Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05/11/15
Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0388 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Joint Meeting of May 11, 2015 OVERVIEW OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS (Raimi + Associates) Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0389 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Joint Meeting of May 11, 2015 OVERVIEW OF CARBON PLANNING TOOL (Brendle Group) Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Carbon Reduction Planning & Tool Development June 11, 2015 Agenda Project Background Community Carbon Reduction Planning Tool Overview Next Steps Project Purpose Explore what it would take for the City of Hermosa Beach to achieve a low carbon future •Analysis of potential pathways to neutrality (with “strategies” as building blocks) •Estimated costs and benefits •Implementation priorities and action plan Coordinate and align with other planning and GHG emissions reduction efforts •Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan & 2020 Target •General Plan Update •GHG Inventory, Forecasting, Target-Setting Report for an Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan Engage a broader group of stakeholders in the carbon reduction conversation •Interviews •General Plan Working Group •Climate Tool Community Emissions Community Emissions Forecasts Community Carbon Reduction Planning Tool Overview User-friendly, informative and interactive decision-support tool for community members to explore carbon reduction goals and pathways. Provides quantitative analysis to understand and compare the economic and environmental differences of implementation pathways to a low carbon future (including carbon neutrality). Integrates the General Plan update land use and transportation scenarios and potential policy directions. Related General Plan Guiding Principles Healthy Environment & Lifestyles •A steady, common sense approach is necessary to advance a long-term goal of community-wide carbon neutrality. Tackling environmental challenges early and proactively will maximize options and minimize costs. •Moving to carbon-free energy sources and concurrently planning to adapt to climate change will reduce greenhouse gases, increase energy independence and resiliency. •Climate action and adoption of environmental targets will make Hermosa Beach a n environmental leader in Southern California. •Innovative, forward-thinking approaches to anticipating future lifestyles, transportation trends and environmental realities are necessary for creating a durable sustainability plan and attracting residents, visitors and others which seek positive change. Related General Plan Guiding Principles Vibrant Economy •Our business culture cultivates innovation, the arts/creative industries, locally owned business, and environmental stewardship. •Our sustainable, resilient economy is supported by keeping local dollars in the local economy and maintaining a diversity of businesses and revenue streams. •Our desire for a high quality of life requires balancing economy, environment, and community through a ‘sustainability lens’ and this attracts like-minded entrepreneurs. Small Town Beach Character •Our beach, the ocean, green spaces and natural resources of all types are the foundation of our brand and high quality of life. •Creating a place where people can live, work and play locally is key to balancing economy, community and environment. Community Carbon Reduction Planning Tool & Guide User Inputs: Emissions Reduction Strategies Building Efficiency •Existing Homes/Businesses •New Homes/Businesses •Deep Energy Renovations •Standard Energy Renovations Renewable Energy •Rooftop Solar •Community Solar •Utility Based Renewables •Community Choice Aggregation •Green Rate Transportation and Land Use •Vehicle Miles Traveled Reductions •General Plan Scenarios •General Plan Policies •Electric Vehicles Purchase of Offsets Land Use and Transportation Alternatives: Relation to Carbon Reduction Planning Scenario Name Estimated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Scenario A: Comply with State Laws 2% Scenario B: Clarify and Align with Existing Uses & Zoning Code 4% Scenario C: Enhance Key Areas 15% Scenario D: Transform Key Areas 25% Where Do the Savings Come From? Community Estimated Cumulative Spending on Energy under Business as Usual Scenario Annual Cost Cumulative Cost 2015 2040 Electricity $15 million $33 million $600 million Natural Gas $2.1 million $6.1 million $99 million Gasoline/ Vehicle Costs $130 million $130 million $3.2 billion TOTAL $147.1 million $169.1 million $3.9 billion Next Steps Community Carbon Reduction Planning Tool •Use the tool to compare different scenarios for a low carbon future •Submit your preferred scenario to generalplan@hermosabch.org Community Carbon Reduction Planning •Aggregation of comments and preferred scenarios •Recommendations for carbon reduction policies for General Plan •Community carbon reduction action plan Municipal Carbon Reduction Planning Tool Overview Similar to the community tool, but for City staff and leadership. User-friendly, interactive decision-support tool for project selection. Integrates and refines municipal carbon neutrality planning efforts to- date. Provides quantitative analysis to explore pathways to municipal carbon neutrality •Prioritize projects and determine sequence/timing to implement •Evaluate annual levels of offsets required to reach and maintaining neutrality •Develop and compare scenarios based on carbon reductions, costs and benefits Municipal Strategies and Projects Electricity •Community Choice Aggregation •Solar Photovoltaic Projects •Building Energy Renovations Municipal Fleet •Electric Vehicles •Fuel Switching •Mode Switching •Bicycle Parking •Employee Bicycles Employee Commutes •Carpooling •Electric Vehicles Other •Program Staffing •Carbon Offsets Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0387 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Joint Meeting of May 11, 2015 GENERAL PLAN/COASTAL LAND USE PLAN UPDATE: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS (Community Development Director Ken Robertson) Summary This report provides the Council, Planning Commission and public with the materials for the May 11th Study Session. Staff and the City’s General Plan consultants will provide a brief overview and request initial feedback /direction from the public, Planning Commission and City Council. The purpose of the Study Session is to provide initial direction on the degree and type of changes to the land use and transportation network that should be considered for the future of Hermosa Beach over the next 20-30 years. The scenario recommended by Council and the Planning Commission will inform the policies and standards included in the policy document component of the General Plan and will serve as the Project Description for the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The General Plan work products prepared thus far are available on the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan webpage at <http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=767>. Previous activities as well as plans already adopted by the City and other background resources may also be reviewed at this webpage. These items will be folded into the General Plan, ensuring that the City’s work-to-date remains relevant and usable. Reviewing and Evaluating the Land Use and Transportation Scenarios The General Plan will consist of two primary components, a policy document and a set of maps to identify the physical layout of the community. For Hermosa Beach, the land use map serves a critical role in communicating the location, mix, and intensity of future uses, while the transportation map identifies the future network, connections, and capacity that facilitate the movement of people, goods, and vehicles about the community. It is important to identify the preferred physical layout of the community through these maps prior to creating the policy document. This stepped approach ensures that the policies, goals, and actions of the policy document are consistent with and take the steps needed to achieve the desired physical layout portrayed within the land use and transportation maps. Identifying the preferred land use and transportation network first, will also ensure that the physical changes can be properly evaluated in the context of infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints, Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0387 and economic development potential. In terms of identifying a future land use and transportation network, there are many approaches Hermosa Beach can consider in deciding how to incorporate new development in a context sensitive manner, enhance economic development and entrepreneurship, and encourage a healthy environment and active lifestyle. To help focus the wide range of potential land use and transportation possibilities, staff and the consulting team have developed four scenarios for consideration and evaluation (detailed in Attachment 1). The intent of creating four scenarios is to provide the community, Planning Commission, and City Council with a framework and forum to review, discuss, and evaluate the desired level of change to the land use and transportation network and ultimately select a preferred scenario. As the summary report of land use and transportation scenarios is meant to stimulate discussion, it purposely does not recommend a particular scenario or attempt to make conclusions about how well each scenario might accomplish City goals. However, the City’s Decision Making Tool can be used as a resource by the public, Planning Commission, and City Council to compare and evaluate the potential benefits and tradeoffs between the four scenarios. To assist in this evaluation, a worksheet with the decision making tool questions has been prepared (Attachment 2). How the Land Use and Transportation Scenarios Were Crafted The four land use and transportation scenarios have been developed through a multi-faceted process that considers the following: ·Vision and Guiding Principles - Over the course of 2014, the community working group, with input from staff, consultants, and the community worked to craft a Vision Statement and Guiding Principles that articulate the community’s desired future based. This vision was developed through the Community Dialogue process, the Sustainability Plan, and especially the Working Group members’ experiences living and working in Hermosa Beach. In December 2014, the Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session to review and provide input on the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles. This refined Vision Statement and Guiding Principles (Attachment 3) serve as the base foundation in the development of subsequent components of the General Plan to ensure that the Policy document and maps help to achieve the community’s vision. ·Community Input and Feedback- In terms of public participation throughout the process, we started with a broad range of possibilities and gathered ideas relevant to key issues through community events and workshops in July 2013, May 2014, and November 2014. In March 2015, we invited the community to join us on a series of walking tours or participate in group discussions to explore the community’s ideas and interest in enhancing or transforming key non-residential areas of the community. The concepts and materials presented to the community during this workshop, as well as the results of the workshop and follow-up online participation are provided in Attachment 4. The feedback on various concepts proposed during the ·Existing Local Plans and Recent Efforts - The City has adopted or is working on a number of plans and programs that have relevance to the land use and transportation network, or can Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0387 be further implemented through proposed changes to land uses or the transportation network. Relevant plans and efforts include the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy, PCH/Aviation Corridor Master Plan, Sustainability Plan, Carbon Neutral Scoping Plan, South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, and the Beach Cities Livability Plan. A key objective of this Update is to integrate and align the City’s General Plan with all of these recent plans and efforts. ·State Legislation and Best Practices - In updating the General Plan and integrating the Coastal Land Use Plan, there are multiple items relevant to the land use and transportation network that must (or should strongly) be considered to be in compliance with State Law associated with General Plans. Additionally, since the General Plan was last updated, there are several best practices or technological innovations surrounding the topics of sustainability and livability that have not previously been considered within the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. Connection to Community Carbon Neutral Planning Process In order to facilitate a more inclusive process around the topic of community carbon neutrality, the carbon neutrality planning approach has been aligned with the ongoing General Plan update process. One particular area of coordination focuses on the development of a “Community Carbon Tool” which will help in analyzing and determining what it would take for the City of Hermosa Beach to achieve carbon neutrality. The Carbon Tool (Attachment 5) is intended to provide a user-friendly platform for community stakeholders to explore what it would take to achieve carbon neutrality, including estimated costs and benefits of the carbon reduction strategies. The Carbon Tool includes four major categories of potential emissions reduction strategies: building efficiency, renewable energy, transportation and land use, and purchase of offsets. The transportation and land use category provides users with an option to select their preferred land use and transportation scenario, as each scenario varies in their ability to reduce vehicle miles traveled and contribute toward achieving the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. The community’s input on the Carbon Tool will assist with the development of the General Plan in two specific ways: 1.Selection of their preferred land use and transportation scenario will help to confirm which scenario is most palatable to the community, particularly in the context of reducing greenhouse emissions. 2.Identification of preferred building efficiency, renewable energy, and transportation demand management policies through the Carbon Tool will help to inform General Plan goal and policy development by gauging the community’s interest in pursuing or prioritizing certain programs. Next Steps and Continued Community Participation Once the recommended land use and transportation plan is set, the next several months of work effort will focus on developing the goals and policies of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, within input throughout the process from City Staff in multiple departments, the Community Working Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0387 Group, and the Technical Advisory Committee. The Draft General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and associated environmental document will be released in the fall, with multiple opportunities for the community to review and provide feedback prior to initiation of the formal public hearing and adoption process. Since the Planning Commission is statutorily charged with making a recommendation on the draft General Plan to the City Council, the Commission will be involved in each phase of review. Other City Commissions will also be consulted at key points in the process to review and provide input on topics within their purview. City Council will take formal action on the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Attachments: 1.Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios for Review 2.Decision Making Tool 3.Updated Vision Statement and Guiding Principles 4.Materials and Results of 3/28 Community Workshop 5.Draft Carbon Planning Tool User Guide 6.Draft Carbon Planning Tool Respectfully Submitted by: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 1 Introduction General Plans are typically divided into a physical improvement plan related to land uses and the transportation network, and the policy plan, which establishes goals, policies, objectives, and actions aimed toward implementing the community’s vision for the future of Hermosa Beach. The physical improvement plan, commonly referred to as the Land Use and Transportation Plan, process starts with the development of multiple scenarios or alternatives that detail they physical improvements that could occur through changing land uses or the transportation network. Prior to developing the policy plan, it is important that the community and decision-makers identify a preferred land use and transportation scenario, so that it may be further evaluated for potential environmental impacts and so that the policy plan is written in a way that implements the preferred physical changes. This document details and qualitatively evaluates four different land use and transportation scenarios (titled A, B, C, and D) for consideration and to assist the community and decision-makers to identify a preferred land use and transportation scenario. The figure below categorizes the types of land use and transportation enhancements proposed within each scenario. Ground Rules & Parameters As this plan identifies the physical land use and transportation network changes that may occur within the General Plan, there are a series of commonly asked questions or concerns that should be clarified: • Changing or re-defining designations does not require any existing uses to change. • Establishing new designations is meant to provide MORE options for property owners. • There are certain changes that must occur to the land use map and transportation network for the City’s General Plan to be consistent with State Law including: o Establishing a range of appropriate development intensities or densities for all land use designations o Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, in part by facilitating the reduction of auto- dependency and vehicle miles traveled o Ensuring that all users and modes have a safe and convenient network o Providing adequate visitor-serving uses (lodging) to address local coastal plan requirements, which require an increase in opportunities for these uses • Proposed densities and intensities within Scenarios A-C are generally based on existing, “on the ground” uses in each area. Land Use •Designations •Definitions •Residential Density and Commercial Intensity •Land Use Map Transportation •Street and Active Transportation Network •Neighborhood and Site Enhancements •Parking Facilities/Policies •Transportation Network Map Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 2 Adopted General Plan The community’s land use goals and development patterns are reflected in its adopted General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. This table provides a summary or synopsis of the basic physical framework of the adopted General Plan. Land Use Program Adopted General Plan Land Use Program Land Use Designation Land Use Definition Allowed Density/Intensity Low Density Residential Single-family residential Max: 13 du/ac Medium Density Residential Multiple-family residential Max: 25 du/ac High Density Residential Multiple-family residential Max: 33/du/ac Mobile Home Park Mobile homes None formally established (13 du/ac recommended) Specific Plan Area Defined by specific plan based on unique characteristics of area. Max: 14.7 du/ac Neighborhood Commercial Convenience stores, deli/markets, and similar personal services uses to serve local walk-in traffic. None Established Commercial Recreation Visitor serving uses such as motels/hotels, bicycle shops, beach equipment, entertainment, clothing and similar uses None Established General Commercial Uses such as auto and truck related uses, lumber yard, equipment rental. None Established Commercial Corridor Retail, service, and office uses. Automotive uses by CUP. Residential uses allowed to remain. None Established Industrial Manufacturing and similar uses such as electronic assembly, bakeries, bottling, garment manufacturing, laboratories, machine, sheet metal and carpentry shops, oil production, plastic and rubber fabrication. None Established Open Space Recreational and park uses as well as institutional and civic facilities. None Established The adopted Plans contain background material and analysis to support the policies and actions that were adopted initially in the early 1980s. Since that time the Plans have been amended several times but have not been comprehensively updated. Since this synopsis does not provide context, the reader is encouraged to look over the adopted documents: General Plan: http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=500 General Plan Land Use Map: http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=640 Coastal Land Use Plan: http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=501 Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 3 Adopted General Plan Land Use Map Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 4 Scenario A: Comply with State Laws This scenario proposes only minimal changes to the land use and transportation program to ensure that those components are in compliance with State Law and provide Hermosa Beach with a legally adequate General Plan framework. Summary of Land Use Program Changes • Land use definitions for General Commercial, Commercial Corridor, Commercial Recreation, and Industrial designations are clarified to ensure they are consistent with the intended use and vision for each area. • Maximum non-residential land use intensities are established for each designation Land Use Program Scenario A Land Use Designation Land Use Definition Density/Intensity Map Changes Low Density Residential Single-family residential Max: 13 du/ac No Medium Density Residential Multiple-family residential Max: 25 du/ac No High Density Residential Multiple-family residential Max: 33/du/ac No Mobile Home Park Mobile homes Max: 13 du/ac No Specific Plan Area Defined by specific plan based on unique characteristics of area. Max: 14.7 du/ac No Neighborhood Commercial Convenience stores, deli/markets, and similar personal services uses to serve local walk-in traffic Max: 1.5 FAR No Commercial Recreation Coastal-dependent uses such as motels/hotels, bicycle shops, beach equipment, entertainment, clothing and similar uses Max: 2.0 FAR No General Commercial Retail, professional office, and local-oriented uses including supermarkets, retail stores, theaters, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and specialty retail stores. Max: 2.0 FAR No Commercial Corridor Home improvement stores, furniture stores, auto dealerships, and light automotive service stations. Max: 1.0 FAR No Industrial Manufacturing and similar uses such as electronic assembly, bakeries, bottling, garment manufacturing, laboratories, machine, sheet metal and carpentry shops Max: 0.5 FAR No Open Space Recreational and park uses as well as institutional and civic facilities Max: 0.1 FAR No * New Designation Proposed | Change to designation, definition, or density proposed beyond previous scenario Land Use Map No changes are proposed to the land use map in this scenario. Summary of Transportation Network Changes • All local streets provide a safe and ADA accessible street network for users of all ages and abilities (Implements complete streets requirements). • Shared roadway networks are provided and clearly marked for bicyclist use • Minor connectivity/access improvements are made to ensure timely/safe pedestrian street crossings at Gould/Greenbelt, Pier/Greenbelt, Artesia/PCH, Pier/PCH, Aviation/PCH Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 5 Scenario A: Transportation Network Map Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 6 Scenario B: Clarify and Align with Existing Uses & Zoning Code This scenario would make minor clarifications and changes to the land use program and transportation network to clarify and align the General Plan land uses with the zoning code, existing uses, and adopted plans such as the Bicycle Master Plan. Summary of Land Use Program Changes (+ Changes listed in Scenario A) • The following designation names are changed for consistent nomenclature and clarity: o Commercial Recreation to Recreational Commercial o General Commercial to Community Commercial o Commercial Corridor to Service Commercial • Specific Plan Area designation and Mobile Home designation are removed/combined (not appropriate as separate designations – more appropriate as overlay zone in Zoning Code) • New Public Facilities designation is created and applied to institutional and civic facilities (city, school district, or utility owned) currently unclassified or designated open space. • Designation changes applied to specific parcels identified in land use map for consistency with current zoning districts. Land Use Program Scenario B Land Use Designation Land Use Definition Density/Intensity Map Changes Low Density Residential Single-family residential, including mobile home uses Max: 13 du/ac Parcel Specific Medium Density Residential Multiple-family residential Max: 25 du/ac Parcel Specific High Density Residential Multiple-family residential Max: 33/du/ac Parcel Specific Neighborhood Commercial Convenience stores, deli/markets, and similar personal services uses to serve local walk-in traffic Max: 1.5 FAR No Recreational Commercial Coastal-dependent uses such as motels/hotels, bicycle shops, beach equipment, entertainment, clothing and similar uses Max: 2.0 FAR No Community Commercial Retail, professional office, and local-oriented uses including supermarkets, retail stores, theaters, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and specialty retail stores. Max: 2.0 FAR No Service Commercial Home improvement stores, furniture stores, auto dealerships, and light automotive service stations. Max: 1.0 FAR No Industrial Manufacturing and similar uses such as electronic assembly, bakeries, bottling, garment manufacturing, laboratories, machine, sheet metal and carpentry shops Max: 0.5 FAR No Open Space Park, recreational, and open space uses including the beach Max: 0.1 FAR No Public Facilities* Civic-related administrative offices, community centers, operational facilities and educational/institutional facilities Max: 1.5 FAR Yes * New Designation Proposed | Change to designation, definition, or density proposed beyond previous scenario Summary of Transportation Network Changes (+ Scenario A) • Street Classifications on Prospect Ave, Valley and Ardmore, Gould Ave/27th St., Pier Ave, 2nd St. are renamed to better align with current or desired speeds, volumes, and lane widths. • Bicycle facilities and enhancements are implemented along Valley/Ardmore Ave, Prospect Ave, and Pier Ave consistent with the adopted South Bay Cities Bicycle Master Plan. • Key parking facilities for consolidated downtown parking lots/structures are identified and protected for parking facility uses. Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 7 Scenario B: Land Use Map Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 8 Scenario B: Transportation Network Map Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 9 Scenario C: Enhance Key Areas This scenario would make minor adjustments to key activity nodes in the residential neighborhoods and propose moderate changes to land use designations and the transportation network in non-residential districts and corridors to achieve the intended vision and objectives articulated by many of the City’s other plans such as the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy, or PCH/Aviation Corridor Streetscape Master Plan, and would go further than the South Bay Cities Bicycle Master Plan currently proposes. Summary of Land Use Program Changes (+ Changes listed in Scenario A & B) • Industrial designation is changed to Creative Industrial to allow creative art, production and design type uses • Allowable intensity within Creative Industrial designation is increased to facilitate additional creative production uses in Hermosa Beach • Neighborhood Commercial designation is applied to additional key activity nodes within neighborhoods • Recreational Commercial designation is expanded to areas within Downtown and around Pier Plaza • Community Commercial designation is expanded to additional areas along PCH Corridor Land Use Program Scenario C Land Use Designation Land Use Definition Density/Intensity Map Changes Low Density Residential Single-family residential, including mobile home uses Max: 13 du/ac No Medium Density Residential Multiple-family residential Max: 25 du/ac No High Density Residential Multiple-family residential Max: 33/du/ac No Neighborhood Commercial Convenience stores, laundromats, and similar uses to serve local walk-in traffic Max: 1.5 FAR Yes Recreational Commercial Coastal dependent uses such as motels/hotels, bicycle shops, beach equipment, entertainment, clothing and similar uses Max: 2.0 FAR Yes Community Commercial Retail, professional office, and local-oriented uses including supermarkets, retail stores, theaters, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and specialty retail stores. Max: 2.0 FAR Yes Service Commercial Home improvement stores, furniture stores, auto dealerships, and light automotive service stations. Max: 1.0 FAR No Creative Industrial Light industrial and creative art, production, or design studio uses that are connected to creating physical products. Max: 2.0 FAR Yes Open Space Park, recreational, and open space uses including the beach Max: 0.1 FAR No Public Facilities* Civic-related administrative offices, community centers, operational facilities and educational/institutional facilities Max: 1.5 FAR No * New Designation Proposed | Change to designation, definition, or density proposed beyond previous scenario Summary of Transportation Network Changes (+ Scenario A & B) • Moderate connectivity enhancements (added trails, paths, lanes, and signal prioritization, bicycle boulevards) are made and facilities added to equalize the role of biking or walking in the Hermosa Beach transportation network. • Major intersections with the Greenbelt are signalized to enhance pedestrian safety and vehicle movement. • A district-wide parking management/consolidation strategy is implemented for Downtown/Upper Pier/Civic Center to reduce the need for on-site parking on each property. • Parking for alternative modes such as car-sharing, NEVs, electric vehicles, and bicycles is prioritized within Downtown District and provided at major City facilities and parks. • Major corridors are reconfigured to manage speed, smooth traffic flow, increase comfort of public realm • Streetscapes, greenspace, and pop-up parklets are enhanced and designed to implement living streets policy on a wide scale Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 10 Scenario C: Land Use Map Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 11 Scenario C: Transportation Network Map Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 12 Scenario D: Transform Key Areas This scenario would make minor adjustments to key activity nodes in the residential neighborhoods and propose more drastic changes to land use designations and the transportation network in non-residential districts and corridors to achieve, or in some cases go beyond, the intended vision and objectives articulated by many of the City’s other plans such as the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy and PCH/Aviation Corridor Streetscape Master Plan. Summary of Land Use Program Changes (+ Changes listed in Scenario A, B, & C) • New Gateway Commercial designation is added to key entryways and large corner sites along PCH, Aviation, and Artesia to facilitate the creation of additional commercial and office use spaces that signify arrival in Hermosa Beach. • New Mixed Use designation is added to facilitate ground floor retail and upper floor office or residential (stepped back from street fronts) within Downtown (east of Hermosa Ave) and along Upper Pier Ave. • Community Commercial designation is expanded to additional key areas along PCH and Aviation. • Creative Industrial designation is expanded to include the City Yard, and in turn Public Facilities Designation on Civic Center area is expanded to provide adequate space for a consolidated Civic Center Complex and Storage Yard. Land Use Program Scenario D Land Use Designation Land Use Definition Density/Intensity Map Changes Low Density Residential Single-family residential, including mobile home uses Max: 13 du/ac No Medium Density Residential Multiple-family residential Max: 25 du/ac No High Density Residential Multiple-family residential Max: 33/du/ac No Neighborhood Commercial Convenience stores, laundromats, and similar uses to serve local walk-in traffic Max: 1.5 FAR No Recreational Commercial Coastal dependent uses such as motels/hotels, bicycle shops, beach equipment, entertainment, clothing and similar uses Max: 2.0 FAR No Community Commercial Retail, professional office, and local-oriented uses including supermarkets, retail stores, theaters, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and specialty retail stores. Max: 2.0 FAR Yes Service Commercial Home improvement stores, furniture stores, auto dealerships, and light automotive service stations. Max: 1.0 FAR No Gateway Commercial* Lower floor community or regionally-oriented commercial uses with upper floor high-visitor office uses or hotel uses Max: 3.0 FAR Yes Mixed Use* Ground floor retail and restaurant uses with upper floor office or residential use (stepped back from street fronts) Max: 2.0 FAR & 25 du/ac Yes Creative Industrial Light industrial and creative art, production, or design studio uses that are connected to creating physical products Max: 2.0 FAR Yes Open Space Park, recreational, and open space uses including the beach Max: 0.1 FAR No Public Facilities* Civic-related administrative offices, community centers, operational facilities and educational/institutional facilities Max: 1.5 FAR Yes * New Designation Proposed | Change to designation, definition, or density proposed beyond previous scenario Summary of Transportation Network Changes (+ Scenarios A & B & C) • Dramatic connectivity enhancements are made for bike, pedestrians, and neighborhood electric vehicles to encourage their role as primary means of travel in Hermosa Beach • An extensive bike share program is established and bicycle support facilities (i.e. bike share station, repair shop, extensive parking hubs) are provided • Additional Non-motorized zones or bike friendly streets are created • A Transit/Trolley line along Pier Ave and Aviation Blvd is created to take people to Downtown and the Beach. • Reduced on-street parking (in coordination with parking management strategy) to create space for bike lanes, wider sidewalks, green spaces. Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 13 Scenario D: Land Use Map Hermosa Beach General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Admin Draft Land Use and Transportation Scenarios 14 Scenario D: Transportation Network Map HERMOSA BEACH DECISION MAKING TOOL Land Use and Transportation Scenario Evaluation Worksheet Scoring: + Positive/Strong correlation | 0 Neutral/No effect/Not applicable | - Negative/Weak correlation CATEGORY A B C D Catalyst for Innovation Is this a potential catalyst for strategic, transformative and differentiated development or is this business as usual? Will this define and enhance the City brand to attract businesses, investment, tourists and like-minded residents? Will this activate community involvement, participation, and innovation? Environmental Impact 1. Does it enhance/preserve open space? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 2. Is it in line with Hermosa Beach’s carbon neutral goal? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 3. Does it positively affect the health of the community? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 4. Does it protect Hermosa Beach’s natural resources? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 5. Does it keep the beach and ocean clean? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 6. Does it promote walkability/bikeability? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - Quality of Life Impact 1. Does it enhance our beach culture? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 2. Does it enhance outdoor recreation? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 3. Is it family friendly? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 4. Does it positively impact the health and safety of residents? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 5. Does it bring the community together? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 6. Does it serve the diversity of our population? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 7. Does it acknowledge our cultural heritage? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 8. Is it an appropriate scale for Hermosa Beach? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 9. Is it aesthetically appropriate? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 10. Is it a complementary use of public and private space? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - Economic Impact 1. Is it business-friendly? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 2. Does it support our schools? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 3. Does it improve our infrastructure? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 4. Does it improve property values? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 5. Does it promote our Brand? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 6. Is it entrepreneurial? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 7. Does it serve the local market? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 8. Does it reduce cost, waste or reliance on city resources? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 9. Does it balance public and private interests? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - 10. Does it increase tax and other revenues going to the community? + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - HERMOSA BEACH DECISION MAKING TOOL Land Use and Transportation Scenario Evaluation Worksheet Addition al Notes Scenario A: Comply with State Laws Scenario B: Clarify and Align with Existing Uses & Zoning Code Scenario C: Enhance Key Areas Scenario D: Transform Key Areas Vision Statement Hermosa Beach is the small town others aspire to be: A place where beach culture and active healthy lifestyles, strong sense of community, and commitment to sustainability and innovation intersect. Our beautiful beach, eclectic neighborhoods, unique commercial districts, and welcoming gateways create an unrivaled coastal destination. Our outstanding local schools and municipal services contribute to an extraordinarily high quality of life at the beach. Our vibrant economy capitalizes on our entrepreneurial spirit and commitment to unique local businesses. Our economy balances small town, beach culture with our enviable position as a regional and statewide coastal destination. We are committed to investing in our future, protecting our coastal resources, and reducing our environmental footprint. Our sustainable beach culture supports our desire to live, shop, work and play locally. Our prominent beach, open spaces, and complete streets that connect places we go by car, bike and walking support our active, healthy lifestyle. Guiding Principles Small Town Beach Character • Our small scale, eclectic architecture and vibrant beach lifestyle is an unrivaled coastal asset. • Our high quality schools, as well as city fire, police, library and beach, shape our identify as first class municipality. • Our beach, the ocean, green spaces and natural resources of all types are the foundation of our brand and high quality of life. • Creating a place where people can live, work and play locally is key to balancing economy, community and environment. • Diversified districts with local owned businesses that provide for the needs of residents as well as attracting visitors support a robust and resilient economy. • Our city government, places and spaces are designed to be accessible and connect people of all abilities and stages and walks of life. Vibrant Economy • Our business mix serves the daily and leisure needs of our residents, while providing a quality experience for visitors. • Our business culture cultivates innovation, the arts/creative industries, locally owned business, and environmental stewardship. • Our sustainable, resilient economy is supported by keeping local dollars in the local economy and maintaining a diversity of businesses and revenue streams. • Our desire for a high quality of life requires balancing economy, environment, and community through a ‘sustainability lens’ and this attracts like-minded entrepreneurs. • People are engaged in a broad range of enterprises creating a diverse economy and providing fiscal stability. Healthy Environment & Lifestyles • Hermosa Beach will be a responsible steward of our ocean resources, open space, and other natural resources as a healthy environment is the foundation of a more livable, sustainable city and high quality of life. • Efficient water use, conservation, reuse, recycling and retention at the local level is necessary for a sustainable and resilient city. • A steady, common sense approach is necessary to advance a long-term goal of community- wide carbon neutrality. Tackling environmental challenges early and proactively will maximize options and minimize costs. • Moving to carbon-free energy sources and concurrently planning to adapt to climate change will reduce greenhouse gases, increase energy independence and resiliency. • Climate action and adoption of environmental targets will make Hermosa Beach a n environmental leader in Southern California. • Innovative, forward-thinking approaches to anticipating future lifestyles, transportation trends and environmental realities are necessary for creating a durable sustainability plan and attracting residents, visitors and others which seek positive change. Community Walking Tours Summary General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Rewrite April 2015 On March 28th from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM the City of Hermosa Beach hosted a series of walking tours of key neighborhoods and districts as part of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan updates. The event began with a brief overview of walking tour routes, content and how the public can provide helpful feedback. The purpose of the event was to share land use and transportation ideas (based on previous community input) and to collect community feedback on specific concepts proposed for each City district. Participants were led on walking tours to see for themselves how proposed changes might be implemented. Participants were given a workbook to use during the walking tours that outlined district characteristics, proposed land use and transportation concepts and their relationship to community-identified values, and provided writing space to take notes. In addition to the walking tours, large-scale versions of the district workbooks were provided as exhibits on the Community Center Lawn for passersby to review and comment on. Executive Summary The walking tours drew approximately 40 participants throughout the day, with an additional 15-20 people stopping by the Community Center to provide input via the poster display. Participants were enthusiastic about the activities and provided detailed input both verbally and through workshop materials. Key themes emerged as follows: • Preservation of Hermosa Beach character – Participants are keen to maintain their existing community character, views, amenities and quality of life • Support for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements – Participants would like to see improved pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure throughout the City • Lack of interest in development higher than two stories – Participants feel that higher density development negatively impacts community character and potentially views • Consideration for the environment – Participants want to see improvements that support a green and healthy lifestyle Participant Comments by District Transcriptions of participant comments and survey results can be viewed in the Appendix. 1. Beach and The Strand • District Vision: Participants have mixed opinions. • Mix of Uses: Participants agree with the proposed use mix, but would like to see more emphasis on this area as a recreational resource. • Look and Feel: Participants are supportive. • Transportation Strategy: Participants have mixed opinions. • Top Priorities: Preserve character, reduce environmental footprint. • Other Comments: Participants feel strongly that development in this district should be limited to two stories and should not be bulky. 2. Northwest Neighborhood • District Vision: Participants have mixed opinions. Community Walking Tours Summary • Mix of Uses: Participants agree with the proposed use mix, but would like to see more emphasis on live. • Look and Feel: Participants have mixed opinions. • Transportation Strategy: Participants have mixed opinions. • Top Priorities: Preserve character, reduce environmental footprint, and enhance public facilities. • Other Comments: Participants feel that vacation rentals in this district should be limited and setback areas made larger. 3. Southwest Neighborhood • District Vision: Participants are supportive. • Mix of Uses: Participants agree with the proposed use mix, but would like to see more emphasis on live. • Look and Feel: Participants are supportive. • Transportation Strategy: Participants are supportive. • Top Priorities: Preserve character, improve travel choices. • Other Comments: Participants feel that the area should not look like another corridor. Participants felt strongly about limiting the amount of vacation rentals in this area. 4. Eastside Neighborhood • District Vision: Participants have mixed opinions. • Mix of Uses: Participants agree with the proposed use mix, but would like to see more emphasis on live. • Look and Feel: Participants have mixed opinions. • Transportation Strategy: Participants are not supportive. • Top Priorities: Preserve character, reduce environmental footprint. • Other Comments: Participants feel that development should focus less on multi-family units and allow more setbacks or front yard space to reduce bulk and density. 5. Downtown • District Vision: Participants are supportive. • Mix of Uses: Participants agree with the proposed mix of uses, but would like to see more emphasis on shop and play. • Look and Feel: Participants are supportive. • Transportation Strategy: Participants are supportive. • Top Priorities: Preserve character and historic buildings, reduce environmental footprint, enhance public facilities. • Other Comments: Participants feel strongly that Hermosa Beach character should be preserved. Specific improvements suggested include increased outdoor seating, more bike racks, more parking, safer intersections, trolley service, and increased office space. 6. Upper Pier/Civic Center • District Vision: Participants are supportive. • Mix of Uses: Participants agree with the proposed use mix, but would like to see more emphasis on live. • Look and Feel: Participants have mixed opinions. • Transportation Strategy: Participants are supportive. • Top Priorities: Preserve character and historic buildings. • Other Comments: Participants feel strongly that development in this district should be limited to two stories and should allow more setback space for improved walking areas and bike trails. 7. Aviation Blvd. Corridor • District Vision: Participants are supportive. Hermosa Beach General Plan Update • Mix of Uses: Participants agree with the proposed use mix, but would like to see more emphasis on work and play. • Look and Feel: Participants are supportive. • Transportation Strategy: Participants are supportive. • Top Priorities: Preserve character, reduce environmental footprint, increase financial stability. • Other Comments: Participants feel strongly that the corridor should be safer and more pedestrian and cyclist friendly, especially at intersections. There is also support for mixed use development along the corridor, including more live-work units, especially on vacant lots and beautification including planters and gateway signage. 8. PCH Corridor • District Vision: Participants are supportive. • Mix of Uses: Participants agree with the proposed use mix, but would like to see more emphasis on live and play. • Look and Feel: Participants are supportive. • Transportation Strategy: Participants are supportive. • Top Priorities: Preserve character, reduce environmental footprint, improve travel choices. • Other Comments: Participants would like to see easier access to businesses along the corridor through increased parking and improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. With increased activity along PCH, participants want to make sure the residential streets are not impacted negatively. Participants also want to ensure that existing views are protected and suggested that parking be placed behind buildings rather than on the street. One participant expressed concern that the traffic and speed of cars along PCH will always prevent a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere and that walkability improvements should be focused only between Pier Ave. and Aviation on PCH. 9. Cypress Junction • District Vision: Participants are supportive. • Mix of Uses: Participants agree with the proposed mix of uses, but would like to see more emphasis on shop and play. • Look and Feel: Participants have mixed opinions. • Transportation Strategy: Participants have mixed opinions. • Top Priorities: Preserve character, reduce environmental footprint, improve travel choices, enhance public facilities. • Other Comments: Participants would like to see the space used creatively and not just for small industry. Ideas included an arts/technology center and other creative workspaces. 10. PCH @ Artesia • District Vision: Participants are supportive. • Mix of Uses: Participants agree with the proposed use mix, but would like to see all categories emphasized. • Look and Feel: Participants are supportive. • Transportation Strategy: Participants are supportive. • Top Priorities: Preserve character, reduce environmental footprint, increase financial stability. • Other Comments: Participants would like to see investment in green space and commercial space. Participants support height restrictions, bike lanes, and improved pedestrian space. City of Hermosa Beach COMMUNITY CARBON REDUCTION PLANNING TOOL USER’S GUIDE Contents Contents ................................................................................... 1 Overview .................................................................................. 1 Using the Tool .......................................................................... 1 Navigation ............................................................................ 1 Your Assumptions ................................................................ 2 Your Carbon Reduction Plan ............................................... 2 Carbon Reduction Strategies ............................................... 2 Results ................................................................................. 4 Sharing Your Plan .................................................................... 5 Glossary of Terms .................................................................... 5 Sources and Assumptions ........................................................ 7 Overview Thanks for taking the time to plan for your community’s future. The City of Hermosa Beach is taking steps to become a carbon-neutral organization by 2020, and is also committed to a low carbon future to reduce the city’s impact on global climate change, improve resiliency, and to maximize economic opportunities. We need your help in identifying the possible paths forward to achieve this vision of a low carbon future. This Carbon Reduction Planning Tool is educational decision-support tool for goal setting purposes. It walks you through the process of defining strategies that will reduce carbon emissions, estimating costs, savings, and implementation rates, and bundling them together into your carbon reduction plan. The information from this tool will be used to support the General Plan update process through the evaluation of land use and transportation alternatives, helping to inform the selection of a preferred alternative while also helping to set community carbon goals, timelines and priorities Using the Tool This Carbon Reduction Planning Tool should be opened with Microsoft Excel® software. In addition to opening the tool file, it might be helpful to print out or have a digital copy of this User’s Guide available for quick reference as you use the tool. Navigation When you open the Microsoft Excel file, you will see the Inputs Dashboard. This is where you will work through a series of prompts or questions to add your ideas and assumptions. The tool has a series of expandable sections (see illustration below). Once you work through the questions in each section, you might find it valuable to minimize the section for ease of viewing the next section. Note that in order to see all of the information on the tool page, it may be helpful to adjust the view and the level of zooming using the slider bar at the bottom right corner of the Excel window. Click the minus (-) button to minimize (“hide”) the section. Click the plus (+) button to maximize (“show”) the section. Your Assumptions Note that the green boxes (“cells”) are where you should add your ideas either by typing in the box or selecting from a drop-down menu (when available). The pink boxes (“cells”) provide guidance about default values or suggested assumptions for consideration if you don’t know what an appropriate input value could be. Your Assumption Default Value 65% 50% Your Carbon Reduction Plan Near the top of the Inputs Dashboard page, you will see two charts (“wedge diagrams”). The chart on the left (“Your Carbon Reduction Plan”) will update automatically as you make adjustments to the Inputs Dashboard. The chart on the right provides an illustration of the plan built using the default values. Note that the charts will remain near the top of the page as you scroll down through the various carbon reduction strategies for your easy reference to see the impacts of your responses on “Your Carbon Reduction Plan”. To read these charts, it is helpful to understand the parts: • Forecast: This dark line represents the forecasted greenhouse gas emissions (GHG, or also commonly referred to as “carbon”) from the scenario beginning to the end goal year. The forecast takes into account future growth of the community and associated emissions (“business as usual” conditions). It is also adjusted to account for future emissions reductions that will result from state and federal mandates, such as improved vehicle fuel efficiency (“adjusted business as usual” conditions). • Emissions Reduction Strategy Wedges: The colored bands (or “wedges”) on the chart represent different categories of potential emissions reduction strategies. The sizes of these colored wedges are proportionate to the level of emissions reductions that they will achieve. Together, these wedges illustrate how much impact on they will have on reducing total emissions below the forecast. The light yellow area represents remaining carbon emissions that are not reduced or offset through the strategies selected. The long-term timeline on both charts is set to 2050 to encompass the full range of planning horizon options; however, the forecast and emissions reduction strategy wedges will extend only to your selected carbon reduction goal date. Carbon Reduction Strategies The tool will guide you through four major categories of potential emissions reductions strategies (note each section is color coded to match the strategy wedges on the charts): 1. Building Efficiency 2. Renewable Energy 3. Transportation and Land Use 4. Purchase of Offsets Each category contains one or more specific strategy that would result in emissions reductions. Work your way through each question and category, providing an input response in each green cell. If you would like to see and/or adjust any of the assumptions used in the tool’s calculations, click the plus button next to the row to expand the view. Note that these assumptions are also provided at the end of this Guide for your reference. Note that terms and phrases identified in bold in the tool questions and prompts are defined in the attached glossary. Sources for and information about the assumptions and suggested default values are provided in the appendix. 1. Building Efficiency The questions in this section focus on opportunities associated with improving the efficiency of existing buildings, as well as enhancing efficiency of new construction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from building energy use. Note that both series of questions focus on homes, as well as commercial and industrial buildings. Note that the combination of standard energy renovations and deep energy renovations cannot sum to more than 100 percent to avoid double counting of opportunities. COMMUNITY CARBON REDUCTION PLANNING TOOL USER’S GUIDE 2. Renewable Energy The questions in this section focus on four different ways to incorporate renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emission from traditional energy sources. The renewable energy options include the following: rooftop solar, community solar, and utility-based renewables either through the establishment of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) agreement or purchase of electricity through a Green Rate program. Note that the combination of utility based renewables (CCA or Green Rate) cannot sum to more than 100 percent to avoid double counting of opportunities. 3. Transportation and Land Use The questions in this section emphasize reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and increased prevalence of electric vehicles (EVs) in the consumer marketplace. The first question aligns with the Land Use and Transportation Scenarios under consideration for the General Plan update. Descriptions for each scenario are described below. Scenario Name Description Scenario A: Comply with State Laws This scenario proposes changes to the land use and transportation program to ensure that those components are in compliance with State Law and provide Hermosa Beach with a legally adequate General Plan framework. The estimated VMT reduction for this scenario is 2 percent. Scenario B: Clarify and Align with Existing Uses & Zoning Code This scenario would make minor clarifications and changes to the land use program and transportation network to clarify and align the General Plan land uses with the zoning code and existing uses. The estimated VMT reduction for this scenario is 4 percent. Scenario C: Enhance Key Areas This scenario would make minor adjustments to key activity nodes in the residential neighborhoods and propose moderate changes to land use designations and the transportation network in non-residential districts and corridors to achieve the intended vision and objectives articulated by many of the City’s other plans such as the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy and PCH/Aviation Corridor Streetscape Master Plan. The estimated VMT reduction for this scenario is 15 percent. Scenario D: Transform Key Areas This scenario would make minor adjustments to key activity nodes in the residential neighborhoods and propose more drastic changes to land use designations and the transportation network in non-residential districts and corridors to achieve the intended vision and objectives articulated by many of the City’s other plans such as the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy and PCH/Aviation Corridor Streetscape Master Plan. The estimated VMT reduction for this scenario is 25 percent. The second question also aligns with the General Plan and focuses on policies and programs to support VMT reductions, rather than physical land use or transportation changes or projects. These types of policies and programs might include things like employee parking cash-out programs, workplace parking pricing changes, or commute trip reduction programs. It is estimated that the overall maximum total impact of these types of policies and programs is a 15 percent additional reduction in VMT, above what you select for preferred land use and transportation scenario. VMT Policy Levels Description None Assumes no additional reduction in VMT. Low Assumes an additional 5 percent reduction in VMT due to General Plan policies. Medium Assumes an additional 10 percent reduction in VMT due to General Plan policies. High Assumes an additional 15 percent reduction in VMT due to General Plan policies. The third group of questions focus on the purchase of electric vehicles and their power sources. 4. Purchase of Offsets The last category focuses on the optional purchase of carbon offsets to support additional emissions reductions to achieve your carbon reduction goal. Note that input value is the percentage of the remaining carbon emissions that you wish reduce through purchase of credits, after you have optimized all of the other strategies. The purchase of offsets is not required, but may be necessary to help the community achieve aggressive carbon reduction goals, at least in the near-term. The tool includes the purchase of offsets in the end 3 COMMUNITY CARBON REDUCTION PLANNING TOOL USER’S GUIDE year of your planning horizon. In order to maintain that level of carbon reductions beyond the planning horizon, offsets would need to be purchased each year thereafter. The overall portion of your Caron Reduction Plan that comes from the purchase of offsets is reported on the Results page. While it is expected that most Carbon Reduction Plans will likely include some purchases of offsets, it is important to watch for the break-even point to ensure that the total cost effectiveness of your plan remains below the cost of offsets. Furthermore, the credibility of your Carbon Reduction Plan depends on having an appropriate level of carbon offsets--generally no more than half of your carbon reductions should come from offsets, but lesser values will likely add credibility and authenticity to your plan. Results After you’ve complete each question, review the summary of your plan’s potential carbon emission reductions on the wedge diagram at the top of the page. To see more extensive analysis and summary results, including estimated costs and savings from the Plan, click the “See Complete Results” button at the top of the page. The results table provides cumulative estimates of results by strategy, category, and as a whole. See the following sections for more detailed explanation of the different result values. Use the “Go To Inputs Dashboard” to go back to the inputs dashboard to test other options and refine your ideal carbon reduction plan. Understanding Costs, Savings and Cost Effectiveness It is important to note that the City of Hermosa Beach cannot invest in and achieve a low carbon future alone. Instead, the costs and associated savings from community carbon-reducing strategies would require involvement from the City organization, as well as the community’s residents, businesses, and private investors. For this reason, the tool reports cumulative costs and cumulative cost savings – values that represent the total investment and savings estimates across the community, not one responsible party. As such, it is possible that those who bear the costs of implementing various strategies are not the same as those who will realize the savings benefits. For example, the community may use a variety of federal, state, and community funds to pay for a transportation infrastructure project to reduce vehicle miles traveled (e.g., enhance bicycling facilities), but the people who would most directly benefit from the savings associated with those reduced vehicle miles traveled would be those who use a bicycle instead of a vehicle for transportation. Cost effectiveness is a value that indicates net cumulative costs (or savings) result in achieving a reduction of one MTCO2e over the life of the plan. Negative values indicate a net cumulative cost saving to the community, whereas larger, positive values indicate more costly strategies. For perspective, the cost of carbon offsets is modeled at $15 per MTCO2e, so values below this range represent strategies that are more cost competitive than buying offsets. Understanding Indirect Savings In addition to direct savings from reduced energy and fuel expenses, other benefits resulting from community carbon reduction strategies would likely include cost savings from reduced health care expenses and the creation of jobs based on the carbon reduction strategies selected. Investments to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector are most likely to benefit the health of Hermosa Beach residents. In particular, reductions in overall vehicle miles traveled by Hermosa Beach motorists will likely mean shifts to other, more active modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, or even walking to a transit stop. Based on the vehicle miles traveled reduction values selected, the tool provides an estimated total health care costs savings each year. The tool provides an estimated number of jobs created (in “job-years,” or one full time equivalent position for one year) based on calculations that build on estimated investments into energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy installation within the City of Hermosa Beach. It does not include the potential jobs created from reductions in transportation or waste-related emissions because of the wide variations in potential strategies to achieve those necessary reductions. These indirect savings are provided to expand the discussion about the potential upsides of carbon reduction strategies. One additional potential upside is the economic activity spurred by residents having more disposable income for local spending as a result of reduced utility bills. Calculating this ‘multiplier effect’ requires economic modeling outside the current scope of the tool, but is something to consider in interpreting the cost-benefits of carbon-reducing strategies. 4 COMMUNITY CARBON REDUCTION PLANNING TOOL USER’S GUIDE Understanding the Community Perspective For illustrative purposes, the cost and savings values are reported on a per-household basis. These values are calculated by simply dividing the total community costs and community savings by the number of households. This does not mean that all of these costs and savings are borne by households. Sharing Your Plan Use the tool as a way to inform and discuss carbon planning with your family, friends, and colleagues. Their ideas and experience may be useful in helping you refine your own ideal carbon reduction plan. Once you have refined your inputs to achieve your ideal carbon reduction plan, please take a few minutes to document and share your analysis inputs and experiences with the General Plan update team by sending your completed copy of the tool with your contact information and any comments to generalplan@hermosabch.org. Glossary of Terms Adjusted Business as Usual Forecast: A modeling scenario that assumes a continuation of existing practices adjusted for the effects of existing legislation that mandates future reductions in emissions. Benefit: The positive effects of an action; these can be measured in terms of financial benefits in dollars or through other types of benefits such as health benefits, social benefits, or environmental benefits. Beyond Code Construction: Standards for construction voluntarily adopted by a jurisdiction that exceed the requirements of current building codes. Business as Usual Forecast: A modeling scenario that assumes a continuation of existing practices. Carbon Reduction: Limiting the emissions of carbon pollution to decrease the total amount of carbon released into the atmosphere. Community Choice Aggregation (CCA, Utility Based Renewables): state policy that enables local governments to aggregate electricity demand within their jurisdictions in order to purchase renewables while maintaining the existing electricity provider for transmission and distribution services. Community Solar Photovoltaic (Solar Garden): A solar electric energy ownership model whereby a single large installation is built and ownership shares are sold to community members which can then (typically) be applied as a cost reduction of their utility bill. Cost: The amount spent to achieve or obtain something, typically measured in dollars. Cost Effectiveness: The degree to which a cost returns positive benefits; the more cost effective a measure is, the more results (benefits) are created per dollar spent. This value is calculated as total costs minus total cost savings, divided by the total carbon reduction. Negative values indicate a net cumulative cost saving to the community for each MTCO2e reduced, whereas larger, positive values indicate more costly strategies. Cost Savings: Financial benefits in dollars that would otherwise be spent. Deep Energy Renovation: Altering an existing building or buildings with a focus on not only short-term payback measures but measures that may require more investment and have payback periods that can be substantially longer in order to effect levels of energy reductions that are “deeper” and enable them to use very limited amounts of energy to operate. Electric Vehicles (EVs): Vehicles that do not have combustion engines and are designed to be powered entirely by charging batteries with electricity. Green Rate: An elective rate choice from select California electric utilities that allows customers to purchase 100% renewable power. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: Emissions produced primarily by burning fossil fuels that increase global warming activity; while several gases are known to have this effect they are typically expressed in terms of equivalent units to carbon dioxide, or CO2e. 5 COMMUNITY CARBON REDUCTION PLANNING TOOL USER’S GUIDE Offsets: A financial vehicle that allows the buyer to claim credit for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, typically by funding carbon reduction measures such as wind turbine construction or rainforest reforestation. Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic: A model of solar electric energy capture that relies on solar photovoltaic panels being installed directly on properly oriented rooftops. Standard Energy Renovation: Altering and existing building or buildings with a focus on short term payback energy measures such as increasing insulation, air sealing, and replacing inefficient equipment. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): The standard measure used to calculate transportation impacts; measures the amount of miles a vehicle travels to get from an origin to a destination (e.g. home to work). 6 COMMUNITY CARBON REDUCTION PLANNING TOOL USER’S GUIDE Sources and Assumptions Default Value Sources or Justification Planning Horizon What year would you like to begin the carbon planning analysis? 2015 Assuming implementation begins as early as this year. When would you like to reach your carbon reduction goal? 25 years – 2040 Assuming implementation will occur generally on the same timeline as the General Plan. Building Efficiency Existing Homes What percent could undergo a deep energy renovation? 20% Per the US Census American Community Survey data, approximately 20% of the City’s housing stock was built before 1950 (before modern building and energy codes) and would therefore be likely candidates for deep energy renovations. Based on a 25 year horizon and 10,600 total housing units, this would equate to approximately 85 houses per year. What percent of homes' annual energy use would be reduced? 43% A study by the Berkeley Lab was used to validate the assumed energy reduction of deep-energy retrofits. What is the cost (per square foot) of deep energy renovations? $14.00/sq.ft. We assume a $30,000 implementation cost, based on a Berkeley Lab study, focused on retrofits to a median sized single family home. What percent could undergo a standard energy renovation? 30% Per the US Census American Community Survey data, approximately 30% of the City’s housing stock was built between 1950 and 1970 and would therefore be likely candidates for standard energy renovations. Based on a 25 year horizon and 10,600 total housing units, this would equate to approximately 130 houses per year. What percent of the homes' annual energy use would be reduced? 15% A study by the Berkeley Lab was used for this assumption based on savings from weatherization and utility sponsored utility programs. What is the cost (per square foot) of standard energy renovations for homes? $0.60/sq.ft. This cost assumes that residents would invest in energy renovations with a simple payback of 5-10 yrs. New Homes What percent could be constructed beyond existing code? 50% This assumes that half of all new residential construction would be built to standards above the current building code requirements. What percent of the homes' annual energy use would be reduced? 50% LEED Platinum certified homes can see a potential energy reduction of 50-60% over a typical home’s energy use based on USGBC. What is the incremental cost (per square foot) of green building for residential new construction? $3.60/sq.ft. Based on the same article from the USGBC it is expected that green building practices will increase the upfront construction costs ($150/sq.ft.) by 2.4%. 7 COMMUNITY CARBON REDUCTION PLANNING TOOL USER’S GUIDE Existing Commercial and Industrial Buildings What percent of buildings could undergo a deep energy renovation? 20% This assumption is up to the discretion of the user. The 2012 American Community Survey estimates 264 business establishments in the city. Based on a 25 year horizon, this would equate to approximately 2 business establishments per year. What percent of the buildings' annual energy use would be reduced? 50% The source below gives examples of commercial buildings which were able to reduce energy use by 46-80% through deep energy retrofits. A Handbook on Low-Energy Buildings and District-Energy Systems, Harvey, L.D. Danny What is the cost (per square foot) of deep energy renovations for commercial and industrial buildings? $17.00/sq.ft. The examples above yielded estimated simple payback of 10 – 15 years. This was used to inform the estimated cost per square foot on deep energy reductions. A Handbook on Low-Energy Buildings and District-Energy Systems, Harvey, L.D. Danny What percent of buildings could undergo a standard energy renovation? 30% This assumption is up to the discretion of the user. The 2012 American Community Survey estimates 264 business establishments in the city. Based on a 25 year horizon, this would equate to approximately 3 business establishments per year. What percent of the buildings' annual energy use would be reduced? 16% The commercial and industrial building projects from the Berkeley Lab study revealed over 10,000 energy-related problems, resulting in 16% median whole-building energy savings. What is the cost (per square foot) of standard energy renovations for commercial and industrial buildings? $3.50/sq.ft. This cost assumes that commercial owners or tenants would invest in energy retrofits with a payback of 5-10 years. New Commercial and Industrial Buildings What percent of buildings could be constructed beyond existing code? 50% This assumes that half of all new commercial and industrial construction would be built to standards above the current building code requirements. What percent of the buildings' annual energy use would be reduced? 50% Based on an article from the USGBC LEED Platinum certified buildings’ energy use intensity (EUI) is on average 50% below the average office building. What is the incremental cost (per square foot) of green building for commercial and industrial new construction? $6.00/sq.ft. Based on the information from the source below it is expected that green building practices will increase the upfront construction costs of commercial building ($200/sq.ft.) by 3.0%. RSMeans Green Building Cost Data, 3rd Annual Edition 8 COMMUNITY CARBON REDUCTION PLANNING TOOL USER’S GUIDE Renewable Energy Rooftop Solar What percent of homes could install rooftop solar (by 2040)? 50% This assumes that half of all homes would have the proper orientation and space for rooftop solar. What is the average size of a solar array (in kilowatts, kW)? 5 kW The average size based of residential rooftop solar installations is provided in this presentation by SEIA. What percent of businesses could install rooftop solar (by 2040)? 50% This assumes that half of all businesses would have the proper orientation and space for rooftop solar. What is the average size of a commercial solar array (in W/ft2)? 6.6 W/ft2 The average size of commercial rooftop solar is estimated by the California Energy Commission, assuming that 150 square feet of roof space is necessary for each kilowatt of PV capacity. What is the current cost (per kilowatt) of rooftop solar? $3.69/W The estimated cost for rooftop solar installations was retrieved from the following NREL presentation. Community Solar How large of a solar garden could the community support (in acres)? 2 acres This assumption will depend on the user’s preference of location. In total, City facilities currently cover approximately 20 acres within the community and educational uses encompass approximately 17 acres. It is most likely that community solar facilities would be constructed on top of institutional facilities or their parking areas. How much would a solar garden cost (in dollars per kilowatt)? $2,610/kW The estimated cost for community solar installations was retrieved from the following NREL presentation. Utility Based Renewables: CCA What year should the CCA begin? 2018 This assumption is based on a 3-year time horizon to get the CCA in place, assuming a planning horizon beginning year of 2015. What percent of customers will voluntarily opt to pay a rate premium to ensure 33% of their electric supply mix is comprised of renewable energy (beginning in 2018)? 75% This assumption, specific to Hermosa Beach, is based on guidance provided by Kaizenergy. This assumes a $0.20 per kWh cost compared to $0.16 per kWh. Costs were estimated based on the CleanStart Rate Schedule provided by from Sonoma CleanPower. What percent of customers will opt to pay for a rate with 100% renewable energy from a CCA (beginning in 2018)? 10% This assumption, specific to Hermosa Beach, is based on guidance provided by Kaizenergy. This assumes a $0.24 per kWh cost compared to $0.16 per kWh. Costs were estimated based on the CleanStart Rate Schedule provided by from Sonoma CleanPower. Utility Based Renewables: Green Rate Should electricity be purchased from the electric utility (Southern California Edison, or SCE) at a green rate instead? If so what percentage of electricity should be purchased at this higher rate? 0-75% This assumption is up to the discretion of the user. The default value varies, depending on the level of CCA participation selected above. What will be the premium for a SCE Green Rate? 34% Estimated Green Rate Charge to be a 34% premium over base generating charge; inferred from the Hermosa Beach Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan calculations. 9 COMMUNITY CARBON REDUCTION PLANNING TOOL USER’S GUIDE Transportation and Land Use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Strategies Please select your preferred Land Use and Transportation Scenario (from the General Plan update process) from the drop box on the right. None Please reference the General Plan documents for more detailed information on VMT reduction strategies. What level of policies and programs should be added to the general plan to further reduce VMT? None Please reference the General Plan documents for more detailed information on additional programs that could be included to further reduce VMT. What will be the implementation cost (in dollars per vehicle mile traveled) of this strategy? $0.75/VMT Transportation costs are based on analysis by Rocky Mountain Institute during their study: Stepping Up: Benefits and Cost of accelerating Fort Collins’ Energy and Climate Goals. Electric Vehicles What percentage of new car purchases in 2040 will be EVs? 50% A recent article in Sustainability indicates that as many as 69% of survey respondents would purchase an EV if sufficient charging station infrastructure existed. This assumption is scaled down to reflect potentially lower adoption rates. The calculations assume that 50 percent of the electric power for the charging stations will come from renewable sources. What will be the incremental cost of EVs be in 2015? $10,000 The incremental cost of Electric vehicles is documented in this paper from EPRI. What will be the incremental cost of EVs be in 2020? $0 It is assumed that electric vehicles will reach cost parity in 2020 based on the following paper by IEA. What will be the cost of residential charging stations? $1,000 Costs for a Level 2 Home charging station are estimated to be between $650 and $1,800 depending on materials, labor, and permitting; based on a study from Rocky Mountain Institute. What will be the cost of community charging stations? $10,000 Costs for a Level 2 Curb-side charging station are estimated to be between $5,300 and $13,150 depending on materials, labor, and permitting; based on a study from Rocky Mountain Institute. Purchase of Offsets What percentage of remaining emissions should be reduced through the purchase of carbon offsets? 20% This assumption is up to the discretion of the user. What will be the cost of purchasing carbon offsets? $15.00/MTCO2e Rounded average of the low, middle, and high projected California Air Resources Board Allowance prices for 2014-2020; from the Hermosa Beach Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan. 10 Your Assumption What year would you like to begin the carbon planning analysis?2015 When would you like to reach your carbon reduction goal?25 years - 2040 Your Assumption What percent could undergo a deep energy renovation ?20% What percent could undergo a standard energy renovation ?30% Instructions Now we would like you to review four major categories of potential emissions reductions strategies: (1) Bu way through each category, adding your preferred assumptions to the green cells. Watch the "Your Assum review and/or change some of the detailed assumptions that are used in the tool's calculations. Note that terms identified in bold are defined in the Glossary in the User's Guide document. Click the minus (-) button to the left of this column to hide this information; click the plus button (+) to v Note that the following charts "wedge diagrams" provide an illustration of your carbon reduction plan. The and provide your inputs. The chart on the left entitled "Default Assumptions" is a static chart, and illustrate you work your way down the questions on this page. Wedge Diagram Information and Planning Horizon For existing homes… For new homes… Click the minus (-) button to the left of this column to hide this information and begin creatin 1. Building Efficiency 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2e)ThousandsYour Assumptions Buildings Renewables Transportation Offsets What percent could be constructed beyond existing code ?50% What percent of buildings could undergo a deep energy renovation ?20% What percent of buildings could undergo a standard energy renovation ?30% What percent of buildings could be constructed beyond existing code ?50% Your Assumption What percent of homes could install rooftop solar (by 2040)?50% What percent of businesses could install rooftop solar (by 2040)?50% How large of a solar garden could the community support (in acres)?2 What should your utility-based renewables strategy be? Either Community Choice Aggregation (CCA)… What year should the CCA begin?2018 What percent of customers will voluntarily opt to pay a rate premium to ensure 33% of their electric supply mix is comprised of renewable energy (beginning in 2018)?75% What percent of customers will opt to pay for a rate with 100% renewable energy from a CCA (beginning in 2018)?10% Or a Green rate… 2. Renewable Energy For existing commercial and industrial buildings… For new commercial and industrial buildings… Rooftop Solar Utility Based Renewables For community solar… Should electricity be purchased from the electric utility (Southern California Edison, or SCE) at a green rate instead ? If so what percentage of electricity should be purchased at this higher rate? 0% Your Assumption Please select your preferred Land Use and Transportation Scenario (from the General Plan update process) from the drop box on the right. What level of policies and programs should be added to the general plan to further reduce VMT? What percentage of new car purchases in 2040 will be EVs?50% What percentage of remaining emissions should be reduced through the purchase of carbon offsets ?0 Hi Scenario D: Tran 4. Purchase of Offsets 3. Transportation and Land Use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Strategies Electric Vehicle (EV) See Complet Default Value 2015 25 years - 2040 Default Value 20% 30% uilding Efficiency, (2) Renewable Energy, (3) Transportation and Land Use, and (4) Purchase of Offsets. Work you mptions" wedge diagram above change as you test different input values. Click the plus (+) buttons if you want to view again. e chart on the left entitled "Your Assumptions" will update automatically as you work your way through this too es the carbon reduction plan using the tool's default values. These charts will remain at the top of the page view g your plan; click the plus button (+) to view again. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2e)ThousandsDefault Assumptions Buildings Renewables Transportation Offsets 50% 20% 30% 50% Default Value 50% 50% 2 acres 2018 75% 10% 0% Default Value 50% 0% igh nsform Key Areas te Results ur o ol w as Share of Your Carbon Reductions (%) New Construction Residential Efficiency 0.1% Existing Buildings Residential Efficiency 8.9% New Construction Non-Residential Efficiency 0.9% Existing Buildings Non-Residential Efficiency 5.4% Total 15.3% Rooftop Solar 14.7% Community Solar 0.1% Community Choice Aggregation 27.9% Purchased Renewables (Green Rate)0.0% Total 42.8% Land Use & Transportation Alternatives 19.6% Additional Transportation Strategies 11.8% Electric Vehicles 10.6% Total 41.9% Purchase Offsets 0.0% Total 0.0% TOTAL 100% Compare Results 'My Plan' Overall Reduction Percentage 41% Remaining Emissions (MTCO2e/yr.)52,065 Cost Effectiveness ($ per MTCO2e)($263) Indirect Savings 'My Plan' Cumulative Health Cost Savings $48,000,000 Jobs Created (job-years)4,700 Community Perspective 'My Plan' 'My Plan' Cumulative Summary Offsets Transportation Renewables Building Efficiency Current Emissions per Household (MTCO2e/yr.)13.3 Emissions per Household in 2040 0.2 Cost per Household ($/yr.)$3,293 Cost Savings per Household ($/yr.)$4,231 Cumulative Carbon Reduction (MTCO2e)Cumulative Costs ($)Cumulative Cost Savings ($) Cost Effectiveness ($ per MTCO2e) 520 $130,000 $440,000 ($596) 60,000 $61,000,000 $61,000,000 $0 6,200 $740,000 $5,500,000 ($768) 36,000 $9,400,000 $52,000,000 ($1,183) 102,720 $71,270,000 $118,940,000 ($464) 99,000 $130,000,000 $170,000,000 ($404) 920 $700,000 $1,500,000 ($870) 190,000 $56,000,000 $0 $295 0 $0 $0 $0 289,920 $186,700,000 $171,500,000 $52 130,000 $330,000,000 $420,000,000 ($692) 79,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 ($633) 71,000 $2,400,000 $7,000,000 ($65) 280,000 $532,400,000 $677,000,000 ($516) 0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 672,640 $790,370,000 $967,440,000 ($263) Default Assumptions 100% 0 ($248) Default Assumptions $48,000,000 4,700 Default Assumptions (Through 2040) Go Back to the Inputs Dashboard 13.3 0.0 $3,300 $4,256 Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0352 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommended Action: To approve the minutes of the Adjourned Regular meeting of May 28, 2014. Attachments: 1.Minutes of the Adjourned Regular meeting held on May 28, 2014 Approved: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0347 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) Recommended Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda dated April 22, 2015. Attachments: Tentative Future Agenda dated April 22, 2015 Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ April 22, 2015 Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 28, 2015 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS MAY 11, 2015 @ 6:00PM JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – GENERAL PLAN MAY 12, 2015 @ 6:00PM CLOSED SESSION: CITY ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE REVIEW MAY 12, 2015 PRESENTATIONS RECOGNIZING HERMOSA BEACH CENTENARIANS CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission meeting of March 2, 2015 Fire Chief Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of April 7, 2015 Assistant to the City Manager Recommendation to sign the Best Cities for Successful Aging Pledge from SBCCOG Senior Services Working Group Environmental Analyst Donation from Spyder Surfboards in the amount of $4,500 for Surfer’s Walk of Fame (Proceeds from ‘Point Break Live’ sales at the Hermosa Beach Community Center)Finance Director Award Construction Contract for CIP 13-655 City Facilities ADA Improvements Public Works Director MUNICIPAL MATTERS Pier/Strand Hotel Update (Continued from meeting of April 14, 2015)Community Development Director Recommendation of Bond Counsel and Financial Advisor for Oil and Sewer Financing Finance Director / Public Works Director Possible TOT Discussion Community Development Director Initial Report to evaluate and update, if necessary, City Council procedures and protocols regarding descriptions of Agenda items and location of City Council meetings, consistent with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2 City Attorney Initial Report to consider adoption of a City Council Resolution to fix the City Manager’s salary consistent with his current salary, pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 2.12.050 City Attorney Minutes Discussion City Clerk MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER Strategic Plan Action Agenda Update Management Analyst MAY 21, 2015 @ 6:00PM CLOSED SESSION: LABOR NEGOTIATIONS MAY 21, 2015 @ 7:00PM BUDGET/CIP WORKSHOP 2 MAY 26, 2015 @ 6:00PM JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING MAY 26, 2015 PRESENTATIONS SWEARING IN OF POLICE OFFICERS MATTHEW FRANCO AND RICHARD TAYLOR CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 2015 Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 PM Amend the Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.76 (Cigarette and Tobacco Retailers) requiring Licensure of Cigarette and Tobacco Retailers to reduce the illegal sale of Tobacco to minors, amending Chapter 8.40 to expand the definition of smoking to include electronic cigarettes, and making violations of Chapter 5.76 subject to administrative penalty procedures (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) Community Development Director MUNICIPAL MATTERS City Logo and Name on Chamber Wall City Manager Downtown/Pier Plaza Non Smoking Enforcement Community Development Director Status report regarding adoption of 2013 California Green Building Code Community Development Director Municipal Carbon Neutrality Implementation Update Environmental Analyst Direction to Pursue a Bag Ban Ordinance Environmental Analyst MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER July 4th Update Chief Papa JUNE 5-6, 2015 STRATEGIC PLANNING PENDING ITEMS Consideration of reduction of business license fee request from Carol G. Weiss, Ph.D.Finance Director Ethics Policy City Manager & Finance Director Food Trucks – Policy Discussion Community Development Director PCH/Aviation Aesthetic Signage Public Works Director Hope Chapel Development City Manager/Economic Dev Officer Strand/Pier EIR Contract (Continued from meeting of November 13, 2014)Community Development Director Business Improvement District (BID) for Pier Plaza – Assist in BID Proposal Economic Development Officer Additional Bike Paths Discussion Public Works Director JUNE 2015 Appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore – June 23, 2015 City Clerk Downtown Enforcement Unit: Creation Police Chief Community Risk Analysis Fire Chief Stormwater Management Plan – Receive Approval from Regional Board Public Works Director 2015-2016 Budget Adoption Finance Director Strategic Planning – Friday, June 5 th and Saturday, June 6th (8:30am-5pm)City Council / City Departments Delinquent Refuse Billing City Manager Events Calendar Assistant to the City Manager Cooperative Agreement with CalTrans (Continued from meeting of April 14, 2015)Public Works Director OTO 11th Court and Strand Hotel Update Community Development Director Downtown Strategy Update and Parking Update Economic Development Officer Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0341 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 2015. (Continued from April 28, 2015) Recommended Action: To receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of March 18, 2015. Attachments: Minutes of Public Works Commission Meeting of March 18, 2015 Approved: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ ACTION MINUTES PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2015 CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE COMMISIONERSJanice Brittain Andrea Giancoli Kimberlee MacMullan Rob Saemann Justin Schnuelle All public testimony and the deliberations of the Public Works Commission can be viewed on the City’s website at http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=358. 1. Call to Order 7:00 PM 2. Flag Salute 3. Roll Call Present: Commissioner Giancoli, Commissioner Saemann, Commissioner Schnuelle and Chairwoman MacMullan. Absent: Commissioner Brittain Also present: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Ells Freeman, Public Works Superintendent; and Liz Zeigler, Administrative Assistant. 4. Approval of Action Minutes for January 21, 2015 ACTION: MOTION was made to approve the minutes of January 21, 2015, seconded and the motion carried by a vote of 4-0. 5. Public Comment: Anyone wishing to address the Commission on items not on the agenda and pertaining to Public Works may do so at this time. Geoff Hirsch requested that the Commission meet with him and other City officials to advocate for disabled access at the beach, the Greenbelt, and to install ADA buttons in all City buildings. 6. Correspondence No Action 7. Presentations - Centennial Wall - 2015 Host Town Hermosa Fundraising Event The Commission expressed support of the project and informed the project leads that the project needs to be approved by the City Council. 8. Items for Consideration a.South Bay Bicycle Mini-Corral Plan Staff received the following comments on the item from Commissioners: Commissioner Saemann expressed concern over the costs of the 34 bike spaces at a cost of $30,300 and asked if there was a way to reduce the cost per space. 2 The consultant stated that the estimate was on the high side to cover all contingencies and that the costs are likely to go down after going out to bid. Commissioner Saemann also requested that, if possible, additional bike parking be added to the angled parking areas that have marked triangles. Commissioner Schnuelle requested that the City ensure the US Post Office has appropriate access to the mailbox near the proposed mini-corral at 13th St. and Hermosa Avenue. During the Public Comment period David Sonis, Manhattan Beach resident, Don Rooks, Torrance resident, and Julian Katz, Hermosa Beach resident expressed support for the project. PW Superintendent Ells Freeman expressed concern about the U-turn turning radius at 13th St. and Hermosa Avenue when the Parking Structure is full and noted that particular attention should be paid to this if a mini-corral is installed at this location and that perhaps the City mock-up the area and study the traffic patterns before doing a full installation. ACTION: Motion was made to recommend to the City Council the implementation of the five proposed mini-corral locations and that the proposed location at 13th and the Strand be used as an alternate location should one of the five locations prove unfeasible, motion was seconded, and motion carried 4-0. b.Installation of Collapsible Traffic Delineators at Various Strand Entrance Locations between Lyndon and 35th Street (CIP 14-163 Protective Bollards along the Strand). Mondher Saied presented the staff report and Officer Bob Higgins informed the Commission that: In the last six months to a year there has been a rise in calls of cars driving on The Strand, mainly over the weekends, that involve Uber drivers using Google turn-by-turn navigation that leads them to the Strand The Police Department (PD) usually receives 2-4 calls of this type over the weekend PD statistics for cars driving on the Strand are underreported because the calls are often logged as ‘disturbance’ or ‘unknown’ calls Staff informed the Commission that the delineators are expected to hold up well because: Police and Fire usually drive around delineators Similar delineators at the Parking Structure are hit often and still hold up very well The proposed delineators have a hinge that provides better bounce back after they are driven over Delineators will be glued and bolted down to make them secure Commissioner Saemann requested changing the placement of the delineators at the following locations, if feasible: Lyndon, 25th St: move delineators from the beach side to the street side 22nd St: move delineator from beach side to the U-turn side Public Comment included: James Scott, resident at 2116 Hermosa Avenue, expressed support for the project and appreciation for the Commission giving consideration to the aesthetics of the Strand and inquired as to whether there was a replacement plan so that the aesthetics can be maintained after the installation. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Saemann to recommend approval of the project to the City Council and have Staff determine the appropriate type of delineator for each location, seconded by Commissioner Schnuelle, and the motion passed 4-0. The Commissioners agreed to have Commissioner Giancoli participate in selecting the colors of the delineators. 9. Commissioners’ Reports Commissioner Schnuelle reported that Staff is in the process of formulating alternatives on the Valley Sharrows project. 3 Commissioner Saemann reported that the Bike Parking subcommittee will have a report on the agenda at the next meeting. 10. Monthly Reports a. Monthly Activity Report – December 2014 and January 2015 b. Project Status Reports – December 2014 and January 2015 Above items are presented for information purposes only. c. Verbal Capital Improvement Report by Mr. Brozyna Commissioner Saemann inquired as to how the City could increase disabled access to the beach given Mr. Hirsch’s comments during the Public Comment period. Commissioner Giancoli indicated that the City of Manhattan Beach constructed a concrete path to the water for disabled access. Mr. Brozyna added that: Design for CIP13-655 City Facilities ADA Improvements is substantially complete and has been submitted to the County for review since the County provided grant money for the project. CIP13-664 City Facilities Master Plan will provide a comprehensive study and report that will show how the City is complying with ADA requirements and show any deficiencies. The study is expected to be available within seven months. Superintendent Freeman informed the Commission that there is a handicap wheelchair with large wheels for use on the sand and it is kept at the Lifeguard Station for disabled people to access the sand. He indicated that Public Works could increase the number of wheelchairs and provide more information to the public about their availability. Commissioner Schnuelle indicated that the Fire Tower is a well-known and visible structure in the City and suggested Staff provide more information to residents about CIP 14-632 Fire Tower Demolition project ahead of the project’s start. Commissioner Schnuelle commented regarding Jay Gleason’s letter regarding Item 8a. He suggested Staff evaluate the need for greater signage at Hermosa Avenue and 35 th Street. 11. Commissioners’ Announcements – NO ACTION 12. The Regular Meeting of the Public Works Commission for March 18, 2015 was adjourned at 9:01p.m. to theRegular meeting of Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 7 pm. Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0366 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING THE OUTDOOR DINING AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PIER PLAZA (INCLUDING LORETO PLAZA) (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) (Community Development Director Ken Robertson) Recommended Action: To adopt the attached Resolution. Background: Attached is the Resolution memorializing the Council’s action at the April 14 meeting which included several modifications, as follows, that have been incorporated into the Resolution. ·The proposal to require that all establishments provide physical barriers has been removed. The standards will continue to only require barriers for establishments that serve alcohol. ·The allowed depth of the queues was reduced from the proposed 20’ to 15’, corresponding to a required 17’ clearance to centerline of the Plaza. ·Clarification that queues are only allowed after 10:00 P.M. when needed, with exceptions only if authorized by Police Department. ·Modified language as recommended by staff and City Attorney with respect to approval of alternate configurations, City’s responsibility regarding managing public safety in the queues, and required insurance amount. ·Requiring retractable awnings to be fully retracted when business is closed. Attachments: 1. Outdoor Dining Standards on Pier Plaza - Resolution Respectfully Submitted by: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 1 C.C. RESOLUTION NO. 15-XXXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05- 6417, “ADOPTING STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE DESIGN AND OPERATION OF OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ON PIER PLAZA”, OUTDOOR DINING DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PIER PLAZA, AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTION 12- 6802, AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to direction of the City Council on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on November 17 and December 3, 2014 and February 17 and March 17, 2015 and adopted Resolution 15-6 recommending that the City Council amend Subsections A, E, and M of Section IV (Design Standards) of Exhibit A to City Council Resolution 05-6417 “Adopting Standards and Procedures for the Design and Operation of Outdoor Dining Areas on Pier Plaza” as amended per Resolution 12-6802 and recommending the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (TEXT 14-6). SECTION 2. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 14, 2015, at which time all testimony, both oral and written, was presented to and considered by the City Council. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: 1. On August 9, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution 05-6417 “Adopting Standards and Procedures for the Design and Operation of Outdoor Dining Areas on Pier Plaza”, as amended by Resolution 12-6802, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 12.16 of the Municipal Code pertaining to encroachments into the public right-of-way. 2. On August 26, 2014, as part of a larger initiative to reduce impacts from on-sale beverage establishments and improve operation of the Plaza and downtown, the Council addressed the potential to modify the standards for outdoor dining within encroachment areas on Pier Plaza to further Council and community goals. SECTION 4. The proposed amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Sections 15305(b) issuance of minor encroachment permits and 15061(b)(3) because the proposed project makes minor changes to existing regulations allowing temporary placement of furnishings on an existing public plaza, pursuant to encroachment permits and regulations, that will 2 preserve the adequacy and safety of the pedestrian way, and will not increase land use intensity, and will not otherwise affect the physical environment, surrounding uses, air, water, traffic, circulation, access, noise, lighting, services or infrastructure, or other elements due to limited physical space in which they may be located and comprehensive development standards controlling design and operation, and such permits are immediately revocable should any problems result. Therefore no impacts to the environment will result. SECTION 5. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach hereby modifies the standards for outdoor dining on Pier Plaza as follows: 1. Subsection A of Section IV (Design Standards) of Exhibit A to City Council Resolution 05-6417 “Adopting Standards and Procedures for the Design and Operation of Outdoor Dining Areas on Pier Plaza” is amended to read as follows: A. Establishments that serve alcoholic beverages in the outdoor dining area shall provide a physical barrier that satisfies both these Standards and the requirements of the Alcohol Beverage Control Board. It is the responsibility of the applicant to research and verify design compliance with the Alcohol Beverage Control Board prior to filing an application for an Outdoor Dining Encroachment Permit. Barriers shall be attractive with a quality appearance, made of new materials such as wood and wrought iron. Barriers shall be of a permeable design that allows for visibility through the barrier. Chain-link fencing or other low quality materials are not permitted. Furnishings that provide the functional equivalent of a fixed barrier may be approved. 2. Subsections E and F of Section IV (Design Standards) of Exhibit A to City Council Resolution 05-6417 “Adopting Standards and Procedures for the Design and Operation of Outdoor Dining Areas on Pier Plaza” is amended to read as follows: E. The height of any barrier shall not exceed three feet, six inches (3’- 6”) with the exception that clear glass or plastic windscreens not to exceed six feet, six inches (6’- 6”) in height may also be installed on the westerly side of the encroachment area. F. The use of awnings or umbrellas over the outdoor dining area is permitted, provided they do not interfere with street trees. No portion of an awning or umbrella shall be less than eight feet (8’) above the sidewalk. Umbrellas must be contained in the encroachment area. Awnings may extend up to six feet six inches (6’-6”) from the building front or cover up to fifty percent (50%) of the outdoor dining area, whichever is less. Retractable awnings may extend up to thirteen feet (13’) from the building front or cover up to one hundred percent (100%) of the outdoor dining area, whichever is less. Retractable awnings shall be fully retracted to their closed position when the business is closed. A building permit must be obtained prior to installation of an awning. 3 3. Subsection M of Section IV (Design Standards) of Exhibit A to City Council Resolution 05-6417 “Adopting Standards and Procedures for the Design and Operation of Outdoor Dining Areas on Pier Plaza” is amended to read as follows: M: Host/hostess podiums, portable heaters and stanchions used to facilitate queuing of patrons are permitted both within and outside the encroachment area as follows. Any such items shall be placed only in locations shown on the approved plan. Items may be placed outside the encroachment area only if covered by the liability insurance policies required by Section VI of these Standards.” 1. Stanchions and queues shall comply with the following, unless an alternative configuration delineated on the site plan is approved by the Director and confirmed by the City Council (which can presented to Council on its Consent Calendar). Notwithstanding the requirement for Director and Council approval of alternate configuration, City staff or the Police Department may approve a temporary alternate configuration for purposes of addressing an immediate threat to public safety or public access until Director or Council approval can be obtained: a. Stanchions and queues shall not extend beyond the width of the business frontage on the Plaza (i.e., shall not extend in front of another business). The location of stanchions and management of the queue shall provide for a clear, continuous pedestrian path not less than five feet (5’) in width between the encroachment area and the stanchions and queue, and shall be located not less than seventeen feet (17’) from the centerline of Pier Plaza (allowing for queue of fifteen feet (15”) in depth. Businesses shall monitor the need for stanchions during each occurrence of use and remove those that are extraneous to the reasonable need to manage patrons. b. Stanchions may not be placed or stored outside the encroachment area. They must be stored within the business or within the encroachment area when the need for their used has concluded. c. Stanchions shall only be placed on the plaza after 10:00 P.M. when reasonably necessary to manage queues. Businesses shall not maintain queues as a marketing tool to create an appearance of demand. However, stanchions may be set up at other times when reasonably necessary to manage patronswhen authorized by the Police Department, such as in 4 connection with specific events at the businesses beyond normal daily operations when warranted by actual demand. d. The City reserves the right to any and all action necessary to ensure public safety and access even if stanchions and queues are located in compliance with this section. The City may additionally, at any time, direct a business to set up stanchions, manage queues, remove or relocate stanchions, or, if after directing a manager to remove or relocate stanchions or when there is no manager present, the City may unilaterally remove, relocate or confiscate stanchions and disperse the patrons. 2. One host/hostess podium located outside the encroachment area is permitted per business as follows: a. The podium shall be a maximum of 30” wide (length), 30” deep, and 48” high. Any podium that the business can demonstrate has been in use as of February 1, 2015 that does not comply with these dimensions may continue to be used until December 31, 2015 at which time such podium must be replaced with a compliant podium. One single-pole umbrella, without advertising, attached to the podium to shield the employee from the elements is permitted; no portion of an umbrella shall be less than eight feet (8’) above the sidewalk. Identification of the business name and menu board may be affixed to the podium provided the dimensions above are not exceeded. Display or sales of merchandise from the podium is not permitted. Any podium that does not comply with these standards shall be located within the encroachment area at all times. b. Podiums placed outside the encroachment area shall be located adjacent to the perimeter of the encroachment area in an approved location on the Encroachment Permit site plan. The podium shall be placed within the encroachment area or inside the business during hours that the business is closed. 3. Portable heaters located outside the encroachment area shall be limited to one heater per 15 feet of linear frontage on the Plaza, provided that heaters need not be spaced at 15-foot intervals. Heaters placed outside the encroachment area shall be located adjacent to the perimeter of the encroachment area in an approved location on the Encroachment Permit site plan. All heaters shall be placed within the encroachment area or inside the business during hours that the business is closed. 5 4. Subsection A of Section VI (Design Standards) of Exhibit A to City Council Resolution 05-6417 “Adopting Standards and Procedures for the Design and Operation of Outdoor Dining Areas on Pier Plaza” is amended to read as follows: A. The Applicant shall obtain and maintain in force during the life of the Outdoor Dining Encroachment Permit comprehensive general liability, broad form property damage and blanket contractual liability insurance in a combined single limit amount, per claim and aggregate, of at least two million dollars ($2,000,000) covering the applicant’s operation on the sidewalk. Such insurance shall name, on a Special Endorsement form, the City, its elected, appointed boards, officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. A Certificate of Insurance shall contain provisions that prohibit cancellation, modification, or lapse without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. Both the Certificate of Insurance and the completed standard Special Endorsement form shall be submitted with the completed application for an Outdoor Dining Encroachment Permit. SECTION 6. The City Council further orders that: 1. Site plans in Encroachment Permits shall be modified and to comply with the revised standards within 60 days of the adoption of this resolution, and operations must comply or improvements (such as barriers) must be completed within 90 days of adoption of this resolution. 2. Rents shall not be charged for queuing areas permitted on Pier Plaza shown on site plans in encroachment permits pursuant to the subject Standards due to the public benefits they provide relative to crowd control and security, and the limited, temporary, and occasional use of the queuing areas. 3. The Planning Commission shall review how the subject encroachments are functioning one year from adoption of this resolution. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, shall enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of the city; and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this _____ day of __________, 2015. _______________________________________________________________________PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: 6 ___________________________________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0317 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 AMEND THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BRENDLE GROUP BY ADDING $13,120 TO DEVELOP A TOOL FOR MUNICIPAL CARBON NEUTRALITY PLANNING AND TRACKING (Continued from Meeting of April 14, 2015) (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council: 1.Amend the Professional Services Agreement with the Brendle Group to develop a tool for municipal carbon neutrality for planning and tracking purposes; and 2.Authorize the appropriation of $13,120 from the General Fund. Background: On February 24, 2015 City Council approved the scope of work and budget ($24,000) for the Brendle Group to continue to provide climate action planning services and facilitate a more inclusive process around the topic of community carbon neutrality by aligning economic analysis efforts with the current General Plan update process. Both efforts assist in exploring options for reduced carbon emissions across the community, including land use and transportation decisions that will have direct impacts on emissions. On March 9, 2015 Brendle Group staff met with the General Plan Update consultants and interested members of the community to preview the Community Carbon Neutral tool that allows planners, decision-makers and the community to explore alternatives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through a combination of actions (Brendle Group Scope of Work, Task 1). Analysis: It was determined that this could also be a valuable tool for municipal carbon neutrality planning and tracking. As the City plans and implements measures to achieve municipal carbon neutrality by 2020, the tool could be used to prioritize measures and to track and report reductions in municipal greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their implementation. The revised scope of work and budget reflects the additional work required to develop a tool for municipal carbon accounting. Brendle Group’s Memo (Exhibit A) provides a revised scope of work and budget to include this additional work. The proposed $37,120 budget represents a $13,120 increase over the $24,000 approved by Council on February 24, 2015. Staff requests that Council approve the amended Professional Services Agreement, revised scope of work, and $13,120 budget for the Brendle Group to develop a tool for municipal carbon neutrality for planning and tracking purposes. Fiscal Impact: Council approved the appropriation of $24,000 from the General Fund (001-1201-4201) on February 24, 2015 for the Phase II Scope of work and budget. The additional $13,120 requested for the development of a municipal carbon Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0317 neutrality planning and tracking tool will also be appropriated from the General Fund (001-1201-4201). Attachments: 1. Hermosa Beach Phase 2 Proposal 2. Brendle Amendment Respectfully Submitted by: Kristy Morris, Environmental Analyst Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ EXHIBIT A April 1, 2015 Tom Bakaly City Manager Hermosa Beach, California Re: Revised Scope and Quote for Phase 2 of Climate Action Planning Services Dear Tom: Thank you for the opportunity to work with the City of Hermosa Beach on the Economic Analysis of Carbon Neutrality effort, and for approving our contract for a second phase of consulting services. Brendle Group is pleased to submit this revised proposal to continue to assist the City in building on the analysis of carbon neutrality work to date. Based on the result of our Task 1 Stakeholder Engagement activities, some changes are proposed to further address the climate action planning services requested by the City. Our original scope of work is provided below with updates to these services identified in red. Specifically, the tasks and cost estimates are summarized as follows: Task Description Assumptions Task 1. Stakeholder Engagement Explore the topic of carbon neutrality with the General Plan Working Group, Technical Advisory Committee, and a focus group of other local and regional climate experts and carbon neutrality advocates. Support the municipal carbon neutrality planning effort through coordination with City staff and members of the consulting team and refinement of the analysis to-date. 28 hours of Phase 2 coordination and facilitation 2 person trips, each trip two days in length (completed March 9-10, 2015) Additional 20 hours of municipal carbon neutrality coordination and refinement. Task 2. Tool Coordination and Strategy Evaluation Convert the existing community analysis spreadsheets into a user-friendly community carbon planning tool, in coordination with Raimi + Associates. Update the analysis to address other costs and benefits not included in the first phase (i.e., air quality, health) and refinement of land use and transportation analysis. Convert the existing municipal 44 hours of community tool development, coordination, and analysis refinement Additional 40 hours of municipal tool development and coordination. Task Description Assumptions analysis spreadsheets into a user-friendly municipal carbon planning tool. Task 3. Low Carbon Future Support City Council discussions on municipal carbon neutrality planning. Attend April 28 City Council meeting focused on municipal carbon commitment. Support and attend May 11 City Council/Planning Commission Study Session focused on evaluation of General Plan alternatives and carbon impacts. 22 hours of recommendation and Council meeting support and 1 person-trip (May 11) Additional 36 hours of coordination and meeting support 2 additional person trips for April 28 City Council meeting 1 additional person trip for Study Session (May 11, 2015) Task 4. Budgeting and Action Plan Develop an action plan that identifies priority near-term strategies to achieve the low carbon future. Recommendation of draft policies, potential programs, and other longer-term implementation strategies to be incorporated into the updated General Plan. 20 hours of action plan development and General Plan alignment (March 2015) TOTAL $24,000 (original proposal) $13,120 (additional services) $37,120 revised total We are supported in this effort by Juan Matute, Associate Director of the UCLA Lewis Center and the Institute of Transportation Studies. As founding director of the UCLA Local Climate Change Initiative, Juan joins the Brendle Group team on this project to infuse his knowledge of Hermosa Beach’s previous and ongoing carbon neutrality efforts, and to leverage his extensive regional and national climate change research experience. The quote is based on the following 2015 labor rates: Description Rate ($/hr) Principal 190 Senior Engineer 160 Engineer/Planner IV 130 Engineer/Planner III 100 Engineer/Planner II 90 Engineer/Planner/Analyst I 75 Engineering/Planner Intern 60 Administrative Assistant 65 Mr. Matute 125 A description of each task, budget assumptions, and deliverables is provided on the following pages. Updates to the original scope of work are identified in red. Task 1. Stakeholder Engagement Description: Under this task, Brendle Group will work with the City of Hermosa Beach and General Plan consultants (Raimi + Associates) to explore the topic of carbon neutrality with the General Plan Working Group, Technical Advisory Committee, and a focus group of other local and regional climate experts and carbon neutrality advocates. Brendle Group will facilitate conversations with these groups to explore potential pathways and preferences to achieve a preliminary target of achieving carbon neutrality within the current General Plan timeframe. Brendle Group will facilitate the meetings with Raimi + Associates and the City of Hermosa Beach providing support in terms of meeting logistics, invitations, and coordination with the General Plan update. Brendle Group will also coordinate with Juan Matute, GSE Solutions, and City staff on the refinement of the municipal carbon neutrality analysis. Budget Assumptions: 4 hours of Phase 2 coordination, 24 hours of meeting facilitation, 2 person trips (each trip two days in length), 20 hours of municipal carbon neutrality discussion and refinement. Deliverables: Facilitation for stakeholder meetings (TAC, Working Group, and Focus Group). Revised municipal carbon neutrality analysis. Task 2. Tool Coordination and Strategy Evaluation Description: This task will build on the analysis completed during the first phase of work, and will include further development and refinement of the cost-benefit analysis of the carbon neutrality goal. Brendle Group, in coordination with Raimi + Associates, will convert the existing analysis spreadsheets into a user-friendly community carbon planning tool that will feature an inputs dashboard and a summary of output results, allowing for real-time and adjustments to assumptions and strategies to achieve the City’s climate goals. The previous analysis will be refined to address other costs and benefits not included in the first phase, including air quality, health, and other topics identified through the stakeholder engagement process. The evaluation tool will also be coordinated and more closely aligned with the transportation, land use and other alternatives and options being explored as part of the General Plan update effort. This task will also include the development of a municipal carbon neutrality planning tool, which will build on the municipal carbon neutrality analysis to-date and provide users with a similar interface as the community carbon planning too. It will also be designed to interface with existing tools for ongoing monitoring and reporting available to municipalities (including ICLEI Clear Path and the Carbon Registry). Budget Assumptions: 44 hours of community carbon tool development and refinement, 40 hours of municipal carbon tool development. Deliverables: Community analysis tool and documentation, municipal analysis tool and documentation. Task 3. Low Carbon Future Description: Building on the preliminary carbon neutrality goal and the evaluation of different strategies to achieve it, Brendle Group will develop recommendations for the community’s low carbon future, including municipal and community scales. Brendle Group will attend and support the municipal carbon neutrality discussion at the March 28, 2015 City Council meeting, including individual conversations with Council members before the meeting, as appropriate. Brendle Group will also attend support the May 11, 2015 Joint Study Session between City Council and Planning Commissions focused on the land use and transportation alternatives under consideration in the General Plan update. Brendle Group will support the evaluation and discussion of how those alternatives impact the community’s low carbon future potential. Budget Assumptions: 62 hours of meting coordination and support. Support and attendance at March 28, 2015 City Council Meeting (including 2 Brendle Group person trip). Support and attendance at May 11, 2015 Joint Study Session (including 2 Brendle Group person trips). Deliverables: PowerPoint slide deck and Staff Report development support. Task 4. Action Plan Description: The final task will be the development of an action plan that identifies priority near-term strategies to achieve the carbon neutrality target. The action plan will detail budget needs and responsible parties for priority actions. It will also identify potential supporting partners and resources for all actions (as applicable). The action plan will also recommend draft policies, potential programs, and other longer-term implementation strategies to be incorporated into the updated General Plan. Budget Assumptions: 12 hours of action plan development and 10 hours of General Plan coordination. Deliverables: Action plan memo, recommended language for General Plan Schedule We propose to conduct these tasks by the end of June 2014. We appreciate the opportunity to propose these services. Sincerely, Judy Dorsey President Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0363 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 EXTEND CITY FEE WAIVERS, REDUCTIONS AND INCENTIVES FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR PROJECTS, SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS, ENERGY UPGRADE CALIFORNIA AND HERO PROJECTS, AND OTHER INITIATIVES TO ADVANCE SUSTAINABILITY (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommended Action: To extend the following incentives and report back to the Council in two years: 1.Waive preferential parking permit fees for 100%alternative fuel vehicles (100%electric,fuel cell, CNG vehicles, or other technologies not utilizing fossil fuels). 2.Rebate building permit fees for service upgrades for 100% alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., electric charging, CNG). 3.Rebate 50% of building permit plan check/inspection fees (charging only the outside plan check fees) for improvements that: (A) directly and substantially increasing energy efficiency (such as at least 15% above city codes) for buildings constructed earlier than 2000, (B) incentivize LEED or Build-It-Green Program certification (directly and substantially increase energy efficiency, water conservation and/or waste reduction), or (C) otherwise involve improvements that will make a significant contribution, exceed code requirements, or are early adoption-type behaviors. The Community Development Director shall make determinations. 4.Rebate 50% of building permit plan check/inspection fees for retrofit improvements that qualify for Energy Upgrade California or PACE programs funding, such as HERO, charging only the outside plan check fees if applicable. 5.Waive the Planning and Building permit fees associated with installation of photovoltaic systems, excluding building permit fees to upgrade the structure to accommodate the system. 6.Waive the Planning permit fees associated with installation of small wind energy systems, and rebate the Building permit fees (excluding building permit fees to upgrade the structure to accommodate the system), charging only the contract service, outside agency and outside service fees the City or applicant are required to pay; and, 7.Provide priority permit processing for all of the above. Background: In 2012 the Council extended incentives #1 to #5 above to incentivize sustainable transportation and green building to support the city’s carbon neutral and goals and environmental practices, which continue to be Council objectives. In July 2011 the Council approved incentive #6 above for a two- Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0363 year period to incentivize use of alternative technologies and carbon reduction. In 2013, the Council extended incentives # 1-7 and requested that staff report back to the Council in two years. Fees reductions since the Council last considered the various incentives include: 1.Waive preferential parking permit fees for 100% alternative fuel vehicles:87 permits from July 2013 to present @ $40 per permit is $3,480 waived. As comparison, 20 free permits in 2013, with 15 in 2012, and 13 free permits were provided in 2011. Over 5,000 preferential parking district permits are issued annually. 2.Waive building permit fees for service upgrades for 100% alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., electric charging, CNG):1 permit- $113 waived 3.Provide up to 50% rebate in building permit fees for energy efficiency or to incentivize LEED or Build-It-Green Program certification:None 4.Rebate up to 50% of building permit fees for Energy Upgrade California retrofits:None 5.Waive all fees for photovoltaic:50 permits (all residential) at $395 per permit- $19,750 waived. This compares to 14 in 2009, 16 in 2010, and 20 in 2011 and 17 through June 2013). 6.Waive planning and building fees, excluding out of pocket costs for small wind energy systems:none (the application is tabled for further information from the applicant) Other incentives granted by the City Council include complimentary electric vehicle charging station usage and waiver of silver meter fees for 100% alternative fuel vehicles. Analysis: As in previous years, programs have not been significantly used, although there has been steady use of the parking permit and photovoltaic fee waiver. The proposal has been changed to provide a fee rebate for fees associated with building permits to ensure final inspections are obtained. As in prior years the City will continue to issue press releases advising the community about the incentives, the Community Development Department provides notice of these incentives on its website, they are prominently displayed at the department office, and they have been included in the E-Newsletter. The City Council’s Strategic Plan goals to advance sustainability and reduce its carbon footprint will continue to be supported by extending these programs. Fiscal Implications: Fiscal impact continues to be minimal for most incentives due to lack of qualifying activities, except for fee waivers for photovoltaic installations; in FY 13/14-present fees in the amount of $19,750 were waived. In the previous fee reduction period, over $6,715 in fees were waived. Fee waivers for parking permits have increased to 87 permits from 20 permits in the previous waiver period and would be expected to increase as people acquire EV vehicles. Rebating 50% of building permit fees for improvements to increase energy efficiency (such as insulating existing buildings to a specified standard, double pane windows, energy star furnaces and water heaters, etc.) could amount to a hundred dollars or more per applicant; as the new commercial ‘HERO’ program goes into effect it is possible the City may see waiver/rebate requests being made. Since rebates apply only to aspects Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0363 of construction that make a significant contribution to sustainability, fiscal exposure would tend to be limited. Planning fees for conditional use permit applications for small wind energy systems are currently over $3200 per application, including building permit fees that would be waived; due to wind characteristics and height restrictions we anticipate applications are unlikely. Fee Type Last Period Projected (per year)* 1. Waive preferential parking permit fees for 100% alternative fuel vehicles 87 permits to date/$3,480 150 permits/$6000 2. Waive building permit fees for service upgrades for 100% alternative fuel vehicles 1 permit/$113 3 permits/$339 3. Rebate 50% of building permit plan check/inspection fees for energy efficiency/LEED or Build -It-Green 0/$0 Unknown/ $<100 to potentially $1000+ 4. Rebate 50% of building permit plan check/inspection fees - Energy Upgrade California or HERO program funding 0/$0 Unknown/ $<100 to potentially $1000+ 5. Waive Planning and Building permit fees for installation of photovoltaic systems 50/$19,750 50/$20,300 6. Waive the Planning and Building permit fees associated with installation of a small wind energy systems 1 permit/$1,655 0 permit * Projections do not reflect that some fees are adjusted annually/ Attachments: None Respectfully Submitted by: Kristy Morris, Environmental Analyst Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0356 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 OIL FINANCING UPDATE (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) (City Manager Tom Bakaly) Recommended Action: Receive and file this report. Background and Analysis: The Settlement Agreement with E&B calls for payment of $17.5 million in the event of failure of the oil ballot measure. Staff engaged the firm of Kosmont Realty Corporation to explore short term, interim financing options and to identify longer-term financing alternatives. The firm of Norton Rose Fulbright was engaged as bond counsel to preliminarily opine on the tax exempt/taxable status of any financing alternatives and advise as to the legality of financing alternatives. On March 19, 2015, the City Manager, City Attorney and Finance Director had a cordial meeting with E&B representatives for a preliminary discussion about the payment required by the Settlement Agreement. The E&B representatives requested that the City submit a proposal to them for payment of the $17.5 million by April 16, 2015. At its meeting of March 24, 2015, Council directed staff to: ·Start with a $6 million up front payment to E&B ·Focus on both Lease Revenue Bond (LRB) and Lease-Leaseback Structure (15-20 years including private placement) ·Move ahead with taxable rates but also explore tax-exempt rates ·Focus on fixed interest rates for bonds, but look at variable interest rates ·Begin creating Joint Powers Authority (JPA) ·Begin informal selection of financial advisor and bond counsel Staff submitted a proposal to E&B that reflected the terms approved by Council. That proposal remains under discussion with E&B and discussions on interest have gone back and forth. Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0356 On April 30, 2015, staff transmitted $6 million to E&B. Even though the City and E&B have not reached agreement on terms, paying down the amount due at the earliest time will serve to reduce the amount of any interest that may be due to E&B. Further, in accordance with City Council direction from the meeting of April 14, 2015, staff has done an informal selection process for bond counsel and financial advisor. Please see the staff report under separate cover. Fiscal Implications: The budget reflects $6 million in cash that is set aside in the Insurance Fund and $1 million is assigned to the General Fund for ongoing, annual debt service. Staff has also started some preliminary discussion with the State to see if there is any interest in loaning the City funds at a tax exempt rate. Attachments: None Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0345 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 OPTIONS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION CERTIFICATION OF AES REDONDO ENERGY PLANT (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) (Community Development Director Ken Robertson) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council; 1.Receive and file the information provided with regard to the AES Power Plant (also known as the “Redondo Beach Energy Project”); and 2.Provide direction to Staff regarding the desired level of continued participation in proceedings before the California Energy Commission related to the project. Discussion: On November 20, 2012, AES Southland, LLC (AES) submitted an Application for Certification to the California Energy Commission (CEC) seeking permission to construct and operate a power generation facility in Redondo Beach adjacent to the Hermosa Beach border. The proposed power plant is a natural-gas fired, combined-cycle, air-cooled electrical generating facility with a net generating capacity of 496 megawatt (MW), which will replace and be constructed on the site of the AES Redondo Beach Generating Station at 1100 North Harbor Drive, at the intersection of North Harbor Drive and Herondo Street, which serves as the border between Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach. The plant would utilize 10.5 acres in addition to a 2.2 acre existing switchyard located entirely within the approximately 50-acre footprint of the existing Redondo Beach Generating Station and operating power plant. The CEC has exclusive jurisdiction to certify the construction and operation of the project and accepted AES’s application as “data adequate” on August 27, 2013. The CEC has conducted workshops in Redondo Beach and made a presentation to this Council on December 10, 2013. On July 22, 2014, this Council authorized the City’s formal participation in the proceedings as an “intervenor,” and the City’s petition to intervene was granted in July 2014. Between August 20, 2014 and April 1, 2015, the CEC proceedings were suspended pursuant to a request from AES. During the suspension, AES submitted an alternative mixed use development to Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0345 the voters of Redondo Beach. If it had passed, Measure B would have eventually eliminated energy production on the site. Measure B proved to be a controversial and divisive proposition which the voters rejected on March 3, 2015. According to media reports, Redondo Beach may be evaluating the extent to which it will actively participate in future CEC proceedings related to the project due to developments during the Measure B campaign. However, as of the date of this report, the City of Redondo Beach has not officially altered its position. On April 10, 2015, the CEC held a status conference to evaluate the status of the project in light of the failure of Measure B and to establish a schedule of future proceedings, including preparation of a Final Staff Assessment, evidentiary hearings, and community workshops. AES sought an accelerated schedule, to which the City and the City of Redondo Beach objected. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) advised that it may need to hold a hearing regarding the air quality impacts of the project before it can issue its Preliminary Determination. The CEC takes the SCAQMD’s Preliminary Determination into consideration in deciding whether to approve the project. In addition to the SCAQMD, the CEC has yet to receive reports from other advisory agencies, such as the California Coastal Commission, regarding the project. The CEC directed the parties to submit a status report on April 24, 2015 and deferred scheduling future proceedings until the status report is received. In the interim, the CEC advised the parties, intervenors and the public to reengage active participation in the proceedings since the suspension has been lifted. Project Concerns: The July 22, 2014 staff report on this item details major concerns regarding the project. Options for Participation: Since the suspension of the CEC proceedings regarding the project has been lifted, staff seeks direction regarding the City’s continued involvement. Option 1: Active Participation Independent of Redondo Beach Because the City is an intervenor, it is a party to the proceedings with the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as any other party. The City can testify and present evidence and witnesses and cross-examine witnesses from all other parties at CEC hearings. As an intervenor, the City’s comments and testimony bear the weight of evidence; therefore, the City may need to commit staff time, hire technical consultants, and invest other resources to establish evidence of impacts from the project. Further, the City will incur legal costs in connection with preparation of briefs and other documents filed with the CEC. Council could determine that the impacts to Hermosa Beach are sufficient to justify continued active participation as an intervenor regardless of whether Redondo Beach continues to actively participate in the proceedings. If the City pursues this option and Redondo Beach remains an active intervenor, the City could continue to take a position in support of Redondo Beach, relying on evidence established by Redondo Beach’s experts. Redondo Beach has identified consultants Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0345 available to assist in analyzing potential impacts, which it has offered to make available to reduce the City’s potential costs of participation. However, if the City pursues this option and Redondo Beach ceases its active participation, the City’s costs would significantly increase due to the need to retain its own consultants. Option 2: Support Redondo Beach As directed by this Council, the City’s participation to date has been limited to monitoring the proceedings and testifying in support of Redondo Beach before the CEC. Council could determine that the efforts of Redondo Beach are sufficient to inform the CEC’s decision and that separate involvement by the City should be limited to instances in which the City can show that the project will have particular impacts on the City. Under this option, the City will incur minimal costs by relying on Redondo Beach’s consultants. If Redondo Beach suspends its active participation in the proceedings, the City could suspend its participation as well. Fiscal Implications: Staff anticipates the City’s costs to participate in the AES proceedings would be commensurate with its level of involvement, pursuant to direction from Council. Attachments: 1.July 22, 2014 Staff Report to City Council re: AES Redondo Beach Power Plant. 2.Memorandum from Ken Robertson dated April 28, 2015 and Status Reports filed by various regulatory agencies. 3.Status Report filed by Energy Commission Hearing Office dated May 5, 2015. Respectfully Submitted by: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Legal Review: Shahiedah Coates, Assistant City Attorney Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ 1 July 16, 2014 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 22, 2014 OPTIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION CERTIFICATION OF AES REDONDO ENERGY PLANT Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council; 1. Receive and file the information provided with regard to the AES Power Plant (also known as the “Redondo Beach Energy Project”); 2. Provide direction to Staff regarding the desired level of participation in proceedings before the California Energy Commission related to the project. Discussion: On November 20, 2012, AES Southland, LLC submitted an Application for Certification (AFC) to the California Energy Commission (CEC) seeking permission to construct and operate a power generation facility in Redondo Beach adjacent to the Hermosa Beach border. The proposed power plant is a natural-gas fired, combined-cycle, air-cooled electrical generating facility with a net generating capacity of 496 megawatt (MW), which will replace and be constructed on the site of the AES Redondo Beach Generating Station at 1100 North Harbor Drive, at the intersection of North Harbor Drive and Herondo Street, which serves as the border between Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach. The plant would utilize 10.5 acres in addition to a 2.2 acre existing switchyard located entirely within the approximately 50-acre footprint of the existing Redondo Beach Generating Station and operating power plant. The CEC has exclusive jurisdiction to certify the construction and operation of thermal electric power plants 50 megawatts or larger and all related facilities in the state. In its review, the CEC must determine whether the project will be constructed and operated in conformance with all applicable Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards (LORS). According to the CEC, all interested agencies, organizations, and individuals are encouraged to participate in the “power plant siting process.” The CEC has published a detailed summary of the siting process in its 2006 Public Participation in the Siting 2 Process: Practice and Procedure Guide,1 which generally involves six phases: Prefiling Review Phase: An informal period of planning and preparation before an applicant submits a formal AFC to the CEC. Data Adequacy Phase: CEC staff review is conducted to determine if the AFC is sufficiently complete based on the information required in the CEC's regulations. When the AFC is accepted as "data adequate," the statutory review begins. Discovery Phase: A period of data gathering, public information hearings, workshops and site visits by CEC staff, agencies, and "intervenors." CEC staff prepares and releases an Issue Identification report. Analysis Phase: CEC staff, agencies and participants hold workshops during this phase to analyze the project and its various issues. Staff prepares a Preliminary Staff Assessment, and later, the Final Staff Assessment. A pre- hearing conference is held to set the schedule and organize information and witnesses for formal hearings. The deadline to become an "intervenor" or formal party to the process is in this phase (30-days before the first evidentiary hearing). Hearings Phase: Formal evidentiary hearings are held by the Energy Commission Committee (comprised of two commissioners that are assigned to each siting case) to hear the findings and conclusions of the applicant, staff, intervenors, and other agencies through written, oral and documentary testimony in order to make a decision based on evidence. The public is encouraged to present oral and written comments. Decision Phase: The Energy Commission Committee prepares and issues a Presiding Member's Proposed Decision (PMPD), followed by a public hearing. Subsequently, the full Energy Commission considers whether to approve or deny the AFC at a regularly scheduled bi-monthly business meeting. The AES proceedings are currently in the Analysis Phase. AES’s application was accepted as “data adequate” on August 27, 2013. The CEC has conducted workshops in Redondo Beach and made a presentation to this Council on December 10, 2013 (see attached power point presentation). On June 13, 2014, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) provided its Preliminary Determination of Compliance to the CEC. The SCAQMD is evaluating whether to hold a hearing regarding its Preliminary Determination in response to requests from members of the public. As of the date of this report, Redondo Beach has not submitted a formal response to the SCAQMD Preliminary Determination, but is evaluating whether to do so. The CEC plans to release its Preliminary Staff Assessment on or before July 28, 2014. As of the date of this report, neither a pre-hearing conference nor an evidentiary hearing has been scheduled by the CEC. 1 Available in its entirety at http://energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-700-2006-002/CEC-700-2006- 002.PDF. 3 Project Concerns: The City of Redondo Beach has intervened in the AES proceedings based on its determination that the project will have a significant impact on the health, safety, and welfare of its residents and conflict with city ordinances. In particular, Redondo Beach adopted a moratorium ordinance, which was extended, prohibiting “the approval of any conditional use permit, coastal development permit or any other discretionary City permit or approval for the construction, expansion, replacement, modification or alteration of any facilities for the on-site generation of electricity on any property located within the coastal zone.”2 Redondo Beach is particularly concerned with potential impacts from noise and air pollution, and whether there is in fact a need for the power proposed to be generated from the AES plant. Redondo Beach will provide a presentation during tonight’s meeting further discussing its participation in the AES proceedings. Because the proposed AES plant would be located adjacent to Hermosa Beach, the City may be impacted by the CEC’s decision. Informal communication between the two cities has occurred at the staff and councilmember levels; however, direction is needed to determine whether the City will formally participate in the CEC proceedings and/or formally support or partner with Redondo Beach in the proceedings. Pursuant to the 2014 Strategic Plan, a top management priority is listed as “AES rebuild.” To date, the City has been monitoring the progress of the proceedings, and provided a link on our website to provide information about the project and its status to the public. Otherwise, the Council has neither taken an official position on the project nor provided policy direction on whether the City should participate in CEC proceedings. Because the project will be located in Redondo Beach and is subject to approval by the CEC, expanded participation by the City in the CEC proceedings may have limited impact. Further, in determining the amount of resources the City may want to commit to this process, the City should consider the potential impacts to the City of the proposed plant versus potential impacts from an alternative project, should the proposed plant be denied. The three options available to the City regarding its role in the power plant proceedings are detailed below. Options for Participation: The City may take one of the following courses of action: Option 1: Formal Participation - Intervene If the City desires to formally participate in the CEC proceedings, it may do so as an intervenor. An intervenor becomes a party to the proceeding with the same rights, 2 Redondo Beach Ordinance 3116-13 and 3120-14. 4 responsibilities and obligations as all other parties. Intervenors can testify and present evidence at CEC hearings. Such testimony is given under oath and is afforded more weight when the CEC weighs the facts and decides conflicts in evidence, thus this testimony can be used to support the CEC’s decision. Further, intervenors may present witnesses and cross-examine witnesses from all other parties to strengthen their position. The process to become an intervenor involves filing a petition to intervene. There is no cost to file a petition, which is a brief document explaining why the party believes it should be granted permission to intervene. The deadline to intervene is 30 days before the first evidentiary hearing, which will be scheduled soon after the CEC’s Preliminary Staff Assessment is released. CEC staff expects to release its Preliminary Staff Assessment by July 28, 2014. Petitions to intervene are generally granted. As an intervenor, the City’s comments and testimony would be given the weight of evidence; therefore, the City may need to commit staff time, hire technical consultants, and invest other resources to establish evidence of impacts from the proposed plant. Further, the City will incur legal costs in connection with preparation of briefs and other documents filed with the CEC. However, Redondo Beach has identified consultants available to assist in analyzing potential impacts, which it has offered to make available to reduce the City’s potential costs of participation. Further, becoming an intervenor does not necessarily require that the City incur these additional costs—it merely preserves the City’s right to fully participate in the proceedings at a greater level than a member of the public. The City could become an intervenor and then choose not to testify; or only testify and submit material in support of Redondo Beach, relying on evidence established by Redondo Beach’s experts; or fully participate as a separate party, including establishing its own evidence of potential impacts from the project on the City. As such, the City’s costs of participating as an intervenor would be commensurate with its level of involvement. Option 2: Informal Participation – Public Comment Any member of the public may attend all meetings, workshops and hearings related to the AFC, and may provide oral and/or written comments to the CEC. Those comments become part of the record but are not sufficient to support the decision of the CEC because they do not have the formal weight of evidence. Even if the City’s comments are not afforded the weight of formal evidence, they would be more meaningful if supported by data or the opinion of technical experts. However, since consulting with experts will require some investment of City resources and may reveal significant impacts of the project, the City may wish to intervene to preserve its ability to present evidence during the course of the proceedings. Option 3: Continue to Monitor the Proceedings C lif i E C i iCalifornia Energy CommissionREDONDO BEACH ENERGY PROJECTPOWER PLANT LICENSINGHermosa Beach City CouncilyDecember 10, 2013Roger Johnson, Deputy DirectorSiting, Transmission and Environmental Protection Division6 TOPICS TO BE PRESENTEDTOPICS TO BE PRESENTEDAES Redondo Beach project–AES project objectives–Project DescriptionProject Description–Project Visual SimulationsEnergy Commission AFC process–Permitting Authority–Environmental Review–Decision Process–CompliancePublic Participation7 R d d B h P j t Obj tiRedondo Beach Project ObjectivesModernize a 60 year old plantRemove existing facility and free up nearly 75% ofRemove existing facility and free up nearly 75% of site for alternative useCreate a sustainable business that supports ppCalifornia in achieving its clean energy and environmental goalsHelp minimize consumer electricity costs8 Rd d B hE P j tRedondo Beach Energy ProjectRBEP is a proposed natural‐gas fired, combined‐cycle, air‐cooled, 511‐megawatt (MW) gross electrical generating facility that would replace the existing andgenerating facility that would replace the existing and still operational AES Redondo Beach Generating Station. The existing Redondo Beach Generating Station Units 1 through 8 and auxiliary boiler no. 17 will be demolished as part of the projectdemolished as part of the project.9 Eiti Pl tSitExisting Plant Site10 PdMditiPjtProposed Modernization Project11 PdMditiPjtProposed Modernization Project12 Existing Plant SiteExisting Plant SiteView from Herondo Street13 Proposed Modernization ProjectProposed Modernization ProjectView from Herondo Street14 Existing Plant SiteExisting Plant SiteView from PCH and Herondo, looking southwest15 Proposed Modernization ProjectProposed Modernization ProjectView from PCH and Herondo, looking southwest16 Existing Plant SiteExisting Plant SiteView from Moonstone Park, looking east17 Proposed Modernization ProjectProposed Modernization ProjectView from Moonstone Park, looking east18 Existing Plant SiteExisting Plant SiteView from Broadway and Beryl19 Existing Plant SiteExisting Plant SiteView from Broadway and Beryl20 Existing Plant SiteExisting Plant SiteView from 700 Block Irena21 Proposed Modernization ProjectProposed Modernization ProjectView from 700 Block Irena22 Existing Plant SiteExisting Plant SiteView from Hermosa Beach23 Proposed Modernization ProjectProposed Modernization ProjectView from Hermosa Beach24 Existing Plant SiteExisting Plant SiteView from Hermosa Beach Pier25 Proposed Modernization ProjectProposed Modernization ProjectView from Hermosa Beach Pier26 ECii’RlEnergy Commission’s RoleEnergy Commission permitting authority–State-wide permit consistency–Thermal power plant 50 megawatts or greaterpp g g–Related facilitiestransmission lineswater supply systemsnatural gas pipelineswaste disposal facilitiesaccess roadsN t ti ll d til it i i d–No construction allowed until permit is issuedLead state agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)27 Energy Commission’s PermittingEnergy Commission s Permitting ProcessFive Commissioners appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate for 5-year terms.Committee of two Commissioners assigned toCommittee of two Commissioners assigned to oversee a power plant licensing proceedingStaff is independent party to the proceeding like the applicant and intervenorsOpen transparent process with multiple public workshops and hearings in the communityworkshops and hearings in the communityExparte rule between parties and commissionersPublic Adviser appointed by the Governor28Public Adviser appointed by the Governor Local State and Federal CoordinationLocal, State and Federal CoordinationStaff works closely with local, state and federal agencies for example:agencies, for example:–LocalCity of Redondo BeachLos Angeles CountyLos Angeles CountySouthern California Association of GovernmentsSouth Coast Air Quality Management DistrictSt t–StateLos Angeles Regional Water Quality Control BoardCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeC lif i C t l C i iCalifornia Coastal Commission–FederalUS Army Corps of Engineers29US Fish and Wildlife Service US Environmental Protection Agency OifthLi iP1.PrefilingOverview of the Licensing ProcessStaff meets with local agency and developer to explain permit process and application requirements2.Filing and Data AdequacyDeveloper files Application for Certification and feeMinimum requirements to accept application3.Discovery and AnalysesIssues Identification Report/Information Hearing & Site VisitData requests/responses workshopsIssue Resolution WorkshopsStaff Assessments4.Evidentiary Hearings and DecisionCommittee holds evidentiary hearings30Committee produces Proposed DecisionDecision by full Commission 31 Did A l PDiscovery and Analyses ProcessIntervenorsPublicPublic Adviser*CEC StaffStaff Assessment/TestimonyFederal AgenciesLocal, State, &Federal AgenciesApplicant32* The Public Adviser provides assistance on how to participate in the CEC’s public process. St ff’ I d d t A tStaff’s Independent Assessment• Air Quality • Alternatives Bi l• Environmental Justice Hazardous• Transmission Line Engineering• Biology • Cultural Resources •Hazardous Materials •Land UseEngineering• Transmission Line Safety • Efficiency • Facility DesignElectrical• Noise • Public Health Reliability• Traffic • Visual •Waste - Electrical - Mechanical - Structural •Reliability• Safety •Socioeconomics•Waste• Water 33 - Civil • Soils/Paleo Plii StffA tPreliminary Staff AssessmentDetermine if proposal complies with Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, Standards (LORS)Conduct engineering and environmental analysisConduct engineering and environmental analysis–identify issues–evaluate alternatives–identify mitigation measures–recommend conditions of certificationFacilitate public and agency participationFacilitate public and agency participationPreliminary Staff Assessment filed for 30-day comment period34Public workshop(s) on PSA Fi l St ff A tFinal Staff AssessmentAddress comments on PSARevise PSA as appropriate and file FSA as expert witness testimony for evidentiary hearingswitness testimony for evidentiary hearings35 What Happens after the Final StaffWhat Happens after the Final Staff Assessment?Committee holds Prehearing ConferenceCommittee holds Prehearing ConferenceCommittee issues schedule for Evidentiary HearingsgCommittee hears sworn testimony from staff, applicant and intervenorsCommittee takes public comments36 Evidentiary Hearings & Decision ProcessEvidentiary Hearings & Decision ProcessIntervenortestimonyPubliccommentPublic AdviserCommitteeProposed DecisionApplicantStaff Full CommissionFinal DecisiontestimonyTestimonyLocal, state, &Local, state, &federal agencies37comment Wh t H Aft H i ?What Happens After Hearings?Committee issues Presiding Member’s ProposedCommittee issues Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision (PMPD) for 30-day comment period–Contains findings relating toenvironmental impacts, public health, engineeringproject compliance with LORS–Recommends conditions of certification–Determines if override findings are needed–Recommends whether or not to approve the projectCommittee issues Revised PMPDCommittee issues Revised PMPDFull commission makes decision30-day period to appeal decision to Commission3830day period to appeal decision to Commission and State Supreme Court COMMITTEE SCHEDULECOMMITTEE SCHEDULEREDONDO BEACH ENERGY PROJECTAFC filed 11/20/12AFC filed 11/20/12Data Adequate 08/27/13Information hearing and site visit 10/01/13Information hearing and site visit 10/01/131stIssue resolution workshop 12/5/13Determination of Compliance (PDOC) 01/2014?Prelim Staff Assessment (PSA) PDOC + 45 daysPSA workshop PSA + 15 daysPSA comment period PSA + 30 daysFinal DOC – PDOC + 60 daysFi l St ff A tFDOC + 45 d39Final Staff Assessment -FDOC + 45 days Cli MitiCompliance MonitoringEnergy Commission staff oversee projectEnergy Commission staff oversee project compliance from preconstruction through closure.Energy Commission is Chief Building Official butEnergy Commission is Chief Building Official but will use third party CBO for plan checks.Monthly Compliance reports are posted to the yp p pEnergy Commission web site during construction.Annual Compliance reports are posted to the ECiibidi iEnergy Commission web site during operation.40 WThPbliMPtiitWays The Public May ParticipateSign up for the project list serve http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/redondo_beach/Attend public workshops and hearings andAttend public workshops and hearings and provide oral comments E-file or submit written comments or statements to the Staff or CommissionersProvide written comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment and Proposed DecisionStaff Assessment and Proposed DecisionBecome a formal intervenor41 More InformationMore InformationCalifornia Energy Commission–Roger Johnson, Deputy Director for Siting, Transmission and Environmental Protection(916) 654-5100; e-mail: rjohnson@energy.state.ca.usChris Davis Siting Office Manager–Chris Davis, Siting Office Manager(916) 654-4842; e-mail: cdavis@energy.state.ca.us –Alana Mathews, Public Adviser(916) 654-4489 or (800) 822-6228(916) 6544489 or (800) 8226228,e-mail: PAO@energy.state.ca.usDocuments are available for public review at:Energy Commission Web site:www energy ca gov/sitingcases–Energy Commission Web site: www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases–Public Libraries (Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Torrance, Rancho Palos Verdes)–Dockets Unit at the Energy Commission42–Dockets Unit at the Energy Commission DATE: April 28, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ken Robertson, Director Community Development Department SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL – ITEM 6(D) OPTIONS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION CERTIFICATION OF AES REDONDO ENERGY PLANT On April 24, 2015, after the staff report providing an update to the City Council on the California Energy Commission’s (“CEC”) consideration of the application by AES to site a power plant in the City of Redondo Beach was finalized, the parties and various regulatory agencies complied with the CEC’s order to submit status reports to inform the CEC’s forthcoming order setting a schedule of future proceedings. Generally, the staff reports filed by CEC staff, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Coastal Commission suggest that for various reasons, the public comment period and future proceedings should be delayed to accommodate analysis of developments which occurred during the suspension of the proceedings and potential impacts of the project. The City of Redondo Beach recommended against adopting a schedule at this time based on its belief that the city’s ordinance banning development of a new power plant requires the CEC to apply a higher level of scrutiny than has been applied to the project to date. A meeting is scheduled between CEC staff and the City of Redondo Beach to discuss the city’s ordinance on April 29, 2015. AES reiterated its request for an accelerated schedule of proceedings and disputes Redondo Beach’s position that the project is subject to a higher level of scrutiny. As of the drafting of this supplemental report, the CEC had not issued a response to the status reports or a schedule of future proceedings. Attachments: 1. Status Report filed by the California Coastal Commission. 2. Status Report filed by CEC staff. 3. Status Report filed by Ellison, Schneider & Harris LLP on behalf of AES. 4. Status Report filed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 5. Status Report filed by Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchel LLP on behalf of the City of Redondo Beach. 6. Response to Status Reports by Ellison, Schneider & Harris LLP on behalf of AES. C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H M E M O R A N D U M DOCKETED Docket Number:12-AFC-03 Project Title:Redondo Beach Energy Project TN #:204364 Document Title:Redondo Beach Coastal Commission Status Letter Description:Letter describing status of Coastal Commission review and requested schedule Filer:Tom Luster Organization:California Coastal Commission Submitter Role:Public Agency Submission Date: 4/24/2015 1:58:48 PM Docketed Date:4/24/2015 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94I05-2219 VOICE (41 5) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 TDD (415) 597-5885 April24, 2015 Committee for Redondo Beach Energy Project (12-AFC-03) Commissioner Karen Douglas -Presiding Member Commissioner Janea A. Scott-Associate Member Susan Cochran -Hearing Officer California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5512 RE: Status Report on 12-AFC-03 Dear Commissioners Douglas and Scott, EDMUND G. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced AFC proceeding. This letter provides the status of the Coastal Commission staff review and includes a recommended schedule for your consideration. As you know, in July 2014, Energy Commission staff published the Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA) for the proposed project; however, in September 2014, the Committee suspended the AFC proceeding until April 1st of this year pending the results of a City of Redondo Beach initiative that could have obviated the need for this AFC proceeding. In March of this year, the initiative failed, and AES requested that the Committee adopt a new schedule for completing the AFC review. On April10, 2015, the Committee held a status conference to allow parties to describe the status of the project and their reviews. Following the status conference, the Committee issued an Order requesting that parties provide any additional information the Committee should consider regarding the scheduling of the upcoming AFC process. The Order specifically requested that Coastal Commission staff provide a timeframe for preparing and submitting its Coastal Act Section 30413( d) report. As we discussed with Energy Commission staff last year, Coastal Commission staff generally need from 60 to 90 days between publication of the PSA (or modified PSA) and submittal of our 30413(d) report. This time period allows us to review the PSA and any additional or modified information, prepare our report, and provide it for public comment and review before the Coastal Commission considers adopting it at one of its monthly public hearings, which is required before we submit it to the Committee. As discussed during the April 1oth status conference, Coastal Commission staff will need some additional information before preparing the report for consideration and approval by the Coastal Commission. We understand from AES that the currently proposed project is the same as was being reviewed prior to last year's AFC suspension; however, we also understand that Energy Commission staff is working to obtain updated information about changes to the proposed GOVERA'OR Status Report re: 12-AFC-03-Redondo Beach Energy Project April24, 2015 project's construction and demolition schedule, possible changes to the PSA's cumulative impacts assessment, and changes to the PSA's alternatives assessment to address project elements related to AES Huntington Beach and AES Alamitos. We also understand that Energy Commission staff will be meeting with the City to discuss and possibly resolve land use issues. We will likely need to incorporate much of this new or updated information into our 30413(d) report. We therefore recommend that the Committee allow at least 90 days between publication of a modified PSA or publication of this updated information, whichever comes later. Alternatively, the Committee could provide a shorter review period; however, that may require Coastal Commission staffto use the Final Staff Assessment as the basis for its 30413(d) report. Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions or need more information, please contact me at 415-904-5248 or tluster@coastal.ca.gov Sincerely, ~,;#c- Tom Luster Energy, Ocean Resources, and Federal Consistency Division DOCKETED Docket Number:12-AFC-03 Project Title:Redondo Beach Energy Project TN #:204358 Document Title:Redondo Beach Energy Project Status Report #10 Description:N/A Filer:Cenne Jackson Organization:California Energy Commission Submitter Role:Commission Staff Submission Date:4/24/2015 12:30:52 PM Docketed Date:4/24/2015 DOCKETED Docket Number:12-AFC-03 Project Title:Redondo Beach Energy Project TN #:204365 Document Title:Redondo Beach Energy Project Status Report #13 Description:N/A Filer:Karen Mitchell Organization:Ellison, Schneider & Harris L.L.P. Submitter Role:Applicant Representative Submission Date:4/24/2015 2:09:19 PM Docketed Date:4/24/2015 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION In the Matter of: ) ) Application for Certification for the ) Docket No. 12-AFC-03 Redondo Beach Energy Project ) REDONDO BEACH ENERGY PROJECT STATUS REPORT # 13 Pursuant to the Order after Status Conference Directing the Filing of Status Reports by April 24, 2015 issued on April 16, 2015, AES Southland Development, LLC (the “Applicant”) hereby files this status report to inform the Committee on the progress of the Redondo Beach Energy Project (“Project”) Application for Certification (“AFC”) proceeding. The Applicant does not have anything new to report since the Status Conference held on April 10, 2015. April 24, 2015 ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS, LLP By Greggory L. Wheatland Samantha G. Pottenger 2600 Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 447-2166 Telephone (916) 447-3512 Facsimile Attorneys for the Applicant DOCKETED Docket Number:12-AFC-03 Project Title:Redondo Beach Energy Project TN #:204366 Document Title:South Coast Air Quality Management District Status Report Description:N/A Filer:John Yee Organization:South Coast Air Quality Management District Submitter Role:Public Agency Submission Date:4/24/2015 2:16:28 PM Docketed Date:4/24/2015 DOCKETED Docket Number:12-AFC-03 Project Title:Redondo Beach Energy Project TN #:204374 Document Title:City of Redondo Beach Status Report 04-24-15 Description:N/A Filer:Jon Welner Organization:Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP Submitter Role:Intervenor Representative Submission Date:4/24/2015 4:09:50 PM Docketed Date:4/24/2015 SF 1987684v1 Page 1 of 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA California Energy Commission In the Matter of: REDONDO BEACH ENERGY PROJECT APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION Docket No. 12-AFC-03 INTERVENOR CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S STATUS REPORT April 24, 2015 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP JON WELNER (Bar No. 178578), jwelner@jmbm.com Two Embarcadero Center, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-8080 Facsimile: (415) 398-5584 Attorneys for Intervenor CITY OF REDONDO BEACH SF 1987684v1 Page 2 of 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA California Energy Commission In the Matter of: REDONDO BEACH ENERGY PROJECT APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION Docket No. 12-AFC-03 INTERVENOR CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S STATUS REPORT I.BACKGROUND On April 16, 2015, the Committee in this proceeding issued an Order requiring the parties to file Status Reports on April 24, 2015. The Status Reports are to "aid the Committee in preparing a scheduling order" and shall include: 1. Any information regarding the scheduling of a public hearing by the SCAQMD on the PDOC/FDOC; 2. The status of efforts by staff to update any sections of the PSA; 3. The current timing and progress of any: a. Meet and confer sessions with the City of Redondo Beach on the land use laws applicable to the project; and b. The scheduling of any workshop on the PSA. 4. Any other relevant matters to the Committee’s attention. II.THE COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT ISSUE A SCHEDULE AT THIS TIME Intervenor City of Redondo Beach ("City") respectfully requests that the Committee wait at least sixty (60) days before issuing a new schedule in this proceeding. We recognize that the Applicant ("AES") is eager to resume the AFC process after the failure of its land use initiative, but there are a number of critical issues that must be addressed before a new schedule can be issued. SF 1987684v1 Page 3 of 6 A.The PSA must be substantially modified and reissued before the proceeding resumes. 1.Commission staff acknowledge that the PSA must be substantially revised. In the Status Report submitted today by Commission staff, they report that they must make the following significant changes to the PSA: Staff is working with applicant to obtain the information requested in the PSA to update their sections for the FSA, along with a new construction and demolition schedule. Air Quality staff is waiting for applicant's submittal of the cumulative impacts assessment to determine whether the combined air quality impacts of the proposed project, and other reasonably foreseeable local projects, would result in significant air quality related impacts during construction and operation. Visual Resources staff is also asking for a Site Screening and Landscape Concept Plan for review and consideration. Cumulative Resources staff has added eight new projects to the Cumulative list since the publication of the PSA. Alternatives staff is updating the Alternatives assessment to address additional elements analyzed in the Huntington Beach and Carlsbad proceedings. These are not minor changes. They include a critical new Air Quality analysis; an entirely new Screening Plan for review in the Visual Resources section; and significant changes to the Alternatives analysis.The PSA should be modified to include these analyses prior to the PSA workshop and comment period.If staff wait until the FSA to incorporate these analyses, the new information cannot be property reviewed and addressed by the parties during the PSA workshop and in their PSA comments. 2.The "meet and confer" on LORS issues will likely result in material changes to the PSA. Commission staff and the City are scheduled to "meet and confer" regarding potential LORS violations on April 29, 2015. After the meeting, the PSA will likely require significant changes. In the PSA, Staff provide a cursory, one-sentence analysis of the City's ordinance barring new power plant development at the project site. Staff's conclusion that the SF 1987684v1 Page 4 of 6 City's ordinance does not constitute a LORS violation is contrary to case law and to the Commission's prior decisions. The City is confident that after the meet-and-confer, Staff will conclude that there is a LORS violation. If Staff determine there is a LORS violation, they will need to make significant and material changes to the PSA. Under those circumstances, the Commission cannot certify the proposed project "unless the commission determines that such facility is required for public convenience and necessity and that there are not more prudent and feasible means of achieving such public convenience and necessity." PRC § 25523. This would require a major new analysis to be performed by staff. Such a significant analysis should not be provided for the first time in the FSA. Rather, the PSA should be modified to include this analysis, so this issue can be properly addressed in the PSA workshop and PSA comments. 3.New information has come to light that requires material changes to the PSA. As previously raised by the City, new information has come to light over the last nine months that must be incorporated in the PSA. As described in the City's Status Conference Statement, AES made several important admissions during its campaign for Measure B that need to be incorporated into Staff's "No Project" Analysis, specifically: (1) that the Redondo Beach power plant can be safely shut down without negatively affecting the electric grid; and (2) that there are significant benefits that would result from eliminating the power plant. These admissions were made to the press and to City officials. They have a material impact on Staff's analysis of the "no project" alternative, and should be incorporated into the PSA. 4.The changes to the PSA are too significant to be addressed only in the FSA. SF 1987684v1 Page 5 of 6 The above changes to the Staff analysis are material and significant. The changes cannot wait until the FSA is issued. Rather, they are critical components of the Commission's analysis and should be presented to the parties in the PSA. That is the only way to ensure that the issues are properly considered during the PSA workshop, and that the parties have an opportunity to review and analyze them while preparing their comments on the PSA. B.The Committee should wait until SCAQMD issues the FDOC before issuing a schedule. Finally, the Committee should wait until SCAQMD issues the FDOC before issuing a schedule. In its Status Report filed today, SCAQMD states that it will hold a public hearing on the RBEP before issuing the FDOC. At the Committee Status Conference on April 10, 2015, SCAQMD stated that if there is a hearing, it will take six (6) months to issue the FDOC. Air Quality is a critical issue in this certification proceeding. The Committee should wait until the FDOC is issued by AQMD before proceeding with the PSA workshop and comments. Otherwise, the parties will need to repeat the workshop and comment process again later, with regard to Air Quality issues. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// SF 1987684v1 Page 6 of 6 III.CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the City respectfully asks the Committee to wait sixty (60) days before issuing a schedule for the remainder of this proceeding. Dated: April 24, 2015 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP By: JON WELNER Attorneys for Intervenor CITY OF REDONDO BEACH DOCKETED Docket Number:12-AFC-03 Project Title:Redondo Beach Energy Project TN #:204496 Document Title:Committee Scheduling Order; Order Regarding the Filing of Record of Conversation Description:N/A Filer:Maggie Read Organization:Energy Commission Hearing Office Submitter Role:Committee Submission Date: 5/5/2015 10:47:54 AM Docketed Date:5/5/2015 1 BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1516 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 1-800-822-6228 – WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR THE REDONDO BEACH ENERGY PROJECT Docket No. 12-AFC-03 COMMITTEE SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER REGARDING THE FILING OF RECORD OF CONVERSATION Background On November 20, 2012, AES Southland, LLC (AES) submitted an Application for Certification (AFC) to the California Energy Commission seeking permission to construct and operate a power generation facility, the Redondo Beach Energy Project (RBEP), located at 1100 North Harbor Drive, in the City of Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County. The site is southeast of the intersection of North Harbor Drive and Herondo Street. The project would be located entirely within the footprint of the existing AES Redondo Beach Generating Station, an operating power plant. RBEP is a proposed natural-gas fired, combined-cycle, air-cooled, gross- generating 511-megawatt (MW)/net-generating 496 MW facility that would replace the existing and still operational AES Redondo Beach Generating Station. RBEP will consist of one power block composed of three natural gas combustion turbine generators (CTG), three supplemental-fired heat recovery steam generators (HRSG), a steam turbine generator (STG), an air-cooled condenser, and ancillary facilities. RBEP will also include natural gas compressors, water treatment facilities, emergency services, and administration and maintenance buildings. The existing Redondo Beach Generating Station Units 1 through 8 and auxiliary boiler no. 17 will be demolished as part of the project. Energy Commission staff published the Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA) on July 28, 2014. Shortly before the PSA was published, the RBEP Committee1 1 The Energy Commission assigned a Committee of two Commissioners to conduct proceedings on the AFC: Energy Commissioners Karen Douglas, Presiding Member, and Janea A. Scott, Associate Member. The full Commission made this Committee assignment on August 27, 2013. 2 learned that AES had submitted the Harbor Village Plan Initiative petition to the City of Redondo Beach. The petition sought the approval of the electorate in Redondo Beach for a land use plan for the RBEP site as a mixed-use development of 600 new residences, 250 hotel rooms, and 85,000 square feet of commercial space. On September 3, 2014, the Committee suspended the proceedings until April 1, 2015. During the suspension of the proceedings, Staff and all responsible agencies were to cease work on the AFC. On March 3, 2015, the initiative failed. AES submitted a letter on March 20, 2015, asking that the Committee issue a new scheduling order. Instead, the Committee set the matter for a status conference on April 10, 2015. During the April 10, 2015, status conference, the Committee and the parties discussed issues relating to future activities on the case. The Committee directed the filing of status reports by the parties by April 24, 2015, on potential scheduling in the matter. The Committee also requested input from the California Coastal Commission and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on the timing of their respective responsibilities and roles in the processing of the RBEP. Several parties requested that the Committee delay restarting the proceedings because of the suspension. As was stated at the April 10, 2015, status conference, the suspension expired on April 1, 2015, thus allowing the parties to restart their activities on the RBEP. Staff indicated during the April 10, 2015, status conference that it needed additional information on some topics because of the passage of time since publication of the PSA. However, contrary to some parties’ request, we see no need to republish the PSA. We do agree that a new 30-day comment period on the PSA is required. The attached schedule thus starts a new 30-day comment period on May 5, 2015. The staff workshop on the PSA is also to occur before May 27, 2015. Any new or additional information received should be reflected in the Final Staff Assessment (FSA). Based on the filings by the parties, the Coastal Commission, and SCAQMD, the Committee has prepared the attached schedule. The schedule contains a list of events that must occur in order to complete the certification process. This initial schedule covers the period through the issuance of the FSA. The Committee recognizes that the timing of future events is subject to input from both SCAQMD and the Coastal Commission, as well as reviews to be conducted by other federal, state, and local agencies. The importance of the role of Coastal Commission and SCAQMD to our process cannot be understated. Public 3 Resources Code section 30413(d) requires the Coastal Commission to participate and prepare a report with specific findings and recommendations relating to the suitability of the proposed project. During the April 24, 2015, status conference, the representative of the Coastal Commission indicated such a report would be forthcoming. The Coastal Commission’s April 24, 2015, status letter indicated it would need between 60 and 90 days after the publication of the PSA (or modified PSA) to submit its 30413(d) report.2 Similarly, the issuance of the Final Determination of Compliance (FDOC) by the SCAQMD is important to the FSA’s analysis of the project’s potential impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and public health. Given the need for timely receipt of findings and determinations from the Coastal Commission and SCAQMD, the attached schedule shows the normal interval in siting cases, as well as the Committee’s schedule in this proceeding. We have provided additional time between the end of the new comment period on the PSA and the publication of the FSA so that the FDOC from the SCAQMD and the 30413(d) report from the Coastal Commission will be received and can be incorporated into the FSA. Because of the complexities involved in resolving these issues, the parties are hereby notified that the Committee may modify the schedule at any time upon either its own motion or that of a party. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1709.7, subd. (c).) Status Reports and Status Conferences The attached schedule requires status reports to be submitted by all parties. Status reports shall inform the Committee whether or not case development is progressing satisfactorily, and bring potential schedule delays and other relevant matters to the Committee’s attention. The Committee further requests that the SCAQMD and the California Coastal Commission file status reports in the event that the timing of completion of their respective tasks falls outside the usual intervals identified in the attached schedule. The reports shall be filed with the Commission’s Docket Unit and served no later than 3:00 p.m. on the due date. The Commission’s Docket Unit is located at 1516 Ninth Street, MS-4, Sacramento, California, 95814-5512. The Energy Commission has implemented an electronic filing system and requires its use in lieu of the e-mail or mailing of paper documents filing methods; a link to the e- 2 TN 204364. 4 filing system is found on the project web page, whose address is given below. Status reports must contain “Docket No. 12-AFC-03” in the caption or heading. Record of Conversation of Meet and Confer Session between Energy Commission Staff and the City of Redondo Beach In its status report filed on April 24, 2015, the Energy Commission staff indicated that it would be holding a conference with the City of Redondo Beach on land use compatibility issues and the project’s conformity with local laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards on April 29, 2015. The Applicant, in a letter filed on April 27, 2015, requested that we order that the April 29, 2015, conference be open to the public. Because of the interest in the issue of compatibility of the proposed use with the City’s land use laws, we hereby ORDER that the staff file a Record of Conversation regarding the points of discussion and any changes, modifications, or analyses arising from the April 29, 2015. Staff shall file the Record of Conversation no later than May 11, 2015. Public Adviser and Public Participation The Energy Commission invites members of the public and other interested parties to participate either on an informal basis or by intervening in the proceeding. Both types of participation allow written and oral comments. At the informal participation level, written and oral public comments are considered by the Commissioners and are part of the record, but are not part of the formal evidentiary record. Intervenors have the right to introduce evidence into the evidentiary record and cross-examine the other parties’ witnesses. The Energy Commission’s Public Adviser’s Office is available to provide the public with an understanding of a proceeding and to make recommendations for meaningful participation. For assistance, contact Alana Mathews, the Public Adviser, at (916) 654-4489 or 800-822-6228 or e-mail at: publicadviser@energy.ca.gov. Contact Information Questions of a legal or procedural nature should be directed to Susan Cochran, the Hearing Adviser, at (916) 654-3965, or e-mail: susan.cochran@energy.ca.gov. Technical questions concerning the project should be addressed to Keith Winstead, the Staff Project Manager, (916) 654-5191, or e-mail: keith.winstead@energy.ca.gov. 5 Media inquiries should be directed to the Office of Media and Public Communications at (916) 654-4989 or e-mail at: mediaoffice@energy.ca.gov. If you have a disability and need assistance to participate in the proceeding, please contact Lourdes Quiroz at (916) 654-5146 or e-mail at: lou.quiroz@energy.ca.gov. Information concerning the status of the project, as well as notices and other relevant documents, may be viewed on the Energy Commission’s Internet web page at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/redondo_beach/ . Dated: May 4, 2015, at Sacramento, California. Original signed by KAREN DOUGLAS Commissioner and Presiding Member Redondo Beach Energy Project AFC Committee Original signed by JANEA A. SCOTT Commissioner and Associate Member Redondo Beach Energy Project AFC Committee 6 SCHEDULING ORDER FOR THE REDONDO BEACH ENERGY PROJECT ACTIVITY USUAL INTERVAL SCHEDULE Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA) Published July 28, 2014 PSA New Comment Period Commences May 4, 2015 PSA New Comment Period Closes May 29, 2015 Preliminary Staff Assessment Workshop 3 weeks after PSA filed No later than May 27, 2015 Status Reports On or before the 1st of each month, commencing June 1, 2015 SCAQMD Issues Final Determination of Compliance (FDOC) TBD TBD Final Staff Assessment Published (FSA) 60 days after PSA filed August 27, 2015 All Parties File Opening Testimony 4 weeks after the FSA is filed September 25, 2015** All Parties File Rebuttal Testimony 5 weeks after the FSA is filed October 2, 2015** All Parties File Prehearing Conference Statements with Exhibit Lists 6 weeks after the FSA is filed October 9, 2015** Last day to file Petition to Intervene 30 days before EH Prehearing Conference (PHC) 7 weeks after the FSA is filed Week of October 19, 2015** Evidentiary Hearings (EH) 2 weeks after PHC Week of November 2, 2015** 7 All Parties File Opening Briefs 2 weeks after EH transcripts are published All Parties File Reply Briefs 3 weeks after EH transcripts are published Committee Files Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision (PMPD) 9 weeks after EH Committee Conference on PMPD 3 weeks after PMPD filed Close of Public Comment Period on PMPD 30 Days after PMPD filed Committee Files Errata or Revised PMPD (if necessary) TBD* Energy Commission Final Decision TBD* *TBD = To Be Determined ** All dates after publication of the FSA are subject to further revision, pending receipt of the FDOC, the California Coastal Commission section 30415 report, and other required or requested analyses by other federal, state, and local agencies. DOCKETED Docket Number:12-AFC-03 Project Title:Redondo Beach Energy Project TN #:204536 Document Title:Revised Committee Scheduling Order Description:Supersedes TN 204527 Filer:Cody Goldthrite Organization:CEC/ Karen Douglas/ Janea A. Scott Submitter Role:Committee Submission Date:5/8/2015 10:38:38 AM Docketed Date:5/8/2015 BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1516 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 1-800-822-6228 – WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR THE REDONDO BEACH ENERGY PROJECT Docket No. 12-AFC-03 REVISED COMMITTEE SCHEDULING ORDER Background On May 5, 2015, the Committee for the Redondo Beach Energy Project Application for Certification 1 issued a Committee Scheduling Order and an Order regarding the filing of a record of conversation. The purpose of this Revised Committee Scheduling Order is to correct date errors contained in the schedule section only. The attached schedule continues to provide additional time between the end of the new comment period on the Preliminary Staff Assessment and the publication of the Final Staff Assessment so that the Final Determination of Compliance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Public Resources Code section 30413(d) report from the Coastal Commission will be received and can be incorporated into the FSA. Status Reports and Status Conferences The attached schedule requires status reports to be submitted by all parties on or before the first of each month, commencing June 1, 2015. Status reports shall inform the Committee whether or not case development is progressing satisfactorily and bring potential schedule delays and other relevant matters to the Committee’s attention. The Committee further requests that the SCAQMD and the California Coastal Commission file status reports in the event that the timing of completion of their respective tasks falls outside the intervals identified in the attached schedule. 1 The Energy Commission assigned a Committee of two Commissioners to conduct proceedings on the Redondo Beach Energy Project Application for Certification: Energy Commissioners Karen Douglas, Presiding Member, and Janea A. Scott, Associate Member. The full Commission made this Committee assignment on August 27, 2013. 1 The reports shall be filed with the Commission’s Docket Unit and served no later than 3:00 p.m. on the due date. The Commission’s Docket Unit is located at 1516 Ninth Street, MS-4, Sacramento, California, 95814-5512. The Energy Commission has implemented an electronic filing system and requires its use in lieu of the e-mail or mailing of paper documents filing methods; a link to the e- filing system is found on the project web page, whose address is given below. Status reports must contain “Docket No. 12-AFC-03” in the caption or heading. Public Adviser and Public Participation The Energy Commission invites members of the public and other interested parties to participate either on an informal basis or by intervening in the proceeding. Both types of participation allow written and oral comments. At the informal participation level, written and oral public comments are considered by the Commissioners and are part of the record, but are not part of the formal evidentiary record. Intervenors have the right to introduce evidence into the evidentiary record and cross-examine the other parties’ witnesses. The Energy Commission’s Public Adviser’s Office is available to provide the public with an understanding of a proceeding and to make recommendations for meaningful participation. For assistance, contact Alana Mathews, the Public Adviser, at (916) 654-4489 or 800-822-6228 or e-mail at: publicadviser@energy.ca.gov. Contact Information Questions of a legal or procedural nature should be directed to Susan Cochran, the Hearing Adviser, at (916) 654-3965, or e-mail: susan.cochran@energy.ca.gov. Technical questions concerning the project should be addressed to Keith Winstead, the Staff Project Manager, (916) 654-5191, or e-mail: keith.winstead@energy.ca.gov. Media inquiries should be directed to the Office of Media and Public Communications at (916) 654-4989 or e-mail at: mediaoffice@energy.ca.gov. If you have a disability and need assistance to participate in the proceeding, please contact Lourdes Quiroz at (916) 654-5146 or e-mail at: lou.quiroz@energy.ca.gov. 2 Information concerning the status of the project, as well as notices and other relevant documents, may be viewed on the Energy Commission’s Internet web page at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/redondo_beach/ . Dated: May 7, 2015, at Sacramento, California. KAREN DOUGLAS Commissioner and Presiding Member Redondo Beach Energy Project AFC Committee JANEA A. SCOTT Commissioner and Associate Member Redondo Beach Energy Project AFC Committee 3 SCHEDULING ORDER FOR THE REDONDO BEACH ENERGY PROJECT ACTIVITY USUAL INTERVAL SCHEDULE Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA) Published July 28, 2014 PSA New Comment Period Commences May 5, 2015 May 4, 2015 PSA New Comment Period Closes June 4, 2015 May 29, 2015 Preliminary Staff Assessment Workshop 3 weeks after PSA filed No later than May 27, 2015 Status Reports On or before the 1st of each month, commencing June 1, 2015 SCAQMD Issues Final Determination of Compliance (FDOC) TBD TBD Final Staff Assessment Published (FSA) 60 days after PSA filed September 4, 2015 August 27, 2015 All Parties File Opening Testimony 4 weeks after the FSA is filed September 25, 2015** All Parties File Rebuttal Testimony 5 weeks after the FSA is filed October 2, 2015** All Parties File Prehearing Conference Statements with Exhibit Lists 6 weeks after the FSA is filed October 9, 2015** Last day to file Petition to Intervene 30 days before EH Prehearing Conference (PHC) 7 weeks after the FSA is filed Week of October 19, 2015** 4 Evidentiary Hearings (EH) 2 weeks after PHC Week of November 2, 2015** All Parties File Opening Briefs 2 weeks after EH transcripts are published All Parties File Reply Briefs 3 weeks after EH transcripts are published Committee Files Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision (PMPD) 9 weeks after EH Committee Conference on PMPD 3 weeks after PMPD filed Close of Public Comment Period on PMPD 30 Days after PMPD filed Committee Files Errata or Revised PMPD (if necessary) TBD* Energy Commission Final Decision TBD* *TBD = To Be Determined ** All dates after publication of the FSA are subject to further revision, pending receipt of the FDOC, the California Coastal Commission section 30415 report, and other required or requested analyses by other federal, state, and local agencies. May 7, 2015 5 DOCKETED Docket Number:12-AFC-03 Project Title:Redondo Beach Energy Project TN #:204529 Document Title:Staff's Record of Conversation with the City of Redondo Beach Description:N/A Filer:Muoi-Lynn Tran Organization:CEC/ Kerry Willis Submitter Role:Commission Staff Submission Date:5/7/2015 12:40:39 PM Docketed Date:5/7/2015 BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1516 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 1-800-822-6228 -WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV In the Matter of: ApPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR THE Docket No. 12..AFC..03REDONDO BEACH ENERGY PROJECT STAFF'S RECORD OF CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH On May 5, 2015, the Committee for the Redondo Beach Energy Project Application for Certification (Committee) issued a Scheduling Order: Order Regarding the Filing of Record of Conversation. The Committee ordered Energy Commission Staff to file a Record of Conversation of the meeting it held on April 29, 2015, with City of Redondo Beach representatives. The following is Staff's Record of Conversation. The Agenda for the nleeting and documents provided by the City of Redondo Beach are attached. Report ofMeeting with the City of Redondo Beach April 29, 2015 10:00 am-noon California Energy Commission, Sacramento Present: Redondo Beach: Michael Webb, City Attorney, and Jon Weiner, Attorney Energy Commission Staff: Roger Johnson, Eric Knight, Amanda Stennick, Steve Kerr, Shahab Khoshmashrab, Ed Brady, Keith Winstead, and Kerry Willis At the beginning of the meeting, Kerry Willis, Senior Attorney, discussed the legal framework for the meeting, including a review of Public Resources Code section 25523, and Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1710. It was emphasized that since the City of Redondo Beach is a party in these proceedings, the meeting would be I strictly an exchange of information, and not a negotiation. Any further discussion would be held during the Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA) publicly noticed workshop. Jon Weiner for the City of Redondo Beach passed out a packet of materials, all of which _either has been docketed or is publicly available. (Please see ,attached.) The first item on the agenda was a discussion of the, City's Noise Ordinance. The City expressed their intent to hire a noise expert to do a noise assessment and provide expert'testimony at the evidentiary hearings. Staff requested that, if possible, they would like, to review the protocol in advance. No timeline was discussed for performing the study except that Staff would find it helpful to have the information as soon as practicable so as to consider including the information in'the Final Staff Assessment (FSA). The City asked Noise Staff if they took into account internal noise levels at residences. Staff said they did not, but that it is usually a 10-15 decibel decrease from the outside noise level. 'Roger Johnson asked the City how they work with the City of Hermosa Beach on noise issues when they are reviewing projects in Redondo Beach. The City will be talking with Hermosa Beach. The next agenda item was construction noise. The City provided a copy' of the construction noise ordinance. The City had several questions regarding construction noise: overnight construction work, and site preparation before 7:00 a.m. that nlight be noisy. There are Conditions of Certification that may address these issues and this will be discussed with the applicant at the PSA workshop. Finally, the City presented a general discussion on the Urgency Ordinance and their plan to move ahead with two permanent ordinances prohibiting thermal power plants and battery facilities in certain parts of the City. The City plans to take these ordinances to its Planning Commission in May and City Council in' June. Roger Johnson explained the override process and reminded the City to file its comments on the PSA, even if just preliminary, before the PSA workshop. DATED: May 7,2015 RespectfulIy subnlitted, _ti~tjLtio KERRYA. WI I Senior Attorney \ 2 AGENDA Meeting with the City of Redondo Beach and Energy Commission Staff April 29,2015 Introductions Legal Framework for meeting: KW • Public Resources Code §25523 • Title 20, CCR, §1710 Redondo Beach Ordinances: Jon/Mike (1 )Noise ordinance (2)Construction hours ordinance (3)Land use (emergency development moratorium and pending zoning ordinances). Next steps Materials for Meeting with the City of Redondo Beach and Energy Commission Staff April 29, 2015 (1) Redondo Beach Noise Ordinance (2) Redondo Beach Construction Hours Ordinance (3)(a) Urgency Interim Ordinance Imposing Moratorium 12-03-13 . (3)(b) Extension ofUrgency Interim Ordinance Imposing Moratorium 01-14-14 (3)(c) Coastal Commission Letter to CEC 02-05-14 (3)(d) Letter from City Attorney Michael Webb 03-03-14 (3)(e) Yost v. Thomas (3)(f) Conway v. City ofImperial Beach (1) Redondo Beach Noise Ordinance / ~E!@I@Iffi~<o) ~~(f;~ MllilB'il~f1!J»~~ (b@rct]® lWjji1 ~rewootuJ$ ~ iVil~ll!iil Title 4 PUBLIC WELFARE. MORALS. AND CONDUCT Chapter 24,N>JSE IlECi..I.AlION ttlte ~_••.: <•••~ .. ", ~ ••• ~,.-~~. 1; __ .l '. ~ •••_, " ••. ••~_ ~ __ __" ~_ •. _~• ..,.. _.• * Chapter 24 entitled "Noise Regulation", consisting ofArticle 1entitled "GeneralProvisions", consisting ofSections 4-24.101 through 4-24.107, Article 2 entitled "Special Noise Sources", consisting of Sections 4-24.201 through 4-24.206, Article 3 entitled "Construction", eonsistingofSection 4-24.301, Article 4 entitled "Vehicles", consisting of Sections 4-24.401 and 4-24.402, Article 5 entitled "Amplified Sound",consistingofSections 4-24.501 through 4-24.507,Article 6 entitled "TrainHorns and Whistles", consisting of Section 4-24.601, and Article 7 entitled "General Noise Regulation", eonsistingof Sections 4-24.701 and 4-24.702, added by Ordinance No. 2129 c.s. effective October 10, 1974, amended in its entirety by Section 1, Ordinance No. 2183 C.S., effective August 11,1976. . Article 1 General Provisions In order to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds emanating from an areas of the City, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit such sound generated from all sources as specified in this chapter. It is determined that certain noise levels are detrimental to the public heahh, welfare, and safety and contrary to the public interest; therefore, the Council does ordain and declare· that cre'ating, mainta~g, ·or causing, or allowing to create, maintain, or cauSe, any noise in a manner prohibited by, or not in conformance with, the provisions of this . chapter is a public nuisance and shall be punishable as such. (§ 1,Ord 2l83c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) 4-24.102 Definitions. An terminology used in this chapter, not defined in this section, shallbe in conformance with the applicable· publications of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or its suc·cessor body. The words and phrases used in this chapter are defmed as follows: (a) "A-weighted sound lever' shall mean the sound pressure level in decibels as measmed on a sound level meter using the A-weighting network The level so read is designated dB(A) or dBA. (b) "Ambient noise lever' shan mean the composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. (c) "Construction" shan mean any site preparation, assembly, erection, or substantial rePair, aheration, or similar action, but excluding demolition, for or on public or private rights-of-way, structUres, utilities, or similar property. (d) "Cumulative period" shan mean an additive period oftime composed ofindividual time segments which may be continuous or interrupted (e) ''Decibel (dB)" shall mean a unit for measuring the amplitude of a SOlDld, equal to twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) ofthe ratio ofthe pressure ofthe sound measured to the reference pressure,which is twenty (20) microPascals (twenty (20) microNewtons per square meter). (f) ''Demolition'' shan mean any·dismantling, intentional destruction, or removal of structures, utilities, public or private right-of-way smfaces, or similar property. (g) ''Emergency'' shall mean any occurrence or set of circumstances involving acfual or imminent physical trauma or property damage which demands immediate action. (h) ''Emergency work" shallmean any work performed for the purpose ofpreventing or alleviating the physical trauma or property damage threatened or caused by an emergency. (i) "Fixed noise source" shan mean a stationary device which creates sounds while fixed or motionless, including, but not limited to, residentia~ agricultura~ in~triaL and commercial machinery and equipment, pumps, fans, compressors, air-conditioners, and refrigeration equipment. ()) "Impulsive sound" shan mean a sOWld of short duration,. usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Examples of sotn'ces of impulsive somd include explosions, drop forge impacts, and the discharge of firearms. (k) ''Intrusive noise" shall mean that noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends Upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, time of occurrence, and tonal or informational content, as well as the prevailing ambient noise level (l) ''Land use district" shall mean all the zones established by Secfun 10-2.300 of Chapter 2 of Title 10 of this Code. (m) ''Licensed'' shan mean the issuance of a formal license or a permit by the appropriate jurisdictional authority, or, where no permits or licenses are issued, the sanctioning of the activity by the jurisdiction as noted in public records. (n) ''Mobile noise source" shall mean any noise source other than a fixed noise source. (0) ''Motor vehicle" shall mean any and all self-propelled vehicles as defined in the Vehicle Code ofthe State, including an on-highway type motor vehicles subject to registration under said Code and all off-highway type motor vehicles subject to identification tm~er said Code. ., (p). ''Muffler or sound dissipative device" shan mean a device for abating the sound of escaping gases of an internal combustion engine. (q) ''Noise'' shall mean any sound which aImoys, disturbs, causes, or tends to cause an adverse psychological or physiological effect on humans of normal sensitiveness. (r) ''Noise Control Officer (NCO)" shall be the Chief of Police or his delegated representative. The NCO shan have the lead responsibility for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter. (s) "Noise disturbance" shall mean any sound which: (1) Endangers or injures the safety or health ofbumans; or (2) Annoys or disturbs a person ofnormal sensitiveness;or (3) Endangers or injures personal or real property. (t) "Person" shall mean any indiv:idua~ association, partnership, or corporation and shall include any officer, employee, department, agency, or instrumentality of the State. (u) ''Presmned ambient noise ·levef' shall mean the noise level assmned to be the ambient ofany given land use category. (v) ''Public right-of-way" shall mean any street, avenue, boulevard, highway, sidewalk, alley, or similar place which is owned or controlled by a governmental entity. (w) ''Public space (public property)" shan mean any real property, or structure thereon, which is owned or controlled by a governmental entity. (x) ''Pure tone (single tone)" shan mean any sound which can be distinctly heard as a single pitch or a set of single pitches. For the purposes of this chapter, a pme tone shall exist ifthe one-third (1/3) octave band sound pressure level:in the band with the tone exceeds the arithmetic average ofthe sound pressure levels ofthe two (2) . contiguous one-third (1/3) octave bands by five (5) dB for center frequencies of 500 Hz and above, by eight (8) dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hz, and by fifteen (15) dB for center frequencies less than or equal to 125 Hz. (y) ''Real property boundary, property lines, leaseholdbolIDdaries" shall mean an imaginary line along the grOlmd surface and its vertical extension, which line separates the real property or leasehold owned or controlled by one person from that owned or controlled by another person, inchlding intra-building real or leased property divisions. (z) "Receiving land Use district category" shan mean the defined area or region of a generally consistent land use wherein the ambient noise levels are generally similar (within a range of five (5) dBA) Typically, all sites . within any given land use district category will be ofcomparable proximity to major noise sources. .(aa) ''Sound'' shall mean an oscillation in Pressure, particle displacement, particle velocity, or other physical parameter in a medium with internal forces that cause the compression and rearfaction ofthat medium. The description of sound may include any characteristic of such sound, including duration, intensity, and frequency. (ab) ''Sound amplifying equipmenf' shan mean any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, mus~, or any other sound, excluding internal automobile sound sources when used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which such sound source is containe~ and, as used in this chapter, warning and commmllcatDn devices on public heahh and safety vehicles. (ac) "Sound leveY' shan mean the'weighted sound pressure level obtained by the use of a sound 'level meter and frequency weighting rietwor~ such as A, B, or C as SPecified in the American Nattonal Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters (ANSI S 1.4-1971, or the latest approved revision thereof). If the frequency weighting emploYed is not indicated, the A-weighting shall apply. (ad) ''Sound level meter" shan mean an instnDnent, inchuling a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measmement of sound levels, which instrument satisfies the requirements pertinent for type S2A meters in the American National Standard specifications for sound level meters (S 1.4-. 1971, or the most recent revision thereof). (ae) "Sound pressme" shall mean the instantaneous difference between the actual pressme and the average or barometric Pressme at a given point in space as produced by sound energy. . (af) "Sound pressure level" shall mean twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio of the RMS sound pressure to the reference pressme oftwenty (20) microPascals (20 x 106 N/m2). The sound pressure level ~ denoted LP or SPL and is expressed in' decibels. (ag) ''Sound truck" sballmean any motor vemcle, or any other vehicle, except public heahh and safety vehicles, regardless of motive power, whether in motion or stationary, having mounted thereon or attached thereto any sound amplifying equipment. (ah) ''Vibration'' shall mean the mechanical motion of the earth or ground, bmldingg, or other types of structures induced by the operafun of any mechanical device or equipment located upon or affixed thereto. For the purposes oftrus chapter,the magnitude ofthe vibration shall be stated as the acceleration in "g"units (one "g" )is equal to 32.2 ft'sec2 or 9.31 meters/sec2). (ai) ''Weekday'' shall mean any day, Monday through Friday, whichis not a legal holiday. (§ 1,Ord 2183 c.s., eff August 11, 1976, as amended by § 1(37),Ord 2844 c.s., eff. November-4, 1999) ~.r.!~.~ ~2~~,~.~e~!i_~r!~~,~"9.~e~'.I.re 4-2~.20~ __~ ~ve!tig!.~Jon~_. __.__.__.__.__._. . ._._._. ._._. . ~_._.__.. . ._._._.. .__. ._. . _ Upon the receipt of a complaint from a citizen, the Noise Control Officer or his delegated representative, equipped with sound level measurement equipment, shall investigate the complaint. The investigation, at the discretion of the NCO or his delegated representative, shan consist of a measurement and the gathering of data to adequately define the noise problem and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Non-acoustic data. (1) The type of the noise source; (2) The location ofthe noise SOlU."ce relative to the complainant's property; (3) The time period during which the noise source is considered by the complainant to be intrusive; (4) The total duration ofthe noise produced by the noise source; and (5) The date and time of the noise measurement survey. (b) Actual measurement procedures. Utilizipg the A-weighting scale ofthe sound level meter, the noise level shall be measured at a position or positions along the complainant's property line closest to the noise source or at the location along the boundary line where the noise level is at maximum. In genera~ the microphone shaH be located five (5') feet above the grOlmd, ten (10') feet or more from the nearest reflective surface where possible. However, in those cases where another elevation is deemed appropriate, the latter shaD be utilized Ifthe noise complaint is related to interior noise levels, interior noise measurements shall be made within the affected residential1D1it or within the commercial or industrial structure, and the aIleged violations shall be plotted against the standards set forth in Article 4 ofthis chapter. The measurement shallbe made at a point at least four (4') feet from the wall, ceiling, or floor nearest the noise so~ce with the windows in the normal seasonal configuration. The cahbration of the instrument being used shall be performed immediately prior to recording any noise data nn1izing an acoustic cahbrator. (§ I,Ord 2183 C.S., eff. August 11, 1976) Article 3 Exterior M»ise Urits ~---~------_._-"---_."--.._ ...._~----- +~4~.~Q~~..,.~ ......~~m P!!J-~.~.l~~_~~.9_~.fI.~. ~!~~.-!~Y ..~!·t~t .~!!~ .~~t~gJ~~r~~.~ ..~.-~ .... __ .~ ...__ ..'._.. _.,...'_'. The noise standards for the various categories ofland use districts identified shall be the higher of either the presumed or actual measured ambient and shan apply to an such property within a designated category as follows: Receiving Presmned Land Use Ambient District Time Level Category Period (dBA) . Low Density 1000 45 p.mto 7:00 a.m Residential 7:00 50 R-I-A, R-l, a.mto R-2,P-D1000 R,P-U-D p.m Overlay Medium· 10:00 50 Density p.mto 7:00 a.m Residential '>7:00 55 R-3, R4, P-a.m to D-R,P-U1000 D Overlay p.m High Density 10:00 55 p.mto 7:00 a.m Residential 7:00 60 . R-5, R-6, a.mto P-D-R,P1000 U..D p.m Overlay, C I Connnercial 1000 60 NSC, p.mto 7:00 a.m esc, GC,P7:00 /65 D-C a.mto 1000 J p.m Industrial P1000 60 D-I p.mto 7:00 a.m 7:00 65 a.mto 1000 . p.m Industrial P-I 1000 70 p.mto 7:00 a.m 7:00 70 a.mto 10:00 p.m As indicated above, the preswned ambient levels in the Planned Development Residential (P-D-R) and the Planned Unit Development (P-U-D) Overlay land use districts are categorized so as to be consistent with the . actual density ofthe development. The presmned ambient levels for the Planned Development (P-D) and the Civic Center (C-C) land use districts shall be consistent with those established for the lowest adjacent land use district. (a) Correction for time characteristics. No Person shall oPerate, or cause to be operated, any somce of sound at any location within the City or allow the creation ofany noise on property owned,leased, occupied,or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measmed on any other property to exceed: (1) The noise standard of the receiving land use district for a cumulative period ofmore than thirty (30). minutes in. any hom; or (2) The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus five (5) dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or (3) The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus ten (10) dB for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in. any hour; or (4) The noise standard ofthe receiving land use district plus fifteen (15)dB for a cmnulative period ofmore than one minute in any hour; or (5) The noise standard ofthe receiving land use district plus twenty (20)dB for any period oftime. (b) Levels exceeding the noise limit categories. Ifthe measured ambient level exceeds that permissible as set forth in subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a) of this section, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in :five (5) dB increments as appropriate to encompass or reflect such ambient noise level In the event the ambient noise levelexceeds the noise level set forth in subsection (5) of subsection (a) of this section, the maximum aDowable noise level shan be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level (c) Correction for location of noise source. If the measurement location 5 on a boundary between two (2) different land use district categories, the noise levellimit applicable totbe lower land use district category, phJs five (5) dB shall apply. (d) Correction for ambient noise levels when alleged offending sources cannot be shut down. If possible, the ambient noise shan be measured at the same location along the property line utilized in subsection (a) of this section with the alleged offending noise source inoperative. If for any reason the alleged offending noise source cannot be shut down, then the ambient noise shan be estimated by performing a measurement in the same general area ofthe source, but at a sufficient distance such that the offending noise from the source is inaudible. Ifthe difference between the noise levels with the noise source operating and not operating, with the utilization of either ofthe above-described methods ofmeasure ment, is six. (6) dB or greater, then the noise measurement of the alleged source can be considered valid (e) Correction for character of sound. In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a steady audible tone, such as a whine, screech, or hmn, or is a repetitive noise, such as hammering or riveting, the standard limits set forth in this section shan be reduced by five (5) dB. (§ 1,Ord 2183c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) Article 4. Interior ti)ise Standards ,'-",'". ~ ...~....... . ...,.-""., _.. ~ .....~ ..-. ~24.4Q! ......__ Maxinl.lm ~ernissible interior dwelling_ sou~olevels~ __..__o_.__o_. .. .. _.__0. The following noise standards for various categories of land use presented as follows, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to an such structures within a designated land use dEtrict category with the windows in their normal seasonal configuration: Receiving Allowable Interior Land Use Time Noise Level Category Interval (dBA) Residential 10:OOp.m to 40 7:00a.m 7:00 a.m to 45 10:OOp.m School 7:00 a.m to 45 10:00 p.m Hospital and Anytime 40 designated quiet areas (a) Correction for time characteristics. No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sotmd at any location witbin. the City or allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise leve~ when measured inside the receiving structure, to exceed: (1) The noise standard for that land use dEtrict category as specified for a cUlllUJativeperiod of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (2) The noise standard plus five (5) dB for a cmnulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or (3) The noise standard plus ten (10) dB for any period of time. (§ 1, Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) Article 5. SpecifIC Prohibitions ~.~~,~~.q~~.. ..,,~ ~~,~~~~~~~.~._._, .. "'~.""-' «_ -"•• Offering for sale, selling anything, or adve~ing by shouting or outcry within any area of the City, except by a variance issued by the'NCO, shan be ptobibited The·provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the ,. selling by outcry ofmercbandise, food, and beverages at licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses, or other similar licensed public entertainment events. (§ l,Oni 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) 4-24.502 Animals and fowl No person shan keep or maintain, or permit the keeping of, upon any premises owned, occupied, or controlled by such person, any animal or fowl otherwiSe permitted to .be kept which, by any sound or outcry, shall resuh in noise levels at the complainants property line which are audible for more than five (5) minutes in any hour. (§ 1, Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976, as amended by § I,Ord. 2478 ~.s.,eff; October 15, 1987, § I,Ord. 2528 c.s., eff. February 16, 1989, and § I,Ord. 2592 c.s., eff. August 16, 1990) 4-24.503 Construction noise. •__... _._. •__•__w_.• ••••,_._._•••••• __••• ._._••_.,,_ ••_.'_ _ •• ._ _ •••" _._._••_._••••_._.--.' _.__••••__•.-._. ~ •••_.__._, ••_.__,._•• ••••_ ••"""•••_.__• '_' ••••••••,___.~_ ~_._,.~._. ~, ~_~. ~. _'_'~"'_"_'_' '_'_~"'_ (a) An construction activity shan be prohibited, except between hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.rn. .on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m and 5:00 p.m on Saturday. No construction activity shan be permitted on Sunday, or the days on which the holidays designated as Memorial Day, the Fourth ofJuly,Labor Day,Thanksgiving Day,Christmas Day,and New Year's Day'are observed (b) In the case of an emergency, the Building Officer may issue a permit for construction activity for periods dtrring which construction activity is prohibited by subsection (a) of this section. Such permit shall be issued for only the period of the emergency. Where feasible, the Building Officer shan notify the residential occupants within 300 feet of any emergency construction activity of the issuance of any permit authorized by this subsection (c) Ifthe Building Officer should determine that the peace, comfort, and tranquility of the occupants of residential property will not be impaired.because of the location or nature of the construction activity, the Building Officer ~y issue a permit for construction activity for periods during which construction activity is prohibited by subsection (a) of this section. . (d) For pmposes of this section, "construction activity" shan mean the erection, excavation, demolition, aheration, or repair ofany building. ' (e) Exemption. This section shall not be applicable to minor repairs or routine maintenance of residential dwelling units. (§ 1, Drd 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976, as amended by § 2, Ord. 2535 c.s., eff. April 13, 1989, and § I,Ord 2608 c.s., eff. January 3, 1991) 4-~4~~~ ~~ratio~~ ._. :__._. ._. ..__. . . .. .__._._._ __. __-,--_. ~_ The operation or permitting the operation of any device which creates vibration which is abov~ the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source ifon private property, or at ------------- 150 feet (forty-six (46) meters) from the source ifon a public space or public right-of-way, shall be prohibited For the purposes of this section, ''vibration perception threshold". shan mean the minimum ground or structure-borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware ofthe vibration by such direct means as,but not limited to, sensation by touch or the visual observation ofmoving objects. The perception threshold shaRbe presumed to be .001 "g's" in the frequency range from zer~ to thirty (30) Hz and .003 "g's" iJi the frequency range between thirty (30) and 100 Hz. (§ 1,Ord. 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) 4-24.505~~•••• • __ "•• -0-.. _ (a) The sounding or permitting the sounding of any electronically-amplified signal from any stationary bell, chime, siren, whistle, or similar device intended primarily for non-emergency purposes, from any place, for more than ten (10) seconds in any hourly period shan be prohibited (b) Houses of religious worship shall be exempt :from the provisions of this sectioIl. (c) Sound sources covered by the provisions of this section and not exempted by subsection (b) of this section shall be exempted only by a variance issued by the NCO. (§ I,Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) +~i~~!1.~_ ,,_._._._~~g~~g s~_~~~~,dev~~~_ _., __.__ ..__.._. . __ .. _.~ _,_ __.__.. .._ _.. __ __ ., __ '."'_'~~ __ (a) The intentional sounding or permitting the sounding outdoors of any fire, burglar, or civildefense alarm, siren, whistle, or similar stationary emergency signaling device, except for emergency purposes or for testing as . provided in subsection (b)oftllls section,shall be prohibited (b) The testing ofa stationary emergency signaling device shall not occur before 7:00 a.m or after 7:00 p.rn. Any such testing shaD only use the minimum cycle test time. In no case shan such test time exceed sixty (60) seconds. The testing of the complete emergency signaling system, including the fimctioning of the signaling device and the personnel response to the signaling device, shall not normally occur more than once in each calendar month. Such testing shall not occur before 7:00 a.m or after 10:00 p.m The time limit specified for testing an emergency signaling device shaD not apply to the testing of a complete emergency signaling system (c) The sounding or permitting the sounding of any exterior burglar or fire alarm or any motor vehicle bmglar alarm shall not occur unless such alarm is automatically terminated within fifteen (15) minutes after activation. (§ I,Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) 4-24.507 . DOmestic ~wer tools. (a) The operation or permitting the OPeration of any mechamcal power saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden too~ or s:imilar too~ or pneumatic or other air-powered tool between 10:00 p.rn. and 7:00 a.rn. ofthe following day so as to be audible to the NCO at the complainant's real property line shall be prohibited (b) Any pneumatic or other air-powered too~ motor, machinery, pump, or the like shall be properly muffled and maintained in good working order. (c) It is unlawful to operate any motorired leaf blower within the City during the. following hours: (1) From 5:00 p.m through 8:00 a.m on Monday through Friday; and (2) From 6:00 p.rn. through 9:00 a.m on Satmday. (d) It is unlawful to operate any motorized leaf blower within the City on Sunday. (§ 1,Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976, as amended by § I,Ord 2450 c.s., efT. November 20, 1986, § 1,Ord 2478 c.s., eff. October 15, , 1987, and § I,Ord 3097 c.s., eff. October 18,2012) •• Motor vehicle noise limits on a public right-of-way are regulated as set forth in Sections 23130 and 23130.5 of:r the Vehicle Code ofthe State..Equipment violations which create noise problems are regulated by Secfuns 27150 and 27151 of said Code. (§ I,Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) 4-24.509 Refuse collection vehicles. ._. -.-.. ,-.~_ ... -;. -~ ,-.,.•• -_ •.~, ••_._..._-__ ._...... _ ..............,....... ""''""'''::.,,'"._ ."'r-...-_.•..-,.,~ ••--_ .•__ .••." • __ ••-.,.._., ,.. ., 'r' • _...-- No person shan operate any refuse collection vehicle between the hours of 1:00 p.m and 1:00 a.m the following day in a residential area. (§ I,Ord 2183 C.S., eff. August 11, 1976) 4-24.S1!1__So~her_~_~~rnia&liso~ ~"~~~Y~" ,__, ,--,_,_, ,, _. ._, _ The Southern California Edison Company steam plant, bounded by the A.T. & S.F. Railroad, Beryl Street, .Harbor Drive, and Herondo Street, shall be allowed to produce a maximum'of seventy-two (12) dBA at its property lines until January 1, 1978. Commencing January 1, 1978, said facility shall be required to comPly with the provisions of Sections 4-24.301 ofArticle 3 and 4-24.401 ofArticle 4 oftbis chapter. Iffor any reason it is suspected that Southern California Edison ComPany may be in violation of the maximmn somd level provided by this section prior to January 1, 1978, monitoring shall be carried out at its property lines. (§ I,Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) +~,,-!.~J._~ __._._QlI__c!rilnng and ~~ing__~~~~_! __•...__.._•.__._•• .._._._•• .. • •__.••••__., .•__•__•.•.0 •••_ •• _ ......_ •••___ .. ._. .,. ••• The provisions of this section shall be in. addition to the provisions set forth in Chapter 11 of TitIe 4 (Oil Wells) of this Code. (a) Pumping phases. Until January 1, 1978, aD oil drilling and pumping sites within the City bolIDdaries, while in the pumping phase of operation, shan be allowed to produce a maximum of sixty (60) dBA at their property lines. As of January 1, 1978, all oil drilling and pumping sites within the City boundaries, while in. the pumping phase of operation, shall be required to comply with the provisions of Sections 4-24.301 of Article 3 and 4-24.401 of Article 4 of this chapter. (b) Drilling, rework, or maintenance phases. :until January 1, 1978, an oil drilling, rework, or maintenance sites within the City boundaries, while in. the drilling, rework, or maintenance phases of operation, shan pe allowed to produce a maximum of sixty-five (65) dBA at their property lines. As of January 1, 1918, an oil drilling and pumping sites within the City boundaries, while in the drilling, rework, or maintenance phases of operation, shan be required to comply with the provisions of Sections 4-24.301 of Article 3 and 4-24.401 of Article· 4 of this chapter. (c) Monitoring. Iffor any reason it is suspected that any oil drilling and pumping site, while either in. the pumping, drilling, rework, or maintenance phases of operation, may be in violation ofthe provisions ofthis section prior to January 1, 1978, monitoring shan be carried out at its Property lines. (§ 1, Ord 2183 c.s., eff. AugUst 11, 1976) 4-24.512 .. ~~~_~ .a~~~~g~~q~!P.~I!~~ It is unlawful for any person, other than personnel of law enforcement or governmental agencies, to install, use, or operate within the City a loudspeaker or sound amplifying equipment in a fixed or movable position or mounted upon any sound truck for the purpose ofgiving instructions, directions, talks, addresses, or lectures or transmitting music to.any person or assemblage ofpersons in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, park, place, or public property without first filing an application for a variance and obtaining approval thereof as set forth in Article 7 of this J chapter. (§ I,Ord 2183 c.s., efT. August 11,1976)" . It is unlawful for any person to permit the transmission of, or cause to be transmitted, any amplified sound on any public street, sidewalk, alley, right-of-way, park, or any other public place or property which sound is clearly audible for a distance in excess of fifty (50') feet from the source of such smmd This section shall not apply to any non-commercial public speaking, puboo assembly, or other activity for which a permit has been issued (§ 2, Ord 2478 c.s., eff. October 15, 1987) It is unlawful for the operator of any motor vehicle to permit the transmission of, or cause to be transmitted, any amplified sOlIDd ~bich is clearly audible to other than the occupants of the vehicle. For the purposes of this section, "amplified sound" shan not include horns or any other legal warning devices used on.motor vehicles. (§ 2, Ord 2478 c.s., eff. October 15, 1987) ~_~~~.~_~5 _... _..._!'an_ct~~n~~_~el!~Ie~_=-~f~d~proJ1i~I~~d~.~~_~!!~~_. . ._. . . ._.... . _ (a) Defined For the purposes of this section, ']>andemoniac motor vehicle" shall mean a motor vehicle of any appearance, performance, or capability, designed, constructed, or operated in such a manner as to create audible noise related to tire friction by accelerating such vehicle. (b) Prohibited It is unlawful for any person to operate a pandemoniac motor vehicle on any street or in any other place within. the City. (c) Exemption. This section shall not apply to an area expressly designated by ordinance or resolution as a ''raceway'' or "dragstrip." (§ 2,Ord 2478 c.s., eff. October 15, 1987) The operation or playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, sound amplifier, or similar device which produces, reproduces, or amplifies sound in any place of public entertainment at a sOlmd level greater than ninety (90) dBA as read by \ the slow response on a sound level meter at any point which is normally occupied by a customer shall be prohibited, unless a conspicuous and legible sign is located outside such place, near each public entrance, which sign states: ''Warning, Sound Levels Within May Cause Permanent Hearing Impairment" (§ 2,Ord 2478 C.S., eff. October 15, 1987) ~~~~ ~S~~I ~C)v~~.~~(~~t~!ls) 4:!~~~g~ _~!g~!!9_~!.cel!~_io~~_._ _.__.. __ .. _._ .._.. _._.. _._ _._.._.__ .. .. . .__..__..__. ._.. ._ . The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to: (a) The emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency; or (b) The emission of sound in the performance of emergency work (§ I,Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) 4-24.602 . ._Warn~g devices. _. ~_._. __. _.:.... . . . . .. _ Warning devices necessary for the protection of the public safety, such as police, fire, and ambulan~e sirens and train horns, shan be exempted from the provisions of this chapter. (§ I,Ord 2183 c.s., efI. August 11, 1976) The proVisions of Sections 4-24.301 of Article 3 and 4-24.401 of Article4 oftbis chapter shall not apply to activities'or stationary noise somces covered by the following sections ofArticle 5 of this chapter:' (a) 4-24.501--Street sales; (b) 4-24.502--Animals and fow~ (c) 4-24.505--Stationary non-emergency signaling devices; (d) 4-_24.506--Emergency signaling devices; (e) 4-24.507--Domestic power tools; (f) 4-24.508--Motor vehicles operating on public rights-of-way; (g) 4-24.509--Refuse collection vehicles; (h) 4-24.510--Southem California Edison Company mtil January 1, 1978; (i) 4-24.511--0il drilling and pumping sites wtil January 1, 1978; and CJ) 4-24.512-SOlmd amplifying equipment. (§ 1, Ord 2183 c.s~, eff. August 11, 1976) 4-24.604 Exemptions from exterior and interior noise standards: Federal and State preel'ilpted activities.-_. --_. ----_._-----_.. _-----_._.__._-_._--_. The provisions ofSections 4-24.301 of Article 3 and 4-24.401 ofArticle 4 of this chapter shall not apply to any activity to the extent regulation thereof bas been preempted by State or Federal laws. (§ 1, Ord 2183 c.s., eft: August 11, 1976) Article ! Varianc~.!_..~, .,_ .._,__'-.... 4-2~qOl__. §~cial variances. (a) The NCO is authorized to grant a variance for an exception from any provision of this chapter, subject to limitations as to area, noise levels, time limits, and other terms and conditions as the NCO determines are appropriate to protect the public heahh, safety, and welfare from the noise emanating therefrom. The provisions of this section shall in no way affect the duty to obtain any permit or license required by law for such'activities. (b) (. Any person seeking a variance pursuant to this section shan file an application with the NCO. The application shall contain information which demonstrates that bringing the source of sound or activity for which the variance is sought into compliance with this chapter would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the applicant, on the cQTDJDlmity, or on other persons. The application shall be accompanied by a fee of Severrty-Five and no/lOOtbs ($75.00) Dollars, unless, at the discretion of the NCO, the' fee shan be waived A separate application shall be filed for each noise source; provided, however, several mobile soUrces mder common ownership of severai fixed somces on a single property may be combined into one applkation. Any individual who claims to be adversely affected by the aiIowance ofthe variance may:file a statement with the NCO containing any information to support his claim. Ifat any time the NCO finds that a sufficient9ontroversy exists regarding an application, a public hearing may be held. (c) In determining whether to grant or deny the application,the NCO shall balance the hardship on the applicant, the cormmmity, or other persons against the adverse impact on the health, safetY, and welfare pf the persons affected and property affected and any other adverse impacts. Applicants for variances will be required to subInit such information as the NCO may reasonably require. In granting or denying an application, the NCO shall keep on public file a copy ofthe decision and the reasons for denying or ~the application. (d) A variance shall be granted by a notice to the applicant containing all the necessary conditions, including the time limits on the permitted activity. The variance shall not become effective until all the conditions are agreed ------- to by the applicant. Noncompliance with any condition of the variance shan terminate the variance and subject the person holding it to those provisions of this chapter for which the variance was granted (e) A variance will not exceed 365 days after the date on which it was granted Applications for extensions of the time limits specified in variances or for the modification of other substantial conditions shall be treated h1ce applications for initial variances. (§ 1,Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) 4-__2_4_.7_0_2__Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the approval or disapproval of a variance, within fifteen (15) days after the date of such approval or disapprova~ may appeal the decision of the NCO to the COlIDCil. The Council shaD hold a hearing thereon, upon notice to the applicant, considering the same criteria presented to the NCO. (§ 1,Ord 2183 C.S., eft'. August 11, 1976) Article 8 Enforcement /4-24.801 Prima facie violations. Any noise exceeding the noise level limits for a designated receiving land use district category, as specified in Sections 4-24.301 ofArticle 3 and 4-24.401 ofArticle 4 oftbis chapter, or the prohibited actions as specified in Article 5 of this chapter, shaH be deemed to be prima facie evidence ofa violation of the provisions oftbis chapter. (§ 1,Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) 4-24.802 Abatement orders. . "._. . -.~ (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, and before issuing a notice of violation as provided for in Section 4-24.803 of this article, the NCO responsible for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter may issue an order requiring the abatement of a sound source alleged to be in violation within a reasonable time period according to guidelines which the NCO may prescribe. (b) An abatement order shall not be issued for any violation which is deemed a misdemeanor or when the NCO has reason'to believe there will not be compliance with an abatement order. (c) No complaint or further action shan be taken in the event the cause ofthe violation has been removed or when the condition has been abated or fully corrected within the time period specified in the written notice. (§ 1, Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) Except where a person is acting in good faith to comply with an abatement order issued pmsuant to Section 4 24.802 ofthis article, the violation of any provision of this chapter shan be cause for a notice of violation to be issued by the NCO according to procedures which the NCO may prescribe. (§ I,Ord 2183 C.S., eft: August 11, 1976) 4-24.804 Violations: A_dditio~ I remedies: Injunctions.__... . ._.__~~. . . ._ As an additional remedy, the operation or maintenance of any device, instrwnent, vehicle, or machinery in violation of any provision of this chapter, which operation or maintenance causes or creates sound levels or vibrations exceeding the allowable limits as specifredin tbischapter, shan be deemed and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and. may be subject to abatement summarily by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Additionally, no provision of this chapter shall be construed to impair any connnon law or statutory cause of action, or legal remedy therefrom, of any person for injuries or damages arising from any violation of this chapter or from other laws. (§ 1,Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) 4-24.805. Ifany provision ofthis chapter is held to be unconstitutional or othelWise invalid by 'any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions ofthis chapter sbannot be invalidated (§ I,Ord 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) View the mobile version. ( · (\ (2) Redondo Beach Construction Hours Ordinance ~tecdi@lITJcdl(QJ ~aJ(6ihl UViI~Wi1k:iIlPaJ~ C~Jj(tUe !JllP fPlrey.DOUS _~X1l: .!M1aOIl'D Title 4 PUBliC WELFARE. MORALS. AND CONDUCT Chapter 24 NOISE REGUu\TION Article S. Specific Prohibitions /. \ ( remow highlighting J 4-24.503 Construction noise. (a) All construction activity shall be prolnbited, except between hours of 7:00 a.m.·and 6:00 p.rn. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.rn. on Saturday. No construction activity shall be permitted on Sunday, or the days on which the holidays designated as Memorial Day, the Fourth ofJuly, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day are ~~ ) (b) In the case of an emergency, the Building Officer may issue a permit for construction activity for periods during which construction activity is prolnbited by subsection (a) of this section. Such permit shan be issued for only the period ofthe emergency. Where feasible, the Building Officer shall notify the residential occupants within 300 feet of any emergency construction activity of the issuance of any permit authorized by this subsection. (c) Ifthe Building Officer should determine that the peace, comfort, and tranquility of the occupants of residential property will not be impaired because of the loc~tion or nature ofthe construction activity, the Building Officer may issue a permit for construction act~ for periods during which cons~ction activity is prolnbited by subsection (a) ofthis section. (d) For purposes of-this section, "construction activity" shall mean the erection, excavation, demolition, alteration, or repair of any building. (e) Exemption. This section shall not be applicable to minor repairs or routine maintenance ofresidential dwelling units. (§ I,Ord. 2183 C.S., eff. August 11, 1976, as "amended by § 2,Ord. 2535 C.S., eff. April 13, 1989, and § 1, Ord. 2608 C.S., eff. January 3, 1991) View the mobile version. RedoBldo Beach IMUlrruBdpCl1~ Code !V!p I?re~iollJls ~IDt Main No frames Title 9 BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 1 BUILDING CODE [ remove highlighting 1 9-1.12 Construction noise. (a) All construction activity shall be prohibited, except between hours of 7:00 a.m and 6:00 p.m on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m and 5:00 p.m. on " Saturday. No construction activity shall be permitted on Sundays, or the days on which the holidays designated as Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Tb,anksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day are observed (b) In the case of an emergency, the Building Officer may issue a permit for construction activity for periods during which construction activity is prohibited by subsection (a) of this section. Such permit shall be issued for only the period of the emergency. Where feasible, the Building Officer shall notify the residential occupants within 300 feet of any emergency construction activity ofthe issuance of any permit authorized by\this subsection. (c) If the Building Officer should determine that the peace, comfort, and tranquility of the occupants of residential property will not be impaired because ofthe location or nature of the construction activity, the Building Officer may issue a permit for construction activity for periods during which construction activity is prombited by subsection (a) of this section. (d) For purposes of this section, "construction activity" shall mean the erection; excavation, demolition, alteration, or repair of any building. (e) ,Exemption. This section shall not be applicable to rrllnor repairs or routine maintenance of residential dwelling units. (§ 17,Ord 3009 c.s., eff. December 6, 2007) View the mobile version. (3)(a) Urgency Interim Ordinance Imposing Moratorium 12-03-13 URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 3116-13 AN URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, IMPOSING A MORATORIUM, ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF NOW THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY. OF REDONDO BEACH. CALIFORNIA. DOES HEREBY FIND AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS. the AES Power Plant was built within the City of Redondo Beach prior to the enactment of the California Coastal Act in 1976. at a time when large electrical generation plants were commonly located near the ocean in ord~r to allow the use of ocean water for cooling of the generating facilities; and' WHE;REAS. the Californ'ia Coastal Act was enacted to protect and preserve the California Coastal Zone as an environmental. recreational and economic resource for the benefit of all Californians; and WHEREAS, under the Califomia Coastal Act industrial uses. including electrical power generating facilities, are a disfavored use and are encouraged only where the use-is coastal dependent, meaning that the use requires a location on or near the ocean in order to be able to function, or where the use is directly supportive of other coastal-related uses. such as fishing or boating; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to phase out existing land uses that do not confonn to the development policies and priorities of the Coastal Act in order to achieve the purposes of the Coastal Act and to maximize long-term' beneficial use of the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, the AES Power Plant is located in the coastal zone of the City and is incompatible with other existing and permitted uses in the Harbor-Pier area and adjoining areas of the City, and the AES Power Plant is a source of major visual blight, noise and air pollution that has discouraged economically beneficial new development and redevelopment for higher priority coastal uses in the City's coastal zone and in the Harbor-Pier area in particular; and WHEREAS, the City is now undertaking major efforts to encourage redevelopment and revitalization of the Harbor/Pier area of the City's coastal zone for the benefit of City residents, visitors and businesses; and WHEREAS. on .~ay 4, 2010 the State Water Resources Control Board 'I adopted Resolution No. 2010-0020, generaUy requiring that the use of existing ORDINANCE NO. 3116-13 MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE PAGE NO.1' power plant cooling systems that rely on natural ocean waters be terminated throughout the State of Califomia by 2020; and . WHEREAS, on October 11, 2012, citizens of the City of Redondo Beach qualified an initiative measure. subsequently designated as Measure AI for the March 5, 2013 munic;pal election ballot. Measure A.· if enacted. would have required termination of all electrical powef generating on the AES property by December 31, 2020, and removal of all electrical generating facirities by December 31, 2022. Measure . A further substantially limited future redevelopment of the AES property· for other economically beneficial uses and required that 60-70% of the property be reserved for open space and public recreational uses; and WHEREAS, public discussion and debate of Measure A confirmed that the great majority of residents, businesses and property owners in Redondo Beach believe that use of the AES property for electrical generating purposes is inconsistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act, economically damaging to the City as a whole and harmful to the public health, welfare and safety, and that such use should not be continued. Public discussion and debate also confirmed that the majority of residents, business and property own·ers in the City believe that the owners of the AES property should be treated fairly and should be allowed the opportunity to redev~lop the AES property in an economically beneficial manner, consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act and with the overriding purposes of the City's General Plan and certified Local Coastal Program. WHEREAS, on November 20, 2012 AES filed an application with the California Energy Commission for approval of plans to sUbstantially reconstruct the existing AES Power Plant and continue its operations on the AES property for the foreseeable future; and WHEREAS, the reconstructed AES Power Plant would not be a coastal dependent facility within the meaning of the Coastal Act, and would therefore be inconsistent with the development policies and priorities of the Coastal Act; and WHEREAS, existing plans and studies have shown that continued use of the AES property for electrical generating facilities is not necessary to guarantee an adequate supp1y of electricity for the State of California; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the plant modifications now proposed by AES. continued operation of electrical generating facilities on the AES property would continue to be incompatible with existing and other permitted uses of property in the surrounding area; would continue to be a source of visual blight, noise and air pollution; and would continue to discourage economically beneficial new development for public recreational uses, visitor-serving commercial uses and other beneficial uses in the CityJs coastal zone; and ORDINANCE NO. 3116-13 MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE PAGE NO.2 WHEREAS. on March 5, 2012. Measure A failed to pass by a vote of 6.553 votes against versws 6,295 votes in favor; and WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. it is now necessary for the City to undertake action to review and revise applicable provisions of the City's General Plan, certified Local Coastal Program and the Harbor/Civic Center Specific Plan in order to provide for elimination. within a reasonable time,· of electrical generating facilities in the City's coastal zone and replacement of electrical generating facilities on the AES property with alternate uses that are consistent with the policies of the Califomia Coastal Act and overriding purposes of the City's certified Local Coastal Program, and which will also provide for reasonable economically beneficial use of the property by the owner or owners; and WHEREAS, an application for approval of any new electrical generating facilities or modified electrical generating facilities in the City's coastal zone poses an immediate threat to the pubfic health, safety, and welfare, in that approval of such application would serve to perpetuate and extend 1Jnnecessary noise, air pollution and visual and economic blight of the City's coastal zone to the detriment of the public health, safety and welfare. and would prevent implementation of the statewide policies of the California Coastal Act and overriding policies of the City's General Plan and certified Local Coastal Program; and . WHEREAS. Government Code § 65858 provides that a city council may· adopt by a four fifths vote as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a general plan or zoning measures that the city is considering or stUdying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, City planning staff have fully evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of the interim ordinance temporarily barring discretionary approvals for new or modified electrical generating facilities in the City's coastal zone, and the City Council has, concurrently with consideration of this ordinance, approved a negative declaration certifying that the interim ordinance would not cause any significant environmental effects within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA. DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. There is hereby imposed a moratorium on the approval of any conditional use permit, coastal development permit or any other discretionary City permit or approval for the construction, expansion, replacement modification· or alteration of any facilities for the on-site generation of electricity on any ORDJNANCE NO. 3116-13 MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE PAGE NO.3 property located within the coastal zone, as designated by the California Coastal Act. within the City of Redondo Beach. Section 2. It is the intent of the City Council that any proposal for new or modified non-coastal dependent electrical generating facilities within the City's coastal zone during the period of the moratorium shall be considered inconsistent with this Ordinance and with the City's land use policies and zoning regulations for all purposes. and by all agencies charged with reviewing any application for such use, SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption unless timely extended by further action of the City Council. SECTION 4, If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutionaJ by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause. and phrase thereof. irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections. subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. . ~ SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records and proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. This ordinance shall be published by one insertion in 'the Easy Reader, the official newspaper of said City. and the same shall go into effect and be in full force and operatjon immediately. ORDINANCE NO. 3116-13 MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACllIT1ES IN THE COASTAL ZONE PAGE NO.4 . PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 2013. J ) ATIEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) S5 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ) I, Eleanor Manzano, City Clerk of the City of Redondo Beach. California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Interim Ordinance No.3116-13 was dUly introduced, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of December, 2013, by the following vote: . .AYES: NOES: ABSENT: GINSBURG, BRAND, AUST, SAMMARCO, KIL.ROY NONE NONE NONE APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~LtJ,U4 Michael W. Webb, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 3116-13 MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING FAcaLITIES IN THE COASTAL lONE. PAGE NO.5 (3)(b) Extension of Urgency Interim Ordinance Inlposing Moratorium 01-14-14 URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 3120-14 AN EXTENSION OF AN URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH. CALtFORNIA. IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 'REDONDO BEACH. CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the AES Power Plant was built within the City of Redondo Beach prior to the enactment of the California Coastal Act in 1976, at a time when large electrical generation plants were commonly located near the ocean in order to allow the use of ocean water for cooling of the generating facilities; and, WHEREAS. the California Coastal Act was enacted to protect and preserve the California Coastal Zone as an environmental, recreational and economic resource for the benefit of all Californians; and WHEREAS, under the CaUfornia Coastal Act industrial uses, including electrical power generating facilities, are a disfavored use and are encouraged only where tne use is coastal dependent, meaning that the use requires a ' location on or near the ocean in order to be able to function, or where the US~ is directly supportive of other coastal-related uses. such as fishing or boating; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to phase out existing land uses that do not conform to the development policies and priorities of the Coastal Act in order to achieve the purposes of the Coastal Act and to maximize long-term beneficia! use of the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS. the AES Power Plant is located in the coastal zone of the City and is incompa'tible with other existing and permitted uses in the Harbor-Pier area and adjoining areas of the City, and the AES Power Plant is a source of major visual blight, noise and air pollution that has discouraged economically beneficial new development and redevelopment for higher priority coastal uses in the City's coastal zone and in the Harbor-Pier area in particular; and WHEREAS, the City is now undertaking major efforts to encourage redevelopment and revitalization-of the Harbor/Pier area of the City's coastal zone for the benefit of City residents, visitors and businesses; and WHEREAS. on May 4,2010 the State Water Resources Control Board adopted Resolution No. 2010-0020, generally requiring that the use of existing ORDINANCE NO. 3120-14 EXTENSION OF URGENCY ORDINA~CE MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL', GENERATING FACILITIES IN COASTAL ZONE PAGE NO.1 power plant cooling systems that rely on natural ocean waters be terminated throughout the State of California by 2020; and WHEREAS. on October 11. 2012, citizens of the City of Redondo Beach qualified an initiative measure. subsequently designated as Measure A. for the March 5. 2013 municipal election ballot. Measure A, if enacted, would have required terrriination of all electrical power generating on the AES property by December 31,2020, and removal ofall electrical generating facilities by . December 31.2022. Measure A further substantially limited future redevelopment of the AES property for other economically beneficial uses and required that 60-700/0 of the property be reserved for open space and public recreational uses; and WHEREAS, public discussion and debate of Measure A confirmed that the great majority of residents. businesses and property owners in Redondo Beach believe that use of the AES property for electrical generating purposes is inconsistent with the poticies of the California Coastal Act, economically damaging to the City as a whole and harmful to the public health, welfare and safety, and that such use should not be continued. Public discussion and debate also confirmed that the majority of residents, business and property owners in the Cft)' believe that the owners of the AES property should be treated fairly a.nd should be allowed the opportunity to redevelop the AES property in an economically beneficial manner, consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act and with the overriding purposes of the City's General Plan and certified Local Coastal Program. WHEREAS, on November 20. 2012 AES filed an application with the California Energy Commission for approval of plans to sUbstantially reconstruct the existing AES Power Plant and continue its operations on the AES property for the foreseeable future; and WHEREAS, the reconstructed AES Power Plant would not be a coastal r dependent facility within the meaning of tt1e Coastal Act. and would therefore be inconsistent with the development policies and priorities of the Coastal Act; and WHEREAS, existing plans· and studies have shown that continued use of the AES property for electrical generating facilities is not necessary to guarantee an adequate supply of electricity for the State of California; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the prant modifications now proposed by AES, continued operation of electrical generating facilities on the AES property would continue to be incompatibte with existing and other permitted uses of property in the surrounding area; would continue to be a source of visual blight, noise and air pollution; and would continue to discourage economically beneficial new development for public recreational uses, Visitor-serving commercial uses andother benefictal uses in the City's coastal zone; and ORDINANCE NO. 3120-14 EXTENSION OF URGENCV ORDINANCE MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTR£CAL GENERATING FAcrLl11ES IN COASTAL ZONE PAGE NO.2 WHEREAS, on March 5,2012, Measure A failed to pass by a vote "of 6,553 votes against versus 6,295 votes in favor: and WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. it is now necessary for the City to undertake action to review and revise applicable provisions of the City's General Plan, certified Local Coastal Program and the Harbor/Civic Center Specific Plan in order to p'rovide far elimination within a I reasonable time, of electrical generating facilities in the City's coastal zone and replacement of electrical generating facilities on the AES property with alternate uses that are consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act and Qverridingpurposes of the City's certified Local Coastal f;lrogram, and which will also provide for reasonable economically beneficial use of the property by the owner or owners; and WHEREAS1 an application for approval of any new electrical generating facilities or modi'fledelectrical generating facilities in the City's coastal zone poses an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. in thati . approval of such 'application would serve to perpetuate and extend unnecessary noise, air pollution and visual and economic blight of the City's coastal zone to the detriment of the public health. safety and welfare. and would prevent implementation of the statewide policjes of the California Coastal Act and overriding policies of the City's General Plan and certified Local Coastal Program; and . ' WHEREAS, Government Code § 65858 provides that a city council may adopt by a four fifths vote as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a general plan or zoning measures that the city is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2013, at a duly noticed publichearing, the City Council adopted Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 3116-13, imposing a 4~-day moratorium on the approval of any conditional use pennit, coastal development permit, or any other discretionary City permit or approval for the constnJction, expansion, replacement, modification or alteration of any facilities for the on-site generation of electricity on any property located within the coastal zone, as designated by the Califomta Coastal Act, within the City ofRedondo Beach; and WHEREAS, prior to adoption of Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 3116-13, ~ City planning staff fUlly evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of the interim ordinance, and any extensions there~f, temporarily barring . discretionary approvals for new or modified electrical generating facilities in the City's coastal zone, and the City Council, concurrently with its consideration of . the ordinance, approved a negative declaration certifying that the interim ORDINANCE NO. 3120-14 EXTENSION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES IN COASTAL ZONE PAGE NO.3 ordinance would not have any significant environmental effects within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 3116-13 expires on January 17.2.D14;and WHEREAS, at least ten days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance. Government Code § 65858(d) requires the city council to issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the,ordinance; and WHEREAS, on December 26. 2013, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council unanimously voted to issue a Moratorium Status Report describing such measures; and WHEREAS, Govemment Code § 65858 provides that a city council, after notice and a pUblic hearing, may by a four fifths vote extend the interim ordinance for 22 months and.15 days; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the extension of Urgency Interim Ordinance No~ 3116-13 was published in the Easy Reader on January 2.2014 in compliance with Government Code §§ 65858(b) and 65090; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider the extensron of Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 3116-13 was held by the City Council on January 1'4, 2014; and WHEREAS, City planning staff have fully evaluated the potential environmental effects ofextension of the interim ordinance pursuant to the Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration approved and adopted on December 31 2013 and the City Council has, concurrently with its consideration of the extension, determined that no further environmental review iS'required under CECA. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALI FORNJA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. There is hereby imposed a moratorium on the approval of any conditional use permit, coastal development permit or any other discretionary City permit or approval for the construction, expansion, replacement. mod.fication or alteration of any facilities for the on-site generation of electricity on any property located within the coastal zone. as designated by tMe California Coastal Act, within the City of Redondo Beach. SECTION 2. It is the intent ofthe City Council that any proposal for new or modified non~coastal dependent electrical generating facilities within the City's coastal zone during the period of the moratorium shall be considered inconsistent ORDINANCE NO. 3120-14 EXTENSION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES IN COASTAL ZONE PAGE NO. 4 with this Ordinance and with the City's land use policies and zoning regulations for all purposes, and by all agencies charged with reviewing any application for such use. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 22 monttls and 15 days from its date of adoption. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporates the recitals herein by reference as if set forth in full. . SECTION 5. If any section, subsection. sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the yalidity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that lt would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof, irrespective Of the fact that anyone or / more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. I SECTION 6. The G.ity Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records and proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. This ordinance shall be published by one insertion in the Easy Reader, the official newspaper of said City, and Jhe same shall go into effect and be in full force and operation immediately. ORDINANCE NO. 31.20-14 EXTENSION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES IN COASTAL ZONE PAGE NO.5 PASSED. APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 2014. ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 55 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH I, Eleanor Manzano, City Clefi( of the City of Redondo Beach, California1 do hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 3120-14 was duty introduced, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 14th day of January, 2014, by the following vote:· AYES: GINSBURG, BRAND. AUST, SAMMARCO. KILROY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE J APPROVED AS TO FORM: AL&-~ "'Michael W. Webb, City Attorney This is certified to be a true ~nd correct copy of the origina' on f!~e in th~s off~ce. ORDINANCE NO. 3120·14 ·· ~,TI""'D' '2· -.\+Ch U b= ,~~~-. ..EXTENSION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ElECTR(CAl t,TTES'. . - . "-.-"~-GENERATING FACILITIES IN. COASTAL ZONE r ',' t·~ C1 /. .' f."J t;Hy of Redon.(1,·PAGE NO.6 CI ~V I '''' I,ll ''': .... n beech, S~6te of C2ht;orni:-; (3)(c) Coastal Commission Letter to CEC 02-05-14 DOCKETED Docket Number: Project Title: TN #: Document Title: Description: Filer: Organization: Submitter Role: Submission Date: Docketed Date: 12-AFC-03 Redondo Beach Energy Project 201639 Comment Letter Regarding CEC Review of Proposed Project N/A Teraja Golston California Coastal Commission Public Agency 2/5/2014 1:29:51 PM 2/5/2014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOflERNOR . CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT. SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 VOICE (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 TDD (415) 597-5885 February 5, 2014 Ms. Pat Kelly California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 VIA EMAIL: patriciakelly@energy.cagov RE: Comments on California Energy Commission Application for Certification (AFC) review ofAES SoutWand LLC's proposed Redondo Beach Energy Project (#12-AFC-03) Deat Ms. Kelly: We are providing some initial comments on the above-referenced APC review. Based on recent documentation provided in the APC process, our comments at this time are limited to two issue areas -the potential presence ofwetlands at the project site and the status ofa recent urgency ordinance adopted by the City ofRedondo Beach regarding powerplants in the coastal zone. We plan to conduct a more thorough review later in your APC process and provid,e a report from the Coastal Commission after Energy CoIilm.ission staff issues its Preliminary Staff Assessment for the proposed project.I -' Wetlands Coastal Commission staff reviewed several documents provided by AES, including biological informationprovided in·the APC application materials, Wetland Data Sheets, and a jurisdictional determination request to the Corps of Engineers. Additionally, on January 22,2014, Coastal Commission staff ecologist, Dr. Jonna Engel, conducted a site visit at the proposed project site along with Energy Commission staff, Department ofFish and Wildlife biologists, and representatives from AES and CH2M Hill. The site includes several areas that formerly held fuel oil storage tanks and their containment berms, and several pit areas that are, or were, used for various purposes. During the site visit, Dr. Engel observed wetland characteristics in several ofthese areas, including the entire containment areas ofFormer Tanks 1 through 3 and the Constructed Pit,and all or most ofthe containment area ofFormer Tank 4 (names ofthese areas are from Figure 2 ofthe January 31, 2013 jurisdictional determination request). Observed characteristics included ponding, secondary hydrology characteristics, and wetland vegetation. Based on information in the above-referenced materials and on site visit observations, we have determined that these areas include approximately five to six acres ofCoastal Commission-jurisdictional wetlands. .1 Pursuant to the Warren-Alquist Act, the CEC has sole permitting authority for locating or modifying power plants with a greater than 50-megawatt capacity, including those located in the coastal zone. Nevertheless, section 30413(d) ofthe Coastal Act expressly authorizes the Coastal Commission to participate in the CEC's proceedings and provide findings with respect to specific measures needed to bring a power plant project located within the coastal zone into conformity with Coastal Act and LCP policies. ... . - _ -.c---.--._. . • __ •.... ".._. __ .__. . -------.__..1 Comments on 13-AFC-03 -Redondo Beach Energy Project February 5, 2014-Page 2Df2 We understand AES may want to conduct a delineation to better identify wetland areas in the Tank 4 area or elsewhere. Dr. Engel has provided AES with a guidance document that describes the recommended procedures for conducting the necessary delineation. Status and Applicability of Urgency Ordinance #3120-14 . We understand.Energy Commission staffis reviewing the status and applicability of an urgency ordinance adopted by the City ofRedondo Beach in response to this proposed project.As described below, it is Commission staffs position that the ordinance is not effective until approved by the Coastal Commission. Background: On January 14,2014, the City of Redondo Beach adopted a temporary urgency ordinance meant to prevent construction ofpower plants within the City's coastal zone for a period ofapproximately two years. 2 The ordinance,'adopted pursuant to Government Gode Section 65858, "imposes a moratorium on the approval of any conditional'use permit, coastal development permit or any other discretionary City permit or approval for the construction; expansion, replacement,. modification or alteration of any facilities for the on-site generation of electricity on any property located within the coastal zone." It further states that any proposal to build or modify a non-coastal dependent electrical generating facility in the coastal zone is to be considered inconsistent with the City's land use policies and zoning regulations. In the accompanying Admini~trative Report, the City states that "[a]lthough the moratorium in this case would affect land in the City's coastal zone, Coastal Commission certification is not required to make the moratorium effective." The City does not state the basis for this conclusion. _ We have determined that the City's ordinance is not effective unless approved by the Coastal Commission. Coastal Act Section 30514(a) requires that all local implementing ordinances that would amend provisions of a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) are to take effect only after approval by the Commission. This ordinance would amend the City's certified LCP; therefore it is subject to Commission approval. SpecificallY"the City's ordinance selectively prohibits a type ofuse that is currently allowed under the LCP, creating a conflict with the LCP. This conflict represents a proposed amendment to the LCP that is subject to review and approval by the Commission before it can become effective. Conclusion Thank·you for this opportunity to comment. As noted above, we will provide a more thorough review later in the AFC process. Please feel free to contact me if y?U have questions. Sincerely, ~Lw/A Tom Luster Senior Environmental Scientist Energy, Ocean Resources, and Federal Consistency Division 2 The full ordinance is available at: http://redondo.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/cacheI16/cerzsbvsnonObv5lnd4vzlhhl2908501292014030751533.PDF ,. (3)(d) Letter from City Attorney Michael Webb 03-03-14 .... ,·_'-···r--····__···_·__·__ ···· DOCKETED Docket Number: Project Title: TN #: Document Title: Description: Filer: Organization: Submitter Role: Submission Date: Docketed Date: -..- -''''.'.'---.'-' '.' .__ _ ,_. ---,. . 12-AFC-03 Redondo Beach Energy Project 201825 Letter from City Attorney Michael Webb 03 -03 -14 Response to Coastal Commission Letter of February 5, 2014 Jon WeIner City of Redondo Beach (outside counsel) Intervenor 3/3/20145:00:55 PM 3/3/2014 .. I L,:::t:t:t+-~d~~~ ·~'BEACH Office of 415 Diamond Street, P.O. Box 270 tel 310318-0655 Michael W. Webb Redondo Beach, California 90277-0270 fax 310372-3886 City Attorney www.redondo.org March 3,2014 Ms. Patricia Kelly California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Coastal Commission's February 5, 2014 Letter Dear Ms. Kelley: On February 5, 2014, Mr. Tom Luster, Senior Environmental Scientist of the California Coastal Commission ("Commission"), submitted a letter to you opining that Redondo Beach's moratorium ordinance] "is not effective unless approved by Coastal Commission." As explained below, the view expressed by Mr. Luster is incorrect. No approval by the Coastal Commission is required. ANALYSIS I. Coastal Commission Approval Is Only Required For The Addition Of Uses Not Designated In An LCP-Not For The Restriction Of Uses. The City of Redondo· Beach ("City") is disappointed in the Commission's opinion, and is surprised by its position given case law directly on point. The Commission sent a similar letter to the City of Imperial Beach on January 29, 1993, which also stated that its moratorium ordinance would not be effective, unless approved by the Coastal Commission. Fortunately for the citizens of Imperial Beach and Redondo Beach, the California Court of Appeal disagreed with the Commission, and upheld the Imperial Beach moratorium 1 The City initially adopted a 45-day moratorium ordinance pursuant to Government Code § 65858 on December 3,2013 (Redondo Beach Ordinance 3116-13), which was later extended for 22 months and 15 days (Redondo Beach Ordinance 3120-14). These ordinances state, in part: "There is hereby imposed a moratorium on the approval of any conditional use permit, coastal development permit or any other discretionary City permit or approval for the construction, expansion,replacement,modification or alteration ofany facilities for the on-site generation ofelectricity on any property located within the coastal zone... ~t is the intent of the City Council that any proposal for new or modified non coastal dependent electrical generating facilities within the City's coastal zone during the period ofthe moratorium shall be considered inconsistent with this Ordinance and with the City's land use policies and zoning regulations for all purposes, and by all agencies charged with reviewing any application for such use." (Available online at: http://laserweb.redondo.orglWebLink/Welcome.aspx.) Ms. Pat Kelly !California Energy. Commission March 3, 2014 Page 2 ordinance without the Commission's approval/certification. (See Conway v. City ofImperial Beach (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 78.) The City believes the Commission's opinion is plainly incorrect, given the express language of the Coastal Act itself and in. light of published opinions from the California Court ofAppeal and the California Supreme Court. The Commission's letter reasoned that certification by the Commission was required because "...the City's ordinance selectively prohibits a type of use that is currently allowed under the LCP, creating a conflict with the LCP." Contrary to the Commission's assertion, an amendment to a certified Local Coastal Program is statutorily defmed as including "but is not limited to, any action by a local government that authorizes the use of a parcel of land other than a use designated in the certified local coastal program as a permitted use of1the parcel." (Pub. Res. Code § 30514(e).) The City's moratorium ordinance does not authorize any use; rather, It temporarily prohibits the City from approving a specified use. (Ordinances 3116-13 and 3120-14, Sections 1 and 2.) Moreover, becausethe Warren-Alquist Act gives the CEC exclusive jurisdiction over the licensing of power plants, the moratorium ordinance does not actually prohibit the CEC from certifying a new or modified power plant; it merely requires the CEC to make the override findings under Pub. Res~ Code § 25525. Pub. Res. Code § 30005 expressly recognizes that the .Coastal Act shall not be interpreted to limit "the power of a city...to adopt and enforce additional regulations, not in conflict with this act, imposing further conditions, restrictions, or limitations with respect to any land or . water use or other activity which might adversely affect the resources of the coastal zone." As the California Supreme Court noted: ".. .once an LCP has been approved by the Commission, a local government has discretion to choose what action to take to implement its LCP: it can decide to be more restrictive with respect to any parcel ofland..." (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Ca1.3d 561,572-573; Pub. Res. Code § 30005.) The precise argument -Coastal Commission raises in their february 5, 2014 letter was expressly rejected by the California Court of Appeal in Conway v. City ofImperial Beach (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 78, 84-90.2 In Conway the City adopted a moratorium ordinance pursuant to Government Code § 65858 to temporarily reduce height limits and density within portions of the City's certified Local Coastal Program. Coastal Commission sent a letter 'which stated that the moratorium "...must be submitted for certification prior to becoming 2 In recent communications with City regarding this issue, the Commission has cited two opinions by the California Attorney General (UAG") that were issued prior to Conway (70 Ops.CaI.Atty.Gen 220 (1987) and an informal opinion dated December 9, 1992). These opinions carry no weight after the Conway decision. Tellingly, the Commission has never asked the Attorney General to revisit this issue after Conway. Ms. Pat Kelly California Energy Commission March 3, 2014 Page 3 effective." (ld. at 82.) In rejecting this argument the Court of Appeal noted: ...we conclude there is no contlict in this case between section 30514 (or other provisions of the Coastal Act) and Government Code section 65858. As the enactment under Government Code section 65858 did not "authorize a use other than that designated in the LCP as a permitted use,", it was not in conflict with the purposes sought to be served by the Coastal Act, and no approval by the Coastal Commission was required prior to enforcement. [m, Any other conclusion would lead to the absurd consequences that an attempt to advance the purposes of the Coastal Act, which attempt required expeditious action, could be frustrated by the procedures of the very organization, the Coastal Commission, which is designed to advance the purposes of the Act, and thus the very system designed to protect California's coastal resources would be the means by which they were eviscerated. [~] We hold that an interim ordinance which does not authorize ita use other than that designated in the LCP as a permitted use" need not be certified by the Coastal Commissions prior to implementation and enforcement. (Id. at 89; Internal cites and footnptes omitted.) , II. The Moratorium Ordinances Further The Purpose Of The Coastal Act By Prohibiting, A Use That Is No Longer Coastal Dependent. As the California Energy Commission ("CEC") is aware, on May 4, 2010 the State Water Resources, Control Board ("SWRCB") adopted Resolution No. 2010-0020, generally requiring that the use of existing power plant cooling systems that rely on natural ocean water be tenninated throughout the State of California by 2020. Two years later, on November 20, 2012, AES Southland Development, LLC (nAES") filed an application to substantially reconstruct the Redondo Beach AES Power Plant on November 20, 2012. The CEC determined the application was deemed complete on August 27, 2013. The proposed AES power plant can no longer be considered a coastal dependent or coastal related facility under the Coastal Act. (See Pub. Res. Code §§ 30101, 30101.3.) The City's current LCP provisions related to the AES site were drafted before SWRCB's resolution and AES's current proposal to construct a :non-coastal dependent facility. This is the exact situation moratorium ,ordinances were designed to address. While power plants have historically been coastal dependent, the City should not be forced to accept a new non coastal dependent facility, which is expressly at odds with the priority of uses under the Coastal Act. -(See Pub. Res. Code §§ 3000 1.5(d) ["The Legislature further fmds and declares that the basic goals ofthe state for the coastal zone are to: ...(d) Assure priority for coastal dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast."], 30101, Ms. Pat Kelly California Energy Commission 'March 3,2014 Page 4. 30255, 30264.) CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the moratorium ordinances passed by the City (Ordinances 3116 13 and 3120-14) are currently effective and do not need to be approved by the Coastal Commission. Very truly yours, ~tJ.u.ft MICHAEL W. WEBB City Attorney for Redondo Beach (3)(e) Yost v. Thomas / ·\ .QLexisNexis~ User Name: Jonathan Weiner Date and Time: Apr 28, 2015 ~2:48 p.m. EDT Job Number: 19488702 Document(1 ) 1. Yost v. Thomas. 36 Cal. 3d 561 Client/Matter: 73055-0002 /' 'C:J!lexj'sNe:.~!S~'I About LexisNexis IPrivacy Policy I Te'~m~ .~. Conditions ICqpyright © 20151 Le~isN~xis:\ .. Jonathan Weiner: ' ~ Caution As of: April 28, 2015 12:48 PM EDT Yost v. Thomas Supreme Court of California August 23, 1984 L.A. No. 31775 Reporter 36 Cal. 3d 561; 685 P.2d 1152; 205 Cal. Rptr. 801; 1984 Cal. LEXIS 203 Subsequent History: As Modified August 28, 1984. Prior History: Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, No. 138092, John W. Holmes, Judge. * Disposition: The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to issue a peremptory writ of mandate ordering respondents to place the proposed referendum on the ballot for municipal election, provided there has been compliance with the formal filing requirements. Core Terms Coastal, local government, referendum, city council, policies, land use plan, coastal zone, hotel, designation, specific plan, legislative act, general plan, visitor-serving, recreational, resources, conformity, planning, zoning, subject to referendum, Residen.tial, voters, open space, implementing, requirements, initiative, provisions~ regulation, parcel, acres, zoning ordinance Case Summary Procedural Posture Plaintiff voters appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (California) that denied, pursuant to the California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. 'Code § 30000 et seq., their petition for writ of mandate to compel defendant city clerk to process a petition for referendum in opposition to three measures adopted by the city council to permit rezoning of coastal land that was subject to a state-approved land use plan. Overview Pursuant to its obligation under the California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq., to adopt a local coastal Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. plan for property lying within its coastal zone, the city council for Santa Barbara, California, adopted a land use plan' (LUP), which was subsequently approved by the California Coastal Commission. Thereafter, the city council adopted three measures that rezoned certain coastal land to permit commercial use by intervenor developer. Plaintiff voters then submitted a petition for a referendum in opposition to the measures, but defendant city clerk refused to process the petition and the superior court denied their petition for writ of mandate upon ruling that, by rezoning, the city council was acting administratively to implement the state-approved LUP and a referendum would thus not be valid. Plaintiffs appealed: In reversing, the court ruled that not all land use decisions made after a LUP was approved were administrative and the Act did not provide preemption or blanket immunity from referendum of such decisions. Rather, the rezoning of land and adoption of a specific plan were legislative decisions that were subject to voter review by referendum. Outcome The denial of writ of mandate was reversed because the trial court erred in ruling that the rezoning decision was administrative and that the proposed referendum would be legally invalid under the Act; blanket immunity from referendum was not provided under the Act;, and, although the land use decision was made after a local coastal plan had . been approved, it was a legislative decision, not administrative, and was thus subject to referendum. LexisNexis® Headnotes Governments> Legislation> Initiative & Referendum Governments > Local Governments > Elections HNl It is not a city clerk's function to determine whether a proposed referendum will be valid if enacted. These Jonathan Weiner Page 2 of 10 36 Cal. 3d 561, *561; 685 P.2d 1152, **1152; 205 Cal. Rptr. 801, ***801 questions may involve difficult legal issues that only a court can determine. The right to propose referendum measures cannot properly be impeded by a decision of a ministerial officer, even if supported by the advice of the city attorney, that the subject is not appropriate for submission to the voters~ Environmental Law> Land Use & Zoning> Initiative & Referendum Governments> Legislation> Initiative & Referendum Governments> Local Governments > Elections Real Property Law> Zoning> Initiative & RefereI}dum HN2 Although certain actions of a city council may be characterized as administrative and therefore not subject to referendum, not all land use decisions made after a coastal plan has been adopted and approved by the California Coastal Commission fall into that category. The California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq., does not provide blanket immunity from the voters' referendum power. Environmental Law> Natural Resources & Public Lands> Coastal Zone Management > Consistency Reviews Real Property Law> Zoning> Comprehensive Plans HN3 The California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq., was enacted by the legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. The legislature found that , \ the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people; that the permanent protection of the state's natural and s'cenic resources is a 'paramount concern; that it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and that existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of the state. Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30001(a) and (dJ. Real Property Law> Zoning> Comprehensive Plans HN4 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30001.5. Environmental Law > Natural Resources & Public Lands > Coastal Zone Management > Delineation & Identification Real Property Law> Zoning> General Overview Real Property Law> Zoning> Comprehensive Plans Real Property Law> Zoning> Ordinances Real Property Law> Zoning> Regional & State Planning HNS Under the California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq., a combination of local land use planning procedures and enforcement' to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, as well as continued state coastal planning and management through a state coastal commission are relied upon to insure conformity with the provisions of the act. All local governments lying in whole or in part within the coastal zone must prepare and submit to the California Coastal Commission a local coa~tal plan (LCP), consisting of a local government's (a) land use plans, (b) z~ning ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions. The precise content of each LCP is determined by the local government in full consultation with the Commission and must meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of the act at the local level. Real Property Law> Zoning> Comprehensive Plans HN6 The California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30200 et seq., sets forth the specific policies which constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs are to be determined. There are specific policies on public access to the sea and shorelines; recreational use; protecti~n of the marine environment; protection of land resources; development; and industrial development. Governments> Local Governments> Ordinances & Regulationsr ' Real Property Law> Zoning> General Overview Real Property Law> Zoning> Comprehensive Plans Real Property Law > Zoning > Ordinances HN7 Under the California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq., a local cpastal plan (LCP) may be submitt~d to the California Coastal Commission all at once or in two phases --a land use plan (LUP) and zoning ordinances, etc. The Commission will certify a LUP if it finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with; the l?olicies of § 30200 et seq. The Commission may only reject zoning ordinances on 'the grounds that they 'do not conform, or are inadequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use plan. A certified LCP and all local implementing ordinances may be amended by a local government, but no such amendment shall take effect until ' it has been certified by the Commission. For the purposes of § 30514 an amendment of a certified local coastal program includes, .but is not limited to, any action by the local government which authorizes a use ofa parcel of land other ,than that designated in the LCP as .a permitted use. Jonathan Weiner Page 3 of 10 36 Cal. 3d 561, *561; 685 P.2d 1152, **1152; 205 Cal. Rptr. 801, ***801 Real Property Law > Zoning> Comprehensive Plans HN8 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30512.2. Real Property Law > Zoning> Comprehensive Plans HN9 See Cal: Pub. Res. Code § 30221. Real Property Law > Zoning> Comprehensive Plans HNI0 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30222. Real Property Law > Zoning> Comprehensive Plans HNll See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30210. Governments > Legislation> General Overview Governments > Legislation:> Initiative & Referendum Governments> Local Governments> Elections HN12 The powers of referendum and initiative apply only to legislative acts by a local governing body. Acts of a local governing body· which, in a purely local context, would otherwise be legislative and subject to referendum may, however, become administrative in a situation in which the state's system of regulation over a matter of statewide concern is so pervasive as to convert the local legislative body into an administrative agent of the state. Family Law > Adoption> Disclosures> General Overview Governments> Legislation> Initiative & Referendum Governments > Local Governments> Elections Real Property Law> Zoning> Administrative Procedure Real Property Law> Zoning> Initiative & Referendum HN13 The adoption of a general plan is a legislative act. The amendment of a legislative act is itself a legislative act and the amendment of a general plan is thus a legislative act subject to referendum. Similarly, the rezoning of land is a legislative act subject to referendum. The adoption of a specific plan is also to be characterized as a legislative act. Certainly such action is neither administrative nor adjudicative. On the other hand, the elements of a specific plan are similar to those found in general plans or in zoning regulations --the siting of buildings, uses and roadways; height, bulk and setback limitations; population and building densities; and open space allocation. Cal. Gov'! Code § 65451. The statutory procedure for the adoption and amendmen~ of specific plans is substantially similar to that for general plans. Cal. Gov'! Code § 65507. It appears therefore that the legislative aspects of a specific plan are similar to those of general plans. Bnvironmental Law > Natural Resources & Public Lands > Coastal Zone Management> Delineation & Identification . Governments> Legislation> General Overview Govemrrients > Legislation> Initiative & Referendum Governments > Local Governments> Elections Real Property Law > Zoning> Comprehensive Plans Real Property Law> Zoning> Initiative & Referendum Real Property Law > Zoning > Regional & State Planning HN14 Enactment of the California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 e! seq., was the result of popular recognition that uncontrolled development of the California coastline could not continue. The act sets forth a statement of policies which are binding on local and state agencies in planning further development in the coastal zone. Important sections of the act provide for a coastal access program, developmental controls, and identification of sensitive coastal resource areas. Further, it contains various administrative provisions. There is no doubt that the Coastal Act is an attempt to deal with coastal land use on a statewide basis. In matters of general statewide concern the state may preempt local regulation. However, state regulation of a matter does not necessarily preempt the power of local voters to act through initiative and/or referendum. Real Property Law> Zoning> Comprehensive Plans HN15 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30500(a). . Real Property Law> Zoning> Comprehensive Plans HN16 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30500(c). Real Property Law> Zoning> Comprehensive Plans HN17 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30512(c). Real Property Law > Zoning> Comprehensive Plans HN18 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30512.2(a). Real Property Law> Zoning> Comprehensive Plans Real Property Law> Zoning> Local Planning HN19 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30513. Governments> Local Governments> Administrative Boards Real Property Law > Zoning> Comprehensive Plans Real Property Law> Zoning> Judicial Review Jonathan Weiner Page 4 of 10 36 Cal. 3d 561, *561; 685 P.2d 1152, **1152; 205 Cal. Rptr. 801, ***801 HN20 The wording of the California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq., does not suggest preemption of local planning by the state, rather it points to local discretion and autonomy in planning subject to review for confOl;mity to statewide standards. The California Coastal CoIllIIli'ssion in approving or disapproving a'local coastal plan does not create or originate any land use rules and regulations. It can approve or disapprove but it cannot itself draft any part of the coastal plan. The discretion accorded local governments in establishing, creating and implementing land use plans is most clearly reflected in the language of § 30005. Real Property Law> Zoning > Compreh~nsive Plans HN21 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30005. Real Property Law> Zoning> Comprehensive Plans Real Property Law> Zoning> Judicial Review HN22 Under the California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq., local governments have discretion to zone one piece of land to fit any of the acceptable uses under the policies of the act, but they also have the discretion to be more restrictive than the act. The Act sets miriimum standards and policies with which local governments within the coastal zone must comply; it does not mandate the action to be taken by a local government in implementing local land use controls. The California Coastal Commission performs a judicial function when it reviews a local government's local coastal plan (LCP) --it determines whether the LCP meets the minimum standards of the act, but once an LCP has been approved by the Commission, a local gove~ent has discretion to choose what action to take to implement its LCP: .it can, decide t6 be more restrictive with respect to any parcel of land, provided such restrictions do not conflict with the act. Governments > Legislation> Initiative & Referendum Governments > Local Governments> Administrative Boards Governments> Local Governments> Elections Real Property Law> Zoning> Initiative & Referendum HN23 The California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code§ 30000 et seq., leaves wide discretion to a local goveinment not only to determine the contents of its land use plans, but to choose how to implement these plans. Und~r such circumstances a city is acting legislatively and its actions are subject to the normal referendum procedure. The Act does not dictate that a local government must build a hotel and conference center --that decision is made by the local government. It merely requires local'governments to comply with specific policies --but the decision of whether to build a hotel or whether to designate an area for a pa:k remains with the local government. A local government is acting legislatively in making this decision as well as in implementing it. ,Counsel: Francis Sarguis for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Carter J. Stroud, City Attorney (Alameda), as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Schramm & Raddue and Frederick W. Clough for Defendant and Respondent. Charles J. Post, City Attorney (Hermosa Beach), McCarthy, Bullis & Post, Roger C. Lyon, Jr., City Attorney (Grover City), and Ronald L. Johnson, Chief Deputy City Attorney (San Diego),as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. James W. Brown, Ian M. Guthrie, Mul~en, McCaughey & Henzell and Cavalietto, Webster, Mullen & McCaughey for Intervener and Respondent. Judges: Opinion by Kaus, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court. Bird, C. J., Mosk, J., Broussard, J., Reynoso, J., Grodin, J., and Lucas, J., cOJ?-curred. Opinion by: KAUS Opinion [*564] [**1153] [***802] (la) (la) The issue is whether the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) ( Pub. Resources Code. § 30000 et seq..) precludes a ref~rendum on any local land use measure affecting the coastal zone which is adopted by a city council after the California Coastal Commission (Commission) has approved the city's land use plan. We conclude that the Coastal Act does not preclude the referendum. Appellants, voters of the City of Santa Barbara, circulated a referendum petition in opposition to two resolutions and [**1154] [***803] one ordinance adopted by the City Council of Santa Barbara. 1 (2) (2) (See fn. 2.) Respondent The referendum stated:"ReferendumPetition Protesting Adoption ofGeneral'PlanAmendment 2-81 and Specific Plan No.1 for Park Plaza Project, and Rezoning an easterly portion of APN 17-010-37, to permit the commercial development of Park Plaza Jonathan Weiner 1 I Page 5 of 10 36 Cal. 3d 561, *564; 685 P.2d 1152, **1154; 205 Cal. Rptr.801, ***803 Thomas, the city clerk, refused to process the petition on advice of the city attorney that the three actions of the city council were not subject to referendum. 2 Appellants filed a petition for mandate in the superior court, to compel the city clerk to process the petition. The trial court denied the writ on the ground that the proposed referendum would be legally invalid. This appeal followed. [*565] The referendum petition --signed by 10,260 voters --involved 3 planning actions of the city council pertaining to a 32-acre undeveloped tract of coastal land commonly referred to as the "Southern Pacific property." Intervener and respondent Park Plaza Corporation proposes a hotel and conference center development to be built on this tract. The actions by the city council in effect authorized the development. They were: (1) Resolution No. 81-091, adopted July 28, 1981, amending the city's general plan; (2) Resolution No. 81-092, adopted July 28, 1981, adopting a specific plan of development which had. previously been approved by the city planning commission; and (3) Ordinance No: 4115, adopted August 4, 1981, changing the zoning of the Southern Pacific property. The trial court concluded that the three actions were not subject to referendum because the city council was acting administratively to implement a land use plan approved by the Commission. As will appear, we disagree. (lb) (1 b) HN2 Although certain actions of a city council may be characterized as "administrative" and therefore not subject to referendum, not all land use decisions made after a coastal plan has been adopted and approved by the Commission fall into that category. The Coastal Act does not provide blanket immunity from the voters' referendum power. The Coastal Act HN3 The Coastal Act of 1976 ( Pub. Resources Code. § 30000 et seq.) 3 was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. The Legislature found that "the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people"; that "the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern"; that flit is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone" and that "existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well-being of [**1155] [***804] the people of this state. ..." (§ 30001. subds. (a) and LdD. HN4 "[The] basic goals of the state for the coastal zone" are to: "(a) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and manmade resources. [para. ] (b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. [para. ] (c) Maximize public [*566] access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of property owners. [para. ] (d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast. [para. ] [and] (e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, Including educational uses, in the coastal zone." (§ 30001.5.) HNS A combination of local land use planning procedures and enforcement to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, as well as continued state coastal planning and management through a state coastal commission are relied upon to insure Hotel-Conference Center on East Cabrillo Boulevard at Punta Gorda Street, Santa Barbara, California. [para. ] To the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara: [para. ] Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 4051, we the undersigned registered qualified voters of the City of Santa Barbara, hereby present this petition protesting the adoption of the above measures. (If any provision of this Petition is deemed invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect.) [para. ] We request that these actions be entirely repealed by you, or be submitted to a vote of the people at a regular city election or at a special election as required by law. [para. ] The voters want to decide: A giant hotel convention center with restaurants and shops along Cabrillo Boulevard would dominate East Beach, causing parking and traffic congestion, smog, water and policing problems, employee pressure on limited housing, and loss of mountain views." 2 The issue of whether the city clerk exceeded his authority in deciding not to process the referendum has not been raised before us. However, as we stated in Fm-lev v. Healey (1967) 67 Ca1.2d 325. 327 [62 Cal.Rptr. 26.431 P.2d 650]: HNI '1t is not [a city clerk's] function to determine whether a proposed [referendum] will be valid if enacted .... These questions may involve difficult legal issues that only a court can determine. The right to propose [referendum] measures cannot properly be impeded by a decision of a ministerial officer, even if supported by the advice of the city attorney, that the subject is not appropriate for submission to the voters." 3 All statutory references, unless otherwise indicated, are to the Public Resources Code. All statutory language is from those statutes in effect at the time of the trial court decision. Jonathan Weiner Page 6 of 10 36 Cal. 3d 561, *566; 685 P.2d 1152, **1155; 205 Cal. Rptr. 801, ***804 conformity with the provisions of the act (§ 30004, subds. (a) and (b». Therefore, all local governments lying in whole or in part within the coastal zone had to prepare and submit to the Commission a local coastal plan (LCP) (§ 30500, subd. (a)), The LCP consists of a local government's "(a) land use plans, (b) zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions, ..." (§ 30108.6.) The precise content of each LCP is determined by the local government in full consultation with the Commission (§ 30500, subd. (c)) and must meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies o([the act] at the local level (§ 30108,6). HN6 Sections 30200 et seq. set forth the specific policies which constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs are to be determined (§ 30200). There are specific policies on public access to the sea and shorelines (§§ 30210-30214); recreational use (§§ 30220-30224); protection of the marine environment (§§ 30230-30236); protection of land resources(§ 30240 [environmentally sensitive habitats]; § 30241 [agricultural land]; § 30243 [timberlands]; § 30244 [archaeological resources]); development (§§ 30250-30255); and industrial development (§§ 30260-30264). HN7 The LCP may be submitted to the Commission all at once or in two phases --a land use plan (LUP) and zoning ordinances, etc, (§ 30511). The Commission will certify a LUP "if it finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) ...." (§ 30512 subd. (d..) HN8 "The commission shall require conformance with the policies and requirements of Chapter 3 ... only to the extent necessary to achieve the basic goals [of the act]," (§. 305i2.2.) The Commission may only reject/ zoning ordinances on the grounds that they do not conform, or are inadequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use plan (§ 30513). A certified LCP and all local implementing ordinances may be amended by a local government, but [*567] no such amendment shall take effect until it has been certified by the Commission (§ 30514). For the purposes of section 30514 an "amendment of a certified local coastal program" includes, but is not limited to, any action by the local government which authorizes a use of a parcel of land other than that designated in the LCP as a permitted use (§ 30514, subd. (d». v II Santa'Barbara's Land Use Plan In July 1977, the City of Santa Barbara began preparation of the LUP portion of its LCP. During the preparation of the LUP there were a number of hearings before the planning commission and public hearings before the city council. In September [**1156] [***805] 1980 the LUP was adopted by the council. It was approved and certified by .the Commission in January 1981. The LUP sets forth the following policies relevant to the Southern Pacific (SP) property: "Policy 4.1 [para. ] In order to preserve and encourage visitor-serving commercial uses, appropriate areas along Cabrillo Boulevard . . , shall be designated 'Hotel and Related Commerce I (HRC-I)' and 'Hotel and Related Commerce II (HRC-II).' [para, ] HRC-I designation shall include hotels, motels, other appropriate forms of visitor-serving overnight accommodations and ancillary commercial uses directly related to the operation of the hotel/motel. [para. ] HRC-II designation shall include all uses allowed in HRC-I and such other visitor-serving uses examples such as, but not limited to, restaurants, cafes, art galleries, and commercial recreation establishments. Uses such as car rentals and gas stations will require a conditional use permit. [para. ] ... [para, ] Policy 4.6 [para. ] The 'Southern Pacific Property' (that area roughly bounded by Milpas .Street and Punta Gorda Street on the" east, Cabrillo Boulevard on the south, the City parcel located at the approximate extension of Garden Street on the west, and the existing Southern Pacific Rai}road right-of-way on the north) shall be designated for a mixture of visitor-serving uses and recreational opportunities. and planned as an integral unit in order to minimize potential circulation, visual, and other environmental impacts. [para. ] Action [paia. ] The City shall require the submittal of a specific plan for the area which would address the problems and opportunities related to the development of this propertY, including, but not limited ~o: [para, ] (1) Traffic Circulation [para. ] (2) Parking [para. ] (3) Visual Impacts along Cabrillo Boulevard [para. ] (4) Geologic Hazards [para. ] (5) Recreational Opportunities [para. ] (6) Visitor-Serving Uses [para. ] (7) Mixed Uses Consisting of HRC-II and Residential [para. ]. At the time of review of the Specific Plan, the standards [*568] of review shall include PRC Sections 30221 and 30222. 4 The City shall ensure that recreational and visitor-serving uses on the western portion of the property shall not be precluded by residential uses. The eastern portion of the property shall be designated Section 30221 provides: HN9 "Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable-future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area." Jonathan Weiner 4 Page 7 of 10 36 Cal. 3d 561, *568; 685 P.2d 1152, **1156; 205 Cal. Rptr. 801, ***805 exclusively for vIsItor-serving uses, lIRC-I. The western currently being considered for HoteVConference CenterlPark portion shall include approximately 11 acres west of the /Condominium development." 5 extension of Salsipuedes Street. The eastern portion shall [*569] After the LUP was approved by the Commission, include approximately 23 acres east of the extension of intervener and respondent Park Plaza Corporation filed Salsipuedes Street. [para. ] Land uses located on private applications with the city for: (1) a general plan amendment; lands on the western portion of the property north and (2) approval of a specific plan; (3) rezoning of the SP immediately adjacent to the strip of publicly owned land property; (4) approval of a tentative subdivision map; (5) fronting on Cabrillo Boulevard shall be limited to open parking modifications; and (6) approval of a hoteVconference space and recreational uses abutted to the north by center development plan for 23 acres of the .SP property. visitor-serving and/or mixed visitor-serving/residential uses. Public hearings. were held on these applications by the Residential uses on this portion of the area shall not planning commission, after which the commission adopted predominate other priority Coastal Act uses." resolutions recommending to the city council the adoption of the amendment to the general plan, the amendment to the The LUP also contained the following policy: "Policy 3.6 zoning ordinance, and of the specific plan. The city council [para. ] The City of Santa Barbara shall consider expansion considered the recommendations at a public hearing and at of both public parking and public open space at Palm Park the conclusion of the hearing approved the general plan north of the existing alignment of Cabrillo Boulevard." amendment, the specific plan, the rezoning, a tentativeAlthough this policy appears to reflect a desire to keep the subdivision map, the parking modification, and aarea north of Cabrillo Boulevard --an area which includes development plan for a 360-roomhotel with conference the SP property --as open space, as early as 1964 the city facilities.had contemplated permitting a hotel conference center to be The amendment to the general plan changed the circulation built on the SP property. Therefore, [**1157] [***806] in element of the general plan in order to-reaffirm the existing the recreational section of the LUP it was noted that "[the] alignment of Cabrillo Boulevard. 6 It also changed land use Palm Park area inland of Cabrillo Boulevard includes two designations on the SP property. 7 The specific plan was a vacant parcels of 29.58 and 2.27 acres in respective size. It 14-page document covering the 23 acres to be developed, is centrally located along Santa Barbara's waterfront area which addressed the problems related to the development ofwhere the greatest .demand for recreational and the area. The zoning ordinance changed the zoning of the . visitor-serving facilities appears to be concentrated. Because property from R-1/M-lIC-2 to R-1/R-4. 8this is one of. the last remaining parcels along Santa Barbara's waterfront, maintaining a balance of comm~rcial Whether the changes to the general plan and the applicable visitor-serving uses and public recreational uses in keeping zoning, as well as the specific plan, are subject to with the Santa Barbara character is important. The area is referendum, is the crux of this litigation. Section 30222 provides: HNIO "The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry." . See also section 30210, which states: HNll'1n carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maxiIDum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse." 5 This seemingly was an attempt to explain the apparent conflict between the policies stated in Policy 3.6 (open space) and Policy 4.1 (hotel). The city claims that no conflict exists because policy 3.6 does not encompass the SP property. The city asserts it never intended to designate the property as open space. Whatever the merit of this claim, it is clear to us that the description of the Palin Park area north of Cabrillo Boulevard contained in the LUP, includes the SP property. 6 The general plan had proposed an alignment of Cabrill~ Boulevard to a more inland course; the LUP does not mention the location of Cabrillo Boulevard. 7 Parcel A (23 acres) was changed from "Major Public and Institutional Uses --Park" with a secondary designation of'lIotel and Residential" to "Hotel and Residential." Parcels B and C (11 acres) were changed to add a secondary use of'lIotel and Residential" to "Major Public and Institutional Uses --Park." 8 The R-4 zoning designation pennits hotels, motels, multiple residence housing; the M-l designation pennits heavy industrial use and /the C-2 designation pennits commercial, retail use. The R-l designation is open space. Jonathan Weiner III Page 8 of 10 36 Cal. 3d 561, *569; 685 P.2d 1152, **1157; 205 Cal. Rptr. 801, ***806 Discussion / (3) (3) HN12 The powers of referendum and initiative apply only to legislative acts by a local governing body ( Arnel Development Co. v. Citv of Costa [*5701 Mesa (980) 28 Cal.3d 511. 516. tn. 6 U69 Cal.Rptl: 904. 620 P.2d 5657). Acts of a local governing body which, in a purely local context, would otherwise be legislative and subject to referendum may, however, become administrative "in a situation in which the state's system of regulation over a matter of statewide concern is so pervasive as to convert the local legislative body into an administrative agent of the state" ( Associated Home Builders etc.. Inc. v. City' of Livermore (976) 18 Cal.3d 582. 596. tn. 14 [J35 Cal. [**11581 Rptr. 41. 557 F.2d [***807] 473. 92 A.L.R.3d 10381; see Housing Authority v. Superior Court (950) 35 Cal.2d 550 [219 P.2d 4577). Respondents contend that the actions taken by the city council were administrative in nature by virtue of the fact that the council was acting' under the authority delegated by the state to implement state coastal land use policies --that, in effect, the Coastal Act preempts the exercise of the power of referendum. (4) (4) Absent the Coastal Act the actions taken by the city council are clearly legislative. HN13 The adoption of a general plan is a legislative act ( O'Loane v. O'Rourke (965) 231 Ca1.AlZP.2d 774 [42 Cal.Rptr. 2837). "The amendment of a legislative act is itself a legislative act" ( Johnston v. City of Claremont (958) 49 Cal.2d 826. 835 [323 P.2d 717) and the amendment of a general plan is thus a legislative act subject to referendum. (See Duran v. Cassidy (972) 28 Cal.App.3d 574, 583 [J04 Cal.Rptr. 7937.) Therefore, the amendments to Santa Barbara's general plan were legislative acts normally subject to referendum. (5) (5) Similarly, the rezoning of land is a legislative act ( Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa. sUlZra. 28 Cal.3d 511) subject to referendum ( Johnston v. City of Claremont. supra. 49 Cal.2d 826; Dwyer v. City Council (927) 200 Cal. 505 [253 P. 9327). (le) (lc) This leaves the question whether the adoption of a specific plan is to be characterized as a legislative act. We have no doubt that the answer is affirmative. Certainly such action is neither administrative nor adjudicative, (Cf. Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa. sum'a. 28 Cal.3d at p. 523; Horn v. Countv ofVentura (979) 24 Cal.3d 605. 613 [J56 Cal.Rptr. 718,596 P.2d 11347.) On the other hand the elements of a specific plan are similar to those found in general plans or in zoning regulations --the siting of buildings, uses and roadways; height, bulk and setback limitations; population and building densities; open space allocation ( Gov. Code. § 65451). The statutory procedure for the adoption and amendment of specific plans is substantially similar to that for general plans (see Gov. Code. § 65507). It appears therefore that the legislative aspects of a specific plan are similar to those of general plans. We find support for this decision in' Wheelright v: County of Marin (970) 2 Cal.3d 448. 457 [85 Cal.Rptr. 809. '467 P.2d 5377 (adoption of a "precise" plan is a legislative act) and [*571] hold that the adoption of a specific plan by the city council was a legislative act subject to referendum. Interveners and respondents assert, however, that these normally legislative acts become administrative by virtue of the fact that the Coastal Act establishes a pervasive system of state regulation over a matter of state concern which, precludes local referenda on the implementing actions of local governments. The argument is that since the SP property lies in the territory defined as the California coastal zone, and since the Coastal Act requires local governments in the coastal zone to develop local LUPs (§ 30500. subd. (gJ) which are acceptable to the Commission as conforming with the development and conservation policies of the Coastal Act (§§ 30200-30264), the city council thereafter becomes an agency of the state in enacting all subsequent land use policies in the coastal zone. This analysis is far too simplistic. HN14 The Coastal Act of 1976 was the result of popular recognition that uncontrolled development of the California coastline could not continue. The act sets forth a statement of policies (§§ 30200-30264) which are binding on local and state agencies in planning further development in the coastal zone, As noted, important sections of the act provide for a coastal access program; developmental controls, and identification of sensitive coastal resource areas (§ 30502). Further, it contains various administrative provisions. (E.g. §§ 30512-30523.) There is no doubt that the Coastal Act is an attempt to deal with coastal land use on a statewide basis. (6) (6) Nor is it disputed that in matters of general statewide concern the state may preempt local regulation [**1159] [***808] (Associated H0J17e Builders etc.. Inc. v. City of Livermore. supra. 18 Cal.3d 582. 596, tn.. 14). However, state regulation of a matter does not necessarily preempt the power of local voters to act through initiative and/or referendum (see Hughes v. 'Citv of Lincoln U965) 232 Cal.AplZ.2d 741, 745 [43 Cal.RlZtr. 3067; Norlund v. Thorpe (973) 34 Cal.App.3d 672. 675 [110 Cal. Rptr. 246l). (ld) Od) The question, therefore, is whether the Legislature intended to preempt local planning authority and thereby preempt the power of the voters to act through referendum. Jonathan Weiner Page 9 of 10 36 Cal. 3d 561, *571; 685 P.2d 1152, **1159; 205 Cal. Rptr. 801, ***808 Certainly the act does not e:xplicitly claim to preempt local planning authority, nor does it specifically refer to the referendum and initiative powers. The intent of the. Legislature must therefore be implied from the general provisions of the act. ,Section 30500, subdivision (a), previously noted, provides that: HNI5 "Each local government lying, in whole or in part within the coastal zone shall prepare a local coastal program for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction." Section 30500, subdivision (c) makes it clear that: HNI6 ''The [*572] precise content of each local coastal program shall be determined by the local government, consistent with Section 30501, in full consultation with the commission ...." HNI7 "The commission shall certify a land use plan, or any amendments thereto, if such commission finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (conimencing with Section 30200) ...." (§ 30512. subd. (d.) HNI8 "The commission's review of a land use plan shall be limited to its administrative determination that the land use plan . . . does, or does not, conform. with the [policies of the act] ... the commission is not authorized by any provision of this division to diminish or abridge the authority of a local government to' adopt and establish, by ordinance, the precise content of its land use plan" (§. 30512.2, subd. (a)). HNI9 ''The commission may only reject zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, or other implementing actions on the grounds. that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan." (§ 30513.) HN20 The wording of these and other sections does not suggest preemption of local planning by the state, rather they point to local discretion and autonomy in planning subject to review for conformity to statewide standards. (7) (7) As was noted in City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court (982) 133 Cal.App.3d 472, 488 [J83 Cal.Rptr. 9097, "the Commission in approving or disapproving an LCP does not create or originate any land use rules and regulations. It can approve or disapprove but it cannot itself draft any part of the coastal plan." (le) (Ie) The discretion accorded local governments in establishing, creating and implementing land use plans is most clearly reflected in the language of section 30005. HN2I ''No provision of this division is a limitation on any of the following: [para. ] (a) Except as otherwise limited by state law, on the power of a city or county or city and county \ to adopt and enforce additional regulations, not in conflict with this act, imposing further conditions, restrictioJ;ls, or limitations with respect to any land or water use or other activity which might adversely affect the resources of the coastal zone." (§ 30005. subd. (a),) (8a) (8a) HN22 Under the act, local governments, therefore, have discretion to zone one piece of land to fit any of the acceptable uses under the policies of the act, but they also have the discretion to be more restrictive than the act. The Coastal Act .sets minimum standards and policies with which local governments within the coastal zone must comply; it does not mandate the action to be taken by a local government in implementing local land use controls. (9) (9) (8b) (8b) The Commission performs a judicial function when it revIews a local government's LCP --it determines whether the LCP meets the minimum standards of the act ( . City ofChula Vista v. Superior Court. supra, 133 Cal.App.3d 472, 488), but once an LCP has been approved by the Commission, a local government has discretion to choose what action [*573] to take to implement its LCP: it can decide to be more restrictive with respect to any parcel of [**1160] [***809] land, provided such restri,ctions do not conflict with the act. 9 (If) (If) HN23 The act, therefore, leaves wide discretion to a local government not only to determine the contents of its land use plans, but to choose how to implement these plans. Under such circumstances a city is acting legislatively and its actions are subject to the normal referendum procedure. We are not persuaded by respondents' assertion that the discretion left to local governments by the act is not significant and that far more discretion was present in Simpson v. Hite (950) 36 Cal.2d 125 [222 P.2d 2257 where we held that a city's selection of a site for a court house pursuant to a declared legislative policy was not a legislative act. This argument fails to acknowledge iliat the only discretion left to the local government by the Legislature in Simpson was the choice of a site for a municipal and superior court. The board of supervisors had a duty to provide suitable quarters for the courts; they could not choose whether to construct a county hall of administration instead --or a new jail, a park or museum. No such tightly circumscribed duty is imposed on local governments by the Coastal Act. The act does not dictate that a local government must build a hotel and conference A local government can amend a certified LCP or LUP (§ 30514). An amendment which authorizes a use designated as a permitted use in the LCP does not require certification by the Commission; an amendment which authorizes a use other than that designated in the LCP as a permitted use does require certification by the Commission (§ 30514, subd. (d)). Jonathan Weiner 9 Page 10 of 10 36 Cal. 3d 561, *573; 685 P.2d 1152, **1160; 205 Cal. Rptr. 801, ***809 center --that decision is made by the local government. It merely requires local governments to comply with specific policies --but the decision of whether to build a hotel or whether to designate an· area for a park remains with the local government. A local government is acting legislatively in making this decision as well as in implementing it. Finally we confront respondents' contention that the initiative and referendum processes are ill-suited to the careful preparation and implementation of an LCP in confonnity with the policies of the act --that an alternative program imposed by the initiative process would lack the "full consultation with the commission" required by section 30500. subdivision (c ), and that the referendum process could be used by local electors to frustrate any attempt by the governing body to comply with th~ Coastal Act. As far as the argument based on the unsuitability of the initiative is concerned, it simply does not apply here because we are concerned with a referendum. (But see Associated Home Builders etc. Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582.595-596 fl35 Cal.Rvtr. 41. 557 P.2d 473. 92 [*574J A.L.R.3d 10381.) The referendum under consideration merely seeks to undo a specific implementation, of the LUP envisaged by the Santa Barbara City Council. True, if down the road the people exercise their referendum power in such a way as to frustrate any feasible implementation of the LUP, some way ou~ of the impasse will have to be found. At this point, however, the system is not being put to so severe a test. IV Conclusion We conclude that the Coastal Act does not transform the exercise of legislative power into administrative action by virtue of a Commission certification of a hind use plan. The Legislature left wide discretion to local governments to formulate land use plans for the coastal zone and it also left wide discretion to local governments todetennine how to implement certified LCPs. Under such circumstances, the City Council of Santa Barbara was acting legislatively when it adopted the two resolutions and the ordinance which are the subject of this appeal. Its action is thus subject to the normal referendum procedure. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to issue a peremptory writ of mandate ordering respondents to place the proposed [**1161] [***810] referendum on the ballot for municipal election, provided there has been compliance with the formal filing requirements. ( Jonathan Weiner (3)(f) Conway v. City ofImperial Beach So LexisNexis~ User Name: Jonathan Weiner Date and Time: Apr 28,2015 12:44 p.m. EDT Job Number: 19488518 .Document{1 ) 1. Conway v. City of Imperial Beach. 52 Cal. App. 4th 78 Client/Matter: 73055-0002 CJ~:iL.exi~,t\~:d~'" !About LexisNexis, I Privacy PolI6y I. Terrns& Conditions I Copyr'ighf © 2015 I LexisNexis. Jonathan Weiner + Positive As of: April 28, 2015 12:44 PM EDT Conway v. City of Imperial Beach Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One January 22, 1997, Decided No. D021204. Reporter 52 Cal. App. 4th 78; 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 40; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 549; 97 Daily Journal DAR 818 WILLIAM CONWAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, Defendant and Respondent. Prior History: [***1] Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. Super. Ct. No. 662168. Hon. Judith McConnell, Judge. Disposition: The judgment is affIrmed. Both parties to bear their own costs on appeal. Core Terms Coastal, interim ordinance, zone, local government~ coastal zone, ordinance, properties, authorize, permitted use, certifIcation, resources, building permit, effective, density, parcel, local coastal program, legislative body, regulations, designated, plans, summary adjudication, zoning ordinance, multifamily, provisions, urgency, development permit, public hearing, requirements, residential, amendments Case. Summary Procedural Posture Plaintiff developer sought review of an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) that granted defendant city's motion for summary adjudication, and denied plaintiff's similar motion, in plaintiff's action for declaratory relief, an injunction, damages, and a writ of mandate against defendant after it sought to enforce Imperial Beach, Cal., Interim Ordinance, No. 92-864 (proposition P). Overview Plaintiff developer owned three properties located within the city limits defendant city. The properties were within the coastal zone and subject to the provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq. Plaintiff began development plans for the properties in 1991, applying for development pennits from defendant. In response, defendant advised plaintiff of possible changes to zoning ordinances affecting plaintiff s plans. The following year, Imperial Beach, Cal., Interim Ordinance, No. 92-864 (Proposition P), was passed and plaintiff was unable to obtain permits to commence construction on any the properties. In March of the next year,. plaintiff fIled suit seeking declaratory relief, injunction, damages for violation of civil rights and a petition for writ of'mandate against defendant. A month later, the state coastal commiss{on approved Proposition P as an amendment to defendant's local coastal program. On the parties' motion for summary adjudication, the trial court granted defendant's motion. 'Plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the court affIrmed because defendant was not obligated to obtain commission approval before Proposition P became effective. Outcome The court affmned the order that granted defendant city's motion for summary adjudication and denied plaintiff developer's similar motion because the approval of the state coastal commission was not required prior to implementation and enforcement of the interim ordinance that limited development on plaintiff's properties. LexisNexis® Headnotes Environmental Law> Natural Resources & Public Lands> Coastal Zone Management> General Overview Governments> Local Governments> Ordinances & Regulations HNI Imperial Beach, Cal., Interim Ordinance, No. 92-864 (Proposition P), enacted under the provisions of Cal. Gov't Code § 65858, amends the R-HD zone to limit the height of structures to 30 feet, reduces the density by increasing the number of square feet of land required.per unit from 1,000 to 2,000 and prohibits lot combinations which would allow a greater density. Civil Procedure> Appeals> Standards of Review> General Overview ~ Jonathan Weiner Page 2 of 8 52 Cal. App. 4th 78, *78; 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402, **402; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 40,.***1 Civil Procedure> Appeals> Standards of Review> De Novo Review Criminal Law & Procedure> ... > Standards of Review> De Novo Review > General Overview HN2 An appellate court conducts independent review of a trial court's determination of questions of law. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law. Further, application of the interpreted statute to undisputed facts is also subject to the appellate court's independent determination. Governments > Legislation> Interpretation HN3 To resolve whether a party's interpretation of the relevant statutes is correct, the courts are guided by the canons of statutory construction. In construing a statute, the courts ascertain the intent of the legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. If the terms of a statute provide no definitive answer, then the courts resort to extrinsic sour,ces, including the ostensible objects to be achieved and the legislative history. The courts must select the construction that cOJ.I.lports most closely with the apparent intent of the legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoiding an interpretation leading to absurd consequences. Governments> Legislation> Interpretation HN4 It is a court's duty to construe the true meaning of the statutes at issue and to harmonize them with the entire statutory scheme of which they are a part. Governments > LegIslation> Interpretation HNS In situations that involve an apparent conflict between two statutes, the principle of paramount importance is that of ha.r:momous construction, by which a court attempts, to give effect to both statutes if possible. If a harmonious') construction of the two provisions does exist, the court adopts that harmonizing construction. Governments> Legislation> Interpretation HN6 Where the language of a statutory proVISIOn is susceptible of two constructions, courts apply the one which will render it reasonable, fair, and harmonious with its manifest purpose. Governments >Local Governments> Ordinances & Regulations HN7 See Cal. Gov't Code § 65858. Environmental Law> Natural Resources & Public Lands> Coastal Zone Management> General Overview Governments> Local Governments> Ordinances & Regulations Governments> Public Improvements> General Overview HN8 The Coastal Actof 1976 (Act), Car Pub. Res. Code § 30005 describes the impact of the Act on the authority of local governments to regulate uses in the coastal zone under their own powers. Section 30005 provides the Act does not limit the power of a city or county or city and county to adopt and enforce additional regulations, not in contlict with the Act, imposing further ,conditions, restrictions, or limitations with respect to any land or water u~e or other activity which might adversely affect the resources of the coastal zone. In addition, the Act does not limit the power of any city or county or city and county to declare, prohibit, and abate nuisances. Environmental Law> Natural Resources & Public Lands> Coastal Zone Management > General Overview Governments> Local Governments> Ordinances & ~egulations Real Property Law> Subdivisions> Local Regulations HN9 The Coastal Act of 1976 (Act), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30514(aJ provides a certified local coastal program (LCP) and all local implementing ordinances, regulations, and other actions may be amended by the appropriate local government, but no such amendment takes effect until it has been certified by the commission. An. amendment to a certified LCP includes any action by the local government that authorizes the use ?f a parcel of land other than a use that is designated in the certified local coastal program as a pennitted use of the parceL , Environmental Law> 'Natural Resources & Public Lands> Coastal Zone Management> General Overview HNI0 The express provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976 (Act), Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30005, 30514 provide a clear statement of the legislative intent that local governments retain powers to act in ways not in conflict with the Act, and ' that acts by local governments which do not authorize the use of a parcel of land other than a use that is designated in the local coastal program (LCP) need not be construed as amendments. Environmental Law> Natural Resources & Public Lands> Coastal Zone Management > Gen~ral Overview Governments> Local Governments> Ordinances & Regulations HNll Local governments retain the power to enforce urgency interim ordinances which are not in conflict with the Coastal Act of 1976 (Act), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq., and only those amendments authorizing a use other Jonathan Weiner Page 3 of 8 52 Cal. App. 4th 78, *78; 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402, **402; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 40, ***1 than that designated in the local coastal program (LCP) as a interim ordinance, No. 92-864 (Proposition P), in order for pennitted use require certification by the state coastal it to be effective. commission. On appeal, Conway contends the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication in favor of 'City because Proposition Environmental Law > Natural Resources & Public Lands > [***2] P, according to the terms of the Coastal Act, was Coastal Zone Management> General Overview an amendment to City's local coastal program, and therefore Governments> Local Governments> Ordinances & Regulations City was required to obtain Coastal Commission certification prior to enforcing [**404] the terms of Proposition P. WeHN12 An interim ordinance which does not authorize a use disagree, and affirm. other than that designated in the local coastal program (LCP) asa peimitted use need not be certified by the state FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 coastal COmmlSSlOn prior to implementation and enforcement. Conway is the owner of three properties located within the city limits of City. One ,property is located at 181 Ebony Counsel: William Conway, in pro. per., Worley, Schwartz, Street (the Ebony property), one at 272 Elm Street (the Elm Garfield & Rice and Robert, C. Rice for Plaintiff and property) and one at 580 Florida Street (the Florida property). Appellant. The three properties are also within the coastal zone and [*81] subject to the provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976 McDougal, Love, Eckis & Grindle and Lynn R. McDougal (Pub. Resources Code. 2 § 30000 et seq.) (Coastal Act or the for Defendant and Respondent. Act). The Coastal Commission has certified City's local coastal program (LCP) for all properties within the coastal Judges: Opinion by Nares, J., with Benke, Acting P. J., ,and zone. McDonald, J., concurring. [***3] In 1991, before the' passage of Proposition P, Opinion by: NARES Conway's three properties were zoned R-HD, a multifamily zone which pennitted a maximum density of one dwelling 'unit per one thousand square feet of building site area.Opinion Conway began development plans for the three properties in 1991, applying to City for development pennits. Conway [*80] [**403] NARES, J. was sent a letter on September 18, 1991, by the city attorney, advising him of possible future changes to zoning Plaintiff William Conway filed suit for declaratory relief, ordinances affecting density and height requirements. injunction, damages and writ of mandate against defendant City of Imperial Beach (City). Conway appeals from the Conway thereafter was unable to obtain building pennits to judgment entered after City'S motion for summary commence construction on any of his three 'properties adjudication was granted. After considering the evidence, a following the passage of Proposition P. 3 [***4] 4 statement of undisputed facts, moving papers and argument, the court granted the motion on the ground that City was not [***5] [*82] Conway timely filed an application for an obligated to obtain Coastal Commission approval of an appeal on the question of whether he had achieved vested 1 As the facts are undisputed, we abbreviate our recitation thereof. 2 All further statutory references are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise specified. 3 As to the Ebony property, in November 1991, City granted Conway a coastal development permit, a tentative parcel map and a site plan to permit construction of a four-unit apartment project on the Ebony property. The project conformed with existing R-HD zoning regulations. On August 27, 1992, Conway submitted an application for a building permit for the four-unit apartment project. BetWeen August 27, 1992, and December 14, 1992, Conway submitted the Ebony property plans to City. City reviewed and returned the plans to Conway for corrections three different times. After the plans were submitted on December 14, 1992, City refused to continue processing the Ebony property plans because the Ebony project was not in compliance with Proposition P. As to the Florida property, on December 14, 1991, City approved a site plan, coastal development permit and tentative parcel map for an eight-unit condominium project on Conway's Florida property. The approvals expired December 23, 1992, unless building permits were issued and substantial construction was commenced. The project and property conformed with R-HD zoning ordinances. On Jonathan Weiner Page 4 of 8 52 Cal. App. 4th 78, *82; 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402, **404; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 40, ***5 rights on any of his three properties. 5 After a hearing before PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND City, City ruled Conway had not achieved vested rights ~:m On March 11, 1993, O;mway filed a complaint for any of the properties because building [**405] permits were declaratory relief, injunction, damages for violation of civil never obtained and there had been 110 substantial rights and a petition for writ of mandate against City. The expenditures incurred or construction performed in good complaint alleged that City's enforcement of [*83]faith reliance on the issuance of building permits. Proposition P without prior certification by the Coastal On November 5, 1992, City attempted to transmit Commission was in violation of the Coastal [***7] Act and Proposition P to the Coastal Commission for certification had prevented Conway from securing vested rights by under the "rapid and expeditious" procedure "in the Coastal precluding the grant of building permits, to Conway to Act. (§ 30514, subd. (d.) The Coastal Commission rejected commence substantial construction on his three properties. City's request because it was of the view that Proposition P City filed its answer to the complaint on April 16, 1993, was not a "minor" amendment qualifying for rapid and denying Conway's allegations. \ ,expeditious processing, and City was informed it would On November 12, 1993, Conway and City filed motions for have to go through the formal amendment certification summary adjudication. Conway's motion sought summary process. On November 12, 1992, Proposition [***6] P was adjudication of his first cause of action, for declaratory returned without having been considered. relief. City's motion sought summary adjudication as to the first cause of action, as well as' Conway's fifth (improper On December 12, 1992, City determined, without the initiative) and eighth-(injunction) causes of action. approval of the Coastal Commission, that Proposition P was , effective, and enforcement throughout City began December On December 10, 1993, the trial court denied Conway's 14, 1992. Construction and processing on projects City motion for summary adjudication, and granted City's motion, deemed to conflict with Proposition P was halted, and finding: "The Court interprets the law and the stipulated explanatory letters were sent to affected property owners, facts in the manner which sup~orts both the clear intent of including Conway. the voters in passing Proposition 'P' and the clear intent of , the California Legislature in enacting the ~oastal Act On January 29, 1993, City received notice from the Coastal [citation], and concludes that Defendant ... City'of Imperial Commission that Proposition P must' be submitted for Beach was not obligated to obtain Coastal Commission certification prior to becoming effective. City, after public approval of the interim Ordinance 92-864 initiative know as hearings, adopted a resolution transmitting Proposition P to Proposition"P,' as claimed in Plaintiff['s] ... First, Fifth and the Coastal Commission as an amendment to the LCP. On [***8] Eighth Causes ofAction, in order for Proposition 'P' April 10, 1993, the Coastal! Commission, after public to be effective upon enactment." hearings on City's application, approved Proposition P (with a minor change) as an amendment to City's LCP. STANDARD OF REVIEW October 15, 1992, Conway applied for a six-month extension of the approvals, which was granted by the planning commission in November 1992. On appeal, however, the extension was denied by City on December 9, 1992. As to the Elm property, on November 14, 1991, City approved a site plan, coastal development permit and tentative parcel map for a four-unit condominium project on the Elm property. The property and project conformed with R-HD zoning ordinances. The approvals expired January 23, 1993, unless building permits were issued and substantial construction ~as commenced. On December 11, 1992, Conway sought and was denied a six-month extension by City. 4 On August 5, 1992, Proposition P qualified as an initiative ballot measure in the City. Proposition P was titled, "Ordinance of the -People of the City of Imperial Beach to Temporarily Amend the Municipal Code to Limit the Density and Building Height, to Prohibit Gaining Greater Density of Residential Units by Lot Consolidations, in the Multi-Family Residential Zones, and Seacoast District Specific Plan Area (SP-l) Until a Comprehensive Amendment to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Has Been Approved by Necessary Governmental Agencies or Two Years From an Act, Whichever Occurs First." Proposition P applied to all multifamily zoned property within City. On November 3, 1992, City voters approved Proposition P. HNI Proposition P is an interim ordinance, enacted under the provisions of Govemment Code section 65858. It amends the R-HD zone to limit the height of structures to 30 feet, reduce the density by increasing the number of square feet of land required per unit from 1,000 to 2,000 and prohibits lot combinations which would allow a greater density. After passage of Proposition P, Conway's Florida, Elm and Ebony properties exceeded the density and height requirements allowable for an R-HD zone. 5 Projects with vested rights are exempt from Proposition P (§ 7 of Prop. P). Jonathan Weiner Page 5 of 8 52 Cal. App. 4th 78, *83; 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402, **405; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 40, ***8 (1) (1) We have recently set out the applicable standard of review: "[T]he applicable standard of review on appeal in this case is de novo or independent review. There were no credibility issues at trial and the court decided only the limited question of law [we now review]. HN2 As an appellate court, we 'conduct independent review of the trial court's determination of questions of law.' ( Stratton v. First Nat. Life IflS. Co. (989) 210 Cal. App. 3d 1071. 1083 [258 Cal. Rptr. 7217.) Interpretation of a statute is a question of law. (California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (981) 28 Cal. 3d 692. 699 [170 Cal. Rptr. 817. 621 P.2d 8567; California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Liemsakul (987) 193 Cal. App. 3d 433.438 [238 Cal. Rptl: 3467; Los Angeles Countv Safety Police Assn. v. Countv of Los Angeles I (987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1378. 1384 [237 Cal. Rptr. 9201.) Further, application of the [**406] interpreted statute to undisputed facts is also subject to our independent determination. ( Rudd v. California Casualty [***91 Gen. Ins. Co. (990) 219 Cal. App. 3d 948. 951 [268 Cal. Rptr. 6247.)" (Harbor Fumigation. Inc. v. County of San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist. (996) 43 Cal. App. 4th 854.859 [50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 8747.) [*84] APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES 1. Statutory Construction This case is one of fIrst impression. There are no reported decisions on how the coastal planning process prescribed by the Coastal Act relates to the ability of local governments to adopt urgency interim ordinances under Government Code section 65858. 6 Thus, our resolution of the question before us depends on application of the rules of statutory conStruction. (2) (2) "HN3 To resolve whether defendant's interpretation of the relevant statutes is correct, we are guided by familiar canons of statutory construction. '[IJn construing a statute, a court [must] ascertain the.intent of the Legislature so as (to effectuate the purpose of the law.' ( People v. Jenkins (995) 10 Cal. 4th 234. 246 [40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 903. 893 P.2d 12247.) I!' If I!' the terms of a statute provide no defInitive answer, then courts may resort to extrinsic sources, including the ostensible objects to be achieved and the [***10] legislative history. (See Granberry v. Islay Investments (995) 9 Cal. 4th 738. 744 [38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 650. 889 P.2d 9707.) 'We must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.' ( People v. Jenkins. supra. 10 Cal. 4th at p. 246.)" (People v. Coronado (995) 12 Cal. 4th 145. 151 [48 Cal. Rpir. 2d 77. 906 P.2d 12327; see also Quintano v. Mercury Casualty Co. (995) 11 Cal. 4th 1049. 1060 [48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1.906 P.2d 10577.) [***11] As we have recently stated, "HN4 it is our duty ... to construe the true meaning of [the statutes at issue] 'I! and to harmonize [them] with the entire statutory scheme o( which [they are] a part. ( Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles (969) 71 Cal. 2d 907. 917. tn. 15 [80 Cal. Rptr. 89. 458 P.2d 337.)" (Sea World. Inc. v. Countv ofSan Diego (994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 1390. 1406 [33 Cal. Rptl: 2d 1947, fn. omitted.) (3) (3) HNS In this case, involving an apparent conflict between two statutes, the principle of paramount importance is that of harmonious construction, by which we must attempt to give effect to both statutes if possible: "[O]ur task here is to determine whether ... there is any possible I!. construction that [*85] will harmonize two ... provisions of equal dignity. As we demonstrate ... , a harmonious construction of the two provisions does exist and we therefore muSt adopt that harmonizing construction." ( Citv and County ofSan Francisco v. Countv ofSan Mateo (995) 10 Cal. 4th 554.570-571. tn. 8 [41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888. 896 P.2d 1817.) ''Moreover, HN6 where the language of a statutory provision is susceptible of two constructions, courts should [***12] apply the one which will render it reasonable, fair and harmonious with its manifest purpose. (Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (989) 49 Cal. 3d 408. 425 [261 Cal. Rptr. 384. 777 P.2d 1577.)" ( Doyle v. Fenster (996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 1701. 1706 [55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 3277; see also Harbor Fumigation. Inc. v. Countv of San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist.. supra. 43 Cal. App. 4th at p.p. 859-860.) [**407] 2. The Coastal Act In Yost v. Thomas (984) 36 Cal. 3d 561 [205 Cal. Rptr. 801, 685 p. 2d 11527 (Yost), our Supreme Court described in some detail the Coastal Act and the respective roles of local government and the Coastal Commission in the preparation In CEEED v. Califomia Coastal Zone Conservation Com. (1974) 43 Cal. App. 3d 306 [118 Cal. Rptr. 315], Division Two of this district considered and rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (former § 27000 et seq.), now codified as the Coastal Act (§ 30000 et seq.). In so doing, the court noted the permit process established by the Act itself was a type of interim development control, and such interim regulations were specifically authorized under Government Code ~ection 65858. (43 Cal. ADO' 3d at 00' 313-316.) Jonathan Weiner 6 Page 6 of 8 52 Cal. App. 4th 78, *85;,60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402, **407; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 40, ***12 and certification of a local coastal plan: ''The Coastal Act of zoning ordinances, zoning district maps and other matter 1976 ( Pub. Resources Code. § 30000 et seq.) was enacted which, taken together, meet the [***14] requirements of and by the Legislature as a compryhensive scheme to govern implement the policies of the Act. (§ 30108.6.) land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.... '[T]he basic goals of the state for the coastal zone' are to: Local governments are responsible for creating their LCP' s. '(a) Protect, maintain, and; where feasible, enhance and (§ 30500; Yost. supra. 36 Cal. 3d at p. 572.) The Coastal restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment Commission was established to review these LCP's and and its natural and manmade [***13] resources.'" ( Id. at certify the LCP's meet the requirements of the Act. pp. 565-566, fn. omitted; see also Citv of Chula Vista v. Superior Ct. (982) 133 Cal. Aep. 3d 472. 480-484 U83 The Act also provides an LCP may be amended by a local Cal. RptT. 9097, fn. omitted.) agency, but the Coastal Commission has 'the authority to review and certify any amendments to th~ LCP. No The court further held the wording of the Coastal Act does amendment to the LCP will become effective until the not suggest preemption of local planning by the state; rather, Coastal Commission certifies the amendment is consistent under the language of section 30005,' local governments with the requirements of and implements the policies of the have the authority to zone land to fit any of the acceptable Act. (§ 30514. subd. (aL) uses under the policies of the act and have the discretion to be more restrictive than the Act. (Yost. supra. 36 Cal. 3d at Amendment of an LCP is defined by the Act to include, "but 1212. 572-573.) Specifically, the court stated, "An amendment is not limited to, any action by a local government that which authorizes a use designated as a permitted use in the authorizes the use of a parcel of land other than a use that is LCP does not require certification by the Commission; ..." designated in the c~rtified local coastal program as a ad. at p. 573. fn. 9.) permitted use of the parcel." (§ 30514. subd. (eL) Two means exist for implementing Coastal Act policies. 3. Interim Ordinances First, most new development in the.coastal zone is subject to a coastal development permit. (§ 30600.) Second, all Govemment Code section 65858, set out in full below, 7 local governments are required to prepare an LCP covering establishes an expeditious means [**408] to "protect the I the territory within their boundaries in the coastal zone. (§ public safety, health and welfare" by establishing procedures 30109, [*86] 30500.) The LCP's consist of a land-use plan, for the adoption of interim, limited [***15] duration 7 HN7 Government Code section 65858 provides: "(a) Without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, the legislative body, to protect the public safety, health and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan" or zoning proposal which the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time. That urgency measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. The interim ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may extend the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for one year. Any extension shall also require a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more than two extensions may be adopted. "(b) Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be adopted by a four-fifths vote following notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, in which case it shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may by a four-fifths vote extend the interim ordinance for 22 months and 15 days. "(c) The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the ordinance contains a fmding that t4ere is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare. fled) Ten days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance or any extension, the legislative body shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. flee) When an interim ordinance has been adopted, every subsequent ordinance adopted pursuant to this sectiol1, covering the whole or a part of the same property, shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect upon the termination of the first interim ordinance or any extension of the ordinance as provided in this section." Jonathan Weiner Page 7 of 8 52 Cal. App. 4th 78, *86; 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402, **408; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 40, ***15 ordinances. [***16] [*87] DISCUSSION (4) (4) The issue before us is this: May Government Code section 65858 and Public Resources Code sections 30514 be harmonized, 8 or does section 30514 prevent acts under Government Code section 65858 from taking effect prior to review and approval of those acts by the Coastal Commission? The legislative intent in this matter may be derived from the articulations of the rela~onship between the Coastal Act and other local government activity. HN8 Section 30005 describes the impact of the Coastal Act on the authority of local governments to regulate uses in the coastal zone under their own powers: ''No provision of this division [***17] is a limitation on any of the following: "(a) Except as otherwise limited by state law, on the power of a city or county or city and county to adopt and enforce additional regulations, not in conflict with this act, imposing further conditions, restrictions, or limitations with respect to any land or water use or other activity which might adversely affect the resources of the coastal zone. "(b) On the power of any city or county or city and county to declare, prohibit, and abate nuisances." (Italics added.) Thus, the Legislature clearly intends that local governments retain authority to regulate land or water uses in the coastal zone when necessary to protect coastal resources. This authority exists so long as the regulations enacted are "not in conflict" with the purposes of the Coastal Act. Also, HN9 section 30514, subdivision (a) provides: "A certified local coastal program and all local implementing ordinances, regulations, and other actions may be amended by the appropriate local government, but no such amendment shall take effect until it has been certified by the ..COlTIlTIlSSIOn. " [*88] For -purposes of this section, an amendment to a certified local coastal program [***18] includes, but is not limited to, "an,y action by the local government that authorizes the use ofa parcel of land other than a use that is designated in the certified local coastal program as a permitted use of the parcel." (§ 30514. subd. (e ), italics added.) Thus, HNIO the express proVISIOns of the Coastal Act provide a clear statement of the legislative intent that local governments retain powers to act in ways "not in conflict" with the Coastal Act, and that acts by local governments which do not "authorize[] the use of a parcel of land other than a use that is designated" in the LCP need not be construed to be "amendments." Conway concedes that an urgency ordinance which imposed a total moratorium on all development "would not, in and of itself, be in conflict with the Coastal Act." He urges, however, that Proposition P constituted a change in the intensity of the permitted uses, rather than complete prohibition thereof, and thus it was an "amendment" requiring Coastal Commission certification before it could become effective. As City correctly notes, the suggestion that a valid urgency measure may only impose [**409] a total moratorium, rather than merely effecting, [***19] as here, a limitation of an already-permitted use, is without foundation in either law or reason. The single case Conway cites for this proposition does not support it. 9 [***20] Further, local governments exercising their authority under Government Code section 65858 necessarily do so on the basis that"... there is a current and immediate threat to 8 Conway suggests that in a case of conflict among statutes, we should apply the principle that the latest legislative expression controls, here, the Coastal Act. (See, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Romero) (996) 13 Cal. 4th 497. 526 [53 Cal. RQtr. 2d 789, 917 P.2d 628],) Where there is no irreconcilable conflict, however, we need not apply this principle. 9 Conway relies upon Silvera v. City of South Lake Tahoe (970) 3 Cal. AQQ. 3d 554, 558 [83 Cal. RQtr. 698] (Silvera), for the proposition that a valid interim ordinance must halt all development. That case, however, involved an attempt to positively authorize a formerly prohibited use. There the court held: "... These ordinances do not prohibit; they authorize. They permit a use formerly prohibited--construction of a high-rise permanent building. It is thus obvious that the intent of the city counsel was not to adopt any stopgap temporary measure to prevent a use which might interfere with a comprehensive zoning plan later to be adopted. It could only have been, and it was, an attempt to circumvent the statutory scheme of commurtity development by the misuse of a code section framed to maintain the status quo pending the completion of a comprehensive plan." (Silvera, supra, 3 Cal. AQQ. 3d at QQ. 556-557.) Silvera thus did not involve a true "interim" ordinance, but instead involved a "ruse" through which the City of South Lake Tahoe "sought to authorize a high-rise building." (Silvera, supra, 3 Cal. AQQ. 3d at Q. 558.) The case is thus fully distinguishable from this matter. Jonathan Weiner Page 8 of 8 52 Cal. App. 4th 78, *88; 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402, **409; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 40, ***20 the public ... safety [and] welfare." (Id., subd. (c).) The necessary conclusion is that HNll local governments retain the power to enforce urgency interim ordinances which are not in conflict with [*89] the Coastal Act, and that only those amendments "authorize[] a use other than that designated in the LCP as a permitted use .. . require certification by the Commission ;..." (Yost. supra. 36 Cal. 3d at p. 573. (n. 9.) Conway and City do not dispute that Proposition P is an effective interim ordinance adopted under authority of Government Code section 65858. Proposition P did not change the permitted use of the R-HDzone, but it maintained R-HD as a multifamily residential zone. What Proposition P did accomplish was only a temporary reduction in density and building heights for multifamily residential zones. In accordance with City's LCP, the permitted uses of property in the coastal zone were not altered. There was no change in the relative composition of residential, industrial or recreational [***21] uses. City, under the authority of section 30005, adopted and enforced additional regulations, not in conflict with the act, which imposed further conditions and restrictions on multifamily residences within the coastal zone. City's action did not conflict with the Coastal Act because , Proposition P protected, maintained and enhanced the overall quality of the coastal zone environment. Proposition P did not alter the utilization or conservation of coastal zone resources, impede public access to and along the coastal zone, or interfere with the priorities established for coastal-dependent or coastal-related development. For the foregoing reasons we conclude there is no conflict in this case between section 30514 (or other provisions of the Coastal Act) and Government Code section 65858. As the enactment under Government Code section 65858 did not "authorize[] a use other than that designated in the LCP as a permitted use" (Yost. supra, 36 Cal. 3d at p. 573. En. 9.), it was not in conflict with the purposes sought to be served by the Coastal Act, and no approval by the Coastal Commission was required prior to enforcement. 10 [***22] Any other conclusion would lead to the absurd consequences that an attempt to advance [**410] the purposes of the Coastal Act, which attempt required [*90] expeditious action, could be frustrated by the procedures of the very organization, the Coastal Commission, which is designed to advance the purposes of the Act, and thus the very system designed to protect California's coastal resources would be the means by which they were eviscerated. We hold that HN12 an interim ordinance which does not authorize"a use other than that designated in the LCP as .a permitted use" (Yost. supra. 36 Cal. 3d at p. 573. (n. 9) need not be certified by the Coastal 'Commission prior to implementation and enforcement. The trial court here correctly concluded that approval of the Coastal Commission was not required prior to implementation and enforcement of Proposition P. In approving and affIrming that conclusion, we thus" 'avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Coronado. supra. 12 Cal. 4th at p. 151.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Both parties to bear their own costs on appeal. Benke, Acting P. J., and McDonald, J., [***23] concurred. .10 We recognize Conway relies for support upon (1) a formal opinion of the Attorney General (70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 220 (987)), and (2) an informal opinion of the Attorney General in the form of a letter dated December 9, 1992, to the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission (Cal.Atty.Gen., letter opn., No. 92-1215 (Dec. 9, 1992).) The formal opinion, however, does not address the issue of interim regulations of the type before us, and thus is of no value as persuasive precedent. The informal opinion concludes Coastal Commission approval is not required before an interim ordinance may take effect "wheresuch an ordinance would not be in conflict with the Act." (Letter opn., No. 92-1215, supra, at p. 1.) As we have concluded there is no conflict between the interim ordinance here and the Act, the opinion supports the conclusion we reach, rather than contradicting it. Jonathan Weiner RESOLUTION NO. CC- XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE LICENSING APPLICATION FOR A POWER PLANT IN REDONDO BEACH BY THE AES CORPORATION TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION. WHEREAS, Redondo Beach has been a site for an electrical generation plant since 1896; WHEREAS, the electrical generation plant is presently owned and operated by AES Redondo, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the AES Corporation, a global electrical generation and distribution business headquartered in Arlington, Virginia; WHEREAS, the AES Corporation currently operates aged production facilities at 1100 North Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach, California; WHEREAS, this facility is directly adjacent and upwind of a densely populated area - over 13,000 residents per square mile, and surrounded by other incompatible uses such as hotels, office buildings, a 1400 slip boat harbor, two restaurants and a senior living facility; WHEREAS, the City of Redondo Beach is committed to work collaboratively with AES on the removal and remediation of their current aged power plant facilities, creating a financially viable vision for future non - industrial uses with beneficial uses of their property for the community and AES; WHEREAS, a public advisory vote was conducted in 2005 to assess two competing visions for this site that had been facilitated and crafted for and by the public over a 6-month period, and neither plans envisioned the continuation of power generation here; WHEREAS, the AES Corporation operates the electrical generation plant under regulations and permits issued by authorities of Federal and State agencies; WHEREAS, in recent years, significant environmental, economic and regulatory changes have occurred that affect the electrical generation business in California and the AES Corporation's Redondo Beach electrical generation plant; RESOLUTION NO. CC- XXX AES CLOSURE CONSIDERATION PAGE NO. 2 WHEREAS, the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, California State Water Resources Control Board, California Independent System Operator, California Air Resources Board, Southern California Air Quality Management District, California Coastal Commission, California State Tidelands Commission and other governmental agencies are or will be considering applications by the AES Corporation for continued permits to generate electricity in future years at the Redondo Beach electrical generation plant; WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach recognizes the authority of Federal and State agencies to consider and take final action on the AES Corporation permits to generate electricity at the Redondo Beach electrical generation plant; WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach has serious concerns about the lasting negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the community for generations to come by building a new power plant that will run more often than the existing plant currently does; WHEREAS, this decision will affect the future of Redondo Beach and the surrounding region for the next 50 - plus years; Now therefore be it resolved that, the City Council of Hermosa Beach requests that the AES Corporation and governmental permitting agencies permanently retire the AES Redondo generating station and remove the aged electrical production facilities, and remediate the land and; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council resolves to oppose the licensing application submitted by AES to the California Energy Commission to construct and operate a new electrical energy generating plant in Redondo Beach. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this To: KHH Bill Brand <bbrand@earthlink.net> Cc: Home <rosebud5333@me.com> From: Beth Ann Ryan <rosebud5333@me.com> Subject: Please add this to the HB Agenda for Monday May 11, 2015 regarding A New Power Plant Date: May 10, 2015 at 10:29:44 PM PDT Dear Hermosa Beach City Council, Please include the following in the Hermosa Beach City Council Meeting agenda on Monday, May 11, 2015 regarding the Power Plant in Redondo Beach. 1. A petition signed by 100 Hermosa Beach Residents 2. A copy of the City Council of Redondo Beach Resolution Unanimously Opposing the New Power Plant. 3. A copy of a Resolution from the City of Santa Monica Supporting a Resolution opposing Measure O in Hermosa Beach. (A history of cities working together.) 4. A copy of the City of Manhattan Beach Opposing drilling for oil in Hermosa Beach. (A history of cities working together.) 5. A copy of the Daily Breeze Article dated 7/22/14. Pendergraft, an AES spokesman's admission that a Power Plant is not necessary in Redondo Beach. Would like to add the following for your consideration: Particulates from Power Plants are a silent killer. The plant in Redondo is currently running at a capacity of less than 1 percent. The new plant will release at least 5-15 times more particulates than the existing one into Hermosa Beach. You can't see them and you can't smell them. Particulates kill twice as many people as breast cancer in the US. It will also put us at a higher risk of asthma and heart attacks. The plant will be located on our border. Please join the City of Redondo Beach and adopt a Resolution Opposing a new Power Plant in Redondo Beach. Please use your vote to keep us healthy and protects us from the risks of asthma, breast cancer and heart attacks. Thank you, Betsy Ryan 95 17th Street 1/ . f . . f ' ~----------------------~----------~ '..:::: :::;J I I' J· I . f ' :IfS.~lA<~<:)\~?~\~~~ ~i ~1"~.-~ %.!)o~duZ-0~6 1f1A 5d ~. <1P2-'fu( . 4-7. /lA-~ R t!1(?J ' v/s' ~ tJ J'-Lf'-11. sl 7 rJ 2-0! • Itf. ~~ bas\) lj-2-:;J., A-~~~'\)'('~ !k;~~ h "t:t~Slf 'f9 . Lt - --72 60/--) rl--¥f:;_fJ~Mri£__ {;1-% &5'/ SO. P-f>YJ;~r.:. .sfltt,.f-1 5ol #fk.~t(Do sr, ~~:,Jd-t?ltMtl~J 'fo'l9l r. --~~---·· ~ -- f S l • .P \>M!' f?ll(J{Lt~ ~ o\ ~ f:RoN oa ~1. ~ Z. S' fl~~ ~. vr. . tpo&-)'1 /fl · ~t/.A--.... \ ~r I. .!'\ ,.I bil· UJ"-' ~~ U _: / ~ ~~u utc.t~~b~~vt e_ v~~ ./ :<: ;::a. I j· I . f . ~! ·~-: --------~---------;;--.----------- J· I . f / // .. / . .f ' ~ ~7tf -~ /?{ lt-17D--~ A~-b fl.(. 0 --------J~O { H 51. :Ff g 1 C1 o1-5". i . -~ 11.._-, ~ .. ~OL{)I'I\ ~ <f)(;) y AliA-( L C,OY\ t J.7 -~t -~ ~t I tJV\i-t--~-. ,_ _ _ \art\. ~cu~l~· Wti _ 7 'P ~// ~~~ar~.-7 __ __ ~/5 l J! J'hc<. Htr~nTJJ,..J!J(J&.,-!, c4t f'W'Y 7T 1•' .. ~ ~· 'l04 ,stj'W<-~~~e<...<L,_ 7g . '(~;~ ~~ ~ 7o4 1~t ?l HerMe~~ ,!leacVv 7lJ 0'D'3 \)~{ln %~~ \JJ5'5 \$\ ~\.. ~*" ~~ to ~(Y\ c;""''t.ltt~~ {o'JS1 Sr ~ ~ .. HB · -:?J ~~~_ovJ~o !?bt~b~_Y-8 --· ~ --~ k3 -Mrc,t-1c-~~R ~~TW~ \X:ltn . ·.· • ----n ...•. n---__ f'\\t c,~lttd'otl\{t r II\ teYl'o,-_.r @. d ~ J. k.. ~~h ~ ;:; I I' ~ '" '------- \!)~ mL ~ L~M~J:u t-V aa)tA--s~ d~:;~ ....... Y'( fvA-. ~>k~~k . ;;~ S'~J~~~t:f~:~,~;f K S...& 6ors~r--J~~-5or He~t?nk 5t: 41s1-~~~t/ • ft., A~ ~~ ~ 7z.o '-f\t. \~ 1-\>r-~ ~~S"'( · f -, .-v (J ,;-.J[_ -11;1 ~ M~lr 11 ,~o '"·P·h ~~ \LOl+(\·ro G'(O~ . 7 \la~L ~({tJ"40 -----~-\-W'iYlO~ -'Q~\·<.G'f\'""3 *' E'r v'01tl~~v·~ u:; -·· .. ~~ tt~·· . tq 5ht.,t~ 6¥UU I,L. C-Q__ l:J.'i)q ~~:~ _ _ _ 11 __ y-_ _ ~~~l~yro.J.\ -u::m -1D T'rn tt;fu~ 0-T 9t;7 - -n II / q;?:JnYCA ~~\~rrc~~?J~.~~ ~,c_~ .. 112 :S;nDf\ Qeife_~' \)o ~~~\-, ~b ljtrfe/ ·~6 ~~hht ~i.lvhtU . lfllfk~ ~·-+t£3·~ qtf ~ 5~A/~ )11 z~JJ /7 Cf~~n ~rtn ef 5/1 Jflcl 5t _ -Zfk-__ ~1 . r1qa srt . '11 (}w;U ~-n s:rs -lfl'f-51> -qf-----.. --------f ~ L Y. r ) t-.:f/-tf -Cjq ~-Y r'1 '(\-e '(l J_t ~ l\( ~ ~j_{) _16 31'i£O _ ~ 1./0. [j ~ lr< ~ t .\--~51l -im ~-o\~ t\ek~u ~ ~~P:J~~~~;t>l!~t~_- . f . 1896; I of ~t)ch t'a~~~ ~tJ( ttf"tt;V) ({'hp~~~, U tta n ., mo ~A~ · L-/ r ~ RESOLUTION NO. CC·1304..029 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE LICENSING APPLICATION BY THE AES CORPORATION TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION. WHEREAS, Redondo Beach has been a site for an electrical generation plant since WHEREAS, the electricity from the electrical generation plant has served an important role in powering residential, commercial and industrial uses; WHEREAS, the reliability and safety of the electrical grid that serves the City of Redondo Beach and the entire South Bay Region are critical factors in the economic health and quality of life of our City and surrounding communities; WHEREAS, the electrical generation plant has provided jobs, taxes and economic benefits to the community; WHEREAS, the electrical generation plant is presently owned and operated by· AES Redondo, LLC, a wholly·owned subsidiary of the AES Corporation, a global electrical generation and distribution business headquartered in Arlington, Virginia; WHEREAS, the AES Corporation currently operates aged production facilities on the coast of southern California at 1100 North Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach, California; WHEREAS, this facility is directly adjacent and upwind of a densely populated area - over 13,000 residents per square mile, and surrounded by incompatible uses such as hotels, office buildings, a 1400 slip boat harbor, two restaurants and a senior living facility; WHEREAS, the City of Redondo Beach is in the midst of a harbor revitalization effort that currently includes multi-million leasehold upgrades on our Pier, construction of a new Harbor Patrol Facility, proposed upgrades to several of our existing hotel chains, and a proposed new boutique hotel that will begin construction in the near future and; WHEREAS, the City of Redondo Beach is committed to work collaboratively with the property owner to attempt to find economically viable alternative land uses to provide incentives for uses other than a power plant; WHEREAS, a public advisory vote was conducted in 2005 to assess two competing visions for this site that had been facilitated and crafted for and by the public over a 6-month period, and neither plans envisioned the continuation of power generation here; WHEREAS, the AES Corporation operates the electrical generation plant under regulations and permits issued by authorities of Federal and State agencies; RESOLUTION NO. CC-1304-029 AES CLOSURE CONSIDERATION PAGE N0.1 "-------- WHEREAS, in recent years, significant environmental, economic and regulatory changes have occurred that affect the electrical generation business in California and the AES Corporation's Redondo Beach electrical generation plant; WHEREAs: the California Energy Commission,· .California Public Utilities Commission, California State Water Resources Control Board, California Independent System Operator, California Air Resources Board, Southern California Air Quality Management District, California Coastal Commission, California State Tidelands Commission and other governmental agencies are or will be considering applications by the AES Corporation for continued permits to generate electricity in future years at the Redondo Beach electrical generation plant; · WHEREAS, the City of Redondo Beach recognizes the authority of Federal and Sate agencies to consider and take final action on the AES Corporation permits to generate electricity at the Redondo Beach electrical generation plant; WHEREAS, the City of Redondo Beach desires to work collaboratively with AES on the removal and remediation of their current aged power plant facilities, preserving Wyland's Whaling Wall, and creating a vision for future non-industrial community beneficial uses of their property. Now therefore be it resolved that, the City Council requests that the AES Corporation and governmental permitting agencies consider retiring the AES Redondo generating station permanently and remove the aged electrical production facilities, and remediate the land and; WHEREAS, the City of Redondo Beach has serious concerns about the lasting negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the community for generations to come by building a new power plant that will likely run more often than the existing plant currentlY. does; and WHEREAS, this decision will affect the future of Redondo Beach and the surrounding region for the next 50-plus years; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council resolves to oppose the licensing application submitted by AES to the California Energy Commission to construct and operate a new electrical energy generating plant in Redondo Beach. · SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of Original Resolutions. RESOLUTION NO. CC-1304-029 AES CLOSURE CONSIDERATION PAGE NO.2 J· "------- ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ) ) ) 3 ~f 3 ss I, Eleanor Manzano, City Clerk of the City of Redondo Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. CC-1304-029 was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Redondo Beach, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 2nd day of April 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ASPEL, BRAND, AUST, DIELS, KILROY NONE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: NONE NONE RESOLUTION NO. CC-1304-029 AES CLOSURE CONSIOERATION PAGE NO.3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael W. Webb, City Attorney J• yec CJ J 2oll(--Scr-Vlt-t-t ~oVl(c£-1 CtrL[ CouVJ.c~ I UVlctt1·1WJDusly fa$<;e~ a '12e~o/ uhtM oppu~~ oll dvtUt Ylti I v1 He v V\llO<',t; \?.:ea cJ1 . 'Pa 3 ~ I of 2-J H-~-h~NY _v~ Clt\es \A{ov~t Yl~ \oj~ e,v I SELECTION OF MAYOR PROTEM END OF INSTALLATION OF NEW OFFICERS COUNCILMEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS: CLEAN BEACHES & OCEAN PARCEL TAX CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OIL DRILLING Councilmember Vazquez as Mayor for a term of one year, for the second year, with Councilmember Winterer as Mayor Pro Tern for a term of one year, for the second year. Councilmember O'Day nominated Councilmember Winterer as Mayor for a term oftwo years. Mayor O'Connor nominated Gleam Davis as Mayor for a term of two years. Councilmembers Winterer and Davis withdrew their names from consideration. The following persons were appointed: Councilmember McKeown was appointed as Mayor for a term of one year, for the ftrst year; Councilmember Vazquez was appointed as Mayor Pro Tern for one year, for the ftrst year, Councilmember Vazquez was appointed as Mayor for a term of one year, for the second year; and Councilmember Winterer was appointed as Mayor Pro Tern for a term of one year, for the second year. The appointments were approved by the following vote: Councilmembers Vazquez, Davis, Himmelrich, Winterer, McKeown, Mayor Pro Tern O'Day, Mayor O'Connor Mayor McKeown assumed the Chair. 2-G: Election of Mayor Pro Tern for the ensuing two years, was heard with Item 2-F. On order of the Mayor, the installation of new officers was completed and the Council continued consideration of the remaining agenda items. 13-A: Appointment to three annual vacancies on the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee for te1·ms ending on December 31,2016, was presented. On order of the Mayor, this item was continued to December 16,2014. 13-B: Request of Councilmembers O'Day and Winterer that council adopt the resolution opposing oil drilling in Santa Monica Bay related to drilling in Hermosa Beach that will be considered by special election in that city on March 3, 2015, was presented. Members of the public Todd Flora, Jamie Freidland, George Schueltzer, Fred Muesbsher, Betsy Ryan, Dana Mun·ay, Cris GutieiTez, Billy Parent, and Michael Toney spoke generally in favor of the recommended action. J• I 3 December 9, 2014 'Pa~ 2 of 2- ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember O'Day, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor, to adopt Resolution No. 10851 (CCS) entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA OPPOSING OIL DRILLING IN HERMOSA BEACH," with amendments to add language regarding the Sustainability Bill of Rights. The motion was unanimously approved by acclamation, with all members present. On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m. ATTEST: ~&- Sarah P. Gorman City Clerk J· 4 APPROVED: Kevin McKeown Mayor December 9, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes -Draft February 3, 2015 8. House as soon as possible, report back on the cost of moving to Bruce's Beach and Polliwog Park with a proposed timeline, report back at both locations any covenants or restrictions at either location and notify neighbors adjacent to Bruce's Beach and Polliwog Park of the decision on where to move it. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 -Powell, Burton, D'Errico, Lesser and Howorth At 8:47PM City Council recessed and reconvened at 9::00 PM with all Councilmembers present. Measure 0: Hermosa Beach's Ballot Measure on Oil Drilling. (Community Development Director Lundstedt). 15-0077 CONSIDER RESOLUTION Attachments: City of Manhattan Beach Draft EIR Comment Letter and Responses Copy of December 16. 2014 Resolution Opposing Measure 0 Copy of Hermosa Beach's Measure 0 Copy of Hermosa Beach's Impartial Analysis and Ballot Arguments Litigation Information Related to Measure 0 Draft Measure 0 Resolution Mayor Powell introduced Community Development Director Marisa Lunstedt who gave a PowerPoint Presentation with an overview of Measure 0. Community Development Director Lunstedt responded to City Council questions. Mayor Powell opened the floor to public comment Nanette Barragan, Hermosa Beach Mayor Pro Tern , communicated that the City Council of Hermosa Beach had not taken a position on the measure because of the litigious nature of the proponent. She further added that this is a Santa Monica Bay issue, not just a Hermosa Beach issue. Dave Schrader, Hermosa Beach resident, brought up the Chevron Refinery to the north of Manhattan Beach citing their pumping capacity versus the maximum pumping capacity that would come from the south, Hermosa Beach. Cheryl Main, Hermosa Beach, cited the potential impact of drilling oil on Manhattan Beach. Mark Hopkins, Hermosa Beach, cited from the final health assessment in the Hermosa sample ballot, that the project will not have a substantial effect on the community. Bill Victor observed that this issue is not a fair comparison to Chevron and that the Councilmembers could make statements on their own behalf. Barbara Elman, Hermosa Beach, reported that E & B (Oil Company) have never done this before and accidents do happen all of the time. City of Manhattan Beach Page6 1;, 11:1~ 2 C1 f ~ -tt 1Sft1vy oF C \00 wovtl~i~g~~ v City of Manhattan Beach Meeting Minutes -Draft February 3, 2015 Nancy Shroats, Manhattan Beach, urged the City Council to oppose the ballot measure. Ed Abel, Manhattan Beach, cited some health risks associated with this project as air knows no boundaries. Greg Maffei, Manhattan Beach, asked that the City Council consider the impact on the business aspect of this issue. Jim Sullivan, Hermosa Beach, stated that the City should be focused on their residents and businesses and Hermosa Beach will focus on itself Dana Murray, Heal the Bay, related that this issue will have a negative environmental impact on the City and the Santa Monica Bay. Gary Brown, Hermosa Beach, requested that the City not take a position on this issue. Unknown speaker, Hermosa Beach, also requested that the City do as Redondo Beach did and not take a stand. Betsy Ryan, Hermosa Beach, shared that to be a good neighbor the City needs to protect the Santa Monica Bay, businesses and property value. Lorie Armendariz, Hermosa Beach, questioned why the City is not considering a resolution in support of Measure 0. Jamie Freeman, Natural Resources Defense Council, urged the opposition to Measure 0 and to pass the Resolution. Phil Friedl, Hermosa Beach, commented that he urged the City to pass a resolution against Measure 0. Stacey Armato, Chairman for Stop Hermosa Beach Oil, read the decision from the court case and urged a resolution against Measure 0. Dr. Michael Collins, one of the founders of Keep Hermosa Hermosa, mentioned the potential impacts of this project and urged the Council to pass a resolution against Measure 0. Bob Rasmussen, Hermosa Beach, noted that oil sands were discovered building the new Shade Hotel in Redondo Beach and there is potential of the same issue occurring here because of an earthquake or related event and also mentioned the smell from the project. Dan lnsky, Hermosa Beach and a lifelong environmentalist, spoke about how California gets most of its oil by ship and asked for a resolution to support Measure 0. Densy Nelson, Hermosa Beach, explained that as a good neighbor the City should weigh in on this issue and noted that Hermosa Beach is capable of paying the $ 17.5 million; therefore please oppose Measure 0. George Schmeltzer, Hermosa Beach, mentioned the population density, that technology is better now, but there can still be human error and asked to pass a resolution opposing Measure 0. Page7 1>a~e 3o{ 3 H-1s+ovy u f C t+wJ Wt1Y ~tr1~ TDg ct~¥ City Council Meeting Minutes -Draft February 3, 2015 George Barks, Hermosa Beach, related that there is no real significant impact, supports Measure 0 and thinks the City should be a good neighbor and not meddle. Unknown speaker, Hermosa Beach, indicated that oil drilling impacts the entire Santa Monica Bay and urges the Council to pass a resolution opposing Measure 0. Simone, Hermosa Beach, urged the Council to take a position against Measure 0 and against E&B. Unknown speaker, Hermosa Beach, noted several points against E&B and stated it was not the kind of company you would want in your back yard. Mike Find, E&B Natural Resources, asserted that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Kevin Sousza, Hermosa Beach, communicated that a lot of people are passionate and engaged in this issue and just remember what you want your legacy to be. Craig Cadwallader, Surfrider Foundation and Manhattan Beach resident, conveyed his concern with the potential impact of this project. Alicia Villarreal, Hermosa Beach, stated her concerns of safety with this project and particularly the tanker trucks on Artesia Boulevard. Hany Fangary, Hermosa Beach City Councilmember, asked the City Council to support the resolution against Measure 0, stating that it was not meddling but cooperating with the City of Hermosa for things that affect the entire South Bay. Viet Ngo, Anti-Public Corruption, alleged that Mayor Powell met with a representative of E&B Oil, and asked that the City Council not take a position on Measure 0. Diane Wallace, Manhattan Beach, declared that she doesn't want to do harm to the environment and asked to support the people of Hermosa Beach who intend to vote "No" on Measure 0. Gerry O'Connor, Manhattan Beach, cited that Manhattan Beach was formally notified by Hermosa Beach to solicit comments on the final EIR and emphasized that the Council needs to support the resolution against Measure 0. Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Powell closed the floor to public comment. Lengthy discussion continued with all City Councilmembers. City Council questions were responded to by Community Development Director Lunstedt and City Attorney Barrow. At 11:36 PM City Attorney Barrow requested a recess to amend draft Resolution No. 15-0004. City Council reconvened at 12:00 AM with all Councilmembers present. A motion was made by Mayor Powell, seconded by Councilmember Howorth, to adopt the red line version of Resolution No. 15-0004 with the additional revisions of: deleting the word "the" from the third line and and leaving in "of the Manhattan Beach City Council.". The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5-Powell, Burton, D'Errico, Lesser and Howorth City of Manhattan Beach Page 8 r' ~, ____________ __ ,. <' Redondo Beach voters can replace power plant with development through new AES plan Page 3 of8 \ 6f2 I A£S Syd<eSVY\tl Y\ S MMlS~tOY\ t~utt A }) £1W0v' ~ lctrd L~ Not Nece~~ttvr1' ~Vl 1<eJ a\lld o 13cach The AES power plant in Redondo Beach could be tom down for good if voters approve a measure to rezone the area for mixed-use and residential development instead. View from the Hermosa Beach pier, Tuesday, July 22,2014, Hermosa Beach, CA. (Steve McCrank I Staff Photographer) w~~eCarle\ On den, Daily Breeze Posted: 07/22114, 6:37PM PDTIUpdated: on 07/23/2014 Pictured in the rendering is what the current Redondo Beach Power Plant could become under new AES zoning regulations that will go before voters in the future. Courtesy AES. AES unveiled plans Tuesday to get rid of its oceanfront Redondo Beach power plant for good if voters approve a measure that would allow mixed-use development, a hotel and park space in its place. The power company will begin collecting signatures later this week for a March 2015 ballot initiative that, if approved, would shut down the existing plant by 2020 and rezone the site for mixed-use retail and office space, low-density residential units and acres of park land. "This is groundbreaking," Mayor Steve Aspel said. "This is the only surefire way to get rid of the power plant." AES, which until now has been pursuing plans to replace the hulking former Southern California Edison Co. structure with a smaller, more efficient plant, must gather signatures from 15 percent of registered voters to place the measure on the ballot. "In the event that voters don't support our proposed plan, we would continue pursuing the power plant at the Redondo site," said AES spokesman Eric Pendergraft. "It could certainly meet our future needs." The company submitted plans in November 2012 to construct a new natural-gas, air-cooled facility occupying 13 acres of the 50-acre site. The current facility -which generates I ,31 0 megawatts, enough to power 2 million homes -was built 60 years ago, although a plant has occupied the property since the 1890s. Because new state regulations ban the use of ocean water to cool steam turbines, the current plant must be retired or rebuilt by 2020. The power plant, which is situated on the Redondo Beach border with Hermosa Beach, has polarized the community for decades. Critics claim the plant is not only an eyesore along the coast but an air polluter, while the pro-plant faction argues that the facility is vital to provide the densely populated area with reliable power. http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20140722/redondo-beach-voters-can-replace-po ... 5/10/2015 Redondo Beach voters ca~ replace power plant with development through new AES plan Page 4 of8 However, that might not be the case, even by AES' own recent admission. "New power plants are definitely needed, but there are more locations in the region that can meet those needs," Pendergraft said Tuesday in a nod to AES' Long Beach and Huntington Beach plants. "Subject to a favorable vote, we are focusing our efforts on developing new power plants on our other two sites." Pendergraft said the company has long shown an interest in looking for alternative uses for the Redondo Beach pr.~o::p:e:,:m:_;:_. ------------.,_ __ _ "(Uses) that would allow us to be kept whole economically but result in a future vision for the waterfront that doesn't have a power plant on it," he said. "That's what we've come up with with this proposed zoning." The so-called Harbor Village Initiative would create new zoning and land use designations for the property on Harbor Drive. However, future specific projects would be subject to City Council and state Coastal Commission approval and an environmental review process, he said. "It would be similar to the CenterCal process," he said. "Measure G (in 2010) was the public vote that established the zoning designation for the pier area. Now, the CenterCal project is the specific development being proposed inside that zoning designation." The measure would limit overall development on the site to 600 residences, 250 hotel rooms and 85,000 square feet of commercial space, leaving a minimum of I 0 acres of open space. "By removing the old power plant, views of the harbor and coast would be enhanced and surrounding property values would increase," Pendergraft said. "This initiative would give Redondo Beach the opportunity to transform the site into a vibrant part of the waterfront, providing jobs, healthy economic growth and new revenue for city services." The proposed initiative also would require the creation of a new pedestrian esplanade/public plaza fronting Harbor Drive; continuation of Veterans P6U'kway, or the greenbelt in neighboring Hermosa Beach, to the coast; a new tree-lined pedestrian promenade along Heron do Street; and four acres of wffi@ional open space to be used for a neighborhood park or recreational areas. "!t's a win-win for everybody," Pendergraft said. "We get fairly compensated. The city gets a lot of benefits. The residents get a new waterfront with no power plant that's existed for over a century." ~el called the plan a "smart, responsible proposal that provides enormous benefits." _in!e_f\;_s_t ) ~eady has spent $450,000 to formally intervene with AES' proposal for a new plant on the property, he said. "W.Iill!!ibeen trying to get rid of that power plant for years," he said. "This is going to avoid costly legal battles." o Print ks~the plant's fate now lies in the hands of voters. o Linkedln "¥ ®~@<l!hoice of having a power plant for the next century, or (a mixed-use development)," he said. "It's a compromise." About the Author Reach the author at carle\ .dn den@langnews.com or follow Carley on Twitter: carleYdn den. • Full bio and more articles bY CarleY Dn den • Back to top FROM AROUND THE WEB selected for you by a sponsor http://www .daily breeze .com/ general-news/20 140722/redondo-beach-voters-can-replace-po... 5/1 0/2015 Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0367 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 WATER CONSERVATION UPDATE (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommended Action: Receive and file this report. Background/Analysis: With California facing one of the most severe droughts on record, Governor Brown declared a drought State of Emergency in January 2014 and issued a series of Executive Orders in April and September 2014 and January 2015, that streamline the State’s drought response and makes California more drought resilient for the future. The April 2014 Executive Order asked the State Water Board to assess voluntary conservation levels for urban water agencies and granted authority to adopt emergency conservation regulations, which the Board did in July of 2014 and updated in March of 2015. Staff provided an update to the Hermosa Beach City Council on May 27 2014 describing how the new regulations differed from the City’s water conservation ordinance. Municipal Code Chapter 8.56 (attached) titled “City of Hermosa Beach Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan Ordinance” was adopted by the City in 2010 as requested by West Basin MWD/Metropolitan MWD to address water conservation and provide a mechanism for mandating water conserving methods. This chapter mandates certain water conserving improvements and operating practices affecting businesses and residents. Sections 8.56.080 through 8.56.100 do provide a provision for the Council to declare a drought alert, critical or emergency conditions which impose additions water use restrictions. With the lowest snowpack on record and a lack of sufficient conservation to deal with the continuing drought emergency, the Governor, on April 1, 2015, directed the State Water Board to implement mandatory water reductions in urban areas to reduce potable urban water usage by 25 percent statewide. He also directed that this regulation take into account the different levels of conservation already achieved by communities based upon their relative per capita water usage. The State Water Resources Control Board has posted the draft Emergency Water Conservation Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0367 Regulations and assorted documents on their website: www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/emergency_mandatory_regulat ions.shtml# <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/emergency_mandatory_ regulations.shtml> The Board is currently soliciting comment on the updated approach and specific regulatory language in an informal comment period ending on Wednesday, April 22nd. The regulation will be further refined and revisions released on April 28th for public comment. The Board will consider the regulation at its May 5-6 board meeting. Staff has reviewed the draft provisions and have met with Public Works staff to notify and discuss draft regulations and their potential impacts on current practices. Staff will report back to City Council at the end of May with an updated Drought Management Plan. Respectfully Submitted by: Kristy Morris, Environmental Analyst Concur: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ 1 City of Hermosa Beach Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56 8.56. 010 Title. This Chapter shall be known as the “City of Hermosa Beach Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan Ordinance.” 8.56. 020 Findings A. A reliable supply of potable water is essential to the public health, safety and welfare of the people and economy of the State, the southern California region and City of Hermosa Beach. B. The State of California, southern California region and the City of Hermosa Beach suffer from periodic water shortages, and a growing population, climate change, environmental concerns, periodic energy shortages, and other factors make the region highly susceptible to water supply reliability issues. C. An active water conservation program with conservation measures applicable to all sources and uses of water is essential to ensure a reliable supply of water for drinking, sanitation and fire protection, and to protect the public health, safety and welfare. D. A Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan is necessary to properly manage water supplies and mitigate the effects of water shortages within the City by reducing water consumption by residents, businesses and visitors, while minimizing the hardship caused to the general public to the greatest extent possible. E. Recycled water (including water reclaimed by the West Basin Municipal Water District, graywater to the extent allowed by law and capture of rainwater) is a valuable resource that can be used to offset imported and other water supplies and shall therefore be regulated under this Chapter. 8.56. 030 Purpose and Intent A. The purposes of this Chapter are to increase the conservation and efficient use of potable water, maximize the use of recycled water, and provide a drought management plan. The plan will reduce water consumption and extend available water supplies, minimize the effects and hardship of water shortages on the City and the general public to the greatest extent possible, and maximize the socioeconomic and environmental benefits associated therewith. B. This Ordinance is intended solely to further the conservation of water. It is not intended to implement or supersede any federal, state, or local statute, Ordinance or regulation relating to protection of water quality or control of drainage or runoff. C. This Ordinance does not modify, terminate or otherwise affect the water services or water rates of any person. 8.56. 040 Definitions. The terms in this Chapter relating to various uses of property shall be as defined in Title 17 (Zoning) and shall be broadly construed to achieve the purposes of this Chapter. In addition: “Approval Authority” means the City Manager or his/her designee. “Commercial" means commercial, industrial, or any other nonresidential business or use. "Discretionary planning entitlement" means a land use permit or approval granted by the planning commission necessary to proceed with development. “Existing” as used in this Chapter means, as applicable: A. An existing building means a building that was constructed or had received all required approvals to commence construction on or prior to April 1, 2010. 2 B. An existing establishment means a business establishment that was in operation on or prior to April 1, 2010. "Irrigation system" or "landscape irrigation system" means an irrigation system with pipes, hoses, spray heads, or sprinkling devices that is operated through an automated system. “New” means as applicable: A. "New building" means a building that is constructed, or receives all required approvals to commence construction, after April 1, 2010. B. “New establishment,” “new business” or “new facility” mean a business establishment that initiates operation, or receives all required approvals to initiate operation, after April 1, 2010. "Person” means any natural person or persons, corporation, public or private entity, governmental agency or institution, or any other user of water within the City. "Positive action quick-release shutoff valve or nozzle" means a hand-held sprayer or similar device that quickly, automatically and absolutely stops the flow of water when the user stops exerting pressure. Water-efficient devices emit not more than three (3) gallons of water per minute. "Pre-rinse dishwashing spray nozzle" means a hand-held device that uses a spray of water to remove food and grease from dishware, utensils and pans before placing them in the dishwasher that emits not more than 1.6 gallons of water per minute. "Pressure washer" means a water conserving cleaning device that emits not more than three (3) gallons of water per minute. "Recycled water" or "recycling system" means the capture, reclamation and reuse of non- potable water for beneficial use. "Single pass cooling system" means equipment where water is circulated only once to cool equipment before the water is disposed. "Water broom" means a water conserving sweeping device with spray jets that emit not more than three (3) gallons of water per minute. “Water-efficient” means a water conserving fixture, device or system that complies with the water conservation standards of the most current edition of the California Plumbing Code or, if no standard applies, is EPA WaterSense labeled or its equivalent. In no case shall the fixture, device or system use more water than is indicated by the standard stated in this section. "Water-efficient irrigation systems" means systems using water conserving devices, including but not limited to weather based controllers, drip/micro-irrigation systems with emitters that emit not more than two (2) gallons of water per hour, and stream rotor sprinklers that meet a seventy (70) percent or greater efficiency standard. "Water-efficient dishwashing machines or systems” mean devices that use not more than one (1) gallon of water per rack. "Water-efficient laundry washing machines" means machines have a water factor of 6.0 or less, wherein water factor means the number of gallons of water used per cycle, divided by the tub volume. "Water-efficient toilet" means toilets using not more than 1.6 gallons per flush or urinals using not more than one (1) gallon per flush. "Water recycling system" means a system that reclaims and reuses non-potable water. 8.56. 050 Applicability. This Chapter is applicable to every person, commercial business, or other water user in the use of any water within the City. The City Council may by Resolution exempt pilot programs or special programs of limited scope undertaken by the City or undertaken in conjunction with the City's water providers. 8.56. 060 Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan. 3 This Chapter establishes a water conservation and drought management plan consisting of both permanent regulations designed to reduce water usage and increase the efficiency of water use on an ongoing basis, and three increasingly restrictive levels of drought response actions to be implemented in times of drought conditions. 8.56. 070 Water Conservation Requirements. The following water conservation requirements shall apply to all persons: A.Landscaping. 1. Watering hours and duration. No lawn or landscaped area shall be irrigated or watered by any means between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any day. Above-ground spray irrigation or watering shall not exceed fifteen (15) minutes per irrigation station or area. This provision shall not apply to drip irrigation systems, use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, use of a hand-held hose equipped with a positive action quick-release shutoff valve or nozzle, irrigation necessary to establish newly planted low water usage plants, or water expended for limited periods of time necessary for irrigation system maintenance or leak repair. 2.Over-watering: No lawn or landscaped area shall be irrigated or watered to the point where excess water ponds, sprays or runs off the lawn or landscaped area onto any walkways, sidewalks, driveways, streets, alleys or storm drains. 3. Irrigation during rainfall: No lawn or landscaped area shall be irrigated or watered during rainfall or within 24 hours after measurable rainfall. 4.Landscape maintenance: All lawns and landscaping shall be regularly maintained to reduce water use by such methods as aerating, thatching and mulching. 5. Landscape irrigation system maintenance: Landscape irrigation systems shall be regularly inspected, maintained and repaired to eliminate leaks, remove obstructions to water emission devices and eliminate over spraying. B.Pools and spas. New pools and spas shall be equipped with a cover. Not later than July 1, 2012, all existing pools and spas shall be constructed, installed or equipped with a cover. Pools and spas shall be covered overnight and daily when use is concluded. C. Water fountains and decorative water features. No person shall operate a fountain or other decorative water feature that does not recycle or re-circulate the water utilized by the device. D.Cleaning.No person shall use water to wash or clean any sidewalks, walkways, patios, driveways, alleys, parking or similar areas, whether paved or unpaved; however, use of water brooms or pressure washers or similar low flow technology, or water recycling systems to clean these surfaces, is permitted. In no case shall such water run off the property or drain onto any walkways, sidewalks, streets, alleys or storm drains. E.Car washing.No person shall use water to wash or clean any motorized or un- motorized vehicle, including, but not limited to, an automobile, truck, boat, van, bus, motorcycle, trailer or similar vehicle, except by use of a bucket or similar container or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive action quick-release shutoff valve or nozzle. This subsection shall not apply to any commercial car washing facility that uses a water recycling system to capture or reuse water. F.Waste and leaks. No person shall: 1. Cause, permit or allow water to leak from any exterior or interior pipe, hose or plumbing fixture. 2. Cause, permit or allow water to flow from any source on private or public property onto walkways, sidewalks, streets, alleys or storm drains, except as a result of rainfall or pumping excessive groundwater infiltration, such as by means of a sump pump. 3. The use of water for cleaning, washing and other uses shall be performed in an efficient manner to reduce waste and total water use. 4 G.All commercial establishments 1. Single pass cooling systems. Single-pass cooling systems shall not be installed in new commercial buildings. When single pass cooling systems in existing businesses are replaced, single pass cooling system shall not be installed as a replacement. 2. Toilets. New commercial establishments shall install and use only water-efficient toilets. All existing commercial establishments shall install and use only water-efficient toilets by January 1, 2014. H.Eating and drinking establishments. The following provisions shall also apply to all restaurants, cafes, snack shops, bars, other eating and drinking establishments, and food catering businesses: 1. All establishments shall only provide drinking water to customers upon request. 2. All establishments shall install and use low-flow pre-rinse dishwashing spray nozzles by July 1, 2011. 3. All establishments shall use low-flow technologies for washing and cleaning floors and surfaces, such as using a hand-held bucket or similar container and mop, water brooms or pressure washers. 4. New establishments shall install and use water-efficient dishwashing machines or systems. When dishwashing machines in existing businesses are replaced, water-efficient dishwashing machines or systems shall be installed. All existing establishments shall install and use only water-efficient dishwashing machines or systems by January 1, 2014. I.Hotels and motels. The following provisions shall apply to all hotels, motels, hostels, bed and breakfast and similar temporary accommodation establishments: 1. All establishments shall provide customers the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily and shall prominently display notice of this option in each bathroom and sleeping room using clear and easily understood language. 2. All establishments that provide on-premises facilities for laundering towels or linens shall comply with Subsection J of this Section. 3. All establishments that provide food services shall comply with Subsection H of this Section. J.Laundry businesses. New commercial laundry businesses shall install and use water recycling systems. When washing machines in existing businesses are replaced, water-efficient laundry washing or water recycling systems shall be installed. All existing laundry businesses shall install and use only water-efficient laundry washing machines or water recycling systems by January 1, 2014. K.Commercial car wash facilities. New commercial conveyor-type car wash facilities shall install water recycling systems. All existing conveyor car wash systems shall install and operate only water recycling systems by January 1, 2012. All existing commercial car wash operations, including those accessory to another use, shall use high pressure, low volume wash systems, bucket or similar container, and/or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive action quick-release shutoff valve or nozzle, or similar low-flow device by January 1, 2012. L.Exceptions.The provisions of this Section are not applicable to uses of water that are necessary to protect public health and safety or for essential governmental services when such uses of water cannot be reduced, such as for fire-fighting and other similar emergency services. 8.56. 080 Drought Response Level 1 – Drought Alert Condition. A. The City Council may by Resolution declare a Drought Alert condition and implement the Level 1 conservation measures set forth in this Section on the grounds that, due to water supply cutbacks caused by drought or reduction in supplies for other reasons, an overall consumer demand reduction of up to ten (10) percent is required in order to have sufficient 5 water supplies available to meet anticipated demands. B. Except as otherwise stated in this Chapter, during a Level 1 Drought Alert condition all persons using water shall comply with the following additional conservation measures: 1. Watering days and duration. Limit lawn and landscape watering or irrigation to no more than three (3) days per week. Above-ground spray irrigation shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) minutes per watering station or area; this limitation shall not apply to the use of recycled water to maintain public parks and facilities. The City Council may by Resolution establish a schedule of permissible watering days. This provision shall not apply to commercial nurseries, drip irrigation systems, use of a hand-held bucket or similar container and/or a hand- held hose equipped with a positive action quick-release shutoff valve or nozzle. 8.56. 090 Drought Response Level 2 – Drought Critical Condition A. The City Council may by Resolution declare a Drought Critical condition and implement the Level 2 conservation measures set forth in this Section on the grounds that, due to water supply cutbacks caused by drought or reduction in supplies for other reasons, an overall consumer demand reduction of ten (10) to twenty (20) percent is required in order to have sufficient water supplies available to meet anticipated demands. B. During a Drought Critical condition all persons using water shall comply the following additional conservation measures: 1. Watering days and duration. Limit lawn and landscape watering or irrigation to no more than two (2) days per week, provided that the City Council may by Resolution limit lawn and landscape watering or irrigation to no more than one (1) day per week to achieve a reduction of up to twenty (20) percent. Above-ground spray irrigation shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) minutes per watering station or area; this limitation shall not apply to the use of recycled water to maintain public parks and facilities. The City Council may by Resolution establish a schedule of permissible watering days. This provision shall not apply to commercial nurseries, drip irrigation systems, use of a hand-held bucket or similar container and/or a hand- held hose equipped with a positive action quick-release shutoff valve or nozzle. 8.56. 100 Drought Response Level 3 – Drought Emergency Condition A. The City Council may by Resolution declare a Drought Emergency condition and implement the Level 3 conservation measures set forth in this section on the grounds that overall consumer demand reduction of more than twenty (20) percent is required because the ordinary demands and requirements of water consumers cannot be satisfied without depleting water supplies to the extent that there would be insufficient water for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. B. During a Drought Emergency condition all persons using water shall comply with Sections 8.56.070 (Water Conservation Requirements) and the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Irrigation and watering prohibition. No lawn or landscaping watering or irrigation shall be allowed. This subsection shall not apply to the following, provided that watering days and watering duration shall comply with Subsection B of Section 8.56.090: a. Irrigation or watering using recycled water. b. Irrigation necessary to establish new plantings of low water usage plants or commercial nurseries. c. Water efficient landscape irrigation systems using water efficient devices, including but not limited to weather based controllers, drip/micro-irrigation systems with emitters that emit no more than two (2) gallons per hour and stream rotor sprinklers that meet a seventy (70) percent or greater efficiency standard. d. Maintenance of trees and shrubs that are watered by using a bucket or other watering container, hand-held hose equipped with positive action quick-release shutoff valve or 6 nozzle, or similar low-volume non-spray irrigation. e. Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the Fire Chief. f. Maintenance of existing landscaping on slopes exceeding ten (10) percent for erosion control. g. Maintenance of landscaping within active public parks and playing fields, day care center play areas, and school grounds. h. Public works projects. i. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare, threatened or endangered or essential to the health of documented rare, threatened or endangered animals. 2. Cleaning surfaces. Water shall not be used to wash, clean or clear any sidewalks, walkways, patios, driveways, alleys, parking or similar areas, whether paved or unpaved; except commercial or industrial establishments may use water broom, pressure washer or similar low flow technology or water recycling systems when necessary to comply with health, safety, water quality or other regulations verified by the approval authority. Pressure washers may be used to clean surfaces in preparation for painting, construction, or occasional seasonal maintenance when other methods are not practical. 3. Car Washing. Vehicles shall not be washed, except at commercial car wash facilities that recycle water or use high pressure, low volume wash systems. Subject to Subsection E of Section 8.56.070, this provision shall not apply to car washes held as fund raising activities for bona fide community organizations, washing of garbage trucks, or washing of vehicles used to transport food and perishables, and washing of other mobile equipment for which frequent cleaning is essential for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. 4. Ornamental Ponds and Lakes. Ornamental ponds or lakes if empty shall not be filled, and if filled shall not be refilled or replenished. 5. Hotels and Motels: Mandatory Laundry Opt-Out. Hotels, motels, hostels, bed and breakfasts and similar establishments shall not provide daily towel and linen laundering service to customers, except upon a specific request. 8.56. 110 Procedures for Declaration and Notification of Drought Response Level and Additional Water Conservation Measures. A. The City Council shall declare a Drought Response Level 1, 2 or 3 by Resolution in the manner required by law and City procedures. B. The City Council shall declare the end to any Drought Response Level by the adoption of a Resolution in the manner required by law and City procedures. 8.56. 120 Exception A. An exception to any water conservation requirement of this Chapter may be granted or conditionally granted in accordance with the following requirements. 1. Application. Any water user may file an application with the Community Development Department for an exception from one or more water conservation measures on a form provided by the City, including supporting documents and information demonstrating the grounds for the requested exception, accompanied by a fee set by Resolution of the City Council. 2. Findings. The approving authority may approve, conditionally approve or deny an application for an exception from water conservation measures. An application for an exception shall be denied unless the approval authority finds, based on the information provided in the application, supporting documents or such additional information as may be requested, all of the following: a. That, due to special circumstances applicable to the property or its use, the strict 7 application of this Ordinance would disproportionately impact the property or use when compared to similar types of uses or properties; and b. That other water conserving measures to substantially off-set the proposed water use have been or will be employed as a condition of the approval, or the lack of such measures will not materially affect the ability of the City to achieve the purposes of this Chapter; and c. That the exception does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other residents and businesses. 3. Approval authority. The approval authority shall act upon any application no later than ten (10) days after receipt of a complete application, and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the exception. The applicant requesting the exception shall be promptly notified in writing of any action taken. Unless otherwise specified at the time an exception is approved, the exception shall only apply during the period of the specific circumstances from which an exception is requested. 4. Appeals. An applicant may appeal the approval authority's decision, or any conditions placed on the approval, to the City Council within ten (10) days of the date of decision. A written request shall be submitted to the City Clerk stating the grounds for the appeal accompanied by a fee adopted by Resolution of the City Council. The City Council shall review the appeal at the next available meeting that the item may be heard. 8.56. 130 Penalties and Remedies Violations of the provisions of this Chapter are subject to the administrative penalty provisions of Chapter 1.10. Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0368 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 PLASTIC BAG BAN UPDATE (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommended Action: Receive and file this report. Background and Analysis: The City of Hermosa Beach prides itself as a leader in environmental protection and stewardship. Named “Southern California’s Greenest City” for its work to protect the environment, the beaches have been ranked among the best in the world and are essential to the economic, physical and social vitality of the City. Most recently, the city has clearly asserted its commitment to the environment: on March 3, 2015 residents of Hermosa Beach overwhelmingly voted to stop oil drilling in the city. The new General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan is focused on sustainability and a low-carbon future which is in progress. The City Council’s Strategic Plan in 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 identified a carbon neutral road map for municipal facilities/operations as a top priority and on February 24, 2015 the City Council adopted a resolution to become carbon neutral by 2020 for municipal facilities and operations. Despite these accomplishments, the City has not adopted a plastic bag ban (PBB) that is an effective, first-step for pollution abatement and ocean protection. Plastic grocery bags were the third most prevalent type of plastic pollution found during the 2013 International Coastal Cleanup Event1 and Los Angeles County found that plastic bags constituted 25 percent of the weight and 19 percent of the volume of trash collected during the June 10, 2004, “City of Los Angeles Catch Basin Cleaning.”2 According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, approximately 6 billion plastic bags are consumed in Los Angeles County each year. _________________________ 1 INT’L COASTAL CLEANUP, OCEAN CONSERVANCY, TURNING THE TIDE ON TRASH REPORT http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/marine-debris/icc-data-2014.pdf RETREIVED 4/6/2015 2 L.A. Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County, L.A. DEP’T OF PUB. Works 24-25 (Aug. 2007), available at http://ladpw.org/epd/pdf/PlasticBagReport.pdf Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0368 The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board confirmed that plastic bag bans are proven, effective policy tools to reduce bag pollution by extending the final compliance date for the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL to responsible jurisdictions that voluntarily adopted the three local ordinances/bans on plastic bags, as well as smoking in public places and single-use polystyrene. Hermosa Beach adopted bans on smoking in public places and single-use polystyrene, however, they did not adopt the PBB and receive the extension. It was anticipated that the City would be mandated to implement a PBB when Governor Edmund Brown signed into law SB 270 on September 30 2014, making California the first U.S. state to officially prohibit stores from handing out plastic shopping bags for free. In February 2015, the State announced that opponents had secured enough signatures to put the PBB to a referendum in November 2016, meaning the ban is effectively on hold until then, and would delay its implementation until 2017 if upheld. In the interim, Hermosa Beach can resolve its commitment to protecting our beaches and Santa Monica Bay by adopting a PBB. In the instance that SB 270 is upheld, the City may revert to SB270. Alternatively, if SB 270 is over-turned, the City’s ban will remain and Hermosa Beach has taken timely, highly-visible actions to protect its greatest resource. PROS AND CONS OF BANNING PLASTIC BAGS The numerous pros and cons of PBBs are well-documented and widely reported, and these examples are not exhaustive. PROS ·Plastic bag litter is highly visible making it a “low-hanging” fruit opportunity to create more action and awareness around litter removal and waste reduction efforts. ·Plastic shopping bags are made from petrochemicals which are not renewable. ·When disposed of improperly, they are unsightly and endanger many forms of wildlife. ·Plastic bags, conventional or "compostable", do not readily biodegrade in a sanitary landfill as paper and other materials don't either. ·The high volume to weight ratio of plastic means that the collection and transport of this waste is difficult and expensive. CONS ·Paper bags-common alternatives-require more energy to manufacture, ship and recycle and because of this plastic generates less greenhouse gas. ·They compress to a small size in landfills. Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0368 ·Light-weight nature requires less energy consumption during transportation compared to paper. ·Plastic carrier bags can be reused as trash bags or bin bags. ·Plastic bags can be recycled through some grocery store take-back programs CALIFORNIA CITIES ADOPTING PBB ORDINANCES BANS San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to ban plastic bags in 2007. Since then, 110 PBB ordinances have been adopted in California covering 139 CA cities of counties. In 2008, Manhattan Beach City Council passed an ordinance banning the distribution of plastic bags at the point-of-sale for all retail establishments in Manhattan Beach. After being on hold for a few years due to a lawsuit brought by the "Save the Plastic Bag Coalition," the City's plastic bag ordinance began implementation on January 14, 2012. On November 23, 2010, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance prohibiting the use of all single-use plastic carryout bags at certain stores, in the County unincorporated area, and requiring said stores to charge 10 cents for each recyclable paper bag that was sold to a customer. The City of Los Angeles announced a ban earlier in 2014 in response to stormwater pollution concerns and have already seen a reduction in the number of plastic bags entering the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. Other local cities that have adopted PBB ordinances include Santa Monica, Pasadena, Long Beach, West Hollywood, South Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Culver City, Glendale, and Calabasas. Staff met with staff from Manhattan Beach on April 7, 2015 to learn about the successes and challenges of implementing the PBB in Manhattan Beach. Staff described an initial meeting with the Chamber of Commerce to hear concerns of impacted business owners- the majority of business where extremely supportive but were concerned that they had already purchased their bags for the year. Based on this feedback, the City of Manhattan Beach extended the implementation deadline by 6 months. Since implementing the ban, staff report only positive impacts including a reduction of plastic bags in stormwater capture devices, and local water bodies, and reinforcing the City’s commitment to protecting their environment. The purpose of this update is to provide stimulus for discussing a potential plastic bag ban for the City. Staff will return on May 26th 2015 with a more comprehensive discussion regarding developing an ordinance banning the distribution of plastic bags at the point-of-sale in Hermosa Beach. Attachments: None Respectfully Submitted by: Kristy Morris, Environmental Analyst Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0308 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 REQUEST FROM MAYOR TUCKER TO ASK STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A REPORT ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH UPDATING THE CITY STREET SIGNS AS PRESENTED BY GRAPHIC SOLUTIONS TO GIVE HERMOSA BEACH A NEW UPDATED LOOK.(Continued from Meeting of April 14, 2015) Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0325 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 REQUEST FROM COUNCILMEMBER FANGARY TO EVALUATE AND UPDATE AS NEEDED THE CITY’S MASTER FEE RESOLUTION TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEES ARE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIFIC CITY SERVICES. THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS RESOLUTIONS THAT PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF PROCESSING FEES AS SET FORTH IN THE CITY’S MASTER FEE RESOLUTION, BUT NO SUCH PROCESSING FEES ARE PROVIDED.(Continued from Meeting of April 14, 2015) Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0326 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 REQUEST FROM COUNCILMEMBER FANGARY TO EVALUATE AND PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE CITY’S NOTICE PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES/EVENTS AS NEEDED. EVALUATION AND DIRECTION SHOULD BE PROVIDED REGARDING THE MANNER OF PROVIDING NECESSARY NOTICES, AND PAYMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH NOTICES.(Continued from Meeting of April 14, 2015) Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0354 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11, 2015 REQUEST FROM COUNCILMEMBER PETTY TO REVISIT OPERATION CLEAN SWEEP, WHICH ELIMINATED SIGNAGE AND DISPLAYS ON PIER AVENUE. REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL DISCUSS MODIFIED STANDARDS THAT PERMIT LIMITED SIGNAGE AND/OR APPROVED DISPLAYS THAT PROMOTE BUSINESSES YET DO NOT IMPEDE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/6/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™