Loading...
20111101 Late Correspondence"•ryr p a CC G7 �' LLI vm G2.Yey-SLree' _ z . O� c= U r t • -� In . a. LL ui O QCk ti. 4 IJevi!'s ip -_( I ' �� l I r :: s J' LU LJ. 3 SEE '-S.i`;r. -� l U �_ - ? -I.'._-+^ tij U Q :D W } •moo - - i- J• -ir � - rf CY ' "� •� CC 4 U f•. - jj""""'' w i '� J f *�' •ti , 1 .tet ,� , - s -r- oa[_7Eks C i I VirIle us �4 rya t stmwberrY C-- ro Ltaad Qu e�4 htllfp� C1 4rJ:eorgQ- Rail_ RCka•'�`��g --(`•�T@fie CY � '-*�, � �feq- _•J- _ jq 14 ac)el oC r7afC4 �eC' - `xo Y N .Rq- f LpL�t� td IT. 1r�ngS�eg� hE Poc /a EELI-•� f •c T 91; o _ X56` lveda C y •? •. "t C$�'��a �t _` �• - . - +y,' LF j Malley - ��i rr J� •- ` � r � f Q � efr.rJ C ' . a 1, - -'[-- •" r = �. tL RC1 .'� _ �' '-•ilfa�� - �_s' - • � •-_ J� �y. ,• - - - t] � td.. r r_wta L a` ' CJ 'N 'fJ c Co oa �i4rAt� '•T` t { r ❑� t✓� r r C.f �% o' _ • \ 4L 'J +f r. c. - - t -�� �' a' to Ws�. J +w 75 ' T.. :• = \ `` MCC _ "_ u ci °: C ' . *i , ` • - J? err , 0+u .q Hawthorne aJ c G OIL. tip o p m LE rrca o„rr r Y r 1 r nj lu �^� -C - '. �► 4 I .,r ��a.. u.. i c.t cr AJ � V `'; - J ► r}ias CJ s , L - s` t- = Qm m dUr Id > cu uJ ou �°�a33 DL < td ;l U yO • -- r O a � J K" 'Sad J � j.' ~-Sv [�fIrV�1^�+ •3 { -,!LT ,,, •-�'�j•` ••�• � V . •/'�r� i frr �j,r !r` / Vn�.Y��,,,,% '� is •t � jy s r rtt--�" : � • ��t.' - - I r -•F1, 1 t�`l� � !f � by yQ LU t _ -yJI; f' �.00 3-, -r f Ln '�r 1 �. �' � � � N7 i•' rim � • -'k ii�Y'- � � - 1 rC rW V`• t. f 1 - u MUM K, CL 175 t1REll ti +' - sit i ' ..... '' s �!" moll'i r IL e ry fir. `/1 5 vy d in Lp e -.7r O L-tc4s CL P pia "ATE � ��;• trrffff��� � pp�J�'t� ¢o O �f cz 1199 1� } i is •t � jy s r rtt--�" : � • ��t.' - - I r -•F1, 1 t�`l� � !f � by yQ LU t _ -yJI; 3-, -r `/1 5 vy d in Lp e -.7r O L-tc4s CL P pia "ATE � ��;• trrffff��� � pp�J�'t� ¢o O �f cz 1199 L IR RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2011 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 5 Addendums to Microsoft Volume License and Enterprise Agreements Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through Monday, October 31, 2011**. VUAGENEW2011 Additions Revisions to agendasM111101 additional additions revisions to agenda.doc Program Signature Form MBAIMBSA number Agreement number 01E69633 Note: Enter the applicable active numbers associated with the documents below. Microsoft requires the associated active number be indicated here, or listed below as new. Micrpsoft- I Volume Licensing SGN- Proposal ID For the purposes of this form, "Customer" can mean the signing entity, Enrolled Affiliate, Government Partner, institution, or other party entering into a volume licensing program agreement. This signature form and all contract documents identified in the table below are entered into between the Customer and the Microsoft Affiliate signing, as of the effective date identified below. Contract Document <Choose A reement> Number.. - Document Number or Code <Choose A reement> Document Number or Code <Choose A reement> Document Number or Code <Choose A reement> Document Number or Code <Choose A reement> Document Number or Code Enterprise Enrollment X20-01112 <Choose Enroliment/Affiliate Registration Form> Document Number or Code <Choose Enrollment/Affiliate Registration Form> Document Number or Code Enrollment for Education Solutions Document Number or Code Enterprise Enrollment Amendment W16 (new) Supplemental EA Terms & Conditions none Document Description Document Number or Code Document Descri tion Document Number or Code Document Description Document Number or Code By signing below, Customer and the Microsoft Affiliate agree that both parties (1) have received, read and understand the above contract documents, including any websites or documents incorporated by reference and any amendments and (2) agree to be bound by the terms of all such documents. Customer Microsoft Name of Entity (must be legal entity name) Microsoft Licensing, GP City of Rancho Palos Verdes Signature Signature * Printed Name * Tom Long Printed Name Printed Title * City Mayor Printed Title Signature Date * Signature Date (date Microsoft Affiliate countersigns) ProgramSignForm(MSSign)(NA)(ENG)(Oct2010) Page 1 of 2 Tax ID Effective Date (may be different than Microsoft's signature date) indicates required freld Optional 2"d Customer signature or Outsourcer Signature (if applicable) Name of Entity (must be legal entity name) * I Name of Entity (must be legal entity name) * Signature * Printed Name Printed Title * Signature Date Signature * Printed Name Printed Title * Signature Date If Customer requires physical media, additional contacts, or is reporting multiple previous Enrollments, include the appropriate form(s) with this signature form. if no media form is included, no physical media will be sent. After this signature form is signed by the Customer, send it and the Contract Documents to Customer's channel partner or Microsoft account manager, who must submit them to the following address. When the signature form is fully executed by Microsoft, Customer will receive a confirmation copy. Microsoft Licensing, GP Dept. 551, Volume Licensing 5100 Neil Road, Suite 210 Reno. Nevada 8.95111137 USA Prepared By: Bruce Valentin bvalenti@compucom.com ProgramSignForm(MSSign)(NA)(ENG)(Oct2010) Page 2 of 2 Miicr+Qsoft I Volume Licensing Enterprise Enrollment State and Local Supplemental Enterprise Agreement Terms and Conditions The following terms are required to update and supplement your license agreement to make it consistent with the current version of the Enterprise Agreement program and to allow for additional features and benefits which may or not have been available on the effective date of your license agreement. For example, these terms address the following: your option to license some Client Access Licenses ("CALs") on a per user basis ("user - based CALs"), rather than on a per device basis, and some rights and obligations associated with user -based CALs; • terms relating to ordering and use of online services; • your right to order "step-up" licenses; and • your ability, in some jurisdictions, to arrange for customized payment terms. These terms and conditions amend your license agreement as it applies to this enrollment and any subsequent enrollments you or an enrolled affiliate enters into under it. It does not affect any prior enrollment already in existence. In the case of any conflict between these terms and conditions and the terms and conditions of your license agreement, these terms control. 1. Definitions. If your license agreement does not already include a definition for "qualified users," the following definition of "qualified users" is added. In addition, if any references appear in your license agreement to the "Core User CAL" or "Care CAL," those references will be deemed to refer to any user -based CALs. 'online services" means the Microsoft -hosted services identified in the online services section of the Product Use Rights. `qualified user' means a person who (1) is a user of a qualified desktop or (2) accesses any server software or online services licensed within an enrolled affiliate's enterprise. It does not include a person who accesses the server software or online services solely under a license identified in the qualified user exemptions in the product list. 2. Terms relating to user -based CALs. a. Price levels where user -based CALs are ordered. When user -based CALs are ordered as an enterprise product, other than as part of the "platform," the price level for any enterprise products or additional products ordered from the server pool will be set based on the enrolled affiliate's initial number of qualified users, rather than its initial number of qualified desktops. Similarly, upon any renewal, if user -based CALs are renewed, other than as part of the "platform," the renewal price level for the server pool will be reset based on the number of the enrolled affiliate's qualified users at the time of renewal, rather than its number of qualified desktops. b. True -ups and update statements where user -based CALs are ordered. The section of your license agreement that addresses the obligation to place true -up orders and submit update statements is hereby modified to require that, where user -based CALs are ordered as an enterprise product, the enrolled affiliate must determine the number of qualified users in its enterprise and, where that number has increased, submit a true -up order for L&SA for its user -based CALs covering those additional qualified users. If the number of qualified users has not increased, the enrolled affiliate must confirm this fact on its update statement_ EA(EADTTandCs)(uS)SLG(ENG)(Oct2010) Page 1 of 2 At each anniversary, enrolled affiliate must submit either a true -up order or an update statement. This annual true -up order or update statement must be submitted between 60 days prior to, or 15 days following, the anniversary of the effective date of the enrollment to meet the annual true -up requirement. The third -year anniversary true -up order or update statement is due prior to, or upon the expiration date of, the enrollment term. While this annual true -up order or update statement are required to be submitted at the anniversary and upon enrollment expiration, an Enrolled Affiliate may also true -up more frequently and at any time during the term of the Enrollment. Our commitment to work with the enrolled affiliate in good faith to accommodate changes in the number of its qualified desktops by more than ten percent as a result of mergers, acquisitions or divestitures will also apply, if user -based LALs are ordered as an enterprise product, in cases where the number of its qualified users changes by more than ten percent. c. License grant for user -based CALs. The following clarifications are made to the section of your license agreement titled "License grant — what your enrolled affiliates are licensed to run," to account for user -based CALs: For CALs, your license grant is as follows: during the term, each qualified desktop (if device - based CALs have been ordered) or qualified user (if user -based CALs have been ordered) covered by the enrollment may access and use the associated server software. Regarding the number of perpetual licenses received for user -based CALs: When user -based CALs have been ordered as an enterprise product, and once the enrolled affiliate qualifies for perpetual licenses, the number of the enrolled affiliate's perpetual licenses for such CALs will be equal to the number of qualified users covered by the enrollment, rather than the number of qualified desktops. d. Placing renewal orders for user -based CALs. Upon renewal of an enrollment, if user - based CALs were ordered as an enterprise product, the renewal order must include Software Assurance for such user -based CALs for the number of qualified users covered by the enrollment as of the date of renewal. At renewal, where applicable, the enrolled affiliate can elect to exchange user -based CALs for device -based CALs or vice versa. In that event, the enrolled affiliate's renewal order must include L&SA for the number of qualified users or qualified desktops in excess of its current count. See the Product List for more information. $. Online services. Online services are provided as subscription services and are subject to the unique terms set forth in the Product Use Rights and the Product List. 4. Right to order "step-up" Licenses. If an already ordered product has multiple editions, an enrolled affiliate may migrate to the higher edition by ordering the applicable step-up. if step up details are included in an initial enrollment order, then the enrolled affiliate may step-up in accordance with the true -up process. If the step-up details are not included in the initial enrollment order, the enrolled affiliate may step-up by placing an order in the month the step-up is first run in accordance with the process set out for adding new additional products not previously ordered. EA(EADTTandCs)(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2010) Page 2 of 2 Microsoft -I Volume Licensing Enterprise Enrollment. State and Local Enterprise Enrollment number Proposal la (Microsoft to complete) Previous Enrollment number Earliest expiring previous Enrollment end date (Reseffer to complete) 1 If consolidating from multiple previous Enrollments with Software Assurance, complete the multiple previous Enrollment form and attach it to this Enrollment. Enterprise Products can only be renewed from a Qualifying Enrollment. Additional Products can be renewed from any previous Enrollment with Software Assurance. This Enrollment must be attached to a signature form to be valid. This Microsoft Enterprise Enrollment is entered into between the entities as of the effective date identified in the signature form. Customer represents and warrants that it is the same Customer, or an Affiliate of the Customer, that entered into the Enterprise Agreement identified above. This Enrollment consists of (1) this document, (2) the terms of the Enterprise Agreement identified on the signature form, and (3) any supplemental contact information form or multiple previous enrollment form that may be required. If Customer's Enterprise Agreement is a version 6.4 or earlier, the Desktop Terms and Conditions are incorporated by reference. All terms used but not defined are located at http://microsoft.com/licensina/contracts_. In the event of any conflict the terms of this agreement control. Effective date. if Customer is renewing Software Assurance from one or more previous Qualifying Enrollments, then the effective date will be the day after the first Enrollment expires. Otherwise the effective date will be the date this Enrollment is accepted by Microsoft. If renewing Software Assurance, the Reseller will need to insert the previous Enrollment number and end date in the respective boxes above. Term. This Enrollment will expire 36 full calendar months from the effective date. It could be terminated earlier or renewed as provided in the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. Microsoft will advise Customer of the renewal options before it expires. Product order. The Reseller will provide Customer with Customer's Product pricing and order. Prices and billing terms for all Products ordered will be determined by agreement between Customer and the Reseller. The Reseller will provide Microsoft with the order separately From this Enrollment. Qualifying systems Licenses. All desktop operating system Licenses provided under this program are upgrade Licenses. No full operating system Licenses are available under this program. ]f Customer selects the Desktop Platform or the Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade & Software Assurance, all Qualified Desktops on which the Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade must be licensed to run one of the qualifying operating systems identified in the Product List at http:l/microsoft.com/licensing/contracts. Note that the list of operating systems that qualify for the Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade varies with the circumstances of the order. That list is more extensive at the time of the initial order than it is for some subsequent true -ups and system refreshes during the term of this Enrollment. For example, Windows XP Nome Edition or successor Products are not qualifying operating systems. EA2009EnrGov(AOC)(US)SLG(ENG)(Jul2o10) Page 1 of 4 Document x24-01112 1. Contact information. Each parry will notify the other in writing if any of the information in the following contact information page(s) changes. The asterisks (*) indicate required fields. By providing contact information, Customer consents to its use for purposes of administering this Enrollment by Microsoft, its Affiliates, and other parties that help administer this Enrollment. The personal information provided in connection with this Enrollment will be used and protected in accordance with the privacy statement available at http:i/Iicensing.microsoft.com. a. Primary contact information: The Customer of this Enrollment must identify an individual from inside its organization to serve as the primary contact. This contact is the default administrator for this Enrollment and receives all notices unless Microsoft is provided written notice of a change. The administrator may appoint other administrators and grant others access to online information. Name of entity (must be legal entity name)* City of Rancho Palos Verdes Contact name* First Dennis Last McLean Contact email address* dennism@rpv.com Street address* 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. City* Rancho Palos Verdes State * CA Postal code* 90275 Country* USA Phone* 310-544-5212 Fax Tax ID (if applicable) b. Notices and online administrator: This individual receives online administrator permissions and thus may grant online access to others. This contact also receives all notices. ❑ Same as primary contact Name of entity (must be legal entity name)* CompuCom Systems, Inc. Contact name* First Bruce Last Valentin Contact email address* CompuCom Systems, Inc. Street address* 7171 Forest Lane City* Dallas State * TX Postal code* 75230 Country* USA Phone* 972-856-4617 Fax 0 This contact is a third party (not the Customer). Warning: This contact receives personally identifiable information of the Customer. c. Language preference: Select the language for notices. English d. Microsoft account manager: Provide the Microsoft account manager contact for this Customer. Microsoft account manager name: Mark Starr Microsoft account manager email address: Mark. Starr@microsoft.com e. If Customer requires a separate contact for any of the following, attach the Supplemental Contact Information form. Otherwise, the notices contact remains the default. • Additional notices contact • Software Assurance manager • Subscription manager • Online Services manager • Customer Support Manager (CSM) contact f. Is a purchase Under this Enrollment being financed through MS Financing? ❑ Yes, ® No. EA2009EnrGov(AOC)(US)SLG(ENG)(Jul2010) Page 2 or 4 Document X20-01112 g. Reseller information Reseller company name* CompuCom Systems, Inc. Street address (PO boxes will not be accepted)* 7171 Forest Lane City* Dallas 'State * TX Postal code* 75230 Country* USA Contact name * Bruce Valentin Phone* 972-856-4617 Fax Contact email address* bvalenti@compucom.com The undersigned confirms that the information is correct. Name of Reseller* CompuCom. Systems, Inc. Signature* Printed name* Bruce E. Valentin Printed title* Microsoft Licensing Specialist Date* Changing a Reseller. If Microsoft or the Reseller chooses to discontinue doing business with one another, Customer must choose a replacement. If Customer intends to change the Reseller, it must notify Microsoft and the former Reseller, in writing on a form provided at least 90 days prior to the date on which the change is to take effect. The change will take effect 90 days from the date of Customer's signature. 2. Defining your Enterprise. Use this section to identify which Affiliates are included in the Enterprise. Customer's Enterprise must consist of entire government agencies, departments or legal jurisdictions, not partial government agencies, departments, or legal jurisdictions. (Check only one box in this section.) F1 Only you (and no other affiliates) will be participating 0 Customer and all Affiliates are included (excluding new Affiliates with which you consolidate in the future) F] The following Affiliates are excluded 3. Establishing Customer price level. The price level indicated in this section will be the price level for the initial Enrollment term for all Enterprise Products ordered and for any Additional Products in the same pool(s). The price level for any other Additional Products will be level "D". Qualified Desktops: Customer represents that the total number of Qualified Desktops in its Enterprise is, or will be increased to, this number during the initial term of this Enrollment (This number must be equal to at least 250 desktops). EA2009EnrGov(AOC)(US)SLG(ENG)(Ju12010) Page 3 of 4 Document X2a-01112 Qualified Users: Customer represents that the total number of Qualified Users in its Enterprise is, or will be increased to, this number during the initial term of this 65 Enrollment (This number must be equal to at least 250 users). 4. Enterprise Product orders. which Qualified qualified Desktop Price level (for pools in User Customer orders an Enterprise Product) D D Price level (for pcols in which Customer does not order an - Enterprise Product), Customer must select a desktop platform or any individual Enterprise Product before it can order Additional Products. The CAL selection must be the same across the Enterprise. The components of the current versions of any Enterprise Product are identified in the Product List. Please choose the Enrolled Affiliate's desktop option (Select l)-. Z Enterprise Desktop with MDOP ❑ Enterprise Desktop ❑ Professional Desktop with MDOP ❑ Professional Desktop ❑ Custom Desktop or Individual Enterprise Product Component(s): Select at least I component. (For full platform, Windows desktop, Office, and Client Access License components must all be selected.) ❑ Windows Desktop (includes Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade and Windows VDA): <Select One> ❑ Office: Office Professional Plus ❑ Client Access License: <Select One> For any Client Access Licenses, please indicate whether licensing by Desktop or User: User Unless stated/indicated otherwise, Microsoft will invoice Customer's Reseller in 3 equal annual installments. The first instailment will be invoiced upon Microsoft's acceptance of this Enrollment and thereafter on the anniversary of the Enrollment. All subsequent new Additional Products and true -ups are billed in full. EA2009EnrGov(AOC)(US)SLG(ENG)(Jul2G'I0) Page 4 of 4 Document X24-01112 haftmsolt• I Volume Licensing Enterprise Enrollment — State and Local Amendment ID W16 Proposal ID On the first page of the Enrollment, the following is added after the second paragraph: By entering into this Enrollment, the Enrolled Affiliate agrees that (1) it also has 250 or more Qualified Desktops; or (2) as a condition of entering into this Enrollment with 25-249 Qualified Desktops, Enrolled Affiliate has elected not to receive CD ROMs as part of the Enrollment and therefore no CD ROMs will automatically be shipped. If Enrolled Affiliate is enrolling with 25-249 Qualified Desktops and it would like to receive CD ROM Kits and updates, Enrolled Affiliate may order these through its Reseller for a fee. 2. The section entitled "Establishing Customer price level," is hereby amended and restated in its entirety with the following: Establishing Customer price level. The price level indicated in this section will be Customer's price level for the initial Enrollment term for all Enterprise Products Enrolled Affiliate orders and for any Additional Products in the same pool(s). Customer's price level for any other Additional Products will be level "D". Qualified Desktops: Enrolled Affiliate represents that the total number of Qualified Price level Desktops in its Enterprise is, or will be increased to, this number during the initial 2,400 to 5,999 term of this Enrollment (This number may be less than 250 desktops, but must be at 6,000 to 14,999 least 25 desktops). 15,000 and above Qualified Users: Enrolled Affiliate represents that the total number of Qualified Users in its Enterprise is, or will be increased to, this number during the initial term 65 of this Enrollment (This number may be less than 250 users, but must be at least 25 users). Number of desktops/users 1 to 2,399 Price level 2,400 to 5,999 6,000 to 14,999 15,000 and above Price level (for pools in which Qualified Qualified Customer orders an Enterprise Desktop User Product): D D Price level (for pools in which Customer does not order an Enterprise Price level "D" Product): 3 Software Assurance addition and migration. Renewing Software Assurance: If customer will be renewing Enterprise Products Software Assurance coverage from a separate agreement, check this box. 1 11 1 By checking the above box, a new section is added to the Enrollment entitled "Software Assurance addition and migration.": Customer is permitted to and will include in its initial order under this Enrollment the Software Assurance quantities identified in the table below (the 'New Software Assurance"), even though Customer is not otherwise eligible to order such Software Assurance without simultaneously ordering a License. EAEnrAmend (NA) (EN G)(J u n 2009) Sub 250 Enterprise Enrollment W W16 Pagel of 2 On behalf of Customer and its Affiliates, Customer agrees that any perpetual Licenses received through the New Software Assurance shall supersede and replace the underlying Licenses, and the underlying Licenses are not to be transferred separately from any Licenses received through the New Software Assurance. Any remaining payment obligations with respect to the underlying Licenses shall continue in effect. New Software Assurance replacing Underlying Licenses Only the Products listed above shall be orderable as Software Assurance. Any copies in excess of those quantities listed in the table above must be ordered as L&SA. This amendment must be attached to a signature form to be valid. EAEnrAmend(NA)(ENG)(Jun2009) Sub 250 Enterprise Enrollment W W16 Page 2 of 2 LAk -, , RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2011 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material D Emails from: Valerie Blitz and Murray Blitz; Len6e Bilski K Revised Resolution 1 Letter from Chip and Pat Zelt 3 Emails from: Donald M. Davis; Jim Gordon; Mark Wells 4 Email from Yvetta Williams with letter from John Nieto; Emails from: Gail J. Worth; Lisa Wolf, Laura and Jeff Feldman Respectfully submitted,. Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through Monday, October 31, 2011**. WAAGENCIN2011 Additions Revisions to agendas120111101 additions revisions to agenda.doc Front: Murray Blitz & Associates [murrayblitzassoc@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 12:46 PM To: cc@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com Subject: re: Ordinance Number 528 Hello City Council Members, Prior to approving, the above -referenced ordinance, we ask that you modify the Digital Zoning Map to make it consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map, as required by law, and consistent with any applicable deed restrictions as well. Please clarify the Digital Zoning Map to show passive or active on public parklands and parks, as shown on the 1975 General Plan Land Use Map. Please take Item D off the Consent Calendar to make these corrections prior to considering approval. Thank you Valerie Blitz Murray Blitz 11/1/2011 From: L. Bilski [Idb910@intergate.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 3:17 PM To: CC@rpv.com Cc: cariam@rpv.com; 1db910 Subject: Digital Zoning Map on CC Consent Calendar 11101/2011 Importance: High Nov. 1, 2011 Re: Digital Zoning Map consistency Dear Mayor and Council members, Please remove the DIGITAL ZONING MAP from the Consent Calendar for further discussion of consistency with the General Plan Land Use Map as there appears to be an ommission of specific parkland designations. The map should include the designations of the Recreational areas as either "active" or "passive" instead of just a non-specific "OR" just as the Residential areas are not designated simply as Residential, but specifically designated as to use: how many units per acre(R-1,R-2,R-3, etc.). Why not be specific about parklands? "OR -a" and "OR -p" as per the General Plan Map. Since the State law that requires Zoning maps and Ordinances to be consistent with the General Plan Map and since other changes have been made to this map already, it seems appropriate to make this small addition now to the Digital Zoning Map rather than later by simply adding a "p', or "a" after OR and one extra line on the Map Legend. Then this new map would be The classification lettering on all public parklands and parks should indicate "passive" or "active," as specified on the 1975 General Plan Land Use Map to avoid confusion in the future. It would also make it consistent with the General Plan Map as required by law. Thank you for your efforts for RPV! Lenee Bilski ----------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. Page I of I Leza Mikhail From: Leza Mikhail [LezaM@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:19 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: Revised Resolution for 6530 La Garita Attachments: Resolution 111 �1,11.doc Mayor Long and Council Members, In addition to the changes that were made and delivered to the City Council yesterday regarding the Resolution approving a new second story addition at 6530 La Garita, Staff has made the following changes: 1) A change to Section 6 of the Resolution was made to correct the addresses used to conduct a cumulative view impairment analysis. The correct addresses are 6538 La Garita, 6524 La Garita, 6525 Certa and 28073 Acana.. 2) A change to Section 5 and Condition No, 2-L)f the Resolution was made to clarify the language used to determine the point at which the height of the second story addition is measured from. Instead of using language which states that the height of the structure shall be measured from the highest existing grade adjacent to the structure to the highest point of the structure, staff has modified the language to read: "...as measured from the preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure ...the highest point of the new second floor addition." The revised resolution reflecting these changes are attached to this email. Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Faros Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.oalosverdes.r-om/mv/E)Iannin2/i)[anninp--zoninp-/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezamta"�.rpv.com 11/1/2011 RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING AN APPEAL AND OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW AND HEIGHT VARIATION (PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2010-00331) TO CONSTRUCT A 131 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY ADDITION AND A 1,139 SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6530 LA GARITA. WHEREAS, on September 20, 2010, the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Magalnic, submitted a Height Variation and Site Plan Review Permit application to the Community Development Department for review and processing requesting approval to construct a 131 square foot first -floor addition and a 1,467 square foot second story addition. On September 29, 2010, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of multiple revisions to the project, Staff deemed the application complete on December 16, 2010; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that the approval of the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review applications would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(e)(2)); and, WHEREAS, On February 8, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the submitted application, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. Based on the design originally presented to the Planning Commission, Staff was recommending denial of the project due to bulk and mass issues, view impairment to nearby residents along Santona Drive and potential privacy impacts to the abutting neighbors to the east and west of the subject property. Staff indicated that some minor modifications to the design of the project would likely mitigate the compatibility, view and privacy impacts to a less than significant level. The Planning Commission agreed with Staff's analysis, and continued the public hearing to April 26, 2011 to allow the applicant additional time to re -design the project; and, WHEREAS, on April 26, 2011, a revised design was presented to the Planning Commission based on direction from the Planning Commission on February 8, 2011 to lowerthe roofline 4'-0", reduce the second story setback from the front, sides and rear, and reduce potential privacy impacts to adjacent neighbors. Staff presented the revised design to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. After considering the revised design and additional information presented by neighbors at the April 26, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to deny the project on a 4-1-1 vote (with Chairman Tomblin dissenting, Commissioner Gerstner abstaining and Commissioner Knight absent) and directed Staff to return to the May 10, 2011 Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate resolution; and, a 0f IL) WHEREAS, on May 10, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 201121; thereby formally denying, without prejudice, Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00331) to construct a 1,250 square foot second story addition and 131 square foot first story addition to the existing single -story residence on a 2-0-2 vote (with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight abstaining, and Commissioners Emenhiser, Leon and Lewis absent); and, WHEREAS, on May 24, 2011, a representative far the property owner at 6530 La Garita, David Moss, submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the proposed second story addition. The appeal letter stated the grounds of the appeal; and, WHEREAS, on July 14, 2011 Staff mailed notices for a City Council appeal hearing to 107 property owners within a 500 -foot radius from the subject property, providing a 30 -day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on July 14, 2011; and, WHEREAS, on August 16, 2011, the City Council opened the public hearing and approved the Appellant's request to continue the public hearing to October 18, 2011; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY 'FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Height Variation is warranted since the applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process established by the City by obtaining signatures from a minimum of 70% (72% obtained) of the property owners within a 100 foot radius and the signatures from a minimum of 25% (29% obtained) of the property owners within a 500 foot radius. Section 2: The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story residence, which exceeds sixteen feet in height, does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails), which have been identified in the City's General Pian or Coastal Specific Plan, as City -designated viewing areas. No City -designated viewing areas overlook the subject property due to the topography in the area and the location of the subject property. Section 3: The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood, on an existing pad lot and does not overlook any other single-family residences. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Municipal Code. Section 4: The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, do not significantly impair views of the Pacific Ocean, coastline views, distant mountain views or distant city light views from the viewing area of another parcel due to the location of the Resolution No. 2011 - Page 2 of 9 proposed residence, orientation of the neighboring homes and topography in the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed revised project does not cause a significant view impairment to the property located at 6517 Certa Drive. A view analysis was conducted from a standing position in the primary viewing area of the residence (the dining room) just inside the sliding glass doors, facing the direction of the ocean, and the ocean was not easily visible. More specifically, the evidence presented in the record regarding an alleged view impairment as seen from the'viewing area' was not easily discernable because the ocean could only be seen when standing in the far corner of the dining room and turning one's head 90 degrees to the left to catch a glimpse of the ocean view. Section 5: The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed project that is above 16-0" in height is designed in a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view. Specifically, the properties located at 28070 and 28063 Santona incurred view impairment as a result of the originally designed project presented at the February 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, albeit not significant. The applicant redesigned the project by reducing the overall height from 25'-0" to 21'-0", as measured from the preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the highest point of the structure, to further reduce the insignificant view impairment caused by the project. Section 6: The Height Variation is warranted because no significant cumulative view impairment would be caused by granting the application. More specifically, an analysis was conducted assessing the amount of cumulative view impairment that would be caused to neighboring properties if a similar addition, such as the proposed project, were constructed on the following adjacent properties: 6538 La Garita, 6524 La Garita, 6525 Certa and 28073 Acana. It was determined that an addition to one of the other residences listed above (in addition to the project proposed at the subject property) would create some minor view impairment. However, the impairment would not be significant because the additions would be located at the lower portion of the view frame and would not project above the horizon line which allows a majority of the ocean view to remain unobstructed. As such, the cumulative impairment would not be significant. Section 7: The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements, including the RS -4 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage and setbacks, and the off-street parking requirements for single-family residences. Furthermore, due to the fact that the applicant is not proposing to demolish more than 50% of the existing interior and exteriorwalls, the existing 14'-8" front yard setback may be maintained. Section 8: The Height Variation is warranted because, as redesigned, the proposed facade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, and appearance of bulk and mass of the second story is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. While a majority of the homes located within the immediate neighborhood are single -story, there is one existing 3,497 square foot, two-story home located within the 20 closest analyzed homes, at 28070 Ella Road. With respect to the proposed second story addition, the applicant has reduced the square footage of the structure and provided a number of setbacks along the second story fagade to provide articulation from all sides of the structure, Resolution No. 2011 - Page 3 of 9 thereby increasing the open space between structures and reducing the appearance of bulk and mass. Section 9: The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed structure that is above 16'-0" in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. More specifically, windows are not proposed along the second -story east facing fagade; one transparent clerestory window is proposed along the west facing fagade, the windows along south facing fagade will have a transparent clerestory window with a "hopper" tilt -in opening on the top portion of the window, and a fixed and opaque pane on the bottom portion of the window. To ensure reasonable protection of the privacy of abutting neighbors, a Condition of Approval was added to require the bottom of the transparent clerestory windows along the south and west second -story facades to be a minimum of 5'-6", as measured from the bottom of the window to the adjacent finished second floor. In addition, the sliding windows that are required for emergency egress will be opaque and will face the interior of the project as opposed to the rear yard of the subject property, thereby limiting the visibility into neighboring properties if the windows were open. Section 10: The requested Site Plan Review application for 131 square feet of first floor addition meets the appropriate development code standards related to lot coverage, building height and setbacks for the RS -2 zoning district. Section 11: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution 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 1s1 day of November 2011. Mayor Attest: 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 above Resolution No. 2011-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on October 18, 2011. Resolution No. 2011 - Page 4 of 9 5 of /D City Clerk Resolution No. 2011 - Page 5 of 9 EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2010-00331 (Magalnic, 6530 La Garita) General Conditions: Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to any construction work in the Public Right -of -Way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of the Notice of Decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Director and approved by the Director. Resolution No. 2011 - Page 6 of 9 7 o� 10 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of the Notice of Decision. 10. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non- conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non- conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or the stamped APPROVED plans. 11. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 12. No more than 50% of any existing interior and exterior walls or existing square footage may be removed or demolished. Residential buildings that are remodeled or renovated such that 50% or greater of any existing interior or exterior walls or existing square footage is demolished or removed within a two-year period shall be considered a new residence and shall then conform to all current development standards for that zoning district and the most recently adopted version of the Uniform Building Code, 13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. 14. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 50% lot coverage (39% proposed) and the following setbacks from the applicable property lines: First Floor Setbacks Front 20'-0" feet (14'-8" existing, no change) East Side 5'-0" feet (8 '- 6 "existing, no change) West Side 5'-0" feet (7'-0" existing, no change) Resolution No. 2011 - Page 7 of 9 9 0�_ 10 Rear 15'-0" feet (40'-3" existing, no change) Second Floor Setbacks Front 42'-7 East Side 10'-6" West Side 9'-O" (south half of 2nd story facade); and 11'-1" (north half of 2„d story facade) Rear 40'-3" BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 15. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 16. A minimum 2 -car garage shall be provided, with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, with a minimum of 7 feet of vertical clearance. 17. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 18. All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 19. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. 20. All applicable permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained by the applicant prior to the commencement of construction. 21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City Municipal code requirements regarding wood -burning devices. Height Variation Conditions_ 22. This approval is for the construction of a 131 square foot first floor addition and a 1,139 square foot second floor addition to the existing 1,807 square foot single -story residence Resolution No. 2011 - Page 8 of 9 and garage. Upon completion of the proposed addition, the square footage of the residence would be 3,077 square feet, including the garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 23. The new residence shall maintain a maximum height of 21'-4", as measured from the preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure (elevation 99`-8") to the highest point of the new second floor addition. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ROOF FRAMINGISHEETING INSPECTION. 24. The chimney shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 25. The east side of the second story shall not have windows. 26. The one (1) window that is proposed along the west side of the second story shall be clerestory with a "hopper" tilt -in opening. The bottom of the clerestory window shall not be less than 5'-6" as measured from the interior second story floor. 27. The second story windows located along the south facing facade of the second story shall be fixed and opaque. Directly above each fixed window, a clerestory windowwith a "hopper" tilt -in opening is permitted. The bottom of the clerestory windows shall not be less than 5'-6" as measured from the interior second story interior floor. 28. The windows required for emergency egress near the south side of the residence shall face the interior of the residence, as depicted on the plans that were presented to and approved by the City Council. 29. The Applicant shall submit revised plans incorporating all of these conditions of approval prior to submission of an application for a Building Permit. Resolution No. 2011 - Page 9 of 9 ( a oc"- b 0 FW: SENT ON BEHALF OF DONALD M. DAVIS - Marymount College Comments on ... Page 1 of 1 Carla Morreale From: Davis, Donald M. [DDavis@bwslaw.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 4:56 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: Rodriguez, Irene J.; Michael Brophy; Carol W. Lynch Subject: FW: SENT ON BEHALF OF DONALD M. DAVIS - Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No. 3 Attachments: Attached.pdf Dear Councilmembers, It appears that you were not copied on the original email transmittal to Mayor Long. Please see the attached comment letter submitted on behalf of Marymount College with respect to Agenda Item No. 3 of tomorrow night's meeting. Regards, Donald M. Davis Partner Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 444 South Flower Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-236-0600 phone 213-236-2700 fax 213-236-2702 direct www.bwslaw.com From: Rodriguez, Irene 1. Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 4:14 PM To; 'tom.long@rpv.com' Cc; 'mbrophy@marymountpv.edu'; yreeves@maryrnountpv.edu; ']oelR@rpv.com'; 'tomo@rpv.com'; 'clynch@rwgiaw.com; Davis, Donald M. Subject: SENT ON BEHALF OF DONALD M. DAVIS - Letter to Tom Long Re: Request to Stay the Proposed Improper Modifications to the Marymount College CUP Regarding. Parking <<Attached.pdf>> 10/31/2011 X ,14 South Flower Street - Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90071-2953 voice 213.236.0600 - fax 213.236.2700 BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN. LLP www.bwslaw.corn Direct No.: 213.236.2702 Our File No.: 04693-0005 ddavis@bwslaw.com October 31, 2911 VIA E-MAIL & OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Tom Long, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Re: REQUEST TO STAY THE PROPOSED IMPROPER MODIFICATIONS TO THE MARYMOUNT COLLEGE CUP REGARDING PARKING Dear Mayor Long and Councilmembers: On behalf of Marymount College, we respectfully request that the City Council take no action at its meeting of November 1, 2011 on agenda item No. 3 (Marymount College — [Purported] Parking Management Strategies) because, as set forth below, (1) the proposed action in fact seeks to modify the terms and conditions of Marymount's Conditional Use Permit (CUP), (2) the proposed modifications have not been properly noticed in accordance with the City's Municipal Code and also do not comport with applicable due process requirements, and (3) there is a lack of substantial evidence to support to the proposed modifications to the CUP. THE PROPOSED ACTION SEEKS TO MODIFY THE PARKING CONDITIONS OF MARYMOUNT'S CUP. Under agenda item No. 3, City staff is asking the City Council to "affirm" one or any combination of three proposed measures "so that a minimum of 90 temporary parking spaces are provided on the College campus by...January 9, 2012." (Staff Report at p.3.) Although couched as "strategies" that the Community Development Director and Public Works Director have the purported discretion to implement under the CUP, in reality, the proposed action seeks to amend the terms and conditions of Marymount's CUP, which is readily apparent from a brief review of the record that led to the Council's approval of Revision "E" to CUP No. 9 in 2010, specifically as it pertains to Mitigation Measure TR -5 of the Final EIR (FEIR), which was restated as CUP Condition No. 158. a 0f- 5 Los Angeles - inland Empire - Oakland -- Grange County - Palmi Desert - Silicon Valley - Ventura Coonly BUPI_E, WILLIAMS " SC)rENSEIJ LLP Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No. 3 City Council Meeting of November 1, 2011 October 31, 2011 Page 2 Based on observed parking demand at the College, which has historically included legal street parking on Palos Verdes Drive East, it was determined that at full enrollment (793 students), there would be a peak hour demand for 519 parking spaces. Because the College was proposing to add 120 new spaces beyond the existing 343 spaces (463 spaces total) upon completion of Phase I of its campus master plan, the FEIR parking analysis estimated that there would be a potential deficiency of 56 spaces. (See attached FEIR Table 3.3-43.) In order to address this potential deficiency at build out of the new parking areas, Mitigation Measure TR -5 was recommended, which included parking management strategies in order to reduce off-site parking demand following the completion of the additional on-site parking areas in Phase 1. It is abundantly clear from the parking analysis of the approved FEIR that the primary intent behind the parking management strategies in Mitigation Measure TR -5 and the percentage reductions in demand associated with student enrollment, which terms were restated in Condition No. 158, was to reduce parking demand at or just prior to completion of the expanded parking areas and not to eliminate all street parking during the interim two-year period in which the College was permitted to complete Phase I under Condition No. 60. Accordingly, the burdensome and premature "interim" actions that Staff is asking the Council to approve must be viewed as a modification to the CUP. This is particularly true where, as here, the only truly feasible manner to create the 90 additional parking spaces now being demanded without impacting existing and approved campus operations is to create a 30,000 square foot temporary parking lot on the site of the proposed new athletic field for which construction is scheduled to start in less than six months. (See Comment No. 4 below regarding the details of this proposed temporary parking lot.) The City Council had the opportunity to preclude street parking and to require the construction of a temporary parking lot when it approved Revision "E" to the CUP in 2010. The Council chose not to do so at the time, and the CUP cannot now be amended without evidentiary support for such a change or in compliance with all applicable due process notice and hearing requirements. 2. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO MARYMOUNT'S CUP HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE AND APPLICABLE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS. A CUP creates certain property rights that may not be modified arbitrarily without cause or without proper notice and a hearing that comports with constitutional rights of due process. (See Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.AppAth 1281; Malibu Mountains Recreation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 67 Cal.AppAth 359; Community Development Com. v. City of BURKE \ViLLiAMS & SORrrv5LN, LLP Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No. 3 City Council Meeting of November 1, 2011 October 31, 2011 Page 3 Fort Bragg (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1124; Garavatti v. Fairfax Planning Com. (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 145; and City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 657.) Staff, in its rush to modify the CUP not only tramples upon these well-established constitutional principles, but ignores the applicable provisions of the City's own municipal code. Under Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code sections 17.60.100 and 17.86.060, the modification of any term of a CUP requires at least 10 -day's notice and a hearing. No such notice was provided to Marymount, which only learned about the proposed City Council action through a list -serve message that was sent by email after regular business hours on Thursday, October 27, 2011 — less than five days prior to the proposed action item on the Council's agenda, which is not a public hearing. The proposed action to modify the CUP violates not only Marymount's due process rights, but those of its neighbors as well who should have an opportunity to review and comment on the grading and construction activities associated with the creation of the 30,000 square foot, 90-sp2ce temporary parking lot that staff is requesting the Council mandate construction of within two month's time. (See Scott v. Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541 [neighbors entitled to due process notice on CUP matters].) Because the City has failed to comply with all applicable due process requirements associated with the proposed action to modify Marymount's CUP, the matter may not be considered at the November 1, 2011 meeting, and Marymount will not be sending any representatives to participate in such an unlawful proceeding. This letter will preserve the College's right to challenge any unlawful action that may knowingly and willfully be taken by the City Council subsequent to this notice of the constitutional infirmities associated with the subject agenda item. 3. THERE IS A LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT TO THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CUP. Equally as troubling as the deliberate avoidance of due process protections in this agenda item is the utter absence of any evidentiary basis to support the proposed modification of an existing condition/mitigation measure that seeks to "reduce" or "minimize" street parking to one that essentially seeks the eliminate all such lawful street parking before the expanded parking areas are even constructed. According to the staff report, staff has observed a maximum of 70-90 cars parked on the street during peak hours. As the proposed CUP modification would require the construction of a 90 -space temporary parking lot, it is clear that the modifications seek to eliminate any such lawful overflow parking. q of BUrt"E. WILLIAMS & SORENSH4. LLP Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No. 3 City Council Meeting of November 1, 2011 October 31, 2011 Page 4 In order to modify or revoke a validly issued permit, there must be substantial evidence to support such action. (See City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, supra, 180 Cal.App.2d 657, 669 [rejecting city interpretation of its own ordinance that a parking area must be constructed before issuance of building permit for a new building].) What then are the bases for the proposed modification to the CUP? According to the staff report, there are none other than staffs erroneous and overly aggressive interpretation of Condition No. 158 as requiring the elimination of any street parking prior to the construction of the additional 120 parking spaces in Phase I of the College's master plan. Staff concedes that there have been no complaints from any of the property owners abutting the public streets where students and visitors to the campus are lawfully parking: "Neither the City nor the College has received complaints form area residents regarding the street parking in front of homes or related disturbances." (Staff Report at p.2.) Indeed, in accordance with CUP Condition No. 138, Marymount met at the end of September with the designated representatives of the neighboring homeowner's associations along with City staff to discuss campus operations. None of these HOA representatives called for the elimination of street parking near the Marymount campus or demanded that the City take any special action with respect to street parking particularly of the nature being proposed here by staff in their attempt to modify the CUP.' Staff's contention that the parking management strategies utilized to date by the College have not been effective is equally untenable in light of the findings made the Council in the Final EIR. As noted above, it was assumed that there would be a demand for 519 parking spaces with full enrollment of 793 students, which would result in a deficiency of 176 spaces until the 120 additional parking spaces were constructed by September 2012. Marymount is at full enrollment this semester, and yet the highest number of vehicles counted on the streets (90) is about 50% less than forecast deficiency of spaces (176). While Marymount is continuing to work towards reducing this number further (and Marymount believes current peak overflow is more in the range of 50 vehicles), it cannot be said that what it has been done to date to reduce parking demand has been ineffective, particularly where, as here, there is no evidence that the situation is creating a public nuisance to the level that would justify the proposed elimination all legal street parking. In the absence of such substantial evidence, the City Council must reject the proposed modifications to the CUP. ' Although this meeting took place over one month ago, City staff, to Marymount's knowledge, has never provided the City Council with a report on this meeting as required by Condition No. 138. o� 9 R1JRK.E WILLV,MS L sorrrvstrv. LLP Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No. 3 City Council Meeting of November 1, 2011 October 31, 2011 Page 5 4. THE COUNCIL SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ANY SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION TO THE CUP PARKING CONDITIONS UNTIL IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COLLEGE IS UNABLE TO TIMELY COMPLETE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS. The staff report omits two key interactions between the College and City staff. On September 28, 2011, Mr. Mihranian met with representatives of the College and was shown a revised site plan that would allow the College to provide upwards of 500 spaces instead of the 463 currently proposed as part of Phase I, and was also informed that the College was preparing to submit this modified plan to the City. On October 25, 2011, City staff and representatives of the College had a conference call to explore additional parking management strategies. Staff suggested that the College's faculty could be made to park in San Pedro and take a shuttle to the campus, to which the College's representatives told staff in no uncertain terms that such a measure was not feasible because the majority of the teaching staff are adjunct faculty who teach at multiple campus and operate on very tight schedules. As such, the only potentially feasible strategy to provide additional interim parking appeared to be the creation of a temporary lot on the undeveloped portion of the campus.' The College's representatives told City staff that the College would look into the temporary lot and get back to staff at the earliest opportunity (not knowing that staff had already made up its mind to impose several new conditions and was scheduling the matter for City Council action at this meeting). On October 28, 2011, the College's project architect was advised by a civil engineering firm that the construction of a temporary lot of approximately 30,000 square feet sufficient to hold approximately 90 vehicles could potentially be constructed in the unimproved western area of the campus where the new athletic field is to be located and would cost around $75,000 (not including any permitting or processing fees or stormwater mitigation measures that could raise the costs to upwards of $100,000). A good portion of this work (e.g., gravel, drainage, etc.) would need to be removed and therefore would be wasted when the College proceeds with Phase I of its campus master plan. At this time, the College is working diligently towards the goal of proceeding with Phase I next summer, which would include the construction of the expanded on-site parking areas. If the College is unable to complete the work within the current CUP schedule (i.e., September 2012), and an extension is required, then the College would be prepared to accept as a condition to such extension, the construction of a temporary parking area for up to 90 vehicles before the start of the fall term next year (August 2012). This would avoid any potentially Staff's suggestions to convert the existing athletic field or to convert its basketball and tennis courts into parking lots were also deemed not feasible or desirable during the call because of the negative impact on existing programs. The so-called "valet parking" strategy was not mentioned by staff during the call, but as conceded in the letter sent to the College following day (see letter dated 10126/11 at p.4), it cannot independently achieve staff's proposed modification to the CUP to eliminate all street parking near the campus. 4a � BurQ-. wiLUAMS & SORENSEH. LLr Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No. 3 City Council Meeting of November 1, 2011 October 31, 2011 Page 6 wasteful expenditures and would be fully consistent with the two-year period to provide such parking that was incorporated into the City Council's 2010 approval of the project. In closing, Marymount is disappointed by the precipitous recommendation being made by staff to modify Marymount's CUP in the manner proposed. For the reasons set forth above, the College respectfully requests that the City Council refrain from such action. Sincerely, BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP DONALD M. DAVIS Attachment: Portion of Final EIR Parking Analysis (Page 3.3-42) cc: (Via E -Mail only) Dr. Michael Brophy Vice President Jim Reeves Joel Rojas, Community Development Director Tom Odom, Public Works Director Carol Lynch, City Attorney ATTACHMENT �-, DF 9 Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project Bachelor of Arts Degree Program Environmental Impact Report Appendix D Table 3.343 Mitigated Forecast Parking Demand Based on Observed Parking Ratio and RPVMC � � � .. Parkin Com onenl "; M F _; f? -ate 5'{A ';lx-� , �'_,�i t'eakNaur.ParkfrigSpaceDemanfl - 7 New Employees/Faculty' 4 793 Students - 543 AA Program students0.57 parked vehicles/student 310 - 250 BA Program students ' 0.57 parked vehicleststudent * 204 1.43 multiplier 5 Net New Student Seats (City Code:1 parking space per 5 1 student seats)z Subtotal Forecast Parking Spaces Required 519 Mitigation Measure: Parking Management Strategy (11% :57 Reduction applied to 519 demand) Total Forecast Parking Spaces Required 462 Parking Spaces Provided (343 existing + 120 added by 463 proposed project)3 Parking 5urpluslDeficiency +1 1 - Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code for Colleges and Universities for employee/faculty category. 2 - Based an City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code for Colleges and Universities. 3 - Based on site plan Rasmussen and Associates, November 2005). BA Program Existing Plus Project Parking Mitigation Measures: TR -5 Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall institute, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement and the Public Works Director, parking management strategies to reduce weekday College - related parking demand 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. Potential parking management strategies may include, but are not limited to, the following: ■ Provision of "carpool only" parking spaces; • Implementation of parking pricing for campus parking permits; • Utilization of remote parking; • Provision of increased shuttle services; • Offering financial Incentives; ■ Implementation of restrictions on parking allowed by residents of the Palos Verdes North f=acility, Public Review Draft - January 2010 3.3-42 Traffic and Circulation 9�F9 From: bubba32@cox.net Sent: Tuesday, November 01; 2011 10:00 AM To: Ara M Cc: cc@rpv.com Subject: 'Re: FW: SENT ON BEHALF OF DONALD M. DAVIS - Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No. 3 Attachments: Marympount Google picture img221.jpg Ara Thank you for Donald Davis's "Late Correspondence". This response was not unexpected by me. In my opinion, that communication is a Ply travesty of the first order. have a few preliminary comments and observations: 1.) The excuse presented by Davis/Marymount for not proceeding or complying is simply that the City (Joel, et al), have exceeded their authority under the COA. 2.) That the COA #158 does not supercede the College's "right" to continually defer such requested new parking (temporary) until September 30, 2012. l have already provided the documentation that Phase I is "Infeasible" as presently written - due to the time it will take to implement these initial new entitlements, and that the College, as a consequence, will necessarily have to close the campus for an unacceptable extended period of time. (Another copy of that analysis is available upon request) 3.) That the requested alternative of building a 30,000 sq. ft. new parking area (on the proposed area of the new soccer field) is onerous and could cost upwards of $100,000. The Tennis courts conversion would cost far less than that. 4.) That the College is now at "Full enrollment", a code word that admits (in my view) that their latest enrollment report is fictitious as it does not show that result. This needs to be further explored to obtain a compliant report under Condition # 146 as we have previously discussed. They are most likely at well over 800 students now. 5.) The College is implicitly stating that they are willing - as a concession for extension of their expiring entitlements - to construct just such a requested parking lot for the Fall 2012 term - if a.) Their proposed Phase I is incomplete or not started at that time, and b.) an extension is granted. Why not now? 6. The College has ruled out the remaining three other alternatives summarily, without giving any detailed reasons other than "undesirable" or infeasible. Construction and modification of the Tennis Courts area is entirely feasible and beneficial to the College's own students (see my prior e-mail 1111/2011 1 0 / LP data) and very cost-effective. 7.) Alternative arrangements can easily be made by the College to accommodate their ongoing athletic programs that might be affected. Not commented on for obvious reasons. 8.) In the DER, Don Davis made unsubstantiated, erroneous and obviously false statements and arguments against development of the College's PV North facility which have proven to be without merit and which are documented in the Comment letters to have been misleading and false at that time. (I wrote them). Nothing new from Davis here about misleading the City again. 9.) Fact! The College has had no problem adding 100+ new residential beds at PV North to date as well as adding 129 new parking spaces there. The College has therefore sacrificed its own students' parking convenience by not proceeding with added parking at the PUDE campus 10.) The FEIR referred to by Davis allows operation of a 4 -year program which the College is now enjoying. That study envisioned an additional 120 space parking addition that the College wishes nbow to defer until Fall 2012. That is the issue here as so stated by Davis. The promise was to have one extra on -campus space (+1 in that table) for parking on campus. That is assuredly a guarantee of no -on -street parking, not 70 - 90 parked continually on adjacent streets. 11.) The alternative of converting the existing tennis courts (43,500 sq. ft. minimum) is entirely feasible and cost-effective. The College and Davis have failed to deliver and cogent or detailed reasons for rejecting this option out of hand. Why? 12.) Davis is contending that the College has a "right" to park on the streets notwithstanding their acceptance of the COA. 13.) 1 believe that the College is in fact well over their enrollment limit at this time and that is an Achilles heel issue for them to submit any further plans, etc. when fully explored. 14.) The Don Davis letter conveniently omits the latest 99 Seniors who would be allowed to audit the College's programs per Dr. Brophy's latest offer. That offer - by definition of the "full enrollment" situation, would obviously put the College over that limit. This is in need of further review. 15.) The ADA requirements for Nlarymount with any additional enrollments would also need to be included in any computation of extra parking. Such additions can easily be accommodated by the proposed alternate of using the Tennis Courts area. 16.) The Davis Letter is simply a legalistic way of further snubbing the City and the fundamental purpose of these agreements - not to mention the repeated promises by the College to take parking off these same streets. 17.) There have been complaints daily - by our review of overflow parking - some of which reports have been transmitted to the City from time to time. 11/1/2011 02 of ( 18.) Whether or not there has not yet been City action to close on -street parking to College students is irrelevant and may now be an action that should be pursued. The College did not use this argument to avoid their acceptance of those conditions to remove on -street parking. 19.) 1 am shocked at the lack of consideration by Davis and the College at wanting to continue to inconvenience large numbers of their students with excessive additional transit and travel distances to get to and from classes. The solution is readily at hand and there are viable feasible alternatives to conversion of those Tennis Courts, etc. 20.) Contrary to Davis's contention that there have not been over 90 vehicles on the streets, see last Thursday's count of 103 vehicles, and this does not include provision for the proposed added 99 Seniors who would audit Marymount classes. Are Seniors supposed to walk the extra distances as I have shown you in my last e-mail (average of an extra 1,684' (a third of a mile+)? 21.) 1 do not believe that it is in the College's best interests to pursue this case as might be suggested by Davis's rather litigious and threatening letter. They have issues better left unrevealed. There are a number of vulnerabilities by the College since we are talking about a situation that is less than a year away from ultimate resolution (August 2012) by admission of Davis's letter. The College is most likely vulnerable to now having excess enrollments that are in fact over the limit which will be an issue in any contentious hearing and will support the City's position to deny further extensions, etc. in the first place. Further, if this proves true, the College will have been guilty of covering up this non-compliance. 22.) 1 believe that the City is actually in a position to obtain implementation of the alternative on-site parking as demanded now in the Staff Report recommendations and that the College is not in as strong a position to not comply as might otherwise seem the case superficially.. I have attached for your interest and reference a Google earth photo of the campus showing at least 80 vehicles parked on city streets. Using Google's available tools, computations were made as to the average distances from the mid -point of each of these streets to the front entry of the Classroom building From the proposed alternative use of the tennis courts area to that front entry is 262. From the weighted average of the on -street parking areas it is 1,104' to that same entryway, or an additional 842' (one way) for each and every on -street parked student, or a total of 1,684' extra distance per each student, daily who parks off - campus. Where is the College's priority for its own students? MA ---- Ara M Karam@rpv.com> wrote: > FYI. > This is late correspondence. > > 11!1/2011 _; 0f- ze > Ara Michael Mihranian > > Deputy Director of Community Development > > City of Rancho Palos Verdes > > 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. > > Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 > > 310-544-5228 (telephone) > 310-544-5293 (fax) > > aram@rpv.com > > www.palosverdes.com/rpv > > P 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: Davis, Donald M. [mailto:DDavis cc bwslaw.com] • Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 4:56 PM > To: cc@rpv.com > Cc: Rodriguez, Irene J.; Michael Brophy; Carol W. Lynch > Subject: FW: SENT ON BEHALF OF DONALD M. DAVIS - Marymount College Comments > on Agenda Item No. 3 > > Dear Councilmembers. > It appears that you were not copied on the original email transmittal to > Mayor Long. Please see the attached comment letter submitted on behalf of > Marymount College with respect to Agenda Item No. 3 of tomorrow night's > meeting. > > Regards, > 0 > Donald M. Davis > Partner 11/1 /2011 E > Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP > 444 South Flower Street > Suite 2400 > Los Angeles, CA 90071 > 213-236-0600 phone > 213-236-2700 fax > 213-236-2702 direct > <http://www.bwslaw.com> www.bwslaw.com > > a > > From: Rodriguez, Irene J. > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 4:14 PM > To: 'tom.long@rpv.com' > Cc: 'mbrophy@marymountpv.edu'; 'jreeves@marymountpv.edu'; > 'JoelR@rpv.com'; 'tomo@rpv.com'; 'clynch@rwglaw.com'; Davis, Donald M. > > Subject: SENT ON BEHALF OF DONALD M. DAVIS - Letter to Tom Long > Re: Request to Stay the Proposed Improper Modifications to the Marymount > College CUP Regarding Parking > > <<Attached.pdf>> > 11/1/2011 -5 of 6 _1 •�1 Or •s ��11 �Ar Al = liiw .ted Iir �, ..; by ��. - , �r� •1�+. i • 1 --MAI f � 4 1 .Ita r L _L__' 3 - Fnni- ann �• J From: bubb232@cox.net Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 12:29 PM To: cram@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com Subject: Dan Davis and Misinformation submitted to the City of RPV Ara. et al As mentioned to you in my preceding e-mail that commented on Don Davis's questionable letter and misleading information regarding Staffs Parking Recommendations slated for review by the City Council this evening, I am submitting as follow-up documentation my referenced example of Attorney Davis's misstatements of August 27, 2007 to the City of RPV. Those misstatements relate to the proposed alternative use of the College's San Pedro PV North site for additional residential and classroom facilities. Such alternative uses have now been proven correct by the Colleges revelations of their 50 & 20 year plans for this site to the City of Los Angeles. According to the College, "The Palos Verdes Drive North San Pedro Master Plan centers on developing a small college campus where students will live, attend classes and study" said Dr. Brophy. "First steps will be include the construction of an aesthetically pleasing parking lot (129 spaces) to curtail street parking on Palos Verdes Drive North, as well as a maintenance facility, and upgrading the existing townhomes to accommodate the growing need for student housing." Don Davis, in his letter of August 27, 2007 had stated that all this was not feasible, making at least seven (7) specific points in denial: He disputed 1.) "The College was never consulted regarding this alternative" (Use of the PV North property for additional residential accommodations, etc.) In point of fact, "The College has been fully aware of the Alternative of a "Living Campus/Academic Campus" since the initial scoping sessions of the original Ei R (2002)" 2.) Davis's first (#1) point that "The site is outside the lead agency's jurisdiction" and 3.) (#2) that "This site's land -use designation is inconsistent with the project" have proven to be irrelevant, false and misleading per CEQA and given present day events. 4.) His next controverted point (#4) was that "The site is not economically viable;" which has proven to be just the opposite based on Marymounts' 20 year plan. In fact, this is the site of choice over the next few years whereas the approved entitlements at the RPV campus have proven to be econometrically daunting by comparison. 1111/2011 / p/ �- 5.) Davis's Point #5 that "The site is incompatible With Surrounding Land Uses" is laughable in that Rolling Hills Preparatory School (RHP) - a compatible -use neighbor) was actually up and running with a completely new campus under exactly the same deed conveyance conditions as Marymount College was given - all within three years of their property transfer. 6.) Davis's next brilliant point (#6) was that "The site Presents Seismic Constraints" seemingly contradicted and is not any problem at all given Marymount's planned uses as detailed in their 20 year Plan submitted recently to the City of Los Angeles. 7.) Davis's final complaint submitted (his point #7) was that "There are Significant Environmental Effects in Developing the Off -Site Location". The facts are that the College's own Environmental report describes no such Significant Environmental effects, and in fact states just the opposite with respect to Marymount's planned developments at that site. That Reports states "No impacts directly associated with implementation of the proposed action..were deemed to be significant." Accordingly, and based on direct evidence of previous statements submitted to the City of RPV by Attorney Davis, I find that his presentations, claims and arguments are significantly misleading, false, improper and therefore should be received and dealt with as such. believe that contained in Attorney Davis's latest submittal to the City of RPV (October 31, 2011) there are similar omissions, misstatements and allegations that are without merit and that have been purposely or otherwise been included to deceive and misrepresent the circumstances being considered by the City Council. Jim Gordon ]1/1/2011 C�_ � f From. bubba32@cox.net Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:09 PM To: cram@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com Subject: Parking Conditions of Approval, parts one and Two Ara, et al In his October 31, 2011 letter to the City, Attorney Davis apparently is disputing Staffs Interpretation of part two of Condition #158 that "Prior to the completion of Phase I...) . This rejection is based on the presumption that the City is somehow seeking a modification of the terms of the COA. Without further addressing that convoluted logic, there can be no such claim made regarding the basic GOA #158 requirement - stated as an absolute - that "The applicant shall construct and maintain no fewer than 463 on-site parking spaces..." This portion of COA #158 was modified on August 2, 2011 by a decision of the City Council to "interpret" that portion of Condition #158 as being related to the beginning of construction, rather than apply immediately. I believe that decision should be re -visited in the event the College continues to seek another 10 months of parking deferral. The College has now admitted and conceded that they need to increase parking capacity on a temporary basis at worse, that they are willing to implement in August 2012. Why wait? Please consider that the City Council - if necessary - has the ability to re -visit their August 2, 2011 "interpretation" and fully require what the College promised to do without any further time delay or qualification whatsoever. Jim 11/1/2011 From: Mark R Wells jmtwellsa@pacbell.retj Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:15 AM To: RPV City Council Cc: Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Eric Alegria; Ken Dyda; Dave emenhiser, Jim Knight; Dora de la Rosa Subject: Re: Regular New Business (Agenda Item 3) Marymount College — Parking Management Strategies f 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East (Mihranian) Council members and future council members; Tonight, our City Council members may affirm Staff s current approach of utilizing Condition No. 158. I strongly urge council members to do more than simply affirm Staff's report concerning whether Marymount College officials are implementing the language within 'Condition No. 158. I believe that there must be more than just 'good faith' measures from Marymount College officials if reports from these individual are true and they want a much longer period of time to implement The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project's phasing and any increase in the student population limits at Marymount's Rancho Palos Verdes Campus. As part of any vote by the council tonight, regarding this item, some new language could be created in any motion stating something similar to; As a demonstration by representatives of Marymount College that they understand the need to follow all current conditions, especially successfully implementing Condition No. 158, any council vote to allow any request to extend the overall period of time to complete all phases of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and any vote to allow an increase in student population at Marymount's main campus be contingent of the completion of the redevelopment of the main campus` parking lot by September 30, 2012. My thought on this addition to any motion made tonight is based on currently informal requests made by some Marymount officials at a time when Staff has been attempting to deal with conditions where it has be obvious some of those same Marymount officials have seemed to not take current conditions, seriously enough. Even though reports have stated that Marymount College officials allowed for the expenditures of over 7 million dollars on recent projects in San Pedro, little has been demonstrated in ways to deal adequately with Condition No. 158, in Rancho Paios Verdes. Marymount officials seem to be requesting what many feel are'major' changes in the time line of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, but it appears they are 'dragging their feet' on following current guidelines. It seems to set a bad example when an institution is seemingly not following current guidelines when they are asking for more work by our Staff and more discussions, votes and agreements, and greater work by our council members. I feel it is time for Marymount officials to demonstrate more good faith gestures when they may soon be requesting more from our city, its Staff and its residents. Regards. Mark Wells Rancho Palos Verdes 11/1/2011 Chip and Pat Zelt 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 40275 October 31, 2011 Attn: Gregory Pfost Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3094o Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Greg: Seems a future council will be hearing the same proposed revision for trees at the end of the driving range. But since it is on the agenda would like to say a few words: We are not in favor of any proposed view -blocking wall of trees at the westerly end of the driving range. For it serves no purpose but to block views. I cannot see how any future council or current member can vote for a wall of trees at the end of the driving range for it is in direct violation of Revision "W". And the original conditions of approval of the driving range. Please see Resolution No. 2005-62: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR REVISION "W" — DRIVING RANG on Page 12 of 13, under Mitigation Measures #10 A-1: 1110. aesthetics A-1: Subject to review and approval by the Director 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." Page 1 of 3 Chip and Pact Zelt 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Also violates the original conditions of approval for the Driving Range, per Resolution No. 2005-64 Page 9 of 15 section K #2-b: "2. Prior to installation of the permanent landscaping for the golf course and associated structures, including the driving range, the developer shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for review and approval of the clubhouse, golf course and appurtenant structures, driving range, parking lots, and all open space areas within the boundaries of the parcel maps and/or tract maps, roadway medians and public trails. The final landscape and irrigation plans shall conform to California State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (per State Assembly Bill 325) and shall include the following: a. A minimum of eighty percent (80%) drought tolerant plant materials for all landscaped areas. b. 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. A vote for this hedge is simple wrong. It is not an individual opinion you are disagreeing with but actual conditions the entire community fought for when Mr. Trump's organization wanted a driving range. He made a deal with the community and now wants to break that deal. It's my hope that future Councils will read Revision "W" and original conditions for the approval of the driving Range, prior to voting for any westerly view blocking hedge. Yes, Mr. Trump does do a lot of good for the community charity and fund raising opportunities but does these things to generate interest and make money at his clubhouse and golf course in return. The Trump organization simply does not care about the usage conditions or decisions that our City Council places on the driving range. Such as: not removing as directed by the Council in early 2008 the ficus trees from his property for now over 3 years. Need I mention the way he went about installing the trees in the first place or the flag pole or taking out large areas of natural habitat to make the golf course better in his view. Certainly Trump makes it difficult for neighbors and the public by not complying with these conditions. I am aware that the Trump organization can ask the City Council for a revision to the original conditions. But the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council imposed these conditions when it approved the Trump Driving range in order to protect the public and surrounding neighbors from further loss of their views. Also so far our Page 2 of 3 Chip and Pat Zelt 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 community has not heard a word from the Trump Organization seems the only reach out they intend is for supporting candidates that would vote their way. Would like to thank the current Mayor and City Council for their excellent service to our community and wish that future Councils will be as fair in there considerations that come before them. Thank you. Sincerely, Chip and Pat Zelt Cc: Thomas D. Long — Mayor. Anthony M. Misetich, Mayor Pro Tem Douglas W. Stern —Councilmember Brian Campbell —Councilmember Stefan Wolowicz —Councilmember Page 3 of 3 From: Yvetta Williams [yvettawill@cox.netj Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:15 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject; support for NCCP Preserve management. We are in complete with support for NCCP Preserve management agreement. Please help this become a reality. Thank you Richard and Yvetta Williams PALOS VERDESISOUTH BAY AUDUBON SOCIETY P.O. Box 2582 Palos Verdes peninsula, CA 90274 November 1, 2011 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verde, CA 90274 Re: Support NCCP Preserve Management Agreement Dear Mayor Long and Members of the City Council, The Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society strongly supports the proposed Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) Preserve Management Agreement before you and urges its adoption. With this carefully considered agreement in place, there will be clear guidelines for both the City and of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy to carry out their duties as required by the NCCP. This agreement builds on local past experience to flesh out the duties of each party clearly so that preserve management can be carried out with the least questioning of who is to do what and when. The NCCP is a large-scale Southern California conservation plan whose showcase example is our own Palos Verdes Peninsula Plan. The several parcels of land acquired for our NCCP preserve through governmental funding made available to protect our natural heritage, the California gnatcatcher in particular, make up much of the open space in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Thus, there is a clear need for all of us to honor the commitments made in those acquisitions. The management agreement before you does this and will, once adopted, constitute one more example of why the Palos Verdes Peninsula NCCP is so special. Thank you for consideration of this matter, Sincerely yours, John Nieto President 11/1/2011 -�q From: Gailataves@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:26 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Please approve new mgmt. agreement for PVPLC. thank -you! Best Regards, Gail J. Worth 76 Narcissa Dr. RPV, CA 90275 11/1/2011 From: Laura Feldman [pbrcl@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:39 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject. Nature Preserve Managemenet Agreement Just wanted to weigh in that starting over with another organization to manage the preserve would cost more time and money. Let's keep the organization we have in place, We are in favor of a new management agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. Lisa Wolf Laura and Jeff Feldman All residing at 40 Narcissa Dr. RPV, CA 90275 11/1/2011 LAk - ', RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 31, 2011 SUBJECT: ADDITIONSIREVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, November 1, 2011 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material D Email exchange between City Attorney Lynch and Sharon Yarber; Email exchange between Staff and Sharon Yarber; Email from Dena Friedson K Revised Resolution 3 Email from Jim Gordon 4 Email from Pippa Davies, Jeremy Davies, Lisa Gladstone and Dr. Milt Owens 6 Email from Lynn Swank Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale waAGENDA12011 Additions Revisions to agendas120111101 additions revisions to agenda through Monday aftemoon.doc Page 1 of 2 From: Carol W. Lynch [CLynch@rwglaw.coml Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 8:08 AM To: 'sharon yarber; cc@rpv.com; gpfost@rpv.com; Joel Rojas; 'Abigail Harwell' Subject: RE: Digital Zoning Map - Agenda Item D on consent calendar for 11/1/11 mtg. Good morning Sharon. Your understanding is correct. The adoption of this ordinance converts the pre-existing zoning map, which was depicted on paper, and adopts the digitized version as the City's official version instead. Other than incorporating prior amendments to the zoning map, which had been adopted previously by the City Council over the years at duly notice public hearings, no changes were made to the zoning map as a result of the conversion of the official map from paper to the digital map. The adoption of the digitized zoning map makes no change to the General Plan Land Use Map or to any other provision of the General Plan. I trust this answers your question. Carol From: Sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmaiLcom] Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:35 PM To: cc@rpv.com; gpfost@rpv.com; Carol W. Lynch, Joel Rojas Subject: Digital Zoning Map - Agenda Item D on consent calendar for 11/1/11 mtg. Would one or more of you be kind enough to confine that adoption of the digital zoning map as the official zoning map does not in any way delete or alter the General Plan Land Use Map that shows certain OR sites as passive and others as active recreation? As I understand It, the zoning map simply shows the zoning - not the specific land use designation as called for in the General Plan and its Land Use Map. I am sure all of you realize I am concerned about the staffs recent attempt to amend the General Plan to delete the distinctions between "active" and "passive', and simply designate all parks as either "Park" or "Golf Course", to which effort I and a mmniber of others vehemently objected. Of course, the first thing on my mind is Lower Point Vicente, but other parks would be affected as well (Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, for example). Assuming my understanding is correct, and that the adoption of this digital zoning map does not affect the General Plan Land Use Map and in no way implements the elimination of tile distinctions between active and passive, then I have no objection to this agenda item. However, I want official confirination, especially from Carol Lynch, that my understanding is correct. If my understanding is not correct, or Carol does not respond, then please consider this email a formal objection to Item D on the agenda for this coming Tuesday. I look forward to hearing from someone. Thank you, I 10/31/2011 Page 2 of 2 Sharon Yarber NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 10/3 1 /2 0 11 Teri Takaoka From: Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv,com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 9:35 AM To: 'sharon yarber' Cc: cc@rpv.com; 'Carol W. Lynch'; 'Joel Rojas; 'Carolyn Lehr Subject: RE: Digital Zoning Map - Agenda Item D on consent calendar for 1111111 mtg. Hi Sharon - I received your email message regarding the Digital Zoning Map. You are correct that the digital zoning map does not in any way delete or alter the General Plan Land Use Map and in no way eliminates the distinctions between active and passive recreation on the General Plan Land Use Map. The Digital Zoning Map is simply converting our existing paper Zoning Map to a Digital format and does not change any land uses on the Zoning Map or the General Plan Land Use Map. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks. -Greg. Sincerely, Gregory Pfost, AICD Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5228 -----original Message ----- From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.coml Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:37 PM To: Greg Pfost Subject: Fwd: Digital Zoning Map - Agenda Item D on consent calendar for 11/1/11 mtg. I had the wrong email address for the first attempt. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.comn Date: Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:35 PM Subject: Digital Zoning Map - Agenda Item D on consent calendar for 11/1/11 mtg. To: cc@rpv.com, gpfost@rpv.com, "Carol W. Lynch" <clynch@rwglaw.com>, Joel Rojas <joelr@rpv.coma Would one or more of you be kind enough to confirm that adoption of the digital zoning map as the official zoning map does not in any way delete or alter the General Plan Land Use Map that shows certain OR sites as passive and others as active recreation? As I understand it, the zoning map simply shows the zoning - not the specific land use designation as called for in the General Plan and its Land Use Map. I am sure all of you realize I am concerned about the staff's recent attempt to amend the General Plan to delete the distinctions between "active" and "passive', and simply designate all parks as either "Park" or "Golf Course", to which effort I and a number of others vehemently objected. of course, the first thing on my mind is Lower Point Vicente, but other parks would be affected as well (Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, for example). Assuming my understanding is correct, and that the adoption of this digital zoning map 1 4�— Z D does not affect the General Flan Land Use Map and in no way implements the elimination of the distinctions between active and passive, then I have no objection to this agenda item. However, I want official confirmation, especially from Carol Lynch, that my understanding is correct. If my understanding is not correct, or Carol does not respond, then please consider this email a formal objection to Item D on the agenda for this coming 'Tuesday. I look forward to hearing from someone. Thank you, Sharon Yarber 2 c� 2 Page 1 of 1 From: dena friedson [difriedson@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:04 PM To: cc@rpv.com; gregp@rpv.com; dlfriedson@gmaii.com Subject: Ordinance Number 528 To: Mayor Tom Long and all Members of the City Council and Greg Pfost From: Dena Friedson Re: Ordinance 528 I apologize for not paying attention to the Digital Zoning Map and Ordinance Number 528 until this past weekend. The Map is blurred and hard to read on my computer. Revisions have been properly made to the Digital Zoning Map to reflect previous zone changes. Before final approval is given for the above Ordinance, please take Item D off the Consent Calendar and make another small but very important correction. The classification lettering on all public parklands and parks should indicate "passive" or "active," as shown on the 1975 General Plan Land Use Map. Simply add a "p" or an "a" after the OR on each public recreational open space area and adjust the legend accordingly. This would remove questions about permitted activities. It also would make the Digital Zoning Map consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map, as required by State law, and with applicable Federal and State deed restrictions. (Within the limitations of the General Plan Map, the Zoning Map is supposed to be more specific than the General Plan Map. In this case, with respect to recreation, the opposite is true. The "OR" on the Zoning Map seems to allow all types of recreation, even golf, on the different parklands and parks. This can be confusing to the general public.) Your meeting on November 1 seems to be an appropriate time to correct the Digital Zoning. Map and to provide the State -mandated designations. Hopefully, you will consider this matter favorably. 10131x'2011 _ RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING AN APPEAL AND OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW AND HEIGHT VARIATION (PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2010-00331) TO CONSTRUCT A 131 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY ADDITION AND A 1,139 SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6530 LA GARITA. WHEREAS, on September 20, 2010, the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Magalnic, submitted a Height Variation and Site Plan Review Permit application to the Community Development Department for review and processing requesting approval to construct a 131 square foot first -floor addition and a 1,467 square foot second story addition. On September 29, 2010, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of multiple revisions to the project, Staff deemed the application complete on December 16, 2010; 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 16000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that the approval of the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review applications would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(e)(2)); and, WHEREAS, On February 8, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the submitted application, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. Based on the design originally presented to the Planning Commission, Staff was recommending denial of the project due to bulk and mass issues, view impairment to nearby residents along Santona Drive and potential privacy impacts to the abutting neighbors to the east and west of the subject property. Staff indicated that some minor modifications to the design of the project would likely mitigate the compatibility, view and privacy impacts to a less than significant level. The Planning Commission agreed with Staff's analysis, and continued the public hearing to April 26, 2011 to allow the applicant additional time to re -design the project; and, WHEREAS, on April 26, 2011, a revised design was presented to the Planning Commission based on direction from the Planning Commission on February 8, 2011 to lower the roofline 4'-0", reduce the second story setback from the front, sides and rear, and reduce potential privacy impacts to adjacent neighbors. Staff presented the revised design to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. After considering the revised design and additional information presented by neighbors at the April 26, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to deny the project on a 4-1-1 vote (with Chairman Tomblin dissenting, Commissioner Gerstner abstaining and Commissioner Knight absent) and directed Staff to return to the May 10, 2011 Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate resolution; and, WHEREAS, on May 10, 2091, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2011-21; thereby formally denying, without prejudice, Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00331) to construct a 1,250 square foot second story addition and 131 square foot first story addition to the existing single -story residence on a 2-0-2 vote (with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight abstaining, and Commissioners Emenhiser, Leon and Lewis absent); and, WHEREAS, on May 24, 2011, a representative for the property owner at 6530 La Garita, David Moss, submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the proposed second story addition. The appeal letter stated the grounds of the appeal; and, WHEREAS, on July 14, 2011 Staff mailed notices for a City Council appeal hearing to 107 property owners within a 500 -foot radius from the subject property, providing a 30 -day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on July 14, 2011; and, WHEREAS, on August 16, 2011, the City Council opened the public hearing and approved the Appellant's request to continue the public hearing to October 18, 2011; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Height Variation is warranted since the applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process established by the City by obtaining signatures from a minimum of 70% (72% obtained) of the property owners within a 100 foot radius and the signatures from a minimum of 25% (29% obtained) of the property owners within a 500 foot radius. Section 2: The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story residence, which exceeds sixteen feet in height, does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails), which have been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as City -designated viewing areas. No City -designated viewing areas overlook the subject property due to the topography in the area and the location of the subject property. Section 3: The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood, on an existing pad lot and does not overlook any other single-family residences. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Municipal Code. Section 4: The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, do not significantly impair views of the Pacific Ocean, coastline views, distant mountain views or distant city light views from the viewing area of another parcel due to the location of the Resolution No. 2011- age2 of 9 proposed residence, orientation of the neighboring homes and topography in the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed revised project does not cause a significant view impairment to the property located at 6517 Certa Drive. A view analysis was conducted from a standing position in the primary viewing area of the residence (the dining room) just inside the sliding glass doors, facing the direction of the ocean, and the ocean was not easily visible. More specifically, the evidence presented in the record regarding an alleged view impairment as seen from the `viewing area' was not easily discernable because the ocean could only be seen when standing in the far corner of the dining room and turning one's head 90 degrees to the left to catch a glimpse of the ocean view. Section 5: The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed project that is above 16'-0" in height is designed in a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view. Specifically, the properties located at 28070 and 28063 Santona incurred view impairment as a result of the originally designed project presented at the February 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, albeit not significant. The applicant redesigned the project by reducing the overall height from 25'-0" to 21'-0", as measured from highest existing grade adjacent to the foundation/slab to the highest point of the structure, to further reduce the insignificant view impairment caused by the project. Section 6: The Height Variation is warranted because no significant cumulative view impairment would be caused by granting the application. More specifically, an analysis was conducted assessing the amount of cumulative view impairment that would be caused to neighboring properties if a similar addition, such as the proposed project, were constructed on the following adjacent properties: 6538 La Garita, 6529 La Garita, 6525 La Garita and 28073 Acana. It was determined that an addition to one of the other residences listed above (in addition to the project proposed at the subject property) would create some minor view impairment. However, the impairment would not be significant because the additions would be located at the lower portion of the view frame and would not project above the horizon line which allows a majority of the ocean view to remain unobstructed. As such, the cumulative impairment would not be significant. Section 7: The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements, including the RS -4 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage and setbacks, and the off-street parking requirements for single-family residences. Furthermore, due to the fact that the applicant is not proposing to demolish more than 50% of the existing interior and exterior walls, the existing 14'-8" front yard setback may be maintained. Section 8: The Height Variation is warranted because, as redesigned, the proposed facade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, and appearance of bulk and mass of the second story is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. While a majority of the homes located within the immediate neighborhood are single -story, there is one existing 3,497 square foot, two-story home located within the 20 closest analyzed homes, at 28070 Ella Road. With respect to the proposed second story addition, the applicant has reduced the square footage of the structure and provided a number of setbacks along the second story fagade to provide articulation from all sides of the structure, Resolutio Page 3 of 9 thereby increasing the open space between structures and reducing the appearance of bulk and mass. Section 9: The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed structure that is above 16'-0" in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. More specifically, windows are not proposed along the second --story east facing fagade; one transparent clerestory window is proposed along the west facing fagade; the windows along south facing fagade will have a transparent clerestory window with a "hopper" tilt -in opening on the top portion of the window, and a fixed and opaque pane on the bottom portion of the window. To ensure reasonable protection of the privacy of abutting neighbors, a Condition of Approval was added to require the bottom of the transparent clerestory windows along the south and west second -story facades to be a minimum of 5`-6", as measured from the bottom of the window to the adjacent finished second floor. In addition, the sliding windows that are required for emergency egress will be opaque and will face the interior of the project as opposed to the rear yard of the subject property, thereby limiting the visibility into neighboring properties if the windows were open. Section 10: The requested Site Plan Review application for 131 square feet of first floor addition meets the appropriate development code standards related to lot coverage, building height and setbacks for the RS -2 zoning district. Section 11: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution 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 15t day of November 2011. Mayor Attest: 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 above Resolution No. 2011-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on October 18, 2011.. Resolutio Page 4 of 9 � City Clerk Resolution —2.Q' Page 5 of 9 EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2010-00331 (Magainic, 6530 La Garita) General Conditions: 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to any construction work in the Public Right -of -Way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 4. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 5. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 6. if the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of the Notice of Decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Director and approved by the Director. Resolution No. 2011 - age 6of9 7. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 8. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of the Notice of Decision. 10. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non- conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non- conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or the stamped APPROVED plans. 9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10. No more than 50% of any existing interior and exterior walls or existing square footage may be removed or demolished. Residential buildings that are remodeled or renovated such that 50% or greater of any existing interior or exterior walls or existing square footage is demolished or removed within a two-year period shall be considered a new residence and shall then conform to all current development standards for that zoning district and the most recently adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. 11. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 50% lot coverage (39% proposed) and the following setbacks from the applicable property lines: First Floor Setbacks Front 20'-0" feet (14'8" existing, no change) East Side 5'O" feet (8' 6"existing, no change) West Side 5'O" feet (7'-0" existing, no change) Rear 15'-0" feet (36'7" existing, no change) Resolution No. 20.11 - Page 7 of '� Second Floor Setbacks Front 42L7 East Side 10'6" West Side 9'O" (south half of 2'd story facade); and 19 -I"(north half of 2nd story fagade) Rear 40'X' BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 12. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 13. A minimum 2 -car garage shall be provided, with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, with a minimum of 7 feet of vertical clearance. 14. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 15. All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 16. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. 17. All applicable permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained by the applicant prior to the commencement of construction. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City Municipal code requirements regarding wood -burning devices. Height Variation Conditions: 19. This approval is for the construction of a 131 square foot first floor addition and a 1,139 square foot second floor addition to the existing 1,807 square foot single -story residence and garage. Upon completion of the proposed addition, the square footage of the residence would be 3,077 square feet, including the garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land ResoMPage �of 9 surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 20. The new residence shall maintain a maximum height of 21'-4", as measured from the highest existing grade (elevation 99'-8") adjacent to the structure to the highest ridgeline of the new second floor addition. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ROOF FRAMINGISHEETING INSPECTION. 21. The chimney shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 22. The east side of the second story shall not have windows. 23. The one (1) window that is proposed along the west side of the second story shall be clerestory with a "hopper" tilt -in opening. The bottom of the clerestory window shall not be less than 5'-6" as measured from the interior second story floor. 24. The second story windows located along the south facing facade of the second story shall be fixed and opaque. Directly above each fixed window, a clerestory window with a "hopper" tilt -in opening is permitted. The bottom of the clerestory windows shall not be less than 5'-6" as measured from the interior second story interior floor. 25. The windows required for emergency egress near the south side of the residence shall face the interior of the residence, as depicted on the plans that were presented to and approved by the City Council. 26. The Applicant shall submit revised plans incorporating all of these conditions of approval prior to submission of an application for a Building Permit. Resolution No Page 9 of 9 From: bubba32@cox.net Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 8:21 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Fwd: New weekday record overflow: 103 vehicles on streets: Thursday October 27th, 2011 Attachments: photo.JPG; New weekday record overflow_ 103 vehicles on streets_ Thursday October 27th, 2011 (2).txt To the City Council.- Honorable ouncil: Honorable Mayor Long and Councilmembers: Contrary to the views expressed by Marymount College in their belated response letter of October 12, 2012, parking overflow has not diminished as shown in this latest record count this Thursday. A day by day log has been kept of the excessive and continuing parking overflows each College session day, and the College continues to avoid a constructive resolution. What this College is also not telling the Council with respect to additional parking impacts, coming in the near future, is that a new program is being implemented by the College that allows up to 99 RPV Seniors to "audit" Marymount classes. Where will they park? Will there be additional provisions for more ADA parking on -campus? While it may be a great PR move to make such a program available to RPV Seniors, parking considerations have been overlooked here. Thankfully, the College does have options for additional - if temporary parking facilities - as outlined in the current November 1, 2011 Staff Report. I urge your consideration and affirmation of those constructive Recommendations, look forward to a positive resolution of this parking overflow issue. Jim Gordon > Subject: New weekday record overflow: 103 vehicles on streets: Thursday October 27th, 2011 > From: James <bubba32@cox.net> > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:54:49 -0700 > Cc: aram@rpv.com, George Zugsmith <zuggie1@yahoo.com>, Greg_Lash@Singaporeair.com.sg, Tom Redfield <tmredfield cz cox.net> > To: jlkarp <jlkarp@cox.net> > All > > At approximately 1:30 PM today there were 103 vehicles parked on the streets (a new weekday record) neighboring Marymount College, as follows; > f . 10/28/2011 to f > Crest downhill: 19 (photo) > PVDE to Casalina: 13 > Casalina area: 3 > PVDE to stoplight: 9 > PVDE stoplight to San Ramon: 11 > PVDE San Ramon to Calle Aventura: 31 > PVDE W to Crest: > Crest uphill: 17 > Grand Total and new record weekday: 103 > Jim 10/28/2011 a of 3 j Page 1 of 1 From: Jeremy Davies Udavies@kuboaa.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:13 PM To: avona@pvplc.org; CC@rpv.com Cc: Cassie Jones Subject: PVP Land Conservancy Dear Members of the Conservancy Board and RPV City Council As you finalize your Management Agreement we have the following suggestions: The Conservancy Land is the result of public (taxpayer) and private donations enabling the investment. As supporters of and contributors to the Conservancy, we would encourage members of the Conservancy Board, staff and volunteers to be respectful to all users of the conservancy. This means not demonstrating a certain arrogance and viewing the Conservancy land as though it is your "fiefdom". While there may be occasions, hopefully a minimum, where it is necessary for a Conservancy Board Member, staff or volunteer or a City vehicle to have to enter the Conservancy, we would request the driver to remember that their vehicle is potentially a fire risk and a hazard to horses, their riders, dogs, cyclists and hikers and act accordingly. Any Conservancy or City vehicle should be identified as such so that any unauthorized vehicle can be reported. Finally we encourage the Conservancy and the City in developing its PUMP, respective obligations and permissive projects to not ge overboard with oppressive regulations to the public use of the Conservancy. Respectfully, Pippa Davies, Jeremy Davies, Lisa Gladstone. Dr Milt Owens 10/31/2011 I/ Page 1 of 1 From: Lynn Swank [lynn.swank@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 2:16 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Carla Morreale Subject: CC Agenda Item #6 - Naming Public Facilities City Council Members, As recently as September 2009 the City Council adopted policy #37 honoring residents, both elected and non- elected, living or deceased, who have contributed in a myriad of ways to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The policy resulted after a thorough discussion by city council, staff and residents and reflects a fair resolution for honoring people in this city. This policy was adopted precisely because the City did not want to have to deal with further requests on a case by case basis. A policy allows everyone to know the criteria for consideration of this honor. This is especially relevant where the naming of facilities is concerned. 5 years is a fair time to consider an individual's contribution to our city because it allows residents to assess the contributions of an individual and at the same time measure these contributions against other resident contributions, living or dead. Indeed, the current policy states that the naming of City facilities in honor of individuals or community organizations will be a rare event, and a period of 5 years... to allow perspective and an appropriate period of reflection. For this reason the City Council in 2009 recognized that a 5 year period to evaluate a deceased person's contribution was necessary. 5 Years also means that there may be turnover on the city council, which allows for a broader base of opinion and will bring different thoughts to the resident's contribution. For future consideration I would recommend naming of facilities after individuals be stopped completely. There are simply no new facilities at this time and use of the current policy would only mean that a facility would be renamed, resulting in dishonoring the person whose name was given to the facility. It could also require changing a name of a facility long established as a geographic location in the city, such as Grandview Park, the Point Vicente Interpretive Center, and Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. Many of these locations are named as destinations on regional and state maps, as well as the new digital applications such as the (phone, auto GPS systems, etc. In fact, the city has been very careful not to give a person's name to any facility or park along our coast such as Ocean Trails Dr., the Nature Preserve, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Beach, Pelican Point, etc. Even Founder's Park was named generically after the Founders, and the individual Founders were recognized as a group. This practice limits the number sites available for naming purposes. This would be an injustice to others in the city who should be honored in the future. The idea of a Wall of Honor was and is a good one. This will allow deceased, current and future residents to be honored for their contributions to the City. Action Recommended: do not alter the current policy of waiting 5 years to 2 years to name a facility after an individual. Lynn Swank RPV Resident 10/31/2011 6