20110802 Late CorrespondenceRECEIVED£ROMI~D.~~~~I
AND MADE A PART OF T RECORD AT TH
----------c-OUf\iCILMEETING--OF -,--/dOli ---------
------__________________---____________--OFflCE-OF_THEe GLI;.Fit<____.__
CARLA MORREALE.CITY CLERK-----------------..----------.------.----.-....-------------------._.----------.-----------..--.---L-~:::..:..;;;:~~~~~----------p-~~~:~~.-
I"'
38'-0·
<:>.'en
N
5>......
detail 1
28'-0·
I,.
DRAINAGE
"
tlfI·t/)ORLANDO RESIDENCE ~..~~<Jf
28105 GOLDEN MEADOW \\
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA.900275
RECEIVED FROM
AND MADE A PART OF T:tfiCORO '"T7 E
COUNCIL MEETING OF Jt~¢.J)t
OFFICE OF THE CI CL RK
CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLERK
Preview Page 1 of3
Date:Tuesday,August 2,2011 8:39 PM
From:bubba32@cox.net
To:bubba32@cox.net
Subject:Fwd:Late Call from Ara this afternoon re tonight's meeting_..-fL"!;.QfIVED.FROM
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF 11t4l:.e£r c:2IJll
OFFICE OF THE Cii1TCLERK
CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLERK
>Date:Tue,2 Aug 2011 20:30:40 -0400
>From:<bubba32@cox.net>
>To:jlkarp@cox.net
>Subject:Late Call from Ara this afternoon re tonight's meeting
>Cc:zuggie1 @yahoo.com
>
>
>All
>
>Just got off a lengthy call with Ara this afternoon regarding some "clarifications"
as to why the Staff';s Recommendation NO.2 is Ok.
>
>He contends that it is "consistent"with the identified sole purpose of clarifying
what conditions apply now versus later after the College is renovated.He stated
that it is an "inherent"part of such clarifications.
>
> I told him I disagreed.He stated that such Recommendation NO.2 to affirm
Staff's approach on #138 and #158 not to declare any violation now because the
College is in "substantial compliance"by taking action now.Therefore,ergo.it is
in compliance!
>
> I told him that this was not an announced subject for the Council's Review
tonight.He stated that such request (No.2 to affirm ..)was "inherent"in the
process and was therefore not an un permitted separate subject.
>
>He also made note that this was not a "Public Noticed"type hearing,only that
the listserver provided courtesy information only under continued "Business"as
provided in the Code that allows for the Director (Staff)to obtain clarification on
such issues.(as noted in the published information and Staff Report)
>
> I told him that such statements were grossly misleading in that we and the
public need to be able to discuss "enforcement"of conditions separately rather
than roll this under the "clarification"rug.I think that we need to emphasize that
to the Council because Staff has already admitted to being in confusion
regarding how to deal with these conditions.I told Ara it was not my intend to
have a Staff bashing but to proceed with the announced sole purpose of this
https://webmail.west.cox.net/do/mail/message/preview?msgId=INBOXDELIM59022 8/2/2011
Preview Page 2 of3
hearing,nothing more.
>
>I asked Ara if the College had said they were confused and he said they did not
indicate that.I told Ara that it is written in the Conditions that it is the College's
responsibility to fully implement these Mitigation Measure and Conditions,and to
enforce them.He didn't like that angle.My point was that it was not up to the
enforcement of the City to decide whether or not there were violations,but to
read the requirements and agreements and then come to a conclusion on any
violations that may exist.
>
>I told Ara that I thought that the spectacle now before us of not even finding a
single condition of non-compliance at this time (August 2011)makes a
precedent-setting mockery of enforcement.He explained that the City/Staff was
undermanned to enforce and I told him that this point was not our issue and
certainly does not now provide a rationale or excuse to declare there are/were no
violations,existing or past.I told him that it is inconceivable that the City,at this
time,has the effrontery to contend that there are no current violations because
(only two)are "works ir progressll (#138ž)because the College is now
working on them and therefore are not IIv iolationsll as so deemed by the City.
There are many more legitimate violation questions that need answers.
>
>This is horrific precedent-setting stuff,in my opinion,but Ara didn't seem to
worry about that.I told him that there were four (4)IIcountsll of violation under
#144 failure to conduct driver training,and four more violation IIcountsll of not
reporting such driver training (should have been reported as zero!under #146.I
told him that by his own words at our last Tuesday's meeting regarding COA #45
that the College had not provided the proper paperwork required by the City
Attorney for compliance,that absent that paper,he would deem the College in
violation.That promise and statement didn't seem to register.
>I told Ara that there never could be any violation of any condition by the
interpretations that the Staff is now proposing to the City Council and asking for
their affirmation!,and we have not even begun construction yet where the bulk of
the Conditions supposedly apply.Fat chance to gain any compliance there under
the new precedent being requested now.
>
>I seriously questioned Staff's track record of enforcement with the College and
Ara defensively said that the City does require enforcement when alleged
violations are reported to it.That brought out a laugh -needed in this case -
because I reminded Ara that such alleged violations were brought to the City's
attention in March this year,and were not acted upon then or since and that
these were the very same Conditions now,in August,that Staff is willing to
compromise on and give a pass to -Conditions #138 and #158.I told Ara that Dr.
Brophy himself is on record -at the April 14,2009 PC meeting as stating that
https://webmail.west.cox.net/do/mail/message/preview?msgld=INBOXDELIM59022 8/2/2011
.,Preview Page 3 of3
such Neighborhood Advisory Committee would provide a worthwhile early
warning system that would preclude misunderstanding from getting out of hand.
>
>Ara responded that the College now has indicated it does not understand #138,
how to implement it,etc.because there is insufficient information as how exactly
the meetings should be conducted,and that the College was uncertain as to how
to initiate the formation of this Committee back in March.I told Ara that is their
responsibility,not the City's.They have had plenty of time to fix that.
>
>According to Ara,Don Davis will be in attendance tonight which is a good thing
because he can be a witness to his own statement of April 14,2009 to the PC
that he requested an "exception"for small groups that were already users of the
campus for administrative simplicity to avoid the requirement otherwise to apply
each time for a Special Use Permit (SUP).He specifically also noted that his
requested exception applied only to these "after hours"uses by existing small
civic groups -listed in the Staff Report,and not to the Operation of Summer Day
camp by private operators.
>
>I think this meeting tonight is a big deal with proof being in the form of having
Don Davis here.It is mUCh.much more than a simple clarification review for the
sole purpose of identifying which Conditions apply now versus apply "later"once
the College is renovated.
>I would emphasize that we request a separate Noticed Review of those
enforcement issues at a future Noticed Hearing because I fear that too many
precedent-setting issues would otherwise be swept under the rug.We have
many,many more enforcement items than have been admitted to by Staff at this
time and those should have an entirely new hearing.Otherwise,the College will
content later that they are in "full compliance"with all Conditions since the City
approved and affirmed this to be the case tonight.
>
>Apologies for the short notice,but that was courtesy of Ara's late call this
afternoon.Quite unusual.
>
>Jim
--.----_.....__.._--_._--.-..._-----
https://webmail.west.cox.net/do/maiVmessage/preview?msgId=INBOXDELIM59022 8/2/2011
CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION/MARYMOUNT EXPANSION
INTERPRETATIONS OF SELECTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COND WHAT OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE COMMENT
#COMPLIANCE TRIGGER
3,4,5 Mitigation monitoring No Acceptance of No known implementation.
&6 Conditions of
Approval Condition 5 states,"Marymount shall be
August -2010 responsible for implementing and ensuring
compliance with all conditions of
approval .••"
Page 1 of 6
9 March notification to the No Failure to On March 21,almost 6 months ago,an e-mail
City that MM was in comply was sent to the City advising that MM was in
violation of several violation of several conditions since
Conditions of Approval September 2010 (ATTACHED)
No known cure notices were sent to MM
subject to RPVMC Section 17.86.060.
MM is not in compliance of conditions now.
No applications respecting building
modifications or SUP's should be granted
until MM is in compliance.
15 "...applicant shall comply No Acceptance of No known measures are "being
with all applicable Conditions implemented."During the school terms
provisions of the City's approximately 70 -90 cars are parked on the
Transportation Demand street during the school day.
Management and Trip
Reduction Ordinance as set
forth
in RPVMC section 10.28."
~
Page 2 of 6
45 INSURANCE No Acceptance of As of July 26,staff has advised that no
Conditions insurance endorsement has been received
"...insurance shall name the naming RPV as an additional insured
...City,City Council,
...employees,...as
additional insureds."
54-Building Design Standards Should apply now -»It was unknown to the City that MM would
57 file an application to place fume hoods on
the roof of Cecilia Hall.No plans for this
modification have been filed with the city
specifying "earth tone color."
The conditions should be applicable to
modifications which MM wants respecting
existing buildings.
58 Mechanical equipment,Should apply now -»On April 1,MM filed an application to place
vents or ducts shall not be mechanical equipment on the roof of Cecilia
placed on roofs unless Hall.
approvals are obtained
pursuant to RPVMC Section ~This application was not approved in the
17.48.050 Expansion Project and it is unknown what
hazardous materials,chemicals will be
vented.
Page 3 of 6
59 Storage of Materials No On-going MM is not in compliance with storage of
operations hazardous materials per LACOFD.
MM has not filed any MOSS (Material Data
Safety Sheets)
ATTACHED are LACOFD violations.
60 CONSTRUCTION PHASING -»-»The staff report does not state that the order
of phasing be built as approved,Phase 1,
followed by Phase 2,followed by Phase 3.
Each Phase must be completed before the
next phase is started in this order.
136 Outdoor Amplification -No Acceptance of No applications for SUP's (or building
SUP Conditions modifications)should be considered until
MM is in compliance.(RPVMC 17.86.050)
~
Page 4 of 6
138 Neighborhood Advisory No Acceptance of MM violations 2x -Fall 2010 &Spring 2011
Committee Conditions
MM has represented to RPV that it is
"currently in the recruitment process."
MM only needs to send 5 homeowners
associations a "form letter"requesting that
each homeowners association designate a
representative.
The homeowners associations are San
Ramon,Seacliff Hilltop,EI Prado,Mira
Catalina and Mediterrania.
139 PROGRAMS-STUDENT No Acceptance of As stated in the EIR and MM's attorney letter,
ENROLLMENT Conditions dated July 5,MM requested approval to
operate a summer youth recreational
program.
Neither the request nor the condition
contemplated the commercial operation by a
separate "for-profit"entity which was
unaffiliated with MM.
~
Page 5 of 6
144 Driver's Training Course No Acceptance of MM in violation (4x)-Fall 2010,Winter,2010,
Conditions Spring 2011 &Summer 2011.No course has
(agree with staff)been started.
147 NOISE -MECHANICAL Should apply now Installment of MM has file an application respecting the
EQUIPMENT new installation of air-conditioning and other
equipment equipment.The criteria for noise levels
should apply respecting any applications
presently filed.
158 PARKING No No parking management strategy program
has been submitted.
(agree with staff)
The PC asked staff,How do we know if there
is compliance with parking management?"
Staff responded,"By counting the cars on
the street."
During the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 terms
there were 70-90 cars parked on adjacent
~streets.
Page 6 of 6
NOTESC()MPLIANCE
T~'GGER
...,:.....~
RESOLUTIDNNO.20'1g"'~CQ"PIT'ONALUSE PERM,"t4()••REVISION "E"
,.'.'",'..•..'.•....•.'.COHDI~ION'~OPIE~~~~A~OP~RATIOtlAL CONSTRUCTION
CO.NDITION NU.JiER···.s''''''~RY.~~::Q:r .CO~I).TION$IN'C;:ON'~TIONS
DeSCRIPTION .'laO"l"..CO"."IANCE .(APPLIES LATER)
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Project
construction plans
are to comply with
City Council
aDcrovals
On-going
compliance,No
further action
On-going
compliance,no
'urther action
Completed
Completed
Prior to submittal
to Building and
Safety
5 days from
approval
90 days from
approval
."
.,.
."
.,.
.,.
Yes
Yes
.,.
.,.
.,.
.,.
Construction shall
substantially comply with
the Council approved
plans
Implementation and
Compliance with adopted
Conditions of APproval
Certificate of Acceptance
of Conditions of Approval
Payment of the State
required Fish and Game
fee
Implementation and
Compliance with the
adopted Mitigation
Measures
ondltlon Nos.5 and 6
Condition Nos.3 and 4
Condition No.7
Condition No.1
Condition No.2
Condition No.a
ondition No.9
Minor modifications to
plans or conditions
permitted by the Director
If in substantial
compliance to Council
aDcrovals
Failure to comply with
Conditions of Approval
results in revocation of
CUP
.,.
.,.
Yes
Yes
.,.
.,.
City Council
approval
No further action
at this time
NOTES
,MARYMOUN1COLLEGE,...U,.I.A=....'.~V:vISION ..
~'_~~19~'O:Z\~l:1L OIPI!~'16.Ji'"C~N.T~9Cl'IO"·COMPUANCE
'$"MII_aV ..,<~<>«'.CONIJITIGNSINCON~ITlONS '.',.'.
.DE88RII*ION'.(A~l'\'I!.·.COWLIAtiCE.(A'PLIESt.ATER)·.'TRIGGER......NO")....','.'."..'
.CONDitiON HUM.EIt .
Condition No.10
Condition No.11
Condition No.12
Organization and
applicability of Conditions
of AD Droval
Conflicts between
Conditions of Approval
and Mitigation Measures
stricter shall a,
Applicability of Building
Permits
~
.,
Ves
Ves
~
.,
.,
City Council
approval
More restrictive
condition or
mitigation
measure
Prior to
construction
Applicability will be
Prior to Issuance Idetermined at time
of building permits bUilding permits
are obtained
Condition Nos.13 -14
Condition No.15
Condition Nos.16 -17
Applicability of
Environmental Excise Tax
and Affordable Housing
ulrement
CompUance with the
City's Transportation
Demand Management
and Trip Reduction
Ordinance
College pays for City
consultant costs related
to reviewing plans or
documents
.,
~Ves
~
~
.,
Acceptance of
Conditions
The use of
consultants
College has
provided a&0f
measures
currently being
imDlemented
On-going
Condition No.18
6-month review for each Trigger is This condition
construction phase and a completion of Includes an overall
3-month review for the ~each construction review 18 months
Landscape Maintenance phase or after the entire
Plan Landscape project Is
CN I Maintenance Plan ccmoIetedcbConditionNo.19 IChanqes to .development.,Ves ~Trigger If changes
plans includIng operations are proposed
./."Insurance for operation of
the College
.'......·IfIARYMOONTCOLLEGE....'.~""4">"""'~.~'""E'OLUTION"O.201a~ac;'~ljtION4~U'IPiRIVIITNQ.9 REVISI'ON "15"
....."".','.'<.',,:<i••OITtON',',oP~~T~~~OP.RATIO~AL cOMeT.ucTION ..'.'
.tOHD'ITION NUMlleR·.,"'sU"MUV .....'..,..C~~!,~B)N~.·CORIITIGtJSIN '..CONDI110NS'COMPL~NCE
.-'.'..",....'"".(A....LI••.·'.,'COi..LlAJICE .(APpileSUTER).TRIGGeR,"9w)..'....'......
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Condition No.45
Condition Nos.46 -51
Condition No.52
Describes the maximum
permitted square
footages,heights,and
setbacks for the proposed
and expanded structures,
including obtaining the
aDDroDriate certifications.
The maximum permitted
height for new or replaced
f1aa Doles
."
."
Acceptance of
Conditions of
Approval;prior to IDescribes limits for
framing .buildingsinspection;prior to
final inspection of
radin
Installation of new
or replaced flag
Ies
BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Condition No.53
Requires specific
modifications to the
Athletic Building prior to
Plan Check submittal.
."
Future building
Prior to Plan lplans to be
Check submittal reviewed by
Plannin
Building plans to
be reviewed by
Prior to Issuance IPlanning.
of building permits Modified buildings
means exterior
chances
."
Requires ai'new,
expanded/or modified
structuresbeflnished in
an earth tone color with
specific architectural
•materials
VI Condition Nos.54 -57
~
I\)
I I I I I I I ill!I
.-'--~;~~=;;=-OFAnROVAL
RISOLUTION NO.2010-42,CONDitiONAL USEPERM.IT NO.9 RIVISION ME"
....-',-2.".zL,~.-,"":":.·_.,.·:_.>:"~_">",-~<~;:<o:c:_,J-''':,:'''-:~':'C·..c."~-~;~·~'-;..z:;,'.>....-.•/..-.:.·.···-··.:~L.-~.:,·_'.:-:.:,-,:.'".:.:",-:-.-,'-'~_'::"~';.'-~""__::_2<>:;:i
NOTES
~
wli Condition No.58
'~ondition No.59
Allows roof mounted
mechanical equipment
provided approvals are
obtained with a Site Plan
Reviewaoolication.
The Storage of goods,
merchandise,janitorial
supplies,etc.shall be
housed in an enclosed
structure.
if'
0/~
0/
0/
New and
iXQipg@(jr
buildings or
equipment
On-going
operations
consistent with the
Council approved
oroject plans.
Consistent with
RPVMC.See
Council approved
Roof Plan.
This criteria
applies now and
for future
operations.
~OnditiOn No.60
CONSTRUCTION PHASING
The Project is to
be completed by
June 1.2018,
Allows the Facilities which is 8 years
Expansion Project to be ~from June 1,2010,
constructed in 3 phases the date the
over a span of 8 years J 1 2010 C'ty approval becamefromtheJune1,2010 0/une ,I final.
City Council final decision Council approval If components
and provided that described in each
construction activities do phase are not
not exceed a total of 3 completed within
W ~h~~
I frames and~extensions are not
~~C!~r
,,.",','.~,·~rl!."~""'Jl""~~~~'~~DITIONf~FAPPROVAL
RISOLQTI~O.2_"O...a·c~'.~.()tI~L·"'S'.ER"'IT HI).9 RJ!VISION "E":,'.;.,-";':'...,:--,:<:>._::",".,:_:,C'.:.:t·--.-,:__:~.:;~-,:-:-:j-:::_,;_._--~-_~:__'>:._::~-:_~::'.:._:::-:---:'-':::'-:·'-_,2:<~::::::-.-,~-<::--::;-,:-::-:::::-'-_:_'f,':::,:,,:_-_,:':::::::-,~:,::,·:,:::::·':,-.'::::.:.:f.:-:·.>·<:,:.:,~::-,'-t-:,-;-,-,_,-,,,,.,"_J_.,,'._.,,-'.-,.--.',,-'C-,-,-~--_.'":.'..,,-.,.'t--.-,:--_·"·,,:.:0 __:_>_,::---.',-,,,-·,',,-,',.",."-<.','.",-.;',---:"---:"·'1 '-,-,-',,,:,':.,-"--,:-','-',,'-",.,',',''f
"'""-,-:-'.:.,.-'--..'--..:'-"......' .-.-.-".-..',.'-'.-.,'.~",:.....>,-,_.-:CdNI)I"IONNUM"~1\,'.'
granted,those
uncompleted items
become null and
void and cannot be
completed as part
of the follOWing
hase.
TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS
Condition Nos.61-62
Allows the installation of
temporary modular
building dUring the
duration of construction.'"
Installation at the
time demolition
permits are issued
for
Phase 1
Condition Nos.63 -66
Sets design and
screening criteria,
including maximum
heights,for the temporary
modular buildlnas
-/
At the time of
installation and
prior to occupancy
GRADING
Condition Nos.67
Describes the maximum Prior to Issuance
permitted grading of grading permits
quantities and grading -/and final
activities to accommodate inspection of
the Facilities Expansion grading
ProiectCfExportor imported earth Prior to issuan~
...a..Condition Nos.68 material reqUires approval -/of grading permIts~of revised CUP and or during gradin
Setsc_ft>'R __events with amplified Yes
Acceptance of A SUP has been
sound with the approval ~Conditions of submitted to the
of a SDeclal Use Permit Approval City for 201112012.
This condition only
Requires the existing
applies If the
preschool is
Condition No.137
preschool to discontinue demolished
I its operation upon the ~Upon demolition otherwise the
demolition of the structure of the preschool preschool may
that houses the preschool continue to
operated in its
Requires the
exlstina buildln
Condition No.138 I establishment of a Acceptance of The College is
~No currently In the
Neighborhood Advisory Conditions of recruitment
Committee Approval Drocess
PROGRAMS AND STUDENT ENROLLMENT
Allows the campus to be ~Summer youth
used for various recreational
academic and /.programs are
,ICondition No.139
I recreational programs Acceptance of Included in the
and related activities ~Conditions of definition of groups
Approval or organizations as
Prohibits SUb-leasing 'w'W"requested by the
~I Icampus for commercial College in 2005
purposes and evaluated in
<0
the CUP and EIR.
Defines the various
Condition No.140 I degree programs offered I '"I Yes
at the Coli.
Allows the College to
offer Continuing Acceptance of
Condition No.141 I Education Programs such ~Yes Conditions of
as English as a second Approval
Lanauaae
I Defines "fu1J..time"and Acceptance of
Condition No.142 '"Yes Conditions of"part-tIme"students ADDroval
Allows campus facilities Acceptance of
Condition No.143 I to be used for Summer ~Yes Conditions ofEducationProgramsbyApprovalstudents14vearsorolder- -
Driving training
Defines the various program to be
offered to"terms"offered at the ~incoming students.College.Acceptance of Total number ofConditionNo.144 I v Conditions of participatingRequiresStudentdrivingApprovalstudentsmust betrainingcoursesforreportedeachtermincomingstudentswithenrollment
reDorts.
Establishes student Acceptance of
IOn-goingConditionNo.145 enrollment limitations ~Yes Conditions of
W ADDroval
~Requires the College to 30-days after Summer Term
0 Condition No.146 submit enrollment reports '"Yes each term has enrollment figures
to the Citv for each commenced to include
enrollment for
educational
programs.See
,,.Condition No.144
NOISE I MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
Sets criteria tor attenuate I V I I
I Installation of ne'Condition Nos.147 -148 I noise levels for all new -/
mechanical equiprn~J}t
Establishes permitted ACQaptance of
Condition No.149 I hours to maintain -/Yes Conditions of IConsistent with the
hardscape surfaces.such Approval RPVMC
as oarki!'lgJ()~~~_____________
Compliance with
Limits noise levels to noise levels is at
65dba at all property Unes Acceptance of all times.
Condition No.150 I and requires noise 0/Yes -/Conditions of Sound tests are
monitoring at the Approval reqUired six
completion of each months after
construction phase -completion of each
ohase
LIGHTING
Requires the submittal of
~---_.--,....-Prior to Issuance
a Lighting Plan,the of any bUilding
Condition No.151-152 installation of a lighting -/permit;prior to
W mock-Up,and monitoring installation of light
~for3o-davs fixtures
Prohibits outdoor lighting Acceptance of IConsistent with-""Condition No.153 0/Yes 0/to exceed a building's Conditions of RPVMC
Prohibits lighting of the Acceptance of This condition
Condition No.154 I athletic facilities except '"Yes '"Conditions of applies to existingforsafetylightingforApprovalandnewfacilitieswalkways
Applies whenIEstablishesmaximumConstructionofConditionNos.155 '"new parking lot parking lot isheightsforlightfixturesconstructed
Establishes maximum Construction of Applies when
Condition No.156 I height limits of light '"new east parking parking lot is
fixtures lot constructed
PARKING
J Requires the submittal of Prior to Issuance
Condition No.157 '"of any gradingaParkingLotPlan"'ermit
Annual Parking
Management
Requlrestheconstruetion Strategy Program
Prior to reviewed everyofnofewerthan.463 on-July 18\based onsiteparkingspaces.completion of student enrollment
I Requires the annual 0/No '"PhaseOne.consistent withConditionNo.158
July 18
\of every mitigationimplementationofameasures TR-5Parking.·.Mana~ment year.andTR6.Thee..,)StrategyiProgram college is in the~process of
I\.)comDletina this
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
SCHOOLS &INSTITUTIONS UNIT
1650 w'162nd STREET,GARDENA CA 90249-3734
OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT
ADDRESS:30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
SCHOOL NAME:Marymount College
PHONE:310·377 ·5501 EXT.:
LOCAL FIRE STATION:083
CITY:Rancho Palos Verdes ZIP:90275
PRINCIPAL:Mr.Michael Brophy
FAX:310-377-6223 E-MAIL:
OCCUPANCY CLASS:E SQFT:
SPRINKLER SYSTEM TYPE:Partial DENSITY /PSI:
HAl MAT HANDLER
ESFR K-FACTOR:
FIRE SPRINKLERS:Yes
5-YR DUE:
DATE OF INSPECTION:06/02111 SCHOOL EMPLOYEE PRESENT DURING INSPECTION:Michael Mc Menamie
THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE CODE·TITLE 32,THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING
CODE-TITLE 26,AND/OR THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS-TITLE 19,VIOLATIONS MUST BE CORRECTED FORTHWITH.FAILURE
TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION;A CITATION WILL BE ISSUED,COURT APPEARANCE WILL BE REQUIRED AND A FINE MAY BE
LEVIED BY THE COURT.
ALL VIOLATIONS MUST BE CORRECTED IMMEDIATELY.
AN INSPECTOR WILL CONDUCT A RE-INSPECTION ON:_
SEE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENTS
INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE
FOR INFORMATION CALL:
TEL:(310)217-8395
FAX:(310)217-8398
In:spector Michael Judkins
DATE
Mary Mount College-Cecilia Hall
Inspection 06/02/11
BUILDING:
1.In the event of power supply failure,an emergency electrical system shall
automatically illuminate aisles,stairways,corridors and other egress
components in areas that require two or more exits.2008 LACOFC Sec.
1006.3
•Service and maintain the Emergency Lighting throughout the
campus.
2.Material Safety Data Sheets shall be readily available on the premises for
materials regulated by the hazardous materials chapter of the California
Fire Code.2008 LACOFC Sec.2703.4
•Provide MSDS for the chemistry lab,photo lab and pool
maintenance room.
•Provide the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement for the
campus.
•Provide NFPA 704 Identification of the Hazards of Materials for the
chemistry lab and the pool maintenance room exterior doors.
James B.Gordon
3538 Bendigo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-6202
(310)541-7336
bubba32@cox.net
Mayor Long and Members of the City Council
City Manager
Rancho Palos Verdes -City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
To The City Council:
cc@rpv.com
citymanager@rpv.com
Monday,March 21,2011
A number of my neighbors have commented to me on the increasingly large
number of cars parked on the streets adjacent to.Marymount College.Reports
indicate that there have typically been on the order of 80 -100 such vehicles
during the College's week-day sessions.
During City reviews leading to the approval of the College's Expansion Project,
we were led to believe that such on-street parking would be minimized and
mitigated to zero by specific measures to be implemented by the College when
enrollments reached specified levels in accordance with the College's accepted
Conditions of Approval (CGA).
Accordingly,the City has provided required enrollment reports submitted by the
College that indicate for the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 Terms,College
enrollments totaled 755 and 762 students respectively.These levels have triggered
CGA requirements for parking mitigation measures specified in Condition 158 and
Mitigation Measure TR-5 to reduce on-street parking to zero.
Since,at this time,the 120 additional parking spaces of Phase I have not yet been
constructed,the appropriate reduction percentage (to achieve a zero on-street
parking result)is 34%,not 11 %.For reference that set of calculations and
assumptions is shown in Appendix D,Final,on page 3.3-42,and illustrated by
llPage
Table 3.3-43.However,it should be noted here,that this Table and calculations
thereof,had assumed the 120 added spaces were already actually in place (463).
The stated "parking Demand"-at 744 -793 students enrollment,per Appendix D,
Table 3.3-43 is specified to be 519 spaces.In order to reduce that demand to zero,
there needs to be a parking strategies plan and action (CGA 158/TR-5)that brings
that figure down to the currently-available 343 spaces,or by 176 vehicles,a
reduction of 34%
If the currently observed figure of 80-100 vehicles parked on street is used,that
represents a smaller required reduction percentage of 20%which should
reasonably be accomplished given that a prior plan included a 34%reduction goal
for student enrollments at 744 -793 when on-campus Residence Halls were still
being considered.
>
A related CGA #138 -The Neighborhood Advisory Committee -should have
already been established in time to prepare their Fall 2010 review,and is needed
now to prepare a Spring Term 2011 review in order to comply with their Report to
the City Council "not later than July 1,of each year.(July 1,2011)
Your attention to this matter of compliance with the accepted Conditions of
Approval is hereby requested and will be appreciated by our neighbors who look
forward to your appropriate response in the near future.
158)The applicant shall construct and maintain no fewer than 463 on-site parking spaces
consisting of 391 standard parking spaces at a minimum dimension of 9'wide by 20'deep and a
maximum 72 compact parking spaces at a minimum dimension of 8'wide by 15'deep.In
addition,the applicant shall construct and maintain off-street loading spaces pursuant to the
criteria set forth in Section 17.50.050 of the RPVMC.
Prior to the completion of Phase I,as described in Condition No.60,the applicant shall institute,
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Director of Public Works,a
Parking Management Strategies Plan to reduce College related parking in order to minimize
street parking by students and visitors by the following values:
•11 percent or greater for student enrollment between 744 and 793;
• 6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;
• 0 percent or greater for student enrollment of 693 or less.
21Page
..
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
AUGUST 2,2011
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
E
H
2
3
4
Description of Material
Answers to questions posed by Mayor Pro Tem Misetich
Email exchange between Staff and Ken Dyda
Emails from:Mickey Rodich;Lenee Bilski
Email exchange between Staff and Jennifer Hinton
(SunTrust Mortgage,Inc.)
Email exchange with City Manager Lehr and Jim Gordon
Answers to questions posed by Mayor Pro Tem Misetich
Respectfully submitted,
~~/
Carla Morreale
**PLEASE NOTE:Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday,August 1,2011-.
W:\AGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110801 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Dennis McLean [dennism@rpv.com]
Tuesday,August 02,2011 3:18 PM
'Anthony Misetich'
cc@rpv.com;'Kathryn Downs';'Carla Morreale';'Carolyn Lehr';'Teri Takaoka';'Carol W.Lynch';'Robin D.
Harris'
Subject:Late Correspondence -RE:Budget adjustments
Importance:High
Attachments:FY1112_Schedule of Estimated General Fund Reserves_Fiscallmpact.pdf
Anthony
Carolyn,Kathryn and I have contributed to the following replies to your questions.Feel free to call me if you would like to
discuss this further.I've copied the rest of the Council as Late Correspondence.
Staff Replies:
The City Council monitors the General Fund Budget and the Estimated General Fund Reserve via the attached schedule,
which is presented to City Council with each General Fund budget adjustment request.At times,the City Council has
adopted budget adjustments knowing that it would cause the General Fund budget to be unbalanced.Although it is certainly
a best practice to operate with a balanced budget,there is no legal requirement to maintain a balanced budget.There are two
times each year that Staff takes the opportunity to propose a re-balancing of the General Fund budget,when other
adjustments have taken the budget out of balance:1)the Midyear Financial Review;and 2)the Continuing Appropriations &
Year-End Budget Adjustments Report.The latter is scheduled to be considered by the City Council on September 6th .To
prepare for these two reports,Staff performs a full analysis of all revenues and expenditures to determine where adjustments
should be made.Through conservative bUdget practices,the General Fund has a history of annual favorable variances that
have been used to re-balance the budget or restore reserves to policy levels.These favorable variances exceeded $900,000
for both FY08-09 and FY09-10.
Tax-Defaulted Property Purchase of $20K
Staff plans to present continuing appropriations and year-end budget adjustments to the City Council on September 6th .
Through FY1 0-11 General Fund expenditure savings,we're confident that we will be able to identify an existing available
appropriation to make the $20K purchase.
Payment of $91 K to Continue Operating the RDA
The legislation was signed into law on June 29th ,after the City's budget was adopted on June 21 st .The FY11-12 payment is
$91 K,but annual payments beginning in FY12-13 decrease to about $22K (as long as there are no further changes to this
law).As part of the annual budget process,Staff will include the $22K expenditure in the draft FY12-13 operating budget.It
is always Staff's goal to propose a balanced budget each year,but as noted above it is not required by law.
To address the current year payment of $91 K,there may be an opportunity to transfer tax increment to the General Fund to
backfill landslide mitigation expenditures;thus freeing up General Fund money to make the payment.Staff is currently
analyzing that option,and expects to have more information to provide the City Council on August 16 th .In the meantime,the
City Council can still choose to introduce the proposed Ordinance without committing the City to participation in the program.
Ultimately,however,the City Council may need to consider the use of General Fund Reserves to make the $91 K payment.
With so many millions of future tax increment revenue at stake,staff strongly believes it would be a prudent use of Reserves if
necessary.
Thanks,
Dennis McLean
Director of Finance and Information Technology
~City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Finance and Information Technology
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
8/2/2011 /of3 6
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www ..palosverdes.com/rpv
denrrisIn@rpv.com -(310)544-5212 P-(310)544-5291 f
Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The
information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this
email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:Anthony Misetich [mailto:anthony.misetich@rpv.com]
sent:Monday,August 01,201111:21 PM
To:Dennis McLean;Carolyn Lehr
Subject:Budget adjustments
Dennis,
There are two items on tomorrow nights council agenda that are requiring budget adjustments as part of the
approval approval from the council-those are items E and item #4.Please explain to me how budgets adjustments
will work in each of these particular cases?Where will the $$come from.Will we need to reduce the budgeted
allocation for a particular line item or items in order to find the $$should the council approve item E and item #4?
Will we still be able to run a balanced budget for FY 11-12?
Thank you,
Anthony
8/2/2011
.;2.of 3
FY11·12 Statement of Estimated General Fund Reserves Late Correspondence
Ending
Reserves
Net Transfers include both operating transfers from and to the General fund.Originally bUdgeted Net Transfers are adjusted when staff becomes aware that
an additional 0 eratin transfer is needed to satisfy an unantici ated shortfall within another fund;and that shortfall must be funded with General fund monies.
Ending Reserves are the estimated 6/30/12 General fund reserves at the time of budget adoption.Adjusted Ending Reserves is a calculatioR based on
subse uent ad'ustments to Be innin Reserves.Revenues.Ex enditures and Net Transfers.
From:Dennis McLean [mailto:dennism@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 4:33 PM
To:'Ray Holland';'Tom Odom';'Joel Rojas'
Cc:'Carolyn Lehr';kendyda@verizon.net
Subject:Phione inquiry from Candidate Ken Dyda
Importance:High
Ken called and has questions regarding the following warrant register payments scheduled for
approval by the Council on 8/2/2011:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2011 Agendas/MeetingDate-2011-08-
02/RPVCCA CC SR 2011 08 02 H City Register.pdf
PW's
BOA Architecture
CBM Consulting
Diana Cho &Associates
Rincon Consultants
SCS Engineers
Com Dev
Kling Consulting Group>
PCR Services TD#6160
I attempted to provide what informatioh I know.Ken can be reached at:
Home:(310)375-3932
Cell:(310)386-0285
Thanks,
Dennis McLean
Director of Finance and Information Technology
~City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Finance and Information Technology
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
dennism@rpv.com -(310)544-5212 P-(310)544-5291 f
Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential
and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized
dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
I of 3
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
Ray Holland and Tom Odom
Phone Inquiry from Candidate Ken Dyda
Carolyn Lehr
August 1,2011
CC meeting -8/2/11 Item #H -Register of Demands.
Question:Candidate Ken Dyda called and had questions regarding the warrant
register payments scheduled for approval by the Council on 8/2/2011:
PW Answer:Listed below (in bold)are brief descriptions of work
performed by various consultants working for the Public Works
Department.
BOA Architecture -This consulting firm is currently preparing the Federal
mandated Accessibility Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan for the City of
RPV facilities,programs,and services.The payment was for the June 2011
services.
CBM Consulting-This consulting firm is providing Project Management
services with water quality and flood control projects.Currently CBM is
working on the San Ramon project including the PVDE sewer relocation
project.CBM is finalizing contract management and inspection services
for PW's current Residential Rehabilitation project and is also finalizing
design services for PW's upcoming Arterial Rehabilitation project (PVDW &
PVDS).The payment was for the June 2011 services.
Diana Cho &Associates-This consulting firm provides CDBG project and
grant administration,and grant compliance assistance.The payment was
for the June 2011 services.
Rincon Consultants-Information regarding this consultant will be provided
by the Community Development Department.
SCS Engineers-This consulting firm provided AB 939/SRRE (Source
Reduction and Recycling Element)programming and used oil grant
implementation assistance.The payment was for the June 2011
services.
Thank you.
C:\WINNTlProfiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7\Info for Ken Dyda.doc 8/2/2011
-----Original Message-----
From:Greg Pfost [mailto:gregp@rpv.coml
Sent:Tuesday,August 02,2011 4:35 PM
To:'Teri Takaoka'i 'Carla Morreale'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:RE:Phone inquiry from Candidate Ken Dyda LATE correspondence
Teri-
In regards to the Community Development charges:
Kling Consulting Group:This is the City Geologist invoice.It should be
noted that for most of his charges the City takes in a fee from Applicants
to cover the charge.
PCR Services TD#6160:This is a Trust Deposit to cover the cost of PCR
Services in preparing the environmental on this project.York Long Point
Associates submitted the funds to this TD to cover PCR Services costs.
I called Mr.Dyda and informed him of these two as well.
Thanks.
-Greg.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
From:Mickey Rodich [mickeyrodich@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,August 02,2011 12:32 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;gregp@rpv.com
Subject:Trump Golf Course
I was unable to attend the recent City Council meeting on Trump's proposal to once again request changes with
his new ficus tree proposal.
I live in Ladera Linda,which is just above The Trump Golf Course.I like the physical presence of the golf
course and it's amenities,however I am tired of Trump constantly re-introducing proposals to change existing
conditions,like the ficus trees,in their agenda.
From the time that the City Council approved the driving range,with it's conditions,there have been numerous
attempts by Trump to bypass or change those conditions.The southern berm is the approved benchmark for
determining view impairments for residents,the public and the public right of way.Let's make sure we keep this
benchmark.
Their proposed hedge is not consistent with preserving,enhancing or restoring vital resources for the benefit of
the public.CUP No.163-K-2.b states that "Landscaping within the project area shall be planted in such a manner so
that views from adjacent properties and any public right-of-way are not affected."as part of Resolution No.2007-
132 Pg.6 of 9.
I have sent previous email's to the City Council on this subject and am sending this one to thank you for recently
voting 4 to 1 against Trump's recent proposal.however,I see that this proposal is only the beginning ofmore
proposals,that are intended to change the conditions,approved by the public and the City Council,on vegetation
used on the driving range area.
It disturbs me to hear that the City Council is redrafting proposed changes to the original conditions that includes
some of the changes Trump has asked for,or at least open the door for later revisions.I ask all of you to maintain
your resolve and not allow Trump to manipulate the process and change the conditions that govern the use of
vegetation on the driving range,especially the infamous ficus trees.
8/2/2011 x,
From:Lenee Bilski [Ieneebilski@hotmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,August 02,2011 2:34 PM
To:clynch@rwglaw.com;gregp@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com;Carolyn Lehr
Subject:CC item "I"8/02 Trump Revision "TI"
Aug.2/2011
RE:Consent Calendar Item "I"Trump Rev."TT"
Dear Mayor Long and Council members/
I am disturbed by a section of the proposed Resolution to memorialize your denial of Rev."TT"on 7/19.
Please remember:
ANY VEGETATION THAT IS HIGHER THAN THE SOUTHERLY BERM OF THE DRIVING RANGE IMPAIRS
VIEWS FROM NEARBY PRIVATE PROPERTIES AND FROM THE PUBLIC TRAILS AS WELL AS FROM THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY of Palos Verdes Drive and therefore would be in conflict with the EIR mitigation
measure No.73/the Urban Appearance 17.40.060 of the Code/the MND for Revision W (Driving Range)
"Aesthetics"/CUP No.163 K-2.Also/I do not believe hedges are in the project's HCP for allowed
vegetation on the subject site.
Since the entire Revision TT was denied by the Council/then the middle of "section 5"of this draft
resolution seems a problem as it appears to open the door for the developer to think that some other
type of vegetation on the driving range is acceptable.However/in 2007/the Resolution No.2007-132
states that the Council denied the request and no conditions of approval or mitigation measures were
changed.
Shouldn't this resolution say that/too?
It is my understanding from watching the Videotape that the Council denied TT because the request was
for foliage to be planted on the Driving Range which would be higher than the southerly berm and
therefore impair the views from the public right-of-way/Palos Verdes Drive 50./from the north-south
public trail next to the Driving Range/and from the private residences in the Portuguese Bend Club and
the SeaView community/essentially the same as the previous request in Revision"GG".
WHY is it that the door is opened to other types of vegetation by defining what is meant by submitting
an application that is not the same or substantially the same as that found in Revision TT???
Isn't that something that an applicant reviews with staff during preliminary discussion of a possible
application?
Since the Council denied the entire staff recommendation (which listed the northerly hedge as okay)I
find this sentence in Section 5 a problem and unnecessary for this resolution:
"However/within a 12-month period from the date of this Resolution/the Applicant may submit a new
application for a proposed hedge/landscaping that includes a native and drought-tolerant species/does
not include a hedge of any height in the area where the proposed southerly hedge was to
have been located as depicted in Revision TT/and is at the same height or shorter than the northerly
hedge that was proposed in Revision TT;these revisions would not be considered to be the same or
substantially the same as the application for Revision TT/which is being denied."
8/2/2011 /01 e;t L.
It makes no sense.It implies that other view-impairing foliage might be okay.Very Puzzling.
The Council did not approve that the northerly hedge would be okay.
Council denied staff's recommendation,so
WHY was this sentence included in the Resolution to deny Rev.TT???Please explain.
Please pull this item and consider deleting the above quoted sentence from the proposed Resolution.
The Final sentence seems to be sufficient definition.
Thank you for your service to RPVl
Sincerely,
Lenee Bilski
8/2/2011
From:Amy Trester [amyt@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 5:26 PM
To:'Carla Morreale';'Teri Takaoka'
SUbject:FW:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Abatement
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
From:Joel Rojas [mailto:joelr@rpv.com]
sent:Monday,August 01,2011 2:15 PM
To:'Amy Trester'
Cc:'Greg Pfost';'Carol W.Lynch'
Subject:RE:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Abatement
Yes,we'll give a status update to the CG tomorrow night.
From:Amy Trester [mailto:amyt@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 2:08 PM
To:'Joel Rojas'
Cc:'Greg Pfost';'Carol W.Lynch'
Subject:FW:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Abatement
Hi Joel-
I just sent the W-9 for the City (per Kat's direction)to Suntrust Bank and they will now begin processing the
payment.As you can see below,the Suntrust Bank employee said that she asked her accounting department to
pay the fee by 8/15.It looks like the fee should be paid prior to the 8/16 City Council meeting,but we won't know if
it is paid until after the report for the 8/16 meeting is to be published.So,unless you direct me otherwise,I will
plan on having the report for the lien hearing prepared by this Thursday.Thanks.
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
9myt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
From:HintonJennifer [mailto:Jennifer.Hinton@SunTrust.com]
sent:Monday,August 01,20111:42 PM
To:Amy Trester
Subject:RE:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Abatement
I'm asking my accounting dept.to pay by 8/15.
Jenny Hinton
8/2/2011
REO Asset ~anager II (Closing)
Sun'l"rust Mortgage,Inc.
1001 Semmes Avenue
RVW-3024,6th Floor
Richmond,VA 23224
Phone:(804)319-2866
Live Solid.Bank Solid.
From:Amy Trester [mailto:amyt@rpv.com]
sent:Monday,August 01,2011 4:42 PM
To:HintonJennifer
Subject:RE:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Abatement
I'm sorry,one last question:do you know about how long processing a payment like this typically takes?I only ask
because we have to give an update to our City Council tomorrow regarding this matter.Thanks again!
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
From:HintonJennifer [mailto:Jennifeq·linton@SunTrust.com]
sent:Monday,August 01,20111:38 PM
To:Amy Trester
Subject:RE:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Abatement
Hi.Yes,this is perfect.Thanks!
Jenny Hinton
REO Asset Manager II (Closing)
SunTrust Mortgage,Inc.
1001 Semmes Avenue
RVW-3024,6th Floor
Richmond,VA 23224
Phone:(804)319-2866
Live Solid.Bank Solid.
From:Amy Trester [mailto:amyt@rpv.com]
sent:Monday,August 01,2011 4:37 PM
To:HintonJennifer
Subject:FW:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Abatement
Hello Ms.Hinton-
Please see the attached W9 form and let me know if this PDF document is sufficient to begin processing the
payment for the code violation at 28428 Cayuse Lane,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
8/2/2011
amyt~rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:Amy Trester [mailto:amyt@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 1:33 PM
To:'Jennifer.Hinton@SunTrust.com'
Cc:'Greg Pfost'
Subject:FW:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Abatement
Hello Ms.Hinton-
I am the person at the City here working on this case and so your request was forwarded to me.I have in turn
forwarded your request to our finance department,so that they may provide the W-9 form you need.I'm sure our
finance department knows the proper protocol for this form,but just so I know,may this form be emailed or faxed
instead of mailed?Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department,
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:Greg Pfost [mailto:gregp@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 1:11 PM
To:'Amy Trester'
Subject:FW:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Abatement
Amy-
Looks like funds might be paid -can you respond to the attached email -not
sure if she is looking for a W-9 from us or not,but if so,check with Kat.
-Greg.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:Hinton.Jennifer [mailto:Jennifer.Hinton@SunTrust.com]
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 11 :44 AM
To:planning@rpv.com
8/2/2011
Subject:FW:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
Abatement
Hello.I am in the process of getting approval to pay the attached code
violation.My accounting department needs a W9 in order to process payment.
Once I've received that I will request payment.Thank you!
Jenny Hinton
REO Asset Manager II (Closing)
SunTrust Mortgage,Inc.
1001 Semmes Avenue
RVW-3024,6th Floor
Richmond,VA 23224
Phone:(804)319-2866
Live Solid.Bank Solid.
From:Bowley.Cheryl.L
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 7:45 AM
To:Hinton.Jennifer
Subject:RE:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
Abatement
Approved.
Cheryl Bowley
Title Resolution/Closing Manager -REO
SunTrust Mortgage,Inc.
Mail Code VA-RIC-RVW-3024
1001 Semmes Avenue,6th Floor
Richmond,VA 23224
Tel:804.291.0254
Email Icheryl.l.bowley@suntrust.com
Live Solid.Bank Solid.
From:Hinton.Jennifer
Sent:Tuesday,July 26,2011 3:28 PM
To:Bowley.Cheryl.L
8/2/2011
Cc:Hall.Per;my
Subject:FW:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
Abatement
Hi Cheryl.There is a code violation on this property in the amount of
$8380.64.Penny asked the listing agent to negotiate with the city but
apparently the city doesn't negotiate code violations.Can you approve
payment for this?Thank you.
Jenny Hinton
REO Asset Manager II (Closing)
SunTrust Mortgage,Inc.
1001 Semmes Avenue
RVW-3024,6th Floor
Richmond,VA 23224
Phone:(804)319-2866
Live Solid.Bank Solid.
From:Hall.Penny
Sent:Tuesday,July 26,2011 11 :12 AM
To:Hinton.Jennifer
Subject:FW:pid:537083 Addr:28428 Cayuse Ln Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
Abatement
Jennifer
The agent found a code violation on this property in the amount of $8380.64;
I asked that he try and negotiate it down with the city,the city does not
negotiate violations.I have loaded to the system,but do not have the
authority to approve this amount,is this within your authority limit?
Regards
Penny
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
8/2/2011
The informC\tion transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity
to wHich it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.Any review,retransmission,dissemination or other use of or
taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited.If you have received this email
in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.
SunTrust is a federally registered service mark of SunTrust Banks,Inc.Live
Solid.Bank Solid.is a service mark of SunTrust Banks,Inc.
[ST:XCL]
8/2/2011
From:bubba32@cox.net
Sent:Tuesday,August 02,2011 12:02 PM
To:Carolyn Lehr
Cc:cc@rpv.com
Subject:RE:Limited Public Notice for INTERPRETATION REVIEW -Your understanding?
Carolyn
Thank you for your kind response.
As a co-signer of the August 2,2011 Staff Report,I would like to know what your own
understanding was regarding the (Page 3-2,second paragraph recap)of the interpretation
review "for the sole purpose of clarifying what conditions apply "now"versus "later"after the
College is renovated."
What conditions apply to construction activity before "the College is renovated?"
What was your understanding of Staffs Recommendation NO.2 (page 3-1)as being
inconsistent with the Public Notice's limited description that the "sole purpose is clarifying
what conditions apply "now"versus "later"..?This Recommendation NO.2 appears to have a
un-noticed purpose of "enforcement"that goes beyond the Noticed purpose that was sent
out,and therefore any such decision should await a properly Noticed Hearing in the future.
Is it your understanding that for all future enforcement decisions regarding the determination
of violations,the Director of Community Development will be designating the City Council to
act as his authorized agent to enforce the provisions of the College's COA?(RPVMC
17.86.040 -Enforcement)
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Jim Gordon
----Carolyn Lehr <clehr@rpv.com>wrote:
>Thank you Jim,staff is looking into this matter this morning.
>
>
>
>Thank you,
>
>
>
>Carolyn Leh r
8/2/2011 3.
>
>City Manager
>
>-------------------->
>
>
>City of Rancho Palos Verdes
>
>30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
>
>Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
>
><mailto:clehr@rpv.com>clehr@rpv.com -(310)544-5202
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho
>Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from
>disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or
>entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is
>strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an
>intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your
>assistance and cooperation.
>
>
>
>-->
>From:bubba32@cox.net [mailto:bubba32@cox.net]
>Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 3:40 PM
>To:cc@rpv.com
>Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com
>Subject:Limited Public Notice for INTERPRETATION REVIEW
>
>
>
>To the Honorable Mayor Long and Members of the City Council
>
> I have attached for your review and consideration my observations and
>concerns regarding the limited nature of your pending Interpretation Review
>that was Publicly noticed :"for the sole purpose of clarifying what
>conditions apply now versus after the College is renovated."
8/2/2011 0}of 3
>
>Aside from pointing out the fallacy of that last phrase,I am asking that
>the Council undertake to vote only on Staffs Recommendation No.1,which
>was properly Noticed for your Interpretation Review.I am asking also that
>Staffs second Recommendation be tabled and not voted upon until a properly
>noticed public hearing is convened.
>
>Thank you for your consideration.
>
>Jim Gordon
>
8/2/2011
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
AUGUST 1,2011
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday,August 2,2011 City Council meeting:
Item No.
1
3
6
Description of Material
Email from Jessica Leeds;Chip and Pat Zeit
Missing attachments
Emails from:Chris Wilson;Jim Gordon
First and Second Pension Subcommittee Reports
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110801 additions revisions to agenda through Mondayafternoon.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
RevisionlT Trump
ficus resol ...
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Monday,August 01,2011 3:11 PM
'Carla Morreale';'Teri Takaoka'
FW:Fwd:Emailing:Revision TT Trump ficus resol aug 2011.pdf
RevisionTT Trump ficus resol aug 2011.pdf
Carla and/or Teri-
Attached is correspondence regarding the Trump item on tomorrow night's agenda.
Thanks.
-Greg.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:jessica [mailto:jessboop@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 12:53 PM
To:greg pfost
Subject:Fwd: Fwd:Emailing:Revision TT Trump ficus resol aug 2011.pdf
Dear Greg,
I feel that the proposed resolution for tomorrow's,August 2,Trump
Revision TT needs some tweaking.I feel,in reading it and comparing the
current resolution to the final 2007-132 (also ficus),that there are gaps!
Below are my concerns in bold and underlined:
I have attached the resolution for your review.
This is the current proposed resolution;start on page 7.The bullets are
existing conditions,the paragraphs following the bullet paragraphs are
proposed for the TT.
I am having difficulty with page 8 starting with Specifically the 5th
line should have (at the end),"as well as the north/south public trails as
well as public rights of way of Palos Verdes Drive South."
Then in the same paragraph,line 12 needs to add after the surrounding
neighborhood,"as well as the north/south public trails,and the public
right of way of Palos Verdes Drive South."
CUP 163 looks good to me.
Next is EIR No.36 Mitigation Measure No 73.The project proponent shall not
use view obstructing plant species (this is the existing condition ..it has a
bullet in front of it).
However,the proposed addition I would like to see changed (the underlined
1 0(:.-\'$.T.-
and bold)is the following:At the end of the first sentence starting with,
"The proposed hedges are inconsistent with this mitigation measure because
they would consist of a landscape species,Ficus Nitidia,that already are
view impairing (or obstructing)just by it's height,that is a fast growing
species that will be difficult to maintain in a manner that will not cause
repeated view obstructions from other properties and the north/south public
trail as well as the public rights of way of Palos Verdes Drive South."
Next is,MND for Revision W,Mitigation Measure 10 Aesthetics A-1.The
bullet is the existing.
The proposed resolution is as follows (I would like to see the changes shown
in bold and underlined):
The proposed hedges are inconsistent with this mitigation measure because
the proposal includes vegetation that would be located higher than the
southerly berm and thereby will impair views as well as these hedges are not
in the project's HCP for allowed vegetation on the subject site.
Page 9:under c,starting with the paragraph (bold and underline is the
change),"the proposed hedges row 7,starting with,"install two
rows of ficus hedges ...."
Under d.starting (see bold and underline for the change)with,"The
proposal is located the 3rd row starting with,"consistent with all
applicable requirements of that chapter,because the two rows of hedges are
not ....."
Page 10,5th paragraph (see bold and underline)starting with,"Due to the
affect upon views that will be caused by the proposed two rows of ficus
hedges ...."
This is the most important one:Section 5:Please read.Why would this be
put here?If the entire Revision TT was denied,this wording appears to say
that part of the resolution has been approved!
If a submittal is to be allowed that includes native or drought tolerant
plants,then what about the other conditions which say it is view impairing
from the public rights of way of Palos Verdes Drive South and the
north/south public trails,plus the adjacent neighbors of Portuguese Bend
Club and Seaview developments (see page 8 a.,CUP 163,EIR NO.36 and MND for
Revision W,Mitigation Measure 10-Aesthetics A-1)??????Plus any vegetation
would be higher than the southern berm!
The above is a serious problem,in my opinion!!
SECTION 5 REALLY CONCERNS ME.I am okay with the first sentence.It's
the part which starts "However,"that concerns me.The entire TT is
being denied,yet it appears in this paragraph that only part is being
denied and that if the developer were submitting something for the northerly
row of hedges,it would be considered?????Are you encouraging them with
this?Don't forget about the other conditions.I was at the meeting and I
know that TT was not being denied for just the fact that these plants were
not native or not drought tolerant.There are other reasons (noted in your
resolution.)
Also,in the Resolution No.2007-132 for the last ficus tree CC,of
Oct./Dec/2007,the resolution states that the Council expressly denied this
requesti accordingly,no conditions of approval or mitigation measures have
been amended.
Why doesn't this resolution say that????
I would appreciate if you might take the time to review and give me your
take on this.I truly thank you for all your efforts on this issue (and
others).I am available at 310 377-9650 or cell 818 399-2408.
Thank you ,
Jessica Leeds
CfTYOF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING,BUILDING~~~
AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
AUGUST 2,2011
REVISION "TI"TO THE TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF
COURSE PROJECT -PROPOSED FICUS HEDGES
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ciL-
Gregory Pfost,AICP,Deputy Community Development Director~
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No.2011-_,thereby denying Revision TT,an amendment to CUP No.
163,for proposed ficus hedges on the driving range.
DISCUSSION
On July 19,2011,the City Council heard public testimony and discussed proposed
Revision TT.At the meeting the Council closed the pUblic hearing,and a majority of the
City Council voted to deny the Applicant's request (4-1,Councilman Campbell voting no).
The Council then directed Staff to come back to the August 2,2011 meeting with a
Resolution reflecting the Council's decision.
In denying the ApplicSnt's request,the Council may take one of two actions:"Deny"or
"Deny without Prejudice".To "Deny without Prejudice"would allow the Applicant to submit
a new application for the same or similar project within a 12-month period.To simply
"Deny"the application would mean that according to Municipal Code Section 17.60.020.A,
an application which is the same as,or substantially the same as,an application upon
which final action had already been taken,could not be submitted within twelve months
from the previous action date.
Staff understands from the Trump Organization that they desire to submit a new
application for a different type hedge or landscaping than what was denied through
1-1
Revision TT.Consistent with the Municipal Code and direction from the City Council at the
July 19th meeting,Staff believes that it is important to not "Deny without Prejudice",but to
simply "Deny"Revision TT,and to also define what is meant by submitting an application
that is not the same or substantially the same as that found in Revision TT.Thus Staff has
added the following Section 5 to the attached Draft Resolution:
Section 5:The request is hereby denied and thus,within a 12-month period following the date of this
Resolution,the Applicant may not file,and the director shall not accept,an application which is the
same as,or sUbstantially the same as,the application (Revision TT)that was denied through this
Resolution.However,within a 12-month period from the date of this Resolution,the Applicant may
submit a new application for a proposed hedge/landscaping that includes a native and drought-
tolerant species,does not include a hedge of any height in the area where the proposed southerly
hedge was to have been located as depicted in Revision TT,and is at the same height or shorter than
the northerly hedge that was proposed in Revision TT;these revisions would not be considered to be
the same or substantially the same as the application for Revision TT,which is being denied.
If the Applicant submits a new application for proposed hedges/landscaping regardless of whether the
application is (or is not)the same or sUbstantially the same as the hedges that were proposed in
Revision TT,said new application will be analyzed as a new application on its own merits,at a duly
noticed pUblic hearing,with a decision (approval,approval with conditions or denial)rendered by the
City Council.
Thus,attached for the Council's consideration is the Draft Resolution denying the
Applicant's request.'
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this decision.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution No.2011-_,denying Revision TT
1-2
RESOLUTION NO.2011-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DENYING REVISION "TT"TO THE TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB,WHICH WAS A
REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.163 TO PERMIT CERTAIN FICUS
HEDGES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF COURSE.
WHEREAS,an application package was filed by the Zuckerman Building Company and Palos
Verdes Land Holdings Company requesting approval of tentative parcel maps,vesting tentative tract
maps,conditional use permits,a coastal permit and a grading permit to allow the construction of a
Residential Planned Development of 120 single family dwelling units and for development of an 18-hole
golf course,a clubhouse and parking facilities on a 258 acre site bounded by Palos Verdes Drive South
on the north,Portuguese Bend Club and Community Association on the west,the Pacific Ocean on the
south and Los Angeles County Shoreline Park on the east;and,
WHEREAS,a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)was prepared and circulated for 45
days from June 7,1991 through JUly 22,1991,in Qrder to receive written comments on the adequacy of
the document from responsible agencies and the pUblic;and,
WHEREAS,subsequent to the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and
preparation of written responses,the applicant revised the scope of the project and reduced the number
of proposed single family residences to 40 units in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.50666 and 43 in
Vesting Tentative Tract f¥1ap No.50667,and an 18 hole golf course with related facilities within the
boundaries of both Vesting Tentative Tract Maps,and,due to the changes in the project,an Addendum to
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (ADEIR)was prepared;and,
WHEREAS,based on review of the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report,the City
determined that the information submitted in the ADEIR cited potential additional significant
environmental impacts that would be caused by the revised project,and directed preparation of a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR).The SEIR,which incorporates information and
findings set forth in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report,was prepared and circulated
for 45 days from March 19,1992 through May 4,1992,during which time all interested parties were
notified of the circulation period and invited to present written comments to the Information contained in
the SEIR,in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act;and,
WHEREAS,on June 1,1992,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.92-53,certifying Environmental Impact Report No.36 and adopted Resolution Nos.92-54,
92-55,92-56 and 92-57,respectively apprOVing Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos.50666 and 50667,
Tentative Parcel Map Nos.20970 and 23004,Conditional Use Permit Nos.162 and 163,Coastal Permit
No.103 and Grading Permit No.1541 for a Residential Planned Development consisting of a total of
eighty-three (83)single family dwelling units,an 18 hole public golf course and public open space on
261.4 acres in Coastal Subregion Nos.7 and 8;and,
WHEREAS,on August 12,1992,after finding that an appeal of the City's approval of the project
raised a substantial issue,the California Coastal Commission denied Coastal Permit No.103,directed
the landowners to redesign the project to address the concerns raised by the Coastal Commission Staff
and remanded the project back to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for reconsideration;and,
WHEREAS,on December 7,1992,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.92-115 approving the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No.36 and adopted
Resolution Nos.92-116,92-117,92-118 and 92-119 approving Revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Nos.50666 and 50667,Tentative Parcel Map Nos.20970 and 23004,Conditional Use Permit Nos.162
and 163,Coastal Permit No.103,and Grading Permit No.1541 in order to address concerns raised by
the Coastal Commission with regard to adequate provisions for public open space,public access and
habitat preservation;and,
1-3
WHEREAS,on April 15,1993,the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal
Development Permit No.A-5-RPV-93-5 (i.e.Coastal Permit No.103),subject to additional conditions of
approval.
WHEREAS,on October 5,1993,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.93-89 approving a second Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No.36 and
adopted Resolution Nos.93-90,93-91,93-92 and 93-93 respectively re-approvlng Vesting Tentative
Tract Map Nos.50666 and 50667,Tentative Parcel Map Nos.20970 and 23004,Conditional Use Permit
Nos.162 and 163,and Grading Permit No.1541 in order to comply with a Court mandate to provide
affordable housing in conjunction with the project,pursuant to Government Code Section 65590;and,
WHEREAS,on November 5,1993,the California Coastal Commission adopted revised and
expanded findings in conjunction with the project;and,
WHEREAS,on September 6,1994,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.94-71 approving a third Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No.36 and Adopted
Resolution Nos.94-72,94-73, 94-74,94-75,94-76 and 94-77,respectively,approving Revision "A"to the
approved Ocean Trails project,including,but not limited to,relocation of the golf course clubhouse from
the area southwest of the School District property to an area north of Half Way Point,locating the golf
course maintenance facility and four (4)affordable housing units southeast of the corner of Palos Verdes
Drive South and Paseo Del Mar,reducing the number of single family residential lots from eighty-three
(83)to seventy-five (75)and increasing the height of the golf course clubhouse from thirty (30)feet to
forty-eight (48)feet;and,•.
WHEREAS,on January 12,1995,the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal
Development Permit No.A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e.Coastal Permit No.103),thereby approving its first
amendment to the permit,subject to revised conditions of approval;and,
WHEREAS,on September 27,1995,the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal
Development Permit No.A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e.Coastal Permit No.103),thereby approving its second
amendment to the permit;and,
WHEREAS,on February 1,1996,the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal
Development Permit No.A-5-RPV-93-005A (I.e.Coastal Permit No.103),thereby approving Its third
amendment to the permit;and,
WHEREAS,on March 11,1996,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.96-15 approving a fourth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No.36 and Adopted
Resolution Nos.96-16,and 96-17,respectively,approving Revision "B"to the approved Ocean Trails
project,including,but not limited to,modifying the approved alignment of Paseo del Mar ("A"Streetr'J"
Bluff Road),revising the Conditions of Approval regarding several public trails,and relocating the golf
course clubhouse approximately 80 feet to the west of its previously approved location;and,
WHEREAS,on July 11,1996, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development
Permit No.A-5-RPV-93-005A (i.e.Coastal Permit No.103),thereby approving its fourth amendment to
the permit,subject to revised conditions of approval;and,
WHEREAS,on September 3,1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.96-72 approving a fifth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No.36 and Adopted
Resolution Nos.96-73,96-74, 96-75,96-76 and 96-77,respectively,approving Revision "C"to the
approved Ocean Trails project,including,but not limited to,relocation of two single family residential lots
in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.50667 from the end of Street "A"to the end of Street "C",revisions to
the boundaries of open space Lots B,C,G and H,conversion the split-level lots in Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No.50667 to single-level lots,revisions to the golf course layout,revisions the public trail
system,combination of parallel trails easements,construction of a paved fire access road west of the
1-4
...,'..,,"',".','".:;:,,.,.,.,":-.:,:,',..,:,'..
Ocean Terraces Condominiums and amendments to several Conditions of Approval and Mitigation
Measures to modify the required timing for compliance;and,
WHEREAS,on September 9,1997,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes adopted P.C.Resolution No.97-44 approving Revision "0"to the Ocean Trails project,which
involved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.162 (Residential Planned Development)to modify
the minimum rear yard setbacks on Lot Nos.6 through 9 to prOVide an adequate buffer between the
proposed residences and the potential brush fires that may occur on the adjacent habitat area;and,
WHEREAS,on April 21,1998,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.98-32 approving Revision "E"to the Ocean Trails project,which involved an amendment
to Conditional Use Permit No.163 (Golf Course)to modify the bonding requirements for the golf course
improvements;and,
WHEREAS,on June 16,1998,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.98-59,approving Revision "F"to the Ocean Trails project,which involved,modifying the
configuration of Streets "C"and "0"and Lot Nos.1-through 13 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.50667
to accommodate the final location of the Foundation Setback Line,and a revision to Conditional Use
Permit No.162 (Residential Planned Development)to address maximum building height;and,
WHEREAS,on JUly 14,1998,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.Resolution Nos.98-2~and
98-27,thereby recommending approval of Addendum No.6 to EIR No.36 and Revision "G"to
Conditional Use Permit No.163 to the City Council;and,.
WHEREAS,on August 18,1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.98-76 approving Addendum NO.6 to Environmental Impact Report No.36 and the
proposed Revision "G"to the Ocean Trails project,which included:1)an 18%increase in the size of the
clubhouse from 27,000 square feet to 32,927 square feet;2)an increase in the size of the maintenance
facility from 6,000 square feet to 9,504 square feet;3)a two foot increase in the upslope height of the
maintenance facility building;and,4)relocation of the maintenance building and reconfiguration of the
maintenance facility parking lot;and,
WHEREAS,on February 2,1999,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.99-10 approving Addendum No.7 to Environmental Impact Report No.36 and the
proposed Revision "H"to the Ocean Trails project,which included:changing 6 of the residential lots
within VTTM 50667 from flat pad lots to split level lots,lowering the overall pad elevation for each lot,and
lowering Street fB'within the subdivision,and lowering the pad elevation for 6 other lots within the
subdivision.Additionally,the approval included the modification of the project's mitigation measures and
conditions of approval to allow the permitted construction hours for the entire Ocean Trails project to be
expanded to include Sundays through March 21,1999;and,
WHEREAS,on May 4,1999,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.99-29 approving Addendum No.8 to Environmental Impact Report No.35 and the
proposed Revision "I"to the Ocean Trails project,which included a change to the design of the storm
drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project .from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons.
Revision "'"only amended the drainage for the east side of the Ocean Trails project,involving La Rotonda
Canyon;and,
WHEREAS,on June 2,1999,Landslide C at the Ocean Trails site was re-activated;and,
WHEREAS,on July 20,1999,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.99-55 approving Addendum No.9 to Environmental Impact Report No.36 and the
proposed Revision "J"to the Ocean Trails project,which included:1),the conditions requiring the
establishment of a maintenance district be revised by eliminating the maintenance district and having the
golf course owner be the sole responsible entity for maintenance thereby excluding the future residential
homeowners;2)withdrawn by applicant;3),the timing of the installation of ornamental fencing on each
1-5
residential lot be delayed until prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy;4),delay the construction of
two trails within VTTM 50666 from the Second Stage to the Third Stage of phasing within the Public
Amenities Plan;5),lower the approved residential building pad elevations and create split-level pads In
VTTM No.50666;6),delay the payment of traffic Impact fees to prior to Final Map No.50666;7),allow an
increase in total building area of the clubhouse by permitting a basement space;8),withdrawn by
applicant;and 9),revise the hours permitted for golf course landscape gardening;and,
WHEREAS,on May 16,2000,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.2000-27 'approving Addendum No.10 to Environmental Impact Report No.36 and the
proposed Revision "K"to the Ocean Trails project,which allowed a portion of the golf course to open for
play before all of the required public amenities have been completed due to delays caused by the failure
of landslide C on June 2,1999;and,
WHEREAS,on June 21,2000,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No.2000-38 certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to Environmental
Impact Report No.36,adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program,adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations,and the proposed Revision "l"to the Ocean Trails project,for the repair of landslide C at
Ocean Trails;and,
WHEREAS,on July 18,2000,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved
Revision M to the Ocean Trails Project,thereby approving an amendment to the Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP),an amendment to the HCP Implementing Agreement,and approval of a Conservation
Easement over the lower Rortion of Shoreline Park;and,
WHEREAS,on September 5,2000,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
approved Revision N to the Ocean Trails Project,thereby approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
amending the project to accommodate a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean
Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons.Revision "N"only amended
the drainage for the west side of the Ocean Trails project,Involving Forrestal Canyon;and,
WHEREAS,on February 20,2001,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved
Revision P to the Ocean Trails Project,thereby approving an amendment to allow Ocean Trails an
extension of time to provide 4 on-site affordable housing units for rent from "prior to one year of the
opening of the clubhouse"to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course";and,
WHEREAS,on August 19,2003,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved
Revision "T"to the Ocean Trails Project,thereby approving an amendment to allow an expansion to the
Clubhouse Building;and,
WHEREAS,on November 5,2003,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved
Revision "U"to the Ocean Trails Project,thereby approving an additional expansion to the Clubhouse
Building;and,
WHEREAS,on April 20,2004,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved
Revision "Y"to the Ocean Trails Project,thereby allowing:1)'basement areas of one-story structures to
be excluded from the existing 30%"Maximum Habitable Space"requirement,but require that the
basement habitable area be added to the first floor habitable area in complying with the "Maximum
Habitable Space Square Footage"requirement;2)permitting a change in the height of lot #2 to allow for
a subterranean garage;and 3)permitted construction of retaining walls and access to the proposed
subterranean garage;and,
WHEREAS,on June 7,2005,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved
Revision ''W''to the Trump National Golf Club project thereby revising CUP No.162,CUP No.163,
VTTM50666,and Grading Permit No.1541 to accommodate a new driving range in place of 16
residential lots within VTTM50666;and,
1-6
WHEREAS,on May 2,2006,the City Council approved Revision liZ"to the Trump National Golf
Club project to revise Conditional Use Permit No.163 to allow a change in the golf course design to
permit an increase in height for Waterfall #1 and new back tees on Hole #2,and to revise Grading Permit
No.1541,to allow an additional temporary 3-month opening of the golf course and driving range to the
public;and,
WHEREAS,on March 20,2007,the City .council approved Revision "BB"to Conditional Use
Permit No.163 and a Variance,thereby overturning the Planning Commission's decision to deny the
request for a 70'tall flagpole on the sUbject property;and,
WHEREAS,on December 18,2007,the City Council denied Revision "GG"to Conditional Use
Permit No.163,thereby denying a 12'high ficus hedge located at the western edge of the existing Driving
Range;and,
WHEREAS,VH Property Corp.,submitted an application to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
requesting approval of Revision ''TT''to the Trump National Golf Club project to revise the conditions of
approval found within CUP No.163,and to revise mitigation measures adopted in association with
certified Environmental Impact Report No.36 (adopted for the Golf Course and Residential project)and
the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (adopted for Revision W for the driving range),so as to allow
two ficus hedge rows (southerly and northerly)to be planted on the western edge of the existing Driving
Range;and,
WHEREAS,a Notice of Public Hearing for the Revision "IT'request to be heard by the City
Council on July 19,2011,was published in the Peninsula News on Thursday,June 30,2011,mailed to all
property owners within a 500'radius of the subject site,mailed to all neighboring homeowner
associations,mailed to the Trump National interested parties list and posted on the City's Iistserver for the
Trump National project;and,
WHEREAS,on July 19,2011,after notice was issued pursuant to the provisions of the
Development Code,the City Council held a public hearing to consider the applicant's request for Revision
"TI"to the Trump National Golf Club project,at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present eVidence;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State CEQA Guidelines,California Code of
RegUlations,Title 14,Sections 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code
Section 65952.5(e)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),this project is Statutorily Exempt from
CEQA,per California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15270,as CEQA does not apply to projects
which a pUblic agency disapproves;and,
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES
HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The Applicant's request for Revision TI included a request to permit two rows of ficus
("Ficus Nitida")trees/hedges along the western edge of the Driving Range.The first row,which is the
more northerly row,was proposed to be 9.8'high at its northern end and gradually decreasing in height to
6.0'high at its southerly end.The second row,which was directly south and west of the row described
above,was proposed to be 7.7'high at its northern end and gradually increasing in height to 11.0'high at
its southerly end.
Section 2:Pursuant to California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15270,Revision TT is
Statutorily Exempt from CEQA because CEQA does not apply to projects which a pUblic agency
disapproves.
Section 3:Pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of the Development Code,in denying the request for
Revision "TI"to CUP No.163 the City Council finds that:
1-7
a.The site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed ficus hedges ("use"or
"hedges")and for all of the yards,setbacks,walls,fences,landscaping and other features required by this
title or by conditions imposed under this section to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and
within the neighborhood because the proposal is not well integrated with uses on adjacent lands as it
affects views from adjacent residential properties in the Portuguese Bend Club and Seaview
developments,as well as the public rights of way of Palos Verdes Drive South and the north/south public
trail located between the driving range and the western property line.
Specifically,when the development of the Trump National Golf Course project (formally known as Ocean
Trails)was initially considered by the City Council in 1992,conditions were Imposed by the City Council to
ensure that the development of the project would be integrated with uses upon adjacent land and within
the surrounding neighborhoods and that the project would not result in adverse impacts to eXisting views
from properties in the vicinity of the project site.In making its decision at that time,the City Council
reviewed the project in accordance with existing goals,policies and guidelines within the "General Plan",
"Coastal Specific Plan"and the "Coastal Development and Design Guidelines for Subregions 1 and 7".
The Council approved the project with many conditions and mitigation measures that restrict building
(residential and non-residential)heights as well as landscaping heights to ensure that views are
maintained over the project site.The proposed hedges are not well integrated Into the site because they
are inconsistent with these conditions and mitigation measures,which were designed to integrate the
entire project with uses on adjacent land and within the surrounding neighborhood.More specifically,the
proposed hedges are Inconsistent with the following conditions and mitigation measures:.
•CUP No.163 -K-2.b.Landscaping within the project area shall be planted in such a
manner so that views from adjaoent properties and any pUblio right-of-way are not
affeoted.
The proposed ficus hedges are inconsistent with this condition because the proposal
affects ocean views from adjacent properties within the Portuguese Bend Club and
Seaview neighborhoods and the pUblic right-of-way of Palos Verdes Drive South.
Furthermore,the proposed hedges would create a tunnel effect along the north/south
public trail,which is located between the driving range and the SUbject site's western
property line,thereby also affecting views of the ocean and Catalina Island from the
public trail.
•EIR NO.36,Mitigation Measure No.73.The·projeot proponent shall not use view-
obstructing plant species.
The proposed hedges are inconsistent with this mitigation measure because they would
consist of a landscape species,Ficus Nitida,that is a fast growing species that can will
be difficult to maintain in a manner that will not cause repeated view obstructions from
other properties.
•MND for Revision W,Mitigation Measure 10 -Aesthetics A-1:Subject to review and
approval by the Direotor of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement,prior to issuance
of any grading permits,the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan that
identifies the type of vegetation proposed for the driving range and surrounding areas,
specifically including the southerly berm.The type of vegetation utilized shall be
consistent with the allowable vegetation permitted on the SUbject site,as defined in the
project's HCP,and shall not be of a type that would grow higher than the ridge elevation
of the southerly berm. Further,said vegetation shall be maintained to a height that will
not grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm.
The proposed hedges are inconsistent with this mitigation measure because the proposal
includes vegetation that would be located higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly
berm and thereby will impair views.
1-8
....'.;'....~,
.'..
:,•.;'.:".:..••;.'.,.:.'••.•'<;~:<:<:;.,;:••..••.•;:.;,:;:,.•·••••-.,·:·.-.,·,·.·;.-.'c ,.•:.'.;.:;.,'.:,.;-...:••.:;.;:•...•;;'.-••.;;:••;:••:.;;;-;./,:••:.";.•.•-;'..:-;.;,••.......:..•.,...:.;:.:....;:..;.:;..:.:';:..;;:;::;'..';.:::.;.::;:.;;:::;:;:;:._..<::..-..c".·.,-••·.;"..'.:,..
In addition to the conditions and mitigation measures that are associated with integrating the project with
neighboring properties In relation to preserving views,and to ensure that the development of the entire
project site is well integrated into the existing site and adjacent lands related to the natural setting and
landscape species,additional conditions of approval and mitigation measures were imposed preViously
by the City Council.The proposed hedges would not be well integrated with uses on adjacent land or
within the adjacent'neighborhoods because the proposed ficus species is inconsistent with the following
mitigation measures:
~-
•EIR No.36,Mitigation Measure No.106.Native vegetation and drought tolerant species
shall be used by the project proponent,to the extent possible In common open space
and golf course.
The proposal is not a native species nor is it drought tolerant and,therefore,is
inconsistent with this mitigation measure.
b.In approving the proposed ficus hedges at the specific location that has been proposed,there will
be a significant adverse effect on adjacent property because,given the extent of the City Council's prior
deliberation to ensure that the entire project will affect views as little as possible,as discussed In Section
3a above,the proposed hedges would affect views significantly.
c.The proposal is contrary to the General Plan because it will not be consistent with the goals of the
General Plan.SpecificallY,a Goal of the General Plan (Page 176)states,.
"Palos Verdes Peninsula is graced with views and vistas of the surrounding Los Angeles basin
and coastal region.Because of its unique geographic form and coastal resources,these views
and vistas are a significant resource to residents and too many visitors,as they provide a rare
means of experiencing the beauty of the peninsula and the Los Angeles region.It is the
responsibility of the City to preserve these views and vistas for the public benefft and,where
appropriate,the City should strive to enhance and restore these resources,the visual character of
the City,and provide and maintain access for the benefit and enjoyment of the public.
The proposed hedges are inconsistent with this Goal because they are not consistent with preserving,
enhancing or restoring visual resources for the benefit of the public.Specifically,when the City Council
approved Revision W to accommodate the driving range,which removed 16 residential home sites and
enhanced the views over the site,this decision was consistent with the portion of the Goal that states:"....
It is the responsibility of the City to preserve these views and vistas for the public benefit and,where
appropriate,the City should strive to enhance and restore these resources ..."However,the proposal to
install two ficus hedges,which together will cause further impairment of views than what was approved
under Revision W,is contrary to this Goal.
d.The proposal is located within the "Natural","Socio/cultural",and "Urban Appearance"overlay
control districts established by Municipal Code Chapter 17.40,and the proposed hedges are not
consistent with all applicable requirements of that chapter,because the two hedges are not consistent
with Urban Appearance overlay control district and its performance criteria.Specifically,according to
Section 17.40.060,the "Urban Appearance"overlay control district was established to:
"...2.Preserve,protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view corridors
and public lands and waters within the city which characterize the city's appearance as defined in
the visual aspects portion of the general plan and the corridors element of the coastal specific
plan;
"3.Ensure that site planning,grading and landscape techniques,as well as improvement
planning,design and construction will preserve,protect and enhance the visual character of the
1-9
city's predominant land forms,urban form,vegetation and other distinctive features,as identified
in the general plan and the coastal specific plan;..."
Additionally,Chapter 17.40.060.C indicates that the following performance criteria shall be used in
assessing any and all uses and developments and whether they will:
"1.Result in the change in elevation of the land or construction of any improvement which would
block,alter or impair major views,vistas or viewsheds in existence from designated view
corridors,view sites or view points at the dates of adoption of the general plan and the coastal
specific plan in such a way as to materially and irrevocably alter the quality of the view as to arc
(horizontal and vertical),primary orientation or other characteristics;...
8.Result in changes in topography or the construction of improvements which would block,alter
or otherwise materially change significant views,vistas and viewshed areas available from major
private residential areas of the community which characterize the visual appearance,urban form
and economic value of these areas."
Due to the affect upon view3 that will be caused by the proposed two ficus hedges,the proposal is
inconsistent with the purpose and performance criteria of the "Urban Appearance"overlay control district.
Section 4:For the forgoing reasons,and based on information and findings contained 'in the
public record,including the staff reports,minutes,records of proceedings,and evidence presented 'at the
public hearings,the City qouncil of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies Revision un",'which
was a proposed amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.163.
Section 5:The request is hereby denied and thus,within a 12-month period following the date
of this Resolution,the Applicant may not file,and the director shall not accept,an application which is
the same as,or substantially the same as,the application (Revision TT)that was denied through this
Resolution.However,within a 12-month period from the date of this Resolution,the Applicant may
submit a new application for a proposed hedge/landscaping that includes a native and drought-tolerant
species,does not include a hedge of any height in the area where the proposed southerly hedge was to
have been located as depicted In Revision TT,and is at the same height or shorter than the northerly
hedge that was proposed In Revision TT;these revisions would not be considered to be the same or
substantially the same as the application for Revision TT,which is being denied.
If the Applicant submits a new application for proposed hedges/landscaping regardless of
whether the application Is (or is not)the same or substantially the same as the hedges that were
proposed in Revision TT,said new application will be analyzed as a new application on its own merits,
at a duly noticed public hearing,with a decision (approval,approval with conditions or denial)rendered
by the City Council.
Section 6:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution.if
available,must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or any
other applicable short period of limitations.
1-10
PASSED,APPROVED,and ADOPTED this 2nd day of August 2011.
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.2011-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting
held on August 2,2011.
City Clerk
\1 1-11
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Monday,August 01,2011 4:00 PM
'Carla Morreale';'Teri Takaoka'
FW:Revision"TT"resolution
Trump resolution 080111.doc
Trump resolution
080111.doc (3 ...
Carla and/or Teri-
Attached is correspondence regarding the Trump item on tomorrow night's agenda.
Thanks.
-Greg.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:Chip ZeIt [mailto:chipzelt@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 3:42 PM
To:Greg Pfost
Cc:tom.long@rpv.comi anthony.misetich@rpv.comi Douglas.Stern@rpv.comi
Brian.Campbell@rpv.comi stevew@rpv.com
Subject:Revision"TT"resolution
To:Gregg Pfost and Honorable Mayor and the city council members:
!apologizes for the lateness of this correspondence.I hope it makes it to you all in
time.
Sincerely,
Chip and Pat ZeIt
p 310.377.8000
Chip and Pat Zeit
4100 Sea Horse Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
August 1,2011
Attn:Gregory Pfost
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Dear Greg:
Just finished reading your recommendation to approve resolution 2011-_A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES,THEREBY DENYING REVISION TT,AN AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.163,FOR PROPOSED FICUS HEDGES ON THE
DRIVING RANGE.
We are in favor of the.City Council to deny revision "TT'brought by the Trump
organization.But would like to object to your interpretation or definition of what the
same or substantially the same is,proposed in section #5.Seems that section # 5 should
represent the sentiment of the decision the City Council made at the July 19th meeting.
Please stop the Trump organization from wasting more of the cities precious resources
fighting the same hedge battle that has now been voted down several times.
Why doesn't section #5 simple read as follows?
Section 5:The request is hereby denied and thus,within a 12-month period following the date
of this Resolution,the Applicant may not file,and the director shall not accept,an application
which is the same as,or substantially the same as,the application (Revision TT)that was denied
through this Resolution.
Hope the Council will amend your section#5 and approve the resolution.
Sincerely,
Chip &Pat ZeIt
Cc:
Thomas D.Long -Mayor.
Anthony M.Misetich,Mayor Pro Tern
Douglas W.Stern -Councilmember
Brian Campbell -Councilmember
Stefan Wolowicz -Councilmember
Page I ofl
"?,of-'"),
ORDINANCE NO.496U
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES··
APPROVING CASE NO.ZON2009-00053,A "CLEAN-UP"ZONE
CHANGE FOR EAST TRACT 16540 -PORTUGUESE BEND CLUB TO
MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL
SPECIFIC PLAN AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF CERTAIN
PORTIONS OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES THAT ARE ZONED SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-2)OR DUAL-ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RS-2 AND RS-5)TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(RS-5)WITH NO CHANGES TO PORTIONS OF LOTS THAT ARE
ZONED OPEN SPACE HAZARD (OH)AND DECLARING THE
URGENCY THEREOF.
WHEREAS,in 1957,Tract 16540 was recorded under the County of Los Angeles
for a total of 42 legal lots,whereby 31 housing units were relocated from the land area
affected by the Portuguese Bend Landslide to the new subdivision between 1958 and
1959 and the remaining 11 lots were developed with custom homes;and,
WHEREAS,in 1975,the City's first Zoning Map was adopted and the properties
located within Tract>16540 were placed within two zoning districts,RS-2 and RS-5,
Whereby some properties were designated wholly RS-2 or RS-5 and some properties
contained dual zoning with both RS-2 and RS-5;and,
WHEREAS,in 1975,the City's first Zoning Map was adopted and a number of
properties along the south side of Maritime Road also included an Open Space Hazard
(OH)zoning designation;and,
WHEREAS,in 1978,the City's Coastal Specific Plan was adopted,in compliance
with the mandates established by the California Coast Act for establishing a Local
Coastal Program within the City's Coastal Zone (all land seaward of Palos Verdes Drive
West and Palos Verdes Drive South),and the City's Coastal Specific Plan established a
total of eight (8)Subregions,whereby Tract 16540 is located within Subregion Six (6);
and,
WHEREAS,on March 3,2009,the City Council approved a Director-initiated
Zone Change Initiation Request (ZCAIR)to bring a Zone Change before the Planning
Commission for review and preparation of a formal recommendation to the City Council
regarding the Zone Change of Tract 16540;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act,Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA
Guidelines,California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste
and Substances Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has prepared an Initial
Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that approval of the Zone
Change would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment,and therefore,a
Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of the fact was given in the manner
required by law;and,
I
WHEREAS,after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on May 12,2009,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity
to be heard and present evidence;and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission approved P.C.Resolution No.2009-20,
recommending that the City Council certify a Negative Declaration pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act,and P.C.Resolution No.2009-21 recommending
that the City Council approve a Zone Change for East Tract 16540 in the Portuguese
Bend Club to establish one consistent zoning designation within Tract 16540;and,
WHEREAS,after a notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the City Council opened up the public hearing
on July 7,2009,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence and subsequently continued the proposed "clean-up"Zone
Change to August 4,2009 to allow time for the Planning Commission to consider a Lot
Line Adjustment (LLA)appeal that involves one of the 42 properties subject to the
"clean-up"Zone Change;and,
>
WHEREAS,on August 4,2009,the City Council introduced Ordinance No.496
for a "clean-up"Zone Change for East Tract 16540,Case No.ZON2009-00053 to be
formally adopted via a second reading on August 18,2009;and,
WHEREAS,on August 18,2009,Ordinance No.496 was formally adopted by the
City Council,to go into full force and effect on September 17,2009;and,
WHEREAS,due to insufficient posting of Ordinance No.496,caused the need
for adoption of this Urgency Ordinance;
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council has reviewed and considered the amendments
to the Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map for the East Tract 16540 "clean-up"Zone
Change.
Section 2:The City Council finds that the Zone Change for East Tract 16540
is consistent with California Government Code Section 65853,zoning amendment
procedures.
Section 3:The proposed Zone Change is warranted since it is consistent
with the City's Local Coastal Specific Plan,which states,"...the 5 unit per acre density is
in conformance with the existing pattern [of development]and induces new units under a
pattern which is compatible with the intimate character established by past development"
(page S6-10,RPV Coastal Specific Plan).The change in zoning from RS-2 or dual
residential zoning (RS-2 and RS-5) to RS-5 would be consistent with the exiting pattern
of development,density and lot sizes found within East Tract 16540.
Ordinance No.496U
Page 2 of4
Section 4:For the foregoing reasons and based upon the information and
findings included in the Staff Report,Initial Study and other records of these
proceedings,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the
Zone Change,thereby rezoning the residential zoning on the properties or portions of
the properties from wholly RS-2 or dual zoned RS2 and RS-5 (Single Family Residential)
to wholly RS-5 (Single-Family Residential)so that all of the residential portions of the
properties within East Tract 16540 (except the property located at 1494 Maritime Road)
shall be in one uniform residential RS-5 Zone,as set forth in Exhibit "A"(which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference).
Section 5:The City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
Zone Change amendments to East Tract 16540 would result in new significant
environmental effects.A Negative Declaration has been prepared and C.C.Resolution
No.2009-58 has been adopted,certifying the Negative Declaration and making certain
environmental findings in association with Case No.ZON2009-00053.
Section 6:The Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map is hereby by amended to
change the residential zoning designations within East Tract 16540 to Single-Family
Residential (RS-5)for the following properties only:4156,4150, 4144,4136,4126,4124,
4112,4110,4104,and 4048 Palos Verdes Drive South;4111, 4109,4105,4101,410b,
4108,4112 Sea Horse Lane;and 4187,4188, 4184, 4181, 4178,4174,4173,4171,
4170,4164,4161,4158,4157,4151,4150,4147,4144,4130,4125,4118,4115,4110,
4105,and 4100 Maritime Road and as illustrated in Exhibit "A,"which is attached to this
Ordinance and incorporated herein by this reference.This Ordinance shall not amend
the Open Space Hazard (OH)zoning designation on the following lots:4164,4158,
4150,4144,4130,4118,4110,and 4100 Maritime Road.
Section 7:The City must have zoning that reflects the correct sizes of lots as
developed in the tract.Individuals who wish to develop properties within Tract 16540
are waiting to file applications with the City.There is an urgent and immediate need to
review and amend the City's zoning Map.
Section 8:The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in
this Ordinance must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of
Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
Section 9:The City Clerk shall cause this Urgency Ordinance to be posted in
three (3)public places in the City within fifteen (15)days after its passage,in accordance
with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code.The City Clerk shall
further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance,and shall cause this
Ordinance and its certification,together with proof of posting,to be entered in the Book
of Ordinances of the Council of this City.
Section 10:This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect
immediately upon its passage.
Ordinance No.496U
Page 3 of4
PASSED,APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of September 2009.
/s/Larry Clark
Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Carla Morreale
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,do hereby
certify that the whole numbers of the City Council of said City is five;that the foregoing
Ordinance No.496U was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a
regular meeting thereof held on September 15,2009,and that the same was passed
and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Dyda,Long,Stern and Wolowicz
None
Clark
None
City Clerk
Ordinance No.496U
Page 4 of4
Sing:le.Pamily
Res:identi~(RS ..2)
EXHIBIT A
Amended Zoning Map Designations
E.Tract 16540 -Portuguese Bend Club
Ordinance No.496U
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO.496
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING
CASE NO.ZON2009-00053,A "CLEAN-UP"ZONE CHANGE FOR EAST TRACT
16540 -PORTUGUESE BEND CLUB TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH THE
CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF
CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES THAT ARE ZONED SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-2)OR DUAL-ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(RS-2 AND RS-5)TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5)WITH NO CHANGES
TO PORTIONS OF LOTS THAT ARE ZONED OPEN SPACE HAZARD (OH).
WHEREAS,in 1957,Tract 16540 was recorded underthe County of Los Angeles fora total
of 42 legal lots,whereby 31 housing units were relocated from the land area affected by the
Portuguese Bend Landslide to the new subdivision between 1958 and 1959 and the remaining 11
lots were developed with custom homes;and,
WHEREAS,in 1975,the City's first Zoning Map was adopted and the properties located
within Tract 16540 were placed within two zoning districts,RS-2 and RS-5,whereby some
properties were designated wholly RS-2 or RS-5 and some properties contained dual zoning with
both RS-2 and RS-5;and,
>
WHEREAS,in 1975,the City's first Zoning Map was adopted and a number of properties
along the south side of Maritime Road also included an Open Space Hazard (OH)zoning
designation;and,
WHEREAS,in 1978,the City's Coastal Specific Plan was adopted,in compliance with the
mandates established by the California Coast Act for establishing a Local Coastal Program within
the City's Coastal Zone (all land seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive
South),and the City's Coastal Specific Plan established a total of eight (8)Subregions,whereby
Tract 16540 is located within Subregion six (6);and,
WHEREAS,on March 3,2009,the City Council approved a Director-initiated Zone Change
Initiation Request (ZCAIR)to bring a Zone Change before the Planning Commission for review and
preparation of a formal recommendation to the City Council regarding the Zone Change of Tract
16540;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,Public
Resources Code Sections 21 000 et seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,California Code of
Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government
Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes has prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that
approval of the Zone Change would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment,and
therefore,a Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of the fact was given in the manner
required by law;and,
WHEREAS,after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 12,
2009,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence;and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission approved P.C.Resolution No.2009-20,
recommending that the City Council certify a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act,and P.C.Resolution No.2009-21 recommending that the City Council
approve a Zone Change for East Tract 16540 in the Portuguese Bend Club to establish one
consistent zoning designation within Tract 16540;and,
WHEREAS,after a notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code,the City Council opened up the public hearing on July 72009,at which
time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence and
subsequently continued the proposed "clean-up"Zone Change to August 4,2009 to allow time for
the Planning Commission to consider a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA)appeal that involves one of the
42 properties subject to the "clean-up"Zone Change;and,
WHEREAS,on August 4,2009,the City Council introduced Ordinance No.496 for a "clean-
up"Zone Change for East Tract 16540,Case No.ZON2009-00053 to be formally adopted via a
second reading on August 18,2009;and,
WHEREAS,on August 18,2009,Ordinance No.496 was formally adopted by the City
Council,to go into full force and effect on September 17,2009;and,
WHEREAS,due to insufficient posting of Ordinance No.496,caused the need for Ordinance
No.496 to be re-introduced to the City Council on September 15,2009 along with an Urgency
Ordinance to cause the Ordinance to be in full force and effect immediately;and,
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The City Council has reviewed and considered the amendments to the
Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map for the East Tract 16540 "clean-up"Zone Change.
Section 2:The City Council finds that the Zone Change for East Tract 16540 is
consistent with California Government Code Section 65853,zoning amendment procedures.
Section 3:The proposed Zone Change is warranted since it is consistent with the City's
Local Coastal Specific Plan,which states,"...the 5 unit per acre density is in conformance with the
existing pattern [of development]and induces new units under a pattern which is compatible with the
intimate character established by past development"(page S6-1 0,RPV Coastal Specific Plan).The
change in zoning from RS-2 or dual residential zoning (RS-2 and RS-5)to RS-5 would be consistent
with the exiting pattern of development,density and lot sizes found within East Tract 16540.
Section 4:For the foregoing reasons and based upon the information and findings
included in the Staff Report,Initial Study and other records of these proceedings,the City Council of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the Zone Change,thereby rezoning the
residential zoning on the properties or portions of the properties from wholly RS-2 or dual zoned
RS2 and RS-5 (Single Family Residential)to wholly RS-5 (Single-Family Residential)so that all of
the residential portions of the properties within East Tract 16540 (except the property located at
1494 Maritime Road)shall be in one uniform residential RS-5 Zone,as set forth in Exhibit "A"(which
is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference).
Section 5:The City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Zone
Change amendments to East Tract 16540 would result in new significant environmental effects.A
Negative Declaration has been prepared and C.C.Resolution No.2009-58 has been adopted,
Ordinance No.496
Page 2 of3
certifying the Negative Declaration and making certain environmental findings in association with
Case No.ZON2009-Q0053.
Section 6:The Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map is hereby by amended to change the
residential zoning designations within East Tract 16540 to Single-Family Residential (RS-5)for the
following properties only:4156,4150, 4144,4136, 4126,4124,4112,4110,4104,and 4048 Palos
Verdes Drive South;4111, 4109, 4105,4101,4100, 4108,4112 Sea Horse Lane;and 4187,4188,
4184,4181,4178,4174,4173,4171,4170,4164,4161,4158,4157,4151,4150,4147,4144,4130,
4125,4118,4115, 4110,4105,and 4100 Maritime Road and as illustrated in Exhibit "A,"which is
attached to this Ordinance and incorporated herein by this reference.This Ordinance shall not
amend the Open Space Hazard (OH)zoning designation on the following lots:4164, 4158, 4150,
4144,4130,4118,4110,and 4100 Maritime Road.
Section 7:The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Ordinance must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure
and other applicable short periods of limitation.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 6
th day of October 2009.
/s/Larry Clark
Mayor
Attest:
/s/Carla Morreale
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )ss
City or Rancho Palos Verdes )
I,Carla Morreale,the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the city Council of said City is five;that the foregoing Ordinance
No .496 passed first reading on September 15,2009,was duly and regularly adopted by the City
Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on October 6th ,2009.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dyda,Long,Stem,Wolowicz and Clark
None
None
None
City Clerk
Ordinance No.496
Page 3 of3
Sing:le-P.i:1y
Residenti~(RS..2:)
EXHIBIT A
Amended Zoning Map Designations
E.Tract 16540 -Portuguese Bend Club
Ordinance No.496
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
From:Christopher F.Wilson,Esq.[cfw.cwanda@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday,July 29,2011 8:53 PM
To:aram@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com
Subject:Conditions for Marymount
As a current condition,MM should be called on to clear its drainage ditch and keep it clear.The ditch along PV
Drive East is about 50%full of dirt and rocks,and getting more full.It is a public nuisance -risking the RPV storm
drain system.
Regards,
Chris Wilson
Christopher F.Wilson,Esq.
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard,Suite 200
Torrance,California 90503
310 316 2500
fax:310 543 2526
cfw.cwanda@gmail.com
Notice:This message and any attachtnent(s)are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from
disclosure.If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error,please telephone or email the
sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system.If you are not the intended recipient you must
not copy this message or any attachment,disclose the contents to any other person,or take any action in reliance on
this message or any attachment.
Circular 230 Disclosure:To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice,we inform
you that any advice (including in any attachment)(1)was not written and is not intended to be used,and cannot be
used,for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalty that may be imposed on the taxpayer,and (2)may not be
used in connection with promoting,marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
8/1/2011 3
From:bubba32@cox.net
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 3:40 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:clehr@rpv.com
Subject:Limited Public Notice for INTERPRETATION REVIEW
Attachments:City Council Violations Public Notice Letter.doc
To the Honorable Mayor Long and Members of the City Council
I have attached for your review and consideration my observations and concerns regarding
the limited nature of your pending Interpretation Review that was Publicly noticed :"for the
sole purpose of clarifying what conditions apply now versus after the College is renovated."
Aside from pointing out the fallacy of that last phrase,I am asking that the Council undertake
to vote only on Staff's Recommendation No.1,which was properly Noticed for your
Interpretation Review.I am asking also that Staff's second Recommendation be tabled and
not voted upon until a properly noticed public hearing is convened.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jim Gordon
o+-L-(
8/1/2011
James B.Gordon
3538 Bendigo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-6202
(310)541-7336
bubba32@cox.net
Mayor Long and Members of the City Council
City Manager
Rancho Palos Verdes -City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
To the Honorable Mayor Long and City Council:
cc@rpv.com
citymanager@rpv.com
Monday,August 1,2011
Subject:Public Notice(s)for August 2,2011 City Council Meeting:,
There appears to be a conflict with the Staff Report of August 2,2011 on page 3-1
thereof and a second (2)Recommendation requesting that the City Council
"affirm Staff's recommendation that the two outstanding operational conditions
that apply now are brought into compliance by the College within 30-days from
August 2,2011."(the operative term here,"outstanding operational conditions"is
a Code wordfor non-compliance with these conditions ofapproval)
This is because both Public Notices sent out (by rpvlistserver@rpv.com of July 8
and July 29,2011)specifically limit the Council's Interpretation Review "for the
sole purpose of clarifying what conditions apply now versus after the College is
renovated."Staff's Recommendation No.1,addresses that sole purpose.Staff's
Recommendation No.2,does not.
Since no Public Notice has previously been given that identifies the second
Recommendation by Staff,a Council vote now on that second Recommendation
sould have to await a properly-noticed meeting.
As a related matter,the Planning Commission (PC)at its May 24,2011 Hearing,
was provided with information that the College was allegedly in violation of at
least three (3)Conditions of Approval,two of which are now confirmed as being in
llPage
violation by this Staff Report of August 2,2011.Since RPVMC (17.86.050)
requires that the city shall not accept for processing or grant:"Any application for
a development,use or other permit or entitlement on any lot or parcel on which the
director has verified that a violation of this Code exists .."the PC requested that
such claimed violations should be verified first by the City Council.
Since such verification and/or affirmation has not yet been Publicly Noticed for
such City Council determination,it is hereby requested that,as appropriate,such
proper Public Notice be given prior to any such decisions or vote by the City
Council.
The two current violations (COA #138 ž)that the Director has now
acknowledged,so far,were previously brought to the Council's attention in my
March 21,2011 letter to you.Due to the specified requirements of each Condition,
there are multiple violations for each,not a single violation for each.For COA
#138 there are at least six independent violations,for COA#158 there are many
more.
The admitted violations for failure to implement COA #158 are extremely serious
as they involve the Colleges'failure to live up to its responsibilities under the
additional Conditions of Approval #'s 3,4 &5 regarding the quintessential
Mitigation Monitoring Program,specifically with respect to Mitigations No.s TR-
5,and TR-6.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Jim Gordon
138)The College shall establish a Neighborhood Advisory Committee consisting of one
representative selected by each of the following neighboring homeowner's associations:EI
Prado,San Ramon,Mira Catalina,Seacliff Hilltop,and Mediterrania;two at-large
representatives who live within 3000 feet of the campus (one of which shall be selected by the
Community Development Director and one by the College);and a representative from City Staff
(non-:voting member).The Committee shall meet,at a minimum of once every fall and spring
term,to review any campus operational and neighborhood concerns.Reports on the meetings
shall be provided to the City Council.
21Page
158)The applicant shall construct and maintain no fewer than 463 on-site parking spaces
consisting of 391 standard parking spaces at a minimum dimension of 9'wide by 20'deep and a
maximum 72 compact parking spaces at a minimum dimension of 8'wide by 15'deep.In
addition,the applicant shall construct and maintain off-street loading spaces pursuant to the
criteria setforth in Section 17.50.050 of the RPVMC.
Prior to the completion of Phase I,as described in Condition No.60,the applicant shall institute,
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Director of Public Works,a
Parking Management Strategies Plan to reduce College related parking in order to minimize
street parking by students and visitors by the following values:
•11 percent or greater for student enrollment between 744 and 793;
• 6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;
• 0 percent or greater for student enrollment of 693 or less.
Parking Management Strategies may include,but are not limited to,the following:
•Provision of "carpool only"parking spaces
•Implementation of parking restrictions for students living in College-owned
off-campus residential housing
•Utilization of remote parl<ing
•Provision of increased shuttle service
•Offering of financial incentives,such as providing transit passes
•Utilization of campus security to direct vehicles to available on-campus
parking during peak times (8am to noon,Monday through Friday)
•Utilization of campus security personnel to monitor street parking and
direct students and visitors to available on-campus parking spots
A Parking Management Strategy Program shall be prepared and submitted by the Applicant for
review and approval by the Community Development Director,by July 151 of every year.Said
Program shall:
•Document the prior-year's achieved parking demand reductions;
•Identify strategies for use in the upcoming academic school year;
•Be modified on an as needed basis,as deemed necessary by the
Community Development Director.
31Page
·..
First Report of the Pension Subcommittee of the City Council for the City of
Ran!ibo Palos Verdes
Members:Stefan Wolowicz and Thomas Long
Initial Meeting:December 7,2010
Although the subcommittee anticipates conducting additional;meetings and working with
an independent consultant to attempt to formulate one or mote proposals for possible
pension revision to be considered by the city council as a whole,the subcommittee felt it
would be useful to issue a set of preliminary observations and common agreements
under Which the subcommittee is working for the purpose of providing information to
those interested in the subcommittee's work.These observations and common
agreements are subject to revision if the Independent consultant presents information
not currently known or considered by the subcommittee.
Observirtions:
A.The average benefit collected from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes pension
plan by retirees is approximately $1,000 per month.Rancho Palos Verdes
employees do not-earn Social security benefits based on their time with the City.
According to the speakers at the December 7,2010 meeting the City's pension
benefits are about average when compared to those offered by other comparable
cities.
B.Funding the City's pension benefits,even after significant investment losses have
required large increases in contributions.consumes about 3%of the City's
general revenue budget.Protective service employee pension costs are not
under the control of.the city council.Fire Department pensions are under the fire
department's budget within the County of Los Angeles.Sheriff Department's
pensions are under the control of the Sheriff,Although the City contracts with the
Sheriff to provide police services,the City has no control over the Sheriffs
pension policies.
C.Prior to the initial subcommittee meeting the City Manager relayed a concern
expressed by Staff that included in the concept of "vested benefits D is the
percentage of employees'portion of contribution.While the core elements of the
eXisting employees plan should not change,the discretionary latitude of this
percentage needs to be clarified and understood.Moreover the independent
con.sultants may Identify other factors that are not now known for consideration.
D.The subcommittee was established by the Council to address concerns
expressed by council members about the City's rising pension costs both in
terms of absolute dollars and as a percentage of covered payroll.The
subcommittee was also tasked to consider the potential impact,if any,of
underfunding of vested benefits.
E.Various factors contribute to the complexity of the subcommittee's tasks and may
be beyond the control of the council and the City.These include:
(1)Unpredictable and uncontrollable impacts on investments from market
performance and changes in actuarial factors that affect the costs of
benefits.
(2)CalPERS offers only a limited set of options.Based on comments from the
speakers during the December 7,2010 it is our understanding that
CalPERS does not provide service for Defined Contribution retirement
plans.CalPERS would require cities offering a second tier defined
contribution plan to place the defined benefit plan with another plan
administrator..
(3)Adopting changes to the City's pension plan that would reinstitute Social
Security benefits or adopt currently unavailable formats may require
agency rulings.judicial interpretations,and/or legislative action.
Common Agreemeng:
1.The subcommittee is considering changes in pension fonnulas,
contributions,and benefits only for neWly-hired employees.The SUbcommittee is
not now considering any changes.whether it Is In benefits or funding of contributions,
for existing employees and retirees of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
2.The subcommittee is not considering options which involve the City
departing from the Califomia Public Employees Retirement System (UCaIPERS").
Given the preliminary comments received I the subcommittee has found that departing
from CalPERS is not now practicaJ or cost-effective.
3.Any revisions made to the City's pension benefits should not
degrade the City's ability to recruit and retain high quality professional
employees.The City has a long established 'policy of attempting to provide
compensation at the 75th percentile when compared to other comparable California
cities as a way of recruiting and retaining skilled employees.
4.The prima~purpose of pension revisions is to control costs and to
prOVide a sustainable pension plan.It may be found that given viable alternatives
now available retirement costs cannot be significantly reduced but only limited in the
increases.·The purpose of pension revisions is not to cut pension benefits to existing
employees or otherwise disrupt the City's relationships with its employees or with
potential recruits.Instead,the purpose is to assure that pension contnbutions both
appropriately fund promised benefits but also are within the City's abilities to support.
Future pension cost increases should be controlled such that the City's overall pension
costs remain a relatively low share of the City's budget and do not grow
disproportionately compared to other of the City's costs.A sustainable pension plan
providing good value benefits is in the common interest of both the City's employees
and its residents.
401458_1.DOC
5.Broader pension revisions are likely to be effective,if at all,only at a
higher government level.Members of the subcommittee and/or members of the
pUblic may support different and more considerable revisions ,to pension benefits for
public employees.However,a broader scope of revision may not be possible at the
level of a City the Consultants wUl be asked to identify viable (practical and cost-
effective)alternatives.Significant alternatives may be made available to municipalities
through action by the governor,legislature,ballot initiative,~r new models developed for
municipalities.The current or future Councils should be free to consider those
alternatives as they arise.
As the subcommittee proceeds forward,it hopes to develop a consensus as to
whether or not a viable revision to the City's existing pension program is necessary and
possible.If such a consensus in favor of a revision emerges,the subcommittee will
either reach a consensus on a single proposed option for a revision or perhaps two or
more options for the entire Council to choose among.We anticipate at least one
additional report summarizing the results of recommendations from the retained
independe'nt consultant and our additional work.
Dated January 4,2011
Sincerely,
~.
Second Report of the Pension Subcommittee of the City Council for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes
Members:Stefan Wolowicz and Thomas Long
Date 7 June 2011
This report supplements the Subcommittee's earlier report of December 7,2010,a copy
of which is attached for your reference.T-he Subcommittee reaffirms the observations
and common agreements announced in its first report of December 7,2010.The
purpose of this report is to advise the Council,the City employees and the public of
further efforts by the Subcommittee since the time of our last report.
The Subcommittee is continuing to study options designed to assure that the City's "
pension plan remains sustainable and practical.Based on information gathered 'and ',
pending meeting with an advisory consultant the Subcommittee has tentatively.'.;':;";;'~,
concluded that the present range of options available to it is fairly Iimi'ted.The !'..,.:.•..'.'!,.,~,
Subcommittee tentatively does not expect to recommend that Rancho Palos:Verdes ..:":,,.
.leave CaIPERS.These tentative conclusions have been reached due to two primary>","
reasons.First,the City is too small to bear the costs of maintaining its own pension'pla'n ~,.
al"!d presently securing an alternative plan and sponsor does not appear viable~:
accordingly leaVing CalPERS is not a viable option at this time.It is expected that'
ultimately major reform by tne state legislature will be necessary to provide the··levels.of.,,
changes now required by CALPERS.Second,the Subcommittee hopes to avoid:. ,..,:..'.,
recommending changes to the City's pension that could pose a significant risk to the"
City in litigation.
With the above restrictions in mind,the Subcommittee is continuing to wo'rk to develop a
consensus proposal to the Council for changes in the City's pension plan that will
bolster its sustainability by stabilizing the City's pension costs as a 'percentage of
payroll.The Subcommittee is exploring creating a second tier pension plan for new
employees.The Subcommittee is also exploring adjusting the contributions of current
employees toward the pension plan coupled with an eqUitable adjustment in the salaries
of current employees.Staff has presented the Subcommittee with a number of-options
and predicted savings from each of the options.The Subcommittee needs additional
time to study these options and needs to confer with an independent pension
consultant.We hope to select and begin conferring with the independent consultant
within the following month.
In its first report,the Subcommittee indicated that it was planning to work with an
independent consultant.Staff promptly prepared a request for proposal but received
only one bid in response to that initial proposal.The Subcommittee felt it was
necessary to circulate a new proposal and to solicit additional bids.Through no fault of
the staff,the process of obtaining an independent consultant has,unfortunately, been
delayed.Nonetheless,the Subcommittee anticipates conferring with an independent
407722 1.doc
c:\docume-Tltdl\local$~1Itemp\nellighl\print\407722_1.doc
,
1·
consultant to confirm its own assumptions and the information that staff has provided to
it and developing a final report to the Council with either a consensus recommendation
or viable alternative proposals for the Council to consider within the next three months.
The Subcommittee attended a recent preseritationof the Los Angeles Division of the
League of Califomia;Cities on Pension Reform.A handout containing some
background information discussecl at tliat meeting is also attached to this report.The
Subcommittee is providing this report and the attached information and will be prepared
at OUf meetitlg on June 7.2011 to respond to questions by the Council.
Dated.:-
Sincerely,
~i.;;,,;.........,2011
,,,,,,