Agenda 06/18/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 06/18/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda June 18, 2002 7:00 PM
June 18, 2002 7:00 PM

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.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS


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

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

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

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

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


RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 18, 2002

MIRALESTE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, 29323 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST

THEATRE ARTS BUILDING (TAB)


7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-48

NEXT ORD. NO. 376

RECYCLE DRAWING:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Motion to waive full reading.

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 council members after the reading of the title.



2. Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of May 21, and Meeting of June 4, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



3. Agreement for Legal Services - Thomas & Walton. (Evans)

Recommendation: Approve the Attorney-Client Fee Agreement with Thomas & Walton LLP to provide representation in the Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, L.P. v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al., lawsuit.



4. Civic Center Window Replacement Project. (Noble)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract for the replacement of windows in the Planning Building to CTI Construction for an amount not to exceed $19,788 and authorize staff to spend an additional $1,978 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $21,766. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with CTI Construction. (3) Authorize the expenditure of up to $2,000 for inspection services with Charles Abbott Associates, Inc.



5. Ladera Linda Playground Improvement Project. (Vaish)

Recommendation: (1) Award a $38,583 construction contract to Ryco Construction for the construction of playground improvements at Ladera Linda Park and authorize staff to spend an additional $3,860 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $42,443.00. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Ryco Construction. (3) Authorize the expenditure of up to $4,000 for inspection services with Jon David Cicchetti and Associates. (4) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY'S QUIMBY FUND.



6. Establish New Speed Limit on Montemalaga Drive. (Jules)

Recommendation: (1) Establish a speed limit of 35 mph on Montemalaga Drive between Silver Spur Road and the westerly City limits. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MPH ON MONTEMALAGA DRIVE BETWEEN SILVER SPUR ROAD AND THE WESTERLY CITY LIMITS.



7. Traffic Signal on Hawthorne Blvd. at Vallon Drive. (Jules)

Recommendation: Authorize staff to negotiate the purchase of traffic signal poles and mast arms in accordance with Section 2.44.14 of the Municipal Code for a fee not to exceed $17,536.50.



8. Point Vicente Interpretive Center. (Lynch)

Recommendation: (1) Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Settlement Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to resolve the City's claims concerning the lead contamination at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center site. (2) Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Right of Entry Agreement to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Corps' Agents to enter upon the Point Vicente property to perform the cleanup work.



9. Asset Capitalization Thresholds and GASB Statement No. 34 Infrastructure Valuation. (Downs/Noble)

Recommendation: Adopt the recommended asset capitalization thresholds.



10. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, 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 HEARINGS:



11. View Restoration Permit No. 118 - Appeal (Appellant and Foliage Owner: Ms. Lynn Doran, 4110 Maritime Drive; Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. James Beck, 4115 Maritime Drive). (Continued from May 21, 2002) (Nelson)

Recommendation: Remand the matter back to the View Restoration Commission to reconsider its decision on View Restoration Permit No. 118 in light of the additional trimming that has been performed by the appellant since the last public hearing.



12. Conditional Use Permit No. 215, Grading Permit No. 2229, Coastal Development Permit No. 166, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26073 - Long Point Resort Hotel Project. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: Review and discuss the proposed project, which includes the Planning Commission's recommendation on the original project and the new project revisions reviewed by Staff, as well as the Draft Addendum to the Certified EIR. If the proposed project is deemed acceptable by the Council, conceptually approve the project and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate Resolutions and Conditions of Approval for consideration at the July 16, 2002 meeting.



13. Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2002-00228): Wind Energy Ordinance. (Fox)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. ___U, ADOPTING A WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 1207 AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. (2) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. ___ ADOPTING A WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 1207.



14. Sidewalk Repair Program Delinquent Account. (Vaish)

Recommendation: (1) Conduct a public hearing to consider one delinquent account for sidewalk repairs. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ORDERING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, THE PLACEMENT OF LIENS ON REAL PROPERTY AND THE PLACEMENT OF CHARGES ON THE REAL PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR COLLECTION OF UNPAID SIDEWALK REPAIR ASSESSMENTS.


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:



15. Appointment of chair for Emergency Preparedness Task Force. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Appoint one of the four candidates for chair of the Emergency Preparedness Task Force.



16. South Coast County Golf Course Presentation by Jim Tarr. (Evans)

Recommendation: Hear a presentation from Mr. Jim Tarr regarding hazardous materials issues related to development of the proposed South Coast County Golf Course in Rolling Hills Estates.



17. Purchase of Emergency Generator for the Abalone Cove Sewer System. (Massetti)

Recommendation: Award a contract under the provisions of Municipal Code 2.44.140 (d) to Sun Electric to obtain a trailer-mounted emergency generator for the Abalone Cove Sewer System for a cost of $16,023.91 and authorize staff to spend an additional $1,976.09 for possible additional work or unforeseen conditions for a total authorization of $18,000.00.



18. California Redemption/Refund Value Payment And Contract Amendment. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a contract amendment for the City's exclusive residential solid waste and recycling agreements with Ivy Rubbish Disposal and Waste Management of Los Angeles clarifying the language on payment of California Redemption/Refund Value (CRV) revenue to the City



19. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Salary and Hourly ranges for all Competitive and Management Job Classifications. (Park)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING SALARY AND HOURLY RANGES FOR ALL COMPETITIVE EMPLOYEE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AT THE 60TH PERCENTILE.

- VIEW EXCEL SPREADSHEET ATTACHMENTS



20. League of California Cities Resolution. (Councilman Clark/Evans)

Recommendation: Authorize Councilmember Larry Clark to submit a Resolution to the California League of Cities Advocating the Development of Additional Funds to Support Conversion of Overhead Utilities to Underground.



21. November 2002 Election RPV Term Limits Ballot Initiative (Councilman Clark

Recommendation: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council sponsor a Term Limits Ballot Initiative for inclusion in the November 2002 election, that will give the residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes the opportunity to vote for or against the institution of a two (2) consecutive terms, no life time ban, term limit applicable to Rancho Palos Verdes council members in the future.



22. Applicants for View Restoration Mediator Positions - Set Date to Interview. (Purcell) (Continued from meting of June 12, 2002)

Recommendation: Set a date to interview the applicants for View Restoration Mediator positions.



23. City Council Reports. (Evans)

Recommendation: Make City Council reports as required by City Council Policy Number 23.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers 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.
view the agenda at www.palosverdes.com/RPV or
A full copy of the agenda package is at the counter at Hesse Park.

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 18, 2002

MIRALESTE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, 29323 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST

THEATRE ARTS BUILDING (TAB)


7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-48

NEXT ORD. NO. 376

RECYCLE DRAWING:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Motion to waive full reading.

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 council members after the reading of the title.



2. Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of May 21, and Meeting of June 4, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

MAY 21, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 6:07 P.M. by Mayor John McTaggart in the Fireside Room at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

PRESENT: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
ABSENT: None

Also present was Jo Purcell, Admin. Services Director/City Clerk.

Interview of Appointees for Equestrian Committee (106)

Council interviewed the following appointees for the position of chair for Equestrian Committee. No action was taken.


RECESS & RECONVENE:

At 6:30 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 6:37 P.M.


Adjournment: At 6:38 P.M. the meeting adjourned on motion of Mayor McTaggart.


___________________
Mayor

Attest:


___________________
City Clerk


D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 4, 2002

The meeting was called to order at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by City Clerk Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.


_______________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________
CITY CLERK






3. Agreement for Legal Services - Thomas & Walton. (Evans)

Recommendation: Approve the Attorney-Client Fee Agreement with Thomas & Walton LLP to provide representation in the Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, L.P. v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al., lawsuit.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES - THOMAS & WALTON

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Attorney-Client Fee Agreement with Thomas & Walton LLP to provide representation in the Indian Ridge Crest Gardens, L.P. v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al., lawsuit.

BACKGROUND:

On April 25, 2002 the Rancho Palos Verdes City Clerk received service of a lawsuit brought by Indian ridge Crest Gardens, L.P. The lawsuit named the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency, Douglas Stern and Peter Gardner (sic). Also named in the lawsuit was City Attorney Carol Lynch.

DISCUSSION:

Prior to the joint meeting of May 7, 2002 with the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee, the City Council met in closed session to discuss, with the City Attorney, the Indian Ridge Crest Gardens lawsuit. The City Council was advised that since the City Attorney was also named in the lawsuit, it would be appropriate to seek outside counsel to represent the City defendants. At that time the City Council voted unanimously to engage an outside legal firm to represent the City, the Agency, Mayor Pro Tem Stern, Councilmember Gardiner and City Attorney Lynch. Mayor Pro Tem Stern and City Attorney Lynch were assigned the task of selecting the outside counsel.

The firm selected by Mayor Pro Tem Stern and City Attorney Lynch is Thomas & Walton LLP.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Costs of the lawsuit will be charged to the City Attorney budget.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager



4. Civic Center Window Replacement Project. (Noble)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract for the replacement of windows in the Planning Building to CTI Construction for an amount not to exceed $19,788 and authorize staff to spend an additional $1,978 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $21,766. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with CTI Construction. (3) Authorize the expenditure of up to $2,000 for inspection services with Charles Abbott Associates, Inc.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: CIVIC CENTER WINDOW REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Staff Coordinator:  Don Noble, Deputy Director of Public Works

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Award a contract for the replacement of windows in Planning Building to CTI Construction for an amount not to exceed $19,788 and authorize staff to spend an additional $1,978 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $21,766.
  2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with CTI Construction.
  3. Authorize the expenditure of up to $2,000 for inspection services with Charles Abbott Associates, Inc.

BACKGROUND:

The Civic Center complex was acquired from the military in 1975.  Subsequent to this acquisition, there have been numerous improvements to the site and the buildings.  However, most of the nineteen (19) exterior windows in the Building and Planning Departments are original and now require replacement.  Specifically, these windows are not energy efficient, several of the units leak during rains, while other windows are not airtight. Additionally, the window frame structures are failing and as a result, the building security system has been set-off numerous times during inclement weather.  For these reasons, the windows should be replaced.

ANALYSIS:

Because of the marine environment, a Milgard Poly Vinyl Chloride window, with dual glaze, is specified as the replacement product.

On Thursday, May 23, 2002, staff received one formal bid for $19,788 from CTI for the removal and replacement of the windows.  The CTI bid is within a reasonable range of the engineer's estimate ($18,000). Furthermore, there is no assurance that re-advertising the project, at an estimated cost of $750, would yield a bid of a lesser amount.  Therefore, it is recommended that a contract be awarded to CTI Construction for an amount not to exceed $19,788 and that staff be authorized to spend an additional $1,978 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $21,766.

The replacement of the windows will require periodic inspections.  The firm of Charles Abbott Associates, Inc. has been retained by the City to provide professional services including on-site inspections and is willing to assume this responsibility at a cost not to exceed $2,000.  Therefore, staff recommends that Charles Abbott Associates be authorized to provide the necessary inspections for this project.

The total cost of this project, as recapped below, is $26,066.

Cost Description Amount

1. Preparation of plans and specifications $ 2,300

2. Construction Contract 19,788

3. Budget for unanticipated extra work 1,978

4. On-site inspection services 2,000

Total Cost -- $26,066

CONCLUSION:

Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the replacement of all exterior windows in the Building and Planning Department.

ALTERNATE ACTION:

Request staff to re-advertise the project; however, it is unlikely that a lower bid will be obtained.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are available in the 2001-2002 approved Public Works budget to cover the costs of this project.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



5. Ladera Linda Playground Improvement Project. (Vaish)

Recommendation: (1) Award a $38,583 construction contract to Ryco Construction for the construction of playground improvements at Ladera Linda Park and authorize staff to spend an additional $3,860 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $42,443.00. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Ryco Construction. (3) Authorize the expenditure of up to $4,000 for inspection services with Jon David Cicchetti and Associates. (4) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY'S QUIMBY FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: LADERA LINDA PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

STAFF COORDINATOR: Bindu Vaish, Project Manager

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Award a $38,583 construction contract to Ryco Construction for the construction of playground improvements at Ladera Linda Park and authorize staff to spend an additional $3,860 for possible extra work for a total authorization of $42,443.00.
  2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Ryco Construction.
  3. Authorize the expenditure of up to $4,000 for inspection services with Jon David Cicchetti, and Associates.
  4. Adopt Resolution 2001-____, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes amending Resolution Number 2001-43, the budget appropriation for fiscal year 2001-2002, for a budget adjustment to the City's Quimby Fund.

BACKGROUND

The Ladera Linda Park (Tot Lot) playground equipment is scheduled for replacement during fiscal year 01-02. The project consists of:

  • Removing and replacing the existing playground equipment.
  • Removing the play sand and replacing it with a recycled tire rubber safety surface (Spectra-P) to comply with ADA requirements.

ANALYSIS

On March 7, 2002, staff received the following three bids.

COMPANY

BID AMOUNT

Ryco Construction

$38,583.00

Minco Construction

$43,410.00

Mailbu Pacific Tennis Courts

$56,112.00

Staff has reviewed each bid. Based on this process, it is recommended that the City Council award a $38,583 contract to Ryco and that staff be authorized to spend an additional $3,860 for possible extra work.

The construction of this project will require periodic on-site inspections by a licensed and certified playground inspector. Jon Cicchetti and Associates has been retained by the City to provide on-call professional services and this firm is properly licensed to provide the required inspections. Therefore, staff recommends that Jon Cicchetti and Associates be authorized to provide the necessary inspections for this project.

The total cost of this project, as recapped below is $46,443.

Cost Description

Amount

Construction Contract

$38,583

Budget for unanticipated extra work

$3,860

On site Inspection services

$4,000

Total Cost

$46,443

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will result in the replacement of playground equipment and installation of a new safety surface material at the Ladera Linda Park.

ALTERNATIVE

Forego the construction of these improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT

The current Capital Projects Budget (334-934) includes $30,000 of Quimby funds for this project. Therefore, additional funding of $16,443 is needed. The safety surface material is recycled rubber and therefore eligible for funding from the Solid Waste fund.

The proposed funding plan for this project is as follows:

Quim Quimby Fund

$30,000

Solid Waste Fund

$16,443

Total

$46,443

The approval of $16,443 budget adjustment will reduce the estimated June 30, 2002 balance of the Solid Waste Fund to $744,087.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments: Resolution 2002-____


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY'S QUIMBY FUND.

WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council; and

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2001-43, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2001-2002 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to allocate additional funds to Ladera Linda Upper Hill Park Playground Improvement Project; and

WHEREAS, a budget increase in the Quimbyl Fund is necessary to authorize the expenditure of additional funds for the project.

BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES:

That the following adjustment be made to the Quimby Fund - Ladera Linda Upper Hill Park Playground Improvement Project.

Quimby Fund

334-934-.82

Improvement other then building

$16,443

Quimby Fund

334-391-10

Transfer in from Solid Waste Fund

$16,443

Solid Waste Money

113-391-20

Transfer out to Quimby

$16,443

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 18th day of June, 2002.


_________________
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 Resolution No. 2002-___ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2002.


________________________
City Clerk



6. Establish New Speed Limit on Montemalaga Drive. (Jules)

Recommendation: (1) Establish a speed limit of 35 mph on Montemalaga Drive between Silver Spur Road and the westerly City limits. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MPH ON MONTEMALAGA DRIVE BETWEEN SILVER SPUR ROAD AND THE WESTERLY CITY LIMITS.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: ESTABLISH NEW SPEED LIMIT ON MONTEMALAGA DRIVE

Staff Coordinator: Nicole Jules, Sr. Engineer

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Establish a speed limit of 35 mph on Montemalaga Drive between Silver Spur Road and the westerly City limits.
  2. Adopt Resolution 2002- , A resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes establishing a speed limit of 35 mph on Montemalaga Drive between Silver Spur Road and the westerly City limits.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION

The current speed limit on Montemalaga Drive is 40 mph. At the March 25, 2001 Traffic Committee (TC) meeting residents of Montemalaga Drive requested the TC to look into lowering the speed limit on Montemalaga Drive to 25 mph. The TC asked the consultant Traffic Engineer to conduct an engineering and traffic survey and to schedule this item for a future TC meeting.

A 24-hour Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count and 24-hour speed survey was conducted on April 16, 2002. The accident history was reviewed from 1998 to present. A petition to lower the speed limit was submitted to the City on April 30, 2002 from local residents living on Montemalaga Drive and neighboring streets.

At the May 20, 2002 TC meeting, the Traffic Committee voted to reduce the posted speed limit on Montemalaga Drive between Silver Spur Road and the westerly City limits to 35 mph.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendations will establish a reasonable speed limit along Montemalaga Drive where radar enforcement can continue.

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended action will have no negative fiscal impact. By adopting Resolution 2002- , a 35 mph speed limit along Montemalaga Drive between Silver Spur Road and the westerly City limits will be enforceable.

No additional funds are required for the installation of new speed limit signs.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:

Resolution No. 2002- Establishing Speed Limit on Montemalaga Drive


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMIT ON MONTEMALAGA DRIVE BETWEEN SILVER SPUR ROAD AND WESTERLY CITY LIMITS

WHEREAS, an engineering and traffic survey has been conducted on Montemalaga Drive between Silver Spur Road and the westerly City limits within the City and

WHEREAS, it has been determined that the establishment of speed limits that are reasonable and safe will facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic on Montemalaga Drive;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Speed limit is established on the following street in accordance with Section 15.32.010 and 15.32.020 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 10.04.010 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code:

ROAD - - - SURVEYED - - - LIMITS

Montemalaga Drive - - - 05/16/0235 - - - Miles Per Hour on

Montemalaga from Silver Spur Road to Palos Verdes Estates City Boundary

Section 2. All previous resolutions and orders establishing speed limits on Montemalaga Drive are hereby rescinded.

Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered to file certified copies of this resolution with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office.

Section 4. The speed limit established in Section 1 of this resolution shall become effective upon posting of the speed limit signs.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 18th DAY OF JUNE, 2002.


___________________________
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 Resolution No. 2002- __ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2002.


_____________________________
CITY CLERK



7. Traffic Signal on Hawthorne Blvd. at Vallon Drive. (Jules)

Recommendation: Authorize staff to negotiate the purchase of traffic signal poles and mast arms in accordance with Section 2.44.14 of the Municipal Code for a fee not to exceed $17,536.50.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL ON HAWTHORNE BLVD AT VALLON DRIVE

Staff Coordinator, Nicole Jules, Sr. Engineer

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize Staff to negotiate the purchase of traffic signal poles and mast arms in accordance with section 2.44.14 of the Municipal Code for a fee not to exceed $17,536.50.

BACKGROUND

On September 18, 2001, the City Council approved the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive. On November 20, 2001 an engineering contract was awarded to Willdan and Associates for the traffic signal design. At the City Council meeting on February 19, 2002, Willdan made a presentation displaying several options of decorative traffic signal poles.

On April 16, 2002, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with the design of a traditional traffic signal without the inclusion of decorative treatments.

DISCUSSION

As part of the construction, new signal poles and mast arms are required. Due to the limited number of suppliers of hardware for signal poles and because pre-purchasing the poles prior to advertising will minimize delay during construction, staff requests authorization to negotiate the signal poles and mast arms purchase price directly with the manufacturer rather than include these items in the advertised project.

The basis for this recommendation is that there is only one supplier of poles and mast arms in Southern California, and it is unlikely that advertising for these items will result in lower costs. Section 2.44.140 paragraph D of the Municipal Code allows for this exception to the bidding process. This method of purchase has been used successfully on previous signal modification/installation projects.

CONCLUSION

Adopting staff recommendation will result in the construction of the traffic signal at Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive as approved by City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT

No additional funds are required for purchase of the traffic signal poles and mast arms. The recommended actions authorize expenditures of up to $17,536.50.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



8. Point Vicente Interpretive Center. (Lynch)

Recommendation: (1) Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Settlement Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to resolve the City's claims concerning the lead contamination at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center site. (2) Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Right of Entry Agreement to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Corps' Agents to enter upon the Point Vicente property to perform the cleanup work.

NO REPORT YET FOR ITEM #8



9. Asset Capitalization Thresholds and GASB Statement No. 34 Infrastructure Valuation. (Downs/Noble)

Recommendation: Adopt the recommended asset capitalization thresholds.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: ASSET CAPITALIZATION THRESHOLDS AND GASB

STATEMENT NO. 34 INFRASTRUCTURE VALUATION

Staff Coordinators:
Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager
Don Noble, Deputy Public Works Director

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Adopt the recommended asset capitalization thresholds.

BACKGROUND:

In June 1999, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board ("GASB") issued Statement No. 34 ("GASB 34") titled "Basic Financial Statements - and Management Discussion and Analysis - for State and Local Governments", known as the "New Governmental Financial Reporting Model" ("New Reporting Model"). This statement established a new financial reporting format for state and local governments, and represents the largest single change in the history of governmental accounting and financial reporting.

With the development and release of Statement No. 34, GASB elected to incorporate some of the most popular features of traditional financial reporting found in annual reports of publicly traded companies into the New Reporting Model, including:

  • A narrative overview and analysis in the form of Management's Discussion and Analysis ("MD & A") in a format similar to what is commonly presented in the front of annual reports of publicly traded companies;
  • Government-wide (consolidated) financial statements that provide a clear picture of the whole City, rather than individual fund statements;
  • Expanded budgetary reporting, including comparisons of actual results with the original budget and the final (amended) budget; and
  • Capitalization and depreciation of the City's "infrastructure assets" (e.g. roads, sewer system and drainage system) that will require the preparation of the necessary detailed infrastructure inventory.

Prior to the adoption of the New Reporting Model, the financial statements of public agencies generally included land, buildings and equipment only. After adoption of the New Reporting Model, the City's financial statements will include roadways, sewer systems, drainage systems and other infrastructure assets.

In other cities and governmental agencies, many of these infrastructure systems were constructed using debt financing, rather than cash reserves. After the adoption of the New Reporting Model, financial advisors and other interested parties will be able to compare the agency's cost and depreciated value of sewers, storm drains and other infrastructure assets with the amount of debt used to finance their construction. In addition, the City Council, staff, financial advisors and the City's residents will be able to analyze the amount of its investment and depreciated book value of the entire infrastructure of the City.

The City is required to implement GASB 34 with the issuance of its audited financial statements for FY 2002-2003. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board Staff encourages early implementation of GASB 34. Accordingly, staff is working towards the City's early implementation in conjunction with the preparation of the audited financial statements for FY 2001-2002, the current fiscal year.

As the GASB is the ultimate authority on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for state and local governments, non-compliance with Statement No. 34 would require the City's auditors to issue a qualified opinion (rather than an unqualified "clean" opinion), rendering the statements to be non-compliant with federal and state legal requirements. This would result in the City's bond ratings to fall to an unacceptable risk category and may require the repayment of federal and state funds deemed ineligible. Also, the City's comprehensive annual financial report would not qualify for the prestigious national and state awards for meeting standards of report preparation, as it has every year since 1993.

Steps to GASB 34 Implementation

On November 20, 2001, City Council awarded a professional services contract to Harris & Associates for the preparation of the infrastructure asset valuation, and calculation of the respective net book value for implementation of GASB 34. At that time Council also adopted the depreciation reporting method for the infrastructure assets of the City in conformance with GASB 34 per staff's recommendation.

DISCUSSION:

Infrastructure Valuation and Capitalization Threshold

Harris & Associates consultants met with Staff and the City's independent auditors from the firm of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP at each phase of the infrastructure valuation project. The inventory valuation was completed on April 19, 2002. Staff anticipates the infrastructure values derived will be included in the City's financial statements dated June 30, 2002. The steps to early implementation of GASB 34 are on schedule, and Staff anticipates full GASB 34 compliance with the issuance of the June 30, 2002 financial statements, expected in December 2002.

GASB 34 requires governments to establish and disclose a capitalization policy for infrastructure assets. The policy sets forth the dollar value above which such asset acquisitions are capitalized and included in the City's Statement of Net Assets (the balance sheet). Infrastructure falling below this capitalization threshold will be expended when acquired. Harris & Associates and Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP have recommended an infrastructure capitalization threshold of $100,000. The threshold does not indicate that individual assets with costs less than $100,000 have not been, or in the future will not be, counted. Infrastructure inventory records will continue to include historical costs of assets less than $100,000. A capitalization threshold is a practical tool to serve a government's financial reporting needs.

Fixed Asset (Equipment) Capitalization Threshold

Currently, the City's Administrative Instruction (No. 8-03, enacted in 1994) designates capitalization of fixed assets with a value of $500 or more. In 1997, the Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) approved a recommended practice, "Establishing Appropriate Capitalization Thresholds for Fixed Assets." The key elements are:

  1. Fixed assets should be capitalized only if they have an estimated useful life of at least two years following the date of acquisition;
  2. Capitalization thresholds should be applied to individual fixed assets rather than groups of fixed assets;
  3. As a general rule, capitalization thresholds should be designed to encompass approximately 80 percent of a government's total non-infrastructure assets;
  4. In no case should a government establish a fixed asset threshold of less than $5,000 for any individual item;
  5. In establishing capitalization thresholds, governments that are recipients of federal awards (i.e. Community Development Block Grants and Department of Justice awards) should be aware of federal requirements that prevent the use of capitalization thresholds in excess of certain specified maximum amounts; and
  6. Governments should exercise control over non-capitalized fixed assets by establishing and maintaining adequate control procedures at the departmental level.

As of June 30, 2001, the City's capital assets had a historical cost of $124,286,547 with a net book value of $83,485,523. Capitalized items include infrastructure, computer equipment and software, appliances, office equipment and furniture, photocopiers, audio/visual equipment, and vehicles. If the City's policy were modified to adhere to the GFOA set of recommended practices (establishing a $5,000 and $100,000 thresholds for fixed assets and infrastructure), the capital assets will be reported with a historical cost of $123,438,943 with a net book value of $83,294,887 as of June 30, 2002. Capitalized items will include infrastructure, computer software, photocopiers, and vehicles, but exclude furniture and some computer equipment and hardware. Non-compliance with the recommended infrastructure capitalization and fixed asset thresholds will likely draw criticism by the National Council of Government Accounting in its review of the City's annual report. Additionally, non-compliance will cause the City's assets to be overstated and expenditures understated in the future, when compared with other agencies.

To adequately maintain control over non-capitalized fixed assets, staff will utilize bar-coded tags and handheld bar-code scanning equipment to conduct annual inventories of all equipment. Department heads will continue to be responsible for all property charged to their department, establishing each employee's accountability for asset security and care.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the recommended infrastructure capitalization threshold of $100,000 and fixed asset (equipment) capitalization threshold of $5,000 effective July 1, 2001 (the current fiscal year).

Respectfully Submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



10. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, 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 HEARINGS:



11. View Restoration Permit No. 118 - Appeal (Appellant and Foliage Owner: Ms. Lynn Doran, 4110 Maritime Drive; Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. James Beck, 4115 Maritime Drive). (Continued from May 21, 2002) (Nelson)

Recommendation: Remand the matter back to the View Restoration Commission to reconsider its decision on View Restoration Permit No. 118 in light of the additional trimming that has been performed by the appellant since the last public hearing.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: June 18, 2002

SUBJECT: VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 118 - APPEAL (APPELLANT AND FOLIAGE OWNER: MS. LYNN DORAN, 4110 MARITIME DRIVE; APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. JAMES BECK, 4115 MARITIME DRIVE)

Project Coordinator: Trayci Nelson

RECOMMENDATION:

Remand the matter back to the View Restoration Commission to reconsider its decision on View Restoration Permit No. 118 in light of the additional trimming that has been performed by the appellant since the last public hearing.

BACKGROUND

On May 21, 2002 the City Council held a public hearing and discussed the issues relative to the appeal of the above referenced View Restoration Permit. After considering testimony from the applicant and appellant, the City Council determined that additional investigation of each property was needed and continued the appeal request to this evening's meeting.

DISCUSSION

View Restoration Commission Decision

As presented in the last Staff Report to the City Council, in considering the appellant's request for view restoration, the Commission found that two trees, one Italian Stone Pine tree and one Holly tree, planted in the front yard at the property located at 4110 Maritime Drive (Doran property) significantly impair the applicant's view. As a result, the Commission ordered that the Italian Stone Pine tree must be either removed, with the consent of the foliage owner, or trimmed to the height of the highest ridgeline of the foliage owner's structure, which is the garage, to restore the applicant's view. The Commission also ordered that the Holly tree be reduced to the height of the foliage owner's ridgeline in order to restore the applicant's view (Location Map- exhibit "D"). A description of the applicant's view and viewing area is contained on page two of the attached Staff Report to the View Restoration Commission (VRC), dated February 7, 2002. Also contained in the attached Staff Report (pages 3 through 5) is a summary of Staff's recommendation to the Commission. A summary of the VRC's decision is contained in attached VRC Resolution 2002-04.

Appeal Issues

The grounds of the appeal as noted in the letter of appeal and supporting memorandum dated March 26, 2002, were addressed by staff in the May 21, 2002 staff report. A copy of the report is attached for reference.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

During the Council's discussion of the appeal on May 21, 2002, a number of issues were raised, which staff has addressed below.

Clarification of Structure Ridgeline

During the City Council hearing, there was a discussion as to the meaning of the phrase "ridgeline of the structure". It has been staff's practice to use the terms "ridgeline" or "highest ridgeline" interchangeably. This is because the Development Code (Section 17.96.1620) defines "structure ridgeline" as the top edge or crest of a structure's sloped roof or the top of a parapet, whichever constitutes the apex [or highest point] of the structure. In making its decision on the application, the VRC considered the residence with the attached garage as the structure, and the top of the garage portion of the structure, as the "structure ridgeline". This is a very common interpretation, as most of the residences in the City have attached garages and through the years, staff, the planning commission, and past City Councils have referred to the residence and attached garage as the "residential structure".

Appeal Issues Limited

During the appeal hearing on May 21, 2002 and in phone conversations with Staff after the hearing, the appellant, Ms. Lynn Doran questioned why the applicant (Mr. Jim Beck) was allowed to raise issues that were not part of her appeal. More specifically, Ms. Doran indicated that during the council hearing, Mr. Beck questioned the View Restoration Commission's (VRC) decision with regard to trees that were behind Ms. Doran's fence that were not included in the original VRC decision. According to Ms. Doran, if Mr. Beck did not agree with the VRC's decision then Mr. Beck should have paid the appeal fee, and appealed the decision to the City Council, as she was required to. She believes that it is not fair for her to be limited to the issues raised in her appeal when the applicant has no such limitation.

Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 C(2)g states the following:

The applicant, the owner of the property where the foliage is located, or any other interested person may appeal the decision of the view restoration commission to the city council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of appeal, including the grounds for the appeal, and any specific action being requested by the appellant, together with the appeal fee established by resolution of the city council, within fifteen calendar days after the view restoration commission adopts the resolution setting forth its decision..Oral testimony shall be limited to the issues raised in the written appeal.

This Code provision seems to support Ms. Doran's position. If Mr. Beck wanted the Council to address the Commission's decision not to trim the trees that are located behind the trees that are required to be trimmed, Mr. Beck should have filed an appeal that raised this issue. However, since the Council hearing on May 21, 2002, Ms. Doran has performed additional trimming to the Italian Stone pine. The additional trimming is new information that was not considered by the VRC thus, staff recommends that the entire case be remanded back to the VRC.

It should also be noted that staff attempted twice to make an appointment with the view applicant to conduct additional view analyses from the view applicant's property but was not able to obtain an appointment or permission from the applicant.

CONCLUSION

Based on the additional trimming performed by the appellant since the last public hearing on this item noted above, Staff believes that there is now new information that was not available to the VRC when the item was before the Commission at the time of the original hearing. Pursuant to the Development Code provisions that discuss the Council's options in considering view restoration appeals, staff believes that the new trimming constitutes "new evidence which was raised in conjunction with the appeal" and thus, the matter should be remanded to the VRC to conduct further proceedings.

ALTERNATIVES

As an alternative to Staff's recommendation, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(g), the City Council may wish to consider the following options:

1.Affirm the decision of the View Restoration Commission, thereby approving VRP No. 118.

2.Approve View Restoration Permit No. 118, but impose additional or different conditions as the City Council deems necessary to fulfill the purpose of Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(2).

3.Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings cannot be made or all provisions of Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(2) have not been complied with.

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

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments
Exhibit "A" - Letter of appeal and supporting memorandum from Ms. Collins dated March 26, 2002
Exhibit "A1" - May 21, 2002 Council Staff Report
Exhibit "B" - View Restoration Commission Staff Report of February 7, 2002
Exhibit "C" - V.R.C. Resolution No. 2002-04
Exhibit "D" - Site / plot plan and configuration of viewing area
Exhibit "E" - Certified arborist memo
Exhibit "F" - View Restoration Commission Minutes, March 7, 2002
Exhibit "G" - Additional file correspondence
Exhibit "H" - City Council Resolution No. _____
Exhibit "I" - Packet of Information submitted by Lynn Doran dated June 7, 2002.



12. Conditional Use Permit No. 215, Grading Permit No. 2229, Coastal Development Permit No. 166, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26073 - Long Point Resort Hotel Project. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: Review and discuss the proposed project, which includes the Planning Commission's recommendation on the original project and the new project revisions reviewed by Staff, as well as the Draft Addendum to the Certified EIR. If the proposed project is deemed acceptable by the Council, conceptually approve the project and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate Resolutions and Conditions of Approval for consideration at the July 16, 2002 meeting.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2229, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 166, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26073 - LONG POINT RESORT HOTEL PROJECT

Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION:

Review and discuss the proposed project, which includes the Planning Commission's recommendation on the original project and the new project revisions reviewed by Staff, as well as the Draft Addendum to the Certified EIR. If the proposed project is deemed acceptable by the Council, conceptually approve the project and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate Resolutions and Conditions of Approval for consideration at the July 16, 2002 meeting.

BACKGROUND

On May 7, 2002, the City Council, at its joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee, was presented with a revised Long Point Resort Hotel project by the applicant, that in response to the City Council's October 16, 2001 directive, does not involve the use of the City owned Upper Point Vicente Area. After receiving public testimony, including a presentation on the revised project, the City Council, with the Planning Commission's concurrence, decided that consideration of the revised project should remain at the Council level. Notwithstanding, the Council instructed the Planning Commissioners that if they wish to provide input to the Council on the revised Long Point project, that the Commissioners review the Commission's previously adopted Conditions of Approval, along with the revised site plan, and provide its input, through Staff, to the Council prior to the June 18th Council meeting. That same evening, the City Council certified the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and directed Staff to continue its analysis, including the preparation of any required additional environmental studies, on the revised project for consideration at the June 18, 2002 meeting.

In response to Council direction, on May 9, 2002 Staff transmitted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-38 and the project Conditions of Approval that were adopted by the Commission at its October 9, 2001 meeting for the Resort Hotel Area (RHA) of the Long Point Resort Hotel project to each Planning Commissioner. To date, Staff has received comments from three Commissioners (Vice-Chairman Long, and Commissioners Duran-Reed and Mueller), which have been attached to this report.

In addition, pursuant to Council direction, Staff has performed an analysis of the revised project, which is discussed throughout this Staff Report. Furthermore, the City's EIR consultant has prepared an addendum to the certified EIR that contains a CEQA mandated environmental analysis of the revised project. The Addendum is being transmitted to the Council along with this Staff Report.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Acreage

The applicant's original proposal (approved by the Planning Commission) included the use of three properties, totaling 168.40 acres, consisting of 64.9 acres of the City owned Upper Point Vicente Area (UPVA), 1.4 acres of the Cigna parcel and 102.1 acres of the Long Point parcel. As a result of the City Council's motion denying the applicant use of the UPVA and a recent request by the management company for the Cigna Parcel to exclude their property from the project (see letter attached to the May 7th Staff Report), the project site is now limited to the 102.1 acres of the Long Point parcel, owned by York Long Point Associates. It should be pointed out that this project site was referred to in the original development applications as the Resort Hotel Area (RHA), to differentiate it from the Upper Point Vicente Area. Since the applications no longer include the Upper Point Vicente Area, this differentiation is no longer necessary.

Project Land Use Components

The proposed project, as introduced by the applicant at the May 7th meeting, includes a variety of uses, which are identified in the following table:

Land Use Component

Description

Hotel

400 rooms, including some freestanding bungalow units, on a 55.6 acre portion of the Long Point property. Ancillary uses are discussed separately below.

Casitas

50 (150 maximum possible accommodations due to the ability for multiple keying of up to three keys per casita). These units would be for sale, but the owners of the individual units would be allowed to occupy the units a maximum of 60 days out of each year, with a maximum single visit duration of 29 days. When not occupied by an owner, each unit would be part of the hotel leasing pool. Conditions of approval to this effect would be recommended if these units are approved. *

Resort Villas

32 single keyed units. These units would be for sale, but the owners of the individual units would only be allowed to occupy the units a maximum of 90 days out of each year, with a maximum single visit duration of 29 days. When not occupied by an owner, each unit would be part of the hotel leasing pool. Conditions of approval to this effect would be recommended if these units are approved. **

Public Golf Practice Facility

Driving range/golf academy and a three-hole practice course (ranging between a par 3 through a par 5) on 32.5 acres of the Resort Hotel Area.

Conference Center

68,000 square feet including banquet/ conference space, and convenience services / retail sales (this includes hallway "flow" space).

Restaurants

3 to 4 Restaurants

Spa / Fitness Center

20,000 to 25,0000 square feet

Tennis Courts

2 courts

Natural Habitat Conservation / Enhancement Area

7.9 acres, consisting of 6.7 acres of bluff face and 1.2 acres of Coastal Bluff Scrub Enhancement Area on the Resort Hotel Area.

Trails

Approximately 3.8 acres of dedicated trails and trail corridors.

Public Parking

100 public parking spaces, consisting of 50 additional spaces adjacent to the Point Vicente Fishing Access and 50 spaces located in the interior of the Long Point property, serving the nearby coastal access points.

Resort / Golf Parking

825 parking spaces (consisting of 390 on-grade surface stalls, 375 parking structure stalls and 60 subterranean stalls)

Club house

8,000 square feet

Parks

One 2.2 acre park within the coastal zone adjacent to the Pt. Vicente Fishing Access.

Golf Maintenance Facility

A facility to house the equipment used for golf course maintenance is proposed adjacent to the tennis courts.

*Based on these restrictions, staff has treated these units as hotel accommodations rather than residential units for the purposes of the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan land use designations and the zoning. Additionally, the California Coastal Commission has found units with similar restrictions acceptable as visitor serving rather than residential in nature. The Beach House project in the City of Hermosa Beach has this type of restriction, and the Coastal Commission, in 1996, found the conditions imposed by the City adequate to ensure visitor serving use of the property.

**See above Footnote No. 1.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The Long Point property contains remnants of the prior Marineland use which ceased operation on the property in 1985. A large expanse of parking area, vacant buildings in various states of disrepair, industrial type buildings utilized as office space, and the Catalina Room banquet facility* all exist on the property at this time. Additionally, a public coastal access point exists in the southwestern area of the property, and public parking is available adjacent to this access point. The coastal access is open to the public between the hours of 8:30 am and 4:00 pm each day.** In addition to these uses, filming activities frequently occur on the site.

*The Catalina Room use of the property was approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 187 on May 23, 1995, which remains valid at this time.

**Urgency Ordinances No's. 213U, 214U, and 216U adopted by the City Council upon the closure of Marineland established a requirement for coastal access and public parking on the Long Point property between the hours of 8:30 am and 4:00 pm each day.

The Long Pointy property contains sensitive Coastal Bluff Scrub habitat along portions of the steep and dramatic bluff faces. Additionally, the property contains a small area of wetlands. Other than these two sensitive areas, the property contains no significant natural resources and was heavily disturbed from the prior Marineland use. Each of these resources will be avoided by the project design.

The overall project site, as described above, is subject to multiple land use and zoning designations. The following table summarizes the applicable designations and the basic development standards under those designations:

Land Use Designation

City Document

Land Use Designation

General Plan Land Use Designation

Com. Rec.

Natural Hazard

Natural Overlay

Soc./Cult. Overlay

Urban Overlay

Coastal Specific
Plan Land Use
Designation

Com. Rec.

Agricultural

Natural Hazard

Natural Overlay

Soc./Cult. Overlay

Urban Overlay

Zoning

CR (Com. Rec.)

OH (OS Hazard)

Natural Overlay

Soc./Cult. Overlay

Urban Overlay

Development Criteria

Lot Size
Requirement

20 acre minimum

Setbacks

Front

40' abutting street,
20' abutting non- residential, 100' abutting residential, 30' abutting street serving a residential district, 25' setback from Coastal Setback Line.

Side

Street Side

Rear / Coastal

Height

16', CUP req'd if higher

Maximum Lot

Coverage

30%

Parking

Per use, pursuant to 17.50. 10% of req'd parking set aside for public use

According to the attached P.C. Resolution No. 2001-38, the Planning Commission determined that the project's conformance with these standards has been met, thereby recommending approval of the project applications to the City Council.

DISCUSSION

Architecture and Building Heights

The proposed architectural theme for the Long Point Resort Hotel is that of a Classical Mediterranean Village integrating Italian and Spanish architectural styles. In general, the Resort buildings will consist of warm earth tone colors that incorporate smooth textured stucco, wrought iron accents, wood beams, tiled roofs, and brick surfaces. The proposed openings (doors and windows) are designed to create a visual relationship between the interior and exterior spaces with the use of courtyards, landscaping, covered patios, walkways, decks and gardens.

The proposed Resort development consists of the main hotel building, bungalows, casitas, resort villas, and recreational structures that are plotted in a manner that cohesively connects the resort buildings as a Classical Mediterranean Village. The following discussion will generally analyze each of the proposed structures. The architectural plans are attached to this Staff Report, and visual simulations of the proposed buildings can be found in the certified EIR, as well as the attached EIR Addendum. Furthermore, it should be noted that pursuant to the criteria set forth in the Development Code, the Commercial Resort (CR) zoning district permits a maximum height of 16', unless otherwise approved via a conditional use permit.

Resort Hotel - The resort building consists of multiple levels that accommodate 400 guest rooms (less any number of rooms developed as bungalows), restaurants, bar lounges, banquet facilities, meeting rooms, and retail service space. The hotel building will also house an underground parking garage that will accommodate 60 parking spaces. The hotel building is situated near the coastal bluff and is designed to step with the natural topography. Although site grading is proposed, from the assumed finished grade, the hotel building will maintain a maximum roof ridgeline of 153 feet above sea level, and will be approximately ninety (90) feet in height, as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the top of the highest roof ridgeline. However, it should be noted that since the building is designed as a stepped structure that follows the contours of the site (gradually descends towards the coastal bluffs), the perceived height of the hotel building, as viewed from the western elevation, will not exceed a height of approximately 70 feet, and as viewed from Palos Verdes Drive South, will not exceed a height of approximately fifty (50) feet.

Resort Villas - The proposed resort villas, located immediately adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West and the Resort's entrance, will consist of thirty-two (32) units that will be individually owned with limited stay, as well as serving hotel guests for a minimum of 75% of the year. The proposed villas will be constructed with similar materials as the hotel building, continuing the Classical Village architectural theme of the Resort. The buildings will consist of two-story, four-unit structures, that provide two to four bedrooms, with one-story floor plans ranging between 2,000 and 2,500 square feet. Each unit will maintain a two car garage with kitchen amenities. The proposed heights, as measured from adjacent finished grade, will be approximately 26'.

It should be noted that as a result of the Planning Commission's review of the original project applications, a condition was imposed that prohibited the highest roof ridgeline of any structure from exceeding the elevation of Palos Verdes Drive South, immediately adjacent to the hotel site (see Condition No. 90). As such, the applicant has revised the plans for the villas, by lowering the grade elevation of the proposed building pads and relocating the building footprints so that the Villas are no longer located within Zone 1 of the Catalina View Corridor, as identified in the City's Coastal Specific Plan. Zone 1 restricts any building to a maximum height of 16 feet, as measured from adjacent finished grade.

Resort Bungalows - The proposed Bungalows are situated between the hotel building and the coastal bluff and consist of five (5), two-story structures that are arranged around the Sunset Pool Area. Each Bungalow will provide sleeping quarters as well as living rooms for hotel guests that range between 450 to 900 square feet. The Bungalows will be constructed with terra cotta colored barrel tiles, recessed windows, French doors, and ornate archways that coexist with the Classical Mediterranean architectural theme of the hotel building. The Bungalows will be approximately 25'-6" in height, as measured from finished grade. It should be noted that the bungalows will be visually screened from Palos Verdes Drive South because of the location of the hotel building and the topography of the site.

Resort Casita - The proposed Casitas will provide overnight/resort accommodations in a flexible room format where sizes, amenities, and number of bedrooms may be adjusted to suit specific guest needs. The project will consist of twelve (12), one-story and two-story buildings that provide a maximum of 150 rooms. The Casitas are located to the east and west of the hotel building around individual pool areas. The Casitas will provide guests with additional amenities, in buildings that are finished in smooth earth tone textured stucco, terra cotta barrel tiles, arched walkways, private decks, and distinct architectural details more commonly found in custom homes. The Casitas will resemble the Classical Mediterranean architectural theme seen throughout the Resort. In terms of height, the Casitas will be approximately 24'-6" high, as measured from adjacent finished grade.

It should be noted that one of the Casita buildings is located within Zone 1 of the Point Fermin View Corridor, as identified in the City's Coastal Specific Plan, that limits the maximum building height to 16 feet, as measured from adjacent finished grade. As such, the Planning Commission conditioned the project so that any structure located within Zone 1 of the Point Fermin View Corridor be constructed no higher than 16 feet, as measured from adjacent finished grade.

Accessory Structures - As previously indicated, the proposed project consists of several accessory structures, such as pool houses, cabanas, public restrooms and a golf clubhouse. These structures will be constructed of similar materials used throughout the resort and are limited to a maximum height of 12 feet, as measured from adjacent finished grade. It should be noted that the Planning Commission approved the gold clubhouse at a maximum height of 16 feet, as measured from adjacent finished grade. In the event that an accessory structure is proposed to exceed the maximum 12 foot height limit, a condition has been imposed on the project by the Planning Commission that requires the applicant to submit a written request to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, to determine whether the increased height is generally consistent with the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission (see Condition No. 89).

Parking Structure - The current proposal involves the construction of a semi-parking structure that was not originally considered by the Planning Commission. The parking structure is proposed to reduce construction costs related to a subterranean parking garage that was originally proposed under the hotel building (a detailed discussion on the grading quantities can be found in the following section). According to the architectural plans, the parking garage will be partially notched into the ground to give the visual appearance of an on-grade surface parking lot as seen from Palos Verdes Drive South. The proposed structure will be finished in an earth tone stucco resembling the hotel architecture. Furthermore, as a means of screening, landscaping is proposed along the exterior facade, as well as earth berms that will visually integrate the structure into surrounding terrain. In order to avoid the spilling over of night light onto adjoining properties or creating a halo in the night sky, Staff recommends that the Council impose conditions that restrict the height of all lamp post to 42 inches, as well as the type of lighting (ie. Wattage) and screening. To view the effects of the proposed landscaping and grading used to screen the proposed parking structure, as viewed from Palos Verdes Drive South, please refer to the visual simulations located on Pages 5.1-4 and 5.1-5 of the EIR Addendum.

Based on the foregoing analysis and the Conditions imposed by the Planning Commission (see Condition Nos. 89-92), the Commission determined that the proposed structures will not adversely impact adjoining properties in terms of aesthetics and views. Furthermore, the project was conditioned and designed so that the proposed structures respect the maximum height limits established in the Coastal Specific Plan for both the Catalina and Point Fermin View Corridors. In addition, Staff has analyzed the minor revisions to the Planning Commission's approved project and believes that the modified project would not change the Planning Commission's determination or findings.

Hotel Operation

At the time the Planning Commission reviewed the project, the applicant requested that the resort Villas be sold to individual investors. In order to avoid the operation of a "timeshare," the Planning Commission conditioned the operation of the Villas (see Condition No. 34) so that the owner of a Villa unit may utilize the unit for no more than 90 days per calendar year, and no more than 29 consecutive days at any one time. The condition also specifies that when not occupied by the owner, the Villas should be included in the hotel room rental pool and managed by the hotel operators.

According to the applicant, the operation of the hotel accommodations, including the bungalows, will be available for use by the public year round, while the Villas would operate as conditioned by the Planning Commission. However, the applicant now proposes to finance the construction of the Casitas, similarly to the Villas, by selling each unit to individual investors. According to the applicant, the owner's use of a Casita unit would be limited to a maximum of 60 days per calendar year, which is 30 days less than the limit for the Villas. Furthermore, an owner can only use their unit up to a maximum of 29 consecutive days, similar to the operation of the Villas. The balance of the year, both the Villas and Casitas would be made available for rent as a hotel suite, where the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) would be charged.

Grading

According to the proposed grading plans (see attachment), the quantities of earth movement have decreased from the Planning Commission's approval. The following table discusses the differences between the Planning Commission's approved grading quantities and the applicant's current proposal:

Project

Cut* (cubic yards)

Fill (cubic yards)

Total (cubic yards)

P.C. Approval

418,583

418,583

837,166

Current Proposal

392,275

392,275

784,550

Total Difference

26,308

26,308

52,616

*This quantity includes a 5% shrinkage rate.

According to the grading plans, nearly all of the 102.1 acre Long Point site surface area will be disturbed. The maximum depth of cut is 35 feet, and occurs in the area of proposed bungalow units on the seaward side of the hotel. Other areas of significant cut occur to allow for handicapped access for the coastal access point to the east of the hotel building, and for building pads associated with the resort villas adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South. The proposed plan also contemplates a couple of areas of significant fill, particularly in the western casita area, as the grade is elevated, presumably to afford some of the casitas ocean views over the more seaward casita units. The maximum fill on the Long Point site occurs in this area and is approximately 26 feet deep.

In regards to the reduction in the earth movement quantities described in the above table, it should be noted that at the time the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal, the project involved the construction of a subterranean parking garage under the hotel building. The subterranean parking garage was designed to accommodate 235 parking spaces. However, in order to reduce construction costs, the applicant has proposed to eliminate most of the subterranean parking garage, thereby reducing the amount of earth movement.

At the time the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed grading, the Commission determined that the Long Point site is already disturbed with large masses of parking areas. Given its disturbed nature, the Commission felt that no truly natural topographic features exist, and that the proposed grading tends to add a more contoured topography. Additionally, the Commission determined that the proposed grading on the Long Point site is balanced, such that no import or export of dirt would be required.

In light of the existing asphalt and concrete paving on the site, it should be noted that the applicant proposes the use of crushing equipment to recycle these materials for use as aggregate base material. The applicant proposes locating the crushing activity in a bowl area which exists on the Long Point site so as to minimize noise impacts. The crushing activity would occur for approximately 10 hours a day for a period of 30 days. The certified Environmental Impact Report concluded that "these activities would not create a significant noise impact" *. Furthermore, the Planning Commission has imposed a condition limiting the operation area of the crushing equipment, as analyzed in the certified EIR (see Condition No. 133).

*See Long Point Resort Certified Environmental Impact Report, page 5.9-15 for a discussion of the crushing activities and noise impact issue.

Circulation

The environmental analysis conducted for the proposed Project included the preparation of a Traffic Study by the City's consultant, Urban Crossroads. The traffic impact analysis evaluated the project's projected impacts to local roadways, intersections, regional facilities and ingress/egress locations on-site. The traffic study served as the basis for the EIR traffic analysis, Section 5.12, which analyzed existing traffic conditions, ambient growth traffic, other local projects, and the proposed project in relation to the guidelines established by the 1997 Congestion Management Program (CMP), prepared by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Committee reviewed the traffic study and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Project subject to the mitigation measures identified in the certified EIR. Based on its independent review of the traffic study and the recommendation provided by the Traffic Committee, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council impose mitigation measures requiring the project applicant widen Palos Verdes Drive South to a 100 foot right-of-way immediately adjacent to the project site; provide a 150-foot minimum left turn pocket for vehicles traveling west of Palos Verdes Drive South and desiring to turn left into the hotel's main entrance; a traffic signal shall be installed by the applicant at the project entrance; and install certain roadway improvements at the intersections of Silver Spur at Hawthorne Boulevard, Hawthorne Blvd. at Palos Verdes Drive North, and Western Avenue at 25th Street. As conditioned and modified by the Planning Commission, the Project was determined not to result in any adverse traffic impacts at local streets or intersections.

Notwithstanding, the revised project involves the use of a shuttle service operating between the Ocean Trails golf course and the proposed resort hotel. According to the applicant, the shuttles (two vehicles) used by the hotel will be of low emissions, seating approximately 25 passengers. The shuttles will operate approximately 12 hours a day, within three 4-hour shifts, as described in the table on the following page:

Shifts

Hours

Number of Proposed Trips

Shift No. 1- one shuttle

6 a.m. to 10 a.m.

8 round trips

Shift No. 2 - two shuttles

10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

16 round trips

Shift No. 3 - one shuttle

2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

8 round trips

Based on the above table, the total number of trips resulting from the proposed shuttle service is 32 round trips. Each trip from the resort hotel to Ocean Trails will take approximately 30 minutes, for a total of one hour per each round trip. According to the attached draft Addendum, it has been determined that the proposed shuttle service will not result in any new significant traffic impacts. Furthermore, the revised project will not result in an increase to the trip distribution because it is assumed that hotel visitors seeking use of the Ocean Trails golf course will use the shuttle service. As for outside visitors using the Ocean Trails golf course, a traffic study was prepared for that project that was reviewed and approved by the City. The Ocean Trails traffic study accounted for vehicle trips generated by the use of a golf course and provided mitigation measures to reduce impacts to City streets.

Parking

At the time Marineland ceased operation, the subject property maintained 2,736 parking spaces, of which, 966 parking spaces were located at the main parking lot, 370 spaces at the west parking lot, 1,200 spaces at the overflow parking lot, with a remaining 200 miscellaneous parking spaces. After the park closed, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinances No's 213U, 214U and 216U requiring coastal access and public parking be maintained between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Soon thereafter, a development application was submitted to the City and subsequently approved by the City Council for a hotel and conference facility. The City's approval included a condition of approval requiring further study of the parking*. As part of the Coastal Commission's review of an appeal of the City Council's approval, the Coastal Commission approved the project with conditions, including a revision to the required parking. The current Coastal Commission approval calls for 1,007 parking spaces (combined surface and subterranean parking spaces), with 101 surface spaces (10% of the required parking spaces) set aside for public parking. Additionally, 50 of the public spaces were to be located at the "northwest portion of the property".

*See the attached Coastal Commission Staff Report: Revised Findings, dated September 11, 1991, Condition III, 1, a.

The current proposal includes a parking supply of 925 spaces, of which 100 spaces are designated for public parking. As proposed, the parking totals will include surface parking (490 spaces), structure parking (375 spaces) and subterranean parking (60 spaces). Approximately 30% of the total parking supply will be valet.

Since the proposed project does not consist of an independent land use, but rather multiple uses, including hotel accommodations, banquet facilities, restaurants, and a golf course, the applicant's traffic engineer (LSA Associates) prepared a shared parking study.* According to the shared parking study, the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Parking Manual cites a range of 0.73 to 1.33 parking spaces per room for resort/convention hotels, whereas the Resort Hotel Traffic Study cites a range of 0.80 to 1.39 spaces per room, and the reference book Hotel Planning and Design suggests 0.80 to 1.4 parking spaces per room. Considering the aforementioned parking rates and that the proposed operations of the project, the applicant's traffic engineer believes that a parking rate of 1.4 or 1.5 spaces per room would be appropriate for the project design.

*See LSA study dated May 24, 2000 which is attached.

Assuming a rate of 1.5 parking spaces, the proposed project, with 550 rooms (hotel rooms, bungalows and multiple keyed casitas units included), requires 825 parking spaces. It should be noted that the resort villas are designed with a two-car garage and a two-car driveway per unit to address parking the villas parking demands. Since the project consists of 925 parking spaces, a surplus of 100 spaces will be set aside for public use. Additionally, the surplus parking can occasionally be used to accommodate overflow parking for special events. As a result, the subject development, with 925 parking spaces, will have a parking ratio of 1.7 spaces per guest room. Without the public parking, less 100 spaces, a total of 825 spaces will be provided for a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per room. As such, the Planning Commission determined that the established parking ratio for the subject development adequately address hotel guest and employee parking for all of the site's amenities. The calculations were based on a mix of uses and the interrelation of those uses.

Biological Resources

The following table summarizes the acreage of the significant resources as they will exist on the Resort Hotel Area as a result of the project implementation:

Habitat Conservation / Enhancement

Acres

Bluff-face/Habitat Reserve

6.7

Coastal Bluff Scrub Enhancement

1.2

Total Habitat Conservation Area

7.9

Based on the information in the above table, the revised project proposes a new planning area (Planning Area 1-B, Coastal Buff Scrub Enhancement Area for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly) within the Conservation District as a plant transition area (i.e., a native plant buffer) between the Bluff-Face/Habitat Reserve (PA 1-A) and the Project development limits. With this Project design feature and mitigation measures recommended in the certified EIR, potential impacts to the El Segundo Blue Butterfly and the Coastal Bluff Scrub along the western bluffs would be reduced to less than significant levels.

The Resort Hotel Area also contains a small area of mulefat, which will be avoided by the project, and the project would be conditioned to require this. Therefore, no impact to this resource would result from the project.

Recreational Resources And Uses

The proposed project includes a variety of recreational opportunities available to the general public, including trails, coastal access points, passive recreational areas, and the golf course.

Public parking areas are provided on the Long Point property for people accessing the coast, whether through the two coastal access points or along the bluff top trail that runs along the seaward edge of the Long Point site. A corridor of trails also runs along Palos Verdes Drive South, as discussed in the trails section below. Additionally, the project incorporates a 2.2 acre park area adjacent to and overlooking the cove beneath the Fisherman's Access facility. This park is over twice the size of the park area required on the Long Point property as part of the current entitlements approved by the Coastal Commission in September 1991.*

*See Coastal Commission Appeal No. A5-RPV-91-46 Staff Report: Revised Findings; date of action September 11, 1991. Condition of approval number III, 1, c 3.

Trails, Coastal Access, And Bikeways

The proposed project includes a number of trails on the Long Point property in accordance with the City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP). Segments C5 (Marineland Trail), D4 (Long Pt. Trail), E2 (Flowerfield Trail), and J2 (Café Trail) are all implemented in general accord with the provisions of the Conceptual Trails Plan. A linkage between the Long Point site trails and segment D5 (Vanderlip Park Trail) would also be completed.

The proposed project proposes coastal access from the Long Point site. This coastal access takes the form of a bluff top trail which traverses the entire coastline of the Long Point property. Additionally, two points of access to the actual shore are incorporated, one of which is the access point required from the prior Marineland use, as memorialized in urgency ordinances. In addition to the physical improvement to public access, the hours of access could be expanded beyond the 8:30 am to 4:30 pm time frame. This would bring the hours of accessibility to this portion of the coastline in line with other areas of the City, such as Ocean Trails and Oceanfront Estates. The general hours of public accessibility are from one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset.*

*See RPVMC § 12.16.030 regarding hours for streets parks and recreational facilities which sets this standard.

In addition to the above, the project includes 100 public parking spaces for use by the public to access and utilize the public access opportunities that would be made available on the Long Point site.

The project also includes both on-street and off-street bikeways. The E4, E5, and E6 segments (Palos Verdes Drive South segments from Point Vicente to the eastern limit of the long Point site) call for both class I off-street lanes and class II on-street bike lanes. The class II lanes are already in place, and the project proposes to improve the off-street lanes in the linear park area along the Long Point site's street frontage. It should be noted that only a portion of the E4 and E6 segments would be constructed under the current proposal, as indicated in the Long Point Permit Documentation exhibit no. 4.1.

Historical Resources

The Long Point site contains a resource of potential local significance, namely the Ishibashi Farmhouse Complex.* The certified EIR concludes that this resource may be of local significance, but that it is not eligible for listing in the California Register.

*Long Point EIR p. 5.4-12.

Therefore a mitigation measure of documenting the resource prior to demolition is imposed.* The resource is of local interest because, among other reasons, the "Ishibashis were removed from the coastal area to the internment camps"** during World War II, and were one of the few families to return to this area after that experience.

*Long Point EIR p. 5.4-25.

**Long Point EIR p. 5.4-13.

Application Findings

The original project applications considered by the Planning Commission for the Resort Hotel Area consisted of Conditional Use Permit No. 215, Grading Permit No. 2229, Coastal Permit No. 166, and Tentative Tract Map No. 26073. Prior to rendering a decision on the project applications, the Planning Commission reviewed the required findings for each application and determined that with the appropriate conditions, the required findings can be positively made. As such, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-38, recommending that the City Council approve the related project applications.

As previously noted, attached to this Staff Report for the Council review of the required findings is P.C. Resolution No. 2001-38 and the Conditions of Approval. It should be noted that the adopted P.C. Resolution was considered at the time the original project involved the use of the City owned Upper Point Vicente Area. Therefore, if the Council deems the project acceptable and directs Staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions, such resolutions will be modified to reflect the revised project as reviewed by the Council. Notwithstanding, Staff has reviewed the findings made by the Planning Commission and believes that the revised project is generally consistent with the Commission's determination.

Coastal Permit

The proposed project is located within the appealable portion of the City's coastal zone, and is subject to the City's Coastal Specific Plan. The limit of the coastal zone is the inland side of Palos Verdes Drive South based on the language in the plan and past interpretations of this issue by the Coastal Commission.

The City's coastal zone regulations include a coastal setback line, which was set at the time the Coastal Specific Plan was prepared. Beyond this coastal setback line is a 25 foot coastal structure setback.* Only minor structures and equipment can be constructed in this area. The proposed plans call for a minimum 25-foot building setback from the coastal setback line, thus meeting this standard. The only exceptions are the Lookout Bar, which is located within the coastal setback area and is a remnant from the Marineland use, and the proposed lower pool and public restroom structure. Both of these structures are subject to the coastal permit requirement.

*See RPVMC § 17.72.040 B.

At the time the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-38, a condition (No. 26) was imposed on the project that allowed the Lookout Bar to be remodeled, including a maximum expansion of 250 square feet. The project conditions clearly indicate that any other proposal located within the coastal setback zone is subject to the processing of the appropriate applications. Therefore, based on the conditions of approval, the proposed lower pool structure would only be permitted, if a Variance application is reviewed and approved by the City, allowing a reduction in the required setback for that facility.

As such, on June 6, 2002, the applicant filed Variance No. 489 with the Planning Department to allow the proposed lower pool structure within the coastal setback zone. In order for the City Council to consider the Variance application along with the remaining project applications, the Planning Commission must first review the merits of the request, and then forward its recommendation to the City Council. Staff anticipates that the Planning Commission will consider the Variance application at its July 9, 2002 meeting.

In accordance with the discussion at the May 7th joint City Council meeting, three Planning Commissioners (Vice-Chairman Long, and Commissioners Duran-Reed and Mueller) reviewed the Commission's adopted Resolution and Conditions of Approval, and submitted comments they believe need to be considered by the City Council when reviewing the revised project (see attachment). In summary, their concerns relate to potential view impacts, public accessibility, and protecting City interests. Staff believes that the issues raised by the three Commissioners may be addressed by the City Council through the imposition of specific conditions of approval.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Existing Entitlements For Long Point Property

As previously noted, the Long Point property currently has entitlements for a similar resort facility. These entitlements (Conditional Use Permit No. 136, Grading Permit No. 1246, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 38) were granted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on July 2, 1991, and subsequently approved by the California Coastal Commission on September 14, 1991. The entitlements have received extensions through September 2, 2002, and remain valid at this time. The following table offers a comparison of the components of the existing entitlements to those contemplated by the proposed project:

CUP 136 et al. Entitlement Comparison

Land Use Component

CUP 136 et al Approval

Current Proposal

Difference

Hotel

390 new rooms

10 refurbished rooms

400 rooms (consisting of some bungalow units)

No additional rooms

Casitas

50

50
(150 maximum accommodations equivalent due to ability for multiple keying of up to three keys per casita)

100 additional room accommodations

Resort Villas

None

32 Villas

32 additional resort villas

Golf Course

9 hole executive course with support facilities

Golf Practice facility with driving range and three practice golf holes

6 less golf holes

Conference Center

30,000 sq. ft.

68,000 sq. ft. consisting of banquet/ conference area, "flow space", and convenience services / retail sales

Additional 38,000 sq. ft. of space and related services

Restaurants

Galley West Restaurant rehabilitation

Maximum 4 Restaurants

up to 3 additional restaurants

Spa / Fitness Center

25,000 sq. ft.

Maximum 25,0000 sq. ft.

No change

Tennis Courts

8 courts

Maximum 2 courts

At least 6 less tennis courts

Country Market / Café

30,000 sq. ft.

No equivalent

Less commercial space in current proposal

Public Park Area (on Long Point)

1 acre required by Coastal Commission conditions

2.2 acre

1.2 additional acres dedicated to parkland on the Long Point property.

Total Acreage

102.1 acres

102.1 acres

No change.

As indicated in the above table, the proposed project in comparison with the existing entitlements is similar in that the Long Point Resort project remains as a multi-faceted destination resort. However, the current proposal includes as many as 100 additional hotel accommodations due to the casita keying configuration. Additionally, 32 resort villas that were not part of the original approvals, and an additional 38,000 square feet of floor area within the conference center are proposed. In regards to site improvements, in addition to the facilities identified in the above table, the current proposal includes a maximum of seven (7) swimming pools, spas and/or jacuzzis; and a system of public walkways, jogging paths, bike trails linking public areas and amenities, and passive recreation areas (public lawns, public scenic overlooks, and public seating areas). It should be noted that modifications to the original approved plans would be necessary prior to implementation, incorporating conditions of approval imposed on the original project by both the City and the California Coastal Commission. According to the applicant, these modifications would have reduced the area of the nine hole executive golf course.

CEQA Compliance

On May 7, 2002, the City Council certified the project Environmental impact Report (EIR), determining that the EIR has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adequately addresses the City's environmental concerns. Certification of the project EIR did not signify approval of the project applications, but only signified that the environmental review process was completed in accordance with CEQA.

Based on the revised project currently being contemplated by the City Council, which includes removal of the Upper Point Vicente Area and the reconfiguration of the Resort Hotel Area, no new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified would occur. Further, no new information of substantial importance, which was not known at the time the previous EIR was certified, has been noted. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Therefore, the City has prepared a draft Addendum to the certified EIR, as required in Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. The draft Addendum has been attached to this report for review by the City Council. It should be noted that pursuant to CEQA, the draft Addendum does not require circulation for public review. Nonetheless, the draft Addendum will be available at City Hall, Hesse Park Community Building, the Miraleste Library and the Peninsula Main Library for public review. Furthermore, the draft Addendum will be available on the City's website. The draft Addendum will be incorporated into the Final EIR, and should be considered by the City Council along with the determination on the project applications.

Representatives from the Environmental Consulting team. RBF Consultants, will be in attendance at tonight's meeting to assist the Council in its discussion of the draft Addendum.

Permit Streamlining Act

It should be noted that the original project involved a General Plan Amendment for the Upper Point Vicente Area, which had a significant effect on the Permit Streamlining Act requirements. General Plan Amendments, by their nature, are legislative acts and are not subject to the strict processing timeframes. Therefore, the standard one-year processing time applicable to projects for which an Environmental Impact Report is required, was inapplicable. However, since the proposed project no longer involves a General Plan Amendment, the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act are now applicable.

Pursuant to Section 65950 of the California Government Code, the public agency (City of Rancho Palos Verdes) shall render a decision on the project applications 180 calendar days after certification of the EIR. Since the project EIR was certified on May 7, 2002, the City has until November 4, 2002 to take action on the project applications.

Public Comments

Attached to this report are the public comments (including e-mail messages) received since the May 7th City Council meeting. Public comments submitted after the transmittal of this report will be provided to the City Council the night of the meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT

The processing of the proposed project applications will have no significant fiscal impact on the General Fund in that the applicant is to cover all costs associated with the City Attorney's review of the project and the EIR Consultant's preparation of the required environmental documents.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, Staff seeks the City Council's direction as to whether the proposed project is deemed acceptable, thereby warranting the preparation of the appropriate Resolutions and Conditions of Approval. In the event the Council finds the project to be acceptable, Staff recommends that the appropriate Resolutions and Conditions of Approval be presented to the Council at its July 16, 2002 meeting.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternative is available for consideration by the City Council:

  1. Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, and provide the applicant with further direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain to review the project modifications.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

  • Site Plan (including architectural plans, grading plans, and tentative parcel map)
  • Draft Addendum to the Certified EIR
  • P.C. Resolution No. 2001-38 and Conditions of Approval
  • Planning Commissioners Comments regarding the revised project
  • Coastal Commission's Conditions of Approval (September 11, 1991)
  • LSA Traffic Study - May 24, 2000
  • Public Comments (including applicant's letter regarding operation of the villas and casitas)



13. Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2002-00228): Wind Energy Ordinance. (Fox)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. ___U, ADOPTING A WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 1207 AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. (2) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. ___ ADOPTING A WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 1207.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO. ZON2002-00228): WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Ordinance No. ___U, adopting a Wind Energy Ordinance pursuant to Assembly Bill 1207 and declaring the urgency thereof; and introduce Ordinance No. ___, adopting a Wind Energy Ordinance pursuant to Assembly Bill 1207.

BACKGROUND

On May 6, 2002, the City Attorney's office advised Planning Staff of the need for the City to adopt standards for small wind energy systems, as mandated by Assembly Bill 1207 (Longville). AB 1207 requires all California cities-including both general law and charter cities-to adopt ordinances to provide for the siting of small wind energy systems in non-urbanized areas by July 1, 2002. If a city fails to adopt a wind energy ordinance by July 1, 2002, it must then approve applications for small wind energy systems "by right," if they comply with the criteria set forth in Assembly Bill 1207, until such time (if any) that a wind energy ordinance is adopted. In order for the City to retain maximum control over land use decisions within its borders, Planning Staff and the City Attorney's office prepared a draft wind energy ordinance to govern the installation and operation of small wind energy systems.

On June 11, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Wind Energy Ordinance and forwarded a recommendation of approval with modifications. The Planning Commission's recommendation included some modifications suggested by the City Attorney, which have been incorporated into the draft Ordinances. Staff now presents the draft Wind Energy Ordinance for the City Council's consideration.

DISCUSSION

This code amendment is comprised of miscellaneous additions and amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC). The specific amendments are described briefly below, and in full detail in the attached draft Wind Energy Ordinance.

  • Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems) is added to the Municipal Code. This Section establishes the development standards and review procedures for small wind energy systems. The approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) will be required to establish a small wind energy system on properties of one acre or more in the CL (Commercial Limited), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CP (Commercial Professional), CG (Commercial General), I (Institutional), C (Cemetery) and OR (Open Space Recreation) zoning districts. These facilities will not be permitted in residential zones, open space hazard areas or the City's coastal zone. The development standards proposed are very similar to the City's standards for commercial antenna towers. It should be noted that AB 1207 requires a 300-foot notification radius for CUP applications for small wind energy systems, rather than the City's typical 500-foot notification radius for other types of CUP's.

  • Sections 17.96.2105 (Definition of 'Tower height, small wind energy system') and 17.96.2355 (Definition of 'Wind energy system, small') are added to the Municipal Code. These definitions are taken directly from AB 1207.

  • Sections 17.14.030, 17.16.030, 17.18.030, 17.20.030, 17.26.030, 17.28.030 and 17.34.040 of the Municipal Code are amended to include small wind energy systems as conditionally permitted uses in the CL (Commercial Limited), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CP (Commercial Professional), CG (Commercial General), I (Institutional), C (Cemetery) and OR (Open Space Recreation) zoning districts.

On June 11, 2002 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed code amendment language. At the City Attorney's suggestion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft language with the following revisions (additions double underlined, deletions struck out):

17.76.150(D) Requirements

7. Roof Mounting Prohibited. A small wind energy system may not be mounted on the roof of any residential structure.

10. Visual Impacts. A wind energy system may not significantly impair a protected view from an adjoining property or create other adverse aesthetic impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant shall demonstrate that the tower will comply with all applicable provisions of Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title. The applicant shall further demonstrate that the tower can be expected to have the least visual impact on the environment, taking into consideration technical, engineering, economic, and other pertinent factors. Towers clustered on the same site shall be of similar height and design whenever possible.

Staff has prepared both urgency and non-urgency ordinances for this code amendment because AB 1207 mandates the adoption of standards for small wind energy systems by July 1, 2002, which is prior to the first available date upon which the City Council could adopt a non-urgency ordinance if the first reading occurs at tonight's meeting.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The subject of this code amendment is potentially applicable citywide and would require direct notification of more than one thousand property owners. Therefore, pursuant to Section 65091(a)(3) of the California Government Code, a one-eighth-page public notice for the June 18, 2002 public hearing on the draft Wind Energy Ordinance was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on June 1, 2002. Notice was also posted on the City's website. As of the date this report was completed, Staff had received no comments in response to the public notification for this code amendment.

Staff has reviewed the proposed code amendment for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Accordingly, Staff has prepared an addendum to the Negative Declaration prepared for the last major code update in 1997. This addendum is included as Exhibit 'A' to the attached draft Ordinances.

CONCLUSION

Planning Staff and the City Attorney's office have prepared the draft Wind Energy Ordinance to enact the standards for small wind energy systems mandated by AB 1207. The Planning Commission reviewed the Ordinance and forwarded it to the City Council with minor revisions. Therefore, based upon this previous review and the additional information and analysis provided above, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. ___U, adopting a Wind Energy Ordinance pursuant to Assembly Bill 1207 and declaring the urgency thereof, and introduce Ordinance No. ___, adopting a Wind Energy Ordinance pursuant to Assembly Bill 1207.

FISCAL IMPACT

Section 2 of AB 1207 states that "[no] reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code." As such, the costs of associated with the preparation of this code amendment have been borne by the City's General Fund. However, future conditional use permit applications for small wind energy systems (if any) may offset these costs.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration:

  1. Based upon City Council discussion and public testimony, the City Council may direct Staff to revise the draft Ordinance, and re-agendize the revised draft Ordinance for introduction and first reading on a future date certain.
  2. Based upon City Council discussion and public testimony, the City Council may provide additional direction to Staff, and remand the draft Ordinance back to the Staff and/or the Planning Commission for further review and refinement.
  3. The City Council may decide to take no action on the draft Ordinance, thereby disapproving this code amendment.

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

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Draft Ordinance No. ___U
Draft Ordinance No. ___
Planning Commission Staff report of June 11, 2002


URGENCY ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE NO. ___U

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: California has a shortage of reliable electricity supply. In 2001, the Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1207 in response to this shortage. Assembly Bill 1207 encourages the use of wind energy by requiring local governments to adopt ordinances that provide for the installation and operation of small wind energy systems in locations outside of "urbanized areas" in the jurisdiction. Each local agency has until July 1, 2002, to adopt such an ordinance. If a local agency fails to adopt an ordinance which provides for the installation and operation of small wind energy systems in non-urbanized areas, the local agency must approve applications for small wind energy systems if they comply with the criteria set forth in Assembly Bill 1207. In order to retain maximum control over land use decisions within its borders, the City desires to enact appropriate regulations to govern the installation of small wind energy systems within its jurisdictional borders.

Section 2: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.76.150 to Chapter 17.76 to read as follows:

"17.76.150 -- Small Wind Energy Systems.

    1. Purpose. The purposes of this Section are as follows:
    2. (1) To provide for the installation and use of small wind energy systems in certain non-urbanized areas of the city to encourage the use of alternative energy sources;

      (2) To minimize visual impacts of wind energy towers through careful design, siting and vegetation screening;

      (3) To avoid damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through careful design and siting of tower structures; and,

      (4) To ensure that wind energy towers are compatible with adjacent uses.

    3. Conditional Use Permit Required. The installation and/or operation of a small wind energy system, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) of this title, shall require a conditional use permit reviewed and approved by the planning commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits). Except as modified by the provisions of this Section, all applications for a conditional use permit for a small wind energy system shall comply with the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.60.

    4. Permissible Zones. The development of small wind energy systems shall be permitted in the following zones on lots that are one (1) acre or greater in size: CL (Commercial Limited), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CP (Commercial Professional), CG (Commercial General), I (Institutional), C (Cemetery) and OR (Open Space Recreation).

    5. Requirements. Each small wind energy system shall comply with the following requirements:
      1. Lot Size. A small wind energy system may be installed on a lot with a minimum size of one (1) acre.
      2. Tower Height. Tower height, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) shall be measured from lowest finished grade immediately adjacent to the base of the tower. For parcels between one (1) acre and five (5) acres in size, tower height shall be no more than 65 feet. For parcels greater than five (5) acres, tower height shall be no more than 80 feet. Under no circumstances may the height of a tower exceed the height recommended by the manufacturer or distributor of the system. The application shall include evidence that the proposed height of the system does not exceed the manufacturer's recommended height for the system.

      3. Setbacks. All small wind energy systems shall comply with the following setback requirements:


        1. At a minimum, a wind energy system shall be set back from any property line a distance equal to the height of the system. No part of the system, including guy wire anchors, shall extend closer than 30 feet to any property line. In addition, all setbacks comply with applicable fire setback requirements pursuant to Section 4290 of the California Public Resources Code or its successor statute.

        2. Placement of more than one tower on a lot may be permitted, provided that all setbacks and all other standards set forth in this Section are met by each tower.

        3. The towers may be located as close to each other as is technically feasible.

        4. Any accessory structures used in association with the towers shall meet the setbacks required in the applicable zoning district.


      1. Turbine. Any wind energy system installed pursuant to this Section must have a turbine. The system's turbine must be approved by the California Energy Commission as qualifying under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Energy Commission's Renewables Investment Plan, or certified by a national program recognized by the Energy Commission.


      2. Noise Level. Noise levels for the system shall be no greater than either 60 decibels measured at the closest neighboring inhabited dwelling or any existing maximum noise levels in the general plan, whichever is lower. The noise levels established by this subsection shall not apply during short-term events such as utility outages and severe windstorms.

      3. Safety Standards. A small wind energy system installed pursuant to this Section must be designed to meet the most stringent wind requirements (as established by the UBC), the requirements for the worst seismic class (Seismic 4), and the weakest soil class, with soil strength of not more than 1,000 pounds per square foot. The application shall include evidence sufficient to demonstrate the system complies with these standards.

      4. Roof Mounting Prohibited. A small wind energy system may not be mounted on the roof of any structure.

      5. Aviation Regulations. The system shall comply with all applicable requirements imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including Subpart B (commencing with Section 77.11) of Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the California Aeronautics Act (Part 1, commencing with Section 21001, of Division 9 of the Public).

      6. Primary Use. A wind energy system installed pursuant to this Section shall be used primarily to reduce onsite consumption of utility power.

      7. Visual Impacts. A wind energy system may not impair a view from an adjoining property or create other adverse aesthetic impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant shall demonstrate that the tower will comply with all applicable provisions of Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title. The applicant shall further demonstrate that the tower can be expected to have the least visual impact on the environment, taking into consideration technical, engineering, economic, and other pertinent factors. Towers clustered on the same site shall be of similar height and design whenever possible.

      8. Maintenance Impacts. The applicant shall describe anticipated maintenance needs for each wind energy system requested, including the frequency of service, personnel needs, equipment needs, and traffic, noise or safety impacts of such maintenance.

      9. Parking. A minimum of two parking spaces shall be provided on each site. An additional parking space for each two employees shall be provided at facilities that require on-site personnel. Storage of vehicles or equipment on a site housing a small wind energy system requires approval of the director or planning commission. Vehicle and equipment storage must conform to landscape and screening requirements.

      10. Landscaping. The applicant shall provide a landscape plan to be approved by the director or planning commission. The plan shall note specifications for landscape and screening, including plantings, fences, walls and other features designed to screen and buffer towers, accessory uses and stored equipment. Native vegetation shall be preserved to the greatest extent practicable and incorporated into the landscape plan.

      11. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall include only such buildings and facilities permitted by the underlying zoning or necessary for the operation and maintenance of the wind energy system.

      12. Application of Underlying Zoning Standards. Except as otherwise provided by this Section, a small wind energy system shall comply with all applicable development standards for the underlying zone to the extent such standards do not conflict with paramount federal or state law.

      13. Coordination with Electric Utility Service Provider. Unless the applicant does not intend to connect the wind energy system to the electricity grid, the applicant shall demonstrate that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has been informed of the applicant's intent to install an interconnected, customer-owned electricity generator.

E. Prohibited Sites. A small wind energy system shall not be allowed on any of the following locations:

    1. A small wind energy system shall not be allowed on any site subject to the city's coastal specific plan and/or the California Coastal Act (commencing with Section 30000 of the California Public Resources Code).
    2. A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any site that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1 of the Public Resources Code.
    3. A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any parcel that is part of an open space easement entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 815) of Division 2 of Part 2 of the Civil Code.
    4. A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any parcel that is part of an open space easement entered into pursuant to the Open-Space Easement Act of 1974, Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 51070) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
    5. A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any site designated as an Alquist-Priolo Hazard Zone pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (commencing with Section 2621 of the California Public Resources Code).

F. Requirements for Application. Each application for a small wind energy system shall include the following information:

1. A completed conditional use permit application on a form prescribed by the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement;

2. Site plan(s) to scale, specifying the location of the tower(s), guy wires, equipment building and other accessory uses, access, parking, fences, landscaped areas and screening;

3. Scaled elevation plans of the proposed tower(s), equipment building, and other accessory uses and related landscaping and screening;

4. Standard drawings and an engineering analysis of the tower showing compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) or the California Building Standards Code (BSC), and certification by a professional mechanical, structural or civil engineer licensed by the State of California;

5. A line drawing of the electrical components of the system in sufficient detail to show that the manner of installation conforms with the National Electric Code and evidence that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has been informed of the applicant's intent to install an interconnected, customer-owned electricity generator;

6. Evidence demonstrating that the proposed height of the wind energy system does not exceed the manufacturer's recommended height for the system;

7. Sufficient evidence of the structural integrity of the tower(s) demonstrating compliance with the safety standards set forth in subsection (D)(6) of this section;

8. An affidavit that the primary purpose of the wind energy system is to reduce onsite consumption of utility power;

9. A completed environmental assessment application;

10. A scaled landscape plan indicating size, spacing and type of plantings as required in subsection (D)(13) of this section;

11. Any additional information requested by the director and reasonably necessary to evaluate the application.

G. Notice. Notwithstanding the notice provisions of Section 17.60.040 (Public Hearing), notice of any application for a Conditional Use Permit for a wind energy system shall be provided to property owners within 300 feet of the property on which the system is to be located.

H. Findings. In addition to the findings required by Section 17.60.050 (Findings and Conditions) of this title, the planning commission may grant a conditional use permit for a small wind energy system only if it finds:

1. The wind energy system will not impair a protected view from an adjoining property or create other adverse aesthetic impacts on adjacent properties; and,

2. The wind energy system complies with all applicable safety requirements and will not expose the public to any undue safety risk.

I. Appeal. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title."

Section 3: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.96.2355 to Chapter 17.96 to read as follows:

"17.96.2355 -- Wind energy system, small.

For the purposes of this Section, 'small wind energy system' shall mean a wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine (approved by the California Energy Commission as qualifying under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Commission's Renewable Investment Plan or certified by a national program recognized and approved by the California Energy Commission), a tower, and associated control or conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity that does not exceed the allowable rated capacity, as defined under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Renewables Investment Plan, and which is used primarily to reduce onsite consumption of utility power."

Section 4: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.96.2105 to Chapter 17.96 to read as follows:

"17.96.2105 -- Tower height, small wind energy system.

Tower height means the height above grade of the fixed portion of the tower, excluding the wind turbine."

Section 5: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.14.030 of Chapter 17.14 (Commercial Limited (CL) District) to read as follows:

"17.14.030 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses and development may be permitted in the commercial limited (CL) zone, if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.14.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Automobile service stations, pursuant to Section 17.76.090 (Automobile service stations);

B. Flower and produce stands and similar commercial/agricultural retail uses;

C. Convenience stores, pursuant to Section 17.76.080 (Convenience stores);

D. Bed and breakfast inns;

E. Outdoor sale, storage or display of merchandise and/or provisions of services, only in conjunction with a permanent use in a building, except for temporary outdoor uses which may be permitted with a special use permit or temporary vendor permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits), by the director;

F. Cleaners/laundry uses which have cleaning operations on site;

G. Churches;

H. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

I. Concurrent sales of alcohol and motor fuel;

J. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

K. Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

L. Governmental facilities;

M. Private educational uses, including nursery schools and day nurseries;

N. Public utility structures;

O. Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

P. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

Q. Such uses as the planning commission deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 6: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.16.030 of Chapter 17.16 (Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District) to read as follows:

"17.16.030 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the commercial neighborhood (CN) zone if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.16.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Wholesale plant nurseries;

B. Outdoor sale, storage or display of merchandise and/or provisions of services, only in conjunction with a permanent use in a building, except for temporary outdoor uses which may be permitted with a special use permit or temporary vendor permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits), by the director;

C. Car washes;

D. Automobile service stations, pursuant to Section 17.76.090 (Automobile service stations);

E. Flower and produce stands and similar commercial/agricultural retail uses;

F. Convenience stores, pursuant to Section 17.76.080 (Convenience stores);

G. Bed and breakfast inns;

H. Cleaners/laundry uses which have cleaning operations on site;

I. Veterinary clinics involving the boarding of animals;

J. Churches;

K. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

L. Concurrent sales of alcohol and motor fuel;

M. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

N. Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

O. Governmental facilities;

P. Private educational uses, including nursery schools and day nurseries;

Q. Public utility structures;

R. Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

S. Restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and have dancing, live entertainment, or four or more billiard tables, dart boards, or other games which may be used for competition and/or recreation; restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and change the type of retail license classification they hold under authority of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; and restaurants that provide drive-through window service for vehicles;

T. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

U. Such uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 7: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.18.030 of Chapter 17.18 (Commercial Professional (CP) District) to read as follows:

"17.18.030 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the commercial professional (CP) zone, if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.18.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Bed and breakfast inns;

B. Churches;

C. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

D. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

E. Governmental facilities;

F. Private educational uses, including nursery schools and day nurseries;

G. Public utility structures;

H. Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

I. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

J. Such uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 8: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.20.030 of Chapter 17.20 (Commercial General (CG) District) to read as follows:

"17.20.030Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the commercial general (CG) zone if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission, that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.20.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Automobile service stations, pursuant to Section 17.76.090 (Automobile service stations);

B. Automobile service stations and car washes accompanying auto service stations, as per Section 17.76.090 (A utomobile service stations);

C. Car washes;

D. Wholesale plant nurseries;

E. Flower and produce stands and similar commercial/agricultural retail uses;

F. Hotels;

G. Movie theaters, billiard halls, bowling alleys, skating rinks and other similar commercial-recreational uses;

H. Fitness studios, dance schools, computer schools and other similar educational activities or uses;

I. Convenience stores as per Section 17.76.080 (Convenience stores);

J. Recycling drop-off/collection facilities and community service recycling programs pursuant to Chapter 17.58 (Recycling);

K. Outdoor sale, storage or display of merchandise and/or provisions of services, only in conjunction with a permanent use in a building, except for temporary outdoor uses which may be permitted with a special use permit or temporary vendor permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits), by the director;

L. Bed and breakfast inns;

M. Cleaners/laundry uses which have cleaning operations on site;

N. Churches;

O. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

P. Concurrent sales of alcohol and motor fuel;

Q. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

R. Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

S. Governmental facilities;

T. Public utility structures;

U. Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

V. Restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and have dancing, live entertainment, or four or more billiard tables, dart boards, or other games which may be used for competition and/or recreation; restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and change the type of retail license classification they hold under authority of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; and restaurants that provide drive-through window service for vehicles;

W. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

X. Such uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 9: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.26.030 of Chapter 17.26 (Institutional (I) District) to read as follows:

"17.26.030 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the institutional district, pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Public facilities owned or used and operated for governmental purposes by the city, the county, the state and the government of the United States of America, and any special district or other local agency;

B. Educational facilities used and operated for educational purposes, including ancillary uses and developments which are operated by the educational institution and are part of, and necessary to, the educational program of the institution;

C. Churches, temples or other places used primarily for religious services, including parochial schools and convents;

D. Clinics and sanitariums, including animal hospitals;

E. Sanitariums, nursing homes, rest homes, homes for the aged, homes for children and homes for mental patients;

F. Recycling drop-off/collection facilities and community service recycling programs, pursuant to Chapter 17.58 (Recycling);

G. Bed and breakfast inns;

H. Cemeteries;

I. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

J. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

K. Helistops, in conjunction with another use allowed by this chapter;

L. Public utility structures;

M. Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

N. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

O. Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 10: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.28.030 of Chapter 17.28 (Cemetery (C) District) to read as follows:

"17.28.030 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the cemetery district, pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Burial park for earth interments, mausoleums for vault or crypt interments and/or columbarium for cinerary interments;

B. Mortuary;

C. Associated sales and office uses directly related to the operation of the cemetery, including flower sales;

D. Churches;

E. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

F. Public utility structures;

G. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

H. Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 11: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.34.040 of Chapter 17.34 (Open Space Recreation (OR) District) to read as follows:

"17.34.040 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the open space recreation district pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Privately-owned recreational areas of an open nature, stables, parks, playgrounds, wildlife preserves and such buildings and structures as are related thereto;

B. Residential structures for a caretaker and family;

C. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

D. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

E. Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

F. Helistops, in conjunction with another use allowed by this chapter;

G. Public utility structures;

H. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

I. Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 12: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 13: URGENCY FINDINGS. The City is responsible for adopting and implementing land use regulations within its boundaries. In 2001, the California Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1207 in response to the State's energy shortage. Assembly Bill 1207, which became effective on January 1, 2002, encourages the use of wind energy by requiring local governments to adopt ordinances that provide for the installation and operation of small wind energy systems in locations outside of "urbanized areas" in the jurisdiction. Each local agency must adopt an ordinance which provides for the installation and operation of small wind energy systems in non-urbanized areas by July 1, 2002, or the local agency will be required to approve applications for small wind energy systems if they comply with the criteria set forth in Assembly Bill 1207. The City has many unique circumstances, including landslide issues and view protection regulations, that affect land use decisions. Because of these circumstances, it is imperative that the City adopt its own regulations governing the installation and operation of small wind energy systems within city limits. Local regulations are expressly authorized by Assembly Bill 1207 and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the City's residents and the general public. Since Assembly Bill 1207 mandates the City's enactment of a wind energy ordinance on or before July 1, 2002, it is necessary to immediately adopt regulations to govern the installation and operation of small wind energy systems within the City. Installation of small wind energy systems before the appropriate procedures and regulations are enacted has the potential to cause adverse impacts to views and aesthetics and to risk the public health, safety and welfare of the City's residents and the general public. It is therefore urgent that the enactment of regulations governing the installation and operation of small wind energy systems effected by this ordinance become effective immediately to prevent adverse impacts to the public health, safety and welfare that may result from unregulated placement of such systems in the City. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare, hereby declares the facts constituting the urgency, and passes this ordinance by at least a four-fifths vote of the City Council. Accordingly, this measure is adopted immediately upon introduction pursuant to Government Code Section 36934 and shall take effect immediately pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b).

Section 14: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2002.

________________________
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 do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. ___U was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on _________, 2002, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:


_________________________
CITY CLERK


EXHIBIT 'A' TO ORDINANCE NO. ___U

ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA/ND) NO. 694

June 18, 2002

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 the adoption of an Ordinance that would approve an amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the City's Municipal Code to enact a Wind Energy Ordinance, as mandated by Assembly Bill 1207. The proposed amendment would give the City the discretion to review the installation and operation of small wind energy systems through a conditional use permit process. Without the adoption of this Ordinance, the City would be obligated to approve applications for small wind energy systems "by right," subject to standards established by State law. As such, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendment would not result in new significant environmental effects, but would actually serve to reduce impacts upon the environment by allowing the City to exercise local control over land use issues. Furthermore, the City Council believes that the amendment is within the scope of EA/ND No. 694 that was 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.


NON-URGENCY ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: California has a shortage of reliable electricity supply. In 2001, the Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1207 in response to this shortage. Assembly Bill 1207 encourages the use of wind energy by requiring local governments to adopt ordinances that provide for the installation and operation of small wind energy systems in locations outside of "urbanized areas" in the jurisdiction. Each local agency has until July 1, 2002, to adopt such an ordinance. If a local agency fails to adopt an ordinance which provides for the installation and operation of small wind energy systems in non-urbanized areas, the local agency must approve applications for small wind energy systems if they comply with the criteria set forth in Assembly Bill 1207. In order to retain maximum control over land use decisions within its borders, the City desires to enact appropriate regulations to govern the installation of small wind energy systems within its jurisdictional borders.

Section 2: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.76.150 to Chapter 17.76 to read as follows:

"17.76.150 -- Small Wind Energy Systems.

A. Purpose. The purposes of this Section are as follows:

(1) To provide for the installation and use of small wind energy systems in certain non-urbanized areas of the city to encourage the use of alternative energy sources;

(2) To minimize visual impacts of wind energy towers through careful design, siting and vegetation screening;

(3) To avoid damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through careful design and siting of tower structures; and,

(4) To ensure that wind energy towers are compatible with adjacent uses.

B. Conditional Use Permit Required. The installation and/or operation of a small wind energy system, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) of this title, shall require a conditional use permit reviewed and approved by the planning commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits). Except as modified by the provisions of this Section, all applications for a conditional use permit for a small wind energy system shall comply with the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.60.

C. Permissible Zones. The development of small wind energy systems shall be permitted in the following zones on lots that are one (1) acre or greater in size: CL (Commercial Limited), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CP (Commercial Professional), CG (Commercial General), I (Institutional), C (Cemetery) and OR (Open Space Recreation).

D. Requirements. Each small wind energy system shall comply with the following requirements:

1. Lot Size. A small wind energy system may be installed on a lot with a minimum size of one (1) acre.

2. Tower Height. Tower height, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) shall be measured from lowest finished grade immediately adjacent to the base of the tower. For parcels between one (1) acre and five (5) acres in size, tower height shall be no more than 65 feet. For parcels greater than five (5) acres, tower height shall be no more than 80 feet. Under no circumstances may the height of a tower exceed the height recommended by the manufacturer or distributor of the system. The application shall include evidence that the proposed height of the system does not exceed the manufacturer's recommended height for the system.

3. Setbacks. All small wind energy systems shall comply with the following setback requirements:

      1. At a minimum, a wind energy system shall be set back from any property line a distance equal to the height of the system. No part of the system, including guy wire anchors, shall extend closer than 30 feet to any property line. In addition, all setbacks comply with applicable fire setback requirements pursuant to Section 4290 of the California Public Resources Code or its successor statute.
      2. Placement of more than one tower on a lot may be permitted, provided that all setbacks and all other standards set forth in this Section are met by each tower.
      3. The towers may be located as close to each other as is technically feasible.
      4. Any accessory structures used in association with the towers shall meet the setbacks required in the applicable zoning district.

    1. Turbine. Any wind energy system installed pursuant to this Section must have a turbine. The system's turbine must be approved by the California Energy Commission as qualifying under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Energy Commission's Renewables Investment Plan, or certified by a national program recognized by the Energy Commission.

    2. Noise Level. Noise levels for the system shall be no greater than either 60 decibels measured at the closest neighboring inhabited dwelling or any existing maximum noise levels in the general plan, whichever is lower. The noise levels established by this subsection shall not apply during short-term events such as utility outages and severe windstorms.

    3. Safety Standards. A small wind energy system installed pursuant to this Section must be designed to meet the most stringent wind requirements (as established by the UBC), the requirements for the worst seismic class (Seismic 4), and the weakest soil class, with soil strength of not more than 1,000 pounds per square foot. The application shall include evidence sufficient to demonstrate the system complies with these standards.

    4. Roof Mounting Prohibited. A small wind energy system may not be mounted on the roof of any structure.

    5. Aviation Regulations. The system shall comply with all applicable requirements imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including Subpart B (commencing with Section 77.11) of Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the California Aeronautics Act (Part 1, commencing with Section 21001, of Division 9 of the Public).

    6. Primary Use. A wind energy system installed pursuant to this Section shall be used primarily to reduce onsite consumption of utility power.

    7. Visual Impacts. A wind energy system may not impair a view from an adjoining property or create other adverse aesthetic impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant shall demonstrate that the tower will comply with all applicable provisions of Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title. The applicant shall further demonstrate that the tower can be expected to have the least visual impact on the environment, taking into consideration technical, engineering, economic, and other pertinent factors. Towers clustered on the same site shall be of similar height and design whenever possible.

    8. Maintenance Impacts. The applicant shall describe anticipated maintenance needs for each wind energy system requested, including the frequency of service, personnel needs, equipment needs, and traffic, noise or safety impacts of such maintenance.

    9. Parking. A minimum of two parking spaces shall be provided on each site. An additional parking space for each two employees shall be provided at facilities that require on-site personnel. Storage of vehicles or equipment on a site housing a small wind energy system requires approval of the director or planning commission. Vehicle and equipment storage must conform to landscape and screening requirements.

    10. Landscaping. The applicant shall provide a landscape plan to be approved by the director or planning commission. The plan shall note specifications for landscape and screening, including plantings, fences, walls and other features designed to screen and buffer towers, accessory uses and stored equipment. Native vegetation shall be preserved to the greatest extent practicable and incorporated into the landscape plan.

    11. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall include only such buildings and facilities permitted by the underlying zoning or necessary for the operation and maintenance of the wind energy system.

    12. Application of Underlying Zoning Standards. Except as otherwise provided by this Section, a small wind energy system shall comply with all applicable development standards for the underlying zone to the extent such standards do not conflict with paramount federal or state law.

    13. Coordination with Electric Utility Service Provider. Unless the applicant does not intend to connect the wind energy system to the electricity grid, the applicant shall demonstrate that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has been informed of the applicant's intent to install an interconnected, customer-owned electricity generator.

E. Prohibited Sites. A small wind energy system shall not be allowed on any of the following locations:

1. A small wind energy system shall not be allowed on any site subject to the city's coastal specific plan and/or the California Coastal Act (commencing with Section 30000 of the California Public Resources Code).

2. A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any site that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1 of the Public Resources Code.

3. A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any parcel that is part of an open space easement entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 815) of Division 2 of Part 2 of the Civil Code.

4. A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any parcel that is part of an open space easement entered into pursuant to the Open-Space Easement Act of 1974, Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 51070) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code.

5. A small wind energy system shall not be permitted on any site designated as an Alquist-Priolo Hazard Zone pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (commencing with Section 2621 of the California Public Resources Code).

F. Requirements for Application. Each application for a small wind energy system shall include the following information:

1. A completed conditional use permit application on a form prescribed by the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement;

2. Site plan(s) to scale, specifying the location of the tower(s), guy wires, equipment building and other accessory uses, access, parking, fences, landscaped areas and screening;

3. Scaled elevation plans of the proposed tower(s), equipment building, and other accessory uses and related landscaping and screening;

4. Standard drawings and an engineering analysis of the tower showing compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) or the California Building Standards Code (BSC), and certification by a professional mechanical, structural or civil engineer licensed by the State of California;

5. A line drawing of the electrical components of the system in sufficient detail to show that the manner of installation conforms with the National Electric Code and evidence that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has been informed of the applicant's intent to install an interconnected, customer-owned electricity generator;

6. Evidence demonstrating that the proposed height of the wind energy system does not exceed the manufacturer's recommended height for the system;

7. Sufficient evidence of the structural integrity of the tower(s) demonstrating compliance with the safety standards set forth in subsection (D)(6) of this section;

8. An affidavit that the primary purpose of the wind energy system is to reduce onsite consumption of utility power;

9. A completed environmental assessment application;

10. A scaled landscape plan indicating size, spacing and type of plantings as required in subsection (D)(13) of this section;

11. Any additional information requested by the director and reasonably necessary to evaluate the application.

G. Notice. Notwithstanding the notice provisions of Section 17.60.040 (Public Hearing), notice of any application for a Conditional Use Permit for a wind energy system shall be provided to property owners within 300 feet of the property on which the system is to be located.

H. Findings. In addition to the findings required by Section 17.60.050 (Findings and Conditions) of this title, the planning commission may grant a conditional use permit for a small wind energy system only if it finds:

1. The wind energy system will not impair a protected view from an adjoining property or create other adverse aesthetic impacts on adjacent properties; and,

2. The wind energy system complies with all applicable safety requirements and will not expose the public to any undue safety risk.

I. Appeal. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title."

Section 3: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.96.2355 to Chapter 17.96 to read as follows:

"17.96.2355 -- Wind energy system, small.

For the purposes of this Section, 'small wind energy system' shall mean a wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine (approved by the California Energy Commission as qualifying under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Commission's Renewable Investment Plan or certified by a national program recognized and approved by the California Energy Commission), a tower, and associated control or conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity that does not exceed the allowable rated capacity, as defined under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Renewables Investment Plan, and which is used primarily to reduce onsite consumption of utility power."

Section 4: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.96.2105 to Chapter 17.96 to read as follows:

"17.96.2105 -- Tower height, small wind energy system.

Tower height means the height above grade of the fixed portion of the tower, excluding the wind turbine."

Section 5: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.14.030 of Chapter 17.14 (Commercial Limited (CL) District) to read as follows:

"17.14.030 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses and development may be permitted in the commercial limited (CL) zone, if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.14.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Automobile service stations, pursuant to Section 17.76.090 (Automobile service stations);

B. Flower and produce stands and similar commercial/agricultural retail uses;

C. Convenience stores, pursuant to Section 17.76.080 (Convenience stores);

D. Bed and breakfast inns;

E. Outdoor sale, storage or display of merchandise and/or provisions of services, only in conjunction with a permanent use in a building, except for temporary outdoor uses which may be permitted with a special use permit or temporary vendor permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits), by the director;

F. Cleaners/laundry uses which have cleaning operations on site;

G. Churches;

H. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

I. Concurrent sales of alcohol and motor fuel;

J. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

K. Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

L. Governmental facilities;

M. Private educational uses, including nursery schools and day nurseries;

N. Public utility structures;

O. Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

P. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

Q. Such uses as the planning commission deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 6: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.16.030 of Chapter 17.16 (Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District) to read as follows:

"17.16.030 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the commercial neighborhood (CN) zone if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.16.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Wholesale plant nurseries;

B. Outdoor sale, storage or display of merchandise and/or provisions of services, only in conjunction with a permanent use in a building, except for temporary outdoor uses which may be permitted with a special use permit or temporary vendor permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits), by the director;

C. Car washes;

D. Automobile service stations, pursuant to Section 17.76.090 (Automobile service stations);

E. Flower and produce stands and similar commercial/agricultural retail uses;

F. Convenience stores, pursuant to Section 17.76.080 (Convenience stores);

G. Bed and breakfast inns;

H. Cleaners/laundry uses which have cleaning operations on site;

I. Veterinary clinics involving the boarding of animals;

J. Churches;

K. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

L. Concurrent sales of alcohol and motor fuel;

M. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

N. Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

O. Governmental facilities;

P. Private educational uses, including nursery schools and day nurseries;

Q. Public utility structures;

R. Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

S. Restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and have dancing, live entertainment, or four or more billiard tables, dart boards, or other games which may be used for competition and/or recreation; restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and change the type of retail license classification they hold under authority of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; and restaurants that provide drive-through window service for vehicles;

T. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

U. Such uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 7: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.18.030 of Chapter 17.18 (Commercial Professional (CP) District) to read as follows:

"17.18.030 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the commercial professional (CP) zone, if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.18.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Bed and breakfast inns;

B. Churches;

C. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

D. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

E. Governmental facilities;

F. Private educational uses, including nursery schools and day nurseries;

G. Public utility structures;

H. Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

I. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

J. Such uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 8: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.20.030 of Chapter 17.20 (Commercial General (CG) District) to read as follows:

"17.20.030 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the commercial general (CG) zone if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission, that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.20.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Automobile service stations, pursuant to Section 17.76.090 (Automobile service stations);

B. Automobile service stations and car washes accompanying auto service stations, as per Section 17.76.090 (Automobile service stations);

C. Car washes;

D. Wholesale plant nurseries;

E. Flower and produce stands and similar commercial/agricultural retail uses;

F. Hotels;

G. Movie theaters, billiard halls, bowling alleys, skating rinks and other similar commercial-recreational uses;

H. Fitness studios, dance schools, computer schools and other similar educational activities or uses;

I. Convenience stores as per Section 17.76.080 (Convenience stores);

J. Recycling drop-off/collection facilities and community service recycling programs pursuant to Chapter 17.58 (Recycling);

K. Outdoor sale, storage or display of merchandise and/or provisions of services, only in conjunction with a permanent use in a building, except for temporary outdoor uses which may be permitted with a special use permit or temporary vendor permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits), by the director;

L. Bed and breakfast inns;

M. Cleaners/laundry uses which have cleaning operations on site;

N. Churches;

O. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

P. Concurrent sales of alcohol and motor fuel;

Q. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

R. Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

S. Governmental facilities;

T. Public utility structures;

U. Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

V. Restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and have dancing, live entertainment, or four or more billiard tables, dart boards, or other games which may be used for competition and/or recreation; restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages and change the type of retail license classification they hold under authority of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; and restaurants that provide drive-through window service for vehicles;

W. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

X. Such uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 9: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.26.030 of Chapter 17.26 (Institutional (I) District) to read as follows:

"17.26.030 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the institutional district, pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Public facilities owned or used and operated for governmental purposes by the city, the county, the state and the government of the United States of America, and any special district or other local agency;

B. Educational facilities used and operated for educational purposes, including ancillary uses and developments which are operated by the educational institution and are part of, and necessary to, the educational program of the institution;

C. Churches, temples or other places used primarily for religious services, including parochial schools and convents;

D. Clinics and sanitariums, including animal hospitals;

E. Sanitariums, nursing homes, rest homes, homes for the aged, homes for children and homes for mental patients;

F. Recycling drop-off/collection facilities and community service recycling programs, pursuant to Chapter 17.58 (Recycling);

G. Bed and breakfast inns;

H. Cemeteries;

I. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

J. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

K. Helistops, in conjunction with another use allowed by this chapter;

L. Public utility structures;

M. Outdoor active recreational uses and facilities;

N. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

O. Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 10: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.28.030 of Chapter 17.28 (Cemetery (C) District) to read as follows:

"17.28.030 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the cemetery district, pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Burial park for earth interments, mausoleums for vault or crypt interments and/or columbarium for cinerary interments;

B. Mortuary;

C. Associated sales and office uses directly related to the operation of the cemetery, including flower sales;

D. Churches;

E. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

F. Public utility structures;

G. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

H. Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 11: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.34.040 of Chapter 17.34 (Open Space Recreation (OR) District) to read as follows:

"17.34.040 -- Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.

The following uses may be permitted in the open space recreation district pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):

A. Privately-owned recreational areas of an open nature, stables, parks, playgrounds, wildlife preserves and such buildings and structures as are related thereto;

B. Residential structures for a caretaker and family;

C. Commercial antennas, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);

D. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;

E. Golf courses, driving ranges and related ancillary uses;

F. Helistops, in conjunction with another use allowed by this chapter;

G. Public utility structures;

H. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.76.150 (Small wind energy systems); and,

I. Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are similar and compatible with the local coastal program."

Section 12: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 13: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.

Section 14: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2002.


________________
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 do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. ___ passed first reading on _____, 2002, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on _____, 2002, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:


_________________________
CITY CLERK


EXHIBIT 'A' TO ORDINANCE NO. ___

ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA/ND) NO. 694

June 18, 2002

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 the adoption of an Ordinance that would approve an amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the City's Municipal Code to enact a Wind Energy Ordinance, as mandated by Assembly Bill 1207. The proposed amendment would give the City the discretion to review the installation and operation of small wind energy systems through a conditional use permit process. Without the adoption of this Ordinance, the City would be obligated to approve applications for small wind energy systems "by right," subject to standards established by State law. As such, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendment would not result in new significant environmental effects, but would actually serve to reduce impacts upon the environment by allowing the City to exercise local control over land use issues. Furthermore, the City Council believes that the amendment is within the scope of EA/ND No. 694 that was 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.



14. Sidewalk Repair Program Delinquent Account. (Vaish)

Recommendation: (1) Conduct a public hearing to consider one delinquent account for sidewalk repairs. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ORDERING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, THE PLACEMENT OF LIENS ON REAL PROPERTY AND THE PLACEMENT OF CHARGES ON THE REAL PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR COLLECTION OF UNPAID SIDEWALK REPAIR ASSESSMENTS.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS

Staff Coordinator: Bindu Vaish, Project Manager

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Conduct a public hearing to consider one delinquent account for sidewalk repairs.

2. Adopt Resolution 2002____, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ordering the establishment of special assessment, the placement of liens on real property and the placement of charges on the real property tax bill for collection of unpaid sidewalk repair assessments.

BACKGROUND

The City has a Sidewalk Maintenance Program wherein all public sidewalks are inspected and repaired on a five-year cycle. Accordingly, each year one-fifth of the City's sidewalks are inspected and repaired as necessary. This year's inspections and repairs are in the geographical area bounded by Hawthorne Boulevard, Silver Spur Road, Via Campesina, and the westerly city limits. In addition, thirty-five (35) other locations throughout the city were included as necessary to eliminate other potential trip hazards. The objective of the program is to remove damaged portions of public sidewalk that could cause a pedestrian to trip or fall. Sidewalk sections that have uplifted to a 1-inch in height are removed by grinding away the raised portion of concrete at no cost to property owner. Sections that have uplifted more than 1-inch cannot be ground because of structural thickness limitations. These portions of sidewalk are removed and replaced. Property owners are responsible for the cost of removal and replacement.

The Sidewalk Maintenance Program is implemented pursuant to City Resolution 85-45 (Sidewalk and Driveway Apron maintenance Policy) and by authority of the California Streets and Highway Code, Section 5610. Section 5610 requires property owners to maintain sidewalks and parkway areas in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons. In the event that the property owner choose to utilize the City for the removal and replacement or fails to properly maintain the sidewalk, the City will make the necessary repairs and bill the property owner for the work. However, the assessed amount per individual property owner (including administrative fees) cannot exceed $500.00. The City pays for all cost in excess of $500 per individual property. Residents electing to have the City take care of the repairs are assessed a 30 percent administrative fee in addition to the repair costs.

ANALYSIS

This fiscal year, the City contracted out repairs for sixty-eight (68) property owners who either elected to have the City do the work or failed to respond to notices that the work must done. Full payments have been received from all but one property owner. The property owner has failed to respond to six (6) mailings requesting payment of $500. Therefore, and in accordance with Resolution Number 85-45, it is recommended that a $500 property tax lien be processed to obtain payment for the repairs. The notice of lien will be filed with the office of Los Angeles County Auditor/Controller and the cost of repairs will be collected at the same time and in the same manner, as are the County property taxes.

The City must follow a specific process in order to collect delinquent billings via a property tax lien assessment. This process includes the preparation of a Cost Repair Report (Exhibit A) that lists all applicable expenses including a thirty percent (30) administrative fee and the adoption of a Resolution (Exhibit B) calling for a public hearing wherein any objections to the proposed assessment can be heard. Therefore, it recommended that Council conduct a Public Hearing during the regularly scheduled Council Meeting of June 18, 2002 to consider the delinquent account and not hearing any substantial objections; adopt Resolution Number 2002-__ wherein the unpaid amount will be submitted to the Los Angeles County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the 2001-2002 property tax billing and will be subject to the filing of liens with the county recorder.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will allow the City to recover costs for repairs to a sidewalk, which is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner.

ALTERNATIVE

Forego a property tax lien assessment and direct staff to continue attempting to collect billing amount through conventional means (i.e. telephone calls and letters of request). Note, assessments must be included in current property tax billing and cannot be carried to the next year.

FISCAL IMPACT

Sufficient funds are available in the project budget to cover the cost for this assessment work, however the City would lose approximately $500 in revenues if the lien is not processed.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments: Resolution 2002-___


NOTICE OF SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DELINQUENT SIDEWALK REPAIR ACCOUNTS, PLACING UNPAID AMOUNTS ON PROPERTY TAX ROLL AND RELATED PROTESTS

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will hold a public hearing on the matter of unpaid bills for the repair of certain sidewalk within the City. Said repair work was performed in accordance with the California Streets and Highways Code. At said hearing, Council will decide whether to place these amounts due the City on the property tax bill of the properties involved.

Said public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at the Fred Hesse Community Park Building, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes.

Interested residents are encouraged to attend this meeting and speak before the City Council regarding this issue.

For further information regarding this matter, please contact the Public Works Department at (310) 544-5252.

Jo Purcell
City Clerk

Published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on June 6th and June 8th, 2002.
Published in the Daily Breeze on June 5th and June 8th, 2002.

 


COST REPAIR REPORT
(EXHIBIT A)

April 2, 2002

Property Owner

Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275

Dear Property Owner:

The City's contractor has completed sidewalk, driveway apron and parkway repairs throughout the City. The sidewalk/driveway apron or parkway adjacent to your property has been repaired. Our files indicate that the City has not yet received payment for this repair work. Therefore, your payment for these repairs is past due.

You were invoiced for the following repairs:

Description

Quantity

Cost/ Sq.Ft.

Total

4" Sidewalk

64 Sq.Ft.

$8.00

$512.00

6" Sidewalk

 

$10.00

$

6" Driveway Apron

$10.00

$

Remove Concrete and fill Parkway with Dirt

 

$4.00

$

Root Barriers in L.F.

16

$20.00

$320

City Caps Cost at $500.00. City Pay amounts in excess of $500.00

Subtotal

$832.00

Inventory, Inspection, & Administration Fees 30%

$249.60

Repair Amount total

$1,081.60

Amount Due

$500.00

Please make check payable to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and payment is due by Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 4:30 p.m..

City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Attn: Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

If you have questions regarding this invoice, need to request an installment payment plan, or inquire about low-to-moderate income assistance, please contact Bindu Vaish in the Public Works Department at (310) 544-5254 as soon as possible.

Thank you for your cooperation and timely payment.


COST REPAIR REPORT

April 2, 2002

Property Owner
5354 White Fox
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275

Dear Property Owner:

The City's contractor has completed sidewalk, driveway apron and parkway repairs throughout the City. The sidewalk/driveway apron or parkway adjacent to your property has been repaired. Our files indicate that the City has not yet received payment for this repair work. Therefore, your payment for these repairs is past due.

You were invoiced for the following repairs:

Description

Quantity

Cost/ Sq.Ft.

Total

4" Sidewalk

64 Sq.Ft.

$8.00

$512.00

6" Sidewalk

 

$10.00

$

6" Driveway Apron

$10.00

$

Remove Concrete and fill Parkway with Dirt

 

$4.00

$

Root Barriers in L.F.

16

$20.00

$320

City Caps Cost at $500.00. City Pay amounts in excess of $500.00

Subtotal

$832.00

Inventory, Inspection, & Administration Fees 30%

$249.60

Repair Amount total

$1,081.60

Amount Due

$500.00

Please make check payable to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and payment is due by Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 4:30 p.m..

City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Attn: Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

If you have questions regarding this invoice, need to request an installment payment plan, or inquire about low-to-moderate income assistance, please contact Bindu Vaish in the Public Works Department at (310) 544-5254 as soon as possible.

Thank you for your cooperation and timely payment.


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:



15. Appointment of chair for Emergency Preparedness Task Force. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Appoint one of the four candidates for chair of the Emergency Preparedness Task Force.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: INTERVIEW OF APPOINTEES FOR CHAIR OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TASK FORCE

RECOMMENDATION

Interview the candidates for chair of the Emergency Preparedness Task Force.

BACKGROUND

Members of the Emergency Preparedness Task Force were interviewed by the City Council on May 6th and appointed at the City Council on May 7th. Four members of this 16 member task force have expressed an interest in being considered for the position of chair. Attached are the resumes of those candidates. One of these candidates, Mr. Paul Christensen, was interviewed by the City Council on June 12th.

Interview of these candidates for chair are being conducted in accordance with the Recruitment and Selection policy adopted by the City Council on January 31st, to wit:

  • Following the appointment of Board members, those appointees indicating an interest in being considered for chair, will be interviewed separately by the City Council specifically for the purpose of selection of the chair.
  • Terms of service for the Chair will normally be one year. Appointments/reappointments will be made annually on a schedule to be established by the City Council.

CONCLUSION

The Emergency Preparedness Task Force was appointed by the City Council on May 7th and four members have expressed an interest in being interviewed for the position of chair.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager


EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TASK FORCE

 

William Baker

Shirley Borks

Jennifer Boudreau

Paul H. Christensen

Maureen Ford

Ken Getzin

Gabriella Schaefer Holt

Melvin W. Hughes

Jack Karp

Tim McCully

Glynn Morgan

John E. Nieto

Don Norton

Dr. Stuart Salot

Richard Kimball Smith

Alan M. Weissman


 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE

BALLOT FOR CHAIR

COUNCILMEMBERS

APPLICANTS

MAYOR MCTAGGART

GARDINER

Mayor Pro Tem Stern

FERRARO

CLARK

TOTAL

Christensen, Paul

           

Hughes, Mel

           

Karp, Jack

           

Smith, Richard

           



16. South Coast County Golf Course Presentation by Jim Tarr. (Evans)

Recommendation: Hear a presentation from Mr. Jim Tarr regarding hazardous materials issues related to development of the proposed South Coast County Golf Course in Rolling Hills Estates.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: SOUTH COAST COUNTY GOLF COURSE PRESENTATION BY JIM TARR

RECOMMENDATION:

Hear a presentation from Mr. Jim Tarr regarding hazardous materials issues related to development of the proposed South Coast County Golf Course in Rolling Hills Estates.

BACKGROUND:

Councilmember Gardiner has requested that Mr. Tarr be given the opportunity to address the City Council regarding the proposed South County Golf Course. Councilman Gardiner has advised staff that Mr. Tarr is an expert in matters of hazardous waste and has information that is of importance in understanding the potential problems of developing the old County landfill site into a golf course.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager



17. Purchase of Emergency Generator for the Abalone Cove Sewer System. (Massetti)

Recommendation: Award a contract under the provisions of Municipal Code 2.44.140 (d) to Sun Electric to obtain a trailer-mounted emergency generator for the Abalone Cove Sewer System for a cost of $16,023.91 and authorize staff to spend an additional $1,976.09 for possible additional work or unforeseen conditions for a total authorization of $18,000.00.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF EMERGENCY GENERATOR FOR THE ABALONE COVE SEWER SYSTEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Award a contract under the provisions of Municipal Code 2.44.140 (d) to Sun Electric to obtain a trailer-mounted emergency generator for the Abalone Cove Sewer System for a cost of $16,023.91 and authorize staff to spend an additional $1,976.09 for possible additional work or unforeseen conditions for a total authorization of $18,000.00.

BACKGROUND:

Staff has determined that to provide a complete, fully functioning sewer system, it is necessary to make provisions for emergency back-up power in case of a power outage. Therefore, it is necessary for the City to purchase a trailer mounted back-up generator to provide emergency power to the pump stations. In addition, staff will be procuring an automatic dial system to notify appropriate personnel in the event of an outage or failure and transfer switches to allow for the use of the emergency generator to power the pump stations.

DISCUSSION:

Several manufacturers/suppliers were contacted and bids were requested. Listed below are tables indicating the prices received.

Company

Proposal

Sun Electric

$16,023.91

MQ Power

$16,304.62

Johnson Power Systems

$17,000.00

CONCLUSIONS:

Due to the circumstances associated with this sewer system, the City should move as quickly as possible to complete the emergency preparation. To that end, staff is seeking City Council authorization to obtain and order the equipment at prices received through informal bid processes so that the purchase of this necessary equipment will not be delayed.

Sun Electric, the City's on-call electrical maintenance contractor is the lowest bidder for these items.

ALTERNATIVES:

The necessary equipment and services could be obtained through a formal competitive bid process. However, it appears unlikely that the costs would be lower. Additionally, the formal bid process would require more time, thereby delaying the purchase of this equipment and the preparation of these critical facilities by at least three months. The cost to the City of conducting a formal bid process is approximately $3,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The recommended action will authorize expenditures of up to $18,000 from the Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance Fund. There is sufficient funding in the FY 01-02 budget for this expenditure. The estimated June 30, 2002 unencumbered balance for this fund is $21,998.

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

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



18. California Redemption/Refund Value Payment And Contract Amendment. (Ramezani)

Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a contract amendment for the City's exclusive residential solid waste and recycling agreements with Ivy Rubbish Disposal and Waste Management of Los Angeles clarifying the language on payment of California Redemption/Refund Value (CRV) revenue to the City

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA REDEMPTION/REFUND VALUE PAYMENT AND CONTRACT AMENDMENTS

Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

Direct staff to prepare a contract amendment for the City's exclusive residential solid waste and recycling agreements with Ivy Rubbish Disposal and Waste Management of Los Angeles clarifying the language on payment of California Redemption/Refund Value (CRV) revenue to the City.

BACKGROUND

Ivy Rubbish Disposal (Ivy) and Waste Management of Los Angeles (Waste Management) operate under exclusive residential agreements that have been in effect since July 2000. The term of each agreement is for 7 years, with a possibility of three one-year extensions. Ivy's service area includes approximately 550 customers in the Portuguese Bend Community, and the area south of PVDS. Waste Management has approximately 11,000 customers and services the remaining 95% of the City.

The July 2000 agreement requires both haulers to make the following three annual payments to the City:

  1. COLLECTOR FEE (previously Franchise Fee and AB 939 Fee): An annual fixed lump sum payment, which is based on the number of customers serviced by each hauler.

  2. CALIFORNIA REDEMPTION/REFUND VALUE (CRV): The 2.5-cent or 5-cent California Redemption Value (CRV) of any beverage container placed by customers at curbside for recycling. The annual amount varies depending on the volume of different beverage containers collected by the City haulers and taken to State certified Recycling/processing facilities.

  3. STATE CURBSIDE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS: An annual cash-back payment/incentive from the Department of Conservation (DOC) for the promotion of beverage container recycling. This payment is funded by the State's excess revenue from unclaimed statewide CRVs and is given directly to haulers who operate curbside recycling programs. However, per our agreement, the haulers return that annual payment to the City, which is then deposited in the Recycling Fund. The City's share of this State payment varies depending on the volume of beverage containers recycled in our City.

The agreement also allows the following revenue source for haulers:

  1. PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS: Haulers keep all proceeds from the sale of recyclable material. This is the scrap value of recycled material such as cardboard, paper, aluminum and glass as a commodity. This revenue source is meant as an incentive for haulers for their recycling efforts. The haulers revenue from recycling varies depending on the volume of recycled material, processing fee and the market for the scrap material.

DISCUSSION

Since July 2000, Waste Management and Ivy have paid the following fees to the City:

PAYMENTS MADE TO CITY
FY 00-01

WASTE MANAGEMENT

IVY RUBBISH

Collector Fee

$297,000

$12,000

CRV Payments

$135,500

$ 0

State Supplemental Payment

$ 50,400

$ 2,500

In addition, Waste Management and Ivy have received the following revenue from the processing/recycling facilities:

HAULER

REVENUE RECEIVED FROM THE PROCESSOR/RECYCLER
FY 00-01 (rounded)

HAULER CRV PAYMENT TO CITY
(rounded)

HAULER NET REVENUE/ LOSS
(rounded)

Waste Management

$208,500 *

($135,500)

$73,000

Ivy

($ 900) *

$ 0

($ 900)

* This revenue/loss is money received by haulers after they pay the processing facility processing costs for the recycling material. The revenue includes CRV and scrap value.

When staff contacted Ivy about non-payment of CRV to the City, Ivy offered the following reason:

  • Ivy states that they acted in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The agreement says: "Company shall remit to the City within 30 days of receipt by the Company, 100% of the California Redemption Value revenues it receives from recyclable materials."
  • Ivy's interpretation has been based on "net" revenues received. Since Ivy actually incurred a "net' loss and Ivy had not received any revenue from their processor, therefore there was no revenue to pay the City.

Staff believes that the agreement is not clear as to whether the CRV payment to the City is based on "net" or "gross" revenues. Therefore, there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of the terms of the agreement regarding payment of the CRV revenues to the City. Also, had staff contacted Ivy and clarified this issue sooner, Ivy would have had time to find a less expensive processing facility, or another solution sooner.

Staff proposes amending Waste Management and Ivy contracts to clarify the language regarding the CRV payments to the City. The contract amendment will clearly state that CRV payments to the City are based on gross payments, or 100% of the actual CRV value, prior to any deduction by the hauler or processor for processing costs.

However, Ivy has taken the following steps to assure full payment (gross amount) of CRV revenues beginning with the 2002 calendar year:

  • Since mid January 2002, Ivy has switched to a new processor/recycling facility (the same processing company that Waste Management has been using for several years)

  • Ivy now anticipates making a slight profit from the sale of the recycling material rather than incurring a loss. Subsequently, starting with January 2002, Ivy has made "gross" CRV payments to the City. The City received approximately $1,400 in CRV payments for the first quarter of 2002.

Staff contacted both haulers regarding the CRV payment and amending the language in the agreement. Waste Management and Ivy both agree to the change. This contract amendment will not change Waste Management's CRV payments to the City. However, it will assure receiving future gross CRV payments from both haulers regardless of processing costs.

ALTERNATIVE

Amend the contract and request Ivy to pay the City approximately $9,200 which is the "gross" CRV for the period of July 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001 (18 months). Payment to be made in quarterly installments starting FY 02-03 and ending FY 03-04.

However, Ivy states they will have a financial hardship if they are held responsible for "gross" CRV revenue for the period of July 1, 2000 to December 31,2001 in the amount of $9,200. That would require Ivy to make payments to the City on monies that they did not receive, and in accordance with a contract that had not clearly addressed the CRV payment. Additionally, Ivy states that they had lost money on their recycling efforts.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff's recommendation will direct staff to amend the City's exclusive residential solid waste and recycling contracts with Waste Management and Ivy to clarify the language on payment of CRV to the City. CRV payments will be based on gross CRV amounts with no deductions for processing costs.

FISCAL IMPACT

The CRV revenue from Ivy's area is estimated at $6,000 annually. This revenue will be deposited in the Recycling Fund and will be used to fund the Recycling/Neighborhood Beautification Grant Program, median improvements, and the Recycler of the Month program. The Recycling Fund projected June 30, 2002 fund balance is $390,000.

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

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Current CRV Payment Language
Proposed Amended CRV Payment Language



19. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Salary and Hourly ranges for all Competitive and Management Job Classifications. (Park)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING SALARY AND HOURLY RANGES FOR ALL COMPETITIVE EMPLOYEE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AT THE 60TH PERCENTILE.

- VIEW EXCEL SPREADSHEET ATTACHMENTS

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SALARY AND HOURLY RANGES FOR ALL COMPETITIVE AND MANAGEMENT JOB CLASSIFICATIONS

Staff Coordinator:Sr. Administrative Analyst

RECOMMENDATION

Consider adopting Resolution No. 2002- __ establishing salary and hourly ranges for all competitive employee job classifications at the 60th percentile.

BACKGROUND

In 1995 the City hired a consulting firm to conduct a comprehensive compensation study of all the City's classifications. The compensation study indicated that most of the City's job classifications were on average approximately 17 percent below the labor market median (middle value). Only four percent of the job classifications were within five percent of the labor market median with 96 percent of the City's classes being more than five percent below median. On March 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-21 amending salary ranges for all full-time employees and establishing the merit pool compensation system.

For each following fiscal year, the City adjusted the salary ranges based on the Consumer Price Index to maintain its desired market position, which is within five percent of the labor market median. In 1998, staff updated the 1995 salary survey using the same survey pool of cities and when possible, the same comparable positions. The survey results indicated that the City's job classifications were on average five percent below the market median and that 16 positions required adjustment in order to be within five percent of the market median. On June 1, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-42 which modified the salary ranges for 16 job classifications and adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by two percent based on the Consumer Price Index.

Since fiscal year 1999-2000, the City Council continued to adjust the salary and hourly ranges based on the Consumer Price Index.

DISCUSSION

In keeping with prevailing practice of regularly reviewing and updating the City's compensation practices, the City conducted a 2002 salary survey of 27 non-management positions, including a new position being considered, Engineering Technician, from a pool of 33 cities. To better understand how staff conducted the 2002 salary survey and developed the proposed salary range adjustments, an overview of the survey methodology, statistical measures, and survey findings are described below.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The original survey pool of cities defined the labor market within which the City must compete in terms of personnel recruitment and retention. These cities were selected based upon a combination of three important criteria:

  • Geographic proximity of competitive employers (municipalities) from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

  • Employer size. Generally, the more similar employers are in size and complexity, in terms of population served and number of employees, the greater likelihood that comparable positions exist within both organizations.

  • Nature of services provided. Employers who provide similar services are most likely to have similar organizational and economic characteristics and most likely to have comparable jobs.

In addition to the above criteria, staff considered the attractive recruitment potential of cities within close proximity to our employees' residences. Staff felt the survey would be more complete by including the following 12 cities to the 2002 salary survey: Cerritos, Cypress, Dana Point, Huntington Beach, Lakewood, Long Beach, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Paramount, Placentia, San Clemente, and Santa Monica. A complete listing of the cities surveyed is attached to this report.

Staff gathered salary data and assessed job comparability from two resources, an on-line database and direct mail surveys of participating cities. Through the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, the City is a member of the California Public Agencies Compensation Survey (CALPACS), an on-line salary database of pre-determined positions with over 100 participating Southern California public agencies. CALPACS established standardized criteria and guidelines for participating Cities to consider before entering any relevant salary information. Since the goal was to identify general wage trends with other agencies, broad comparability guidelines, which typically include similar education, skill requirements, and similar level of duties and responsibilities, were applied when possible. There will be some variability in job matches. However, staff is confident the increased attention to job comparability improved the overall reliability and accuracy of the survey information, as compared with common survey practices that rely solely on job titles.

For the remaining positions not found on the CALPACS database and for non-CALPACS cities, the City mailed a survey packet patterned after CALPACS to each agency. Human Resource personnel were asked to compare the City's abbreviated job definitions against their existing positions and then asked to send a full job description to RPV for every comparable match along with the salary information. This method served to lessen the likelihood of "gross" comparisons and enabled staff to review other cities' job descriptions for any significant discrepancies. When job descriptions were not available or lacking any distinctive comparability criteria, staff used its discretion to include salary information or not based upon discussion with human resource personnel. Instances when the job did not exist within an agency, the level of responsibilities/duties was not similar or the comparable job duties were spread among job classifications, "no comparable class" was reported on the survey.

STATISTICAL MEASURES

The survey data was analyzed using standard measures in compensation analysis. Using the maximum monthly salary range as the control point for salary analysis, staff calculated the mean or average, median, and 60th and 75th percentiles of the survey data compiled for each position. The median value represents the middle of the survey data, so approximately half of the survey data is below and above the median value. The percentile values are rank based statistics. For example, the 75th percentile value means one-quarter of the survey data is above the 75th percentile and 75% of the data is below.

SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS

Based upon the salary survey findings for non-management, full-time and hourly positions, the City on average is 5 percent below the labor market median (middle value). Of the 26 City positions analyzed (this excludes the Engineer Technician position), 21 positions are below the market median ranging from 0% to -14.3%. Approximately 53% of the positions are more than 5% below the market median.

PAY STRUCTURE ELEMENTS

Each salary schedule attached to the draft Resolution (Exhibit "A") was prepared based upon survey results of designated benchmark positions, internal salary relationship guidelines, historical pay groupings of selected positions, and the City's ability to be competitive in the labor market.

The City's pay structure is anchored by "benchmark" positions, which are selected among all the positions within the City. Benchmark positions are generally journey level positions or positions considered to be the most common classification standard and used to serve as a reference point for establishing salary levels for all other positions within the City's organization. For example, within the Planner classification the Associate Planner position is considered the benchmark position because the market survey data compiled is believed to be the most reliable and accurate in terms of strong job comparisons within the marketplace. Entry and senior level positions may vary widely from agency to agency, for instance a Senior Planner position in one City may be responsible for a Planning Division while the same titled position in another City may not. Although staff surveyed all staffed positions within the City, the survey results for entry and senior level positions, such as Assistant and Senior Planner positions, were used as supporting data to validate the proposed salary structure. Of the 27 non-management positions surveyed, 20 positions were selected as "benchmark" positions.

To establish fair internal salary relationships once benchmark positions have been identified within each job classification, the following guidelines were used:

  • Entry level positions are set approximately 12% below the journey level position;
  • Advanced journey level positions are set approximately 12% above the journey level position; and
  • Supervisory and management classes should be set at a minimum of 15% above the highest paid subordinate position.

Historically, the City "grouped" selected positions together to share the same pay range. Although the duties and responsibilities of the positions may differ, the job grade or standing within the organizational structure were determined to be equal and therefore assigned the same pay range. Among the non-management positions two separate groupings exist: Permit Clerk and Staff Assistant II and another grouping of Administrative Analyst, Deputy City Clerk, and Executive Staff Assistant. Pay relationships among these positions were re-considered and determined appropriate to remain.

SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATION

Staff is requesting City Council to consider establishing the City's salary ranges competitively at the 60th percentile ranking for all non-management classifications. Staff believes the proposed salary range adjustment will contribute to the effectiveness of the City's overall compensation plan by ensuring:

  • the City's ability to attract and retain well-qualified personnel;
  • the City's compensation practices are competitive with comparable municipalities;
  • pay consistency and equity among related job classes based on the duties and responsibilities assumed.

If City Council approved the 60th percentile as the desired market position, the overall average increase to salary ranges for non-management positions is 6.3%. However, individual salary range increases will vary from position to position, from no change up to nearly 15% (excluding the CPI adjustment).

For the Deputy Public Works Director, Deputy Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Director, Assistant City Manager and all the Department Director positions, the salary ranges will be adjusted according to the CPI. At a later date, staff will propose hiring a consultant to conduct a separate salary survey for the mid-management and director level positions. Because of the complexity and diversity within these fields and among municipalities, staff feels a compensation analysis consultant specializing in public agency management compensation will best serve the City's need for an accurate and objective comparison of salaries.

Since 1995, the City's desired market position has been the market median and the City's salary ranges have been adjusted occasionally within 5% of the market middle. Staff believes the City's recruitment and retention of well-qualified staff would be improved if salary ranges were slightly above the middle of the competitive marketplace.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

The City's ability to recruit and retain highly qualified staff is a growing concern for City management because employee turnover within the past few years has been unusually high. The average annual turnover rate during 1990-1995 was approximately 1.2 employees and from 1996-2001 the annual turnover average increased to 5.2 employees or over 10%. To varying degrees, employee turnover negatively impacts the City organization in terms of work productivity, development of in-house expertise, institutional memory and continuity, employee morale, and financial cost.

Below are two charts reflecting employee retention by profession category and by years of service and age group.

Years of Employment with RPV by Age Group

Years of Service

Age

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

Total

18-24

2

2

25-29

2

2

30-34

7

7

35-39

2

2

1

5

40-44

1

3

4

8

45-49

2

1

1

1

5

50-54

3

2

2

1

8

55-59

1

2

3

60-64

1

1

2

65-69

70+

Total

21

10

4

6

0

1

0

42

Data Compiled by Aon Consulting


As you can see from the charts above, half of the City staff has less than five years of service with Rancho Palos Verdes and about 74% of the staff has been with the City for less than 10 years. By profession, the mid-career professional group of planners, engineers and accountants has the lowest average tenure of less than two years with the City.

The recruitment effort for these mid-career professional positions has been a struggle in recent years. Despite the City's increased recruitment advertising efforts, the City has observed a noticeable reduction in the number of well-qualified applicants during the recruitment process. In addition, the time period to compile an eligibility list of well-qualified candidates has lengthened from twice the average period of 30 days to one year. During these extended recruitment periods, the City retained temporary professional staffing in order to fulfill workload demands.

There has been some speculation among City Management staff that the City's salary and benefit package and the City's geographic location may be influencing the City's recruitment and retention trends. Granted there are many factors prospective candidates consider when applying for employment. However, among public employees within the Los Angeles region there may be a general perception that Rancho Palos Verdes compensation does not competitively match the work performance level and quality demands of the community. Other issues prospective candidates seem to consider is affordable housing and the distance from the freeways. Of course there is no concrete evidence supporting these statements besides the occasional casual remarks from prospective candidates.

The City Council is asked to reconsider the City's desired labor market position within the region and approve a compensation plan that appropriately reflects the City Council's goals for the organization. Staff recommends salary ranges for non-management positions be established at the 60th percentile and be adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index for fiscal year 2002-2003.

FISCAL IMPACT

If the City Council approved establishing non-management salaries at the 60th percentile, the maximum salary ranges will increase on average by 6.3%. If the market median was approved, the average increase to non-management salary ranges is 4.3%. The new salary ranges may directly impact new recruitment salaries and existing staff at the top of the salary range. The increase to payroll expenditures as a result of either proposal would be nominal, since most of the staff are somewhere in the middle of their respective salary ranges.

In addition to updating salary ranges, the City will adjust all salary ranges by 2.8% based upon the region's CPI (Consumer Price Index). The 2002 salary survey data compiled was not adjusted for the upcoming fiscal year.

It should be noted that any adjustment to the salary ranges does not immediately impact actual employee salaries. Rather, it simply allows the possibility of an increase for those employees who are currently near or at the top of their salary range, dependent upon the employee's regular performance evaluation. The City awards salary increases based upon performance merit and only at the time of an employee's annual performance review.

Recommendation:

Consider establishing salary ranges at the 60th percentile of benchmark positions based upon the 2002 salary survey and by the Consumer Price Index.

Alternative:

  1. Establish salary ranges at the market median of benchmark positions and by the CPI.
  2. Establish salary ranges at the 75th percentile and by the CPI.

Attachments:

  1. Draft Resolution with three salary schedule options (Exhibit "A" at Market Median, 60th Percentile, and 75th Percentile).
  2. Spreadsheet of Statistical Measures of Salary Ranges for Full-Time Positions.
  3. List of Cities Surveyed

PREPARED BY
Gina Park, Sr. Administrative Analyst

APPROVED BY
Les Evans, City Manager


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING SALARY AND HOURLY RANGES FOR ALL COMPETITIVE AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-44.

WHEREAS, as part of the 1995-96 fiscal year budget, the City Council directed staff to conduct certain compensation studies measuring compensation data from both the public and private sectors; and,

WHEREAS, the compensation studies indicated that most of the City's job classifications were below the market median; and,

WHEREAS, on March 1, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-21 amending certain salary ranges for all full-time employees and establishing the merit pool compensation system; and,

WHEREAS, the success of any plan in the public or private sector is dependent upon occasionally adjusting the salary ranges to be competitive with the marketplace; and,

WHEREAS, on July 15, 1997, following the adopting of the FY 1997-98 City budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-69 which adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by two (2) percent; and,

WHEREAS, on June 3, 1998, following the adopting of the FY 1998-99 City budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-48 which adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by one and a half (1.5) percent; and,

WHEREAS, in late 1998, staff conducted a salary survey modeled after the 1995 study using the same survey pool of public agencies and, when possible, the same comparable positions. Based on the results of the updated survey, staff determined that the salary ranges for 16 positions required adjustment in order to be within 5% of the market median so that all City's salary ranges continue to be competitive with the marketplace; and,

WHEREAS, with the adoption of the FY 99-00 City budget, the City Council directed that the salary ranges for 16 job classifications be modified based on the 1998 salary survey. Further, the City Council directed that all City's salary and hourly salary ranges be adjusted two (2) percent based on the Consumer Price Index, so that all City's salary ranges continue to be competitive with the marketplace; and

WHEREAS, on June 1, 1999, following the adoption of the FY 1999-00 City budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-42, which modified the salary ranges for 16 job classifications based on the 1998 salary survey, adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by two (2) percent based on the Consumer Price Index and provided a monthly care allowance for certain job classifications; and,

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2000, following the adoption of the FY 2000-01 City Budget, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-34 which adjusted the salary and hourly ranges by three and four tenths (3.4) percent based on the Consumer Price Index; and,

WHEREAS, with the adoption of the FY 01-02 City budget, the City Council directed that all City's salary and hourly salary ranges be adjusted three and six tenths (3.6) percent based on the Consumer Price Index for the preceding twelve month period, so that all City's salary ranges continue to be competitive with the marketplace;

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002- , which established the salary and hourly ranges for selected classifications at the 60th percentile and by the Consumer Price Index of 2.8% for FY 02-03; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of the new salary ranges will not automatically result in the adjustment of any employee salaries.

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

Section 1: The salary and hourly ranges for City job classifications are adopted as outlined in the attached Exhibit "A."

Section 2: Resolution No. 2001-44 is hereby rescinded.

Section 3: A monthly car allowance for certain job classifications is adopted as outlined in the attached Exhibit "B."

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2002.


___________________________

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 Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2002.


___________________________

CITY CLERK


ATTACHMENT 3

2002 Salary Survey Pool of Cities

Bell Gardens
Camarillo
Cerritos
Cypress
Dana Point
Diamond Bar
El Segundo
Gardena
Glendora
Hawthorne
Hermosa Beach
Huntington Beach
Laguna Hills
Lake Forest
Lakewood
Lawndale
Lomita
Long Beach
Malibu
Manhattan Beach
Mission Viejo
Newport Beach
Palos Verdes Estates
Paramount
Pico Rivera
Placentia
Redondo Beach
Rolling Hills Estates
San Clemente
San Juan Capistrano
Santa Monica
Torrance
West Hollywood

Total of 33 cities


SALARY RESOLUTION ATTACHMENTS (PDF FORMAT)

  1. Salary Resolution Attachment 1- Excel Spreadsheet
  2. Salary Resolution Attachment 2- Excel Spreadsheet
  3. Salary Resolution Attachment 3- Excel Spreadsheet
  4. Salary Resolution Attachment 4- Excel Spreadsheet



20. League of California Cities Resolution. (Councilman Clark/Evans)

Recommendation: Authorize Councilmember Larry Clark to submit a Resolution to the California League of Cities Advocating the Development of Additional Funds to Support Conversion of Overhead Utilities to Underground.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES RESOLUTION

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize Councilmember Larry Clark to submit a Resolution to the California League of Cities Advocating the Development of Additional Funds to Support Conversion of Overhead Utilities to Underground as follows:

RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Long Beach, October 5, 2002, that the League:

1) Coordinate City efforts and actively encourage the State and California Public Utilities Commission to develop and implement a plan for the underground conversion of at least 50,000 miles of overhead electrical and telephone lines in the next 25 years; and

2) Encourage the State and California Public Utilities Commission to investigate and pursue new methods of financing of the conversions including long-term financing using Rule 20A funds, bond financing and other creative financing methods that may be utilized for the purpose of undergrounding utilities.

BACKGROUND

At their May 21, 2002 meeting the City Council approved Councilmember Clark's proposal to submit a resolution to the League of California Cites for consideration at the annual conference in October. The resolution would advocate the development of more funds to support conversion of overhead utilities to underground systems.

The California League of Cities sets policy through resolutions presented before, and voted on by the general membership at the annual conference. This year the League Conference is October 2-5 in Long Beach.

Cities within the Los Angeles County Division have the opportunity to create positive changes in the League through the resolutions process. The Division can sponsor resolutions submitted by member cities and recommend positions to the League. Resolutions should be submitted for the Division's consideration by June 28, 2002. The Division Legislative Committee will review all resolutions and recommend positions to the Division General Membership in July. The final recommendations will be voted upon at the August 1, 2002 Division General Membership meeting. The resolutions sponsored by the Division will be referred by the League President to an appropriate policy committee for review at their meetings on August 16, 2002. The various policy committees will make recommendations on resolutions to be presented at the Annual League Conference in October.

DISCUSSION

City of Rancho Palos Verdes Experience

Few improvements enhance the appearance of a city as much as removing overhead wires and utility poles. The General Plan recognizes this when it states, "overhead wires are an unsightly vestige of a necessary infrastructure component, and cause considerable disturbance to views". Current city standards require utility lines to be constructed underground.

The Public Utilities Commission has for decades, required that the electrical utilities set aside funds for the undergrounding of overhead electric facilities. Unfortunately, as Councilmember Clark has pointed out, the funds that are actually committed for this purpose are very small in relationship to the need. Staff has been unable to determine just how much of Southern California Edison Company revenues are designated for undergrounding projects, but for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes the annual amount is about $154,000 or enough to underground less than five hundred feet of overhead lines.

History of California Public Utilities Commission Rule 20

In 1967, the Commission adopted a policy of encouraging undergrounding of electric and telephone wires. Prior to that time, there was no explicit requirement that new facilities be put underground. Further, property owners desiring to replace an overhead system with an underground system had to form an assessment district to bear the costs.

Since 1967, the Commission has required new electric service connections to be placed underground and has funded a gradual program to convert the existing overhead lines to underground service. The current undergrounding program consists of two parts. The first requires developers to put utility services underground in new subdivisions. Utilities, both electric and telephone, bear the costs of installation, except for trenching and backfilling expenses, which are the responsibility of developers. The second part of the program governs both when and where a utility may remove overhead lines and replace them with new underground service, and who shall bear the cost of the conversion. It is the undergrounding of existing utility lines that of most interest to most communities. These undergrounding projects are covered by Rules 20A, 20B and 20C.

Under Rule 20B, provides that the majority of the cost of undergrounding be borne by the applicant rather than the utility. The "White Paper" describes this rule as "ambiguous." Under one possible interpretation the applicant must pay the cost of conversion less the cost of a new overhead system. Under the proposed Rancho Palos Verdes residential undergrounding program, Rule 20B would most likely be utilized. Rule 20C is much clearer. It states that the customer may convert overhead lines to underground as long as it (the customer) reimburses the utility for all costs. Rule 20A is by far the most common procedure for formation and funding of underground utility districts since the electric utility provides the funding.

Rule 20A states that the governing body of a City or County may determine, after consultation with the electrical utility company and after holding public hearings, that undergrounding along public streets and roads take place for one or more of the following reasons:

    1. To eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facilities.
    2. The street or roadway is extensively used by the public.
    3. The street or roadway adjoins or passes through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public.

Funding for Rule 20A projects comes from the electric utility ratepayers and for the entire state is between $130 and $180 million annually (about 1% of electric utility revenues). The estimated cost of undergrounding ranges from about $100,000 per mile to over $1 million per mile and there are approximately 150,000 miles of overhead lines throughout the state. A simple calculation using the lowest of the cost estimates ($100,000/mile) generates an optimistic period of 83 to 115 years to underground all the overhead wires in California. Since 1967 about 4000 miles of overhead lines have been placed underground. At that rate the time for undergrounding 150,000 additional miles is over 1000 years. Another rough calculation puts the cost of undergrounding all 150,000 miles of overhead lines at $15 billion compared to an estimated value of all existing electric utility plant of $25 billion and annual electric revenues of roughly $17 billion. All these estimates are taken from "A White Paper" dated November 19, 1999, prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Assembly Bill 1149

Assembly Bill (AB) 1149 required the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to study ways to amend, revise, and improve the rules for the conversion of existing overhead electric and communications lines to underground and submit a report to the legislature by January 1, 2001.

On August 4, 2000, Administrative Law Judge Carol Brown issued "An Order Instituting Rulemaking into Implementation of Assembly Bill 1149 Regarding Underground Electric and Communications Facilities." Judge Brown's document is so inclusive and so well defines the issues associated with overhead conversions that it is attached to this staff report in it's entirety (19 pages). Unfortunately, the issues she described so precisely do not appear to have been addressed by the CPUC over the past two years. Of course, the CPUC has had other very serious matters to consider during the same time period and my simply be overextended.

While the CPUC has yet to issue a formal report, on April 24, 2001 Commissioner Duque, as the assigned Commissioner in the undergrounding proceeding, submitted a letter to every legislator with his recommendations and a summary of the study results. His letter proposes four recommendations for legislative consideration and lists actions the Commission could undertake quickly to improve the current undergrounding program. Finally, it highlights the topics ripe for Commission exploration in Phase 2 of this proceeding.

Commissioner Duque stated that the CPUC heard from citizens, municipalities (including elected and appointed officials) and representatives from public works departments, the utilities, utility workers, consumer advocacy groups, and neighborhood/community organizations. In summary, the overwhelming percentage of people spoke in favor of continuing, and escalating, the underground conversion program for aesthetic, safety, and reliability reasons. The repeated concerns raised were 1) the costs; 2) lack of accurate information; 3) lack of response and accountability from utilities and cities; and 4) and the demographic and social equity issues involved in the choice of what areas are chosen for Rule 20A funding.

Commissioner Duque's list of legislative recommendations is:

  • Provide funding for an undergrounding ombudsperson position and staff to oversee all conversion projects;
  • Create different financing mechanisms for communities for Rule 20B and C projects;
  • Fund an appeals process at the CPUC for complaints from citizens and communities on any aspect of the undergrounding process; and
  • Increase the current level of funding for undergrounding, or add taxpayer funds.

Ombudsperson:

The need for an ombudsperson became clear when parties discussed their frustration with "getting the run-around" at the utilities, municipalities, and the CPUC. There is no one source of knowledge, no responsibility or accountability, and a total lack of coordination between the necessarily involved parties. The ombudsperson would meet with all involved parties-cities, utilities, residents and community groups-and facilitate the initiation of conversion projects and serve as a coordinator and trouble-shooter once a project was underway.

Financing Options:

The need for creating more financing options became clear when cities expressed their frustration with the current limits on the use of funds especially for Rule 20B and C projects. Options such as bonds, low-interest loans, and how cities can fairly deal with holdout neighbors need to be addressed. The funding process needs to be streamlined and any unnecessary barriers removed. The ombudsperson would assist communities in creating undergrounding districts and exploring financing options.

Complaint Resolution:

In order for conversion projects to proceed seamlessly, there needs to be an appeals process at the CPUC for citizen complaints on allocation of Rule 20 funds; delays by the utilities in starting and completing conversion projects; unresponsiveness by utilities and local governments; and other undergrounding issues.

Additional Funds

It became clear that even with improvements to the management and financing of the current undergrounding program, without increasing the present level of spending, the state's goal of universal undergrounding is not possible within the foreseeable future. Many ratepayers will contribute their entire lives to Rule 20 funds, yet never reap the benefit of conversion projects in their community or neighborhood.

Commissioner Duque anticipates that in Phase 1, the CPUC will issue an Interim Order that adopts the proposals set forth below, and in Phase 2, the CPUC will schedule hearings on the topics that can benefit from evidence, testimony, and cross-examination

Phase 1 Interim Order:

  • Expand Rule 20A criteria to add more areas within the definition of public interest (i.e. arterial streets or major thoroughfares, and areas of fire hazard and earthquake risk);
  • Expand the use of Rule 20A funds to allow more flexibility to the cities to use the funds in combination with Rule 20B funds to promote more conversion projects;
  • Improve communication links between the utilities and the residents before and during undergrounding projects;
  • Require standardized reporting from the utilities on the expenditure of funds;
  • Allow cities to mortgage Rule 20A allocations for up to five years;
  • Order the creation of an updated Undergrounding Planning Guide; recommend coordination between the League of California Cities, Pacific Bell, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company; and placing the final document on the CPUC website in a timely manner.

Phase 2 Topics Subject to Evidentiary Hearings:

  • Explore the creation of universal standards for conversion projects so that third parties could competitively bid on projects without compromise of quality, safety, or reliability;
  • Investigate whether there should be a "breakpoint" in allowing new overhead pole and line installation;
  • Explore incentives for utilities so that they will be motivated to engage in conversion projects and to complete them on time and within budget;
  • Explore whether unbundled charges for undergrounding should appear as a line item on utility bills.
  • Investigate if there is a fair and equitable competitively neutral recovery mechanism for telecommunications carriers to recover their undergrounding costs.

Involvement by the League of California Cities

The League supports the municipalities' position (agencies that testified during the AB 1149 hearings) that local governments should have more control to prioritize projects based on public safety, aesthetic and economic and community development considerations.

In addition, the League proposes the following changes that appear to be consistent with Commissioner Duque's anticipated CPUC Interim Order: 1) Rule 20A funds should be allowed for design and inspection expenses, street light conversion, and undergrounding of transformers and can be leveraged with other funds including public and private sources; 2) increase cost effectiveness through innovative design and construction practices; 3) require the utilities and cities to meet once a year (including telecommunications utilities) to discuss potential and ongoing projects; 4) direct the utilities to send annual reports on undergrounding projects to cities and the CPUC; 5) allow cities to mortgage allocations for up to five years; and 6) provide incentives to all utilities to adhere to undergrounding schedules.

Clearly the League has not taken a very aggressive stance and has not actually adopted a formal policy statement on utility undergrounding.

City Commitment

Supporters of a Resolution proposed for consideration by the League General Assembly need to be committed to speaking at the policy committee meetings, the Resolutions Committee meetings and before the General Assembly at the Annual Conference in support of their position. In order to prepare for these meetings, it may be necessary to meet with key CPUC members and utility company executives to insure that there is a clear understanding of all the issues.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
Assembly Bill No. 1149
Order Instituting Rulemaking
Proposed Resolution
Annual Conference Resolution Procedure


RESOLUTION RELATING TO ENCOURAGING THE STATE AND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TO IMPLEMENT PLANS FOR THE SPEEDY CONVERSION OF OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES TO UNDERGROUND SYSTEMS

WHEREAS, in 1967 the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted a policy of encouraging undergrounding of utility lines; and

WHEREAS, by 1999 only 4000 miles of distribution facilities have been placed underground while over 163,000 miles of overhead distribution lines remain; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1149 required the CPUC to study the following issues:

  1. Discovering and eliminating barriers to establishing continuity of the existing underground system and ways to eliminate uneven patches of overhead facilities.
  2. How to enhance public safety.
  3. How to improve reliability.
  4. How to provide more flexibility and control to local governments; and

WHEREAS, the CPUC AB 1149 Study is still not complete; and

WHEREAS, during the AB 1149 workshops the overwhelming majority of commentators urged that the CPUC pursue ways to increase, accelerate, and maximize the conversion rate without raising ratepayers' contribution and explore alternate sources of financing for undergrounding; and

WHEREAS, unexplored suggestions for speeding the conversion of overhead lines have been offered including:

  1. Using life cycle costs when comparing the cost of undergrounding with repair and maintenance of overhead facilities.
  2. Utilizing competitive bidding for the planning and construction of Rule 20A projects.
  3. Experimenting with alternative methods of undergrounding such as using raceways, and re-evaluating trench depth and separation requirements.
  4. Provide incentives for utility companies to perform conversion projects.
  5. Employ economies of scale to obtain more competitive costs for undergrounding; and

WHEREAS, underground projects are all accomplished with funds on hand when long-term financing, or other creative or innovative financing methods may offer more benefits; and

Now, therefore, let it be

RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Long Beach, October 5, 2002, that the League:

1) Coordinate city efforts and actively encourage the State and California Public Utilities Commission to develop and implement a plan for the underground conversion of at least 50,000 miles of overhead electrical and telephone lines in the next 25 years; and

2) Encourage the State and California Public Utilities Commission to investigate and pursue new methods of financing of the conversions including long-term financing using Rule 20A funds, bond financing and other creative financing methods that may be utilized for the purpose of undergrounding utilities.



21. November 2002 Election RPV Term Limits Ballot Initiative (Councilman Clark

Recommendation: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council sponsor a Term Limits Ballot Initiative for inclusion in the November 2002 election, that will give the residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes the opportunity to vote for or against the institution of a two (2) consecutive terms, no life time ban, term limit applicable to Rancho Palos Verdes council members in the future.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: COUNCIL MEMBER LARRY CLARK

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 2002 ELECTION RPV TERM LIMITS BALLOT INITIATIVE

RECOMMENDATION:

Rancho Palos Verdes City Council sponsor a Term Limits Ballot Initiative for inclusion in the November 2002 election, that will give the residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes the opportunity to vote for or against the institution of a two (2) consecutive terms, no life time ban, term limit applicable to Rancho Palos Verdes council members in the future.

BACKGROUND:

During the course 2001, numerous Rancho Palos Verdes residents raised the topic of term limits and requested that action be taken by the new City Council to provide the opportunity for our residents to decide whether our city should institute term limits on our city council positions.

Since the late 1980s, Term Limits have become a reality in California at the state, county, and municipal levels. Many cities throughout the State of California have established through local resident voter ballot initiatives various forms of term limits. Some of the cities of interest and general proximity to Rancho Palos Verdes enacting term limits include: Torrance, Long Beach, Manhattan Beach, Los Angeles, Cypress, Downey, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Gardena, and Garden Grove.

By California statue municipal council term limits in order to be instituted must be submitted to the electors (residents) of the city at a regularly scheduled election and a majority of the votes cast on the question favor the adoption of the proposal. Importantly, the adoption of term limits by the voters can only be applied prospectively.

DISCUSSION:

The approximately 42,000 residents of City of Rancho Palos Verdes represent a tremendously talented, educated, and capable group of residents from which to draw volunteer leadership at the city council level. Notwithstanding this outstanding talented population base in our city, it is interesting to note that over the 29-year history of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, with elections every two (2) years, only 20 residents have served the community on our city council. Moreover, only 2 incumbents have been defeated in re-election bids.

Hence, it is not surprising as our city has matured, in the almost 3 decades since incorporation in 1973, that more and more residents have expressed their desire to see " the process" of volunteering to serve their fellow residents at the city council level 'opened- up'.

Many feel that term limits on city council service would act as a positive incentive and signal to our interested and talented resident neighborhood volunteer leaders to step forward and run for city council. Specifically, it would insure elections in which there would be open seats on our city council. Further it would reduce the historically proven advantages of incumbency.

An argument often raised in opposition to term limits is that it would eliminate the ability of the community to keep in office a proven outstanding city council member, whom the community and the individual believe should continue to serve the city on the council level. This issue is valid in exceptional cases and where the term limits are absolute. However, many cities with terms limits avoid this issue by structuring the term limits so that they aren't lifetime bans. This is most commonly accomplished by structuring the term limits so that a council member can serve no more than 2 consecutive terms, requiring a waiting period (usually equal to the one term), before the termed out incumbent can again run for office. Several of the cities mentioned above employ this form of term limits.

CONCLUSION:

Putting a Term Limits ballot initiative on the November election will give voice to our fellow residents and allow them to decide the question of adoption or not of Term Limits for city council service in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Action by this City Council in this regard reinforces the Council's out-reach to the community and residents associated with community based partnered decision making demonstrated since beginning of this year.

Respectfully submitted:
Larry Clark, Council Member



22. Applicants for View Restoration Mediator Positions - Set Date to Interview. (Purcell) (Continued from meting of June 12, 2002)

Recommendation: Set a date to interview the applicants for View Restoration Mediator positions.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: APPLICANTS FOR POSITION OF VIEW RESTORATION

MEDIATORS - SET DATE TO INTERVIEW

RECOMMENDATION

Set a date to interview the applicants for the position of View Restoration Mediators.

BACKGROUND

This matter was continued from the June 12th meeting because two members of Council were absent and it was the consensus that to set a date for the interviews would require the input of all councilmembers.

With the appointment of a chair to the Emergency Preparedness Task Force, interviewing and appointing candidates to the position of View Restoration Mediators will bring to a completion the recruitment and interview process for the City's advisory boards.

The City is in receipt of seven applications from candidates for the position of View Restoration Mediators. (Please see attached roster and applications.) While previously consisting of ten members (seven regular and three alternates), the City Council on April 2nd decided that because most of the View Restoration Commission work had been done, that the service of the Commission could be accomplished in a more cost-effective manner by designating mediators. These mediators would serve as a adjunct to the Planning Commission. Furthermore, it was the consensus of the Council that a mediation team of five members would be sufficient to process the view applications now being received by the City.

CONCLUSION

The City is in receipt of seven applications from residents who wish to serve as View Restoration Mediators. Council should now set a date to interview those candidates and make appointments as soon thereafter as possible.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

VIEW RESTORATION MEDIATOR CANDIDATES

Alberio, Gilbert (Incumbent)

2177 Rockinghorse Road
Home: 833-2961
Fax: 833-0416
No E-Mail

Drages, Neva H. (Incumbent)

28723 Rothrock Drive
Home: 541-2834
No E-mail

Dyda, Kenneth J. (Incumbent)

5715 Capeswood Drive
Home: 375-3932
E-mail: kdyda@earthlink.net

Ortolano, Jr., Ralph J.

 

3778 Coolheights Drive
Home: 377-8233
E-mail: ortolano@hotmail.com
Fax: 310-377-8233

Pole, Debra E.

5241 Rolling Ridge Road
Home: 375-3524 Bus.: 213-745-3336
E-mail: dpole@brobeck.com
Fax: 213-239-1323

Weber, Paul R., M.D., PhD. (Incumbent)

Other choices: 2nd Planning Commission; 3rd Finance Advisory Committee; 4th Recreation and Parks Committee; 5th Traffic Committee; 6th Equestrian Committee

3502 Via Campesina
Home: 378-5571 Bus.: 562-595-5380
E-mail: dontfly@aol.com
Fax: 310-378-7972

Wenning, Connie

30002 Avenida Classica
Home: 541-4323 Bus.: 540-0072
Fax: 310-540-8336
No E-mail

 

VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION ROSTER

Gilbert Alberio, (Chair)
2177 Rocking Horse Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
phone: 833-2961
fax: 833-0416

John Monks
32200 Schooner Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 377-3803
Fax: (310) 541-4941


Luis De Moraes
27010 Springcreek Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 544-2909
Fax: (310) 452-5805
E-Mail: demoraesfamily@msn.com


Jim Slayden
37 Mela Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 377-2033


Neva H. Drages
28723 Rothrock Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 541-2834

S. Bruce (Bud) Franklin
15 Oceanaire Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 541-7177
E-Mail: frank4@gateway.net

Charlotte Iseda
6781 Verde Ridge Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: 310-377-7154
Fax: 310-541-3984
E-mail: kB6FXS@aol.com


Alternates:

Ken Dyda
5715 Capeswood Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 375-3932
E-Mail: kdyda@earthlink.net


Russell T. Ginise
26404 Birchfield Avenue
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Home: (310) 375-6148
Work: (310) 772-6138
Fax: (310) 772-6600
E-Mail: rtginise@aol.com


Dr. Paul Weber
3502 Via Campesina
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Home: (310) 378-5571
Work. (562) 426-2105

Meetings 1st Thursday of each month - Hesse Park Community Room:



23. City Council Reports. (Evans)

Recommendation: Make City Council reports as required by City Council Policy Number 23.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JUNE 18, 2002

SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

RECOMMENDATION

Make City Council reports as required by City Council Policy Number 23.

BACKGROUND

City Council Policy Number 23 (attached) requires that each Councilmember serving on an outside organization or on an ad hoc Council subcommittee, where they represent the interests of the City, make a quarterly report to the full Council on the activities of the organization or subcommittee. It has been pointed out to staff that while each Councilmember has been making regular reports, a few organizations or committees to which a Councilmember has been appointed have not yet been reported on this quarter. In view of the fact that some committees have formal minutes (such as the Red Team, Contract Cities, PV Transit) and some committees haven't met yet this year (such as the CJPIA), whether or not the quarterly reporting requirement has been fulfilled is not entirely clear.

DISCUSSION

Staff has provided (attached) a current listing of City Council assignments made this year. It would be appropriate for each Councilmember to briefly report on the activities of their organization, committee or liaison assignment, if they have not done so previously this quarter.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
City Council Policy No. 23

City Council Assignments for 2002


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers 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.