INDEX
TORRANCE CITY COUNCIL-SEPTEMBER 27, 2022
SUBJECT PAGE
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. Call to Order/Roll Call 1
2. Flag Salute/Invocation 1
3. Affidavit of Posting/Waive Further Reading 1
4. Withdrawn, Deferred or Supplemental Items 1
5. Council Committee Meetings and Announcements 2
6. COMMUNITY MATTERS
6A. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-97 honoring Eleanor Barthe-Jones 2 6B. PROCLAMATION honoring Lead Chaplain Dean Mayeda 2
6C. Recognition of Torrance Baseball Team as Finalist in the 2022 Babe Ruth Baseball World Series 2
60. Discuss and Provide Direction to City Clerk on an Annual Commission Recognition Luncheon 2-3
6E. Discuss Commission Appointment Process and Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance 3-6
6F . Presentation of Certificate of Appointment for Councilmember Lewis 2
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 6
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
BA. Approve City Council Minutes 6
BB. Appropriate Funds and Approve Second Amendment to Consulting Services Agreement for Housing Element Update 6-7
BC . Accept 2023 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program Grant Agreement and Appropriate Award for Traffic Safety Enforcement and Education 7
80. Approve Request for Subsidy for Torrance-Lomita Meals on Wheels Appreciation Event at Toyota Meeting Hall 7
BE. Accept and File Investment Report for the Month of July 2022 7 BF. Approve First Amendment to Design Build Agreement for Automated Vehicle and Pedestrian Gates at City Hall 7
9. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
9A. Approve Memorandum of Understanding for Proposition C 40% Discretionary Funds 16
9B. Authorize Submission of Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Federal Transit Administration Grant Application and Appropriate Funds 16-18 9C . Approve Measure R Transit Investment Funding Agreements and Appropriate Funds 18
90. Authorize Purchase Order for Cooperative Purchase of Four (4) Ambulances 18-19
9E. Award Consulting Services Agreement to Furnish Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Torrance Port Logistics Project 20-21
9F. Adopt RESOLUTION Amending City of Torrance Conflict of Interest Code and Repeal Resolution No. 2020-111 20
9G . Adopt RESOLUTION Terminating Agreement~ for Real Property at 23805 Hawthorne Boulevard 21-22
9H . Accept and File Status Report on Coyote Management Plan and Approve First Amendment to Contract Services Agreement for City-Wide Coyote Trapping Services 21-22
91. Consider Options for Permanent Outdoor Dining and Activity Program and Consider Extension of Temporary COVID-19 Related Land Use Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary
City Council
September 27, 2022
10. 10A.
11 .
12 .
13. 14.
15. Entitlements. This Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA per Guidelines Section 15304 -Minor Alterations to Land
HEARINGS
Consider Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Precise Plan of Development to Allow Construction of New Two-Story Single-Family Residence on Property Located Within the Hillside Overlay District in the R-1 Zone at 139 Via Alameda. The Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA per Guidelines Section 15303 -New Construction.
PRE22-00006: ESTHER KIM (HWAN KIM)
AGENCY AGENDAS
SECOND READING ORDINANCES
COUNCIL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
22-24
8-15, 24
25 1, 25
25 At 1 :05a.m., the City Council adjourned to Tuesday, October 11, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. for closed session, with regular business commencing at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Tuesday, October 4, 2022, is a Council Dark Night.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary
City Council
September 27, 2022
September 27, 2022
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TORRANCE CITY COUNCIL
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Torrance City Council convened in a regular meeting on September 27, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Griffiths, Kaji, Kalani, Lewis, Mattucci, Sheikh and Mayor Chen
Absent:
Present:
None
City Manager Chaparyan, City Attorney Sullivan,
City Clerk Rebecca Poirier and
other staff representatives
Agenda item 14 was considered out of order at this time.
14. CLOSED SESSION
The City Council immediately recessed to closed session to confer with the City Manager and the City Attorney on agenda matters listed under 14A) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation, 148) Conference with Labor Negotiator, 14C) Real Property-Conference with Real Property Negotiator -Litigation pursuant to California Government Code §54956.9(d} (1 ), California Government Code §54957 .6, and California Government Code §54956.8.
The City Council reconvened in public session at 6:30 p.m. No formal action was taken on any item considered in closed session.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ INVOCATION
The flag salute was led by Councilmember Griffiths.
The non-sectarian invocation was given by Councilmember Kaji.
3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA/ MOTION TO
WAIVE FURTHER READING
City Clerk Rebecca Poirier reported that the agenda was posted on the Public Notice Board at 3031 Torrance Boulevard and on the City's website on Tuesday, September 20, 2022 with the revised agenda posted on Thursday, September 22, 2022.
MOTION: Councilmember Griffiths moved that after the City Clerk has read aloud the number and title of any resolution or ordinance on the meeting agenda, the further reading thereof shall be waived, reserving and guaranteeing to each Councilmember the right to demand the reading of any such resolution or ordinance in regular order. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lewis and passed by 7-0.
4. WITHDRAWN, DEFERRED OR SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS
Supplemental material was available for items 6E, 98, 9D, 9G, 9H, 91, 1 QA and Oral Communications.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 1
City Council
September 27, 2022
5. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Mattucci reminded the public about the upcoming Transportation Committee meeting and stated what the meeting would consist of.
City Clerk Poirier reminded the public about the open applications for two vacancies on the Civil Service Commission. She stated the deadline was on September 29, 2022, by 5pm. She recited the rules on eligibility of the positions. She stated her duties in the election process and announced her hosting of the Torrance League of Women Voters Pros and Cons of the Ballot Measure Forum on October 13, 2022, from 7-9pm in the Toyota Meeting Hall.
Assistant Fire Chief Alec Miller stated that the Torrance Refining Company was conducting their monthly test of the community alert siren on October 5 around 11 :30am. 6 . COMMUNITY MATTERS
Item 6F was taken out of order at this time .
6F. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT FOR COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS 6A. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-97 HONORING ELEANOR BARTHE-JONES RESOLUTION NO. 2022-97 honoring Eleanor Barthe-Jones of the City Manager's Office upon her retirement from the City of Torrance after thirty-two years of service. (For Adoption Only).
MOTION: Councilmember Griffiths moved to adopt Resolution No. 2022-97.
Councilmember Kalani seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0. 6B. PROCLAMATION HONORING LEAD CHAPLAIN DEAN MAYEDA
6C. RECOGNITION OF TORRANCE BASEBALL TEAM AS FINALIST IN THE 2022 BABE
RUTH BASEBALL WORLD SERIES
6D . DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO CITY CLERK ON AN ANNUAL
COMMISSION RECOGNITION LUNCHEON
Recommendation of the City Clerk that Mayor and City Council discuss and provide direction to the City Clerk on a Commission Recognition Luncheon.
Councilmember Griffiths stated that he supports this and added that the City Council budget could assist to cover the costs.
Councilmember Kalani commended the idea.
Councilmember Mattucci commended the idea and suggested a plus one for each commissioner. He stated keeping it as inexpensive as possible was prudent, and suggested buffet style.
A member of the public spoke.
Councilmember Mattucci asked how a plus one would affect the costs.
City Clerk Poirier stated that it would it just increase the food and drink cost. She stated that it depends on how many could attend and that she estimated around 100 people.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 2
City Council
September 27, 2022
In response to Councilmember Sheikh's question, City Manager Chaparyan stated it was discontinued due to significant budget cuts in 2008.
Councilmember Sheikh stated that it was a good idea to reward those who volunteer their time for the city.
Councilmember Kalani recommended the certificates in case someone wants to frame them .
Councilmember Lewis reminded the public that commission positions are unpaid and this would show appreciation for their volunteer service. She asked how much of the City Clerk's budget this would affect.
City Manager Chaparyan stated they would adjust the budget if City Council proceeded with the program. He stated it was not a major expense but that they could allocate across departments to ensure adequate funding.
In response to Councilmember Griffiths question on if a guest was included in the past, City Manager Chaparyan postulated that it was just commissioners but that they would be able to accommodate plus ones.
Councilmember Griffiths stated he was not opposed with plus ones but that this was more about appreciating commissioners. He stated certificates were fine and minimal expense should be spent.
MOTION: Councilmember Griffiths moved to include a guest, certificates, provide minimal expenses for the provision of a commissioner luncheon. Councilmember Lewis seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
6E. DISCUSS COMMISSION APPOINTMENT PROCESS AND CONSIDERATION OF
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE
Recommendation of the City Clerk and City Attorney that Mayor and City Council discuss the Commission Appointment process and consider adoption of an Ordinance changing and adding language to the Torrance Municipal Code for all Commissions.
City Clerk Poirier presented the item to the City Council and previewed the language that the City Council would be discussing. She explained some of the language in the supplements and the reports on what they would be discussing and deciding on.
In response to Councilmember Griffiths question on the Parking Place Commission on page 16, City Attorney Sullivan stated that he would investigate further when the last time that commission met.
Councilmember Griffiths stated that it would be beneficial to remove that portion if moving forward with this. City Attorney Sullivan replied that he would investigate that, but they would have to revise on the fly since there are other sections there . • Councilmember Griffiths questioned the appointments and terms of members on page 18 .
He stated that should not be carried forward in the ordinance.
City Attorney Sullivan responded that he left those in for staggering purposes so it was clear which term was covered but stated that it could be removed if desired.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 3
City Council
September 27, 2022
Councilmember Griffiths stated he would prefer it removed. He discussed the commission application in comparison with the Council appointment application. He recommended that the same question about convictions be included in the public part of the application and that the applicant sign under penalty of perjury. He stated the expensive background checks are not needed. He questioned if fingerprinting was currently done for commissioners.
City Clerk Poirier stated in the negative.
Councilmember Griffiths asked if there was a cost to the fingerprinting to which City Manager Chaparyan responded it was around $75 range.
Councilmember Griffiths was doubtful that was needed but was open to it. He stated that he would like the order of the commission appointments placed in the ordinance so that quasi-judicial appointments were made first.
City Attorney Sullivan stated the appointment process and fulfillment of a term would require a overwriting the code to state the order of the appointments.
Councilmember Griffiths stated there was a lot of redundancy such as how there was a separate paragraph for each commission regarding the rules.
City Attorney Sullivan stated that it was due to past practice. He stated that the powers and duties of each commission is different, but consolidation would mean bringing the item back.
Councilmember Sheikh stated that this should be part of the public information. He requested that the applicant should give them an authorization in case there is a need for a background investigation. He asked if a clause could be added so that the City Council could terminate any appointee for any reason such that the appointee is not representing well.
City Attorney Sullivan answered that it could be on the application as the City Council can vote to remove a commission member.
Councilmember Lewis corrected herself that the commission members get paid $10 per meeting and can waive the stipend if they wish. She reiterated the importance of the role of commissioner and encouraged the public to apply. She stated that several commissioners do not have the mandated training to maintain being on the commission. She asked for and received concurrence from the City Council to create an agenda item and bring forth to consider removing any commissioner who is not in compliance with state mandated training or to not reappoint them when their term is up. She listed the required training modules.
Mayor Chen suggested bringing forth all the criteria when the item returns.
Councilmember Kaji suggested continuing the item until the changes are made .
City Attorney Sullivan clarified that Councilmember Griffiths wanted to delete the Parking Place Committee section, the bullet points listing the dates of the initial appointments and looking at the potential of the order of appointments with the quasi-judicial which would be Planning, Civil Service and Environmental Quality and Energy Conservation Commissions going first. He stated Councilmember Griffiths also wanted to consolidate all the commissions as much as possible, but City Attorney Sullivan stated that their duties would need to stay separated.
Mayor Chen suggested keeping things the way they have been done as there are more vacancies to be done. He did not want to rush the changes during appointments.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 4
City Council
September 27, 2022
City Attorney Sullivan explained that commissioners can serve up to eight years but must wait two years to reapply for that same commission. They can skip the two years if they are appointed to another commission.
Councilmember Griffiths stated City Attorney Sullivan's recounting was correct and requested that Councilmember Lewis's request be added onto the changes coming back in the cleaned-up item.
Councilmember Lewis asked if a commissioner who termed out and fill in only the remaining term of the commissioner that had left, and then not allowing that same commissioner to serve again.
City Attorney Sullivan stated the City Council could investigate changing that, as sort of a temporary appointment. It would require a separate procedure since there is a time-lapse issue.
Councilmember Lewis asked for and received concurrence from the City Council on her request.
Councilmember Lewis asked if background checks would only be for commissioners working with youth under the age of 18.
City Attorney Sullivan stated that if it's required by law then it may be required for Parks and Recreation Commissioners but clarified that Councilmember Sheikh's request was for an authorization for a background check but not actually do it.
Councilmember Lewis stated that would mean Parks and Recreation commissioners would have background checks by law but everyone else would be at the direction of the City Council.
City Attorney Sullivan stated that for everyone else it would be optional.
Councilmember Mattucci was concerned that it may be cherry picking one applicant versus another. He stated it should be none of them or all of them. He stated simple background checks for those working with children. He stated it should be done for every applicant for that commission.
Councilmember Lewis concurred with Councilmember Mattucci. She stated that live-scan could be an option.
City Manager Chaparyan stated that the background check authorization was post- appointment.
Councilmember Sheikh concurred with City Manager Chaparyan.
Councilmember Lewis asked for clarification on the live-scans.
City Manager Chaparyan stated that working with youth would require those live-scans and he added that whatever compliance is needed then staff would work to enforce that.
Mayor Chen asked for more information on the post-appointment checks.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 5
City Council
September 27, 2022
City Manager Chaparyan replied that it would be asked for compliance to check in advance should there be one requested by City Council post-appointment. He added that those commissions which work with youth then there would be an automatic background check.
Mayor Chen asked why it could not be done first before the appointment.
City Manager Chaparyan stated it was for those commissioners working with youth but not the others as there is a cost consideration.
Councilmember Sheikh stated it was simply to have something on file in case there is a future need as it could be costly to do it beforehand.
Councilmember Mattucci voiced concern that a future councilmember could use this to target individuals. He stated there would need to be probable cause. He reiterated that it needs to be across the board for commissions.
Councilmember Kalani stated the wording of the code and the wording of the application needed to be separated. She stated they could move forward on public portions such as the past criminal history and the signing under penalty.
Councilmember Griffiths reminded the City Council that they had the power to vote out a commissioner with or without a background check.
A member of the public spoke.
Councilmember Sheikh agreed that it could be misused but it was primarily to make sure there is nobody who is problematic on the commissions.
MOTION: Councilmember Kaji moved to continue the item to come back with the recommended changes. Councilmember Mattucci seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
7 . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public spoke .
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
SA. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Recommendation of the City Clerk that City Council approve the City Council minutes of August 31, 2022.
8B. APPROPRIATE FUNDS AND APPROVE SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSUL TING
SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Recommendation of the Community Developn.ient Director that City Council:
1) Appropriate $41,209 to the GRANT 06 Project -Housing Element Update; and 2) Approve a second amendment to the consulting services agreement with CityPlace Planning, Inc. of San Diego, CA (C2021-017) to increase the amount by $21,800 plus a 10% contingency of $19,409 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $213,499 to address items not covered in the original contract amount.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 6
City Council
September 27, 2022
Councilmember Griffiths commented that the state is forcing Torrance to spend money from the general fund. He stated this was unreasonable, but otherwise he was in full support of the item.
MOTION: Councilmember Lewis moved to approve item 8B. Councilmember Sheikh seconded the motion. The motion carried in a vote of 7-0. ac. ACCEPT 2023 SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT
AGREEMENT AND APPROPRIATE AWARD FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY ENFORCEMENT
AND EDUCATION
Recommendation of the Police Chief that City Council:
1) Accept the 2023 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program grant agreement; and 2) Appropriate the award in the amount of $170,000 for traffic safety enforcement, education and supplies; and
3) Authorize the City Manager as the City's signatory for the agreement. 8D. APPROVE REQUEST FOR SUBSIDY FOR TORRANCE-LOMITA MEALS ON WHEELS
APPRECIATION EVENT AT TOYOTA MEETING HALL
Recommendation of the City Manager that City Council approve the request by Mayor Chen for subsidy of rental fees in the amount of $831 for the use of the Toyota Meeting Hall for the Torrance-Lomita Meals on Wheels Appreciation Event on January 19, 2023. 8E. ACCEPT AND FILE INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2022 Recommendation of the City Treasurer that City Council accept and file the Investment Report for the month of July 2022.
8F. APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT FOR AUTOMATED
VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN GATES AT CITY HALL
Recommendation of the General Services Director that City Council approve a first , amendment to the design build agreement with lzurieta Fence Company, Inc. of Los Angeles, CA (C2021-139) in the amount of $2,266 for a new not-to-exceed contract amount of $223,327.64 for construction of the automated vehicle and pedestrian gates at City Hall.
MOTION: Councilmember Lewis moved to approve the Consent Calendar except 8B.
Councilmember Sheikh seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
The City Council took a recess at 8:21 pm. At 8:46 pm, the City Council returned from recess.
Item 1 0A was taken out of order at this time.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 7
City Council
September 27, 2022
10. HEARINGS
1 0A. CONSIDER APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF PRECISE PLAN OF
DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TWO-STORY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT IN THE R-1 ZONE AT 139 VIA ALAMEDA. THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER GUIDELINES SECTION 15303-NEW CONSTRUCTION. PRE22-00006: ESTHER KIM (HWAN KIM)
Recommendation of the Planning Commission that City Council:
1) Deny the appeal; and
2) Adopt a RESOLUTION denying without prejudice a Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence on property located within the Hillside Overlay District in the R-1 Zone at 139 Via Alameda. -OR-
1) Uphold the appeal; and
2) Adopt a RESOLUTION approving a Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence on property located within the Hillside Overlay District in the R-1 Zone at 139 Via Alameda.
Mayor Chen outlined the item and the direction of which the item will head.
At 8:52 pm, Councilmember Sheikh recused himself due to his being on the Planning Commission when this item was before the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Kalani disclosed that she visited the location but would base her decision on the evidence presented during the meeting.
Councilmember Kaji disclosed that he met with the appellant and stated he was familiar with the property.
Councilmember Griffiths disclosed that he visited the property and several nearby properties but spoke to no one.
Councilmember Mattucci disclosed that he visited the property but did not speak to anyone. He stated he would make his decision based on the evidence presented during the hearing.
Mayor Chen disclosed that visited the property and viewed from different angles. He stated he spoke to no one. He stated his decision would be based on evidence presented during the hearing.
Planning and Environmental Manager Oscar Martinez introduced the item to the City Council. He used slides to describe the location and zoning, site plan, elevations, site photos and the recommendation.
Spencer Kallick spoke on behalf of Wong Kim and his wife. He gave a presentation in support of the Kim's home. He stated that the home is code compliant. He noted that this was a tear down of a dilapidated home. He continued using slides to describe the 6 findings that prove that the home does not cause adverse impacts, thus he stated that the Planning Commission should not have denied the project and cited that they did not do their due diligence.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 8
City Council
September 27, 2022
Esther Kim went over the pictures that were included in the presentation supporting the case of Mr. and Mrs. Kim. She showed some of the structures that the previous owners illegally put up. She demonstrated with maps and pictures that the home cannot create adverse impacts.
She used blueprints to show that there have been changes to improve complaints from neighbors.
Joe Buck stated that there was not anything special about the property at 139 Alameda that would merit special privileges to it. He implored the City Council to look at page 24-33 which contains the legal grounds criticizing the appeal. He stated there was no mention of the requirements of the overlay zone and the Torrance Municipal Codes. He admitted there were R1 requirements. He stated they made no mention of the 91412 requirements, the basis of the hillside overlay. He stated replacing the dilapidated home was not the issue, but rather the size of the house does not fit under the hillside overlay. He stated the other homes with multiple stories were not in the hillside overlay but rather the R1 zone. He added that there were 3 exceptions in this block, of which 2 permits were issued prior to 1984-85. He stated that was when emergency code was put in to save the hillside.
Don commented that this was not a R1 zone unrestricted. He stated this was restricted by 941.7 Band C to be one story and no more than 14 feet above grade. He continued that this was why the appellant was asking for a variance. He stated variances were allowed due to remedying defects in a property that prevent the owner from enjoying the same value as their neighbors. He stated this was not to try and flip for profit. He enumerated some of the ways that they could have done what they wanted, such as seeking property in the nearby non-overlay zone. He stated properties in the overlay zone all need to abide by those rules, otherwise they need to be changed for all residents.
Michael Duarte, the resident right behind the project, stated that he values the privacy they have and opposes the project. He stated that the Kim residence can see into their yard and home.
He stated that the Kim family wants a special privilege to approve their project. He stated this violates the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.
Barbara Laird stated that her dining room faces the project. She stated that she can currently enjoy the air, light, privacy, etc. She continued that the project would affect that and that this project would violate the HOO.
Connie Smith, a co-owner of the property adjacent to 139 Via Alameda, was opposed the project. She represented on behalf of her brother who opposes the dimensions of the plan and stated that it contrasts with the neighborhood. She added that the city staff saw the silhouettes affecting the other homes. She continued that mold would be caused and that privacy would be strongly affected. She stated that the illegal addition was a disagreement between the residents and contractors.
A resident was in support of the project and stated that residents were overreacting to the Kim's project and stated that they could use blinds on windows to protect their privacy.
Andrea Canullo, a nearby resident, stated that the trees only provide privacy for a one- story building. She stated the shadows would overcast into the backyard. She opposed the project and stated that this violated the HOO.
Judy Brunetti, with the Riviera Homeowners, stated that she opposed the project. She stated the project owners did not make proper outreach to them and that they have lied about aspects of the process. She stated that the HOO is never enforced properly by the city and that the residents have to come protect it.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 9
City Council
September 27, 2022
George Vinovich reminded the public about the Planning Commission decision to deny the project. He stated the houses in this area are one-story structures and that they should have considered building an underground garage to add square footage.
Tom stated that the project should be denied. He continued that a subterranean level would be a solution.
John Canullo stated that the trees are below high-tension wires and so they require to be brought down and then it takes years to grow back again. He stated this would destroy privacy and open up the backyards.
Lorraine Trevino, who lives in the area, wants the project denied and stated that the project violates the HOO. She continued that the city keeps going past the HOO to approve the project and that the fact that so many are against the project should be taken into consideration.
Patrick Foley, who bought a house in the area but not in the overlay district, stated that if they bought a house in the overlay district then they should abide by the rules and only build one- story.
Mr. Kallick stated that his client has not asked for a special privilege and his client has not applied for a variance. He continued that there is nothing in the findings that is asking to find a hardship or to find a variance. He stated this was about the Planning Commission making the wrong decision from the wrong findings. He reiterated the six findings that should be looking at the RH standards. He stated the findings were made erroneously and so the appeal was done to get it right. He stated city code states that a two-story single-family home in the RH zone is allowed if the proper findings are made. He reiterated that the Kim family has made every effort to reach out to neighbors and staff to make necessary changes.
MOTION: Councilmember Kalani moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Kaji seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0 with Councilmember Sheikh recused.
Councilmember Griffiths asked if properties across the project street on Via Alameda that are not in the hillside area had issues with views or if they were not under consideration.
City Attorney Sullivan stated that traditionally interpretation is that if you do not bear the burdens of the HOO then you do not get the benefits.
Councilmember Griffiths asked about the validity of the statement that two-story buildings were not allowed in the Hillside Overlay District.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez replied that certain findings that must be made in order for a two-story residence to be allowed in the Hillside Overlay District. He stated the process for this is through the Precise Plan of Development, which is a public hearing process.
Councilmember Kaji asked about the center residence at 437 Via La Soledad and requested information on whether it was in the Hillside Overlay District.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that it was in the Hillside Overlay District.
In response to Mayor Chen, Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that the Precise Plan was submitted by the appellant.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 10
City Council
September 27, 2022
Mayor Chen asked if there were any variances applied for to which Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez responded that there has not been, nor has there been any waivers.
Mayor Chen asked if the appellant made any changes to the design or plan after the Planning Commission meeting.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that they made minor modifications to the windows along the north elevation. He further responded that it was a result of the comments that were heard about privacy concerns at the Planning Commission meeting.
In response to Mayor Chen, Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that neighbor, which is directly to the south, were in support of the project.
Councilmember Kalani asked if the appellants purchased the property after the HOO was in place.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez did not have the dates but stated that it was likely that it was purchased much later than the HOO was established.
Councilmember Kalani asked if the two properties that Councilmember Kaji referred to were built before or after the HOO.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that one of the properties was built after the HOO. He stated it was the one on the same side of the street on Via Alameda. He continued that the properties along Via Soledad were constructed prior the HOO.
In response to Councilmember Kalani, Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated the HOO does not have language on the degree of the adverse impacts. He continued that interpretation was that it was about significant adverse impacts.
Councilmember Griffiths asked about the deck on top of the first floor at the back and if there were any mitigations of privacy concerns with concern to it.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that it was self-contained in order to preserve privacy of neighbors.
In response to Councilmember Griffiths, Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that staff takes into account existing conditions such as the vegetation with regard to privacy concerns. He continued that staff screened it considering the vegetation and there was no visibility into the yard.
Councilmember Griffiths stated that vegetation could die or be cut down and Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez concurred. He further stated that with vegetation loss there could be privacy concerns.
Councilmember Lewis asked who made the determination of significant adverse impact for this project.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that it is the judgment of staff. There are photos, site assessments, etc. and determine those aspects.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 11
City Council
September 27, 2022
City Attorney Sullivan stated that final decision is for the Planning Commission or the City Council after staff findings happen.
Councilmember Mattucci reviewed the code and stated that it was technically allowed to go higher than 14 feet. He stated that he has concerns with the height but that it seemed to be below the maximum height. He asked what the maximum height was.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez replied that maximum height for a two- story residence was 27 feet. He stated this project was a little bit over 23 feet.
Councilmember Mattucci stated that the ordinance should be less vague and that he does not see enough evidence either way how it is affecting the neighbors. He stated vegetation coming down could affect the privacy. He added that the applicant seemed to be within the rights to build their project.
Council member Lewis asked if there were opportunities to table this so the architect could hear concerns and resubmit the project with changes.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez responded that has happened in the past.
He stated it may work to ask the applicant to do that.
Mayor Chen stated that the appellants did a good job meeting the requirements of the HOO. He asked if there were variances or waivers requested.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated there were no variances or waivers applied for in the Hillside Overlay District or the R1 zone.
Councilmember Kaji commented that in his time living there the property was a topic of discussion due to the dilapidation. He stated that there were two-story homes in the overlay district. He stated that the applicant did not seem to exceed any of the requirements of the HOO and that they should vote on it tonight.
Councilmember Griffiths stated that he opposes the project because of the vegetation issue and the height issue. He stated that the reduction of the height from the flat roof to the slope but that the height remain unchanged. He stated once the building is built there is nothing they can do to go back and fix things.
Councilmember Lewis clarified that she would not want to deny this without the chance to compromise and concurred with Councilmember Griffiths' concern about the resident in the west due to the vegetation issue.
Councilmember Griffiths asked if the item could come back with a revision if this project were to be denied.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that if it were denied without prejudice then the proponents could submit a revised plan and essentially start over the process.
Council member Kaji asked if the applicant came back, would they incur additional fees to restart it.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez replied that if it was a continuance then there would be no additional fees but if the project were denied and the applicant applied again then they would be subject to all of the development fees.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 12
City Council
September 27, 2022
MOTION: Councilmember Lewis moved to reopen the public hearing. Councilmember Kalani seconded the motion. The motion carried in a vote of 6-0 with Councilmember Sheikh recused.
Mr. Kallick stated that, regarding the vegetation, they have committed to maintaining the existing landscape in connection with the house going forward. He stated this was in the condition of the precise plan. He continued that the balcony concern should be mitigated because the balcony was set back 50 feet from the property line. He stated his client is required to maintain the landscape as part of the precise plan.
Mayor Chen asked if it was written as a condition of approval of the precise plan to have the vegetation be maintained since it is on the appellant's property.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that staff advises against conditioning any vegetation conditions on these projects. He stated there was significant vegetation on the applicant's property per the plans.
Mayor Chen asked if there were any ways to mitigate concerns of privacy short of vegetation.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez replied that privacy concerns are addressed by having higher sill heights from bedrooms or bathrooms. He added that solid railing if there is a balcony to prevent direct line of sight. He included obscure glass windows in the building.
Councilmember Mattucci asked if the Ficus trees were on the property of 400 Via La Soledad.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that it appears that they are but that the survey in the project plans indicate that part of the fence is on the applicant's property.
Mr. Kallick stated that most of the vegetation including the Ficus trees were on the applicant's property. He stated this was in the survey.
Councilmember Mattucci stated that they cannot condition plants .
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that staff advises against vegetation conditions in these types of projects.
Councilmember Mattucci asked, since it cannot be a plant, if a condition could be placed on some type of fencing. He also asked if it could go 8 feet on a sidewall. He stated the concern is a possible future owner tearing out the hedging.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez replied that the height limit for fences or walls is 6 feet with fence height exception approved by the Community Development Director which can go up to 8 feet along the rear and side property lines as long as it is not within the front 40 feet of the property.
Councilmember Mattucci stated that the lower portion can be cinderblock but that the top 2 feet must be vinyl or wood.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 13
City Council
September 27, 2022
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez corrected that it could be all cinderblock but that anything higher than 6 feet would require going through engineering in order to submit to Building and Safety.
Councilmember Mattucci stated that they should mitigate privacy concerns but that it was difficult in an urban setting. He stated if they could put a speculation in the approval that it requires an engineered wall covering.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated they could draft a condition of approval for that. He added that they could increase the height of railing on the balcony, which can go up to 5 feet and be of solid covering.
Councilmember Mattucci understood that the balcony was not overlooking .
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that the balcony was set back 57 feet from the adjacent structure to the rear. From the property line, it is 27 feet.
Councilmember Mattucci asked if it would still require engineering if a lightweight material was used.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated they would still need engineering and clarified that it was about 40 feet to the property line for the balcony.
Councilmember Mattucci asked the appellant raising the wall with a covering up to the maximum allowed and provide engineering.
Mr. Kallick stated that they would accept the condition to make it eight feet tall.
Councilmember Lewis asked if the appellant controls the back wall where there is cinderblock.
City Attorney Sullivan stated staff would need to investigate, as when the properties were built they did not require surveys.
Mr. Kallick stated that the wall was before the property line. He added that there was a wall, then more of the neighbor's property and then the property line. He stated the neighbors may think that their property line is where that wall is currently.
Councilmember Lewis asked if it was correct to state that there was nothing stopping the homeowners from demolishing the wall either now or in future if the house were sold.
Mr. Kallick stated there were no plans to do that but would accept a condition to maintain the eight-foot wall. He continued that they applied for the precise plan development for the entirety of the site, which includes that wall. He stated they would need to come back with a modification to the precise plan if his client or another homeowner decided to demolish the wall.
Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez confirmed that they would indeed need to come back and amend that condition if the City Council wanted that to be a condition of approval.
Councilmember Kalani asked how tall the wall would be if they were standing on their porch .
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 14
City Council
September 27, 2022
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that they did not have elevation points at the adjacent property but that on the property there was not a great difference. He asked if the proposed fence location would be at the top of the slope or along the rear property line.
Councilmember Mattucci responded that if it were the maximum allowed feet on the existing taller wall closer to the appellant's property. He stated building up the bigger wall with the hedging on both sides. He continued that it would allow covering in the event of dying or destruction of the vegetation. He wanted this part of the condition of approval.
Councilmember Griffiths stated that he did not go to the backyards of the properties at 404 Via La Soledad and so he supported a continuation for that purpose. He brought up the ridgeline elevations and the roof ridge elevation, which was about 6-foot increase in height on the ridgeline.
He asked they considered losing some of the vaulted ceiling to the flat roof at the 316 elevation.
Mr. Kallick stated that this choice was determined from consulting all perspectives and codes from the city to the residents. He reiterated some of the other areas that they have listened and ameliorated.
Councilmember Kalani stated that she was not in support of the project in the way it has been presented.
Mayor Chen suggested bringing it back later to better gauge the decisions of the City Council and stated there would not be another expense for another hearing.
Councilmember Mattucci stated he would support the project if there were an eight-foot barrier. He stated there is give and take when privacy is involved, that punishing homeowners simply for wanting two-stories was too extreme.
Councilmember Lewis concurred with Mayor Chen in terms of asking the appellant and residents to make rash decisions based on not enough diligence. She stated that everyone met the requirements of the building code as it stands, but that she was on the fence would support continuing the item.
Mr. Kallick requested specific guidance on what to work with staff on and a date specific for a return.
Community Development Director Ramirez enumerated the concerns. One was the block wall, one was the balcony and potentially increasing the height of one of the walls and the third concern was bringing the height of the vaulted ceiling down. She stated the date certain would be for October 25, 2022.
MOTION: Councilmember Griffiths moved to continue the public hearing to a date certain of October 25, 2022, with the three areas of concern to be investigated which were the wall, the balcony and the overall project height with the vaulted ceilings. Councilmember Lewis seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0 with Councilmember Sheikh recused.
The City Council took a recess at 11 :09pm. The City Council returned from recess at 11 :20pm. Councilmember Sheikh also returned to the City Council chambers at 11 :20pm.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 15
City Council
September 27, 2022
9. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
9A. APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR PROPOSITION C 40%
DISCRETIONARY FUNDS
Recommendation of the Transit Director that City Council approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for Proposition C 40% Discretionary funds for a ten-year period beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2032.
Transit Administration Manager James Lee introduced the item and read the description to the City Council.
In response to Councilmember Sheikh, Transit Administration Manager Lee responded the $2.5M annually would be used to supplement the operating and capital needs. He further responded it was predominantly operating and some capital.
A member of the public spoke.
MOTION: Councilmember Lewis moved to approve item 9A. Councilmember Kalani seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0. 9B . AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OF FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION GRANT APPLICATION AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS
Recommendation of the Transit Director that City Council:
1) Authorize the submission and execution of the Transit Department's Fiscal Year 2021-22 Federal Transit Administration, Urbanized Formula (Section 5307) grant application in the amount of $4,116,783; and
2) Appropriate $4,116,783 for purchase of replacement bus, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, fare box upgrades, and facility remodel.
Transit Administration Manager Lee introduced the item and read the description to the City Council.
Councilmember Griffiths commented on the investments made with taxpayer money due to state mandates. He stated this was extremely expensive and that he was not supportive of this type of policy mandated from the state.
Transit Administration Manager Lee replied that the full mandate would take effect in 2029 when there will be no choice but to buy electric vehicles, so Transit is gradually buying them.
Transit Director Kim Turner added that all the money from state or federal is only designated for electric vehicles. She stated it was gradual in order for infrastructure improvements and training of staff.
Councilmember Lewis acknowledged Councilmember Griffiths comment but stated that getting the federal funds was positive for the betterment of the mobility of the community.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 16
City Council
September 27, 2022
In response to Councilmember Sheikh's concern regarding the current power grid, Transit Administration Manager Lee stated staff was investigating. He continued that a solar collective unit was being used on the supervisor and security vehicles. He stated that the grid would take extensive work and they were discussing with Southern California Edison and other agencies on how to move forward.
In response to Councilmember Mattucci's question if the City would be exempt from the state's request not to charge electric vehicles, Transit Administration Manager Lee responded he would research. Transit Director Turner interjected that other agencies continued to charge so Transit were likely exempt.
In response to Councilmember Mattucci's concern of a fully electric fleet, Transit Director Turner responded they were investigating Antelope Valley's 100% electric fleet. She stated they would look at getting vehicles that can go the furthest.
In response to Councilmember Mattucci question if the City could put the electric bus purchases on hold, Transit Director Turner stated the funding available was only for electric, staff felt it was prudent to take advantage to gradually purchase new buses.
Transit Director Turner stated the SCE Coalition and other agencies would provide feedback to assist the City of Torrance with the location of the charging stations.
Councilmember Mattucci stated CNG was a cleaner technology and that the current push from the state was overly zealous given the strains on the power grid. He stated that this item should include fixing the power grid.
In response to Councilmember Griffiths question on length of time to fill a CNG bus when empty versus how long it took to charge an electric bus, Transit Administration Manager Lee stated approximately 9-12 minutes to fill a CNG bus and approximately 5 to 6 hours to charge an electric bus.
Councilmember Griffiths asked how much mileage a typical bus would drive in a day to which Transit Administration Manager Lee stated it was 300 plus miles.
Councilmember Griffiths commented that it would be inefficient for buses to sit around for hours to recharge. He questioned how heavy the electric buses would be and what the maintenance and operating costs be to which Transit Director Turner responded they would be investigating that.
In response to Councilmember Lewis question about cost-matched grants, Transit Administration Manager Lee responded they used total credits for the match. He elaborated that Transit Department operates on the 1-110 corridor; therefore, they can utilize toll credits.
Members of the public spoke.
MOTION: Councilmember Lewis moved to concur with the recommendation of the Transit Director. Councilmember Sheikh seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-2 with Councilmembers Griffiths and Mattucci voting no.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 17
City Council
September 27, 2022
9C. APPROVE MEASURE R TRANSIT INVESTMENT FUNDING AGREEMENTS AND
APPROPRIATE FUNDS
Recommendation of the Transit Director that City Council:
1) Approve Measure R Transit Investment Funding Agreement with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and appropriate $35,000,000 to Facility, Equipment, and Automation Plan (FEAP 764) for the Construction of a Multi-Level Parking Structure at the Mary K. Giordano Regional Transit Center; and 2) Approve Measure R Transit Investment Funding Agreement with Metro and appropriate $20,000,000 to a newly created FEAP for the purchase of twenty (20) Alternative-Fuel buses; and
3) Approve Measure R Transit Investment Funding Agreement with Metro and appropriate $4,500,000 to a newly created FEAP for the purchase of six (6) All-Electric, Rubber Wheel Trolleys.
Transit Administration Manager Lee introduced and read the description to the City Council.
Councilmember Sheikh asked if this was a replacement of 20 buses or 20 additional buses.
Transit Administration Manager Lee replied that it was a combination of both. He elaborated that under Federal Transit Administration guidelines, a bus has a mandated operating life of 12 years. He stated Transit Department has a fleet that was purchased in 2007, 2011, 2012, and 2015 and thus are needing to be replaced soon. He stated this was also for expansion services and the Regional Transit Center.
Councilmember Sheikh asked if this many buses were needed.
Transit Administration Manager Lee stated that they were. He continued that staff conducted research that determined to expand mobility in the region they would need to expand the fleet.
Council member Sheikh asked if this was a combination of both CNG and electric.
Transit Administration Manager Lee stated that it was.
A member of the public spoke.
MOTION: Councilmember Kalani moved to concur with the recommendation of the Transit Director. Councilmember Kaji seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0. 9D. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE ORDER FOR COOPERATIVE PURCHASE OF FOUR (4)
AMBULANCES
Recommendation of the General Services Director and Interim Fire Chief that City Council authorize a purchase order with Republic EVS of Santa Fe Springs, CA for an amount not- to-exceed $1,496,439.88 (including sales tax) for four (4) 2023 Ford F-450 gas chassis with Medix Type I ME-153 ambulance bodies.
General Services Jason Botiller presented the item to the City Council and stated this item would provide fire fighters greater flexibility in the field.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 18
City Council
September 27, 2022
Members of the public spoke .
MOTION: Councilmember Mattucci moved to concur with the recommendation of the General Services Director and the interim Fire Chief. Councilmember Sheikh seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
9E. AWARD CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT TO FURNISH ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR TORRANCE PORT LOGISTICS PROJECT Recommendation of the Community Development Director that City Council award a consulting services agreement to Aspen Environmental Group of Agoura Hills, CA (RFP B2022-27) for an amount not-to-exceed $163,667 to furnish an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Torrance Port Logistics Project, for a two-year period beginning October 1, 2022 and ending September 30, 2024.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez introduced the item to the City Council.
He read the history of the item and reviewed the recent events. He explained how staff came to their recommendations.
Councilmember Lewis stated that she would be abstaining due to her employment even though this was not her area of responsibility, nor did she have a financial interest in this item.
In response to Councilmember Sheikh's question on the project, Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez responded they had a proposed development at that location for a warehouse. He continued in order to continue the project it would require the environmental impact report. He further responded that it would be analyze the environmental impacts of a proposed 350K square foot on this property, specifically for warehouse and office usage. He stated the entire project would be brought to the Planning Commission and the City Council upon appeal at a later date.
Councilmember Sheikh asked if the report came out negative then anything could be built and not just warehouses.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated this was just analyzing for the warehouses. He stated it would have to analyze alternatives as part of the report but that this is specifically for this site as a warehouse facility.
In response to Councilmember Sheikh, Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez responded it was Torrance Black Beauty and Prologis, the project proponents.
Councilmember Kaji asked what the current zoning of the 31 acres and what the potential development fees might be. Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez responded it was zoned M2 in heavy manufacturing. He stated he could come back with estimated fees for the project.
A member of the public spoke.
Mayor Chen stated this was not taxpayer money being used, the proponents were funding it.
MOTION: Councilmember Griffiths moved to concur with staff recommendation.
Councilmember Mattucci seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0 with Councilmember Lewis abstaining.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 19
City Council
September 27, 2022
9F . ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY OF TORRANCE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE AND REPEAL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-111
Recommendation of the City Clerk that City Council adopt a RESOLUTION amending the City of Torrance Conflict of Interest Code and repeal Resolution No. 2020-111.
City Clerk Poirier read out the item and description to the City Council.
City Clerk Poirier read the number and title for Resolution No. 2022-98 A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY'S
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE, WHICH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THE FAIR
POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION'S STANDARD MODEL CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2020-111.
MOTION: Councilmember Lewis moved to adopt the Resolution No. 2022-98.
Councilmember Sheikh seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0. 9G . ADOPT RESOLUTION TERMINATING AGREEMENTS FOR REAL PROPERTY AT 23805 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that City Council adopt a RESOLUTION terminating the 1973 Covenant and Agreement by and between Thomas K. Fitzpatrick, Sylvia F. Fitzpatrick, Victoria Station, Incorporated and the City of Torrance for Real Property at 23805 Hawthorne Boulevard.
Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez presented the item to the City Council. He read the history of the item and reviewed the recent events. He explained how staff came to their recommendations.
In response to Councilmember Mattucci, Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez stated that it does require recordation since it was a recorded covenant. It must be formally adopted by the City Council and recorded.
Councilmember Mattucci questioned if this was being done by an escrow company and if so who. Planning and Environmental Manager Martinez replied that it was all by the current ownership and their legal representation would be filing documents with the County Clerk's office.
City Clerk Poirier read the number and title for Resolution No. 2022-99 A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, TERMINATING CERTAIN AGREEMENTS AND COVENANTS RELATED TO 23805 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD.
MOTION: Councilmember Mattucci moved to adopt Resolution No. 2022-99 .
Councilmember Sheikh seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 20
City Council
September 27, 2022
9H. ACCEPT AND FILE STATUS REPORT ON COYOTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CITY-
WIDE COYOTE TRAPPING SERVICES
Recommendation of the Community Services Director that City Council:
1) Accept and file a status report on the City's Coyote Management Plan; and 2) Provide Direction on Coyote Trapping Services for the next interval period; and 3) Approve first amendment to the contract services agreement with Coyotes, Wildlife and Pest Solutions, Inc. of Anaheim, CA (C2022-069) in the amount of $79,200 for a new not-to-exceed contract amount of $134,400 and to extend the term for one year through October 7, 2023; and
4) Appropriate $9,200 to the Community Services Coyote Management program expenditure budget.
Community Services Department Administrative Analyst Shane Lee presented the item to the City Council. He enumerated the recent actions taken by staff.
Councilmember Griffiths advocated for option three as increasing to seven days a week for $24K would not result in a significant increase in trappings and that the current amount was sufficient.
In response to Councilmember Sheikh, Community Services Director John La Rock responded the hotspots are the westernmost edge of Torrance adjoining Redondo Beach and Wilderness Park as well as the southern border with Rancho Palos Verdes and the hillside. He further responded there were 5 trapping locations, but the exact number of traps varies based on expertise of the trapping service.
Councilmember Sheikh questioned if other cities have joined since the program started .
Community Services Director Rock responded Rancho Palos Verdes is a partner city and other cities are considering program modifications beyond education. He stated staff is continuing to pursue this at the SBCCOG.
In response to Councilmember Sheikh's question regarding cost of collecting and replacing traps, Community Services Director Rock stated by law they must visit the traps once per day so staff footprint would remain the same.
Community Services Director John La Rock stated Option 1 was the $20,000 difference.
He elaborated the funding was available in the Community Services budget due to existing savings.
In response to Councilmember Sheikh, Community Services Director Rock responded the initial desire was to do seven day a week trapping but due to COVID-19, the vendor was not able to provide it at that time. He added they are now able to staff seven days and that is why it was included.
.
Community Services Director Rock responded to Councilmember Sheikh that Outreach is increasing since COVID-19 restrictions have eased with group outreach. He stated group education sessions were being scheduled.
Councilmember Sheikh stated he was in support of the program .
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 21
City Council
September 27, 2022
Councilmember Lewis questioned if doing Option 1 as cost sharing with other communities under the same RFP. Community Services Director Rock responded the only other city in the region trapping was Rancho Palos Verdes, and they were doing on it a targeted basis with the county. He stated that they made trappers available to residents but stated it was not recommended.
Councilmember Mattucci supported seven days a week and 52 weeks per year trapping.
He stated this was a public safety issue and was in support of Option 1. He stated to advocate for other cities to do their part. He added a review of the program should be done after one year.
A member of the public spoke.
MOTION: Councilmember Mattucci moved to accept and file, go with option one and concur with staff recommendation. Councilmember Lewis seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
91. CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR PERMANENT OUTDOOR DINING AND ACTIVITY PROGRAM AND CONSIDER EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY COVID-19 RELATED LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS. THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER GUIDELINES SECTION 15304 -MINOR ALTERATIONS TO LAND Recommendation of the City Manager and Community Development Director that City Council:
1) Adopt a RESOLUTION to ratify Public Order No. 2022-02 pertaining to COVI D-19 related land use entitlements; and
2) Provide direction on a potential Permanent Outdoor Dining and Activity Program.
Planning Manager Gregg Lodan presented the item to the City Council. He reviewed the history and actions taken by staff regarding permanent outdoor dining and activities. He described some of the structures in discussion and how other cities have fared with them . He enumerated staff concerns and how to go about implementing permanent solutions, if more expensive. He listed some of the code requirements for the program.
Councilmember Griffiths was concerned about cleaning and getting the areas up to standard for residents rather than just a few companies. He was supportive of the ideas moving forward and that there should be a fee associated with providing additional space, especially on city property. He stated downtown revitalization was better to look at as a whole. He stated enforcement of parking restrictions needs to increase.
Councilmember Kalani concurred with Councilmember Griffiths . She stated fixing the parking issues was paramount as well as caring for the parklets that are being abandoned.
In response to Councilmember Sheikh, Planning Manager Lodan stated 150 were on the original list. He stated it has been reduced based on outreach. He further stated they researched some complaints and stated they were about blockage of public right of way, appearance of parklets and parking issues.
Councilmember Sheikh stated that the fee structure that others are charging would likely not be enough to maintain the parklets and streets . He questioned if there were enough resources.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 22
City Council
September 27, 2022
Assistant City Manager Danny Santana interjected that these would be application fees to secure the approval to have the parklet and would not be the complete construction. He added the cost of construction would be on the applicant subject to the same standards as the city when a sidewalk is constructed. He stated if the business goes away then the sidewalk would be left meeting all standards. He stated leveraging deposit bonds, which accrue interest, should City Council desire to remove that additional sidewalk area.
In response to Councilmember Sheikh, Assistant City Manager Santana responded the business is responsible when they are in control of the area. He stated if they were not then staff would follow up with the business. He added that if it were an agreement between the city and the business for operation of permanent outdoor dining then it would be the obligation of the business.
Councilmember Kaji stated this was a good temporary fix but that these parklets look bad.
He stated there does not seem to be a reason to keep them around. He stated these could be safety issues with cars.
Councilmember Mattucci echoed the concern about safety and cars driving fast near the area. He stated standards need to be in place. He stated there should be differentiation between public and private lands . He stated the aesthetics are reduced with the parklets. He stated that fees should be reasonable as to not scare away business. He added that this could be a good opportunity for revenue to the city.
Councilmember Griffiths stated outdoor dining is now enjoyed by people and businesses but that it needs to be more thought out, so the aesthetics does not detract from the city look. He suggested a secondary survey of the businesses that responded with interest. He stated it should include questions on how many drop out at certain levels of fees. He stated it should be done in a more permanent way.
Councitmember Lewis concurred with Councilmember Griffiths and added that there should be more thought of how downtown should look like. She acknowledged the benefits of outdoor dining but stated that the residents' impact has not been considered enough in this discussion.
Planning Manager Lodan responded to Councilmember Sheikh it tends to be busier evenings and weekends.
Councilmember Sheikh stated this should not be a permanent solution as it could result in accidents and noted that this could affect residents negatively.
A member of the public spoke.
In response to Councilmember Griffiths question on the termination date of January 31, 2023, City Manager Chaparyan responded it was consistent with the prior extension.
Planning Manager Lodan elaborated it was for a demarcation that would get restaurants through the end of this year.
Community Development Director Ramirez interjected it would give businesses time to wind down and bring items inside if the City Council did not move forward.
City Manager Chaparyan added it was also to bring permanent programs if desired.
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 23
City Council
September 27, 2022
Assistant City Manager Santana interjected this item allows the City Council to extend if desired, and requests direction on standards the City Council would prefer.
Mayor Chen stated it may be better on a case-by-case basis.
Community Development Director Ramirez stated if the City Council did not proceed with a permanent solution, then staff would work with anybody who still had any type of apparatus on their property and work with them to be remove it. She continued that it would become a code enforcement case with the Environmental Quality Officers working with them.
In response to Mayor Chen, Community Development Director Ramirez stated they would have to take it down.
Assistant City Manager Santana interjected they could pursue other alternatives for outdoor dining in more permanent solutions, not emergency orders.
Councilmember Griffiths reiterated standards should be required and he would prefer to have a solution made within 60 days to return downtown back. He stated exceptions could be made for those with significant interest and possibly have them make a deposit.
Councilmember Kalani concurred with a case-by-case basis and possibly requiring concurrence with the business' neighbors and neighbor businesses considering parking issues.
She stated even if it is on their property there should still be guidelines for aesthetics.
MOTION: Councilmember Griffiths moved to adopt Resolution No. 2022-100 but changing the expiration to November 30, 2022 and give maximum notice. He added to re-poll interested parties with best guesses to fee structure, such as a rental fee using other cities fees for a median, to the motion, as well as bringing the item back for further direction after the survey.
City Attorney Sullivan asked about the time frame for the COVI D-19 test sites .
Councilmember Griffiths stated it should be the same time frame at the end of November.
Councilmember Mattucci requested an amendment to the motion that if a business is interested and willing to pay all the fees and gathering architects then they should have an extension.
Councilmember Griffiths accepted the amendment.
Councilmember Mattucci seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0 .
City Clerk Poirier read the number and title for Resolution No. 2022-100 A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE CALIFORNIA RATIFYING PUBLIC ORDER NUMBER 2022-02 THAT RELATED TO COVID-19 LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS, AS AMENDED.
MOTION: Councilmember Griffiths moved to adopt Resolution No. 2022-100 .
Councilmember Mattucci seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
10. HEARINGS
Considered earlier on pages 8-16 .
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 24
City Council
September 27, 2022
11. AGENCY AGENDAS -None Scheduled .
12. SECOND READING ORDINANCES-None Scheduled.
13. CITY COUNCIL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the pubic spoke.
Councilmembers Kaji, Kalani, Lewis, Mattucci, Sheikh, Griffiths, and Mayor Chen spoke .
Councilmember Sheikh stated he was working with City Manager Chaparyan to accept comments from the public via phone calls during oral communications.
Councilmember Griffiths received concurrence from the City Council to have an agenda item to discuss having City Council and commissions have joint meetings periodically.
14. CLOSED SESSION
Considered earlier, see page 1.
15. ADJOURNMENT
At 1 :05 a.m., the City Council adjourned to Tuesday, October 11, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. for closed session, with regular business commencing at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Tuesday, October 4, 2022, is a Council Dark Night.
MOTION: Councilmember Lewis moved to adjourn the City Council meeting .
Councilmember Kalani seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
R ecca Poirier
Ctty ClerkoHhe City of Torrance
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 25
Approved on October 25, 2022
City Council
September 27, 2022