The URL can be used to link to this page

02-01-2011 - Ordinance for AdoptionCode Amendment No. 09-04Wire - Item 4 (2).pdfCity of West Covina Memorandum TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council FROM: Susan Rush Assistant City Clerk ITEM NO. 4 DATE: February 1,2011 SUBJECT: ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-04 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 26 (ZONING) OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-04) DISCUSSION: This ordinance was initially introduced at the Council/CDC Joint Meeting of November 2, 2010 and subsequently reintroduced at the Council/CDC Joint Meeting of January 18, 2011. The purpose of the ordinance is to update various sections of the Municipal Code related to telecommunications facilities. At the November 2, 2010 Council/CDC meeting, the Council approved an amendment to the ordinance regarding the distance between cell towers and consequently, the ordinance was reintroduced on January 18, 2011 to include the amendment and is now being brought back for adoption. The ordinance will become effective 30 days after its adoption on March 3, 2011 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of an ordinance except for minor costs associated with updating the municipal code books. til , , " A' Prepared lry tgaret Garcia Deputy City C erk Approved by • usan Rush Assistant City Clerk Attachment: 1. Ordinance 2. January 18, 2011 Staff Report Item #7 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 26 (ZONING) OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-04) WHEREAS, Code Amendment No. 09-04 is a City-initiated code amendment regarding wireless telecommunication facilities; and WHEREAS, on the 13 th day of October, 2009, the Planning Commission initiated a code amendment related to wireless telecommunication facilities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on the 23 rd day of February, 2010 and the 13 111 day of April, 2010, conducted study sessions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving required notice, did on the 14 th day of September, 2010, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09-5386 recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment No. 09-04; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties at a duly advertised public hearing on the 19th day of October, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council requested that the code amendment be reintroduced in order to change the proposed one-quarter mile separation between freestanding wireless telecommunication facilities back to the current requirement of a one-half mile separation at a second reading on the 2 nd day of November, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the revised code amendment on the 18 t11 day of January, 2011; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Council and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. Chapter 26 of the West Covina Municipal Code (Zoning) shall be amended to update, clarify, and establish requirements for wireless telecommunication facilities, including development and design standards. 2. The proposed action is considered to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed action consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: SECTION NO. 1: Based on the evidence presented and the fmdings set forth, Code Amendment No. 09-04 is hereby found to be consistent with the West Covina General Plan and implementation thereof. SECTION NO. 2: The proposed action is considered to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed action consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. SECTION NO. 3: The City Council of the City of West Covina hereby amends Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code to read as shown on Exhibit "A". Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION NO. 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall be published as required by law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 1st day of February 201 Mayor Steve Heifert ATTEST: City Clerk Laurie Carrico I, LAURIE CARRICO, CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 18 th day of January 2011. That thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 1 st day of February 2011, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City Clerk Laurie Carrico APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman EXHIBIT A DIVISION 16. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), adopted April 1, 1997, amended § § 26-685.980--26-685.988 of Div. 16 and enacted new provisions as set out herein. Formerly, Div. 16 pertained to reception and transmission antennas and derived from Ord. No. 1801, § 2, adopted Jan. 9, 1989 and Ord. No. 1910, § 2, adopted Oct. 13, 1992. Sec. 26-685.980. Purpose. This division sets forth a uniform and comprehensive set of development standards for the placement, design, installation and maintenance of wireless telecommunication facilities within all land-use zones of the city. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that all wireless telecommunication facilities are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the city, while not unduly restricting the development of needed telecommunications facilities. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.981. Applicability. Unless otherwise exempt by this division, the regulations set forth herein shall apply to wireless telecommunication facilities within the city. (Ord. No. 1991, § § 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.982. Definitions. For the purposes of this division, the following definitions shall apply: (1) Amateur and/or citizen band antenna shall mean any antenna used for the operation of amateur and/or citizen band radio stations and which is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. (2) Antenna shall mean any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, or similar devices of various sizes, materials and shapes including but not limited to solid or wire- mesh dish, horn, spherical, or bar configured arrangements, used for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic signals. (3) Antenna, building -mounted shall mean any antenna, other than an antenna with its supports resting on the ground, that is directly attached or affixed to the fascia or side wall of a building or structure. (4) Antenna, ground-mounted shall mean any antenna which is attached or affixed to a freestanding wireless facility with its base placed directly on the ground, specifically including but not limited to, monopoles and faux trees. (5) Antenna, roof-mounted shall mean any antenna, other than an antenna with its supports resting on the ground, that is directly attached or affixed to the roof of a building or a mechanical penthouse or parapet enclosure wall which is located on the rooftop of a building. (6) Antenna height shall mean, when referring to any freestanding wireless facility, the distance measured from ground level to the highest point on the support structure, including antennas measured at their highest point. (7) Co-location shall mean the placement of antennas, dishes, or similar devices owned or used by two (2) or more telecommunication providers on one antenna support structure, building, or structure. (8) Direct broadcast satellite service (DBS) shall mean a system in which signals are transmitted directly from a satellite to a small (not exceeding twenty-one (21) inches in diameter) receiving dish antenna. (9) FCC shall mean an abbreviation which refers to the Federal Communications Commission. (10) Free-standing Wireless Facility shall mean any free-standing mast, monopole, tripod or tower utilized for the purpose of supporting an antenna(s). A free-standing wireless facility may be designed to resemble a tree, clock tower, light pole or similar alternative- design mounting structure that camouflages or conceals the presence of an antenna(s). Page 2 (11) Radiofrequency emissions (RF) shall mean the electromagnetic signals transmitted and received using wireless telecommunication antennas. (12) Reception window shall mean the area within the direct line between a landbased antenna and an orbiting satellite. (13) Obstruction-free reception window shall mean the absence of manmade or natural physical barriers that would block the signal between a satellite and an antenna. (14) Wireless telecommunication facility shall mean a mechanical device, land and/or structure that is used to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic signals, including but not limited to antennas, microwave dishes, horn, and other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of such signals, freestanding wireless facilities, equipment buildings or cabinets, parking areas, and other accessory development. (15) Wireless telecommunications facilities master plan shall mean a narrative and graphic representation of all existing and future wireless telecommunication facilities within the city for one wireless communication provider or applicant (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.983. Exemptions. The regulations of this division do not apply to the following: (1) Single ground-mounted, building-mounted, or roof-mounted receive-only AM/FM radio or television antennas,. DBS dish antennas, amateur and/or citizens band radio antennas, for the sole use of the occupant of the parcel on which the antenna is located. (2) Wireless telecommunications facilities owned and operated by the city or other public agency when used for emergency response services, public utilities, operations, and maintenance. (3) This exemption does not apply to free-standing or roof-mounted satellite dish antennas greater than twenty-one (21) inches in diameter. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.984. Prohibited wireless telecommunication facilities in residential zones. (a) No wireless telecommunication facilities are permitted in residential zones except for the following: (1) Wireless telecommunication facilities listed under section 26-685.983(1) and (2). (2) Wireless telecommunication facilities attached to light poles, utility poles, traffic signals, and similar structures. (3) Wireless telecommunication facilities located in residential zones that are developed with permitted nonresidential uses. (4) Wireless telecommunication facilities consisting of roof-mounted antennas located on multiple-family residential buildings. (b) Antennas with a solid or wire-mesh surface with a diameter or maximum width greater than twelve (12) feet are prohibited in residential zones. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.985. Administrative use permit required. (a) The following types of wireless telecommunications facilities shall be permitted subject to approval of an administrative use permit pursuant to division 5, article VI of this chapter: (1) New building-and roof-mounted antenna facilities. (2) Other forms of wireless telecommunication facilities not specifically addressed within this division which are designed to integrate with the supporting building or structure and pose minimal visual impacts similar to building and roof-mounted antenna facilities, as determined by the planning director. (b) Review by planning commission. The planning director may elect to not rule on a request for an administrative use permit and transfer the matter to the planning commission, to be heard within thirty (30) days from the date this election by the planning director is provided in writing to the applicant. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.986. Conditional use permits required. Wireless telecommunication facilities consisting of freestanding wireless facilities shall be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to division 3, article VI of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Page 3 Sec. 26-685.987. Minor modification permitted. (a) Additions or modifications to existing wireless telecommunication facilities which meet all of the following criteria shall be permitted subject to approval by the planning director pursuant to section 2-251(b) and section 26-271: (1) The overall height of the freestanding wireless facility is not increased. (2) No ancillary features are added to the monopole other than the antennas, required safety equipment, and accessory equipment enclosures. (3) All conditions of approval for the previous facility have been met. (4) No required parking stalls are eliminated in conjunction with the placement of the additional accessory equipment. (5) The addition or modification is designed to minimize visual impacts, to the extent possible. (b) Additions or modifications to existing wireless telecommunication facilities which do not meet all of the above criteria shall be permitted subject to the approval of conditional use permit pursuant to division 3, article VI of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.988. Development standards. All wireless telecommunication facilities regulated under this division shall comply with the following development standards: (a) Site selection. (1) City-owned properties shall be considered before privately-owned properties where wireless telecommunication facilities are permitted. (b) Location on property. (1) Freestanding wireless facilities or roof-mounted satellite dishes greater than twenty- one (21) inches in diameter and located in residential zones. a. No freestanding wireless facilities shall be permitted in the required side yard or front yard. b. No freestanding wireless facilities shall be permitted within five (5) feet of the rear property line. c. No antennas consisting of a solid or wire-mesh surface shall be permitted on the roof. (2) Nonresidential zones (including wireless telecommunication facilities located in residential zones which are developed with permitted nonresidential uses). a. No free-standing wireless facilities shall be permitted in the required front or street side yards of the underlying zone. b. No free-standing wireless facilities shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet of surrounding single-or multi-family residences. This distance shall be determined by measuring from the free-standing wireless facility to the nearest property line of the single- or multi-family residence. c. No free-standing wireless facilities shall be permitted in a required parking space or driveway. d. Freestanding wireless facilities shall be located to the extent feasible to the rear of all existing buildings on the property. (c) Height restrictions. (1) No free-standing wireless facilities shall exceed sixty (60) feet in height measured from the average finished grade of the subject site, except as otherwise approved under section 26-685.990. (2) No roof-mounted antennas shall exceed twenty (20) feet above the peak of the roof (excluding the height of mechanical penthouses and parapets). (3) In addition to the maximum height limits stated above, freestanding wireless facilities shall be designed at the minimum functional height. a. In the event that the City needs assistance in understanding the technical aspects of a particular proposal, the services of a communications consultant may be required to determine the engineering or screening requirements of establishing a specific wireless telecommunication facility. This service will be provided at the applicant's expense. (d) Noise (1) No portion of a wireless telecommunications facility, including, but not limited to, emergency generators, shall violate the City's noise ordinance at any time. . (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.989. Design standards. Page 4 All wireless telecommunication facilities regulated under this division shall comply with the following design standards: (a) All wireless telecommunication facilities. (1) Accessory support facilities, such as electrical cabinets and equipment buildings shall be placed within an interior space of the existing building, within .a landscaped planter within the existing parking lot, or on the rooftop of the subject building. Support facilities shall be designed to match the architecture of adjacent buildings and/or screened from public view by wall, fences, parapets, landscaping, and similar. treatments. All security fences shall not be less than six (6) feet in height and shall be constructed of a material such as block wall or wrought iron. Chain link fencing and barbed wire are prohibited, unless specifically approved by the Hearing Body in cases where the freestanding wireless facility and equipment is not visible from the public view. (2) Antenna surfaces and freestanding wireless facilities shall not be painted shiny or bright colors and shall be treated so as not to reflect glare from sunlight. (3) No signage or lighting shall be incorporated into or attached to any antenna or freestanding wireless facility, except to indicate danger. (4) The smallest size antenna panels feasible shall be used at each facility. (5) All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be installed with signage including the RF hazard warning symbol identified within FCC regulations, to notify persons that the facility could cause exposure to RF emissions. (6) Once the appropriate entitlement has been obtained, wireless facility providers shall obtain a business license from the City, pursuant to Section 14-18 of the Municipal Code. (7) Any lighting installed in the equipment area shall be located to illuminate only the equipment area and shall not illuminate areas outside the equipment area or create off-site glare. Light fixtures shall be low wattage, hooded and directed downward. (b) Building and roof-mounted antennas. (1) Building-mounted and roof-mounted antennas shall be screened from view under most circumstances, unless the antennas would not otherwise be visible to adjacent properties and/or public rights-of-way. The screening shall consist of parapets, walls, fencing, existing roof pitch, or similar architectural elements provided that it is painted and textured to integrate with architecture of the existing building. (2) Antennas shall be mounted on the parapet, penthouse wall, or building facade unless the antennas are not visible to adjacent properties and/or public rights-of-way. Building- mounted antennas shall be painted or otherwise architecturally integrated to match the existing building. (c) Free-standing wireless facilities. (1) Freestanding wireless facilities shall be located a minimum of one-half mile from any other freestanding wireless facility, except as otherwise approved under section 26- 685.990. (2) All freestanding wireless facilities shall be stealthed to eliminate or substantially reduce their visual and aesthetic impacts from the surrounding public rights-of-way and adjacent properties. For example, if a grove of palm trees exists at a proposed antenna site, then a manmade tree (monopalm) shall be used. If antennas are proposed to be located within the city's regional entertainment/shopping districts, antennas shall be concealed within signs, clock towers, or similar structures that are compatible with the surrounding land uses. (3) Freestanding wireless facilities designed as faux trees. a. Freestanding wireless facilities designed as faux trees shall bear a realistic resemblance to the type of tree that it is designed after to the greatest extent possible, with emphasis on features including branches, fronds, leaves, needles, bulb diameter, trunk shape and trunk diameter. b. The maximum branch/frond density and length shall be used to the greatest extent possible for antenna stealthing purposes. c. All cellular antennas mounted to a faux tree (except mono-palms) shall have "sock covers" installed over each antenna to simulate tree branches/leaves/needles, etc. for additional stealthing. (4) Accessory support facilities (e g, equipment cabinets) used in conjunction with a freestanding wireless facility shall be located in an underground vault when located on City-owned property, including open space, park facilities, fire stations and City Hall, unless approved by the Hearing Body. (d.) Revisions or co-locations to existing freestanding wireless facilities. Page 5 1. Any technological stealthing improvements or upgrades that can be made to an existing wireless telecommunication facility shall be made upon the modification or expansion (e.g., co-location) of the existing facility, including accessory support facilities (e.g., equipment cabinets). a. Antenna arrays shall be enclosed with pine needle socks or similar type sleeves for faux tree facilities. b. No portion of the antenna arrays shall extend beyond the branch line. c. Landscaping shall be upgraded to provide screening for any additional equipment or enclosures. d. All electrical wires shall be protected in conduit and shall be located underground or fixed to the ground or structure. e. New equipment enclosures shall be designed to be consistent in appearance with existing equipment enclosures. f. The co-location antenna(s) shall be designed to be consistent in appearance with the existing antenna(s) and structure. (e) Freestanding or roof-mounted satellite dishes consisting of a solid or wire-mesh surface greater than twenty-one (21) inches in diameter and located in residential zones. (1) Satellite dishes shall be seventy-five (75) percent screened when viewed from ground level from any adjacent public rights-of-way, parks, schools, or residentially zoned properties. Such screening shall consist of either six (6) foot solid fencing or block walls, including the existing perimeter fence/wall on the site, landscaping or any combination thereof. Required screening around the antenna shall achieve its screening effect of seventy-five (75) percent in height and mass within sixty (60) days of installation. Specimen-size plants may be required to satisfy this requirement. In the case of a roof-mounted installation, such screening may incorporate features of the existing roof (e.g., a parapet, the slope of a pitched roof), landscaping, or fencing which is compatible with the design and material of the existing development on the site. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) " Sec. 26-685.990. Deviation from certain development and design standards. Deviation from the height requirements and minimum distance between freestanding wireless facilities by not more than twenty (20) percent may be granted by the planning director or planning commission if one or more of the following findings is made based on evidence submitted by the applicant: (1) None of the permitted locations or height restrictions for freestanding wireless facilities provide for an obstruction-free reception window of said antenna as per blockage by the primary on-site structure or off-site buildings and trees of abutting properties; and/or (2) Existing natural geographic conditions preclude an obstruction-free reception window. (3) The relief from the development standards results in a more appropriate design which minimizes the visual impact of the facility. (4) In order to accommodate the establishment of a co-located facility, the antenna height of the facility must be increased. • - (5) The visual impacts of locating freestanding wireless facilities closer than one-quarter mile to one another is negligible because the facility is designed to architecturally integrate with the surrounding environment. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) • Sec. 26-685.991. Installation and operation. (a) All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the City of West Covina Municipal Code Chapter 7 (Buildings and Building Regulations), the Uniform Building Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Fire Code, and the manufacturer's structural specifications. (b) All antennas shall be permanently and properly grounded for protection against a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate ground wire as specified by the electrical code. (c) All electrical wires (excluding those wires covered in co-axial cables) connected from the electrical cabinets to the antennas or antenna support structure shall be protected in conduit, which shall be undergrounded or fixed to the ground and/or building. Page 6 (d) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any wireless telecommunication facility, the project applicant shall submit a radio frequency radiation (RFR) field measurement study which verifies compliance with FCC emission standards to the planning director. The study shall be accompanied by a report written to be easily understood by a lay person which describes compliance with these standards. (e) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building-or roof-mounted wireless telecommunication facility, a disclosure notice approved by the planning director shall be mailed to the manager or property management company of the building on which the facility is installed. (f) All wireless telecommunication facilities shall comply at all times with all FCC regulations, rules, and standards. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1,2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.992. Maintenance of facilities. (a) The wireless telecommunication provider and/or property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the facility in an appropriate manner, which includes, but is not limited to, the following: Regular cleaning of the facility, graffiti abatement, periodic repainting of antennas, freestanding wireless facilities, rooftop screen enclosures, accessory equipment walls and fences as needed, keeping debris and other similar items cleared from the antenna area, and regular landscape maintenance. (1) Landscaping Maintenance. a. All trees, foliage and other landscaping elements on a wireless telecommunication facility site, whether or not used as screening, shall be maintained in good condition at all times in compliance with the approved landscape plan. The facility owner or operator shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed landscaping. Modifications to the landscape plan shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Department. (2) Lighting. a. Any exterior lighting shall be manually operated and used only during night maintenance or emergencies, unless otherwise required by applicable Federal Law or FCC rules. Lighting shall be maintained in good condition at all times, including any shielding to reduce light impacts to neighboring properties. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.993. Periodic safety monitoring. (a) As requested by the planning director, all wireless telecommunication providers shall submit a certification attested to by a licensed engineer expert in the field of RF emissions, that the facilities are and have been operated within the then current applicable FCC standards for RF emissions. (b) Any wireless telecommunication facilities operated and/or maintained in violation of FCC emission standards shall be subject to permit revocation by the planning commission under section 26-253. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.994. Posting of Ownership Information. In the event that a wireless telecommunication facility changes ownership, change of ownership notification must be posted on-site within sixty (60) days of the ownership change. The ownership and contact information shall be posted on site, on the wireless facility or the equipment. Sec. 26-685.995. Abandonment provisions. (a) The provider and/or property owner shall be required to remove the facility and all associated equipment and restore the property to its original condition within ninety (90) days after the abandonment, expiration, or termination of the conditional use permit or administrative use permit. (b) The provider shall notify the City of its intent to remove the wireless telecommunications facility at least thirty (30) days prior to implementation. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.996. Required modifications. Notwithstanding, the city may add conditions after issuance of the conditional use permit or other permit if necessary to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to Page 7 health, safety, or welfare; provided, however, that no one condition by itself may impose a substantial expense or deprive the applicant or provider of a substantial revenue source. Any condition relating to technological changes shall comply with applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Public Utilities Commission (PUC) standards. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.997. Application requirements. In addition to the submittal application requirements pursuant to division 1, article VI of this chapter, the following information shall also be provided: (1) All wireless telecommunication providers shall submit a wireless telecommunications master plan for city review and approval. Providers who operate and maintain existing antenna facilities shall submit this master plan for review and approval within one (1) year of the effective date of this division or concurrent with a request to modify or alter an existing facility, or for the placement and installation of a new antenna facility, whichever is sooner. Proprietary information, when so designated, will not be available for public review. (2) A "justification study" shall be submitted from each wireless telecommunication applicant indicating the rationale for selection of the proposed site in view of the relative merits of any feasible alternative site within the service area. This study shall also include the applicant's approved master plan which indicates the proposed site in relation to the provider's existing and proposed network of sites within the city and surrounding areas. For modifications or alterations to existing facilities, the applicant may be required to submit a "justification study" limited to the need to modify, alter, or expand the facility. (3) All wireless telecommunication applicants shall submit a "co-location study." This study shall examine the potential for co-location at an existing or a new site. A good faith effort in achieving co-location shall be required of all applicants. Applicants which propose facilities which are not co-located with another telecommunication facility shall provide a written explanation why the subject facility is not a candidate for co-location. (4) All wireless telecommunication applicants shall provide a visual analysis, including photographic simulations, to ensure visual and architectural compatibility with surrounding structures. (5) Other relevant information requested by the planning director or his/her authorized representative. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.998. Findings. In addition to the findings for approval required pursuant to section 26-247 (conditional use permits), the following findings shall also be met: (1) The facility structures and equipment are located, designed, and screened to blend with the existing natural environment or built surroundings so as to reduce visual impacts to the extent feasible considering the technological requirements of the proposed telecommunication service and the need to be compatible with neighboring residences and the character of the community. (2) The facility is designed to blend with any existing supporting structures and does not substantially alter the character of the structure or local area. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Secs. 26-685.998, 26-685.999. Reserved. ATTACHMENT NO. Ciry of West Covina Memorandum TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager AGENDA and City Council ITEM NO. 7 DATE January 18,2011 FROM: Jeff Anderson, Acting Planning Director SUBJECT: REINTRODUCTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-04 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council introduce the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 26 (ZONING) OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-04) DISCUSSION: At its meeting of September 14, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Code Amendment No. 09-04 on a 5-0 vote. This ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting of October 19, 2010. During the second reading of the code amendment at its meeting of November 2, 2010, the Council voted 3-0 (Touhey recused) to reintroduce the code amendment and change the proposed one- quarter mile separation between freestanding wireless telecommunication facilities back to the current requirement of a one-half mile separation. A one-quarter mile separation between wireless facilities originally was proposed to reduce or eliminate the number of variance applications. The Council expressed concern about residents' reactions to the separation reduction and determined that it is most appropriate for applicants to apply for a variance if they wish to deviate from the one- half mile separation requirement. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of an ordinance except for minor costs associated with updating the municipal code books. \17 n Prepared by A.My prig Reviewes ',roved by: Jeff Anderson Platinin Assistant Acting Planning Director Attachments: Attachment 1 — Draft Code Amendment Ordinance Attachment 2— City Council Minutes, November 2, 2010 Attachment 3 — City Council Minutes, October 19, 2010 Attachment 4— City Council Staff Report, October 19, 2010 Attachment 5 — Planning Commission Resolution No. 10 75386 ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-04 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities\CCACC Staff Report January 18, 2011.doc ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 26 (ZONING) OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-04) WHEREAS; Code Amendment No. 09-04 is a City-initiated code amendment regarding wireless telecommunication facilities; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of October, 2009, the Planning Commission initiated a code amendment related to wireless telecommunication facilities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on the 23 th day of February, 2010 and the 13 th day of April, 2010, conducted study sessions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving required notice, did on the 14 th day• of September, 2010, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09-5386 recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment No. 09-04; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties at a duly advertised public hearing on the 19th day of October, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council requested that the code amendment be reintroduced in order to change the proposed one-quarter mile separation between freestanding wireless telecommunication _facilities back to the current requirement of a one-half mile separation at a second reading on the 211c1 day of November, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the revised code amendment on the 18 th day of January, 2011; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Council and in its behalf reveal the following facts: Chapter 26 of the West Covina Municipal Code (Zoning) shall be amended to update, clarify, and establish requirements for wireless telecommunication facilities, including development and design standards. 2. The proposed action is considered to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed action consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: SECTION NO. 1: Based on the evidence presented and the findings set forth, Code Amendment No. 09-04 is hereby found to be consistent with the West Covina General Plan and implementation thereof. SECTION NO. 2: The proposed action is considered to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed action consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. SECTION NO. 3: The City Council of the City of West Covina hereby amends Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code to read as shown on Exhibit "A". Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12009 \09-04 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities1CMOrdinance January 18, 2011.doc Ordinance No. Code Amendment No. 09-04 Januaty 18, 2011 - Page 2 SECTION NO. 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall be published as required by law. PASSED AND APPROVED on this 18 th day of January, 2011. MaYor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF WEST COVINA I, Laurie Carrico, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 18 th day of January, 2011. That, thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 15 th day of February, 2011. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-04 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities\CC\OrdinanceJanuary 18, 2011.doc EXHIBIT A DIVISION 16. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), adopted April 1, 1997, amended §§ 26-685.980--26-685.988 of Div. 16 and enacted new provisions as set out herein. Formerly, Div. 16 pertained to reception and transmission antennas and derived from Ord. No. 1801, § 2, adopted Jan. 9, 1989 and Ord. No. 1910, § 2, adopted Oct. 13, 1992. Sec. 26-685.980. Purpose. This division sets forth a uniform and comprehensive set of development standards for the placement, design, installation and maintenance of wireless telecommunication facilities within all land-use zones of the city. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that all wireless telecommunication facilities are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the city, while not unduly restricting the development of needed telecommunications facilities. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.981. Applicability. Unless otherwise exempt by this division, the regulations set forth herein shall apply to wireless telecommunication facilities within the city. (Ord. No. 1991, § § 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.982. Definitions. For the purposes of this division, the following definitions shall apply; El --S-711919-6 ee light pole, or similar alternative design Fnounting structure that camouflages or conceals (2) ff1 Amateur and/or citizen band antenna shall mean any antenna used for the operation of amateur and/or citizen band radio stations and which is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. (3) .(21 Antenna shall mean any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, or similar devices of various sizes, materials and shapes including but not limited to solid or wire- mesh dish, horn, spherical, or bar configured arrangements, used for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic signals. (4) j..3.1 Antenna, building-mounted shall mean any antenna, other than an antenna with its supports resting on the ground, that is directly attached or affixed to the fascia or side wall of a building or structure. (5) Lt Antenna, ground-mounted shall mean any antenna which is attached or affixed to a freestanding wireless facility antenna support structure with its base placed directly on the ground, specifically including but not limited to, monopoles and faux trees. (6) isj Antenna, roof-mounted shall mean any antenna, other than an antenna with its supports resting on the ground, that is directly attached or affixed to the roof of a building or a mechanical penthouse or parapet enclosure wall which is located on the rooftop of a building. (7) L61 Antenna height shall mean, when referring to any freestanding Wireless facility, a monopole or other antenna support structure, the distance measured from ground level to the highest point on the support structure, including antennas measured at their highest point. (9) En Co-location shall mean the placement of antennas, dishes, or similar devices owned or used by two (2) or more telecommunication providers on one antenna support structure, building, or structure. (-1-0) in Direct broadcast satellite service (DBS) shall mean a system in which signals are transmitted directly from a satellite to a small (not exceeding twenty-one (21) inches in diameter) receiving dish antenna. Page 2 (11) 01 FCC shall mean an abbreviation which refers to the Federal Communications Commission. (10) Free-standing Wireless Facility shall mean any free-standing mast, monopole, tripod or tower utilized for the purpose of supporting an antenna(s). A free- standing wireless facility may be designed to resemble a tree, clock tower, light pole or similar alternative-design mounting structure that camouflages or conceals the presence of an antenna(s). (12) (11) Radiofrequency emissions (RF) shall mean the electromagnetic signals transmitted and received using wireless telecommunication antennas. (13) (12) Reception window shall mean the area within the direct line between a landbased antenna and an orbiting satellite. (4-4) (13) Obstruction-free reception window shall mean the absence of manmade or natural physical barriers that would block the signal between a satellite and an antenna. (15) (141 Wireless telecommunication facility shall mean a mechanical device, land and/or structure that is used to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic signals, including but not limited to antennas, microwave dishes, horn, and other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of such signals, freestanding wireless facilities, antenna support structures, equipment buildings or cabinets, parking areas, and other accessory development. (4-6) (15) Wireless telecommunications facilities master plan shall mean a narrative and graphic representation of all existing and future wireless telecommunication facilities within the city for one wireless communication provider or applicant. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.983. Exemptions. The regulations of this division do not apply to the following: (1) Single ground-mounted, building-mounted, or roof-mounted receive-only AM/FM radio or television antennas, DBS dish antennas, amateur and/or citizens band radio antennas, for the sole use of the occupant of the parcel on which the antenna is located. (2) Wireless telecommunications facilities owned and operated by the city or other public agency when used for emergency response services, public utilities, operations, and maintenance. (3) This exemption does not apply to free-standing or roof-mounted satellite dish antennas greater than twenty-one (21) inches in diameter. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.984. Prohibited wireless telecommunication facilities in residential zones. (a) No wireless telecommunication facilities are permitted in residential zones except for the following: (1) Wireless telecommunication facilities listed under section 26-685.983(1) and (2). (2) Wireless telecommunication facilities attached to light poles, utility poles, traffic signals, and similar structures. (3) Wireless telecommunication facilities located in residential zones that are developed with permitted nonresidential uses. (4) Wireless telecommunication facilities consisting of roof-mounted antennas located on multiple-family residential buildings. (b) Antennas with .a solid or wire-mesh surface with a diameter or maximum width greater than twelve (12) feet are prohibited in residential zones. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.985. Administrative use permit required. (a) The following types of wireless telecommunications facilities shall be permitted subject to approval of an administrative use permit pursuant to division 5, article VI of this chapter: (1) New building-and roof-mounted antenna facilities. (2) Other forms of wireless telecommunication facilities not specifically addressed within this division which are designed to integrate with the supporting building or structure and pose minimal visual impacts similar to building and roof-mounted antenna facilities, as determined by the planning director. (b) Review by planning commission. The planning director may elect to not rule on a request for an administrative use permit and transfer the matter to the planning ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-04 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities\Municipal Cocletext.doc Page 3 commission, to be heard within thirty (30) days from the date this election by the planning director is provided in writing to the applicant. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, EXh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.986. Conditional use permits required. Wireless telecommunication facilities consisting of freestanding wireless facilities antenna support structures and alternative antenna support structures shall be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to division 3, article VI of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Arrid. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec 26-685.987. Minor modification permitted. (a) Additions or modifications to existing wireless telecommunication facilities which meet all of the following criteria shall be permitted subject to approval by the planning director pursuant to section 2-251(b) and section 26-271: (1) The overall - . - . . - height of the freestanding wireless facility is not increased. (2) No ancillary features are added to the monopole other than the antennas, required safety equipment, 'and accessory equipment enclosures. (3) All conditions of approval for the previous facility have been met. (4) No required parking stalls are eliminated in conjunction with the placement of the additional accessory equipment. (5) The addition or modification is designed to minimize visual impacts, to the extent possible. (b) Additions or modifications to existing wireless telecommunication facilities which do not meet all of the above criteria shall be permitted subject to the approval of conditional use permit pursuant to division 3, article VI of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Arnd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.988. Development standards. All wireless telecommunication facilities regulated under this division shall comply with the following development standards: (a) Site selection., (1) City-owned properties shall be considered before privately-owned properties where wireless telecommunication facilities are permitted. 021(a) Location on property. (1) Freestanding wireless facilities or roof-mounted satellite dishes greater than twenty-one (21) inches in diameter and located in residential zones. a. No freestanding wireless facilities antennas and antenna support structures shall be permitted in the required side yard or front yard. b. No freestanding wireless facilities ..- - . : - . . : s- shall be permitted within five (5) feet of the rear property line. c. No antennas consisting of a solid or wire-mesh surface shall be permitted on the roof (2) Nonresidential zones (including wireless telecommunication facilities located in residential zones which are developed with permitted nonresidential uses). a. No ..- - • . - . - . • - - . - free-standing wireless facilities shall be permitted in the required front or street side yards of the underlying zone. b. No - • . . - r alternative antenna support structures free-standing wireless facilities shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet of surrounding single- or multi-family residences. This distance shall be determined by measuring from the free-standing wireless facility to the nearest property line of the single- or multi- family residence. c. No ..- - • . • . - - . • - - • - free-standing wireless facilities shall be permitted in a required parking space or driveway. d. Antenna support structures Freestanding wireless facilities shall be located to the extent feasible to the rear of all existing buildings on the property. Le(b) Height restrictions. (1) No antenna support structures or alternative antenna support structures free- standing wireless facilities shall exceed sixty (60) feet in height measured from the Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-04 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities\Municipal Code_text.doc Page 4 average finished grade of the subject site ; except as otherwise approved under section 26- 685.990. (2) No roof-mounted antennas and antenna support structures shall exceed twenty (20) feet above the peak of the roof (excluding the height of mechanical penthouses and parapets). (3) In addition to the maximum height limits stated above, freestanding wireless facilities - - - - . • - - shall be designed at the minimum functional height. a. In the event that the City needs assistance in understanding the technical aspects of a particular proposal, the services of a communications consultant may be required to determine the engineering or screening requirements of establishing a specific wireless telecommunication facility. This service will be provided at the applicant's expense. (d) Noise (1) No portion of a wireless telecommunications facility, including, but not limited to, emergency generators, shall violate the City's noise ordinance at any time. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.989. Design standards. All wireless telecommunication facilities regulated under this division shall comply with the following design standards: (a) All wireless telecommunication facilities. - (1) Accessory support facilities, such as electrical cabinets and equipment buildings shall be placed within an interior space of the existing building, within a landscaped planter within the existing parking lot, or on the rooftop of the subject building. Support facilities shall be designed to match the architecture of adjacent buildings and/or screened from public view by wall, fences, parapets, landscaping, and similar treatments. All security fences shall not be less than six (6) feet in height and shall be constructed of a material such as block wall or wrought iron. Chain link fencing and barbed wire are prohibited, unless specifically approved by the Hearing Body in cases where the freestanding wireless facility and equipment is not visible from the public view. . . support facilities are not easily seen from public view as determined by the planning director. (2) Antenna surfaces and freestanding wireless facilities support structures shall not be painted shiny or bright colors and shall be treated so as not to reflect glare from sunlight. (3) No signage or lighting shall be incorporated into or attached to any antenna or freestanding wireless facility antenna support structure, except to indicate danger. (4) The smallest size antenna panels feasible shall be used at each facility. (5) All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be installed with multi lingual signage including the RE hazard warning symbol identified within FCC regulations, to notify persons that the facility could cause exposure to RF emissions. (6) Once the appropriate entitlement has been obtained, wireless facility, providers shall obtain a business license from the City. nursuant to Section 14-18 of the ment area shall be shall not illuminate areas outside the equipmi create off-site glare. Light fixtures shall be low wattage, hooded and directed downward. (b) Building and roof-mounted antennas. (1) Building-mounted and roof-mounted antennas shall be sCreened from view under most circumstances, unless the antennas would not otherwise be visible to adjacent properties and/or public rights-of-way. The screening shall consist of parapets, walls, fencing, existing roof pitch, or similar architectural elements provided that it is painted and textured to integrate with architecture of the existing building. - (2) Antennas shall be mounted on the parapet, penthouse walL'or building facade unless the antennas are not visible to adjacent properties and/or public rights-of-way. Building- mounted antennas shall be painted or otherwise architecturally integrated to match the existing building. (c) Antenna support structures (monopoles) and alternative antenna support structures. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-04 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities\Municipal Code_text.doc Page 5 , Free-standing wireless facilities. (1) Freestanding wireless facilities Monopoles and alternative' antenna support structures shall be located a minimum of one half one-quarter mile from any other freestanding wireless facility monopole or alternative antenna support structure, except as otherwise approved under section 26-685.990. . . . . - - mounted no lower than seven (7) feet from the base of the monopole. Monopoles and alternative antenna support structures shall be painted to match their surroundings. (2) Alternative antenna support structures (e.g. manmade trees) shall be in lieu of monopoles where the opportunity exists or where visibility impacts are a concern. All freestanding wireless facilities shall be stealthed to eliminate or substantially reduce their visual and aesthetic impacts from the surrounding public rights-of-way and adjacent properties. (For example, if a grove of palm trees exists at a proposed antenna site, then a manmade tree (monopalm) shall be used,. rather than a monopole.) If antennas are proposed to be located within the city's regional entertainment/shopping districts, antennas shall be concealed within signs, clock towers, or similar structures that are compatible with the surrounding land uses. (3) Freestanding wireless facilities designed as faux trees. a. Freestanding wireless facilities designed as faux trees shall bear a realistic resemblance to the type of tree that it is designed after to the greatest extent possible, with emphasis on features including branches, fronds, leaves, needles, bulb diameter, trunk shape and trunk diameter. b. The maximum branch/frond density and length shall be used to the greatest extent possible for antenna stealthing purposes. c. All cellular antennas mounted to a faux tree (except mono-palms) shall have "sock covers" installed over each antenna to simulate tree branches/leaves/needles, etc for additional stealthing. (4) Accessory support facilities (e.g., equipment cabinets) used in conjunction with a freestanding wireless facility shall be located in an underground vault when located on City-owned-property, including open space, park facilities, fire stations and City Hall, unless approved by the Hearing Body. (d.) Revisions or co-locations to existing freestanding wireless facilities. 1. Any technological stealthing improvements or upgrades that can be made to an existing wireless telecommunication facility shall be made upon the modification or expansion e.g., co-location of the existing accessory support facilities (e.g., equipment cabinets). a. Antenna arrays shall be enclosed with pine needle socks or similar type sleeves for faux tree facilities. b. No portion of the antenna arrays shall extend beyond the branch line. c. Landscaping shall be upgraded to provide screening for any additional equipment or enclosures. d. All electrical wires shall be protected in conduit and shall be located underground or fixed to the ground or structure. e. New equipment enclosures shall be designed to be consistent in appearance with existing equipment enclosures. f. The co-location antenna(s) shall be designed to be consistent in appearance with the existing antenna(s) and structure. (e) Freestanding or roof-mounted satellite dishes consisting of a solid or wire -mesh surface greater than twenty -one (21) inches in diameter and located in residential zones. (1) Satellite dishes shall be seventy-five (75) percent screened when viewed from ground level from any adjacent public rights-of-way, parks, schools, or residentially zoned properties. Such screening shall consist of either six (6) foot solid fencing or block walls, including the existing perimeter fence/wall on the site, landscaping or any combination thereof. Required screening around the antenna shall achieve its screening effect of seventy-five (75) percent in height and mass within sixty (60) days of installation. Specimen-size plants may be required to satisfy this requirement. In the case of a roof-mounted installation, such screening may incorporate features of the existing roof (e g, a parapet, the slope of a pitched roof), landscaping, or fencing which is compatible with the design and material of the existing development on the site. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.990. Deviation from certain development and design standards. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-04 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities\Municipal Code_text.doc Page 6 Deviation from the height requirements and minimum distance between menepe-les-maEl alternative antenna support structures freestanding wireless facilities by not more than twenty (20) percent may be granted by the planning director or planning commission if one or more of the following findings is made based on evidence submitted by the - applicant: (1) None of the permitted locations or height restrictions for antenna support structures' and alternative antenna support structures freestanding wireless facilities provide for an obstruction-free reception window of said antenna as per blockage by the primary on-site structure or off-site buildings and trees of abutting properties; and/or . (2) Existing natural geographic conditions preclude an obstruction-free reception window. (3) The relief from the development standards results in a more appropriate design which minimizes the visual impact of the facility. (4) In order to accommodate the establishment of a co-located facility, the antenna height of the facility must be increased. - . (5) The visual impacts of locating monopoles and alternative antenna support structures freestanding wireless facilities closer than one-half mile to one another is negligible because the facility is designed to architecturally integrate with the surrounding environment. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.991. Installation and operation. (a) All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the City of West Covina Municipal Code Chapter 7 (Buildings and Building Regulations), the Uniform Building Code, National Electric Code, Unifoim Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Fire Code, and the manufacturer's structural specifications. (b) All antennas shall be permanently and properly grounded for protection against a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate ground wirespecified by the electrical code. (c) All electrical wires (excluding those wires covered in co-axial cables) connected from the electrical cabinets to the antennas or antenna support structure shall be protected in conduit, which shall be undergrounded or fixed to the ground and/or building. (d) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any wireless telecommunication facility, the project applicant shall submit a radio frequency radiation (RFR) field measurement study which verifies compliance with FCC emission standards to the planning director. The study shall be accompanied by a report written to be easily understood by a lay person which describes compliance with these Standards. (e) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building-or roof-mounted wireless telecommunication facility, a disclosure notice approved by the planning director shall be mailed to the manager or property management company of the building on which the facility is installed. (1) All wireless telecommunication facilities shall comply at all times with all FCC regulations, rules, and standards. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1,2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.992. Maintenance of facilities. Lai The wireless telecommunication provider and/or property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the facility in an appropriate manner, which includes, but is not limited to, the following: Regular cleaning of the facility, graffiti abatement, periodic repainting of antennas, antenna support structures' freestanding wireless facilities, rooftop screen enclosures, accessory equipment walls and fences as needed, keeping debris and other similar items cleared from the antenna area, and regular landscape maintenance, of planter landscaping. (1) Landscaping Maintenance. a. All trees, foliage and other landscaping elements on a wireless telecommunication facility site, whether or not used as screening, shall be maintained in good condition at all times in compliance With the approved landscape plan. The facility owner or operator shall be responsible for replacing any damaged. dead or decayed landscaping. Modifications to the landscape plan shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Department. _ (2) Lighting. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-04 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities\Municipal Code_text.doc Page 7 a. Any exterior lighting shall be manually operated and used only during night maintenance or emergencies, unless otherwise required by applicable Federal Law or FCC rules. Lighting shall be maintained in good condition at all times, includin (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.993. Periodic safety monitoring. (a) As requested by the planning director, all wireless telecommunication providers shall submit a certification attested to by a licensed engineer expert in the field of RF emissions, that the facilities are and have been operated within the then current applicable FCC standards for R_F emissions. (b) Any wireless telecommunication facilities operated and/or maintained in violation of FCC emission standards shall be subject to permit revocation by the planning commission under section 26-253. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.994. Posting of Ownership Information. In the event that a wireless telecommunication facility changes ownership, change of ownership notification must be posted on-site within sixty (60) days of the ownership change. The ownership and contact information shall be posted on site, on the wireless facility or the equipment. Sec. 26-685.995991. Abandonment provisions. Lai The provider and/or property owner shall be required to remove the facility and all associated equipment and restore the property to its original condition within ninety (90) days after the abandonment, expiration, or termination of the conditional use permit or administrative use permit. (b) The provider shall notify the City of its intent to remove the wireless telecommunications facility at least thirty (30) days prior to implementation. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.996995.. Required modifications. Notwithstanding, the city may add conditions after issuance of the conditional use permit or other permit if necessary to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety, or welfare; provided, however, that no one condition by itself may impose a substantial expense or deprive the, applicant or provider of a substantial revenue source. Any condition relating to technological changes shall comply with applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Public Utilities Commission (PUC) standards. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Sec. 26-685.997996. Application requirements. In addition to the submittal application requirements pursuant to division 1, article VI of this chapter, the following information shall also be provided: (1) All wireless telecommunication providers shall submit a wireless telecommunications master plan for city review and approval. Providers who operate and maintain existing antenna facilities shall submit this master plan for review and approval within one (1) year. of the effective date of this division or concurrent with a request to modify or alter an existing facility, or for the placement and installation of a new antenna facility, whichever is sooner. Proprietary information, when so designated, will not be available for public review. (2) A "justification study" _shall be submitted from each wireless telecommunication applicant indicating the rationale for selection of the proposed site in view of the relative merits of any feasible alternative site within the service area. This study shall also include the applicant's approved Master plan which indicates the proposed site in relation to the provider's existing and 'proposed network of sites within the city and surrounding areas. For modifications or alterations to existing facilities, the applicant may be required to submit a "justification study" Minted to the need to modify, alter, or expand the facility. (3) All wireless telecommunicatioñ applicants shall submit a "co-location study." This study shall examine the potential for co-location at an existing ora new site A good faith effort in achieving co-location shall be required of all applicants. Applicants which propose facilities which are not co-located with another telecommunication facility shall provide a written explanation why the subject facility is not a candidate for co-location. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-04 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities\Municipal Code_text.doc Page 8 (4) All wireless telecommunication applicants shall provide a visual analysis, including photographic simulations, to ensure visual and architectural compatibility with surrounding structures. (5) Other relevant information requested by the planning director or his/her authorized representative. (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) _ Sec. 26-685.998997. Findings. In addition to the findings for approval required pursuant to section 26-247 (conditional use permits), the following findings shall also be met: (1) The facility structures and equipment are located, designed, and screened to blend with the existing natural environment or built surroundings so as to reduce visual impacts to the extent feasible considering the technological requirements of the proposed telecommunication service and the need to be compatible with neighboring residences and the character of the community. (2) The facility is designed to blend with any existing supporting structures and does not substantially alter the character of the structure or local area, - (Ord. No. 1991, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 275, Exh. A), 4-1-97) Secs. 26-685.998, 26-685.999. Reserved. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-04 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities\Municipal Codetext.doc City Council/CDC Minutes of November 2, 2010 6) SCAG Business Principles Reso Resolution No. 2010-53 7) Click-It or Ticket Mini-Grant That no parking on street sweeping days be implemented on Chalburn. Avenue from Workman Avenue to Pacific Lane every Tuesday of each month from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Traffic Committee Recommendation That no parking on street sweeping days be implemented on Chalbum Avenue from Workman Avenue to Pacific Lane every Tuesday of each month from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. City Manager's Office -Miscellaneous Resolution Supporting the Business Friendly Principles Contained within the Southern California Association of Governments' Southern California Economic Growth Strategy Recommendation is that the City Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUITION NO. 2010-53 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS' BUSINESS FRIENDLY PRINCIPLES, A COMPONENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ECONOMIC GROWTH STRATEGY Police Department - Miscellaneous 2010-20161 O.T.S. "Click It or Ticket" Mini-Grant Recommendation is that the City Council accept the 2010-2011 "Click It or Ticket" Mini-Grant from the State Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) and appropriate $3,799.04 into 207.31.3120.5113 for seatbelt enforcement overtime. CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION Motion bi Touhey and seconded by Herfert to approve all items on the Consent Calendar as recommended except Item #3 - Code Amendmel nt No. 09-04 — Wireless Telecommunications Facilities which wak discussed and voted on separately I Motion carried by 4 — 0. Councilmember Touhey did not participate in tie discussion of Item #3 and left the room at 7:37 p.m. Item #3 Code Aniendment No. 09-04 — Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Mayor Pro Tern Herfert inquired about the reason for shortening the distance from mile to 1/4 mile between towers. Acting Planning Director Jeff• Anderson responded that while the code requires a 1/2 mile separation the Planning Commission had approved numerous variances reducing the distance between towers and therefore, they decided to set the smaller distance as a standard. Mayor. Pro Tern Herfert expressed concerns that residents might feel the change from mile to 1/4 mile may appear to give a blanket policy that anything within a 1/4 mile will always be approved and suggested that a variance might be a better way to go. Motion Motion by Herfert and seconded by Lane to bring back the code amendmeilit changing it back to the 1/2 mile requirement between cell tower. Mption carried by 3 — 0 (Touhey did not participate). Councilmember Touhey returned to the dais at 17:40 p.m. City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council . ITEM NO. 5 DATE: February 1,2011 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER FROM: Susan Rush Assistant City Clerk SUBJECT: ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION ZONE- CHANGE NO. 10-01 APPLICANT: Ahmad Ghaderi — Ashdon Development LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Azusa Avenue and Giambi Way RECOMMENDATION: It i5 recommended that the City Council adopt the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 10-01 DISCUSSION: This ordinance was introduced at the City Cotmcil/CDC Joint Meeting of January 18, 2011. The - purpose of the ordinance is to allow a zone change to "Service Commercial" for the property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Azusa Avenue and Giambi Way for the development of an auto service station facility. The ordinance will become effective 30 days after its adoption on March 3, 2011 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of an ordinance except for minor costs associated with updating the municipal code books. Approved by Sisan Rush Assistant City Clerk Attachment: 1. Ordinance 2. January 18, 2011 Staff Report Item #12 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 10-01 ZONE CHANGE NO. 10-01 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Ahmad Ghaderi - Ashdon Development LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Azusa Avenue and Giambi Way WHEREAS, there was filed with this Council a verified application on the forms prescribed in Section 26-153 and 26-199 of the West Covina Municipal Code, for the reclassification from: "Open Space" (0-S) to "Service Commercial" (S-C) on that certain property generally described as follows: Assessor Parcel No. 8435-001-912, in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, consistent with the request, the applicant has also requested a General Plan amendment from "Open Space" to "Service and Neighborhood Commercial"; and WHEREAS, the proposed zone change is requested to provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Map, and to establish zoning standards for the subject project; and WHEREAS, said zone change application is requested to allow for the development of a auto service station; and WHEREAS, a precise plan for the site plan and architecture has been submitted for the development of the project; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request, the applicant has submitted a conditional use permit application for the operation of a service station, car wash, drive-through facilities, convenience store and fast food use; and WHEREAS, it is a stated policy of the Land Use Element' Of the General Plan to provide for a range of non-residential uses that will ensure a strong economic base for the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 24111 day of August, 2010, conduct a duly noticed public hearing to consider the subject application for a Zone Change, at which time the Planning Commission adopted Ordinance No. 10-5375 recommending approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 18th day of January, 2011, conduct - a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, and considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties; and - WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by the City Council and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The applicant is requesting approval of a design to allow for the construction of an auto service station facility on a 2.13-acre property. 2. The project consists of a zone change requesting to change the zone from "Open Space" (0-S) to "Service Commercial" (S-C). 3. Findings necessary for approval of a zone change are as follows: Ordinance No. Page 2 a. There are changed conditions since . the existing zoning became effective to warrant other or additional zoning. b. The proposed change of zone will not adversely affect -adjoining property as to value or precedent and will not be detrimental to the area. c. A change of zone will be in the interest or furtherance of the public health, safety, and general welfare. d. The approval of such a change of zone . will not adversely affect the . . comprehensive General Plan so adopted bylthe'City. e. The approval of such a zone change is consistent with the General Plan or applicable specific plans. 4. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT has been prepared indicating that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect due to mitigating measures. WHEREAS, based on the evidence, both oral and documentary, the City Council finds as follows: a. The proposed zone change facilitates the development of an auto service station that would include a self-service car wash and a two-story convenience store building with office space and space for fast food use. The proposed development will be consistent with the neighboring retail useS td the south- of the subject site. The existing zoning restricts the property to open space uses., The Master Plan of Streets designates South Azusa Avenue as a• six-lane. "Principal Arterial". The street is designed to accommodate high traffic volumes.. Stn-rounding land uses include natural habitat to the north, retail nses Id the south, single-family residences to the west of the subject property and Big League Dreams Sports Park to the east of the site. b. The proposed zone change will not adversely affect adjoining property value and will not be detrimental to the area because the ,property is adjacent to commercial/entertainment uses on the east ..and. south.. The proposed development is a gas station development that has been designed to be sensitive to neighboring single-family properties in terms of setbacks, architectural treatment and privacy issues. Residential uses are separated from the subject. property by the 6-lane Azusa Avenue and residential uses a .higher in elevation from the subject . • property. c. The proposed zone change is compatible with the ' Surrounding area in that the subject property is located in an area with other commercial retail service oriented developments. The subject use is separated from residential uses to the west by a principal arterial and by topography. d. The proposed zone change will not adversely affect the General Plan as consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Map Will be maintained through the proposed General Plan amendment. The cOneurreht General Plan amendment allows for developments of service retail'useS e. The approval of such zone change is consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation of "Service and Neighborhood Commercial." That proposed land use designation allows for service retail developments. The proposed retail designation allows for convenience retail uses. There are no specific plans that affect the property. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, does ordain as follows: ATTEST: City Clerk Laurie Carrico Ordinance No. Page 3 SECTION NO. 1: Based on the evidence presented, and the findings set forth, the above Zone Change No. 10-01 is hereby found to be consistent with the City's General Plan and the land uses permitted within said zone classification. SECTION NO. 2: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, the project is a General Exemption (Section 15061(b) (3)) in that the proposed Specific Plan will not have a significant effect on the environment and any future development of the property would be in compliance with CEQA. SECTION NO. 3: The Planning Commission does hereby ,recommend to the City Council that it approve Zone Change No. 10-01; changing the zoning designation for subject property as set forth on Exhibit A, and amending 'the ..Zoning Map of the City Of West Covina. SECTION NO. 4: The Secretary is instructed to forward a copy of this Ordinance to the City Council for its attention in the manner prescribed by law. SECTION NO.5: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 1 st day of February 2011. I, LAURIE CARRICO, CITY CLERK of the City of West Covink. California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was' regularly introduced and Placed upon its first reading at 'a regular meeting of the City Council on the 18th day of January, 2011. That thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 1 St day of February 2011, by the following vote: • • AYES: ':Nonc NOES: Noiks ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: I1c City Clerk Laurie Carrico APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman ... n ; i . ....._.. ZONE CHANGE NO. 10-0 EXHIBIT A Indicates area proposed to be rezoned from "Open Space" (0-S) to "Service Commercial" (SC) City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA TO: City Manager and City Council ITEM NO. 1.- FROM: Jeff Anderson DATE: January 18,2011 Acting Planning Director • SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 10-01 ZONE CHANGE NO. 10-01 NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Ahmad Ghaderi - Ashdon Development LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Azusa Avenue and Giambi Way RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following resolutions: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 10-01, ZONE CHANGE NO. 10-01, PRECISE PLAN NO. 10-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10- 02, AND VARIANCE NO. 10-02 PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 10-01 The Planning Commission and staff further recommends that the City Council introduce the following ordinance: 3) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 10-01 DISCUSSION: On August 24, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a precise plan and conditional use permit for the development of a gasoline service station facility including a car wash, convenience store, food service, a drive-through window, and office space, and also recommended approval of the General Plan amendment and zone change. For more detailed information, please refer to the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 4). The request is to change the General Plan designation of the property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Azusa Avenue and Giambi Way (vacant lot) from "Open Space" (O- S) to "Service and Neighborhood Commercial" (S-C) to allow the development of the service station facility. The "S-C" Zone allows for development of retail service or similar type uses. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a zone change to "Service Commercial" (S-C) to allow for the development of an auto service station facility that would include a self-service car wash and a two-story convenience store building with office space and space for fast-food use. Because the property is located on a high traffic volume arterial street and is of limited size the subject property is not an ideal site for a park, or open space. It is staff's belief that .changing the zone to "Service Commercial" is appropriate and will allow the property to be improved and maintained. ZACase Files\PP\2010\10-02 AAA PAD Service Station Car Wash\CC\Council Staff Report.doc GPA 10-01, ZC 10-01, PP 10-02, CUP 10-02, Var. 10-02 Northeast Corner of Azusa Avenue and Giambi Way January 18, 2011 - Page 2 Proposed Development The project proposes the construction of a gas station facility that includes a 2,340-square foot self-service car wash facility, and a 7,305-square foot two-story building. The building includes a 2,340-square foot second floor and a 4,965-square foot first floor. The lot is currently undeveloped and is 92,729 square feet in size. The applicant proposes to subdivide the first floor of the building into three tenant spaces including: a food mart, food take out, and a fast food restaurant with a drive-through. The site is located at the northeast corner of Azusa Avenue and Giambi Way directly adjacent to the Big League Dreams Sports Park. Two 26-foot high geo grid retaining walls are proposed along the easterly property line. The proposed retaining walls will match the style of retaining walls currently located throughout the Heights Retail Center and Big League Dreams Sports Park. Additionally, a twelve-foot wide deceleration lane to allow vehicles into and out of the subject site is proposed along the Azusa Avenue frontage. The deceleration lane allows for vehicles to enter and exit the subject property without conflicting with through traffic. The two-story building is proposed to be contemporary in style and provide a variety of articulation in building surfaces. Stone veneer (Chardonnay "Southern Ledgestone") columns are provided throughout front and side elevations of the building. The façade design will include smooth finish stucco and architectural cornice molding along the raised parapets. The exterior of the building will include a mixture of beige and tan colored smooth stucco cement plaster. Decorative square accents with revels are proposed along the front and side elevations. Rod- supported metal "Curved Trellises" are proposed on the front elevation of the first floor and on the second floor of the building. The proposed self-service car wash building includes stone veneer columns with a wood trellis over the parking area along the front of the car wash building. The façade design and exterior of the building includes a mixture of beige and tan colored smooth stucco cement plaster that is consistent with the adjacent convenience store building. The project also includes a conditional use permit for a service station, convenience store, fast food use, carwash, and drive through. Environmental Review The project requires a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental consulting firm of ESA prepared the MND as well as the Post Closure Development Environmental Impact Report closing the BKK Landfill, and the Big League Dreams City Park, Sports Complex and Commercial Retail Center Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Big League Dreams SElR). The MIND concluded less than significant impacts caused by the proposed project. The public review period for the Negative Declaration ran from August 4, 2010 through August 24, 2010. On September 15, 2010, staff received a letter from the Department of Fish and Game responding to the MIND (Attachment 13). In order to address issues raised in the Department of Fish' and Game letter, it is recommended that the mitigation of the Biological Resources section be amended in the draft MIND to address their comments. Changes recommended to those mitigations are provided in Attachment 11 and include the following: Requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a breeding bird' survey to determine protected species have nests in the vicinity; and Recommending that coastal sage scrub vegetation be removed prior to February 1 or after September 1 to avoid impacts to the birds or nests. - On January 6, 2011, staff sent a response letter (Attachment 12) to the Department of Fish and Game indicating the potential impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher were mitigated to less-than- significant level under the California Environmental Quality. Act. ZACase Files\PP\2010\10-02 AAA PAD Service Station Car Wash\CC\Council Staff Report.doc GPA 10-01, ZC 10-01, PP 10-02, CUP 10-02, Var. 10-02 Northeast Corner of Azusa Avenue and Giambi Way January 18, 2011 - Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND ACTION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this matter on August 24, 2010. Commissioner Stewart expressed concerns regarding the potential noise impacts from the carwash and adequate parking. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission voted 5-0 to approve the precise plan and conditional use permit as well as to recommend approval of the General Plan amendment, zone change, and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. In approving the project, the primary reasons cited by the Planning Commission included improvement to the area and the addition of well designed and attractive buildings that would be an asset to the surrounding community. The Commission therefore acted to approve the proposal. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated building valuation for the new office building is $969,106. The property tax is equal to 1 percent of the assessed valuation. The City's portion of that assessment is approximately $9,691 annually. Prepared by: Ron Garcia Planning Associate Attachments: 4/ -- Rev' d/ pproved by: Jeff Anderson Acting Planning Director Attachment 1 — Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Resolution Attachment 2 - Draft General Plan Amendment Resolution for Approval Attachment 3 — Draft Zone Change Ordinance for Approval Attachment 4 — Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 24, 2010 Attachment 5 — Planning Commission Minutes dated August 24, 2010 Attachment 6 —Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5373, Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Attachment 7 — Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5374, General Plan Amendment No. 10-01 Attachment 8 —Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5375, Zone Change No. 10-01 Attachment 9 — Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5376, Precise Plan No. 10-02 Attachment 10 — Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5377, Conditional Use Permit No. 10-02 Attachment 11—Recommended Amendments to Biology Mitigation Measures Attachment 12— Staff response letter to the Department of Fish and Game, dated January 6, 2011 Attachment 13 — Department of Fish and Game Response Letter, dated September 15, 2010 ZACase Files\PP\2010\10-02 AAA PAD Service Station Car Wash\CC\Council Staff Report.doc ATTACHMENT 3- ORDINANCE NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 10-01 ZONE CHANGE NO. 10-01 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Ahmad Ghaderi - Ashdon Development LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Azusa Avenue and Giambi Way WHEREAS, there was filed with this Council a verified application on the forms prescribed in Section 26-153 and 26-199 of the West Covina Municipal Code, for the reclassification from: "Open Space" (0-S) to "Service Commercial" (S-C) on that certain property generally described as follows: Assessor Parcel No. 8435-001-912, in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, consistent with the request, the applicant has also requested a General Plan amendment from "Open Space" to "Service and Neighborhood Commercial"; and WHEREAS, the proposed zone change is requested to provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Map, and to establish zoning standards for the subject project; and WHEREAS, said zone change application is requested to allow for the development of a auto service station; and WHEREAS, a precise plan for the site plan and architecture has been submitted for the development of the project; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request, the applicant has submitted a conditional use permit application for the operation of a service station, car wash, drive-through facilities, convenience store and fast food use; and WHEREAS, it is a stated policy of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to provide for a range of non-residential uses that will ensure a strong economic base for the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 24 th day of August, 2010, conduct a duly noticed public hearing to consider the subject application for a Zone Change, at which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-5375 recommending approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 18th day of January, 2011, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, and considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by the City Council and in its behalf reveal the following facts: The applicant is requesting approval of a esign to allow for the construction of an auto service station facility on a 2.13-acre property. • • Z:\Case Files\PP\2010\10-02 AAA PAD Service Station Car Wash\CC\CC Resos\CC ORD ZC Reso.doc Resolution No. Zone Change No. 10-01 January 18, 2011 - Page 2 2. The project consists of a zone change requesting to change the zone from "Open Space" (0-S) to "Service Commercial" (S-C). 3. Findings necessary for approval of a zone change are as follows: a. There are changed conditions since the existing zoning became effective to warrant other or additional zoning. b. The proposed change of zone will not adversely affect adjoining property as to value or precedent and will not be detrimental to the area. c. A change of zone will be in the interest or furtherance of the public health, safety, and general welfare. d. The approval of such a change of zone will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan so adopted by the City. e. The approval of such a zone change is consistent with the General Plan or applicable specific plans. 4. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT has been prepared indicating that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect due to mitigating measures. WHEREAS, based on the evidence, both oral and documentary, the City Council finds as follows: a. The 'proposed zone change facilitates the development of an auto service station that would include a self-service car wash and a two-story convenience store building with office space and space for fast food use. The proposed development will be consistent with the neighboring retail uses to the south of the subject site. The existing zoning restricts the property to open space uses. The Master Plan of Streets designates South Azusa Avenue as a six-lane "Principal Arterial". The street is designed to accommodate high traffic volumes. Surrounding land uses include natural habitat to the north, retail uses to the south, single-family residences to the west of the subject property and Big League Dreams Sports Park to the east of the site. b. The proposed zone change will not adversely affect adjoining property value and will not be detrimental to the area because the property is adjacent to commercial/entertainment uses on the east and south. The proposed development is a gas station development that has been designed to be sensitive to neighboring single-family properties in terms of setbacks, architectural treatment and privacy issues. Residential uses are separated from the subject property by the 6-lane Azusa Avenue and residential uses a higher in elevation from the subject property. c. The proposed zone change is compatible with the surrounding area in that the subject property is located in an area with other commercial retail service oriented developments. The subject use is separated from residential uses to the west by a principal arterial and by topography. d. The proposed zone change will not adversely affect the General Plan as consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Map will be maintained through the proposed General Plan amendment. The concurrent General Plan amendment allows for developments of service retail uses. e. The approval of such zone change is consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation of "Service and Neighborhood Commercial." That proposed land use designation allows for service retail developments. The proposed retail ZACase Files\PP\2010\10-02 AAA PAD Service Station Car Wash\CC\CC Resos\CC OR]) ZC Reso.doc Resolution No. Zone Change No. 10-01 January 18, 2011- Page 3 designation allows for convenience retail uses. There are no specific plans that affect the property. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, does resolve as follows: SECTION NO. 1: Based on the evidence presented, and the findings set forth, the above Zone Change No. 10-01 is hereby found to be consistent with the City's General Plan and the land uses permitted within said zone classification. SECTION NO. 2: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, the project is a General Exemption (Section 15061(b) (3)) in that the proposed Specific Plan will not have a significant effect on the environment and any future development of the property would be in compliance with CEQA. SECTION NO. 3: The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that it approve Zone Change No. 10-01, changing the zoning designation for subject property as set forth on Exhibit A, and amending the Zoning Map of the City of West Covina. SECTION NO. 4: The Secretary is instructed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the City Council for its attention in the manner prescribed by law. SECTION NO.5: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Resolution. PASSED AND APPROVED on this 18th day January, 2011. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF WEST COVINA I, Laurie Carrico, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of January, 2011. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney ZACase Files\PP\2010\10-02 AAA PAD Service Station Car Wash\CC\CC Resos\CC OR]) ZC Reso.doc Indicates area proposed to be rezoned from "Open Space" (0-S) to "Service Commercial" (S-C) TO: FROM: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council Shannon A. Yauchzee, Director/City Engineer Public Works Department City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE February 1,2011 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept and file the attached minutes of the Traffic Committee meeting held on January 18, 2011. -1 ill 4 / ff/ / / Irdrjn••.-- Pre 4. edby: Migu ernandez Civil Engineering Associate Reviewed/Approved by: Shannon A. Yauchzee Director/City Engineer Attachment No ZATRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 2011\JanuaryTC 2011 Minutes.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE CITY OF WEST COV7NA Tuesday January 18, 2011 STAFF PRESENT: 3:00 p.m. City Hall, Room 314 Management Resource Center Shannon Yauchzee, Miguel Hernandez, Sgt. Dennis Patton, and Officer Doug Weischedel OTHERS PRESENT: Vicki Scheliga, West Covina Resident I. REQUEST: City of Walnut THAT THE CITY OF WEST CO'VINA CONCURS WITH THE CITY OF WALNUT'S EVALUATION TO REMOVE THE MARKED SCHOOL CROSSWALK ON LA PUENTE ROAD AT PASEO DEL CABALLO. FINDINGS: La Puente Road is a 60-foot wide minor arterial street, consisting of two travel lanes in each direction. The posted speed limit is 45 miles-per-hour. City of Walnut has requested that the City of West Covina agree with their determination to remove the marked school crosswalk at the intersection of La Puente Road and Paseo del Caballo. Their determination is based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) guidelines for establishing marked crosswalks. The MUTCD states a marked crosswalk should not be installed across uncontrolled roadways where the (1) speed limit exceeds 40 miles-per-hour and (2) the roadway has four or more travel lanes without an additional traffic control device such as raised medians and flashing beacons. Also, there is a marked crosswalk located about 400 feet west of the marked crosswalk at the signalized intersection of La Puente Road and Sentous Avenue. In order to remove the marked school crosswalk the California Vehicle Code Section 21950.5 requires that a notice be posted not less than 30-days from the scheduled removal at the marked crosswalk. The notice must contain that the public may provide input relating to the removal and the form and method of providing the input. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CONCURS WITH THE CITY OF WALNUT'S EVALUATION TO REMOVE THE MARKED SCHOOL CROSSWALK ON LA PUENTE ROAD AT PASEO DEL CABALLO. 2 ZATRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 2011VanuaryTC 2011 Minutes.doc MARKED CROSSWALK TO BE REMOVED Prepared by: Dennis Swink Controller 7. -4.41111111111111111. ------- ..r. —4-- -----. -- Finance Director R vie ,ediApprove by: homas Bachman City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA Item No. Date February 1,2011 TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council FROM: Thomas Bachman, Assistant City' Manager SUBJECT: CITY TREASURER'S REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2010 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council receive and file this report. DISCUSSION: Effective January 1, 2006, Section 53646 of the Government Code states that a city's chief fiscal officer may submit quarterly reports to their legislative body. This report is to include the type of investment, issuer, date of 'maturity, par and dollar amount invested on all securities, investments, and money held by the local agency. It must also include a statement that the portfolio is in compliance with the City's investrnent policy, or manner in which it is not in compliance, and note the ability of. the local agency to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money may not be available. Although it is no longer a requirement to submit quarterly reports to the local legislative body, the Finance Department will continue to submit treasurer's reports to the West Covina City Council each month. The December Report shows the City's portfolio increased from $38,638,556.56 on November 30, 2010, to $40,894,562.75 on December 31, 2010. Beginning with the May 2001 report, average maturity information has been provided for investments in the City's portfolio. The overall average maturity of the portfolio is 932 days or approximately two and a half years. Approximately 4 percent of the portfolio is on deposit in various bank accounts. These funds are available to satisfy obligations as needed. The majority of the portfolio is on deposit in two investment pools. Approximately 42 percent is held in the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and 20 percent is in the Los Angeles County Investment Pool (LACIP). These funds are completely liquid since the City could withdraw them at any time. The portfolio also includes two long-term, high interest investments made in the early 1980s which constitute approximately 34 percent of the portfolio. Bond Detail Report: The December report also includes a Bond Detail Report. This report shows how Fiscal Agents are investing City, Community Development Commission and Public Financing Authority cash, which they hold to service various debts. This information is reported to the City Council quarterly. CITY OF WEST COVINA STATEMENT OF TREASURER'S ACCOUNTABILITY DECEMBER 31, 2010 TYPES OF DEPOSITS: NOVEMBER 30 DEPOSITS WITHDRAWALS DECEMBER 31 CHECKING ACCOUNTS • WELLS FARGO GENERAL CHECKING $ 313,997.00 $ 23,056,784.92 $ 23,117,591.92 $ 253,190.00 WELLS FARGO BANK GEN AUTO & LIABILITY - 116,663.05 116,663.05 - WELLS.FARGO BANK WORKER'S COMPENSATION 50,000.00 39,117.70 39,117.70 50,000.00 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL 151,518.23 4,436,890.37 4,395,421.63 192,986.97 SUB-TOTAL $ 515,515.23 $ 27,649,456.04 $ 27,668,794.30 $ 496,176.97 1.213% OTHER INVESTMENTS: WELLS FARGO SWEEP $ 726,060.85 $ 9,823,542.88 $ 9,253,734.06 $ 1,295,869.67 3.169% FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FNMA) 3,688,593.75 - - 3,688,593.75 ."" 9.020% FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION (FHLMC) 10,199,962.50 - 10,199,962.50 ** 24.942% LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND - CITY (LAIF) 15,442,989.98 5,200,000.00 3,500,000.00 17,142,989.98 41.920% LOS ANGELES COUNTY POOL (LACIP) 8,065,434.25 5,535.63 8,070,969.88 19.736% SUB-TOTAL $ 38,123,041.33 $ 15,029,078.51 $ 12,753,734.06 $ 40,398,386.78 98.787% TOTAL $ 38,638,556.56 $ 42,678,534.55 $ 40,422,528.36 $ 40,894,562.75 100% , *" These two high interest long term investments were made before State Law limited investments to a maximum five-year term. It has been verified that this investment portfolio is in conformity with the City of West Covina's investment policy which was approved by the City Council on January 18, 2005. . The investment portfolio provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet estimated expenditures for the next six months. This report is accurate with respect to all information received as of January 19, 2011. EARNED INTEREST YIELD THIS PERIOD: 3.182% SIX-MONTH TREASURY BILL YIELD: 0.190% . • ' REVIEWED BY: PREPARED BY Dennis Swink, City Controller . Angel F. Patella, evenue Services Supervisor .-. , SUBMITTED BY: ., APPR VED BY: ./.71, " / _, / . t.,.4?' 4 Z.:-._:dA6/"./S-l---------"—‘ - i c- - Thoma =achman, Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Ma an V. Smithspii, City Treasurer / City of West Covina Portfolio Details December 31, 2010 AVERAGE 12/31/2010 11/30/2010 INVESTMENT INVESTMENT ISSUER MATURITY PURCHASE DAYS TO CUSIP RATE YIELD COST PAR MARKET MARKET NUMBER TYPE DATE DATE MATURITY VALUE* VALUE* 1986-06-01 ** FHLMC U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY ** FNMA U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY 06/01/16 06/01/86 1951 313400MC4 8.250 7.728 10,199,962.50 10,199,962.50 9,555,000.00 9,555,000.00 11,613,433.65 11,613,433.65 11,925,882.15 11,925,882.15 1985-12-10 12/10/15 12/10/85 313588UO3 10.350 8.418 3,688,593.75 3,000,000.00 4,123,710.00 4,123,710.00 4,229,070.00 4,229,070.00 1780 3,688,593.75 3,000,000.00 1992704-20 LACIP LOS ANGELES COUNTY TREASURER*** 04/20/92 557 N/A 1.330 1.330 8,070,969.88 8,070,969.88 - E3070,969.88 8,070,969.88 1989-10-19 LAIF STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10/19/89 215 N/A 0.462 0.462 17,142,989.98 17,142,989.98 17,142,989.98 17,142,989.98 932 TOTALS: 39,102,516.11 37,768,959.86 40,951,103.51 41,368,912.01 * MARKET VALUES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY UNION BANK. ** These two high interest long term investments were made before State Law limited investments to a maximum five-year term. *** For this month's report, November 2010 LAC1P Earnings Rate and November 2010 LACIP Weighted Average Days to Maturity were used due to the unavailability of December 2010 figures as of the writing of this report. Note: The Wells Fargo Sweep account was not included in the calculation of average maturity. CITY OF WEST COVINA BOND DETAIL REPORT December 31, 2010 Shares/Face Description of Bond Type of Bond Type of Investment Description of Issuer Maturity Date Original Cost Market Value Rate Amount Open 396,611.71 396,611.71 396,611.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 396,611.71 396,611.71 396,611.71 12/3/2013 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1988 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Reserve 1988 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Reserve 1988 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds L/C Fund 1988 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds UC Fund Federated Treasury Obligations Federated Investors Co Cash Original LOC #NZS671159 I CUSIP #S86714370 Wells Fargo Cash California Strs, Confirming LOC UC #53 Union Bank of CA LJC #306S234230 Cash Ending Balances 396,612.71 396,612.71 396,611.71 California Strs 6/26/2013 0.00 1.00 0.00 Union Bank 6/26/2012 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Ending Balances 0.00 2.00 0.00 2002 PFA Lease Revenue Refunding Bond Credit Facility 2002 PFA Lease Revenue Refunding Bond Credit Facility 2003 Community Center COPs Reserve Account First American Treas Oblig Cl d Corp Trust First American Funds, Inc. Open 357,861.88 357,861.88 357,861.88 2003 Community Center COPs Reserve Account Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 357,861.88 357,861.88 357,861.88 Ending Balances 357,861.88 357,861.88 357,861.88 2004 WC PFA Var Rate Lease Rev Bds Ser A & B Credit Facility Union Bank of CA Irrevocable LC #306S235825 Union Bank 11/18/2011 1.00 1.00 0.00 2004 WC PFA Var Rate Lease Rev Bds Ser A & B Credit Facility Cash 0.00 0.06 0.00 Ending Balances 1.00 1.00 0.00 2005 WC PFA Var Rate Lease Rev Ref Series C Lease Payment First American Treas Oblig Cl d Corp Trust First American Funds, Inc. 2005 WC PFA Var Rate Lease Rev Ref Series C Lease Payment Cash Open 2,703.77 2,703.77 2 703 77 - , . 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,703.77 2,703.77 2,703.77 Ending Balances 2,703.77 2,703.77 2,703.77 Description of Bond Type of Bond Type of Investment Description of Issuer Maturity Date Original Cost Shares/Face Amount Market Value Rate 2006 WC PFA Lse Rev Bd Series A & B 2006 WC PFA Lse Rev Bd Series A & B 2006A Reserve Account . First American Treas Oblig Cl d Corp Trust 2006A Reserve Account Cash First American Funds, Inc. Open 945,257.87 0.00 945,257.87 945,257.87 0.00 945,257.87 577,737.00 0.00 577,737.00 1,522,994.87 945,257.87 0.00 945,257.87 577,737.00 0.00 577,737.00 2006 WC PFA Lse Rev Bd Series A & B 2006 WC PFA Lse Rev Bd Series A & B 2006B Reserve Account First American Treas Oblig FD CL D 2006B Reserve Account Cash First American Funds, Inc. Open • 577,737.00 0.00 577,737.00 1,522,994.87 Ending Balances 1,522,994.87 *Market valuations have been provided by BNY Western Trust Company and U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Services GRAND TOTALS 2,280,174.23 2,280,176.23 2,280,172.23 City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA Item No. g Date February 1,2011 TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, Executive Director and the Community Development Commission FROM: Thomas Bachrnan, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CDC TREASURER'S REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2010 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Community Development Commission Board receive and file this report DISCUSSION: Effective January 1, 2006, Section 53646 of the Government Code states that a city's chief fiscal officer may submit quarterly reports to their legislative body. This report is to include the type of investment, issuer, date of maturity, par and dollar amount invested on all securities, investments, and money held by the local agency. It must also include a statement that the portfolio is in compliance with the City's investment policy, or manner in which it is not in compliance, and note the ability of the local agency to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money may not be available. Although it is no longer a requirement to submit quarterly reports to the local legislative body, the Finance Department will continue to submit treasurer's reports to the West Covina Community Development Commission Board each month. The December Report shows the CDC's portfolio increased from $9,513,345.10 on November 30, 2010, to $14,055,856.31 on December 31, 2010. To ensure funds are available on short notice to take advantage of development opportunities, the CDC's surplus funds are in investment pools with the State of California Local Agency Investment Pool (LAIF) and the Los Angeles County Investment Pool (LACIP). These funds are completely liquid since the City could withdraw them at any time. Approximately 65 percent of the portfolio is on deposit in LAIF and 34 percent is in LACIP. The remaining 1 percent of available cash is on deposit in various checking accounts. This report also shows cash holdings for the Community Facilities District. These funds are used for district operating expenses and debt service and are invested in a separate LACIP account. Bond Detail Report: The December report also includes a Bond Detail Report. This report shows how Fiscal Agents are investing City, Community Development Commission and Public Financing Authority cash, which they hold to service various debts. This information is reported to the City Council quarterly. C t I .n0e/ . n '/'• ... - a 0 ' ' ' - . Prepared by: Dennis Swink Revieed/Ap breea by: Thomas Bachman Controller Finance Director EARNED INTEREST YIELD THIS PERIOD: 0.759% SIX-MONTH TREASURY BILL YIELD: 0.190% Dennis Swink, City Controller REVIEWED BY: ) SUBMITTED BY: Thoriial;firchman, A'SsislagrCity Manager/Finance Director PREPARED BY: Angel F. Pateriaf Revenue Services Supervisor Mari ati V. Smithsonyeity Treasurer APPROVED BY: Ardle" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STATEMENT OF TREASURER'S ACCOUNTABILITY DECEMBER 31, 2010 TYPES OF DEPOSITS: CHECKING ACCOUNTS WELLS FARGO GENERAL CHECKING PACIFIC WESTERN NAT BANK RDA PROGRAMS (SBA/FTHB/HPP) SUB-TOTAL OTHER INVESTMENTS: LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF) LOS ANGELES COUNTY POOL (LACIP) SUB-TOTAL TOTAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT REVENUE FUND WELLS FARGO BANK C.F.D. CHECKING LOS ANGELES COUNTY POOL (LACIP) TOTAL FOR C.F.D. REVENUE FUND NOVEMBER 30 24,308.54 17,350.90 41,659.44 4,729/777.13 4,741,908.53 9,471,685.66 9,513,345.10 1,692.72 614,900.27 616,592.99. DEPOSITS 11,172,542.22 44,901.30 11,217,443.52 5,120,000.00 3,254.57 $ 5,123,254.57 16,340,698.09 1,134,359.44 568,275.27 1,702,634.71 WITHDRAWALS 11,047,285.58 44,901.30 11,092,186.88 706,000.00 706,000.00 11,798,186.88 857,611.54 857,611.54 DECEMBER 31 149,565.18 17,350.90 166,916.08 9,143,777.13 4,745,163.10 13,888,940.23 $ 14,055,856.31 278,440.62 1,183,175.54 $ 1,461,616.16 It has been verified that this investment portfolio is in conformity with the City of West Covina's investment policy which was approved by the City Council on January 18, 2005. The investment portfolio provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet estimated expenditures for the next six months. This report is accurate with respect to all information received as of January 19, 2011. 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Interest Series A 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Interest Series A 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Interest Series B 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Interest Series B 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Reserve Series A 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Reserve Series A 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Reserve Series B 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Reserve Series B 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Project Fund Series B 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Project Fund Series B First American Treas Oblig CI d Corp Trust Cash First American Trees Oblig Cl d Corp Trust Cash First American Treas Oblig Cl d Corp Trust Cash First American Trees Oblig CI d Corp Trust Cash First American Treas Oblig Cl d Corp Trust Cash First American Funds, Inc. First American Funds, Inc. First American Funds, Inc. First American Funds, Inc. First American Funds, Inc. 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Principal Account First American Treas Oblig Cl d Corp Trust First American Funds, Inc. 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Principal Account Cash 1999 Tax Allocation Bonds • - L/C Fund 1999 Tax Allocation Bonds UC Fund 2001 RDA Housing Set-Aside T/A Rev Bonds Reserve Account 2001 RDA Housing Set-Aside T/A Rev Bonds Reserve Account 2001 RDA Housing Set-Aside T/A Rev Bonds Reserve Account 2001 RDA Housing Set-Aside T/A Rev Bonds Project Fund 2001 RDA Housing Set-Aside T/A Rev Bonds - Project Fund Direct Pay LOC #NZS668499 Wells Fargo Bank, NA • Cash First American Treas Oblig Cl d Corp Trust First American Funds, Inc. FHLMC DISCOUNT NOTE ' U.S. Treas & Agency Cash First American Treas Oblig Cl d Corp Trust First American Funds, Inc. Cash WEST COVINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BOND DETAIL REPORT December 31, 2010 Description of Bond Type of Bond Type of Investment Description of Issuer Maturity Date Original Cost Shares/Face Amount Market Value Rate 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Bond First American Trees Oblig CI d Corp Trust First American Funds, Inc. Open 0.03 0.03 0.03 1998 Housing Set-Aside Bonds Series A, B Bond Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 Open 33.43 33.43 33.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.43 33.43 33.43 Open 14.18 14.18 14.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.18 14.18 14.18 Open 346,580.02 346,580.02 346,580.02 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 346,580.02 346,580.02 346,580.02 Open 102186.32 102,186.32 102,186.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 102,186.32 102,186.32 102,186.32 Open 114,680.87 114,680.87 114,680.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 114,680.87 114,680.87 114,680.87 Open 194.59 194.59 194.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 194.59 194.59 194.59 Ending Balances 563,689.44 563,689.44 \563,689.44 10/13/2013 1.00 0.00 3,863,716.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3,863,716.00 0.00 Ending Balances 1.00 . 3,863,716.00 0.00 Open 576.88 576.88 576.88 3/1/2011 779,100:62 800,000.00.• 799,872.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 779,677.50 800,576.88 800,448.88 Open 50.43 50.43 50.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.43 50.43 50.43 Ending Balances 779,727.93 800,627.31 800,499.31 5.270 Description of Bond Type of Bond Type of Investment Description of Issuer Maturity Date Original Cost Shares/Face Amount Market Value Rate 2002 RDA T/A Revenue Refunding Bonds 2002 RDA T/A Revenue Refunding Bonds Special Fund Special Fund First American Treas Oblig Cl d Corp Trust Cash First American Funds, Inc. Open 0.04 0.04 0.04 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 First American Funds, Inc. Open 1,004,003.50 - 1,004,003.50 1,004,003.50 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,004,003.50 1,004,003.50 1,004,003.50 Ending Balances 1,004,003.54 1,004,003.54 1,004,003.54 First American Funds, Inc. Open 4,891.26 4,891.26 4,891.26 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,891.26 4,891.26 4,891.26 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale 9/1/2022 5,002,670.40 5,002,670.40 5,002,670.40 7.010 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,002,670.40 5,002,670.40 5,002,670.40 Ending Balances 5,007,561.66 5,007,561.66 5,007,561.66 2002 RDA T/A Revenue Refunding Bonds Reserve Fund First American Government Obligation Fd CL D 2002 RDA T/A Revenue Refunding Bonds Reserve Fund Cash 1996 Special Tax Bonds Bonds Fund First American Treas Oblig Cl d Corp Trust 1996 Special Tax Bonds Bonds Fund Cash 1996 Special Tax Bonds Reserve Fund Guaranteed Investment Contract 1996 Special Tax Bonds Reserve Fund Cash *Market valuations have been provided by U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Services ' GRAND TOTALS 7,354,983.57 11,239,597.95 7,375,753.95 City of West Covina Memorandum TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager AGENDA and City Council ITEM NO. 9 DATE February 1, 2011 FROM: Shannon A. Yauchzee, Director/City Engineer Public Works Department SUBJECT: CALLING FOR REASONABLE, PRACTICABLE, AND ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE STORMVVATER NPDES AND TMDL REQUIREMENTS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, LOS ANGELES DIVISION, CALLING FOR REASONABLE, PRACTICABLE, AND ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE TMDL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DISCUSSION: Background Since the early 1990's, the City of West Covina, along with 87 municipalities in Los Angeles County, have been required to comply with municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater permit (NPDES permit) requirements. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) is responsible for assuring municipal compliance with NPDES permit requirements. NPDES permits are primarily authorized under the Federal Clean Water Act and, to some extent, under the Porter-Cologne Act, the State's water code. Basic Permit Requirements The NPDES permit allows municipalities to discharge stormwater runoff from within their jurisdictions to waters of the United States (typically oceans, lakes, and rivers), also referred to as "receiving waters." The permit also allows the discharge of certain categories of non- stormwater, such as potable water, irrigation water, and residential car wash water. In exchange, the NPDES permit requires compliance with several program requirements that require the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce runoff pollution from construction sites, completed development and redevelopment projects, and municipal operations and activities (e.g., vehicle and equipment maintenance, storm drain and sewer maintenance, and street maintenance). BMPs generally prevent stormwater contact with pollutants or treat them if contact prevention is not possible. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) A TMDL is a limit on the amount of a pollutant (e.g., bacteria, metals, nutrients, trash, and dozens of others) that may enter receiving waters in order to protect their beneficial use (typically recreation). The cost of complying with TMDLs is potentially staggering: in the several millions of dollars annually, depending on the area of the municipality and watershed location (Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, Dominguez Channel, Machado Lake, Legg Lake, etc.). The regulations could be overly burdensome to the City and to local businesses. To date, several TMDLs have been adopted. In order for them to be binding on municipal permittees, they have to be placed into the NPDES permit. Once this happens, subject cities must comply with the TMDL's numeric limitation known as a "waste load allocation" (WLA). The problem is that the Regional Board, in the several TMDLs that it has adopted thus far, plans on requiring cities to strictly comply with the WLA in the receiving water through the implementation of BMPs — beyond what Federal regulations call for. However, if the WLA is NPDES_Staff Report Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council Page 2 — February 1,2011 not met, the non-compliant city will be subject to administrative enforcement from the Regional Board, and, more seriously, third party lawsuits from non-governmental environmental organizations. A successful third party lawsuit against a city could result not only in costly fines and legal fees, but is also likely to result in a settlement agreement requiring it to agree to use general funds to pay for costly regional treatment facilities. As a consequence, vital programs and services to our citizens will be placed at risk. League Resolution The Los Angeles Division League of California Cities has adopted a resolution declaring a policy on TMDL compliance that would not require strict compliance with numeric limitations. Instead, it calls for a TMDL regulatory approach in keeping with Federal stormwater regulations. That approach allows compliance to be achieved through BMP implementation, but without having to meet the TMDL's numeric waste load allocation. As long as the BMPs are being implemented, compliance will be achieved — even if the WLA is not met. The mechanism for accomplishing this is known as a Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation (WQBEL). Federal regulations require WQBELs to be used when TMDLs are effectuated through NPDES permits. The Regional Board has ignored this requirement for reasons that are not clear. The Regional Board does not have to follow Federal regulations here; it can rely on State law. However, if it does, it will be creating an unfunded mandate. City's Resolution The proposed City resolution supports the position of the Los Angeles Division of the League of California Cities. The proposed resolution also empowers the Mayor and the City Manager to take actions necessary to promote reasonable compliance approaches to TMDL and NPDES permit requirements. This includes lobbying State and Federal elected officials and, if necessary, taking administrative and legal action, including but not limited to filing unfunded mandate claims against the State. A copy of the resolution will be forwarded to City, County, Federal, and State elected officials. ALTERNATIVES: An alternative is to not adopt this resolution. Other municipalities in Los Angeles County are likely to adopt similar resolution. The more cities that adopt it, the more of an impression it will make on State and Federal electeds and regulatory agencies. Not adopting the resolution would, of course, lessen that impression to some extent. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the action recommended herein. Its purpose is to prevent regulatory agencies from requiring the City to expend scarce resources on TMDL compliance without compensation from the State or Federal government. Reviewed/Approv‘led by: hannon A. Yauchzee Director/City Engineer Approved via Email Reviewed/Approved by: City Attorney Attachment No. 1 Resolution NPDES_Staff Report Attachment No. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, LOS ANGELES DIVISION, CALLING FOR REASONABLE, PRACTICABLE, AND ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE TMDL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, on , the League of California Cities, Los Angeles Division (hereinafter "League") adopted a resolution calling for reasonable, practicable, and economically achievable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements "League Resolution" (see exhibit "A"); WHEREAS, the League Resolution encourages the use of Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) in executing TMDLs in NPDES permits issued to Los Angeles County municipal permittees in accordance with Federal stormwater regulations; WHEREAS, the use of WQBELs would prevent requiring the City, as a municipal NPDES permittee, to strictly comply with numeric limitations associated with TMDLs by allowing compliance to be achieved through the implementation of best management practices; WHEREAS, the City, along with many municipalities in Los Angeles County, fully supports the League Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina, California does hereby resolve: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of West Covina actively supports the League Resolution. SECTION 2. That the Mayor and his/her designee take the following actions: 1. Forward the League Resolution and this resolution to County, State, and Federal elected officials and to appropriate State and Federal regulatory agencies, and provide an explanation of their intent and purpose; 2. Communicate in writing and meet as often as necessary with elected officials and regulatory agencies on this matter; and Challenge through administrative claims, petitions or litigation any regulatory requirement that would impose upon the City strict compliance with numeric limitations in TMDLs, municipal NPDES permits, or other regulatory mechanisms. SECTION 3. Authorize the appropriate City staff to take actions necessary to promote the use of WQBELs and/or other regulatory mechanisms to assure that compliance with TMDLs or municipal NPDES permit requirements is achieved through the implementation of best management practices without having to meet a numeric limitation on the pollutants for which a TMDL was created to address. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption hereof. ZARESOLUTION - 2011\NPDES_Reso.doc APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council this 1st day of February 2011. . Mayor Steve Herfert ATTEST: City Clerk Laurie Carrico I LAURIE CARRICO do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at their regular meeting thereof held on the 1 st day of February 2011, by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk Laurie Carrico APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman 2 Exhibit "A" A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CITIES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DIVISION, SUPPORTING REASONABLE, PRACTICABLE AND ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE STORMWATER NPDES PERMIT AND TMDL REQUIREMENTS, THROUGH THE USE OF PROGRESSIVE AND ADAPTIVE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Whereas, municipalities in Los Angeles County are proud of their environmental programs and invest significant resources in improving water quality by implementing both federal, state and local environmental programs, including the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and the Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) program; and Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is governed under a consent decree issued by a federal district court in 1999 which requires USEPA to adopt 96 TMDLs for water bodies in the Los Angeles region, under an accelerated time schedule; and Whereas, the State of California, through the State Board and Regional Board, has been designated by the USEPA to enforce federal stormwater regulations, including the municipal NPDES permits and TMDLs, under the Clean Water Act; and Whereas, TMDLs are the means by which water quality standards are applied to the municipalities and TMDLs are specifically designed to achieve beneficial uses of water bodies by limiting the amount of pollutants in runoff conveyed to them; and Whereas, TMDLs are typically implemented and enforced against local governments through the Municipal NPDES permits and that the Clean Water Act allows for third-party litigation/citizen suits against local governments if they fail to comply with their NPDES permit requirements; and Whereas, the USEPA and the Regional Board have adopted dozens of TMDLs since 2001 and additional TMDLs are pending adoption under the consent decree; and Whereas, the Regional Board has already incorporated into the current NPDES permit a trash TMDL for the Los Angeles River and a bacteria TMDL for the Santa Monica Bay, and plans to include in the permit dozens of other TMDLs affecting Ballona Creek, Calleguas Creek, the Dominguez Channel, the Los Angeles River and the San Gabriel River, and Santa Clara River watersheds; and Whereas, a study commissioned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) concluded that the stormwater management program (including TMDLs) in the United States is dysfunctional and in need of radical change; Whereas the USEPA study concluded that the cost of complying with TMDLs would impose upon subject local governments tremendous costs that may not result in a significant improvement in water quality; Whereas, a Government Accounting Office report commissioned by Congress found that compliance with existing TMDL regulations has been problematic and that limitations in USEPA's economic analysis of the NPDES and TMDL programs raises questions about their reasonableness (GAO/T-RCED-00-233); and Whereas, the GAO also found that -states have had difficulty in developing accurate water quality standards for the TMDL program due to a lack of financial resources and that, as a consequence, local governments risk directing limited resources to water bodies that have been incorrectly targeted for clean-up (GAO -03- 881T); and Whereas, the State's non-partisan Little Hoover Commission found in its January of 2009 report that local governments, representing small, poor communities, as well as larger, richer urban areas, are struggling to pay for upgrades needed to protect the ZAAGENDA - 2011\League Reso_Exhibit A.doc Exhibit "A" state's waters and that urban stormwater is a vexing problem with costly solutions, yet the State has not developed an adequate system for assessing and prioritizing the problems; and Whereas, the State Water Board commissioned a panel of experts to report on the feasibility of relying on numeric limits in municipal NPDES permits and the panel reported on June 19, 2006 that "it is not feasible at this time to set enforceable numeric effluent criteria for municipal BMPs and in particular urban discharges"; and Whereas, the League of California Cities adopted statewide water policy guidelines in March of 2010 supporting the development of reasonably achievable, environmentally sound and cost-effective TMDLs based on monitoring and sound science, and opposes legislation that requires the use of numeric limits in NPDES permits, because of the difficulties in meeting numeric limits, problems with exceeding numeric limits and the costs and potential enforcement impacts of numeric limits; and Whereas, federal regulations allow for flexibility and provide discretion to the states when imposing NPDES permit requirements and developing TMDL programs, and USEPA has adopted Interim Permitting Approach for Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations in Storm Water Permits, which allows municipalities to employ best management practices (BMPs) as a reasonable, practicable and economically achievable method to improve water quality in lieu of incorporating numeric limits into NPDES permits; and Whereas a recent USEPA memorandum reaffirmed the use of BMPs in addressing water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) as a means of complying with TMDLs in NPDES stormwater permits; Now therefore, the League of California Cities, Los Angeles Division does hereby resolve: Section 1. That the President is authorized to communicate with USEPA, the State Board and the Regional Board: 1. That the Division supports the California League of Cities statewide policy that TMDLs be reasonably achievable, environmentally sound, cost-effective and based on monitoring and sound science. 2. That the Division supports the League of Cities statewide policy that generally opposes strict compliance with numeric limits in municipal NPDES Permits because of the difficulties in meeting them, problems with exceeding them, and the costs and potential enforcement impacts. 3. That the Division recommends that the Regional Board allow the municipalities to comply with TMDLs through reasonable, practical and economically achievable BMPs, in a progressive and adaptable manner. 4. That the Division recommends that this BMP compliance approach be included in the upcoming municipal NPDES permits in Los Angeles County, in lieu of absolute compliance with numeric limits by whatever means necessary to achieve such compliance. Section 2. That the President is directed to send letters to all member cities encouraging them to adopt similar resolutions and communicate their position in support of best management practices, rather than strict compliance with numeric limits, as a means of implementing TMDLs in the Municipal NPDES permits to the USEPA, the State Board and the Regional Board. 2 ZAAGENDA - 2011\League Reso_Exhibit A.doc TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council FROM: Chris Freeland, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: AB 1234 CONFERENCE AND MEETING REPORT – LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the report. DISCUSSION: The following is a summary of the 2011 League of California Cities New Mayors and Council Members Academy, which is held annually to provide new Council Members an overview of some of their duties, roles, and relationships with the community, City staff, consultants, etc. Councilmember Karin Armbrust attended the conference. The Conference addressed many subjects including, but not limited to: Learning advocacy skills to develop persuasive arguments to serve the community; legal powers and obligations of Council Members; City Council’s role in land use policy planning; effective governing in a City Council- City Manager form of government; media relations and communicating news to the community through developing information sources (Internet, podcasts, social media, etc.); responsibilities of elected officials to promote transparency and accountability of City financial matters; and management of City Council meetings. In addition, Governor Jerry Brown spoke at the General Luncheon to provide an overview of the State of California’s budget crisis and his proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. Prepared by: Chris Freeland Deputy City Manager City of West Covina Memorandum A G E N D A ITEM NO. 10 DATE February 1, 2011