Loading...
20100302 Late CorrespondenceW t pi0ce Th� e asooit: "" 5. tit say", 0), } e puzzle E , .. Upper r :rs; site t Flip - location EMPH LA: Deal for Rancho Palos Verdes and a ` `"' local land conservancy have Three Portugese nearly 200 acres of completed the complex, Sisters Bend open space links rest repeatedly delayed $6.5 mil- lion purchase of almost 200 Donated Of nature -preserve. lion of open space known as Marcel pn the Upper Filiorum. e, `=t° Forrestal ��! lUlell$$a laamC9� i f.�l'C i&a r,=�as;�•r Aba)`bne The agreement, finalized . cove. � ;,•.,. y Staff Writer last week, slots into place'a It took more than two missing piece of land that Missing Bink decades of coaxiiwcoddling, bridges previously acquired In a deal more than 20 years in the making, Rancho Palos wheedling, needling, lawyer- city nature reserves, linking a Verdes and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy have the deal done. 9�0 aand paper pushing to get broad0a expansecres that stretch more thanretch across completed the acquisition of 191 acres of land considered a the crucial "missing link:' Now, prompted by an uncal- the southern face of the Palos tering dream, the puzzle is Verdes Peninsula. (Vote: Green shaded areas represent preserves finally complete. LAND Al2 Paul Penzella Staff Artist u OW > W1 -0 F X �c I— w o0X':► t XZ- (9 O a w w U.<w t' ui LUL_ wQ-4O MK� 412 Portz, e V'orWg—u,,,s�e�,O' *ppint 21 I �rli� p i ion, r Sp ton p . t� 2000 t Pnrifir FIGURE 2 - Rancho Palos Verdes and Rollin! Hills Landslide Areas - 5 - "„ E NLHQ tA. 54 C. RY'' . . . . . . . . . . . . . DR OCEAN, -c-Pokni 16m %J �b CISSA o JCD Ni!� I.. 0 L.---- Ice A6 NAR §�� CF WAYFARERS N-4 4� R—��E- CHA PEL M, ',� Rn WE I'% N4 ABA L Offf CGI vc PORTUGUESE POINT PORTUGUESE 8 -END INSPIRATION POINT LI aqkx RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 2, 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 8 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz; Revised Staff Resolution; Stasys Petravicius; Michael and Alyson D'Auteuil; Elizabeth and Jeffrey Sax; Lenee Bilski 10 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz ; Resolution to Staff Report 11 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through Monday, March 1, 2010**. RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: Nicole Jules FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carolyn Lehr and Ray Holland DATE: March 1, 2010 SUBJECT: cc meeting 3-2-10 item #8 Parking regs. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Nicole, Please help me with these questions — Thanks, Steve Just like to confirm previous actions by the Council: • November 6, 2008 - For oversized vehicles — adopted staff recommendation "option 1" which established need for annual parking permits subject to certain requirements (amounts of fees were not set). - City-wide overnight parking — stop work on universal ban on overnight parking, maintain status quo on existing neighborhood parking option and develop a plan to inform the public (types and amount of fees not set). • June 18, 2009 (carried over from June 16) - For oversized vehicles — adopted ordinance requiring permits and setting a program of times and use. Costs and fees were discussed but not set. - Neighborhood permit parking educational outreach — the existing ordinance was modified slightly and the outreach program was adopted as recommended by the TSC. Costs and fees were discussed but not set. 1. In the current staff report it is stated that "At the time of program approval, staff introduced recommended fees associated with administering the programs and informed the City Council that formal fee adoption will be brouaht back for approval when revisions to the Citv's cost based fees roaram are proposed." The amounts of fees do appear on the City's website. The fees that appear on the website are on the public flyer as proposed fees. Page 1 of 3 W:\Pam\Staff Reports\2010\3-2-10\cc meeting 2010 03-02 #S parking programs_nicole's responses.doc A 0 10 5:04 P Other than the ranges of suggested fees I cannot find a staff report arising from the cost -based study that shows the actual fees to be charged to program users (residents) for either program. When was there such a presentation to the Council? DepartmentThe Finance #cost - based process). 2. Thus, are the fees on the website premature in presentation? No. It was important to distribute notification of the program community wide and the fees identified were the proposed fees. 3. The oversized vehicle program arose to protect the residents in a neighborhood from abusive parking by the owners of such vehicles. Thus, the fees to be charged for oversized vehicles are to be paid by the owners of those vehicles who wish to obtain the limited parking permits. The neighborhood permit parking program also arose to protect the respective residents from abusive parking practices of others (in two cases from outside their respective neighborhoods). However, the proposed fees are to be charged to the very residents seeking relief from such parking intrusions. How does staff reconcile this apparent inequity as to who is responsible for paying the proposed fees, or does staff not agree that such an inequity exists? V 4144'4 0 --aft; gr jatL Peninsula •.' :F• Area 0 Spillover parking from Peninsula High School Seacove } Upper Barkentine Area Page 2 of 3 W:\Pam\Staff Reports\2010\3-2-10\cc meeting 2010 03.02 #8 parking programs_nicole's responses.doc 03/02/10 5:04 P Council may wish toconsider^i •the fees t,• streets in neighborhoods `a" .. "-'•as a resultofparkingassociated with a school. 4. Would staff prefer to offer another manner to approach or even remove such fees from the respective neighborhood residents? Yes. Staff is considering the following: 1) Maintaining our recommendation of $50/year start-up fees for ne communities desiring to sign up for neighborhood permit parking. I Forthe neighborhoods schoolareas,offering percentage reduction on renewal fees. Page 3 of 3 W:\Pam\Staff Reports\2010\3-2-10\cc meeting 2010 03-02 #8 parking programs_nicole's responses.doc 03/02/10 5:04 P RESOLUTION NO. 2010- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING FEES FOR THE OVERSIZED VEHICLE PROGRAM AND NEIGHBORHOOD PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") has conducted an analysis of the new Oversized Vehicle Program and Neighborhood Permit Parking Program, including its services, the costs reasonably borne by the City in providing those services, and the beneficiaries of those services; and WHEREAS, the City utilizes a mechanism for ensuring that fees adopted by the City for services rendered do not exceed the reasonable estimated cost for providing the services for which the fees are charged; and WHEREAS, the administrative costs per street associated with the Neighborhood Permit Parking Program are $526 and sign maintenance costs are $200 annually, the total cost of the program in the first year is $726 per street and in subsequent years is $200, for a total three-year cost of $1,126; and WHEREAS, for an average forty -household street, the cost per household for the three-year program is $28.15 to process each application, which is why the City seeks to charge $28 per application for a three-year permit; and WHEREAS, if the application includes permits for more than one vehicle the applicant shall pay an additional $1.50 for each decal; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66000, et, seq. authorizes the City to adopt fees for municipal services, provided such fees do not exceed the cost to the City of providing the service; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2010, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the fees proposed to be adopted, and all requirements of California Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018 are hereby found to have been satisfied; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this Resolution approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of meeting the operating expenses of City 1 R6876-0001\1208430v1.doc d departments and is, therefore, exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21080 et seq.) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8)(A). NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that none of the fees imposed by the Oversized Vehicle Program and the Neighborhood Permit Parking Program, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, exceed the cost to the City of providing these services. The basis for the fees contained in Exhibit A is set forth in the staff report dated March 2, 2010, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and is filed with the City Clerk. Section 3. The City Council is taking action only on those fees that are being approved, as set forth in Exhibit A. All other fees and charges set forth in the City's Master Fee Schedule are not being modified by this Resolution and shall continue and remain in effect unless and until modified by further resolution or ordinance of this Council. Section 4. The City Council shall direct staff, either internally or through a third party, to perform a periodic thorough analysis of fees imposed by the Oversized Vehicle Program and/or the Neighborhood Permit Parking Program. Based on the results of said periodic review(s), the City Council shall revise such fees as warranted. Until a periodic analysis is completed, and after the fee adjustments detailed in Exhibit A are implemented, the City Council may review the fees as often as annually and, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, may increase them by the percentage increase in City salaries and benefits, as reflected in the City's audited financial statements, that have occurred since the date of the last adjustment of the fees. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of STEFAN WOLOWICZ, Mayor ATTEST: 2 R6876-0001\1208430v1.doc 2010. CARLA MORREALE, 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, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2010- , was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on , 2010. City Clerk 3 R6876-0001\1208430v1.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XXX OVERSIZED VEHICLE AND NEIGHBORHOOD PERMIT PARKING FEE SCHEDULE Fee Description Proposed Fee Effective 3/2/2010 Neighborhood Parking Initial Permit $50 Neighborhood Parking Renewal Permit (3 -year permit) $28 Neighborhood Guest Parking Permit (3 -year permit $10 Neighborhood Decal replacement or initial cost if more than one vehicle $1.50 Oversized Vehicle Initial Permit $100 Oversize Vehicle Renewal Permit $60 Oversize Vehicle Guest permit $100 Oversize Vehicle Decal replacement $1.50 R6876-0001 \1208430v1.doc From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:20 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka'; 'Nicole Jules' Subject: FW: Permits for parking in West Portuguese Bend Community Assoc. -----Original Message ----- From: stasysl@cox.net [mailto:stasysl@cox.net] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:04 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Permits for parking in West Portuguese Bend Community Assoc. Dear Council Members; I did a parking permit petition walk up and down my street - Seacove Drive, and enlisted 19/25 homeowners to sign for the parking rules being decided ( our requested no parking 9am-5pm all year long) without a permit (except for tradesmen). One complaint that kept coming up was the proposed $25 annual fee per car. Everyone who mentioned it said it was excessive! They asked- what do we pay taxes for? Why is it free in PVE, etc. Please consider keeping it modest- since there are large families in our association, and costs are a real concern. Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request. Stasys Petravicius, 39 2/3 year RPV resident. 1 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:15 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Public Hearing - March 2, 2010 - Item # 8 -----Original Message ----- From: med13891441@aol.com [mailto:med13891441@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:04 AM To: nicole@rpv.com; CC@rpv.com; clehr@RPV.com Subject: Public Hearing - March 2, 2010 - Item # 8 Dear RPV City Manager, Please be advised that Michael and Alyson D'Auteuil, owner/residents of 28 Packet Road RPV, are strongly opposed to the proposed parking permitting cited in item 8. Unfortunately we are temporarily out of the country and will be unable to attend the March 2nd public hearing. Please advise the board of our position. Regards, Michael & Alyson D'Auteuil 28 Packet Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 9. From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:59 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka'; 'Nicole Jules' Subject: FW: Parking Permits in Seaview From: Saxhouse [mailto:saxhouse@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:48 PM To: CC@rpv.com Subject: Parking Permits in Seaview Dear City Council, Each neighbor that I have talked to, and there have been many, that will be effected by the parking permit plan, are extremely unhappy about the plan. Many people have exerted much time and effort trying to stop this plan which few residents feel is needed or wanted. We are left to believe that the city is in such need of funds that it will resort to anything to bring in revenue, even if one must disguise it to look like it is wanted and needed. So far, I haven't met one person that wants it. For those that want this, has the city considered painting resident curbs red in the zones that need this plan and providing those residents with a paper permit to be hung on the mirror, which will make them exempt from receiving a ticket? That is the most cost effective, simple and efficient way to handle this. For all others the curb is red which universally mean no parking and tickets will be issued. Please do not let this program go forward. Elizabeth and Jeffrey Sax 4022 Admirable Drive Seaview 3/2/2010 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:40 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: CC Agenda item 8 Permit Parking Fees March 2, 2010 From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:lenee910@intergate.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:32 PM To: stevew@rpv.com; tom. long@ rpv.com; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com; Anthony. M isetich@rpv.com; Douglas.Stern@rpv.com Tom Long; Douglas Stern Cc: nicolej@rpv.com; citymanager@rpv.com Subject: CC Agenda item 8 Permit Parking Fees March 2, 2010 March 2, 2010 Re: Permit Parking Fees Public Hearing Dear Mayor Wolowicz and Council members, I object to the extremely high fees proposed for the Oversized Vehicles Parking Permits and the Neighborhood Parking Permits. I sent an email to the Council on 2/23/2010 before the Staff Report was issued (subject: Permit Parking Public Hearing March 2,2010) addressed to CC@rpv.com, but there is no correspondence at all with the staff report for this agenda item, so I am not sure if you received it or not. I will re -send it if I learn that you did not receive it. This letter addresses the latest staff report. The parking announcement sent out to all RPV postal customers states that beginning 1/1/2010 neighborhoods may apply to restrict parking. That's odd because there has been an ordinance providing for neighborhood permit parking in RPV since 1981, and neighborhoods applied even before that time. (1977) The "Current City Cost per Street" shows Administration cost of $53 in the June 2009 staff reports. This staff report the shows an Administrative cost of $526 per street on Table 3 ( pg. 5 of 10). This is puzzling ... ten times greater? There already is a permit Form furnished by the city to the current neighborhood Representatives for record-keeping, so that's not new or additional work for staff, just a continuation of the current program. The proposed new form which requires additional information is basically the same as the form for the city of Torrance - which charges $0 for neighborhood permits for restricted parking. The Overrsized Vehicle permit registration fee in Torrance is $25. This report does not list which 3/2/2010 cities were contacted about this, only that the average is $45. Which cities were included in that average? The $100 fee is too high by comparison. Costs in this 3/2 staff report indicate staff time rates range from $52 to 127 per hour. Why is there an estimated additional cost for field review ($3,000) for an Engineer in additional to the estimated staff time costs of $26,540 ? Seems like an enormous amount of expenditure for an OV program. The Minutes of the Traffic Safety Commission indicates that the goal would be to minimize City staff time in terms of administering a permit program. I agree and I believe that is the goal of the City Council as well. Please keep that in mind as you review the fee structure. Please consider lightening the load for staff and then consider much lower fees for both programs, and set renewal fees at $0 for the neighborhood program to minimize staff work. The original neighborhood permits cost $1.00. The homeowners association paid for the signs. Maybe neighborhood payment of initial cost of the signs can be considered in your discussion. Together with local representatives handling the applications and decals, the City incures less cost in staff time. What is included in "maintenance" costs? By the way, each of the current restricted parking neighborhoods have Resolutions passed by the City Council. The one for SeaView is very specific as to location, time, and neighborhood implementation of the program. I see nothing in the Ordinance passed June 2009 that nullifies these Resolutions and nothing different except the 60% petition requirement (to enter or leave the program) which is not objectionable, and of course the permit fees. Those petitions have to be heard by the City Council. If "opening up our streets" is the City's goal here, high fees will not encourage other streets to sign up for Neighborhood permit parking, and streets that are in the program now, like SeaView, will be opting out. Thank you for all you do for RPV! ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 3/2/2010 .2- 0/ -21 RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: Kathryn downs and Dennis McLean FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carolyn Lehr DATE: March 2, 2010 SUBJECT: cc meeting 3-2-10 item #10 mid -year financials QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Kathryn and Dennis, Please help with the following questions — thanks, Steve. 1. Property tax — upward assessment to Terranea. Did the county state there will be no retroactive upward assessment that will apply to 2009-10? Staff Reply: Once the re -assessment is completed, it will be retroactive to 2009-10. We expect to receive the increase that would have applied to 2009-10 as a one-time retroactive payment in FY10-11. 2. Page 10-3, summary schedule of GF Revenues. (This is a minor item but just want to make sure that I didn't misunderstand some issue)The total of the column FY09-10 revenue Estimated of $21,311,350 doesn't agree with the $21,229,547 on page 10-2 by $81,807. Are these complete or did I miss something? Staff Reply: Staff does not recommend adjustments for immaterial anticipated variances. Therefore, the "budgeted" revenue will not perfectly match the "estimated" revenue. 3. What is the reason not to make a budget adjustment for the $1.8 million of TOT revenues — or to do so for at least the first six months of actual? Staff Reply: Please see the "Summary of Proposed General Fund Adjustments" on page 10- 8. Staff is recommending an adjustment to General Fund revenue budget by $1.8 million for Terranea TOT revenue. Page 1 of 3 /0, C:\WINNTTrofiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\cc meeting 2010 03-02 #10 midyear financials_Final.doc 03/02/10 5:OE 4. Page 10-6 other revenue. Where are the ARRA funds reported for the work on Hawthorne Blvd., or were they reported in the last half of the prior year? (They are not mentioned on page 10-10 with the other ARRA funds) Staff Reply: Please see the first bullet point on page 10-10. The $1.26 million of ARRA money will be accounted for in the CI fund during FY09-10 (as revenue to help pay for the PVDW/PVDS arterial project). 5. Salaries, page 10-7. The salary savings from vacancies of $320,000 are not to be carried into the following year? Staff Reply: No. These salary savings are based on temporary vacancies. It's premature to ascertain what impact, if any, the timing of filling vacancies would have on the FY10-11 budget. It is not the practice of the City to carry over salary savings from one fiscal year to a subsequent year as a continuing appropriation. 6. Traffic management expenditure saving of $113,400. If that work is to just be postponed, is it expected to be done whether or not the grant is received (therefore just part of the CIP)? Staff Reply: The grant was denied; therefore, the project to replace all stop signs in the City is currently unfunded. 7. Other Funds of City. Because these are not summarized in a manner similar to the general funds it is difficult to really see the impact to the before and after impact on the remaining balances. Is it possible to easily show the net total changes (this is even though we can see the revised net totals on page 10-13)? Staff Reply: The "FY09-10 Combined Summary of Funds — Midyear" appears on page 10-13. As mentioned at the bottom of page 10-8, all recommended adjustments are included in this schedule that shows the revised FY09-10 activity and estimated fund balances at June 30, 2010. 8. Other funds changes. None of these changes result in demands against the general fund? Staff Reply: Page 2 of 3 C:\WINNTTrofilesVeritlocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\cc meeting 2010 03-02 #10 midyear financials_Final.doc 03/02/10 5:0E No. As described with each request in the report, the fund balance of each respective fund can absorb the adjustment. Page 3of3 C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\cc meeting 2010 03-02 #10 midyear financials_Final.doc 03/02/10 5:OE RESOLUTION NO. 2010- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2009-40, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY09-10, TO ADJUST THE BUDGET IN VARIOUS FUNDS OF THE CITY WHEREAS, on June 30, 2009, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2009-40, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for FY09-10: and WHEREAS, certain FY09-10 revenues, expenditures and operating transfers, as described below, are expected to deviate from the amount budgeted; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the FY09-10 budget be adjusted. BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: The following adjustments are made to the FY09-10 budget: General Fund Revenue Adiustments: Taxes #101-6000-311-10-00 Taxes #101-6000-312-30-00 Taxes #101-6000-318-10-00 Taxes #101-6000-313-10-00 Taxes #101-6000-313-20-00 Taxes #101-6000-314-10-00 Taxes #101-6000-317-40-10 Taxes #101-6000-317-40-15 Taxes #101-6000-315-20-10 Taxes #101-6000-315-60-40 Permits #101-1002-325-10-00 Permits #101-3001-324-10-00 Fines & Forfeitures #101-1021-351-10-00 Use of Money #101-6000-361-10-00 Use of Property #101-5030-364-10-60 Use of Property #101 -5030 -364 -XX -20 Use of Property #101 -5030 -364 -XX -40 Use of Property #101 -5030 -364 -XX -50 Use of Property #101-5060-364-10-30 Use of Property #101-5060-369-20-10 Intergovernmental #101-6000-335-10-00 Intergovernmental #101-3006-334-10-00 Other Revenue #101-6000-369-10-00 General Fund Expenditure Adjustments: Info Technology #101-2030-411-11-00 Public Works Admin #101-3001-431-11-00 L oI Property Tax $(164,000) Prop Tax in lieu of VLF $ 40,000 Property Transfer Tax $ 48,000 Sales Tax $ 122,000 Sales Tax — RHE shared $ (13,000) Terranea TOT $1,800,000 Waste Mgt Franchise Tax $ 28,000 Waste Mgt Storm Water $ 16,000 Edison UUT $ 25,000 Verizon UUT $ 22,000 Film Permits $ 40,000 Right of Way Permits $ (55,000) Miscellaneous Court Fines $ (28,000) Interest Earnings $ (70,000) Founders Park Rental Inc $ 10,000 Hesse Park Rental Income$ (25,000) Ladera Linda Rental Inc $ (7,000) Ryan Park Rental Income $ (9,000) PVIC Rental Income $ (36,000) PVIC Gift Shop $ 25,000 Vehicle License Fees $ (23,000) HSIP Grant for Stop Signs $ (94,499) Miscellaneous $ (57,000) Full-time Salaries $ (70,000) Full-time Salaries $(250,000) 3 /0. Rec Facilities #101-5030-451-12-00 Part-time Salaries $ 28,000 City Clerk #101-1004-411-11-00 Temporary Deputy Clerk $ 15,000 Personnel #101-1011-411-32-00 Professional Services $ 5,000 City Manager #101-1002-411-71-00 Land Purchase $ 41,000 Park Maintenance #101-3009-431-41-10 Water Utility Service $ (10,000) Traffic Mgt #101-3006-431-73-00 Improvements $(113,400) Traffic Mgt #101-3006-431-73-00 Improvements $ 10,000 Planning #101-4001-441-32-00 Professional Services $ 10,000 View Restoration #101-4004-441-43-00 Maintenance Services $ 5,000 General Fund Transfer Adjustments: Transfers Out #101-6000-491-91-00 To Street Maint $ 22,000 Transfers Out #101-6000-491-91-00 To RPV TV Channel $ 15,000 Transfers Out #101-6000-491-91-00 To Habitat Restoration $ 54,000 Street Maintenance Fund Adiustments: Intergovernmental #202-3003-334-10-00 Intergovernmental #202 -3003 -335 -30 -XX Transfers In #202-3003-391-10-00 Transfers In #202-3005-391-10-00 Port Bend Rd Maint #202-3005-431-43-00 Beautification Fund Adjustment: Transfers Out #212-3012-491-91-00 Waste Reduction Fund Adjustment: Recycling Fees #213-3013-367-30-00 Proposition 42 Highway Users Tax From General Fund From Prop C Maintenance Services To CIP Fund Dept of Conservation Air Quality Management District Fund Adjustment: Intergovernmental #214-3014-337-10-00 MSRC Grant AQMD #214-3014-431-43-00 Maintenance Services Proposition C Fund Adjustment: Intergovernmental #215-3015-338-10-10 Transfers Out #215-3015-491-91-00 Proposition A Fund Adjustment: Intergovernmental #216-3016-338-20-00 Transfers Out #216-3016-491-91-00 Habitat Restoration Fund Adjustment: Transfers In #222-3022-391-10-00 Proposition C Revenue To Street Maint/Improv Proposition A Revenue To Street Maint/Improv From General Fund Subregion One Maintenance Fund Adjustment: Subregion One #223-3023-431-43-00 Maintenance Services RPV TV Channel Fund Adjustment: Transfers In #226-1007-391-10-00 From General Fund 00f 5 $ (14,500) $ (80,000) $ 22,000 $200,000 $200,000 $292,000 $ (10,000) $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $(113,000) $ 704,051 $(152,000) $ 67,000 $ 54,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 Ginsburg Cultural Arts Building Fund Adjustment: Misc Expenditure #227-3027-431-69-00 Open Space Contribution $300,000 Community Development Block Grant Fund Adjustment: Intergovernmental #310-3093-331-10-00 Federal Grant $ 35,000 ADA Projects #310-3093-461-73-00 Improvements $ 35,000 Capital Improvement Proiects (CIP) Fund Adiustments: Street Improve #330-3031-331-10-00 Federal Grants $1,262,000 Street Improve #330-3031-334-10-00 State Grants $ 464,400 Transfer In #330-3031-391-10-00 From Various $ 863,051 Street Improve #330-3031-461-73-00 Arterial/Residential Pvmt $(200,000) Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fund Adjustment: Developer Fees #337-4037-366-10-00 Terranea Afford Hsg Fee $931,910 Environmental Excise Tax (EET) Fund Adjustment: EET #338-3038-461-73-00 Improvements $164,000 EmDlovee Benefits Fund Adiustment: Pension Exp #685-1015-499-23-00 Side -Fund Liability Pmt $ 180,000 Building Replacement Fund Adjustment: Intergovernmental #686-3086-331-10-00 Federal Grant $ 162,900 Energy Savings #686-3086-461-73-00 Improvements $ 162,900 Ladera Linda #686-3086-461-73-00 Improvements $ 90,000 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 2nd DAY OF MARCH 2010. 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, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2010- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on March 2, 2010. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 5"'J 3 RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: Carolyn Petru FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carolyn Lehr DATE: March 2, 2010 SUBJECT: 3-2-10 meeting item #11 CIP mid -year QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Carolyn, Please help with a few questions. Thanks, Steve 1. Storm drains system. Can you reconcile the FY 09-10 expenditures on page 11-7 total of $921,322 with the summary of funds on page 10-13 total $2,926,007? (Timing differences or amounts already expended?) The expenditures shown on page 11-7 are only for those three projects which meet the $100K threshold required for inclusion in the CIP. The amount shown in the summary of funds on page 10-13 is the total WQFP budget, which includes maintenance costs and other small projects which are less than $100K. 2. Overall the Storm drain expenditures are roughly $4.0 million. Will that be covered by the existing balance and annual user fee? Yes, based upon the "funded" projects, no other General fund transfers are expected. Of course, the user fee is not sufficient to pay for the unfunded PVDS/PVDE Roadway Stabilization Project (San Ramon). 3. On page 11-7 the total roadway amount required in 09-10 is $5.6 million. Are those projections all funded? Yes, please refer to the funding source column in the schedule. 4. Has staff considered allocations of the TOT into CIP projects only with set aside funds designated to specific tasks? If so which tasks and if not can this be done before any other commitments are made? The City Council has not programmed any TOT for projects at this time; however, as stated in the report, Staff is proposing to fund the construction of Lower Hesse and Grandview Parks and the Fred J. Hesse Park Field Upgrade Phases I and II with a combination of grant funds and TOT revenue. At a later date Staff expects to present alternatives to the City Page 1 of 3 03/02/10 5:18 PM / Council for using the TOT revenue, grants and other restricted revenues to future capital projects. 5. On page 11-8, Attachment C — unfunded projects. The grand totals have changed from the overall project inventory that was presented in January 2009. What were the major changes? The major changes are as follows: A. Items Removed from the Inventory 1. General Plan and Conceptual Trails Plan Update (Original Range $140K to $160K) - The General Plan and Conceptual Trails Plan Update is going to be funded by the continued appropriation from FY08-09 to FY09-10. The revised budget does not meet the $100K threshold for inclusion in the CIP; therefore, this item has been included in the Community Development operating budget.. 2. Upper Fred J Hesse Park Field Upgrade: Phase II (Original Range $300K to $350K) — This item has been moved to FY10-11 of the 5 -Year Plan. Staff is proposing to complete Phase I and Phase II of this project at the same time to achieve cost savings in construction and in use of consultant time. 3. Ryan Park Field Improvements (Original Range $175K to $192K) — This has been moved into the schedule for FY09-10 to replace the proposed Hesse Park Field Phase I project. Staff is proposing reallocating the money from the Hesse Park Field Upgrade Phase I to Ryan Park. 4. Grandview Park Improvements (Original Range $4.2 million to 4.7 million) — This project has been paired with the Lower Hesse Park Improvements and included on the 5 -Year Schedule for FY10- 11 at an estimated cost of $2 million as presented to the City Council on November 17, 2009. Staff is currently interviewing consultants for the conceptual design phase. Once this phase has been completed, this cost estimate will be revised to reflect the approved park designs. B. Items Added to the Inventory 1. Operational Improvements at Crenshaw and Crest- $100K to $250 K 2. Hesse Park/Hawthorne Blvd. Traffic Circulation & Safety Study - $100K to $200K Page 2 of 3 03/02/10 5:18 PM 3. Traffic Safety Improvements on the Switchbacks - $1.75 million to $2 million 4. Improvements at the Intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Bronco Drive - $100K to $125K 6. Has a five and ten year construction plan or categorization plan been adopted? If not is it possible to prepare one? A 5 and 10 year construction plan has not been prepared. Staff uses the 5 -Year CIP schedule as a planning and budgeting tool, consistent with best management practices for municipalities. A comprehensive construction plan could be very complex to assemble given the constantly changing construction schedules. Also, it is often difficult to sometimes predict the timing of the funding sources. We utilize many outside sources, such as grants, state and federal money for projects and it is not always known when these revenues will be available. Preparing a schedule of this nature would also require additional staff time to prepare without much added benefit. It seems that a schedule of this type would be more for internal use, as the project managers typically manage the schedules for the individual projects and adjust them throughout the project as necessary. Page 3 of 3 03/02/10 5:18 PM LI mqk, RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 1, 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, March 2, 2010 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 8 Email exchange between Mayor Pro Tem Long, Robert Kalmey and Ted Spiegel; Letter from Terry Digby; Emails from: Ted Spiegel; Ken Letwin; Geoff Groat; The Lenders Family; Nancy Flynn; Susan Beckman; Stuart Shaffer; Larry St. John; Joe Lindorfer; Dennis Rudd; Mary Casaburi; Lenee Bilski; Rudy Maus 9 Email from Gordon Leon Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale From: Robert Kalmey [mailto:kalmeyfamily@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 2:51 PM To: tomlong@palosverdes.com Cc: tdigby@cox.net; erika barber; nx6c@arrl.net; SeaView_Homeowners Association@yahoo.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Re: Seaview Parking Permit controversy, item number 8 on the 3/2/2010 agenda Dear Tom I understand you are one voice on the council but please understand - the single communication we got from the city about this was non-specific, uninformative, did not address current situations or which neighborhoods were involved, did not address the means of contacting the city or the right party to contact. We were just left to figure it all out for ourselves and seek out the proper parties at city hall to contact about it, and then we were left to figure out how to address it if we didn't want to be involved. That is absolutely unorganized (at best) and/or poorly handled (at worst), and a lot of homeowners didn't appreciate that. You have the fancy title and you like to email us with your side of things every so often - so you get to hear about it from your tax base now. Most of Seaview opted out. I'm one of the opt-outers. There may be a few people on PV Drive South fronting the main road who want it, but most of us don't want it. Our petitions make that clear. What is it I want, you ask? - just to be left alone and afforded the basic property protections our tax money already pays for (and not to be continually graced with city officials' meddling benificence - such as the expensive and unnecessary handicap ramps that were recently carved into our neighborhood without our input, or proposals for red light signals where they are not necessary, or unexplained parking restriction fee increase plans we got in our mail one day - imagine that, a fee increase, in the most taxed state in the nation...). Yes I'm speaking for me and my family in that, but I'd bet I'm not alone amongst my neighbors in that respect. The Sheriff frankly has very little to *do in our city compared to the other areas they patrol, and they make plenty of traffic fine money with their increased and incessant speed traps daily waylaying our good RPV soccer moms and CEO's and retirees and executives and lawyers and crane operators; all we really ask the Sheriff to do for their part of our city fee and all that traffic fine money flowing to LASD is the basics of keeping the bums and vagrants and occasional housebreakers out of our neighborhood. Generally they do a pretty good job of that so most of us don't want much else from our city hall really. I will say the response to the Portugese Bend Fire last Fall was outstanding, however much the city officials were involved in that success, good for you. Thanks. Robert Original Message To: robert kalmev ; tomlonclepalosverdes.com Cc: tdigbyecox.net ; erika barber ; nx6c5arrl.net ; SeaView Homeowners Association(a?.yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 9:13 AM Subject: Re: Seaview Parking Permit controversy, item number 8 on the 3/2/2010 agenda Dear Robert, The agenda item does not propose to put Seaview in to permit parking. It merely proposes to raise fees for those areas that are in permit parking. If the / of 5 91 neighborhood opts out then I am sure there is a way to end it. Most neighborhoods do not have permit parking. Since the agenda item does not address whether or not Seaview will be in or out of permit parking it really is not necessary for me to have information on whether or not the neighborhood was opting out. I interpreted Ted as saying (and some other e-mails do seem to say) that the neighborhood does want permit parking but does not want the fee increased from the fees set in 1981. The city does pay for the signs and does pay for the costs of issuing tickets (tickets do not raise revenue because the city pays for all of the costs of the sheriffs department but has to give up most ticket revenue to the state and the county). Our experience with enforcement through ticketing is that. it costs a lot of money. The ataff report does not propose to include these costs in calculating the permit fees. I am nost sure I agree with that because I think the sheriffs have more important things to do. The proposed fee increase has been agendized for the very purpose of seeking community input. It hasn't yet been passed. This is how things are done on all items before the city --staff prepares a report, the item is agendized and the council conducts a.hearing. There is nothing unorganized, "unjust," or heavy handed about it. Seaview is the only neighborhood that has provided much input and it is still difficult to figure out the input. What is it you want? Do you want a permit parking program or not? If you do want it are you willing to pay more money than the original 1981 fees for it and if not why not? And who do you think should subsidize the cost and why? You may want to share your input with the whole council because I am just one vote on the issue so persuading me doesn't necessarily get you the decision you want. E- mails go to the council at cc@rpv.com Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message ----- From: "Robert Kalmey" Sent 2/27/2010 10:20:26 PM To: tomlong@palosverdes.com Cc: tdigby@cox.net, "erika barber" , nx6c@arrl.net, SeaView_Homeowners_Association@yahoo.com Subject: Fw: Seaview Parking Permit controversy, item number 8 on the 3/2/2010 agenda Tom Most of us in SeaView have opted out of this. We already submitted the proper petitions opting quite a few homes and streets in SeaView out. Just not sure if you knew that, from your responses to Ted here you seem like you're approaching this meeting and vote without all the necessary information, given you don't even have or weren't aware of what we've submitted to the city. Most of us consider this an unnecessary intrusion and don't want it. Many of us were dismayed by the city's heavyhanded and unorganized approach to this new requirement. It's just more of the same - thanks very much. But I'm sure you had nothing to do with this in your role as Mayor Pro Tem, whatever that is. Oh and I'm not in one of those architect homes so please don't even bring that up with me. Thanks for your 3 seconds. Robert Kalmey 4263 Admirable Drive RPV aofs Original Message atom fed sEf € i ...._..,1.�..� ._ ...._ To: Tom Long Cc: SeaView Homeowners Association(a),yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 9:02 PM Subject: Re: Seaview Parking Permit controversy, item number 8 on the 3/2/2010 agenda Tom, If the city has to issue these stickers and tags there will be a cost to manage that process. From a professional printer parking stickers cost $1.30 each and plastic hang tags cost $1.85. These are custom printed stickers and hang tags priced per piece. There is a discount for quantities. Since most home owners stay in their homes there is no need for yearly issuance. Only additions to a household or new residences need new stickers. There is no need for yearly stickers, that is an unnecessary cost. Once the stickers are issued the cities involvement ends. What costs are incurred by the city for doing nothing else? Probably nothing. That leaves the cost of the issuance of tickets for illegal parking. The city isn't involved because that is the responsibility of the Sherifs department. If the Sherif department issues tickets to vehicles parked illegally the payment of ticket fees are a time honored method whereby the Sherif recoups their expenses. We were discussing amongst us the origin of the signs already posted in our neighborhood. They do not need to be replaced. We may have paid for them ourselves. So, we probably paid for the signs ourselves and the sticker cost is slightly more than a dollar and the hang tags are less than $2.00. It appears the cities exposure to costs is almost nil. Do we really have a city administration cost of $68 to issue a $1.30 tag? (We were sent an official sign printed by the city with the the higher costs I referred to, more misinformation?) Possible if you direct some of your energy in managing these run away city administrative costs that would make you interesting to future voters. The present system is not broken. Our "permitted parking" signs and sticker have worked for well for decades. If it isn't broken why make expensive busy work? The present cost we are paying the city is $1.00 for the permanent stickers. I think I would petition the Seaview residents for an increase to cover the more realistic cost of $1.30, todays ticket cost plus reasonable administrative costs. What is a reasonable administrative cost to inventory and then issue these tickets? Approximately a couple of minutes? Lets say they spend a lot of time. How about 5 minutes of staff time? With overhead, lights, insurance and todays clerical costs of $20/hour I'd estimate total cost at $100/hour. 5 minutes of city clerical help would be approximately $8.33, we could round that up to $10. 1 think 5 minutes is overly pessimistic. I think our staff is more efficient than that. (Their estimation of costs is problematic.) It appears that $10 for a one-time fee would amply pay for the cities material and personnel costs. I think the drawer to store the stickers and tags and the cost of reordering when necessary might add a dollar. We are not looking for a free ride at others expense. A one time fee of $11 is generous. No subsidization is necessary. We are just looking for representation of the facts and to avoid being tread upon by unjust processes. Again, I look forward to meeting you. Ted Spiegel From: Tom Long To: Ted Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 6:33:43 PM Subject: Re: Seaview Parking Permit controversy, item number 8 on the 3/2/2010 agenda Ted, The fees proposed in the staff report are $50 one time and $18 renewal. You can view the staff report on line --and no it did not tell us about any vote in your neighborhood. If you have information on that vote or other information you want to share you should send it to cc@rpv.com to make sure all councilmembers get it before the meeting. The proposed fees are based on the estimates of costs for the city to run the program and do not include the sheriffs enforcement costs. When staff spends time running a program that's a monetary cost. There is more to it than just printing the stickers. For some time the city has been asking neighborhoods that get extra services (and this is an extra service) to pay for those services. Of course if you choose not to have the service that's certainly fine too. I think we have already had one neighborhood opt out. And perhaps the council will decide to subsidize the service --it has been subsidized for years. But that's a decision we have to make with the interests of the city as a whole in mind. Surely each neighborhood would, if it could, simply vote to have whatever services it wants and at the same time vote to have others pay for the cost. But that cannot work for the city as a whole. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message ----- From: "Ted" Sent 2/27/2010 6:13:52 PM To: "Tom Long" Subject: Re: Seaview Parking Permit controversy, item number 8 on the 3/2/2010 agenda Tom, Thanks for your timely response. I am sorry to hear that you have not received all the information about the Seaview residents vote on this subject. There appears to be a disconnect between what we submit to the different departments and what gets presented to you. I am encouraged to hear that this change in fees from a $1 one time fee for sticker printing cost to $75 for the first year and $50 a year for unspecified and probably unnecessary city spending has not occurred. Thank goodness cooler heads have prevailed. I look forward to meeting you in person at the March 2 meeting. Thanks again for your rapid response to my concerns. Sincerely, Ted Spiegel From: Tom Long To: Ted Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 2:35:28 PM Subject: Re: Seaview Parking Permit controversy, item number 8 on the 3/2/2010 agenda Dear Ted, The item is proposed on the council agenda but not adopted by the council yet. Indeed the members cannot discuss it with each other (more than one other member) before the meeting but can discuss it with constituents. The proposal does not seek to change the program, only to change the fees which were set in 1981 and have not been raised since. As you may know the city gets 6% of your property tax for an average (with all other taxes) of about $1.20 per resident per day to provide all seervices. Not long ago your neighborhood sough an "historical" designation that would have cost the city a good portion of what little revenue we receive. Many in your neighborhood favored the proposal. Thankfully we rejected it, Now you suggest that most in your neighborhood oppose any increase in fees to cover on street permit parking. Of course if the fee increase is adopted and you don't think the program is worth the cost you can seek to have it discontinued. In general, for things that do not benefit the city as a whole (most city streets do not have permit parking programs) the costs should be borne by those who benefit. It seems especially unfair to me for your neighborhood to seek a special designation to lower its taxes while at the same time demanding extra services and being unwilling to pay for them. I am open to hear your explanation, but I am failing to understand why you think you should have extra service that you not be asked to pay for and at the same time should get a special tax break because your homes are historical. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message ----- From: "Ted" Sent 2/27/2010 1:42:46 PM To: CC@rpv.com, nicolej@rpv.com Subject: Seaview Parking Permit controversy, item number 8 on the 3/2/2010 agenda To whom it may concern: Please DO NOT allow this terrible change to occur in our neighborhood. People living in Seaview Estates overwhelmingly OPPOSE this change. Our City Council is trying to change our parking system against our will! Ted Spiegel 4114 Dauntless Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 15 � C5 From: Terry [tdigby@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:26 PM To: 'Nicole Jules' Subject: RE: Seaview Permit Parking Program Duh! Terry Digby (424) 903-5326 -----Original Message ----- From: Nicole Jules [mailto:nicolej@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:05 PM To: Terry' Subject: RE: Seaview Permit Parking Program Thanks Terry. Nothing's attached though. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Nicole Jules, P.E. Senior Engineer Department of Public Works 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310.544.5275 310.544.5292 fax From: Terry [mailto:tdigby@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:02 PM To: 'Nicole Jules' Subject: Seaview Permit Parking Program Here is a copy of the letter that I sent out to the affected residents and that I will be bringing to you with the signatures. I am forwarding it now by e-mail so that you have a copy and don't get blind -sided. Terry Digby (424) 903-5326 / 'o/ 3 3/1/2010 Mr. T. Digby 32200 Helm Place Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 March 1, 2010 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Nicole Jules, P.E. Senior Engineer Department of Public Works 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: New Parking Permit Program Dear Ms Jules: Further to the phone calls and e-mails from our neighborhood that have besieged you I am sending this up to date summary regarding the issue of the changes to the Parking Permit Program along with the supporting documentation requested. As I understand it, in a simplified manner, the City has passed an ordinance making changes to the Parking Permit Program. Residents have been given two options; stay in the program with the new parameters and increased fees, or opt out of the program entirely if 60% or more of the affected residents on a given street agree to do so. Helm PI, Valor PI, Avenger PI, Dauntless Dr, Stalwart Dr and Exultant Dr were never in the Parking Permit Program and consequently are not affected by this modification. Below is the summary of information collected regarding the remaining streets: Conqueror Dr — 10 residences 10 out of the 10 residences chose to opt out of the Program. Nine signed and the one family that is out of town sent an e-mail opting out and can sign the request if necessary upon their return. Admirable Dr - West of Schooner Dr, 6 residences. 6 out of the 6 affected residents chose to opt out of the Program. Only the first 3 houses on either side of Admirable Dr west of Schooner are affected. Admirable Dr - East of Schooner Dr, 33 residences. 60%+ of the residences chose to opt out of the Program. I do not know the exact numbers as resident George Cannady conducted a survey of his own accord and to the best of my knowledge has delivered the same to you. Palos Verdes Dr South contains the most affected residences in the neighborhood. With this in mind I personally made sure to visit each house and talk to those who were available. Palos Verdes Dr South - East of Schooner Dr, 18 residences. 8 chose to opt out and 8 chose to stay in. 1 was neutral Miura (4021) was unobtainable. Palos Verdes Dr South - West of Schooner, 14 residences. ���3 5 chose to opt out and 3 chose to stay in. French (4235), Huff (4245), Carlton (4265) and Moore (4329) were all unobtainable. Michael and Terri Carman (4315), and Thomas and Deb Berg (4353) were both undecided. The Carmans and Bergs show what a sensitive issue the permit program is to this street and they clearly stated their confusion regarding their options and the lack of understanding as to the consequences of making a choice without better information. Many people are confused. Many feel they have been presented with a 'yes or no' question that does not consider all of the dynamics of the situation. Listed below are just a few of the questions I was asked: If they opt out now and it doesn't work will they be able to re -apply at a later date without increased fees? Is there an alternative to "it's either in or out'? Can the permit and its pricing structure just be left as it was? Can residents have tickets received on their own cars dismissed automatically? Can police check the address of the vehicle registration before writing a ticket? Can they talk to the City Council? Can they speak to someone else at the City? Can the ordinance remain but just not be enforced at all? I took this survey on behalf of the neighborhood and in order to keep neutrality I did not give opinions or try to speak on behalf of the City. I also wanted to make sure that I did not influence anyone in any way, so it means most of these questions are still unanswered. The final street is Schooner Dr. There are no residences on this street so I assume that we can stay in or opt out. If Palos Verdes Dr South stays in the program we should probably leave Schooner Dr in as well (at least as far as Admirable or Exultant), and if they opt out we should also remove Schooner Dr from the program. However, I feel that the decision for this street should be left with the Palos Verdes Dr South residents. I will send a copy of this letter to the affected residents and will pass on your contact information (nicolej@rpv.com) for those who have immediate questions that may affect their position. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely Terry Digby tdigby@cox.net Home (310) 750-6294 Mobile (424) 903-5326 J eF 5 From: Ted <tedpvhome@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:42:46 -0800 (PST) To: <CC@rpv.com>; <nicolej@rpv.com> Subject: Seaview Parking Permit controversy, item number 8 on the 3/2/2010 agenda To whom it may concern: Please DO NOT allow this terrible change to occur in our neighborhood. People living in Seaview Estates overwhelmingly OPPOSE this change. Our City Council is trying to change our parking system against our will! Ted Spiegel 4114 Dauntless Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 -----Original Message ----- From: "Letwin, Ken" <Ken.Letwin@bp.com> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:38:49 To: <cc@rpv.com> Subject: Absurd parking permits for Seaview Seaview neighbors, > I find it ironic that the city is adding staff, and paying for it with > fees, for a regulation that apparently not a whole lot of people (at least > in this neighborhood) support. > I would love to go and give the council my point of view but I will be out > of town. Why can't we go back to the old system where the permits were > handed out by someone in the neighborhood and they are free to Seaview > residents. That way we have a parking ordinance to allow for enforcement > to keep Trump guests, PBC overflow parking, Portuguese Bend/Forrestal > nature hikers/bikers and "nude beach -goers" from parking in the > neighborhood, but we didn't have to pay to park our own cars in front of > our own houses. Why is this so hard... even local government has run > amok!!! > Ken Letwin Ken Letwin BP Carson Refinery 310-418-4664 609 ---Original Message ------ From: groatdds@aol.com To: CC@rpv.com Subject: parking fees in seaview Sent: Feb 27, 2010 11:25 AM I am writing in opposition to the proposal to charge local residents of RPV (specifically seaview) for a permit to park in front of their own home. Geoff Groat, D.D.S. Sent from my BlackBerry° smartphone with SprintSpeed From: Kristen Lenders <klenders@cox.net> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:11:51 -0800 To: <CC@rpv.com>; <nicolej@rpv.com> Subject: Seaview parking permits Dear City Manager, Public Works, and City Council, As a 14 year resident of Seaview we oppose the new parking permit plan. We don't mind leaving the current signs, we just do not want the new permits. We think the new plan is absurd! Thank you, The Lenders Family 4155 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes N6O From: "Nancy Flynn" <nancyflynnl @cox.net> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:36:42 -0800 To: <CC@rpv.com> Subject: Public Hearing March 2 Agenda item 8 Dear RPV City Council, I've been a homeowner in Sea Cove for 22 years, and see the necessity for continuing with permit parking in the Sea Cove area, particularly with Terranea now open and so close. However, the proposed yearly increase in parking permit fees is excessive. Also, can the City come up with a more convient way of obtaining quest passes for mutiple (i.e.more than 2) guests? My understanding is that a resident may buy 2 guest passes for $10.00 each, which can be used throughout the year. If a resident has more than 2 guests visiting, and no driveway space, a trip to City Hall to obtain a special "one day only" pass is required. Thank you, Nancy Flynn ------Original Message ------ From: rpvbeckman@cox.net To: CC@rpv.com To: nicolej@rpv.com To: Carolyn Lehr Subject: Parking Fees Sent: Feb 28, 2010 2:21 PM I, the homeowner at 1 Packet Road, strongly oppose the high fee rate increase for parking permits. To go from $1.25 for a one-time sticker to either $25.00 or $50.00 annually (depending on who you talk to ) is just wrong! Susan Beckman Sent from my BlackBerry° smartphone with SprintSpeed As City Council considers fees for establishing restricted parking areas in RPV, please bear in mind that the residents of Seaview who are impacted by these restrictions, have voted and submitted a petition to the City ink forming you that we are NOT interested in making this a restricted parking area. Over 6o% of the impacted homeowners voted against restricting the parking. There is no logic or sense imposing something on us that we don't want, and then forcing us to pay for it. In the 31 years we have lived on Admirable Drive, the number of times people actually parked here who were going to the beach, is two. And both of these times, people were polite and created no disturbance at all. Parking for events has been equally as rare. I would be happy to discuss this further, if you choose. Stuart Shaffer 41 o5 Admirable Drive From: "larry st. john" <bhncbad@cox.net> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:47:27 -0800 To: <CC@rpv.com> Subject: Parking I would like to know who voted for this change in the restricted parking fees. You know the one that protects us from Trump and beach overflow. I want to know so I can vote against them every time they come up for election. This is the opposite of service to the community. I am mad as hell. It should have been left along as it cost almost nothing and it worked. Whoever did this needs to be held to account. Larry St. John 4225 Admirable Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: "lindorfer" <lindorferl @cox.net> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:27:03 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: <CC@rpv.com> Cc: <clehr@rpv.com>; <rayh@rpv.com>; <nicolej@rpv.com>; <CLynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Neighborhood Permit Parking Fee Establishment Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, Please find attached a revised PowerPoint in response to the staff report for the March 2, 2010 hearing. I urge you to grandfather in the $0 renewal fee for existing neighborhood permit parking streets. There have been no problems with this fee for the last 29 years. If this fee is adopted, the administrative costs associated with yearly renewals can be eliminated - all it would take is for someone to run the software once a year to check if each permittee's renewal fee is zero, then set that permittee's permit paid and renewed. You can always set the fee higher in future if this idea does not work out. With regard to sign maintenance, I have seen no evidence of maintenance in the past, and it is not clear where staff came up with $200 per street per year. Also, signs that are removed from streets that opt out of the new program can be used to maintain streets that opt in to the program. Please ask staff to include the attached Powerpoint on the laptop for the Mar. 2 Meeting. Thank You, Joe Lindorfer Neighborhood Permit Parking Fee Appeal • $18 new renewal fee is 1440 % higher than current $1.25 one time fee • Palos Verdes Estates and Torrance charge $0 for renewals • New RPV fee is 1200 % higher than the $1.50 average renewal fees of PVE, Torr, MB • Senior residents on fixed income don't need new annual expenditures • Grandfather in existing permit streets that opt in to the new program with one time fee of $1.50 to cover cost of new decal and $1.50 for guest permits • Grandfather renewal fee = $0 and therefore eliminate administrative cost to RPV (easy software mod: IF FEE = 0 THEN RENEWED = TRUE) • Use existing signs from streets that opt out to minimize maintenance costs for opt -in streets • Fee should be at most $6.35 applying same 65% subsidy rate staff recommended for oversize vehicle fees Neighborhood Permit Parking Staff Report • June 16., 2009 report says $526 to administer 20 permits (Table 3 page 23-5) • Current report says $526 to administer 40 permits (Table 3 page 8-5) �.M • $200 (Table 3 page 8-5) per street cost for sign w maintenance is not explained • Neighboring city fees (Table 5 page 8-5) are incomplete (no renewal fees specified - $0 for PVE., Torr) and incorrect (MB charges $13 for first car, $5 for second car for two years, so the average for one car for one year is (13+5)/2cars/2years = $4.50) This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: lindorfer [mailto:lindorferl@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:53 PM To: CC@rpv.com Cc: clehr@rpv.com; rayh@rpv.com; nicolej@rpv.com; CLynch@rwglaw.com Subject: Staff Letter on Permit Parking Fees From: lindorfer [lindorfer1@cox.net] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 6:39 PM To: terit@rpv.com; dennism@rpv.com Cc: lindorfer Subject: Powerpoint slide for CC meeting 2/16/10 Attachments: PERMIT PARKING.pptx Hi Teri, Please include the attached slide on the laptop for use during my Public Comments presentation. Thank You, Joe Lindorfer 1 at- ---2- 3/1/2010 ' 3/1/2010 T New Permit Parking Implementation Appeal • Seaview permit zone ordered (81-67) by RPV because of non-resident parking for Trump trailhead, PBC guest lot overflow, and PB nude beach. fishing, hiking, biking, and bad behavior 9/15/1981 • 29 year history of problem free control for one time fee of $1.25 • "No Parking Except by Permit" 24/7 signs purchased by residents • Staff directed to "maintain status quo" by City Council 11/6/2008 Promised public hearing (staff report 6/30/2009) never took place • New ordinance (493) was passed without comment in consent calendar 6/30/2009 • Procedures, fees established by staff without council resolution (required by 9ordinance) • Residents not notified until letter from RPV Public Works 1/5/2010 • $25 new annual fee is 2000 % higher than current $1.25 one time • Palos Verdes Estates and Torrance charge $0 for permits • New RPV fee is 1667 % higher than the $1.50 average of PVE, Torr, MB • Senior residents on fixed income don't need new annual taxes • Remedy — Use existing signs, set renewal fee $0 and therefore eliminate administrative cost to RPV, RPV capture control of permits with one time fee of $3.04 (actual inflation 3.11 % compounded over 29 years) to cover cost of new permits, provide permits by USPS after residents submit application, fee, and car registration and utility/tax bill copies. From: RVUFFP [mailto: RVUFFP@SBCGLOBAL. NET] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:34 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: Rvuffp; 'Rancho Palos Verdes parking Rights Coalition' Subject: Recreational Vehicle Parking Greetings Council Members, Allow me to introduce myself, my name is Dennis Rudd and I represent Recreational Vehicles United For Fair Parking (RVUFFP). We are a non funded group of RV owners formed to protect the rights of all citizens. Feel free to visit our website, www.rvuffp.com. Though our issues deal directly with the city of San Diego, the California Vehicle Codes mentioned below do apply to all cities within the state. The city of San Diego has basically ended their attempts to restrict the parking of oversize vehicles overnight on all city streets. This is after a nearly six year campaign. During the San Diego City Council meeting of January 29, 2008, Mr Zeleny from the city attorney's office gave a brief outlining the provisions of the Oversize Vehicle Ordinance (OVO). Oversize vehicles defined as being over 22 feet long and over 7 feet high. No parking between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am, except by permit (only for R.V.'s). Allotment would be 24 per year, each a 72 -hour duration. Mr Zeleny pointed out the problems the city of Santa Barbara had in trying to initiate their OVO. The sticking point for them was meeting the provisions of CVC Section 22507, subdivision (a), which states that "the ordinance ... shall not apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed." In City of Santa Barbara vs. Home On Wheels, the courts held that the city did not meet this requirement for adequate signage. Councilwoman Donna Frye gave a brief history of the OVO since December 2004, and noted that we are still at square one. Councilwoman Toni Atkins made a comment about not wanting the city to 'set itself up for failure'. The Oversize Vehicle Ordinance was to come before the city council for a vote on October 28, 2008. A Union Tribune article the following day addresses the issue as the item had been removed from the agenda. The article is re -written here as published. Sanders to revise plan to restrict RV ap rkinq SAN DIEGO: Residents interested in a San Diego proposal to limit parking for recreational vehicles must wait longer for a resolution after the City Council yesterday called for Mayor Jerry Sanders to revise his plan Council President Scott Peters and Councilman Kevin Faulconer called the plan, which is expected to cost $1.9 million to launch and enforce, too expensive. A spokeswoman for the mayor said she had no estimate for when a new proposal might be ready. San Diego does now adhere to CVC 22507 and posts required signage in target areas of concern and planning. !®1CA The city of Rancho Palos Verdes has justified parking restrictions at the citizens expense. Without adherence to CVC Code 22507, Law Enforcement will be unable to justify any citations. It is hoped the city of Rancho Palos Verdes takes a lesson from the San Diego City Council. Respectfully, Dennis Rudd 3840 Marlesta Dr San Diego, CA 92111 RVUFFP From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:09 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka'; 'Nicole Jules' Subject: FW: RPV Permit Parking - Ordinance 493 Attachments: Dig byLttrPermitParking1Marl 0.doc From: mjcasaburi@aol.com [mailto:mjcasaburi@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:22 PM To: CC@rpv.com Subject: RPV Permit Parking - Ordinance 493 Dear R.P.V. City Council and City Staff, I am writing with respect to the RPV Permit Parking - Ordinance 493. I have been a resident for Sea View for 24 years, moved in April 1986. 1 live on the eastern end of Palos Verdes Dr. South close to Conqueror. Since I have lived here there has always been a "No Parking Except By Permit" sign right next to my driveway on the east side of my property, and another directly across the street at the west end of my property. History: In the very early 1980s there was a big problem with people parking in Seaview to go to the beach. The homes most affected were Palos Verdes Dr. South and Schooner because some of the people were overflow from the Portuguese Bend Club, and others were using the beaches west of there. The parking situation was particularly bad on weekends in the summer. Often residents or their guests would be unable to park on the street in front of their homes. Some people even had difficulty accessing their driveways. Some of the beach goers used their cars for dressing rooms, threw their garbage around, used bushes for bathrooms, and/or were loud and unruly. The Seaview H.O.A. discussed the situation amongst themselves, then with the Traffic Committee and with The City. The results of these discussions were the signs restricting parking, and the institution of the use of decals to designate residents' cars. There were also special colored construction paper cards to give to guests when one was having a party. The decals were purchased from the city by the Seaview H.O.A., and were then sold to residents for $1.00 each. The H.O.A. procured and erected the signs at a cost of about $1,200. I believe our situation to be the same ... or very close to that of the Abalone Cove neighborhood. In the years I've lived in Seaview, I have seen some excessive parking by outsiders - especially near the intersection of Schooner and Palos Verdes Dr. South ... and at those times the sheriff could be called and would ticket the non-resident cars. These incidents would usually be in the summer (like 4th of July when PBC had a big beach party), and generally on the weekends or holidays. As for my end of the street, I have had occasional "foreign" cars park in front of my house ... usually when the driver went to hang glide or fish. Since it would be a single car or two and did not interfere with my ability to access my home, I have not found it necessary to call the sheriff ... but with a neighborhood watch perspective ... I will often write down the license number. (I am not referring to overflow parking from events at Trump National ... that problem is pretty well managed now through the city's permit process.) Discussion: 1. First of all, I would like to point out that residents already involved with "permit parking" (ie: Seaview) were not consulted .... or noticed before the council considered the Permit Parking issue last June. This is definitely a case of 'one size does not fit all'! The parking problems near Marymount and Peninsula High are not the same as those in Seaview and Abalone Cove. Schools operate mainly during the week, beaches attract people mostly on weekends and holidays. There was no chance for input from Seaview residences before Ordinance 493 was adopted. 2. The January 5th notice from Nicole Jules, Public Works, to Seaview Neighborhood states: "The new program establishes a parking permit procedure whereby parking is restricted Monday through Friday between the hours of 6:00 am and 12:00 am." These days and hours are not particularly problematic for Seaview ... weekends and holidays have caused us the 3/1/2010 / Cf Al most problems. Therefore THIS TYPE OF PARKING RESTRICTION IS OF LITTLE VALUE TO SEAVIEW. Is there a way to amend or change Ordinance 493 so that it works for those (like Seaview and Abalone Cove) with weekend/holiday problems? 3. The proposed fee schedule seems very expensive. Late last year, we received a glossy mailer which briefly explained the Oversized Vehicles permits and Neighborhood Parking permits. The last bullet point under "Neighborhood Parking Permits" states: "Initial Permit Fee is $50, Annual Permit renewal fee is $25, per registered vehicle". When we have been operating with a $1.00 per decal, purchased and recorded in our own neighborhood, for the life of the car or decal ... the jump to $50 initially and $25 annually is very hard to understand. A price change from $1.00 for an indefinite length of time ... to an initial charge of $50 and $25 annually is pretty expensive. 4. Additionally, the requirements listed in the January 5th notice sound particularly invasive: "Residents will be required to provide Property Owner Information, Vehicle Information, current California Drivers License or Identification, current DMV registration for the vehicle and proof of residency in the form of a property tax bill or utility bill." What about a renter..? Hermosa Beach, which has a horrible parking problem, sells parking permits to residents ... the requirements are: a utiltiy bill, identification (ie: driver's license) and current car registration. Renters or non -related persons living in a house seem to be excluded, and verification measures seem extreme (property tax records!). What happens to a family with multiple drivers? Discounts after the first one or two permits? Can a family have a couple of permits that rotate between cars? (Hermosa Beach has a hang tag that can be used in any car.) 5. Opt Out: Seaview was told that we could "Opt Out" of the parking restriction program if a majority of our affected residents signed a petition. Our HOA president and a couple of residents circulated petitions among residents. They were directed to use blank "Traffic Calming Petitions" to secure signatures of residents who wanted to "OPT OUT" of Permit Parking. The form I saw had no description of what was being signed for ... just lines to sign on. As I previously explained, some parts of Seaview are much more affected than others. The areas currently covered by the restricted parking signs are: all of PVDS, some of Conqueror, some of Schooner (which has no homes fronting on it) and some of Admirable. I have attached a copy of the letter from our H.O.A. president, Mr, Digby, to Nicole Jules, RPV Public Works. His summary of the petitions follows: "all 10 residences on Conqueror opted out; least 60% of residents on Admirable opted out; Palos Verdes Dr. South east of Schooner - 8 in, 8 out*, 1 neutral, 1 unavailable; PVDS west of Scooner 5 out, 3 in, 4 unavailable, 2 undecided." Mr. Digby summed it up by saying that a solution for Seaview might be to have PVDS and Schooner maintain the parking restrictions while the other streets opt out. *1 know of at least one PVDS voter who thought "opting out" meant keeping the current restricted parking. There may well have been others who misunderstood. Opt in - Opt out ... terms were unclear, petitions were non-specific with regard to the subject: I venture to say that people might well have voted differently if fees weren't so high. This poll was taken with people believing that the fees stated in literature we have received ... had already been decided upon. Thank you for your consideration, Mary Casaburi 3941 Palos Verdes Dr. South RPV 310 544-6014 3/1/2010 "� 6 / 4 Mr. T. Digby 32200 Helm Place Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 March 1, 2010 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Nicole Jules, P.E. Senior Engineer Department of Public Works 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: New Parking Permit Program Dear Ms Jules: Further to the phone calls and e-mails from our neighborhood that have besieged you I am sending this up to date summary regarding the issue of the changes to the Parking Permit Program along with the supporting documentation requested. As I understand it, in a simplified manner, the City has passed an ordinance making changes to the Parking Permit Program. Residents have been given two options; stay in the program with the new parameters and increased fees, or opt out of the program entirely if 60% or more of the affected residents on a given street agree to do so. Helm PI, Valor PI, Avenger PI, Dauntless Dr, Stalwart Dr and Exultant Dr were never in the Parking Permit Program and consequently are not affected by this modification. Below is the summary of information collected regarding the remaining streets: Conqueror Dr —10 residences 10 out of the 10 residences chose to opt out of the Program. Nine signed and the one family that is out of town sent an e-mail opting out and can sign the request if necessary upon their return. Admirable Dr - West of Schooner Dr, 6 residences. 6 out of the 6 affected residents chose to opt out of the Program. Only the first 3 houses on either side of Admirable Dr west of Schooner are affected. Admirable Dr - East of Schooner Dr, 33 residences. 60%+ of the residences chose to opt out of the Program. I do not know the exact numbers as resident George Cannady conducted a survey of his own accord and to the best of my knowledge has delivered the same to you. Palos Verdes Dr South contains the most affected residences in the neighborhood. With this in mind I personally made sure to visit each house and talk to those who were available. Palos Verdes Dr South - East of Schooner Dr, 18 residences. 8 chose to opt out and 8 chose to stay in. 1 was neutral Miura (4021) was unobtainable. Palos Verdes Dr South - West of Schooner, 14 residences. 3 4 `f 5 chose to opt out and 3 chose to stay in. French (4235), Huff (4245), Carlton (4265) and Moore (4329) were all unobtainable. Michael and Terri Carman (4315), and Thomas and Deb Berg (4353) were both undecided. The Carmans and Bergs show what a sensitive issue the permit program is to this street and they clearly stated their confusion regarding their options and the lack of understanding as to the consequences of making a choice without better information. Many people are confused. Many feel they have been presented with a 'yes or no' question that does not consider all of the dynamics of the situation. Listed below are just a few of the questions I was asked: If they opt out now and it doesn't work will they be able to re -apply at a later date without increased fees? Is there an alternative to "it's either in or out'? Can the permit and its pricing structure just be left as it was? Can residents have tickets received on their own cars dismissed automatically? Can police check the address of the vehicle registration before writing a ticket? Can they talk to the City Council? Can they speak to someone else at the City? Can the ordinance remain but just not be enforced at all? I took this survey on behalf of the neighborhood and in order to keep neutrality I did not give opinions or try to speak on behalf of the City. I also wanted to make sure that I did not influence anyone in any way, so it means most of these questions are still unanswered. The final street is Schooner Dr. There are no residences on this street so I assume that we can stay in or opt out. If Palos Verdes Dr South stays in the program we should probably leave Schooner Dr in as well (at least as far as Admirable or Exultant), and if they opt out we should also remove Schooner Dr from the program. However, I feel that the decision for this street should be left with the Palos Verdes Dr South residents. I will send a copy of this letter to the affected residents and will pass on your contact information (nicolej@rpv.com) for those who have immediate questions that may affect their position. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely Terry Digby tdigby@cox.net Home (310) 750-6294 Mobile (424) 903-5326 y•f'{ Subject: FW: Permit Parking Public Hearing March 2,2010 From: LenA@e Bilski [mailto:lenee910@intergate.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:03 PM To: CC@rpv; Nicole Jules Cc: Lindorfer; Idb910@juno.com Subject: Permit Parking Public Hearing March 2,2010 Feb. 23, 2010 Dear Mayor Wolowicz and City Council members, I am opposed to the proposed permit parking fees as well as to the new procedures. What is the justification for changes to a successful existing neighborhood permit program? Lack of contact with the affected residents/neighborhoods currently with permit parking. Why was this issue not publicized last May 2009 as proposed changes and as a new ordinance? The June 2009 CC title of the Agenda item was "EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH PLAN" to publicize the existing permit parking program to the residents. That doesn't sound like changes. There has been an ordinance in RPV for restricting street parking via permits since 1981. Several geographic areas have restricted parking on residential streets. Decades ago, neighborhoods had parking problems on certain streets because of their location - near the beach, near coastline trails, near large schools. The affected residents went to the city for help. The city's Traffic Safety Committee suggested restricting parking by permit on those streets with parking problems. The City Council passed resolutions for permit parking for each affected neighborhood. In these geographic areas street signs were posted, neighborhood volunteers administered the 2 types of permits (permanent and guest) and the problem was solved. The existing permit program has worked all these years. The original fee was $1.00, and later raised to $1.25 to cover the cost of the decal. The proposed fee of $25 per year is exorbitant. Then a different problem arose regarding RV's and other Oversized Vehicles parked for long periods on residential streets within the city. In July 2005 when the Traffic Safety Commission discussed this problem of RV's etc. , mention was made that there has been a neighborhood parking permit ordinance in RPV for decades.. Because few were aware of this existing program, the city council directed staff to get the word out that residents could avail themselves of this existing program and apply for restricted parking in their area if needed. The City Council after long discussion at their Nov. 6, 2008 meeting directed staff and the Traffic Safety Commission 1) to move forward on crafting a new program for Oversized Vehicles parking on city streets, 2) to keen l d(3 P. the status quo of the existing Municipal Code and to return with an Educational Outreach Plan to spotlight the city's existing permit parking regulations and program, 3) to cease further work on a universal ban on overnight parking motion passed: 4 Ayes, 1 Absent) There followed 3 Traffic Safety meetings in early 2009 which developed a Flyer to inform the public of the existing permit program, with a goal to minimize city staff time on the existing program and with a list of low-cost ways of publicizing the existing permit program to RPV residents. In this time of fiscal restraint, additional work for staff should and could be avoided if the "as is" program continued, administered by the local HOA's with improved record- keeping and reporting; OR have staff take over issuing new permits but at a nominal fee and eliminate renewal applications and renewal fees and thereby avoid the added cost to the city for additional staff work. JUNE 2, 2009 staff Memo was sent to City Council WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN FOR THE PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM UTILIZING LOW-COST METHODS. But the staff recommended a total staff take-over of permit parking administration with a budget increase for same, and hiring a $20,000 professional consultant, and presented an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code to accomplish this. The new ordinance was voted on and approved without discussion. In January 2010, my neighbors and I, and residents in other permit areas, each received letters from the city stating that "our program" was changed by vote of the council and new fees were set and procedures changed and the restriction would be Mon. -Fri. 6am- 12am. We were stunned! As for this public hearing, we heard about it by chance on Feb. 16th. The proposed fees are out of line compared with other cities. The proposed fee of $25 per year is exorbitant. Neighboring cities of Torrance and PVE charge $0.00 for permit parking. Manhattan Beach has a program near Mira Costa High, but it is Not $30.00 as stated in June 2009 report, and it is not an annual permit.. The $30 fee is for Overnight Parking in Public Lots, NOT residential neighborhood street parking. In Mira Costa High School area the charge is $15 for first "hangtag" permit and $5 for 2nd and 3rd vehicles valid for a period of TWO YEARS (ay.$4.16 per yr.) The City of Lakewood charges $0 for Oversized Vehicle street parking permits. RPV proposes $100. Since Management Partners Report "stresses that fees charged for City services should fully cover the costs of services provided" the solution would be to minimize staff costs by eliminating the Neighborhood Permit renewal process and continuing the current administration by a resident volunteer OR have staff administer the inital permit but a 01 3 eliminate the annual renewal process, thereby avoiding the added cost to the city for additional staff work on the Neighborhood Permits. The Oversized Vehicle Ordinance is a separate issue with a separate ordinance. Please do not pass these high fees. Thank you for all you do for RPV. Sincerely, Len6e Bilski 310.377.2645 SeaView resident This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 5 f 3 1st MARCH 2010. TO: THE MAYOR, R.P.V. CITY COUNCII, PLANNING CO`- MEMBERS,CITY STAFF, CITY MANAGER, PROPERTY DE' PMENT DIRECTOR. THE DIRECTOR OF R.P.V. REVENUE AND WEST PORTUGESE BEND ASSOCIATION DIRECTOR- FROM: IRECTOR FROM: RUDY MAUS — EXECUTIVE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. 5 CLIPPER ROAD, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA. 90275. (FOUR UNITS). VESTED INTEREST 32410 NAUTILUS DRIVE, R.P.V. AND 36 SEA COVE DRIVE, R.P V SUBJECT: ITEM 8 — CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 2ND MARCH 2010. OBTAINING PARKING REVENUE FROM TAXPAYERS IS ILLEGAL IN A HIGH VALUE AREA - (ABALONE COVE). BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY YOU HAVE ALREADY BY-PASSED TEE STATE LAW (PROP. 13) BYPASSING A PARCEL TAX FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS. NOW YOU ARE RNIP'OSING ANOTHER RESTRICTION ON PARKING IN OUR AREA, AND FORCING THE OVERLOADED SHERIFF'S DEPATMENT TO A NEW DUTY. THEY RARELY COME INTO OUR AREA UNLESS THEY ARE CALLED. PARKING IS THE LAST THING ON THEIR AGENDA, YOUR BUDGET TOOK AWAY A DEPUTY FOR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. I VOTE TO REMOVE ALL THE SIGNS IN ABALONE COVE AS NOBODY ADHERES TO THE RESTRICTIONS. I ALSO VOTE TO ELIMINATE THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (WPBA) TO SAVE EVERYONE A YEARLY FEE FOR NO ACTION TAKEN FOR THE LAST FIVE FLOODS THAT OCCURRED IN THE PAST, DAMAGING MY PROPERTIES AND LAND. RUDY MAU 1--310-544-2 11 Page 1 of 1 Carla Morreale From: Gordon Leon [gordon.leon@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:21 PM To: Carla Morreale Subject: Re: Interview Schedule for PC Chair Carla, I think the city would be better served with Bill as chair. I will apply again after I learn more of the RPV Planning Commission's protocols. I withdraw my application for chair unless the council requests my participation. Gordon On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Carla Morreale <carlam@a rpv.com> wrote: Hello Bill and Gordon, Please see the attached agenda for the interview schedule on Tuesday evening. Please plan to arrive five or ten minutes prior to your interview time. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thanks and see you Tuesday evening, Carla Carla Morreale, CMC City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5208 Gordon Leon 310-463-9244 3/1/2010 Page 1 of 1 Carla Morreale From: Gordon Leon [gordon.leon@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:21 PM To: Carla Morreale Subject: Re: Interview Schedule for PC Chair Carla, I think the city would be better served with Bill as chair. I will apply again after I learn more of the RPV Planning Commission's protocols. I withdraw my application for chair unless the council requests my participation. Gordon On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Carla Morreale <carlam@rpv.com> wrote: Hello Bill and Gordon, Please see the attached agenda for the interview schedule on Tuesday evening. Please plan to arrive five or ten minutes prior to your interview time. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thanks and see you Tuesday evening, Carla Carla Morreale, CMC City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (3l 0) 544-5208 Gordon Leon 310-463-9244 3/1/2010 il