DISCLAIMER

The following City Council agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the City Council at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual City Council meeting. The City Council may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the City Council Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the Reception area at City Hall as well as the Palos Verdes public libraries.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

This agenda has been prepared to provide for the orderly progression of City business. Detailed staff reports on specific items are posted in the hallway for public viewing. The City Council wants to hear your comments, however, to run the meeting efficiently, please observe the following rules when you participate in the meeting.

Please try to submit your REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL form to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called at the appropriate time to make your remarks.

For the sake of efficiency, the City Council agenda is divided into several sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items which, unless a request has been received from the public, council or staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the City Council. If you wish to speak to any Consent Calendar item(s) you will be limited to three minutes.

Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed hearings. Although the normal time limit is three minutes for each speaker, the Mayor may grant additional time to a representative speaking for an entire group; however, this should not discourage anyone from addressing the City Council individually.

Regular Business: This section contains items of general business and you will be allowed three minutes to speak on any item.

Public Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda. If you have submitted a request to speak, you will be called by the City Clerk at the appropriate time and you may speak for up to three minutes. Please limit your comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Public Comments. If action by the City Council is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda or referred to staff, as determined by Council.

Please make your remarks at the lectern microphone and direct your comments to the City Council and not to the staff or the public.

Conduct at the Council Meeting: The City Council has adopted a set of rules for conduct during City Council meetings. The following is an excerpt from those adopted Rules of Procedure:

Section 6.3The Mayor shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person(s) who commits the following acts at a regular or special meeting of the City Council:

1.Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Council or any member thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

2.A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

3.Disobedience of any lawful order of the Mayor which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Council.

4.Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

JULY 18, 2000 @ 6:30 P.M.

HESSE PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

AUDIENCE COMMENTS:

ADJOURNMENT:

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

JULY 18, 2000

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

6:00 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2000-45

NEXT ORD. NO. 359

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Recommendation: Approve the Minutes.

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207 WITH PREJUDICE.

Recommendation: Approve a second one-year extension of the Agreement with Gary Amo for Public Information Services and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement extension.

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the attached Professional Services Agreement with Cost Recovery Systems, Inc. for the preparation of the City’s eligible state mandated cost reimbursement claims with the State of California for an amount not to exceed $3,250.

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, 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.

############

PUBLIC HEARING:

Recommendation: Approve Revision "M" to the Ocean Trails Project, approving an amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and an amendment to the HCP implementing agreement.

RECESS:

PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)

(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)

REGULAR BUSINESS:

Recommendation: (1) Consider appropriating $5,000 from the Animal Control Services Program budget for preliminary work on the peafowl program. (2) Consider hiring peafowl specialist Dennis Fett to assess the peafowl population, conduct community meetings, and recommend a population control options for the City.

Recommendation: (1) Authorize staff to prepare plans and specifications to repair a private storm drain facility adjacent to the Palos Verdes Drive East and Sunnyside Ridge Road intersection. (2) Authorize staff to prepare and execute a License Agreement with the affected property owner to repair the damaged portions of the private storm drain system adjacent to the Palos Verdes Drive East and Sunnyside Ridge Road intersection. (3) Authorize staff to utilize the City’s Maintenance Contractor to perform the necessary repairs to the existing storm drain at a cost not to exceed $30,000. (4) Authorize staff to solicit request for proposals (RFP’s) for professional engineering services to investigate potential drainage improvement options and for the design of a long-term solution to drainage in the area near Sunnyside Ridge Road and Palos Verdes Drive East.

Recommendation: Continue this item to the August 1, 2000 City Council meeting so that all of the information that is relevant to this issue can be submitted to the City and reviewed by Staff well in advance of that City Council meeting.

Recommendation: Consider a request of the Alliance for Water Quality to send a letter to Governor Gray Davis expressing concern over the SUSMPs promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region and to publicly use Rancho Palos Verdes on its endorsement list.

Recommendation: Consider scheduling City Council meetings for fifth Tuesdays in August and October.

ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.)

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5

(All Statutory References are to California Government

Code Sections)

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

Anticipated Litigation:

(G.C 54956.9(b)

x A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency.

1

(Number of Potential Cases)

(A)Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation but which the City/Agency believes are not yet known to potential plaintiff or plaintiffs.

G.C. 54956.9b(A)

Recommendation: Approve the Minutes.

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207 WITH PREJUDICE.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:JULY 18, 2000

SUBJECT:APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207 [APPLICANT AND APPELLANT: MARK ABRAMS, 44 OCEANAIRE DRIVE]

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 207 with prejudice.

DISCUSSION

At the City Council meeting of July 5, 2000, the City Council concluded its consideration of this appeal, and voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 207. Therefore, Staff has prepared the attached draft Resolution for the City Council’s consideration and adoption.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Draft Resolution No. 2000-__

Recommendation: Approve a second one-year extension of the Agreement with Gary Amo for Public Information Services and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement extension.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:JULY 18, 2000

SUBJECT:ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH GARY AMO FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve a second one-year extension of the Agreement with Gary Amo for Public Information Services and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement extension.

BACKGROUND:

During the fiscal year 1998-99 budget process, the City Council first approved the implementation of an enhanced public information program and the hiring of a part-time person to prepare press releases, newsletter articles, informational brochures and other community outreach items to assist the City and Agency in insuring that our citizens have full and timely information about our activities. Council approved an agreement with Gary Amo on July 7, 1998 for Public Information Services for a maximum fee of $20,000. During the 1998-99 fiscal year $1,725 was spent under this contract. In 1999-2000 only $300 was spent.

DISCUSSION:

Staff is proposing a second one-year extension of the Agreement for Public Information Services with Mr. Gary Amo. Mr. Amo is well known to the Council and the community as the former editor of the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. He is also a published author of a series of popular fiction books and presently is the managing editor of Beverly Hills (213) magazine.

The agreement calls for an hourly rate of $75.00, with a fixed not to exceed amount for each assignment, for the public information services requested. Each assignment under this agreement must be authorized in writing by the City Manager prior to commencement and will include a brief description of the specified work, a time schedule for completion of the work and a not to exceed amount to be paid upon completion of the assignment or at agreed upon milestones not to exceed once per month payments.

Work contemplated under this Agreement includes: Providing expertise in the preparation of scripts for public service announcements and "TV spots," press releases, newsletter articles, informational brochures and other community outreach items describing activities of the City and Agency, as directed by the City Manager and the Executive Director.

Mr. Amo's resume is attached.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The adopted Fiscal Year 2000-01 City Budget includes $15,000 for a community outreach consultant. Award of this contract will obligate $2,500 of this amount to be spent on an undetermined number of tasks that will be assigned on an individual basis.

Respectfully submitted,

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment: Gary Amo’s Resume

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the attached Professional Services Agreement with Cost Recovery Systems, Inc. for the preparation of the City’s eligible state mandated cost reimbursement claims with the State of California for an amount not to exceed $3,250.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DENNIS McLEAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE:JULY 18, 2000

SUBJECT:PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COST RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC.

Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the attached Professional Services Agreement with Cost Recovery Systems, Inc. for the preparation of the City’s eligible state mandated cost reimbursement claims with the State of California for an amount not to exceed $3,250.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Cost Recovery Systems, Inc. ("CRS") provides financial services to cities throughout the State of California. The firm specializes in securing reimbursement of state-mandated costs for California cities. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes used the services of CRS to prepare mandated cost reimbursement claims with the State of California for both FY 1997-98 and FY 1998-99. Through June 30, 2000, the City had received a total of $32,291 for these two years. In the coming months staff expects to receive an additional $15,000 to $25,000 in reimbursements associated with FY 1998-99.

CRS estimates the City will be eligible to receive approximately $25,000 in reimbursements from the State of California for certain FY 1999-00 state-mandated costs. Several possible sources for reimbursements from state-mandated program costs include:

• a portion of the cost of staff time and the HTE business license software fees that enable the filing of the annual report to the State Franchise Tax Board;
• the cost of absentee ballots;
• the cost of assessing regional housing needs;
• the cost of providing investment reports to the City Council and the public; and
• the cost of agenda preparation in accordance with the Open Meetings Act.

The selection of Cost Recovery Systems, Inc. is exempt from the City’s "open market (bid) procedure" in accordance with section 2.44.060 of the City’s Municipal Code. Municipal Code Section 2.44.060, Exception to Bid Procedures, enables the City Manager to select a financial advisor without following the established bid procedures. We have provided a copy of the Agreement which will be executed by CRS and the City in the event the City Council authorizes the Mayor to sign it.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

It is estimated that approximately $25,000 will be reimbursed to the General fund of the City from the State of California. The consulting fee charged by CRS will not exceed $3,250 and will be entirely reimbursed to the City by the State of California.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, 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.

############

PUBLIC HEARING:

Recommendation: Approve Revision "M" to the Ocean Trails Project, approving an amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and an amendment to the HCP implementing agreement.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JULY 18, 2000

SUBJECT: REVISION "M" TO THE OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT – AN AMENDMENT TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING

AGREEMENT (OCEAN TRAILS LP)

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Approve Revision M to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving an amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and an amendment to the HCP Implementing Agreement.

BACKGROUND

In December 1992, the City Council approved the Ocean Trails project, which included an 18-hole golf course and a total of 75 single-family lots. As part of the overall approval, the Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 for single family lots located on the western side of the project site and the golf course, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 for the single family residential lots located on the eastern side of the project site. Also, associated with this subdivision was Conditional Use Permit No. 162 and No. 163, which approved the Residential Planned Development (RPD) and the Golf Course. Final Map No. 50667 has been approved by the City Council and the developer may begin selling lots within this tract. Grading of Phase I (golf course and Tract No. 50667) is nearing completion, while Phase II grading (VTTM No. 50666) is currently under construction.

As part of the original 1992 approval, the developer was required and has obtained approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and associated Implementing Agreement by the City, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). In addition to the coastal California gnatcatcher, the project’s approved HCP serves as a conservation plan for the cactus wren as well as six sensitive plant species. The City currently holds a bond to guarantee implementation of the HCP.

The goals of the HCP are to provide the following:

• Long-term conservation and increase of coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren populations;
• Revegetation and enhancement of CSS and CBS habitat dedicated and protected, in perpetuity, as public natural open space;
• Long-term maintenance and monitoring programs for the habitat areas, including cowbird, feral cat and red fox trapping programs;
• Provision of information pertaining to the biology of the coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren to the USFWS and CDFG;
• Provision for perpetual funding of conservation areas;
• Alignment of trails to protect habitat while still providing public access to and along the coast; and
• Provision of a resident/public environmental education program.

On June 2, 1999, a major landslide (Landslide C) impacted approximately 18 acres of the Ocean Trails site, including a large portion of the Ocean Trails golf course (mainly the 18^th hole), public trails, Ocean Trails Park, and sensitive habitat identified in the approved HCP.

Since June 2, 1999, the developer has been working on a repair plan that would restore the area to a usable condition. Towards the end of 1999, the developer obtained approval of a Landslide Winterization Plan, which allowed the developer to conduct minor grading within the landslide area with the purpose of minimizing infiltration of water in the graben area by diverting surface runoff away from the graben area. The Winterization Plan also included the clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation. The developer has completed the tasks that were approved to winterize the site. On June 21, 2000, the City Council approved of the proposed landslide repair plan. As part of the repair plan, the developer is required to obtain approval from the City, USFWS and CDFG for an amendment to the HCP in order to consider the loss of habitat that occurred as a result of the landslide.

DISCUSSION

As noted under the Background section above, the developer is now required to obtain approval of an amendment to the HCP to consider the impacts related to the re-activation of Landslide C on June 2, 1999. In addition to this amendment, the developer is also proposing three other amendments to the existing HCP. All four amendments can be summarized as follows:

1. Blue butterfly: To add the Palos Verdes blue butterfly as a species covered under the project’s HCP, providing authorization for future incidental take of this species if it is found to occur on the project. Staff supports this amendment to the HCP.
2. Location of Mitigation: To revise the mitigation requirements to permit the use of a revegetation site different from that specified in the originally approved HCP. The originally approved HCP provided for the following two off-site mitigation sites:

1. Shoreline Park: As originally approved in 1997, a Conservation Easement was established on 20 acres of this 53-acre parcel. The required 20 acres of enhancement/revegetation has been installed in conformance with the requirements of the HCP; and,
2. Switchbacks: As originally approved, the second off-site mitigation site is a parcel that is known as the "Switchbacks." In 1997, the Project obtained the required Conservation Easement over the 97 acres in this parcel. The original HCP called for 10 acres of habitat enhancement and 11 acres of habitat restoration.

Based upon concerns expressed by City Staff of irrigation within the Switchbacks parcel, Ocean Trails has reached an agreement with the Resource Agencies to maintain the 11 acres of enhancement on the "Switchbacks" parcel (with no irrigation) and relocate the 10 acres of revegetation from the "Switchbacks" to lower Shoreline Park. At the June 6, 2000 City Council meeting, the City Council agreed to allow Ocean Trails to use the lower portion of Shoreline Park for the relocation of habitat restoration from the "Switchbacks" and for revegetation related to the landslide (see #3 below).

As required by the USFWS and CDFG, similar to the upper portion of Shoreline Park, a conservation easement over the lower portion of Shoreline Park will be required. In regards to the conservation easement over the lower portion of Shoreline Park, similar to the fee that the developer submitted for use of the conservation easement over the "Switchbacks", the developer will also be required to submit a fee to utilize the conservation easement on the lower portion of Shoreline Park. Specifically, the HCP includes the following statement, "The Ocean Trails Project shall pay a fee to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as payment for the use of 11.14 acres of the Shoreline Park property for landslide mitigation, said fee to be determined before any work on those properties is initiated". The exact amount of this fee, which may exclude the costs of the City’s re-vegetation responsibilities or of certain items that Ocean Trails will be installing, such as a picnic area in lower Shoreline Park, and the exact method of payment, which may include a deferment plan, will still need to be worked out.

It is also important to note that the HCP and the Conservation Easement will include language that allows the use of various City and County facilities, such as trails, easements, and a picnic area. Specifically, the HCP indicates, "A conservation easement will be obtained from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes over the area to be revegetated. The easement shall permit public access to the site on the established trails, the construction of a picnic area, and access and activities by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the County Sanitation District necessary to maintain their property on the site".

Based upon the language in the HCP and the Conservation Easement that will ensure that the City is compensated for the use of the lower portion of Shoreline Park, and that various City and County facilities will be available for access and use in perpetuity, Staff supports this portion of the Amendment.

1. Landslide: As noted above, the Developer has obtained City approval and proposes to undertake a series of actions to stabilize the landslide and reestablish the previous improvements, including restoration of habitat damaged by the slide. Additionally, the remediation work will impact areas known to have been used by two pair of gnatcatchers for breeding and forage, and the amendment will authorize work in those areas.

The mitigation for the landslide will consist of 10 acres on the reconstructed and stabilized landslide, and 16.96 acres in other locations, which include Shoreline Park, Upper La Rotonda Canyon, and the Forrestal Canyon Open Space Lot. These areas would be designated as habitat preserves. In regards to the use of Shoreline Park, at the June 6, 2000 City Council meeting, the City Council agreed to let Ocean Trails use the lower portion of Shoreline Park for these purposes. The details of how all of these on-site and off-site areas will be enhanced or re-vegetated are described within the attached HCP.

Since the proposed landslide repair project will actually result in more habitat revegetation/enhancement than what was originally envisioned with the original HCP, and that there are assurances that the City will be compensated for off-site use of City owned land for habitat restoration (as discussed in #2 above), and that various City and County facilities as noted above will be available for access and use in perpetuity (as discussed in #2 above), Staff supports this portion of the Amendment.

2. Palos Verdes Drive South Repair Work: This portion of the amendment would permit essential road repair work of Palos Verdes Drive South, within the existing conservation easement over the north half of Shoreline Park. On June 21, 1999, cracks were observed on 25^th Street north of Shoreline Park. Extensive investigation of the area concluded that two phases of repair work were essential to maintain the integrity of the roadway and to protect public health and safety. A 4(d) permit was issued to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on November 8, 2000, to authorize Phase One of those repairs, consisting of the following activities: a) installation of a series of horizontal PVC drains directly into the fill slope, and b) construction of an 18-inch corrugated metal pipe on the surface of the fill slope to eliminate roadway surface runoff from entering the slope. These tasks were completed in November 1999.

The proposed HCP amendment will authorize Phase II of the project by considering the potential impacts to habitat located immediately south of the roadway. The anticipated construction impacts to habitat related to the construction of Phase II are discussed in the attached HCP. Staff supports this amendment, because by including this within the HCP, it will save the City money and time in applying for permits with the USFWS and CDFG.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Public notice of the July 18^th public hearing was sent to all property owners within a 500’ radius of the Ocean Trails site, and to all Homeowner Associations in the immediate vicinity of the Ocean Trails site. Staff has not received any correspondence pertaining to this project.

At the time this Staff Report was reproduced, the legal conservation easement document had not yet been completed. The legal conservation easement document will be presented to the City Council at the July 18^th meeting.

CONCLUSION

As noted above, the amendments to the HCP and its Implementing Agreement will allow the developer to provide acceptable mitigation (as determined by the Resource agencies) for the landslide, and will allow the developer to move its required habitat restoration mitigation, which was established for the original project, from the "Switchbacks" to lower Shoreline Park. At the same time, the City will be compensated for the use of lower Shoreline Park, be assured that various City and County facilities within lower Shoreline Park remain available for use and access in perpetuity, and will save money and time by having the road repair project included as part of this HCP amendment.

Since the City is a co-signature to the HCP and Implementing Agreement, the City Council must first approve of the HCP and the Implementing Agreement. After City Council approval, the USFWS and CDFG will also need to approve the HCP and Implementing Agreement. At this time, although these two agencies have reviewed and are in agreement with the attached HCP and Implementing agreement, they have not yet formally approved it. Any significant changes by these agencies may require further City Council review.

As such, for the reasons noted in this report, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached HCP Amendment and HCP Implementing Agreement.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives:

1.Deny the applicant’s request.

2.Identify any issues of concern with the applicant’s request, provide Staff and/or the applicant with any direction, and continue the item to a date certain.

FISCAL IMPACT

There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision. The developer is responsible for installation and maintenance of the habitat associated with the Ocean Trails landslide as identified within the HCP.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

Amendment to the Ocean Trails HCP
HCP Implementing Agreement
Legal Conservation Easement Document (to be provided at the 7/18/00 meeting)

RECESS:

PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)

(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)

REGULAR BUSINESS:

Recommendation: (1) Consider appropriating $5,000 from the Animal Control Services Program budget for preliminary work on the peafowl program. (2) Consider hiring peafowl specialist Dennis Fett to assess the peafowl population, conduct community meetings, and recommend a population control options for the City.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST

DATE:JULY 18, 2000

SUBJECT: PEAFOWL POPULATION CONTROL

RECOMMENDATION

1. Consider appropriating $5,000 from the Animal Control Services Program budget for preliminary work on the peafowl problem.
2. Consider hiring peafowl specialist Dennis Fett to assess the peafowl population, conduct community meetings, and recommend population control options for the City.

BACKGROUND

For several decades, the peafowl population has lived wild within the City. Although the actual present count of peafowl is unknown, several residents have expressed concern that their neighborhoods are becoming overpopulated with peafowl. Occasionally, the City receives citizen complaints regarding peafowl nuisance in areas of the City where 15-30 peafowl birds are roosting and nesting. Common complaints against peafowl include excessive noise, destruction of landscaped yards and flowerbeds, animal waste, and destruction of rooftops. Residents with peafowl problems generally express strongly that the City should take action to either control the peafowl population or get rid of them entirely.

Over the years, the City’s practice has been to inform residents that the City’s unwritten policy and practice has been to leave the peafowl alone. Staff has encouraged residents to co-exist peacefully with peafowl, since peafowl have inhabited the Peninsula for several decades and are considered not only part of the City’s natural environmental community, but for many residents peafowl have an honorary distinction within the City as a "protected" species. In actuality, peafowl are actually introduced wild species, not a protected species, because peafowl are not native animals to California.

To assist residents in managing the presence of peafowl on their property and/or neighborhood, staff distributes helpful information on various methods to discourage peafowl from lingering on residential property. Some of the suggestions include: replace plant vegetation with plants peafowl do not eat, use lawn sprinklers intermittently as a negative reinforcement, keep a dog in yard to ward them off, and place mothballs or cat repellent around planting beds to repel peafowl.

Residents are also advised not to feed peafowl, since peafowl tend to inhabit areas where there is a reliable, easily accessible food source, either directly from residents deliberately feeding them or indirectly by eating leaving leftover pet food or birdseed. In almost all cases, there seems to be at least one residence intentionally feeding peafowl in the neighborhood, where the City has received several reports of peafowl nuisance.

The City has investigated the feasibility of birth control and sterilization as potential solutions. However, both methods are not effective for peafowl living wild and require strict controlled conditions for application. Therefore, the staff concentrated on various options to minimize the peafowl population by trapping and removing some of the birds.

DISCUSSION

City Council considered citizen complaints against the proliferating peafowl population at its May 2^nd Council meeting. There was general consensus among the City Councilmembers to minimize the nuisance associated with large flocks of wild peafowl living within some City neighborhoods. Since that meeting, residents have reported wild peafowl living in the following areas: Grandview community, near the western City border around Hedgewood and Trailriders, Ridgecrest community, Portuguese Bend community, along Sea Claire near Marymount College, and Miraleste. Staff is uncertain of the number of peafowl living in these several areas of the City. However, the City receives the majority of peafowl complaints and reports of high numbers of peafowl from the following three sub-regions of the City: Portuguese Bend community, Ridgecrest community, and the neighborhoods along the western edge of the City abutting Palos Verdes Estates near Hedgewood and Trailriders. A map highlighting these areas is attached.

The City Council directed staff to investigate the feasibility and estimated costs for the following three potential solutions 1) Request Los Angeles County Animal Control to trap and remove some peafowl, 2) Collaborate with the City of Palos Verdes Estates to trap and relocate some peafowl, and 3) Hire a peafowl specialist to recommend a management plan.

Regardless of what action the City may decide to take regarding the peafowl situation, staff anticipates much public dissatisfaction. Staff’s intent is to provide a way for the City to minimize (not eliminate) the negative impact upon residents’ quality of life in neighborhoods with wild peafowl, while maintaining a healthy peafowl population that the environment can sustain.

Staff is recommending that the City Council consider a series of steps, which engage citizen participation and input, to address peafowl concerns within selected areas of the City. The steps are:

--Survey the peafowl established areas and conduct a census to determine how many peafowl there are. It is in the City’s best interest to identify the peafowl hot spots, find out why flocks are concentrated only in certain areas and how residents in those areas feel about the peafowl. This will enable the City to fairly assess the peafowl population problem and address the issue of population control with appropriate measures.

--Conduct a series of meetings within the community and possibly some one-on-one consultations to increase public awareness on peafowl behavior patterns and provide possible solutions to specific problems. Many residents, particularly relatively new residents, may greatly benefit from learning more about peafowl and some tactics they can implement to discourage peafowl from becoming a nuisance to their property.

--Determine how many peafowl are acceptable and sustainable within these impacted neighborhoods. Citizens often report new flocks where none previously existed or peafowl flocks expanding their territory.

--Propose a peafowl management plan based upon the findings and citizen input from the above steps to control the peafowl population, as necessary. Each sub-region may have a different approach that is appropriate to the area.

--Implement the management plan with the cooperation of the residents. This may include relocation of some peafowl, redirecting peafowl to a more desirable area within the neighborhood, prohibiting feeding of peafowl, and/or continue the ‘hands off’ policy.

Staff has identified two "peafowl experts" interested in assisting the City with its peafowl problem, Dennis Fett and Dr. Francine Bradley, both of whom have experience working with communities and peafowl. Each specialist provided a brief outline of proposed services, which are similar to the above task list (See Attachment 2 and 3).

Dennis Fett is the director of the Peafowl Information Center and owner of a peafowl farm in Iowa. Mr. Fett has worked in several cities nation-wide, including Rolling Hills Estates in 1992. (In Rolling Hills Estates, the City decided not to remove any birds, but to place the responsibility upon the Home Owners Associations to monitor the peafowl population and to redirect birds to areas where they would be welcomed or impact the residents the least. The City of RHE seems to believe it’s a working solution.) Mr. Fett is willing to perform the above stated tasks, however the City would be responsible for conducting an opinion survey on peafowl prior to his visit and for implementing any approved management plan, such as trapping and relocating some of the peafowl. Mr. Fett would provide the opinion survey form and the City would directly mail the surveys to households located in the six identified areas. Staff will then compile the survey responses. Mr. Fett’s approach emphasizes community education and one-on-one consultation with residents on peafowl behavior and possible solutions to problems at a particular site. His proposal of services is attached and his estimated fee is $5,000 for five days of consultation, including personal expenses. This fee may increase after his initial assessment of the peafowl problem areas and scope of work involved. Mr. Fett’s strengths appear to be his familiarity with the Peninsula, his appreciation of peafowl, and his emphasis on community outreach and education.

Dr. Francine Bradley is a poultry specialist with the University of California in Davis. Dr. Bradley recently completed a peafowl project for the City of Fairfield. After assessing the peafowl population of 45-50 birds, Dr. Francine Bradley, recommended various management options and the City approved flock reduction by trapping and relocation of approximately 17 birds. Although Dr. Bradley’s services do not emphasize community outreach and education as Mr. Fett, Dr. Bradley focuses her efforts on finding and interviewing prospective families to adopt peafowl that will be trapped and relocated by her UC Davis students under her supervision. Dr. Bradley has close contacts with the State’s 4-H Poultry Program, which she utilized to find adoptive homes for the Fairfield peafowl. Dr. Bradley anticipates a one-day visit would be adequate to assess the peafowl problem areas in Rancho Palos Verdes. At a later date, Dr. Bradley’s team would take a couple of trips to RPV to trap up to 13 birds at a time in one trap. The City would receive a record of all adoptions. Dr. Bradley estimates approximately $5,000 would cover all her expenses, including labor, lodging, meals, travel, materials for traps, staff time and miscellaneous expenses for locating prospective adoption families. Council should note that the trapping results might vary, due to conditions beyond anyone’s control. The City would be responsible for coordinating a regular peafowl-feeding schedule at 2 peafowl trap locations for at least one week prior to Dr. Bradley’s on-site visits. The daily feeding schedule will increase the chances of successful trappings by Dr. Bradley’s team.

Due to the nature of each specialist’s strengths, City Council may consider addressing the peafowl problem in two phases. Staff’s recommendation is to first hire Dennis Fett to handle the peafowl population assessment, conduct community meetings, and propose a management plan. For the second phase, the City Council can review the management plan options and decide to hire Dr. Francine Bradley or another appropriate party to implement the management plan.

Alternatives:

Hands Off Policy

The City may continue to practice its hands off policy regarding peafowl. Some residents will argue that peafowl have lived peacefully within the City for several decades and that there is no need for action on the part of the City. On the other hand, the City has received occasional reports of peafowl accidentally killed or nearly killed by automobiles on surface streets.

In addition, residents and home owners associations will still have the option of hiring a private animal trapper to remove some birds at their own expense.

Los Angeles County Animal Control

According to the Regional Manager, the County would be willing to trap and remove peafowl at the request and expense of the City. The County would set up a large animal trap on private property at the homeowner’s request. At the request of the City, trapped peafowl may be either put to sleep or housed for a short period of time for relocation purposes. The City would be responsible for locating new homes for the peafowl and arranging transportation to the new homes, if required.

Currently, the County is not prepared to trap peafowl en masse. The County would purchase four large animal traps to be designated for peafowl trapping and charge approximately $2,000 to the City’s animal control budget. Aside from the Animal Control officer’s hours, the additional expense for housing and relocating 5 birds would be approximately $475.

This individual bird trapping method may be somewhat ineffective. Potential negative factors may include the following: traps may be tampered with since the traps would be left on private property unattended; finding new homes for peafowl will be a challenge; public opposition to trapping and/or euthanasia; no guarantee the trap will capture only or any peafowl; and relocation will not be practical unless 5-10 birds are trapped within a short time period.

The City of La Canada Flintridge reduced its peafowl population from 30 to 18 birds by allowing the Animal Humane Society to trap peafowl with large animal traps and relocate the trapped birds to animal ranches and rescues. This action became a controversial issue within the community and the City later hired two consultants, a bird specialist from the Los Angeles Zoo and the director of the Arcadia Peafowl Arboretum, to work with residents and the City in developing a peafowl management plan.

Collaborate with the City of Palos Verdes Estates

As a matter of background information, according to the letter from the PVE Mayor, the City Council during the mid-1980s agreed to maintain a minimum flock of 15 peafowl in each of the two different areas of the City. The City of Palos Verdes Estates Police Department handles the trapping and relocation of peafowl in excess of that number. Apparently the City has been able to keep costs low by utilizing existing intern officers. The City’s main challenge has been to find willing recipients.

The PVE Police Department Interns trap the birds individually. The PVE Police Department initially was interested in subcontracting its interns at $8-10 per hour. However due to the public’s confrontational response to the recent peafowl round up in PVE, the possibility of subcontracting is uncertain at this time.

This option will also require the City to be responsible for locating new homes and arranging transportation to the new homes for the trapped peafowl. Staff estimates the expenses of PVE Police Interns trapping peafowl for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will be nearly equivalent to the County Animal Control Department. One positive factor is that PVE Police Interns potentially have a better chance of trapping a group of peafowl at one time compared to the individual animal traps of the County Animal Control Department.

On a side note, the City attempted to solicit interest from each Peninsula City to work together on controlling the peafowl population; the response was not favorable. Each City preferred to continue to deal with the peafowl population on its own terms. (See Attachment 4.)

Prohibit Feeding of Peafowl Ordinance Proposed

The City Attorney, at the request of the Mayor, prepared a draft Ordinance prohibiting the feeding of peafowl (See Attachment 5). The Ordinance will make it unlawful for any person to feed peafowl or to leave or deposit food for peafowl on any public or private property. The City will be able to cite for infraction and any person convicted will be fined accordingly.

The Ordinance amends the Health and Safety Chapter of the RPV Municipal Code by adding a new subparagraph under property maintenance, so the City can order nuisance abatement procedures if necessary.

The Ordinance will likely not significantly impact the peafowl population growth, although it may help disperse the concentration of peafowl away from a specific location, where a resident is regularly feeding or leaving food for peafowl. According to citizen complaints received by the City, there is at least one known residence regularly feeding or leaving food for peafowl in neighborhoods with high concentrations of peafowl. Since, peafowl are creatures of habit, peafowl tend to roost and nest within close proximity to the residence providing or leaving food for peafowl. As a result the surrounding neighbors have no control over the number of birds flocking to the food source by the way of their property.

Summary of Options

Option One: Hire Dennis Fett

Scope of Work: Peafowl population assessment, 3-4 community meetings, one-on-one consultation with residents when possible, recommend a management plan, and possibly train a team to trap peafowl safely.

Cost Estimate:$5,000 for all expenses during his 5-day consultation

Pro:Emphasis on community education and outreach

Con: City is responsible for implementing the management plan (which may include trapping and relocation) with the residents

Time of Work: Late summer or early fall depending upon his work schedule

Option Two: Hire Dr. Francine Bradley

Scope of Work:Peafowl population assessment, 1-2 community meetings, recommend a management plan, find prospective adoptive families, trap and relocate selected number of peafowl.

Cost Estimate: $5,000 for all expenses during 3-4 one-day visits

Pro: Trapping and relocation of some peafowl, rough estimate of 50 birds

Con: Little or no emphasis on community education and outreach or one-on-one consultation with residents.

Time of Work: Late summer visits, trapping during the fall

Option Three: Hands Off Policy

Scope of Work:Animal Control will continue not to respond to peafowl calls unless the bird is injured, residents may trap and remove the birds at their own expense, and City will continue to consider peafowl as an introduced wild animal.

Cost Estimate: n/a

Pro: Status quo

Con: Peafowl population may continue to grow and expand into more City neighborhoods.

Time of Work: n/a

Option Four: Los Angeles County Animal Control Department

Scope of Work:Set up large individual animal traps at private residences unattended and later pick up traps at the request of the resident. Trapped peafowl may be housed at the animal shelter for relocation.

Cost Estimate:After the initial $2,000 for the purchase of four animal traps, the cost is $475 for 5 birds trapped within one week and relocated elsewhere, as compared to $255 for 1 bird trapped and relocated individually. For approximately 50 birds the total cost estimate will be at least $6,750.

Pro: Trapping can begin as soon as the traps are purchased.

Con: City is responsible for community outreach, peafowl behavior education, finding homes for peafowl relocation, arranging transportation to homes if required, possibly least effective method of trapping peafowl.

Option Five: Subcontracting with Palos Verdes Estates Police Interns

Scope of Work: Peafowl round up by 2-3 PVE Police Interns in selected neighborhoods. Trapped peafowl may be housed at the animal shelter for relocation.

Cost Estimate: If the Interns can capture 50 birds within a total 25 hours, the cost will be approximately $4,500.

Pro: Traps for peafowl will be monitored at all times during a peafowl round up.

Con: Possibility of when and if Palos Verdes Estate Police Interns are still willing to subcontract with the City is uncertain. City will be responsible for community outreach, peafowl behavior education, finding homes for peafowl relocation, arranging transportation to homes if required.

Option Six: Prohibit Feeding of Peafowl

Scope of Work: No person shall feed or leave food for peafowl consumption on private or public property.

Cost Estimate:n/a

Pro: Assist in dispersing peafowl flocks concentrated at a specific residence.

Con: Little or no impact upon controlling peafowl population growth.

FISCAL IMPACT

Should City Council decide to hire Dennis Fett to assess the City’s peafowl population and recommend a peafowl population management plan, the initial cost estimate provided by Mr. Fett is $5,000 for a five-day consultation period. The Animal Control Services Budget will accommodate such an expense without a budget adjustment.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Gina Park, Senior Administrative Analyst

REVIEWED
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
1. City Map Highlighting Peafowl Flock Areas
2. Proposal from Dennis Fett
3. Proposal from Dr. Francine Bradley
4. Correspondence from Peninsula Cities
5. Draft Ordinance
6. Correspondence from residents: Carter, Gutierrez, Maxwell, Herold, Hathaway, Chan, Morrison,

Marshall, Major, Hazelrigg, Smolley, Deane, Lou, Towle, Heller, Marshall, Burt, Gifford, Carter, Rose, Stuart and Holderman.

Recommendation: (1) Authorize staff to prepare plans and specifications to repair a private storm drain facility adjacent to the Palos Verdes Drive East and Sunnyside Ridge Road intersection. (2) Authorize staff to prepare and execute a License Agreement with the affected property owner to repair the damaged portions of the private storm drain system adjacent to the Palos Verdes Drive East and Sunnyside Ridge Road intersection. (3) Authorize staff to utilize the City’s Maintenance Contractor to perform the necessary repairs to the existing storm drain at a cost not to exceed $30,000. (4) Authorize staff to solicit request for proposals (RFP’s) for professional engineering services to investigate potential drainage improvement options and for the design of a long-term solution to drainage in the area near Sunnyside Ridge Road and Palos Verdes Drive East.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:JULY 18, 2000

SUBJECT:SUNNYSIDE RIDGE ROAD AND PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST DRAINAGE

Staff Coordinator:David McBride, Senior Engineer

RECOMMENDATION

1.Authorize staff to prepare plans and specifications to repair a private storm drain facility adjacent to the Palos Verdes Drive East and Sunnyside Ridge Road intersection.

2. Authorize staff to prepare and execute a License Agreement with the affected property owner to repair the damaged portions of the private storm drain system adjacent to the Palos Verdes Drive East and Sunnyside Ridge Road intersection.
3. Authorize staff to utilize the City’s Maintenance Contractor to perform the necessary repairs to the existing storm drain at a cost not to exceed $30,000.
4. Authorize staff to solicit request for proposals (RFP’s) for professional engineering services to investigate potential drainage improvement options and for the design of a long-term solution to drainage in the area near Sunnyside Ridge Road and Palos Verdes Drive East.

BACKGROUND

On March 5, 2000, a rainfall event significantly tested the City’s drainage facilities by dropping a large amount of water in a short period of time. The eastern side of the City was particularly hard hit. Many of the storm drain facilities on the east-side were built many years ago, and are in a state of disrepair.

Shortly after the March 5, 2000 storm, it was brought to staff’s attention that a drainage system failed causing erosion to property at 2601 Sunnyside Ridge Road and at 28056 Palos Verdes Drive East. Staff met with representatives of the homeowners Association and the impacted property owners to determine the extent of the damage and possible action.

The investigation led to the following conclusions:

1.The drainage in the storm drain system is public drainage from Palos Verdes Drive East.

2.The portion of the storm drain that failed is a 15-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) private drainage system constructed across several lots.

3.The majority of the private CMP system, approximately 200 linear feet of 15 inch CMP, located on 2601 Sunnyside Ridge Road is severely deteriorated (i.e., the bottom of the pipe is rusted through). In addition, the transition structures located on 2601 Sunnyside Ridge Road are prone to overtopping during storm events.

4.Approximately 600 feet downstream of the 2601 Sunnyside Ridge Road the natural drainage course (i.e., canyon) becomes increasing well defined. However, the first 600 feet the watercourse meanders across various private property boundaries causing erosion and debris damage to miscellaneous uninhabited facilities constructed within or near the drainage course (e.g., walls, fences, sheds, etc.).

The existing configuration of the drainage facilities on Palos Verdes Drive East, Sunnyside Ridge Road, and the location of the damaged sections of pipe and pictures of the damage are shown on the attached Exhibit "A".

ANALYSIS

To provide adequate drainage on Palos Verdes Drive East a new storm drain facility will be required. This is because beyond the immediate area currently needing repair the storm drain does not have adequate capacity, and has the potential to cause erosion and debris damage to other properties. The ultimate improvements will require a significant engineering effort to determine and evaluate drainage alternatives and optimize a design. In addition the construction contract will need to be advertised. This means that the ultimate improvements can not be in place until after the upcoming rainy season. However, repairs to the existing system are required for the upcoming rainy season.

For this reason staff is recommending a two phased approached as outlined below:

Phase One – Repairing the existing storm drain

The first phase consists of repairing the existing private drain. Approximately 200 linear feet of existing storm drainage pipe and the transition structures will be improved. Improvements will consist of replacing the damaged pipe with high-density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) or corrugated steel pipe (CSP) and improvements to the transition structures to reduce overtopping at an estimated cost of $30,000.

To access private property to make the repairs, license agreements from the impacted property owners will be obtained. The services of an engineering firm to prepare repair plans and specifications will be required, and staff intends to utilize the services of one of the engineering firms previously awarded an ‘on-call’ contract.

Staff will negotiate with our street maintenance contractor for the necessary phase one repairs. This will expedite the process and assure that the repairs can be completed prior to this year’s rainy season.

Phase Two – Construction of a new storm drain system

The second phase will consist of designing and constructing a new storm drain system. This phase will require a detailed engineering design and will result in the construction of a new storm drain system after the upcoming rainy season. It is estimated that the total costs for a new system will be as much as $750,000.

CONCLUSION

Adopting staff’s recommendations will result in staff taking a two phased approach to address a drainage deficiency. Phase One will consist of making repairs to a private drainage facility to meet an immediate need for the upcoming rainy season. Phase Two will include a more detailed engineering investigation into the potential long-term options and preparation of final plans to construct the ultimate storm drain system.

If the staff recommendations are adopted staff will move forward with the engineering and repairs for phase one. This matter will be brought back to the City Council to award a professional services contract for the engineering contract for phase two.

ALTERNATIVE

An alternative is to move forward with the repair of the private storm drain and defer the investigation of the long-term drainage solution. Staff does not recommend this alternative because by starting the investigation/design of the long-term solution the City will be in a better position to quickly move forward with the required construction.

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended action authorizes expenditures of $30,000 for repair of the private drainage facility within the Capital Improvements Program budget. Funding is available in the FY00-01 budget in the line item for undefined drainage improvements. Funding for professional services for the investigation/design of the long-term drainage improvement is available within the FY 00-01 Capital Improvements Program budget.

Respectfully submitted:
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Exhibit "A" – Plans and pictures of the existing drainage facilities (PVDE & Sunnyside Ridge)
Exhibit "B" – Plan of the potential long-term drainage improvement options (PVDE & Sunnyside Ridge)

Recommendation: Continue this item to the August 1, 2000 City Council meeting so that all of the information that is relevant to this issue can be submitted to the City and reviewed by Staff well in advance of that City Council meeting.

To:Mayor Byrd and Members of the City Council

From:Carol W. Lynch

Date:July 12, 2000

Subject:Periodic Review of the Developer’s Compliance with the Ocean Trails Development Agreement and the Conditions of Approval of the Project

RECOMMENDATION

Continue this item to the August 1, 2000 City Council meeting so that all of the information that is relevant to this issue can be submitted to the City and reviewed by Staff well in advance of that City Council meeting.

BACKGROUND

This item originally was scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 6, 2000, but was continued at the request of Mr. Daryl Paul, Esq., the attorney who is representing a group of City residents calling themselves "S.A.V.E.". Mr. Paul has sent two prior letters to the City about the Ocean Trails Project ("Project"), one dated March 7, 2000, and the second dated June 5, 2000, both of which have been provided to the City Council.

DISCUSSION

This week Mr. Paul sent another letter to the City Council about the Project reiterating his request that the City Council rescind the Ocean Trails Development Agreement and revoke Conditional Use Permits 162 and 163. A copy of that letter has been provided to each Council Member and is attached to this report. In his most recent letter and in a telephone conversation on Wednesday, July 12, 2000, Mr. Paul has stated that he intends to provide additional information and evidence to augment the record regarding this matter.

In order to provide the City Council, Staff, and any other interested party with sufficient time to review and analyze all of the materials which Mr. Paul will be submitting to the City, Staff recommends that this item be continued again to August 1, 2000, to ensure that there is sufficient time to do so.

Staff also has received a letter from Ocean Trails regarding compliance with two of the conditions of approval of the Project. A copy of that letter also is attached.

1.Mitigation Measure No. 89 provides that to avoid noise impacts from activities that are conducted within the clubhouse, windows with a STC rating of 30 or higher shall be installed. The Building Official has advised Staff that the clubhouse windows currently do not satisfy this rating. Since a final certificate of occupancy has not been issued for the clubhouse, Staff has determined that the Developer either shall apply to the City for approval of a revision to that mitigation measure or shall replace the windows with windows that satisfy that mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. By so doing, the Developer will be in substantial conformance with the conditions of approval of the Project and with the Development Agreement. It appears from the Developer’s letter that they will be seeking to amend that mitigation measure.

2.Condition No. (B)(2) of Conditional Use Permit No. 162, Condition No. (S)(2) of Conditional Use Permit No. 163, and Condition (D)(4) of Grading Permit No. 154 all provide that within ninety days after the completion of grading for any workable phase of the Project, any scarified slopes shall be landscaped and irrigated. The purpose of this condition is to address erosion during the rainy season. The letter from Ocean Trails dated July 11^th states the Developer’s proposal regarding compliance with these conditions.

CONCLUSION

Staff recommends that the City Council continue this item to the August 1, 2000 City Council meeting so that the City Council, Staff and all other interested persons will have enough time to review all of the materials regarding whether the Developer of the Ocean Trails Project is in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT

The Council’s determination of whether the Developer is in substantial compliance with the Development Agreement will not have any immediate and direct fiscal impact upon the City, since the Developer is required to maintain trust deposits in amounts that are sufficient to reimburse the City for the review and processing of the Project. However, it is possible that any determination made by the City Council about this issue could lead to litigation against the City.

Respectfully submitted:
Carol Lynch, City Attorney

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
July 11, 2000 letter from Daryl Paul
July 11, 2000 letter from Ocean Trails

Recommendation: Consider a request of the Alliance for Water Quality to send a letter to Governor Gray Davis expressing concern over the SUSMPs promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region and to publicly use Rancho Palos Verdes on its endorsement list.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:JULY 18, 2000

SUBJECT:ALLIANCE FOR WATER QUALITY

RECOMMENDATION

Consider a request of the Alliance for Water Quality to send a letter to Governor Gray Davis expressing concern over the SUSMPs promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region and to publicly use Rancho Palos Verdes on its endorsement list.

DISCUSSION

This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember John McTaggart.

The Alliance for Water Quality is a coalition of businesses, trade associations, and others with a concern over the current status of storm water regulations. The Alliance has requested that the City Council send a letter to Governor Gray Davis expressing concern over the SUSMPs promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region. In addition they have also asked the City to allow them to publicly use the City’s name on its endorsement list. The Alliance selected the City of Rancho Palos Verdes because we were one of the Cities who joined a coalition in opposition to action of the Regional Board.

Attached is a copy of the letter as proposed by the Alliance, as well as some general material from the Alliance.

Staff contacted both the Coalition of Cities opposing the Regional Board actions, as well as representatives the Cities of Signal Hill and Palos Verdes Estates. Neither the coalition itself nor the two cities plan to join the Alliance for Water Quality or send a letter to the Governor. Representatives of the two Cities feel they are adequately represented by the coalition.

FISCAL IMPACT

Staff could identify no fiscal impacts to the recommendation.

Submitted by,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Sample letter to Governor Gray Davis
Information from the Alliance for Water Quality

Recommendation: Consider scheduling City Council meetings for fifth Tuesdays in August and October.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:JULY 18, 2000

SUBJECT:COUNCIL MEETINGS IN AUGUST AND OCTOBER

RECOMMENDATION

Consider scheduling special City Council meetings on the fifth Tuesdays in August and October.

BACKGROUND

Several City Councilmembers have asked about the possibility of scheduling special City Council meetings on the fifth Tuesdays in August and October.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS

Due to the recent heavy City Council agendas and the anticipation of similar heavy agendas in August, it may be worthwhile to consider a fifth meeting in August. The proposed date of the meting would be Tuesday, August 29, 2000. Potential agenda items include:

Report on the Forrestal Management Plan

Revisions to View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines

Consideration of a City Alternative NCCP Plan

Consideration of Revisions to the Senior Affordable Housing Project Design

There is also a fifth Tuesday in October, although it occurs on October 31^st, which is also Halloween.

Respectfully submitted:

Les Evans, City Manager

ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.)

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5

(All Statutory References are to California Government

Code Sections)

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

Anticipated Litigation:

(G.C 54956.9(b)

x A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency.

1

(Number of Potential Cases)

(A)Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation but which the City/Agency believes are not yet known to potential plaintiff or plaintiffs.

G.C. 54956.9b(A)