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

APRIL 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 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-16

NEXT ORDINANCE NO. 356

CEREMONIAL MATTER:

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title.

Recommendation: 1. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-_____, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 AND ORDERING THE ENGINEER TO PREPARE A REPORT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
2. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-____, APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001.
3. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-____, DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO.

Recommendation: Authorize staff to issue the Request For Proposal (RFP) to interested public accounting firms for services associated with the audit of the financial statements of the City.

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: Continue the public hearing to May 2, 2000 to discuss the proposed demonstration plan.

Recommendation: Introduce ORDINANCE NO. ___, A CITY INITIATED PROPOSAL, TO AMEND SECTION 17.86.050.A (ENFORCEMENT) OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE FILING OR PROCESSING OF A VIEW RESTORATION, VIEW PRESERVATION, CITY TREE REVIEW OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT OR USE APPLICATIONS BY A PROPERTY OWNER OF A LOT THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE.

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: Review and adopt amendments to the existing City Council Policy No. 31 regarding Encroachments into the Public right-of-way to include a simplified, staff level permitting process to address certain structures built within the City’s public rights-of-way that do not present any hazards for pedestrians, equestrians, and traffic, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and change Section I of City Council Policy No. 31 from "Fences and Walls in the right-of-way" to "Fences, Walls, Pilasters and Other Similar Structures in the right-of-way."

Recommendation: Discuss potential ramifications of this legislation and provide staff with direction on what, if any, actions to be taken.

Recommendation: Consider adoption of Resol. No. 2000- IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO’S EFFORTS TO CAUSE LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS TO CEASE ITS PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF APPROVING PROJECTS THAT EXPAND THE CAPACITY AND/OR OPERATIONS OF THE AIRPORT WITHOUT ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

Recommendation: Select a date for the fall Community Leaders’ Breakfast meeting.

Recommendation: Approve the amendment.

Recommendation: Councilman McTaggart would like the City Council to consider co-sponsoring the Interfaith Walk by agreeing to the following: 1. Closing portions of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge Road between St. John Fisher and Congregation Ner Tamid during the walk; 2. Coordinating the services of the Sheriff's Department for traffic control during the event; 3. Coordinating a parking plan and providing shuttle service for walk participants; 4. Providing appropriate notices to any residents who may be impacted by the walk; and 5. Offsetting any cost of Sheriff's Department service and/or shuttle service to a maximum of $2,000.

ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section of the agenda is for 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.

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5

(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)

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 based on

OR

__X_E. A statement made by Robert Zuckerman on 3/31/2000

(Name of Person)

outside an open meeting of City/Agency regarding

The Ocean Trails Project

(State Nature of specific Matter)

And a record of the statement was made:

_X__ by Les Evans, City Manager

(Name of official or employee)

prior to the meeting and is available for public

inspection in the City Clerk’s office.

Recommendation:

Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title.

Recommendation:

1. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-_____, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 AND ORDERING THE ENGINEER TO PREPARE A REPORT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
2. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-____, APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001.
3. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-____, DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:APRIL 18, 2000

SUBJECT:CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT

Staff Coordinator: Judy Huey, Senior Administrative Analyst

That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2000-____, initiating proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for fiscal year 2000-2001 and ordering the engineer to prepare a report in connection therewith.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2000-____, approving the engineer’s report in connection with the levy and collection of assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for fiscal year 2000-2001.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2000-____, declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collect assessments within the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for fiscal year 2000-2001 and setting a time and place for hearing objections thereto.

In 1992, the City Council formed an assessment district designated "Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District" (the "Citywide District") pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq.) (the "1972 Act"). The purpose of forming the district was to insure adequate funding for the ongoing construction, operation, maintenance, median landscaping, trails, street trees, street lighting, and traffic signals. The Citywide District includes all of the assessable parcels in the City.

The district is funded through assessments on properties citywide. Each parcel is assessed an amount, which is based on the benefit the parcel receives from district operation. The City assures a fair and equitable sharing of district costs by conducting

an annual review of district operations, wherein the current year’s expenses are reviewed, the ensuing year’s expenses are budgeted, and assessments are determined.

The 1972 Act requires that proceedings be undertaken on an annual basis for any year during which assessments will be levied and collected. The 1972 Act also requires preparation of an engineer’s report in connection with the annual levy of assessments. The City Council may approve the report as filed, or it may modify the report and approve it as modified. After approval of the report, the City Council may adopt a Resolution of Intention, which sets a public hearing on the proposed levy of assessments for the ensuing fiscal year.

The district engineer, Harris & Associates, reviewed the proposed district budget, and filed with the City Clerk an engineer’s report which includes:

1. An estimate of the costs of operation, maintenance and servicing for fiscal year 2000-2001 (including incidental expenses).
2. A diagram for the assessment district.
3. An assessment of the estimated costs of operation, maintenance and servicing for fiscal year 2000-2001.

There are no increases in the assessments proposed for fiscal year 2000-2001, therefore the City may provide notice of the pubic hearing by publishing the Resolution of Intention one time at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. Resolution 2000-____ sets the Public Hearing for May 16, 2000.

For fiscal year 2000-2001 the estimate of total District expense, including Overhead and Administration, is $441,342. The total proposed assessment of $327,795 will fund most of these expenditures. Approximately $53,242 of accumulated reserves and $60,305 of Gas Tax funds will be used to cover district expenditures in excess of the annual assessment. The estimated Gas Tax fund balance at June 30, 2000 is $618,861.

The engineer’s report classified areas within the City into various zones which, by reason of variations in the nature, location and extent of the proposed maintenance

activities and improvements, receive differing degrees of benefit from the operation of

the district. Depending on which zone a parcel is in, the proposed assessment for a parcel with a single family home ranges from $8.23 to $46.05, and most parcels will receive an assessment of approximately $20.00 for fiscal year 2000-2001. In all seven zones within the City the proposed assessments for fiscal year 2000-2001 are the same as the assessments levied in fiscal year 1999-2000.

In order to levy assessments the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires the City Council to approve an engineer’s report and conduct a public hearing. Adopting staff recommendations will approve the engineer’s report and establish a date for the public hearing.

Direct staff to modify the engineer’s report and bring this matter back to Council.

The full cost of this program is borne by the property owners within the Citywide District. Depending on which zone a parcel is in, the proposed assessment for a parcel with a single family home ranges from $8.23 to $46.05 for fiscal year 2000-2001. In all seven zones throughout the City, the proposed assessments for fiscal year 2000-2001 are the same as the assessments levied in fiscal year 1999-2000.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Engineer’s Report for FY 2000-2001

Resolutions 2000-__, 2000-__, 2000-__

Recommendation:

Authorize staff to issue the Request For Proposal (RFP) to interested public accounting firms for services associated with the audit of the financial statements of the City.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: APRIL 18, 2000

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL – AUDIT SERVICES

Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager

Authorize staff to issue the Request For Proposal (RFP) to interested public accounting firms for services associated with the audit of the financial statements of the City.

The City and its component units (Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority) are required by state law to undergo an annual audit of their financial statements. The audit must be conducted by independent certified public accountants in accordance with both generally accepted auditing standards as well as standards established by federal and state agencies. The City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is prepared annually with the assistance of the auditor.

The certified public accounting firm of Diehl, Evans and Company LLP has performed the City’s annual audit each of the last seven years, beginning with the fiscal year ended June 30, 1993. The total cost of audit services for FY 1998-99 was $18,500. This total includes charges associated with the audit and report preparation for the City, Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority. An additional $4,000 was included in the budget for the Single Audit of Federal Financial Assistance, however the City did not meet the minimum threshold which would require a Single Audit. Therefore, no Single Audit was performed in FY 1998-99.

While Diehl, Evans and Company’s performance has been satisfactory, it is prudent to change auditors periodically. Although universal audit standards exist, each auditor has a slightly different approach and varied experience conducting audit procedures.

The attached RFP follows the model provided by the California Municipal Finance Officers Association and has been used by several local cities during their auditor selection process. With the concurrence of the City Council, the RFP will be sent to certified public accounting firms serving Southern California. Upon your review of the RFP, you will note that governmental auditing experience is a requirement.

Staff expects the bids received from prospective auditors will be consistent with the audit fees incurred in FY 1998-99. However, the forthcoming requirement for the implementation of GASB 34 will drastically change the presentation of the financial information included in the CAFR of the City. It is expected that GASB 34 will require additional work for both the auditor and City staff.

The responses to the information requested in the RFP, in conjunction with the bid amounts, will be used to determine the firms that appear to best suit the City’s needs. Based on these responses, City staff will conduct interviews with several of the top firms prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. Staff expects to bring a recommendation to the City Council at its June 6th meeting.

There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation.

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.

Recommendation:

Continue the public hearing to May 2, 2000 to discuss the proposed demonstration plan.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 18, 2000

SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 182 REVISION "A", SIGN PERMIT NO. 720 REVISION "B", AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 716 (APPLICANT: MR. WILLIAM MYERS; APPELLANT: MR. BENJAMIN PETERSON)

RECOMMENDATION

Continue the public hearing to May 2, 2000 to discuss the proposed demonstration plan.

On April 4, 2000, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to review the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action of approving Conditional Use Permit No. 182 Revision "B", and Sign Permit No. 720 Revision "A", and Environmental Assessment No. 720 to allow a hand car wash/detailing operation at the existing Mobil Service Station. In reviewing the proposed project, the Council directed the applicant to coordinate with Staff to set-up an on-site demonstration of the proposed project to address concerns raised during the public testimony, and return to the April 18, 2000 meeting to discuss the proposed demonstration plan and meeting date.

Staff is currently working with a Noise Consultant and the City’s Traffic Engineer to coordinate a date for the on-site demonstration. Staff intends to meet with: 1) the appellant, Mr. Peterson; 2) the abutting neighbors; and 3) the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Myers, within the next couple of weeks to discuss the details of the demonstration plan. Therefore, in order to allow enough time to receive input from the involved parties and work out all the details of the plan, Staff is recommending that the public hearing for this item be continued to the May 2, 2000 City Council meeting.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans
City Manager

Recommendation:

Introduce ORDINANCE NO. ___, A CITY INITIATED PROPOSAL, TO AMEND SECTION 17.86.050.A (ENFORCEMENT) OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE FILING OR PROCESSING OF A VIEW RESTORATION, VIEW PRESERVATION, CITY TREE REVIEW OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT OR USE APPLICATIONS BY A PROPERTY OWNER OF A LOT THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 18, 2000

SUBJECT:CODE AMENDMENT NO. 48 – A CITY INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT REVISING SECTION 17.86.050.A (ENFORCEMENT) OF TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

Staff Coordinator:Ara Michael Mihranian, Associate Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Conduct a public hearing and introduce Ordinance No. ___, a City initiated proposal, to amend Section 17.86.050.A (Enforcement) of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code to prohibit the filing or processing of a View Restoration, View Preservation, City Tree Review or other development or use applications by a property owner of a lot that is in violation of the City’s Municipal Code

BACKGROUND

In order to obtain compliance in code enforcement matters, the current Development Code prohibits the acceptance or processing of development applications involving properties that are in violation with the Municipal Code. Based on a prior determination by the City Attorney that View Restoration, View Preservation and City Tree Review applications do not constitute "development applications", the language in Section 17.86.050.A (Enforcement) of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code is inapplicable to such applications. Therefore, a property owner in violation of the Municipal Code can currently apply for a View Restoration, View Preservation or City Tree Review application without having to correct the violation. The City Attorney has advised Staff that the language of

this section should be amended to prevent such code violators from requesting such applications, since this was the intent of this section when originally drafted. Furthermore, Staff has also been advised to include all other use or permit applications reviewed by the Planning Department in the Enforcement Section to correct any possible loopholes in the enforcement process.

In accordance to Section 17.68.030 of the Development Code, on February 15, 2000, the City Council initiated the subject code amendment for review by the Planning Commission. The code amendment was first introduced to the Planning Commission at their March 14th meeting (see attached minutes). At that time, the Commission conceptually approved the language and continued the item to their March 28th meeting to allow Staff additional time to consult with the City Attorney to consider revising the format of the proposed text. The code amendment was reintroduced to the Planning Commission at the March 28th meeting with no revisions to the text per the City Attorney’s recommendation and the ordinance language was unanimously approved and forwarded to the City Council for consideration at tonight’s meeting (see attached minutes).

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has determined that the proposed code amendment to the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code will require an addendum to the Environmental Assessment and Negative Declaration prepared and approved by the City Council under Resolution No. 97-25 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the City’s Municipal Code. In adopting the Negative Declaration, the City Council found: 1) that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the adoption of the amendments; 2) that many of the amendments were clarifications and minor non-substantive revisions; and 3) that the substantive amendments would reduce impacts on the environment since the requirements and regulations governing development in the City would generally be strengthened, thereby further reducing any adverse impacts to adjacent properties, and therefore, upon the environment.

The contemplated amendment to the Development Code, as it pertains to the prohibition of filing or processing a View Restoration, View Preservation, City Tree Review or any other development or use application by a property owner of a lot that is violation of the Municipal Code, would clarify the existing Code requirement and would not result in any new significant environmental effects. As a result, no further environmental review is necessary other than an addendum to the original Environmental Assessment and Negative Declaration, as shown in the ordinance’s Exhibit ‘A’ as Addendum No. 5 (see attachment).

Pursuant to Section 17.86.050.A of the Development Code, the City shall not allow improvements or development on a lot or parcel that is in violation with the City’s Municipal Code, unless the violation has been removed or legalized. Based on the strict interpretation of the above provision, as currently worded, property owners in violation of the City’s Municipal Code may still file View Restoration, View Preservation, City Tree Review or other use or permit applications with the City without first having to correct the violation on their lot or parcel. Staff believes that in order to maintain consistency with the Enforcement Section of the Municipal Code, as it pertains to development activity and other related improvements, the Code should be modified to prohibit violators of the Municipal Code from filing any application with the City, including a View Restoration, View Preservation or a City Tree Review application.

The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance language and asked Staff to investigate whether the proposed text could be consolidated or simplified into one paragraph. The City Attorney considered this request and determined that development applications, use permits or other entitlements should not be categorized with View Restoration, View Preservation or City Tree Permits because the earlier applications deal with improvements to the violators property whereas the applications relating to foliage have to do with improvements on a property other that the violator’s property. Therefore, the City Attorney recommends the Enforcement Section address each type of application individually.

The draft ordinance for the proposed amendments to the Enforcement Section of the Development Code is attached. The underlined text represents the new text proposed to be added to the Enforcement Section. If the proposed amendment is introduced this evening, the ordinance will be brought back to the City Council at its May 2nd meeting for a second reading and adoption. The ordinance will go into effect thirty (30) days from adoption.

The following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration in addition to Staff’s recommendation:

1. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed amendments, and provide Staff with modifications, and continue the public hearing to a date certain; or,
2. Direct Staff that no modifications be made to Title 17 of the Municipal Code.

FISCAL IMPACT

If the City Council approves the proposed code amendment, there will be no direct impact to the City’s General Fund nor will it have a fiscal impact to the City. However, the limitation on filing applications will encourage the early correction of code violations, and enforcement based costs will decrease, resulting in a more efficient compliance program.

Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council consider amending Section 17.86.050.A (Enforcement) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code to prohibit the filing or processing of a View Restoration, a View Preservation, a City Tree Review, or any other use or permit application by a property owner of a lot that is in violation of the City’s Municipal Code.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

• Draft Ordinance
• Exhibit ‘A’ – Environmental Assessment No. 694 Addendum No. 5
• Planning Commission Minutes (3-14-00 and 3-28-00

  ORDINANCE NO.

  AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING SECTION 17.86.050.A (ENFORCEMENT) OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE FILING OR PROCESSING OF VIEW RESTORATION, VIEW PRESERVATION, CITY TREE REVIEW APPLICATIONS OR ANY OTHER APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OR USE BY AN OWNER OF A LOT THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE.

  WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000 a City-initiated Code Amendment was approved by the City Council for review by the Planning Commission; and

  WHEREAS, after notice was given pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 14, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding said amendment to Title 17, as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report of that date; and

  WHEREAS, at their March 14th meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff to further investigate the proposed language and continued the public hearing to March 28, 2000; and

  WHEREAS, at their March 28, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the proposed code amendment to Title 17 and forwarded its recommendations to the City Council; and

  WHEREAS, on April 1, 2000 a notice of a public hearing on this code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and

  WHEREAS, after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

  NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

  Section 1:The City Council has reviewed and considered the amendment to Chapter 17.86 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code.

  Section 2:The City Council finds that the amendment to Title 17 of the Municipal Code is consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, the zoning amendment procedures.

  Section 3:The City Council finds that the amendment to Title 17 is consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that it upholds, and does not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans, in particular to carefully control and direct future growth towards making a positive contribution to all elements of the community.

  Section 4:The City Council finds that the amendment to Title 17 is substantially the same as previous provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code or any other ordinance repealed, amended or superseded upon the enactment of this ordinance and that the amendment to Title 17 shall be construed as a restatement and continuation of the previous provisions and not as a new enactment.

  Section 5: The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence that the amendment to Title 17 will result in new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of the effects, as previously identified in Environmental Assessment No. 694 and the Negative Declaration, adopted through Resolution No. 97-25 in conjunction with Ordinance No. 320 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the Municipal Code, since the new amendment is a clarification and a minor non-substantive revision to the Development Code. An addendum to the prior Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A’. The City Council hereby finds, based on its own independent judgement, that the facts stated in the addendum are true because the minor revision to the Development Code will strengthen the Code by preventing development on lots where code violations exist.

  Section 6:The City Council finds that the amendment to Title 17 is necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area.

  Section 7: Paragraph A of Section 17.86.050 of Chapter 17.86 of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

  17.86.050 Disqualification for violation.

  1. The city shall not accept for processing or grant:
  2. Any application for a development, use or other permit or entitlement on any lot or parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this Municipal Code exists; or,
  3. A View Restoration or a View Preservation application or an application for a City Tree Review permit submitted by the owner of a lot or parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this Municipal Code exists.

An application may be accepted or granted by the city if the subject lot or parcel is brought into compliance with this Municipal Code, either by removing the violation or by submitting an application to legalize the violation and a permit or approval is granted pursuant to Section 17.86.050(B) of this chapter.

Section 8:The rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall not be affected by the amendments to Title 17 by this ordinance and shall continue in effect until and unless they are modified, revoked, expired or are otherwise terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms of Title 17, as they existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance.

Section 9:The amendment to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified herein shall apply to all applications, including, but not limited to View Restoration, View Preservation or City Tree Permits, submitted after the effective date of this ordinance.

Section 10:The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 2000.

Mayor

ATTEST:

City Clerk

State of California)

County of Los Angeles) ss

City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Ordinance No. was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 18, 2000.

City Clerk

EXHIBIT ‘A’ TO ORDINANCE NO. 355

ADDENDUM NO. 5 TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/

NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA/ND) NO. 694

APRIL 18, 2000

On April 1, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-25, thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 694 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code. Prior to its adoption, the Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment from March 4 through March 24, 1997 and no substantive comments were received from any persons or responsible agencies. In adopting the Negative Declaration, the City Council found: 1) that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the adoption of the amendments; 2) that many of the amendments were clarifications and minor non-substantive revisions; and 3) that the substantive amendments would reduce impacts on the environment since the requirements and regulations governing development in the City would generally be strengthened, thereby further reducing any adverse impacts to adjacent properties, and therefore, upon the environment.

The City Council is currently considering an amendment to Title 17 of the Development Code, prohibiting the filing or processing of View Restoration or View Preservation applications or applications for a City Tree Review permit or for any other development or use by an owner of a lot that is in violation of the Municipal Code. The proposed amendment clarifies the existing Code requirements and will not result in any new significant environmental effects. As such, the City Council has independently reviewed this item and determined that the proposed amendment will not result in any new significant environmental effects and will actually reduce impacts upon the environment. Furthermore, the City Council finds that the amendments are within the scope of EA/ND No. 694 that were prepared and adopted in conjunction with the amendments to Titles 16 and 17, that were adopted on April 19, 1997 by the City Council. As a result, no further environmental review is necessary.

RECESS:

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

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

Recommendation:

Review and adopt amendments to the existing City Council Policy No. 31 regarding Encroachments into the Public right-of-way to include a simplified, staff level permitting process to address certain structures built within the City’s public rights-of-way that do not present any hazards for pedestrians, equestrians, and traffic, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and change Section I of City Council Policy No. 31 from "Fences and Walls in the right-of-way" to "Fences, Walls, Pilasters and Other Similar Structures in the right-of-way."

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:APRIL 18, 2000

SUBJECT:AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY NUMBER 31 REGARDING ENCROACHMENTS OF FENCES, WALLS, PILASTERS AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES INTO THE CITY'S PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY

Review and adopt amendments to the existing City Council Policy No. 31 regarding Encroachments into the Public right-of-way to include a simplified, staff level permitting process to address certain structures built within the City’s public rights-of-way that do not present any hazards for pedestrians, equestrians, and traffic, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and change Section I of City Council Policy No. 31 from "Fences and Walls in the right-of-way" to "Fences, Walls, Pilasters and Other Similar Structures in the right-of-way."

In 1984 the City Council initially adopted a policy regarding the placement of structures within the City’s rights-of way. This policy was superceded by City Council Policy No. 31, which was adopted on April 16, 1996. Policy No. 31 clarified differing standards for encroachments of walls and fences as distinguished from Observation Booths and similar structures. This policy was amended in January 21, 1997 to incorporate a minor clarification related to the different requirements for Observation Booths.

On June 1, 1999 Staff sought direction from the City Council as to whether or not the issue of certain existing encroaching structures within the City’s public rights-of-way warranted the implementation of an encroachment legalization process that differed from the current encroachment policies (minutes attached). The approval of an Encroachment Permit, under the current process, requires review by the Planning Commission and very specific findings must be made. On June 1, 1999 the City Council agreed that modifications to the existing Encroachment Permit process were necessary and directed Staff to create a more streamlined Encroachment Permit review process for the Council’s review and approval. Staff drafted an amended Encroachment Permit policy for the Council’s review on October 19, 1999. Due to the lateness of the evening, the Council agreed to table the item for discussion at a future meeting. At its December 21, 1999 meeting the Council discussed potential Council Workshop topics, and the Council agreed to forward this item to the Planning Commission for review.

The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments at the March 14, 2000 meeting, and after recommending changes to the proposed policy, forwarded the Policy amendments for consideration by the City Council. The minutes from the March 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting are attached. The Commission recommended modifications related to the thresholds for Planning Commission versus Staff level review, and added findings related to view protection and light pollution.

Unpermitted structures (including, but not limited to fences, privacy walls, garden walls, planters, and pilasters) in the City's rights-of-way not only violate the Municipal Code, but can also result in hazardous conditions for pedestrians, equestrians, and vehicular traffic in those relatively rare situations where such encroaching structures force pedestrians and equestrians particularly close to travel lanes. Beyond these safety concerns are logistical matters such as utility locations and easements. Therefore, Staff suggests amending City Council Policy No. 31 "Encroachments into the Public Right-of-Way" to include a two alternate review processes (Director Review or Planning Commission Review). The applicable process would be based primarily upon the encroachment’s height and its location within the public right-of-way. The revised process would be applicable both to existing encroachments and new proposals of structures within the public right of way, unless stipulated otherwise.

Concrete and masonry pilasters are commonly found encroaching into the City’s rights-of-way. These square, column-like structures, according to staff’s observations, typically have a base footprint measuring no more than 4 square feet and are between 2’ and 6’ in height, excluding decorative features such as lanterns. These pilasters are similar to mail box structures which are permissible in the right-of-way. Further, Staff has observed that most encroachments (fences, walls, pilasters, and similar structures) are built less than 10 feet from the edge of the public right-of-way.

Below is a description of the proposed levels of review for evaluating encroachments based primarily on height and location of the encroachment within the public right-of-way. Decorative features (such as lanterns and stone figures) typically measuring about 12" in height are often found atop pilasters and walls. In addition, standards are proposed for decorative structures such as statuary including an overall height standard and criteria for the basis which are sometimes used to support the statuary. While only a very few of these instances exist, inclusion of standards in the policy will allow staff to deal with such situations in a consistent manner should they occur in the future.

Director Level Review

Encroachments that do not exceed the following set of criteria could be approved or conditionally approved by the Director to Planning, Building and Code Enforcement:

a. The encroachment is located no more than six feet (6’) within the public right-of-way (Note that it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the location of the structure to the Director of Public Works’ satisfaction. Determinations on location will be based on existing city records or other readily available information to the greatest degree possible, however in some situations preparation of a survey by the applicant / property owner may be required);

b. The base of the encroachment, for each individual pilaster or similar structure, does not exceed four (4) square feet with no single dimension exceeding 24 inches;

c. The height of the encroachment does not exceed 72 inches including any decorative features, and the main structure (excluding decorative features) does not exceed sixty inches (60"), unless it is within an intersection visibility triangle as determined by the Director of Public Works in which case the overall height including any decorative features may not exceed 30 inches;

i. If the encroachment serves primarily as a base for a decorative feature (i.e. statuary) then no single dimension of the base may exceed 24 inches with a maximum footprint area of 4 square feet, and maximum height of 6 feet. The combined height of the base and decorative feature may not exceed 72 inches, unless within an intersection visibility triangle as determined by the Director of Public Works, then the combined height may not exceed 30 inches.

Upon granting an approval, Staff shall notify the owners of all parcels located adjacent to the subject property and any interested parties by letter. Notification shall also include all parcels that are located directly across any public or private right-of-way from the subject property. Any interested person may file an appeal of Staff’s decision with the Planning Commission provided the appeal is filed in writing within 15 days of the notice of decision and complies with all other conditions of appeal pursuant to Chapter 17.80 of the Municipal Code.

The Planning Commission would review any encroachment requests that exceed the criteria for review by the Planning Director. The request for Planning Commission Review would include all those materials and conditions required by existing City Council Policy No. 31, Section I "Fences and Walls in the Right-of-Way", Items 1 and 5 (see attached), and would include all information required for the Director level review process as set forth above. The following are some examples of conditions that would require Planning Commission review of an encroachment permit:

a. Encroachments of structures more than six feet (6’) into the public right-of-way (Note that it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the location of the structure to the Director of Public Works’ satisfaction. Determinations on location will be based on existing city records or other readily available information to the greatest degree possible, however in some situations preparation of a survey by the applicant / property owner may be required);

b. Encroachments of structures, such as pilasters and other similar structures, having a base that exceeds 24" in any single dimension or exceeds four (4) square feet in footprint area;

c. Encroachments serving as bases for decorative features with a combined height that is greater than 72", or a base which exceeds sixty inches (60") exclusive of decorative features.

d. Encroachments of structures with decorative features measuring more than 18" in height.

e. Encroachments of structures (including decorative features) or decorative feature/base combinations measuring greater than 30" in height within a visibility triangle.

Required Findings

In simplifying the process for both the affected property owner and the Planning Commission, Staff recommends removal of Section I, Item 4 of City Council Policy No. 31 and amendment of Item 3 to replace the current findings with the following findings that would be applicable to both the Director and Planning Commission levels of review:

a. The Public Works Director has reviewed the existing or proposed encroachment and determines, in writing, that the encroachment is not detrimental to the public health/safety, and that the encroachment does not pose a hazard to vehicular traffic, pedestrians, or equestrians; and further that all other requirements for issuance of a Public Works Department encroachment permit are met.

(Note: The Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department review shall be concurrent with the Public Works Department review to the greatest degree possible.)

b. The encroaching structure can not be reconfigured or relocated due to practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship (including a financial hardship), so as to either:

i) locate the structure on the applicant’s property outside of the public right-of-way in accordance with provisions of the Municipal Code; or,

ii) adhere to the criteria set forth for a Planning Director Level Review.

c. The encroaching structure is not inconsistent with the general intent of the Development Code.

d. Illuminating elements of the encroaching structure are configured in a manner that minimizes impact to neighboring properties or vehicular traffic, and prevents direct or indirect illumination of a property other than the applicant’s, as determined by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

e The encroaching structure does not significantly impact a protected view from any surrounding property.

Conditions of Approval

In addition to the conditions of approval set forth in the existing policy, staff recommends incorporation of the following additional conditions:

1. If the decorative features are lanterns or some other kind of light source, then the property owner shall provide adequate screening to ensure that there is no direct or indirect illumination of any other property other than where the light source is located, that there is no adverse traffic/pedestrian impact, and that all conditions of residential outdoor lighting pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.56.030 are met.
2. The applicant shall submit to the City for recordation an "Indemnification and Hold Harmless" agreement, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney;
3. Prior to construction of the fence and/or wall, the owner shall submit to the City a Use Restriction Covenant for recordation, agreeing to remove the encroachment within ten (10) days of notice given by the Director of Public Works, except in case of an emergency where no notice will be provided. The owner shall also acknowledge that failure to remove the encroachment within the specified time will result in removal of the structure by the City, and that the owner shall be billed by the City for the costs of removal of the encroaching structure.
4. That any and all other required permits, such as building permits, are obtained within 180 days after the expiration of the appeal period.

In addition to these new conditions of approval, staff recommends removal of the $1,000,000.00 insurance requirement since this is very burdensome for the applicants, requires staff time to monitor each year to ensure that coverage is maintained, and since the Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement adequately protects the City’s interests. The City Attorney has reviewed and agrees with this approach.

Notice of Decision

Upon granting an approval, a notification letter shall be provided to owners of all parcels located adjacent to the subject property and any interested parties. Any interested person may file an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision with the City Council provided the appeal is filed in writing to the City Clerk or Planning Director within 15 days of the notice of decision and complies with all other conditions of appeal pursuant to Chapter 17.80 of the Municipal Code.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The past practice in addressing encroaching structures has been to respond on a complaint basis. Staff does not recommend a significant change in that approach, as the revised process will hopefully encourage those who have encroaching structures that have been reported to the City to go through the legalization process. The only change in practice proposed is a shift to proactive enforcement of these standards and processes when new construction in the public right-of-way is observed by, or reported to staff. This change in policy will allow for all necessary review to be completed prior to completion of the construction, as well as serve as a disincentive for construction of new structures in the right of way without prior approval from the City. This approach is not expected to generate a large number of encroachment applications, and staff believes that these applications can be processed without the need for additional staff or consultants.

Two parties have expressed interest in this project based on a situation existing along Via Ciega. Each of these parties has provided information to staff which is attached to the staff report. The situation is that the property owner at 6304 Via Ciega (Mr. Murphy) constructed pilasters in the public right-of-way without appropriate review or approval. This situation was brought to the City’s attention by a code enforcement complaint from the property owner at 6310 Via Ciega (Mr. Ferrara). Mr. Murphy has filed for an Encroachment Permit in order to legalize the encroaching structures. However, this application has not been processed at this time, as the applicant is interested in the knowing the impact of any changes to the policy, and how they may affect his application. It should be noted that the appeal process would be available to either party depending on the outcome of the recommended staff level review process.

An issue that has proven to be problematic for property owners in voluntarily complying with legalizing existing encroachments has been the $700.00 cost of the City’s current Encroachment Permit. This cost is doubled to $1,400.00 with penalty fees, according to current City practice, to issue an after-the-fact permit for work that was already undertaken or completed. Without any differentiation made between a minor or major encroachment, and considering that most of the encroachments Staff has observed using the criteria detailed above constitute a minor encroachment, cost has been a significant deterrent to property owners seeking to voluntarily adhere to the approval process.

Therefore, to address the concerns of affected property owners and assist the City in meeting costs incurred for processing of encroachment permits, the following amendments to fees are suggested:

Level of Review for Encroachment Permit	Current Fee	Proposed Fee
Planning Director (new)	not applicable	$110.00*
Planning Commission	$700.00	$700.00*

*Please Note: These fees do not include building permits (if required) nor do they include a fee for the Public Works Department to inspect and prepare a written traffic/ pedestrian/equestrian hazard determination. Further, this does not include costs of survey preparation, if required, which could easily exceed $1,000.00.

The fees for the Planning Commission review would achieve cost recovery for the additional processing requirements related to that body’s consideration of the request. The staff level review, however, would likely not serve to cover all costs incurred in processing the applications. Nonetheless, staff believes that the lesser cost will result in increased compliance with the encroachment approval requirements, and will assist in resolving cases that otherwise could result in a significant dedication of staff time as code enforcement actions, which often do not allow for cost recovery.

The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend existing City Council Policy No. 31 regarding Encroachments into the Public Right-of-Way to include a simplified, staff level permitting process to address certain structures built within the City’s public rights-of-way that do not present any hazards for pedestrians, equestrians, and traffic. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends renaming Section I of City Council Policy No. 31 from "Fences and Walls in the Right-of-Way" to "Fences, Walls, Pilasters and Other Similar Structures in the Right-of-Way." A revised version of the Council Policy incorporating these changes discussed above is attached.

The following alternatives in addition to Staff’s recommendation are also available for City Council consideration:

1.Direct Staff to maintain the status quo and continue with the current procedures for legalizing structures which encroach onto the public right-of-way.

2.Direct Staff to provide additional information before taking action regarding amendments to the City’s existing encroachment policy.

3.Other action as the City Council deems appropriate.

 

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans
City Manager

Attachments

• Draft Revision of City Council Policy No. 31
• Redlined Version showing Changes from Existing City Council Policy No. 31
• Planning Commission Minutes – March 14, 2000
• City Council Minutes – December 21, 1999
• City Council Minutes – October 19, 1999
• City Council Minutes – June 1, 1999
• RPVMC § 17.56.030 – Outdoor Lighting for Residential Uses
• Interested Party Information (Mr. Ferrara and Mr. Murphy)

Recommendation:

Discuss potential ramifications of this legislation and provide staff with direction on what, if any, actions to be taken.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:APRIL 18, 2000

SUBJECT:SENATE BILL 1714 (BRULTE) REGARDING REGULATION OF AMATEUR ANTENNAE AND LIMITATIONS ON LOCAL JURISDICTION’S ZONING AUTHORITY.

Discuss potential ramifications of Senate Bill 1714 and provide staff with direction on what, if any, actions to take related to this bill.

The Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement recently became aware of a proposed senate bill dealing with amateur antennas that is of grave concern. SB 1714 was recently introduced by Senator Brulte from Rancho Cucamonga. The bill would partially preempt local jurisdictions’ authority to regulate amateur antenna heights and support structures. The text of the bill is attached for your information.

The bill is being sponsored on behalf of the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). According to Senator Brulte’s staff, this is a group of amateur ham radio operators. The Senator’s staff were unable to provide details as to the reasons behind the legislation other than the protection of the amateur radio operator’s ability to continue to enjoy their hobby without antenna restrictions imposed by local government’s zoning regulations. Staff will provide additional information, if available, at the City Council meeting.

SB 1714 includes two tiers of standards based on population density. The section that would apply to Rancho Palos Verdes would restrict the City’s regulatory abilities in the following ways:

• The City could not restrict amateur Radio antenna height to less than 75 feet above ground level.
• The City could not restrict the number of support structures. (It is unclear whether this refers to multiple support structures for a single antenna or whether it is an alternate term for the number of antennae that would be allowed on a particular property.)

SB 1714 would not preclude the city from regulating amateur radio antennas with respect to screening, setbacks, placement and "health and safety requirements". Presumably this language would allow the City to continue to consider view impacts in the analysis of antennas, however the City would not likely be able to address view impact by reducing the height of the structure to less than 75 feet.

The provisions of SB 1714 would render the following portions of the City’s current antenna regulations invalid:

• The city’s regulation of car mounted noncommercial amateur radio antennae which exceed 16 feet would likely be invalid. (17.76.020 C. 1.)
• The city’s regulation of noncommercial amateur radio antennae affixed to real property which exceed 16 feet in height would be invalid. (17.76.020 C. 1.)
• The regulation of radiating elements (17.76.020 C. 3. ii) validity may be suspect due to the language in the bill related to "reasonable and customary engineering practices", however this language may be intended to focus only on the support structure portion of the bill.
• Depending on the interpretation of the language stating that an ordinance shall not "Restrict the number of support structures", the city’s limitations for the number of antennae permitted by right and via an Antennae Site Plan Review process may be invalid, particularly as the requirements relate to maximum heights of 16 feet up to a maximum of 41 feet.
• For antennae that require a Noncommercial Radio Antenna Permit (from the Planning Commission), the code allows discretion to determine a maximum height (but not less than 41 feet) based on ability to receive and/or transmit radio signals on amateur frequencies and balancing of General Plan and development code regulations. This code section would be invalid if SB 1714 were enacted as currently drafted. (17.76.020 D. 3. b and d)

Staff has considered the following courses of action with respect to this proposed legislation:

1. Oppose the proposed Senate Bill, and seek its defeat. Opposition could include contacting the State level elected officials as well as enlisting the League of California Cities lobbying efforts; or
2. Oppose the proposed Senate Bill as written, and seek amendments prior to enactment which would effectively exempt Rancho Palos Verdes (and similarly situated cites) from the Bill’s provisions. One basis for exemption from the Bill’s provision could be the City’s coastal location, as the views, vistas, and character of California’s coastal cities are already subject to special protective provisions under the Coastal Act. An exemption for coastal cities would allow for, but not mandate, more strict requirements such as those existing in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Pursuit of option number 1 would likely result in a broader base of opposition than the more limited coastal cities opposition approach.

If the Bill is ultimately enacted, the City would likely have to amend its Codes to conform to the new state rules. This would result in regulations which are much more lax than the City’s current regulatory scheme, and could allow for a proliferation of antennae throughout the City.

PRB-1 – from the Federal Communications Commission

Incidentally, in 1984 the ARRL filed a request for issuance of a declaratory ruling by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeking delineation of limitations on local zoning and other local and state regulatory authority over Federally Licensed radio facilities. The ARRL sought a decision by the FCC that federal law preempted state and local governments from regulating amateur radio installation in a manner that would "inhibit efficient, reliable amateur radio communications." (PRB –1 from 101 F.C.C. 2d 952 released September 19, 1985). PRB –1 is attached.

The Commission found that there was a strong federal interest in promoting amateur communications. Whether this still exists, or is of less importance, due to technological advances in the last 15 years is unknown at this time. Further, the commission stated the following general rule in section 22 of their opinion:

"In this situation, we believe it is appropriate to strike a balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur operations and the legitimate interests of local governments in regulating local zoning matters. The cornerstone on which we will predicate our decision is that a reasonable accommodation may be made between the two sides."

The conclusion of the FCC was that local zoning regulations could not preclude amateur communications, however the FCC did not set any absolute height regulations, and allowed local governments regulations must "be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority’s legitimate purpose". The City’s current regulations were drafted to conform to this requirement.

The relationship of this prior FCC action to the proposed state legislation is not clear at this point, but is an area for further investigation, and staff will broach this issue with League of California legislative analyst working on this Bill.

League of California Cities Involvement

Staff has discussed this Senate Bill with the League of California Cities legislative analyst who is looking into the bill. The preliminary indication is that the League’s position will be one of opposition to the proposed legislation. Staff will continue to work with the League on this if the Council so desires.

The fiscal impacts of this project are unknown at this time, but could be quantified when a specific course of action is established.

The following alternatives in addition to Staff’s recommendation are also available for City Council consideration:

1. Oppose the proposed Senate Bill, and seek its defeat. Opposition could include contacting the State level elected officials as well as enlisting the League of California Cities lobbying efforts; or
2. Oppose the proposed Senate Bill as written, and seek amendments prior to enactment which would effectively exempt Rancho Palos Verdes (and similarly situated cites) from the Bill’s provisions. One basis for exemption from the Bill’s provision could be the City’s coastal location, as the views, vistas, and character of California’s coastal cities are already subject to special protective provisions under the Coastal Act. An exemption for coastal cities would allow for, but not mandate, more strict requirements such as those existing in Rancho Palos Verdes.
3. Other action as the City Council deems appropriate.

Staff understands that the proposed bill is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate’s Committee on Local Government on May 3, 2000. Staff seeks feedback from the City Council on whether or how to proceed with this item.

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

Reviewed by,
Les Evans
City Manager

Attachments

Senate Bill 1714 (Brulte)

PRB 1 from FCC

Recommendation:

Consider adoption of Resol. No. 2000- IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO’S EFFORTS TO CAUSE LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS TO CEASE ITS PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF APPROVING PROJECTS THAT EXPAND THE CAPACITY AND/OR OPERATIONS OF THE AIRPORT WITHOUT ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST

DATE: APRIL 18, 2000

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF EL SEGUNDO’S COMPLAINT AGAINST LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

RECOMMENDATION

Consider adoption of Resolution No. 2000- in support of the City of El Segundo’s efforts to cause Los Angeles World Airports to cease its pattern and practice of approving projects that expand the capacity and/or operations of the airports without adequate environmental review.

DISCUSSION

At the April 4th Council meeting, Dennis Zane, a consultant for the City of El Segundo, presented a brief status report on the El Segundo lawsuit against the Los Angeles World Airports. The City of El Segundo filed the suit on November 23, 1999 claiming that a series of expansionist projects at LAX were approved without complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. An initial ruling was issued on March 6, 2000 and on March 31, 2000 the court rejected an appeal by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). The case will move forward.

The City of El Segundo requests that the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes adopt the attached resolution supporting El Segundo’s lawsuit against LAWA.

FISCAL IMPACT

None associated with this report.

Respectfully submitted,
Gina Park
Senior Administrative Analyst

Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager

Attachment

Draft Resolution No. 2000

WHEREAS, the citizens of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are concerned that operations and facilities at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) have been steadily expanding, and that such expansion has had and is having adverse effects upon communities surrounding LAX:

WHEREAS, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) has, in its ongoing expansion, failed to consider an optimal regional solution to the regional demand for air transportation facilities;

WHEREAS, LAWA has purported, since 1994, to be preparing a Master Plan to govern the long-term expansion of LAX and has assured the public that it would evaluate the environmental impacts of the expansion of airport facilities in a comprehensive environmental impact report (EIR) on the Master Plan;

WHEREAS, the Master Plan and accompanying EIR have been repeatedly delayed and are not expected to be released soon;

WHEREAS, despite the delay in releasing its long-term plan for LAX, LAWA has continued to expand the capacity at the airport with the piecemeal approvals of new projects including terminals, runways, and operating agreements, all without adequate analysis or public disclosure of environmental impacts;

WHEREAS, the pattern and practice at LAX of approving projects without compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has systematically denied, and continues to deny, the public important information regarding the nature and severity of environmental impacts associated with projects proposed, approved, and constructed at LAX:

WHEREAS, the City of El Segundo has filed an action challenging the ongoing pattern and practice of LAWA and the Board of Airport Commissioners of approving projects at LAX that expand the capacity and/or operations of the airport without adequate environmental review, and is seeking a court order declaring such practices to be a violation of CEQA and enjoying such practices; and

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined that the above-described litigation is in furtherance of the interests of City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes wishes to formally express its support of the position of the City of El Segundo in this litigation;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby formally goes on record as supporting the efforts of the City of El Segundo to cause LAWA to cease its pattern and practice of approving expansion of the airport facilities and operations without complying with CEQA.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 2000.

MAYOR

ATTEST:

CITY CLERK

State of California)

County of Los Angeles) ss

City of Rancho Palos Verdes )

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that above Resolution No. 2000- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 18, 2000.

Recommendation:

Select a date for the fall Community Leaders’ Breakfast meeting.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE:APRIL 18, 2000

SUBJECT:COMMUNITY LEADERS’ BREAKFAST MEETING – CHANGE OF DATE FOR FALL MEETING

Select a date for the fall Community Leaders’ Breakfast meeting.

BACKGROUND

At the February 15th meeting the City Council set Saturday, October 28th as the date to hold the fall Community Leaders’ Breakfast meeting. Since that time, however, Mayor Byrd has reported a conflict on that date and has requested that Council consider rescheduling this meeting.

Hesse Park is available on September 30th and November 4th: Marymount College is available on October 7th.

Mayor Byrd has a scheduling conflict on the date originally set for the Fall Community Leaders Breakfast and has requested that the meeting date be changed.

Respectfully submitted:
Jo Purcell
Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Recommendation:

Approve the amendment.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM:CITY ATTORNEY

DATE:APRIL 18, 2000

SUBJECT:FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the First Amendment to the Employment Agreement between the City and City Manager Les Evans.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

At a closed session on April 4, 2000 the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement reflecting a salary increase from $100,000 annually to $110,000 annually effective on July 1, 2000.

FISCAL IMPACT

If the Amendment is approved, the FY 2000-2001 City budget will be revised to reflect the salary increase.

Respectively submitted:
Carol Lynch, City Attorney

Attachment:

First Amendment to Employment Agreement

Recommendation:

Councilman McTaggart would like the City Council to consider co-sponsoring the Interfaith Walk by agreeing to the following: 1. Closing portions of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge Road between St. John Fisher and Congregation Ner Tamid during the walk; 2. Coordinating the services of the Sheriff's Department for traffic control during the event; 3. Coordinating a parking plan and providing shuttle service for walk participants; 4. Providing appropriate notices to any residents who may be impacted by the walk; and 5. Offsetting any cost of Sheriff's Department service and/or shuttle service to a maximum of $2,000.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:APRIL 18, 2000

SUBJECT:INTERFAITH WALK, JOINTLY SPONSORED BY THE RETREAT CENTER OF THE DAUGHTERS OF MARY AND JOSEPH AND THE SOUTH COAST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

Staff Coordinator:Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

Councilman McTaggart would like City Council to consider co-sponsoring the Interfaith Walk by agreeing to the following:

1. Closing portions of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge Road between St. John Fisher and Congregation Ner Tamid during the walk;
2. Coordinating the services of the Sheriff's Department for traffic control during the event;
3. Coordinating a parking plan and providing shuttle service for walk participants;
4. Providing appropriate notices to any residents who may be impacted by the walk; and
5. Offsetting any cost of Sheriff's Department service and/or shuttle service to a maximum of $2,000.

In February, 2000, the Public Works Department received a letter from the Mary and Joseph Retreat Center, 5300 Crest Road, providing information regarding the planning of an interfaith walk event to be held on November 9, 2000, and inquiring specifically regarding traffic safety and control requirements.

The planned interfaith event is to express and demonstrate reconciliation and solidarity among the various South Bay faith communities, and will begin with an evening candlelight Unity Walk with prayer rituals from the Retreat Center to Congregation Ner Tamid at 5721 Crestridge Road, where a testimonial session and reception will be held.

Public Works Staff contacted the Retreat Center representative to discuss the details of the planned event, and reviewed the walk route in the field. Public Works Staff then coordinated with Recreation and Parks Staff to more closely review the request and develop a list of requirements to ensure the safety and success of the event. Staff discussed the details of the project along with the proposed requirements with the Retreat Center representative during a conference call, and the items discussed were provided to the Retreat Center in a letter dated March 14, 2000. A copy of this letter is attached. The requirements specified in the letter are consistent with those for other similar events, such as the annual Palos Verdes Marathon, and the Retreat Center is currently working on the requirements specified.

Prior to any response from the Retreat Center, Councilperson McTaggart suggested that City Council consider co-sponsoring the event. Approval of the recommendation would enable staff to coordinate the event with the Retreat Center to facilitate a safe and organized successful event.

If City Council approves the recommendation, Staff will include the $2,000 City contribution in the FY2000-2001 City Budget.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean E. Allison
Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager

Attachments

• March 14, 2000 letter
• Exhibit of Walk route

ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section of the agenda is for 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)

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 based on

OR

__X_E. A statement made by Robert Zuckerman on 3/31/2000

(Name of Person)

outside an open meeting of City/Agency regarding

The Ocean Trails Project

(State Nature of specific Matter)

And a record of the statement was made:

_X__ by Les Evans, City Manager

(Name of official or employee)

prior to the meeting and is available for public

inspection in the City Clerk’s office.