Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
   

DECEMBER 21, 2004 RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION ON THE APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230 (PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2004-00453) [APPELLANT: JAMES KAY, 26708 INDIAN PEAK ROAD] DECEMBER 21, 2004 RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION ON THE APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230 (PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2004-00453) [APPELLANT: JAMES KAY, 26708 INDIAN PEAK ROAD]

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2004

SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION ON THE APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230 (PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2004-00453) [APPELLANT: JAMES KAY, 26708 INDIAN PEAK ROAD]

Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2004-__, conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 230 (Planning Case No. ZON2004-00453), as amended pursuant to an order of the United States District Court.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On July 14, 2004, the United States District Court issued an order in the matter of Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, directing the City to timely issue a revised conditional use permit for the operation of commercial antennae on the property located at 26708 Indian Peak Road. Staff has prepared a revised resolution that is consistent with the Court’s order for the City Council’s consideration and adoption.

BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2001, the applicant/appellant, James A. Kay, Jr., submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The request was for after-the-fact approval to establish the then-existing 5-masted roof-mounted antenna array and related support structures and equipment on his property at 26708 Indian Peak Road for commercial use. The project was deemed incomplete on July 18, 2001, pending the submittal of additional information and payment of penalty and environmental assessment fees. Additional information and all of the requested fees were submitted to the City on August 15, 2001, along with a request for consideration of a waiver and refund of the penalty fee by the City Council. On September 18, 2001, the City Council considered and denied Mr. Kay’s request for a waiver and refund of the penalty fee. The application was subsequently deemed complete on September 19, 2001.

The Planning Commission considered Mr. Kay’s application at public hearings on October 23, 2001, November 13, 2001 and November 15, 2001. It should also be noted that when the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 was submitted to the City on June 21, 2001, there were five (5) vertical elements attached to the roof-mounted antenna array, as there had been for several years based upon previous applications and earlier photographs in the City’s files. However, while the application for Condition Use Permit No. 230 was under review by the Planning Commission, Mr. Kay erected numerous additional vertical elements on the roof-mounted antenna array, with the stated intention that these were to be included within the scope of the permit under review. At its November 15, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-43, thereby conditionally approving the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 with modifications. The Planning Commission’s approval included, among other things, conditions requiring the removal of all but two (2) of the vertical elements on the roof-mounted antenna array, as well as other conditions regarding the appearance of the antenna array, property maintenance and occupancy of the residence. Mr. Kay filed an appeal of this decision on November 28, 2001.

The City Council considered Mr. Kay’s appeal at public hearings on February 19, 2002, March 19, 2002, March 25, 2002 and April 16, 2002. In the March 19, 2002, Staff report, Staff recommended that the City Council consider modifying the Planning Commission’s conditions of approval requiring all but two (2) of the vertical elements to remain, suggesting instead that the five (5) vertical elements existing at the time the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 was originally submitted be allowed to remain. This recommendation was based upon the then-recent adoption (March 11, 2002) of Urgency Ordinance No. 374U regarding building-mounted non-commercial antenna assemblies, which was itself a response to the January 2002 decision against the City in Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes. However, the City Council decided to uphold the Planning Commission’s determination that only two (2) vertical elements would be allowed to remain. At its meeting on April 16, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-27, thereby denying Mr. Kay’s appeal, modifying certain conditions and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230.

On May 15, 2002, Mr. Kay filed suit against the City in Federal court, alleging that the City’s action approving Conditional Use Permit No. 230 violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996; that the City violated Mr. Kay’s constitutional rights; and that the City’s adoption of Urgency Ordinance No 374U and related changes to the City’s Municipal Code were invalid. On July 14, 2004, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled in the case of Kay v. Rancho Palos Verdes, finding in favor of the City with respect to the constitutionality of the City’s action and the validity of Urgency Ordinance No. 374U. However, the Court found that the City Council’s decision to require all but two (2) of the vertical elements to be removed was not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Therefore, the Court ordered the City to issue a conditional use permit for commercial use of the original 5-masted, roof-mounted antenna array on Mr. Kay’s property, that existed and was depicted in the plans provided to the City by Mr. Kay when the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 was originally submitted on June 21, 2001, subject to reasonable conditions.

This matter was previously scheduled for the City Council’s consideration on October 5, 2004 and November 16, 2004. However, Mr. Kay’s attorneys requested continuance of the matter to tonight’s meeting in order to discuss further changes to the conditions of the approval with the City Attorney.

DISCUSSION

On November 16, 2004, Mr. Kay’s attorneys asked the City Council to consider revising several additional findings and conditions of approval for the project as a part of the reconsideration of the appeal (see attached letter). The City Attorney responded to this request in the attached letter of December 2, 2004. Mr. Kay’s attorney’s subsequently responded to the City Attorney’s response in the attached letter dated December 6, 2004. The City Attorney responded to this response in the attached letter dated December 7, 2004. The following is a discussion of Staff’s recommended revisions to Resolution No. 2002-27, based upon the discussions between Mr. Kay’s attorneys and the City Attorney, and in response to the decision of the United States District Court.

Preamble and Findings

As discussed in the letters from Mr. Kay’s attorneys, he objects to much of the language in the preamble (i.e., the "Whereas" clauses) and findings of Resolution No. 2002-27 as "unnecessarily impugning his motives and assailing his credibility." Since the Court has only ordered the City to issue as amended conditional use permit to allow a 5-masted antenna array, it is not necessary to reiterate all of the recitations from the first part of Resolution No. 2002-27 in the draft Resolution. As such, the preamble of the draft Resolution has eliminated much of this exposition, focusing on the major "milestones" from the submittal of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 through the present. With respect to the findings, the following revisions are proposed by Staff (additions underlined, deletions struck out):

1B. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by the Development Code or by conditions imposed to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood because, as conditioned, the proposed project complies with the development standards for commercial antennae, as specified in RPVDC Sections 17.76.020(A)(2) through (A)(10). The site provides for at least two (2) off-street parking spaces for maintenance and service vehicles and the existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array does not require special markings or lighting to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. Although there is existing foliage on adjacent properties and rights-of-way, this foliage does not adequately screen any antenna support structures or antennae on the roof of the structure from view from many surrounding residences in the neighborhood and from nearby public rights-of-way, especially those residences located directly across the street and the residences located down slope from the rear yard on Fond du Lac Road. As such, the approval of this application is conditioned to require the removal of all but two (2) five (5) of the existing eight-and-one-half-foot long masts and two of the television antennae from the roof of the residence. With the removal of all but the five (5) vertical antenna masts that existed on June 1, 2001 and were depicted on the project plans submitted to the City on June 21, 2001, the aesthetic impacts of the antenna array will be no different or more significant with its conversion to commercial use than they were for amateur use only. This condition is necessary to maintain the appearance of the structure as a single-family residence, and to integrate the commercial use into the residential neighborhood. In this case, the imposition of stricter limitations upon both commercial and non-commercial antennae than are otherwise required by the City’s Development Code is necessary to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhood while still allowing reasonable use of the site to transmit on both amateur and commercial frequencies, because the applicant’s representatives have testified that the antennae at the site can be "diplexed" so that each antenna can be used to transmit on two different frequencies at the same time. On the other hand By comparison, allowing the applicant to use all of the antennae that were placed on the property in 2001 while this application was pending before the Planning Commission will dramatically alter the residential character of the home and create the appearance of a commercial antenna farm, which will adversely affect the surrounding residential neighborhood.

1D. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effects on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, due to the conditions that are being imposed as part of this approval. Although service personnel would visit the site periodically, any impacts related to the maintenance and operation of the existing antennae would be very minor and have no significant adverse effects on surrounding properties. The existing antennae are visible from homes across Indian Peak Road and from Fond du Lac Road below. Since the conversion of the existing antennae to commercial use constitutes an intensification of the use that benefits the applicant financially but, as proposed by the applicant, does not offset the visual With the removal of all but the five (5) vertical antenna masts that existed on June 1, 2001 and were depicted on the project plans submitted to the City on June 21, 2001, the aesthetic impacts of the antenna array upon the surrounding neighborhood will be no different or more significant with its conversion to commercial use than they were for amateur use only. However, the approval of this proposal will be conditioned to require the removal of all but two (2) of the existing eight-and-one-half-foot-tall antennae masts and two (2) of the television antenna(e) from the roof of the structure, the painting maintenance of the remaining lighter-colored portions of the roof-mounted antennae and support structures that are permitted by this conditional use permit in a neutral color so as to blend better into the background sky and the gray color of the existing antenna support structure. In addition, no future changes to the location or configuration or which increase the number or the height of any approved antennae or element of the remaining roof-mounted antenna array will be permitted without an amendment to this conditional use permit that is approved by the City Council, in order to prevent further visual intrusion upon the surrounding neighborhood.

1F. The proposed use—as conditioned—is not contrary to the General Plan. The subject property and the Grandview neighborhood are designated Residential, 4-6 DU/acre, which is a land use designation intended to accommodate medium-density neighborhoods of detached, single-family homes and related accessory uses and structures. No evidence has been provided that the owner has ever resided at the existing home, and to the City’s knowledge this property has not been occupied for at least the past three and one-half six years. The evidence demonstrates that, in the past, the property has not been maintained in a manner consistent with the quality of the surrounding neighborhood, and the residential character of the neighborhood has been eroded by the increasing deterioration and commercialization of this site. To prevent the proposed commercial use of the property from exacerbating the substandard condition of the residence, and to ensure that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, the approval of the proposed project includes conditions to address these past deficiencies. The conditions include: 1) requiring contract landscape and maintenance services in the event that the home not properly maintained in conformance with the conditions; 2) requiring the removal of most all but five (5) of the existing vertical antenna masts, which are the most visible exterior evidence of the commercial use of the property; and 3) requiring the house to be occupied and maintained in an appropriate manner. These conditions will allow for the provision of wireless telecommunications services at this location, while minimizing the visual and aesthetic impacts of this commercial wireless operation on the surrounding residential neighborhood.

1H. Conditions of approval, which the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed and include (but are not limited to) removal of all but two (2) five (5) of the existing eight and one-half feet-long roof-mounted antenna masts and two of the television antenna(e), painting maintaining the remaining roof-mounted antennae and masts in a neutral color, and prohibiting any further modifications to them without first obtaining approval of modification to this conditional use permit; limiting regular maintenance hours to 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday; requiring the property to be landscaped and painted and that weekly landscape and general maintenance services shall be provided by contract with a qualified provider of such services if the residence is not properly maintained in accordance with the conditions; requiring the house to be occupied; requiring the applicant to obtain and maintain a valid business license; and reviewing the project for compliance with all conditions of approval within six (6) months of the date of the City’s final action on the application. These conditions are imposed through the City’s authority over placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities, as expressly reserved to local government under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

4. The City Council finds that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230—as conditioned—is consistent with the order of the United State District Court and the local zoning authority reserved to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)) for the following reasons:

4B. The application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 was deemed complete by City Staff on September 19, 2001. The City has acted on the applicant’s request for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 "within a reasonable period of time after the request [was] duly filed with [the City], taking into account the nature and scope of such request" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(ii)). This application has been processed by the City in a timely fashion and in accordance with the time lines established by the State Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA, and the Telecommunications Act. The only delays in the processing of this application are attributable to the applicant’s request for a waiver of the penalty fee (which was denied by the City Council on September 18, 2001); the applicant’s request for a continuance of this application from the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2001 to the meeting of November 13, 2001; the applicant’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s conditional approval and request for continuance of the appeal from the City Council meeting of February 19, 2002 to the meeting of March 19, 2002; and the applicant’s request for continuance of the reconsideration of the appeal from the City Council meeting of October 5, 2004, to the meetings of November 16, 2004 and December 21, 2004.

It should also be noted that Finding 2 of Resolution No. 2002-27, which discussed the issue of previous commercial transmissions from inside of the residence, has been deleted in its entirety since it dealt with activities allegedly occurring on the property prior to the submittal of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 on June 21, 2001. As a result, former Findings 5 though 8 have been renumbered accordingly.

Conditions of Approval

As discussed in the letter of December 6, 2004, Mr. Kay objects to eighteen (18) of the twenty-six (26) conditions originally imposed by Resolution No. 2002-27. Mr. Kay’s objections are summarized briefly below, followed by Staff’s proposed revisions to the language of the applicable conditions (additions underlined, deletions struck out):

Condition 2 – Mr. Kay asserts that this condition is too limiting in terms of placement of the five (5) antenna masts on the roof. He discusses the need for the designation of "imaginary vertical cylinders," thirty feet (30’) tall and four feet (4’) in diameter, within which the antenna masts could be located. This is the first mention ever made by Mr. Kay regarding the need for these "imaginary vertical cylinders" for placement of the antenna masts. The plans for the 5-masted antenna array originally submitted to the City on June 21, 2001, which are the basis for the revision to Conditional Use Permit, did not depict such cylinders, nor did any of the application materials make any mention of them whatsoever. Staff believes that such a proposal would constitute a new application, which has never been assessed by Staff, the Planning Commission or the City Council consistency with City codes. As such, Staff only recommends revising portions of Condition 2 as described below.

2a. The roof-mounted equipment shall consist of a maximum of two five (2) (5) vertical masts, each of which shall not exceed eight and one-half (8) feet in height, as measured from the point where the mast meets the roof surface.

2b. Each of the two five masts may have up to four (4) radiating elements affixed thereon, similar to those that currently are present at the site, provided that they do not extend any higher than the mast itself and that each antenna or radiating element does not project more than two feet horizontally from the center of the mast.

Condition 7 – Mr. Kay objects to this condition on the grounds that building permits are not ordinarily required to erect antennae. The City’s Building Official is empowered to determine when the City’s Building Code requires the issuance of a permit for construction. Although the plans for Mr. Kay’s antenna assembly have not been reviewed through a formal plan-check submittal, the Building Official believes that a permit would be required to review the method of connection of the horizontal beam to the roof; the method of connection of the vertical masts to the horizontal beam; and to ensure that the entire array is properly grounded. If the Building Official ultimately determines, based upon formal review of the project plans, that no permit is required, then Mr. Kay will not be required to obtain a building permit. As such, Staff only recommends revising Condition 7 as described below.

  1. The applicant shall submit a plan depicting the five (5) roof-mounted masts and antennae that may are to be retained or erected pursuant to this approval, within (90) ninety days of the date of the City’s final action on this application. The applicant shall obtain a building permit and any other approval required by the Building Code to modify or construct the masts and attached antennae on the property.

Condition 9 – Mr. Kay objects to painting the antenna array on the grounds that it will affect the performance of the antennae. Upon reviewing the appearance of the existing antenna array, Staff believes that painting is not necessary at this time in order to maintain a neutral, grayish color, although it could become necessary at some point in the future. Mr. Kay objects to giving Staff any discretion to determine when or if painting the antenna array might be necessary. Nevertheless, Staff only recommends revising Condition 9 as described below.

9. At all times, the applicant shall maintain the color of the entirety of the roof-mounted antenna support structure and all of the antennae and radiating elements located thereon, in a neutral color, such as gray, gray-green or gray-blue, that will blend with the background foliage and the sky, to the satisfaction of the Director. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City’s final action on this permit, the applicant shall paint the white or lighter colored portions of the antenna support structure and array in a neutral color that has been approved by the Director. The applicant shall provide the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement with a selection of possible colors for approval prior to the painting of any portion of the antenna support structure and array. At the Director’s discretion, all or any portion of the antenna array may be left unpainted if, in its unpainted state, it conforms to the intent of this condition and substantially matches the existing gray color of the antenna support structure. In addition However, the Director reserves the right to require the applicant to paint additional all or portions of the antenna support structure and array at any time that the Director finds that additional painting of some elements of the antenna support structure and array is necessary to further reduce the aesthetic impacts of the roof-mounted antenna support structure and the radiating elements and antennae located thereon.

Condition 10 – Mr. Kay primarily objects to this condition insofar as it regulates the television antennae more restrictively than would be the case in the absence of the conditional use permit. He also states that it conflicts with the desired "imaginary vertical cylinders" for the commercial antennae, as discussed above. Staff believes that since the approval of the conditional use permit will allow Mr. Kay to engage in commercial activities not normally associated with single-family residential uses, it is appropriate for the City to review the addition of antennae, since the City likely be unable to ascertain the nature or use of such additional antennae merely by their appearance or location. As such, Staff only recommends revising Condition 10 as described below.

10. The two five roof-mounted masts and the two television antennae approved by this resolution shall not be increased or expanded without the advance approval of the City Council, including, but not limited to, any additional antennae, masts, antennae support structures, antenna assemblies or radiating elements of any kind. Existing masts and antennae that are permitted by this approval may be removed and replaced for maintenance and/or repair as long as the replacement masts or antennae are the same or less in height, length and mass and in the same location as the approved masts and antennae, and provided that the total number of masts and antennae is not increased.

Condition 13 – Mr. Kay objects to the limit of two (2) service vehicles for the amateur antennae. Upon review of the existing site conditions, Staff believes that there is adequate room in the driveway to accommodate three (3) vehicles. Mr. Kay still objects on the basis that there is allegedly no nexus between the antennae and the off-street parking requirement. However, the City’s Development Code specifically requires off-street parking for at least two (2) vehicles for commercial antennae, and by Mr. Kay’s own admission, the antennae may be used for either amateur or commercial purposes. As such, Staff only recommends revising Condition 13 as described below.

13. All service vehicles related to the maintenance of the antennae and support equipment shall be parked off-street in the driveway or garage of the house. No more than two (2) three (3) such service vehicles are allowed on the site at any time.

Condition 16 – Mr. Kay objects to the City’s prohibition against lighting on the antenna array on the basis that such a prohibition might conflict with requirements imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). FAA review for antenna structures is required for structures over two hundred feet (200’) tall above ground level, structures on airport grounds and/or within 20,000 feet of a runway or heliport, certain interstate highway and railroad bridges and overcrossings, and other structures within the instrument approach area of an airport that the FAA determines might conflict with air traffic safety. Staff does not believe that any of these conditions apply to Mr. Kay’s property. Nevertheless, the City would not wish to impose a condition that might conflict with air traffic safety requirements in the future. As such, Staff recommends revising Condition 16 as described below:

16. No lights may be placed upon the roof-mounted antenna support structure, nor may it be otherwise illuminated in any manner, unless such lights or illumination are required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in order to comply with the provisions of 14 CFR Part 77 or any other applicable regulations regarding obstruction marking and lighting. This condition shall not restrict the use of hand-held lighting, nor the use of temporary lighting during the performance of emergency repairs.

Condition 25 – Mr. Kay objects to this condition on the grounds that providing information to the City regarding FCC-licensed facilities and frequencies may violate the confidentiality of proprietary information. Staff agrees that any proprietary information provided to the City should be excluded from the public record, to the extent permitted by state law. As such, Staff recommends revising Condition 25 as described below:

25. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this approval, and annually thereafter, the applicant shall provide to the City a listing of all radio facilities or frequencies that are licensed by the FCC to this site. In addition, within thirty (30) days of this approval, and annually thereafter, the applicant also shall provide to the City documentation demonstrating that the site is being operated in accordance with FCC emission requirements and limits, considering all facilities that are licensed by the FCC to operate at the site or that use the site pursuant to an amateur radio operator's license. The listing of all radio facilities or frequencies licensed by the FCC to the site will not become part of the public record, to the extent allowed by state law. If the City receives a demand to view this information, the City will timely notify the applicant so as to provide an opportunity for the applicant to object to the demand.

The conditions listed above are the only conditions that Staff recommends revising in the draft Resolution. However, as described in the December 6, 2004, letter from Mr. Kay’s attorneys, Mr. Kay also objects to Conditions 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 26. However, Staff does not recommend modifying any of these conditions, for the reasons articulated in the City Attorney’s letters of December 2, 2004 and December 7, 2004.

Except as described above, none of the other conditions originally imposed by the City Council in Resolution No. 2002-27 have been altered in the draft Resolution. As such, Staff believes that these conditions are consistent with the direction of the Court and address some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Kay.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On September 15, 2004, public hearing notices for the reconsideration of the decision on the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 were mailed to the applicant, his attorney, ninety-nine (99) other property owners and/or residents within a 500-foot radius of the project site, and three (3) other interested parties. On September 18, 2004, public notice of the October 5, 2004 City Council hearing for the reconsideration of the decision on the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. On October 5, 2004, this matter was continued to November 16, 2004, and was subsequently continued again to tonight’s meeting at Mr. Kay’s request. As of the date this Staff report was completed, Staff received one item of public correspondence regarding the issuance of this permit, which is attached to this report for the City Council’s consideration.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing discussion and the order of the United States District Court in the case of Kay v. Rancho Palos Verdes, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2004-__, thereby modifying certain conditions of approval and conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 230 (Planning Case No. ZON2004-00453).

FISCAL IMPACT

Staff does not expect that the approval of this permit will have any fiscal impact upon the City. However, it is possible that the City’s action on Conditional Use Permit No. 230 could lead to additional litigation, the costs of which are unknown and cannot be reliably estimated at this time.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:

  1. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 230 with additional and/or modified conditions of approval. If this alternative is chosen, the City Council should continue this matter to the next City Council meeting so that Staff can prepare an appropriate Resolution and conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 230.
  2. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff with direction in modifying the conditions of approval, and continue the public hearing to the next City Council meeting.

Please note that the Court’s order requires the City Council to adopt a revised resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 230 by as soon as possible.

 

Respectfully submitted:

Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:

Les Evans, City Manager

 

Attachments:

Resolution No. 2004-__

Photos of previous and existing antenna configuration

Resolution No. 2002-27

Opinion and Order after Court Trial, Kay v. Rancho Palos Verdes

Previous requests for continuance (received October 4, 2004 and November 2, 2004)

Letter from Mr. Kay’s attorneys (dated November 16, 2004)

Response from City Attorney (dated December 2, 2004)

Response from Mr. Kay’s attorneys (dated December 6, 2004)

Response from City Attorney (dated December 7, 2004)

Public correspondence

 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2004-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230, THEREBY APPROVING THE COMMERCIAL USE OF CERTAIN ANTENNAE AND RELATED SUPPORT STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT ON THE SITE OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 26708 INDIAN PEAK ROAD, IN THE GRANDVIEW COMMUNITY

 

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2001, the applicant/appellant, Mr. James A. Kay, Jr., submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 for after-the-fact approval to establish the then-existing 5-masted, roof-mounted antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site for commercial use; and,

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2001, the applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 were deemed complete by Staff; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project was determined by Staff to be categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301); and,

WHEREAS, after the submittal of these applications on June 21, 2001, and while the Planning Commission was conducting the public hearings on this application, the applicant installed at least twelve (12) additional vertical antenna masts with attached antennae onto the previously existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array, including additional cables and conduits for the additional antennae; and on November 8, 2001, the applicant submitted revised plans to the City depicting a total of twenty (20) vertical antenna masts with attached antennae on the roof-mounted antenna support structure and array; and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 23, 2001, November 13, 2001, and November 15, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on November 15, 2001, adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-43 conditionally approving the project; and,

WHEREAS, Mr. Kay timely appealed conditional approval by letter dated November 28, 2001, based on disagreement with "all conditions regulating the location, number and placement of antennas on the project site…."; and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2002, March 19, 2002, March 25, 2002 and April 16, 2002, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council, on April 16, 2002, adopted Resolution No. 2002-27, thereby denying the appeal, modifying certain conditions of approval and conditionally approving the project; and,

WHEREAS, on May 15, 2002, Mr. Kay filed suit against the City in Federal District Court in order to overturn the City’s decision on the grounds, among other things, that it violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and,

WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled in the case of Kay v. Rancho Palos Verdes and ordered the "City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to issue a new resolution allowing James A. Kay, Jr. to use his five mast antenna structure for commercial purposes, subject to reasonable conditions"; and,

WHEREAS, the City revised the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 to allow the commercial use of Mr. Kay’s 5-masted, roof-mounted antenna array, which array existed at the time and was depicted on plans provided to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes with the original submittal of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 on June 21, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, this matter was agendized for the City Council’s review and consideration on October 5, 2004, and November 16, 2004, but on both occasions the matter was continued to a subsequent City Council meeting at Mr. Kay’s request in order to allow his legal counsel to discuss additional proposed revisions to the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 with the City Attorney; and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on October 5, 2004, November 16, 2004, and December 21, 2004, to reconsider Conditional Use Permit No. 230, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence:

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

Section 1: The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 to legalize the use of existing roof-mounted and interior antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site for commercial purposes:

A. For the purposes of this determination on the subject application and throughout this Resolution, the terms and phrases "existing antenna(e)" and "existing roof-mounted antenna array" refer only to the antenna(e) and antenna array depicted in the plans submitted to the City by the applicant on June 21, 2001, and in photographs accompanying the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744. The terms and phrases "existing antenna(e)" and "existing roof-mounted antenna array" do not include any parts, elements, components or other features of the antenna(e) and antenna array that are not depicted on the plan submitted on June 21, 2001, or in the above-mentioned photographs, regardless whether these parts, elements, components or other features were, or are, physically present on the subject property as of the effective date of this Resolution.

B. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by the Development Code or by conditions imposed to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood because, as conditioned, the proposed project complies with the development standards for commercial antennae, as specified in RPVDC Sections 17.76.020(A)(2) through (A)(10). The site provides for at least two (2) off-street parking spaces for maintenance and service vehicles and the existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array does not require special markings or lighting to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. Although there is existing foliage on adjacent properties and rights-of-way, this foliage does not adequately screen any antenna support structures or antennae on the roof of the structure from view from many surrounding residences in the neighborhood and from nearby public rights-of-way, especially those residences located directly across the street and the residences located downslope from the rear yard on Fond du Lac Road. As such, the approval of this application is conditioned to require the removal of all but five (5) of the existing eight-and-one-half-foot long masts and two of the television antennae from the roof of the residence With the removal of all but the five (5) vertical antenna masts that existed on June 1, 2001 and were depicted on the project plans submitted to the City on June 21, 2001, the aesthetic impacts of the antenna array will be no different or more significant with its conversion to commercial use than they were for amateur use only. This condition is necessary to maintain the appearance of the structure as a single-family residence, and to integrate the commercial use into the residential neighborhood. In this case, the imposition of stricter limitations upon both commercial and non-commercial antennae than are otherwise required by the City’s Development Code is necessary to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhood while still allowing reasonable use of the site to transmit on both amateur and commercial frequencies, because the applicant’s representatives have testified that the antennae at the site can be "diplexed" so that each antenna can be used to transmit on two different frequencies at the same time. By comparison, allowing the applicant to use all of the antennae that were placed on the property in 2001 while this application was pending before the Planning Commission will dramatically alter the residential character of the home and create the appearance of a commercial antenna farm, which will adversely affect the surrounding residential neighborhood.

C. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because the subject property is served by Indian Peak Road, which is a public residential street. Aside from normal residential traffic associated with the existing house, the only additional traffic expected to result from the proposed project is an occasional service vehicle, and would rarely involve large trucks or other equipment that could adversely affect local traffic for any extended period of time. Any adverse effects of any additional traffic are mitigated by the conditions of approval imposed by this approval.

D. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effects on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, due to the conditions that are being imposed as part of this approval. Although service personnel would visit the site periodically, any impacts related to the maintenance and operation of the existing antennae would be very minor and have no significant adverse effects on surrounding properties. With the removal of all but the five (5) vertical antenna masts that existed on June 1, 2001 and were depicted on the project plans submitted to the City on June 21, 2001, the aesthetic impacts of the antenna array will be no different or more significant with its conversion to commercial use than they were for amateur use only. However, the approval of this proposal will be conditioned to require maintenance of the roof-mounted antennae and support structures that are permitted by this conditional use permit in a neutral color so as to blend better into the background sky and the gray color of the existing antenna support structure. In addition, no future changes to the location or configuration or which increase the number or the height of any approved antennae or element of the remaining roof-mounted antenna array will be permitted without an amendment to this conditional use permit that is approved by the City Council, in order to prevent further visual intrusion upon the surrounding neighborhood.

E. Any issues related to interference impacts upon electronic and other types of equipment, and actual or perceived effects upon human health, are strictly within the purview of the FCC, since Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits the City from "[regulating] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions."

F. The proposed use—as conditioned—is not contrary to the General Plan. The subject property and the Grandview neighborhood are designated Residential, 4-6 DU/acre, which is a land use designation intended to accommodate medium-density neighborhoods of detached, single-family homes and related accessory uses and structures. No evidence has been provided that the owner has ever resided at the existing home, and this property has not been occupied for at least the past six years. The evidence demonstrated that the property had not been maintained in a manner consistent with the quality of the surrounding neighborhood prior to the initial hearings before the Planning Commission in 2001, and the residential character of the neighborhood was eroded by the increasing deterioration and commercialization of this site. To prevent the proposed commercial use of the property from exacerbating the substandard condition of the residence, and to ensure that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, the approval of the proposed project includes conditions to address these deficiencies. The conditions include: 1) requiring contract landscape and maintenance services in the event that the home not properly maintained in conformance with the conditions; 2) requiring the removal of all but five (5) of the existing vertical antenna masts, which are the most visible exterior evidence of the commercial use of the property; and 3) requiring the house to be occupied and maintained in an appropriate manner. These conditions will allow for the provision of wireless telecommunications services at this location, while minimizing the visual and aesthetic impacts of this commercial wireless operation on the surrounding residential neighborhood.

G. The required finding that, if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by RPVDC Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts), the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter, is not applicable because the subject property is not located within any of the overlay control districts established by RPVDC Chapter 17.40.

H. Conditions of approval, which the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed and include (but are not limited to) removal of all but five (5) of the existing eight and one-half feet-long roof-mounted antenna masts and two of the television antenna(e), and prohibiting any further modifications to them without first obtaining approval of modification to this conditional use permit; limiting regular maintenance hours to 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday; requiring the property to be landscaped and painted and that weekly landscape and general maintenance services shall be provided by contract with a qualified provider of such services if the residence is not properly maintained in accordance with the conditions; requiring the house to be occupied; requiring the applicant to obtain and maintain a valid business license; and reviewing the project for compliance with all conditions of approval within six (6) months of the date of the City’s final action on the application. These conditions are imposed through the City’s authority over placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities, as expressly reserved to local government under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

I. The required findings that no existing or planned tower can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna or proposed service area, or that the proposed tower cannot be located on the site of an existing or planned tower, are not applicable because the proposed project does not involve the construction or placement of a new antenna tower, and there is no antenna tower currently located on the subject property.

Section 2: The City Council finds that the proposed project—as conditioned—qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301. The exemption applies to alterations to existing minor structures and uses "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination." As conditioned, the existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array would be modified so that most of the antennae are removed or relocated to the inside of the house, and the negative aesthetic impacts of the existing antennae are minimized. In addition, the property will be required to be occupied and maintained in an appropriate manner that is consistent with City standards. Without the imposition of these conditions, and if the antennae and other elements that have been added to the property since the submittal of the application to the City were to remain in place, the City Council would not be able to find this proposed project exempt from the requirements of CEQA, due to aesthetic impacts which could be potentially significant and thus would require further analysis pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.

Section 3: The City Council finds that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230—as conditioned—is consistent with the City’s Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines. This application was heard by the Planning Commission within the time lines established by the State’s Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA (Guideline No. 1). Although the Guidelines express a preference for existing, non-single-family structures as antenna sites (Guideline No. 2), installations on single-family residences are not prohibited and have been approved previously elsewhere in the City. In addition, the conditions of approval for this project will help to enhance the residential character of the neighborhood by requiring the applicant to upgrade the appearance and maintenance of the property. As a condition of approval, most of the exterior antennae will be removed, so the project will have no significant impact upon any view corridors (Guideline No. 4). The removal of these antennae will also serve to balance the aesthetic impacts of the antennae upon the neighborhood with the applicant’s financial benefit from the operation of the commercial antennae on the site (Guideline No. 5). Finally, with most of the antennae removed from the roof of the house, they will be more effectively screened from view from adjacent properties or rights-of-way (Guideline No. 9).

Section 4: The City Council finds that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230—as conditioned—is consistent with the order of the United State District Court and the local zoning authority reserved to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)) for the following reasons:

  1. The conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 "[does] not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services…and [does] not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsections (B)(i)(I) and (II)). In reviewing all of the applications to provide personal wireless services on other residentially-zoned property within the City, the City has applied consistently its regulations to these facilities so as to approve facilities that are compatible with surrounding uses and to modify or deny applications that do or will have adverse visual, aesthetic or other impacts upon surrounding properties. The instant application is being approved with conditions requiring the removal of most of the exterior antennae because it will otherwise result in adverse visual and aesthetic impacts upon adjacent properties. The City’s conditional approval of this specific proposal does not prohibit the applicant from providing wireless communications services because the applicant still has the ability to provide these services from the remaining exterior antennae . The applicant’s representative has stated at a public hearing that the applicant has the capability to "diplex" the antennae in order to utilize more frequencies. The applicant has also admitted that he has transmitted commercially from the site since 1998, allegedly from antennae located inside the residence. The City has previously approved applications for commercial antennae for a variety of commercial wireless services and service providers, including applications for properties that were zoned or used for single-family residential purposes. Accordingly, the conditional approval of this particular application also does not result in a ban or prohibition of, or have the effect of prohibiting, the placement of these types of facilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
  2. The application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 was deemed complete by City Staff on September 19, 2001. The City has acted on the applicant’s request for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 "within a reasonable period of time after the request [was] duly filed with [the City], taking into account the nature and scope of such request" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(ii)). This application has been processed by the City in a timely fashion and in accordance with the time lines established by the State Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA, and the Telecommunications Act. The only delays in the processing of this application are attributable to the applicant’s request for a waiver of the penalty fee (which was denied by the City Council on September 18, 2001); the applicant’s request for a continuance of this application from the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2001 to the meeting of November 13, 2001; the applicant’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s conditional approval and request for continuance of the appeal from the City Council meeting of February 19, 2002 to the meeting of March 19, 2002; and the applicant’s request for continuance of the reconsideration of the appeal from the City Council meeting of October 5, 2004, to the meetings of November 16, 2004 and then again to December 21, 2004.
  3. In conditionally approving the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230, the City has not "[regulated] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] Commission's regulations concerning such emissions" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(iv)). Although interference and radio frequency emissions were raised as issues of concern to surrounding residents at the public hearing and in correspondence to the City, none of the required modifications to the existing antennae on the site are in response to these concerns. Instead, these modifications are imposed only to address the aesthetic impacts of the antennae upon the surrounding neighborhood. City Staff advised the Planning Commission and the City Council that neither body could consider any environmental effects of emissions that comply with FCC regulations, including purported impacts upon health or alleged interference with television reception. The Planning Commission and City Council relied upon that advice and the provisions of the Act and, therefore, has not based its decision to conditionally approve the proposed project in any respect upon any actual or perceived environmental effects attributable to radio frequency emissions. Rather, the conditional approval regulates the aesthetic impacts and land use compatibility issues traditionally addressed through the exercise of local governmental police powers.

Section 5: The City Council is approving the commercial use of the pre-existing five-masted roof-mounted antennae array to comply with the order of the United States District Court issued on July 14, 2004, in the case of Kay v. Rancho Palos Verdes. If that order is reversed, the City Council hereby reserves the right to vacate this decision and resolution and reinstate its prior decision or, in the alternative, to re-open the public hearing.

Section 6: Modifications to the conditions of approval entitle the applicant/appellant to a refund of one-half of the appeal fee, pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.120.

Section 7: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(v)), any person adversely affected by the City’s final action in this matter may, within thirty (30) days after such action, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Minutes and the other records of this proceeding on file with the City, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 230, thereby approving the commercial use of certain antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site of a single-family residence, located at 26708 Indian Peak Road, in the Grandview community, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

 

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __st day of December 2004, by the following vote:

 

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

 

 

 

_______________________

Larry Clark, Mayor

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

_______________________
Jo Purcell, 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. 2004-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on __________, 2004.

 

 

_________________________________

City Clerk

 

 

EXHIBIT 'A'

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230

(26708 Indian Peak Road)

 

The following conditions of approval from Resolution No. 2002-27 are hereby revised to read as follows:

2. This approval is for the use of antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site of a single-family residence in the Grandview community for commercial purposes. The commercial use of the property is conditioned upon the following modifications:

    1. The roof-mounted equipment shall consist of the existing roof-mounted antenna support structured and a maximum of five (5) vertical masts, each of which shall not exceed eight and one-half (8) feet in height, as measured from the point where the mast meets the roof surface.
    2. Each of the five masts may have up to four (4) radiating elements affixed thereon, similar to those that currently are present at the site, provided that they do not extend any higher than the mast itself and that each antenna or radiating element does not project more than two feet horizontally from the center of the mast.

c. In addition, two (2) television antennae also may remain on the roof of the residence, so long as they do not exceed eight and one-half (8) feet in height, as measured from the point where they are attached to the roof surface; that the horizontal boom of each antenna does not exceed six feet in length; that no radiating element or antenna attached to the boom exceeds two feet in length, and that all of the antennae and support structures on the property are maintained in compliance with the Municipal Code.

d. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall review the exterior masts and antennae to ensure compliance with this condition. Any additional exterior antennae, masts or other antenna support structure(s) shall require further approval or modification of this conditional use permit.

e. The exterior masts and antennae described in this condition may be used for either commercial or non-commercial purposes.

The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make only minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval, and only if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change, such as the enlargement, expansion or addition to, the exterior masts and antennae that this approval allows outside of the existing residential structure shall require approval of a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 230 by the City Council and shall require a new and separate environmental review.

7. The applicant shall submit a plan depicting the five (5) roof-mounted masts that are to be retained pursuant to this approval, within (90) ninety days of the date of the City’s final action on this application. The applicant shall obtain a building permit and any other approval required by the Building Code to modify or construct the masts and attached antennae on the property.

9. At all times, the applicant shall maintain the color of the entirety of the roof-mounted antenna support structure and all of the antennae and radiating elements located thereon, in a neutral color, such as gray, gray-green or gray-blue, that will blend with the background foliage and the sky, to the satisfaction of the Director. At the Director’s discretion, all or any portion of the antenna array may be left unpainted if, in its unpainted state, it conforms to the intent of this condition and substantially matches the existing gray color of the antenna support structure. However, the Director reserves the right to require the applicant to paint all or portions of the antenna support structure and array at any time that the Director finds that additional painting of some elements of the antenna support structure and array is necessary to further reduce the aesthetic impacts of the roof-mounted antenna support structure and the radiating elements and antennae located thereon.

10. The five roof-mounted masts and the two television antennae approved by this resolution shall not be increased or expanded without the advance approval of the City Council, including, but not limited to, any additional antennae, masts, antennae support structures, antenna assemblies or radiating elements of any kind. Existing masts and antennae that are permitted by this approval may be removed and replaced for maintenance and/or repair as long as the replacement masts or antennae are the same or less in height, length and mass and in the same location as the approved masts and antennae, and provided that the total number of masts and antennae is not increased.

13. All service vehicles related to the maintenance of the antennae and support equipment shall be parked off-street in the driveway or garage of the house. No more than three (3) such service vehicles are allowed on the site at any time.

16. No lights may be placed upon the roof-mounted antenna support structure, nor may it be otherwise illuminated in any manner, unless such lights or illumination are required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in order to comply with the provisions of 14 CFR Part 77 or any other applicable regulations regarding obstruction marking and lighting. This condition shall not restrict the use of hand-held lighting, nor the use of temporary lighting during the performance of emergency repairs.

25. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this approval, and annually thereafter, the applicant shall provide to the City a listing of all radio facilities or frequencies that are licensed by the FCC to this site. In addition, within thirty (30) days of this approval, and annually thereafter, the applicant also shall provide to the City documentation demonstrating that the site is being operated in accordance with FCC emission requirements and limits, considering all facilities that are licensed by the FCC to operate at the site or that use the site pursuant to an amateur radio operator's license. The listing of all radio facilities or frequencies licensed by the FCC to the site will not become part of the public record, to the extent allowed by state law. If the City receives a demand to view this information, the City will timely notify the applicant so as to provide an opportunity for the applicant to object to the demand.

All other conditions of approval from Resolution No. 2002-27, as originally adopted by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on April 16, 2002, remain unchanged.