20100720 Late CorrespondenceRPV CC
Steve Wolowicz
Oral report on meetings
ft ; C14V �ouv `l Oraj Re,,
RECEIVED FROM I4101O .-lc_z
ND MADE A PART OF'rHE RECORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF,-fAW 12010u=
OFFICE OF THE CIT LER <
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
H:\My Documents\RPV City Council\2010\oral report 7-20-10.xis page 1 of 1 7/20/20103:25 PM
July 6, 2010
July 6, 2010
Event Event
met w/ Michael O'Sullivan re his comments on view restoration
issues
Meeting today
Last report
Date
Comments
7/8/10
based on his observations from his personal experience on
his upslope and tree removal issues. He believes that the
CC relies too much on staff and city atty. And does not
challenge their comments. I told him I disagreed with most
of what he asserted.
7/9/10
Mayor's monthly b -fast
_
CC a endaylanning meeting _
--__.__.__------
w/ CM & MPT
--------
7/13/10
7/15/10
spoke at -Seagate HOA_-_-
summary of current issues
7/19/10
met w/ Masoud Sherifi & partners re Valero station
they asked about possible additional activities -- told them to
meet with neighborhood and other CC members
7/20/10,
Rotary lunch -- speaker Torrance director of community services
(formerly recreation and 2arts -- also oversees library system
32 parks -- many activities presented to community. Has
recent budget cuts by council.
ft ; C14V �ouv `l Oraj Re,,
RECEIVED FROM I4101O .-lc_z
ND MADE A PART OF'rHE RECORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF,-fAW 12010u=
OFFICE OF THE CIT LER <
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
H:\My Documents\RPV City Council\2010\oral report 7-20-10.xis page 1 of 1 7/20/20103:25 PM
EA��
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 20, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
for today's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
8 Email from Mike O'Sullivan; Answers to questions posed by Mayor
Wolowicz
10 Emails supporting item from Ann Duffy Fitzgerald; Kelly Johnson; Keith
Nelsen; Dik and Donna Johnson; Emails opposing item from Norman and
Helen Quan; Stephen and Janalee Johnson
12 Letters from Bill and Sandy Patton; Joseph and Kimberly Marino; Samuel
and Monica Sim; Mehran and Maryam Rofougaran; Richard and Leona
Yeh; Leland and Ilene Clow; Allan and Peggy Kwong; John and Victoria
Schoenfeld; Bill and Meihuei Kao
13 Letter from Donna R. Black
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20100720 additions revisions to agenda through Monday
afternoon.doc
From: MikRobOS@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:47 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: VR GUIDELINES REVISIONS
DEAR COUNCILMEN:
RELATIVE TO TOMOROW NIGHT'S AGENDA ITEM ON VR GUIDELINE REVISIONS, ONE OF MY SUGGESTIONS THAT
THE STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION PARTIALLY ADOPTED HAD TO DO WITH CLARIFICATION OF THE
DETERMINATION OF "VIEWING AREA," AND RIGHT OF APPEAL.
THIS WAS MY SUGGESTION #1, AND THE STAFF PROPOSED REVISION CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION III -B, ON PAGE
8-18 OF THE STAFF REPORT.
THIS CLARIFICATION GOES ONLY PART WAY TO ADDRESSING THE ISSUE THAT I IDENTIFIED, I.E. THAT THE VIEW
APPLICANT AND CITY CAN POTENTIALLY CHOOSE A VIEWING AREA, WHEN THERE ARE SEVERAL CHOICES, THAT
MAXIMIZES THE DESTRUCTION TO THE FOLIAGE OWNERS TREES, I KNOW OF AT LEAST TWO INSTANCES IN
WHICH THIS OCCURRED.
IN MY OWN CASE, THE VR APPLICANT'S LIVING ROOM AND DINING ROOM EXTENTED THE WHOLE WIDTH OF THE
OCEAN LOOKING FACADE OF THE HOME. MOST OF THIS AREA HAD A MAGNIFICIENT, 180 DEGREE VIEW OF THE
OCEAN AND CATALINA, WITH MY PINE TREE NEAR THE EDGE OF THE VIEW, AND MASKING ONLY THE VIEW OF A
NEARBY HILL. THE VIEWING AREA SELECTED, HOWEVER, WAS FAR TO ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THEREBY
MAXIMIZING THE VIEW IMPAIRMENT AND CONSEQENTLY THE REQUIRED TRIMMING.
CURRENTLY, THE VIEWING AREA IS DETERMINED, IN ADVANCE OF THE PC HEARING, BY DISCUSSION BETWEEN
THE VR APPLICANT AND THE CITY STAFF. I BELIEVE THAT THE TREE OWNER SHOULD HAVE A VOICE IN THIS
EARLY DETERMINATION, BEFORE THE PC HEARING. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE CONDITION THAT THE
DECISION OF THE CITY SHALL, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, CONTROL. I BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THIS EARLY
INPUT WOULD CREATE A BETTER BALANCE OF RIGHTS, AND ALSO REDUCED THE LIKELIHOOD OF A DISPUTE
NEEDLESSLY ESCALATING TO AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
7/20/2010
0
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
John Alvarez and Joel Rojas
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr and Carol Lynch
DATE:
July 20, 2010
SUBJECT:
CC meeting 7/20/10 item #8 —View guideline revisions
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
John and Joel,
A few questions on this topic:
Thanks,
Steve
1. Page 8-3 — Section III -B. Appeals by any interested party.
(A) What is the definition of an interested party, or more specifically are
there limitations on the definition?
Staff's response (JA): The City's Development Code does defines an interested
person: "Interested person" means any person who testified personally or through a
representative at any hearing in connection with the decision or action, who submitted a written
letter of concern in connection with a pending application, or who informed the director, in
writing, of an interest in the subject of a hearing or application.
To what limits or expansion this term means in the context of view related
decision appeals, the question ought to be deferred to the City Attorney.
(B) If the view owner and the foliage owner have reached an agreement
are they precluded from such an agreement until the "interested party"
agrees to the settlement?
Staff's response (JA): Generally speaking, only view owners (applicants of view
restoration permits) and foliage owners are bound to City imposed conditions of
approval to restore and preserve views. So in essence the City may not
recognize any private "agreement" a third party or interested party (a neighbor
perhaps) may make with either the applicant or foliage owner.
2. Page 8-3 -Section 111-13. New viewing area.
If a new viewing area is due to effectively a new structure then a foliage
owner may be subject to major changes in long-time trees and other
growth. Are there limits as to what might be protected arising from the new
viewing area?
P�lofC:\Documents and Settings\cadarnlocal Settings\Temporary Intemet tions and staff response.doc 07/20/10 4:42
Staff's response (JA): In reference to your question concerning new viewing
areas due to remodeled homes, the proposed language we are introducing would
not change a previously made View decision against the foliage owner's trees
unless the applicant (or owner of the remodeled home) submits a new View
application. Should a new application be accepted and approval issued, the
previous View decision against the foliage owner can be amended or repealed
based on an re -assessment from the new viewing area.
3. Was there any discussion by Staff or the Commission regarding upslope
foliage?
Staff's response (JA): There had been no specific discussion pertaining to
upslope foliage. Staff and the Commission discussed foliage in the context of all
foliage that exceeds 16 feet in height or the ridgeline of the foliage owner's
residence regardless of whether the foliage is located on a slope or on a building
pad. With exception to view -blocking hedges, there are no special rules or
exemptions to upslope vegetation.
Page 2 of 2
CADocuments and Settings\cadarnlocal Settings\Temporary Intem ='les\OLK4511M uestions and staff response.doc 07/20/10 4:42
Page 1 of 1
From: Kelly Baranick [kdbaranick@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:17 AM
To: kitf@rpv.com
Subject: Stadium Lights.
Dear Kit Fox:
I have lived on Manitowac Drive, near the cusp of Fond Du Lac, for over 35 years. I am in full support
of installing stadium lights at Peninsula High School. Anything that creates community activity,
especially for the sake of the children should be embraced.
Thank you for your time,
Ann Duffy Fitzgerald
7/20/2010
Q7
I have been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for the past twenty-six years, and I am
writing this letter in regard to the proposed stadium lights at Palos Verdes Peninsula High
School. My backyard is adjacent to the lower football field of the high school. I have
absolutely no reservation about the stadium lighting, and do not believe it will have a
negative impact on the quality of life in the neighborhood or property values. I believe
that principal, Mitzi Cress, and her outstanding staff are more than capable of
successfully managing any activity at the high school including night football games. In
reality, I believe Friday night football would bring this community closer together and
would benefit not only our students but the community at large. I sincerely hope that this
project will become a reality.
Sincerely,
Kelly Johnson
JUL 15 LriO
PLANNING, BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
ffl
From: Keith Nelsen [keith.nelsen@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:45 PM
To: kitf@rpv.com
Subject: Stadium Lighting at Penn High school
Hello Mr. Fox,
I wanted to send you a quick note about the Stadium Lighting at Penn High school. My
family lives at 26835 Fond Du Lac Road, adjacent to the high school. My family is in
support of the proposed lighting. Our kids are missing a big part of high school
festivities because they can not currently experience night time events. We feel that the
lighting would be a hugh improvement to the community.
Thank you very much for considering our input.
Keith Nelsen
From: donnavjohnson@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:16 PM
To: kitf@rpv.com
Subject: Peninsula Night Football
To whom it may concern,
This memo is to support night football at Peninsula High School this fall. We are Rancho
Palos Verdes residents at 26809 Basswood Ave., just down the street from the High School.
We want to show our full support for night football games starting this fall. We are both
native Southern Californians. Donna attended high school in Burbank and I attended
Torance High School. I played football at Torrance High and a big part of my memories of
that experience was the Friday nights under the lights in front of my home crowd. My
opinion is that the high school football experience is not complete without home night
games. Any inconvenience to the residents near the school on three to four friday nights
per year pales in comparison to the lifelong memories gained by not only the players, but
the cheerleaders, band members students, coaches and parents. The non -supportive
residents need to show some compassion and abandon their selfishness for what amounts to a
very short amount of time and very little inconvenience. I suggest that they not only
show some heart, but support the school and the team by attending the games. Come on out
and have some fun!
Go Panthers, Dik and Donna Johnson
Page 1 of 1
From: HAW QUAN [pvquan@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:43 AM
To: planning@rpv.com
Cc: kitf@rpv.com
Subject: Protest Against PV Penn Hi School Proposed Lights
This is a letter of protest against the proposed stadium lights for the school.
We've lived on Silver Arrow Drive since 1966 and our children have attended the high school. The
absence of lights was not a hindrance to their education or enjoyment of the high school football
experience.
We oppose the lights because:
1. The school have performed well since it's inception and football is NOT an attraction for the school.
People move to RPV because of the school academics, not football.
2. The lights will lower our house worth. We moved here for the semi -rural, quiet atmosphere.
3. Holding events under the lights would bring in undesirable outside elements. Events lasting after 8
pm usually attract the wrong element.
4. Do not understand why the lights are such a high priority during this period of economical downturn
when every school budget dollar is precious. Even if the construction costs are covered elsewhere, there
is the yearly normal maintenance cost of the lights and electrical power plus the cost of extra security
for night games. Who is to bear this added cost? Tax payers again!!
5. The lights will illuminate our backyard. The noise during the games is a HUGE problem because of
the very loud PA system which we've endured. But we knew the noise will cease after sundown. Now,
with lights, the noise will continue well into the night.
We oppose the lights and hope that our RPV council listens to it's residents and oppose this action. The
school is within the RHE boundary but it is surrounded by RPV homes. This added revenue source for
RHE is paid by RPV homeowners with lower property values and lower standard of living.
Norman Quan
Helen Quan
7/20/2010 /C
From: Janalee Johnson [JANALEEJOH@AOL.COM]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:35 PM
To: kitf@rpv.com
Subject: pvphs stadium lighting
We live at 5048 Silver Arrow Drive. We are NOT in favor of stadium lighting at PVPHS.
We were on vacation and were unable to respond until now. We hope it is not too late.
Stephen and Janalee Johnson
310 265-9330
/d.
JUL 20 2010
Bill and Sandy Patton PLANNING, BUILDING AND
71 Marguerite Dr CODE ENFORCEMENT
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
July 18, 2010
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Case No. ZON2010-00185 (Conditional Use Permit Amendment)
Dear Mr. Rojas:
As a homeowner in the Lunada Pointe residential tract, I am writing to state my
agreement with the above referenced subject amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.
68 provided said amendment is wholly consistent with the City -approved Exhibit C-1 of
the CC&R's for our tract, Coastal Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 81-57. I am not in agreement with the amendment
if it is not wholly consistent with City -approved Exhibit C-1 of our CC&R'S, Coastal
Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to Planning Commission Resolution No.
81-57.
Yours truly,
Bill and Sandy Patton
io
Joseph and Kimberly Marino
49 Marguerite Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
July 18, 2010
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Case No. ZON2010-00185 (Conditional Use Permit Amendment)
Dear Mr. Rojas:
JUL 20 2010
PLANNING, BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As a homeowner in the Lunada Pointe residential tract, I am writing to state my
agreement with the above referenced subject amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.
68 provided said amendment is wholly consistent with the City -approved Exhibit C-1 of
the CC&R's for our tract, Coastal Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 81-57. I am not in agreement with the amendment
if it is not wholly consistent with City -approved Exhibit C-1 of our CC&R'S, Coastal
Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to Planning Commission Resolution No.
81-57.
Yours truly,
?phJoand Kimberly Marino
Samuel and Monica Sim
63 Marguerite Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
July 18, 2010
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Case No. ZON2010-00185 (Conditional Use Permit Amendment)
Dear Mr. Rojas:
JUL 20 2010
PLANNING, BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As a homeowner in the Lunada Pointe residential tract, I am writing to state my
agreement with the above referenced subject amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.
68 provided said amendment is wholly consistent with the City -approved Exhibit C-1 of
the CC&R's for our tract, Coastal Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 81-57. I am not in agreement with the amendment
if it is not wholly consistent with City -approved Exhibit C-1 of our CC&R'S, Coastal
Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to Planning Commission Resolution No.
81-57.
Yours truly,
SI and Monica Sim
Mehran and Maryam Rofougaran
67 Marguerite Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
July 18, 2010
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Case No. ZON2010-00185 (Conditional Use Permit Amendment)
Dear Mr. Rojas:
r s,
JUL 2 0 2010
PLANNING, BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As a homeowner in the Lunada Pointe residential tract, I am writing to state my
agreement with the above referenced subject amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.
68 provided said amendment is wholly consistent with the City -approved Exhibit C-1 of
the CC&R's for our tract, Coastal Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 81-57. 1 am not in agreement with the amendment
if it is not wholly consistent with City -approved Exhibit C-1 of our CC&R'S, Coastal
Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to Planning Commission Resolution No.
81-57.
Yours truly,
l LZ S
Mehran and Maryam Rofougaran
Richard and Leona Yeh
75 Marguerite Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
July 18, 2010
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Case No. ZON2010-00185 (Conditional Use Permit Amendment)
Dear Mr. Rojas:
JUL 2 0 2010
PLANNING, BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As a homeowner in the Lunada Pointe residential tract, I am writing to state my
agreement with the above referenced subject amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.
68 provided said amendment is wholly consistent with the City -approved Exhibit C-1 of
the CC&R's for our tract, Coastal Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 81-57. I am not in agreement with the amendment
if it is not wholly consistent with City -approved Exhibit C-1 of our CC&R'S, Coastal
Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to Planning Commission Resolution No.
81-57.
Yours truly,
Richard and Leona Yeh
Leland and Ilene Clow
37 Marguerite Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
July 18, 2010
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Case No. ZON2010-00185 (Conditional Use Permit Amendment)
Dear Mr. Rojas:
JUL 2 0 2010
PLANNING, BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As a homeowner in the Lunada Pointe residential tract, I am writing to state my
agreement with the above referenced subject amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.
68 provided said amendment is wholly consistent with the City -approved Exhibit C-1 of
the CC&R's for our tract, Coastal Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to
Plamm� Commission Resolution No. 81-57. 1 am not in agreement with the amendment
if it is of wholly consistent with City -approved Exhibit C-1 of our CC&R'S, Coastal
Pen No. 1 and paragrap4.3.C. of Exhibit "A" to Planning Commission Resolution No.
81-5 . `
4
Yours:
r
l and Ilene ovaf�`
JUL 20 2010
Allan and Peggy Kworw
tr r,
64 Laurel Dr PLANNING, BUILDING AND
Rancho Palos Verdes. CA 90275 CODE ENFORCEMENT
Julep 16.'t1111
Joel [Zajas
Community I)evelopment Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Ilawthonic Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, ("A 90275
Re: Case No. 1ON-1010-00185 (Conditional Use Permit Amendment)
Dear Mr, Rojas:
We are the owners ol"04 Laurel Drive and 68 Laurel Drive in the in the Lunada Pontic
residential tract. I am writing to state my agreement with the above referenced subJect
amendment to Conditional Use flemiit No. 68 provided said amendment is wholly
consistent with the City -approved Exhibit C'-1 ofthe CC&R's Im our iract. Coastal
Permit No. I and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to Planning Commission Resolution No.
-57. 1 am not in agreement Nvilli the amendment if it is not wholly consistent with ('it\.,
approved'Exhibit C- I of our CC&R'S. Coastal Permit No. I and paragraph S.C. of
I-.'xhibit -A- to Planning Commission Resolution No. 81-57.
V
Yours truly,
e
lli ahc Qgg I. wo wo v
12
John and Victoria Schoenfeld
93 Laurel Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
July 18, 2010
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Case No. ZON2010-00185 (Conditional Use Permit Amendment)
Dear Mr. Rojas:
RECEIVED
JUL 2 0 2010
PLANNING, BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As a homeowner in the Lunada Pointe residential tract, I am writing to state my
agreement with the above referenced amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 68
provided said amendment is wholly consistent with the City -approved Exhibit C-1 of the
CC&R's for our tract, Coastal Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 81-57. I am not in agreement with the amendment
if it is not wholly consistent with City -approved Exhibit C-1 of our CC&R'S, Coastal
Permit No. i and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to Planning Commission Resolution No.
81-57.
Yours truly,
gohnV�icto=aSchoenfel�d
Bill and Meihuei Kao
89 Laurel Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
July 16, 2010
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Case No. ZON2010-00185 (Conditional Use Permit Amendment)
Dear Mr. Rojas:
JUL 202010
PLANNING, BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As a homeowner in the Lunada Pointe residential tract, I am writing to state my
agreement with the above referenced subject amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.
68 provided said amendment is wholly consistent with the City -approved Exhibit C-1 of
the CC&R's for our tract, Coastal Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 81-57. I am not in agreement with the amendment
if it is not wholly consistent with City -approved Exhibit C-1 of our CC&R'S, Coastal
Permit No. 1 and paragraph 3.C. of Exhibit "A" to Planning Commission Resolution No.
81-57.
Yours tr
Bill and
Phu
�-b
ao
�
z
07/20/2010 14:27 FAX 310 277 5853 KL & V LLP
KELLY LYTTON & WILLIAMS LLP
1801 Century Park East, Suite 1450
Los Angeles, California 90067
(310) 277-5333 Fax (310) 277-5953
FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER PAGE
�_qLlfjil�-.- �Iliillity fjol?: T'hc inforrYt tion contained in this facsirnde tralismiss ion is legally privileged and confidFnitivil
information intended only for the tj,.v of the individual or entity named below. If the reader of tt)ji transmission is not
the intended rocipient, you are, hereby notified that Any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this Winsmission
it; strictly prohibited If you havo received this transrni,,?,,,ut)n, In error, please immediately nalify uG by tefophono and
ri',iturn the original trinsmisrion io u5; at the address above viva tho United States Pont Office. "[`hank you,
July 20, 2010
To: Honorable Mayor Wolowicz
Company: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Resolution Opposing Marymount College Initiative
Facsimile Number: (310) 544-5291
Total number of pages, including this page: 4
From: Donna R. Black
Enclosure: See attached
Message:
[ 001/004
** a.A *A.* - -*** k44 -k* . A,* k**.* *****
IF ANY OF THE PAGES ARE NOT Rr-,CEIVED OR ARE ILLEGIBLE, PLEASE CALL (310) 277-5333.
I
of 4 13
07/20/2010 14:27 FAX 310 277 5953 KL & V LLP
KRUJ,71' T,Y17TON & WILLIAMS LLTI
LFI' WY VI R
IT 1: I'1 "', 0
www Wwpnrtnrtrr, .xrn
VIA I`ACSIMIL.E.' AND IIAND DE1,1VEIRY
July 20, 2010
Honorable M1�-.iyor and City Council Ambers
City ofRancho 1.1110's Verdes
Rancho PahmVerdes City Hall
30940.Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Resolution Opposing Mmyniount College hiffiative
Dear Mayor Wolowicz and City Council Members -
16002/004
NMOINY P UUMLONG
JI-744trvI171F.IR)
'I"his le acr addrew'i 1:11C RPV City COUnCil ReSOJ.Utj()TI, (INIfted I.Iy COLM611=1
M.1semb and Sterm opposing the Marymount Colicgeltii0ative. Once agrip ain, the
Council is attempting to Influence the voters of the City with a document that is
blatantly falseand deliberately misleading. For example, the Resolution refers to the
Initiative <I" creating a "special district," thereby that it: Is notsubject to
norm,il zomni:-', and land LISC constraints, To the contrary, the Initiative creates a
"Specific Mari," the normal., lannijig vehliele used when a discrete geographic area 11'.; Cy
subject to cerwIn requirements in excess of, but not in conflict with, the City's General
Plall, as is the case here.
Althoui-,0i we could refute many claims made by the Resolutiou, we take
particular Issue with the fi)llowhig statements,
M'ir y
g not sub
.. .... . .... ... I • YC,C7Iggi.c-nI jigcFt1L7_115
']."his is absurd (..)u its fact . The Campus Requirements that are incorporated
uito the Specific Plan includ,c numerous safety (Campus Requirements Nos. 10, 12,
19, 20, 23, 26. 27, 28, 36, 56, 73, 91, 1.17, 122, 1.38, 143, 144, 149, 150, .163, 165 and
166), aesthetic (Campus Requirements Nos, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52, 115,
155, 156, 160 and 16 1) and geologic (Campus Requirements Nos. 54., 56, 57, 58, 59,
61, 66, 67, 68, ('0, 70, 71, 72 and 76) mitigations. Morcoyer, as the City Council well
knows, thetnitiative has no impact upon, �md the City frilly retains, its police powers
which authorize It to take any acdons uccessary to protect the safety, health and
Welfarc of its
07/20/2010 14:28 FAX 310 277 5953 KL & V LLP Ia003/004
1-lonorabic Mayorand City Council Members
City of Rancho 'Palos Verdes
July 20, 2010
As stated in and. demonstrated by My letter to you dated June 14, 2010, there
arc only few genume diflbrences between the City -approved project and the
Initiative. Ev(-.,j-i with the errovi and mischaracterizations in the Council
Memoranduri-i published on June 15, 2010, the Initiative differs from the City -
approved projcc( in onlyapproximately 50 of 274 areas and, if the appropriate
corrections were rnade, thls, diflbrence woulcl shrink by about 50 percent,
3. "I"he Irtiflati.vc, 1 .!7. O�v kw skms' ty. dCKdQ12nn.,!.n.0
1 Lu._K� -1
..... ..... ............ . .
1`13is statement has no basis in reality, The Marymount. campus isali-nost 25
acres in size; even with the carnpus improvcments authorized by the Initiative,
appr(:)ximately 66 perce-rit of the campus will remain ol,,)cn space. The carnpus
population is 11mited. to 750 students, with room for iio rnore than, 250 students
reside onsite, "Rib Is simply not the sort of "high density development" that citws
like Rancho 1?alos'Verdes are concerned, with,
4. "Msgy q:jty .-RcIcjjfyjis'sjjc
sented..t...i...n.d.....etheMar i it ... .... ..t..
ive
This staumient is simply untrue, and the suggestion that this is some sort o17
"bait and switch" operation borders on the slanderous, Maryniount is not being
given Iimidm authority" to build whatever it wants, a project that dif-lbrs in any
s i -
ignificant respect frorn the prqject presented in the Initiative would ;C(jUirC a llCW
vote of tile T ople, "['he suggestion that Marymount could simply reftise to comply
with or drop I -lie Campus Requirements it will is ludicrous. The Specific Plan
plainly states that 'jt1he City shall have awailable to it for enfi)rcing the Campus
Requirerricias the same enforcement mechanisms as it would. have fior conditions of
approval of other devOopillent prqjects" (Oarripus Specific'FlIan Initiative Meatjrc%
Section 3,A).
5. The Initiative allows "unlimited t.
inq all) . t
1."his stay..�M(..,nt isjust another exampic of the City Council's atterripted scare
tactics, the: ciii-ripus lzcqLjirctiiciits.%pc.!(�ifically provide that "Jall.1 new.and ITTIpi-OVed.
Structures nill'st be completed within the time period allowed pursuant to the City's
C()de after issuance a building permit, Including ally
07/20/2010 14:28 FAX 310 277 5953 KL & V LLP 12004/004
Honorable Mayor and City O)uncil Members
City OfRanclic.) Palos Verde:,
J Lily 20, 2010
extensions therm 'J' (Campus '.Requircment% No. 48). Tbc Same limits applicable to
all coristruction in the City aTe also applick1ble to .l College.
'in conclusion, we urge that; this Resolution be seen fo
.1. 1 � I, what it Is, a desperate,
1.
bave already informally
i'.'i ditch aae'rnpt to miy the vot, ofthis City who h,
expressed a strong preference for flit-Marymourit, campus improvements project set
f0fth ill the.111itiatiVe.
trUly YOVI'S ......... ....
Donna R., Black
C' MS. ORTI;,l MOrreak"
ms, Carolyn Lehr
M.r. Joel Roias
Carol Lyricft, Esq.
q & 1A
LI
mqk, RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 19, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, July 20, 2010 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
10 Submission from Concerned Citizens of RPV and RHE; Partial List of
Community Concerns (Anonymous); Email from Eleanor G. Curry
12 Email from Dergen Lin; Letter from Jerome H. Unatin
13 Revised Resolution from Councilman Misetich and Councilman Stern;
Email from Jon Cartwright
Respectfully submitted,
a 6 S�&U�
Carla Morreale
W:WGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20100720 additions revisions to agenda through Monday
afternoon.doc
Dear RPV Council:
July 19 2010
As you can see by the attached signatures, there is significant community concern about the impact of
stadium lights, and evening and night functions, at Peninsula High School. We are asking that the school
board and the city councils assess impact to our community before proceeding. A short list of our
concerns are:
• More noise. Noise levels for current afternoon games are already at exceedingly high levels for
many community residents. We understand the board has not yet set a limit to how many more
functions we can expect.
• Later Nights. We've been told to expect noise and crowds up to 10 pm on game nights. We
currently don't know if the stadium will be rented out to third parties or not.
• Impact on Home Values. Those of us near the school have been made aware we must disclose
night games upon the sale of our houses. This will likely impact house values and/or number of
people willing to purchase.
• Parking on Streets. While the H.S. has a plan for overflow parking to the Center, it doesn't
mean all fans will actually use it. It's likely people will still be parking wherever's convenient,
sometimes blocking residents in, often leaving trash for the community to pick up.
• Fan -to -neighborhood Ratio. There are about 64,000 people in the area the HS serves. A game
may bring in 1,000 people. Simply stated, there are 64 people who choose not to attend, for
everyone fan who does. So who gets to decide the issue: fans, or residents in the community who
are adjacent to the school? Who has the fun ... who bears the burden?
• Lights. While the HS is specifying lights that reflect down rather than out, the neighborhood will
inevitably be brighter at night... it's simple physics.
• The Elderly. Large portions of our community are elderly. They are not enthusiastic about Big
Loud Fun at night. But neither are they the type to protest. Does that mean our community is "an
easy target"?
• Environmental Impact. Who, if anyone, has completed a CEQA study?
• Expense. If the lights are to be funded through a future private campaign, it will inevitably
siphon money to this project at the expense of many other deserving issues. Many feel that lights
aren't a priority. What about ongoing expenses, electricity, security? Private or taxpayer?
• Mitigation. What's the school doing to mitigate impact? Retractable lights? Planting trees and
building sound barriers? Installing speakers that point down, or are near the seating, instead of
broadcasting outward from a single point?
• Priorities. Are $500K stadium lights a priority for the school, in a time of fiscal crisis?
• Back Again. Why is this issue returning, after it was given a thumbs down by the community 10
years ago?
• Speed. Why is this issue being fast -tracked? Let's slow down, incorporate the preferences of the
community that built and supports the school, and proceed with solutions that make everybody
happy.
Please note the attached is a PARTIAL set of petitions. Others are still being circulated, and we will
bring those to you as they come in.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizens of RPV and RHE.
/ o� / 1) /0.
I'm requesting the School Board & City Government assess impact to our
community before proceeding with night games and stadium lights.
# 1 Sigpature Print Name Here
24
25
Af E5 P4-,�,hW - I AAT Piz A Lac.
a
f�c, LayMe,
CA- cle Ga Vi5k2
v I a (a %) s4a
a.
FM`f WI!m4 r�iy
I'm requesting the School Board & City Government assess impact to our
community before proceeding with night games and stadium lights.
i
q
V
�ieYSJ .w(a.et
y
® /6
i r
•
r
,alt'.%��l%li!�����`1 �����`�IIL�'i�.
�
;� ��,
ate,•
081M-R-1,1V
�—"�
'����'�'�:►l ► %.
"� .. LL
ILI
WM
47
t
-
MI RM
M MaIlllll;i�
-M
Jim
R11, � W41AIA 014
EM ft�k�-"
�&
-
K, M.W.72
q
V
�ieYSJ .w(a.et
y
® /6
I'm requesting the School Board & City Government assess impact to our
community before proceeding with night games and stadium lights.
LsigWhture Print Name Here
ior 4Jrr,
I'm requesting the School Board & City Government assess impact to our
community before proceeding with night games and stadium lights.
# ISianature TPrint Name Here
1
2
3
4
5
6
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
23
24
25
IRP
"5t -w
I'm requesting the School Board & City Government assess impact to our
community before proceeding with night games and stadium lights.
J# ISignature Print Name Here
{�Zr14
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
20
21
23
24
W EWA
pin
r
R -A i f2
7n �vf c�r�e.e �.
W''i t u
Novi, hloY int
�� "�
-4 � W,
A1A►tyk;4aizST
�' f/.r �✓ tt i.r r 2 S
P1,010"OPM '/
.a.rNo.�lli�
{�Zr14
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
20
21
23
24
W EWA
pin
r
R -A i f2
7n �vf c�r�e.e �.
W''i t u
Novi, hloY int
�� "�
-4 � W,
A1A►tyk;4aizST
�' f/.r �✓ tt i.r r 2 S
I'm requesting the School Board & City Government assess impact to our
community before proceeding with night games and stadium lights.
�.
��V
r�J
Print Name H' '
�� �Il�lll�ii�if lL����
� � �����
_.. -ru _ �. �►j
PA Ifta
I TZ,
ro, ffl, � W'N F, .91 /V I � //M
-"' - T
RWMWAR�
0 iM
m m r,
"AM
M;
��V
r�J
I'm requesting the School Board & City Government assess impact to our
Q community before proceeding with night games and stadium lights.
i, s
Print Name
FIA
f 53. "1., / f� ..L�f`
1��I�Y�11,
/,♦ r ` ~' IVa,ON
OWNWA
WiA. d i PRO REM 121161ralLAELAr
�1 rf
i, s
i
I'm requesting the School Board & City Government assess impact to our
community before proceeding with night games and stadium lights.
# ISignaturelPrint Name Here
W, I JR, �.W;eo "f1w,
M
Mrcao,M, F MOR
�WJMe W, i�i��a�i�iiiraw, U-MOINIM M,--,
V, 6
This petition is for school board and city councils. Please don't release this petition to the media or to
those who might seek retribution against the people who signed their names here. We are able to supply
the non -redacted version of the petition if it is required.
Partial List of Community Concerns Regarding
Proposed Night Games at Peninsula High School
Noise. The geography surrounding the high school makes it a natural amphitheater,
projecting game noise (particularly amplified announcing & music) much farther than
possible at other schools located on level ground. (Several members on the steering
committee commented that they had not even considered noise as a factor.) At a quarter -
mile away, a living room can be filled with the announcer's voice, to the point that
double -pane windows vibrate. This powerful noise can last for 4 hours, and would be
intolerable at night. We've investigated, and found Peninsula High is unlike other schools
in this respect, who are on flatter ground, and whose noise diminishes rapidly as it moves
away from the school. We have video documentation of the disruptively loud nature of
the game noise, and can submit it for evidence.
Late Nights & A Bedroom Community. A grave concern to the community is that we'll
have noise and crowds up to 10 pm, and beyond, as the crowd disperses. Our community
consists of many elderly, mixed with young families who have children with bedtimes
earlier than 10 pm. The coach of the football team has stated flatly: "There WILL be
noise!" (That's the goal!) We feel that people who have little at stake (sports fans who
don't live near the school and don't care about its impact on the local community) are
taking tremendous advantage of those of us who do. Sports fans' recreation is not
"morally equivalent" to the needs of home owners to be able to live and work and sleep
and raise their children in the homes they have purchased.
Home Disclosures & Reduced Values. Several real estate agents have warned us, that
those of us within a certain distance of the high school will be obligated to disclose the
existence of the high school's new night games, upon the sale of our houses. We are
warned this will decrease home value, or number of interested buyers, or both. There is a
logical correlation between night games and decreased home values. (One neighbor
reported that he was in the middle of obtaining a house appraisal for a new mortgage,
when a game started at Pen. High. The appraiser reduced the value of the house because
of it, and noted this in the written appraisal.)
Parking on Streets. We expect that fans arriving late to games will not avail themselves
of parking the school has arranged, but will opt to park in the nearest convenient
location ... on community streets. Neighbors are informing us that the Sheriff's
department, who is responsible for enforcing no -park restrictions, is actually unwilling to
enforce them.
Majorities & Minorities. While the steering committee boasts of overwhelming support
for night games, simple math gives us another view of the issue. Pen. High supports a
population base of about 64,000 (or cut that in half, if you want to factor in PV High).
The school is happy if it can get 1,000 people to a game. Simply stated, there are 64
people who chose not to attend a game, to every one who attends these extracurricular
activities (and they are indeed extracurricular, not curricular, because they are after
l 4 zo /0
school, and students must pay to join the football team).' We are concerned that a small,
but very powerful and very vocal minority, are pushing for an issue that the vast majority
either doesn't care about, or against the interests of people who are actively harmed by it.
As one neighbor puts it: football players "will enjoy the presumed benefits of the stadium
lights for four years, but the nearby residents will suffer a reduced quality of life for as
long as they live near the school."
Lights. Many neighbors more distant from the school paid a premium to enjoy the night
views of Los Angeles. Other neighbors closer to the school already contend with their
windows being flooded with pool light from the school, all night long. While the steering
committee proposes spending extra on "no -spill" lights, which is commendable, there
will be the inevitable reflected light and glare. Just because the light is focused, doesn't
mean it won't dramatically change the night view for some. We don't know if those
affected have had time to consider the impact of this on the value of their homes. The
community seems largely unaware of the issue.
Who is responsible for what is broadcast? To the best of our knowledge, the public
address system at the school is (sometimes? always?) the responsibility of students during
games and rehearsals. We have heard high-volume cursing (during graduation practice),
rap lyrics with the N--- and F--- words.
As one neighbor writes: "...on any given Sunday some kid has his hand on the PA
volume control and is blasting out AC/DC Highway to Hell at 10 am. I have had to call
because the volume is up so high we can't carry on a conversation inside our house ... if I
can't hear my wife talking over the blasting PA system, whomever has rented the stadium
and blasting the PA is already in violation of local noise ordinances."
We would need assurance that the school would not be broadcasting material of this sort,
nor forcing the community to listen to music it may not care to hear. The school
shouldn't enforce the tastes of the students on a community that consists largely of the
elderly. The school does not own the air space beyond its boundaries. However,
ordinances are not enforced, see following item...
Enforcement Issues. How much noise can the school make? As much as it wants? It
appears to be self -determined. Some community members have complained to the police
when school noise gets excessive, or abusive, and the police have told them that they (the
police) will not enforce any noise ordinances that apply to the community, to the school.
Neighbors are also reporting that the Sheriff's department will not enforce parking
regulations during games. We have concerns about school autonomy from laws that
govern the rest of us. The school needs to be a good neighbor, not "the rowdy neighbor,"
particularly if it's also an "untouchable" neighbor.
The Elderly. There are many original owners and elderly on our street. Large portions
are virtually a retirement community. They don't want night games. But they aren't going
to show up and protest, when it's hard enough for them to get to the store. These are not
activists who are able to defend their homes, and they can't compete with aggressive
football fans. Does that mean our community is an "easy target" for people who want to
have loud fun? Is that ethical?
Campaign Tactics. We have concern about the tactics the school is using to get its lights
and night games. Our community was largely unaware of the night -games issue until
RPV sent a notice late last week. We feel this issue is being unnecessarily fast -tracked. It
sometimes takes a couple days to get key people from the school, administration, and city
to call us back; we feel we are working against an artificially accelerated clock that
benefits night games at the expense of the community's concerns.
Environmental Impact. Has an environmental impact study been completed? California
requires CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) documentation, has RHE
completed this, is it available for review? We don't know what the consequences may be
to the environment. Environmental studies customarily accompany expansion projects of
this type. If the study has been done, where may we view it?
As one neighbor writes: "I am actually really amazed that in these times of national
campaigns to reduce our carbon footprint and overall energy usage that educators would
propose this project. This is certainly the opposite of a "green initiative"... Organizations
throughout the world are trying to educate and correct light pollution problems. This
would be an outrageous step in the wrong direction."
Expense. We don't know who will be asked to foot the bill for night light use, but we
understand stadium lights aren't free to run. Will the expense of stadium light usage
eventually be laid on the community through taxes? Will there be other costs (security,
parking enforcement) that will accrue to the taxpayer? If so, we have not had a discussion
of whether this is how we want to spend our tax money. Many believe the money is better
spent on core curriculum during a time of financial crisis.
Mitigation. What is the school doing to mitigate impact, beyond choosing a light that is
relatively more focused? Is the school using retracting lights? Planting trees and building
sound barriers and walls to block the lights and noise? Installing speakers that point down
rather than out toward the community? Installing more, smaller speakers with less range,
rather than a few, loud speakers that must be amplified so it can be heard within a mile
range or more? (We actually don't know how large the radius of the noise envelope is
yet ... haven't had time to investigate.)
Rowdies. Many in our community are concerned about the alcohol consumption that
often occurs around the parked cars after the game. It will be our duty to deal with noisy
and potentially belligerent fans, clean up broken glass after the game, re -right our post
boxes, and deal with the other issues that attend night sports games and celebrating fans.
Security Issues. What security will be arranged for a keyed -up crowd exiting the
stadium? We are told that if the school is successful with its marketing of the games,
crowds may reach 5000 in number? Security may be planned, but again, our
r
neighborhood has been in something of an "information blackout" while the steering
committee planned, and we've not been invited to participate in security (or other)
planning. Also, we've had difficulty enforcing laws already in place, as noted elsewhere.
Priorities? Many in our community are questioning why the school is making outsized
capital investments into non-core curriculum, a time of financial crisis. We see night
games as a "nice to have" vs. a "must have" issue. We understand the school sees the
investment as a "money making venture," but the more successful they are at making
money this way, the more the problems listed here are multiplied, and the more the
community bears the burden. More money for them is more misery for us. Will the
school be sharing its revenue with the community, to mitigate damage? Some community
members are of the opinion, that if the expense of night games is to be disproportionately
borne by the surrounding community, it would only be fair if the revenue generated
would be shared with the community bearing the burden. Are their plans to "spread the
wealth around?"
As one neighbor writes: "This is also the wrong message to send to our children: it is o. k.
to spend boatloads of money on the football field but next year many of your favorite
teachers will be fired."
Halftime. What will be the nature and volume level of halftime entertainment?
Advertising & Banners. The high school has been placing increasing amounts of
advertising and banners at the corner of Silver Spur & Hawthorne. On any given day you
can see a clutter of a half dozen events being promoted. Are there plans to increase
advertising with the new games?
Why Returning after 10 years? This issue was raised 10 years ago, and the decision
was made not to pursue it then. What has changed since then, regarding impact to the
neighborhood? Are concerns about increased traffic, noise at night, disturbance to the
neighbors, trash on lawns, higher likelihood of crime, now acceptable? We have
documentation of concerns that were raised by the community in October/November
2000, when Pen. High played a night game.
REBUTTALS
"Only 5-7 Night Football Games Per Year." We have been told by several members of
the steering committee that the lights will be used for only 5-7 night football games per
year. Our investigation to date indicates otherwise; the steering committee's own
documentation adds: soccer, lacrosse, CIF games, field/track for community in the
evenings (every evening?), and special events. The number 5-7 appears to be a minimum,
not a maximum. The steering committee admits it is not responsible for determining total
use. The school board is, and it has made no determination on total use. The community
is very concerned about this issue, because the trend of other schools who have gotten
night lights, is to rent the grounds to third parties at night, for additional revenue. We
have reports of neighborhoods being destroyed by constant night use of school grounds.
We believe the temptation to generate additional income with additional activity will be
unavoidable.
"You chose to live by a H.S., and H.S. will be noisy. I'm not sympathetic to your
concerns." So we were told by one steering committee member. This defense of noise
reminds us of a defense recently put forward for a young rapist: "Well, boys will be
boys." This argument dismisses degrees of disruption entirely. Just as dating isn't the
same as raping, so acceptable noise and light can be distinguished from gratuitous noise
& light. For many of us, we live far enough from the HS that we are surprised we have
any noise concerns at all ... but we do. It really is that loud during games.
"We've arranged for alternate parking. You won't have an issue with people
parking on your street." The HS may provide alternative parking, but that doesn't mean
people will use it. People will arrive late to games and other events, and look for the
nearest parking, which will be here on residential streets. One problem particular to Fond
Du Lac, is that our parking permit program is in limbo ... we thought we didn't need $50
parking permits to park on our own street, and are half -way into a decision to repeal them
for the north section of the street (away from the school), but with thousands of fans
looking for the easiest parking spot ... we will likely need to reverse ourselves! We need
time to sort out this issue and possibly reinstate parking permits that are expanded for
time of day. Also there has been no discussion of the enforcement of the permits.
Neighbors from Via De La Vista report they can not get the Sherriff's department to
actually enforce parking restrictions during games.
"Join us, get involved, come to our games! Don't just sit over there and monitor the
noise we make." There are many, many people who choose not to attend football games.
Just consider the ratio of those who do not, to those who do: there are almost 64,000
people in RPV, RHE, PVE, and RH combined.2 A H.S. game may cater to 1,000 people.
There are 64 people in the community who don't care to attend, to every 1 that does! This
may be incomprehensible to a small minority of avid fans, who think their games are of
vital importance. But some of us view school games as recreation... no more and no less.
As one neighbor puts it: "...sports are entertainment, pure and simple, and as such should
not be the focus of teaching institutions, especially when they offensively intrude on the
residents' rights to peace and quiet."
"This is RHE issue, because the school is in RHE. This is not an RPV issue." Where
to start with this one. First, RHE has a small population of about 7,700 people, in
comparison to RPV that has a population of over 4 1, 100 people. Pen. High is
overwhelmingly populated with children from RPV. We in RPV consider Pen. High as
"our" school, for this reason. We in RPV desire good relations with our neighbors in
RPV, regardless of how the nonsensical boundary lines have been gerrymandered
between the two cities. And we do feel this is an RPV issue, since it is RPV
neighborhoods (not PVE neighborhoods) that surround the school on both sides.
am_
"I'm not bothered by the noise, so you don't have a valid case. You must be noise
sensitive." While this argument virtually vanishes as you get closer to the school, it's not
a fair argument because there's no objective data backing it up. We can easily measure
decibels and come up with standards. Also the terrain around Pen. High is unique; it acts
like an amphitheater, projecting its sound to sometimes non -intuitive locations. Let's not
play doctor and clinically diagnose our neighbors as "noise sensitive" because we want to
win an argument. Detractors might find they suddenly become "noise sensitive," too,
when the noise is in their bedrooms.
"We need lights to enhance community spirit." Community spirit isn't measured by
the noise generated at a H.S. football game. As one neighbor stated, "I have had children
attending PVPHS for the last 10 years and there is no lack of spirit at that school. I
believe the lights will decrease community spirit and create a divide between the local
residents and the school."
"Every other H.S. has lights, and we don't." The response that comes from the
surrounding community is, "Yes, and there's a good reason for that. We don't want
them." Many neighbors have specifically commented that they moved to our
neighborhood for the very reason it was a quiet, relatively dark community.
Personally, I'd like to note that all my neighbors have TiVo, and I don't.
1 School boards can "exempt themselves" from city noise and light regulations for
curricular activities, so the definition becomes important.
2 RPV has 41,145. RHE has 7,676. PVE has 13,340. RH has 1871. Total area served by
Pen. Hi is roughly 64000.
6 of �
From: Eleanor Curry [eleanorgcurry@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:24 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Lighting For Peninsula High School Athletic Field
In considering the above issue please note:
The RPV neighborhood surrounding the High School is designated residential.
The traffic and parking generated by the proposed use and the inevitable
expanded
use of lighting is inappropriate to a small residential neighborhood.
It is my understanding that Palos Verdes Estates in keeping their city
supportive of our schools and yet interested in maintaining a lovely and
desirable
place to own a home does not permit athletic field lighting for night games.
I know that members of the council work very hard to keep and improve the
quality of our community. Your constituents appreciate that ,and have every
reason to depend on you to help us keep and improve a quality neighborhood.
Our schools are a point of pride for all of us. Surely the schools and all the
residential
areas of RPV can continue to live as good neighbors. I encourage you to
continue the Palos Verdes Peninsula tradition of no lighting on our
neighborhood
athletic fields.
Thank you for your consideration,
Eleanor G.Curry
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:
Dergen Lin [dergen.lin@cox.net]
Sent:
Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:37 AM
To:
amyt@rpv.com; joelr@rpv.com
Subject: Objection to the change of CC&Rs of Lunada Point Homeowner association
As in my last correspondence with Ms. Amy, I was promised that the residents in Marguerite Drive will trim their
foliage and brunches accordingly at least once every year. My wife was told by one member of the Marguerite
Drive member few days ago, that promise will no longer be honored. I therefore object to any change of CC&Rs
of Lunada Point Homeowner association.
MI,
7/15/2010
5'�vT" eqy
RECEIVED
® * V1
JUL 16 2010
PLANNING, BUILDING AND
A9FD/� SQA CODE ENFORCEMENT
SOUTH BAY
ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS
MEDICAL CENTER*
July 15, 2010
Jerome H. Unatin, M.D., Inc.
General Orthopaedic
and Hand Surgery
Don R Sanders, M.D., Inc.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Athletic Injuries
Total Joint Replacement
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Nicholas J. Silrrino, M.D., Inc.
Sports Medicine,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 -
Knee and Shoulder Surgery
Randolph C. O'Hara, M.D., Inc.
Spine Disorders, RE: City Council Meeting of July 20, 2010
Spine Surgery and Scoliosis
Andrew Y. Aim, M.D., Inc.
Hand, Shoulder
and Elbow Surgery Dear Sirs:
Stephen G. hruccion, M.D., Inc
Sports Medicine, I would like to have attended the meetiP4 this evening, but
Shoulder and Knee Surgery
Mark J. Wang, iEd.D. unfortunately I am out of town at a medical conference and unable to
Spine Surgery and Scoliosis,
Spine Disorders attend.
General Orthopaedics
Keri A. Reese, M.D.
Foot and Ankle Surgery In my absence, I would like to write you a note in support of the
General Orthopaedics
00 proposed action by the Community Developmental Director and City
Daniel N. Zinar, M.D., Inc.**
Fracture Reconstruction Attorney. For the past three years, I have been the president of the
and Trauma
Homeowner's Association at Lunada Pointe. As we are all well aware,
Christine Rubin
Administrator the view preservation issue has created problems for homeowners in
Rancho Palos Verdes.
o
� ul-
23560 Crenshaw Boulevard Suite 102 Torrance, CA 90505 tel: (310) 784-2355
*A Partnership of Medical Corporations ** Independent Associates
fax: (310) 517-1817
July 15, 2010
Page 2
Two homeowners in Lunada Pointe have filed the intention to file a view restoration
permit. During that period of time, they found what might have been a code violation
on three of the homes in Lunada Pointe. This has come from a note in the file that
was possibly a conditional use permit. There has been a great deal of confusion from
the city with use permits, landscaping, and planning. There has also been confusion
on conditional permits on one home and not the other homes at Lunada Pointe. And
as the City Attorney pointed out there are many inconsistencies. These
inconsistencies would make it considerably prejudicial against some homeowners and
not others, particularly at Marguerite Drive. One might even say it is discriminatory.
These conditional use permits are not recorded instruments, and there was no way
that homeowners would have known about this when they purchased their home.
They were not recorded and certainly were not in the title policy. Possibly the
condition in the planning file was in anticipation of the city ordinance and not
intended to supersede the view ordinance.
The overwhelming majority of homeowners in Lunada Pointe including myself feel
that in Rancho Palos Verdes all homes should be treated the same and not
discriminatory.
It seems only reasonable expectation that when people bought their homes they
would be governed by the view preservation ordinance and that people who do not
like their view could pursue a formal view restoration permit application.
July 15, 2010
Page 3
The overwhelming majority of neighbors in Lunada Point have cooperated with
mediation procedures to date and will continue to do so in trying to reach a resolution
under the view preservation ordinance.
An independent committee was appointed under the rules of Lunada Pointe's CC &
R's to evaluate the view preservation issues in our area. I have enclosed the
environmental reports received by Lunada Pointe Board of Directors. We realize the
City has the final judicial responsibility and decision, and hope you take the reports
into consideration.
Thank you for permitting to put this in the record.
JHU/tf
Sincerely,
Nie Unatin, M.D.
RESOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COMMITTEE OF
LUNADA POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, Article XI of the Association's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions calls for the Board of Directors to appoint an Environmental Control Committee
("ECC') to make certain decisions regarding the approval of construction, including landscaping,
within the community, and to fulfill such duties as given to it by the Association's Board of
Directors;
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has asked the ECC to review and assist the Board of
Directors in resolving certain view restriction disputes among homeowners;
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has specifically empowered the ECC to work with
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in resolving disputes among homeowners at the Association
premises with regard to landscaping issues at the Association premises;
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined that three Association
properties on Marguerite and Laurel (Lots 9, 14 and 15) were originally sold with written, but
unrecorded, restrictions on such properties which allowed for palm trees to be planted by the
original homeowners onto such properties, but which also limited the height of such trees to the
16 foot ridge height;
WHEREAS, no other homeowners within the Association boundaries have such
restrictions on their lots, being bound only to the original Association approval of their
landscaping and the restrictions contained within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes codes and the
Association's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions;
WHEREAS, the Association's Board of Directors has asked the ECC to determine if the
Association should enforce the tree height restrictions on these three lots, insofar as these
restrictions were not created by the Association, were not recorded on the lots, and therefore do
not legally bind the current owners to their terms (since unrecorded restrictions do not run with
the land).
NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED, that the ECC hereby decides as follows:
RESOLVED that insofar as the three written but unrecorded restrictions on Association
Lots 9, 14 and 15, were not required by the ECC or Association Board in order to approve the
original landscaping on such lots, and insofar as the landscaping, including the existing palm
trees, was originally approved by the ECC to be planted on such lots, and insofar as palm trees
cannot be topped but only removed, the ECC has determined that it will not enforce the terms of
these written, but unrecorded restrictions, on Lots 9, 14 and 15 concerning tree height;
q j U
LUNADA POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COMMITTEE
C/O HORIZON MANAGEMENT
21535 H.AWTHORNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 530
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90503
ATTENTION: JOANN PARKS
May 11, 2010.
Chris and Maria Ballinger
73 Laurel Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Re: - Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association "Association")
Dear Chris and Maria:
The ECC has been working very diligently on your claim that certain palm trees on your
neighbors' lots violate Article V, Section 20 of the Associations CC& R's and must be removed.
Section 20 states that:
"Sec 'on 20. View Restriction:
All landscaping (including parkway trees) shall be maintained so
that no tree or rgroup of trees significantly obstructs views from
adjacent properties. No tree shall be planted in any location on a
Lot that could reasonably be expected to grow beyond the
maximum ridgeline elevation assigned to that Lot, as shown on
Exhibit C-1 hereto, unless prior written approval is granted by the
Planning Commission of the City. In the event a dispute between
Owners with respect to the obstruction of a view from a Lot, such
dispute shall be submitted to the Environmental Control
Committee, whose decision in such matters shall be binding upon
such Owners. Any such obstruction shall, upon request of the
Environmental Control Committee, be removed or otherwise
altered to the satisfaction of the Environmental Control Committee
by the Owner of the Lot upon which the obstruction is located."
(Emphasis added.)
Chris Ballinger
Maria Ballinger
May 11, 2010
Page 2
To assist the ECC in evaluating your complaint, the ECC has reviewed the View Restoration
Guidelines of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"). The Guidelines evaluate view
obstructions from a single viewing area (where the best and most important view exists). The
ECC has determined that the City's approach is both fair and reasonable. Accordingly, in
evaluating your complaint, the ECC has carefully considered the pictures taken by the City from
the "viewing area" on your property, and it has determined that:
1. The palm trees at issue do not significantly obstruct your view from the viewing
area designated by the City in the pictures (or any other viewing area for that
matter). '
2. By their very nature, palm trees will always grow higher than the ridgeline
elevation, because a palm tree cannot be topped. The Association will
nonetheless require that all palm trees in the Association be trimmed two times
per year to minimize any potential obstruction.
3. The trees and hedges located on the south side of 63 Marguerite Drive should be
trimmed to the standards set by the Association,
Other than as set forth above, the ECC has determined the no further action is warranted by the
ECC with this matter.
We hope you accept these conclusions, as we have tried our best to use the proper guidelines that
would best suit our small community now and into the future.
Regards,
Environmental Control Committee
Lunda Pointe Homeowners Association
(q o�- l.x
RPV City Council Resolution
Opposing the Marymount Initiative
A Resolution of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council taking a position in opposition to
the Marymount Initiative certified for the November 2, 2010 ballot.
Whereas, the Marymount Initiative a voter sponsored initiative prepared by Marymount
College, a private liberal arts college was submitted to the City Clerk on Tuesday March 2, 2010.
Whereas, the City recognizes the right of the voters to use the Initiative process when it is used
to advance the public health, safety and welfare;
Whereas, on June 3, 2010 the City Clerk certified that sufficient petitions had been signed to
qualify the Initiative for a special election;
Whereas, the City Council, at a public meeting on June 15, 2010, ordered a special election to
be held on the Initiative and consolidated the special election with the November 2, 2010
election;
Whereas, on June 15, 2010 the City Council received a report on the differences between the
Marymount Initiative and the City Council approved plan for the expansion of the Marymount
campus.. That evening the City Council received additional staff reports, presentations, updates
and extensive public comments thereon;
Whereas, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on June 15, 2010 to consider
whether or not to take a position on the Marymount measure in light of the differences
between the Marymount sponsored Initiative and the Marymount plan approved by the City
Council and the effects of each upon the community;
Whereas, the City Council had reviewed extensive materials at several public meetings prior to
June 15th, 2010, to fully understand the Marymount modernization plan, and had carefully
considered the plan, obtaining significant public input addressing the positive and negative
aspects of the plan, and the impact of the plan on the residents of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, and various neighborhoods within the City.
Whereas, the City Council had previously granted approval to most of the improvements
proposed by Marymount in its plan on June 1, 2010, following many public hearings where
public testimony was obtained;
Whereas, numerous members of the public urged the City Council to take an official position
against the Marymount Initiative because 1) the City Council was elected to act as the citizens
final voice on important land use issues 2) the Initiative has a direct impact on the City and its
operations, 3) the City Council has the resources and the experience to evaluate and
understand the complexities of land use issues and this Initiative's impact on a significant land
use issue and 4) the City Council and Planning Commission has devoted many hours reviewing
detailed reports, obtaining public input and evaluating and understanding the Marymount plan
and its impact on the residents of the City;
Whereas, the City Council determined that taking a position on the Marymount Initiative is an
appropriate method of fulfilling its duty to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the
residents; and to inform the residents about the City Council's concerns; and
Whereas the City Council has carefully considered the provisions of the Marymount Initiative
and determined that it does not advance the health, safety and welfare of our community;
NOW, THERFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE,
DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1) That the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes is opposed to the Marymount Initiative on
the November 2, 2010 ballot for the following reasons:
A) The Initiative Interferes with the City's Self Rule. The City was incorporated 37 years
ago to gain oversight over local land use issues and to avert high density developments.
The Marymount Initiative takes away the City's local authority by creating a special
district where Marymount is not subject to many safety, aesthetic or geological
mitigations that the City regularly applies to other properties and projects. The City
Council has already authorized virtually all the modernization requested by Marymount.
However, there are 62 different items including high density dormitories in the
Marymount Initiative that differ with the project submitted by Marymount and
approved by the City Council. This is an abuse of the initiative power and creates a
precedent for the future high density developments in Rancho Palos Verdes.
B) The Initiative Undermines Local Planning Laws. The City's General Plan, zoning laws
and other regulations form the basis for orderly land use development in Rancho Palos
Verdes that preserves a low density community. These regulations apply equally to all
properties in Rancho Palos Verdes. The Marymount Initiative amends and overrides
these important laws that protect the safety and quality of life in Rancho Palos Verdes,
making special exceptions for Marymount College. A private institution's polices and
priorities should not supersede those of the City and its residents.
C) The Initiative is Not Necessary to allow Marymount to Modernize its Campus. The City
Council carefully reviewed all aspects of the Marymount plan and granted Marymount
the right to modernize its campus with all the buildings, of the size requested, with all
the functionality and amenities that Marymount requested, except for high density
dormitories. However, Marymount did not request from the City Council that it be
permitted to build dormitories. Although Marymount initially included dormitories in its
proposal, it strategically decided to withdraw the request from its proposal in order to
obtain City approval, and then proposed the Initiative as an end run around the City's
process.
D) Initiative places the Athletic Field in a Location that is Nearest to Palos Verdes Drive
East, Raising Safety Concerns that were Mitigated by the City Council Approved Plan.
The City Council granted Marymount the right to construct a new and improved athletic
field near to the Marymount requested location, but for safety concerns moved it to a
location slightly further away from Palos Verdes Drive East to allow a greater safety
buffer to protect the public driving on Palos Verdes Drive East from balls leaving the
athletic field. The Initiative would unravel the City Council's well -reasoned redesign of
the athletic field location.
E) The Initiative Eliminates Conditions imposed to Minimize Negative Consequences of
the Project on the Residents. In order to protect the residents of the City, the City
Council imposed conditions to mitigate negative impacts of the Marymount plan. Some
of the mitigation measures are modified or eliminated by the Initiative, to the harm of
the residents of the City.
F) The Initiative Authorizes After -the —Fact Changes. The Marymount Initiative allows the
College to remove mandated conditions that are designed to increase safety and
necessary to maintain a reasonable quality of life in the surrounding neighborhoods.
These conditions were determined after many hours of study and analysis by both the
Planning Commission and City Council with consideration given to both Marymount and
the residents. Should the Initiative be approved by the voters, Marymount will have
authority to make incremental changes to its project such that what is presented under
the Marymount Initiative may not resemble the final development. The possibility that a
"bait and switch" might occur deprives the voters of their rights to know exactly the
nature of the project on which they are voting.
G) The Initiative Does Not Benefit the Local Economy. The Marymount Initiative is not
expected to result in any substantial increase in jobs in Rancho Palos Verdes over the life
of the Project.
H) The Initiative Leaves Many Unanswered Questions. The meaning of many aspects of
the Marymount Initiative will not be clear until after it is approved and the college
finishes the project sometime in the future. With unlimited time to complete the
13 of 4
project, it may be many years before the impact of the project is truly known if at all.
The City meanwhile will have limited oversight during construction. In addition, the City
will not have oversight capabilities regarding operations at the college that could
adversely affect the quality of life for the residents and /or any safety considerations.
Based upon the foregoing, the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes encourages all
Rancho Palos Verdes registered voters to vote against the Marymount Initiative in the
November 2, 2010 Special Election.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on July 20, 2010
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
Attest:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) SS
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2010-_ was duly and regularly
passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on
July 20, 2010.
City Clerk
4 6� 4
From: Jon Cartwright [RPVJon12@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 4:01 PM
To: Stefan Wolowicz; Thomas Long; Anthony M. Misetich; Brian Campbell
Cc: City Council
Subject: July 19, 2010 CC Agenda Item #13 CC Proposed Resolution Opposing the Marymount Plan
Mayor Steve Wolowicz and Members of the RPV City Council,
At CHOA April 21, Member Meeting the members voted overwhelmingly to oppose the Marymount
Initiative. We urge you unanimously approve the Proposed Resolution to Oppose the Marymount
Initiative that is on the July 20, 2010 City Council Agenda.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the Council meeting on Tuesday.
Thank you,
Jon Cartwright, President
RPV Council of HomeOwners Associations
7/19/2010