds. City staff will continue to monitor the progress of the case and provide updates. BALLOT MEASURE TO PROTECT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC TRANSIT FUNDS On October 20th, a coalition, which includes the League, local government, transportation and public transit leaders filed a ballot measure initiative, the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act, with the California Attorney General's office. This group is working to have the ballot measure placed on the statewide ballot for November 2010. The. need for this measure came following the state's proposed action to take $1 billion in local gas tax revenues, and then actually borrowing $2 billion in local property taxes, seizing billions in redevelopment agency funds and taking $697 million of transit funds. Filing the measure with Attorney General's office is the first step, and the coalition hopes to receive the official Title and summary sometime this month. The coalition will then work to collect approximately 1 million signatures needed to qualifyforthe November2010 ballot. With the state continuing to raid and borrow local funds to fix their budget problems, this FINANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT WEEKLY REPORT December 9, 2009 Page 2 measure is needed to protect taxpayers and the vital local government and transportation services that support our quality of life and economy. WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE - "PARADISE LOST FOR WEALTHY RESORT NOVICE" Council Member Stern asked us to include the attached article from the Wall Street Journal, which mentions the Terranea Resort. This article summarizes the dire circumstances facing many luxury hotels and resorts across the country and serves as a reminder why the City has maintained a policy to not rely on Transit Occupancy Tax revenue from Terranea to pay for operating program services. Kathryn Downs From: Steve Wolowicz [stevew@rpv.com] SEE EXCEL WORKSHEETS Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:05 PM PROVIDED BY MAYOR WOLOWICZ To: 'Dennis McLean'; 'Kathryn Downs' ATTACHED Cc: 'Carolyn Lehr' Subject: Final list of questions on CAFR - 1/19/10 agenda item #9 Attachments: cc meeting 2009 01-19 #9 CAFR.doc; income stmt GF.xls Kat and Dennis, Attached is my final list of questions. I only added two more on the earlier list. Also attached are two excel worksheets that I use for summarizing the P&L info. Please include these with your list of answers in the late correspondence materials. It is unlikely that I'll ask many questions or spend any time on the excel info during the discussion; I'm more apt to just refer to these items during the discussions. Thanks, Steve Steve Wolowicz Mayor Rancho Palos Verdes Phone 310-378-9911 email -- stevew@rpv.com 1/19/2010 EMAIL ATTACHMENT RANCHO PALOS VERDES PROVIDED BY MAYOR WOLOWICZ SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES NOT REVIEWED BY STAFF C:\WINN'RProfileslkatd\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK30AXincome stmt GF.AsSummary P&L 1!19/20104:53 PM REVENUES FYE 6/30/09 CHANGE FYE 6/30108 CHANGE FYE 6/30108 Taxes Property -general Property- RDA 10,341,030 .. 8 1,121,041 123,495 9,937,707 997,546 98,946 1 9 ,336,425 898,600 Storm Drain 1,251,733 29,908 1,221,825 33,386 1,188,439 Transient occupancy 85,245 59,169 26,076 (5,727) 31,803 Sales 1,052,398 (4,038) 1,056,436 66,255 1,122,691 Franchise 1,709,009 110,364 1,598,645 87,008 1,511,637 In lieu sales tax - 258,094 258,094 Motor vehicle in lieu 147,904 48,083) 195,987 (59,575) 255,562 Utility users 2,267,431 (61,850) 2,329,281 57,898 2,271,383 Other 457,154 140,381 597,535 266,435 331,100 Total tax 18,432,953 471,915 17,961,038 755,304 17,205,734 Investment income 735,443 Rl��1>T1 ins,">; 1,837,362 171,192 1,666,170 Unrestricted rants g 551,634 251,578 300,056 2,165,378 Subtotal 1,287,077 850,341) 2,137,418 (1,694,130) 3,831,548 Transfers Total revenues and Transfers 19,720,030 (378,426) 20,098,456 (938,826) 21,037,282 EXPENSES Gross Administration 6,356,695 °„ . ' j 4,724,522 (228,918)1 4,953,440 Public Safety 4,233,255 1 188,829 4,044,426 293,049 3,751,377 Public works 10,555,058 t 9,025,725 _ 9,968,791 Parks and recreation 1,605,276 209,507 1,395,769 43,034~ 1,438,803 Planning, building & enforcement 2,696,502 255,181 2,441,321 189,576 2,630,897 Interest on L/T debt 1268,067 1,641 269,708 1,292 271,000 Water protection flood control 436,993 136,212 300,781 30,200 270,581 Total gross expenses 26,151,846 3,949,594 22,202,252 1,082,637 23,284,889 Pro Iram Revenues Charges for services 3,369,955 4,099,637 2,195,987 Grants & Contributions - operating 2,963,037 y . 3,569,807 4,200,344 Grants & Contributions - ca ital 642,020 ''�. 1,472,195 317,115 Total program revenues 6,975,012 2,166,627 9,141,639 2,428,193 6,713,446 Net total expenses 19,176,834 6,116,221 13,060,613 3,510,830 16,571,443 Change in Net Assets 543,196 6,494,647 7,037,843 2,572,004 4,465,839 Note - Combined revenues 26,695,042 2,545,053 29,240,095 9,489,367 27,750,728 C:\WINN'RProfileslkatd\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK30AXincome stmt GF.AsSummary P&L 1!19/20104:53 PM EMAIL ATTACHMENT RANCHO PALOS VERDES PROVIDED BY MAYOR WOLOWICZ GENERAL FUND REVENUES DETAIL NOT REVIEWED BY STAFF C:\WINNTProfiles\katd\Local Settings7emporary Internet Files\0LK3E7A\income stmt GF.xIsGF revenue detail 1/19/20104:54 PM REVENUE TYPE FYE 6/30/09 CHANGE FYE 6/30/08 CHANGE FYE 6/30/07 CHANGE FYE 6/30/06 Taxes Property tax 5,855,100,,.,, esti,.: 5,632,664 (61,759) 240,572 3,210,504 5,431 716 X737 t 4,803,845 (90,528) 331,100 (34,837) 365,937 Property transfer 178,813 Property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees 3,388,494��990 „ ," 4,, 62,745 3,046,740 85,046 2,961,694 Propert tax in lieu of sales tax 301,454 19,385 320,839 258,094 15,158 242,936 Total property tax 9,723,861 319,282 9,404,579 336,929 9,067,650 693,238 8,374,412 Sales & use tax 1,060,220 16,314) 1,076,534 56,147 1,020,387 (57,462) 1,077,849 Transient occupancy tax 85,245 59,169 26,076 (5,727) 31,803 340 31,463 Franchise Taxes 1,709,009 '�},f 1,598,644 87,250 1,511,394 57,038 1,454,356 Utility users tax 2,267,431 1,851)1 2,329,282 57,655 2,271,627 81,116 2,190,511 Business license tax 531,982 32,968 499,014 11,703 487,311 29,589 457,722 Golf tax 278,343 78,620 356,963 57,723 414,686 �.w 167,034 Total taxes 15,656,091 364,999 15,291,092 486,234 14,804,858 1,051,511 13,753,347 Fines & forfeitures 213,900 (45,739) 259,639 22,936 236,703 66,063 170,640 Planning,building, safe & other permits 1,754,687 9 P �x 1, 913,5431 1,763,126 1,439,758 Use of money & property 590,139 a 99,725 1,140,143= 1 518,406 601,387 2,147 520,553 Interest revenue 266,124 Other use of money & property 603,900 14,231 618,131 870,024 338,246 1,208,270 450,279 1,658,549 536,609 1,121,940 Charges for services 202,838 2,032 200,806 8,316 192,490 48,109 Revenues from other agencies 152,701{ 557,092 52,464 346,886 WN 540,144 Other revenue 65,919 51,577 117,496 65,032 (40,168) 105,200 Sale of Prop. A money 847,000 F 18,916,160 631,778 19,547,938 1 480,2941 19,914,644 1 1,888,506 1 17,179,138 C:\WINNTProfiles\katd\Local Settings7emporary Internet Files\0LK3E7A\income stmt GF.xIsGF revenue detail 1/19/20104:54 PM LI mqk, RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JANUARY 19, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 2 Revision to Minutes for December 1, 2009 and December 15, 2009 7 Emails from Bob Nelson 11 Revised Staff Report and Revised Ordinance 12 2010 City Council Assignments Respectfully submitted, r 7A im -� M-,,/ Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through Monday, January 18, 2010**. CITYOF to[RANCHO PALOS TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CAROL LYNCH, CITY ATTORNEY DATE: JANUARY 19, 2010 SUBJECT: REPEAL OF CHAPTER 2.30 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, REPEALING CHAPTER 2.30 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS BACKGROUND In 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 322, pursuant to the authority of Proposition 208, which was passed by the California voters on November 5, 1996. Proposition 208 established contribution and expenditure limits for candidates for local governmental offices. The City's ordinance, which is codified in Chapter 2.30 of the Municipal Code, established voluntary campaign expenditure limits so as to comply with the provisions of Proposition 208. However, after California's voters passed Proposition 208, it was challenged in federal court in a case entitled California Prolife Council PAC v. Scully, 989 F.Supp. 1282 (E.D.Cal. 1998). On January 6, 1998, the Federal District Court in Scully issued an injunction barring enforcement of Proposition 208 on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, because the campaign expenditure and contribution limits were so low that they precluded an opportunity to conduct a meaningful campaign. In 1999, in response to the Scully decision, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 347, which suspended the enforcement of Chapter 2.30 and Ordinance No. 322, pending the outcome of the Scully case. Meanwhile, on November 2, 2000, California voters passed Proposition 34, which repealed the provisions of Proposition 208 relating to local campaign expenditure limits. Repeal of Chapter 2.30 of the Municipal Code January 19, 2010 Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION The proposed ordinance will repeal the provisions of Chapter 2.30, which are no longer enforceable. This ordinance cleans up an outdated Chapter of the Municipal Code and will eliminate confusion on the part of candidates as to whether they are required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 2.30 in future campaigns. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact arising from the adoption of this ordinance. Attachments Chapter 2.30 Proposed Ordinance 1193974-2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REPEALING CHAPTER 2.30 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS WHEREAS, in 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 322, pursuant to the authority of Proposition 208, which was passed by the California voters on November 5, 1996, and which established campaign contribution and expenditure limits for candidates for local governmental offices; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 1998, in a case entitled California Prolife Council PAC v. Scully, 989 F.Supp. 1282 (E.D.Cal. 1998), the Federal District Court issued an injunction barring enforcement of Proposition 208 on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, because the campaign contribution and expenditure limits were so low that they precluded an opportunity to conduct a meaningful campaign; and WHEREAS, in 1999, in response to the Scully decision, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 347, which suspended the enforcement of Chapter 2.30 and Ordinance No. 322, pending the outcome of the Scully case; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2000, the voters passed Proposition 34, which repealed the provisions of Proposition 208 relating to local campaign expenditure limits; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to delete the campaign expenditure limitation provisions, since they are no longer enforceable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Chapter 2.30, Election Campaign Voluntary Expenditure Ceiling, in its entirety. Section 2: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day following the date of its adoption. 2010. PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. passed first reading on , 2010 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on , 2010, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1199630-2 City Clerk Ordinance No. _ Page 2 of 2 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2010 CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS ORGANIZATION Calif. Joint Powers Ins. Authority (CJPIA) Chambers of Commerce City Selection Committee (LA Co. Brd. of Supervisors) Contract Cities L. A. County West Vector Control District League of Calif. Cities L.A. County Division League of Calif. Cities Annual Conf. Voting Delegates MAX Transit Policy Steering Committee Palos Verdes Transit Authority Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement San. Districts (Dist. No. 5 & So. Bay San. District) Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission SBCCOG Transportation Committee So. Bay Cities Council of Govts. (SBCCOG) West Basin Water Association AD HOC COMMITTEES Annenberg Center and Lower Point Vicente Improv. Audit Committee Open Space Acquisition Potential Establishment of Rec. & Parks Committee Upper Pt. Vicente/Civic Center Master Plan Emergency and Fire Services Tarapaca Roadway Stabilization Project STANDING COMMITTEES Terranea Liaison Trump National Golf Club Liaison LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS Ponte Vista Development Liaison LAX Community Noise Roundtable School District Liaison Community Forum Foundation WACity Council\201 0\201 0 City Council Assignments.doc 01/06/10 DELEGATE/ALTERNATE Long/Campbell Entire Council Wolowicz/Misetich Stern/Campbell Stern (Term ends: 12/31/10) Long/Campbell Wolowicz/Campbell Misetich/Lehr Wolowicz/Misetich Stern/Misetich Misetich/Long Long Campbell/Misetich Campbell/Misetich Misetich/Long DELEGATES Stern/Campbell Long/Misetich Long/Campbell Long/Campbell Wolowicz/Campbell Wolowicz/Misetich Misetich/Stern DELEGATES Stern/Misetich Long/Campbell LIAISON/ALTERNATE Wolowicz/Campbell Ackerson/Gyves Long/Campbell Wolowicz/Misetich LI aRks. RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JANUARY 19, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, January 19, 2010 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 2 Revision to Minutes for December 1, 2009 and December 15, 2009 7 Emails from Bob Nelson Respectfully submitted, ZZ& Carla Morreale Certification of Election Results City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting regarding this item. Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Dyda, to approve the staff recommendation to certify the Election results and ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2009-90, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, RECITING THE FACTS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 3, 2009, DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Dyda, Long, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Clark NOES: None ABSENT: None Swearing in and Seating of Newly Elected Council Members Misetich and Campbell City Clerk Morreale administered the oath to newly elected Council Members Misetich and Campbell. COUNCIL REORGANIZATION Selection of Mayor City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting regarding Rules of Procedure 4.1 and 4.2. City Clerk Morreale called for nominations for the selection of Mayor. Councilman Long nominated _Mayor Pro Tem Wolowicz for Mayor. Councilman Stern Deleted: Mayor seconded the motion. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Campbell, Long, Misetich, Stern, and Mayor Pro Tem Wolowicz NOES: None ABSENT: None Selection of Mayor Pro Tem Mayor Wolowicz called for nominations. Draft City Council Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 3 of 9 Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1) Approve the proposed CDBG projects and budget; 2) Authorize the Interim Director of Public Works to execute agreements for CDBG projects with the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission; and, 3) Authorize the Interim Director of Public Works to adjust the program budget as necessary to take into account the final CDBG allocation and any amounts unexpended at the close of the fiscal year. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Campbell, Long, Misetich, Stern, and Mayor Wolowicz NOES: None ABSENT: None Publ=ic Hearing Items,No. 8 (Code Amendment to Clarify which Existing Maps to Formatted: Font: Arial ____ Use to Establish the Location of the Coastal Setback Line on Individual Formatted: Font: Arial Properties),No. 9 (Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Case No. ------ Formatted: Font: Arial ZON2007-00253, a Revised Interpretation Regarding the Coastal Setback Line on Properties in the City's Coastal Zone), and No. 10_ (Appeal of the Planning ---------------------- Formatted: Font: Arial Commission's Approval of Case No. ZON2007-00046 — Variance and Coastal Permit for Property Located at 24 Sea Cove Drive),were conducted .as ioint public Formatted: Font: Arial hearings. City Clerk Morreale reminded the Council that it had approved the next three Public Hearing Items (Nos. 8, 9, and 10) to be conducted as joint public hearings. She reported that notice of the public hearings were duly published, written protests included in prior staff reports, late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting regarding Item No. 8, and there were 19 requests to speak on the items. Mayor Wolowicz provided brief instructions to the audience regarding the time allotments and manner in which the appellants, applicants, and general public comments would be heard after the staff report was provided. Senior Planner Schonborn provided a brief overview and PowerPoint presentation regarding the City's use of the ESA maps to establish the location of the Coastal Setback Line on Individual Properties; the Revised Interpretation regarding the Coastal Setback Line on Properties in the City's Coastal Zone; and details regarding the Variance and Coastal Permit applications for property located at 24 Sea Cove Drive. Director Rojas concluded that the issue that staff was attempting to clarify through the Code Amendment was to specify that the ESA map was the map to be used to establish the location of the Coastal Setback Line on Properties in the City's Coastal Zone. He noted that property owners should be able to use site specific up-to-date geology to support their individual proposals if they believe the CSL can safely be moved to allow them more development rights. Draft City Council Minutes December 15, 2009 Page 5 of 16 From: nelsongang@aol.com [mailto:nelsongang@aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 10:14 AM To: EduardoS@rpv.com Cc: citymanager@rpv.com; SteveW@rpv.com Subject: From: Bob Nelson re: Housing Element email Eduardo, copy Carolyn, Steve Well, as you probably can expect, Tom Long and my wife don't think much of my previous email! I must correct any misconception: I think you, Eduardo, have done a professional, thorough job of taking over our General Plan Update, at least the Housing Element, and rolling out what many of us debated over 5 years agol Thank youl One problem is over these years our Planning Commission et al. has made substantial reinterpretations of what was either in our Original General Plan or in the output of the Update folks and it is almost impossible to go through these final documents and not note some. I found a few during a simple 15 minute scan read. That's why I commended Greg Rost's efforts to provide the Update folks, 5 years ago, copies of our original General Plan, lined through with their changes. Kinda thought that's what our General Plan Update output consultant would also produce, at least for our Council and interested parties. Since our General Plan is the reference used to establish 'intent' of our town in many arenas, these new rewrites do need careful reading and lined through changes would make the job much easier. After all, the original General Plan has lasted some 40 years and I doubt many of us will be around when the next rewrite happens so this one should be as accurate and up to date as possible. But that is really our Council's call and they are busy folks. Again, Eduardo, you've done a great job. Thank you and hang in therel Bob Nelson 310-544-4632 From: nelsongang@aol.com [mailto:nelsongang@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 6:56 PM To: EduardoS@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Cc: jolaine_merrill@yahoo.com; jolaine@jolainemerrill.com Subject: Tuesday Meeting: Item 7 (Gen. Plan Housing Element) Mayor Wolowicz and Council members, What follows is your call. Ignore or read. But your agenda for this Tuesday calls out: PUBLIC HEARINGS: (15 mins) 7. Adoption of a Final General Plan Housing Element Amendment (Schonborn) Recommendation: 1) Consider the final set of amendments recommended by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in order for the City's updated Housing Element to be certified by HCD; 2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-_, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, THEREBY APPROVING THE FINAL HOUSING ELEMENT; and, 3) Direct Staff to forward the City Council approved Final Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for certification. I apologize for the tardiness of this communication. However, until I read the last sentence above, that it will be certified by our state's Department of Housing and Community Development as our approved RPV Final Housing Element, I wasn't concerned about any errors in it that misrepresent Rancho Palos Verdes' General Plan - Housing Element Amendment and how your Planning Commission's interpretations, modifications and decisions have ignored this element's intent as we, your homeowners, have experienced. As proposed below, I believe you should ask for a brief, thorough, completely independent RPV real estate professional, review with comments. I'm kinda a wordy, pithy guy but I do believe our state should certify the truth (ref: NCCP & my comments). Although my time has permitted only a scan read, and I'll admit I am not a real estate person, our HOA has, with the Nantasket Residential Project, experienced RPV Housing Element policy and guidelines as put into practice by your Planning Commission, city attorney, etc.. I quickly found areas where I think we could do better in explaining what actuality is. However, it is your call. We do intend to see what you approve, and if erroneous per our experience, cite errors and proving substantiation directly to our Dept of Housing etc. and others, asking they return it for corrections. Background: I concentrated on the Nantasket Residential Project vs. what's here, the one future housing element I know well, which began in 2005, ended in 2007, and now has arisen in 2009, largely unchanged except now 4 houses, not 5. Soon to be on your platter and thence to Coastal Commission. Staffs report is 207 pages long! At some 20 cents a page most citizens who would comment cannot afford the +$40.00 a copy would cost and to watch 207 pages dance on your computer is, with no ability to notate those in error, frustrating at best. I remember back in 2005 1 used to ask Greg Pfost to give those of us tracking the General Plan Update group a copy of what was, with lined through changes, so we could easily see the verbiage differences. Not so here so it will take some time to figure out what we are approving vs. what was the old General Plan. So our letter to the State will not be out next week! I believe we need two or three RPV real estate professionals (like the PV Real Estate Board or some such - not associated with the City, Planning Commission or Plan Update Group) to read this and comment. For one thing, the statistics are out of date (and may impact the city). The General Plan Update Committee ended 5 years ago and our Planning Commission, as you'll read below, has made many substantive changes to what was originally intended to be gospel - our General Plan. Let me give you examples: How we do business re housing. Pages are referenced. 7-45:... "During the planning period the City will continue to implement the adopted residential land use policies as contained in the Land Use Element and adopted Specific Plans. This program involves the continued processing of current projects such as ... Nantasket Residential Project ..." "In addition, the General Plan Update will not revise the land use designations of the above mentioned sites and proiects.' This is a patently false statement. For example, Nantasket Residential Project is where your Planning Commission on Nov. 10, 2009, clearly had zero problem with changing the land use designation from Commercial Residential (CR) to single-family residential (RS -3) - and in our Coastal Zone! In truth this substantiates RPV can and will change 'land use designations,' again, even in the Coastal zone! 7-126: "New single family residences ... no taller than 16 feet I height go through a Neighborhood Compatibility (NC) process ... focuses on proposed size, architectural style, and setback and the proposal is reviewed against what is currently in the immediate neighborhood to ensure the new structure will be compatible with the neighborhood...." ,2 0� �/ This is a patently false statement. I'll find specific Planning Commission Minutes for inclusion in our final letter to the State but our city attorney has negated any Neighborhood Compatibility considerations. In the case of the above Nantasket Residential Project, as long ago as 2007, our city attorney advised our Planning Commission they could ignore the immediate neighborhood look and declare these 5 Nantasket homes a neighborhood unto themselves for the purposes of meeting this Neighborhood Compatibility standard!!! So much for your "what is in the immediate neighborhood etc. standard". 7-126: "New residences taller than 16 feet in height MUST ALSO go through a height variation process ... in addition the review includes an assessment on view impairment to other residences resulting from the proposed structure ... The decision making body in these instances is the Planning Commission." This is a patently false statement. Basically RPV's Nantasket Residential Project destroys ocean views from three exiting homes and numerous apartments. Your Planning Commission's ignorance of any view impairment standards in RPV is clear. Twice now, back in 2007 and again on Nov. 10, 2009, our City Council's appointed Planning Commission has indicated they did not believe view impact needed consideration of any kind. For inclusion in our letter we'll find the exact verbiage in their Minutes and include pictures of the current / past silhouettes. Again, this is in our Coastal Zone and your PC's ignoring this General Plan statement will destroy views including the ocean and Catalina Island. So these General Plan statements on Neighborhood Compatibility and view impairment can be proven false. 7-184: "City of Rancho Palos Verdes - Inventory of Residential Sites" "Nantasket Residential Project: Size 6.5 acres; Density Low; Zoning RS -3 ... This is in the Coastal Zone. The Size, Density and Zoning for Nantasket Residential Project are in error. 1. Size: On Nov. 10, 2009, in the second attempt to approve this project, staff called out parcel size as 1.42 aces, not 6.5 (though that could mean house size (6,500 sq. ft) next to a neighborhood (Sea Bluff) of 3,000 sq. ft. maximum homes. Arise the Neighborhood Compatibility question! In case anyone questions our statement, we will also refer to page 7-195 which clearly shows Nantasket Residential Project as a small (once called 'orphan') strip of land. 2. Density: Low. This is not correct. I believe 'hi_gh' is the correct term. These are, as one Councilman stated in 2007, 'Big boxes on small lots.' Then it was 5, now it is 4 with virtually no change to lot 1's view blocking home in size, position on lot, etc.. Still big boxes on small lots. Front yards 3 0� /-/ are only 10' deep (stand on the sidewalk and look at the homes - 26 feet really is tall and Planning Commission believes fully compatible with the neighborhood, including a golf course; backyards are ditto. Lot depth requirements were not met and therefore require four variances (four lots). Home #1 is 10' from north lot boundary! These are 4 homes over 6,000 sq, ft. on this parcel. That is not low density. Remember, previously the attempt was to place 5 equally large homes but that was deemed too dense and application remanded..So now we'll tell the State this project's density is 'low'? !! 3. Zoning: Currently CR. Believe we should be truthful and show that, not RS -3 but it's your (Council's) call. And, if you get this far, our HOA thanks you. One of the reasons for doing this email is I may not be able to make Tuesday's meeting but want this as part of the official record of submitted comments so we can refer to it in future events. And we do thank each of you for serving our 40,000 citizens and wish you a calm Council for 2010! Bob Nelson 6612 Channelview Court RPV 310-544-4632