CC SR 20220201 03 - Oceanfront Estates Interpretation
01203.0005/763710.2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 02/01/2022
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to affirm Oceanfront Estates Homeowners
Association’s responsibility for the maintenance of perimeter ornamental landscaping
within the certain common areas of their tract (Case No. CPM2021-0012).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-__, affirming that, based on the Development
Agreement approved by Ordinance No. 344, the Oceanfront Estates Homeowners’
Association is the entity responsible for maintaining the perimeter ornamental
landscaping (including acacia) located within Lot Nos. 80, 81, 83, and 84
(Oceanfront Estates Tract).
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ken Rukavina, P.E., Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2022-__ (page A-1)
B. May 15, 2007 Staff Report and Meeting Minutes (page B-1)
C. Development Agreement
D. Tract No. 46628 (page D-1)
E. Code Enforcement Letter dated March 15, 2021 (page E-1)
F. Public Comments (page F-1)
BACKGROUND:
On March 17, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92 -27, approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 158 in conjunction with Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 46628 for a residential planned development of 79 single-family lots and open space
lots on a 132-acre vacant site, located seaward of the terminus of Hawthorne Boulevard
1
01203.0005/763710.2
at Palos Verdes Drive West (PVDW), between the Lunada Pointe community to the north
and the Point Vicente Interpretive Center to the south. Additional planning entitlements
included Coastal Permit No. 94, Grading Permit No. 1439, and Environmental Impact
Report No. 35.
As part of the approval, the developer of the Oceanfront Estates project, Capital Pacific
Homes, was obligated to dedicate 71 acres as public open space, and to revegetate and
restore 30 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) and 3 acres of wetland habitat as mitigation
measures for habitat impacts (the public open space was formed into seven lots as part
of the tract map). The developer was further obligated to continue to maintain these
habitat areas until they were established to the satisfaction of state and federal wildlife
agencies (“Wildlife Agencies”). This requirement and future maintenance obligations
between the future homeowners’ association and the City were memorialized in a
Development Agreement approved in 1999 through Ordinance No. 344 (Attachment C).
In 2007, the developer obtained concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies that these habitat
areas were established to their satisfaction, and a staff report was brought to the City
Council on May 15, 2007 (Attachment B), to transfer the maintenance of the revegetated
habitat to the City and assign the task of maintaining the habitat on specific lots, including
Lot Nos. 80, 81, 82 and 83 to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC).
See Figure No. 1 below, which indicates the location of these lots:
Figure No. 1 - Open Space Lots
Note: Not all lots are shown in the diagram below but are visible on the map attached to the Development
Agreement (Attachment C)
2
01203.0005/763710.2
The May 2007 staff report also stated that the remaining “ornamental” landscape areas
on these lots would be maintained by the Oceanfront Estates Homeowners’ Association
(HOA), pursuant to the Development Agreement (Attachment C). Specifically, Section
11.5 of the Development Agreement states, with the specific lots subject to the current
dispute underlined and bolded for emphasis:
11.5 Agreement Regarding The Maintenance Of Certain Areas By The Homeowners'
Association.
Developer and City hereby agree that the following areas of the open space, which will be
dedicated to the City, are more appropriately maintained by the Homeowners' Association
that is to be formed by Developer, because of the direct benefit to the homes that will be
derived from the care of these areas by the Homeowners' Association:
1. The north entrance to the tract, including the median (Lot 87) and portions of Lots
82 and 83 on both sides of the roadway;
2. Portion [sic] of Lots 80 and 83 and all of Lot 84, which is comprised of the
slopes surrounding the wetlands area and extending along Palos Verdes
Drive West to the south entrance to the tract;
3. Portions of Lot 80 that comprise the firebreak along the rear of lots 31 through
35, lots 36 through 39, 78 and 79, and the East side of Via Del Cielo (Street "B”)
between Lot 35 and Lot 78;
4. The main entrance to the tract at Hawthorne Boulevard, including the median
(Lot 88) and the portions of Lots 80 and 81 on both sides of the road;
5. A portion of Lot 81, which is comprised of the slopes along Palos Verdes
Drive West extending from the South entrance to the Tract to the Southern
boundary of the Tract;
6. A portion of Lot 81, which is comprised of the firebreak along the rear of lots 64
through and 68;
7. The entrance to Via Del Cielo (Street "B") at Via Vicente (Street "A") consisting of
the median (Lot 90) and within the Via Del Cielo street right-of-way adjacent to
the median;
8. The entrance to Calle Viento (Street "D") at Via Vicente (Street "A") consisting of
the median (Lot 91) and within the Calle Viento street right-of-way adjacent to the
median;
9. The entrance to Paseo De La Luz (Street "C”) at Calle Entradero (Street "A")
consisting of the median (Lot 89) and within the Paseo De La Luz right-of-way
adjacent to the median; and
10. A portion of Lot 82 which is comprised of the firebreak along the West side of the
property line of Lot 58.
3
01203.0005/763710.2
The maintenance responsibilities of the seven open space lots was accepted by the City
City in 2007 and memorialized in the table below:
Lot Acres Use Maintenance Responsibilities
80
14.17 Pre-existing and revegetated
CSS habitat
Habitat areas by PVPLC;
perimeter
ornamental landscaping and
fencing by homeowners'
association
81
5.36
Revegetated CSS habitat and trail
Habitat areas and trails by PVPLC;
perimeter ornamental landscaping
and fencing by City or home-
owners' association
82
46.54
Revegetated CSS habitat and
trails, off-street parking lot, sewer
pump stations (2) and
underground slant drain access
point
Habitat areas and trails by PVPLC;
other "hard" infrastructure by City;
perimeter ornamental landscaping
and fencing by City or home-
owners' association
83
2.80 Pre-existing and revegetated wet-
land habitat
Habitat areas by PVPLC;
perimeter
ornamental landscaping and fenc-
ing by homeowners' association
84
1.02
Ornamental slope landscaping
Perimeter ornamental landscaping
and fencing by homeowners'
association
85
0.25
Pedestrian access corridor
Trail and ornamental landscaping
by City; perimeter fencing by
homeowners' association
86
0.18
Wildlife access corridor
Ornamental landscaping by City;
perimeter fencing by
homeowners' association
Additionally, the exhibit on the following page accompanied the maintenance
responsibility table delineating the specific areas to be maintained by the HOA and the
City. It should be noted that for Lot Nos. 81 and 82, the maintenance responsibilities of
perimeter ornamental landscaping and fencing is cited as City or homeowners’
association. This is because maintenance within each of these two lots were split between
the City and the homeowners’ association as memorialized in the map attached to the
May 15, 2007 Staff Report shown on the next page (green – City and orange – HOA).
4
01203.0005/763710.2
DISCUSSION:
Over the years, the City’s Code Enforcement Division has sent notices to the HOA when
maintenance of the perimeter “ornamental” landscaping (including acacia) along Palos
Verdes Drive West (PVDW) has lapsed, and the trimming was typically completed after
various letters were sent to the HOA. Condition No. K.1.b of the Conditional Use Permit
No. 158 states:
b. Landscaping within all open space areas shall be planted in such a
manner so that views from adjacent properties and any public right -of-way
are not affected and so that solar access to all dwelling units is protected.
Section 3.1 of the Development Agreement states that the HOA will maintain the common
area landscaping to the City's “reasonable satisfaction”. In the past City has interpreted
this to mean that the vegetation on the open space lots to be maintained by the HOA shall
be trimmed and maintained to a height no taller than the perimeter fencing along P VDW.
In March 2021, Code Enforcement Division Staff observed and received complaints from
the public about overgrown foliage along the periphery of the Oceanfront Estates tract
and sent a letter (Attachment E) to HOA representatives requiring that they trim and
maintain all perimeter ornamental landscaping down to fence height for Lot Nos. 80, 81,
83, and 84 pursuant to the Development Agreement. However, HOA representatives now
dispute their responsibility for the trimming, alleging several reasons why they believe
they should no longer be responsible for trimming this foliage, as follows:
1) A chart in the 2007 staff report indicates that for Lot Nos. 81 (and 82), ornamental
landscaping would be maintained by the HOA or the City, and so the HOA stated
while they accept maintenance responsibility for maintaining the plantings that are
on the street side of the fence along PVDW, the bulk of the foliage that has grown
5
01203.0005/763710.2
up is acacia, and they believe that to be located on the portion of the open space
lot that is to be maintained by the City.
The City’s response to this allegation is that Section 11.5 of the Development
Agreement (quoted above) clarifies that the HOA’s landscaping responsibility for
Lot 81 is the slopes along PVDW, which are the areas at issue here. Additionally,
these areas are shown in recorded Tract Map No. 46628 (Attachment D), as stated
in Easement Note I: “INDICATES RESERVED FOR LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE PURPOSES TO BE DEDICATED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S
ASSOCIATION BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT.” Furthermore, the portions of the
open space lots to be maintained by the City are only the habitat areas, of which
acacia is not a part.
2) The HOA indicated that it believes that acacia, which is the majority of the foliage
that has grown up into the view, was not considered ornamental foliage. However,
the City’s response to whether acacia is ornamental or not is not dispositive: the
acacia is located on the periphery of Lot Nos. 80, 81, 83, 84, and as it is not
revegetated habitat, the maintenance is the responsibility of the HOA.
The acacia at issue is located west of PVDW and is located primarily in Lot No. 84 and
on the eastern edge of Lot No. 80, along the slope that borders PVDW, in addition to the
perimeter areas of Lot Nos. 81 and 83 along PVDW. This area is the responsibility of the
HOA (as is the slope eastern edge of Lot 83), based on the Development Agreement (see
excerpt above).
The 2007 Maintenance Agreement with the PVPLC did not change the HOA’s
maintenance obligation, as the habitat areas are not located within the above areas. In
the staff report, the recommendation was for the City to take responsibility of the 33 acres
of habitat, and to enter into an agreement with the PVPLC to maintain these revegetated
habitat areas. The revegetated areas do not include Lot No. 84 or the eastern slope of
Lot No. 80, nor the perimeter of the above lots, directly adjacent to PVDW.
It should be noted that since execution of the Development Agreement, both the HOA
and the City have operated on the understanding that the HOA is responsible for the
landscaping in these areas, and both parties have acted accordingly up to this point in
time.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Next Steps
The next steps for this project will depend on whether the City Council finds that the HOA
is responsible for maintenance of the perimeter ornamental landscaping (including
acacia) within the common areas of the Oceanfront Estates residential tract located
specifically within Lot Nos. Nos. 80, 81, 83, and 84. If the City Council finds that the HOA
is responsible for the maintenance, the next step for the City’s Code Enforcement Division
would be to contact the HOA and provide two weeks from the date of the February 1,
2022 City Council meeting to complete the required landscape trimming to restore views
6
01203.0005/763710.2
from PVDW. If no action is taken, then the Code Enforcement Division will issue
administrative citations pursuant to the City Council-approved administrative citation
schedule which is $2,500 for the first offense, and increasing to $5,000 for the second
offense, and $7,500 for the third and all subsequent o ffenses. Additionally, the City may
pursue an abatement order with all costs, including legal costs, passed on to the HOA.
If the City Council finds that the City is responsible for the t rimming, the Public Works
Department would schedule and complete the trimming after the City Council adopts the
appropriate resolution.
Public Comments
Staff’s correspondence with the HOA is attached to this staff report as Attachment F.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Determine that the Oceanfront Estates HOA is not responsible for trimming the
perimeter foliage per the Development Agreement and direct Staff to bring back
a resolution finding that the City is responsible for the trimming at the next
available City Council meeting.
2. Take no action.
7
Resolution No. 2022-___
Page 1 of 6
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES AFFIRMING THAT, BASED ON THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NO.
344, THE OCEANFRONT ESTATES HOMEOWNERS’
ASSOCIATION IS THE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAINTAINING THE PERIMETER ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPING
(INCLUDING ACACIA) LOCATED WITHIN LOT NOS. 80, 81, 83,
AND 84 (OCEANFRONT ESTATES TRACT).
WHEREAS, on March 17, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92 -27,
approving Conditional Use Permit No. 158 in conjunction with Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 46628 for a residential planned development of 79 single-family lots and open
space lots on a 132-acre vacant site, located seaward of the terminus of Hawthorne
Boulevard at Palos Verdes Drive West, between the Lunada Pointe community on the
north and the Point Vicente Interpretive Center to the south.
WHEREAS, on February 25, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 97-12, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision 'A' for minor
revisions to certain conditions of approval related to the relocation of Lots 78 and 79 of
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46628, as required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
and this action was subsequently upheld by the City Council on March 11, 1997.
WHEREAS, on April 14, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution
No. 98-13, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision 'B' for miscellaneous
revisions to the development standards for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No . 46628; but
this action was subsequently overturned on appeal to the City Council on June 16, 1998 .
WHEREAS, on February 2, 1999, a Development Agreement was approved as
part of Ordinance No. 344, which memorialized, among other things, future maintenance
obligations of the Oceanfront Estates Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”).
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2000-41, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision 'C', et al. for
three tract entry observation booths on the interior streets of the tract, as well as
modifications to the tract perimeter fencing and the installation of tract identification
signage, which was subsequently upheld on appeal to the City Council with the adoption
of Resolution No. 2001-08 on February 8, 2001, but then was appealed to the California
Coastal Commission on February 26, 2001 and was denied..
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution
No. 2001-16, denying without prejudice Conditional Use Permit No. 158 -Revision 'D' and
Coastal Permit No. 94-Revision 'B' for a proposal to allow the main roof ridgeline of the
residence at 74 Via del Cielo (Lot 33 of Tract 46628) to be oriented less -than-
perpendicular to Palos Verdes Drive West.
A-1
Resolution No. 2022-___
Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2001-31, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 158-Revision 'E' for
revisions to the tract development standards to allow the encroachment of 30 -inch-tall
planters, seat walls and fire pits and 42-inch-tall pool equipment and built-in barbecues
into the rear-yard setback areas.
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution 2003 -24, which
upheld an appeal and overturned the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a
Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2002-00282) to allow revisions to the
development standards for the properties at 32, 34, 36, and 38 Via del Cielo (Lots 36, 37,
78 and 79 of Tract Map No. 46628 (Oceanfront)) to allow 14,000 cubic yards of additional
rough grading to lower the rear portions of the lots and create pad lots; to allow the
construction of two-story, rather than split-level, homes on these lots; and to allow the
phased re-grading and revegetation of City-owned Lot 80 of Tract Map No. 46628.
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2007, the City Council acknowledged the transfer of
ornamental landscaping maintenance responsibility from the developer to the HOA, and
maintenance responsibility of the habitat to the City, for the open space lots in the
Oceanfront Estates Community (Tract Map No. 46628).
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2021, the City’s Code Enforcement staff opened a
property maintenance code case in response to complaints about overgrown and view
impairing foliage along Palos Verdes Drive West on Lot Nos. 80, 81, 83, and 84 within
the Oceanfront Estates Tract No. 46628, and sent several letters to the HOA, asking it to
trim the foliage.
WHEREAS, the HOA argues the HOA should not be responsible for the
maintenance of the aforementioned foliage, as the bulk of the foliage that has grown up
into the view is acacia, which the HOA believes to be on the portion of the open space
lots that are maintained by the City.
WHEREAS, to obtain the City Council’s opinion on the matter, the item was
scheduled to be heard on the Regular Business portion of the February 1, 2022 agenda,
to determine if the City Council agrees that the HOA is the entity responsible for
maintaining the perimeter ornamental landscaping (including acacia) located within Lot
Nos. 80, 81, 83, and 84, as more particularly depicted in Attachment 1 hereto,
incorporated by reference.
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2022, the City Council heard the matter during the
Regular Business portion of the agenda, at which time all interested parties were given
an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
A-2
Resolution No. 2022-___
Page 3 of 6
Section 1: CEQA Findings. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. (“CEQA”),
the State’s CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et.
seq., the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines, this decision by the City Council (i) will only affect
maintenance of existing landscaping; and (ii) will not have a significant effect on the
environment. Therefore, this decision is not subject to CEQA pursuant to California Code
of Regulations Sections 15061(b)(2), and 15301(h).
Section 2: Development Agreement. Section 11.5 of the Development
Agreement details the areas that the Homeowners’ Association is responsible for , with
the applicable lots underlined and bolded for emphasis:
11.5 Agreement Regarding The Maintenance Of Certain Areas By The
Homeowners' Association.
Developer and City hereby agree that the following areas of the open space, which
will be dedicated to the City, are more appropriately maintained by the
Homeowners' Association that is to be formed by Developer, because of the direct
benefit to the homes that will be derived from the care of these areas by the
Homeowners' Association:
1. The north entrance to the tract, including the median (Lot 87) and portions
of Lots 82 and 83 on both sides of the roadway;
2. Portion [sic] of Lots 80 and 83 and all of Lot 84, which is comprised
of the slopes surrounding the wetlands area and extending along
Palos Verdes Drive West to the south entrance to the tract;
3. Portions of Lot 80 that comprise the firebreak along the rear of lots 31
through 35, lots 36 through 39, 78 and 79, and the East side of Via Del
Cielo (Street "B”) between Lot 35 and Lot 78;
4. The main entrance to the tract at Hawthorne Boulevard, including the
median (Lot 88) and the portions of Lots 80 and 81 on both sides of the
road;
5. A portion of Lot 81, which is comprised of the slopes along Palos
Verdes Drive West extending from the South entrance to the Tract to
the Southern boundary of the Tract;
6. A portion of Lot 81, which is comprised of the firebreak along the rear of
lots 64 through and 68;
7. The entrance to Via Del Cielo (Street "B") at Via Vicente (Street "A")
consisting of the median (Lot 90) and within the Via Del Cielo street right-
of-way adjacent to the median;
A-3
Resolution No. 2022-___
Page 4 of 6
8. The entrance to Calle Viento (Street "D") at Via Vicente (Street "A")
consisting of the median (Lot 91) and within the Calle Viento street right -
of-way adjacent to the median;
9. The entrance to Paseo De La Luz (Street "C”) at Calle Entradero (Street
"A") consisting of the median (Lot 89) and within the Paseo De La Luz
right-of-way adjacent to the median; and
10. A portion of Lot 82 which is comprised of the firebreak along the West side
of the property line of Lot 58.
Section 3: The City Council finds that the HOA is responsible for the maintenance
of the perimeter ornamental foliage (including acacia) located on Lot Nos. 80, 81, 83, and
84 for the following reasons:
1) Landscape maintenance responsibility for these areas is specified in Section
11.5 of the 1999 Development Agreement (as detailed above).
2) Easement Note I on the recorded Tract Map No. 46628, which applies to
portions of Lot Nos. 80, 81, and 83, and the entirety of Lot No. 84, states
“INDICATES RESERVED FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PURPOSES
TO BE DEDICATED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION BY
SEPARATE INSTRUMENT.”
3) The acacia is located on the periphery of Lot Nos. 80, 81, 83, and 84, and as it
is not revegetated habitat which is the responsibility of the City, the
maintenance of the acacia remains the responsibility of the HOA.
Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Reports, Minutes, and other records of proceedings in this matter,
the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby finds that the Oceanfront
Estates Homeowners Association is the entity responsible for maintaining the perimeter
ornamental landscaping (including acacia) located within Lot Nos. 80, 81, 83, and 84.
Section 5: Judicial Review. The time within which judicial review of the decision
reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation.
A-4
Resolution No. 2022-___
Page 5 of 6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of February 2022.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2022-__, was duly adopted by the City Council of said City at
a regular meeting thereof held on February 1, 2022.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
A-5
Resolution No. 2022-___
Page 6 of 6
Attachment 1
A-6
MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
MAY 15, 2007
ACCEPTANCE OF MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPEN
SPACE LOTS IN THE OCEANFRONT ESTATES COMMUNITY
(TRACT MAP NO. 46628)
Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, AICP, Associate Planner@
RECOMMENDATION
1) Acknowledge that the responsibility for maintaining the revegetated habitat on Lots 80
through 86, inclusive, of Tract Map No. 46628 (Oceanfront Estates) is being transferred
from the developer, Capital Pacific Homes (CPH), to the City in accordance with the 1999
Development Agreement between the City and CPH; and 2) authorize the Mayor to sign an
amended Operating Agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
(PVPLC) to assign the habitat maintenance responsibility for the portions for these lots that
are part of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) preserve to the PVPLC.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The developer of the Oceanfront Estates project, Capital Pacific Homes (CPH), was
obligated to dedicate seventy-one (71) acres as public open space, and to revegetate and
restore thirty (30) acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) and three (3) acres of wetland habitat.
CPH was further obligated to continue to maintain these habitat areas until they were
established to the satisfaction of State and Federal wildlife agencies. CPH has obtained
concurrence from the wildlife agencies that these habitat areas have been established to
the agencies' satisfaction. Therefore, in accordance with the Development Agreement
between the City and CPH, maintenance of the revegetated habitat must transfer to the
City. Staff now presents CPH's request to be relieved of its maintenance responsibility for
the open space lots in the Oceanfront Estates community for the purpose of the City
Council acknowledging this maintenance transfer and assigning the task of maintaining this
habitat to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC).
BACKGROUND
The 79-home Oceanfront Estates project (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46628,
Conditional Use Permit No.158, Coastal Permit No 94, Grading Permit No. 1439 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 35) included conditions requiring the developer, Capital
Pacific Homes (CPH), to dedicate approximately seventy-one (71) acres of the 132-acre
site to the City as public open space, and to provide thirty (30) acres of coastal sage scrub
0 14 B-1
Memorandum: Acceptance of Maintenance of Oceanfront Estates Open Space Lots
May 15, 2007
(CSS) and three (3) acres of wetland habitat within this open space. Although the City
acquired fee title to these open space lots with the recordation of the final tract map in
1999, CPH was obligated to maintain the revegetated CSS and wetland habitat areas for
five (5) years or until the revegetated habitat met the success criteria established by the
State and Federal wildlife agencies, whichever occurred later, pursuant to the Development
Agreement between the City and CPH . The Development Agreement also obligated the
City to take over the long-term maintenance of the revegetated habitat once the
revegetation effort was deemed successful by the State and Federal wildlife agencies. To
cover the cost of the City's long-term maintenance, the Development Agreement obligated
CPH to endow a long-term maintenance fund for these open space lots in the amount of
$750,000. CPH made the required deposits to this fund in 1999, 2000 and 2001 . CPH's
biological consultant also prepared annual reports on the status of the CSS and wetland
habitat areas for submittal to the City.
It has now been more than eight (8) years since CPH and the City entered into the
Development Agreement, and nearly seven (7) years since CPH began its CSS and
wetland habitat revegetation efforts. In 2006, CPH received notification from the State and
Federal wildlife agencies that CPH's habitat restoration efforts met established success
criteria. As a result, pursuant to the Development Agreement, CPH is now requesting to be
relieved of its maintenance obligations for the open space lots in the Oceanfront Estates
community. Accordingly, Staff is requesting the City Council's acknowledgement of this
transfer in responsibility from CPH to the City, and is recommending that this habitat
maintenance responsibility be formally assigned to the City's NCCP habitat preserve
manager, the PVPLC.
DISCUSSION
In 2006, CPH consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Army Corps
of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and
received concurrence from each of these agencies that the CSS and wetland habitat
revegetation and restoration efforts on the Oceanfront Estates open space lots had
satisfied these agencies' requirements (see attachments). Furthermore, CPH has
maintained these areas for more than the minimum 5-year period required by the wildlife
agencies and the Development Agreement. Therefore, Staff believes that it is appropriate
for the City to now assume maintenance responsibility for these lots since CPH has fulfilled
its habitat maintenance responsibility, as spelled out in the Development Agreement.
As the City Council is aware, the Oceanfront Estates open space lots are included in the
City's NCCP preserve. Although final approval of the City's NCCP has not yet been
obtained from the wildlife agencies, the City has entered into an agreement with the
PVPLC to begin managing the NCCP preserve properties. Accordingly, it makes sense for
the maintenance of the CSS and wetland habitat on the Oceanfront Estates open space
Page 2 of 5
B-2
Memorandum: Acceptance of Maintenance of Oceanfront Estates Open Space Lots
May 15, 2007
lots to be performed by the PVPLC, while the remaining "ornamental" landscape areas on
these lots will continue to be maintained by the City's Public Works Department or by the
Oceanfront Estates homeowners' association, pursuant to the Development Agreement
(see attachments).
In January 2007, Planning, Public Works, PVPLC and CPH representatives walked the site
and inspected the open space areas. Based upon that inspection and subsequent
discussions, the table below summarizes the uses and proposed maintenance
responsibilities for the seven (7) open space lots involved in this request.
Lot Acres Use Maintenance Responsibilities
Pre-existing and revegetated CSS Habitat areas by PVPLC; perimeter
80 14.17 ornamental landscaping and fenc-habitat ing by homeowners' association
Habitat areas and trails by PVPLC;
81 5.36" Revegetated CSS habitat and trail perimeter ornamental landscaping
..... ~-9,-. and fencing by City or home-,..
owners' association ·-~--_.,,,
('~•
Revegetated CSS habitat and Habitat areas and trails by PVPLC;
. other "hard" infrastructure by City;
82 46.54 trails, off-street parking lot, sewer perimeter ornamental landscaping pump stations (2) and underground and fencing by City or home-slant drain access point owners' association
2.80~:y Pre-existing and r_e~egetated wet-Habitat areas by PVPLC; perimeter
83 ornamental landscaping and fenc-land habitat ing by homeowners' association
Perimeter ornamental landscaping
84 1.02 Ornamental slope landscaping and fencing by homeowners'
association
~-"';~ Trail and ornamental landscaping
85 0.25'-;~, Pedestrian access corridor by City; perimeter fencing by
homeowners' association
Ornamental landscaping by City;
86 0.18 Wildlife access corridor perimeter fencing by homeowners'
association
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Oceanfront Estates homeowners' association, CPH and the PVPLC have been
advised of the City Council's consideration of this matter at tonight's meeting.
Page 3 of 5
B-3
Memorandum: Acceptance of Maintenance of Oceanfront Estates Open Space Lots
May 15, 2007
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council
acknowledge the transfer of the habitat maintenance responsibility from CPH to the City for
the Oceanfront Estates open space lots, as specified in the Development Agreement and
the concurrence letters from the State and Federal resources agencies; and authorize the
Mayor to sign the amended Operating Agreement to assign maintenance responsibility for
the CSS and wetland habitats and trails to the PVPLC.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Development Agreement required CPH to establish a $750,000 endowment for the
maintenance of the CSS habitat and wetland areas in the Oceanfront Estates community.
As of the date of this report, the endowment generates roughly $40,000 in annual interest
revenue. PVPLC estimates that its annual cost for maintaining the CSS and wetland
habitats and trails in the Oceanfront Estates community will be $15,000. However, the
endowment was meant to cover all of the City's open space maintenance needs, including
the maintenance performed by the City's Public Works Department for non-habitat-related
activities. In past years, Public Works has spent roughly $80,000 annually for maintenance
of the open space lots in the Oceanfront Estates community, resulting in annual costs that
exceeded the endowment revenue. It was also known that, with the diversion of $15,000
of the endowment proceeds to the PVPLC, the deficit in the Public Works' maintenance
program for the Oceanfront Estates open space lots was expected to increase.
As a result of this situation, in September 2005, the Public Works Department proposed
"spending down" the endowment to pay for the annual maintenance costs. However, the
State and Federal wildlife agencies raised a concern with this approach, stating that
support of the City's NCCP and related open space acquisition was partly predicated on
the existence of this endowment fund. Therefore, the endowment was not reduced and the
City's General Fund was used by Public Works to supplement its maintenance program of
the Oceanfront Estates open space lots. It is Staff's understating that Public Works
intends to continue this practice for the foreseeable future, unless and until additional or
alternate funding sources for these properties are identified.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternative is available for the City
Council's consideration:
1. Identify any issues of concern with the acceptance of maintenance responsibility for
the Oceanfront Estates open space lots, and continue this matter to a future date
certain.
Page 4 of 5
B-4
Memorandum: Acceptance of Maintenance of Oceanfront Estates Open Space Lots
May 15, 2007
Respectfully submitted:
J elRoja:I
D tor of Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement
Reviewed by:
~ ~~l'N-.._) ~
Carolyn Lehr,
City Manager
Attachments:
Draft Operating Agreement (4 th Amendment)
1999 Development Agreement (excerpt)
2006 concurrence letters from State and Federal wildlife agencies
Aerial photo of Oceanfront Estates open space lots
Landscape Maintenance Exhibit
M :\Subregion 1 \20070515_ StaffRpt_ CC.doc
Page 5 of 5
B-5
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND
RESTATED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND THE PALOS VERDES
PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY, A NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION, TO JOINTLY OPERATE AND
MAINTAIN A TRACT OF LAND KNOWN · AS THE
FORRESTAL NATURE PRESERVE AND TO CONDUCT
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, TOURS,
AND EVENTS THAT WILL ENCOURAGE
PARTICIPATION IN THE PASSIVE RECREATIONAL USE
OF THE PRESERVE AS AN OPEN SPACE COASTAL
NATURE PRESERVE AND AUTHORIZE THE USE OF
PRIVATELY AND PUBLICLY RAISED FUNDS FOR THE
UPGRADING AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE PRESERVE
FOR USE BY THE PUBLIC AND TO ENHANCE AND
PROTECT HABITAT AND SPECIES LOCATED
THEREON.
This Document is the Fourth Amendment to the Operating Agreement
(hereinafter, "the Agreement"), by and between the City and the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy (hereinafter "PVPLC" or "the Conservancy"), a non-
profit organization and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (hereinafter "the City").
This Fourth Amendment is effective as of this 15th day of May, 2007. The
purpose of this Fourth Amendment is to amend the Agreement to confirm that
habitat and trail maintenance services provided by the PVPLC on the portions of
the Oceanfront Estates (Tract Map. No. 46628) open space lots included in the
Preserve are within the scope of the Agreement. Except as expressly amended
herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Together with this
Fourth Amendment, the Third Amendment, the Second Amendment and the First
Amendment, the Agreement sets forth the agreement between the City and the
Conservancy regarding the management by the Conservancy of certain
properties that are owned by the City.
Section 1. Section 2.B.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read
as follows:
2. PURPOSE
B.2 The Conservancy has a management agreement with the City and is the
lead entity for habitat enhancement/vegetation management, recreation
management (except for educational programs through Los Serenos), and some
administrative tasks, including the preparation of an annual report to the City
Council. Furthermore, at the City's request, the Conservancy may perform tasks
assigned to the City under the Management Plan, including fuel modification, as
B-6
well as habitat and trail maintenance in the Oceanfront Estates community in
accordance with the attached Exhibit 'F.'
Section 2. Section 27 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows:
27, .. , EXHIBITS
The following Exhibits are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by
reference and form a part of this Agreement:
A. Legal Description of the portion of the Preserve that is located at
the terminus of Forrestal Drive
B. The Forrestal Management Plan
C. The properties that are being added to the Preserve pursuant to
this First Amendment. ·
D. Section 6 (Preserve Management) of the NCCP Subarea Plan,
which was approved by the City Council on August 31, 2004.
'lt
"~-~ The Agreement between the City and the California Department of
Fish a n-i~ame, dated March 1, 2006, and all of the Exhibits A, B, C and D
thereto._ ·
F. Table of open space lots in Oceanfront Estates {Tract Map
No. 46628) with acreage and maintenance responsibilities as assigned pursuant
to the Fqp.r,t h Amendment.
'•·
B-7
Section 3. Section 28 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows:
28. COMPLETE AGREEMENT
The Agreement, as amended by this Fourth Amendment, and the First,
Second and Third Amendments, contains the full and complete Agreement
between the parties and may only be amended in a writing executed by both
parties. No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer or employee of
either party will affect or modify any of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
Dated --------
Dated -------
ATTEST:
City Clerk
PALOS VERDES LAND CONSERVANCY
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
By:
Mayor
M,IS,brng;o, 1\PVPLC Operatiog Agceemeot Am,o~
B-8
Lot Acres
80 14.17
81 5.36
82 46.54
83 2.80
84 1.02
85 0.25
86 0.18
•
Exhibit 'F'
Oceanfront Estates Open Space Lots
Tract Map No. 46628
Use Maintenance Responsibilities
Habitat areas by PVPLC;
Pre-existing and revegetated perimeter ornamental
CSS habitat landscaping and fencing by
homeowners' association
Habitat areas and trails by
Revegetated CSS habitat and PVPLC; perimeter ornamental
trail landscaping and fencing by City
or homeowners' association
Revegetated CSS habitat and Habitat areas and trails by
PVPLC; other "hard" trails, off-street parking lot, infrastructure by City; perimeter sewer pump stations (2) and
underground slant drain access ornamental landscaping and
point fencing by City or homeowners'
association
Habitat areas by PVPLC;
Pre-existing and revegetated perimeter ornamental
wetland habitat landscaping and fencing by
homeowners' association
Perimeter ornamental
Ornamental slope landscaping landscaping and fencing by
homeowners' association
Trail and ornamental
Pedestrian access corridor landscaping by City; perimeter
fencing by homeowners'
association
Ornamental landscaping by City;
Wildlife access corridor perimeter fencing by
homeowners' association
M:\Subregion 1\PVPLC Operating Agreement Amendment No. 4.doc
~ B-9
e nt permitted by the Development Plan, this Agreement, and
ledging the ruling in the case of Pardee Cons truct i o n Co
v . Cit .f Cama rill o, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), Developer shall
the right develop the Project in phases in such order
such times a eveloper deems appropriate within thee
its subjective iness judgment, so long as the Pr ct is
constructed as an tegrated residential planne d ve lopment as
contemplated by the e lopment Plan.
11.3 Land Us e Re u lations .
The rules, regulations and o cies governing permitted
uses of the Property, the dens i intensity of use of the
Property, the maximum height a of proposed buildings and
the design, improvement and standards and speci-
fications applicable to Prop e rty are those
rules, regulations and 1 policie t.Fi' are included within
the "Development Pl n connection wi pproval which
City is permitte the right to make under ·s Agreement
relating tot or otherwise under its r u l
regu lation d official policies, City shall exercise · s
discret ' or take action in a reasonably expeditious man
mplies and is consistent with the Development Plan a
andards, terms and conditions contained therein or in th
reement.
11.4 Dedications and Monetary Contribution. In
conjunction with processing this Project, conditions of approval
and mitigation measures have been imposed which require Developer
to preserve and enhance coastal sage scrub habitat ("habitat") on
certain areas of the site which are to be dedicated to the City.
Initially, it is the Developer's responsibility, for a minimum
period of five years, to ensure that the habitat is planted and
established; after the first five years pass and the habitat is
established in accordance with the standards approved by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the City is to perform
the long term maintenance of the habitat.
In addition, Developer shall offer for dedication to
City the streets, approximately 71 acres of open space, and other
public amenities that are to be constructed, by Developer
including, the bluff face, the wetlands area, the firebreaks,
parking areas and automobile turnouts, bicycle lanes, trails,
drainage facilities, a passive park, the coastal sage scrub
habitat, and the other open space areas depicted on Exhibit "D."
All improvements which are to be dedicated to the City,
including, without limitation, the improvements referred to in
this Section, shall be completed as prescribed in the Development
Plan. r "<':':J~~ • · ·11
A . It is the intent of this Agreement that in
addition to the initial maintenance of the ha8itat for the first
five years, Developer shall pay to City the sum of Seven Hundred
990125 pjn i\900.003 (2) -8 -gg 0480301'
· 99 0456224"
16 ;
B-10
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00) which is sufficient to
ensure that the City is able to perform the long term maintenance
of the open space, amenities and improvements which are to be
dedicated by Developer to City a n d which are to be maintained by
City . Developer shall pay said sum to City in accordance with
the following schedule:
1. $250,000 shall be paid when City approves this
Agreement.
2. $250,000 shall be paid to City one year following
the date of approval of this Agreement by City.
3. $250,000 shall be paid to City one year later,
which is two years following the date of approval of this
Agreement by City.
B. Notwithstanding the conditions of approval of the
project and the provisions of this Agreement that address the
issue of habitat maintenance and restoration, nothing herein
shall be construed to prevent City from using any or all of Lots
80, 81, 82 and 85 (the "Open space Lots") (each of which is to be
dcdicated_to the City) for active or passive recreation and/or
park pur.p.Rpes, as those terms are defined in City's Development
Code, or~for any other purpose that City may lawfully approve.
: C . The parties agree that Developer's obligation to
preserve .and enhance habitat on the Project site may be
transferred to a different location in th~ City, in accordance
with City's request, provided that Developer is not prevented
from proceeding with the Project. Any permits or approvals that
must be obtained from the State or Federal governments to
relocate i·3/ or all of the habitat shall be the responsibility of
City. Developer shall not ·-plant any coastal sage scrub habitat .
on the project site prior to March 15, 1999. Developer's
obligations and costs with respect to the cost of landscaping the
on·-site open space areas to City's reasonable satisfaction,
including the habitat enhancement and restoration work, shall not
be increa::1€d by virtue of relocating said habitat to another
location <-0:lf-site. To that end, if Developer plants habitat off-
site in another location designated by City, and landscapes the
area of the project site where that habitat was to have been
located, the cost of that on-site landscaping shall be credited
towards Developer's cost of performing the habitat restoration
work off-site.
11.5 Agreement Regarding The Maintenance Of
Certain Areas By The Hom e owners' Association.
A. Developer and City hereby agree that the following
areas of the open space, which will be dedicated to the City, are
more appropriately maintained by the Homeowners' Association that
990125 pjn /\90(!.003 (2) -9 -99 0'480'301·
! I
B-11
is t9 be formed by Developer, because of the direct benefit to
the homes that will be derived from the care of these areas by
the Homeowners' Association:
1. The north entrance to the tract, including the
median (Lot 87) and portions of Lots 82 and 83 on both sides of
the roadway;
2. Portion of Lots 80 and 83 and all of Lot 84, which
is comprised of the slopes surrounding the wetlands area and
extending along Palos Verdes Drive West to the south entrance to
the tract;
3. Portions of Lot 80 that comprise the firebreak
along the rear of lots 31 through 35, lots 36 through 39, 78 and
79, and the East side of Via Del Cielo (Street "B 11 ) between Lot
35 and Lot 78;
4. The main entrance to the tract at Hawthorne
Boulevard, including the median (Lot 88) and the portions of Lots
80 and 81 on both sides of the road;
5 . A portion of Lot 81, which is comprised of the
slopes along Palos Verdes Drive West extending from the South
entrance to the Tract to the Southern boundary of the Tract;
6. A portion of Lot 81, which is comprised of the
firebreak along the rear of lots 64 through and 68;
7. The entrance to Via Del Cielo (Street 11 B 11 ) at Via
Vicente (Street 11 A 11 ) consisting of the median (Lot 90) and within
the Via Del Cielo street right-of-way adjacent to the median;
8. The entrance to Calle Viento (Street "D") at Via
Vicente (Street 11 A 11 ) consisting of the median (Lot 91) and within
the Calle Viento street right-of-way adjacent to the median;
9. The entrance to Paseo De La Luz (Street "C :) at
Calle Entradero (Street "A") consisting of the median (Lot 89)
and within the Paseo Ue La Luz right-of-wa~ adjacent to tl1e
median; and
10. A portion of Lot 82 which is comprised of the
firebreak along the West side of the property line of Lot 58.
B. When Developer conveys Lots 80 through 91,
inclusive, to City, Developer shall reserve easements for
maintenance purposes across the areas of said lots that are
listed above in Paragraph A, which Developer ultimately shall
convey to the Homeowners' Association, the content of which first
shall be submitted to City for review and appfd~al.
990125 pjn A900.003 (2)
99 045522ti B-12
C. Developer and the Homeowners' Association shall
maintain said areas to City's reasonable satisfaction in
accordance with the standard that City i mp oses on the maintenance
of other similar areas in the City. The f ailure to maintain
these areas to City's reasonable satisfact ion shall constitute a
public nuisance which may be abated by the City. Any cost of
abatement which is incurred by the City may be a lien or
assessment that City may impose against all of the residential
lots within the tract. -·
The provisions of this Section 11.5 shall survive the
termination of this Agreement.
11. 6 Deve l o pment Fees. Excep·;::. as provided
ction 12 of this Agreement, City shall not, without the
ten consent of Developer, impose or increase any fees or
exa 'ons applicable to the development of the Property or
ment Code
porti thereof, or impose any such fees or exactions
condit i to the implementation of the Project or any
thereof, cept those fees and exactions in effect on
the applic ·on for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Project was e med comp lete in accordance with Gov
Sections 66498. and 66474.2 (the "Application D
provision shall t p revent the application of
") . This
c alation clauses
which, as of the lication Date, were in pl e in connection
with those fees an xactions in effect as the Application
Date.
which will be constructed
blic works facilities
aod dedicated to ~ity or
omple on, i-ncluding, without
Slffil
ed in Section 11.8, shall be
design and construction
to City or such other public
construction. This Section
blic bids, the payment of
quirements unless
any other public agency upor
limitation, the slant drain d
constructed in accordance with
standards that would be appli
agency should it have under
shall not be interpreted t
prevailing wages or any
otherwise required by
Developer should hav
Developer shall be
satisfaction of
able law.
lied with an
responsible for
equirements.
it is found that
requirements,
ayment or
Slant Drain. Developer an City have
agreed that veloper shall construct the slant dr ·n, which is
to be loca near the South end of the Project sit a manner
that wil llow the City to attach a drain pipe from Point
Vicent nterpretive Center on City's property to the s nt
drai City and Developer recognize that the slant drai ·s to
be · creased in size to accommodate said drainage from Cit s
p e.y . Accordingly, City shall reimburse Developer fort
· cremental increase of the cost of constructing the larger s
drain in accordance with the schedule attached hereto as Exhibi
990125 pjn A90(l.003 (2) -11-99 0480301
~9 0456224 B-13
0 6/07 /2006 1 1:11 FAX 7609180638 US FISH AND WILD LIFE
Date Sent:
TO:
United States Department of the Interior
ASH ANO Wn.DLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Scrviu.s
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlifo omce
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
FACSIMILE TRANSMIITAL FORM
No. of Pages : Time Sent: (Pacific Time)
3
Fax No.:
~001
("1-1 .q-) 444 _9 S" '} C,
k. ic. t,,.'4""J 8. Le vvn I III /30fl~ Co1A ·rv-lf.-1t. 2
FROM: Far No7 (760) 431-9618
Phone No.: (760) 431-9440
f &<-m C,c..;J ti,..,. /U.(1-rc~ /.Jt4..,, ~-f' -,c. :}-.,).f ~
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS:
Tu~t-Jo.,,. ~r Jo,,_.
'( e.. f1.e-,-w ii l {.o I ( OU-J •
-----------------------·-------------If you have ally have problems receiving this fax, please caU (760) 4Jl-9440, e.r:teruion 2/2. Thank you.
Ca hf oru io <;11 atca tcl1c r
Tltf! mi.uion of 1l1c U.S. ,.-ish o,id Wildl1Jc .\t:r-vicc i.t w11rkin1: willa ofl,cn to con.fcn,c, protect , and ~r,l,ar,cc fi'ilr
d11d wi/Jl,f~ und (heir ltabila(r, for tf1c cnnt uru,·n,: bn,cfu <1/ tl,c Am~rican people .
B-14
,,_,,.._..,...., --•••-•-• V •IV~•--"""
06/07/2006 11:12 FAX 7609180638 US FISH AND IVILDLl!lE
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92011
(760) 431-9440
FAX (760) 431-9618
In Reply Refer To:
FWS/DFG-LA-3126.3
Brian Nebel
Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc.
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, California 92882
I ' .
141002
California Department of Fish & Game
South Coast Region
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, California 92123
(858) 467 -420 l
FAX (858) 467-4299
JUN 0·7 2006
Subject: Concurrence with the Habitat Restoration on Lot 82 for the Oceanfront Estates
Project Site (Tract No. 46628), City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles
County, California
Dear Mr. Nebel:
We received your March 23, 2006, letter requesting our concurrence on the coastal sage scrub
(CSS) restoration on Lot 82 for lhe Oceanfront E.<,tates Project by Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc .
(CPH) (formerly known as Subregion l; project) and the Fourtb Annual Monitoring Report for
the$)ccanfrom Estates Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Program Tract No.46628, City of Rancho
r.nI$5J'erdes, California (monitoring report). This letter is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(~rvice) and California Department of Fish and Game (Department) (collectively, the Wildlife
-g.eneies) response to lhis request. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) received conrutional
Cl' •.,. ence (1-6-97-HC-220; July 9, 1997) from the Service for the removal of habitat suitable for the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (PolioptiJa califomica califomica,
"gna'tcarcher'') for the project. The project plans and the Interim Habitat Loss Mitigation Plan
(IHI:iMP) were found to be in compliance with the State of California's Coastal Sage Scrub
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Process Guidelines and the Special 4(d)
Rule of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ( 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The Wildlife Agencies determined in thdr 4(d) concurrence letter (1 -6-97-HC-220; July 9, 1997)
tha -~tal of 30 acres was requir~(!-t~ be revegetated wilh local CSS species, wilh success
cr-iteria applied to 15 of the 30 acres. There arc five preserve and/or rcvegetalion location.<: within
the project site: Lot 80, Lot 81, Lot 82, Pump Station, and Lot 83. Lot 82 consists of 15.6 acres.
Th.is area was surveyed in September 2005 and native plant coverage was measured at 73 .3
percent; however, io March 2006, native plant coverage bad increased and was qualitatively
estimated to be 80-85 percent Five-year success criterion is described as 85-90 percent native
species cover in the IHLMP . CSS species composition within Lot 82 is diverse-as shown iu
Ta!.:!'j,4 of the monitoring report. Non-native species cover is negligible, comprising zero
perc~ coverage during quantitative 2005 surveys. A site visit was conducted by Service
representatives on Mai;ch 28, 2006 . Project site conditions have changed due to successful CSS
restoration aclivilies. Previously unoccupied areas are now used by the gnatcatchcr.
Gnatcatchers were detected. throughout the entirety of Lot 82 in 2005-2006 (See Exhibit 3 of
monitoring report).
c,; ...
TAKE PRIDE•--== ~
!NAM ERICA~
I """'::1""' •
B-15
06107/2006 11:13 FAX 7609180638 US FISH AND WILDLIFE ~003
Mr. Brian Nebel (FWS/DFG-LA.~3126.3) 2
The project is located within the planning area for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes 'NCCP. CSS
restoration represents the final phase of the project's CSS mitigation program. Upon completion
of this flna1 phase, preserved and restored lands will be trlln$ferred to. the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes (City) and long~tc:nn managem.GD.t will continue to be provided by the City in accordance
with project permiu: and 1he Development Agreement between the City and CPH.
The intent of the habitat restoration program, u stated in the IHI.MP was to establish CSS
species shnilar to the habitat within the vicinity of the project site and with the appropriate
diversity and structure to support the gnatoareher. Based on the site visit conducted by Service.
representatives on March 28, 2006, the CSS epecics cover and composition on Lot 82
documented within the monitoring report, and the successful UBe ofthis area by the gnatcatcher,
the Wildlife Agencies concur that the habitat restoration on Lot 82 meets success criteria.
We appreciate CPH and the City's ongoing commitment to the NCCP program. If you have
questions regarJ:iing this letter, please contact Department Biologist Warren Wong at (858) 467-
4249 or Service Biologist Samautba Marcum at (760) 431-9440.
Jutp
Karen A. Goebel
Assistant Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wild.life Service
cc:
Sincerely,
Richard B. Lewis, DJ, BonTerra Consulting
Melissa A. Howe, BonTeua Consulting
Sean Finnegan, Makar Properties, LLC
Joel llojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Gigi Hw:st-Wallace, Habitat West
~~~~·
Deputy Region.al Manager
California Department of Fish and Gmne
B-16
,,_,,_,_ --···-. __ ..,_,, _..,, __ ~,
JAN-05-2006 11:25
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
COE REGULATORY VENTURA
Facsimile Transmittal Header Sheet
Ventura Regula tory -Field Office
21 5 1 Alessandro ,Orive, Suite 110
Ventura i California 93001
Phone (805) 585-2140 Fax (805) 585 -2154
805 585 2154 P.01
T0:_..1..:R='~""-="'-J-"~=-_,G,.=w;..,.\.:;...~ ________________ _
Company: )1 b¼ C[C.,
FAX#: (114) HiH: ---W. 'i'S''j'i' Phone#: ________ _
FROM:
David Castanon ~ "Aaron Allen
Bruce Henderson Alita! Szijj
Tiffany Troxel Lisa ManJ!;ione
Jack Malone John Markham
Matthew Vandersande Heather Wylie
_\_ Pages To Follow
•
B-17
"'l -11_, .... ----tlitl..... ,_,.,,.,._,, _...,, __ ,,
J AN-05-2006 11:25 COE REG ULATORY VENTURA 805 585 2 154
CESPL-CO-R January S, 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD '·' ,.
SUBJECT: PERMIT NO. 97-00163-AOA-FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT
1. On December 19, 2005, the Corps received the Final Mitigation Monitoring Report for Permit
Nl.lltlber 97-00163-AOA. The above nationwide permit required 0.21 acres of compensatozy
mitigation for impacts to 0.31 acres of waters of the United States that exhibited low to moderate
physical and biological functions. Based on information from the above mitigation and
monitoring report, temporary irrigation for the mitigation site was terminated in November 2003
and non-native species occupy less than 1 % of the site. The current survival rate for planted
vegetation is 100% and native percent coverage exceeds 90%, which is above the year five
performance standard. The existing mitigation site exhibits good development and the Cocps has
determined that the area meets all the year five perfonnance st!Uldards . Based on the above
information, the permittee has satisfied the compensatory mitigation requirements for Permit
Number 97-00163-AOA. If yau have any questions co nee ming the above information, please
contact me at (805) 585-2148.
<DISTRIBUTION :>
Richard B. Lewis --Boo Terra
Aaron 0. Allen, Ph.D.
Senior Project Manager
P.02
TOTAL P.02
I-:::,-•
B-18
IJ -
State of California -The Resourc...,.; Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Jamie Jackson
P.O. Box 92890
Pasadena, California 91109
(626) 296-3430
Richard B. Lewis Ill
BonTerra Consulting
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200
Costa Mesa, California 92626
A •..• 6[o SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
August 15, 2006
By
Streambed Alteration Agreement Number 5-101-97
Vesting Tract Map No. 46628, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Dear Mr. Lewis:
The California Department of Fish and Game has received and reviewed the final monitoring
report rega rding the mitigation site for the above referenced Streambed Notification No. 5-101-97,
issued for Vesting Tract Map No. 46628 , located at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive and
Hawthorne Blvd , City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Los Angeles County. The construction
portion of your project was completed on June 01 , 2002. A site visit was conducted on August 15, 2006
t o review the site to ensure the construction was completed as described in the streambed alteration
agreement and to determ ine if the mitigation, as defined within the streambed alteration agreement, has
met t he success cri teria, as well as t he terms and conditions of our agreement. The Department has
determined, based upon th is Final Monitoring Report and the site vis it , that the terms and conditions
were met and that the Department deems the m itigation to be successful.
. The Department is closing Streambed Alteration Ag reement No. 5-101-97. We thank you for
your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at (626) 296-3430 .
Sincerely,
Jamie Jackson
Environmental Scientist
flt!.'(.
}'"Oll i .
PQ'm1r
B-19
B-20
Oceanfront Estates Open Space Lots
B-21
B-22
®
\
I
4 -~
J
1
\_
MAINTENANCE LEGEND
-CITV MAINTAINED
I I HOMEOWNER ASSOC MAINTAINED
[11 :; ._ A IRRIGATION CONTROLLElt (CITY)
:e._~-~ WATER METER (CITY)
,.,one OCCAM
RAlL FENCE -CITY MAN'
•A.One <X:l"N
__:::,,
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EXHIBIT
OCEANFRONT ESTATES
TRACT 46628 RANCHO PALOS VERDES , C"
CAPITAL PACIFIC HOLDINGS
4 100 MACARTHUR BLVD, STE. 200 '.'IEWPORT BEACH, C.'-92660
M:\Subregion 1\0ceanfront Estates Landspace Maintenance Exhibit.doc
NOTE: Error on exhibit, this
corner to be maintained by
the HOA
~
n,..-, . ~.. -
1· .. 200·
B-23
B-24
MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 15, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 7:22 P.M. by Mayor Long at Fred Hesse Community
Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
City Council roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Clark,* Gardiner, Stern, Wolowicz and Mayor Long
ABSENT: None
Councilman Clark left the meeting at 9:01 P.M.
Also present were City Manager Carolyn Lehr, City Attorney Carol Lynch, Deputy City
Manager Carolynn Petru, Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Joel
Rojas, Director of Public Works Jim Bell, Director of Finance/Information Technology
Dennis McLean, Associate Planner Kristen Sohn, Assistant Planner So Kim, Assistant
Engineer Bindu Vaish, Associate Planner Kit Fox, City Clerk Carla Morreale and
General Manager Channel 33 Gabriella Holt.
FLAG SALUTE:
The Flag Salute was led by Councilman Gardiner.
Ceremonial:
Jackie Bacharach, of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG),
explained the composition of the organization, briefly summarized their programs and
noted that they were interested in receiving feedback from the Member cities. She
indicated that they were open to member requests and she touched on Regional
Housing Needs Assessment issues, air quality issues, energy saving requirements and
the joint procurement program. She pointed out that by working together small cities
could receive some benefits only available to larger cities and she asked
Councilmembers to email suggestions and ideas to her.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Long reported that the City would host its annual free Household Hazardous
Waste and Electronics waste roundup on May 19, 2007, at the City Hall site.
RECYCLE DRAWING:
Mayor Long announced Joseph A. Morgan and Ray Knauss as recyclers of the month
from the May 1, 2007 Council meeting. He indicated that all winners received a check
B-25
for $250 representing a year of free refuse service and he urged everyone to participate
in the City's recycling program.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
City Clerk Morreale noted that staff had requested that Item 12 be removed from the
agenda and returned on a future agenda.
Mayor Long suggested that Items 20 and 21 be moved to follow immediately after the
Consent Calendar.
Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to approve the Agenda
as amended.
Hearing no objection, Mayor Long so ordered.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None.
CITY MANAGER REPORT:
Melani Smith, Melendrez Consulting Firm, summarized the planning process, schedule
and the contents of the Vision Plan for the coastal areas of the City and the Portuguese
Bend Nature Preserve. With the aid of slides, she discussed the progress made so far
and the remaining tasks noting that they were working with the City, the Council
subcommittee, the Land Conservancy, and the Public Use Master Plan committee. She
reported that the Annenberg Foundation was investigating the possibility of a
companion animal facility at the Lower Point Vicente site and they were working with
consultants and a community advisory group on further developing this concept. She
indicated that a public workshop related to the Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) was
planned for the summer of 2007 followed by a public workshop in September 2007
where a draft revision plan will be reviewed, and a PUMP element will be provided
along with a conceptual plan for Lower Pointe Vicente Park and that the plan approval
process was expected to begin by the end of the year.
Ms. Smith reported that staff was evaluating the idea of a donor recognition site, an
outdoor education component spearheaded by the City's docents, and an equestrian
center, but noted that further conversations with the City geologist were necessary
regarding this last facility.
Councilman Gardiner noted that certain areas of the City were not included and Mayor
Long expressed hope that the Vision Plan was mindful of what had already been
approved.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 2of21B-26
Councilman Gardiner asked that Item 7 be removed from the Consent Calendar for
separate consideration.
Councilman Wolowicz inquired if the revised agreements for Items 3, 5, and 6 had
significant changes.
City Attorney Lynch explained that the changes not were not significant and reflected a
request from the Council to change the insurance references from Standard and Poor's
and Moody's to Best Insurance Guide.
Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to approve the Consent
Calendar with Items 7 and 12 removed.
The roll call vote reflected unanimous approval.
Motion to Waive Full Reading
Adopted a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at the meeting with
consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all Council Members after the
reading of the title.
Approval of the Minutes (301)
Approved the Minutes of November 21, 2006, December 5, 2006, December 19, 2006
and January 27, 2007.
Award a Three Year As-Needed Maintenance Services Contract for At-Risk Youth
Employment to Los Angeles Conservation Corps for FY07-08 through FY09-10
1705 x 1204)
1) Awarded a three year as-needed maintenance services contract, as amended, for At-
Risk Youth employment to the Los Angeles Conservation Corps (LACC), in the amount
not to exceed $25,000 per year for FY 07-08 through FY 09-10, for Measure A grant
funded projects; and, 2) Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a three year
as-needed maintenance services contract for At-Risk Youth employment with the Los
Angeles Conservation Corps (LACC), in the amount not to exceed $25,000 per year for
FY 07-08 through FY 09-10, for Measure A grant funded projects.
Used Oil Recycling Block Grant for FY 2007-08 (1301)
Authorized the application of the FY 2007-08 (13th Cycle) used oil block grant to
continue the used oil and filter recycling program for City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City)
residents; and, 2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-53, A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AUTHORIZING THE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE ANY AGREEMENTS, CONTRACTS,
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 3of21
B-27
AND REQUESTS FOR PAYMENT AS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROGRAM.
Professional Services Agreement— Community Development Block Grant
Program Administration (601)
1) Approved a professional services agreement with Diana Cho and Associates, as
amended, to administer the Community Development Block Grant Program for a not-to-
exceed amount of$17,500 for FY 2007-2008, a not-to-exceed amount of$17,500 for
FY 2008-2009, and a not-to-exceed amount of$17,500 for FY 2009-2010; and, 2)
Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed Agreement with Diana
Cho and Associates.
Professional Services Agreement— Home Improvement Program (601)
1) Approved a professional services agreement with MDG Associates, Inc., as
amended, to administer the Home Improvement Program for a not-to-exceed amount of
30,000 for FY 2007-2008, a not-to-exceed amount of$30,000 for FY 2008-2009, and a
not-to-exceed amount of$30,000 for FY 2009-2010; and, 2) Authorized the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute the proposed Agreement with MDG Associates, Inc.
Award of Professional Services Contract for Independent Auditing Services (602)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration.
Notice of Completion for the Hesse Park Retaining Wall Waterproofing Project
1201)
1) Accepted the project as complete; 2) Authorized the City Clerk to file a Notice of
Completion with the County Recorder and if no claims are filed within 35 days after
recordation, upon the contractor posting an acceptable warranty bond, notice the surety
company to exonerate the Payment and Performance bonds; and, 3) Authorized the
Director of Public works to release the 10% retention payment to Kronos Painting, 35
days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent
upon no claims being filed against the contractor, and the contractor posting an
acceptable warranty bond.
Notice of Completion for the Hesse Park Restrooms Accessibility Compliance
Project (1201)
1) Accepted the project as complete; 2) Authorized the City Clerk to file a Notice of
Completion with the County Recorder and if no claims are filed within 35 days after
recordation, upon the contractor posting an acceptable warranty bond, notice the surety
company to exonerate the Payment and Performance bonds; and, 3) Authorized the
Director of Public works to release the 10% retention payment to Creative Home
Interiors, 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 4of21B-28
contingent upon no claims being filed against the contractor, and the contractor posting
an acceptable warranty bond.
Approval of Membership in the California JPIA for the City of Los Alamitos (902)
Authorized the Mayor, as the City Council's delegate to the California Joint Powers
Insurance Agency, to vote in favor of the City of Los Alamitos being accepted as a new
member.
Claim Against the City by George Hanna (303)
Rejected the claim and directed staff to notify the claimant.
Award Construction Contract for Sunnyside Ridge Storm Drain Project (604 x
1204)
This item was removed from the agenda for consideration at a future date.
Channel 33 Expense Reimbursement to General Manager(305)
Approved the reimbursement of expenses to the Channel 33 General Manager in the
amount of$4,149.56.
Acceptance of Maintenance Responsibility for Open Space Lots in the Oceanfront
Estates Community (Tract Map No. 46628) (1411)
1) Acknowledged that the responsibility for maintaining the revegetated habitat on Lots
80 through 86, inclusive, of Tract Map No. 46628 (Oceanfront Estates) is being
transferred from the developer, Capital Pacific Homes (CPH), to the City in accordance
with the 1999 Development Agreement between the City and CPH; and, 2)Authorized
the Mayor to sign an amended Operating Agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Land Conservancy (PVPLC) to assign the habitat maintenance responsibility for the
portions for these lots that are part of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NCCP) preserve to the PVPLC.
Budget Adjustment to Complete the Acquisition of the Property on Tarragon
Adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South (950 X 103)
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-54, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2006-41,
THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY06-07, FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO
THE GENERAL FUND AND THE WATER QUALITY FLOOD PROTECTION FUND.
Register of Demands
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 5 of 21
B-29
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-55, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.
Appointments to the Emergency Preparedness Committee (401 X 106)
The Council unanimously appointed Jennifer Boudreau, Melvin Hughes and Richard
Kimball Smith to the Emergency Preparedness Committee, each with a four-year term
of office until May 2011.
2007 Rancho Palos Verdes Pavement Management Update (1403)
Public Works Director Bell provided a brief summary of the staff report.
Councilman Clark pointed out that the development of the Terranea project would
create much wear on Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS) and he inquired if the
maintenance of the road was a condition of approval of the project.
City Attorney Lynch indicated that it was not.
Planning Director Rojas agreed to check on a requirement to document the existing
condition of the road.
Public Works Director Bell explained that maintenance of PVDS was not a condition of
approval, but he felt it was something that the City and Terranea should be concerned
about because even if it is not a requirement Terranea's customers would be affected
by a damaged road and they should think about assisting to provide a first class
roadway. He indicated that there could be money available from Prop 1B funds as the
arterials badly needed some work. He observed that if there had been more consistent
funding toward arterials the City would be in a better situation, but stated that it was
caught early enough to make a difference. He presented several maintenance
alternatives and proposed budgets.
Responding to Councilman Wolowicz, Assistant Engineer Vaish explained that
pavement maintenance of arterial streets require more money and are generally
dependent on Federal money or Prop C funds. She indicated that the City is requesting
more funds for arterial improvements and the aggregate total costs including
maintenance of PVDS will be $2.1 million or more.
Public Works Director Bell explained that the current proposal did not look dramatically
different from the previous model but it worked better and spent money more efficiently.
He noted that the frequency of paving was the same as the prior model, but residential
street expenditures were reduced by balancing the zones where work was performed in
a more logical program.
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 6 of 21
B-30
Finance Director McLean explained that the previous model for pavement management
had dramatic swings from one year to the next, while the new model balanced the work
to be performed in the seven zones and smoothed out the costs more evenly.
Mayor Long inquired if the swings in the pavement management program were the
reality of what maintenance the streets required and if the model should be adjusted to
the budget or the budget to the model.
Councilman Gardiner stated that he understood the proposal to be that the streets
would look the same but there would be a savings in expenditures, but he suggested
continuing the item to give Mayor Long an opportunity to discuss his concerns with the
consultants.
Finance Director McLean offered to meet with Mayor Long and Public Works Director
Bell to better explain the program.
Councilman Gardiner suggested approving Year 1 of the Pavement Management
Program since it was not a huge departure from the past program and holding
remaining years of the program for approval until outstanding questions were answered.
Councilman Clark suggested approving the motion, subject to a revisit during budget
adoption, and in the interim allowing time for Mayor Long to meet with staff regarding
his concerns with the necessary changes to the program.
Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to: 1) Receive and file
the 2007 Pavement Management Report; 2) Direct Staff to include the estimates of cost
for the arterial and residential roadway overlay and slurry seals presented in the Fiscal
Impact section of the report in the draft FY07-08 budget and draft 2007 Five-Year
Financial Model; and 3) Establish the improvement of the arterial roadway condition as
a high priority for the use of future funds as they become available (i.e., the City's $1.4
million share of Proposition 1B transportation funds).
A roll call vote reflected the following:
AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Stern, and Wolowicz
NOES: Mayor Long
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Councilman Gardiner suggested reordering the Agenda to move up Item 22.
RECESS AND RECONVENE:
Mayor Long called a brief recess from 8:47 P.M. to 8:58 P.M.
After the Recess, the agenda was reordered, bringing Item 22 to be heard prior to the
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 7 of 21
B-31
Public Hearings.
Councilman Clark left the meeting at 9:01 P.M.
Channel 33 Equipment Purchase and Service Contract with TelVue Virtual
Television Networks (TVTN) (305)
Gabriella Holt, introduced Dave Moody from the Princeton Server Group.
Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to approve the
Princeton Server Group quotation in the amount of$26,131.34 and authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute the service and support agreement with TelVue Virtual
Television Networks (TVTN) with the City Attorney's revisions, in the amount of$4,200
in order to implement digital operations and broadcasts support for Channel 33.
City Attorney Lynch reported that there were still negotiations ongoing with TVTN
regarding the agreement, and if the concerns were not resolved, the item would be
brought back to Council.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case No. ZON2005-00536 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal
Specific Plan Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67532, Coastal Permit,
Variance, Grading, and Environmental Assessment) and Case No. ZON2006-
00180-182 (Height Variation for Lots 3 through 5); Property Owner: Dana Ireland;
Site Address: 32639 Nantasket Drive, a Vacant Lot between Beachview Drive and
Sea Cove Drive (701 X 1203)
City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published and
written protests were included in the late correspondence distributed prior to the
meeting. She indicated there were eight requests to speak.
Planning Director Rojas introduced the item noting that the project was a request to
build five homes which required a land use decision from Council.
Associate Planner Sohn provided a summary of the material of record.
Councilman Wolowicz received clarification that the Planning Commission had not seen
the revised plans for the project.
Planning Chair William Gerstner explained that a series of decisions were made by the
Planning Commission, each dependent on the previous decision with the focus on
whether the recommendation for a zone change was appropriate; and the Planning
Commission reached the point where they were not able to prove the compatibility of
three of the homes. He indicated that if the Council approved the zone change, the
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 8 of 21B-32
Planning Commission could then consider the last three homes and make the final
decisions without Council involvement.
Mayor Pro Tem Stern inquired if other alternatives had been considered by the Planning
Commission, noting that the RS-4 homes in the area average about 3000 square feet;
the RS-1 areas have larger homes on large lots; and, that adding the 80,000 square
foot apartment building into the calculations skewed the numbers, so none of it
matched. He acknowledged that the project was complicated and that the Planning
Commission did a good job addressing the issues.
Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Stern, Planning Chair Gerstner reported that several
alternatives were discussed but since the neighborhood was predominantly RS-4 and
the property was large enough to support four houses, the Planning Commission
decided that RS-4 seemed appropriate. Planning Chair Gerstner reported that the
Commission came to their conclusions after analysis of the information, extensive
discussion of the nature of the neighborhood, and extensive examination of the square
footage of the proposed homes with the numbers analyzed relative to the homes
presently in the neighborhood.
Responding to Councilman Gardiner, Planning Chair Gerstner reported that the
Commission had not concluded that the project consisting of five houses created its
own neighborhood.
Councilman Gardiner inquired if preexisting non-conforming buildings could or could not
be used in the analysis, as cited in the Hamilton vs. Board of Supervisors Case.
City Attorney Lynch explained that the issue in the Hamilton Case was about
perpetuating a zoning variance by approving an addition. She indicated that there were
different issues involved with this project including the legislative issue of what zone the
homes should be placed into and if the Council wished to grant a variance, noting that
those decisions were up to the discretion of Council.
Councilman Gardiner received clarification that the Council had the discretion to
maintain the current zoning or to change the zoning to RS-2 which would go back to the
Planning Commission for consideration.
Mayor Long commented on the uniqueness of the lot and expressed dissatisfaction with
the neighborhood compatibility process. He reported that a number of cites have a
formula whereby there are limitations to the allowable square footage of houses based
upon the square footage of the lots.
City Attorney Lynch and Mayor Long discussed Prop M and its implications.
Mayor Long asserted that the ordinance was a violation of the intent of the voters and
City Attorney Lynch observed that the majority of the Council disagreed with him on that
point.
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 9 of 21
B-33
Mayor Pro Tern Stern inquired if staff had a particular view as to what an appropriate
residential zoning for the area would be.
Planning Director Rojas explained that staff did not think RS-4 was inappropriate since
the majority of the actual zoning and densities in the area were RS-4. He indicated that
there was some discussion of comparing the project to RS-1 homes, which are also
nearby but not in the same zoning district, which the guidelines do not allow.
Mayor Pro Tern Stern noted that legal non-conforming was not what Council wanted to
see propagated and the City zoning was changed because they did not want to see
more and more high-density apartments. He questioned why staff would want to
approve something the City conceptually rejected as the way to evolve.
Planning Director Rojas clarified that, in making its recommendation, staff had
separated the two distinct issues of land use and structures. He stated that in
assessing the appropriate land use or zoning, staff relied on the existing land use in the
area. Staff noted that the founding fathers, in creating the City's first Zoning Map, had
zoned the area including the apartment buildings as RS-4 which staff deemed
appropriate for the applicant's property as it would match the adjacent zoning and
residential developments at that density. However, in terms of assessing how large of
houses should go on the RS-4 zoned lots, staff did not believe it was right to factor in
the size of the apartment buildings.
Responding to Mayor Pro Tern Stern about the affordable housing issue, Planning
Director Rojas explained that staff had made it clear to the developer that the provision
of one affordable unit was required per the ordinance, and that at some point in the
future the developer would like to demonstrate that it is not feasible to provide the unit,
but until that action is taken, staff is conditioning the project such that the unit be built on
site.
City Attorney Lynch clarified that what is before them is a condition that says the
developer shall provide an affordable housing unit.
Responding to Councilman Gardiner, Planning Director Rojas explained that staff's
position was that five lots were appropriate, but the homes were too large.
Planning Chair Gerstner explained that the decision was based on predominant land
use in the area and clarified that when considering land use, zoning is the issue, not the
structure on the land.
Councilman Wolowicz inquired if there were any variances regarding setbacks on lot
coverage.
Planning Chair Gerstner clarified that there were no variances regarding setbacks or lot
coverage.
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 10 of 21B-34
Mayor Long opened the public hearing.
Dana Ireland, applicant, provided a project booklet with additional information, a copy of
the site plan, a copy of the unanimous vote of the Council for a zone change of the site,
and copies of comments which he took as direction to define a detailed project. He
acknowledged that an error had been made with a deficient lot line in the rear and he
noted that they were trying to look at property rights to move forward on the project.
With the aid of slides, Mr. Ireland discussed sizes of the proposed homes and other
homes in the area noting that given the context of the 80,000 square foot apartment
building across the street, the proposed homes would appear in context. He asserted
that neighborhood compatibility should include the consideration of the appearance of
the structures and not just the total square footage. He indicated that they were asking
for four units per acre while there were 40 units per acre across the street. He
presented slides of views and view impacts noting that the negative votes were about
neighborhood compatibility, not about height. He reported reviewing the tape of the
meeting, taking all suggestions into consideration, and making changes to the project
accordingly.
Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Stern, Mr. Ireland explained that they looked at the
appropriate width and depth of the lots and concluded that five lots was the optimum
number for the site. He added that they had also taken the appropriateness of the side
yard setback into consideration.
Mayor Pro Tem Stern expressed surprise that there was no request for a variance for a
front-yard setback and opined that the flags were right on top of him when he viewed
the development site.
Mr. Ireland asserted that was the nature of the silhouette and flags and that it was not
an accurate representation of how the project would look upon completion.
Responding to Councilman Wolowicz, Mr. Ireland explained that Lots 1 and 2 would be
filled to create a level yard and clarified that all the calculations were made from the
existing grade, rather than from finished grade.
Mayor Long received clarification that staff had reviewed the elevations, and the profiles
accurately represent how the Terranea development would affect the views.
Mr. Ireland reminded that the Terranea project has a 65-foot tall five-story hotel.
Michael Finnegan, asset manager for Pacific Property Company, the owner of the Villa
Apartments, asked for denial of the project due to the mass and bulk.
Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Stern, Mr. Finnegan indicated that it was his
understanding that the Pacific Property Company did not object to having the property
rezoned from commercial to residential.
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 11 of 21
B-35
Bob Nelson, Rancho Palos Verdes, reported that the Seabluff Homeowners Association
voted unanimously against the project. He indicated that he had attended all of the
meetings and had heard no one but the developer speak in favor of the project. He
quoted the Planning Commission minutes where speakers expressed strong opposition
to violating the provisions of the General Plan by amendment or otherwise, noting that
every time the General Plan is changed the City loses. He asserted that neighborhood
compatibility guidelines did not exist when one could declare five houses a
neighborhood unto itself and asked that the matter be sent back to the Planning
Commission with the applicant redirected to meet with the neighbors to formulate a
satisfactory plan.
Mayor Pro Tern Stern pointed out that the property was presently zoned commercial
recreation and he questioned whether the preference was to leave it that way with a
conforming utilization of that property or to change it to residential which would require a
General Plan amendment.
Mr. Nelson indicated that he personally would like to see four one-story homes at the
site and noted that if Lot 1 were eliminated, Seabluff views would be preserved. He
agreed with excluding the Villa Apartments from the neighborhood compatibility analysis
and indicated that he did not have a problem with the closeness of the homes to each
other, but had a problem with bulk, mass and view impairment.
Mayor Pro Tem Stern pointed out that the by-right area of 16 feet in height was
excluded from the view analysis and inquired if Mr. Nelson believed that there was a
significant view impairment of the area in excess of the by-right.
Mr. Nelson stated that while he did not have a problem with a by-right height of 16 feet,
he explained that he has a 6 foot pad on Lots 1 and 2 and it was his understanding that
he plans to build on top of that pad. He opined that the view as presented was
erroneous and while he agreed that something should be developed on the site, he did
not want to see total view destruction.
Lisa Brant, an attorney representing clients on Sea Cove Drive, noted they objected to
the current proposal of five very large homes on a single lot requiring eight applications,
an amendment to the General Plan, an amendment to the Coastal Specific plan,
rezoning, and variances to existing zoning, all indicating that the project is inconsistent
with community standards. She commented that the Planning Commission appeared to
be bending over backwards to maximize profits over the good of the community and
reported that her clients intended to fight the approval of the project to the full extent of
the law, including going to court. She pointed out that pursuant to the Government
Code, the General Plan can only be amended if the amendment is in the public interest
and no argument has been made to that effect. She asserted that the proposal was
injurious to surrounding neighborhoods and greatly diminished views.
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 12 of 21B-36
Ms. Brant reported that the Planning Commission had indicated that the project was
consistent because of the Villa Apartments but non-conforming uses cannot be
considered under the law. She felt that declaring it a neighborhood unto itself illustrated
a type of mental gymnastics and pointed out the high standard under California law as
to when variances are allowed to be granted. She asserted that no variances were
needed for Mr. Ireland to develop his property and he had submitted alternate proposals
to develop the property that would not require variances. She asserted that just
because the property would be more valuable to Mr. Ireland was not enough of a
reason to grant variances and maximizing his profits above the interests of the
community would be inconsistent with the laws of California, and the planning and
zoning that the community worked so hard to put in place.
Mayor Pro Tem Stern inquired what zoning the residents of Sea Cove believed to be the
appropriate zoning.
Ms. Brant felt the zoning should stay commercial as that would be in the better public
interest but if it was changed to residential it should be RS-1.
Councilman Wolowicz expressed concern that if were to be turned into a public place
there would be parking and traffic issues, as the owner could build a 150-unit Bed and
Breakfast structure on the site.
Ms. Brandt pointed out that what would be allowed for commercial recreational would be
rather small and noted it was proper to consider residential zoning as RS-1 not RS-4,
while including open space issues in the analysis.
Responding to Councilman Gardiner, Ms. Brant indicated that her clients would prefer
RS-2 over RS-4.
Councilman Gardiner noted that their intent was to balance concerns.
Paul Wright, Rancho Palos Verdes, indicated that their view would not be impacted but
he opposed the project as it would create a densely populated neighborhood. He noted
that he supported the rezoning of the site to RS-2.
David Emenhiser, Seabluff Homeowners Association President, Rancho Palos Verdes,
observed opposition on three sides of the project and he expressed concern with
blocked views, negatively affected home values in the area, overflow parking into their
neighborhood and a project that differed greatly from what Mr. Ireland discussed with
the Association one year ago. He wanted to see the Council send the project back to
the Planning Commission or to have the opposition sit down with Mr. Ireland and work
out a compromise.
Councilman Wolowicz commented on suggested parking ordinances and Mr.
Emenhiser provided statistics about the number of cars in the area noting that the
Association had not discussed the possibility of a commercial venture.
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 13 of 21
B-37
Mayor Pro Tern Stern pointed out that under the present proposal, staff believed that
Lots 1 and 2 were within the by-right area and did not require a variance, or under the
ordinance, cause a view blockage.
Councilman Gardiner suggested that if more houses were built, the more views would
be blocked.
Mayor Pro Tern Stern indicated that was not the issue and the view impairment
depended on the size of the homes.
Mr. Emenhiser explained that neighbors were told that the by right construction could be
to 16 feet, but the silhouette flags on the site were at the height of 30 feet and they were
worried their views would be blocked.
Juan-Carlos Monnaco, Rancho Palos Verdes, opposed the project due to substantial
view blockage and the resulting negative economic impact. He asserted that photos
were taken from angles which reduced the appearance of the actual view obstruction
and disagreed with the way grading was allowed to affect the view so that a 16-foot
structure becomes a 30-foot structure. He opined that the houses should have been
required to have height variation permits.
Ranjan Bajaria, Rancho Palos Verdes, expressed opposition to the project due to
concerns with view blockage, traffic and parking.
Mayor Long stated that views from second stories were not protected under the view
ordinance; and Ms. Bajaria acknowledged that her first story view was not affected and
they used a bedroom on the second story for their living area as it received more light.
Councilman Wolowicz noted that Ms. Bajaria's home was located across the street from
the apartment building and it was not easy to see Lot 2 from her driveway.
Councilman Gardiner received clarification that if the Council approved the changes and
allowed RS-4, the developer could by-right block the view. He inquired if the Planning
Commission could ask the developer to move the house to the right or left to preserve
view corridors.
City Attorney Lynch clarified that only public view corridors would be protected.
Dana Ireland believed the public interest was being served by taking the conflict of
commercial and residential traffic off of the same streets; noted that there would be a
requirement for a variance for the development of the Commercial Recreational (CR)
zone since the minimum lot depth is 250 feet and they were asking for less than that;
noted that his project would be woven into a very comprehensive and complex public
use facility with Terrenea as the next door neighbor and the Vanderlip trail that goes
along the bluff top. He indicated that he has observed that people from the apartments
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 14 of 21B-38
park on the street because it is more convenient, not because the lot is full and that is a
use issue as opposed to a zoning issue. He acknowledged that Mr. Monnaco had the
most impacted view, and they had tried to address the project so that it minimizes that
impact and he disputed the accuracy of the unanimous vote cited by Mr. Nelson.
RECESS:
Mayor Long called for a brief recess from 11:23 P.M. to 11:29 P.M.
The Council agreed upon the order in which to consider the issues, discussing the
legislative items first including the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and
Coastal Plan Amendment; received clarification that they had the discretion to
determine the zoning on the property, with the understanding that the decision could not
be arbitrary or unreasonable; decided that the issue would be required to be returned to
the Planning Commission in order for them to discuss the less dense residential
standards for consideration; and decided they would not proceed with the other
components of the project, as they would be moot.
City Attorney Lynch explained that the City Council could either decide to rezone the
property or leave more of the decision to the property owner by allowing him to decide
to leave the property at Commercial Recreational or change it to a lesser density
Residential zoning designation.
Councilman Gardiner stated that he appreciated all the work the owner had put into the
development of the property and would like to allow the owner the maximum flexibility
for the property, but believed the homes were too large for the size of the lots.
Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to deny the current
application and send the matter back to the Planning Commission with instructions that
the zoning be changed from CR to RS-2 zoning, which would allow for three homes on
the site.
Councilman Wolowicz commented that the parcel was of an awkward configuration and
that Mr. Ireland had followed everything by the book. He believed it would be difficult to
approve any kind of commercial recreational business at the site, since it is in a
residential area, but he did not think any apartment buildings had been approved since
the incorporation of the City. He acknowledged other neighborhoods with apartment
buildings next to homes and opined there was a need to change the General Plan
although he was not sure whether he supported RS-2, RS-3 or RS-4 at this particular
site.
Mayor Long stated that he did not support the motion, because he believed the decision
of zoning was a legislative decision and the Council's to make. He opined that
residential zoning was the most appropriate designation, but did not favor RS-4; was not
persuaded that view issues were significant because of the Terranea development;
believed Council's mandate was not to place large houses on small lots and stated this
was a classic example of why the City needed square footage limitations specific to lots.
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 15 of 21
B-39
Councilman Gardiner indicated that he would not be opposed to changing the zoning to
RS-2 residential, but he believed the applicant was not playing by the rules, since he
wanted to change eight of them.
Mayor Pro Tem Stern stated he believed the property was mis-zoned and no one was
trying to change the rules, but he wanted to know if Mr. Ireland wanted the latitude
suggested by Councilman Gardiner.
Mayor Long reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Ireland indicated that he took property rights seriously and had made an application
based upon meetings with staff of what was deemed to be appropriate. He inquired if
the RS-4 zoning was the real issue or if the issue was the size of the homes. He
reported taking due diligence by speaking to operators of boutique hotels and there was
some interest in that idea, but they had not pursued that idea because they went
forward with the staff recommendation. He indicated that he wanted to understand
Council's concerns and would attempt to address those concerns within reasons.
Council Members indicated that the mass of the project was the main issue.
Planning Director Rojas commented that neighborhood compatibility was at play and
the City could limit the homes to 1,000 square feet.
Mayor Long disagreed and he stated that the precedent being set would be to use the
80,000 square feet structure to inflate the numbers.
Mr. Ireland pointed out that the Code limited the amount of lot coverage available and if
Council wanted the lot coverage to be decreased he could do that. He stated that if the
zoning was changed to RS-2 he would be limited to three houses which would be an
undesirable project from a builder's or owner's perspective. He indicated that RS-3 was
more manageable and would provide the open space Council and the residents were
looking for and noted he would have to reexamine the CR possibilities.
City Attorney Lynch pointed out that the one aspect of the project that Council could not
consider was the issue of economic viability.
Councilman Wolowicz stated he realized Council could not consider the economic
viability, but he expressed concern that at some point the developer might decide to put
up a hotel. He indicated that he preferred an RS-3 designation.
Councilman Gardiner observed that most of the time there was not much the City could
do to prevent mansionization, but this was a case where a zone change is being
requested and the Council has the opportunity to help preserve some open space. He
indicated that RS-2 would accomplish that goal while RS-3 would not, but if Council
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 16 of 21B-40
changed the zoning to RS-3 he believed the owner should also have the option to
reevaluate the desirability of retaining the CR zoning.
Mr. Ireland clarified that they were proposing 4 homes of 6000 square feet on 12,000 to
14,000 square foot lots.
Mayor Long closed the public hearing.
Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to deny the current
applications and remand the item back to the Planning Commission with instructions
that consideration be given to rezone the project from CR to RS-2 or RS-3.
A roll call vote reflected the following:
AYES: Gardiner, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Long
NOES: None
ABSENT: Clark
ABSTAIN: None
Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to suspend the rules
and conduct business after 1 1:00 P.M.
Without objection, Mayor Long so ordered.
Tract Map Amendment (Case No. SUB2006-00020): Amendment No. 3 to Tract
Map No. 31617 to Permit a Wider Range of Minor Accessory Structures Outside
the Building/Grading Restriction (BGR) Line on Lots 42 through 46, Inclusive
Ocean Terrace Drive and Pacifica Drive) (1411 X 1203)
City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published and no
written protests were received. She indicated there was one request to speak.
Without objection, Mayor Long waived the staff report.
Mayor Long opened the public hearing.
Linda Muckel, applicant, stated that she concurred with staff's recommendation.
Mayor Long closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Wolowicz, to ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-56, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE
REQUESTED TRACT MAP AMENDMENT (CASE NO. SUB2006-00020). A roll call
vote reflected the following:
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 17 of 21
B-41
AYES: Gardiner, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Long
NOES: None
ABSENT: Clark
ABSTAIN: None
General Plan Amendment & Zone Change Initiation Request (Case No. ZON2007-
00134) (Applicant: Gulian Design; Landowner: Jovan & Lisa Vavic; Property
Address: 3324 Seaclaire Drive) (701 X 1802)
City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published and no
written protests were received. She indicated there was one request to speak.
Without objection, Mayor Long waived the staff report.
Mayor Long opened the public hearing.
Edward Gulian, applicant, expressed support for the staff recommendation.
Mayor Long closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Wolowicz, to allow the
applicant to submit the necessary applications and proceed through the review process
for a proposed change in the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation for a
portion of the subject site. A roll call vote reflected the following:
AYES: Gardiner, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Long
NOES: None
ABSENT: Clark
ABSTAIN: None
REGULAR NEW BUSINESS:
Proposed Ordinance to Address Targeted Residential Picketing (1103)
City Attorney Lynch noted that a revised ordinance with a very minor change was
distributed as part of the late correspondence prior to the meeting and presented the
staff report. She indicated that the ordinance had been reviewed by a First Amendment
expert and was modeled after an ordinance upheld by the courts in San Francisco and
San Diego.
Councilman Gardiner inquired if the fact pattern was the same between the situation in
Rancho Palos Verdes and the citied cases and expressed concern about the 300 foot
limitation.
City Attorney Lynch explained that in one case the court commented that 300 feet might
be too large depending on the area of issue. She reported meeting with affected
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 18 of 21B-42
residents who experienced distress and anxiety disorders from the noise of the
picketing and they requested that the City use the maximum setback that could be
proposed.
Mayor Long indicated that he could think of some cases where 300 feet would not be
enough and suggested accepting the proposed ordinance and dealing with a challenge
if it arises.
Councilman Wolowicz commented on an instance where picketing was harassing a
resident and the surrounding neighbors and indicated the proposed ordinance was
intended to provide some protection.
Councilman Gardiner noted that a 300-foot buffer resulted in moving the picketers to
someone else's house and inquired if governing the conduct of the picketers might be a
better approach.
City Attorney Lynch reported that the ordinance limited loud and raucous noise within
300 feet of any residence which is intended to harass, threaten or intimidate; and
residents were advised by the Sheriff not to engage with protesters who may attempt to
provoke them into behavior that the picketers can use against the residents. She
acknowledged that intent to harass was very difficult to prove.
The Council discussed whether the ordinance would leave the City open to dispute but
concluded that since the ordinance was modeled after a previously defended ordinance
it was reasonable and sufficient for the City.
Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to adopt the staff
recommendation to Read Ordinance No. 458, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AS AMENDED, AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS GOVERNING
PICKETING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES IN THE CITY" by title only, waived further
reading, and introduced the Ordinance.
A roll call vote reflected the following:
AYES: Stern, Wolowicz and Mayor Long
NOES: Gardiner
ABSENT: Clark
ABSTAIN: None
Items removed from the Consent Calendar:
Award of Professional Services Contract for Independent Auditing Services (602)
Councilman Gardiner indicated that he believed seven years was too long to use the
same auditing service.
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 19 of 21
B-43
Mayor Pro Tern Stern pointed out that staff was recommending an extension to the
contract because they did not have enough time to prepare an RFP.
Councilman Wolowicz acknowledged Councilman Gardiner's concerns and indicated
that the contract should be sent out to bid next year. He expressed confidence in the
ability of the firm the City uses and indicated that their fees were quite reasonable.
Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stern, to approve the
attached Professional Services Agreement for Independent Auditing Services with
Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP ("\TID") for an amount "not to exceed" $35,000 with the
recommendation that staff leave sufficient time to send out an RFP next year.
A roll call vote reflected the following:
AYES: Gardiner, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Long
NOES: None
ABSENT: Clark
ABSTAIN: None
CITY COUNCIL ORAL REPORTS:
Mayor Long asked that Oral Reports be deferred to the next meeting.
Councilman Wolowicz commended City staff on its presentation to the Appeals Board of
the South Bay Cities Council of Governments regarding the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) allocation, which resulted in a 1/3 reduction of the requirement for
affordable housing for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, from 90 units to 60 units.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS & SUGGESTION OF FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS:
Councilman Gardiner asked that the Eastview and school district matter be put on a
future agenda.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT:
City Attorney Lynch stated that a report was given to the Council regarding price and
terms of payment negotiations regarding the Crestridge property; and further direction
was given to the City negotiators by City Council with Councilman Gardiner expressing
opposition.
ADJOURNMENT:
At 12:34 A.M., the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, May 29, 2007, at 6:00 P.M. for
an Adjourned Regular Meeting and Budget Work Session at Point Vicente Interpretive
Center.
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page 20 of 21B-44
4011
i r
Mayor
Attest:
4
dI
City Clerk
W:\City Council Minutes\2007\20070515 CC MINS.doc
City Council Minutes
May 15, 2007
Page21 of 21B-45
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
March 15, 2021 C ITY OF
Oceanfront Estates Homeowners Assn
Bali Management Group
385 Van Ness Ave Suite #105
Torrance, CA 90501
R AN C HO PA LOS V ERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPM ENT DEPARTM ENT
RE: (CPM2021-0012) -Violation of Development Maintenance Agreement for Open
Space Lots in the Oceanfront Estates Community
Dear Oceanfront Estates Homeowners Assn:
As you may be aware, on May 15, 2007, City Council Minutes were approved for
Acceptance of maintenance responsibility for open space lots in the Ocean Front
Estates Community (Tract Map No. 46628) in accordance with the 1999 Development
Agreement between the City and Capital Pacific Homes (CPH).
The Code Enforcement Division recently inspected foliage on your property and along
the public right-of-way parallel to Palos Verdes Drive West. Staff determined that
existing growth of foliage, specifically on lots 80, 81, 83, 84 violates the development
maintenance agreement section 11.5 (A)(B)(C). Based on the Development Agreement
the homeowners' association shall maintain said areas to City's reasonable satisfaction
in accordance with the standard the City imposes on the maintenance of other similar
areas in the City.
In order to bring your property into compliance it is necessary that you attend to the
following:
• Trim and maintain all perimeter ornamental landscaping (foliage) down to fence
height for lots 80, 81, 83, 84;
The City strives to gain voluntary compliance from property owners in regards to code
violations reported and confirmed on a property. A re-inspection of your property, and
review of this case, will be conducted on April 15, 2021. If the violation on your property
continues to exist, and no attempts are made to contact this office by the voluntary
compliance date in order to resolve this matter, further Code Enforcement action will
occur.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread
of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical
distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working
remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by
3 0 9 40 HAWTHOl<NE BOULEVA RD/ RANC HO PA LOS VERDES , CA 90275-5391 I (3 10) 544-5228 / FAX (3 10) 544-5293 WWW.RPVCAGOV
0 PRINT ED ON R ECYCL ED P APER E-1
calling the appropriate department or division and follow all posted directions during
your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time
Please contact me at Rmonroy(d2mvca.g_ov or at 310-544-5296 if you need additional
information regarding the nature of the violation or if you have any questions regarding
the content of this notice. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
~?-b~
Rudy Monroy
Code Enforcement Officer
Encl: Development Agreement -1999
City Council Minutes, 5-15-2007
Agenda Item, 5-15-2007
Staff Photograph Dated 7-23-20
c: Ken Rukavina, Community Development Director
E-2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
EXHIBIT 1: Palos Verdes Dr W Elevation
EXHIBIT 2: Palos Verdes Dr W
ADDRESS: Palos Verdes Dr West DATE: 03-05-2021 CE OFFICER: R. Monroy ------E-3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
EXHIBIT 3: Hawthorne Blvd / PVDW
EXHIBIT 4: Palos Verdes Dr W
ADDRESS: Palos Verdes Dr West DATE: 03-05-2021 CE OFFICER : R. Monroy ------E-4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
EXHIBIT 5:
EXHIBIT 6:
ADDRESS: Palos Verdes Dr West DATE: 03-05-2021 CE OFFICER: R. Monroy ------E-5
From:Larry Carapellotti
To:Amy Seeraty
Cc:Ken Rukavina; Ara Mihranian; James O"Neill; Octavio Silva; "Lisa Levine"; debbie@balimgmt.com; c.robert.chow@gmail.com; MYANG@orrick.com; "Critelli, Robert C III"; johnrsato@gmail.com
Subject:RE: Tract 46628
Date:Saturday, October 9, 2021 1:29:29 PM
Attachments:image003.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Amy,
You have provided additional information which will take some time for us to respond to. Therefore, please delay our presentation to the Council until the November meeting. Thanks.
Larry Carapellotti
larryc3@cox.net
Cell: 818-519-8520
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 1:39 PM
To: 'Larry Carapelloti'
Cc: Ken Rukavina; Ara Mihranian; James O'Neill; Octavio Silva; 'Lisa Levine'; debbie@balimgmt.com; 'c.robert.chow@gmail.com'; MYANG@orrick.com; Critelli, Robert C III; johnrsato@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Tract 46628Importance: High
Additionally, just to clarify, the City Attorney has pointed out that Oceanfront Estates’ acacia along Lot 84 and the eastern slope of Lot 80 are the HOA’s responsibility.
(See excerpt from Development Agreement below.) Whether the acacia is ornamental or not is immaterial to this analysis, because the maintenance of the relevant
areas is clearly articulated by the Development Agreement. Again, please let me know if you have any questions, thank you.
11.5 A. Developer and City hereby agree that the following areas of the open space, which will be dedicated to the City, are more appropriately maintained by the
Homeowners’ Association that is to be formed by Developer, because of the direct benefit to the homes that will be derived from the care of these areas by the
Homeowners’ Association:
…
2. Portion of Lots 80 and 83 and all of Lot 84, which is comprised of the slopes surrounding the wetlands area and extending along Palos Verdes Drive West to the south
entrance to the tract;
…
4. The main entrance to the tract at Hawthorne Boulevard, including the median (Lot 88) and the portions of Lots 80 and 81 on both sides of the road;
5. A portion of Lot 81, which is comprised of the slopes along Palos Verdes Drive West extending from the South entrance to the Tract to the Southern boundary of the
Tract;
I’ve copied some additional folks on this email, as I neglected to add them to my initial email below. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy SeeratySenior Planneramys@rpvca.gov Phone - (310) 544-5231
City of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 1:01 PM
To: Larry Carapelloti <larryc3@cox.net>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Tract 46628
Importance: High
Hi Larry-
I completed some additional research and found Ordinance No. 344 in the public records (link to document below), which appears to have been the document that implemented
the Development Agreement. I extracted pages 135 and 136 from the PDF document and highlighted the areas labeled as “firebreak”. These are delineated separately from the
Coastal Sage Scrub revegetation areas, and appear to match the areas that Ara described below.
https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17664/ORD-344
I know it’s fairly soon, but please let me know by this Monday 10/11 what your and the HOA’s thoughts are regarding the foliage trimming along these slopes, as we need to finalize
the Staff Report for the 10/19 City Council meeting by Monday, Thank you.
Amy SeeratySenior Planneramys@rpvca.gov Phone - (310) 544-5231
City of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
F-1
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 5:35 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; Larry Carapelloti <larryc3@cox.net>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Tract 46628
Thank you, Amy.
Larry, when reviewing the tract map, please pay close attention to the easement notes for these lots.
It’s crystal clear to me that these are reserved to the HOA.
Easement note “I” indicates reserved for landscape maintenance purposes to be dedicated to the HOA by separate instrument.
Lastly, the tract map indicates the measurements of each lot and easement.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
P Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 5:13 PM
To: Larry Carapelloti <larryc3@cox.net>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Tract 46628
Amy SeeratySenior Planneramys@rpvca.gov Phone - (310) 544-5231
City of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
F-2
From:Amy Seeraty
To:"Larry Carapellotti"
Cc:Ken Rukavina; Ara Mihranian; "debbie@balimgmt.com"; "lisalevine2@icloud.com"; "c.robert.chow@gmail.com"; "Critelli, Robert C III"; "johnrsato@gmail.com"; "MYANG@orrick.com"; Ramzi Awwad; Octavio Silva; Charles Eder; Rudy Monroy; Gerri
Whitten
Subject:RE: Still waiting for a reply! A few questions.
Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 1:49:53 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image004.png
image019.png
image022.png
image025.png
image026.png
image032.png
Q&A with Attachments.pdf
image002.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
Hello Larry-
I apologize for the delay, but please see the attached document with your questions, followed by the answers I was able to locate for you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy SeeratySenior Planneramys@rpvca.gov Phone - (310) 544-5231
City of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
Due to the current surge of the COVID-19 Omicron Variant, Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall will be closed to walk-in visitors through January 30, 2022, unless further
notification is provided. Several members of the City’s workforce are being asked to work remotely during this time. Inquiries will continue to be reviewed on a daily
basis. Please be patient with us as there may be delays or minor inconveniences in responding to your inquiry. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:13 AM
To: 'Larry Carapellotti' <larryc3@cox.net>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; debbie@balimgmt.com; lisalevine2@icloud.com; c.robert.chow@gmail.com; 'Critelli, Robert C III'
<Robert.C.Critelli@morganstanley.com>; johnrsato@gmail.com; MYANG@orrick.com; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>;
Rudy Monroy <rmonroy@rpvca.gov>; Gerri Whitten <gwhitten@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Still waiting for a reply! A few questions.
Hi Larry-
I’ll look into that for you, thank you.
Amy SeeratySenior Planneramys@rpvca.gov Phone - (310) 544-5231
City of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
Due to the current surge of the COVID-19 Omicron Variant, Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall will be closed to walk-in visitors through January 30, 2022, unless further
notification is provided. Several members of the City’s workforce are being asked to work remotely during this time. Inquiries will continue to be reviewed on a daily
basis. Please be patient with us as there may be delays or minor inconveniences in responding to your inquiry. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
From: Larry Carapellotti <larryc3@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 11:58 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; debbie@balimgmt.com; lisalevine2@icloud.com; c.robert.chow@gmail.com; 'Critelli, Robert C III'
<Robert.C.Critelli@morganstanley.com>; johnrsato@gmail.com; MYANG@orrick.com; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>;
Rudy Monroy <rmonroy@rpvca.gov>; Gerri Whitten <gwhitten@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Still waiting for a reply! A few questions.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Amy,
One additional question, please: can you send me copies of the complaints about the acacias blocking the ocean view? Thanks.
Larry Carapellotti
larryc3@cox.net
Cell: 818-519-8520
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 4:32 PMTo: Larry Carapellotti
Cc: Ken Rukavina; Ara Mihranian; debbie@balimgmt.com; lisalevine2@icloud.com; c.robert.chow@gmail.com; Critelli, Robert C III; johnrsato@gmail.com; MYANG@orrick.com; Ramzi Awwad; Octavio Silva; Charles
Eder; Rudy Monroy; Gerri Whitten
Subject: RE: Still waiting for a reply! A few questions.
Hi Larry-
Please note that I’m waiting on some information to complete my responses to your questions below. I’ll get back to you by early next week, thank you.
Sincerely,
F-3
Amy SeeratySenior Planneramys@rpvca.gov Phone - (310) 544-5231
City of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 9:43 AM
To: Larry Carapellotti <larryc3@cox.net>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; debbie@balimgmt.com; lisalevine2@icloud.com; c.robert.chow@gmail.com; Critelli, Robert C III
<Robert.C.Critelli@morganstanley.com>; johnrsato@gmail.com; MYANG@orrick.com; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>;
Rudy Monroy <rmonroy@rpvca.gov>; Gerri Whitten <gwhitten@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Still waiting for a reply! A few questions.
Actually Larry, we may just keep it with the Planning folks. I’ll get back to you as soon as I can with some information.
Amy SeeratySenior Planneramys@rpvca.gov Phone - (310) 544-5231
City of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Larry Carapellotti <larryc3@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:54 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; debbie@balimgmt.com; lisalevine2@icloud.com; c.robert.chow@gmail.com; Critelli, Robert C III
<Robert.C.Critelli@morganstanley.com>; johnrsato@gmail.com; MYANG@orrick.com; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>;
Rudy Monroy <rmonroy@rpvca.gov>; Gerri Whitten <gwhitten@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Still waiting for a reply! A few questions.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Thanks for the update.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 11, 2022, at 2:46 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Larry and Happy New Year. I am working on your questions below that were sent January 4th. However, since your questions may require the gathering of
information from multiple departments, it would seem that your request would more appropriately be submitted as a public records request. Accordingly, I’ve forwarded it to
the City Clerk’s office to be tracked. I will continue gathering the information and will let you know when I have any answers for you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy SeeratySenior Planneramys@rpvca.gov Phone - (310) 544-5231
City of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorizeddissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
Due to the current surge of the COVID-19 Omicron Variant, Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall will be closed to walk-in visitors through January 30, 2022,
unless further notification is provided. Several members of the City’s workforce are being asked to work remotely during this time. Inquiries will continue to
be reviewed on a daily basis. Please be patient with us as there may be delays or minor inconveniences in responding to your inquiry. For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Larry Carapellotti <larryc3@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 1:40 PM
To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; debbie@balimgmt.com; lisalevine2@icloud.com; c.robert.chow@gmail.com; Critelli, Robert C III
<Robert.C.Critelli@morganstanley.com>; johnrsato@gmail.com; MYANG@orrick.com; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Charles Eder
<CharlesE@rpvca.gov>; Rudy Monroy <rmonroy@rpvca.gov>; Gerri Whitten <gwhitten@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Still waiting for a reply! A few questions.
F-4
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 4, 2022, at 1:15 PM, Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Dear Larry,
I writing to acknowledge receipt of your questions below and to let you know that we’ll research the information needed to respond. Plan to hear back from us by the end of
next week.
Regards, Ken
Ken Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical
distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling
the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could
be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Larry Carapellotti <larryc3@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 12:43 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; debbie@balimgmt.com; lisalevine2@icloud.com; c.robert.chow@gmail.com; 'Critelli, Robert C
III' <Robert.C.Critelli@morganstanley.com>; johnrsato@gmail.com; MYANG@orrick.com; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>;
Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Rudy Monroy <rmonroy@rpvca.gov>; Gerri Whitten <gwhitten@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Still waiting for a reply! A few questions.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Ara,
Thanks for your prompt reply. Just a few additional questions.
1- Can you tell me why the City would have allowed the developer to plant highly flammable acacia bushes in an area designated as a fire break?
2- Why won’t the City remove the acacia bushes as part of its well established “acacia removal program”?
3- There are countless areas along PV Drive where foliage blocks ocean views. Why is the City so focused on having the section along the OFE/HOA trimmed?
4- Can you document where an agreement was made between the HOA and the City to trim foliage at fence height?
5- Why does the City believe that the overgrown acacias planted on the slopes (in the fire break) fits into the definition: “Perimeter ornamental landscaping and fencing”?
6- Why does the City refuse to use the $750,000, paid by the developer for “maintenance of the revegetated habitat” which was transferred to the City in the May 14, 2007
agreement?
7- Why won’t the City act on our request for permit parking which was approved by the Safety Committee last spring? Now that you have established permit parking at the
top of Crenshaw, the City has driven even more visitors to OFE!
8- How much money did the City receive as part of the numerous covid relief packages?
9- OFE residents pay over $5,000,000 annually in property taxes. The City encourages visitors from all over to visit the cliff trail and park on our residential streets
(reference the City’s website for Vicente Bluffs Reserve). And yet, law enforcement personnel (LA County Sheriff) are virtually non-existent. What benefits are we getting
for our tax dollars?
We are extremely disappointed that the City seems to have funds for its pet projects but won’t work with us to resolve an urgent safety and fire hazard. Maybe now you can
appreciate our frustrations.
Larry Carapellotti
larryc3@cox.net
Cell: 818-519-8520
From: Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraM@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:24 AM
To: Larry Carapellotti; Amy Seeraty; debbie@balimgmt.com; lisalevine2@icloud.com; c.robert.chow@gmail.com; 'Critelli, Robert C III'; johnrsato@gmail.com;
MYANG@orrick.com; Ramzi Awwad; Octavio Silva; Charles Eder; Ken Rukavina; Rudy Monroy; Gerri Whitten
Subject: RE: Still waiting for a reply!
Larry,
The interpretation matter is tentatively scheduled for February 1.
That said, I am disappointed to hear that the information we provided you including the tract map that delineates the area the HOA is
responsible for is still being questioned.
As noted in my email dated September 29, 2021, Easement Note “I” indicates reserved for landscape maintenance purposes to be dedicated to
the HOA by separate instrument while the tract map indicates the measurements of each lot and easement.
To me, this is abundantly clear and is supported by the interpretation City Council Staff Report dated May 5, 2007.
In order to move forward with the February 1 agenda item, please submit your documents and information to Ken and Amy.
I will have them follow-up with you on a deadline to submit the information.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
F-5
P Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and
cooperation.
From: Larry Carapellotti <larryc3@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:11 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; debbie@balimgmt.com; lisalevine2@icloud.com; c.robert.chow@gmail.com; 'Critelli, Robert C
III' <Robert.C.Critelli@morganstanley.com>; johnrsato@gmail.com; MYANG@orrick.com; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>;
Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Rudy Monroy <rmonroy@rpvca.gov>; Gerri Whitten <gwhitten@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Still waiting for a reply!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Ara/Rudy,
I am disappointed that no one from the City staff has bothered to reply to my e-mail of December 6, (below). We would appreciate a response with a firm date for our presentation
to the City Council regarding the removal/trimming of the acacias along PV Drive.
Larry Carapellotti
VP - OFE/HOA
larryc3@cox.net
Cell: 818-519-8520
Rudy,I am responding to your letter of November 30, sent to Bali Management regarding the trimming of the acacias along PV Drive. Thereis clearly a misunderstanding here. We have been waiting for the City to schedule a hearing before the City Council. We were toldthat this would not happen until January at the earliest. We have been prepared to make a presentation to support our position thatthe subject shrubs are not our responsibility. We believe that we have a very strong position and that the council will agree withus. It is totally inappropriate for you to send a threatening notice when clearly it is the city management who has delayed thisdiscussion. Please advise us when a date has been scheduled for our presentation. We plan to do this in-person at the councilmeeting. Thank you.
Larry Carapellotti
VP – OFE/HOA
larryc3@cox.net
Cell: 818-519-8520
F-6
1. Can you tell me why the City would have allowed the developer to plant
highly flammable acacia bushes in an area designated as a fire break?
We were not able to locate any records related to this question.
2. Why won’t the City remove the acacia bushes as part of its well
established “acacia removal program”?
The City does not have an "acacia removal program". There was a one-
time funding allocation approved by the City Council to remove acacia from
areas of the public right-of-way and from City property that the City is
responsible for maintaining. This action did not include acacia removal on
private property. See attached staff report from 2019.
3. There are countless areas along PV Drive where foliage blocks ocean
views. Why is the City so focused on having the section along the
OFE/HOA trimmed?
The City receives complaints about this area when the foliage grows up, as
it is a highly trafficked area within the City. However, that is not our only
focus, as there are other areas in the City where we have been working with
other HOAs to trim view-blocking foliage, including areas along Palos
Verdes Drive South.
4. Can you document where an agreement was made between the HOA
and the City to trim foliage at fence height?
This is a requirement from the Conditions of Approval for development of
Tract 46628, which states: “...Landscaping within all open space areas shall
be planted in such a manner so that views from adjacent properties and any
public right-of-way are not affected...”
5. Why does the City believe that the overgrown acacias planted on the
slopes (in the fire break) fits into the definition: “Perimeter ornamental
landscaping and fencing”?
The acacia is located within the area that is to be maintained by the HOA.
This is pursuant to Tract Map 46628, whereon Easement Note I, states
“INDICATES RESERVED FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
PURPOSES TO BE DEDICATED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATE
BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT.”
F-7
6. Why does the City refuse to use the $750,000, paid by the developer
for “maintenance of the revegetated habitat” which was transferred to
the City in the May 14, 2007 agreement?
The Development Agreement required CPH to establish a $750,000
endowment for the maintenance of the CSS habitat and wetland areas in
the Oceanfront Estates community. This endowment and its proceeds are
in a restricted fund, which is required to be used for maintenance of the
revegetated habitat. The ornamental landscaping, which includes the
acacia, is not habitat.
7. Why won’t the City act on our request for permit parking which was
approved by the Safety Committee last spring? Now that you have
established permit parking at the top of Crenshaw, the City has driven
even more visitors to OFE!
The Municipal Code requires that any code enforcement cases be resolved
prior to any new applications being processed. PRPVMC Section 17.86.050
states, in part:
A. The city shall not accept for processing or grant:
1. Any application for a development, use or other permit or
entitlement on any lot or parcel on which the director has
verified that a violation of this code exists;
Because a code case is currently active for areas the HOA is responsible
for, we cannot continue processing the residential street permit parking
project (PLCP2021-0001) until the code case is resolved.
8. How much money did the City receive as part of the numerous covid
relief packages?
The City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocation is $9.9 million from.
As of today, we received $4.9M and the remaining amount will be sent to
us a year from now.
Below is the link to the staff report related to the ARPA and the list of
projects and details that the City approved in September. A summary of the
projects can be found on page 12.
https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=4022&meta_
id=97546
9. OFE residents pay over $5,000,000 annually in property taxes. The City
encourages visitors from all over to visit the cliff trail and park on our
residential streets (reference the City’s website for Vicente Bluffs
F-8
Reserve). And yet, law enforcement personnel (LA County Sheriff) are
virtually non-existent. What benefits are we getting for our tax dollars?
Please see the attached “Property Tax Allocation” document.
10. One additional question, please: can you send me copies of the
complaints about the acacias blocking the ocean view? Thanks.
The City has received written complaints regarding the acacia’s impacting
and blocking protectives views. However, these complaints cannot be
released as this is an active code enforcement case, in other words, these
are not yet public record that can be shared.
During the August 17, 2021 City Council meeting, Councilmember Ferraro
raised the issue of the foliage blocking the view from the PVDW viewing
corridor.
F-9
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 09/17/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to appropriate additional funding in support of the City’s
fuel modification efforts and to support the City’s new goal to eradicate acacia ; award a
three-year contract to Fire Grazers; award a contract amendment to Hardy & Harper;
authorize Staff to negotiate contracts for tree trimming and removal; and authorize Staff
to negotiate a contract with Interwest Consulting Group to oversee and manage the City’s
efforts, and coordinate with associated agencies and manage associated contracts.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize an additional appropriation of $399,800 in support of the City’s Fuel
Modification efforts;
(2) Award a three-year contract amendment to Fire Grazers for two goat herds to be
utilized for Fuel Modification in the amount of $450,000 (with an annual
expenditure of $150,000, of which $140,000 is already included in the adopted
budget);
(3) Authorize staff to negotiate contracts up to $200,000 for tree trimming, “up -limbing”
and tree removal related to Fuel Modification, as well as removal of Acacia shrubs;
(4) Authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with a geologist for tree trimming, “up-
limbing” and tree removal related to Fuel Modification, as well as removal of Acacia
shrubs, not to exceed $25,000;
(5) Award a contract amendment to the Hardy & Harper contract to make necessary
repairs to the Peppertree Trail and Water Tank trails in the amount of $39,800;
(6) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract up to $1 25,000 with Interwest Consulting
Group to oversee and manage the City’s Fuel Modification efforts and associated
contracts;
(7) Alternately discuss and take other action related to this item.
FISCAL IMPACT: $399,800
Amount Budgeted: $0
Additional Appropriation: $399,800
Account Number(s): 101-400-3230-5101 ($150,000)
(General Fund - Fuel Modification/Professional &Technical Services)
101-400-3230-5201 ($249,800)
(General Fund - Fuel Modification/Repair & Maintenance Services)
ORIGINATED BY: James O'Neill, Engineering Assistant
REVIEWED BY: Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Los Angeles County Fire Department’s “Ready! Set! Go!” brochure (page A-1)
F-10
B. “Trimming Requirements” graphic provided by County of Los Angeles
Department of Agricultural Commissioner / Weights and Measures (page B-1)
C. Check List of Brush Clearance Requirements provided by County of Los
Angeles Department of Agricultural Commissioner / Weights and Measures
(page C-1)
D. Agreement with Fire Grazers (page D-1) (forthcoming)
E. Amendment to the agreement with Hardy & Harper agreement (page E-1)
(forthcoming)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff is requesting the City Council to approve new contracts and contract amendments,
along with $399,800 in additional funding for this fiscal year, in support of the City’s Fuel
Modification efforts, including:
1. $150,000 for the first year of a new 3-year contract with Fire Grazers (a.k.a. the
goats) for two goat herds for weed and brush abatement in identified Fuel
Modification zones ($140,000 is already included in the adopted budget,
therefore and additional appropriation of $10,000 is requested for this service)
2. $200,000 for tree trimming, “up-limbing” and tree removal related to Fuel
Modification, as well as removal of Acacia shrubs
3. $25,000 for geologic assessments of sloped areas where Fuel Modification is
prescribed
4. $39,800 for necessary repairs to two trails that accommodate vehicular access
for proper Fire Department accessibility
5. $125,000 for consultant services to oversee and manage the City’s Fuel
Modification efforts and associated vendor contracts
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
At the City Council meeting on July 16, 2019, staff presented an initial Fuel modification
Plan for City-owned properties to expand the City’s efforts on a n on-going basis. Staff
continues to evaluate City-owned parcels identified in that presentation to determine the
proper boundaries for Fuel Modification zones and appropriate Fuel Modification
requirements for those areas.
As part of this evaluation process, staff has digitally traced over 1,000 homes that are
located within 200 feet of City parcels and digitally mapped 30 feet and 200 feet buffers
around each of those homes within the past few months. Those zones (“Zone 1” and
“Zone 2” of defensible space, as defined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s
“Ready! Set! Go!” brochure, page A-1) define the Fuel Modification zones on City
property, along with brush clearance within 10 feet of roadways.
The majority of those zones on City parcels are located in the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve (the Nature Preserve), which covers over 1,400 acres and represents
F-11
approximately 17% of the entire City. Other zones are located on City parcels outside of
the Nature Preserve.
It is important to note that Fuel Modification and creating and maintaining defensible
space around homes is every property owner’s responsibility.
The City has historically addressed the requirement to remove, trim or thin out flammable
vegetation in Fuel Modification zones by contracting with Fire Grazers to provide a goat
herd that consumes vegetation, or with other vendors to manually cut vegetation, primarily
with line trimmers. These efforts do not address the need for tree trimming or tree
removal, nor address potential erosion concerns in sloped areas where vegetation is
being removed.
Governing Regulation with regards to Native Habitat
The City and all property owners are governed by federal and state requirements, such
as the Endangered Species Act, and therefore required to protect certain species and
their native habitat. Although this requirement does not prevent property owners from
creating and maintaining defensible space around their homes, the removal of such
habitat is regulated.
As a property owner, the City complies with regulations for the removal, trimming or
thinning of native habitat on City property, including but not limited to the Nature P reserve,
through the City’s draft Natural Communities Conservation Plan/ Habitat Conservation
Plan (NCCP/HCP). This agreement, even in its current draft form, helps the City expedite
Fuel Modification efforts because Fuel Modification is a covered activity in the
NCCP/HCP. As part of the City’s Fuel Modification efforts, staff coordinates with
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFG) in quantifying losses to native habitat. Without the NCCP/HCP, the City
would be subject to federal and state permitting requirements.
The City maintains its properties, including contracting with vendors to perform services
to create and maintain defensible space, and contracts with the Palos Verdes Peninsul a
Land Conservancy to manage the habitat in the Nature Preserve.
As a quick aside, the Nature Preserve serves as the City’s habitat “bank,” drastically
streamlining the City’s environmental permitting process and permitting costs for City
projects.
Expedited weed and brush abatement by goats
The initial Fuel Modification plan presented on July 16 reflected Fire Grazers providing
two goat herds, compared to the one herd historically provided. In order for Fire Grazers
to offer that option in a cost effective proposal, they are requesting a three-year contract.
Staff met with Fire Grazers’ management, and recommend awarding a three -year
F-12
contract. Utilizing two herds simultaneously will substantially expedite fuel modification at
City properties and allow for site revisits through the summer as necessary.
The three-year contract reflects an anticipated expenditure of $150,000 annually, of which
$140,000 was already included in the adopted 2019/2020 Fiscal Year budget.
Staff is recommending that Fire Grazers be awarded a new three-year contract for those
services. (page D-1)
Tree trimming, “Up-limbing” and tree removal
As part of the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s (LA County Fire) and County of Los
Angeles Department of Agricultural Commissioner / Weights and Measures’ (LA County
Agricultural Commissioner) Fuel Modification requirements for creating defensible space
around structures, trees and brush to remain must be trimmed. Trimming up (or “limbing
up”) requires that lower limbs of trees and brush be removed to up to 1/3 their height or
to a maximum clearance of 6 feet from the ground. (See Attachments B-1 and C-1)
This work is not currently performed by other contracted vendors when working in Fuel
Modification zones.
Staff is requesting authorization to negotiate contracts totaling no more than $200,000 to
provide necessary tree trimming, including “limbing up,” and tree removal for the City to
comply with Fuel Modification requirements on City-owned properties and in the public
right-of-way. This amount also includes anticipated expenses to remove Acacia shrubs
from the public right-of-way along roadways.
Staff will direct contracted vendors to remove Acacia shrubs (commonly mistaken for
trees in many instances) found in Fuel Modification zones and the City’s right-of-way,
rather that trimming such “trees.”
Geotechnical assessment(s)
The City has a 2009 Geologic Assessment to assess potential impacts from Fuel
Modification, however staff recommends contracting for a new report due to the time
elapsed since that analysis was performed. Such an assessment will make
recommendations on fuel modification in sloped areas.
Staff anticipates the costs of such services to not exceed $25,000.
Peppertree Trail and Water Tank Trail
The Peppertree Trail and Water Tank trail are in need of repair, and the Los Angeles
County Fire Department is requesting their repair for proper access to those areas of the
Portuguese Bend Reserve. Peppertree Trail sustained substantial erosion damage
during last winter’s storms, and is currently unpassable by vehicle. Water Tank Trail also
has damage from erosion.
F-13
Recent photos of the Peppertree Trail:
Recent photos of the Water Tank Trail:
Hardy & Harper has provided a proposal to make the necessary repairs by adding new
dirt and/or scarifying and compacting the damaged areas of the trails . All dirt brought to
the sites will be required to be certified as “clean.”
Staff is recommending awarding an amendment to Hardy & Harper’s current contract to
perform these necessary repairs at a cost not to exceed $39,800. (page E-1)
Management of Fuel Modification efforts
Managing Fuel Modification for City properties, both inside and outside of the Nature
Preserve, and associated coordination with property owners and various agencies
(including PVPLC, LA County Fire, LA County Agricultural Commissioner, and State and
Federal Wildlife Agencies), is an effort that requires a large and growing amount of
attention and staff time. With the peninsula’s designation as a Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone, staff believes that the City needs assistance to handle this rapidly growing
area. Rather than propose a new employee for work that should be focused on 4 -5
months, staff is proposing a contracted position that would focus exclusively on the City’s
efforts and associated coordination during the critical clearing months. A dedicated
consultant position might also identify opportunities to address concerns and further the
City’s preparation, including coordination with Southern California Edison and potential
training for staff and residents.
Staff is requesting authorization to negotiate a contract of no more than $1 25,000
annually to provide a contracted position for such management and coordination.
F-14
Eradication of Acacia in Rancho Palos Verdes
At its September 3, 2019, meeting, the City Council expressed its desire for staff to pursue
the eradication of Acacia within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This effort would build
upon an effort by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) funded by a
City grant approved at that meeting.
Currently, staff estimates there are about 300 Acacia in the public right -of-way, with a to-
be-determined number in the Nature Preserve. Due to easier accessibility, and a clearer
understanding of the scope of work, this work in the right-of-way is recommended to be
started first while the locations and number of Acacia in the Nature Preserve is being
determined.
As reported by PVPLC in their presentation to City Council on September 3, they are in
the process of identifying and determining the number of Acacia shrubs in the Preserve.
The removal of Acacia shrubs that their vendors will be performing at 22 acres of the
Nature Preserve is expected to be completed in 4-6 weeks, and is viewed as a “proof of
concept” project that Public Works will monitor. Staff will compare the success and
related costs of PVPLC’s vendors on that project and the success and related costs of
removing Acacia shrubs from the right-of-way along roadways to determine the
recommendation for continued eradication of Acacia shrub efforts.
The removal of Acacia shrubs in the public right-of-way will be performed under the
contract(s) negotiated for tree trimming, “limbing up” and tree removal.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Receive and file this report and take no further action at this time.
2. Direct staff to work with PVPLC for a quote to remove remaining Acacia in the
Nature Preserve as an alternative to WCA performing such services
F-15
YOUR PERSONALWILDFIRE ACTION PLAN
fire.lacounty.gov F-16
The Ready!Set!Go! program is supported by the following partner agencies:
MESSAGE FROM FIRE CHIEF DARYL L. OSBY
Dear Residents,
Los Angeles County is one of the most
beautiful places to live, but for those
living in “wildland urban interface
areas,” it does not come without risks.
Climate change has made fire season year-round and increased our
ever-growing number of wildfires. Firefighters and residents alike
are now constantly on heightened alert for the threat of wildfires.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department, along with our
partnering agencies, stand ready to quickly respond to contain
wildfires, utilizing our firefighting resources from the air and
ground to help protect you and your property from wildfire.
But, we can’t do this without your cooperation. Preparation and
prevention go hand-in-hand. This Ready! Set! Go! brochure was
designed to provide you with critical information on creating
defensible space around your home, retrofitting your home with
fire-resistant materials, and preparing you to safely evacuate well
ahead of a wildfire. Please protect yourself, your family, and your
property from a devastating wildfire by taking the time to learn
about Ready! Set! Go!
In Los Angeles County, wildfires will continue to be fueled by a
build-up of seasonal dry vegetation and driven by dry conditions
and locally strong winds, making them extremely dangerous and
challenging for firefighters to control. Yet, many homeowners
don’t consider how a wildfire could affect them, and very few
residents have properly prepared for evacuation until it is too late.
You play the most important role in protecting yourself, family,
and property. Through planning and preparation, we can all be
ready for the next wildfire. I hope you find the information in
this brochure helpful as you prepare your home and family for
a wildfire.
As always, if you need additional information about preparing
for a wildfire or any other natural disaster, please contact your
nearest fire station or visit us at fire.lacounty.gov.
Daryl L. Osby
Los Angeles County Fire Chief
INSIDE
READY!
Wildland Urban Interface
Create a Defensible Home
Fuel Modification 3
Defensible Space 4
Ornamental Vegetation 5
Hardening Your Home 6-7
Tour a Wildfire-Ready Home
SET!
Create Your Own Wildfire Action Plan 8-9
Emergency Supply Kit 10
Pre-Evacuation Preparation Steps 11
GO!
Take Action Immediately 13
When Wildfire Strikes
What to Do if You Become Trapped 14
Returning Home After a Wildfire
Additional Resources 15
F-17
Ready! Set! Go! Wildfire Action Plan | fire.lacounty.gov 3
Create a Defensible Home
A defensible home is a home that has the greatest potential
for surviving a wildfire. Defensible homes are those
that are in compliance with the Los Angeles County Fire
Department’s Defensible Space requirements or have been
through the Fire Department’s Fuel Modification Plan Review
Program, and have been constructed in accordance with the
latest building standards for the fire zones.
What Is Fuel Modification?
The Fuel Modification Plan Review Program affects new
structures and developments built in the fire hazard severity
zones. A Fuel Modification Plan, submitted by applicants,
reviews landscaping plans and identifies areas of defensible
space within all fuel modification zones around structures.
For further information please visit: bit.ly/fuelmod
Zone A
• Vines and climbing plants
shall not be allowed on any
combustible structure.
• Irrigated area consisting of low-
growing, small herbaceous plants
with high-moisture content
immediately around structures.
• Occasional accents of woody shrubs
or an occasional small patio tree
ten feet from structure, if widely
spaced and zone appropriate as well
as eliminating annual grasses and
leaf litter help prevent direct-flame
impingement on the structure.
Zone B
• Also irrigated with an approved
slightly dense planting avoiding
woody plant species larger than 3 feet
at maturity beneath any tree canopy.
• Introducing shade trees that are zone
appropriate with adequate spacing
by eliminating continuous canopy
coverage and continuous fuels to
minimize fire transmission.
• Screen plantings can be used;
however, continuous hedging is
discouraged as it promotes the
accumulation of dead litter inside the
live hedge.
Zone C
• Thinned to remove dead vegetation
and prevent overgrowth.
• Designed to slow the fire’s
progress and reduce its intensity
by decreasing the availability of
continuous fuels.
• Native vegetation thinned 30 to 50
percent in Zone C.
EXTENDS 20 FEET
FROM STRUCTURE
EXTENDS UP TO 100 FEET
FROM STRUCTURE
EXTENDS FROM ZONE B
OUTER EDGE UP TO 200 FEET
FROM STRUCTURE
Living in the Wildland Urban Interface
Ready! Set! Go! begins with a house that firefighters can defend.
Ideal Fuel Modification Landscape:
Limited woody plant material, high moisture content,
adequate spacing and inorganic mulch thoughout Zone A.
Fuel Modification Zones
FEET
WILDLAND/
OPEN SPACE
F-18
4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Defensible Space
Creating and maintaining defensible space are essential for increasing your home’s chance of
surviving a wildfire. It’s the buffer that homeowners are required to create on their property
between a structure and the plants, brush, and trees or other items surrounding the structure that
could catch fire. This space is needed to slow the spread of wildfire and improves the safety of
firefighters defending your home. The defensible space for each structure varies, depending on the
type of vegetation and topography.
Two zones make up the required 100 feet of defensible space (and, in some cases, 200 feet due to
high fire hazard).
Zone 1
Extends 30 feet out from buildings,
structures, decks, etc.
• Remove all dead or dying vegetation.
• Remove dead or dry leaves and pine needles from your
yard, roof, and rain gutters.
• Trim trees regularly to keep branches a minimum of 10
feet from other trees.
• Remove dead branches that hang over your roof. And,
keep branches 10 feet away from your chimney.
• Relocate exposed woodpiles outside of Zone 1 unless they
are completely covered in a fire-resistant material.
• Remove vines and climbing plants from combustible
structures (e.g. bougainvillea, wisteria)
• Remove or prune vegetation near windows.
• Remove vegetation and items that could catch fire from
around and under decks.
• Create a separation between trees, shrubs, and items that
could catch fire, such as patio furniture, swing sets, etc.
Zone 2
Extends 30 to 100 feet from buildings
and other structures.
(Note: The inspecting officer may require an additional 100 feet of
thinning or removal, for a total of 200 feet due to high-fire hazard.)
• Cut or move annual grass down to a maximum height
of four inches.
• Create horizontal spacing between shrubs and trees.
• Create vertical spacing between grass, shrubs, and trees.
• Remove fallen leaves, needles, twigs, bark, cones, and small
branches. However, they may be permitted to a depth of 4
inches if erosion control is an issue.
Note: Special attention should be given to the use and
maintenance of ornamental plants known or thought to be
high-hazard plants when used in close proximity to structures.
Examples include Acacia, Cedar, Cypress, Eucalyptus, Italian
Cypress, Juniper, Palms (remove all dead fronds), Pine
(removal within 20’ of structures) and, pampas grass. These
plantings should be properly maintained and not allowed to
be in mass plantings that could transmit fire from the native
growth to any structure.
30 FEET
30 FEET
30 FEET
70 FEET
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 1
Defensible Space
(ZONE 1+ ZONE 2 = 100 FEET)
F-19
Ready! Set! Go! Wildfire Action Plan | fire.lacounty.gov 5
ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE
Preventing conditions where fire can travel from
adjacent fuels, through an ornamental landscape to your
structure, is the key to creating defensible space. Fire
spreads through convection, conduction, radiation, or
embers. Proper maintenance of ornamental vegetation
reduces ember production, fire propagation, intensity, and
duration of the approaching flames.
70 FEET
Zone 2
This home provides a good example of defensible space.Firefighters in defensible space during a wildfire.
Acacia (Shrub)Eucalyptus Juniper
Palm Pine Pampas Grass
HIGH-HAZARD PLANTS
F-20
6 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
3
4
5
6
1
2Safeguard or “Harden” Your Home
The ability of your home to survive a wildfire
depends on its construction materials and the
quality of the “defensible space” surrounding
it. Windblown embers from a wildfire will find
the weak link in your home’s fire protection
scheme and gain the upper hand because of a
small, overlooked or seemingly inconsequential
factor. However, there are measures you can take
to safeguard your home from wildfire. While you
may not be able to accomplish all of the measures
listed below, each will increase your home’s - and
possibly your family’s - safety and survival.
Address
• Make sure your address is clearly visible from the road.
Chimney
• Cover your chimney and stovepipe outlets with a non-
flammable screen of ¼-inch wire mesh or smaller to
prevent embers from escaping and igniting a fire.
• Make sure that your chimney is at least 10 feet away from
any tree branches.
Deck/Patio Cover
• Use heavy timber or non-flammable construction
material for decks and patio covers.
• Enclose the underside of balconies and decks with
fire-resistant materials to prevent embers from
blowing underneath.
• Keep your deck clear of combustible items, such as baskets,
dried flower arrangements, and other debris.
• The decking surface must be ignition-resistant if it’s within
10 feet of the home.
Driveways and
Access Roads
• Driveways should be designed to allow fire and emergency
vehicles and equipment to reach your home.
• Access roads should have a minimum 10-foot clearance on
either side of the traveled section of the roadway and should
allow for two-way traffic.
• Ensure that all gates open inward and are wide enough to
accommodate emergency equipment.
• Trim trees and shrubs overhanging the road to a minimum
of 13-½ (or 13.5) feet to allow emergency vehicles to pass.
Garage
• Have a fire extinguisher and tools, such as a shovel, rake,
bucket, and hoe, available for fire emergencies.
• Install a solid door with self-closing hinges between
living areas and the garage. Install weather stripping
around and under the doors to prevent ember intrusion.
• Store all combustibles and flammable liquids away from
ignition sources.
Home Site and Yard
• Ensure you have at least a 100-foot radius of defensible
space (cleared vegetation) around your home. This means
looking past what you own to determine the impact
a common slope or neighbor’s yard will have on your
property during a wildfire.
• Cut dry weeds and grass before noon when temperatures
are cooler to reduce the chance of sparking a fire.
• Landscape with fire-resistant plants that are low-growing
with high-moisture content.
• Keep woodpiles, propane tanks, and combustible materials
away from your home and other structures, such as
garages, barns, and sheds.
• Ensure trees are far away from power lines.
1
5
6
2
3
4
Tour a Wildfire-Ready Home
F-21
Ready! Set! Go! Wildfire Action Plan | fire.lacounty.gov 7
Inside
• Keep working fire extinguishers on hand and train
your family how to use them (check expiration
dates regularly).
• Install smoke alarms on each level of your home
and near bedrooms. Test them monthly and change
the batteries twice a year.
Non-Combustible
Boxed-In (Soffit)Eaves
• Box-in eaves with non-combustible
materials to prevent accumulation
of embers.
Non-Combustible Fencing
• Make sure to use non-combustible fencing to protect your
home during a wildfire.
Rain Gutters
• Screen or enclose rain gutters to prevent
accumulation of plant debris.
Roof
• Your roof is the most vulnerable part of your home
because it can easily catch fire from windblown embers.
• Homes with wood shake or shingle roofs are at a higher risk
of being destroyed during a wildfire.
• Build your roof or re-roof with fire-resistant materials that
include composition, metal, or tile.
• Block any spaces between roof decking and covering to
prevent ember intrusion.
• Clear pine needles, leaves, and other debris from your roof
and gutters.
• Cut any tree branches within 10 feet of your roof.
Vents
• Vents on homes are particularly vulnerable
to flying embers.
• All vent openings should be covered with
¼-inch or smaller metal mesh. Do not use
fiberglass or plastic mesh because they can
melt and burn.
• Attic vents in eaves or cornices should be
baffled or otherwise prevent ember intrusion (mesh is
not enough).
Walls
• Wood products, such as boards, panels, or shingles, are
common siding materials. However, they are combustible
and not good choices for fire-prone areas.
• Build or remodel with fire-resistant building materials, such
as brick, cement, masonry, or stucco.
• Be sure to extend materials from foundation to roof.
Water Supply
• Have multiple garden hoses that are long
enough to reach any area of your home and
other structures on your property.
• If you have a pool or well, consider a pump.
Windows
• Heat from a wildfire can cause windows to break even
before the home ignites. This allows burning embers
to enter and start internal fires. Single-paned and large
windows are particularly vulnerable.
• Install dual-paned windows with an exterior pane of
tempered glass to reduce the chance of breakage in a fire.
• Limit the size and number of windows in your home that
face large areas of vegetation.
Utilities
• Ensure that your family knows where your gas, electric,
and water main shut-off controls are and how to safely shut
them down in an emergency.
7
8
9
10
11
8
9
11
10 7
F-22
8 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Important Phone Numbers
A family communication plan that designates an out-of-area
friend or relative as a point-of-contact to act as a single source
of communication among family members in case of separation.
Maintain a list of emergency contact numbers posted near your
phone and in your Emergency Supply Kit.
What to Take
Assemble an Emergency Supply Kit (see page 10 in this guide).
Keep an extra Emergency Supply Kit in your car in case you
can’t get to your home because of fire.
Have a portable radio or scanner, so that you can stay updated
on the fire.
Prepare to Evacuate
Designate an emergency meeting location, outside the fire or
hazard area. It is critical to determine who has safely evacuated
from the affected area.
Several different escape routes from your home and
community. Practice these often so everyone in your family
is familiar in case of emergency.
Necessities and boarding options for your pets and large
animals, such as horse and other livestock.
Create Your Own Wildfire Action Plan
Now that you have done everything you can to protect
your home, it’s time to prepare your family. Your
Wildfire Action Plan must be prepared with all
members of your household well in advance of a
wildfire. Each family’s plan will be different, depending
on their situation. Once you finish your plan, practice
it regularly with your family, and post in a safe and
accessible place for quick implementation.
1
2
3
F-23
Ready! Set! Go! Wildfire Action Plan | fire.lacounty.gov 9
Your PersonalWILDFIRE ACTION PLAN
WHEN TO GO
WHERE TO GO
HOW TO GET THERE
WHAT TO TAKEIMPORTANTPHONE NUMBERS1
3
2
During High Fire Danger days in your area, monitor your local media for information on wildfires and be ready
to implement your plan. Hot, dry, and windy conditions create the perfect environment for a wildfire.
Insurance
Papers Photos
Prescriptions Important
Documents
EVACUATION
EMERGENCY CONTACTS
DESTINATION WHO TO TELL (BEFORE AND AFTER)
Name
Name
Phone
Phone
( )
ANIMAL SHELTER
Name
Phone
( )
( )
FAMILY & FRIENDS
Name
Name
Phone
Phone
( )
( )
SCHOOLS
Name
Name
Phone
Phone
( )
( )
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
IF YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY, CALL 9-1-1
Public Information Office: (323) 881-2411
fire.lacounty.gov
Emergency
Supply Kit
F-24
10 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Assemble Your Emergency Supply Kit
Put together your emergency supply kit long before a wildfire
or other disaster occurs, and keep it easily accessible, so you
can take it with you when you have to evacuate. Plan to be
away from your home for an extended period of time. Each
person should have a readily accessible emergency supply kit.
Backpacks work great for storing these items (except for food and
water) and are easy to grab. Storing food and water in a tub or
chest on wheels will make it easier to transport. Keep it light to be
able to easily lift it into your car.
Essential Supplies
Three-day supply of non-perishable food and three gallons of water
per person.
Map marked with at least two evacuation routes
Prescriptions or special medications
Change of clothing
Closed-toe shoes
Extra eyeglasses or contact lenses
An extra set of car keys, credit cards, cash, or travelers checks
First aid kit
Flashlight
Battery-powered radio and extra batteries
Sanitation supplies
Copies of important documents (e.g., birth certificates, passports, etc.)
Don’t forget pet food and water!
If Time Allows
Easy-to-carry valuables
Family photos and other irreplaceable items
Personal computer information on hard drives and flash drives
Chargers for cell phones, laptops, etc.
EMERGENCYSUPPLY KIT
F-25
Ready! Set! Go! Wildfire Action Plan | fire.lacounty.gov 11
Pre-Evacuation Preparation Steps
When an evacuation is anticipated and if time permits, follow these checklists to give your home the
best chance of surviving a wildfire:
Animals
Locate your pets and keep them nearby.
Prepare farm animals for transport and think about
moving them to a safe location early.
Inside
Shut all windows and doors, leaving them unlocked.
Remove flammable window shades, lightweight
curtains, and close metal shutters.
Move flammable furniture to the center of the room,
away from windows and doors.
Leave your lights on so firefighters can see your home
under smoky conditions.
Shut off the air conditioning.
Shut off the gas meter. Turn off pilot lights.
Outside
Gather up flammable items from the exterior
of the house and bring them inside (e.g., patio
furniture, children’s toys, doormats, etc.) or place
them in your pool.
Turn off propane tanks. Move propane BBQ
appliances away from structures.
Connect garden hoses to outside water valves or
spigots for use by firefighters. Fill water buckets and
place them around the house.
Don’t leave sprinklers on or water running. They can
affect critical water pressure.
Leave exterior lights on.
Put your emergency supply kit in your vehicle.
Back your loaded vehicle into the driveway with
all doors and windows closed. Carry your car
keys with you.
Have a ladder available.
Seal attic and ground vents with pre-cut plywood or
commercial seals, if time permits.
Monitor your property and the wildfire situation.
Don’t wait for an evacuation order, if you feel
threatened and need to leave.
Check on neighbors and make sure they are
preparing to leave.
F-26
12 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Remember the Six P’s
People and pets
Papers, phone numbers, and important documents
Prescriptions, vitamins, and eyeglasses
Pictures and irreplaceable memorabilia
Personal computer hard drivesand flash drives
Plastic
(e.g., credit cards, ATM cards)and cash
12 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT F-27
Ready! Set! Go! Wildfire Action Plan | fire.lacounty.gov 13
Go Early
By leaving early, you will give your family the best chance
of surviving a wildfire. You also help firefighters by keeping
roads clear of congestion, enabling them to move more
freely and do their job.
When to Evacuate
Leave as soon as evacuation is recommended by emergency
personnel to avoid being caught in fire, smoke, or road
congestion. Don’t wait to be ordered by authorities to
leave. In an intense wildfire, they may not have time to
knock on every door. If you are advised to leave, don’t
hesitate! Go!
• Emergency personnel will determine the areas to be
evacuated and escape routes to use, depending upon
the fire’s location, behavior, winds, terrain, etc.
• Emergency personnel make every effort to advise
you of potential evacuations as early as possible. You
must take the initiative to stay informed and aware.
Monitor social media and listen to your local radio/TV
for announcements from law enforcement and other
emergency personnel.
• You may be directed to temporary assembly areas to
await transfer to a safe location.
The terms “Voluntary” and “Mandatory” are used to
describe evacuation orders. However, local jurisdictions
may use other terminology such as “Precautionary” and
“Immediate Threat.” These terms are used to alert you to
the significance of the danger. All evacuation instructions
provided by emergency personnel should be followed
immediately for your safety.
Where to Go
Leave for a pre-determined location. It should be a low-
risk area, such as a well-prepared neighbor or relative’s
house, a Red Cross shelter or evacuation center, Motel, etc.
How to Get There
Have several travel routes in case one route is blocked by
the fire or by emergency vehicles and equipment. Choose
an escape route away from the fire.
TAKE ACTION IMMEDIATELY WHEN WILDFIRE STRIKES
Follow these steps as soon as possible to get ready to GO!
• Review your
Wildfire Action
Plan evacuation
checklist.
• Ensure your Emergency Supply Kit is in
your vehicle.
• Cover up to protect against heat and
flying embers. Wear long pants, a long-
sleeve shirt, heavy shoes/boots, a cap, dry
bandanna (for face cover), goggles, or
glasses. 100% cotton is preferable.
• Locate your pets and take them with you.
Ready! Set! Go! Wildfire Action Plan | fire.lacounty.gov 9
Your PersonalWILDFIRE ACTION PLAN
WHEN TO GO
WHERE TO GO
HOW TO GET THERE
WHAT TO TAKEIMPORTANTPHONE NUMBERS1
3
2
During High Fire Danger days in your area, monitor your local media for information on brush fires and be ready to implement your plan. Hot, dry, and windy conditions create the perfect environment for a wildfire.
InsurancePapers Photos
Prescriptions ImportantDocuments
EVACUATION
EMERGENCY CONTACTS
DESTINATION WHO TO TELL (BEFORE AND AFTER)
Name
Name
Phone
Phone
( )
ANIMAL SHELTER
Name
Phone
( )
( )
FAMILY & FRIENDS
Name
Name
Phone
Phone
( )
( )
SCHOOL
Name
Name
Phone
Phone
( )
( )
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
IF YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY, CALL 9-1-1
Public Information Office: (323) 881-2411
www.fire.lacounty.gov
Emergency Supply Kit
F-28
14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Survival Tips if You Become Trapped
In Your Home
Stay calm and keep your family together.
Call 9-1-1 and inform authorities of your location.
Fill sinks and tubs with cold water.
Keep doors and windows closed, but unlocked.
Stay inside your home.
Stay away from outside walls.
In Your Vehicle
Stay calm.
Park your vehicle in an area clear of vegetation.
Close all vehicle windows and vents.
Cover yourself with a wool or cotton blanket or jacket.
Lie on the vehicle floor.
Use your cell phone and call 9-1-1 to inform authorities of your location.
On Foot
Stay calm.
Go to an area clear of vegetation, a ditch or depression on level
ground if possible.
Lie face down and cover up your body.
Use your cell phone and call 9-1-1 to inform authorities of your location.
Returning Home After a Wildfire
Do not return home until emergency officials determine
it is safe. You will receive proper notification to do so as
soon as it is possible, considering safety and accessibility.
When You Return Home
Be alert for downed power lines and other hazards.
Check propane tanks, regulators, and lines before turning gas on.
Check your residence carefully for hidden embers or smoldering fires.
F-29
Ready! Set! Go! Wildfire Action Plan | fire.lacounty.gov 15
Preparing for a wildfire starts with three simple steps:
Please keep this plan on hand as a quick reference for helping your
family and property be safe in the event of a wildfire.
Ready! Set! Go! Wildfire Action Plan | fire.lacounty.gov 15
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
twitter.com/lacofdpio
twitter.com/lacofdespanol
OFFICIAL
facebook.com/LACoFD
twitter.com/LACoFD
instagram.com/lacountyfd
youtube.com/user/LosAngelesCountyFD
vimeo.com/user4029934
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SHEILA KUEHL
Chair and Supervisor, Third District
supervisorkuehl.com
HILDA L. SOLIS
Supervisor, First District
hildasolis.org
MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS
Supervisor, Second District
ridley-thomas.lacounty.gov
JANICE HAHN
Supervisor, Fourth District
hahn.lacounty.gov
KATHRYN BARGER
Supervisor, Fifth District
kathrynbarger.lacounty.gov
Download the
Ready! Set! Go!
Wildfire Action Plan at
fire.lacounty.gov/rsg
or by scanning this
QR code with your
smart phone.
F-30
fire.lacounty.gov
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Public Information Office
1320 N. Eastern Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90063
Produced by the Communications Section
of the Executive Support Division.
Revised September 25, 2018.F-31
F-32
F-33
CaliforniaCityFinance.com May 15, 2015
The California Local Government Finance Almanac
Why Do Property Tax Shares Among Cities Vary? How Can We Improve?
Rethinking the Property Tax
The taxation of property is a common means of raising revenue to fund government and
community services throughout the world and human history. In California, property taxes are
an essential source of revenue to cities, counties, schools, and many special districts. The rules
for property tax adoption and administration are set in the state constitution (including
Proposition 13), state law, and regulations adopted by the California State Board of
Equalization. While many critique California’s lack of voter control over the property tax rate,
the disparate taxes paid by similar properties or the quizzical behavioral incentives (especially
to commercial property owners), the most frustrating and often misunderstood aspect of
California’s property tax system may be its complex allocations among local governments, and
the role of the state Legislature in those rules.
I. Property Tax Revenue is Administered and Allocated Locally
Property taxes in California are collected by counties and allocated according to state law to
cities, the county, special districts, redevelopment agencies and school districts within the county
from which they are collected. Property taxes are not a revenue source to the State of California.
However, property tax revenues allocated to schools generally offset required funding levels
from the state general fund, thus affecting state general fund spending levels.
II. Property Tax is an Essential Tax Revenue Source Historically
The property tax is among the oldest forms of taxation in America, dating back to the colonial
period. Prior to 1912 in California, property taxes constituted the largest single source of revenue
to the State budget. In 1900, 89% of California state taxes were derived from ad valorem property
taxes.
But a major change came with the great depression, which so depressed property tax revenues,
it forced the state to seek other forms of revenue - diversification if you will - namely the sales
and income taxes. Since 1933, the property tax has been a local tax, levied, collected and used
by local governments (including schools). In 1930 78% of all city revenues were derived from
property tax revenues.
Prior to 1978, property tax was the largest source of general purpose revenue for most cities,
followed by the local sales tax and the Vehicle License Fee (VLF). But this varied. There were,
even then, some communities that were sales tax magnates who set their property tax rates low.
Others with high property values, either due to residential wealth or large amounts of
commercial / industrial areas could set low rates and still garner sufficient Tax revenue. Cities
(i.e., city councils) had the authority to examine the public service needs of their constituents,
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616 • Tel 530.758.3952
F-34
Page 2 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
consider revenue projections from their finance staffs, consider what the community would be
willing to pay, and increase or decrease property tax rates accordingly.
But Proposition 13 changed all that.
III. Proposition 13 Was a Seismic Shift of Authority to the State
In 1978, a simple majority of California voters approved Proposition 13, seeking property-
taxpayer relief and uniformity, but with far-reaching
consequences, some unintended. Proposition 13 reduced
property tax revenues by more than half and effectively
abolished any local autonomy with regard to the property
tax.i Local governments still have wide latitude on the
spending of the remaining revenues they receive, but the
allocation of the tax is controlled by the state Legislature.
In subsequent related decisions, the California Supreme Court
clarified that Proposition 13 “prevails over the preexisting
taxing power” of cities and that the taxing powers of local
governments are “derived from the Constitution upon
authorization by the Legislature.” The Legislature has retained
this authority with no delegation to locals of authority to
reallocate property tax revenue, even of “city” services (such
as fire, parks or libraries) provided by others. Thus, where once a community could devote more
or less property tax revenue to fire services versus libraries versus schools, now all communities
are constrained by a system based on decisions made a generation ago when California was a
very different place socially, economically and politically.
IV. The “SB154/AB8 Bailout” Established the Current Allocation System.
Proposition 13 set a single, countywide rate of 1 percent, replacing the numerous individual tax
rates set by the various taxing agencies. Using the authority given by Proposition 13, the
Legislature, in FY1979–80, was able to shift about $2.7 billion of annual ongoing financial
resources to local governments. In what was intended as a permanent resolution to the issue of
how to distribute significantly reduced property tax revenues, the “SB154/AB 8 bailout” reduced
school shares of property tax revenues and gave cities counties and special districts greater
shares. In return, the state assumed a larger financial responsibility for K-14 schools. The state
also increased its share of costs for a number of social service and health programs operated by
counties. The state was able to implement the “bailout” in part because of the state’s $5 billion
surplus (about 40 percent of annual revenues) and the $1 billion-plus annual revenue boost it
received from higher personal income taxes due to lower taxpayer deductions for property taxes.
As a result, city property tax losses from Proposition 13 were about 28 percent less than they
might have been.
Prop13 denies even local
voters the power to:
- increase a property tax
rate above 1% (except in
the case of a G.O. Bondi)
- reallocate property
taxes among services if
those service are not
provided by the same
agency.
F-35
Page 3 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Property tax levels for 1978-79 were established by SB154 (1978). In 1979, the Legislature passed
AB8, giving each agency the amount of property tax revenue it received in the prior year (the
base) and establishing a system of apportioning revenues from the change in assessed valuation
among the local agencies serving a property. Pursuant to this law, each county allocated revenues
to local agencies based on their average property tax revenue in the three years preceding
FY1978‑79 (when Proposition 13 was adopted). Each year thereafter, counties have allocated
property tax revenues according to 1) the property tax revenues allocated to each agency in the
previous year; plus 2) a share of the growth in tax revenues resulting from increases in assessed
value in the jurisdiction. Simply put, each agency’s share reflects the tax rate of each jurisdiction
relative to the rates of other taxing agencies in the jurisdiction.
Cities that have incorporated since Proposition 13 in 1978 received a share of property tax
revenues from the share previously going to the county and, in some cases, special districts that
previously served the area. As they were not in existence at the time of Proposition 13, these
city revenues are not directly affected by Proposition 13 or the subsequent SB154/AB8 bailout.
But the county and other municipal service providers who served the community prior to
incorporation were. Nevertheless, fiscal analyses, conducted at the time of incorporation, are
intended to ensure that the new city receives a sufficient share of property tax revenues.
V. “Tax Equity Allocation” (TEA) for No and Low Property Tax Cities
When Proposition 13 passed in 1978, there were 31 cities that did not levy a property tax (other
than for voter approved indebtedness), relying instead on other revenues to fund city services.
These were called “no-property-tax-cities.” No-property-tax-cities did not lose tax revenue as a
result of Proposition 13 and neither did they receive property taxes under the subsequent
SB154/AB8 bailout adjustments.
Other cities (about 60), levied low property tax rates and are known as low property-tax cities.
Proposition 13 and its implementing legislation effectively froze property taxes at their existing
levels. Cities could not increase their property tax rates to meet changing community service
expenses and demands.
In 1987, the Legislature directed county auditors to provide a “Tax Equity Allocation” (TEA),
designed to increase the property tax shares of “qualifying cities.” Counties were required to
make these adjustments as a condition for receiving new funding for trial courts. Following a
precedent set in previous legislation exclusively for the City of Yorba Linda, the Legislature
directed counties to transfer tax revenues to the no/low cities from the county shares.
“Qualifying cities” are those that incorporated prior to June 5, 1987 and received less than 7% of
property tax revenues collected within their jurisdiction.ii
The TEA property tax shift from counties to no/low cities did not take into consideration the
differing types and levels of services that cities delivered to their residents. In most no/low cities,
some core municipal services (fire protection, libraries, parks) are provided by special districts
that - as a result - receive property tax revenues that would otherwise go to the city.
F-36
Page 4 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
VI. Special Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Allocations to No-Property Tax Cities
In 1981, with the state budget heading into deficit, the Legislature enacted a number of changes
to local government revenues, while avoiding reducing the SB154/AB8 bailout of local
governments impacted by Proposition 13. The state reduced or eliminated various local
government revenue allocations including three subventions the state had been providing to
cities and counties: iii
Liquor License Fees. Historically, 90% of liquor license fees collected by the state were
distributed to cities and counties. Beginning in 1981-82, the state retained these fees in the
state general fund. The annual loss to local governments in 1981-82 was $14.8 million,
including $12.1 million from cities and $2.7 million from counties.
Highway Carrier’s Uniform Business Tax. This tax, imposed on all persons and companies
operating motor vehicles transporting property on public highways are required to pay a fee
of one-tenth of one percent of operating revenues. Historically, these revenues were
distributed to cities proportion to population. The annual loss to cities in 1981-82 was $4.3
million.
Financial Aid to Local Agencies (FALA) Fund. In the 1920s, California began imposing a state
income tax on commercial banks. Under the state constitution,iv the bank tax is in lieu of all
other state and local taxes. However, this law did not impose a state income tax on savings
and loans, and did not prohibit a local tax, such as a property tax, business license tax, on
savings and loans. Charter cities imposed certain taxes, including personal property taxes, on
savings and loan institutions. In an effort to maintain parity between the taxes paid by
commercial banks and those paid by savings and loans, the state deducted from savings and
loans’ state tax bill, the amount paid to municipalities. In 1979, the State abolished the offset
and extended the bank in lieu tax to savings and loans, exempting them from all other state
and local taxation. To protect cities from financial loss, the state enacted the Financial Aid to
Local Agencies (FALA) fund. The elimination in 1981 of FALA caused an annual loss to local
governments in 1981-82 totaling $30.0 million, including $22.5 million from cities and $7.5
million from counties.
The 31 no-property-tax-cities which existed in 1978 argued that since they did not receive any
assistance from the SB154/AB8 bailout (due to the fact they experienced no loss from Proposition
13), they should not be included in reductions in local government assistance which resulted from
the state’s inability to continue to finance the bailout. Beginning in 1981, the Legislature
appropriated $2.2 million to offset losses to these cities from the elimination of the three
subventions. Beginning in 1984-85, this special allocation was provided by the state from Vehicle
License Fee (VLF) revenues. Section 11005(b) of the Revenue and Taxation code was soon
expanded to cover any city incorporated prior to June 5, 1987 and received less than 10 percent
of the property tax generated within their boundaries in 1987-88.v These cities received a
supplemental VLF amount equal to the amounts they would have received from the Highway
Carriers Uniform Business License Tax, Liquor License Fees and Financial Aid to Local Agencies
had these subventions not been abolished. Seventy-seven “low and no” property tax cities
qualified for payments under these provisions.
F-37
Page 5 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Since the VLF-Property Tax Swap of 2004 (see below), this special allocation is effectively a part
of the Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (VLF Adjustment Amount) received by these cities.
Low Property Tax Cities
Special Supplemental VLF – Now Property Tax Share per 2004 Swap
by Sec 11005(b)(1)
Agoura Hills
Angels Camp
Artesia
Arvin
Bell
Bellflower
Bradbury
Camarillo
Capitola
Carson
Cerritos
Clayton
Colma
Commerce
Cudahy
Cupertino
Danville
Dublin
El Segundo
Encinitas
Fortuna
Foster City
Grass Valley
Hawaiian Gardens
Hercules
Hidden Hills
Indian Wells Irvine
La Canada
Flintridge
La Mirada
La Puente
La Quinta
Lafayette
Lakewood
Lancaster
Lawndale
Lomita
Los Altos Hills
Mammoth Lakes
Monte Sereno
Moorpark
Moraga
Moreno Valley
Nevada City
Norwalk
Novato
Orinda
Palm Desert
Palmdale
Paramount
Pico Rivera
Pleasant Hill
Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Mirage
Rancho Palos Verdes
Rio Dell
Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills Estates
Rosemead
San Dimas
San Marcos
San Ramon
Santa Fe Spring
Saratoga
Scotts Valley
Signal Hill
Simi Valley
Solana Beach
South El Monte
South Gate
Temple City
Thousand Oaks
Vernon
Victorville
Walnut
Westlake Village
Westminster
Whittier
VII. Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)
In 1992, facing serious budget deficits, the California Legislature and Governor Pete Wilson
instructed county auditors to shift the allocation of local property tax revenues from local
government to “educational revenue augmentation funds” (ERAF), directing that specified
amounts of city, county and other local agency property taxes be deposited into these funds to
support schools. School funding from the state General Fund was reduced by a commensurate
amount so that the losses to cities, counties and special districts equated to a gain for the state
general fund.vi
The first ERAF shift, for the 1992-93 budget year, included a nine-percent shift of each city’s
property tax revenues. This is a permanent reduction to each city’s base property tax
apportionment and the largest component of the 1992-93 shift for cities.vii The following year,
the Legislature exacted further deeper ERAF shifts from cities, counties and special districts.
Effective beginning the 1993-94 budget year, an additional amount based on each city’s
“SB154/AB8 bailout” following Proposition 13 was permanently shifted to ERAF. Cities that did
F-38
Page 6 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
not levy a property tax when Proposition 13 passed in 1978 (including those that incorporated
after 1978) did not participate in the bailout, and consequently were not affected by this second
phase of ERAF. Others with low property tax shares received proportionately smaller Proposition
13 losses, smaller SB154/AB8 bailouts, and smaller ERAF shifts.
VIII. The VLF – Property Tax Swap (2004) – More Property Tax for Every City
The state constitution requires that the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) be allocated to cities and
counties. In 1998, the Legislature began offsetting the 2% Vehicle License Fee (VLF) tax rate,
providing a “backfill” to local governments, offsetting the taxpayer rate for an effective tax cut
to registered vehicle owners.
In 2004, the Legislature approved a swap
of VLF for property tax as a part of a state-
local budget agreement. The state general
fund backfill payments to cities and
counties were eliminated. The VLF rate
was reduced from 2 percent to 0.65
percent, its effective rate with the prior
backfill / offset system. The reduction in
VLF backfill to cities and counties
(approximately $4.3 billion) was replaced
with a like amount of property taxes, dollar-for-dollar. Subsequent to the FY2004–05 base year,
each city’s (and county’s) property tax in lieu of VLF or “VLF Adjustment Amount” increases
annually in proportion to the growth in gross assessed valuation in that jurisdiction.
VLF Adjustment Amounts are transfers from the school property tax shares and are in addition
to other property tax revenues. Schools are held financially harmless from the swap because the
state compensates with general fund support.
The 2004 VLF-Property Tax Swap effectively made permanent the special VLF allocations to no-
property tax cities provided as compensation for the repeal of the three subventions in 1984.
IX. Proposition 1A (2004) Protects the Property Tax for Local Governments
With the passage of Proposition 1A in November 2004, the voters of California constitutionally
protected major city, county and special district revenues, including property taxes. With regard
to local property taxes, Proposition 1A prohibits the Legislature from reducing the share of
property tax revenues going to the cities, county and special districts in any county, and shifting
those shares to the schools or any other non-local government function. However, the
Legislature may alter the allocation of property taxes among cities, counties and special districts
within a county with two-thirds approval in each house.viii
Proposition 1A did not provide local governments with any new revenue nor reduce or alter the
ERAF I and II shifts.
F-39
Page 7 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
X. Why Do Shares of Property Tax Differ Among Cities?
Some people wonder why the property tax shares for their city or county are lower than their
neighbors. There are many reasons, some quite rational and some arguably unjust, why similar
local governments differ in the amount of property tax revenues they receive.
Under the SB154/AB8 apportionment formulas established by the Legislature following the
passage of Proposition 13, local property tax shares depend on the relative pre-1979 tax rates of
the county, city, special districts, and schools that serve a particular area. This has, in effect,
calcified property tax shares among local agencies based on conditions and choices made in the
1970s. Today, more than 35 years later, four major factors underlie the differences in property
tax shares among cities.
1. Local political philosophy regarding taxation and the role of government prior to
Proposition 13. More fiscally conservative areas of the state general adopted lower tax
rates. Depending on how this affected the relative tax rates of different local agencies,
this contributes to a lower allocation of the property tax today.
This political orientation primarily concerned tax levels, and was generally considered on
an agency by agency basis. That is, the elected officials of each individual public agency,
looking through their own political philosophies, would determine property tax rates for
their agency. No centralized decisions were made regarding the relative priority and
funding of these different taxing services. By fixing the local tax rate at 1%, AB8 in effect
converted these decisions regarding taxation levels to of funding priority outcomes.
2. Differences in property values. We are comparing property tax rates and shares in this
study. Property tax rates and shares are not directly affected by assessed valuation.
However, prior to Proposition 13, a city with relatively high property values could garner
adequate levels with a lower rate or share compared to others. Yet, in twenty years, the
differences in property values among communities have changed. A property tax rate
that made sense based on the assessed values in 1978, may not provide adequate
revenue twenty years later if the area's property values have not increased relative to
others.
3. Differences among communities in service needs. Prior to Proposition 13, local agencies
set their taxing rates at levels they believed necessary to respond to the service demands
in their communities. An area with a higher crime rate might seek more revenues than
an agency that could safely provide a lower level of law enforcement service. Larger
urban areas employ full time professional firefighters, but smaller rural communities can
provide adequate fire protection with less costly volunteer fire services.
But the service demands of communities change over time. Rural areas become
developed and populated into urban and suburban communities. Societal trends in
crime, technology and other areas create public service needs differently in different
communities. Yet the current property tax allocation is based on the world that existed
in 1978, two decades ago.
F-40
Page 8 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
4. Differing service responsibilities among cities.
All cities are not created equally. The obvious
size/population differences aside, cities differ in
what they do - in the services for which they are
financially responsible. This has nothing to do with
whether a city chooses to contract out a service. It
concerns financial responsibility: Does the city
have to pay for the service?
A public agency that provides police, planning,
fire, and library services requires more resources
than one that provides only police and planning
services. A community served by a fire district has
one more agency sharing the allocation of
property tax revenues than an area where the city
provides that service. Thus, differences in service
responsibility explain much of the differences in
property tax rates among cities.
Fire and library are the most common non-enterprise city services provided by special
districts within incorporated cities. In most full-service cities, the cost of providing fire
service alone eats up the entire property tax revenues of the city and more. So in a city
that's not responsible for fire service, any property tax revenue they get could be money
ahead compared to their full service neighbor.
When non-school, non-county property tax shares are compared among cities, the shares
going to the full palate of basic municipal services in full service cities are generally lower
than the combined shares going to basic municipal service in non-full service cities. This
is primarily the result of Tax Equity Allocation formulas which increased all city property
tax shares, regardless of service responsibility, to 7%.ix
For example, the City of Covina in Los Angeles
County receives less than 15 percent of the 1
percent property tax in its community. It is a full-
service city, responsible for library, police, etc. - and
fire protection. Across the county, the City of
Lakewood is not responsible for fire services. In
Lakewood, the Los Angeles Consolidated Fire
Protection District gets 18 percent of the property
tax share, just for providing fire service. Add to that
the 6 percent Lakewood gets and 2 percent that
goes to the Library District, and you have over 26 percent going to the same collection of
services that get less than 15 percent in Covina.
Less than one-third of California
cities are "full service" (but full-
service cities serve a majority of the
state's population);
In non-full service cities, some
basic municipal services are
provided instead by special
districts or the county.
Nearly 1/3 of cities aren't
responsible for fire.
Nearly 2/3 of cities aren't
responsible for library.
The most significant factor in
explaining the differences among
city property tax shares is that
service responsibilities differ.
When we take this into account,
many of the perceived disparities
in property tax share disappear.
F-41
Page 9 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Still, it would be an oversimplification to conclude based on these facts, that these
differing shares are unfair. For example, a lower rate in Covina might be sufficient to
garner a comparable amount of revenue taking into account differing property values and
commercial / industrial properties.
Source: Michael Coleman analysis of Los Angeles County Auditor Tax apportionment factors.
When the total of all property tax shares going to core municipal services (police,
fire, parks, library, planning, streets) is compared, there is actually less total property
tax share going to these services in full service cities than in “low property tax” cities.
F-42
Page 10 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Source: Michael Coleman calculations from California State
Controller reports.
XI. What is a Fair Allocation of Property Tax?
As one imagines solutions to the property tax allocation question, the natural draw is to an ideal
formula, the right number for each local agency based on logical computed factors. Should each
city get the same percentage share of the property tax collected within its jurisdiction?
But… not all cities are responsible for providing the same
menu of services. A full service cities has a greater
spending need that a city in which library or parks
or fire services are funded and provided by a
special district. In these cases, the responsible
district needs a portion of the property tax
revenue.
So perhaps all full service cities should get the same share;
and all cities that are full service except for fire, an adjusted
lesser standard amount with some shares instead going to
the fire districts. Likewise, all cities not responsible for fire
or library should receive a lesser standard amount with
portions going to fire and library districts instead.
But… the same percentage share generates vastly different amounts in different
communities depending on property value. Residential wealth and property values,
VLF-PropTax
Property
Tax
Sales Tax
Other
General
Revenues
Other
Police
Fire
Parks
Libraries
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Revenues Expenditures
Discretionary Revenues and Spending
Typical Full Service Cities
Property
Tax
VLF-PropTax
Sales Tax
Other
General
Revenues
Police*
Parks*
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Revenues Expenditures
Discretionary Revenues and Spending
Typical Non-Full Service Cities (low property tax)
*Fewer than 1/4 of these cities areresponsible for library
services. Fewer than 1/3 are responsible for fire services.
Per Capita Revenue Comparisons
A common method of comparing revenues is per
capita. But while this can be informative, per capita
property tax comparisons also have inherent flaws
in that they don’t take into account:
differences in service responsibility,
differences in needs/ service demand,
differences in non-populated (i.e. commercial /
industrial) service areas.
Moreover, property tax revenues of many cities are
substantially reduced by redevelopment (successor
agency) tax increment.
F-43
Page 11 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
the amount of commercial/business property, the amount of tax exempt properties
such as state or federal government facilities.
And… one community may want to provide more funding for library services and less to fire
services, another may prefer more parks services. Static formulas do not allow for
these differences, or that community needs and preferences change over time.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), like many other fiscal reform groups who have studied this
issue determined that “no perfect solution exists.” LAO noted that this sort of search for a master
formula is essentially another top-down approach that doesn’t make the system more responsive
to changes in local priorities and needs. Uniform rates are by their nature arbitrary and may not
adequately consider the complex web of varying local conditions.
This rigid system exists because of the authority that Proposition 13 gave to the State Legislature
and because the Legislature has not chosen to delegate that authority. Prior to Proposition 13,
cities and other local governments could chose to lower or increase tax rates and allocations
among various local services.
XII. The Real Problem: Fragmentation of Governance, Lack of Local Choice
The root of the problem is how to empower communities with the authority they need to allocate
revenues according to their particular needs and preferences – which may be different than other
communities. The problem for non-full service, low-
property tax cities is not so much a lack of money or
of inequity, it's that we have a local property tax
apportionment system that fragments local
governance: no local authority exists to allocate
revenues among the core municipal services to
improve efficiency and to better match local service
level preferences.
The problem is not that rates differ; it's that they are
based on a 35-year-old snapshot. A side-effect of
Proposition 13's tax limitation victory is that it took
away local control of the rate and the local allocation
of revenues so communities can no longer affect their
property tax revenues in response to differences in
property values, service demands, and willingness to pay.
XIII. California's Balkans: Fragmented Local Government
For all their good intentions, many local elected officials are hampered in their efforts to provide
efficient, responsive local public services by a complex fragmentation of local services and
finances. In many communities numerous overlapping special districts split responsibilities with
the city and county. Tax allocations may be out of step with current priorities, but no one has the
local authority to change things.
Good local governance requires:
Ability to set priorities across a broad
spectrum of needs.
Ability to coordinate programs for
efficient service delivery.
Ability to fund these programs
adequately with revenues that are
rationally tied to the program.
Ability to change priorities, funding
allocations, and service delivery
methods as circumstances change.
F-44
Page 12 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
California cities are generally well governed. But in many California localities, municipal public
service responsibilities and finances are divided among dozens of independent local agencies.
Property tax allocations are fixed, based on circumstance more than two decades old. Because
of this fragmentation, the general purpose government - the city - is hampered in its policy
choices as to priorities, funding and service delivery. The allocation of tax revenues is less
efficient, less transparent, less responsive, and less accountable to citizens than it could be.
Because of this balkanized property tax allocation, based on nearly 40 year old relative shares,
citizens
Cannot reallocate resources as their community changes, as new challenges arise, and as
needs and priorities change.
Face unnecessary added pressures for tax increases where the need for funding might be
solved by a more efficient allocation of revenues among the local agencies serving the
area.
XIV. Property Tax Reform is Essential to Improving Local Government Services
In 1996, the California Constitutional Revision Commission recommended each county establish
a “charter revision commission” that would have the power to – among other things – reallocate
property tax shares among local governments.
One way to provide local agencies that believe they have inequitably low property tax shares is
to providing them with capacity to increase (with voter approval) their property tax rates. The
LAO 2000 AB8 report contained a version of this concept under Alternative II, suggesting that the
Legislature cut property tax levels by the amount (or a portion) of ERAF. An alternative approach
would be to amend Article XIII of the California Constitution to allow local voters to increase the
ad valorem property tax above 1%.
Local authority to alter property tax allocations could be provided by giving cities the ability to
reallocate property tax shares going to all municipal functions including police, fire, libraries,
parks, water, sewer, transit, etc. Given the authority to alter revenue allocations, cities would
also have to assume the responsibility for the services. But they could continue to contract with
special districts or others to provide the services on true contracts.
LAO suggested something like this approach in a 2000 report on property tax allocation.
Essentially, LAO suggested that the property tax be boiled down to a school share and a non-
school share and that local general purpose governments (cities and counties) be given authority
to make allocations from the non-school share. In effect, all cities would become "full service,"
responsible for all municipal services (fire, police, parks, library, etc.). Special districts could
continue to be service providers under arrangement with cities and counties, but would no longer
be “taxing entities.” Cities could contract out services or choose to allocate parts of their
property tax share to redevelopment or special districts. LAO argued that this would improve
local control, provide better land use development incentives, and improve local governance.
F-45
Page 13 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Reforming the property tax apportionment system is central to the reform of California's state
and local governance system and the real answer is not one-size-fits-all formulas but more local
control, what Governor Brown has termed “subsidiarity.”.
The power to reallocate property tax revenues among basic municipal services (non-school, non-
countywide) should be consolidated in a single agency along with the responsibility for the
provision of all basic municipal services: cities and, in unincorporated areas, counties. A special
district is sometimes the most efficient way to provide a local service, but it should do so under
contract with a city or a county, not as an independent entity with a locked-in property tax share.
In cases where the community determines that a special district is the most efficient and effective
service provider, the city or county may delegate services to the special district under contract.
Consolidating local government finance and service responsibility into general purpose cities and
counties will improve accountability and local government responsiveness to changing needs.
mjgc
DeFraging Local Governance and Property Tax Allocation
For a more efficient property tax allocation, more responsive to the needs and priorities of
communities, cities and counties should have the primary responsibility for core municipal
services and related property tax share as follows. Services could be provided by another agency
under contract.
Cities Counties
Land Use Planning
Police
Fire and emergency
medical service
Parks & Recreation
Library
Lighting
Roads
Water
Sewer
Flood Control
Etc.
Sheriff
Courts
District Attorney
Auditor / Controller
Tax Collector /
Assessor
County Clerk
Social Services
Health, Hospital
Environmental
Management
Vector Control
Etc.
Simplifies the tax structure, makes it more comprehendible to citizens.
Aligns tax revenues to match service responsibilities.
Increases local autonomy and flexibility to respond to unique local needs and priorities.
Reduces waste, increases efficiency and effective service delivery by enabling communities,
through a centralized, democratically elected city council or board of supervisors to
determine priorities and allocate resources accordingly.
Improves government accountability to citizens by clarifying public service responsibilities
and linking them to tax revenues.
Consolidates the responsibility and financing of local government services, but preserves and
enhances local choice as to the most efficient and effective service delivery as determined by
the community. Encourages consolidation and innovation in the public interest.
F-46
Page 14 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Bibliography
Assembly Bill 8 Senate and Assembly Conference Committee. “Implementation of Proposition 13
Volume II Long-Term Local Government and School Financing.” State of California. 1980.
Assembly Local Government Committee. “Overview of State Assistance to Local Governments
Since Proposition 13”. State of California. February 1983.
Assembly Office of Research. “California’s State and Local Tax Systems: A Review of Major
Revenue Sources.” State of California. July 1985.
Assembly Office of Research. “SB 813 Assembly Third Reading.” State of California. June 1983.
Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. “1982-83 Reductions in Local Government Fiscal
Relief.” State of California. July 1983.
Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. “1984 Revenue and Taxation Reference Book.”
State of California. January 1984.
Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. “1989 Revenue and Taxation Reference Book.”
State of California. March 1989.
Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. “Summary of 1983-84 Reductions in Local
Government Fiscal Assistance. Major Tax Legislation of 1983. Volume 6.” State of California. Fall
1983.
Coleman, Michael J. The California Municipal Revenue Sources Handbook. League of California
Cities. 2014 ed.
Coleman, Michael J. “Property Tax Fairness Among Local Governments Means Consolidating
Local Governance.” Cal Tax Digest. November 1999. CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Coleman, Michael J. “The VLF for Property Tax Swap of 2004 Facts for Local Officials.” The
California Local Government Finance Almanac. CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Coleman, Michael J. “VLF Facts: A Primer on the Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax, the Car Tax Cut and
Backfill.” The California Local Government Finance Almanac. CaliforniaCityFinance.com. May
2004.
County Property Tax Manager’s Association. “California Property Tax Managers’ Reference
Manual.” State Association of County Auditors. October 2011.
Doerr, David R. California’s Tax Machine. A History of Taxing and Spending in the Golden State.
California Taxpayers’Association. July 2000.
Elledge, David G. “Demystifying the California Property Tax Apportionment System.” March
2006
McCarty, Therese A., Terri A. Sexton, Steven M. Sheffrin, Stephen D. Shelby. “Allocating Property
Tax Revenue in California: Living With Proposition 13.” Annual Conference on Taxation and
Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the National Tax Association. Vol. 94, (2001), pp. 71-80
F-47
Page 15 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Newman, Matt and Marianne O’Malley. “Property Taxes: Why Some Local Governments Get
More Than Others.” Legislative Analyst Office. August 1996.
O’Brien, Thomas A. “Stepchild of Proposition 13: A Summary of the Special District Augmentation
Fund.” Senate Committee on Local Government. March 1985.
O’Malley, Marianne and Michael Cohen. “Reconsidering AB 8: Exploring Alternative Ways to
Allocate Property Taxes.” Legislative Analyst Office. February 2000.
Senate Committee on Local Government, “Property Tax Allocation: The Summary Report from
the Interim Hearing of the Senate Local Government Committee,” State of California. September
1999.
F-48
Page 16 of 16 15 May 2015
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
i The voters of California amended Proposition 13 in 1986 with the approval of Proposition 46 which
restored the authority of local agencies, with two-thirds voter approval, to enact a property tax rate
overide to pay for bonded indebtedness issued for the acquisition or improvement of real property.
ii Pursuant to provisions of the Trial Court Funding Act of 1987 (SB709, Lockyer), each qualifying no/low
city was to receive a phased-in 10% share of property tax revenues generated within its boundaries. In
1988, the Legislature modified this to 7% (AB 1197, W. Brown). Revenue and Taxation Code §98-§98.4
contains special provisions for no/low cities in Los Angeles, Orange, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and
Ventura counties.
iii The three subventions were referred to in the Capitol as “the three little pigs.”
iv Article XIII, section 27 of the California State Consitution.
v Chapter 448, Statutes of 1984
vi In an effort to cushion the impact of the ERAF shifts on local public safety programs, the California
Legislature and Governor Wilson in 1993 submitted to the voters a proposal for a new half-percent sales
tax to be dedicated to local public safety including sheriff, police, fire, county district attorneys and
corrections. Proposition 172, the Local Public Safety Protection and Improvement Act of 1993, was
approved by 58 percent of the voters.
The Proposition 172 half-percent sales tax actually replaced a prior half-percent sales tax for public safety
imposed by the Legislature and Governor Wilson for the FY 1992–93 year. That sales tax, also intended
as a mitigation for ERAF, replaced a half-percent state sales tax for earthquake insurance. Consequently,
taxpayers saw no net increase in their overall tax burden from Proposition 172.
The State Board of Equalization apportions Proposition 172 sales taxes to each county based on its
proportionate share of statewide taxable sales. Mindful of the substantially larger proportion of ERAF paid
statewide by counties than by cities or special districts, legislative leaders in 1992 initially considered
allocating all Proposition 172 proceeds to counties only. But they realized the success of Proposition 172
with the voters would be enhanced with the support of city officials, police and fire chiefs, police officers
and city firefighters, so a portion – amounting to about 5% of collected revenues - was allocated to cities.
Government Code §30051 requires each county auditor to allocate the revenues in the county Public
Safety Augmentation Fund (PSAF) to the county and each city in that county based on their proportionate
share of net property tax loss due to ERAF as defined. For the purposes of allocating PSAF revenue, an
agency’s “net property tax loss” is defined as the that agency’s FY 1993–94 property tax loss due to
phase II of ERAF. As described previously, phase II of ERAF is based on each agency’s estimated
receipt of property tax revenues under the SB154/AB 8 bailout of 1980. Cities that received no property
tax or that did not exist in 1980 are not affected by this phase of ERAF and consequently are ineligible for
Proposition 172 revenues.
Individual agency losses to the phase II ERAF property tax shifts are tied to property tax revenues
received by each agency in the post-Proposition 13 SB154/AB8 bailout. Because the intent of Proposition
172 has always been to mitigate the impacts of the ERAF property tax shifts on public safety services,
cities that were not impacted by this phase of the shift do not receive Proposition 172 revenues.
vii An additional smaller reduction, applicable only for 1992/93, was determined by multiplying the given
population of each city by $1.65.
viii Proposition 1A also contained provisions allowing the state to borrow up to 8 percent of city, county and
special district property tax revenues in one year under specific conditions. The Legislature invoked this
option as a part of the 2009 Budget Act. The loan, used to finance annual operations in FY2009–10 was
fully repaid with interest according to law in June 2013. Proposition 22 (2010) eliminated this property tax
loan option.
ix TEA cities typically commonly receive about 6.3% or a bit less due to the application of ERAF I (a 9% of
share reduction) and ERAF II (based on amount of benefit from the Prop13 SB154/AB8 bailout).
F-49