Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20120807 Late Correspondence
L 14 ks's. RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 7, 2012 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 Email from Sunshine 1 Email exchange between Jim Gordon and Community Development Director Rojas 2 Email from Cassie Jones 3 Email from Mickey Rodich; Letter from Alfred Sattler (Sierra Club) Respectfully submitted, resa Takaoka ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, August 6, 2012**. W:WGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendasi20120807 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:15 AM To: CC; Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru Cc: Kit Fox; Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: RE: Consent Calendar Item D. City Council Meeting August 8, 2012. MEMO from Sunshine TO: City Council, City Manager, Deputy City Manager. RE: Border Issues Report. Council Consent Calendar Item D There has been another trail closure on the RPV / Rolling Hills border. I have been suggesting to no avail that trail continuity situations at city borders be included in the regular status of Border Issues Report. The list of them is growing. Neither the Council nor the public has access to what, if anything, Staff is doing about closures and misalignments. This is another reason why the City Council should adopt the TRAILS DEVELOPMENT / MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of May 18, 2012. Other jurisdictions have been asked to do the same. The next step would be to discuss which trail TYPE would be appropriate to connect destinations in our City with those in others. This would contribute to your Goal of Trail Enhancement. 8/7/2012 D . From: bubba32@cox.net Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 5:11 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: Ara Mihranian; CC; jlkarp@cox.net Subject: RE: Staff Recommendation Statements page 1-8 re February 8, 2012 Correspondence: Maximum Enrollment Joel In further response to your offer to review the information that we have provided as well as some additional new documents that have come to light, Lois and I will be pleased to meet with you and your staff at a convenient time of your choice, preferably before the next City Council meeting on this subject. Thank you for your invitation which is accepted. Jim Gordon ---- Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> wrote: > Jim > As you know, you and Lois raised the issue earlier this year that the college has more students than allowed by the conditions of approval and thus is operating out of compliance with its CUP. Staff spent a lot of time conferring with the city attorney and going back through the EIR and other staff reports to look into this matter. Staff concluded that the college is in compliance with the approved conditions of approval based on the enrollment reports the city has received. Our conclusions are captured in the email that was included in the staff report as additional information. This information was included in the report given the continued public comments we have received on the topic. Although the issue before the city council is an extension request from the college, staff will be happy to review the information that you have provided below and answer any questions that the council may have on the enrollment issue. > Joel > From: bubba32@cox.net [bubba32@cox.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:48 PM > To: Joel Rojas > Cc: Ara Mihranian; CC > Subject: Staff Recommendation Statements page 1-8 re February 8, 2012 Correspondence: Maximum Enrollment > Joel > Although I am generally pleased with the current Staff Recommendation to postpone further Council decision action on extending Marymount College's 8/6/2012 6) entitlements, I wish to take complete and total issue with your response as shown on page 1- 8 of that Staff Report for August 7, 2012, and possibly elsewhere. > In this regard, there is ample evidence in the EIR that documents the separation and independent nature of the so-called "Traditional" Degree Program enrollment limitation of 793 students from the so-called "Non -Traditional" Degree Program limitation (150 weekend/evening students). Based upon that EIR documentation, these two programs are not overlapping or additive to each other for purposes of calculating the correct maximum limit of 793 that was studied. This is an "Emperor's New Clothes" scenario invented by the College of necessity for its expanding enrollments that greatly exceeded what was studied and envisioned in the EIR and resulting Resolutions of June 2010. > There is no analysis anywhere in the EIR that sums up to 943 regularly enrolled undergraduate students. I have recently sent to you the detailed rationale that supports this conclusion which you now have disregarded in favor of your quoted February 2012 response correspondence which is not up to date. Dar from it. To the extent you find confusion or inconsistency in these matters, your attention is directed to Condition No. 11 which states that "In the event that a condition of Approval is in conflict or is inconsistent with any Mitigation Measure for this project, the more restrictive shall apply". That reference includes Mitigation Measures TR -4 and TR -5, among others. > In that respect, you will please note that the illustrated parking strategies (Condition #158 & Mitigation Measure TR -5) link and relate the 463 parking spaces to a maximum enrollment of 793 students, and not to 943. And you are also well aware that the EIR studied those 463 required spaces very carefully in Table 3.3-43 and elsewhere and never utilized a maximum student enrollment number in excess of 793. Had the EIR done so, for example, at a maximum student enrollment of 943, the required Parking spaces would have been 594 and the resulting Traffic trips would have been 46 percent higher than shown in Table 3.3-12. In other words, any current "interpretation" that states a maximum limitation of 943 student enrollment, completely and totally invalidates dozens of detailed traffic conclusions and studies as contained in Section 2 of Appendix D. The EIR did not do so. The College's claim of a 943 maximum enrollment limitation is simply a re -invention of EIR history, nothing more. > You have also seriously misquoted the College's Fall 2011 enrollment report totaling 884 students (786 Day + 98 Evening students) because that report does not comply with the required reporting Format definitions for "Traditional" and "Non -Traditional" degree students as you have so (mis)stated. Instead, It actually references "Day" students (786) and "Evening" student enrollments (98). In today's full page Marymount College advertisement in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, the College continues to utilize this flawed and improper terminology in presenting as fact a "Maximum" enrollment limitation total of 943 "Day" and "Evening" students. > In summation, had the EIR ever intended that these two separate enrollment categories be combined, there would have been a much higher parking space requirement (the 463 was based on the 793 maximum enrollment limitation - (see Table 3.3-43) by another 131 spaces as shown in Table 3.3-42 for a total of 594 required spaces. If it were the purpose and intention to combine the evening/weekend college maximum enrollment limit of 150 together with the 793 (existing/unchanged) weekday student limit, (totaling 943) then the number of total traffic trips would have also been increasedby 888 trips (Table 3.3-14 + Table 3.3-12) 8/6/2012 �. to 2,819 (weekday) trips or an increase over the actual traffic studied of 46 percent. > If you further understand that these two programs do not intermix, are not additive, and do not combine, you should recall that the prior Webster University evening/weekend program (on which this was based and now discontinued) was for non -sequential weekends, not conducted each and every weekend or weekday. In a sense, you are combining apples with coconuts. As you may also recall, the EIR studied "Weekday" traffic and Parking such parking demand and number of trips was based upon the Colleges' Hours of Operation from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM inclusive (Appendix D: page 2-7 & 2-8), making no distinction in that study between "Day" and "Evening" Class student enrollments as the College has lately reported to the City in its Fall 2011 enrollment report. > Your further attention is drawn to the wording and intent of Condition #140 that clearly delineates the deliberate separation of these two programs "so as to generally avoid overlap with the class schedules of the Traditional Degree Programs." Obviously, since these Non - Traditional Weekend programs were intermittent - being conducted irregularly on non- sequential weekends, as such they did not consistently co -exist with the on-going Weekday Traditional degree program that was studied to produce the required number of parking spaces and Traffic impacts. Although there was some minimal overlap on intermittent Friday evenings, the Traditional Degree Program students were typically not taking many such evening classes on Fridays, allowing periodic Weekend College attendance without generally overlapping them. Thus, there is further proof that such added 150 students are independent and separate, and operate only on Friday evenings, Saturdays and Sundays, not continuously during the week as the current Staff "interpretation" and College allegation suggests. > For the reasons stated, I believe you will not be able to demonstrate any Findings and/or Facts in support of Findings that support your "interpretation" that such Traditional and Non - Traditional Programs serve as a legitimate basis to condone the excessive 943 maximum enrollment limitation now being claimed. Such is totally unsupported in the record and without merit. > You have also been informed and have failed to reveal the fact that this College has reported the 884 (Fall 2011) enrolled students to the City of RPV while concurrently reporting different numbers and characterizations of a total of 935 to 923 enrolled undergraduate AA and BA students to the prestigious CollegeBoard and to the National Center for Education statistics (NCES), respectively. I have provided that information to you recently. > Now, the College is projecting even higher enrollments and continues to be in very serious violation of its 793 student enrollment limitation of 793, and I, for one, do not believe it is your job or the City's responsibility to make up unsupported rationale that does not exist in the EIR for such outrageous claims of a combined maximum enrollment limitation of 943 undergraduate students that does not exist in the record.. Your next invented "limitation" will certainly have to address another 99 planned PV Seniors now invited by the College (article) to partake in Marymount's educational programs that would bring the latest (combined) total to as many as 1,042 students. > Just where do you draw the line? As residents, we have to expect that our City will honor the will of the voters who rejected this kind of stealth incrementalism (Measure P) by the 8/6/2012 (1) College. > "Being "Fair" to Marymount College should simultaneously result in being "Unfair" to the Community and its voters decision of November 2010. > Jim Gordon. 8/6/2012 n d From: cassiej@aol.com Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:49 PM To: CC Subject: View Restoration Permit 2011-00064 Attachments: photo (2).JPG Dear City Council, I have been watching the foliage wars on Narcissa Drive for the last few years now and I feel compelled to comment. I have attached a photograph of the vacant lot immediately across the street from the appellant's address- right next door to the Paolucci residence. You may need to enlarge it to read the sign. A few years ago the trees all along that part of the road were cut in half without the property owner's permission. Every day I drive past these blunted, tortured and butchered trees. They have only recently started to leaf out. This unwanted destruction of property prompted the lot owner to post the signs seen in the attached photograph. Seeing this every day for the past several years has made me think a lot about the view ordinance (tree ordinance) in this city. In fact, it is rubbed in my face every time I drive by these particular trees. It seems to me that the City values views of Catalina, the ocean, the harbor, the bridges, the mountains and views of the City of Los Angeles- all views FROM the city- much more than views OF the city. When you drive around RPV you'll see a fair number of butchered and tortures trees. This makes the City unattractive to look at. It seems we value the view FROM one property more than the view OF the property. Many of the trees in question here are older than the City. They were planted before the City existed. The view that the property owner had when they purchased the property certainly is not the view they are trying to create. It seems that in these cases, the residents OF the City, the owners of the trees that were planted many decades ago, and certainly the trees themselves are the big losers here. Not to mention the birds, owls, squirrels, and other critters and bugs living in the trees. The ambiance of the neighborhood has forever been diminished by the cutting of the beautiful tress that we all enjoyed while driving on Narcissa Drive. It would really be a shame to do away with all of the beauty that so many people enjoy for the fleeting benefit of one. I think you should uphold the Planning Commission decision but I also think that there is a benefit, beauty and life in mature trees that goes above and beyond our "need" to see the ocean from every room in our house for the short time we are here to enjoy it. Beefing up the building codes such that only appropriate plant materials are chosen initially (for example, planting trees that only reach a certain mature height)would go a long way toward preventing such disputes in the future. By the way, those sions along Narcissa Drive are only about 4-5 feet hiclh. They read: No Trespassin_o or Cutting of Trees (repeated in Spanish) Violators Will Be Prosecuted, and the municipal does is cited. The trees are leafing out at 10 feet high, tops, and look horribly out of place- and now always will look out of place. Cassie Jones Rancho Palos Verdes 8/7/2012 o a. �w� . k .....\ F ?ll From: Greg Pfost Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:13 PM To: Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Trump Development Agreement Hi Teri - Below is a late correspondence email for the Trump item on tonight's agenda. Thanks. -Greg. Sincerely, Gregory Pfost, AICP Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5228 -----Original Message ----- From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:06 PM To: Greg Pfost Subject: FW: Trump Development Agreement From: Mickey Rodich (mailto:mickeyrodich@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:05 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: Barry Hildebrand; Dennis Richardson; Flo Fenton; George Fink; Alvin Lowi; Jim Bullard; Michael Hansen; Richard Fleck Subject: Trump Development Agreement I plan to attend the City Council meeting tonight, but I may be an hour late. Therefore, I wish to make a statement at this time. Your agenda calls for Marymount to have a 2.5 hour discussion period ahead of Trump's request, but that may change. I am representing the Ladera Linda Homeowners Association and we are in agreement with Trump's request for Revision A, that will extend The Development Agreement and Tentative Tract Map #50666 for an additional 2 years. This request should have no adverse effect on the City of RPV or on the Ladera Linda Homeowners Assosiation. Please provide copies of this email to Staff and the City Council. Thank you. 1 3, SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 1892 August 7, 2012 Palos Verdes - South Bay Group / Angeles Chapter City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: In anticipation of the upcoming City Council meeting at which the Trump National Golf Course development will be discussed, I am attaching for your reference a letter the Palos Verdes -South Bay Group of the Sierra Club sent to the City Council in 2009 alerting them to a safety concern on the trails adjacent to the Trump driving range. We have been informed that the same conditions continue to be a problem, warranting City staff monitoring and assessing the risk to trail users at present as well as in the future when greater trail use can be anticipated as the development progresses. Sincerely, ZWVJ41 Alfred Sattler Chair, Executive Committee Palos Verdes -South Bay Regional Group Sierra Club Attachment: B35C-412080113530.pdf (Sierra Club comment letter dated 1/19/2009) P.O Box 2464 - Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 0 Printed on Recycled Paper 0 '.SIERRA CLUBFOUNDED 1 Palos Verdes - South 'Say Groep / Angeles Chapter 892 January 19, 2009 VIA TELEFAX -- (310) 544-5293 Joel Rojas, Director Planning, Building, Code Enforcement City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275-5391 Re.: Ocean Trails/Trump rational Golf Club Dear Mr. Rojas, It has come to our attention that there are possible safety issues on Tract 50666, The Driving Range for the Trump National Golf Club. Members of the Sierra Club have notified us that there are golf balls on and about the pedestrian trails, and in the habitat adjoining the Driving Range. We understand that on June 7, 2005, when the "W" Revision for the Driving Range was approved, there were Mitigated Measures placed on the Driving Range to prevent or minimize safety hazards. They are as follows: 9. Hazards H-1: The driving range shall be developed with safety features as proposed in the plan identified as the "Ocean Trails Driving Range/Lot Layout Proposed Amendment Tentative Tract 50566", dated February 2, 2005. Subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, a 6' high decorative fence shall be installed along the western boundary of the driving range, located between the edge of the driving range and the pedestrian/bicycle trails. Any P.0 Lox 2464 - Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 0 Printed on Recycled Paper /4�- l F changes to the proposed plan that may affect public safety shall be subject to additional environmental analysis, review and approval in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. H-2: The proposed use of the driving range shall comply with the following: Golfers will hit primarily from east to west, while Golf Professional Staff may teach some private lessons on the western side of the driving range under strict supervision. Golfers will be restricted to using certain golf clubs depending upon which tee area they are hitting from based upon the "Golf Shot Plan". Specifically, Section "A" of the golf tees will be used for shots traveling up to 140 yards, Section "B" will be used for shots traveling between 140 yards and 215 yards, and Section "C" will be used for shots traveling over 215 yards (see Exhibit C). Signs will be posted in Sections "A", "B", and. "C" noting distances authorized to hit from each tee section. An on-site Golf Professional will monitor all tee areas of the driving range during all operating hours of the driving range to ensure that the proper golf clubs are being used from the proper tees. When lessons are being taught at the eastern edge of the driving range, the on-site Golf Professional Staff will ensure that the longer shots from the western side of the driving range are prohibited. The Sierra Club takes very seriously any safety issues, and we are concerned with the safety of the pedestrians and cyclists as they travel around the driving range. We are further concerned as to whether the mitigation measures are being followed on the driving range; are the tee boxes marked as specified in the Mitigation Measures? And are the Golf Professionals monitoring the golfers as conditioned in the Mitigation a4 P.O Box 2464 © Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 Measures? if these conditions are all being followed, then there should be no golf bails in the pedestrian trails and in the adjoining habitat. We would appreciate the monitoring by the City of these conditions. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, / I J David Wiggins Conservation Chair Palos Verdes -South Bay Group Angeles Chapter Sierra Club CC: Gregory Host, Deputy Planner Carolyn Lehr, City Manager Mayor Larry Clark Mayor Pro -Tem Steve Wolowicz Councilman Tom Long Councilman Doug Stern Councilman Peter Gardiner 0 P.0 Box 2464 o Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 a e Printed on Recycled Paper PPRRI, I -. IMboAl.. • vq.e •, s T t • � w5 M s fir LO s 0- E ca 0 0 cu E a u a� 0 Ln 0 4-1 Golf balls on hornesites. (Inset is telephoto of photo below). U, Trump National Golf Course December 2008 Y .t Ahk �. RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 6, 2012 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, August 7, 2012 City Council meeting: Item No. Recycle Drawing 191 2 3 Respectfully submitted, Teresa Takaoka Description of Material Email from Sunshine City Watch article regarding Rancho LPG Facility; Staff Memorandum from Senior Administrative Analyst Fox Email from Dr. Michael S. Brophy; Email exchange between Jim Gordon and Community Development Director Rojas Email exchanges between Annabella Q. Bonfa, Staff, and City Attorney Lynch Email from Lenee Bilski W:WGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendasi20120807 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 12:01 PM To: CC; Carolyn Lehr Subject: For the cost savings suggestion box August 3, 2012 For the Suggestion Box. MEMO from Sunshine TO: RPV City Council and City Manager RE: The recycle drawing program This program has outlived its effectiveness. It made sense when the State mandated that at least a certain percentage of every city's refuse be diverted to recycling. I have the impression that RPV has met that mandate, consistently. People know that recycling is important and they do it. (I just noticed that there is no longer a recycle barrel, or a trash barrel, on the walkway approaching City Hall because I had some items to contribute.) The "prize" started out as paying for a year's worth of trash pick-up. It sounded like a really good incentive. Then, it became simply a check for $250.00 with more frequent drawings. I just paid for a year of trash pick-up. With the 5% discount for paying for a year in advance, the bill was $627.00. An incentive to recycle is no longer needed. The "prize" is no longer much of an incentive. The program uses a lot of Staff Time to implement. There is a lot more to it than drawing cards out of the drum and making announcements at each City Council meeting. The City pays to have the cards printed and delivered to the trash collector's billing offices. It takes their staffs time to insert them in with their billing, collect them out of their payments received and somebody has to get them into the drum. Then, somebody has to confirm that the potential winner is actually recycling on their trash collection day, cut checks and send them to the winners. Processing the deposited checks costs money, too. This probably costs more than the actual prize money. I would like to see the program eliminated and all of the cost savings given to the Public Works Dept. to spend on emergency circulation infrastructure / trails recovery. Our off-road circulation network is suffering because Public Works "doesn't have the money" to hire a Surveyor (Trail A22), "doesn't have the money" to hire a Soils Engineer (Trail A27) and a whole lot more. Public Works doesn't have the time to properly coordinate fire fuel abatement and potential Eagle Scout projects. Just a suggestion. !l E�YCL� 8/3/2012 Where There's Smoke There's Fire ... and Possibly a Catastrophe Written by Janet Gunter 08.02.2012 GAS EXPLOSION RISK AT LA PORT - After seeing smoke rising from the area in 1542, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo designated the Bay of San Pedro ... "Bahia de los Humos y Fuegos" (Bay of Smokes and Fires). Apparently the pattern had already been set for the residents of San Pedro and the LA Harbor! The painful story of the introduction of the massive Liquid Petroleum Gas facility (now Rancho LPG — operated by "Plains") that continues to threaten the LA Harbor region extends back some 40 years now. No one will disagree that the facility should NOT have been located in the densely populated area where it exists today. Most, if not all, local officials will concur that the location is not suited for the type of extraordinary risk to population that the facility presents. However, there continues to be an incredible degree of political "dance" performed by Government officials to find reasons and excuses designed to give cover to their continual unwillingness to initiate any real action to remove the risk and protect the unsuspecting public. This debacle all began with very questionable motives back in the late 1960's and early 70's. The LPG facility development was encouraged by the City and Port of LA to optimize the company's profitability by opening up the lucrative sea shipping opportunity at the port. However, the vulnerability of port assets from the voluminous hazardous storage tanks was a major point of contention. Operators instead, were encouraged by the Port to locate the 25 Million Gallon storage tanks on private property outside the port complex and nearer community residents in San Pedro. The Port of LA's Harbor Commissioner, Mr. Cho, was a shareholder in Petrolane LPG (operators at that time), and clearly there was a conflict of interest. Regardless, and more than likely as a result of this conflict (not knowing all these years later just how many officials may have had a stake in the company), the development moved forward expeditiously with the port facilitating the LPG's sea transport by installing a pipeline from the massive offsite storage tanks to a port wharf for shipping. The City and Port of LA further accommodated the installation of the LPG facility by a number of actions. The Port and City exempted the storage terminal from CEQA laws, LA City Fire and Building and Safety regulations, disregarded the extreme existing geologic and seismic conditions of the land, circumvented a proper Environmental Impact Review and its public hearings, AND avoided any risk analysis of the facility whatsoever. Any one of these examples would have more than likely prohibited the development. 1/3 0 0 Where There's Smoke There's Fire ... and Possibly a Catastrophe Written by Janet Gunter 08.02.2012 In 1977, the Petrolane LPG operation received comprehensive news coverage by the LA Times. The news articles (as reported by Larry Pryor, Pulitzer prize winner and now Prof. at the USC School of Journalism) revealed the extreme hazards posed by the facility and the "curious" concessions made to accommodate the operators at the expense of public safety. The articles were enough to generate the attention of the office of Governor Jerry Brown who requested a report on the installation of the facility. Later that year, the Public Utilities Commission issued a report on Petrolane that clearly identified obvious and flagrant omissions of concern to public safety, improper issuance of "exemptions", and the deficiency of`any singular oversight entity of the multiple responsible jurisdictional agencies. The report makes a demand for the creation of a singular oversight agency for such extremely hazardous liquid energy gas facilities, a comprehensive risk analysis for the Petrolane LPG facility, as well as a liability insurance guarantee, and other recommendations that have never been complied with. This report has been left "untouched" to gather dust on a shelf for over 35 years. The document was only made available to homeowners this year after numerous public record act requests to the Port. The PUC report confirms every accusation of improper and illegal citing of the facility leveled by local residents. Despite the euphoria in discovering the existence of the report and its findings, the reaction from public officials has been tepid if not ambivalent. The expectation that Governor Brown would be outraged to find that his important report affecting the safety of thousands had been ignored, fell flat. The 1977 Report was hand carried by LAUSD Superintendent Richard Vladovic to Brown's staff member at a Los Angeles meeting. In following up on its status, homeowners were informed that it had apparently been lost. Ultimately, the report was provided to staff member, Michael Picker, who responded after several weeks that the Governor was "not going to get involved". Clearly, there is some power at play that is insulating this operation and eluding our understanding of "why". Meanwhile, the proper reportable EPA calculation from the rupture of a single 12.5 Million Gallon tank of Butane Gas establishes a 3 Miles, 28 Sq. Miles and 27,000 victim Worst Case Scenario from Rancho's facility. On March 8th of this year, a Rancho Liquid Petroleum Gas rail car collided with a big rig truck (see photo above) at the intersection of Westmont and Gaffey Sts. - directly in front of the Rancho terminal. Miraculously, there was no rupture of the rail car. Just last Friday, July 27th, there was another small earthquake recorded on the Palos Verdes Fault (potential mag. 7.3) directly below the Rancho tanks built to a seismic substandard of 5.5 — 6.0. Just how long and how far out can that envelope be pushed? Why would the State, the City and all government officials choose to play a virtual game of Russian Roulette with its 01A Where There's Smoke There's Fire ... and Possibly a Catastrophe Written by Janet Gunter 08.02.2012 public and its international ports? It's time for the City and Port of LA to stop playing the role of Pontius Pilate in washing their hands of the actions that have so incredibly violated the public trust. It is only right that Los Angeles find the guts to resume their proper leadership role by removing this flagrant threat and restoring the protection of all Harbor area residents ... before it is too late. We don't care how they do it. We just want it done. (Janet Gunter is a long time community activist and member of the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United Inca Connie Rutter is a retired oil industry environmental consultant.a The SPPHU was one of the litigants in the successful China Shipping lawsuit that was represented by the NRDC in 2001-2003 on the issue of air pollution and aesthetics. ) -cw CityWatch Vol 10 Issue 62 Pub: Aug 3, 2012 O 3/3 3 MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KIT FOX, AiCP, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST DATE: AUGUST 7, 2012 SUBJECT: LATE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE BRICKWALK, LLC MIXED-USE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT — AGENDA ITEM `D') Brickwalk, LLC Mixed -Use Condominiums, Rolling Hills Estates As discussed in tonight's Border Issues Status Report, the public review and comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Brickwalk, LLC mixed-use condominium project in Rolling Hills Estates ended yesterday. Attach is a copy of Staff's comments on the DEIR. The major issues raised in our comments include: • Potential aesthetic and view impacts of portions of the new townhomes exceeding the curb elevation along Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard; • Consistency of the project with "best management practices" (BMPs) for the adjacent Crestridge Reserve in the City's Palos Verdes Nature Preserve; • Geotechnical and hydrology/water quality issues regarding proposed site grading/landslide remediation and the City's abutting public rights-of-way (i.e., Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard); • Justification for the requested variance for 26-foot/1-story building -height increase; • Noise impacts upon residents of the City's Mirandela senior apartment community; • Provision of affordable housing units as a part of the project; • Clarifications and corrections to the traffic impact analysis and proposed mitigation for the project related to the City's public rights-of-way; and, • Support for the "Reduced Project Alternative," which reduces the number of residential units and the amount of new commercial development by twenty percent (20%). Staff plans to attend the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission public hearing for the DEIR on September 4, 2012, and will provide an update on this project as a part of the next regular Border Issues Status Report on October 2, 2012. Attachment • Staff comments on DEIR for Brickwalk, LLC project (dated 8/2/12) MABorder Issues\Staff Reports\20120807_CC_LateCorrespondence.doc C� J CITY OF LARANCHOPALOSVERQES CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ADMINISTRATION 2 August 2012 VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL Niki Cutler, AICP, Principal Planner City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Dr. N. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 SUBJECT: Comments in Response to the Notice of Completion/Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Brickwalk, LLC Mixed -Use Residential Project (PA 01-07) Dear M JdK r: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the above-mentioned project. As you may recall, the City previously commented upon the scope of the DEIR for this project on 28 February 2007. We have reviewed the Notice of Completion/Availability and the DEIR, and offer the following comments: The discussion of Aesthetics (Section 4.1, p. 4.1-9) describes the visual impacts of the proposed project as viewed from a location within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes at Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard (View 4). The DEIR concludes that aesthetic impacts upon the view from this location are less -than - significant. However, we note that the view simulations (Figure 4.1-5) clearly show that the height of the new townhomes proposed in this portion of the project site would exceed the curb elevation of Indian Peak Road near its intersection with Crenshaw Boulevard. Accordingly, we are concerned that the aesthetic impacts of the proposed project upon views from homes in the 5400 -block of Middlecrest Road in the Ridgecrest neighborhood may not have been adequately addressed in the DEIR. 2. The discussion of Biological Resources (Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-3 to 4.3-5) describes the consistency of the proposed project with the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Preserve (NCCP) and concludes that project impacts would be less -than - significant and require no mitigation. Earlier in this same section (p. 4.3-2), the DEIR acknowledges the NCCP as a part of the "regulatory setting" within which the biological resource impacts of this project are to be analyzed. We would draw to your attention Section 6.2.2 of the NCCP Subarea Plan "Development 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391/ (310) 544-5205 / FAX (310) 544-5291 W WW.PALOSVERDES.COM/RPV PRINTED ON RECYCLED RAPER O Niki Cutler 2 August 2012 Page 2 Adjacent to the Preserve" and the specific project design criteria and best management practices (BMPs) enumerated in Subsection 6.2.2.2 (see enclosures). These guidelines should be discussed in greater detail in the DEIR. Furthermore, we strongly suggest that the DEIR consider the inclusion of the guidelines from NCCP Subarea Plan Subsection 6.2.2.2 as project mitigation to address potential impacts upon the adjacent NCCP Crestridge Reserve in Rancho Palos Verdes. 3. The discussion of Geology and Soils (Section 4.5) assesses the geologic and geotechnical impacts of the proposed project, and suggests mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' geotechnical consultant has reviewed Section 4.5 and the related appendices from the DEIR, and offers the enclosed comments that should be addressed in the Final EIR. 4. The discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 4.7) assesses the impacts and handling of site runoff and drainage for the proposed project, and suggests mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' City Engineer has reviewed Section 4.7 and the related appendices from the DEIR, and offers the enclosed comments that should be addressed in the Final EIR. 5. The discussion of Land Use and Planning (Section 4.8) notes at several locations that two (2) variances are requested in conjunction with the proposed project, whereas the Project Description (Section 3.0, p. 3-10) lists three (3) requested variances. This discrepancy should be resolved in the Final EIR. For the record, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is skeptical that the requested variance for a 26-foot/1-story increase in the height of the proposed, mixed-use podium building is warranted. Also, as mentioned in our comments above regarding biological resources impacts, the discussion of the consistency of the proposed project with the NCCP (p. 4.8-17) should take into account the provisions of Subsection 6.2.2.2 of the NCCP Subarea Plan. 6. The discussion of Noise (Section 4.9, p. 4.9-16) identifies the Rancho Palos Verdes Preschool at 28451 Indian Peak Road (southwest corner at Crenshaw Boulevard) as a sensitive noise receptor that would be exposed to short-term construction noise impacts from the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 (p. 4.9-20) proposes the installation of 6 -foot -tall construction noise barriers along Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard to reduce these impacts to less - than -significant levels. We would like to point out that, since the original circulation of the NOP for this project in 2007, the City completed construction of Niki Cutler 2 August 2012 Page 3 the Mirandela senior apartments at 5555 Crestridge Road (northwest corner at Crenshaw Boulevard), which directly abut the Rancho Palos Verdes Preschool to the south. The City believes that these age- and income -restricted apartments also constitute a sensitive noise receptor located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Will the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 adequately address potential construction -related noise impacts upon the residents of Mirandela as well? 7. The discussion of Population and Housing (Section 4.10, p. 4.10-10) notes that the proposed project is consistent with the City of Rolling Hills Estates' current Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), presumably because the total number of units proposed (i.e., one hundred forty-eight (148)) substantially exceeds the total of twenty-six (26) units required by the current RHNA. However, the DEIR does not discuss how the proposed project fulfills the RHNA requirement for units to be provided that are affordable to households at a variety of income levels. 8. The discussion of Transportation and Circulation (Section 4.13) discusses the construction -related and post -construction impacts of the proposed project, and suggests a number of mitigation measures (pp. 4.13-25 to 4.13-30) to reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels. Several of these mitigation measures involve modifications to traffic controls at surrounding intersections. We would like to point out that, since the original circulation of the NOP for this project in 2007, the jurisdictional responsibility for several of the surrounding roadway segments and intersections has shifted from Rolling Hills Estates to Rancho Palos Verdes, and these shifts may affect the feasibility of some of the proposed mitigation measures. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' traffic engineer has reviewed Section 4.13 and the related appendices from the DEIR, and offers the enclosed comments that should be addressed in the Final EIR. 9. The discussion of Alternatives (Section 5.0, pp. 5-14 to 5-15) identifies the "Reduced Project Alternative" (Alternative 3) as the environmentally -superior alternative to the proposed project. Since Alternative 3 reduces the total number of dwelling units and commercial square footage by twenty percent (20%), it reduces the project's traffic impacts and eliminates the need for a building height variance while still fulfilling the basic objectives of the project. Therefore, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes supports the selection of Alternative 3 for the proposed project. 0 Niki Cutler 2 August 2012 Page 4 Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this important project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5226 or via e-mail at kitf@rpv.com. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analyst enclosures cc: Mayor Misetich and City Council Carolyn Lehr, City Manager Carolynn Petru, Deputy City Manager Joel Rojas, Community Development Director Jim Hendrickson, Interim Public Works Director MABorder Issues\Brickwalk LLC Condos\20120802 EIRComments.doc C SECTIOHSIX Reserve Management SECTION 6 RESERVE MANAGEMENT As an urban Reserve plan for wildlife and plants, the Rancho Palos Verdes Subarea Plan will enhance the city's quality of life and provide the city with recreational and educational opportunities while conserving the city's unique biodiversity and maintaining populations of sensitive resources. To succeed in these goals, this Subarea Plan will require management practices and some land -use restrictions on conserved lands that give special consideration to the interface between developed lands and open space. Adaptive management measures and compatible adjacent land uses will minimize impacts to individuals or populations of covered species from development abutting the Reserve. A process for monitoring habitats and species in the Reserve will help to improve the effectiveness of resource management. The following sections establish general guidelines for compatible land uses and development within and adjacent to the Reserve and provide a framework for consistent and coordinated management and monitoring of the Reserve.. Existing legal land uses adjacent to the Reserve may continue, and existing ownerships will be maintained until lands are obtained by public entities through purchase, dedication, or donation. On private lands that become part of the Reserve, public access will be allowed only on properties where access has been granted by the owner through an appropriate easement or on property that has been voluntarily dedicated in fee title to a public agency or nonprofit organization. All new public facilities will be reviewed for consistency with this Subarea Plan regarding public safety and to minimize management concerns and biological impacts. 6.1 HABITAT MANAGER The City has selected the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) as the designated Habitat Manager for the Reserve. Some conserved habitat areas addressed by this Subarea Plan are currently managed by other organizations contracted by the private landowners (e.g., Ocean Trails and Oceanfront Estates mitigation lands). Management of these private lands would be transferred to the PVPLC once the monitoring requirements of the Wildlife Agencies have been met. The PVPLC will work with the City to ensure that habitat on these lands is adequately maintained. 6.2 FRAMEWORK MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 6.2.1 Development of Public Use Master Plan Within two years of the signing of the Implementing Agreement, a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) shall be developed jointly by the City and the PVPLC to address issues such as public access, trailhead locations, parking, trail use, fencing, signage, lighting (if any), fire and brush management, minimizing impacts to adjacent neighborhoods, public involvement in advisory capacities, and other issues that may arise. This section provides management guidelines and measures for the development of the PUMP, to reduce habitat impacts of land uses within and adjacent to the Reserve. The PUMP for the site would be created based on extensive public input and would have to be approved by City Council and the Wildlife Agencies. Prior to the final approval of the PUMP by the Wildlife Agencies, all lawful uses and activities that are occurring in the Reserve at the time of approval of this Subarea Plan by the City Council shall be UM W:@7644296\08000-b-r.doc\28-Ju1-04\SDG 6-1 Cad SECTIOHSIX Reserve Management deemed acceptable and allowed to continue unless otherwise restricted or prohibited by the Final approved PUMP. 6.2.2 Development Adjacent to the Reserve 6.2.2.1 Management Issues No new development activities will be allowed in the Reserve, except for the public and private infrastructure projects identified in this Subarea Plan, geological testing in support of compatible land uses, landslide monitoring, and any emergency actions associated with landslide abatement and remediation activities. Development adjacent to the Reserve, however, may indirectly affect the Reserve. These indirect impacts will be addressed through the existing project review process and CEQA documentation, as required. In reviewing a proposed development project adjacent to the Reserve, site design issues that need to be addressed are avoidance or minimization of impacts to biological resources and retention of native habitats. Potential impacts to biological resources from existing and new development adjacent to the Reserve will be considered in the design process. These include the locations of access and staging areas, fire and brush management zones, potential for introduction of nonnative species, increased night -lighting, increased stormwater and urban runoff, increased noise level and public access to habitats supporting covered species. 6.2.2.2 Project Design Review and Best Management Practices The following guidelines are designed to protect biological resources in the Reserve during construction of new development directly abutting the Reserve: 1. Review grading plans of development directly adjacent to the Reserve boundary (including access routes, staging areas, etc.) to ensure the plans are consistent with this Subarea Plan, educate contractors about the biological sensitivities associated with the area, and monitor construction to ensure compliance with project -specific mitigation measures. 2. All construction site vegetation clearing will be conducted during the non -breeding season (September 1 to February 15) to avoid destruction of active bird nests. If vegetation clearing must be conducted during the bird breeding season, a nest survey must be conducted and a 15 meter (50 feet) exclusion zone is placed around all active nests (i.e., active nests with eggs or chicks) until the nest becomes inactive 3. Use existing access roads outside the Reserve wherever practicable. Clearly mark all access routes outside existing roads or construction areas. Develop an emergency access plan for the utility companies with facilities within the Reserve. 4. When stockpiling topsoil, it should be placed in areas to be affected by project development. 5. Locate construction staging areas at least 15 meters (50 feet) away from the Reserve boundary and natural drainages. Designate no -fueling zones a minimum distance of 15 meters (50 feet) from all drainages and away from the Reserve boundary. 6. Schedule construction directly adjacent to the Reserve to minimize potential indirect impacts to biological resources in the Reserve. Construction adjacent to drainages should occur during periods of W.\27644296\08000-b-r.docV8-Ju1-04GSDG 6-2 EN SECTIOHSIX Reserve Management minimum flow (i.e., summer through the first significant rain of fall) to avoid excessive sedimentation and erosion and to avoid impacts to drainage -dependent species. Construction adjacent to habitats occupied by breeding sensitive wildlife species should be scheduled to avoid the breeding season (February 15 -August 31) if practicable. 7. Minimize construction noise impacts during the bird breeding season (February 15 -August 31) by precluding noise levels greater than 65 dB hourly Leq at the edge of habitat occupied by noise -sensitive covered bird species where existing noise conditions are less than this noise threshold. Conduct pre -construction surveys of potentially affected conserved habitat between mid-January and mid-March. If no noise -sensitive breeding bird species are detected within 15 meters (50 feet) of the construction activity by this date, construction can proceed. 8. Locate new roads, trails, and utility corridors in areas that minimize habitat fragmentation and edge effects. 9. Place temporary construction fencing at the planned limits of disturbance adjacent to the Reserve. Add silt fencing to these fences to minimize excessive sedimentation into drainages. 10. Encourage undergrounding of utilities and use of trenchless technology, where feasible. Minimize the width of construction corridors and easements, and where possible, use less impactive construction practices such as jacking pipelines under drainages. 11. Revegetate cut/fill slopes not subject to fuel modification and adjacent to conserved habitat with appropriate native species. 12. Require approved restoration plans and construction monitoring for all construction projects within and adjacent to the Reserve. 13. Evaluate the practicality of noise barriers for short sections of road that may chronically affect breeding wildlife. 14. Avoid sidecasting of materials during road and utility construction and maintenance. 6.2.3 Fire and Brush Management Fire management can focus on two potentially different objectives: achievement of biological resources goals and hazard reduction for humans and their property. Biological resource goals recognize that fire is a natural process in ecosystems. Coastal sage scrub depends on a regular cycle of burning to maintain a balance of species, create vegetation mosaics that favor increased animal species diversity, provide habitat for species characteristic of early post -fire landscapes, and control exotic plant species invasion. Fire and brush management can also affect restoration of disturbed habitats and site hydrology, which will directly affect habitat value for wildlife. Fire management for hazard reduction for humans and their property focuses on reducing fuel loads in areas where fire may threaten human safety or property, suppressing fires once they have started, and providing access for fire suppression equipment and personnel. 6.2.3.1 Management Recommendations Fire and brush management will be prioritized for human safety, but will also consider biological resources, where appropriate. Therefore, fire and brush management practices in the Reserve need to W:\27644296\08000-b-,doc\28-Ju1-04GSDG 6-3 July 27, 2012 KLING Consulting Group, Inc. Kit Fox Senior Administrative Analyst CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 PN 00146-14A Subject: Review of DF.,IR Geology and Soils Documents for the Proposed Deep Valley and Indian Peak Mixed -Use Project in Rolling Hills Estates Dear Mr. Fox: Our firm has reviewed the Geology and Soils, Section 4.5 of the DEIR dated June 20, 2012 by I.,SA Associates for the Deep Valley and Indian Peak Mixed -Use Project in Rolling Hills Estates. Our evaluation incorporated a review of past geology and soils documents for the subject site. The following comments in regards to the Geology and Soils portion of the DEIR are presented below. A review of the reference list indicates that the authors have reviewed all previous documents for the project including past reviews by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the corresponding responses by the project geotechnical consultant. The seismic design standard presented on page 4.5.6 is outdated. The design standards presented and used for the project should be updated to use the latest CBC or indicate in the DEIR what version of the CBC or UBC will be used for the project if different. The last round of review and response completed in 2010 and 2011 indicated that additional readings of the inclinometers would continue every 4 to 6 months from the date of consultant's response in December 2010. Based on this schedule, a minimum of 5 additional readings should have taken place. It is recommended that these be obtained and reviewed by the geotechnical consultant in an updated report and if necessary be incorporated into the DEIR. This report should be forwarded to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for review. The DEIR's section on Faults and Seismic History states that the Cabrillo Fault is active, page 4.5-5. Later in the report on page 4.5.12 it states that it is inactive. The DEIR should be corrected to remove inconsistency. • Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 states that the construction and design of the proposed project shall comply with the recommendation measures listed in Section 6.0 through 9.0 in the April 27, 2007 Pacific Soils. As other addendum reports and evaluations have been authored beyond the April 2007 report, they should be added to this section of the DEIR. 18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250, Irvine, California 92614 (949) 797-6241 Fax (949) 797-6260 WOW rArl-IFS, 0 J CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES July 27, 2012 PN 00146-14A The DEIR does not address import or export of soil during grading, nor does it address import of construction materials associated with grading or construction ofbuildings and what impact to RPV roadways this might have. This may be addressed elsewhere in the DEIR document. • Section 4.5.2 states that the section addresses the potential for structural damage to occur due to local geology underlying the project. There does not appear to be a discussion in regards to this issue. DEIR does not appear to address tie backs, temporary excavations or shoring in detail or where they would potentially encroach into Rancho Palos Verdes. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Please call if you have any questions regarding the content of this letter. Sincerely, KLING CONSULTING GROUP J ries M. Lancastetieo Principal Engineeri JML:dm Dist.: (2) Addressee S:\Projects\2000\00146\00146-14A Review of Geology and Soils Section of DEIR dated 6-20-12 2 SECTION 1.0 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Add the following statement to Table LA item 4.5-3 and to Section 4.5 Geology and Soils Any components of the design that are required to be placed outside of the City of Rolling Hills Estates will require additional review/approval by the affected jurisdiction. Add the following statement to Table LA item 4.5-X Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for buildings associated with the project, the project applicant shall submit a maintenance plan to the City's Director of Public Works for review and approval. The maintenance agreement shall address slope drainage facilities and require the owner to maintain any such facilities in a state of good repair. The maintenance agreement shall "run with the land". The approved maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. Such recordation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City of Rolling Hills Estates Building Official. SECTION 4.7 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The project is located in an area of known unstable land. Land movement such as slope failures and landslides are adversely affected by ground water. To minimize runoff infiltration of ground water, all existing or planned drainage facilities located on slopes within the project must be properly maintained or caused to be maintained by the property owner and future owners. To that end, the following comment and condition should be added to the Mitigation Measures 4.7-X. They are needed to ensure that storm runoff management facilities are properly maintained and that runoff on slopes adjacent to Indian Peak retain the integrity intended by the design engineer: Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for buildings associated with the project, the project applicant shall submit a maintenance plan to the City's Director of Public Works for review and approval. The maintenance agreement shall address slope drainage facilities and require the owner to maintain any such facilities in a state of good repair. The maintenance agreement shall "run with the land". The approved maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. Such recordation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City of Rolling Hills Estates Building Official. Section 4.7-4 modify the sentence as follows (change to sentence shown in bold): The drainage plan shall include any on-site structures and/or modifications of existing drainage facilities necessary to accommodate existing and/or increased runoff resulting from the proposed project and shall indicate project contributions to the regional storm water drainage system. From: Nicole Jules To: Kit Fox; cc: Ron Dragoo; Subject: RHE Mixed Use Project Date: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 2:54:40 PM Hi Kit, Below are my comments: General Traffic Study Since the commencement of the Traffic Study in 2010, jurisdictional responsibilities at certain intersections and along certain roadway segments have shifted from Rolling Hills Estates to Rancho Palos Verdes. As such, report, analysis, assumptions and conclusion should be modified per the direction and concurrence of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the following locations: a) Hawthorne Blvd at Indian Peak Road b) Silver Spur Road at Silver Arrow Drive c) Indian Peak Road at Crenshaw Blvd d) Silver Spur Road from Hawthorne Blvd to Drybank Drive e) Indian Peak Road from Crenshaw Blvd to RPV City Limits f) Crenshaw Blvd from Indian Peak Road to RPV City Limits The report should clearly identify which intersections and/or roadway segments are in each respective City. For the intersections that have joint responsibilities the proportionate share should be clearly identified. Executive Summary Table 1.A, mitigation # 4.13-5, 4.13-6, 4.13-10 — Mitigation Measure needs to be modified to incorporate review, concurrence and approval by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Department of Public Works. Table 1.A, mitigation # 4.13-10 — Please modify the language of this mitigation measure and any other applicable mitigation measure to state: "Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall, for the two intersections with the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Hawthorne Blvd at Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Blvd at Indian Peak Road, pay it's fair share of the estimated construction costs for the necessary mitigation measures to offset its cumulative impact. All estimated costs shall be approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Director of Public Works or his/her designee. Section 4.13 Transportation and Circulation 0 Based on comments to Appendix J below, the traffic analysis results as presented in this section may change. Please see comments to Appendix J for details. Appendix J Study Area — Please modify the study area to identify those study intersections and roadway segments that fall under the jurisdictional responsibility of each City (RHE and/or RPV) Existing Conditions — Please modify the descriptions of the existing street system to identify roadway segments and appropriate classifications and speed limits within the City of RPV. Also, please include a copy of the traffic counts conducted in 2008 in the appendix to the 2010 study. Analysis — Is there any reason why a Peak Hour Factor adjustment was not applied to the intersection analysis? The traffic counts provide a calculated PHF for each movement and for the intersection. The City of RHE's traffic impact analysis methodology guidelines state in Section VIII that "peak hour factor specific to subject intersection shall be used". Please utilize an appropriate PHF for accurate intersection analysis and results. Trip Distribution — with 23% of the project traffic traveling to and from Palos Verdes Drive North, why was Palos Verdes Drive North omitted from the roadway segment analysis. Year 2013 Conditions — Does the Year 2013 analysis include any assumed roadway, intersection or geometric improvements that are either assumed or planned by RHE or RPV at any of the study intersections or roadway segments? Also, the Year 2013 traffic analysis sheets are not included in the report. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis — Appendix C is missing from the report. Year 2013 Cumulative Plus Project — Include traffic analysis sheets for review. Area -Wide Improvements — Include the traffic analysis sheets for proposed mitigation measures for verification that mitigations are addressing impacts appropriately. Project Fair Share Contribution — The calculated fair share contribution needs to be modified to incorporate the projects contribution to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. D13 From: Michael Brophy [MBrophy@marymountpv.edu] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:05 AM To: CC Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Ara Mihranian; Joel Rojas; Davis, Donald M.; Jim Reeves Subject: Marymount on 8/7, 9/4 Greetings: A longstanding appointment prevents me from being at City Council tomorrow evening, but I write regarding the staff report on Marymount. In general, we agree with it and are working with staff on the temporary parking lot. Given delays caused by the federal agencies, we are ready to move on the temporary lot as soon as the City allows. We all want to accommodate our students and the neighborhood by August 27. I look forward to discussing our request for a one year extension on September 4. Regards, Michael Michael S. Brophy, Ph.D., M.F.A. President of Marymount College 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 310-377-5501 mbrophy@marymountpv.edu www.marymountpv.edu 8/6/2012 From: bubba32@cox.net [mailto:bubba32@cox.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 3:38 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: Ara Mihranian; CC; Carolyn Lehr Subject: Fwd: RE: Staff Recommendation Statements page 1-8 re February 8, 2012 Correspondence: Maximum Enrollment Joel Thank you for this update. We will discuss this issue further, as appropriate and necessary, but will provide you at that time with definitive supporting evidence that such conglomeration as you have "confirmed" of these two separate Categories of "Traditional Degree" and "Non -Traditional Degree" programs combined can now allow a total of 943 "Traditional Degree" undergraduate AA and BA student enrollees. It is my demonstrated opinion that such is incorrect for the purposes envisioned and understood during review and approval of the EIR and related Resolutions. Secondarily, I wish to point out that there is an issue of Credibility with the College's reporting of 786 "Traditional Degree" Program (BA & AA) enrollees (Fall 2011) to the City of RPV while at the same time reporting (variously) to the CollegeBoard and to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 935 and 923 undergraduate BA and AA undergraduate students enrolled. Please explain that inconsistency, if you can. I trust you and Staff will have an appropriate reconciliation with those inconsistent numbers reported to the three different institutions. I have provided that documented evidence in my prior communications to you. You may also wish to refer to the genesis of the Webster University Weekend College program and its contents that was the original basis for the 2009 Planning Commission Resolution approved July 14, 2009. Those Webster University Weekend College and Evening Classes programs (for full and part-time working adults) were characterized by minimal traffic and parking impacts during weekdays (8:00 AM to 10 PM) at the RPV campus, (because they were either infrequent - six total, one weekend session every third week, or 1 day a week for "Evening" classes in San Pedro, etc.) for adult Continuation Learning Program Degrees not now authorized for Marymount College to offer or award those same degrees to such students. For these reasons, and as also noted in Condition #140, these "Non -Traditional degree programs" created minimal to no impacts on parking and traffic Environmental impacts studied in the EIR. For you to now conclude that some or all of the so-called "Non -Traditional Degree Program" student enrollees may be added to the 793 maximum cap advertised throughout the EIR, is unsupported, and if allowed, would require creation of a new CUP to take into account the added requirements for more Traffic and Parking together with revised Mitigation Measures to deal with those increased impacts resulting from such interpretation and allowance. As such the EIR did not study or analyze Environmental impacts beyond those as stated in the record, and which were the basis for developing the various applicable Mitigation Measures incorporated in the approvals by the City, including TR -4, TR -5 and Condition #158. In this respect, you are reminded that the "Hours of Operation" studied for Traffic and Parking were from 8:00 AM to 10 PM, and such studies included what may now be stated as a separate category of "Evening" classes by the College. There was no such category studied or required for purposes of reporting. I would also remind you of the included description regarding "Class Offerings" by the College which confirmed that "no significant intensification in class offerings is anticipated." This being the case, and since the College is not accredited to award advanced degrees previously offered under current WASC Senior Accreditations, the Webster University Evening/Weekend Program, program for MBA, MAIB and MAC degrees are not valid any longer within this "Non -Traditional Degree" program definition of Condition #140 as being currently offered by Marymount College. Similarly, previous Webster University offerings of a Masters of Business Administration, Masters Degree in International Business, or Bachelor's in Management or Psychology no longer apply to this category either. As you know, this Webster University Evening Degree Programs were conducted in San Pedro for adults who are working full-time or part time, not for AA or BA full-time enrolled traditional College students. Such time and location - specific characteristics of the Webster University Evening and Weekend College academic offerings is the basis for the clarification in Condition #140 that these "Non -Traditional Degree Programs "generally avoid overlap with the class schedules of the "Traditional Degree" Programs. This is the reason that they were also not included in the Traffic and Parking analysis conducted. With respect to the aforementioned "Evening Programs" that were conducted one day a week (as part of the Non -Traditional Degree Programs previously offered by Webster University) in San Pedro at the Port of Los Angeles High School, any such overlap was in fact zero. With regard to the Webster University -conducted Weekend College conducted intermittently every other third weekend in RPV, such overlap was minimal being on one night (Friday) when the Traditional Program students had mostly left the campus. (Confirmed by James Reeves' letter to the City of July 18, 2012 -2- o�- -7 reporting on measures taken by the College to reduce on -street parking by students for 2012 and (2013 projection). I must conclude that your latest "interpretation" has the effect of allowing a "Backdoor" revision to their CUP, and have concerns that the College has been reporting variously utilizing non- compliant terminology other than that specified in Condition #146. This is particularly true of the Fall 2011 report that had been disputed earlier for that reason. If, as you suggest, there is some other maximum enrollment number for the College's "Traditional Degree Programs) than 793, why is it that the College has simply not reported their enrollments as being 884 Fall 2011) or 840 (Spring 2012)? Why do you suppose that the College has reported significantly higher BA & AA combined enrollments to other educational institutions such as the CollegeBoard and NCES? If your "interpretation" is correct and was always intended by the Approved EIR and Conditions thereof, why has there been such inconsistencies? This does not smell right. To the extent that your (collective) decision is to somehow enable higher enrollment figures in either Category of "Traditional" and "Non -Traditional Degree" programs, which thereby cause new and added Environmental impacts that occur at different times and locations than already accounted for and studied in the EIR, its Findings and Facts in support of Findings. Such new "interpretation" as you have now claimed would completely invalidate those analyses as well as the corresponding Mitigation Measures derived from such analysis, including both Traffic and Parking impact studies and Mitigations among others. Of the 55 Tables listed in Appendix D, for example, your "interpretation" to add allowed student enrollments above 793 to as much as 943, would invalidate 26 of those Tables and their conclusions. Are you therefore now proposing to re -adjust those Findings? Although we do not now expect that this issue will be part of the actions taken or discussed by the City Council during tomorrow evening's review of your recommendations to postpone any extension, we will be prepared to offer additional information that rebuts your invalid and undocumented claims that the City -Council -approved EIR and Resolutions now support an increase in the, enrollment cap studied therein, specifically as such may apply for "Traditional Degree Programs" in excess of the 793 that was was not studied or included in those approvals Jim Gordon • From: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> • To: "bubba32@cox.net" <bubba32@cox.net> • CC: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpv.com>, CC <CC@rpv.com> • Subject: RE: Staff Recommendation Statements page 1-8 re February 8, 2012 3 a � I Correspondence: Maximum Enrollment > Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:33:17 +0000 > Jim > As you know, you and Lois raised the issue earlier this year that the college has more students than allowed by the conditions of approval and thus is operating out of compliance with its CUP. Staff spent a lot of time conferring with the city attorney and going back through the EIR and other staff reports to look into this matter. Staff concluded that the college is in compliance with the approved conditions of approval based on the enrollment reports the city has received. Our conclusions are captured in the email that was included in the staff report as additional information. This information was included in the report given the continued public comments we have received on the topic. Although the issue before the city council is an extension request from the college, staff will be happy to review the information that you have provided below and answer any questions that the council may have on the enrollment issue. > Joel > From: bubba32@cox.net [bubba32@cox.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:48 PM > To: Joel Rojas > Cc: Ara Mihranian; CC > Subject: Staff Recommendation Statements page 1-8 re February 8, 2012 Correspondence: Maximum Enrollment > Joel > Although I am generally pleased with the current Staff Recommendation to postpone further Council decision action on extending Marymount College's entitlements, I wish to take complete and total issue with your response as shown on page 1-8 of that Staff Report for August 7, 2012, and possibly elsewhere. > In this regard, there is ample evidence in the EIR that documents the separation and independent nature of the so-called "Traditional" Degree Program enrollment limitation of 793 students from the so-called "Non - Traditional" Degree Program limitation (150 weekend/evening students). Based upon that EIR documentation, these two programs are not overlapping or additive to each other for purposes of calculating the correct maximum limit of 793 that was studied. This is an "Emperor's New Clothes" scenario invented by the College of necessity for its expanding enrollments that greatly exceeded what was studied and envisioned in the EIR and resulting Resolutions of June 2010. > There is no analysis anywhere in the EIR that sums up to 943 regularly enrolled undergraduate students. I have recently sent to you the detailed rationale that supports this conclusion which you now have disregarded in favor of your quoted February 2012 response correspondence which is not up to date. Dar from it. To the extent you find confusion or inconsistency in these matters, your attention is directed to Condition No. 11 which states that "In the event that a condition of Approval is in conflict or is inconsistent with any Mitigation Measure for this project, the more restrictive shall apply". That reference includes Mitigation Measures TR -4 and TR -5, among others. > In that respect, you will please note that the illustrated parking strategies (Condition #158 & Mitigation Measure TR -5) link and relate the 463 parking spaces to a maximum enrollment of 793 students, and not to 943. And you are also well aware that the EIR studied those 463 required spaces very carefully in Table 3.3-43 and elsewhere and never utilized a maximum student enrollment number'in excess of 793. Had the EIR done so, for example, at a maximum student enrollment of 943, the required Parking spaces would have been 594 and the resulting Traffic trips would have been 46 percent higher than shown in Table 3.3-12. In other words, any current "interpretation" that states a maximum limitation of 943 student enrollment, completely and totally invalidates dozens of detailed traffic conclusions and studies as contained in Section 2 of Appendix D. The EIR did not do so. The College's claim of a 943 maximum enrollment limitation is simply a re -invention of EIR history, nothing more. > You have also seriously misquoted the College's Fall 2011 enrollment report totaling 884 students (786 Day + 98 Evening students) because that report does not comply with the required reporting Format definitions for "Traditional" and "Non -Traditional" degree students as you have so (mis)stated. Instead, It actually references "Day" students (786) and "Evening" student enrollments (98). In today's full page Marymount College advertisement in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, the College continues to utilize this flawed and improper terminology in presenting as fact a "Maximum" enrollment limitation total of 943 "Day" and "Evening" students. > In summation, had the EIR ever intended that these two separate enrollment categories be combined, there would have been a much higher parking space requirement (the 463 was based on the 793 maximum enrollment limitation - (see Table 3.3-43) by another 131 spaces as shown in Table 3.3-42 for a total of 594 required spaces. If it were the purpose and intention to combine the evening/weekend college maximum enrollment limit of 150 together with the 793 (existing/unchanged) weekday student limit, (totaling 943) then the number of total traffic trips would have also been increased by 888 trips (Table 3.3-14 + Table 3.3-12) to 2,819 (weekday) trips or an increase over the actual traffic studied of 46 percent. 5 o�- > If you further understand that these two programs do not intermix, are not additive, and do not combine, you should recall that the prior Webster University evening/weekend program (on which this was based and now discontinued) was for non -sequential weekends, not conducted each and every weekend or weekday. In a sense, you are combining apples with coconuts. As you may also recall, the EIR studied "Weekday" traffic and Parking such parking demand and number of trips was based upon the Colleges' Hours of Operation from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM inclusive (Appendix D: page 2-7 & 2-8), making no distinction in that study between "Day" and "Evening" Class student enrollments as the College has lately reported to the City in its Fall 2011 enrollment report. > Your further attention is drawn to the wording and intent of Condition #140 that clearly delineates the deliberate separation of these two programs "so as to generally avoid overlap with the class schedules of the Traditional Degree Programs." Obviously, since these Non -Traditional Weekend programs were intermittent - being conducted irregularly on non -sequential weekends, as such they did not consistently co -exist with the on-going Weekday Traditional degree program that was studied to produce the required number of parking spaces and Traffic impacts. Although there was some minimal overlap on intermittent Friday evenings, the Traditional Degree Program students were typically not taking many such evening classes on Fridays, allowing periodic Weekend College attendance without generally overlapping them. Thus, there is further proof that such added 150 students are independent and separate, and operate only on Friday evenings, Saturdays and Sundays, not continuously during the week as the current Staff "interpretation" and College allegation suggests. > For the reasons stated, I believe you will not be able to demonstrate any Findings and/or Facts in support of Findings that support your "interpretation" that such Traditional and Non -Traditional Programs serve as a legitimate basis to condone the excessive 943 maximum enrollment limitation now being claimed. Such is totally unsupported in the record and without merit. > You have also been informed and have failed to reveal the fact that this College has reported the 884 (Fall 2011) enrolled students to the City of RPV while concurrently reporting different numbers and characterizations of a total of 935 to 923 enrolled undergraduate AA and BA students to the prestigious CollegeBoard and to the National Center for Education statistics (NOES), respectively. I have provided that information to you recently. > Now, the College is projecting even higher enrollments and continues to be in very serious violation of its 793 student enrollment limitation of 793, and I, for one, do not believe it is your job or the City's responsibility to make up unsupported rationale that does not exist in the EIR for such outrageous claims of a combined maximum enrollment limitation of 943 undergraduate students that does not exist in the record.. Your next invented "limitation" will certainly 6 0ff- have to address another 99 planned PV Seniors now invited by the College (article) to partake in Marymount's educational programs that would bring the latest (combined) total to as many as 1,042 students. > Just where do you draw the line? As residents, we have to expect that our City will honor the will of the voters who rejected this kind of stealth incrementalism (Measure P) by the College. > "Being "Fair" to Marymount College should simultaneously result in being "Unfair" to the Community and its voters decision of November 2010. > Jim Gordon. 0�- -1 From: Carol W. Lynch [CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:36 PM To: 'Anabella Bonfa'; Amy Seeraty; CC; Planning Cc: Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Bonfa: All of the photos that you provided to the City have been provided to the City Council in printed format along with your letter supporting your client's appeal and the Staff report. Ms. Seeraty attempted to review the videos yesterday, but could not. Unfortunately, she did not find this out until yesterday afternoon. She tried to address the problem through some changes on the computer that she was using at the City, but was not successful. She contacted your client in an effort to notify her of the problem. Typically, only the attorneys, and not the Staff are admonished not to contact applicants or other parties directly. I need to confirm with Ms. Seeraty, but I believe your client told her not to contact you because she would be billed for your time. In any event, your admonition is clear that you do not want anyone from the City to contact your client. I don't know how long the videos are, but if you can bring them to the meeting Tuesday evening along with a computer that can play them, then they could be presented as part of your appellant's presentation. Appellants generally receive 10 minutes to make their presentations to the Council plus 3 minutes of rebuttal time. if you need more time, you can make that request of the Mayor. Depending upon the complexity of the case and the amount of additional time that is requested, the Mayor often grants more time, but it is within the discretion of the Council. I have to confess that I do not know how Utube works, so I am not able to provide assistance about that. Since Ms. Seeraty was unable to view the videos, I don't know whether bringing extra copies to the City will be helpful. Again, copies of all of the photos that you gave to the City along with your supplemental letter have been provided to the City Council. If the videos duplicate the photos, then there should be no problem. Also, as I understand your email, do you now have a copy of the staff report? If you feel that you need more time to ensure that the videos can be viewed and to review the staff report, and if you would like to have your appeal continued to a different meeting, please let me know. Again, it is up to the discretion of the City Council whether to continue an appeal, but such requests frequently are granted. If you would like me to call you on your cell phone to further discuss this matter, I would be happy to do so. Please just let me know. Sincerely, Carol lynch City Attorney From: Anabella Bonfa [mailto:abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:06 PM To: amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com Cc: Anabella Bonfa; Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 8/6/2012 Dear Ms. Seeraty & Mr. Rojas & Council Members: As you know, I am representing Ms. Da'ad Maklouf, with regard to the appeal of her View Restoration Permit which is scheduled for the August 7, 2012 City Council hearing. I was out of the office sick this afternoon and received an emergency call at my doctor's office from client advising me that Ms. Seeraty had contacted her around 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. Ms. Maklouf s appeal was hand delivered to both Ms. Seeraty's office with a copy to the City Council on July 16, 2012. Ms. Seeraty's Staff Report was supposed to be available online yesterday pursuant to the letter sent by her office to my client, but was not available. I stayed at my office until 7 p.m. checking the City website. My client picked up the report from the City this morning and was advised the report was prepared late. Ms. Seeraty then called my client directly in the afternoon to advise her that the videos sent with the appeal were not in a format that could be reviewed and asked her to send the videos to the City at Utube. No information was provided as to what Utube address the videos should be uploaded to. All Ms. Seeraty provided was the Utube website. I attempted to contact Ms. Seeraty and left a voicemail message, but was advised she was out for the day. In the first place, I am not sure why Ms. Seeraty is contacting my client directly in this matter. She was advised in our July 16, 2012 appeal that my office was representing her. Furthermore, I myself contacted Ms. Seeraty to further advise her of this fact the week of July 16, 2012, at which time I discussed the issues in the appeal with her at length. Despite these facts, I never heard, nor did my client, that there was any issues with the videos produced by my office until this afternoon, when it is obviously too late to get the videos to her as she is already gone for the day. The videos and photographs produced were important parts of the evidence to be presented at the hearing and should have been considered in the appeal. Obviously they were not considered as Ms. Seeraty's email indicates she could not view them and the Staff, nevertheless, made findings without this evidence this morning. I believe if there were any issues with the videos, or any other portions of the relevant evidence, they should have been brought up in a timely manner to my office, not on the eve of the hearing after the Staff Report was issued. Furthermore, I believe when the City represented the Staff Report would be available yesterday that it should have been available when represented. It was not. At this point, since I cannot contact Ms. Seeraty, due to her failure to contact my office instead of my client directly, I have no alternative but to have the video directly brought to the City on Monday. Please advise me where they should be sent, how many copies are needed, etc. On a separate issue, in response to Ms. Seeraty's other email to my client this afternoon, we intend to introduce all documents attached to the appeal at the hearing, including any videos and photographs. I ask that the City either contact me at its earliest convenience on my cell phone, if before Monday morning, at 714- 914-9487, or after 9 a.m. at my office on Monday at (949) 580-3737. Please contact my office rather than my client in the future. Anabella Q. Bonfa Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 email: abonfa@w-wlaw.com 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 8/6/2012 e without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 8/6/2012 From: Anabella Bonfa [abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:38 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: abonfa@w-wlaw.com; CC; Planning Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Lynch: Thank you for your response. Yes, I think that continuing tomorrow night's presentation of my client's appeal at the City Council Hearing to allow everyone, including the Staff, to view all the materials in a timely manner would be appropriate. I would also appreciate having more time to review the Staff Report since it was late. Do I need to contact the City Council directly or is this something you can assist us with? I can be reached at my office today or, if you call after 5 p.m., on my cell phone 714-914-9487. Anabella Q. Bonfa Attorney at Law Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Phone: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 ***Privilege and Confidentiality Notice*** The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the named recipient only. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic e-mail or call us at 949-580-3737. Thank you. From: Carol W. Lynch [mailto:CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:36 PM To: 'Anabella Bonfa'; amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com Cc: Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Bonfa: All of the photos that you provided to the City have been provided to the City Council in printed format along with your letter supporting your client's appeal and the Staff report. Ms. Seeraty attempted to review the videos yesterday, but could not. Unfortunately, she did not find this out until yesterday afternoon. She tried to address the problem through some changes on the computer that she was using at the City, but was not successful. She contacted your client in an effort to notify her of the problem. Typically, only the attorneys, and not the Staff are admonished not to contact applicants or other parties directly. I need to confirm with Ms. Seeraty, but I believe your client told her not to contact you because she would be billed for your time. In any event, your admonition is clear that you do not want anyone from the City to contact your client. I don't know how long the videos are, but if you can bring them to the meeting Tuesday evening along 8/6/2012 1 D1 3 with a computer that can play them, then they could be presented as part of your appellant's presentation. Appellants generally receive 10 minutes to make their presentations to the Council plus 3 minutes of rebuttal time. If you need more time, you can make that request of the Mayor. Depending upon the complexity of the case and the amount of additional time that is requested, the Mayor often grants more time, but it is within the discretion of the Council. I have to confess that I do not know how Utube works, so I am not able to provide assistance about that. Since Ms. Seeraty was unable to view the videos, I don't know whether bringing extra copies to the City will be helpful. Again, copies of all of the photos that you gave to the City along with your supplemental letter have been provided to the City Council. If the videos duplicate the photos, then there should be no problem. Also, as I understand your email, do you now have a copy of the staff report? If you feel that you need more time to ensure that the videos can be viewed and to review the staff report, and if you would like to have your appeal continued to a different meeting, please let me know. Again, it is up to the discretion of the City Council whether to continue an appeal, but such requests frequently are granted. If you would like me to call you on your cell phone to further discuss this matter, I would be happy to do so. Please just let me know. Sincerely, Carol Lynch City Attorney From: Anabella Bonfa [mailto:abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:06 PM To: amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com Cc: Anabella Bonfa; Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011- 00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Seeraty & Mr. Rojas & Council Members: As you know, I am representing Ms. Da'ad Maklouf, with regard to the appeal of her View Restoration Permit which is scheduled for the August 7, 2012 City Council hearing. I was out of the office sick this afternoon and received an emergency call at my doctor's office from client advising me that Ms. Seeraty had contacted her around 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. Ms. Maklouf s appeal was hand delivered to both Ms. Seeraty's office with a copy to the City Council on July 16, 2012. Ms. Seeraty's Staff Report was supposed to be available online yesterday pursuant to the letter sent by her office to my client, but was not available. I stayed at my office until 7 p.m. checking the City website. My client picked up the report from the City this morning and was advised the report was prepared late. Ms. Seeraty then called my client directly in the afternoon to advise her that the videos sent with the appeal were not in a format that could be reviewed and asked her to send the videos to the City at Utube. No information was provided as to what Utube address the videos should be uploaded to. All Ms. Seeraty provided was the Utube website. I attempted to contact Ms. Seeraty and left a voicemail message, but was advised she was out for the day. In the first place, I am not sure why Ms. Seeraty is contacting my client directly in this matter. She was advised in our July 16, 2012 appeal that my office was representing her. Furthermore, I myself contacted Ms. Seeraty to further advise her of this fact the week of July 16, 2012, at which time I discussed the issues in the appeal with her at length. Despite these facts, I never heard, nor did my client, that there was any issues with the videos produced by my office until this afternoon, when it is obviously too late to get the videos to her as she is already gone for the day. The videos and photographs produced were important parts of the evidence to be presented at the hearing and should have been considered in the appeal. Obviously they were not considered as Ms. Seeraty's email indicates she could not view them and the Staff, nevertheless, made findings without this evidence this morning. I believe if 8/6/2012 2 c)�- 3 there were any issues with the videos, or any other portions of the relevant evidence, they should have been brought up in a timely manner to my office, not on the eve of the hearing after the Staff Report was issued. Furthermore, I believe when the City represented the Staff Report would be available yesterday that it should have been available when represented. It was not. At this point, since I cannot contact Ms. Seeraty, due to her failure to contact my office instead of my client directly, I have no alternative but to have the video directly brought to the City on Monday. Please advise me where they should be sent, how many copies are needed, etc. On a separate issue, in response to Ms. Seeraty's other email to my client this afternoon, we intend to introduce all documents attached to the appeal at the hearing, including any videos and photographs. I ask that the City either contact me at its earliest convenience on my cell phone, if before Monday morning, at 714- 914-9487, or after 9 a.m. at my office on Monday at (949) 580-3737. Please contact my office rather than my client in the future. Anabella Q. Bonfa Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 email: abonfa@w-wlaw.com 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. 8/6/2012 �'bF3 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 10:16 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Greg Pfost; Teresa Takaoka; Carla Morreale Subject: FW: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Importance: High Attachments: 3rd Appeal Follow-up Letter-7-11-12.doc.pdf; 17.80.070 -appeal to city council.pdf Hi Carol - I believe I left a voicemail for you to this effect as well but I believe per the City's Municipal Code, the City Council Appeal Hearing must occur within 90 days of the appeal letter being submitted. (See attached code section 17.80.070.) Because the appeal was submitted on May 22, 2012, 1 believe the last day that the City Council meeting could occur per this section is August 20th and the last City Council meeting that falls within this time frame is August 7th. However, the code does not say that the appeal must decided upon within 90 days, only that: "... The city manager or city clerk shall fix the time for hearing the appeal within ninety days of the filing of the appeal." So, do you think the Council would perhaps hear my presentation and then open the public hearing to meet the 90 -day requirement but then continue the meeting to allow Ms. Bonfa additional time to review the Staff Report? Please advise Ms. Bonfa if the City Council will even have the ability to continue the hearing to another meeting. As you can see from my emails, I tried to schedule the appeal for an earlier meeting but I did not receive the required materials in time. Thanks again Carol. Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv amys@rpv.com - (310) 544-5228 -----Original Message ----- From: Joel Rojas [mailto:JoelR@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:49 AM To: Amyt@rpv.com Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: FW: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Fyi From: Anabella Bonfa [abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:37 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> 8/6/2012 ' �� Cc: abonfa@w-wlaw.com; CC; Planning Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Lynch: Thank you for your response. Yes, I think that continuing tomorrow night's presentation of my client's appeal at the City Council Hearing to allow everyone, including the Staff, to view all the materials in a timely manner would be appropriate. I would also appreciate having more time to review the Staff Report since it was late. Do I need to contact the City Council directly or is this something you can assist us with? I can be reached at my office today or, if you call after 5 p.m., on my cell phone 714-914-9487. Anabella Q. Bonfa Attorney at Law Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Phone: 949-580-3737 . Fax: 949-580-3738 ***Privilege and Confidentiality Notice*** The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the named recipient only. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic e-mail or call us at 949-580-3737. Thank you. From: Carol W. Lynch [mailto:CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:36 PM To: 'Anabella Bonfa'; amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com Cc: Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Bonfa: All of the photos that you provided to the City have been provided to the City Council in printed format along with your letter supporting your client's appeal and the Staff report. Ms. Seeraty attempted to review the videos yesterday, but could not. Unfortunately, she did not find this out until yesterday afternoon. She tried to address the problem through some changes on the computer that she was using at the City, but was not successful. She contacted your client in an effort to notify her of the problem. Typically, only the attorneys, and not the Staff are admonished not to contact applicants or other parties directly. I need to confirm with Ms. Seeraty, but I believe your client told her not to contact you because she would be billed for your time. In any event, your admonition is clear that you do not want anyone from the City to contact your client. I don't know how long the videos are, but if you can bring them to the meeting Tuesday evening along with a computer that can play them, then they could be presented as part of your appellant's presentation. Appellants generally receive 10 minutes to make their presentations to the Council plus 3 minutes of rebuttal time. If you need more time, you can make that request of the Mayor. Depending upon the complexity of the case and the amount of additional time that is requested, the Mayor often grants more time, but it is within the discretion of the Council. I have to confess that I do not know how Utube works, so I am not able to provide assistance about that. Since Ms. Seeraty was unable to view the videos, I don't know whether bringing extra copies to the City will be helpful. Again, copies of all of the photos that you gave to the City along with your supplemental letter have been provided to the City Council. If the videos duplicate the photos, then there should be no problem. Also, as I understand 8/6/2012 '1i o�— I your email, do you now have a copy of the staff report? If you feel that you need more time to ensure that the videos can be viewed and to review the staff report, and if you would like to have your appeal continued to a different meeting, please let me know. Again, it is up to the discretion of the City Council whether to continue an appeal, but such requests frequently are granted. If you would like me to call you on your cell phone to further discuss this matter, I would be happy to do so. Please just let me know. Sincerely, Carol Lynch City Attorney From: Anabella Bonfa [mailto:abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:06 PM To: amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com Cc: Anabella Bonfa; Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Seeraty & Mr. Rojas & Council Members: As you know, I am representing Ms. Da'ad Maklouf, with regard to the appeal of her View Restoration Permit which is scheduled for the August 7, 2012 City Council hearing. I was out of the office sick this afternoon and received an emergency call at my doctor's office from client advising me that Ms. Seeraty had contacted her around 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. Ms. Makloufs appeal was hand delivered to both Ms. Seeraty's office with a copy to the City Council on July 16, 2012. Ms. Seeraty's Staff Report was supposed to be available online yesterday pursuant to the letter sent by her office to my client, but was not available. I stayed at my office until 7 p.m. checking the City website. My client picked up the report from the City this morning and was advised the report was prepared late. Ms. Seeraty then called my client directly in the afternoon to advise her that the videos sent with the appeal were not in a format that could be reviewed and asked her to send the videos to the City at Utube. No information was provided as to what Utube address the videos should be uploaded to. All Ms. Seeraty provided was the Utube website. I attempted to contact Ms. Seeraty and left a voicemail message, but was advised she was out for the day. In the first place, I am not sure why Ms. Seeraty is contacting my client directly in this matter. She was advised in our July 16, 2012 appeal that my office was representing her. Furthermore, I myself contacted Ms. Seeraty to further advise her of this fact the week of July 16, 2012, at which time I discussed the issues in the appeal with her at length. Despite these facts, I never heard, nor did my client, that there was any issues with the videos produced by my office until this afternoon, when it is obviously too late to get the videos to her as she is already gone for the day. The videos and photographs produced were important parts of the evidence to be presented at the hearing and should have been considered in the appeal. Obviously they were not considered as Ms. Seeraty's email indicates she could not view them and the Staff, nevertheless, made findings without this evidence this morning. I believe if there were any issues with the videos, or any other portions of the relevant evidence, they should have been brought up in a timely manner to my office, not on the eve of the hearing after the Staff Report was issued. Furthermore, I believe when the City represented the Staff Report would be available yesterday that it should have been available when represented. It was not. At this point, since I cannot contact Ms. Seeraty, due to her failure to contact my office instead of my client directly, I have no alternative but to have the video directly brought to the City on Monday. Please advise me where they should be sent, how many copies are needed, etc. On a separate issue, in response to Ms. Seeraty's other email to my client this afternoon, we intend to introduce all documents attached to the appeal at the hearing, including any videos and photographs. I ask that the City either contact me at its earliest convenience on my cell phone, if before Monday morning, at 714-914-9487, or after 9 a.m. at my office on Monday at (949) 580-3737. 8/6/2012 S d�- 01 Please contact my office rather than my client in the future. Anabella Q. Bonfa Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 email: abonfa@w-wlaw. com <mai Ito: abonfa@w-wlaw. com > 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. 8/6/2012 A d�-- 01 C I TV OF LiRANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMFENT DUIAi�TMENT July 11, 2012 SENT VIA CERTIFIED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Da'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: Grounds for Appeal of View Restoration Permit Case No. 2011-00064-P.C. Resolution 2012-08 Dear Mt. Makhlouf: As stated in the letter mailed to you on June 14, 2012 (attached), the grounds for your appeal must be submitted by Monday July 16th at noon if you wish these specific grounds for appeal to be reviewed in the Staff Report for the August 7, 2012 City Council meeting, The specific grounds for your appeal must be available to the public during the public notice period and shall be set forth within the public notice. As such, they must be submitted to my attention by 12 noon on Monday July 16th, as the public notice for this meeting must be sent to the local newspaper by 4:00pm that same day. If the City does not receive the required grounds for appeal by 12 noon on Monday July 16th, my staff report will only address your letter initially submitted on May 22, 2012. However, please note that even if the grounds for Ih appeal are submitted by 12 noon on Monday July 16 , the outcome of the appeal is still contingent on the City Council's decision, If you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 544-5228, or via email at amys(cD-rpv.com. Am#*Sincere' , � Seeraty Associate Planner Enc: Letter dated June 14, 2012 CC: Joel Rojas, AICP, Community Development Director Greg Pfost, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director File 30940 FIAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCH() FMOS VFRDF-S, (;A.90275-5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMEN I DIVISION (310) 544.5228 / PA JILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 / nFPT FAX (:)io) 544-5293 F-MAII. PLANNINOMPVG,0�11/ WWWI'AL,OSVLf,[)F.',q(.',OM/1SIIV .5 & 9 C1TVOF RANCHO PALOS VERDEI! COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT June 14, 2012 Ms. Da'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: Scheduling for Appeal of View Restoration Permit Case No. 2011-00064- P.C. Resolution 2012-08 Dear Mi. Makhlouf: As stated in the letter mailed to you on June 1, 2012 (attached), the grounds for your appeal were to be submitted by Monday June 11th if you wished your appeal to be scheduled for the July 3, 2012 City Council meeting. As the grounds for your appeal were not submitted to the City by June 11th, your appeal was not scheduled for the July 3, 2012 City Council meeting. Please note again that RPV Municipal Code Section 17,80.070.0 (attached) requires:— "The city manager or city clerk shah fix the time for hearing the appeal within ninety days of the filing of the appeal," So, as your appeal was submitted on May 22, 2012, the appeal hearing has been scheduled to take place at the City Council meeting occurring on August 7, 2012, as that is the only other City Council meeting with space available within the 90 -day appeal time frame. The specific grounds for your appeal must be available to the public during the public notice period and shall be set forth within the public notice. As such, they must be submitted to my attention by 12 noon on Monday July 16th, as the public notice for this meeting must be sent to the local newspaper by 4:00prn that same day. If the City does not receive the required grounds for appeal by 12 noon on Monday July 16th, my staff report will only address your letter initially submitted on May 22, 2012. However, please note that even if the grounds for appeal are submitted by 12 noon on Monday July 16th, the outcome of the appeal is still contingent on the City Council's decision. If you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 544-5228, or via email at amys(arpv.com Sincerely Amy Seeraty Associate Planner Enc: Letter dated June 1, 2012 CC: Joel Rojas, AICD, Community Development Director Greg Pfost, AlCP, Deputy Community Development Director File 30940 HAWTHORNEBLvo, RANCHO RAILOSVIERDFS, CA 90275-5391 PLANNIN(l & C'ODE ENFORCEMPNT DNISION (310) 544-5228 BURAING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT FAX (310) 544-5293 &MAIL PLANNINGORPVCOM/ VVW\fkfPA1fkV[-.Rr.)ES(.OM/RPV 111FIM01 CITYOFL I I .NCHO i' ACs VERDE' S DfA:. !)P:�JN'l U I "-1LN't June 1. 2,012 Ms Da'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes. CA 90275 Subject: Scheduling for Appeal of View Restoration Permit Case No. 2011-00064- P.C. Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Makhlouf: Thank you for speaking with me on the phone yesterday regarding the scheduling of your appeal. As we discussed, you (or your representative) must submit the specific grounds for the appeal before I can formally schedule it on a City Council agenda. Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.80.070.A (attached) states: "... The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant...." The next available City Council meeting is the July 30 City Council meeting, If you wish your item to be scheduled for this meeting, please note that I will need the specific grounds for your appeal to be submitted by Monday June 111h at noon, as the public notice for this meeting must be sent to the local newspaper that same day. Please also note that RPV Municipal Code Section 17.80.070.0 (attached) requires that the appeal hearing be scheduled within ninety days of the filing of the appeal. You submitted your appeal on May 22, 2012, so the appeal hearing must take place no later than the City Council meeting occurring on August 7, 2012, If you wish your item to be scheduled for this meeting, please note that I will need the specific grounds for the appeal to be submitted by Monday July 16th at noon, as the public notice for this meeting must be sent to the local newspaper that same day. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (310) 5445228, or via email at amys(cD-'rPv. com. Sincerely, teera&y� Amy e ty Associate Planner Eric, RPVMC 17,80.070 C CC- Joel Rojas, AICP,. Community Development Director Greg Pfost, AICR Deputy Community Development Director File 309417111 -AVO -1)1 -Til hIW1' `')3`.!rl k IA I III NaF�IF I P,' V (2 ',4 Y :'A;I I lit I I( t 111) ?W. 0 ''1 ((.!Ifli 1;44 f1993 I !.V ; "i'l .,,I " : , T. -I " I A I �, )SVE I,, C IF,; C ": )`IINTJV -I & 01 MUniuode 17.8O.O7u-Appeal tocity council. A� Appeal ofaPlanning Commission Decision. Any interested person may file anappeal ofo planning commission's decision tothe city council; provided,the appeal iufi|ed|nwriting within fifteen calendar days after final action by the planning commission and the appropriate fee, ooestablished byresolution cf the city council, inpaid. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any mpecifioaction being requested bythe appellant. The planning commission's decision is final if no appeal is filed within fifteen calendar days. 8' Notice ofAppeal. Anotice ofappeal shall bofiled |nwriting with the city clerk nrthe director and shall set forth the grounds for the appeal and any specific action, being requested by the appellant. C' Hearing Date. The city manager orcity clerk shall fixthe time for hearing the appeal Widhin ` ninety days ofthe filhngnfthe appeal, D- Notice. The city clerk ordirector shall notice the hearing as required by Section 17.80,090 of this chapter. E. Record on Appeal.All materials nnfile with the director shall bepart ofthe city council appeal hearing record. |naddition, any person may offer supplemental evidence during the appeaYhaahng. F' De Novo Review. The city council appeal hearing Is not limited to consideration of the materials presented tothe planning commission. Any matter orevidence relating tothe action on the application, regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the city council atthe appeal hearing. "C`d ?2o� ? I 9�'?/ bap10ibruryz000icode. ni.w»pz?11-8iclieo<DD^165716L8TD4Reouest�bttn%3o%2y/o.. 6/1/20121 Municode Page 1 of 1 17.80.070 - Appeal to city council. A. Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision. Any interested person may file an appeal of a planning commission's decision to the city council; provided, the appeal is filed in writing within fifteen calendar days after final action by the planning commission and the appropriate fee, as established by resolution of the city council, is paid. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. The planning commission's decision is final if no appeal is filed within fifteen calendar days. B. Notice of Appeal. A notice of appeal shall be filed in writing with the city clerk or the director and shall set forth the grounds for the appeal and any specific action, being requested by the appellant. C. Hearing Date. The city manager or city clerk shall fix the time for hearing the appeal within ninety days of the filing of the appeal. D. Notice. The city clerk or director shall notice the hearing as required by Section 17.80.090 of this chapter. E. Record on Appeal. All materials on file with the director shall be part of the city council appeal hearing record. In addition, any person may offer supplemental evidence during the appeal hearing. F. De Novo Review. The city council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials presented to the planning commission. Any matter or evidence relating to the action on the application, regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the city council at the appeal hearing. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 199 7) (Ord. No. 508, § 6, 5-4-10) UM http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=16571 &HTMRequest=http%3a%2f... 7/17/2012 From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 10:21 AM To: Amy Seeraty; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: Ara Mihranian; Greg Pfost; Teresa Takaoka; Carla Morreale Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Amy The appeal items just need to be presented to the cc by the 90 day deadline. The cc can then continue the hearing if they wish. If we're all agreeing to give the appellant more time then we should probably continue the hearing to a date certain. Although I'm not sure I understand the basis for the continuance. It seems they are asking more time for you to view the videos. Do you need more time? Joel From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 10:15 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Greg Pfost; Teresa Takaoka; Carla Morreale Subject: FW: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Hi Carol - I believe I left a voicemail for you to this effect as well but I believe per the City's Municipal Code, the City Council Appeal Hearing must occur within 90 days of the appeal letter being submitted. (See attached code section 17.80.070.) Because the appeal was submitted on May 22, 2012, I believe the last day that the City Council meeting could occur per this section is August 20th and the last City Council meeting that falls within this time frame is August 7th. However, the code does not say that the appeal must decided upon within 90 days, only that: "...The city manager or city clerk shall fix the time for hearing the appeal within ninety days of the filing of the appeal.,, So, do you think the Council would perhaps hear my presentation and then open the public hearing to meet the 90 -day requirement but then continue the meeting to allow Ms. Bonfa additional time to review the Staff Report? Please advise Ms. Bonfa if the City Council will even have the ability to continue the hearing to another meeting. As you can see from my emails, I tried to schedule the appeal for an earlier meeting but I did not receive the required materials in time. Thanks again Carol. Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 1 ps,. U Oq 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv amys@rpv.com - (310) 544-5228 -----Original Message ----- From: Joel Rojas [mailto:Joe1R@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:49 AM To: Amyt@rpv.com Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: FW: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Fyi From: Anabella Bonfa [abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:37 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: abonfa@w-wlaw.com; CC; Planning Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Lynch: Thank you for your response. Yes, I think that continuing tomorrow night's presentation of my client's appeal at the City Council Hearing to allow everyone, including the Staff, to view all the materials in a timely manner would be appropriate. I would also appreciate having more time to review the Staff Report since it was late. Do I need to contact the City Council directly or is this something you can assist us with? I can be reached at my office today or, if you call after 5 p.m., on my cell phone 714-914-9487. 2 0- W Anabella Q. Bonfa Attorney at Law Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Phone: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 ***Privilege and Confidentiality Notice*** The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the named recipient only. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic e-mail or call us at 949-580-3737. Thank you. From: Carol W. Lynch [mailto:CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:36 PM To: 'Anabella Bonfa'; amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com Cc: Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Bonfa: All of the photos that you provided to the City have been provided to the City Council in printed format along with your letter supporting your client's appeal and the Staff report. Ms. Seeraty attempted to review the videos yesterday, but could not. Unfortunately, she did not find this out until yesterday afternoon. She tried to address the problem through some changes on the computer that she was using at the City, but was not successful. She contacted your client in an effort to notify her of the problem. Typically, only the attorneys, and not the Staff are admonished not to contact applicants or other parties directly. I need to confirm with Ms. Seeraty, but I believe your client told her not to contact you because she would be billed for your time. In any event, your admonition is clear that you do not want anyone from the City to contact your client. I don't know how long the videos are, but if you can bring them to the meeting Tuesday evening along with a computer that can play them, then they could be presented as part of your appellant's presentation. Appellants generally receive 10 minutes to make their presentations to the Council plus 3 minutes of rebuttal time. If you need more time, you 3 & (Q can make that request of the Mayor. Depending upon the complexity of the case and the amount of additional time that is requested, the Mayor often grants more time, but it is within the discretion of the Council. I have to confess that I do not know how Utube works, so I am not able to provide assistance about that. Since Ms. Seeraty was unable to view the videos, I don't know whether bringing extra copies to the City will be helpful. Again, copies of all of the photos that you gave to the City along with your'supplemental letter have been provided to the City Council. If the videos duplicate the photos, then there should be no problem. Also, as I understand your email, do you now have a copy of the staff report? If you feel that you need more time to ensure that the videos can be viewed and to review the staff report, and if you would like to have your appeal continued to a different meeting, please let me know. Again, it is up to the discretion of the City Council whether to continue an appeal, but such requests frequently are granted. If you would like me to call you on your cell phone to further discuss this matter, I would be happy to do so. Please just let me know. Sincerely, Carol Lynch City Attorney From: Anabella Bonfa [mailto:abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:06 PM To: amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planningCrpv.com Cc: Anabella Bonfa; Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Seeraty & Mr. Rojas & Council Members: As you know, I am representing Ms. Da'ad Maklouf, with regard to the appeal of her View Restoration Permit which is scheduled for the August 7, 2012 City Council hearing. I was out of the office sick this afternoon and received an emergency call at my doctor's office from client advising me that Ms. Seeraty had contacted her around 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. Ms. Maklouf's appeal was hand delivered to both Ms. Seeraty's office with a copy to the City Council on July 16, 2012. Ms. Seeraty's Staff Report was supposed to be available online yesterday pursuant to the letter sent by her office to my client, but was not available. I stayed at my office until 7 p.m. checking the City website. My client 4o& -<Q picked up the report from the City this morning and was advised the report was prepared late. Ms. Seeraty then called my client directly in the afternoon to advise her that the videos sent with the appeal were not in a format that could be reviewed and asked her to send the videos to the City at Utube. No information was provided as to what Utube address the videos should be uploaded to. All Ms. Seeraty provided was the Utube website. I attempted to contact Ms. Seeraty and left a voicemail message, but was advised she was out for the day. In the first place, I am not sure why Ms. Seeraty is contacting my client directly in this matter. She was advised in our July 16, 2012 appeal that my office was representing her. Furthermore, I myself contacted Ms. Seeraty to further advise her of ,this fact the week of July 16, 2012, at which time I discussed the issues in the appeal with her at length. Despite these facts, I never heard, nor did my client, that there was any issues with the videos produced by my office until this afternoon, when it is obviously too late to get the videos to her as she is already gone for the day. The videos and photographs produced were important parts of the evidence to be presented at the hearing and should have been considered in the appeal. Obviously they were not considered as Ms. Seeraty's email indicates she could not view them and the Staff, nevertheless, made findings without this evidence this morning. I believe if there were any issues with the videos, or any other portions of the relevant evidence, they should have been brought up in a timely manner to my office, not'on the eve of the hearing after the Staff Report was issued. Furthermore, I believe when the City represented the Staff Report would be available yesterday that it should have been available when represented. It was not. At this point, since I cannot contact Ms. Seeraty, due to her failure to contact my office instead of my client directly, I have no alternative but to have the video directly brought to the City on Monday. Please advise me where they should be sent, how many copies are needed, etc. On a separate issue, in response to Ms. Seeraty's other email to my client this afternoon, we intend to introduce all documents attached to the appeal at the hearing, including any videos and photographs. I ask that the City either contact me at its earliest convenience on my cell phone, if before Monday morning, at 714-914-9487, or after 9 a.m. at my office on Monday at (949) 580-3737. Please contact my office rather than my client in the future. Anabella Q. Bonfa Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 email: abonfa@w-wlaw.com<mailto:abonfa@w-wlaw.com> 5 a"'- %Q 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. 6 0S, �Q From: Carol W. Lynch [CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 10:31 AM To: 'abonfa@w-wlaw.com' Cc: CC; Planning Subject: Re: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear .Ms. Bonfa: It certainly is up to you whether you wish to request a continuance. The question then is to what date. The Council has meetings on August 21, September 4 and September 18. Personally, I do not see the need, since you have stated that the video duplicates the photos that you provided, which have been provided to the Council. Nonetheless, if you still want the item continued, please send an email to Ms. Seeraty and me so stating and listing which of the aforementioned three dates that you are available. I don't recall at the moment which of these agendas can accomodate the appeal from a timing perspective. Carol Lynch From: Anabella Bonfa To: Carol W. Lynch Cc: abonfa@w-wlaw.com ; cc@rpv.com ; planning@rpv.com Sent: Mon Aug 06 09:37:33 2012 Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Lynch: Thank you for your response. Yes, I think that continuing tomorrow night's presentation of my client's appeal at the City Council Hearing to allow everyone, including the Staff, to view all the materials in a timely manner would be appropriate. I would also appreciate having more time to review the Staff Report since it was late. Do I need to contact the City Council directly or is this something you can assist us with? I can be reached at my office today or, if you call after 5 p.m., on my cell phone 714-914-9487. Anabella Q. Bonfa Attorney at Law Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Phone: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 * * * Privilege and Confidentiality Notice* * * The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the named recipient only. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic e-mail or call us at 949-580-3737. Thank you. From: Carol W. Lynch [mailto:CLynch@rwgiaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:36 PM To: 'Anabella Bonfa'; amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com 8/6/2012 1 O�Q- 3 9— Cc: Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Bonfa: All of the photos that you provided to the City have been provided to the City Council in printed format along with your letter supporting your client's appeal and the Staff report. Ms. Seeraty attempted to review the videos yesterday, but could not. Unfortunately, she did not find this out until yesterday afternoon. She tried to address the problem through some changes on the computer that she was using at the City, but was not successful. She contacted your client in an effort to notify her of the problem. Typically, only the attorneys, and not the Staff are admonished not to contact applicants or other parties directly. I need to confirm with Ms. Seeraty, but I believe your client told her not to contact you because she would be billed for your time. In any event, your admonition is clear that you do not want anyone from the City to contact your client. I don't know how long the videos are, but if you can bring them to the meeting Tuesday evening along with a computer that can play them, then they could be presented as part of your appellant's presentation. Appellants generally receive 10 minutes to make their presentations to the Council plus 3 minutes of rebuttal time. If you need more time, you can make that request of the Mayor. Depending upon the complexity of the case and the amount of additional time that is requested, the Mayor often grants'more time, but it is within the discretion of the Council. I have to confess that I do not know how Utube works, so I am not able to provide assistance about that. Since Ms. Seeraty was unable to view the videos, I don't know whether bringing extra copies to the City will be helpful. Again, copies of all of the photos that you gave to the City along with your supplemental letter have been provided to the City Council. If the videos duplicate the photos, then there should be no problem. Also, as I understand your email, do you now have a copy of the staff report? If you feel that you need more time to ensure that the videos can be viewed and to review the staff report, and if you would like to have your appeal continued to a different meeting, please let me know. Again, it is up to the discretion of the City Council whether to continue an appeal, but such requests frequently are granted. If you would like me to call you on your cell phone to further discuss this matter, I would be happy to do so. Please just let me know. Sincerely, Carol Lynch City Attorney From: Anabella Bonfa [mailto:abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:06 PM To: amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com Cc: Anabella Bonfa; Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011- 00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Seeraty & Mr. Rojas & Council Members: As you know, I am representing Ms. Da'ad Maklouf, with regard to the appeal of her View Restoration Permit which is scheduled for the August 7, 2012 City Council hearing. I was out of the office sick this afternoon and received an emergency call at my doctor's office from client advising me that Ms. Seeraty had contacted her around 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. Ms. Maklouf s appeal was hand delivered to both Ms. Seeraty's office with a copy to the City Council on July 16, 2012. Ms. Seeraty's Staff Report was supposed to be available online yesterday pursuant to the letter sent by her office to my client, but was not 8/6/2012 Z & 3 available. I stayed at my office until 7 p.m. checking the City website. My client picked up the report from the City this morning and was advised the report was prepared late. Ms. Seeraty then called my client directly in the afternoon to advise her that the videos sent with the appeal were not in a format that could be reviewed and asked her to send the videos to the City at Utube. No information was provided as to what Utube address the videos should be uploaded to. All Ms. Seeraty provided was the Utube website. I attempted to contact Ms. Seeraty and left a voicemail message, but was advised she was out for the day. In the first place, I am not sure why Ms. Seeraty is contacting my client directly in this matter. She was advised in our July 16, 2012 appeal that my office was representing her. Furthermore, I myself contacted Ms. Seeraty to further advise her of this fact the week of July 16, 2012, at which time I discussed the issues in the appeal with her at length. Despite these facts, I never heard, nor did my client, that there was any issues with the videos produced by my office until this afternoon, when it is obviously too late to get the videos to her as she is already gone for the day. The videos and photographs produced were important parts of the evidence to be presented at the hearing and should have been considered in the appeal. Obviously they were not considered as Ms. Seeraty's email indicates she could not view them and the Staff, nevertheless, made findings without this evidence this morning. I believe if there were any issues with the videos, or any other portions of the relevant evidence, they should have been brought up in a timely manner to my office, not on the eve of the hearing after the Staff Report was issued. Furthermore, I believe when the City represented the Staff Report would be available yesterday that it should have been available when represented. It was not. At this point, since I cannot contact Ms. Seeraty, due to her failure to contact my office instead of my client directly, I have no alternative but to have the video directly brought to the City on Monday. Please advise me where they should be sent, how many copies are needed, etc. On a separate issue, in response to Ms. Seeraty's other email to my client this afternoon, we intend to introduce all documents attached to the appeal at the hearing, including any videos and photographs. I ask that the City either contact me at its earliest convenience on my cell phone, if before Monday morning, at 714- 914-9487, or after 9 a.m. at my office on Monday at (949) 580-3737. Please contact my office rather than my client in the future. Anabella Q. Bonfa Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 email: abonfagw-wlaw.com 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. 8/6/2012 3 aV 3 From: Anabella Bonfa [abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 11:00 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: CC; amys@rpvs.com; abonfa@w-wlaw.com Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Attachments: S45C-51208061 1000. pdf Dear Ms. Lynch: I'm not sure what reference you are referring to, but the video does not "duplicate" the photos. We would like a continuance to either 9/4 or 9/18 in light of the late staff report and video issue, so that the Staff and City may review all the materials we provided, so long as no limitations periods will be waived as to the timing of the hearing. I am attaching Ms. Seeraty's 6/1/12 letter. It appears from her letter as if the appeal had to be heard by 8/7/12, but if the City is willing to accommodate the request, we would appreciate it. Please let me know as soon as possible as we have witnesses scheduled to appear. Anabella Q. Bonfa Attorney at Law Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Phone: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 * * * Privilege and Confidentiality Notice* * * The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the named recipient only. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic e-mail or call us at 949-580-3737. Thank you. From: Carol W. Lynch [mailto:CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 10:31 AM To: 'abonfa@w-wlaw.com' Cc: 'cc@rpv.com'; 'planning@rpv.com' Subject: Re: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear .Ms. Bonfa: It certainly is up to you whether you wish to request a continuance. The question then is to what date. The Council has meetings on August 21, September 4 and September 18. Personally, I do not see the need, since you have stated that the video duplicates the photos that you provided, which have been provided to the Council. Nonetheless, if you still want the item continued, please send an email to Ms. Seeraty and me so stating and listing which of the aforementioned three dates that you are available. I don't recall at the moment which of these agendas can accomodate the appeal from a timing perspective. Carol Lynch 8/6/2012 From: Anabella Bonfa To: Carol W. Lynch Cc: abonfa@w-wlaw.com ; cc@rpv.com ; planning@rpv.com Sent: Mon Aug 06 09:37:33 2012 Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Lynch: Thank you for your response. Yes, I think that continuing tomorrow night's presentation of my client's appeal at the City Council Hearing to allow everyone, including the Staff, to view all the materials in a timely manner would be appropriate. would also appreciate having more time to review the Staff Report since it was late. Do I need to contact the City Council directly or is this something you can assist us with? I can be reached at my office today or, if you call after 5 p.m., on my cell phone 714-914-9487. Anabella Q. Bonfa Attorney at Law Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Phone: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 * * *Privilege and Confidentiality Notice* * * The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the named recipient only. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic e-mail or call us at 949-580-3737. Thank you. From: Carol W. Lynch [mailto:CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:36 PM To: 'Anabella Bonfa'; amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com Cc: Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Bonfa: All of the photos that you provided to the City have been provided to the City Council in printed format along with your letter supporting your client's appeal and the Staff report. Ms. Seeraty attempted to review the videos yesterday, but could not. Unfortunately, she did not find this out until yesterday afternoon. She tried to address the problem through some changes on the computer that she was using at the City, but was not successful. She contacted your client in an effort to notify her of the problem. Typically, only the attorneys, and not the Staff are admonished not to contact applicants or other parties directly. I need to confirm with Ms. Seeraty, but I believe your client told her not to contact you because she would be billed for your time. In any event, your admonition is clear that you do not want anyone from the City to contact your client. I don't know how long the videos are, but if you can bring them to the meeting Tuesday evening along with a computer that can play them, then they could be presented as part of your appellant's presentation. Appellants generally receive 10 minutes to make their presentations to the Council plus 3 minutes of rebuttal time. If you need more time, you can make that request of the Mayor. Depending upon the complexity of the case and the amount of additional time that is requested, the Mayor often grants more time, but it is within the discretion of the Council. I have to confess that I do not know how Utube works, so I am not able to provide assistance about that. Since Ms. Seeraty 8/6/2012 `Z 4- S was unable to view the videos, I don't know whether bringing extra copies to the City will be helpful. Again, copies of all of the photos that you gave to the City along with your supplemental letter have been provided to the City Council. If the videos duplicate the photos, then there should be no problem. Also, as I understand your email, do you now have a copy of the staff report? If you feel that you need more time to ensure that the videos can be viewed and to review the staff report, and if you would like to have your appeal continued to a different meeting, please let me know. Again, it is up to the discretion of the City Council whether to continue an appeal, but such requests frequently are granted. If you would like me to call you on your cell phone to further discuss this matter, I would be happy to do so. Please just let me know. Sincerely, Carol Lynch City Attorney From: Anabella Bonfa [mailto:abonfa@w-wiaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:06 PM To: amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com Cc: Anabella Bonfa; Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011- 00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Seeraty & Mr. Rojas & Council Members: As you know, I am representing Ms. Da'ad Maklouf, with regard to the appeal of her View Restoration Permit which is scheduled for the August 7, 2012 City Council hearing. I was out of the office sick this afternoon and received an emergency call at my doctor's office from client advising me that Ms. Seeraty had contacted her around 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. Ms. Maklouf s appeal was hand delivered to both Ms. Seeraty's office with a copy to the City Council on July 16, 2012. Ms. Seeraty's Staff Report was supposed to be available online yesterday pursuant to the letter sent by her office to my client, but was not available. I stayed at my office until 7 p.m. checking the City website. My client picked up the report from the City this morning and was advised the report was prepared late. Ms. Seeraty then called my client directly in the afternoon to advise her that the videos sent with the appeal were not in a format that could be reviewed and asked her to send the videos to the City at Utube. No information was provided as to what Utube address the videos should be uploaded to. All Ms. Seeraty provided was the Utube website. I attempted to contact Ms. Seeraty and left a voicemail message, but was advised she was out for the day. In the first place, I am not sure why Ms. Seeraty is contacting my client directly in this matter. She was advised in our July 16, 2012 appeal that my office was representing her. Furthermore, I myself contacted Ms. Seeraty to further advise her of this fact the week of July 16, 2012, at which time I discussed the issues in the appeal with her at length. Despite these facts, I never heard, nor did my client, that there was any issues with the videos produced by my office until this afternoon, when it is obviously too late to get the videos to her as she is already gone for the day. The videos and photographs produced were important parts of the evidence to be presented at the hearing and should have been considered in the appeal. Obviously they were not considered as Ms. Seeraty's email indicates she could not view them and the Staff, nevertheless, made findings without this evidence this morning. I believe if there were any issues with the videos, or any other portions of the relevant evidence, they should have been brought up in a timely manner to my office, not on the eve of the hearing after the Staff Report was issued. Furthermore, I believe when the City represented the Staff Report would be available yesterday that it should have been available when represented. It was not. At this point, since I cannot contact Ms. Seeraty, due to her failure to contact my office instead of my client 8/6/2012 directly, I have no alternative but to have the video directly brought to the City on Monday. Please advise me where they should be sent, how many copies are needed, etc. On a separate issue, in response to Ms. Seeraty's other email to my client this afternoon, we intend to introduce all documents attached to the appeal at the hearing, including any videos and photographs. I ask that the City either contact me at its earliest convenience on my cell phone, if before Monday morning, at 714- 914-9487, or after 9 a.m. at my office on Monday at (949) 580-3737. Please contact my office rather than my client in the future. Anabella Q. Bonfa Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 email: abonfagw-wlaw.com 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. 8/6/2012 Lf d�- S June 1, 2:012 Ms Da'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive `rancho Palos Verdes, CA '90275 RANCHO TALUS VER DES ,N T)".1 k\kl '-IL N I Subject: Scheduling for Appeal of View Restoration Permit Case No. 201140064- P.C. Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Makhlouf Thank you for speaking with me on the .phone yesterday regarding the scheduling of ,your appeal. As we `ditscussed, y6o (or YbUr representative) must submit the specific grounds for the appeal before i can form-dify schedule it on a City Council agenda, kaneho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.80.070�A (attached) states: "..: The appeal shall set forth the ;grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant...." The next available City Council meeting is the July V City Council meeting, if you wish your item to be scheduled for this meeting, please note that 1 will need the specific grounds for your appeal to be submitted by Monday June Wh at noon, as the public, notice for this meeting must be sent to the iocat newspaper that same day. Please also note that RPV Municipal Code Section 17.80:070.0 (attached) requires that the appeal hearing be scheduled within ninety days of the filing of the appeal. You submitted your appeal on May 22, 2012., so the appeal hearing rnustUke place no later than the City Council meeting occurring on August 7, 2012. if you wish your item to be .scheduled for this meeting, please note that i will need the specific grounds for the appeal to be submitter! by Monday July 16"' at noon, as the public notice for this meeting must be sent to the local newspaper that :same day. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (310) 044-5228, or via email at amvss. xpu.coM. Sincerely, ; Amy Seeraty Associate Planner Enc, RPVMC 17 80 070_C CC- Joel Rojas, AICP, Community Development Director Greg Pfost, AICP, Deputy Community:Development Director File 3Qn'Sf7%annvN-I'NIi4Wf;+XJII;)IIN' VtKT; '.x;''4021', Ith 71c;`�r"iF^'rl};.�;=-r,I- I.s'-,, ,-! p''4'it'.6„',fl6Fl` 'rt"h(`'t!'ti)..,I'd^.!.:P)',441".'fg',. I .t.L1' _,. °^sMti `h � ,.,1, 'ti.l%_.N'�-+r 1S �'�'1.r"S � ', ;+• �' S 61 �-5 From: Anabella Bonfa [abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 11:24 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: CC; Planning; abonfa@w-wlaw.com; amys@rpvs.com Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Ms. Lynch: I just received the Staff Report in the mail. It was postmarked on Friday. Anabella Q. Bonfa Attorney at Law Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Phone: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 ***Privilege and Confidentiality Notice*** The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the named recipient only. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic e-mail or call us at 949-580-3737. Thank you. From: Carol W. Lynch [mailto:CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 10:31 AM To: 'abonfa@w-wlaw.com' Cc: 'cc@rpv.com; 'planning@rpv.com' Subject: Re: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 pear .Ms. Bonfa: It certainly is up to you whether you wish to request a continuance. The question then is to what date. The Council has meetings on August 21, September 4 and September 18. Personally, I do not see the need, since you have stated that the video duplicates the photos that you provided, which have been provided to the Council. Nonetheless, if you still want the item continued, please send an email to Ms. Seeraty and me so stating and listing which of the aforementioned three dates that you are available. I don't recall at the moment which of these agendas can accomodate the appeal from a timing perspective. Carol Lynch From: Anabella Bonfa To: Carol W. Lynch Cc: abonfa@w-wlaw.com ; cc@rpv.com ; planning@rpv.com Sent: Mon Aug 06 09:37:33 2012 Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Lynch: Thank you for your response. Yes, I think that continuing tomorrow night's presentation of my client's 8/6/2012 1 oil appeal at the City Council Hearing to allow everyone, including the Staff, to view all the materials in a timely manner would be appropriate. I would also appreciate having more time to review the Staff Report since it was late. Do I need to contact the City Council directly or is this something you can assist us with? can be reached at my office today or, if you call after 5 p.m., on my cell phone 714-914-9487. Anabella Q. Bonfa Attorney at Law Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Phone: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 * * * Privilege and Confidentiality Notice* * * The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the named recipient only. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic e-mail or call us at 949-580-3737. Thank you. From: Carol W. Lynch [mailto:CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:36 PM To: 'Anabella Bonfa'; amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com Cc: Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: RE: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011-00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Bonfa: All of the photos that you provided to the City have been provided to the City Council in printed format along with your letter supporting your client's appeal and the Staff report. Ms. Seeraty attempted to review the videos yesterday, but could not. Unfortunately, she did not find this out until yesterday afternoon. She tried to address the problem through some changes on the computer that she was using at the City, but was not successful. She contacted your client in an effort to notify her of the problem. Typically, only the attorneys, and not the Staff are admonished not to contact applicants or other parties directly. I need to confirm with Ms. Seeraty, but I believe your client told her not to contact you because she would be billed for your time. In any event, your admonition is clear that you do not want anyone from the City to contact your client. I don't know how long the videos are, but if you can bring them to the meeting Tuesday evening along with a computer that can play them, then they could be presented as part of your appellant's presentation. Appellants generally receive 10 minutes to make their presentations to the Council plus 3 minutes of rebuttal time. If you need more time, you can make that request of the Mayor. Depending upon the complexity of the case and the amount of additional time that is requested, the Mayor often grants more time, but it is within the discretion of the Council. I have to confess that I do not know how Utube works, so I am not able to provide assistance about that. Since Ms. Seeraty was unable to view the videos, I don't know whether bringing extra copies to the City will be helpful. Again, copies of all of the photos that you gave to the City along with your supplemental letter have been provided to the City Council. If the videos duplicate the photos, then there should be no problem. Also, as I understand your email, do you now have a copy of the staff report? If you feel that you need more time to ensure that the videos can be viewed and to review the staff report, and if you would like to have your appeal continued to a different meeting, please let me know. Again, it is up to the discretion of the City Council whether to continue an appeal, but such requests frequently are granted. 8/6/2012 � °�- q If you would like me to call you on your cell phone to further discuss this matter, I would be happy to do so. Please just let me know. Sincerely, Carol Lynch City Attorney From: Anabella Bonfa [mailto:abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:06 PM To: amys@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com Cc: Anabella Bonfa; Havaja Frljuckic; Stuart Miller Subject: Amy Seeraty's Calls and Emails to My Client, Da'ad Maklouf this afternoon Re: View Restoration Permit VRP 2011- 00064 & PC Resolution 2012-08 Dear Ms. Seeraty & Mr. Rojas & Council Members: As you know, I am representing Ms. Da'ad Maklouf, with regard to the appeal of her View Restoration Permit which is scheduled for the August 7, 2012 City Council hearing. I was out of the office sick this afternoon and received an emergency call at my doctor's office from client advising me that Ms. Seeraty had contacted her around 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. Ms. Maklouf s appeal was hand delivered to both Ms. Seeraty's office with a copy to the City Council on July 16, 2012. Ms. Seeraty's Staff Report was supposed to be available online yesterday pursuant to the letter sent by her office to my client, but was not available. I stayed at my office until 7 p.m. checking the City website. My client picked up the report from the City this morning and was advised the report was prepared late. Ms. Seeraty then called my client directly in the afternoon to advise her that the videos sent with the appeal were not in a format that could be reviewed and asked her to send the videos to the City at Utube. No information was provided as to what Utube address the videos should be uploaded to. All Ms. Seeraty provided was the Utube website. I attempted to contact Ms. Seeraty and left a voicemail message, but was advised she was out for the day. In the first place, I am not sure why Ms. Seeraty is contacting my client directly in this matter. She was advised in our July 16, 2012 appeal that my office was representing her. Furthermore, I myself contacted Ms. Seeraty to further advise her of this fact the week of July 16, 2012, at which time I discussed the issues in the appeal with her at length. Despite these facts, I never heard, nor did my client, that there was any issues with the videos produced by my office until this afternoon, when it is obviously too late to get the videos to her as she is already gone for the day. The videos and photographs produced were important parts of the evidence to be presented at the hearing and should have been considered in the appeal. Obviously they were not considered as Ms. Seeraty's email indicates she could not view them and the Staff, nevertheless, made findings without this evidence this morning. I believe if there were any issues with the videos, or any other portions of the relevant evidence, they should have been brought up in a timely manner to my office, not on the eve of the hearing after the Staff Report was issued. Furthermore, I believe when the City represented the Staff Report would be available yesterday that it should have been available when represented. It was not. At this point, since I cannot contact Ms. Seeraty, due to her failure to contact my office instead of my client directly, I have no alternative but to have the video directly brought to the City on Monday. Please advise me where they should be sent, how many copies are needed, etc. On a separate issue, in response to Ms. Seeraty's other email to my client this afternoon, we intend to introduce all documents attached to the appeal at the hearing, including any videos and photographs. I ask that the City either contact me at its earliest convenience on my cell phone, if before Monday morning, at 714- 914-9487, or after 9 a.m. at my office on Monday at (949) 580-3737. 8/6/2012 J OF Please contact my office rather than my client in the future. Anabella Q. Bonfa Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 email: abonfa2w-wlaw.com 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. 8/6/2012 r oy, q From: Len6e Bilski [leneebilski@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 8:44 AM To: CC Cc: Greg Pfost Subject: Trump Rev. 'BBB" Aug. 7, 2012 CC Agenda Dear Mayor and City Council members, Before allowing another extension to the operation of the driving range, please require Trump National to do something to confine balls within the Driving Range. The organization needs to enforce their conditions and mitigation measures regarding safety to keep balls from being hit beyond the boundaries. There are still many many balls landing on the trails, habitat, and future home sites on the Trump property in Tract 50666. It seems the Conditions/Mitigation Measures are not being enforced by the Trump organization. Although now the golfers using the driving range are to be "monitored" by Trump golf staff, what does that really mean? Are they enforcing the safety measures to confine balls within the boundaries of the Driving Range ? Why since May 2012 are there still so many golf balls landing beyond the boundaries? I have observed one ball whizzing at high speed directly in front of me on the trail (not rolling down the berm) I have counted numerous balls in the habitat, on the slopes beyond the berm and on the future home sites and road/trails near PVDrSo. north of the Range. Perhaps the Council could just extend the temporary opening for another 6 months to give the Trump organization time to demonstrate they can solve the problem of many balls (23 -200+) exceeding the limits of the driving range as agreed to during the Measure QQ hearing. Or perhaps the original plan to restrict the range to low -impact balls rather than standard balls should be reinstated as the only solution to this safety issue. Something is not working and needs to be fixed before someone gets hit by a ball. Sincerely, Lenee Bilski 8/6/2012 „