20160419 Late Correspondence4/19/2016
Proposed FY 2016-2017 Capital
Budget and 5 -year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP)
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
APRIL 19, 2016
Current 5 -yr. Infrastructure Plan Highlights
------------------------------------------------ --------------------- 0 ----- ---------- ---- ------ -------------------- - ---------------------------
• "Very Good" (or Better) Streets with Zero Deferred
Maintenance
• A Safe and Reliable ACLAD Sewer System
• Complete Local Park Master Plans
• Increase Landslide Dewatering vo:,:,
2045 F.,Y—
C,0+1., Improv—t Man
3
IL i FECEIVEDFROMDMADEAPARTOFTH ECO DATTHE
UNCIL MEETING OF
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
1
Street Rehabilitation Program Results
--- ----- ------ ------ ---------------------------------- ----- -- ---------------- -- -- -- - - -
2014-16 LA County Local Agency Weighted
Pavement Condition Indices
RPV
ROSEMEAD
HERMOSA BEACH
CULVER CITY
NORWALK
SIERRA MADRE
ELSEGUNDO NOT ALL
POMONA
PALMDALE AGENCIES
LA HABRA HEIGHTS
ARCADIA SHOWN
BELLFLOWER
MONTEREY PARK I
ALHANBRA
SOUTH PASADENA
COMPTON
i
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 6o.o 70.0 80.0 90.0
FY 15-16 CIP Accomplishment Snapshot
------------
------------------ ------------------------ -- - -- - ----------------------------
• 5 Projects Constructed
• 7 Projects In -Construction
9 Projects In -Design
3 Advertising for Bids, Awarding by June 19
3 Studies Underway
• Encumbered $11,586,723 (or 58%) Total FY 15-16
Capital Budget
4/19/2016
2
4/19/2016
Expenditures and Funding
-- -------------------------- ---- ----- - -- 0
Enhanced "Funded
CIP" Table
---------
------------ - - - ..._ ._.
--------- --
--- - ---- --- -- - ----------- --
Enterprise Fund
0riginal`-FY 15 -16 -Budget
$3,082,800
$1,24o,836
Continuing Appropriation from Prior CIP
12,725,269
2,890,905
Total FY 15-16 Budget
15,8o8,o69
4431,741
Encumbered by June 30, 2016
8,615,322
2,991,401
Proposed Continuing Appropriation to FY
6,548,9o5
1,100,340
16-17
-
530,000
-u.,
Proposed NEW FY 16-17 _
8,507,400
2,119,000
Projects/Programs
Total Proposed FY 16-17 Budget
$15,586,305
$3219,340
Original
Version
--
Ver, i
Expenditures and Funding
-- -------------------------- ---- ----- - -- 0
---- ----- --
- - - -- -------- ------------------
All Government
Stormwater
Funds
Enterprise Fund
0riginal`-FY 15 -16 -Budget
$3,082,800
$1,24o,836
Continuing Appropriation from Prior CIP
12,725,269
2,890,905
Total FY 15-16 Budget
15,8o8,o69
4431,741
Encumbered by June 30, 2016
8,615,322
2,991,401
Proposed Continuing Appropriation to FY
6,548,9o5
1,100,340
16-17
Proposed Re -budgets from FY 15-16
530,000
0
Proposed NEW FY 16-17 _
8,507,400
2,119,000
Projects/Programs
Total Proposed FY 16-17 Budget
$15,586,305
$3219,340
Proposed Re -budgeted Projects
• Portuguese Bend Landslide Strategic Plan
o In Development with Infrastructure Mgt Advisory Committee
o FY 15-16 Budget $75,000
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $75,000 Source: CIP Reserves
• PVIC Exhibit Replacement/Renovation
o Seeking Additional Grants
o FY 15-16 Budget $455,000
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $455,000 Source: Donations
Projects Planned in FY 15-16 for FY 16-17
-------- -- --------- ----------------- -------- ----- ------------------ Q --------- - ----- -----...-------------- _... -
• ACLAD Sewer System Rehabilitation Program
o Design Pending Capital Needs Study Outcome
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $200,000 Source: CIP Reserves
• Landslide Dewatering Well Program
0 5 Additional Wells
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $450,000 Source: CIP Reserves
• Landslide Area Resurfacing Program
o Resurface PVDS Through Portuguese Band
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $520,000 Source: Proposition C
4/19/2016
M
4/19/2016
Projects Planned in FY 15-16 for FY 16-17 (Cont'd)
-1 ------------------------------------
• Sidewalk Repair and Replacement Program
o Repair and Replace Sidewalks Citywide
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $250,000 Source: HUTA (Gas Tax)
• Residential Street Rehabilitation Program Cycle 1 Final Year 7
o Design and Construct Zones 6 & 7 Resurfacing
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $4,100,000 Source: CIP Reserves + TDA 3
• Residential Street Rehabilitation Program Cycle 2 Year 1
o Design Zone 8 Resurfacing
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $400,000 Source: CIP Reserves
• Storm Drain Lining Program
o Continue Relining Culverts Identified by Video Inspection
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $350,000 Source: SD User Fee
Projects Planned in FY 15-16 for Future Years
--------------- -- --- - --------Q ---- ---- ------- ------ ----- ---------------- ------- ----- ------- --------
Reauire Another Look
• Grandview Park Improvements (FY 18-19)
• Ladera Linda Community Center Construction (FY 18-19)
• Solar Systems at Hesse Park & PVIC (FY 16-17 & FY 17-18)
• PVDS Realignment — Entire Length (FY 18-19)
• Paintbrush Canyon Drainage Study (FY 19-20)
No Work Required
• Sewer Capacity Projects Incl. Malaga Cyn (FY16-17)
5
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs — Park Sites
------------------------------ ------------ --- --------- --- i i -- - -- - -- - - -- -- -- ---
• Abalone Cove Beach Access Rd and Parking Lot
o Design Resurfacing and Drainage Improvements
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $50,000 Source: Quimby
• Coastal Bluff Fence Replacement Program
o Replace Deteriorating Cliff -Edge Fences
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $200,000 Source: CIP Reserves
• Ladera Linda Community Center Parking Lot
o Design Including Addressing Stormwater Issues
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $50,000 Source: Quimby
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs —
Park Sites (Cont'd)
-...--._-..._..------------------------------------------------------ 0------------------------ -- ---------------------------------------- a
• Upper Pt Vicente/Hesse Park Marquee Signs
o Monument Signs with Electronic Message Board
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $iio,000 Source: CIP Reserves
• Eastview Park Site and Recreation Improvements
o Trail Widening, Facilities Improvements and Exercise
Stations
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $250,000 Source: Quimby
4/19/2016
Co
4/19/2016
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs —
Public Buildings
-- --------------------------- I --.- () ---------------- --- -- - - - --- --- - ---- - --- - -
9 Civic Center Master Plan
o Design Including Public Safety Facilities and Corporation Yard
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $250,000 Source: CIP Reserves
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs —
Right of Way/Traffic Control Devices
---- ------- - --- - ------- ED - - ---- - ------ ------
• ADA Improvements at City Hall Bus Stop
o Accessible Connection City Hall Parking Lot to Metro Bus Stop
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $192,000 Source: CDBG
• Arterial Walls and Fence Replacement Program
o Remove Chain Link Fencing Along Hawthorne Blvd
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $500,000 Source: CIP Reserves
7
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs —
Sanitary Sewer System
- __ - ---() - - -------------- -
• No Capacity -Expanding Projects Forecasted
• No Funding Requested
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs —
Storm Water
------- ------------ -1 G -------------------------__-------
•
---------------- -------- --------- ------- ----------- - ------ - - -- - -------
Storm Drain Deficiency Improvement Program
• Replace Old Neighborhood Pipes/Inlets Identified in Master
Plan of Drainage
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $1,769,000 Source: SD User Fee
• Torrance Airport Stormwater Quality Project
• Improve Stormwater Quality to Lake Machado
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $46o,000 Source: CIP Reserves
4/19/2016
M
4/19/2016
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs — Trails
- --- - - - - - - - 17 ---- - - -- ------ --- - - ------
• Conestoga Trail
a Design Connection Sunnyside Ridge Trail to Rolling Hills
Estates
o Requested FY 16-17 Budget $50,000 Source: CIP Reserves
0
Proposed FY 2016-2017 Capital Budget
- - - - --- - ------ ... ------------ ------------------------------0 --------------------------------------- --
-------- —..._...-- --- ..
Government Funds
• Infrastructure Administration
$270,000
• Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District Sewer System
200,000
• Palos Verdes Drive South Landslide
1,493672
• Park Sites
1,262,575
• Public Buildings
1,475,137
• Right of Way and Traffic Control Devices
10,224,321
• Sanitary Sewer System
o
• Storm Water System — SW Quality
460,000
• Trails
200.600
Total Government Funds
$15,586,305
Stormwater Enterprise
• Storm Water System — Repair/Rehab
$3291,340
TOTAL PROPOSED FY 2oi6-2oi7 CAPITAL BUDGET
$18.877645
{
0
Major Capital Fund Balances
- - ----------_ - --- - --
-- - 19 -- -
- - - - ..
-- --- - ------ --
Beginning
Est Ending
Est Ending
Balance July
Balance June Balance
June
1, 2015
30, 2016
30, 2017
CIP Reserves
$20,447,429
$22,472,370
15,312,665
HUTA (Gasoline Tax)
1,321,716
1,467,317
458,638
Proposition C
192,990
835,590
1,0.57,984
Proposition A
236,073
1,008,467
1,789,712
Measure R
1,153,223
1,637,843
2,127,468
Quimby
1,337,510
2,418,893
1,851,893
Stormwater Enterprise (SDUF)
5,333,829
3,601,028
381,688
I
Proposed 5 -yr. Infrastructure Pgm. Objectives
--------- - ............. ---------- ...... --------------------------------------------- zo ------- ----------------- --------- ---
• "Very Good" (or Better) Streets with Zero Deferred
Maintenance
• A Safe, Reliable ACLAD Sewer System
• Improve 50% Old Local Pipes/Inlets per Master Plan
of Drainage
• Complete Local Park Improvements
• Master Plan Civic Center site
• Implement Landslide Strategic Plan
- - 1
4/19/2016
10
Recommendation
........ . - .......--------------------------- 0-
- -- - - -- -- - -
• Review and Discuss Capital Needs
• Provide Guidance and Direction
• Alternately, Take Other Action
4/19/2016
11
FY 15-16 Capital Improvement
Program Project Update
April 15, 2016
ACLAD Sewer System
April 15, 2016
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
RECEIVED FROM1 r .Lt1pi ` L r L' i c_
AND MADE A PART OF THE RE ORQ�AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF /
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK 1
April 15, 2016
ACLAD Sewer System Rehabilitation Program
• Sewer System Needs:
• Replace low pressure pumps
• Retrofit lift stations
•Clean & line manholes
• $93,000 Budget
• Design Begins Summer 2016
• Construction Begins Winter 2016
• Carryover of $200,000 for
Construction
April 15, 2015
Palos Verdes Drive South
Landslide
Public Works Department
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 2
Landslide Dewatering Well Program
• Nine New Dewatering Wells
Installed In The Portuguese Bend
Landslide Area
• $810,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• $450,000 Budgeted FY16-17
• Construction To Start May 2016
• Anticipated Construction
Completion October 2016
April 15, 2016
April 15, 2016
PVDS Realignment — East End
• Eliminate Sharp Curves
• $458,600 Budget
• Currently In Design, In
environmental Review
• 90% Completed
• $40,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• Construction Begins Spring 2017
• Carryover of $418,600 for
Construction
April 15, 2016
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 3
Portuguese Bend Landslide Area Resurfacing
Program
• Annual Maintenance Program To
Maintain The Landslide Area
• $520,000 Budgeted FY16-17
• New Maintenance Contract
Anticipated Summer 2016
April 15, 2016
Park Sites
April 15, 2016
Public Works Department
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 4
Lower Hesse Park Improvements
• Improve Underdeveloped Park
Land
• $487,500 Budget
• RFP for design Being Circulated
• $60,000 Encumbered this year
• Carryover of $427,500 for
Design and Construction
• $500,000 Budgeted FY16-17
April 15, 203, -6
April 15, 2016
Coastal Bluff Fence Replacement Program
• Replace Fencing along all
Locations of the Coastal Bluff
• $200,000 Budgeted FY 16-17
April 15, 2016
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 5
Eastview Park Site and Recreation
Improvements
• Construct Dog Park, Widen Trail,
and other Improvements
• $250,000 Budgeted FY 16-17
April 15, 2016
Public Buildings
April 15, 2016
Public Works Department
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 6
John C McTaggart Memorial Hall
Improvements
Cosmetic And
IT Improvements
• $91,200 Budget
•$50,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• Construction Completed
April 15, 2016
April 15, 2016
Citywide ADA Transition Plan Implementation
Program
• Eliminate Potential Safety Hazard
and Severe Barriers to Access
• Hesse Park
• Ladera Linda Community Center
(Playgrounds Only)
• Point Vicente Interpretive Center
• Ryan Park
• $810,000 Budget
• $40,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• In Design
• Carryover of $770,100 for
Construction
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 7
Civic Center Master Plan
• Create Master Plan for the
creation of a new Civic Center at
the upper Point Vicente. Project
would include a City Hall
building, Council Chambers,
EOC, and other options,
including Site and utility
improvements.
• $250,000 Budgeted for FY16-17
April 15, 2015
April 15, 2016
Right of Way and
Traffic Control Devices
Public Works Department
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 8
Hawthorne Blvd Corridor Beautification
(Median Trees)
• 71 Trees To Install In
Hawthorne Median
• $150,000 Budget
• $150,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• Construction Begins April 2016
• Anticipated Construction
Completion July 2016
AlIld S, 201E
April 15, 2016
•-TypeA S-Typrll -Tv1-(
Hawthorne Blvd Traffic Signal Synchronization
• Interconnect 7 Traffic Signals
Along Hawthorne Blvd Using
Fiber Optic Cabling & Install 8
Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• $ 683,600 Budget
• 10% Match Requirement
• $683,600 Encumbered FY15-16
• Currently In Construction
• Complete Construction Fall
2016
April 15, 2016
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 9
PUDE Guardrail Replacement
• Replace Existing Guardrail with
New Guardrail and Signs on PVDE
from PVDS to the north City limit
at Canestoga
• $268,700 Budget
• 10% Match Requirement
• $268,700 Encumbered FY15-16
• Ready to Advertise
• Construction Begins Winter 2016
April 15, 2016
PVDW Median Improvements at Palos Verdes
Estates
• Improve Pedestrian Walking
Trail
• Install Drought -tolerant
Landscaping with Drip Irrigation
• $473,600 Budget
• $473,600 Encumbered FY15-16
• Finalizing Advertisement
Package
April 15, 2016
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 10
April 15, 2016
Hawthorne Blvd Pedestrian Linkage Improvements
• Install Sidewalk from Crest Rd
to PVDW with ADA -compliant
Access Ramps and Bus Shelter
Improvements
• $1,240,300 Budget
• 20% Match Requirement
• $150,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• Ready to Advertise
• Construction Begins Summer
2016
April 15, 2016
PVDS Bike Lane Improvements
• Install 6 -ft Bike Lanes on Each Side
of PVDS by Modifying Medians
• $779,900 Budget
• 20% Match Requirement
• Currently In Design
• 65% completed
• 25,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• Carryover of $754,900 for
Construction
• Construction Begins Summer 2016
rp! ii 15, 2016
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 11
PUDE at Bronco Intersection Improvements
• Install Safety Improvements
• Median Barrier
• Advanced High -visibility Warning Devices
• New Guardrails, Equestrian Crossing, Trail
Improvements
• $500,300 Budget
• 10% Match Requirement
• Currently In Design
• $25,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• Carryover of $475,300 for
Construction
• Construction Begins Winter 2016
April 15, 2016
April 15, 2016
Miraleste Arterial Street Rehabilitation
• Roadway Resurfacing, Sidewalk
and Curb & Gutter Repairs,
Refreshed Striping, Updated New
Reflective Signs
• $2,534,500 Budget
• $100,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• RFP for design being Circulated
• Carryover of $2,434,500 for
Construction
• Construction start in January
2017
April 15, 2016
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 12
ADA Improvements at City Hall Bus Stop
• ADA Compliant Walkway To
Link City Hall Bus Stop To City
Hall
• $192,400 Budgeted FY16-17
• Design Commences Summer
2016
Aper 15, 2016
April 15, 2016
Arterial Walls and Fences Replacement Program
• Replace deteriorated, unsafe and
unattractive walls along Hawthorne
Blvd, Crest Rd and PVDW
• $500,000 Budgeted FY16-17
• Preliminary Design Begins Fall 2016
April 15, 2016
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 13
Storm Water System
Roan Drainage System
• Installation Of New Storm Drain
Structures
• $231,000 Budget
• $231,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• Construction Completed
December 2015
April 15, 201.E
April 15, 2016
Public Works Department
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 14
Storm Drain Lining Program
• Install Corrugated Metal Pipe
Liners Citywide
• $1,140,300 Budget
• $1,140,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• In construction
• $350,000 Budgeted FY16-17
M
April 15, 2016
April 15, 2016
Storm Drain Point Repair Program
• Repair/Replace Severely Damaged
Identified Storm Drain Lines
• $1,050,000 Budget
• $1,020,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• In Design
•• ; QTY.. -,1
• Carryover of $30,000 for
construction i
��
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 15
Altamira Canyon Drainage Project Study
Report Rolling HIM , ' _:I._`..
• Study To Acquire Runoff
Management Alternatives
• $500,000 Budget
• $440,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• Study Underway
April 15, 2016
Fatmra
r l �
amen, L2--�y-
(OurruyusaraNlJ /
1 tYlrtlalMe `
Drainage and Roadway Improvements at
Sacred Cove
• Establish Positive Drainage
Condition
• $450,000 Budget
• $50,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• Carryover of $400,000 for
Construction
April 15, 2016
April 15, 2016
POrtOgL
canyor
e Kiandike Gnyun
La d"W
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 16
Marguerite/ Lower Barkentine/ Seacove
Drainage Improvement
• Improve Drainage at the Three
Separate Locations
• $760,300 Budget
• $60,000 Encumbered FY15-16
• In Design
• Carryover of $700,300 for
Construction
April 15, 2016
April 15, 2016
Storm Drain Deficiency Improvement Program
• Design and construction of
capacity and condition
deficiencies from MPOD
• Year 1 Budget: $1,769,000
April 15, 2016
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 17
Storm Water Quality
Improvements
April 15, 2016
LA
Public Works Department
Storm Water Quality Improvement Project
Machado Drainage Area
• Torrance Airport Project=.mn.�.
• Multi -agency stormwater ®h
infiltration project led by city of
Torrance
• Grant funding being pursued
• Budget for design $460,000
April 15, 2016
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 18
Trails
Sunnyside Ridge Trail
• Construct a Neighborhood Trail
that connects Sunnyside Ridge
Road to the Conestoga Trail
• $396,400 Budget
• $396,400 Encumbered FY15-16
• In Construction
April 15, 2016
April 15, 2016
iA
Public Works Department
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 19
Accessibility Improvements at Del Cerro Park
and Burma Road
• ADA Improvements Including
New Sidewalk and Curb Ramps
• $164,400 Budget
• $13,800 Encumbered FY15-16
• Carryover of $150,600 for
Construction
• Project Design Anticipated
Completion May 2016
• Construction To Commence
Summer 2016
April 15, 2016
April 15, 2016
Conestoga Trail Connection
• Trail Improvements Connecting
to Sunny Side Ridge Trail And
City Border Along PVDE
• $50,000 Budgeted FY16-17
• Design Will Commence Winter
2016 Following Completion Of
Sunnyside Ridge Trail Project.
April 15, 2016
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 20
April 15, 2016
For More Project Information
• Visit Our Webpage
• Email Us
• Find Us
http://www. rpvca.gov/292/Pu blic-Works
publicworks@rpvca.gov
11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
• Telephone Us
310 544-5252
FY 15/16 CIP Project Update 21
Proposed FY 2016-17 Capital Budget and 5 -yr Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 Capital Budget FY 16-17 Capital Budget Revenue Sources 5 -yr Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Continuing Community
Appro. Environ Transp Dev Storm Drain
Continuing Encumbered Rehudgeted CIP HUTA [Gas BralufHleat- Restricted Dov Block Quimby
Original FY 15- I Total FY 15-76 (Funds to be New FY 16- ProppiDfiOn PrOpOsttlOrr Measure R Excise Tax Act (TOA) User Fee
Project IDN Project Status as of Thursday April 14, 2016 Appropriation by June 30, from FY 15- Reserves Tax) (202- sour Fund (212 ACLAD (225) Donations Grant Fees (334- IFr 1
from Prior CIP (330-3030) 3003) (3330338 17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21
16 Budget Budget 2016 Carried -over I 16 17 Funding SD72 C (2153075) A (21601$) (220-3020) {EET) (338- Article 3 (340 (SOUP) (501-
into FY 16- I ) ) (CDBG) J310-1 30341 30381 30401 3052)
17) 3099)
1 Adjusted encumbrances, expenditure, revenues, trander-ins
0 Issued
Version Nate
DRAFT
April 18, 2016
r, Aprd 14, 2016
60.000 60,000 } 60.000 --� 175,000 175,000
72,500 72,500 72,500 70,000 70,00C -
25,000
0,00C 25,000 25,000 251000 25,000 - 25,000
1157,5W 157,500 157,500 270,000 270,000
25,000 25,000 25.000
50,000 43,WO 93.000 93.000 200.000 20,000 _
MOW 43,000 118,000 118,000 - 200.800 200,000 - -
520,000 445,000 965,000 965,000 - 450,000 450,000
458,672 458,672 40.000 418,672
75,000 75,000 - 75,000 _ 75,000 -
550,000 550,000 550,000 - -- 560,000 550,000 --
1,145,000 903.672 2,048.672 1,566,000 418,672 75.000 1,000,000 525,000 550,000
40.000 40,000 40,000 -
487,575 487,575 60,000 427,575 200,000 - - 200,000
50,000 50,000 50,000 - _
- 50,000 50,000
200,000 2DO,OW
25,000 25,000
110,000 110,000
- - 250,000 � 250,000
577.675 577,576 150,000 427.575 _ MOW 310,000 - - - - - MOW
94,242 94.2421 50,000 -
320,000 320,000 320.000 - -
94,795 94.795 94,795 - - - -
200,000 610,137 810,137 40,000 770,137 -
30,000 30,000 30.000 - -- -
93,722 93,722 93,722 - - - -
455,000 455.000 455,000 455,000
T250,000 250,000
685,000 1,212,896 1.897,896 628,517 770,137 455,0
0
0
250,000 250,000 455,000
790,957 790,957 790,957
174,900 174,900 174,900 j
64,700 64.700 64.700
90.000 90,000 90,000 - T
150,000 ' 150,0W 150,000
683,628 683.628 683,628 -
2,229,400 2,229,400 2,229.400 - -
250,0001 250,000 250,000 250.000 250,000
288,784 268,794 - - 28$,794 - - - - - - -
473.690 473,690 473,690 -
1, 240,351 1,240551 150, 000 1,090,351 - E
779.975 779,975 25,000 754,975 - -
5W.300 26,795 527,095 25.000 5OZO95 -
120,OW 89,600 189,600 120,000 - -
2,534.500 2,534,500 100,OW Z434,500
4,100,000 4,017.50 -
400,000 400,000
192,400 192,400
50,000 500,0001
9,427,290 I 10'447,590 6.698,069 4,781.921 6,442,4004,917,500 250.OW 192,400 -
460.000 460,000
386.436 396.436 396,438 _ - -
164,400 . 164,400 13,800 150.600
-- 50 7;'_ -- - 50,000
580,838 580.836 410,238 150,600 50.000 l 60,000
3,082,800 12,725269 15,808,069 8.615,322 6,548.905 530.000 8.507.400 6,932.SCO 250.000 550.000 455,000 192,400 5764000
231,095 231,095 231,095 -
- 340,836 799.470 1,140,306 1,140.306-
900,000 150.000 1,05,000 1,05,000 - - - -
50,OW 5W,OW 40.000
45, 000 4W.OW 50,000 400,OW
760,340 760.340 6,000 7W,340 j
1,240,836 2,890,905 4.131.741 2,971,401 1,100,340 2.119.000
4,323,636 15,616.174 19-939,810 11,588,723 7,849,245 530.000 10.626 400 6.932.500 250-000 550.000 - 465,000 192,400 575,000
Beginning Balance July 1, 2015 28,447,429 1,312,715 571,86.5 192,990 236,073 1.153,223 54,552 870.740 (11,824) 1,337,510 336,998
FY 1516 Encumbrances & Expendrwres 6,855.232 a90.000 571,481 93.000 253,400 50,000
FY 15-16 YE Estirtmled Revenue 552,570 81810 870 642.600 772,394 484,62!7 20,968 253,400 1,131,363' 23,172
FY 15 16 Transfer -in 8.327,603 1,0:35,791 - - 80,700 1 -
Estimated Ending Balance June 30, 2018 21,472.370 1,487.317 1,254 835,590 1,008,467 1,637,843 42,252 891,708 (11,624) 2,418,893 560.170
FY15-16 Continuing Appropriation 6,932.500 1,851,279 550 000 - - - 455.000 1 1,92,400 575,000 -
FY15.16 Re -i clget
Proposed FY 1s-17 Budget 6398.305 - - J 150.600
'Eimalled FY 16-17 Revenue 516,100 I 842.600 20 772 394 781.245 489,625 55,964 2.800 342.400 8,000 23,172
Est,mated FY 16-17 Transfer -in 5.655 000
Estimated Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2017 71,312,666 458,638 1,274 1.057.964 1,789,712 2,127,468 98,216 439,508 (12,224) 1,851,893 383,342
+M�RECEIVED FROM r
AND MADE A PART OFT E RECOR AT
COUNCIL MEETING OF 11 I c
OFFICE OF THE CI Y CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
wxk5- -
NOTAPPROVED
w:\Michae1T\CIP\Draft 2016\Proposed FY16.17 Budget 5 -yr CIP Ver t.xlsx
Infrastructure Improvements Admin
175,000 60,000
70,000 70,000
60,000
70,000
}}Engineering Review/Labor Compliance
Ongoing activity
-
4Grant Administration
Ongoing activity
IA2014-01
Infrastructure Management Plan
In process with IMAC
Total Infrastructure Improvements Administration
270,000
200.000
200,0001
450,000
418,672
Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) Sewer System
180,000
450.000
450,000
180,000
AC2015-01
ACLAD Sewer System Capital Needy Study
Study underway due June
AC2016-01
ACLAD Sewer System RehabiYtation Program s
Design pending outcome of needs study -
Total ACLAD
550,000
Pallas Verdes Drive South (PVDS) Landslide
60,000
LS2015-01
Landslide Dewatering Well Program
in construction
LS2014-02
PVDS Realignment - East End
In environmental review
LS2015.02
1 Portuguese Send Landslide Area Strategic Plan
in process with IMAC
LS20XX-XX
Portuguese Bend Landslide Area Resurfacing Program
Ongoing activity; resurfacing chis June 2016
Total PVDS Landslide
-
Park Sites
PS2015-01
Recognition Wall
In design
-
PSM14-01
Lower Hesse Park Improvements
RFP for design being circulated
PS2015-02
Easiview Park Dog Park
RFP for design being prepared
PS2016-01
Abalone Cave Beach Access Rd and Parking Rehabilitation (NEW)
NEW
PS2076.02
Coastal Bluff Fence Replacement Program (NEW)
NEW
PS2016-03
Lades Linda Community Cerner Parking Lot (NEW)
NEW Preliminary design to establish scope
PS2016-04
Upper Point Vicente/Hesse Park Marquee Signage (NEW)
NEW -
PS2016-05
Eastview Park Site and Recreation Improvements (NEW)
NEW
200,000
100, 00 0
Total Park Sites
200,000
150.0D0
Pastia Buildings
-
John C McTaggart Memorial Hall Improvements
COMPLETED
PB2010-01
Public Facility Connectivity (Hessef Park/Ryan Park Fiber Optic Curing)
In construction
-
PB2014-01
RPV TV Building Improvements
Advertising for bids
P62OXX-XX
Citywide ADA Transition Plan Implen wirtetion Program
In design
P112011 5-01
Corporation Yard U f¢Mion Study
Study underway dire .kine
PB2014-02
Ladles Unds Community Center Master Plan
RFP for design being circulated to consultant:
P820144)3
PMC FxNbd Replai:nmerWRenovation
Seeking grant funding to increase project sco
PB2016.01
Civic Center Master Pan (NEW)-
_ NEW _
160,000
Total Public Buildings
Right of Way and Traffic Control Divines
Residential Street Rehabilitation Program Cycle 1 Yr 5 (Prior Years)
i
COMPLETED (Fund 310)
-
ADA Access Improv at PVDW at Hawthome Blvd
COMPLETED (Fund 310)
-
ADA Access Improv, at Mira Catalina
COMPLETED (Fund 310)
RW2010-01
Citywide Traffic Signal Battery Beck -Up
In construction
RW2015-01
Hawthorne Blvd Corridor BemifwAm (Medias Trees)
`- -'
In construction
RW2010.01
Hawthorne Blvd Traffic Signal SpItrunization
In construction (10% match requirement)
RW2014-01
Residential Street RehabifAation Program Cycle 1 Yr 6 (FY 14-15)
Advertising for (lids
RW20XX-XX
Sidewalk Repair and Replacement Program
Advertising for bids: Ongoing activity
RW2014-02
PVDE Guardrail Replacement
Ready to advertise (10% match requirement)
RW2014-03
PVDW Median Improvements at Pabs Verdes Estates
Ready to advertise
RW2014-04
Hawthorne Blvd Pedestrian Linkage Improvements
Ready to advertise (20'% match requirement)
RW2014-05
PVDS Bike Lane Improvements
In design (20% match requiremerrt)
RWiv2014-M
PVDE at Bronco Intersection Improvements
In design
RW20XX-XX Pavement Management Program Biennial Update
Consullarrt sedan underway
RW2010-02
Miraleste Arterial Street Rehabilitation
RFP for design being circulated to axrsullar t:
RW2016-01
Residential Street Rehabilitation Program Cyde 1 Yr 7 (Final Yr)
FY 16-17 design & construction
---
RW2016-02
Reatderi ial Street Rehabilitation Program Cycle 2
FY 16-17 design only
-
RW2017-01
Arterial Rehabilitation - Crenshaw Blvd
Planned
RW2017-02
Western Av Traffic Congestion Improvements
SBCOG Highway Program
RW2019-01
Arterial RehabiHation - Indian Peak Rd
Planned
RW2016-03
ADA Improvements at City Hal Bus Slop (NEW)
NEW
RW20XX-XX
JArleriad Walls and Fences Replacement Program (NEW)
NEW Year 1 = Hawthorne CLF Removal
82,5W
Total R1W and TCO
Sanitary Sewer System
--
INone
No capacity - expansion projects identified
3,300,000
StDrm Water System - Stormwater Quality
3,300,000
SW2016-01
ITorranoe Airport SWQ Project (NEWT
INEW
800.OW
Trans
T2014-01
Sunnyside Ridge Trail
-
- In conytnuXicn
T2016-01
-
Accessibility improvements at Del Cerro Park and Burma Rd
In design
T21o6.O2
Conestoga Trail Connection ('NEW)
NEW
Total Trails
1,600,000
8$600
TOTAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS
Storm Water System - Repairs & Rehabilition of Existing System
500, 00 0 100,000 100,000 100.0m
Roan Drainage System
COMPLETED
S`W2014-01
Storm Drain Lining Program
- -
In construchun
SW2D14-02
Storm Drain Point Repair Program
In design
-
SW2015-01
-Akamra Canyon Drainage Project Study Report
Study underway: due December 2016
-
SW2015.02
Dranage and Roadway Improvements at Sacred Cove
In design
SW2015.03
Marguerite/Lower Sarkerdinei5eacove Drainage Improvements
In design
SW20XX-XX
JTOTAL
Storm Drain Deficiency Improvement Program (Master Plan of Drainage)(NEW) NEW
390,000
STORMWATER ENTERPRISE FUNDS
350,OW
-
-
TOTALS - ALL FUNDS
1 Adjusted encumbrances, expenditure, revenues, trander-ins
0 Issued
Version Nate
DRAFT
April 18, 2016
r, Aprd 14, 2016
60.000 60,000 } 60.000 --� 175,000 175,000
72,500 72,500 72,500 70,000 70,00C -
25,000
0,00C 25,000 25,000 251000 25,000 - 25,000
1157,5W 157,500 157,500 270,000 270,000
25,000 25,000 25.000
50,000 43,WO 93.000 93.000 200.000 20,000 _
MOW 43,000 118,000 118,000 - 200.800 200,000 - -
520,000 445,000 965,000 965,000 - 450,000 450,000
458,672 458,672 40.000 418,672
75,000 75,000 - 75,000 _ 75,000 -
550,000 550,000 550,000 - -- 560,000 550,000 --
1,145,000 903.672 2,048.672 1,566,000 418,672 75.000 1,000,000 525,000 550,000
40.000 40,000 40,000 -
487,575 487,575 60,000 427,575 200,000 - - 200,000
50,000 50,000 50,000 - _
- 50,000 50,000
200,000 2DO,OW
25,000 25,000
110,000 110,000
- - 250,000 � 250,000
577.675 577,576 150,000 427.575 _ MOW 310,000 - - - - - MOW
94,242 94.2421 50,000 -
320,000 320,000 320.000 - -
94,795 94.795 94,795 - - - -
200,000 610,137 810,137 40,000 770,137 -
30,000 30,000 30.000 - -- -
93,722 93,722 93,722 - - - -
455,000 455.000 455,000 455,000
T250,000 250,000
685,000 1,212,896 1.897,896 628,517 770,137 455,0
0
0
250,000 250,000 455,000
790,957 790,957 790,957
174,900 174,900 174,900 j
64,700 64.700 64.700
90.000 90,000 90,000 - T
150,000 ' 150,0W 150,000
683,628 683.628 683,628 -
2,229,400 2,229,400 2,229.400 - -
250,0001 250,000 250,000 250.000 250,000
288,784 268,794 - - 28$,794 - - - - - - -
473.690 473,690 473,690 -
1, 240,351 1,240551 150, 000 1,090,351 - E
779.975 779,975 25,000 754,975 - -
5W.300 26,795 527,095 25.000 5OZO95 -
120,OW 89,600 189,600 120,000 - -
2,534.500 2,534,500 100,OW Z434,500
4,100,000 4,017.50 -
400,000 400,000
192,400 192,400
50,000 500,0001
9,427,290 I 10'447,590 6.698,069 4,781.921 6,442,4004,917,500 250.OW 192,400 -
460.000 460,000
386.436 396.436 396,438 _ - -
164,400 . 164,400 13,800 150.600
-- 50 7;'_ -- - 50,000
580,838 580.836 410,238 150,600 50.000 l 60,000
3,082,800 12,725269 15,808,069 8.615,322 6,548.905 530.000 8.507.400 6,932.SCO 250.000 550.000 455,000 192,400 5764000
231,095 231,095 231,095 -
- 340,836 799.470 1,140,306 1,140.306-
900,000 150.000 1,05,000 1,05,000 - - - -
50,OW 5W,OW 40.000
45, 000 4W.OW 50,000 400,OW
760,340 760.340 6,000 7W,340 j
1,240,836 2,890,905 4.131.741 2,971,401 1,100,340 2.119.000
4,323,636 15,616.174 19-939,810 11,588,723 7,849,245 530.000 10.626 400 6.932.500 250-000 550.000 - 465,000 192,400 575,000
Beginning Balance July 1, 2015 28,447,429 1,312,715 571,86.5 192,990 236,073 1.153,223 54,552 870.740 (11,824) 1,337,510 336,998
FY 1516 Encumbrances & Expendrwres 6,855.232 a90.000 571,481 93.000 253,400 50,000
FY 15-16 YE Estirtmled Revenue 552,570 81810 870 642.600 772,394 484,62!7 20,968 253,400 1,131,363' 23,172
FY 15 16 Transfer -in 8.327,603 1,0:35,791 - - 80,700 1 -
Estimated Ending Balance June 30, 2018 21,472.370 1,487.317 1,254 835,590 1,008,467 1,637,843 42,252 891,708 (11,624) 2,418,893 560.170
FY15-16 Continuing Appropriation 6,932.500 1,851,279 550 000 - - - 455.000 1 1,92,400 575,000 -
FY15.16 Re -i clget
Proposed FY 1s-17 Budget 6398.305 - - J 150.600
'Eimalled FY 16-17 Revenue 516,100 I 842.600 20 772 394 781.245 489,625 55,964 2.800 342.400 8,000 23,172
Est,mated FY 16-17 Transfer -in 5.655 000
Estimated Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2017 71,312,666 458,638 1,274 1.057.964 1,789,712 2,127,468 98,216 439,508 (12,224) 1,851,893 383,342
+M�RECEIVED FROM r
AND MADE A PART OFT E RECOR AT
COUNCIL MEETING OF 11 I c
OFFICE OF THE CI Y CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
wxk5- -
NOTAPPROVED
w:\Michae1T\CIP\Draft 2016\Proposed FY16.17 Budget 5 -yr CIP Ver t.xlsx
82,500
97 381,688
,-DRAFT----,
Printed: 4/1818116 116 PM
175,000 60,000
70,000 70,000
60,000
70,000
60,000
70,000
60,000
70,000
25,000
50,000
270,000
200.000
200,0001
450,000
418,672
130,000
450.000
450,0001
1 180.000
180,000
450.000
450,000
180,000
130,000
450.000
450,000
180,000
130,000
450.000
450,000
180.000
75,000
550,000
550,000
60,000
600.000
650,000
1,493,672
-
730,000
100,000
780,OOD
780,000
830.0011
627,575
-
100,000
50,000
20,000
150,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
20,000
25,000
110,000
250,000
1.262,575
770,137
MOW
150,000
200,000
100, 00 0
200,000
150, 000
200,000
150.0D0
455,000
250,000
1,475,137
160,000
160,000
160,000
160,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
1,090,351
754,975
502,095
-
2,434,500
100,000
120,OW
82,5W
4,100,000
400,000
3,300,000
3,300,000
3,3001000
3,300,000
-
200,00
800.OW
2,000,000
-
200,00
3,000,000
-
-
200,000
1,600,000
8$600
192,400
500, 00 0 100,000 100,000 100.0m
100,000
10,224,321
460:000 I
150,600
41050,000
4,630,000 I
-
7,670,000
1:620,OW I
6,850.000
5,370,000
-
82,6W
50,000
200,600
200,000
200,000
-
-
16,566,305 10,890,000 10,950,000 7,560,000
7,130,000
350.000
350.000
350,000
390,000
350,000
350,OW
-
-
500,000
400,000
-
1,769,000
2,119,004
700,340
650,000
1,769,000 1 2,229,000 1,729,0W 2,629,000
3,219,340 3,729,000 2,079,000 2,979,000
1,798,000
2,148;OW
82,500 2,119,0001
18,805,645
14,619,000
13,029,000
10,539,000
9,278,000
97 5,333,829
2,971,401
1,238,6W
97 3.691 028
8Z5W 2,119,00
s
1,100,340
82,500
97 381,688
,-DRAFT----,
Printed: 4/1818116 116 PM
From: Noel Weiss
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:42 PM
To: Dave Aleshire ; June S. Ailin
Cc: Doug_Willmore
Subject: Re: One -On -One Mediation of Vista Verde Claim vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Dave:
It is significant that this email is being written on the day after the US Supreme Court heard argument
over whether President Obama overreached by issuing Executive Orders on Immigration which are
unlawful because they exceed his executive authority under the Constitution, the Immigration &
Naturalization Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act. Why? Because we seem to suffer from this
virus of "cronyism" where politicians and policy makers treat the law and our legal structure as a
smorgasbord menu where those laws and procedures which advance one's political agenda are followed,
and those (inconvenient) laws which and procedures which interfere with a given political desire or the
economic objective of a favored special (crony capitalist) interest (in our case Green Hills) are simply
ignored.
Dave, if, for the sake of $3500, the City Council wants to expose the City to millions of dollars in damages
to my people, then so be it. We are bending over backwards to try to show respect for the taxpayers of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, even as the City Council decides to recklessly throw the dice, bury its
collective head in the sand, and embrace Green Hills' objectives of profiting off of the backs of both the
Vista Verde homeowners and the residents of RPV at the same time Green Hills ignores its
responsibilities to abide by the City's zoning laws.
While I appreciate the fact that Green Hills may not like the zoning law, the fair, proper, and lawful course
of action is for Green Hills to petition the City Council to change the law. Instead, we continue to witness
this political (circus) clown show where the City Council countenances the violation of the City's zoning
laws and development standards (at times by the City's own bureaucracy) and then has the temerity to
tell its citizens and my people that there is really nothing the City Council can do about it.... all the while
hiding behind legal opinions issued by your office which placate and pacify the City Council's political
interest instead of standing up for the broader public interest.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is a public trust. The City Council are trustees of that public trust. Your
client is not the City Council.. it is the people of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, for whom you owe a
fiduciary duty, and whose taxes pay your salary_
The people have a valid interest in making sure the City's laws are followed. For example, Councilwoman
Susan Brooks ran on a platform of "law and order".Yet when that principle interfaces with the lawlessness
being practiced by Green Hills, Ms. Brooks waffled and sought guidance from the political cover your
office apparently provided in this latest matter involving Inspiration Slope where (acting without any lawful
authority) the City Manager and the City Planning Department gave a green light to Green Hills to violate
its Master Plan and the City's zoning law by "permitting" the storage of some 600 concrete vaults on the
roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. This just occurred at the April 5th council meeting when, instead
of directing the Planning Commission to thoroughly investigate the matter and report back (under either
Section 17.78.050 (Interpretation of uncertainty and ambiguity in relation to approved applications) or
Section 19.90.010, et. seq. (Interpretation of zoning codes which are ambiguous or uncertain), the City
Council voted to "receive and file" a report from the Planning Department where it was acknowledged that
Green Hills lacked the right or authority under either the approved Master Plan or the City's Cemetery
District Zoning Law (Chapter 17.28) to store unused concrete vaults on the roof of a mausoleum.
There is no question that the City's Cemetery Zoning law does not permit the storage of concrete vaults
on Mausoleum roof -tops without a conditional use permit. But instead of requiring Green Hills to apply for
a conditional use permit (as per Section 17.28.030), your office and the City's bureaucracy (without the
+tom RECEIVED FROM
AND MADE A PAR OF TH REC D T T E
COUNCIL MEETING OF '
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
input of either the Planning Commission or the City Council) negotiate another one of these "Indemnity"
(or "Hold -Harmless") Agreements where Green Hills acknowledged and accepted the fact that it has
acted unlawfully, but despite that fact, it would be allowed to retain the fruits of its unlawful activity so long
as it agreed to indemnity the City and otherwise procure a conditional use permit allowing for roof -top
burials at a later point in time. It is unclear whether the scope of this "acknowledgment" or "waiver" also
included a reference to the issue of whether roof -top burials on the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum would
violate the set -back development standards incorporated into the City's zoning law (Section
17.28.040(A)(2)). Also to be noted is the spurious and disingenuous reference in So Kim's email to Vince
Rehr of April 5, 2016, that the Master Plan "shows" roof -top burials (as if to imply that roof -top burials was
or is an approved use under the Master Plan.. it is not) when the facts are that (1) the Plans (Sheet 2-C)
state that only "ground burials" are to occur ... The problem? The term "ground burials" is never defined
(and is not mentioned in the City's zoning code... an ambiguity which needs to be corrected given the
amalgamation of alternative descriptions to describe what are otherwise burials within crypts placed on
mausoleum rooftops (i.e. "roof -top burials") such as: (a) "neem grade ground burials" (whatever that
means — cited on plans), or (b) "ground burials (located on top of mausoleum)" (referenced in Green
Hills Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package received February 20, 2007 (a mere 7 days before the
Planning Commission's February 27, 2007 Hearing)), or (c) "below ground interments on roof' (cited in
City Council Resolution No. 2015-102 — Page 9 of Conditions (Section 1.3.5(i)), or "rooftop burial
operations" (cited in the Indemnity Agreement involving the Vista Verde fiasco relating to the Pacific
Mausoleum); and (2) The Staff Report submitted to the Planning Commission dated February 27, 2007,
never made one mention of the desire or intent by Green Hills to intern people on Mausoleum Rooftops
(the term "lawn crypts" was used throughout the staff report as an apparent synonym for "earth interment"
— The zoning law refers only to "earth interments" and "below grade interments". The term "ground burial"
does not appear in the zoning law). The omission of any specific reference to roof top burials (or any
comparable such description) applies to the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (Area 2), the Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum) (Area 11), and to all other Mausolea.
So it is clear Dave, that by applying for the right to intern individuals on the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum, Green Hills desires to "piggy -back" on the unlawful precedent the City allowed when (1) it
unlawfully permitted (via a combination of Green Hills deceit and the incompetence of the City's Planning
Department and City Manager) the construction of the "Memorial Terrace Mausoleum" within the 40' set-
back mandated under the development standards incorporated into the City's zoning law, and then (2)
allowed interments on the roof of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum within the 16' set -back from the Vista
Verde property line (by 8').
So by Green Hills' act of now applying for permission to do roof -top burials on Inspiration Slope (although
now withdrawn), Green Hills continues to try to "game (rig) the system". Now, instead of learning from its
mistake, the City repeats the exact same mistake it made with the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
construction and operation by acquiescing in the commission of another unlawful (unpermitted) act (in this
case the storage of 600 concrete vaults on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum) when the rules
require Green Hills to first apply for a conditional use permit allowing such a use. These 600 concrete
vaults need to be removed as Green Hills lacks any kind of a valid permit to store them on the roof of the
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. Then Green Hills needs to apply for a conditional use permit allowing for
their storage on the roof. Again, this was all triggered by the negligence (to put it charitably) of the City
Planning Dept. bureaucracy, coupled with the negligence of the City Manager in authorizing this unlawful
activity. It is fair to ask: "Who runs the City?"; and "Does the City ever learn from its errors?"
It appears that Green Hills wants to again play the game of insisting it was led astray by the unauthorized
approval of the City bureaucracy to allow the "roof storage" (temporary?) of these 600 concrete vaults;
and that if the City forced the issue, Green Hills would sue contending it somehow "reasonably" relied on
such approval before ordering and receiving the 600 concrete vaults.
So what was the bureaucracy's solution? Same as with the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum immediately
adjacent to Vista Verde... Allow the unlawful use so long as Green Hills agreed not to sue the City. Then
the matter goes before the City Council, not in the form of a request for approval, but as a consent item
where the matter is merely "reported", with the report then being ordered "filed"... in other words.. "a big
nothing"... Another political sell-out... .
Meanwhile, the problems and the risks remain to the RPV Residents.... They are entitled to a proper
and fair enforcement of the City's zoning laws. If Green Hills wants the benefit of the zoning laws, then
Green Hills needs to comply with them. In this case, that means applying for a conditional use permit to
"store" the concrete vaults on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. (The word "temporary" means
absolutely nothing in this context). What is Green Hills afraid of? Instead, by this arrangement, the
integrity of the City's zoning laws are again compromised in favor of a special interest exemption granted
to Green Hills to obviate the need to have to apply for and procure a conditional use permit allowing for
the storage of the vaults. Whether the RPV Residents will do anything about this remains to be seen.. .
.But the point is that by making these kinds of "deals" with the devil (in this case Green Hills), the City is
facilitating the commission of an unlawful act and is, in fact, embracing its illegality. Just because Green
Hills has acknowledged that it has no right to roof -top burials (which it clearly does not), does riot mean
the City is empowered to give Green Hills the green light to informally allow a use which can only be
"permitted" under the City's zoning law via the consideration and issuance of a conditional use permit.
Why has the City given Green Hills the green light to bypass the process, procedure, and protocol
applicable to every other citizen or resident of RPV? Think what would happen if every single politically
well-connected crony special interest in RPV was able to obtain this kind of preference? What does this
do for the people's respect for the laws and their fair implementation? The City continues to invite a
problem. Why? You pride yourself on helping clean up a corrupt system in Bell. You should have insisted
that Green Hills procure a conditional use permit and make arrangements to store the vaults elsewhere
until they get one. Allowing special interests illegal and unlawful special favors breeds corruption.
Frankly, since the City's unlawful oral permission to "temporarily" store these vaults on the mausoleum
roof has occurred within the last 60 days, serious questions have arisen over the competence of the City
Manager to follow the law. The City has no business authorizing Green Hills to use its property in any way
other than in a manner consistent with the City's zoning laws, as incorporated into the Master Plan. A red
flag has been raised on this latest episode of bureaucratic malpractice by Mr. Willmore. At a minimum,
before he allowed anything to have been done on this, he should have had the City order the vaults be
removed from the property (or perhaps stored elsewhere under a separate conditional use permit) and
then invoked Section 17.78.050 of the City's zoning laws to require an Interpretation be issued by the
Planning Department over if, whether', or to what extent the Green Hills Master Plan allows for the storage
of vaults on Mausoleum roof -tops. That would, by law, require the public's participation in the discussion,
together with a right of appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council. That way, the City's
interests are protected, the rights of Green Hills are respected; and the people's need for clarification and
fair application of the laws is acknowledged and implemented.
There was also another alternative, also not employed. That alternative is for the City Planning
Department Director (i.e. the Director of Community Development) to act under Condition 1(k) of the
Conditions approved by the City Council on November 15, 2015, to decide whether the storage of these
600 cement vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is consistent with the Master Plan.
Any such decision is appealable to the City Planning Commission (there is another ambiguity here
because it is not clear whether the Director's decision that the improvement is consistent with the Master
Plan is itself appealable). That administrative protocol was also ignored (blatantly).
Lastly, if the determination or decision was that because the City Council's November 15, 2015, is under
legal challenge, then the Director can also commission the annual review contemplated by the earlier
CUP conditions. Instead, the path of least resistance and most favorable to Green Hills was chosen,
leaving in its wake the pretense that the City has `done everything possible", leaving the politicians
sufficient room to spout the pretense and prevarication that everything which could be done was in fact
accomplished.... thus working an "end around" the Planning Commission weighing in and thereby
completing the "head -fake" being applied to the citizens of RPV.
"Sweetheart deals" with Green Hills designed to by-pass and ignore the tough decisions, and kick the can
down the road, perhaps to other City Attorneys or future City Councils, continue. This is simply not right.
Added to the problem is the continued use of terms which because they find no sanction or mention in the
City's zoning laws create ambiguity which Green Hills then exploits to its advantage, all to the prejudice of
the RPV Citizens. As per the map recently issued by the Planning Department (copy attached), the term
,'ground burials" is used throughout. As noted above, this is a completely made-up term. It appears
nowhere in the City's Cemetery Zoning Code. It is a term Green Hills uses in order to "play" the people
and "game the system"_ ... similar to the euphemisms cited above regarding "roof -top burials" (allowable
only under Section 17.28.030(H) as (1) being "similar" to the allowed uses noted earlier in the law (i.e.
"earth interments", mausoleums for "vault" or "crypt" interments, and/or columbarium for cinery
interments) and (2) "no more intensive". So to be completely accurate, this Map issued by the Planning
Department (i.e. Community Development Department) needs to be revised to reflect the fact that
nowhere in Green Hills Master Plan are "roof -top burials" permitted anywhere... that the right to engage
in roof -top burials must be procured first via a conditional use permit, and then, where appropriate, a
variance from any set -back (development standard) limitations. If the Department wants to qualify the
representation with an asterisk stating that the issue of roof -top burials atop the Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum is the subject of litigation, then fine. .... But to present such a misleading "Master Plan" Map
to the citizens of RPV is an abdication of responsibility. For Doug Witimore to allow this misrepresentation
is malpractice and malfeasance; and for the City Council to stand idly by and continue to do nothing is
both an insult to and an abdication of its fiduciary responsibilities to the people of RPV.
In short, what we have here Dave is the identical situation which attends the Vista Verde (Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum) question: A clear unlawful act by Green Hills consisting of the use of its property in
contravention of the zoning code. By definition, this constitutes a nuisance under Civil Code Section
3479; and a public nuisance under Civil Code Section 3480.
Which brings us back to the subject at hand..... Why the City Council should authorize a mediation with
the Vista Verde homeowners now.. and "pop" for the full $7000 (one day) fee charged by the mediator
(Judge Peter Lichtman (ret.)). It would appear that we are half -way there ... The City Council will
participate in a mediation. We need to now complete the circle with an agreement by the City to pay the
mediators full one -day fee of $7,000.
We intend to fully litigate against Green Hills. The only question is whether the City is going to be joined in
the lawsuit. As such, the scope of the proposed mediation is limited to resolving the $16 Million in claims
against the City presented on January 19, 2016, and rejected on February 8, 2016. If unresolved, these
claims against the City will be included in the lawsuit which will be filed against Green Hills. If a settlement
on the claims is reached with the City, the City will not be named in the lawsuit. The City's liability will be
premised on the joint responsibility of the City and Green Hills stemming from the City's failure to properly
oversee, permit, regulate and ensure that Green Hills abides by its duties under the City's Cemetery
zoning laws; including the portion of the zoning laws which incorporate development standards as they
pertain to the set -back and height limitations incorporated into the Green Hills Master Plan_ A core
contention will be that the acts and omissions of the City (in concert with Green Hills) has created a
circumstance where the Vista Verde Homeowners (in varying degrees) have suffered and are continuing
to endure a direct and peculiar and substantial burden and interference with their use and quiet
enjoyment of their property by virtue of the fact that their views have been seriously impaired. Roof -top
funerals are now so close as to render the feeling of a substantial loss of privacy.This has substantially
interfered with the peace, comfort,and enjoyment by the Vista Verde homeowners (in varying degrees) of
their properties, including the common areas. In addition, because of the proximity of these activities to
the Vista Verde homes, the homeowners have been forced to endure continual noise and dust pollution
emanating from Green Hills operations on the roof of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, particularly when
graves are prepared.
All of this was completely foreseeable, and ignored by the City (again acting in concert with Green Hills)
The Vista Verde Homeowners have suffered economic as well as non -economic damages in the form of
emotional distress, related personal injuries (all of which are set out in detail in the claims submitted to the
City), and properly damage claims. One homeowner has now been hospitalized for the last seven weeks.
The stress of the current situation with Green Hills has played a significant part in aggravating her
condition.
a. Prior Mediation a Rigged Undertaking
The problem with the prior mediation was that it was conceived, contrived, and calculated to push and
intimidate the Vista Verde Homeowners into settling for a fraction of their claims. The focus was simply on
the depreciated value of their units. it was a "gang -bang" in the sense that it was "2 vs_ 1", and was
conducted by a mediator whose emotional intelligence, sensibilities, and sensitivities were below zero. It
short, a completely rigged exercise. No wonder the City and Green Hills were prepared to pay the
mediator's fees.
b. It Benefits Both Parties to Receive an Objective "Take" on the Relative Strengths &
Weaknesses of Their Respective Positions:
Judge Lichtman is a competent, skilled mediator. Mediating one-on-one between the Vista Verde
Homeowners and the City is fair and proper in this context. The City's interests diverge with the interests
of Green Hills; and it thus makes sense for the City to have the benefit of the thoughts of an independent
retired judicial officer possessed of the background and experience to objectively evaluate the strengths
and weaknesses (factual and legal) of each side's position.
The Vista Verde Homeowners do not have to contribute to the mediator's cost in order to have a "stake"
in the outcome. Your comment to the effect that unless and until the Vista Verde Homeowners contribute
$3500 toward the mediator's $7000 fee, they have no "skin in the game" is just another insult to the
homeowners. First, this is not a "game". Secondly, my people have a great deal of "skin" in the "game" as
they continue to experience on a daily basis a serious, direct, peculiar and substantial burden and
interference with the use and quiet enjoyment of each of their properties due to Green Hills operations
(unlawfully permitted by the City).
It can reasonably be expected that any settlement would involve the City compensating the Vista Verde
Homeowners for their costs_ Those costs include the mediation fee. So if the City is going to have to
reimburse the Vista Verde Homeowners anyway (assuming a settlement), then paying the mediator's fee
in full going in should not be an issue.
Given the fact that up to this moment, the City has refused to even acknowledge the full nature of the
personal injury (non -economic) injuries incurred by the Vista Verde Homeowners, the City's willingness to
pay the mediator's one -day $7000 fee is a "marker" on the City's good -faith participation. This should not
be an idle exercise on either side's part_ Since reversing its September 1, 2015, vote to abate the
continuing nuisance stemming from Green Hills unlawful conduct, the City Council has not demonstrated
any seriousness at resolving the problems. It has, instead, exacerbated them. As noted above, the City
continues to placate Green Hills by making "deals" which allow Green Hills to continue to ignore its
responsibilities under the zoning code and the development standards incorporated therein in return, by
Green Hills, for some kind of "wavier" or "acknowledgment" that what it is doing is unpermitted, and that it
therefore "waives" any claims against the City; just another example of joint action by Green Hills and the
City to ignore the City's zoning laws and development standards and thereby favor Green Hills as a
special interest.
The City should pay the entire $7000 one -day fee. if the City is unwilling to do so, then there will be no
mediation and the City will be named in the lawsuit along with Green Hills.
M
c. City is Able to Cap Its Exposure Without a Misplaced Reliance on What Could be an Unlawful
Indemnity
A settlement with the City will cap the City's exposure. Why would the City not welcome this opportunity?
Does the City believe it has no exposure to the Vista Verde homeowners? A successful mediation with a
competent mediator can and will flush these questions (and related issues) out. The mediation does not
bind the City to anything. The mediation will, however, afford the City an opportunity for an independent
"read" on the situation so that the City Council can make an intelligent decision on what is in the best
interests of the City, as opposed to what is in the best interests of Green Hills.
The interests of the City and of Green Hills diverge. The City, as a public trust, owes a broader fiduciary
duty to its citizens. Funds expended on litigation are not available for expenditure elsewhere.
The City's reliance on (a very poorly written) Indemnity Agreement with Green Hills does not solve the
problem because it assumes (1) that Green Hills will stand behind the (unsecured) promise of indemnity,-
(2)
ndemnity;(2) that Green Hills will deal in good -faith (a highly subjective and presumptive assumption given Green
Hills' pattern of deceit and "gaming" (a pattern which continues to this day, as noted above); and (3) that
the Indemnity Agreement is even enforceable (which is questionable because of the fact that to the extent
the Indemnity Agreement sanctions, allows, or facilitates the commission of an unlawful act (i.e. the
violation of the development standards incorporated into the City's Cemetery Zoning Code), the Indemnity
Agreement is against public policy and is void ab initio. See for example, what can fairly be considered a
comparable situation in the case of Summit Media, LLC vs. City of Los Angeles (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th
921 (copy enclosed) where the City's settlement agreement with two billboard companies which allowed
them to ignore the City's billboard laws was null and void {resulting in the revocation of all permits issued
by the City to operate digital billboards in contravention of the City's billboard law). This is comparable to
our present situation because the permits issued to Green Hills which violated the development standards
incorporated into the RPV Cemetery zoning law allowed for a building configuration (which contravened
the set -back rules) and use (roof -top burials', prohibited by the City's zoning law. Nowhere in the CUP are
there "Findings" to support Green Hills interning people an the roof of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum.
Your predecessor, the Planning Commission, and the City Council by its vote on September 1, 2015,
recognized this fact and required Green Hills to procure an `after -the -fact" variance from its having
contravened the set -back rules (as to the structure'), and a conditional use permit (permitting the "roof -
burial" use). Somewhere along the line, politics intervened.... perhaps because Green Hills state permit
can be pulled if it violates local zoning laws. ... But whatever the reason, the City Council reversed itself
on November 17, 2015, and instead of abating the public nuisance (defined as a violation of statute), the
City Council exacerbated and abided Green Hills' illegality by coupling the unlawful land use entitlement
grant to Green Hills with Green Hills' unsecured promise to indemnity the City from the City's improper
conduct; and to otherwise release and waive any rights Green Hills possesses to contend it had a "vested
right" to "game" the City and its citizens and ignore the legal mandates and development standards
incorporated into the City's zoning code (a pattern, as noted above, which has now been repeated with
Green Hills' violation of the zoning code by storing vaults on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum
under soil imported for that purpose).
Apart from the obvious question of how Green Hills can obtain vested rights in an unlawful permit, the
related issue is whether the Indemnity promise is itself also "null and void" and unenforceable because it
flows from an unlawful activity promoted and allowed by the City.
If so, then Green Hills is "gaming" the City yet again.... making promises it cannot deliver upon, and
thus leaving the City fully exposed financially. Should Green Hills become financially insolvent, it is not
likely insurance would cover its exposure to the City under an equitable indemnity theory because
insurance companies do not insure against illegal acts. Meanwhile, the City passed on the opportunity to
have Green Hills secure its promise with a cash deposit ($1 Million minimum would have been
reasonable)... so again, the City stands exposed should it lose the damage lawsuit.
Therefore, instead of misplaced reliance on what could be a faulty Indemnity Agreement that may not
even be enforceable, doesn't it make sense for the City to try to cap its exposure to my people?
%. Mediation Will Send a Message to Green Hills That It Needsto Cease Trying n
System
The Inspiration Slope situation described above reveals and reflects a Green Hills operation which is out
of control, reckless, rogue, and completely intent on evading the City's zoning laws wherever and
whenever possible.
To be kept in mind is that Green Hills, like every other citizen impacted by the City's zoning laws, has the
right and power to solicit a formal "Interpretation" of the code in instances where the code (or incorporated
development standards) are vague or ambiguous. This can (and should) go all the way up to the City
Council level. (See Section 17.78.050 (as to projects where there has been an approved application); and
Section 17.90.010; et seq. (as to uncertainties or ambiguities in the Cemetery Zoning Code (Chapter
17.28 (Sections 17.28.010-17.28.040)).
These are both two terrific provisions of the City's zoning code because properly applied by one acting in
good -faith, can serve to alleviate a myriad of problems and potential difficulties.
What Green Hills did (and continues to do) is to try to gain a foothold by purposefully playing on an
obvious ambiguity (i.e. no definition in the code of "ground burial"; lack of clarity on what is meant by
"earth interments" or "below grand burials": lack of clarity on whether the reference to mausoleum "vault"
or "crypt" interments in Section 1728.030(A) covers just the Mausoleum interior., or also includes the roof-
top; whether the right to "vary" from the set -back development standards set out in Section
17.28.040(A)(2) requires a variance (cf. the code's specific reference to and allowance of the use of a
conditional use permit to "vary" from the height standards set out in Section 17.28.040(B) — No such
comparable reference exists regarding the set -back development standards (rules)).
So for example, we have Green Hills desiring roof -top burials on the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
(requiring a conditional use permit application specifically seeking the same (all Green Hills said was that
it wished to expand the building footprint of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum to the west; no specific
reference was made to its desire to undertake roof -top burials except on plans which contained an
ambiguous reference to "new ground burials" against an upward sloping "grade" (where the term "ground
burials" is never defined; "grade" never defined (for purposes of determining whether the burials are
"below-grad e").There was also a general reference to `ground burials located on top of mausoleum" in the
Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package. However, the staff report excluded any reference to roof -top
burials and spoke solely about "lawn burials" as a euphemism for "ground burials"; all done knowing full
well that the roof -top "ground" burials would occur within an 8' set -back from the Vista Verde property line
Green Hills had deceitfully been able to get the City to change without need of a variance. So apart from
obviating the 40' "structure" set back rules, Green Hills was able to violate the 16' "burial" set -back
rules incorporated into the 1991 Master Plan.
This "mix and match" approach between "structure" and "burials" as related to the application of the set-
back rules and development standards lies at the heart of Green Hills' deceit, deflection, and dishonesty.
While the latest Master Plan Conditions refers to "Setbacks Below Ground" as if they are "below ground
interments" (again the phrase "below -ground interments" is not used in the zoning law (the two phrases
the law uses are: "earth interments" and "below -grade interments." The original (1991) variance used the
phrase "Setbacks for below ground interment sites" and "Garden" burial sites) (Condition No. 6).The same
Master Plan Conditions refer to "Setbacks Above Ground" as the standard for where the "structures" are
to be located. This leaves open what happens if the "structures" have "ground burials" on the roof where
the roof lies within the set -back standards for "ground burials"? So this is how Green Hills was able to
"bootstrap" an approval for the location of the set -back of a "structure" as an approval for the location of
"ground burials" on the roof of the structure... all via one huge giant "head -fake" which the City ignored;
and then when the prior City Attorney, the Planning Commission, and the Council itself (by its September
1 st vote) tried to make it right, the mitigation, correction, and nuisance abatement effort was reversed on
November 17, 2015.
Nowhere in the Conditions adopted in 1991, 2007, or revised in November, 2015, is there any reference
to "setbacks for earth interments" or "below grade burials" or "interments" or "burials". 5o when Green
Hills was able to ignore the 16' (burial) set -back for the Memorial Terrance Mausoleum (aka the Pacific
Terrace Mausoleum) and move the structure to an 8' set -back, its unlawful objective of also being able to
"vary" from the 16' burial set -back requirements had been achieved.
It would have been one thing if Green Hills had gone through the proper process; but it did not. Green
Hills knew of the ambiguity, could have sought an interpretation clarifying the ambiguity, but never did so.
The residents were endeavoring to correct the matter and were well on their way to doing so when the
City Council abruptly pulled the rug out from all mitigation and nuisance abatement efforts by its vote of
November 17, 2015. It was that reversal by the Council that has given rise to my clients' claims.... which
are continuing to the tune of $4,938.61 per day.
At some point, Green Hills has to begin to start recognizing that it needs to follow the law and cease
"gaming" the system. If the City and the Vista Verde homeowners reach a settlement, it will send a strong
signal to Green Hills that no longer is the City prepared to "bend over" to accommodate any special favors
from this special interest "player", no matter how powerful. In addition, the citizens of Rancho Palos
Verdes whose property rights stand exposed to Green Hills' "gamesmanship" will begin to experience a
bit of a rebirth of faith that the City is also beginning to apply the zoning rules fairly and in a manner
consistent with their intent.
e. The City Can Settle For a Lot Less Now Than Will be the Case Later.
Preparation of the lawsuit along with efforts to retain contingency co -counsel to join in the prosecution of
the litigation are underway. Once this has been completed, the request for mediation will be withdrawn.
The Vista Verde Homeowners have an interest in settling with the City now before co -counsel has been
retained so that they do not have to pay a contingency fee to new co -counsel on the settlement amount
paid.
There are many ways to structure a settlement with the City which can meet the objectives of both the
City and the Vista Verde Homeowners. A skillful, experienced mediator like Judge Lichtman can aid in
that undertaking.
But to get there, we need the City's cooperation in working this through the mediation process.
Payment of the Mediator's $7000 fee is therefore a good investment by the City under these
circumstances.
Dave, the City has a serious problem here.... The City Council can deflect, defer, distract, but such a
dissonant theme so clearly contradicts the core social and moral values of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes that (in this day and age when confidence in government has reached a new low) the voting
public cannot reasonably be expected to put up with it.... particularly when this genuflecting before
Green Hills ends up costing the City multi -millions of dollars.
Please discuss this with the City Council and let me know whether it is prepared to move forward on the
mediation and pay the mediator's full $7000 one -day fee.
Thanks.
Noel
(310) 822-0239
I} Apote raroynd StNcttar 401 or no ctt : -imu, nor*4-n perimeter road •
tG-rovidWY10.1g abse*bacr- to rm W5 in 14W iarner and b plots -4trodlf Sold
rEN TEFIiR Lct•_-77n •.�U i:i:ivEly
- ....-.v
o 21; .7 . ALliuq
t
t4emarlal Terr4Le t1aLL561fuM
�.... taFnC a.4..i lilnivA �M >�`Y .. .•naY.. ..ne_. ,_.._
aro and 5�E11ctures 8p' sNbaCK or, no eloser it n northern Feimen- Yua—A
agls $' setb0.<K-to �1oYth R•
15' -t lti st- ft- fo r ORT.. .. f�F um
ex bultdmq. ou:T . f
PARE. VIFy!'!_R2M:E
5' for 110r4hWest =Icn
c
c,
ad44rion ��
c asf
,o�y •:.,; '«:��,. '+ nor
tlfH
SANCTUARY OF
TRANQUIL"
TRAAOUILITY --
fERRACE PRIVATE
RRENS
OW (Around
StrUc^yln?5
Ground Y,U.riTils
7
14+AC
69•i AC
�:.,� ,� V •.taU')gLI:l1N E.tJG T71l'fF!,i �,;
G
•. arR� ro-� r bcrrlorva •�
�- SOUTHWEST TFRRACFrAAUSO1.El1M
F 1311
'WO LEVELS - SOUTHWEST AIAUSOLEVM OR'Ell _ "'"� L ' R`f,"ANAP"!`
EAM7OR ;
'PHIS SHEET HAS BEEN UPDATED PER PLANK
!'4/LYe Cn'oue�d �.. Vra~r RRFN OF REFLECTIONS --I
CONIMISSION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.
�! N.,:USCIs UA1 E%TENSIUN
2015-09, CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1.2/m)r91'6U ;itiafs
e1
t Grounds
r-truchlres
ar, I
rtoaliii -Wu
- "jSTRIC GATE
TO REh411N
.' 1®
, A
(CITY LACKS THE POtiY ER TO EXEMPT TWO BILLBOARD COMPANY'S FROM
COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S LAND USE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO WHEN
BILLBOARDS CAN BE ALTERED - CIT I'S SE7TLE.NlEN I AGREEMENT W ITH
TWO BILLBOARD COMPANIES ALLOWING THEM "TO VIOLATE Crrrs
BILLBOARD BAN BY AUTHORIZING -['HE "DIGITATION" OF CERTAIN
BILLBOARDS (A CLEAR PREFERENCE: OF ONE SIGN COMPANY" OVER
ANOTHER) IS NULL & VOID AS ULTRA VIRES -CITY LACKS RICHT, POWER, OR
AUTHORITY" I'O TRADE AWAY ITS POLICE POWERS IN FAVOR OF SPECIAL
INTEREST- DIGITAL SIGNS WERE UNAMBIGUOUSLY DISALLO'W'ED ENDER
CITY'S BILLBOARD LAW. CITY'S AGREEMENT WAS DESIGNED AND INTENDED
TO ALLOW FOR A CIRCUMVENTION OF CITY'S EXISTING ZONING LAWS.
LOWER COURT WAS DIRECTED TO VOID OUT ALL PERMITS RATHER THAN
ALLOW A SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BE INITIATED WITH
REGARD TO EACH BILLBOARD l NL AWFULLY ALLOWED TO BECOME
DIGITIZED. ALL USE PERMITS WERE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY
CONTRAVENED EXISTING LAVV AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE REVOKED1.
211 Cal.AppAth 921 (2012)
150 Cai.Rptr.3d 574
SUMMIT MEDIA LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant,
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant, Cross-defendant and Respondent;
CBS OUTDOOR INC. et al., Real Parties in Interest, Cross -complainants and
Appellants.
No. 13220198.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight.
December 10, 2012,
923*923 Perkins Coie, Timothy L. Alger; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Scott B.
Kidman and Anthony P. Alden for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Andrews Lagasse Branch & Bell, Michael J. O'Connor. Jr., and Shauna L. Sinnott for
The Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Association and The
Westwood Homeowners Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and
Appellant.
Reed Smith, Margaret M. Grignon and James C. Martin for Real Party in Interest, Cross-
complainant and Appellant Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
Kendall Brill & Klieger, Laura W. Brill, Joshua M. Rodin and Richard M. Simon for
Real Party in Interest, Cross-complainant and Appellant CBS Outdoor. Inc.
Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Tayo A. Popoola and Steven N. Blau, Deputy City
Attorneys, for Defendant, Cross-defendant and Respondent.
Sabine & Morrison and Randal R. Morrison for League of California Cities as Amicus
Curiae.
924*924 OPINION
GRIMES, J,
SUMMARY
This is a dispute among several outdoor advertising companies and the City of Los
Angeles over certain billboards with digital displays, and over the city's audhoritr to
settle with two of those companies on terms that Permitted them to digitize many of
their existing billboards, even thogelt a municipal ordinance expressly prohibited
"alterations or enlargements" of such signs. A third company filed this suit for a writ
of mandate ordering the city to set aside the settlement agreement and withdraw all
permits issued under it. The trial court found the settlentent agreement ivas illegal and
void, because it allowed the alteration of billboards lit violation of muiticipaJ
ordinatices. But the trial court declined to revoke permits that had been issued pursuant
to the agreement, concluding permit revocation was an administrative issue for
determination on an individual basis.
We afYtrm the trial coup's order finding the settlement agreement void but conclude
the court also must order revocation oral] digital conversion permits grunted under the
illegal settlement agreement.
FACTS
In August 2008, Summit Media LLC (plaintiff) sought a writ of mandate ordering
defendant City of Los Angeles to set aside a settlement agreement between the city, on
the one hand, and CBS Outdoor Inc. and Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (real parties in
interest), on the other. Plaintiff and real parties are companies engaged in the outdoor
advertising business in the city. .411 of them own and maintain numerous "o -.rite
stens "—billboards in locations other than al a property owner's business. Plainti
contended the citr's entry into the settlement agreement with real parties (its
competitors) was an invalid, illegal and ultra vires act, and nkat all permits and
authorizations the city had issued pursuant to the settlement should be revoked.
(1) The genesis of the contested settlement agreement, executed two years earlier, was
litigation over city ordinances regulating offsite signs. In December 2000, the city council
passed an ordinance imposing an interim prohibition on the issuance of permits for the
construction or placement of new offsite signs. In Aptil 2002, the c1ty council amended
the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC or municipal code) to establish a permanent,
general bat (with exceptions not relevant to this case) on new offsite signs throughout
the city (the 2002 sign ban). The 2002 sign ban also applied to "alterations or
enlargements oflwalfy existing off-site slens." (L.A. Ord. No. 174547, § 2.11.)
925*925 Also, in February and July 2002, the city council passed two ordinances
amending the municipal code to establish an offsite sign periodic inspection fee and an
inspection program. The first ordinance established an offsite sign inspection program
and an annual fee to pay for it (the inspection program), and the second ordinance set the
amount of the annual inspection fee (the sign fee ordinance). The main components of the
inspection program were that all offsite signs on private property were subject to annual
inspection; an annual inspection fee (later set by ordinance at $314) was imposed on all
offsite signs: upon payment of the fee and furnishing of the relevant building permit or
equivalent documents, the city would issue an inspection certificate; and if the fee were
not paid, or the city determined that a sign had not been lawfully erected, the sign would
be removed. (LAMC, former §§ 91.6205.18.1-91.6205.18.9.)
(2) Litigation over the inspection program and sign fee ordinance ensued; the complete
history of which is unnecessary to recount here. On October 4, 2002, Vista Media Group,
Inc. (hereafter Vista) (also in the outdoor advertising business), brought a reverse
validation action (Code Civ. Proc., § 860 et seq.) in superior court. The Vista action
sought a judicial declaration that the sign fee ordinance was invalid, on the grounds that it
violated free speech, takings and due process constitutional provisions and the fee
exceeded the reasonable cost of achieving its purported goal. We find it helpful at this
point to briefly summarize what is a validation, or "reverse validation" action. The
validation statutes permit a local government entity to obtain a iudicial decision that a
municipal or other local agency has acted legally in making a decision affecting real or
personal property. A so-called reverse validation action seeks the opposite, a declaration
that the act or omission of a local government is invalid and illegal. A validation, or
reverse validation, action may be brought only if authorized by another statutory
provision.
Vista's action was authorized under statutes that govern fees charged b? local agencies
for zonine variances, building permits and the like:. (See Gov. Code, §§ 66014, subds.
(a) & (c), 66022, subds. (a) & (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 860 et seq.) Real parties intervened
in the Vista action and in December 2002 filed cross-complaints against the city, seeking
to invalidate the sign fee ordinance and also seeking decluraton, and injunctive relief
preventing the city from enforcing the reporting requirements of the offsite sign
inspection program.
Vista settled its lawsuit with the city in December 2004 and moved to have its settlement
incorporated into a stipulated judgment. Real parties objected, contending the Vista
settlement was "ultra vires and void," because the cit? was contracting away its police
Power by creating a reduced inspection fee schedule and enforcement program
apolviniz on1y to Vista, and the new fee 926*926 structure for Vista was established
without public participation. The trial court (Judge Dau) eventually approved a revised
stipulated judgment. (We do not address the city's settlement with Vista any further.)
Then, on September 30, 2006, the city and real parties entered into a settlement
agreement in the Vista action.
The city and real parties agreed to file a stipulated judgment dismissing real parties'
claims. The stipulated judgment, expressly reciting the terms of the settlement agreement,
was entered by Judge Dan on February 2, 2007. In April 2007, plaintiff sued the city in
federal court. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction, and in August 2008
plaintiff filed this lawsuit.
This lawsuit was initially assigned to Judge Chalfant, who issued a number of rulings that
real parties challenge in this appeal, as discussed below. After Judge Chalfant recused
himself from this case, it was reassigned to Judge Green. We now quote Judge Chalfant's
description of the facts of this case, later found by Judge Green to be an accurate recital.
"The Settlement Agreement grants /real partiesl exemption from the City's 12002 sign
ban/, the Off -Site Slen Inspection Program, and numerous other zoning acid building
laws Mulating ofFsitc suns in the City.
"The Settlement Agreement evempts !real partied from the application of numerous
zoning and building laws, including mai v provisions of the 12002 sign ban. [L] The
Settlement Agreement allows [real parties] to maintain all of their pre -1986 off-site signs,
whether or not lawfully erected, whether or not they have permits, whether or not they
comply with their permits, and whether or not they violate present or prospective City
building ordinances .... [M]
"The Settlement Agreement also requires the City to issue new permits to allow [real
parties] to 'modernize' up to 840 of their post -1986 off-site signs—one quarter of their
total inventory. The City has agreed to issue these permits despite the 12002 sign bans
for new otTsite signs, and its strictly 927*927 enforced ban on these very types of
modification. The City has also agreed to issue these permits without regard to whether
or not those 840 signs were lawfully erecter!, whether or not those 840 signs ever had
permits, whether or not those 840 signs comply or have ever complied with a permit, and
whether or not those 840 signs violate present or prospective City building and zoning
ordinances.
"Additionally, the Settlement Agreement permits [real parties] to add 200 new off-site
signs to their existing sign structures, known as 'back -tip faces,' despite the City's general
ban on all new off-site signs, including adding 'back-up faces,' by way of alteration or
modification of an existing sign structure.
"Tire Settlement .Agreement gives [real partiesl a ,general exemption from rhe
requirement to provide evidence that pre -1986 sign .structures were lmyfully, erected, a
direct violation of LAMC section 91.6205.18(3).[t'l] Offsite signs erected by [real
parties] between 1986 and 1998 will be allowed to exist even if no permit was ever
obtained or the signs were illegally modified. The Settlement Agreement gives /real
pardesl rhe right io maintain sign structures that are out of compliance with the
original building permit, even though such alterations render the signS illegal and
suhiect to ahatement under LAMC section 91.6205.18(9).[011
"The Settlement Agreement specificallu identifies 10 separate City' laws with which
Ireal partiesl need not comply in undertaking modernizations, including LAMC
sections 12.21(A)(7)(1) (off-site sign ban). 12.21.1(A)(10) (height restrictions),
12.22(a)(23) (regulations in mini -shopping centers and commercial comers), 91.6205.18
(the inspection Program). and LAMC § 91.6205.11 (11) or any other ban on one or more
categories of signage. [011
928*928 "[Real parties] are also exempted from the usual procedures for obtaining
permits. Section 5(D)(ii) [of the settlement agreement] prescribes that, in the event the
City cannot process [real parties'] permit applications within 30 days, the City is
prohibited from processing any other building, demolition or relocation permits for any
structure, including but not limited to signs' until it has cleared [real putWes'1
applications. Thus, no matter what the circumstances or exigencies, the applications of
every other Los Angeles resident and property owner must be put on hold until those of
[real parties] are approved."
As the trial court found, "[s]hortly after signing the Settlement Agreement, [real parties]
began undertaking significant modifications of their existing signs, which are otherwise
prohibited by the general ban on off-site signs. Clear Channel has already received City
permits under the Settlement Agreement to convert over 40 off-site signs to digital
displays. Because the cost to convert an existing static, wood and vinyl sign to an LED
digital display exceeds 50 percent of the replacement cost of both the sign and sign
support structure, such a conversion would not be a mere 'alteration repair or
rehabilitation' within LAMC section 91.6216.4JAd] but would be either a violation of that
section or a new sign subject to the general ban. [CBS Outdoor Inc.] has received
numerous permits as well."
In December 2008, lite city enacted an ordinance expressly preventing tile issuance of
building permits for offsite signs with digital displar:s. (L.A. Ord. No. 180445.) The
ordinance imposed "interim regulations on the issuance of building permits for Ofd Site
Signs, including Digital Displays, and new Supergraphic Signs." The ordinance defined
"digital display" and "supergraphic sign," and prohibited both the issuance of building
permits and the alteration or construction of all offsite signs (including digital displays
and supergraphic signs) "pursuant to a building permit issued prior to the effective date of
this ordinance." (The ordinance included an exception if the building permit holder had
already performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in reliance on the
permit.) The ordinance's "whereas" clauses referred to the city's settlements with real
parties allowing them "to modernize a certain number of existing conventional signs to
digital signs," and stated that "no existing City regulations address where and how these
929*929 conversions can take place" and that the conversions were "causing
unanticipated negative impacts including negative impacts on residential
neighborhoods...." Prohibitions explicitly banning offsite signs with digital displays
became a part of the municipal code effective August 14, 2009. (LAMC, § 14.4.4(B)11.)
After mu tiple hearings, the trial coup (Judge Green) granted plaintiffs motion for a
writ of mandate, orderirw the ehv to set aside and cease Implementing the settlement
agreement. The court ruled on each of the contentions we discuss in this opinion, and we
affirm all of the rulings which led the court to conclude the settlement agreement was
void for all purposes. The court, however, rejected plaintiffs contention that all permits
that had been issued pursuant to the settlement agreement should be revoked. The court
concluded dual the is's'ue ofpermit revocation was an administrative issue, and with the
settlement agreement voided, administrative hearlit s at the instance of citizens would
no longer be a tulle exercise.
Real parties appealed and plaintiff cross -appealed. We granted applications from the
Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd, Homeowners Association and the Westwood
Homeowners Association, and from the League of California Cities, to file amicus curiae
briefs.
DISCUSSION
1. Real Parties'Appeal
Real parties contend the judgment should be reversed on any or all of five bases. First,
they say, the settlement was incorporated in a stipulated judgment in the Vista reverse
validation action, and an attack on a judgment in an in rem validation action is barred by
the validation statutes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 870) Second, plaintiff cannot collaterally
attack a iudgmenl in a case where the superior court had fundamental iurisdiction over
the underlvhm litigation. Third, plaintiff failed to erhmust administrative remedies.
Fourth; the trial court erred in concluding the settlement agreement was an ultra vires act,
and fifth, the trial court, on the record before it, had no authority to summarily grant writ
relief voiding the entire settlement agreement.
None of these contentions has merit.
a. The validation statutes do not prevent plaintiffs lawsuit.
Real parties argue that the validation statutes (Code Civ. Proc., § 860 et seq.) bar
plaintiffs lawsuit. Section 870, subdivision (a) governs the effect of a judgment in
validation proceedings, stating that, if no appeal is taken 930*930 from the judgment (or
the judgment is affirmed), "[t]he judgment... shall, notwithstanding any other provision of
law ... thereupon become and thereafter be forever binding and conclusive, as to all
matters therein adjudicated or which at that time could have been adjudicated, against the
agency and against all other persons, and the judgment shall permanently enjoin the
institution by any person of any action or proceeding raising any issue as to which the
judgment is binding and conclusive." According to real parties, because the stipulated
judgments in the Vista reverse validation proceedings—including terms incorporating the
settlement agreement—were not appealed, the judgments are conclusive against the
world "as to all matters therein adjudicated or which at that time could have been
adjudicated...." (/bid.) Real parties are mistaken.
Validation proceedings are most commonly used "'to secure a judicial determination that
proceedings by a local government entity, such as the issuance of municipal bonds and
the resolution or ordinance authorizing the bonds, are valid, legal, and binding."'
(Friedland v. Cih, ofLong Beach. (1998) 62 Cai.App.4th 835, 842 173 Cal.Rptr.2d 4271.)
The validation statutes "should be construed so as to uphold their purpose, i.e.. 'the acting
agency's need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action.' [Citation.]"
(Ibid.) A validation action is "in the nature of a proceeding in rem" (Code Civ. Proc., §
860) and "operates against property, as distinct from an injunction that operates against
persons" (Friedland, at p. 843). "[1]ts effect binds the agency and all other persons."
(Ibid. )
As already stated, a validation (or reverse validation) action must be authorized by
another statutory provision. (Code Civ. Proc., § 860.) Here, Vista's challenge to the sign
fee ordinance was authorized by Government Code sections 66014 and 66022, which
require an action challenging an ordinance authorizing a fee for building permits, use
permits and the like to be brought under the validation statutes within 120 days of
passage of the ordinance.
The Vista action was a proper reverse validation action, challenging the validity of the
sign fee ordinance, and a judgment validating or invalidating the fee would have barred
any suit challenging that ordinance by anyone on any ground. But real parties' stipulated
judgment (and the stipulated judgments obtained earlier by Vista and later by Regency
Outdoor, Inc.) neither validated nor invalidated the sign fee ordinance, and the settlement
agreement covered matters far beyond the scone of those subiect to the validating
statute—matters that were not litigated and were not subject to or proper for litigation
under the validation statutes. As Judge Chalfant pointed out, because the stipulated
judgments do not validate or invalidate the sign fee, 931 *931 and do not purport to affect
any third party. the judgments do not and cannot bar this suit (which does not even
purport to challenge the sign fee ordinance).
Real parties' reliance on Embarcadero :ilun. Improvement Dist, v. Countv of San
Barbara (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 781 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 ]Embarcadero) and Bernardi v.
Cin, Council (1997) 54 Cal.Ap12.4h 426 1-63 Cal.Rptr?il 347) (Bernardi) is misplaced. In
Embarcadero, the court found a municipal improvement district lacked standing to
challenge a tax allocation among the county and various special districts, and also that the
action was barred by the statute of limitations because the tax allocation was an
intermediate step in an annexation that had been approved in a validation action and had
become conclusive. In Bernardi, appellants city and redevelopment agency
acknowledged that a 1977 stipulated judgment validating a redevelopment plan was
binding and conclusive, but sought to modify provisions capping the tax dollars allocated
to the project arid restricting debt to finance the project, claiming those provisions did not
concern the "validity" of the plan. The Court of Appeal concluded there was no
jurisdiction in 1995 to modify the judgment, holding the fiscal cap and debt deadline
provisions of the 1977 validating judgment were "integral parts thereof and therefore are
as binding and conclusive as the validating provision therein." (Bernardi. suora, at u.
437 italics omitted.)
We think it is obvious that nothing in Embarcadero or Bernardi supports the proposition
that the validation statutes bar plaintiffs challenge to the settlement agreement (or the
stipulated judgment) in this case. The terms of the settlement are far afield from the sign
fee ordinance that was the subject of the validation action. The settlement agreement
allows real parties to modernize offsite signs by altering them with digital displays, in
contravention of the 2002 sign ban that would otherwise prevent such alterations; these
and many other settlement provisions exempting real parties from municipal regulations
have nothing at all to do with the validity of the sign fee ordinance.
Unlike the case in Embarcadero, the challenged settlement provisions are not an
"intermediate step" without which the sign fee ordinance could not be validated. (See
Embarcadero. supra, 88 Cal.AppAth at pp. 786.790.) Unlike the case in Bernardi, none
of the challenged settlement provisions concern the validity of the sign fee ordinance;
none of the challenged provisions is "inextricably intertwined with the validating
language" of the stipulated judgment, or "part and parcel of the validating judgment"
(Bernardi. supra. 54 Cal.App.40h at p. 438)—indeed, there is no "validating language" it
the stipulated judgment, and there is no "validating judgment."
932*932 Plaintiff chose not to challenge the sign fee ordinance in the Vista action (and
does not do so in this lawsuit). Plaintiff was not required to have done so in order to
challenge the terms of a settlement (or stipulated ludgment) that goes far beyond
matters that were the legitimate subieer of a validation action—a judgment that neither
validates nor invalidates the sign fee ordinance and does not by its terms purport to bind
third parties. In short, real parties' effort to characterize the stipulated judgment in this
case as inextricably intertwined with the sign fee ordinance and as similar to the one in
Bernardi is entirely without merit. The validation statutes do not prevent this lawsuit.
b. Legal principles barring collateral attack on a judgment do not apply.
Next, real parties make an elaborate argument to the effect that, because Judge Dau had
fundamental jurisdiction in the Vista action to enter the stipulated judgment, plaintiff may
not "collaterally attack" the stipulated judgment. They point to cases stating the well-
established proposition that a litigant "may not collaterally attack a final judgment for
nonjurisdictional errors." (E.g., Estate of Buck (1994) 29 Cal.App.dth 1846, 1854 f3i
Cal.Rntr.2d 4421 [""'If a judgment, no matter how erroneous, is within the jurisdiction of
the court, it can only be reviewed and corrected by one of the established methods of
direct attack.""'].) That principle does not apply here.
(3) First, plaintiff was not a litigant in the Vista action, and had no notice of the
settlement agreement or its terms. Under those circumstances, there was no avenue by
which plaintiff could have or should have used ""'one of the established methods of
direct attack""' on thejudgment. (Estate of Buck, supra. 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 1854.)
Second, plaintiff does not purport to challenge the judgment; its claim is that the city
acted beyond its authority when It entered Into a settlement agreement, of which
plaintiff had no notice, exempting real parties from numerous provisions of the municipal
code. Aronparties cannot be deprived of the right to challenge illegal municipal action
simply because the parties to a settlement out those terms into a stipulated itidjemenl.
The legality of the settlement agreement was not adjudicated in the Vista action; in
Bernardi's language, the judgment incorporating the settlement terms "was the product of
a stipulation among the parties in which the trial court acquiesced, rather than a judicial
determination as to the [settlement agreement's] validity ...." (Bernardi. supra. 54
Cal.App.4th at p. 437.) In short, the prohibition on collateral attacks on a judgment
simply has no application to this lawsuit.
In a related argument, real parties contend that one superior court judge may not overrule
another. (Ford v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App3d 737.933*933 741-742 f233
Ca1.Rptr. 6071.) Real parties say Judge Dau "impliedly" concluded the settlement was not
an ultra vires act by the city, "made his own binding determination as to the validity of
the Settlement Agreement and entered judgment accordingly," and Judge Green
"supplant[ed] Judge Dau's ultra vires ruling." Again, we disagree, both on the facts and
the law. While Judge Dau addressed ultra vires arguments in connection with Vista's
stipulated settlement, and real parties assert their settlement was modeled on the Vista
settlement, the fact remains Ni at Judge Dau did not adjudicate the ultra vires issue in
connection with real Parties'settlement—indeed, no one, so far as the record shows,
objected to the settlement on that ground. And, as plaintiff points out, it is difficult to
conceive how plaintiff or anyone else could have objected to the settlement agreement
without knowing about it.
And in any event, we agree with Judge Green that it was beyond the trial court's power
to enter a stipulated iudgment adoptine the terms of a settlement agreement that was
ultra vires or otherwise etceeded the scope of the city's authority. (Cf il'elsch v.
Goswick (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 398.412 H81 Cai.Rptr. 7031(conc. onu. of Staniforth.
Acting P.J.) ["In general, stipulated judgments fail if they enforce illegal agreements."].)
c. There is no merit to the claim plaintifffailed to exhaust administrative remedies.
The basis for Plaintiff's standing to site in this case was its status cis a property owner
iniured by the settlement agreement. Plaintiff owned a sigh on Pico Boulevard, near
one of the signs real party Clear Channel was able to digitise under the settlement
agreement, without the public hearings otherwise required Real parties contend there
was an administrative remedy available to redress plaintiffs injury—that under the
municipal code, plaintiff could have challenged the modernization permit the city issued
for Clear Channel's Pico Boulevard sign. (The municipal code allows an administrative
appeal to challenge "determinations of the Department of Building and Safety where it
is alleged there is error or erbuse ol'discretion in any order, interpretation, requirement,
determination oraction made by the Department...." (LANG, § 12.26(K).)
We need not linger over a discussion of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies. Plaintiff challenged the leeallty ofthe settlement agreement, not the issuance
of the particular permit that gave plaintiff standing to challenee the settlement
agreement. As the trial court observed, real parties cite no authority requiring a party to
exhaust administrative remedies before: challenging an illegal government contract, "or
any administrative avenue by which [plaintiff] could have challenged the Settlement
Agreement." In any event, it would have been futile forplaintiffto pursue an
administrative remedy.
934*934 As the trial court observed, the city considered itself bound by the teens of the
settlement agreement "to issue the permits to [real parties] for their digital billboards,
including the one on Pico [Boulevard]." The settlement agreement— and the stipulated
Judgment—expressly state that the city "will not voluntarily assist" (or "shall not
voluntarily assist") any third party challenge to the settlement agreement, or to the
iudemem, "or to any application: for Permits or approvals under" the settlement or
iudement, and that the city would not "take any position adverse to (real pardesl in
connection with such third party challenge." Under these circumstances, we agree with
the trial court it would have been futile for plaintiff "to administratively challenge permits
issued by the City under an agreement that the City voluntarily entered and which
purports to bind the City to issue those very permits."
Real parties point out that, since the settlement agreement, at least four administrative
appeals have been filed by others seeking review of permits issued to or requested by real
parties for the maintenance and modernization of old signs, and in two of the three
appeals that went forward (Clear Channel withdrew its application in one case), the
director's delegate ruled in favor of the challenger. But as real parties themselves note,
those adverse decisions related to regulations "not at issue in [plaintiffs] petition."
Moreover, the three appeals that real parties point to were decided after Judge Green's
invalidation of the settlement agreement. As the trial court observed, "[wjith the
protections of the Settlement Agreement gone, the City's administrative hearings would
no longer be a futile exercise...."
In sum, plaintiff earrectlr ohserves that the outcome of any administrative challenge
was "contractually preordained.' That being so, we can think of no greater exercise in
futility, and consequently the exhaustion doctrine, even if otherwise applicable, does not
apply here.
d. The trial court did not err int finding the settlement agreement was an invalid, ultra
vires act.
The trial court concluded that the .settlement agreement allowed the city and real
Parties to circumvent the general ban in the municipal code our alterations to existing
otfsite signs. (See LAMC, former § 14.4.4(B)11, § 12.21(A)7(l).) And, because land use
regulations involve the exercise of police power, and "the government may not contract
away its right to exercise the police power in flit, future" (Avco Communi , Developers.
Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785. 8001132 Cal.Rptr. 386, 553
P.2d 5461 (Avco)), the city's agreement to do so was ultra vires. The trial court was
correct.
935*935 (4) The legal authorities are clear. Avco stated the applicable principle. In Avco,
a new land use requirement (a permit from the coastal zone commission) was enacted
before the developer had obtained a building permit for a project, but after the developer
had perforated prepennit construction work. Aveo held a developer had no vested r�gh
to complete a project before buildhrg permits were issued (Aver, supra. 17 Cal.3d at no.
788. 791. 793. 796.) In rejecting an estoppel argument (based on an agreement between
the developer and the county permitting the development of the tract in accordance with
planned community zoning, regulations and a tract map), Avco said that themovernment
"may not contract mtaty its right to exercise the police power in the future," and "even
upon the dubious assumption that the [agreement] constituted a promise by the
government that zoning laws thereafter enacted would not be applicable to Ithe tract/, the
agreement would be invalid and unenforceable as contrary to public policy." (1d. at p.
800.)
Perhaps the most pertinent of the authorities following Avco is Trancas Property Owners
Assn. v. On, of Malibu (2006) 138 Cal.ADDAth172_[4.1 Cal.Rptr.3d 2001. Trancas ,
where the court found a settlement agreement between a city and a developer
"intrinsically invalid because it includes commitments to take or refrain from
regulatory actions regarding the zoning of Trancas's development project, which may
not lawfully be undertaken by contract." (Id. at pp. 180-181.) In Trancas, the court
identified two unacceptable provisions of the settlement: the city guaranteed that the
proposed development "would not be blocked by future zoning,"and that the developer
would not be required to comply with zoning density restrictions, existing or future. (Id
at p. 179.) The Trancas court said that the "promise to ubiure legislative zoning action
was unlawful," citing Avco. (Trancas, at p. 181.) As for the exemption from density
requirements, the court said: "it rather plainly constitutes mueement that the
development need not comply with density limitations different from the density set
forth in the Ideveloper'sl covenant." (Ibid) Tire court observed that the exemption
"functionally resembles a variance," a departure from standard zoning that requires
administrative proceedings and public hearings, and "lclircumvention ... by contract is
impermissible. " Od at P. 182Isenlement agreement gave Trancas a "red carper"
around future density requirements/. )
Nothing distinguishes Trancas from this case. At bottom, real Parties rely on on
proposition in their insistence that the settlement agreement was not a surrender of the
police power. Real parties contend that, so long as the settlement "reserves the
municipality's right to enact new laws in the future and apply them to the settling parry,"
the city has not "surrender[ed] its control over its police power." Real parties rely on
several cases to illustrate this "critical distinction" between a city's "permissible
agreement to constrain its conduct and an impermissible, ultra vires agreement in which
the municipality surrenders or abnegates control of its police power." (Italics omitted.)
936'936 But real parties misread the import of these cases. None of them stands for the
proposition that a city may agree to exempt settling parties from current municipal
ordinances prohibiting certain conduct, so long as the city makes no explicit promise to
refrain from enacting future legislation that would subject settling parties to those
prohibitions. (See, e.g., Morrison Homes Corp. v. Cit},, of Pleasanton (1976) 58
CaLApp.3d 724, 734 1130 Cal.Rptr. 1961 [when city breached promise to provide sewer
connections, large-scale home developer could enforce annexation agreements because
annexed lands were to be developed in accordance with the city's master plan and
ordinances, and developer paid sewer connection fees as fixed by ordinance or
agreement]; Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County Bd. of
Supervisors (2000) 84 Cal.AppAth221. 233 [100 Cal.Rpte2d 7401 [upholding
development agreement between county and developer that, among other things, froze
zoning on the property for up to five years: the zoning freeze was not a surrender or
abnegation of county's land use regulation fit nction wluere county had authority to
enter into contracts to carry out that function, the project had to be developed in
accordance with the county's general plan, the county had to approve detailed building
plans, the county retained discretionary authority in the future, and the zoning freeze was
of limited duration and preserved future options].)
Without indulging in a discussion of all the cases on which real parties rely, stone
involves a settlement agreement that gives the settling parties an exemption front
ordinances currently in effect. They all involve whether or not the municipality has
agreed to refrain from legislating in the future. This is not such a case. Tltis is a case
where the settlement agreertrent purports to exempt the real parties from a host of
currently extslink, ordinances and regulations.
Real parties then fall back on their claim that the 2002 sign ban (and, presumably, the list
of other code provisions and ordinances from which the settlement agreement exempts
real parties) did not in fact restrict the modernizations and repermitting allowed under the
settlement agreement. (In other words, the 2002 sign ban never did prohibit the alteration
of signs by adding digital displays, so (one must assume) real parties, and others, were
always at liberty to do so.)
We cannot agree. The 2002 sign ban expressly prohibited offsite signs, and stated: "This
[prohibition] shall also apply to alterations or enlargements of legally existing off-site
signs." (L.A. Ord. No. 174547. § 2.11.) We do not see how the language could be plainer,
or how the prohibition could conceivably be construed to exclude from its scope an
alteration consisting of converting an ordinary billboard to one with a digital display.
937*937 Real parties rely most heavily on the city's representation and warranty in the
settlement agreement that "City zoning regulations do not restrict the other
Modernizations or re -permitting allowed pursuant to this Agreement, and ... no
Modernization or re -permitting for an existing structure shall be denied based on zoning
regulations." We are not persuaded by the syllogism that the city agreed to permit the
sign alterations, the city said zoning restrictions do not apply, and therefore the
alterations are legal. If the citv's warranty, were dispositive. there would be no such
tiring as an illegal contract. It is for the courts to determine the meaning of statutes or
ordinances at issue in a lawsuit, not the parties to the contract.
(5) In sum, the cases are clear that an agreement to circumvent applicable zoning laws
is invalid and unenforceable. That is precisely what happened here; the settlement
agreement exempted real parties from prohibitions in the 2002 sign ban and other
regulations. Real parties' fundamental premise—that an agreement by the city is not ultra
vires, so long as it does not "contractually exempt a private property from all future
legislative and regulatory control"—is simply wrong. An agreement is ultra vires when it
contractually exempts settling parties from ordinances and regulations that apply to
everyone else and would, except for the agreement, apply to the settling parties. The trial
court's ruling was correct.
e. The trial court correctly granted writ relief and correctly voided the entire settlement
agreement.
Real parties' final argument is that writ relief voiding the entire settlement was improper
because the record does not support it—specifically, they say, the record does not support
either a summary determination in plaintiffs favor or the invalidation of the entire
settlement agreement. They are mistaken.
"Mandamus relief is ... available to 'correct those acts and decisions of administrative
agencies which are in violation of law....' (Citation.]" (Transdvn.,Cresci JV v. City and
County of San f randseo (1999) 72 Cal.Ap12.4th 746, 752 r85 Cal.Rptr.2d 5121.) indeed,
the court in Trancas ordered the trial court to grant a writ of mandate requiring the city to
set aside a settlement agreement. (Trancas supra. 138 Ca1.AW.4th at p. 188.)
Real patties assert there are factual issues that must be resolved before an ultra vires
determination may be made. As will be evident from our previous discussion, we do not
agree. Real parties point to evidence from their own company officials to the effect that
the city "never claimed any conflict" between the settlement agreement and then existing
city ordinances; that no one intended to override city laws; that alteration of offsite signs
to digital 938*938 signs was not "clearly or expressly prohibited'; that the city could
change its ordinances in the future (and did in 2008); and that the record contains
disputed questions of fact about plaintiffs right to challenge the settlement agreement
(claims that plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing suit, should have participated in
the reverse validation action, and has unclean hands because it "regularly failed to
comply with City regulations...").
Most of these claims are restatements of contentions already rejected, and we need not
discuss them further. As for the claims of unclean hands and laches, the trial court
expressly uddressed and rejected halt defenses. The trial court found that the claim of
unclean (rands cannot be invoked "where, as hem the act sought to be enjoined is
against public policy." (See Jomicra. Inc. v. California Mobile Home Dealers Assn.
(1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 396.402 [90 Cal.Rptr. 696].) The trial court rejected the laches
defense because of uncontradicted evidence plaintiff did not know of the settlement
agreement until after the time for appeal had passed, and in any event plaintiff filed suit
in federal court within three months after the stipulated judgment was entered. We see no
basis to conclude the trial court erred in rejecting these defenses,
The claim that the trial court should not have invalidated the entire settlement agreement
is also without merit. This claim, as we understand the argument, is that plaintiff was
affected by only one "modemization"—the one on Pico Boulevard that gave plaintiff
standing to challenge the settlement agreement—and so the trial court could not order the
city "to set aside and cease implementing the Settlement Agreement with respect to all
modernization permits and all replacement permits as well...." Real parties say there was
"no record to support that relief' and the claim for such relief "was not and is not ripe."
(6) The trial court correctly concluded: "[Tlhe central Purpose of the Settlement
.zreement—the exemption of freal Pardesl from zonine laws in return for certain
tlleaed benefrts to the City --is illegal, so the contract as a whole cannot stand." in
addition, the court looked to the severability provision, which states that if any provision
were held invalid or unenforceable, the real parties would be entitled to a refund of all
fees or other moneys paid to the city under the agreement (as the trial court put it, real
parties "are restored to their original position") --so the court concluded the parties
intended the agreement to be an integrated whole. The court did not err. (Armendari_ v.
Foundation Health Psvchcare Services. Inc. (2000) 24 CalAth 81124 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d
745.6 P.3d 6691 ["Ifthe central purpose of the contract is tainted with illegality, then
the contract as a whole cannot be enforced "l.)
939*939 2. Plainto"s Appeal
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in refusing to revoke all the digital conversion
permits the city issued to real parties under the illegal settlement agreement. Plainri
argues that because the settlenunt agreement was unlawful (conflicting with the 2002
sign ban), the permits issued pursuant to the settlement agreement, which could not
have been issued ifthe cit, had enforced the 2002 sign ban against real parties, must,
like the settlement agreement, be ovoid. Plaintiff relies on Horwitz v. Cin, of Los .9ngeler
(2004) 124 Cai.App.4th 1344. 1356 f22 Cal.Rotr.3d 2951 (Honrir) ("[j]ust as the City
has no discretion to deny a building permit when an applicant has complied with all
applicable ordinances, the City has no discretion to issue a permit in the absence of
compliance"), and Pettitt v. Ca, ofFresno (1973) 34 CaLApp.3d 813. 819 f 110 Cal.Rptr.
2621 (Pettitt) ("the City cannot be estopped to deny the validity of a Permit... issued or
made in violation of the erpress provisions of a zoning ordinance"). We agree with
plaintiff.
The trial court's view was that, while the settlement agreement was "void for all
purposes," nevertheless the issue of permit revocation was an administrative issue, to be
decided on a sign -by -sign basis. The trial court said: "With the protections of the
Settlement Agreement gone, the City's administrative hearings would no longer be a
futile exercise and the City must apply its codes equally to all. Citizen challenges to the
billboards could be made on an individual basis, with the merits of each determined
Independently. The People's elected representatives, and their appointees. are in the best
position to make these determinations and to decide what standards are to be applied.
This Court is also mindful that, in pursuing Its course of atiion over the last few Years.
the /real Partied relied on an agreement sanctioned by the Superior Court. Such
reliance is reasonable, even if later this and other courts find that agreement invalid."
Real parties say the trial court was correct (among other reasons) because there was no
evidence in die record "as to whether [the Department] would have (or could have) issued
any given permit even if the City had not entered into the Settlement Agreement," and
real parties should be given an opportunity to argue, in administrative proceedings for
each sign, that the city should be equitably estopped from revoking their permits. Further.
they say, this case "does not involve a situation where companies are seeking to keep
permits that unambiguously were precluded by law at the time they were issued."
But the trial court held,, and ive Irate held that digital cont-ersions were indeed
unambiauouslY Prohibited by the municipal code at the time of tine 940*940 settlement
agreement. Moreover, the reasonableness of real paMes' reliance on the settlement
agreement, to which the trial court referred is not the relevant standard where land
use ordinances are involved. li"Itere land use A w issue, 'there is no metmingfltl
distinction between an estoppel claim and a resred right claim...." (Toigo v. Town o
Ross (1998) 70 Cal.Ap12.4th 309, 321 f82 Cal.Rptr.2d 6491(Toigoo) ["estoppel can be
invoked in the land use context in only 'the most extraordinary case where the injustice
is area and the precedent set by the estoppel is narrow"].)
In this case, real parties say they reasonably relied to their detriment (1) on the city's
express representations in "a heavily -negotiated settlement that was disclosed to the
public, approved by the City at the highest levels, and entered as a stipulated judgment by
a judge of the Superior Court" and (2) on the modernization permits issued by the
Department, as real parties invested in the modernization and entered into long-term
contracts with advertisers. We do not think this reliance and detriment—by parties that
vehemently argued that the city's settlement with Vista was "ultra vires and void"
because it circumvented requirements for public hearings and public notice when land
use decisions are being made --suffice to meet the requirements stated in Pettitt and
other cases. (City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462.496-497, 493 [91
Cal.Rptr. 23, 476 P.2d 4231 ["an estoppel will not be applied against the government if to
do so would effectively nullify 'a strong rale of Policy, adopted for the benefit of the
tp r & ... ,,,] )
(7) In short. Permits Issued in contravention of municipal ordinances are invalid, and
equitable estoppel is available against the government "it only 'the most extraordinary
case where the injustice is great and the precedent set by the estoppel is narrow.'
[Citation.]" (Toigo, supra. 70 Cal.App.4h at p. 321.) This is clearly not such a case. (See
Fedumak v. California Coastal Com. (2007) 148 Cal.A1212.4th 1346. 1372 f56 Cal.Rptr.3d
591 ["in land use cases, "'each case [of governmental estoppel] must be examined
carefully and rigidly to be sure that a precedent is not established through which, by
favoritism or otherwise. the public interest may be mulcted or public poliev
Real parties make several other arguments as to ivh r their permits should remain in
place pending administrative hearings on a sign -by -sign basis, but none of them has
merit. They say plaintiff had no standing to challenge any of the other permits issued
under the settlement agreement (other than the one on Pico Boulevard), so it cannot
obtain their revocation as relief, The only authority it cites for this assertion is .Summers
v. Earth Island Institute (2009) 941*941 555 U.S. 488 1`173 L.Ed.2d L 129 S.Ct. 11421
Real parties do not explain how that case supports their point, and it does not; we decline
to discuss this inapposite authority.
Next, real parties say the trial court was correct because a writ of mandate may not issue
to compel an exercise of discretion, and plaintiff did not show that fire city violated a
"clear, present, ministerial duty" in issuing each permit: they say the decision "whether
to revoke any given permit under which all work had been completed" is within the city's
discretion. No authority is cited except the municipal code, which eves the Department
of Building and Safety the authorih, (not the duty) to revoke permits. (LAMC, §§
91.6201.2.3, 98.0601(a)l.) But. as we have seen, the city does not and did not have the
dlscmdex to Issue permits that contravened emlsdnz municipal ordinances. (See
Horwitz, su ra. 124 Cal.Ap 4th at D. 1356 ["the Cit, has no discretion to issue a pennit
in the absence of complirmce" with municipal ordinaircesl.)
Real parties also claim that a judgment invalidating all digital conversion permits would
be improper because the relief would be "grossly excessive in relation to the harm
[plaintiff] claimed," and a court should always strive for "'the least disruptive remedy
adequate to its legitimate task.' [Citation.]" (O'Connell v. Szzperior Court (2006) 141
Cal.A1212.4th 1452. 1476. 1480 (47 Cal.Rptr.3d 1471.) We see nothing "grossly
exresslve"ln the revocation ofillegal permits Issued under an illegal settlement
agreement that contravenes municipal ordinances.
Finally, real parties say the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order
permit revocation, because plaintiff told the trial court that it was not seeking invalidation
of all the permits. This misconstrues plaintiffs statements, which merely indicated its
position throughout that it was challenging the settlement agreement, as opposed to
challenging a particular permit. In sum, there was no legal basis for the trial court's
refusal to revoke digital conversion permits that were issued under an illegal settlement
agreement and in violation of unambiguous municipal ordinances.
DISPOSITION
The order granting plaintiffs motion for iudgment on the perenyors. writ of mandate
is affirmed to the extent it reauires the cit, to set aside and cease implementing tit
settlement agreement entered into with real parties dated September 30, 2006. The
order is reversed to the extent it finds that the issue of permit revocation is an
administrative issue to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the cause is remanded to
the trial court with directions to 942*942 amend its order so that it invalidates aft digital
conversion pemi is issued br the cit, to real parties under the settlement agreement.
Plaintiffshall recover its costs on appeal.
Rubin, Acting P. J., and Her, J., concurred.
Petitions for a rehearing were denied January 9, 2013, and the petition of real parties in
interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 27, 2011 S208176.
LU As stated above, the 2002 sign ban applied to "alterations or enlargements of legally
existing off-site signs." tinder the settlement agreement, however, real parties were
"entitled to add to, convert, or rebuild their currently existing Structures to include (i)
digital technology that allows static advertising copy to be changed remoteiv by
electronic communications rather than by changing the advertising copy on site with
poster streets, or vinyl ('digital posting' also known as 'programmable electronic
messages') (ii) tri -vision Structures (Le., Structures with moving three -sides slats): (iii)
horizontal or vertical back-V30sheets; or fly) an additional face on a single -faced
Structure (collectively, 'Alodernizations7."
f2] See, for example, section 6.A.i. of the settlement agreement, providing in part that
"the City agrees to recognize the legality of all oflreal pattles'1 Pre -1986 Structures
and to issue permits for such Structures."
M LAMC former section 91.6205.18.3 (the inspection program) governed inspection
certificates, and stated in part that a certificate affirming that the offsite sign periodic
inspection fee had been paid would be issued "upon payment of proper fees, and
furnishing of the building permit number, or a copy of the building permit, or a statement
signed under penalty of perjury setting forth the circumstances by which the sign was
acquired and/or installed and/or the date of issuance of the building permit...."
U LAMC former section 91.6205.18.9 (the inspection program) provided in part that if
the city determined that an offsite sign was not lawfully erected "then the off-site sign
shall have its sign face removed and replaced with blank panels."
j51 The settlement agreement states that, "[n]otwithstanding anything else in this
Agreement or the Municipal Code, neither Clear Channel nor CBS will be denied a
permit for any Modernization on any existing Structure, or restricted in the use of any
Modernization,... based on the fact that any Structure to be modernized may otherwise
fall within a prohibition or restriction in any of the following Ordinances, Code
provisions, interpretations or memoranda...." The settlement agreement then lists LAMC
sections 12.21(A)7(/), 12.21.1(A)10, 12.22(A)23, former section 91.6205.11 (11) "or any
other ban on one or more categories of signage," and former section 91.6205.18, as well
as the 2002 sign ban.
;z7 LAW'' section 97.6210.4 provides in part that alterations, repairs or rehabilitation of
existing sign andlor sign support stntctures in excess of 10 PC] Cent of the replacement
cost of both the sigh and sign support structure may be made, provided the cost does not
exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost, there is no increase in sign area or heigiu and
no change in location or orientation ofthe sign, and "[a]ll new construction shall be as
required for a new sign of the same type." (§ 91.6216.4.2.) Alterations, repairs or
rehabilitation that exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of both the sign and sign
support structure "51131:1 complV with all the requirements of this Code." (§ 91.6216.4.3-)
=> Continued work on the City's Emergency Preparedness Committee driven
emergency preparedness web page. (Safety Policy No. 1, Page 175)
Began promoting the County of Los Angeles Emergency Survival Program
(ESP) monthly emergency preparedness messages. (Safety Policy No. 1,
Page 175)
Initiated a joint effort with neighboring Peninsula Cities to develop a security
system using Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras at the major
entrances to the peninsula. This is to ensure safety measures within the
communities and track vehicles coming in and out of the area. (urban
Environment Element — Safety Goal B, Page 175)
NOISE ELEMENT
The Element identifies .and .aro and-snrc. not -se problems +mrithin. the
community and forms the basis for land use distribution, including current
and projected noise level calculations for major noise sources.
Continued the implementation of the Municipal Code regulating hours of
construction and operation of mechanical equipment and modified the hours
of construction to reduce impacts of construction to neighboring properties
(Urban Environment Element — Noise Aspects Policy No. 1, Page 187).
=> Reviewed truck -hauling routes for trucks transporting construction -related
material and equipment for miscellaneous construction projects throughout
the City. (Urian Environment Element — Eloise Aspects Policy No. n, rage
187).
=:> Continued to implement a standard project condition of approval limiting the
idling and queuing of trucks and construction equipment at job sites outside of
Onn normitFor) clads .--nd hnl IMro. for nor o+rl lntinn onfixi;+w .Ll .lrhn.n F.nvixnnmcn�
111V 1JWIIIIi I.lW4 WU��J WI W IIVIV IVI VV IVU WVLIVII WV61 Ylt'' ,VlIVW11 `IIYII VIII IMI\
Element — Noise Aspects Policy No. 6, Page 187).
Reviewed Special Use Permits for temporary events, and required noise
monitoring for the events that are likely to create a noise impact on the
surrounding residential neighborhoods (i.e.: Wayfarers Chapel and
Marymount California University). (Urban Environment Element — Noise
Aspects Policy No. 1, Page 187).
=> Continued to implement a policy to require property owners to show that
mechanical equipment placed within any setback areas provide proof of
complying with a minimum 65dB(A) noise level requirement (urban
Environment Element — Noise Aspects Policy No. 5, Page 187).
DVED FROMX + -ac La A
MADE A PART OF TH. REI ORD AT THE
VCIL MEETING OF r� c
OFFICE OF THE C TY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
�Ubl l G (Aylq lug
A-22
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
2015 Annual Report on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan
=> Continued work on the City's Emergency Preparedness Committee driven
emergency preparedness web page. (Safety Policy No. 1; Page 175)
=> Began promoting the County of Los Angeles Emergency Survival Program
(ESP) monthly emergency preparedness messages. (Safety Policy No. 1,
Page 175)
Initiated a joint effort with neighboring Peninsula Cities to develop a security
system using Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras at the major
entrances to the peninsula. This is to ensure safety measures within the
communities and track vehicles coming in and out of the area. (Urban
Environment Element — Safety Goal B, Page 175)
I. NOISE ELEMENT
The Noise Element identifies and appraises noise problems within the
community and forms the basis for land use distribution, including current
and projected noise level calculations for major noise sources.
_� Continued to process Conditional Use Permits for larae commercial and
institutional proiect, and implemented noise mitigation measures to insure that
construction noise and operation noise generated from large projects do not
create noise impacts to surrounding residential properties (Urban
Environment Element — Noise As�ects.Policy No. 1 �3, Page 187).
Continued to attend LAX/Community Noise Roundtable meetinas on a bi
monthly basis to monitor aircraft and helicopter noise and provide updates
related to FAA airspace issues that potentially affect the City and helicopter
altitude and flight path revisions to/from Torrance airoor (Urban_ Environment
Element — Noise Aspects Policy No. 9 Pae 187
Continued the implementation of the Municipal Code regulating hours of
construction and operation of mechanical equipment and modified the hours
of construction to reduce impacts of construction to neighboring properties
(Urban Environment Element — Noise Aspects Policy No. 1, Page 187).
=> Reviewed truck -hauling routes for trucks transporting construction -related
material and equipment for miscellaneous construction projects throughout
the City. (Urban Environment Element — Noise Aspects Policy No. 6, Page
187).
=> Continued to implement a standard project condition of approval limiting the
idling and queuing of trucks and construction equipment at job sites outside of
the permitted days and hours for construction activity (Urban Environment
Element — Noise Aspects Policy No. 6, Page 187).
Community Development Department Page 20
d
CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: APRIL 19, 2016
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
1 Email from Director Throne
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, April 18, 2016**.
W:\AGENDA\2016 Additions Revisions to agendas\20160419 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From: Michael Throne
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 10:21 AM
To: CC
Cc: imac; Ron Dragoo
Subject: Late Correspondence Agenda Item 1 - IMAC Input
Dear Mayor Dyda and members of the City Council:
Last Thursday the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) met to review the
proposed 2016 capital budget and 5 -year capital improvement program as part of their overall
mission to provide advice to the City Council and to Public Works. Overall, they are supportive
of the expansion of the current CIP table into one that shows at a glance all the
projects/programs and their funding sources, and provided suggestions as to how to make the
next version of the table more user friendly. They were enthused that the table will ultimately
refer back to the project profile data sheets that Public Works has developed with input from
the Committee, which again will make the table more useful to the community and the Council
in the future. They did not weigh-in at this time on the merits of the proposed new
projects/programs and suggested that a discussion of the overall objectives of CIP would be
beneficial. A member of the Committee is expected to be in tonight's audience to answer any
questions the Council might have of the Committee.
Michael Throne, PE, PWLF
Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275
310 544-5252
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: APRIL 18, 2016
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, April 19, 2016 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
1 Proposed 5 -year Capital Improvement Program Revision E;
Email from Minas Yerelian
2 Emails from: Dan and Vicki Pinkham; Alys Pyun; Joan and
Tim Kelly
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2016 Additions Revisions to agendas\20160419 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From: Michael Throne
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:56 AM
To: CC
Subject: Draft CIP Presentation
Attachments: Proposed 5 -year Capital Improvement Program Rev E.pdf
Dear Mayor Dyda and members of the City Council:
Attached please find a draft of the public works presentation regarding the proposed capital
budget and 5 -year CIP. This remains a work in progress until Tuesday evening as we're
collecting photographs to illustrate the new projects. There are two slides per page. The
financial data contained in the presentation is summarized from the large CIP spreadsheet you
received yesterday.
As always, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for supporting Public Works.
Regards,
Michael Throne, PE, PWLF
Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275
310 544-5252
1
Proposed FY 2016-2017 Capital
Budget and 5 -year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Public Works Department
April 19, 2016
Proposed 5 -yr. Infrastructure Mgt. Objectives
• "Very Good" (or Better) Streets with Zero Deferred Maintenance
• A Safe and Reliable ACLAD Sewer System
• Improve 50% Old Local Pipes/Inlets per Master Plan of Drainage
• Complete Local Park Improvements
• Master Plan Civic Center site
• Implement Landslide Strategic Plan
4/15/2016
1
4/15/2016
FY 15-16 CIP Accomplishment Snapshot
- 5 Projects Constructed
- 7 Projects In -Construction
- 9 Projects In -Design
3 Advertising for Bids, Awarding by June 19
- 3 Studies Underway
Encumbered 58% Total FY 15-16 Capital Budget
DRAFT
Street
Rehabilitation
Program
Results
2014-16 LA County Local Agency Weighted Pavement Condition Indices
RPV
ROSEMEAD
HERMOSA BEACH
CULVER CITY
NORWALK
SIERRA MADRE
ELSEGUNDO
POMONA
NOT ALL
PALMDALE
AGENCIES
LA HABRA HEIGHTS
ARCADIA
SHOWN
BELLFLOWER
MONTEREY PARK
ALHANBRA
SOUTH PASADENA
COMPTON
0.0
10.0 20.0 30.0
40.0 50.0
60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
2
Expenditures and Funding
All Government Funds
Original FY 15-16 Budget $3,082,800
Continuing Appropriation from Prior CIP 12,725,269
Total FY 15-16 Budget 15,808,069
Stormwater Enterprise
Fund
$1,240,836
2,890,905
4,131,741
Encumbered by June 30, 2016 8,615,322 2,971,401
Proposed Continuing Appropriation to FY 16-17
6,548,905
Proposed Re -budgets from FY 15-16
530,000
Proposed NEW FY 16-17 Projects/Programs
8,507,400
Total Proposed FY 16-17 Budget
15,586,305
DRAFT
1,100,340
0
2,119,000
3,219,340
4/15/2016
Major Capital Fund
Balances
Beginning
Balance Est Ending Balance
Est Ending Balance
July 1, 2015
June 30, 2016
June 30, 2017
CIP Reserves
$20,447,429
$22,370,070
$14,464,265
HUTA (Gasoline Tax)
1,321,716
1,497,507
1,247,507
Proposition C
192,990
835,590
1,057,984
Proposition A
236,073
1,008,467
1,789,712
Measure R
1,153,223
1,637,843
2,127,468
Quimby
1,337,510
2,418,893
1,851,893
Stormwater Enterprise (SD User Fees)
6,725,725
4,654,324
1,442,984
3
Proposed Re -budgeted Projects
• Portuguese Bend Landslide Strategic Plan
• In Development with Infrastructure Mgt Advisory Committee
• FY 15-16 Budget $75,000
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $75,000 Source: CIP Reserves
• PVIC Exhibit Replacement/Renovation
• Seeking Additional Grants
• FY 15-16 Budget $455,000
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $455,000 Source: Donations
DRAFT
Projects Planned in FY 15-16 for FY 16-17
• ACLAD Sewer System Rehabilitation Program
• Design Pending Capital Needs Study Outcome
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $200,000 Source: CIP Reserves
• Landslide Dewatering Well Program
• 5 Additional Wells
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $450,000 Source: CIP Reserves
• Landslide Area Resurfacing Program
• Resurface PVDS Through Portuguese Band
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $520,000 Source: Proposition C
4/15/2016
0
Projects Planned in FY 15-16 for FY 16-17 (Cont'd)
• Sidewalk Repair and Replacement Program
• Repair and Replace Sidewalks Citywide
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $250,000 Source: HUTA (Gas Tax)
• Residential Street Rehabilitation Program Cycle 1 Final Year 7
• Design and Construct Zones 6 & 7 Resurfacing
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $4,100,000 Source: CIP Reserves + TDA 3
• Residential Street Rehabilitation Program Cycle 2 Year 1
• Design Zone 8 Resurfacing
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $400,000 Source: CIP Reserves
• Storm Drain Lining Program
• Continue Relining Culverts Identified by Video Inspection
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $350,000 Source: SD User Fee
DRAFT
Projects Planned in FY 15-16 for Future Years
Reauire Another Look
• Grandview Park Improvements (FY 18-19)
• Ladera Linda Community Center Construction (FY 18-19)
• Solar Systems at Hesse Park and PVIC (FY 16-17 and FY 17-18)
• PVDS Realignment — Entire Length (FY 18-19)
• Paintbrush Canyon Drainage Study (FY 19-20)
No Work Required
• Sewer Capacity Projects Incl. Malaga Canyon Sewer (FY16-17)
4/15/2016
5
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs — Park
Sites
• Abalone Cove Beach Access Rd and Parking Lot
• Design Resurfacing and Drainage Improvements
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $50,000 Source: Quimby
Fees
• Coastal Bluff Fence Replacement Program
• Replace Deteriorating Cliff -Edge Fences
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $200,000 Source: CIP
Reserves
• Ladera Linda Community Center Parking Lot
• Design Including Addressing Stormwater Issues
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $50,000 Source: Quimby
Fees
DRAFT
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs — Park
Sites (Cont°d)
• Upper Pt Vicente/Hesse Park Marquee Signs
• Monument Signs with Electronic Message Board
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $110,000 Source: CIP
Reserves
• Eastview Park Site and Recreation Improvements
• Trail Widening, Facilities Improvements and Exercise Stations
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $250,000 Source: Quimby
Fees
4/15/2016
0
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs —
Public Buildings
• Civic Center Master Plan
• Design Including Public Safety Facilities and Corporation Yard
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $250,000 Source: CIP Reserves
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs — Right
of Way/Traffic Control Devices
• ADA Improvements at City Hall Bus Stop
• Accessible Connection from City Hall Parking Lot to Metro Bus Stop
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $192,000 Source: CDBG
• Arterial Walls and Fence Replacement Program
• Remove Chain Link Fencing Along Hawthorne Blvd
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $500,000 Source: CIP Reserves
4/15/2016
7
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs —
Sanitary Sewer System
• No Capacity -Expanding Projects Forecasted
• No Funding Requested
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs —
Storm Water
• Storm Drain Deficiency Improvement Program
• Replace Old Neighborhood Pipes/Inlets Identified in Master Plan of Drainage
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $1,769,000 Source: SD User Fee
• Torrance Airport Stormwater Quality Project
• Improve Stormwater Quality to Lake Machado
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $460,000 Source: CIP Reserves
4/15/2016
8
Proposed NEW Projects and Programs—Trails
• Conestoga Trail
• Design Connection from Sunnyside Ridge Trail to Rolling Hills Estates
• Requested FY 16-17 Budget $50,000 Source: CIP Reserves
DRAFT
Proposed FY 2016-2017 Capital Budget
Government Funds
• Infrastructure Administration $270,000
• Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District Sewer System 200,000
• Palos Verdes Drive South Landslide 1,493,672
• Park Sites 1,262,575
• Public Buildings 1,475,137
• Right of Way and Traffic Control Devices 10,224,321
• Sanitary Sewer System
0
• Storm Water System — SW Quality
460,000
• Trails
200,600
Total Government Funds
$15,586,305
Stormwater Enterprise
• Storm Water System — Repair/Rehab
$3,291,340
TOTAL PROPOSED FY 2016-2017 CAPITAL BUDGET
518,805,645
4/15/2016
9
Proposed 5 -yr. Infrastructure Mgt. Objectives
• "Very Good" (or Better) Streets with Zero Deferred Maintenance
• A Safe and Reliable ACLAD Sewer System
• Improve 50% Old Local Pipes/Inlets per Master Plan of Drainage
• Complete Local Park Improvements
• Master Plan Civic Center site
• Implement Landslide Strategic Plan
DRAFT
Recommendation
• Review and Discuss Capital Needs
• Provide Guidance and Direction
• Alternately, Take Other Action
4/15/2016
10
Subject: FW: Late Correspondence CC Agenda Item 1
-----Original Message -----
From: Michael Throne
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:23 AM
To: Carla Morreale <CarlaM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Late Correspondence CC Agenda Item 1
Comment from a community member.
-----Original Message -----
From: Michael Throne
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:22 AM
To: 'Minas Yerelian' <yerelian@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Spread sheet
Thank you Minas for your comments and your attendance at last week's [MAC meeting where this was reviewed and
discussed. The City Council will be discussing this on Tuesday April 19 (tomorrow).
Regards,
Michael
-----Original Message -----
From: Minas Yerelian [mailto:yerelian@gmail.comj
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 7:17 AM
To: Michael Throne <MichaelT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Spread sheet
Hi
The spread sheet that you created for the City is fantastic, with some improvements I might be able to comprehend it
fully.
This spread sheet must be displaced at City Hall for every one to see, updated when needed.
Please set CC agenda time to educate the council and the rest of us.
Thank You
Minas Yerelian
Sent from my iPad
1.
TO: RPV Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Dan and Vicki Pinkham
1 Narcissa Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 April 6, 2014
SUBJECT: ALTAMIRA CANYON STORM DRAIN CULVERT EXIT
Dear Council Members,
My husband and I live at 1 Narcissa Drive. There is a city owned drainage culvert in. Altamira
Canyon that runs under PVDS. The exit end of the culvert allows the general public very easy
entrance, pass thru and access into our private property and the gated community of Portuguese
Bend. Because of this access , we have experienced many years of crime, graffiti, trespassing,
threats, vandalism and actually, we have literally lost the use of this part of our property. This is
a very serious concern that is not just contained to our property, it is also a very real threat to
our community, to Rancho Palos Verdes residents, visiting guests at near by resorts and event
centers.
For more than eight years, we have called the sheriffs department. Due to an increase of
activity, mostly due to a mitigation measure that created a cement ramp up to the mouth of the
culvert, trespassing and crime has evolved into a BIG PROBLEM. Even though we have posted
numerous no trespassing signs, they are disregarded. This is frightening and causes concern
daily. There are taggers, which bring gangs, large groups of people, fires, drinking, drugs, fire
works, helicopter rescues and threats. This behavior is not restricted to weekends and nights, it
goes on the all time. My husband who is a well respected American artist, made a custom
mobile studio. It is parked on our private property and now, it is shredded to pieces and covered
with graffiti many times over.
We have requested that some kind of grid, gate, or duck bill, be placed on the beach side of the
City owned drain exit. We have explored other RPV drains and many of them have some kind
of grid covers combined with signage indicating that there is NO TRESPASSING. (Example:
the drain across from St. Peter's church on PVDS) This seems to be the solution; prevent access
from the beach side of the drain.
Recently, several of us met with the City Manager about this problem. Mr. Willmore,
sympathetic to the situation, explained that he felt the solution would have to begin with the
City Council's participation and approval of an eventual solution. We hope that you will give this
problem the attention it deserves.
Thank you, Dan and Vicki Pinkham
W6-
- AL
1 f.
D
I
Ar
lit
ALA
V:ww
IF
mr dw 4
ok, Itp-
NSA%
L 16
Ir,
r4i
IT A v !. lltk l*%
A
0-0
Jow
doe, k
R.p
r
a
Subject: FW: Altamira Canyon Storm Drain on YouTube
From: Susan Brooks
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:09 PM
To: Pinkhamd <pinkhamd@aol.com>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Cory
Linder <CorvL@rpvca.gov>
Cc: susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Altamira Canyon Storm Drain on YouTube
Dear Vicki and Dan,
This is truly horrific. It makes a mockery of a true artist's vandalized studio.
The end of the video even shows how they get in and around the bluff top entry.
I'm cc'ing staff on this video and am requesting it be entered into the public record when this matter comes up
on the agenda.
Regards,
Susan
Susan Brooks
Councilwoman
Rancho Palos Verdes
310/ 541-2971
wwwww.rpyca.goy
1
Sent from my Whone
On Mar 31, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Pinkhamd <pinkhamd cr,aol.com> wrote:
Additional information, storm drain and graffiti on Facebook: SKA DAY FILMS name of person filming,
Brandon Yavas. He also has a documentary "Art is not a crime -A street art documentary"
So far it is on both Facebook and You Tube.
-----Original Message -----
From: Vicki Pinkham <pinkhamd(ac)aol.com>
To: susanb <susanb(a-).rpvca.gov>; susanbrooks01 <susanbrooks01(ayahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 31, 2016 3:49 pm
Subject: Altamira Canyon Storm Drain on YouTube
Exploring Drainage Tunnels (Draining)-URBEX - YouTube
0
Hi Susan, My neighbor recently alerted me to this video on YouTube . A portion of
the video shows Dan's mobile studio that he had retrofitted as his painting studio. It is on our private
property and has obviously been vandalized beyond repair. We are in the process of gathering letters
and additional information. As you can now see, even Altamira Storm drain is a "hit" on social
media. Thanks again for your time. Vicki and Dan
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&g=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=OahUKEw'8hbLo evLAhXq
moMKHThpCQMQtwllJiAD&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBoN5PXxvl0&usq=AFQiCNEUQkD
DfYlc3B9dC-o4Li93JdHhAQ
Subject: FW: Storm Drain In Portuguese Bend Needs a security Gate
From: lanil<ai555@aol.com [ma iIto: lanil<ai555Ca�aol com]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:18 PM
To: CC <�gr vca. oy>
Subject: Storm Drain In Portuguese Bend Needs a security Gate
Dear City Council,
Please put a secure gate at the Abalone Cove entrance to the Altamira Canyon Creek storm
drain. It is a dangerous threat to all of the residents in Portuguese Bend and all of Rancho
Palos Verdes. The drain is a magnet for crime, graffiti, littering and a fire hazard. Gases have
been known to accumulate in storm drains and are very dangerous if matches or incendiary
devises are used. (Sparklers can be seen on a YouTube video on the storm drain) The storm
drain is also a liability as it poses dangerous conditions for those who are attracted to it.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alys Pyun
From: Tim Kelly <tkellyrpv@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 12:12 PM
To: CC
Subject: Fwd: Altamira Canyon Culvert Report
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the staff for preparing such a
comprehensive study and analysis of the issues associated with the current hazard
that exists at the Altamira Canyon culvert at PVDS near the Narcissa entrance to
PBCA. The neighbors closest to this area have suffered for many years with
vandalism and personal confrontational encounters with trespassers, vandals and
highly intoxicated intruders. Some of these encounters have been semi violent and
it's only been by virtue of good luck that these incidences have not resulted in
personal injuries. There many documented cases of graffiti and damage to
property and with the video exposure of the " exciting trip " through the culvert
now all over YouTube, these incidences will surely escalate. Just remember the
issues with the YouTube exposure of the swimmers diving off Abalone Point last
year. We have attached a copy of the "Exploring Drainage Tunnels" video for
your use. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBoN5PXxvlO&sns=em
We agree with your two part approach to the solution and look forward to you
implementing the first phase as soon as possible. However, we do have a
comment on your No 1 ranked long term solution. Your solution calls for the
vertical realignment of the downstream end of the pipe which would result in the
new pipe discharge outlet being well above the canyon bottom. This solution does
not include the provision of a grate. Our fear would be that this might be a further
incentive for potential dare devil trespassers to invent new ways to access the
culvert if some sort of grate is not installed. However, we are sure that all these
issues will be thoroughly evaluated in the design process.
We thank you for your consideration and appreciate all the good work you do on
behalf of protecting our community and residents.
Joan and Tim Kelly.
Sent from my iPhone.
N.-