Loading...
20131203 Late CorrespondenceFrom: Sent: To: Subject: Brian, Carolyn Lehr Tuesday, December 03, 2013 5:20 PM cc FW: Item H on Consent calendar In that time period, the City has posted compensation each year in accordance with the instructions provided by the State Controller's Office. The 2012 figure for the City Manager was $173,975. Recall that this reports salary based on Medicare taxable wages. The Grand Jury Report relied on the State Controller's Office report when it concluded that no employees earned more than $200,000 per year. The City was not asked to provide this information. Other tables and documents quoted the current $200,063 figure (to be exact, $200,062.80) as found in the City Manager Contract, a posting of a Public Records request from Ken Dyda, and now the proposed agenda item tonight which adds the City Manager to the Council approved salary ranges-in accordance with CalPERS guidelines. Hope that helps, Carolyn From: RPV Councilman B Campbell [mailto:b.camp@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:15 PM To: Carolyn Lehr; Dennis Mclean Subject: Item H on Consent calendar Carolyn, Can you have whomever updates the city web page regarding the city managers annual salary provide council with the different amounts reported on the city site for the previous 24 months? I recall having seen that reported amount of salary vary up and down several times since your contract was last modified. Can you also let us know what was reported to the LA County Civil Grand Jury as your salary from earlier this year? I seem to recall from our council meeting that their report stated that no RPV employees earned more than $200K. If that was the case, then a simple explanation to this and my above question should take care of my prep on this matter. Thanks, Brian Brian Campbell Councilman City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-544-7400 cell+ text 424-237-2582 office 888-855-9619 fax 1 fJ. CrrYoF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK DECEMBER 3, 2013 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached. are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. D K Respectfully submitted, Description of Material Email exchange between Staff and Marianne Hunter; Email exchange between Staff and Cassie Jones Email from Eva Cicoria ~~ Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, December 2, 2013**. W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20131203 additions revisions to agenda through Tuesday afternoon.doc From: Joel Rojas Sent: To: Monday, December 02, 2013 5:13 PM 2hunter@cox.net Cc: CC; Leza Mikhail Subject: FW: Ordinance No. 552 Marianne I was forwarded your email about your concerns regarding the proposd moratorium ordinance amendment that is on the Council's agenda tomorrow night where you reference Cassie Jones' letter. Below is the response provided to Cassie regarding her letter. Joel From: Joel Rojas . Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 2:54 PM To: Susan; <cassiej@aol.com> Cc: CC; <RMBSTS@msn.com>; <IDSloan@aol.com>; <joanmc8921@aol.com>; <k.olson@cox.net>; Leza Mikhail (LezaM@rpv.com); EduardoS (EduardoS@rpv.com); James Lancaster (JLancaster@KlingConsultingGroup.com); Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: RE: Ordinance No. 552 Cassie The purpose of amending the Moratorium Ordinance to allow a lifetime maximum of 50 cubic yards of non-remedial grading per developed lot is to allow all existing property owners with developed properties in the moratorium area an opportunity to make minor improvements to their properties, like driveways or landscaping, which they cannot do under the present moratorium. Currently, the Moratorium Ordinance allows remedial grading (with no cap on the amount of grading) and grading for foundations of structures. The allowance of up to 50 cubic yards for miscellaneous non-remedial grading per developed lot was discussed with the City Geologist, who believes the allowance would have no detrimental effect on the landslide. Furthermore, the proposed amendment requires that applicants submit and receive approval of a geology report demonstrating that the non-remedial grading will not aggravate the existing slide situation. Staff and the City geologist see this proposal as something completely different than the proposal to allow up to 1,000 cubic yards of grading per lot to facilitate new development on vacant lots, which is the subject of the Zone 2 EIR. For that reason, this proposal is moving forward independently of the Zone 2 EIR. Your comments will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence tomorrow night. Joel From: Susan [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:08 PM To: <cassiej@aol.com>; Joel Rojas Cc: CC; <RMBST5@msn.com>; <IDSloan@aol.com>; <joanmc8921@aol.com>; <k.olson@cox.net> Subject: Re: Ordinance No. 552 Dear Cassie, 1 Thanks for your thought-provoking letter. I am forwarding this to Joel Rojas for an explanation. Hopefully, this will alleviate some of your concerns. Best always, Susan Susan Brooks Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787{cell) [X] Sent from my iPhone On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:34 PM, <cassiej@aol.com<mailto:cassiej@aol.com» wrote: Re: Adoption of -Code Amendment to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to Establish an Exception Category to Allow Minor, Non-Remedial Grading on Lots Developed with a Residential Structure or Other Lawfully Existing Non-Residential Structure within the City's Landslide Moratorium Area (Mikhail) I have attached a letter regarding this new ordinance. Thanks! cassiej@aol.com<mailto:cassiej@aol.com> <Grading_ Ordinance.doc> 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Cassie <cassiej@aol.com> Monday, December 02, 2013 8:36 PM Joel Rojas Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; CC; <RMBST5@msn.com>; <IDSloan@aol.com>; <joanmc8921@aol.com>; <k.olson@cox.net>; Leza Mikhail; Eduardo Schonborn; James Lancaster (JLancaster@KlingConsultingGroup.com); Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Re: Ordinance No. 552 I'm just saying that you have an EIR pending for the area and I am not sure how the roads, canyons, landslides, "storm drains" and dewatering wells know that this grading is "different." More hardscape, as in driveways, no matter where it is, sends water to the same place. More trucks on the roads destroy the" storm drains" no matter to what lot they are driving. I don't think you have convinced me that the timing is right for this and that you have thought it out completely. I don't see how new homes are exempted from an additional 50 CY. And that is a big part of the EIR and here you go making exceptions to it already. It seems it allows an additional amount of grading, not a lifetime maximum, unless there is a way to go back 50 years and see all the changes. And it makes it seem like the EIR isn't being taken seriously. This may seem like nickel and dime stuff to the City, but some of us actually live here. If it were taken seriously, every drop of water going down Altamira Canyon and into the landslides would be questioned at the least, prevented as a good start and removed as a best course of action. My opinion, of course. On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> wrote: Cassie The purpose of amending the Moratorium Ordinance to allow a lifetime maximum of 50 cubic yards of non-remedial grading per developed lot is to allow all existing property owners with developed properties in the moratorium area an opportunity to make minor improvements to their properties, like driveways or landscaping, which they cannot do under the present moratorium. Currently, the Moratorium Ordinance allows remedial grading (with no cap on the amount of grading) and grading for foundations of structures. The allowance of up to 50 cubic yards for miscellaneous non-remedial grading per developed lot was discussed with the City Geologist, who believes the allowance would have no detrimental effect on the landslide. Furthermore, the proposed amendment requires that applicants submit and receive approval of a geology report demonstrating that the non-remedial grading will not aggravate the existing slide situation. Staff and the City geologist see this proposal as something completely different than the proposal to allow up to 1,000 cubic yards of grading per lot to facilitate new development on vacant lots, which is the subject of the Zone 2 EIR. For that reason, this proposal is moving forward independently of the Zone 2 EIR. Your comments will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence tomorrow night. Joel 1 From: Susan [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:08 PM To: <cassiej@aol.com>; Joel Rojas Cc: CC; <RMBST5@msn.com>; <IDSloan@aol.com>; <joanmc8921@aol.com>; <k.olson@cox.net> Subject: Re: Ordinance No. 552 Dear Cassie, Thanks for your thought-provoking letter. I am forwarding this to Joel Rojas for an explanation. Hopefully, this will alleviate some of your concerns. Best always, Susan Susan Brooks Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) ~ Sent from my iPhone On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:34 PM, <cassiej@aol.com> wrote: Re: Adoption of-Code Amendment to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to Establish an Exception Category to Allow Minor, Non-Remedial Grading on Lots Developed with a Residential Structure or Other Lawfully Existing Non-Residential Structure within the City's Landslide Moratorium Area (Mikhail) I have attached a letter regarding this new ordinance. Thanks! cassiej@aol.com <Grading_ Ordinance.doc> 2 Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: cicoriae@aol.com Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:56 PM cc Ara Mihranian; avona@pvplc.org PVPLC ANNUAL REPORT PVPLC annual report to CC. my comments on PVNP.pdf Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Dujovic, and Council Members Campbell, Knight, and Misetich, Please direct the MRCA rangers to redouble their efforts to protect habitat, trails, and public safety from mountain bikers. The most recent ranger report (August 2013) indicates that over a 3-month period not a single citation was issued to a single mountain biker. Does this mean that mountain bikers no longer ride off trail and with reckless disregard for the well being of habitat, other Preserve users, or the trails' sustainability under their riding style? No. This activity goes on dailv. I've attached photos. of a few examples of activity that should be curtailed and yet is not being cited by rangers. If I'm seeing it, why aren't the rangers? Or are they? Please raise the question whether the lack of citations issued to mountain bikers reflects an inability to catch them. If that is the case, then let's problem solve a solution. As evident from the photos attached, the safety and enjoyment of Preserve visitors continues to be threatened by mountain bikers, our trails continue to be degraded, native plant vegetation continues to be crushed trailside on trails which mountain bikers aren't even supposed to be on yet they ride them daily. Last, I want to express appreciation for the quarterly public forums and the opportunity the forums provide to exchange information and observations among members of RPV and PVPLC staff and the public with a view to improving the PV Nature Preserve. I won't be able to attend tonight's meeting due to illness, but wanted to take this opportunity to encourage City attention to these matters. Sincerely, Eva Cicoria Cyclists routinely ride fast down Ishibashi Trail. In this case, I heard brakes screech, looked over from Fire Station Trail and saw this scene. It can't be the case that rangers never see this. I came across this scene-mountain bikers had put down their bikes and walked off trail, then they rode on down another illegal trail (the illegal trail in the next photo). Do the rangers not see these activities or are they unable to cite them? This is an illegal trail. The tracks are evidence of the continued use of the trail by mountain bikers. I see mountain bikers on this trail regularly, yet the rangers are not citing them. Why? " \l\ '-' This is the entrance to Landslide Scarp. Bikes aren't permitted on this trail. The tracks are evidence of the heavy bike use of the trail, yet the rangers are not citing them. Why? ~\ "-' Dormant native vegetation is being crushed and killed trailside on Landslide Scarp Trail. Bikes are not permitted on this trail, yet they ride it daily. Still, no citations. Our trails are being degraded by cyclists. This doesn't happen to hiking only trails. And it hasn't happened from equestrians on trails either. Trails degraded by cyclists riding too fast to stay in the trail bed-no citations. Ishibashi Trail-degraded by cyclists riding too fast to stay in the trail bed and braking hard on steep terrain. This trail is too steep to be sustainable for bikes that are attracted to it for its steepness, curves and other "features". Rattlesnake Trail-degraded by cyclists. This doesn't happen to hiking only trails. Cyclists are braking hard on this steep, winding trail, destroying the trail bed. CrrYoF TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK DECEMBER 2, 2013 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached· are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, December 3, 2013 City Council meeting: Item No. c D 4 Respectfully submitted, Description of Materials Email from Janet Gunter Email exchange between Mayor Brooks and Cassie Jones; Email from William and Marianne Hunter; Email exchange between Staff and Cassie Jones Email from Christopher F. Wilson; Email exchange between Staff and John Maniatakis ~~~ Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20131118 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc From: Sent: To: Subject: Kit Fox Monday, December 02, 2013 10:16 AM Teresa Takaoka FW: RLn: Article on Front page Rancho LPG (& pg 6) & Ponte Vista Housing development Late Correspondence on Item 'C' (Border Issues) Kit Fox, AICP Citl.J of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5226 kit£@rpv.com From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arrianeS@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:51 AM To: MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; hanslaetz@gmail.com; bruce@bornemannla.com; carl.southwell@gmail.com; chateau4us@att.net; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; burling102@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; lpryor@usc.edu; rgb251@berkeley.edu; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; bonbon90731@gmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; chip@chipmonck.com; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; Kit Fox Subject: Fwd: RLn: Article on Front page Rancho LPG (&pg 6) & Ponte Vista Housing development I LOVE PAUL ROSENBERG!! If only this was a major newspaper!! -----Original Message----- From: James Preston Allen <reads@randomlengthsnews.com> To: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com> Sent: Wed, Nov 27, 2013 10:01 am Subject: RLn: Opening Curt's Kitchen A quick look at what's inside the current issue of RLn and at what's coming up ... Click the Cover below to view digital edition. 1 Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. c Planning Commission Approves Ponte Vista: Ignores Sal etv Threat of Rancho lPG, Traffic, Drainage Issues By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor A t the same time the Garcetti administration seems alarmed about lax controls on project development at the Port of Los Angeles-as exemplified by cost overruns on the TraPac terminal-similar problems of lax oversight are seemingly being ignored in the planning process, culminating in the questionable Planning Department approval of the Ponte Vista project on Nov. 17. It was drastically scaled back from 2,300 units when first proposed by long-gone developer Bob Bisno in 2005 to 676 units today (with an absolute cap of 700). Though it remains unclear to critics if any development at all-even at the existing R-1 density of just 360 homes-could be built without negatively impacting the area as a whole. And, that's with mitigation measures and without even considering the questionable dangers posed by the Rancho LPG facility and two other petroleum facilities surrounding the site. Safety Ignored/ to p. 6 How a Girl Scout and an Advocateforthe PoorTeanted Up to Feed the Hungry By Terelle Jerricks, Managing Editor Helen Grove's favorite parable in the Bible is "the Sheep and the Goats," which describes God sifting amongst mankind his Hock on their way to heaven the way a shepherd would sift goats from his Hock of sheep. "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come,you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for yo11 since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked lifter me, l was in prison and you came to visit me.'" FClr Helen, this passage (Matthew 25) has been a tangible idea. As of Nov. I, she has been handing out food to the hungry for 23 years on Beacon Street next to Plaza Park. But now she's doing it out of a storefront on North Pacific Avenue called Curt's Kitchen. Helen credits 16 year-old Elizabeth "Lizzy" Rich for making it happen. Lizzy, a long time Girl Scout made helping Helen her project to earn the highest honor a girl scout can achieve, the Gold Award. Though the award was the result of the effort, the fact that she chose to help Helen had to do with the high regard with which their mutual church family, San Pedro's Holy Trinity Church, had for Helen. Lizzy simply decided to become the conduit for the congregation's feelings. Six months ago, a parishioner in Helen's church, offered and donated a space to open a kitchen from which to continue serving hungry people in need. Previously, when she was on Beacon, she and the people she served had no place to go when it rained. The Palos Verdes High School student was able to raise $4,000, between August and October this past year to clean the storefront and Change Agent: Helen Grove/to p. 4 from p.1 Satetv Ignored Critics were limited to just one minute each at the Nov. 17 meeting, as opposed to two minutes each for project supporters. These both followed a glowing presentation by planning staff that, "was done so well and so wonderfully the developer got up and said, gee, I don't need to say anything," Bruce Bornemann, a retired city planner who's weighed in supporting Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council's ongoing opposition to the project said. Northwest officially opposed the project in an Oct. 26 resolution, but it's the process as much as the project itself that Northwest has found troubling over the years. Throughout the multi- year process of drafting San Pedro's Community Plan, Northwest's No. I disappointment was the failure to include Ponte Vista within that plan. Now, as Bornemann pointed out, Ponte Vista has been given its very own "special plan" -a term previously used to refer to community plans- which in effect overrules all of the normal planning guidelines. Specifically, the Ponte Vista Special Plan states: "Whenever this Specific Plan contains provisions establishing regulations ... different from, more restrictive or more permissive than would be allowed pursuant to Chapter I of the LAMC [Los Angeles Municipal Code] and the provisions of other portions of the LAMC specifically referenced below, this Specific Plan shall prevail and supersede the applicable provisions of that Code." Echoing concerns specifically cited by Northwest in its official comments, Bornemann's substantive criticisms focused primarily on traffic, drainage and open space issues. He related doubts that impacts can be mitigated as promised. But the procedural haste, sloppiness and narrow focus also excluded significant public safety concerns regarding nearby Rancho LPG "' and two other facilities whose dangers need !i! to be considered, said Rolling Hills Estates € planning Commissioner Carl Southwell, who !I! also voiced his objections in a one-minute 5 timeslot. ~ Specifically, Southwell said the decision .~ should be postponed until three relevant ~ reports in process had been completed. First, " two "reports that Rep. Waxman had ordered ~ ., [on July31, 2013] with respect to a review of ~ the safety and risk of the Rancho LPG facility c and also the CFATS program, the Chemical ~ Facility [Anti-Terrorism] Standards. "The reason the CFATS report is interesting is because the Defense Fuel I Support Point San Pedro [which holds jet and diesel fuel] is adjacent to the Ponte Vista site," Southwell went on to explain. "Of course the Conoco-Phillips refinery is also I adjacent to the site. "Over half...of the Ponte Vista development is surrounded by facilities that either make and/or store highly flammable, and in some cases, explosive ~ petrochemical products." ~ A string of deadly explosions in ~ recent years have intensified concerns that j regulatory safety processes are failing to ~ protect the public. !!!. "It just seemed to be reasonable that they should spend some time really discussing in ~ depth those issues," Southwell added. "I also :,; "ll said that they should wait in order to review ~ the report that was ordered by State Sen. Ted z Lleu. On Aug. I, he ordered state fire officials 6 to also review the safety of Rancho. "The one I've looked at the most in the past is Rancho LPG, but the other two facilities are of concern both independently and with respect to a cascade of events that can occur if any of the three facilities was somehow set afire ... .It just seems like it's a very bad location from the point of view of safety and health of the potential residents." As a planning commissioner, he regards health and safety as primary concerns. "It seems to me that the first duty of a planning commission is to think in terms of the safety and health of the future residents before they think about liability concerns and the aesthetic concerns, and whether there's conformity with the general plan and the specific codes," Southwell said. "It's first principles. You just can't skip the most important part. A place has to be safe. "I don't know what the rush is to approve something .... To enact a moratorium for health and safety seems reasonable." But care and caution seemed consistently absent according to Bornemann. ''There was no discussion on the huge impact on the infrastructure, not to mention Western Avenue-that's the big one, of course," he said. "Western Avenue is dysfunctional now, overloaded, at peak hour, morning and afternoon. So another 700 homes really isn't going to help. Even another 360, if it was pure R-1, that's not going to help, either." The environmental impact report (EIR) says impacts can be mitigated, of course. "Nothing would be any worse than it is today," as Bornemann put it. He's skeptical. There are 16 proposed mitigation projects, costing $4 million. "All of these 16 projects generally involve widening of intersections," Bornemann said. But he has already made the argumen~ ''the EIR's infatuation with intersections was entirely misplaced." As he wrote in his comments, the traffic analysis methods used "work well on highways in Portland or Charlotte but this is a dense urban environment where other factors play. ''The real problem with Western Avenue is not that the intersections are not functioning, it's that there's 117 other interruptions along Western Avenue, the length in question ... be they small cross-streets, or driveways, and it's those interruptions which really have the negative impact on Western Avenue." Of course, anyone who's driven Western Avenue when its the least bit congested knows this from experience. But do the downtown planners? There are similarly site-specific difficulties with drainage, due to decades-old past underestimates. The problem ultimately is that there hasn't been enough investment in public infrastructure for the existing development. At bottom, it's a different form of the same practice seen at Rancho LPG: externalizing private costs onto the surrounding public at large. Retired oil industry consultant Connie Rutter pointed out a number of glaring errors in the final EIR related to Rancho-errors which indicated an ongoing unwillingness to hear and learn from critics representing the public interest. To begin with, the EIR falsely claimed that Rancho "was granted all applicable permits." "Not true," Rutter wrote in her comments. "The project was handled under an 'emergency exemption.' So, that Building and Safety never really approved the plans. In 1978, the site was granted a permit 'as built."' It's also not true when they say the site is "not located within a designated surface fault zone" -a fact that they curiously admit on the very next page, Rutter noted. She goes on to cite a number of other errors, all of which Random Lengths has written about before. This raises an obvious question: If the EIR gets basic facts wrong, how can its analysis be trusted? But it's not just local residents who are objecting to Ponte Vista Hans Laetz works as an environmental impact statement analyst and a journalist. He was involved in a prolonged fight to defeat a proposed LNG terminal 14 miles off the Ventura County shore. The project was initiated by an Australian multinational, BHP Billiton, in 2004, and it later came out that the Bush administration had leaned on the Environmental Protection Agency to bend its rules for Billiton, as part of the price for Australia joining the Iraq War coalition. The project was eventually killed by the State Lands Commission in 2010, but even with all that juice behind i~ the terminal was still located 14 miles offshore, tq:1 if i1WCltvlimlts I "because of the blast pattern," Laetz said. The existence of Rancho LPG right in the midst of a residential area is something he finds unfathomable. The idea of locating hundreds of more homes right next door to it was enough to bring him to City Hall for the day, even though he only got to speak for one minute. "It's on land prone to liquefaction, next to an interstate freeway and with tens of thousands of people living in close proximity," Laetz said. "You just couldn't pick a worse disaster scenario .... And, it was built long ago before anyone cared about these things." This last point is what's most worrying now. The fact that Rancho is there already is the main reason it's so hard to get it moved. So-called "grandfathering" protects private sunk costs, at the price of public health and safety. But building even more developments nearby only makes this problem even worse. It only puts more lives and property values at risk. Organizing for Generositv By Lyn Jensen, Carson Reporter MembersofCarson'slargeFilipino-American community, led by Councilman Elito Santarina, are organizing a response to the destruction that Typhoon Haiyan brought to the Philippines on Nov. 7. ''The organizing of generosity in Carson, we were composed of many different ethnic groups- every single ethnic group in Carson represented at the organizational meeting contributed physically and mentally," commented Santarina during a break at the Nov. 19 city council meeting. "I express my heartfelt gratitude." That evening the council unanimously passed two items related to typhoon relief. One waived fees for a vigil and concert and the other established the Typhoon Haiyan Relief Fund. Santarina also reported meeting with the Filipino counsel-general to determine what was needed and making arrangements with Philippine Airlines to send boxes of collected goods. Items most urgendy needed include first- aid kits, medicine, toiletries, and ready-to-eat meals. a volunteer. "The treasurer (Karen Avilla), Elito set up an account with her and has located someone to ship clothing to the Philippines. Elito is so happy and grateful to the Sheriff's Station- they provided a room for storage space." One "All Out Operation Relief' collection event remains, at Veterans Park on Nov. 30. Call (3 I 0) 830-999 I for details. Evelyn Andamo organized a benefit concert at Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald Community Center on Nov. 24. She said proceeds from the concert are going to the ABS-CBN He stated some local African-American churches collected about 1,000 tooth carson Mayor Pro Tem, Ellto Santarlna with volunteers collecting dona- tions for the Philippines Typhoon relief effort. Photo by Kelvin Brown. brushes and blankets, which he intended to pick up from storage at California State University Dominguez Hills. Activities began with an organizational meeting at the civic center on Nov. 14, which attracted about 40 people. Santarina said later that about $13,000 in pledges were collected. Donations have continued to come in, including Watson Land's pledge of $10,000, he said. AleneHarris,presidentoftheCarsonWomen's Club, said she pledged $100 on the club's behalf and is now soliciting more contributions. Volunteers including Tommy Faavae of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers helped with the manpower and equipment for drop-off collection sites in the Carson City Hall parking lot in the past two weekends. "We had a great weekend," said Olivia Verrett, Foundation International, a long-established non- profit organization working in the Philippines. Speaking at the council meeting, Santanna shared a personal tragedy not reported in broadcast or other media. While he was speaking to a local priest about relief efforts, the priest received a call from a nun in the Philippines. She told the priest that after the stonn her congregation went out looking to find the parents of some lost homeless children they temporarily housed. "The temporary shelter collapsed and all the children died," Santarina said. Donations are being accepted at the city treasurer's office. Checks may be made payable to the City of Carson-Filipino Relief Fund. Call (310) 952-1723 for details. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Cassie, Susan <subrooks08@gmail.com> Friday, November 29, 2013 10:08 PM <cassiej@aol.com>; Joel Rojas CC; <RMBST5@msn.com>; <IDSloan@aol.com>; <joanmc8921@aol.com>; < k.olson@cox.net> Re: Ordinance No. 552 Thanks for your thought-provoking letter. I am forwarding this to Joel Rojas for an explanation. Hopefully, this will alleviate some of your concerns. Best always, Susan Susan Brooks Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787( cell) Sent from my iPhone On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:34 PM, <cassiej@aol.com> wrote: Re: Adoption of -Code Amendment to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to Establish an Exception Category to Allow Minor, Non-Remedial Grading on Lots Developed with a Residential Structure or Other Lawfully Existing Non-Residential Structure within the City's Landslide Moratorium Area (Mikhail) I have attached a letter regarding this new ordinance. Thanks! cassiej@aol.com <Grading_ Ordinance.doc> 1 D. 11/29/13 Ordinance No. 552 Dear Mayor City Council Members, Just a few comments on the ordinance to allow 50 yards of non-remedial grading in the landslide moratorium area: While I agree that 50 cubic yards (CY) isn't very much, it gets magnified when you realize that there are about 130 homes in the moratorium area now, with another 40 or more potentially to be built. Any time you propose such a change, you must take it to the full build-out and plan for each of the current homes and each of the future homes to want to avail themselves of this pleasure of an additional 50 yards of grading. That would amount to about 8000-9000 yards of grading in an area that still has an Environmental Impact Report pending for the construction of 4 7 homes, some of which are already being built without the residents of the city's benefit of the EIR that the City deemed necessary. This is the equivalent of the grading for 8-9 .!!!.!!!!: homes in the area. Of course the new 4 7 homes, the subject of the pending EIR, would then be allowed the additional 50 yards of grading, providing they meet certain criteria. But this seems to be now allowing the homes to actually plan for 1050 yards of grading. Originally, with the MND for the area and the original plan for the EIR, only 50 cubic yards of grading was allowed for each project. Then there was a revision allowing an exception to the landslide moratorium for the construction of residential buildings as part of an "emergency ordinance" increasing the grading from 50 CY to 1000 CY. The 50 CY was originally mitigation from the Mitigated Negative Declaration passed by the City due to the sensitive geology in the area. This amount was greatly increased to 1000 CY (a 2000% increase) without any study or justification. And now, EIR still pending, you are adding an additional 50 yards of permissible grading. I hate to say it, but it doesn't really seem like the City understands or cares that this area includes and is surrounded by two active landslides. I would at least expect an ordinance such as this would acknowledge the pending EIR and acknowledge that this new ordinance allows for 1050 yards of grading for 47 new residences. Why do you need to do this right now? Why can't you wait until the EIR for the building of 47 homes in Zone 2 is finished? What's the rush? I know you have a lot on you plates, but this seems like putting a little tiny cart before a really big horse. Thanks for all you do. Cassie Jones Rancho Palos Verdes From: Sent: To: Cc: Marianne Hunter <2hunter@cox.net> Monday, December 02, 2013 11:57 AM CC; Gordon.Leon@gmail.com Robert Cumby Subject: FW: Ordinance No. 552 Grading_Ordinance.doc Attachments: Importance: High We must have missed the notice of this code amendment and are glad to have this opportunity to comment before it comes to a vote. We don't approve of this change in grading code before the impending EIR has been presented to the City and the CC and public have had the opportunity to study it and comment. It is counter-productive to contract a study for safety and then not to wait for the results before implementing changes. We do not agree that this amendment is in the best interests of the community it would affect. This area is sensitive; some sections more so than others. Every mistake made here has potential negative affect on stability. This code change amounts to a potential very large disturbance if those properties included are added to the new home potential here. The possible cumulative impact of this number of disturbances on water infiltration is not known, nor is it possible to know. It is our belief that this amendment should absolutely not be adopted prior to the EIR assessment. We do not see an upside to this code amendment. We have seen the attached letter sent to you by our neighbor, Dr. Cassie Jones, and would like to add our signatures to it. Thank you, William & Marianne Hunter 1 Cinnamon Lane, RPV Re: Adoption of -Code Amendment to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to Establish an Exception Category to Allow Minor, Non-Remedial Grading on Lots Developed with a Residential Structure or Other Lawfully Existing Non-Residential Structure within the City's Landslide Moratorium Area (Mikhail) 1 D. 11/29/13 Ordinance No. 552 Dear Mayor City Council Members, Just a few comments on the ordinance to allow 50 yards of non-remedial grading in the landslide moratorium area: While I agree that 50 cubic yards (CY) isn't very much, it gets magnified when you realize that there are about 130 homes in the moratorium area now, with another 40 or more potentially to be built. Any time you propose such a change, you must take it to the full build-out and plan for each of the current homes and each of the future homes to want to avail themselves of this pleasure of an additional 50 yards of grading. That would· amount to about 8000-9000 yards of grading in an area that still has an Environmental Impact Report pending for the construction of 4 7 homes, some of which are already being built without the residents of the city's benefit of the EIR that the City deemed necessary. This is the equivalent of the grading for 8-9 .!!!.!!.!:£homes in the area. Of course the new 4 7 homes, the subject of the pending EIR, would then be allowed the additional 50 yards of grading, providing they meet certain criteria. But this seems to be now allowing the homes to actually plan for 1050 yards of grading. Originally, with the MND for the area and the original plan for the EIR, only 50 cubic yards of grading was allowed for each project. Then there was a revision allowing an exception to the landslide moratorium for the construction of residential buildings as part of an "emergency ordinance" increasing the grading from 50 CY to 1000 CY. The 50 CY was originally mitigation from the Mitigated Negative Declaration passed by the City due to the sensitive geology in the area. This amount was greatly increased to 1000 CY (a 2000% increase) without any study or justification. And now, EIR still pending, you are adding an additional 50 yards of permissible grading. I hate to say it, but it doesn't really seem like the City understands or cares that this area includes and is surrounded by two active landslides. I would at least expect an ordinance such as this would acknowledge the pending EIR and acknowledge that this new ordinance allows for 1050 yards of grading for 47 new residences. Why do you need to do this right now? Why can't you wait until the EIR for the building of 47 homes in Zone 2 is finished? What's the rush? I know you have a lot on you plates, but this seems like putting a little tiny cart before a really big horse. Thanks for all you do. Cassie Jones Rancho Palos Verdes From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Cassie Joel Rojas Monday, December 02, 2013 2:54 PM Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; <cassiej@aol.com> CC; <RMBST5@msn.com>; <IDSloan@aol.com>; <joanmc8921@aol.com>; <k.olson@cox.net>; Leza Mikhail; Eduardo Schonborn; James Lancaster (JLancaster@KlingConsultingGroup.com); Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> RE: Ordinance No. 552 The purpose of amending the Moratorium Ordinance to allow a lifetime maximum of 50 cubic yards of non-remedial grading per developed lot is to allow all existing property owners with developed properties in the moratorium area an opportunity to make minor improvements to their properties, like driveways or landscaping, which they cannot do under the present moratorium. Currently, the Moratorium Ordinance allows remedial grading (with no cap on the amount of grading.) and grading for foundations of structures. The allowance of up to 50 cubic yards for miscellaneous non-remedial grading per developed lot was discussed with the City Geologist, who believes the allowance would have no detrimental effect on the landslide. Furthermore, the proposed amendment requires that applicants submit and receive approval of a geology report demonstrating that the non-remedial grading will not aggravate the existing slide situation. Staff and the City geologist see this proposal as something completely different than the proposal to allow up to 1,000 cubic yards of grading per lot to facilitate new development on vacant lots, which is the subject of the Zone 2 EIR. For that reason, this proposal is moving forward independently of the Zone 2 EIR. Your comments will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence tomorrow night. Joel From: Susan [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:08 PM To: <cassiej@aol.com>; Joel Rojas Cc: CC; <RMBST5@msn.com>; <IDSloan@aol.com>; <joanmc8921@aol.com>; <k.olson@cox.net> Subject: Re: Ordinance No. 552 Dear Cassie, Thanks for your thought-provoking letter. I am forwarding this to Joel Rojas for an explanation. Hopefully, this will alleviate some of your concerns. Best always, Susan Susan Brooks Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) Sent from my iPhone ]) . On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:34 PM, <cassiej@aol.com> wrote: Re: Adoption of -Code Amendment to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to Establish an Exception Category to Allow Minor, Non-Remedial Grading on Lots Developed with a Residential Structure or Other Lawfully Existing Non-Residential Structure within the City's Landslide Moratorium Area (Mikhail) I have attached a letter regarding this new ordinance. Thanks! cassiej@aol.com <Grading_ Ordinance.doc> From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Late correspondence on Item D Joel Rojas Monday, December 02, 2013 2:56 PM Carla Morreale Teresa Takaoka; Leza Mikhail FW: Ordinance No. 552 Grading_ Ordinance.doc From: cassiej@aol.com [mailto:cassiej@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:07 AM To: Joel Rojas Subject: Re: Ordinance No. 552 Hi Joel, I tried to attached the letter I sent. I just basically was wondering why something like this would come about before the EIR for Zone 2, since it seems it would allow the new homes more grading once they are built as well. Really seems like no one understands that you have to drive through two active landslides around here to get to these properties, there is no plan for improving drainage or providing more dewatering relief, and no plans for decreasing the water in the canyon that perpetuates the slides-yet more grading will be ok .... lf everyone avails themselves of 50 CY of additional grading, given the number of homes and potential homes, it adds up to the equivalent grading allowed for 8 more homes. cassiej@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> To: <cassiej@aol.com> <cassiej@aol.com> Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 8:30 am Subject: RE: Ordinance No. 552 Cassie For some reason, the attachment didn't make it through. Can you please email it to me? Thanks Joel From: Susan [subrooksOB@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:08 PM To: <cassiej@aol.com>; Joel Rojas Cc: CC; <RMBST5@msn.com>; <IDSloan@aol.com>; <joanmc8921@aol.com>; <k.olson@cox.net> Subject: Re: Ordinance No. 552 Dear Cassie, Thanks for your thought-provoking letter. I am forwarding this to Joel Rojas for an explanation. Hopefully, this will alleviate some of your concerns. Best always, Susan Susan Brooks Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) [X] Sent from my iPhone ]) On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:34 PM, <cassiej@aol.com<mailto:cassiej@aol.com>> wrote: Re: Adoption of -Code Amendment to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to Establish an Exception Category to Allow Minor, Non-Remedial Grading on Lots Developed with a Residential Structure or Other Lawfully Existing Non-Residential Structure within the City's Landslide Moratorium Area (Mikhail) I have attached a letter regarding this new ordinance. Thanks! cassiej@aol.com<mailto:cassiej@aol.com> <Grading_Ordinance.doc> 11/29/13 Ordinance No. 552 Dear Mayor City Council Members, Just a few comments on the ordinance to allow 50 yards of non-remedial grading in the landslide moratorium area: While I agree that 50 cubic yards (CY) isn't very much, it gets magnified when you realize that there are about 130 homes in the moratorium area now, with another 40 or more potentially to be built. Any time you propose such a change, you must take it to the full build-out and plan for each of the current homes and each of the future homes to want to avail themselves of this pleasure of an additional 50 yards of grading. That would amount to about 8000-9000 yards of grading in an area that still has an Environmental Impact Report pending for the construction of 4 7 homes, some of which are already being built without the residents of the city's benefit of the EIR that the City deemed necessary. This is the equivalent of the grading for 8-9 .!!!.!!!£homes in the area. Of course the new 47 homes, the subject of the pending EIR, would then be allowed the additional 50 yards of grading, providing they meet certain criteria. But this seems to be now allowing the homes to actually plan for 1050 yards of grading. Originally, with the MND for the area and the original plan for the EIR, only 50 cubic yards of grading was allowed for each project. Then there was a revision allowing an exception to the landslide moratorium for the construction of residential buildings as part of an "emergency ordinance" increasing the grading from 50 CY to 1000 CY. The 50 CY was originally mitigation from the Mitigated Negative Declaration passed by the City due to the sensitive geology in the area. This amount was greatly increased to 1000 CY (a 2000% increase) without any study or justification. And now, EIR still pending, you are adding an additional 50 yards of permissible grading. I hate to say it, but it doesn't really seem like the City understands or cares that this area includes and is surrounded by two active landslides. I would at least expect an ordinance such as this would acknowledge the pending EIR and acknowledge that this new ordinance allows for 1050 yards of grading for 4 7 new residences. Why do you need to do this right now? Why can't you wait until the EIR for the building of 47 homes in Zone 2 is finished? What's the rush? I know you have a lot on your plates, but this seems like putting a little tiny cart before a really big horse. Thanks for all you do. Cassie Jones Rancho Palos Verdes From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear City of RPV, Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. <cfw.cwanda@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:44 PM Ara Mihranian cc Fwd: Updated Marymount MND Sorry to say Marymount's updated soccer field study still indicates a project that should not pass muster. The new graphics in the study show about 25 poles to hold up netting. Each will presumably have a lanyard and pulley system and will need to lift 100-200 pounds of netting say 25 feet in the air. The net raising process will take 12 people say 20 minutes -IO minutes per pole, assuming the equipment is in proper working order. The reverse process -taking down the netting -will take another 20 minutes. There are no requirements that Marymount raise and lower the netting before and after each practice, and it will be unlikely Gudging from the netting around the prior Marymount field) that the nets will just be up during say 2 hours of practice or game time per day. The graphics also fail to show how hefty the poles will need to be -like masts on sail boats -to hold up 25 feet of nets in potentially windy conditions. 8 inch diameter poles are not going to be nearly invisible, which is how they are shown in the draft report. MM should be required to put up 25 poles of the proper height and diameter, with ropes of flags between them, the show the serious negative aesthetic impact (and impact on the view) that can be expected. The errant ball study would make more sense if it was of soccer fields on major inclines, like PV Drive. Perhaps no such fields on major inclines were studied since none could be found. The lack of precedent to supports the MM plan for a soccer field with say 150 linear yards of netting on a major incline should lean the City towards a "cannot approve" decision. Would love to have Marymount just do its soccer practices and games on existing Peninsula fields, which are pretty numerous. The hydrology study still misses the point, which is that the land in that area is sliding and will likely slide more if disturbed without precautions taken to prevent sliding. No precautions to prevent sliding are proposed. Just· focusing on drainage is less than adequate in these circumstances. Have the engineers not seen the sandbags installed by Marymount last year to keep soil from slipping into the drainage ditch below the property? The soil sliding in the last year has now over-topped the sand bags and is filling and blocking the drainage ditch again. Trump's solution to similar slippage concerns was to install caissons to stop the slippage. No caissons or retaining walls to prevent/contain slippage of soil are in the MM plan. Thanks for considering my comments re the updated draft report, and including them in the administrative file, along with my comments to the original draft report. Regards, Chris Wilson 1 ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: <rpvlistserver@rpv.com> Date: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:16 PM Subject: Updated Marymount MND To: cfw.cwanda@gmail.com Dear Listserve Subscriber, As announced on October 31, 2013, a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and released for public comment regarding Marymount's CUP-Revision request to modify the athletic field and other specific conditions of the CUP that was approved by the City Council in 2010. The text of the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Declaration referred to visual simulations prepared for the project, identified as figures 8 through 11 b. In producing the electronic and paper versions of the Draft IS/MND, the City's environmental consultant for this project inadvertently left out the figures themselves. In addition, two of the original traffic mitigation measures were inadvertently left out of the document. In light of these omissions, the City has taken the following steps: 1. The Draft IS/MND document has been updated by inserting the missing View Simulations (Figures 8 through 1 lb) and Mitigation Measures TR-8 and TR-9 (listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program at the end of the Appendices). Please click HERE to access the updated document, which is posted on the City's website. 2. The revised document is being transmitted to the State Clearinghouse; County Clerk; and other departments that received a hard copy of the Draft IS/MND document. 3. The original 43-day public comment period for the Draft IS/MND that began on October 31, 2013 and was set to end on December 13, 2013 has been extended for an additional 42 days to January 24, 2014. (For reference, the standard public circulation period for a Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15073, varies from 20 to 30 days.) 4. The opportunity for the public to provide verbal comments on the Draft IS/MND at a public meeting before the City Council has been moved from Tuesday December 3, 2013, to Tuesday January 21, 2014 at 7:00pm at the Hesse Park Community Building, located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. As indicated previously, following the Draft IS/MND public review period, the Final MND will be prepared and a separate notice will be provided for a future City Council meeting where the City Council will review the Final MND and consider the proposed project. BREAKING NEWS City staff occasionally posts other important non-emergency information on the Breaking News page of the City's website located at: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/breakingnews Be sure to go to the List Server page and subscribe to receive email messages whenever a Breaking News article is posted to the City's website. You can join at: http://www. palosverdes. com/rpv/listserver 2 Please do not reply directly to this message. The correct contact for each Listserv message topic is included in the message. We welcome your comments and suggestions, please send them to: comments@palosverdes.com This Listserv program is one of many services created, hosted, and provided by Palos Verdes on the NET, a non profit 501 c3 community service organization serving our communities by providing computer technology support to the City, educational internships and animation training to kids, workforce training to adults. free classes for seniors. and free web pages to non-profit organizations since 1995. Click here for information about free classes to residents. Contact us by email at information@palosverdes.com Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200 Torrance, California 90503 310 316 2500 fax: 310 543 2526 cell: 310 316 0518 cfw.cwanda@gmail.com Notice: This message and any attachment(s) are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or any attachment, disclose the contents to any other person, or take any action in reliance on this message or any attachment. 3 From: Ara Mihranian Sent: To: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 3:28 PM jmaniataki@aol.com Cc: susanbrooksOl@yahoo.com; Anthony Misetich; brian.campbell@cox.net; Jim Knight; Joel Rojas; Eduardo Schonborn; CC Subject: RE: Marymount proposed relocation of the athletic field Hi John, Thank you for taking the time to share the concerns of the Mira Catalina HOA. I am going to forward your comments to Eduardo Schonborn, as he is the project planner processing the athletic field application, who will then forward the comments onto the City's environmental consultant (Rincon). A response will be prepared as part of the final environment document (which will not be prepared until the public comment has closed). Wishing you and yours a very Happy Thanksgiving! Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development CITY OF RANcHO FAlos \JERoEs 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv ~ Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthori:r.ecl dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: jmaniataki@aol.com [mailto:jmaniataki@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 3:21 PM To: Ara Mihranian; Ara Mihranian Cc: susanbrooksOl@yahoo.com; Anthony Misetich; brian.campbell@cox.net; Jim Knight Subject: Marymount proposed relocation of the athletic field Ara: 1 Several of our homeowner have expressed concerns over the new proposed location of the athletic field and further with the location of the proposed 30ft stationary poles on the hill below our neighborhood which, according to several homeowners, represents a significant view impairment. I was aware of the 1 Oft retractable net but quite honestly was not aware of the 30ft non-retractable poles. View obstruction/impairment is of great concern to all the members of our HOA and must be address accordingly Another concern is the proposed timeframe requested by the college to complete all the proposed construction, twenty plus years is much to long to have our HOA members be subjected to construction at the school, the initial eight years was much to long, now they are requesting twenty years which is unrealistic. I look forward to your response Sincerely John Maniatakis, President, Mira Catalina HOA 2