The URL can be used to link to this page

20140218 Late Correspondencehttp://www.dailynews.com/social-affairs/20131015/california-more- accepting-of-common-core-education-overhaul-than-other-states California more accepting of Common Core education overhaul than other states By Pat Wingert, The Hechinger Report POSTED: 10/15/13, 10:55 PM PDT I UPDATED: ON 10/15/2013 Contr.oversy is dogging the rollout of the rigorous new Common Core curriculum in many of the 45 states that first embraced the bipartisan proposal, with critics saying the change in English and math standards are a federal intrusion, an attack on local control or just too expensive. ··Ill~.:~~~~:t11~~~.r.i~.Ae.r.:B~t~.~rM~fi.•~.~0.•~.;'.'~1 .i;, 0.t )'.~'0.1..€:'< says · a.1tu8.a.'a · ui.CnlSOll W: 'a ' ~~~·i~f~i·~~~t~~~~~.~~~'» CA Ed Codes --Give CA Districts and Parents Options to Opt Out: Ed Code: 60615: "parent•s or guardian•s written request to school officials to excuse his or her child from any or all parts of the assessments administered pursuant to this chapter shall be granted." Ed Code: 60618. {b) "School districts may use these model standards as a guideline in developing district standards." And: RECEIVED FROM~.6'i:i..u.1~~;:;:.:;.;+1 AND MADE A PART OF TH COUNCIL MEETING OF.....i.;;:~...;..;_,__...:-1--1 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/cl/localcontrol.asp Local Control -Districts and Counties Information on the local responsibility granted to school districts and county education officials. Statutes relating to school districts, county boards of education, and county superintendents of schools operate differently from any other California statutes. Because the plenary power to make state policy and law rests with the Legislature, the general rule of law is that an agency of government is permitted to do only that which is authorized by statute; it cannot undert(lke a.n r?gra1n or (iCtivity simpl because it is not prohibited, [\1A~M, '.'~=41f t: 'rf .. Under this "permissive education code," as long as a statute does not prohibit a program or activity and it is consistent with the purposes for which school districts are established, it can be undertaken. In other words, it is constitutionally unnecessary to enact any statutes that merely allow or permit school districts, at their discretion, to do something. To ensure/guarantee student data/privacy under Common Core Districts the following would have to be reversed/changed/rewritten:--Joan 1-Race to the Top 2-Federal-Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 3-Smarter Balanced Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Department of Education and CA signing onto this agreement 4-Wireless Generation Contract with Smarter Balanced 5-Wireless Generation Contract with Amazon iCloud 6-WestEd Joint Powers Agreement with CA 7-Data Campaign Agreement 8-ETS (Educational Testing Service agreement) and any/all other agreements with vendors, third parties, contractors ¢0MM~$; (j~~l!Ce;~~~~~Aml:fifAt-1~1!TA!ION . $'1\{A1,1;:lllilJll'!Ulif;A!ll) £111TREF'l!£NoUJl!IH!!> 1:'lll11!1GN lieomoNs. aliA1f!MANi .Sl.illt::Ql\!IMWl'l!ll ONJNTEl!NATIQNM. flelllltl:IPM!iNT ANO l!i;)lll!IGN J!\sti.IS'f'AN!!tli Bc<lNQli'l!C Afi?AJ!ll!, .ltl'teRNA'l'IONAT.ll'>\llR!lNliilli!IITAL P!!Q'f~Qt;:; '4.Jll() Pitl\Qll 01::lll!l!li :l:J,$. S!!NA'.l'll5CIJlll!ll1$ i:lfiAt-1G!!¢ti!Allilll!f.ffOOSE .. D•?S:oore~'·DJlllcan~ ~Sll~:1!1B fl~~flt,I; Sl,llt:DIN~ W~ll'lllf~li>¢';!W'IJl4T(i/ a~~'i~ 'J"m)t.14$ l!t. t:v,N!!iµ..,Jir. Fepi!l!Al!J3t,!ll,.ttim~ 1n OAvseWA? s:mi:i:r;i:w.tli:~ss ·· ~111;;lltt/,\11•··· i;11.1,~~18 ~2 Ml~ BUµiJi\!11~~' !>Ut'l'll ~f::ii FAtt Rlvii¥tMA ~ta~ ~~523· 15!!011!1>'\lt'!Siitlm:r, '\:'f1t.Foocm Sl>lllt;<ilfifi!UI• MA:li1"1ti~ . 4ti~$!'kliri~ . ·Thtiie1'.iel~nt;oOlleeti0nf aua\}t:sfs;:ant,st~~g~iPf~l'2'·1.'b!4e.Jit$t' ij¢~~~ ~e~tij$ ho~S'Jiton&e mrd11P;Jt~~.splJ.l11la&1i.e,p~ee ·~. ~lqs~ ~e'adbievemem~gap .... By<1Qll~ii1\!,:detaileli ~~n abOO~:lmdtttt$1:·te$tte$utta'aud I~anmg,Ahilil~~~i~~~i~~~~y·~tt,~et 'W&J.~,ta:~ducat~th~ir·am4~tit$-*. '•w~;v,~ 11µ~g~~~t1ve itlfomatioo :of'stuientsirtpn~ate 'Mtt.d$~$e~ an'U#lber of ~~tquestionsabt:Jutthe prlvaey rights efpare$;~if:14~ children. · ~(}~~,,toaiteeent article·in tht< New York Times.e•Pec:~4iflg WhQ .. Sees·Studentst· Ditta~', ~~her·S,; 2()13)t a growU'lg'n~er ofs¢boP.l distri~tS are: outsoutcing&tasto.rage i\lneti~J:lS;'t<:) 11>#:¥~·,,~~lf~.; This tthang~,~ cDmpames assert~ will 4'.f~eaw.line ~A~S. t9' ~eti't~t 4a~« mc,buJ.sterthe,marketi0:.r• e~~·p~QdyQ~~ •. ~l~b'~ll!laly~is~ofstu~fen.t:t~adi~g~f:~fQr ~~~1~,.i\elp.':~to~~etr~tthe.appmptiate~;ma~i1;9.itU,d~$".4jJ~~~\it•·Of wcll'i~miati\m~ which lml:¥ exteitd.w~ll~yQnd.tne·sp~Ul(z1 ~fiv~te con;tpanf, tmel:,bf 'the ~~hPQldlsft4~Ho a ~tJ:$teU~tion (>fDther firms withwhi~hthedistrictdQ~ ;tmtlml"e:ak.bll$~~~~ :~~tafonsbipfi; raises,.ccm:ce:ms·about~the <legree tQwbitjh stud@tpriyacym~ be colllpttlmmni • . ~&~verl!~·tllei~e ~ited.aba:v:edl'SO explai11$, sensitive M9~ti~ns~h ~rstu4~ll.ts' behavioradp~pa~l);P~ al.so·~ ~inC!J.i,d~(J. tn·fi,lesoutsoutcedto thitd-partyda• ~s ®~ p~ti;~y ~i$tn'buted more widely t<>widinonal companies with<:>ut.1)atel1~;~~ellt. :Suchl-0ss"Ofpatental .controtovei th~i:r ~te;tts ed:ugati,QUal re~i'ds ~d perfonnanoo infDrmation '-could,'ha;~'lf:Jng$ftUl.ding oonsequen,~s fOr the' fu:t.ureprospects ;of students, Recent cW:mges t9· the Family Educatiortal Rights and· !lrivacy Aat{FERPA} pennit ''sehpolst9 · s)lar¢';stu~nt data,· Without notif#lllgirarents, with>companies to wllich they·h~v;<t ol,tts()breed co.re flmctionslib scheduling, Qr da:ta11latlagemetit~~~ .accot;ding to the Times.attiele. The ~atlonshated With private companies may vary from information ~has: gi:ad.e$~ test scores,.and.attendance records, to other sensitive data $nch.as disability, family relationships,,and discipliruu;y da~. Secretary: l)~can Bagel Qt$ ll;i/an.;eft'ort to ll11detstand the Departme:nt's views on the impact .of increased collection ®d d.isp:~bl!l:tiijn of student data ·on their privacy, I respectfully request that the Department provide. answers. to .the ·follow .ql,Jestio11s: 1} ln 2008 and2011, the.Depart,nieritissµ.ect n~w :regu.4\tions with.respecttoFERPA tb@.t ttc1~8Se4 how schools pan: oU,t~Qurce·core functions.such as schedtiling 0r data management :and howthttd parti'es may.access confidential ilifonnation about students. ~ese.chat\tges. ldso•pefiUifotlier gove~tageneies that are not under the diJ'.~t c()11.ttQl ~f~:ta~e educational authorities, such·as state heldth ~Partments, to access .s~t,Jent. infonnatiQn. Please e~l~ those c~~~ . a. Why did the Department m* 't}lese ¢h$nge~? b. Did the Depar:tmentper£9i;m ~Y .analysis regarding the il)lpact rif these changes onstudentprivacy? Jt:yes, please.provide it. If not, why not? ;2~· Has the.Department:~doci:n,~d ~··a$~ss:m~nt b:f tfie types ofinfommti.onthat1are sba:tM. ;lzy ~}J.OolsWith thir~·party ven:dot$J. including but.not limit~ w cop~tip,~;im~tiq~ grades,:.disciplinary data, test. .sQores, curticwu:W.planning:.:attendance recotds,acad~, st;JJ)Je<}ts, cOUJ1Se levels~. diS.al:>ilities, family relationships, and reasons for entollriledt? If ·~~~;please provide it. Ifnot,wh¥ not? fl.. Sh~ufd ·parents, notsoho:ots, have the right to col)ttol inforni~tion· abouttheir children even when thejr da'ti:t is in the.}lands ofa·private compan.f1 b. Do you believe thatparents slioµ}d1$v~ the right to choosewlilch infonnationis shared by schools WUhthirdparty vendors andwhicbiskepfconti<f~ntJ.al? .1P other words, is it the Pepartment~s, view that sQmeelemeuts ofpetsonal data.$'e more se~tive thait other~, anq th~refore deserve greater pro~ectiops? ·3) Has the Depar:tmentissue<J. fed~mi st@~ds or ~delines that detail what·st~$o:schG<>is sb.owdtake. to protect the privacy of student records that are st()ted ~d used, byptiVate· companies? For example; a;re.there guiCielinesJtpout access to the information, howl<>ll~ it can be retained,. how it will be used, whether it will be shared with other parties (including but not limited to col1egesto which students apply), and if it can be sold to others? Ifyes, please pr~wi4e those standards or guidelines. If not, why not andwill.~e' Department undertake the development and issuance of such guidelines? 4) Are there minimization requirements that require private. companies to delete iufot1nation that is not necessary to enliance ·educational quality for students? 5) Do students and their families continue to have the right to access their personaj. information held by private companies as they would if their personal infortnatfonwere held by educational institutions? If yes, please explain how students and families. may ~~~µlmean Pag~·Sot:3 ·~erclse this. right and how· they should be informed o'.fthe existence ofthisnght. Ifnot~ w~not2 6); •While there. are.~i$Ui:fican,tl'Qiential beti:¢fits ·~$$Qciated with better· collectiQnand · ~i$·1€lf student:~.do~':the Department·believe .. that there also are possible ti~ ~lle11:;~~)1,t~10 persQt\al i~tjQ.ri is~shate<l Wfijl $J1<;::hfirms and third:p.i;ies? • If1es~ wnat'is the•Departinenf do1B$·tomi~gate.these tisks? If not, why not? ·~l :t1o.esthe Depattment requlie.emines'.t}:lat··~cess. stu4~J:>.t.da~t<t bt:l-Y~.se¢'.t.titY:~¢Mm~Jh. · jl~.· ~,i®l.~.· .. ~.· s.~n: .. · .. c ..• l!YP .. · >tt ... ·e·n· .. Jl:\l•o· .. t~ .. ~l.s .. o. :r·.o .. th··.·····. e·r····.m.· ·.·.e. as. u .. re .·.·.s ~ ttl.· ..... p· Ite····.v ... e.ntth .. •.·· e Jos .. s.a.··.·.:fo·.· •. ·.~.· ... ·"·. ·~nJ:sitionof~d~th~ i~ ~'SfeU:ed1*~eef1.$cJioolsim4. ~·parties? What·se~:unty ni~~~s Cl'oes·th(l U~ent reqwe&at1nva.te ~ompaniesti:a:ve in place to $fif~~4 ·&.~·118,;te.·once itts~t<>t«t iP. Weir$ystem$:? S}: .'.Q~~'the·D~~eD,t•monitqrwhether these·thirdpamesarevsafeguari.fin~:studettm,' ~ersonal ihfo.tmafion an(i al>i~e by FERPA of guiP.elines rt'leased lt>y the Depa:rtn),ent?. lf y¢s, ple~e explt:Un. If not, wh~ not? · mat&:.'.Y<>:l!~l' }'but ~~n~Q' tl.fi,$,i;tlll'Qrmnt matter. Plea~e:. pro:xide .written resppnsj;:$'to,these: que~0n~;no:fatertlianNovember 12,~ 2013. If you have any qµestrons, please have atfte~M ()f fq~;:~¢9rit~et·Joseph W~der on' Senator Markey~s staff at202·2l4-"2742. ,/ California Common Core Data Opt-Out Form Please take notice that pursuant to California Education Code§§ 51513, 60614, 60615 and 20 U.S.C. § 1232(h), my child is to be exempted and excused from the following activities: 1) Taking any and all statewide performance assessments, including but not by way of limitation to, academic, achievement and annual tests, and Common Core interim and formative assessments, administered pursuant to sections 60600, et seq. (Calif. Educ. § 60615); 2) The administration of any test, questionnaire, survey, examination or evaluation containing any questions or items relative to my child, or my personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, or religion (Calif. Educ. § 51513); 3) The administration of any test, examination, or assessment as part of a statewide pupil assessment program relative to my child, or my personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, or religion, or any question designed to evaluate personal behavioral characteristics, including, but not limited to, honesty, integrity, sociability, or self-esteem (Calif. Educ. § 60614); 4) The administration of any survey, analysis or evaluation that reveals: (1) political affiliations or beliefs of my child or me, (2) mental or psychological problems of my child or his or her family, (3) sexual behavior or attitudes, (4) illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior, (5) critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships, (6) legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers, (7) religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of my child or me, or (8) income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program.) (20 U.S.C. § 1232(h)) Keep this signed, written notice on file in my child's cumulative folder. This form supersedes all prior Opt-Out forms. Child's Name Grade Level Date ----------------~------- Parent/Guardian's Name(s) Parent/Guardian's Signature(s) __________ _ Parent/Gua~ians(s)Address~------------------------- Daytime/Evening Phone Number(s) -----------__________ _ School Name School District ------------------------- Rece~edby(Namaj ___________________________ ~ Signature _______________ Date Received __________ _ Version 131105 1450 Instructions and Information about Using the California Common Core Data Opt-Out Form What to Do: 1) Make copies and share this California Common Core Opt-Out form with other parents. 2) Fill the form out to indicate that you do not allow your child to take any Common Core formative tests during the school year or a summative Common Core or other standardized test over any subjects at the end of the school year. In addition, your child is not to be given any questionnaire or survey without your prior written permission. 3) Submitting this form for each student will help protect your child[ren]'s and family's privacy. 4) Make two copies of the completed form. Then, sign and date each copy in ink. 5) Take both completed forms to the school office. 6) Ask the school secretary or school principal to sign and date; and or to place the school "Received" stamp on each copy of the form. 7) Keep one copy for your family and ask that the school keep a copy in your child's school records. 8) Fax, mail by certified, return-receipt or email a copy to the school district Superintendent. 9) Then make and give a copy to each of your child's teachers. Keep a signed copy for yourself. 10) Ask to see your child's records at least twice during the school year to monitor data being collected and to verify that it is not being sent outside of the school district. 11) Resubmit a copy of this Opt-Out form for each child when you enroll them for the next school year. Follow steps 1 through 11 as on the previous year. ************************ To download more copies of this California Opt-Out form and for more information about Common Core Standards, standardized testing, your parental rights and data collection, please visit: www .ConcernedParentsofCalifornia.com www .. ConcernedParentsofConejo Valley .com or The Pacific Justice Institute at www.pji.org Version 131105 1450 RESOLUTION NO. 2014---- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTIVE OF THE NECESSITY FOR PROMPT LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL ACTION TO BEST PRESERVE THE HEAL TH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FROM ACCIDENT OR INCIDENT OCCURING AT THE BUTANE STORAGE FACILITY AT 2110 GAFFEY STREET, SAN PEDRO, CALIFORNIA OPERATED BY RANCHO LPG HOLDINGS, LTD. WHEREAS, there is currently maintained by Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. a tank farm facility located at 2110 North Gaffey Street, in San Pedro, California on which there exists two above-ground tanks which hold 12.5 Million gallons of butane per tank (Total: 25 million gallons); and WHEREAS, in October, 2011, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes had requested Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. to provide it with a copy of its insurance coverage demonstrating that Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. could financially respond to any damages to its citizens and property as a result of Rancho's operations at the Gaffey Street facility; and WHEREAS, representatives of Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. promised to submit to the RPV City Attorney a copy of Rancho's insurance policies reflective of coverage for its operations at the Gaffey Street facility, but then withdrew the promise when the City could not assure Rancho that the insurance information would remain confidential, and confirmed its position by way of a letter dated January 29, 2013; and WHEREAS, Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. was cited by the EPA in March, 2013, for the following six 'Anticipated Violations', which are the subject of negotiation between Rancho and the EPA; 1. Failing to include in the rail storage area of the site in its Risk Management Plan; 2. Failing to adequately evaluate seismic impacts upon the facility's emergency flare; 3. Failing to address the consequences of a loss of City water for fure suppression during an earthquake; 4. Failing to timely conduct a timely internal inspection of Tank 1 (storing 12.5 Million gallons of butane); 5. Failing to develop an emergency response plan to protect the public health, welfare, or safety; and 6. Failing to include a drain pipe and value in the containment basin in the Mechanical Integrity Program; and 11.thUc &rnynqn'f-5 - 1 - WHEREAS, Mayor Susan Brooks sent letters to Councilman Joe Busciano of the City of Los Angeles, Congresswoman Janice Hahn, and Congressman Henry Waxman on June 18, 2013, asking them to respond to the concerns raised by Rancho's alleged 'Anticipated Violations'; and WHEREAS, in response, Congressman Janice Hahn has now committed to holding a Field Hearing promptly after the EPA and Rancho have concluded their negotiations; and other written responses to the Mayor's letter were received from Congressman Janice Hahn, Congressman Henry Waxman, and a letter from State Senator Ted Lieu which contained specific questions directed to the State Fire Marshall, and; WHEREAS, the railroad fronting Gaffey next to the Rancho facility operated by PHL (Pacific Harbor Line) and the adjacent rail spur (leased to Rancho) are assets of the Port of Los Angeles which are subject to the Tidelands Trust Doctrine; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes remains concerned about the failure of the City of Los Angeles, the Port of Los Angeles, the State of California, or the United States Congress to discuss, debate, and decide the core issue of who should bear the risk of loss as between the citizens and property owners of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. should an accident or explosion occur at the Rancho Facility, regardless of the odds and risk that such an accident or incident might occur; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes believes the best way to protect the citizens and property owners of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is for the following actions to be promptly taken following a fair, open, transparent debate and discussion, where all of the facts are noted, evaluated, and a determination reached: a. That the City of Los Angeles to enact a robust and vigorous 'Risk Management Ordinance' fashioned and modeled off of the Risk Management Ordinance enacted by Contra Costa County which was praised by Senator Barbara Boxer at a hearing held in June, 2013, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works which Senator Boxer chairs; b. That the Controller of the City of Los Angeles exercise the power possessed by him under Section 217 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles to subpoena the insurance policy or policies held by Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. in connection with an evaluation of the cost to the City of Los Angeles should police and fire have to respond to an explosion involving one or both of the 12.5 million gallon tanks on the Rancho property; -2- c. That the Mayor of Los Angeles convene a task force, backed by the power of subpoena he possesses under Section 217 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles for the purpose of evaluating the facts and considering the full range of all public policy alternatives available to fully, competently, and fairly protect the public health, safety, and welfare from any damages occasioned by Rancho's operations at the Gaffey Street facility, including the employment of Professor Robert Bea to evaluate the risks attendant to Rancho's operations; d. That the City of Los Angeles direct the City Attorney of Los Angeles to do the following: (i) Issue a formal legal opinion on the full nature and extent of the liability of Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. to the people of the City of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles occasioned by the occurrence of any accident or terrorist event at the Rancho facility, and whether as a matter of law the City of Los Angeles can enact an ordinance which imposes strict liability on Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. for all damages resulting from its operations at the Gaffey facility regardless of whether Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. was negligent; (ii) Issue a formal legal opinion on the full nature, and extent of the liability of the Port of Los Angeles to the City of Los Angeles and its residents as a result of any errors, omission, or failures by the Port in how it administers or manages the current rail-spur permit (lease) dated February 2, 2011, revocable without cause at any time on 30 days notice, granted to Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd.; (iii) Issue a formal legal opinion on the issue of whether the Port in issuing the rail-spur permit is in violation of its obligations under the Tidelands Trust for a rental amount which is below fair market value and is thus impermissibly subsidizing the operations of Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd.; and is otherwise, acting contrary to law in allowing Port Assets (the rail-line fronting the Rancho facility on Gaffey Street leased to PHL (Pacific Harbor Line) and the rail spur which are subject to the Tidelands Trust, to be unlawfully used to benefit a private entity in violation of the Tidelands Trust; and (iv) Issue a formal legal opinion on the issue of whether the City Attorney of Los Angeles has an ethical conflict of interest in his dual representation of the Port of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles in light of the claims which the City will have against the Port should it be determined that the Port was negligent in its administration of the Rail-Spur Permit, or otherwise acted unlawfully by permitting Port Property to be used to benefit a private entity in violation of the Tidelands Trust, and whether either the City Council or the Port of Los Angeles should waive the conflict of interest or retain separate counsel; e. That the Port of Los Angeles undertake the following measures in connection with the rail-spur permit and its administration of the same: -3- (i) Conduct a thorough internal analysis and evaluation of whether its management of the rail-spur permit is fully in accordance with the Port's Risk Management Policies, and then report to the public on the reasons why, or why not; (ii) Retain private outside counsel to issue a legal opinion on the extent of the Port's liability to the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes and the citizens of Los Angeles for any damages occasioned by an accident which occurs at the facility resulting in an explosion causing harm to property and harm or death to individuals; (iii) Retain the services of Professor Robert Bea to render a risk analysis in connection with Rancho's Gaffey Street operations and charge Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. for the costs associated with that analysis and evaluation, as part of the Port's administration of the Rail-Spur permit; f: That the Congressional Field Hearing which Congresswoman Hahn has committed to hold in San Pedro occur as soon as possible so that the public's concerns about the Rancho facility, the defects in the current regulatory regime, and reasonable mitigation measures can be fully aired; g. That the California State Legislature immediately take steps to develop and pass legislation which would, as has the State of New York, impose strict liability on Rancho for any harm to citizens and property stemming from its operations, and to otherwise empower cities to enact robust and competent risk management ordinances backed by insurance, fees imposed on the operators to pay for regular bi- yearly (every six months) inspections; Section 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward a copy of the same to Councilman Joe Busciano, Congressman Janice Hahn, Congressman Henry Waxman, and State Senator Ted Lieu. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of February, 2014. Mayor Attest: City Clerk -4- ACTION ITEM REQUESTS FOR CONGRESSMAN WAXMAN RANCHO LPG LLC For the sake of the Congressman's convenience, we are supplying this 1 page check list of our requests that are more fully described in our letter. 1. Write a letter of support to the proposed resolution (attached) presented to the RPV City Council in support of the Council's taking a strong stand in urging the City of Los Angeles to pass a competent risk-management ordinance of the type in force in Contra-Costa County 2. Procure the 2013 FERC filing of Plains LPG Services, LP which will incorporate and include Rancho, LLC. 3. Solicit a rational explanation from the EPA for the acceptance of a non-effective "impound basin" as a safety mitigation measure in the rupture of a liquefied petroleum gas tank rupture. 4. Write a follow-up letter to the EPA requesting that the negotiations with Rancho promptly conclude with appropriate action since it has been nearly one year since Rancho was first cited. 5. Recommend that the EPA create a single "oversight" agency to properly review the multi-jurisdictional governance of hazardous facilities to ensure proper coordination, safety and efficiency of operations. 6. Contact the American Petroleum Industry for an explanation as to how they agreed to use an impound basin as an accepted safety mitigation for Liquefied Petroleum Gasses. Request that this mitigation be immediately stricken due to its infeasibility in retaining expanding vaporized gasses. 7. Participate in the. Field hearings that Congresswoman Janice Hahn has agreed to hold immediately upon the conclusion of the Rancho-EPA pending negotiations; or schedule his own field hearing on Rancho if Hahn's meeting exceeds 60 days. 8. Express his view in writing that the absence of amt insurance provided by Rancho to compensate the community, the City, the Port, and the public from any damage occasioned by Rancho's operations is troubling to him and that he will support efforts on a local, state, or federal level to require the provision of such insurance 9. Request the Port of Los Angeles to take all steps needed to ensure that Rancho's operation does not violate the Tidelands Trust doctrine. 10. Request the Port of Los Angeles to activeiv and competentlv manaqe the lease it has given to Rancho over the rail spur, and to provide him with documentation in support of the Port's having actively and competently managed this asset. 11. Write to Rancho and ask for an explanation of whv Rancho appears to be insolvent as an independent going concern; Explain how it can respond in damages or be held accountable for damages occasioned by any accident which might occur at the facility. 12. Write to the Chairman and President of Plains All American Pipeline and request that the Chairman personally conduct a tour of the Rancho facility for him and at the conclusion of the tour be prepared to answer the core question: "What happens if Rancho is wrong" in their estimate of safety? 13. Indicate in his letter to Rancho that Rancho explain the clear discrepancy that which exists between the 'blast zone' of 3.6 miles reflected in lnergy's Risk Management Program worst case scenario, or the 2.0 mile 'blast zone' in Conoco's Risk Management Program documents, and Rancho's own estimate of a .5 mile blast zone; 14. Include in his letter a request that Rancho accept the invitation of local activists to publicly debate the issue of 'risk' with Professor Robert Bea; 15. Include in his leiter the further question of win the rent on the rail spur is not paid bv Rancho, but bv a related Plains JUI American entitv from a bank account maintained in a small Ohio communit'l_Wan Wert, Ohio); 16. Pledge his support to any and all efforts bv the Citv of Los Angeles to enact a competent risk~manaaement ordinance providing for the imposition of fees to refineries and storage companies to be used to pay LA Citv Fire officials for quarterly inspections, provides an inspector general with subpoena power, backed by adequate insurance or bond, and a provision that operators of hazardous facilities be subjected to strict liability in tort for any accidents which might occur; 17. Reiterate the points made in his earlier correspondence to Janet Napalitano about the need to reconcile the results of the EPA and Homeland Security inspections; and to specifically request that Homeland Security provide recommendations to him as to how Rancho can make the facility safer from a terrorist attack. 18. Request that Homeland Security or relevant government agency investigate whether Rancho has a suitable back up electrical system in the event of a cyber attack or sustained power shut down. Commit his office to demanding the facility shut down unless and until it has adequate back up system in place. J 9. Write to the Chemical Safety Board and request its recommendations on how best to deal with the dangers and risks the communitv confronts from an accident emanating from the Rancho facilit'l:. 20. Indicate in a public statement that he expects Rancho to be fully open and transparent about its operations and that Rancho be prepared to answer the core question which lies at the heart of this matter: "What if Rancho is wrong? Who assumes liability? AP The Big Story Train accidents stir worries about crude transport By MATTHEW BROWN -Feb. 17, 2014 6:24 PM EST FILE -In this Dec. 30, 2013, file photo, a fireball goes up at the site of an oil train derailment in Casselton, N.D. Trains carrying millions of gallons of explosive liquids, including crude oil, are likely to continue rolling through major cities despite the government's urging to steer the shipments around population centers in the wake of several accidents, according to industry experts. (AP Photo/Bruce Crummy, File) FILE -In this July 9, 2013, file photo, workers comb through debris after an oil train derailed and exploded in the town ofLac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 47 people. In response to Lac-Megantic, the National Transportation Safety Board and Transportation Safety Board of Canada in January 2014, called on regulators to require railroads to take stock of the risks along certain oil train routes and change them if needed. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Paul Chiasson, File) -1- OH transport. accidents increase With soaring U.S. oil f)l"Oducticll'I, 1he induslry hlll$ been re- lying mom heavily on rliJiilmads to gel fuel to refineriQ and storage centers. A:s a result,. the n!.B1'1he.r of rail lank cars that released crude oil during accidents has skyrocke'led mrecem~. Carloads per year, 2004-.2013 zao 0 Incidents per year, 2003-:2013 -< ·~ '.SOURC'C. De;;;~~itt·:'t:'tt"'J1t o~ T:t.t:..:f-0~:1.f):~~ AP Charts show crude oil carloads and rail transport accidents per year FILE-In this Nov. 6, 2013,file photo, a BNSF Railway train hauls crude oil near Wolf Point, Mont. With potentially-explosive shipments increasing 40-fold in recent years as North American crude production booms, the railroad industry, at the urging of the Obama administration and safety officials in the U.S. and Canada, is considering a closer look at the risks posed by trains that now carry hazardous liquids through every region of the country. (AP Photo/Matthew Brown, File) -2- • FILE -In this Nov. 6, 2013, file photo, a warning placard appears on a tank car carrying crude oil near a loading terminal in Trenton, N.D. Trains carrying millions of gallons of explosive liquids, including crude oil, are likely to continue rolling through major cities despite the government's urging to steer the shipments around population centers in the wake of several accidents, according to industry experts. (AP Photo/Matthew Brown, File) FILE -In this Jan. 24, 2014, file photo, cars pass railroad crews working on one of six tank cars carrying oil from North Dakota that derailed near the heart of Philadelphia on a bridge above the Schuylkill River. Although no oil was spilled, the accident rattled nerves. Industry experts say trains carrying crude and other flammables are likely to continue rolling through major cities despite pressure to steer the potentially-explosive shipments around population centers. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File) BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -At least 10 times since 2008, freight trains hauling oil across North America have derailed and spilled significant quantities of crude, with most of the accidents touching off fires or catastrophic explosions. -3- The derailments released almost 3 million gallons of oil, nearly twice as much as the largest pipeline spill in the U.S. since at least 1986. And the deadliest wreck killed 47 people in the town ofLac-Megantic, Quebec. Those findings, from an Associated Press review of U.S. and Canadian accident records, underscore a lesser-known danger of America's oil boom, which is changing the global energy balance and raising urgent safety questions closer to home. Experts say recent efforts to improve the safety of oil shipments belie an unsettling fact: With increasing volumes of crude now moving by rail, it's become impossible to send oil-hauling trains to refineries without passing major population centers. where more lives and properfy are at risk. Adding to the danger is the high volatility of the light, sweet crude from the fast-growing Bakken oil patch in Montana and North Dakota, where many of the trains originate. Because it contains more natural gas than heavier crude. Bakken oil can have a lower ignition point. Of the six oil trains that derailed and caught fire since 2008, four came from the Bakken and each caused at least one explosion. That includes the accident at Lac-Megantic, which spilled an estimated 1.6 million gallons and set off a blast that levelled a large section of the town. After recent fiery derailments in Quebec, Alabama, North Dakota and New Brunswick, companies and regulators in the U.S. and Canada are pursuing an array of potential changes such as slowing or rerouting trains, upgrading rupture-prone tank cars and bolstering fire departments. Company executives were expected to offer a set of voluntary safetv measures in the coming days at the request of U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "I'm absolutely positive the railway industry will come up with techniques to define how to minimize risk," said Allan Zarembski who leads the rail-safety program at the University of Delaware. "The key word is 'minimize.' You can't eliminate risk." Since 2008, the number of tanker cars hauling oil has increased 40-fold, and federal records show that's been accompanied by a dramatic spike in accidental crude releases from tank cars. Over the next decade, rail-based oil shipments are forecast to increase from 1 million barrels a day to more than 4.5 million barrels a day, according to transportation officials. By rail, it's roughly 2,000 miles from the heart of the oil boom on the Northern Plains to some of the East Coast refineries that turn the crude into gasoline. Trains pulling several million gallons apiece must pass through metropolitan areas that include Minneapolis, Chicago, Cleveland and Buffalo. Some cities such as Chicago have belt railroads that divert freight traffic from the metropolitan core. But elsewhere, railroad representatives said, the best-maintained and safest track often runs directly through communities that were built around the railroad. -4- Trains sometimes have no option but to roll deep into populated areas. That's the case in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Albany, N.Y., and Tacoma, Wash. Experts say the explosive nature of Bakken oil derailments caught everyone off guard - from regulators to the railroads themselves. "I don't think people understood the potential for a problem if there were a derailment," said Jason Kuehn, a former railroad executive and now vice president for the industry consulting firm Oliver Wyman. A major accident was narrowly avoided last month in Philadelphia, where six tanker cars carrying oil derailed near the heart of the city on a bridge over the Schuylkill River. The CSX freight train had picked up North Dakota oil in Chicago and was headed for a refinery in South Philadelphia. Nothing was spilled, but the accident rattled nerves. Sandy Polzer, a retired professor in Philadelphia, said she worries about oil cars travelling alongside commuter rails. "During rush hour, I imagine there are a couple hundred people on each train," Polzer said. "That scares me, that there's explosive material so close to where commuters are." Proposals to route trains away from population centers are modeled on rules adopted after the 2001 terrorist attacks to restrict cargoes even more hazardous than oil -explosives, radioactive material and poisonous gases. When the rules were being written, California regulators pushed their federal counterparts to include oil. But Transportation Department officials said they were "not persuaded." Federal safety officials say it's time to reverse that decision, given the huge growtlt in tank cars carrying crude and ethanol, another flammable liquid involved in recent derailments and explosions. The rules gave railroads broad discretion, and routing decisions are not automatically reviewed by regulators. But the Federal Railroad Administration is authorized to reject any routes found to be too risky. That has never happened since the rules took effect, said FRA Associate Administrator Kevin Thompson. Even where trains can be re-routed through less-populous areas, critics say that simply shifts the risk to smaller communities with fewer resources to handle a fiery accident. Rural and suburban municipalities in Maine, Illinois and Vermont already have pushed back against the proposal. In Hartford, Vt., Town Manager Hunter Rieseberg said it was "a fantasy" to think that moving hazardous shipments through rural areas would resolve safety problems. -5- John Hanger is former Pennsylvania secretary of environmental protection and now a Democratic candidate for governor calling for safer crude transportation. He is critical of regulators for suggesting that "lives are more precious in urban areas because there are more people there. That's an ethical, moral calculation that has to be avoided at all costs." The routing rules in place for other hazardous materials list 27 factors to consider, including shipment volumes, nearby population densities and proximity to "iconic targets" or environmentally sensitive areas. Rail companies weigh whether routes are "practicable" and consider economic impacts such as rail network congestion. While that can involve trade-offs, transportation consultant Steven Ditmeyer said railroads have made huge strides since the industry was deregulated in 1980. "You cannot avoid the economic issues," said Ditmeyer, an adjunct professor at Michigan State University. "Because the risk is so high, the railroads do have an incentive to run a safe railroad." But pointing to Lac-Megantic, he said, "sometimes they screw up." Associated Press Writer Maryclaire Dale in Philadelphia contributed to this report. -6- CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Proposed Resolution for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes: A resolution supporting a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has eliminated all spending limits for corporations, unions, political action committees and individuals in political campaigns; and WHEREAS, the Citizens United ruling has allowed corporations, unions, political action committees and individuals to circumvent federal, state and city laws pertaining to campaign finance and to spend whatever amount of money they wish on federal, state, and local elections; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes deserve to have full local control of our own elections, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes urges the Congress to propose and support, and the state legislature to ratify, a Constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United ruling and enable the people, through their elected representatives, to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures in all elections at the federal, state and local levels; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes directs the city manager to forward copies of this resolution to our elected representatives in Congress and the state legislature. RECEIVED FROM....1..M:;a~~....&-1i.:=;1'"'-: AND MADE A PART OF THE COUNCIL MEETING OF....u,.aa...r.:::;.J-=--""--I OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK CALIFORNIA RESOLUTlONS Albany Arcata Berkeley - 2 resolutions California Campbell Chico Chula Vista Claremont Coachella Davis Fairfax Fremont City Fort Bragg· Lemon Grove Long Beach Los Altos Hills Los Angeles Council Los Angeles Voter Initiative Malibu Marin County Marina Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mountain View Napa Nevada City Oakland California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Illinois Maine Maryland Ojai Oxnard Pacific Grove Pasadena Petaluma Plumas County Board of Supervisors Point Arena Redlands Richmond Council Richmond Voter Initiative San Diego San Francisco Council San Francisco Voter Initiative San Jose Santa Cruz Santa Monica Sebastopol Sonoma City Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Thousand Oaks UC Berkeley Student Association UC San Diego Student Association Upland Ventura County Board of Supervisors West Hollywood STATES Massachusetts Montana New Jersey New Mexico Oregon Rhode Island Vermont West Virginia CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK FEBRUARY 18, 2014 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 F Update from Staff 2 Emails from: Diane Smith; Donald M. Davis 4 Email from Barbara and George Gleghorn 5 MOU Exhibits A, B, & C Respe~ed, &IA 1.fldt__ Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, February 17, 2014**. W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140218 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Michael Throne Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:12 PM cc Carolynn Petru Fiscal Impact Question PVDE Award of Contract High Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members: I would like to slightly expand on the fiscal impact section of the Palos Verdes Drive East award of construction contract (Agenda item F). The table at the top· of page F-5 mixes the original appropriation amounts with some of the funding changes being recommended and calls it "available revenue," a misnomer. To clarify, below is the original FY13/14 appropriation of $2,235,667 that was composed of the following funding sources: 1,228, 719 Prop C 30,948 CIP fund 362,000 STPL federal grant 564,000 Measure R 50,000 Prop A 2,235,667 Total original FY13/14 appropriation As noted in the report, the total expenditure needed to perform the construction and construction management/inspection/testing services is $3,197,810. The recommendation is to modify the FY13/14 appropriation thus: 1,228,719 Prop C (Unchanged) 630, 731 CIP fund (increased) 0 STPL federal grant (eliminated -see below) 564,000 Measure R (Unchanged) 412,000 Prop A (Increased) 362,360 Water Quality/Flood Control (NEW) 3,197,810 Total Revised FY13/14 appropriation During the design of the project, use of STPL funding was found not be workable because the project would have to be included into the regional transportation improvement plan (TIP), which would have delayed construction quite a bit. Consequently, substituting additional Proposition A funds (PVDE project qualifies due to the transit-related work) for the STPL funds is recommended. The STPL funds are going to be used for the Miraleste Dr rehab project, which is included in the TIP. After increasing the contribution from Prop A and including funding from Water Quality/Flood Control for the storm drainage work not originally included in the project scope, it is necessary to increase the contribution from the CIP fund by $599,783 to make-up the funding difference. The $962,143 noted in the paragraph above "Attachments" on page F-5 includes all the funds that have been transferred into the project account from the original appropriation and the appropriation modifications shown above. The Resolution reflects the changes to the funds as noted above. F It is a challenge to "construct" funding packages and adequately explain them. In the future, as we move forward with capital improvement projects with multiple funding sources, your feedback is most appreciated. Regards, Michael From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Ara Mihranian Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:01 AM Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka FW: Staff report Marymount -Diane suggested additions to Staff Report for 2-18-14 meeting.docx Marymount late correspondence. Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development CITY OF RANcHO FALOS VERDEs 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. Unauthorized dissemination, di!>tribution, or copying is stri<.tly 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: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:48 AM To: Ara Mihranian Subject: Staff report Dear Ara, I am coming over to the city offices now -please see my comments in attached bold italics if you have time to answer. Diane Diane Smith comments in bold italic: At page 2-14, last paragraph: "WHEREAS, shortly after the Expanded Parking Lot became operational, the City began receiving letters from neighboring property owners on San Ramon Drive and Tarapaca Drive expressing concerns pertaining to visual, privacy, noise, and lighting impacts associated with the operation of the parking lot; and," report should include - - -combustible trash - - - 57) All trash enclosure areas shall be designed with walls six (6) feet in height with the capability of accommodating recycling bins. The enclosures shall be consistent with the overall building design theme in color and material, and shall include self-closing I self-latching gates. The enclosures shall integrate a solid roof cover to screen the bins from view from all public rights- of-way and surrounding properties. Trash enclosures shall be prohibited in all setback areas. Should include: Trash enclosures not to be located close to maintenance buildings and away from San Ramon residents homes. 110) The irrigation system and area drains proposed shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Geotechnical Engineer, Building Official and Director of Public Works. Question: Did the City's Geotechnical Engineer, Building Official and Director of Public Works review and approve the irrigation at Marymount's PROJECT GROW? 124) Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Director of Public Works for review and approval a comprehensive Integrated Waste Management Plan that addresses source reduction, reuse and recycling. The Plan shall include a description of the materials that will be generated, and measures to reduce, reuse and recycle materials, including, but not limited to, beverage containers, food waste, office and classroom waste. The Plan shall also incorporate grass cycling, composting, mulching and xeriscaping in ornamental landscaped areas. It is the City's intention for the project to meet Local and State required diversion goals in effect at the time of operation. The specifics of the Plan shall be addressed by the applicant at the time of review by the Director of Public Works. 128) The project site design shall incorporate areas for collection of solid waste with adequate space for separate collection of recyclables. By April 18. 2014. a minimum of five trash receptacles with lids shall be placed in the east parking lot particularly along the eastern edge of the parking lot adjacent to the City-owned San Ramon Reserve. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) Resolution No. 2014-XX Exhibit B Page 26of40 2-44 131) The following areas of the campus shall be closed for all use between sunset and sunrise and such hours of closure shall be visibly posted in the applicable location, unless a special use permit is obtained: • Library Building outdoor deck • athletic field • tennis courts • Athletic Facility outdoor balcony • rose garden The landscaped area located between the northern edge of the East Parking Lot and the property line with 2742 and 2750 San Ramon Drive shall be maintained as a buffer zone and shall not be used for any school activities, congregation or a viewing area by either the school or outside groups. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) Should include Cornelius (Roni Ramos Tomlin & sister Randee) home at "2736" - 135) 24-hour campus security shall be provided, including but not limited to the monitoring of parking lots, to ensure outdoor noise levels are kept to a minimum and the College's Code of Conduct, as described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to Resolution No. 2010-41, is being adhered to. Between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday to Friday, a security guard shall be on duty at the information booth located near the campus entrance. At all other times, the campus security shall patrol the campus. What are Marymount's penalties to students for failure to adhere to Code of Conduct? 136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment for outdoor events shall be prohibited unless a Special Use Permit is obtained. Prior to September 1st of each year, the College may request an annual Special Use Permit to conduct no more than 24 outdoor events that include amplified sound, including sporting events, graduation ceremonies, and evening tent events, during the next twelve months (ending August 31st) Such activities and other outdoor events shall only be allowed to occur at Chapel Circle, the plazas adjacent to the Library and the Auditorium (as shown on the site plan approved by the City Council), and the outdoor pool area. The Athletic Field and Tennis Courts are the only location on site that may be used for graduation ceremonies with amplified sound. Graduation ceremonies may only be held in the East Parking Lot and existing tennis courts until the construction of an athletic field on this site has been completed. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) OK 149) All hardscape surfaces, such as the parking area and walkways, shall be properly maintained and kept clear of trash and debris. The hours of maintenance of the project grounds shall be restricted to Mondays through Fridays from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Said maintenance activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays listed in the RPVMC. 150) Noise levels resulting from on-campus activities (parking areas, athletic field, tennis courts, swimming pool, and outdoor gathering areas and plazas), including those allowed through the annual Special Use Permit, except for graduation ceremonies, shall not exceed 65 dba CNEL at all property lines. Within 6 months of completion or operation, whichever comes first, of each Phase of the Facilities Plan, as described in these conditions, and 30-days after the vinyl fence and hedge screening required by Condition No. 173 are installed. Marymount shall provide the City with sound test reports prepared by a certified noise consultant that is approved by the Community Development Director. Said sound test reports shall be taken during peak attendance periods and at locations identified by the Community Development Director, to establish compliance with this condition. Marymount shall establish a Trust Deposit, in an amount deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director, to cover all City costs incurred for the noise monitoring. Resolution No. 2014-XX Exhibit B Page 31, 32 of40 2-49 (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) ADD: Residents within 500 feet of project should be notified of the date and times of noise studies. 152) Parking and Security lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards and shall conform to City requirements. Fixtures shall be shielded, including the 10-foot tall light standards, as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director, so that only ® the subject property is illuminated; there shall be no spillover onto residential properties or halo into the night sky; and light bulbs shall not emit more than 1700 lumens. A trial period of thirty (30) days from the installation of all the project exterior lighting, including building and parking lot lighting shall be assessed for potential impacts to the surrounding properties. At the end of the thirty (30) day period, the Community Development Director may require additional screening or reduction in the intensity or numbers of lights which are determined to be excessively bright or otherwise create adverse impacts. Furthermore, said lighting shall be reviewed as part of the six (6) month review described in Condition No. 18. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) Resolution No. 2014-XX Exhibit B Page 32, 33 of 40 2-50 NOTE: Vnclear "conform to City requirements."? What is this? Should say, conform to existing City parking lot standards for safety, i.e. Hesse Park Community Center parking lot and Peninsula High School parking lot. I have had a difficult time trying to figure out how many lumens are emitted from vehicle headlights. Here are two answers by the "experts": ~Re: how many lumens do car headlights output? Going by the average of30LM/w for Halogens, My SUV's 130W it main beam gives 130X30= 3900 LM per side. Thats good for about at least 7000 Lumens for a car taking into account the optical and focusing losses. ~Re: how many lumens do car headlights output? Wow, a long-dead thread from 2001, but not a single good answer to the original question. To answer the question: the typical halogen car headlight is going to be around 1,000 to 1,500 lumens, depending on the bulb type. The full chart is here: http://www.danielstemlighting.com/t. .. ulb types.html The H7 bulb is probably one of the most common types, it's rated at 1,450 lumens. And according to DOT regulations, a legal bulb has to be within 15% of it's rated value. HID systems seem to mostly use the D2S bulb, which is 3,200 lumens. So it would appear that the vehicle headlights -47 vehicles with two headlights per vehicle, far exceed the City's maximum lumen output. Applies to 154) as well 156) The light standards at the east parking lot, located within the lower tier, shall be limited to a height of 42-inches, as measured from adjacent finished grade. Pursuant to Condition No. 152, for security and safety reasons, the access driveway, pedestrian pathway and parking lot perimeter bollard lighting shall be permitted to be illuminated throughout the night. The 10-foot light standards located within the east parking lot, as shown on the City approved parking lot plans, shall be turned off nightly at 9:00 pm. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) 160) Parking in the East Parking Lot as shown in the plan reviewed and approved by the City Council at its April 17, 2012 meeting shall be prohibited between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. During this period, the parking lot shall be closed off at 6:00 p.m. with the use of an existing automated arm to prevent vehicles from parking or accessing the parking lot. Any vehicles remaining in the parking lot after 6:00 p.m. must exit the parking lot by 9:00 p.m. No motorcycles, buses, campers, trucks, shuttle vans or other similar vehicles shall be permitted to park in the east parking lot. No parking of any vehicles shall be permitted in the parking lot on weekends and federally observed holidays. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) OK -lights turned off after the last vehicle has left 168) The area between the retaining wall along the eastern parking area and the existing privacy wall for the adjacent properties along San Ramon Drive shall be used as a landscaped buffer area and planted with trees not to exceed 16-feet in height to provide additional screening. 171) The area between the eastern parking lot and the property line (adjacent to the City-owned San Ramon Reserve) depicted on the approved site plan shall be landscaped with native plants that require little to no irrigation, as deemed acceptable by the City Geologist. Such landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to planting for fuel modification compliance. Such plants shall not exceed a height of 42-inches, unless the Community Development Director determines that such landscaping may exceed 42-inches, but shall be no higher than 8-feet, in order to minimize any view impairment to the properties at 27 42 and 2750 San Ramon Drive. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) Please add the Cornelius home at "2736 11 to 2742 and 2750. 173) By April 18, 2014, the applicant shall install a 6-foot tall vinyl screening fence finished in an earth tone color and an 8-foot tall hedge along the eastern and northern portions (closest to 2750 San Ramon Drive) of the parking lot, as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director. Specifically, the fence shall be placed within 3 feet of the parking lot curb edge (behind the existing 42-inch bollard lights) and the hedge shall be placed within 2 feet of the canyon facing side of the 6-foot tall vinyl fence. Ar:i access gate in the vinyl fence shall be permitted for maintenance purposes by Marymount Staff. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) Resolution No. 2014-XX, Exhibit B Please describe the start and end point -for instance, does the fence start at the block wall behind Vista de/ Mar and extend east and north closest to 2750? 180) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit by Building and Safety, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Development Director a Master Sign Plan that is consistent with the sign requirements of the RPVMC. The Master Sign Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the entry identification signs for the College, the way-finding signs, the building signs, and other signs related to an educational use to ensure that such signs are in compliance with the City's Codes. By April 18, 2014, Marymount shall install "NO SMOKING" and "NO LITTERING" signs in the east parking lot with the number of signs and location of each to be approved by the Community Development Director. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) Signs are very nice and Marymount has used signs, such as the sign on the Vista de/ Mar home asking students not to climb over the fence to retrieve balls, however, the signs did not STOP students from climbing the fence -only deterred. That is why a tall fence (block wall would be best) is needed to abut the South Shores Landslide City-owned property-to protect such property from fire hazards due to flicking of live cigarette butts, intentionally thrown trash (paper airplanes, etc.) into the dry brush. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX EXHIBIT "A" ADDENDUM NO. 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT FEBRUARY 18, 2014 On June 1, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-41, thereby certifying the Final Environment Impact Report to allow the Marymount Facilities Expansion Project that allows the modernization of the campus facilities including the demolition and construction of new buildings, such as the gymnasium and library buildings; site improvements consisting of an expanded parking lot to accommodate 463 parking spaces, a relocated athletic field and tennis courts, and new pedestrian pathways and plazas; and the operation of a four year degree program. In adopting the Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council found that the project's impacts, with the exception of the impacts related to noise (short term -construction) and traffic (cumulative at Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South) for which a statement of overriding considerations was adopted, are not significant or that the potential impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant impact The City Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed amendments to the conditions of approval to install a screening fence and hedge along the eastern and north edge of the Expanded Parking Lot (also known as the East Parking Lot), as well as increasing the vegetation and limiting the operational hours of the parking lot to further mitigate impacts on adjacent properties. Having reviewed the amendments, the City Council is of the opinion that the revisions to the respective conditions will not alter nor diminish the spirit and intent of the original project approved by the City Council in 2010 nor the reconfiguration of the Expanded Parking Lot, as a Minor Modification, approved by the City Council on April 17, 2012. The proposed revisions will not result in any significant change that would affect the findings made by the Council when the project was approved, and does not modify the scope of the project nor the related uses and amenities. The proposed revisions will not introduce new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the environmental impacts that previously were identified and analyzed in the FEIR. Furthermore, the amended conditions of approval require the Council review in approximately three months to assess the effectiveness of mitigating the impacts associated with the operation of the Expanded Parking Lot on neighboring properties and to ensure the intent of the revised conditions are being met. Therefore, the City Council finds that there are no changed circumstances or new information, which were not known at the time the FEIR was certified, that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or major revisions to the FEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered and hereby adopts this Addendum No. 1 to the FEIR. Resolution No. 2014-XX, Exhibit A, Page 1 of 1, 2-18 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX EXHIBIT "B" MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (FEBRUARY 18, 2014) ZON2003-00317 (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision 'E', Grading Permit, Variance, and Minor Exception Permit) GENERAL CONDITIONS 1) The approvals granted by this Resolution shall not become effective until the applicant submits a written affidavit that the applicant has read, understands and accepts all conditions of approval contained herein. Said affidavit shall be submitted to the City no later than ninety (90) days from the date of approval of the project by the City Council. If the applicant fails to submit the written affidavit required by this condition within the required 90 days, this resolution approving planning case number ZON2003- 00317 (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision 'E,' Grading Permit, Variance and Minor Exception Permit) shall be null and void and of no further effect. 2) In accordance with the provisions of Fish and Game Code §711.4 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations, §753.5, the applicant shall pay all applicable filing fees, payable to the County of Los Angeles, for the Fish and Game Environmental Filing Fee, including posting fees. This check shall be submitted to the City within five (5) business days of final approval of this project. If required, the applicant shall also pay any fine imposed by the Department of Fish and Game. 3) Each and every mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Exhibit "C" of Resolution No. 2010-41 is hereby incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, as Exhibit "B", for planning case number ZON2003-00317 (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision 'E,' Grading Permit, Variance, and Minor Exception Permit). 4) The applicant shall fully implement and continue for as long as a college is operated on the subject property the Mitigation Monitoring Program and execute all mitigation measures as identified and set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project as certified in Resolution No. 2010-41. 5) Marymount College shall be responsible for implementing and ensuring compliance with all of the Conditions of Approval stated herein. Accordingly, as used herein, the term "applicant" shall mean Marymount College including operators of educational and @ recreational programs affiliated with Marymount College and the property upon which the Marymount College is located. 2-19 6) The project development shall conform to the specific standards contained in these Conditions of Approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the appropriate development and operational standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC"). 7) The project, including site layout, the building and appurtenances, and signage throughout the site, must be constructed and maintained in substantial compliance with the plans reviewed and approved by the City Council, on March 31, 2010 and May 4, 2010 (Athletic Field Alternative D-2), and stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective .date of the Notice of Decision. Prior to any submittal to Building and Safety, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director a complete set of the revised plans (such as, but not limited to, architectural, grading, landscaping, and lighting plans) that reflect the Council's final decision. 8) The Community Development Director shall be authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same result as would strict compliance with such plans and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and approval by the City Council as a revision to this conditional use permit at a duly noticed public hearing. 9) Failure to comply with all of the Conditions of Approval will be grounds to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in RPVMC section 17.86.060. 10) These conditions are organized by topic type for ease of reference. Regardless of such organization, each condition is universally applicable to the entire project site, unless a condition clearly indicates otherwise. The conditions shall be applicable as long as a college is operated on the property, unless otherwise stated herein. 11) 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 govern. 12) All applicable permits required by the City's Building and Safety Division shall be obtained by the applicant prior to the commencement of any construction activities associated with this approval. 13) If applicable, prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall pay the City's Environmental Excise Tax in accordance with the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC). Resolution No. 2014-XX Exhibit B Page 2 of 40 57) All trash enclosure areas shall be designed with walls six (6) feet in height with the capability of accommodating recycling bins. The enclosures shall be consistent with the overall building design theme in color and material, and shall include self-closing I self- latching gates. The enclosures shall integrate a solid roof cover to screen the bins from view from all public rights-of-way and surrounding properties. Trash enclosures shall be prohibited in all setback areas. 79) The City has approved and the applicant has recorded a restricted use covenant against its property (recorded on 11-1-2012 as Document No. 20121663570 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County). The purpose of this restricted use covenant is to provide notice that the development of buildings or other structures and improvements for primary occupancy is prohibited within the designated Building Geologic Setback Area. The development of secondary structures or improvements that are not for primary occupancy such as parking areas, landscaping, fences, walkways, play fields or courts is permitted with appropriate City approvals. Limited improvements associated with the parking lot and irrigation approved by the City Council on April 17, 2012 in this area shall be permitted pursuant to the approval of the City's Geologist as stated in these Conditions of approval. Said Building Geologic Setback Area shall be shown on all future plans. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) 103) Prior to the construction of any water facilities, the Director of Public Works shall review and approve the water improvement plan. Any water facilities that cannot be constructed below ground shall be located on the subject property and screened from view from any public rights-of-way, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Community Development Director. In addition, an easement to California Water Service shall be dedicated prior to issuance of any grading or building permits 110) The irrigation system and area drains proposed shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Geotechnical Engineer, Building Official and Director of Public Works. 122) Marymount College, or subsequent landowners, shall maintain all on-site drainage facilities, including, but not limited to structures, pipelines, open channels, detention and desilting basins, mechanical and natural filtering systems, and monitoring systems. The cost of maintaining these systems shall be based on costs estimated and developed by the applicant and approved by the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. A bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City shall be provided to secure completion of such drainage facilities. A bond to cover the cost of their maintenance for a period of 2 years after completion shall also be provided to the City 128) The project site design shall incorporate areas for collection of solid waste with adequate space for separate collection of recyclables. By April 18, 2014, a minimum of five trash receptacles with lids shall be placed in the east parking lot particularly along the eastern edge of the parking lot adjacent to the City-owned San Ramon Reserve. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) Resolution No. 2014-XX Exhibit B Page 26of40 131) The following areas of the campus shall be closed for all use between sunset and sunrise and such hours of closure shall be visibly posted in the applicable location, unless a special use permit is obtained: • Library Building outdoor deck • athletic field • tennis courts •Athletic Facility outdoor balcony • rose garden The landscaped area located between the northern edge of the East Parking Lot and the property line with 27 42 and 2750 San Ramon Drive shall be maintained as a buffer zone and shall not be used for any school activities, congregation or a viewing area by either the school or outside groups. Add 2736 (Cornelius home) (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) 135) 24-hour campus security shall be provided, including but not limited to the monitoring of parking lots, to ensure outdoor noise levels are kept to a minimum and the College's Code of Conduct, as described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to Resolution No. 2010-41, is being adhered to. Between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday to Friday, a security guard shall be on duty at the information booth located near the campus entrance. At all other times, the campus security shall patrol the campus. 136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment for outdoor events shall be prohibited unless a Special Use Permit is obtained. Prior to September 1st of each year, the College may request an annual Special Use Permit to conduct no more than 24 outdoor events that include amplified sound, including sporting events, graduation ceremonies, and evening tent events, during the next twelve months (ending August 31st) Such activities and other outdoor events shall only be allowed to occur at Chapel Circle, the plazas adjacent to the Library and the Auditorium (as shown on the site plan approved by the City Council), and the outdoor pool area. The Athletic Field and Tennis Courts are the only location on site that may be used for graduation ceremonies with amplified sound. Graduation ceremonies may only be held in the East Parking Lot and existing tennis courts until the construction of an athletic field on this site has been completed. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) 150) Noise levels resulting from on-campus activities (parking areas, athletic field, tennis courts, swimming pool, and outdoor gathering areas and plazas), including those allowed through the annual Special Use Permit, except for graduation ceremonies, shall not exceed 65 dba CNEL at all property lines. Within 6 months of completion or operation, whichever comes first, of each Phase of the Facilities Plan, as described in these conditions, and 30-days after the vinyl fence and hedge screening required by Condition No. 173 are installed. Marymount shall provide the City with sound test reports prepared by a certified noise consultant that is approved by the Community Development Director. Said sound test reports shall be taken during peak attendance periods and at locations identified by the Community Development Director, to establish compliance with this condition. Marymount shall establish a Trust Deposit, in an amount deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director, to cover all City costs incurred for the noise monitoring. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) Resolution No. 2014-XX Exhibit B Page 31of40 Residents should be notified as to when and where the noise studies are to take place. 152) Parking and Security lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards and shall conform to City requirements. Fixtures shall be shielded, including the 10-foot tall light standards, as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director, so that only the subject property is illuminated; there shall be no spillover onto residential properties or halo into the night sky; and light bulbs shall not emit more than 1700 lumens. A trial period of thirty (30) days from the installation of all the project exterior lighting, including building and parking lot lighting shall be assessed for potential impacts to the surrounding properties. At the end of the thirty (30) day period, the Community Development Director may require additional screening or reduction in the intensity or numbers of lights which are determined to be excessively bright or otherwise create adverse impacts. Furthermore, said lighting shall be reviewed as part of the six (6) month review described in Condition No. 18. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) I have had a difficult time trying to figure out how many lumens are emitted from vehicle headlights. Here are two answers by the "experts": ~Re: how many lumens do car headlights output? Going by the average of 30LM/w for Halogens, My SUV's 130W ~main beam gives 130X30= 3900 LM per side. Thats good for about at least 7000 Lumens for a car taking into account the optical and focusing losses. '!7Re: how many lumens do car headlights output? Wow, a long-dead thread from 2001, but not a single good answer to the original question. To answer the question: the typical halogen car headlight is going to be around 1,000 to 1,500 lumens, depending on the bulb type. The full chart is here: http://www.danielsternlighting.com/t. .. ulb types.html The H7 bulb is probably one of the most common types, it's rated at 1,450 lumens. And according to DOT regulations, a legal bulb has to be within 15% of it's rated value. HID systems seem to mostly use the D2S bulb, which is 3,200 lumens. So it would appear that the vehicle headlights -47 vehicles with two headlights per vehicle, far exceed the City's maximum lumen output. Resolution No. 2014-XX Exhibit B Page 32 of 40 156) The light standards at the east parking lot, located within the lower tier, shall be limited to a height of 42-inches, as measured from adjacent finished grade. Pursuant to Condition No. 152, for security and safety reasons, the access driveway, pedestrian pathway and parking lot perimeter bollard lighting shall be permitted to be illuminated throughout the night. The 10-foot light standards located within the east parking lot, as shown on the City approved parking lot plans, shall be turned off nightly at 9:00 pm. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) ® 160) Parking in the East Parking Lot as shown in the plan reviewed and approved by the City Council at its April 17, 2012 meeting shall be prohibited between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. During this period, the parking lot shall be closed off at 6:00 p.m. with the use of an existing automated arm to prevent vehicles from parking or accessing the parking lot. Any vehicles remaining in the parking lot after 6:00 p.m. must exit the parking lot by 9:00 p.m. No motorcycles, buses, campers, trucks, shuttle vans or other similar vehicles shall be permitted to park in the east parking lot. No parking of any vehicles shall be permitted in the parking lot on weekends and federally observed holidays. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) 171) The area between the eastern parking lot and the property line (adjacent to the City-owned San Ramon Reserve) depicted on the approved site plan shall be landscaped with native plants that require little to no irrigation, as deemed acceptable by the City Geologist. Such landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to planting for fuel modification compliance. Such plants shall not exceed a height of 42-inches, unless the Community Development Director determines that such landscaping may exceed 42-inches, but shall be no higher than 8-feet, in order to minimize any view impairment to the properties at 27 42 and 2750 San Ramon Drive. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) 173) By April 18, 2014, the applicant shall install a 6-foot tall vinyl screening fence finished in an earth tone color and an 8-foot tall hedge along the eastern and northern portions (closest to 2750 San Ramon Drive) of the parking lot, as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director. Specifically, the fence shall be placed within 3 feet of the parking lot curb edge (behind the existing 42-inch bollard lights) and the hedge shall be placed within 2 feet of the canyon facing side of the 6-foot tall vinyl fence. An access gate in the vinyl fence shall be permitted for maintenance purposes by Marymount Staff. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014) Resolution No. 2014-XX Exhibit B Page 38of40 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Davis, Donald M.<DDavis@bwslaw.com> Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:25 PM CC; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Eduardo Schonborn; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carla Morreale Michael Brophy; Jim Reeves (JReeves@marymountcalifornia.edu) (JReeves@marymountcalifornia.edu) Marymount California University: Notice of Due Process Violations and Request for Deferral of Council Action to a Continued Hearing Date DMD -MARYMOUNT-LTR TO RPV MAYOR & COUNCIL.pdf High Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members: The attached letter sent on behalf of Marymount California University sets forth our due process objections to tonight's public hearing and City staff's recommendations. We respectfully request that any final action on the agenda item be deferred to a continued public hearing in April or as soon thereafter as possible so that Marymount has a constitutionally adequate opportunity in accordance with its vested property rights to meaningfully respond to the proposed modifications to Marymount's Conditional Use Permit. I look forward to addressing our concerns later this evening, as well as the more positive item regarding City cooperation with Marymount on the study session agenda. Regards, Donald M. Davis I Partner 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 I Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953 d -213.236.2702 I t -213.236.0600 I f- 213.236.2700 ddavis@bwslaw.com I vCard I bwslaw.com The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT 800.333.4297. 444 South Flower Street -Suite 2400 Los Angeles. California 90071-2953 voice 213.236.0600 -fax 213.236.2700 13U/WE:. WILL//\MS & SOl~ENSEN. UP www.bwslaw.com February 18, 2014 VIA HAND DELIVERY & E-MAIL (CC@rpv.com) Mayor Duhovic and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391 Direct No.: 213.236.2702 Our File No.: 04693-0005 ddavls@bwslaw.com Re: Marymount California University: 6-Month Review of Expanded Parking Lot Project (Planning Case ZON2003-00317) Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members: Marymount California University (Marymount) respectfully.requests that the City Council defer any final action on the above-referenced agenda item to a continued public hearing in April or as soon thereafter as possible so that Marymount has an adequate opportunity in accordance with its vested property rights and due process protections to meaningfully respond to the proposed modifications to Marymount's Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which were not previously presented to Marymount nor made available to Marymount until the 300-page staff report and agenda package was posted on the City's website sometime after the close of business on February 13, 2014. Unlike prior hearings where the City was processing an application for new entitlements, the subject hearing concerns proposed changes to Marymount's existing CUP, in particular, its recently completed "Eastern Parking Lot," which City staff acknowledges was built in compliance with all approvals and a final Certificate of Occupancy was issued on August 6, 2013. Under California law, the grant of a CUP and subsequent reliance on the CUP by the permit holder creates a fundamental vested property right. (See Malibu Mountains Recreation. Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 359, 367.) Once a CUP vests, the permittee is entitled to all the protections of due process before the permit may be modified or revoked. (See Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1294-95.) As explained by the California Supreme Court, the constitutional principle of due process requires reasonable notice before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest, which notice must, at a minimum, "be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests," and must "occur sufficiently prior to a final decision to permit a 'meaningful' predeprivation hearing to affected landowners." (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 617-618.) Where a property owner is denied such due process, the courts will set aside the underlying government decision. LA #4825-6055-6312 V1 Los Angeles -Inland Empire -Oakland -Orange County -Palm Desert -Silicon Valley -Ventura County BURl<C, \X/11..J.IAMS /:. SORF'f\ISEN, l..LP Marymount California University Procedural Objections to Public Hearing Item 2 (Planning Case no. ZON2003-00317) February 18, 2014 Page 2 In the case of Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, the City of Costa Mesa scheduled a public hearing on the tavern's request for a renewal of its conditional use permit. The staff report, accompanied by over 100 pages of documents, was not given to the tavern's attorney until the Friday evening before the Monday hearing. The tavern's attorney requested a continuance to adequately respond to the lengthy report. The city council refused and proceeded with the hearing. The tavern owner sought a writ of mandate to set aside the city council's decision. The trial court held that the city's refusal to continue the hearing violated the tavern owner's due process rights and set aside the decision. (See page 4 of the attached case.) Similarly, in Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547, the court of appeal granted a property owner's writ of mandate to set aside the city council's decision on a development application where the council engaged in numerous due process violations, which forced the property owner to respond to wide-ranging issues at a hearing without adequate prior notice. Here, the 300 page staff report and agenda package was never delivered to any Marymount representative, but rather, was merely posted on the City's website late in the evening on Thursday, February 13, 2014, just before a long holiday weekend. None of the staff recommendations in the report and related resolution regarding additional improvements such as the proposed hundreds of feet of feneing and landscaping, nor any of the proposed operational changes such as the complete closure of the brand new multi-million dollar Eastern Parking Lot on weekends and the restrictions on the types of vehicles that may enter the most distant of Marymount's parking lots were ever presented in detail or in writing to any Marymount representative until the day the staff report was posted on the City's website. In fact, as late as 4:52 PM on February 13, 2014, the City's Deputy Director or Community Development, Ara Mihranian, refused to both disclose the details of his pending recommendation, or even explain the purported rationale for them. Instead, he effectively told Marymount Vice President Jim Reeves that he could read the details in the staff report being released that evening and then he would be glad to discuss them "later." This is not the due process required under California law (not to mention a complete lack of professional courtesy to an affected property owner). In addition to the lack of adequate notice or opportunity to prepare for the hearing on what was publicly noticed as a "review of the operation of the recently constructed expanded parking lot project," the proposed agenda item includes a recommendation to create a new "prohibition on outdoor programs and gatherings" on the Marymount campus, which would result in the forced removal of a campus food garden. Marymount has invested years of work and millions of dollars to create an additional parking area that City staff concedes was built according to the plans and the conditions of approval. Marymount cannot be deprived of the full benefit of that investment or of the LA #4825-6055-6312 v1 LlUPK.E, WILLIAMS & sm?LNSCN, LLP Marymount California University Procedural Objections to Public Hearing Item 2 (Planning Case no. ZON2003-00317) February 18, 2014 Page 3 permitted uses of its property under the circumstances described above. Marymount's constitutional right to due process and a fair hearing require that no final action be taken on the agenda item this evening and that the matter be continued. Because of upcoming scheduling conflicts In March, Marymount requests that the continued hearing be sched~led for a Council meeting date in April or anytime thereafter. To the extent Marymount has been made aware of public concerns that are both reasonable and substantiated regarding the operation of the Eastern Parking Lot, Marymount representatives have been actively considering and pursuing incremental enhancements to the facility and its operation. The staff recommendations jettison these efforts in favor of heavy- handed, immediate mandates that are neither based on substantial evidence nor the applicable legal standard of a "compelling public necessity." (See .Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1295.) Accordingly, Marymount respectfully requests that prior to the continued hearing, a City Council subcommittee be appointed to see if mutually acceptable enhancements and operational measures can be developed before the continued hearing date. Finally, to avoid a repeat of the due process violations arising from this evening's hearing, the Council should direct staff to provide future notice to Marymount of its recommendations, including the full staff report, at least 10 days prior to the continued hearing in a manner similar to that required for permit revocations under RPV Municipal Code section 17.86.060. Sincerely, ~.~.s:r~·LLP fo;;~D M. DAVIS DMD:ir Attachments (Goat Hill Tavern Case) cc: (Via e-mail only) Dr. Michael Brophy, President, Marymount College Jim Reeves, Vice President, Marymount College Joel Rojas, RPV Community Development Director Ara Mihranian, RPV Deputy Community Development Director Carol Lynch, RPV City Attorney LA #4825-6055-6312 v1 westl~w. 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 (Cite as: 6 Cal.App.4th 1519) p> GOAT HILL TA VERN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF COST A MESA, Defendant and Appellant. No. 0011143. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California. May 29, 1992. SUMMARY A tavern, which had been in operation for 35 years and existed as a legal nonconforming use under a city's zoning ordinance, applied for a renewal of a conditional use permit that allowed the tavern to use an adjoining space as a game room. The city, intending to close the tavern; cfoniecf the application, based upon complaints received from neighboring residents and businesses. The tavern sought a writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) to compel the city to renew the permit. The trial court, applying the independent judgment test, concluded that the city's denial was not supported by the evidence and granted the writ. (Superior Court of Orange ci~fy, No. 644919, Greer Stroud, Temporary Judge. ) The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the trial court properly applied the independent judgment test; rather than the substantial evidence test, since the city;s action affected a fundaili-erttal vested right. The court held that the eity;s action in attempting to clqse the business did not affect a purely economic privilege; the right to continue an established business was sufficierttly personal and important to· preclude its extinction by a nonjlldieial body. The court also held that the denial of an application to renew a permit merited a higher tevel of judicial review. Finally, the court held that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence, since the tavern owner presented favorable evidence and there was no showing to Page 1 distinguish the complaints about the tavern from other possible causes. FNt Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21. (Opinion by Wallin, J., with Sills, P. J., and Crosby, J., concurring.) HEADNOTES Classified to California Digest of Official Reports (1) Zoning and Planning § 19--Nonconforming Uses--Existing Use. Although a city's zoning ordinance required a conditional use permit for any establishment serving food or beverages within 200 feet of a residential zone, a tavern that did not have such a permit existed as a legal nonconforming use, since, under different ownership and name, it had been in contitiuous operation in its present location before enactment of the zoning ordinance. (2a, 2b) Zoning and Planning § 30--Conditional Use Permits--Judicial Review--Standard of Review- -Independent Judgment Test. In a proceeding for writ of administrative mandamus, the trial court did not err in applying the independent judgment test to a city's denial of a renewal application for a tavern's conditional use permit, which had allowed the tavern to use an adjoining space for a game room, where the city sought to close the tavern by denying the permit. The owtier's right to continued operation of the tavern,· viihfoh had existed as a tegat iitiiict>rtformhig use for over 35 years; and in which the owrtei' had made a substantial investment, was a fundamental vested right and not a purely economic privilege. The right to continue an established business was sufficiently personal, vested; and important fo preclude its extinction by a nonjudicfal body; Accordingly, the trial court's review of the city's action under the independent judgment test, rather than the substantial evidence test, was proper. [See Cal.Jur.3d, Zoning and Other Land Controls, § 169; 8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 (Cite as: 6 Cal.App.4th 1519) Extraordinary Writs, § 254.] (3) Zoning and Planning § 30--Conditional Use Permits--Judicial Review--Standard of Review- -Nature of Affected Right. The grant or denial of a conditional use permit is an administrative. or quasi-judicial act, and judicial review must be in accordance with Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5 (scope of writ review of administrative action). If the administrative decision substantially affects a fundamental vested right, the trial court must exercise its independent judgment on the evidence and find an abuse of discretion if the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. On appeal, a reviewing court will consider only whether the trial court's finding is supported by substantial evidence. If the decision does not substantially affect a fundamental vested right, the trial court considers only whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the light of the Whole record. (4) Administrative Law § 111--Judicial Review- -Administrative Mandamus--Scope and Extent of Review--Vested Rights. The term "vested," in the sense of "fundamental vested rights" to determine the scope of judicial review in an administrative mandamus proceeding, is not synonymous with the vested rights doctrine relating to land use and development. When an administrative decision affects a right which has been legitimately acquired or is otherwise vested, and when that right is of a fundamental nature fr()m the staridJ)oint of. its economic aspect or its effect iri hii.mari tettti.s and the importance to the individual in the life situation, then a full and independent judicial review of that decision is indicated. The abrogation of such a right is too important to the individual to relegate it to exclusive administrative extinction; Whether an administrative decision substantially affects a fundamental vested right must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Although no exact formula exists by which to make this determination, courts are less sensitive to the preservation of purely economic interests. Page2 (S) Zoning and Planning § 30--Conditional Use Permits--Judicial Review--Economic Interests- -City's Decision to Close Business. A city's denial of a renewal application for a conditional use permit, which had allowed a tavern to operate a game room in an adjoining space, did not affect purely economic interests, and thus review under the independent judgment test was proper, where the ptirpC>se and result of the city's decision was to shut down the tavern. The city's decision, which interfered with the tavern owner's existing use of his property, involved interests sufficiently vested and important to preclude their extinction by a nonjudicial body. (6) Zoning and Planning § 30--Conditional Use Permits--Judicial Review--Denial of Application to Renew. Denial of an application to renew a conditional use perm.it merits a heightened judicial review. Once a use permit has been properly issued, the power of a municipality to revoke it is limited. Of course, if the permittee does nothing beyond obtaining the permit, it may be revoked. Where a permit has been properly obtained and in reliance thereon the permittee has incurred material expense, the permittee acquires a vested property right to the protection of which he or she is entitled. When a permittee has acquired such a vested right, it may be revoked if the permittee fails to comply with reasonable terms or conditions expressed in the permit granted, or if there is a compelling public rtecessify. A compelling public ri:ecessify warrarttiri:g the revocatfon or a use petfiiit fo~ a lawful business may exist where the conduct of that business constitutes a nuisance. (7) Zoning and Planning § 30--Conditional Use Permits~-Judicial Review·· Substantial Evidence .. The trial coures decision in a proceeding for writ of administrative mandamus, that the evidence did not support a city's denial of an application to renew a tavern's conditional use permit, was supported by substantial evidence. Although the city denied the permit based on evidence of © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 (Cite as: 6 Cal.App.4th 1519) complaints from neighboring residents and businesses, the tavern owner presented favorable testimony, police records showed the number of incidents reported at the tavern were less than at other bars and coffee shops in the vicinity, and there was no showing to distinguish complaints about the tavern from other possible causes. COUNSEL Thomas Kathe, City Attorney, Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, Richard R. Terzian and Cristina L. Sierra for Defendant and Appellant. Harper & Burns and Alan R. Bums for Plaintiff and Respondent. WALLIN,J, Robert Ziemer, owner of the Goat Hill Tavern, was granted a writ of administrative mandatnus ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) ordering the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa to set aside its denial of Ziemer's application for renewal of a conditional use permit for the tavern, to recognize that the tavern had a vested right to continue operation, and to renew the conditional use permit. The city appeals, contending the trial court erred in finding the tavern had any vested rights to continue in business which resulted in the trial court erroneously applying the independent judgment standard of review, rather than the substantial evidence test. We affirm. Goat Hill tavern FNI is located on Newport Boulevard, a busy arterial street, at a point which will eventually be the terminus of a freeway. The property is zoned commercial and the commercial nature of the area is expected to intensify in the future. An apartment building, in a residential zone, abuts the property behind the tavern's p'arking lot. The Helm bar is next door. FNI "Goat Hill" was the early name of the area where Goat Hill Tavern is located, prior to the incorporation of the City of Costa Mesa. Page3 (1) The city's zoning ordinance requires a conditional use permit for any establishment serving food or beverages within 200 feet of a residential zone. However, Goat Hill Tavern, under different ownership and name, has been in continuous operation in its present location since 1955, before enactment of the current zoning ordinance. The tavern, therefore, existed as a legal nonconforming use. In 1974 a conditional use permit was issued allowing the tavern to add a beer garden. *1523 Ziemer purchased Goat Hill Tavern in 1984 and invested approximately $1.75 million in its refurbishment. In 1988 he knocked out a wall into an adjoining commercial space, turning it into a game room. He did not obtain building permits or land use approvals. After the fact, he applied for a conditional use permit for the expansion. Conditional use permit No. 88-132 was apptoved by the tf:lannfog commission on September 26, 1988. F 2 One of the conditions was that approval of the expansion was for a period of six months only. Prior to expiration Goat Hill Tavern could request renewal of the permit. FN2 The term "conditional use permit" is misleading as it connotes the issuance of an actual document setting forth the property owner's use rights and the conditions imposed upon that use. The city's practice, apparently not uncommon, is to not issue an actual physical document when it. gtil:nts. a cc>nditional use perinit. Nor does it adi>'pt a resohition approving or denying a conditional use permit. Rather, the city's planning staff submits an applicant's request for approval ·· of a conditionally permitted use fo the planning commission along with a staff report explaining the project, recommending approval or denial of the use, and proposing conditions of approval. If, after a public hearing, the planning commission approves of the request, the approval and © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 (Cite as: 6 Cal.App.4th 1519) actual conditions imposed upon the applicant are noted in the minutes of the meeting and written on the staff report. The applicant is then given notice of the planning commission's action. When we refer to Goat Hill Tavern's "conditional use permit" we refer to the approval of its expansion as described in the staff report and the conditions noted on the staff report and in the minutes of the September 26, 1988, planning commission meeting. In September 1989, following citizen complaints of noise from Goat Hill Tavern's parking lot, the city's planning staff discovered the conditional use permit had expired. A request for renewal was made and approved in December for three months. In March 1990 the city renewed the permit for another three months but added a condition limiting the tavern's hours. Goat Hill Tavern filed suit, and the court stayed enforcement of the hours restriction. The action was dismissed when the three-month period expired. The city held a public hearing on Goat Hill Tavern's request for a third renewal of the conditional use permit on July 16, 1990. The staff report, accompanied by over I 00 pages of documents, was not given to the tavern's attorney until the Friday evening before the Monday hearing. Goat Hill Tavern requested a continuance to adequately respond to the lengthy report. The city council refused unless the tavern agreed to limit its hours of operation in the interim. Ziemer refused; the hearing was held and the conditional use permit was denied. In Goat Hill Tavern's ensuing second administrative mandamus proceeding, the court concluded the city's refusal to continue the July 16 hearing *1524 violated Ziemer's due process rights. The city was ordered to hold a new hearing on the renewal of the permit. It was held in December 1990 and the tavern's application was again denied. Page4 The following facts regarding Goat Hill Tavern were adduced at the hearing. Tenants of the apartment building abutting the tavern's parking lot and some business owners began complaining about the tavern in the summer of 1989. The complaints largely related to late night noise in the parking lot and trash. In response, conditions were imposed on earlier extensions of the tavern's conditional use permit which required additional security guards, decreased noise levels and increased cleanup. The owner of the apartment building testified that on three occasions after July 1990, people were milling about the tavern parking lot about 2 a.m., honking horns and yelling. At least one of his tenants had moved because of the noise and others were threatening to leave. Several apartment tenants wrote letters complaining of noise and fights in the parking lot, and of individuals vomiting, urinating and defecating on residents' lawns and fences. Several nearby business owners made similar complaints, stating Goat Hill Tavern was no longer a neighborhood tavern but had become a popular nightclub. The staff report swnmarized 19 reported police incidents occurring at the tavern between August 1990 and November 1990. They included incidents in the parking lot and complaints the tavern exceeded its capacity and its patrons were drunk in public. Goat Hill Tavern submitted a petition signed by 1,035 persons, including 248 Costa Mesa residents, supporting its permit renewal application. Declarations from its Janitorial company indicated the tavern had expanded its area of cleanup beyond its own parking lot. Numerous letters from Costa Mesa residents, area businesses, and civic and charitable groups supporting the tavern's application were also presented. Goat Hill Tavern presented evidence suggesting an explanation for the complaints was the large number of homeless and transient persons who frequented the area. A nearby city-owned parking lot was known as a congregating area for © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. @ 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 (Cite as: 6 Cal.App.4th 1519) homeless people. Additionally, the Helm bar, adjoining the tavern, could be the cause of the complaints. Ziemer was not allowed to cross- examine complaining witnesses as to why they believed Goat Hill Tavern, and not the other possible sources, was responsible for their complaints. Although at the beginning of the hearing the mayor asked each witness to provide such an explanation, no witness did so, and no follow-up questions were asked. The tavern submitted police reports of incidents at all similar establishments within the area for the previous 90 days. Nineteen incidents were *1525 reported at Goat Hill Tavern. But, of the 18 bars and coffee shops in the vicinity, 10 had a greater number of reported incidents for the same period and only 5 had less than 15 incidents. Goat Hill Tavern also submitted the declaration of a paralegal who had reviewed the city's conditional use permit file. She found 79 conditional use permits issued between 1974 and 1990 with term limitations which had expired and were not renewed. Many of the businesses were still in operation. Goat Hill Tavern sought a writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) compelling the city to renew its conditional use permit. The trial court, applying the independent judgment test, concluded the city's decision to deny renewal of the perthit was not supported by the evidence and granted the writ. The court specifically concluded that Ziemer had a vested property right and, to terminate the use, the city must establish Goat Hill Tavern was a public nuisance o~ demonstrate a compelling p\lblic necessity. (2a) The city app'eals, contending the trial court applied an incorrect standard of review. It argues that Ziemer had no fundamental vested right in Goat Hill Tavern and, therefore, the trial court was limited to a determination of whether substantial evidence supported the city's decision. Pages (3) The grant or denial of a conditional use permit is an administrative or quasi-judicial act. ( Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 517 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12]; Smith v. County of Los Angeles ( 1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 188, 198 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 231].) Judicial review must be in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. If an administrative decision substantially affects a fundamental vested right; the trial court must exercise its independent judgment on the evidence and find an abuse of discretion if the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. ( Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28, 32 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 805, 520 P.2d 29]. See Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c).) On appeal, we consider only whether the trial court's finding is supported by substantial evidence. ( Whaler's Village Club v. California Coastal Com. ( 1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 240, 251 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 2], criticized on other grounds in Surftide Colony, Ltd. v. California Coastal Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1269-1272 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 371].) If the decision does not substantially affect a fundamental vested right, the *1526 trial court considers only whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record. ( Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 32.) the threshold issue ori appeal is whether Ziemer had arty vested fondamerital %ht to continue operation of the tavern. F (4) Preliminarily, we note "[t]he term 'vested' in the sense of 'fundamental vested rights' to determine the scope of judieialreview ... {iii· an administrative mandamus proceeding] is not synonyri:\ous with ... the 'vested rights' doctrine relating to land use and development." ( Whaler's Village Club v. California Coastal Com., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at p. 252.) "When an administrative decision affects a right which has been legitimately acquired or is © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. @ 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 (Cite as: 6 Cal.App.4th 1519) otherwise vested, and when that right is of a fundamental nature from the standpoint of its economic aspect or its effect ... in human terms and the importance .. . to the individual in the life situation, then a full and independent judicial review of that decision is indicated because [t]he abrogation of the right is too important to the individual to relegate it to exclusive administrative extinction." ( San Marcos Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of San Marcos (l 987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1492, 1499 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 290], internal 'quotation marks omitted.) FN3 The original conditional use permit only applied to the expansion. Goat Hill Tavern previously existed as a legal nonconforming use. Had the city denied the conditional use permit when it was first requested in 1988 after construction of the game room expartsion1 presumably the tavern would have been required to close the game room and revert to its original capacity. One would assume, therefore, that in approving or denying renewal of the conditional use permit, the city only sought to terminate the expanded use. However, the city is emphatic that by denying renewal of the permit it intends to force the tavern out of business. The city, Goat Hill Tavern and the trial court all appeared to operate under the same premise: that the tavern's original rights as a legal nonconforming use and its right to operate in the expanded capacity under the conditional use permit have become inextricably intertwined and denying renewal of the conditional use permit puts the tavern out of business. Because the issue has not been raised by either p·arty, we do not consider whether a different standard of review would apply if the city was only attempting to close the game room as opposed to an entire business which has operated as a legal nonconforming use for over 35 years. Page6 "Whether an administrative decision substantially affects a fundamental vested right must be decided on a case-by-case basis. [Citation.] Although no exact formula exists by which to make this determination [citation] courts are less sensitive to the preservation of purely economic interests. [Citation.] In deciding whether a right is 'fundamental' and 'vested,' the issue in each case is whether the ' "affected right is deemed to be of sufficient significance to preclude its extinction or abridgment by a body lacking judicial power. " [Citation.]' " ( 301 Ocean Ave. Corp. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1548, 1556 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 636].) *1527 The courts have rarely upheld the application of the independent judgment test to land use decisions. Those cases have typically involved classic vested rights. (See Halaco Engineering Co. v. South Central Coast Regional Com. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 52 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 667, 720 f>.2d 15]; Anderson v. City of La Mesa (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 657 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 572); Stanson v. San Diego Coast Regional Com. (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 38 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 392).) For example, in Anderson the city issued the plaintiff a building permit which complied with the standard zoning ordinance requiring a five-foot setback, but not the specific plan requiring a ten- foot setback. In good faith reliance on the permit the plaintiff built her house within seven feet of the lot line. The court concluded once the plaintiff had cori:ipJeted her house in reliance on the permit, her rights vested and the trial court correctly applied its independent judgment in reviewing the city's decision denying a variance from the zoning. ( Anderson v. City of La Mesa, supra, 118 Cal.AlJP.3d at p. 660.) Iil Stanson the coastal commission told the plaintiff that he did not need a permit to remodel his restaurant. In reliance, he obtained building permits and expended substantial sums of money remodeling his building. The court concluded that under these circumstances the plaintiff had acquired © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 (Cite as: 6 Cal.App.4th 1519) a vested right to construct his building and the trial court should have applied the independent judgment test in reviewing the coastal commission's denial of his subsequent permit application. ( Stanson v. San Diego Coast Regional Com., supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 50.) (5) The city urges that any rights impacted by its denial of Goat Hill Tavern's renewal application are purely economic interests. Therefore, the rights are not fundamental vested rights. ( Champion Motor'cycles, Inc., v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 819, 824 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 325].) However, a review of cases considering the application of the independent judgment test and the definition of fundamental vested rights demonstrates that the rights affected by the city's refusal to renew Goat Hill Tavern's permit are sufficiently vested and important to preclude their extinction by a nonjudicial body. In San Marcos Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of San Marcos, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d 1492, a city rent control commission denied the plaintiff property owner's application for a rent increase in a rent controlled building. Affirming the trial court's application of the substantial evidence test, the court found requests for rent increases "fall into the less sensitive category of the 'preservation of purely economic privileges', and do not substantially and fundamentally impact the individual in the manner contemplated by Bixby [v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130 ( 93 Cal.Rptr. 234, 481 P.2d 242)) and its progeny." ( *1528San Marcos Mobilehome Park Owners' A.~sn., supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1500.) "Here, there is no contention, nor does the evidence suggest, that if the Commission denied the requested rent increases, the park owners would be in such an unfavorable economic position they would go out of business. Thus, the Commission's decision does not substantially affect the property owner's right not to have his property taken away from him. [Citations.] Rather, the decision restricts the return he can obtain from his property." (Id. at p. 1502.) Page7 Similarly, in Mobil Oil Corp. v. Superior Court (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 293 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 814), the court held the substantial evidence test applied to an administrative decision requiring gas stations to install gasoline vapor recovery systems because it impacted only economic interests. "We are not presented with the enforcement of a rule which effectively drives the Oil Companies out of business. At most it puts an economic burden on them increasing the cost of doing business. In weighing the relative importance to individuals in the life situation, it is manifest the Oil Companies' right to continue releasing gasoline vapors into the atmosphere is neither fundamental nor vested." (Id. at p. 305.) Similarly, in Standard Oil Co. v. Feldstein (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 590 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 403], the substantial evidence test was applied to an administrative decision. An air pollution control district granted Standard permission to construct a low-sulphur fuel oil facility, subject to the condition that it shut down two of three other refinery units while the new facility was in operation. When Standard proceeded to operate all four units the district hearing board found it to be in violation of its permit and forced it to shut down the new refinery. The court concluded the action did not impact a fundamental vested right because "[t]here is no contention that Standard will be driven to financial ruin by the action of the District; there is not even a contention that this particular facility will be forced to operate at a loss and close." (Id. at p. 604.) The only impact of the decision was reduced profits. In San Marcos Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of San Marcos, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d 1492, Standard Oil Co. v. Feldstein, supra, 105 Cal.App.3d 590, ahd Mobil Oil Corp. v. Supetior Court, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d 293, the courts held the administrative actions implicated purely economic interests because there were no contentions, nor evidence, that the actions would force the companies out of business or cause them © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. ® 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 (Cite as: 6 Cal.App.4th 1519) to lose their property. The opposite is true here. The avowed purpose and result of the city's decision is to shut down Goat Hill Tavern. In 301 Ocean Ave. Corp. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., supra, 228 Cal.App.3d 1548, the landowner's rights were found to be fundamental vested rights. The owner of a rent controlled apartment complex with fewer *1529 parking spaces than apartments had historically assigned parking to some tenants but not to all. He also assigned parking to nontenants on occasion. Availability of parking was not part of the lease agreement. The city rent control board made a determination that parking was a base housing amenity and that the apartment complex's parking units were part of the rental unit and subject to the rent control ordinance. Therefore, rent had to be decreased for those units not granted a parking space. In conch1ding the independent judgment test applied, the court found "the affected right in this case is sufficiently personal, vested and important to prec;lude its extinction by a nonjudicial body." ( Id. at p. 1556.) Unlike San Marcos Mobilehome Pai-k Owners' Assn., v. City of San Marcos, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d 1492, where there was no interference with the use of land but only a restriction on the escalation of rents, here the city's decision actually interfered with Ziemer's preexisting use of his property. (2b) Goat Hill Tavern has been in operation for over 35 years as a legal nonconforming use. Ziemer invested over $1. 75 million in its rH\lrbishili~nt, including substantial exterior facade improvements undertaken at the city's behest. He then sought a conditional use permit to allow the addition of a game room, which was granted on a temporary basis. Now, with the expiration of the permit, the city urges. he has lost all right to continue in b . FN4 usmess. FN4 Generally, a nonconforming use has no legal right to expand. ( Sabek, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 163, 167 [ 235 Cal.Rptr. 350].) Page 8 Additionally, the courts have upheld the issuance of a conditional use permit allowing the expansion of a nonconforming use on the condition that the entire use be terminated within a specific time period. ( Edmonds v. County oj'Los Angeles (1953) 40 Cal.2d 642, 653 [ 255 P.2d 772].) We, however, find it utterly implausible that Ziemer knowingly gave up all rights to continue operating Goat Hill Tavern in exchange for the opportunity to keep his game room expansion open for six months. Nothing in the documents pertaining to the issuance of the conditional use permit in the first instance suggests that Goat Hill Tavern would be forced to cease operating if an extension of the permit were denied. We cannot conclude on these unique facts that Ziemer's right to continued operation of his business is not a fundamental vested right. This is not, as the city so strongly urges, a "purely economic privilege." It is the right to continue operating an established business in which he has made a substantial investment. Interference with the right to continue an established business is far more serious than the interference a property owner experiences when denied a conditional use permit in the first instance. Certainly, this right is sufficiently personal, vested and important to preclude its extinction by a nohjticlfofat bOdy, While cases itpplying the independent judgment test in land use matters are few, we uphold its application here because of the unique facts presented. *1530 We might. conclude differently were this, as the city attempts to suggest, a simple case of a property owner seeking a conditional use permit to begin a use of property. But it is not. Rather, Goat Hill Tavern is an existing business and a legal nonconforming use. The circumstances presented are more like the © 2014 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. cl0 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 (Cite as: 6 Cal.App.4th 1519) revocation of a conditional use permit than the mere issuance of one. The city has a practice, common in many cities, of issuing limited conditional use permits. When the conditional use permit "expires" the property owner must renew the conditional use permit. At such time, the city argues, the property owner is subject to the same discretionary approval process he or she experienced when the conditional use pennit was originally obtained. Renewal is not simply a question of whether the property owner has complied with the conditions of the permit. Rather the city's action on the renewal request can be premised upon any of the discretionary grounds for its issuance in the first instance (Gov. Code, § 65901) because the city views the renewal as a new request for a permit. Costa Mesa's practice is to do nothing about "expired" conditional use permits and to allow businesses to continue. When a complaint about a business arises, as here, months after the conditional use permit expires, the city demands an application for renewal. In the meantime, the property owner has been continuing to invest in the property and the business, but faces the possible loss of his conditional use permit for reasons other than failure to comply with its original conditions. (6) Denial of an application to renew a permit merits a heightened judicial review. "Once a use permit has been properly issued the power of a municipality to revoke it is limited. [Citation.] Of course, if the permittee does nothing beyond obtaining the permit it may be revoked. [Citation.] Where a permit has been properly obtained and in reliance thereon the permittee has incurred material expense, he acquires a vested property right to the protection of which he is entitled. [Citations.] When a permittee has· acquired such a vested right it may be revoked if the permittee fails to comply with reasonable terms or conditions expressed in the permit granted [citations] or if there is a compelling public necessity. [Citations.] [~I] A compelling public necessity warranting the Page9 revocation of a use permit for a lawful business may exist where the conduct of that business constitutes a nuisance." ( O'Hagen v. Board of Zoning Adjustment (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 151, 158 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 484]; Trans-Oceanic Oil Corp. v. Santa Barbara (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 776 [ 194 P.2d 148]; see also Upton v. Gray (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 352 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 783]; *1531 Community Development Com. v. City of Fort Bragg (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1124 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 709].) By simply denying renewal of its conditional use permit, the city destroyed a business which has operated legally for 35 years. The action implicates a fundamental vested right of the property owner, and the trial court was correct in applying the independent judgment test. FN 5 FN5 The city relies heavily on Smith v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d 188. In Smith the court held the independent judgment test did riot apply to judicial review of the county's denial of a conditional use permit for an adult business. The business had been in operation before the county's action, presumably as a nonconforming use. However, there was no suggestion in Smith that the adult business had any right to continue in operation as a legal nonconforming use had it not applied for the conditional use permit. Here, had Goat Hill Tavern never built its game room expansion, it would still be operating as a legal nonconforming . use. Furthermore, Smith involved a new application for a conditional use permit, not a renewal of a conditional use permit. For these reasons we find Smith unpersuasive. II Although the trial court was required to apply the independent judgment test, on appeal we apply the substantial evidence standard. ( Ban·ie v. California Coastal Com. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 8, 14 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 477]. See also Strumsky v. San © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. ® 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 (Cite as: 6 Cal.App.4th 1519) Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 32.) (7) Substantial evidence supports the trial court's decision. The evidence before the trial court is the same evidence which was before the city council at the December 1990 hearing when it made its decision to deny renewal of the conditional use permit. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (a).) While the city had evidence of complaints from neighboring residents and businesses, Ziemer also presented a great deal of evidence. Several witnesses wrote or testified favorably to Goat Hill Tavern. Additionally, Ziemer introduced police records showing the number of incidents reported at the tavern were less than at most other bars and coffee shops in the vicinity. There was no showing to distinguish complaints about Goat Hill Tavern from other possible causes, including the Helm bar, which adjoined Goat Hill Tavern, and the homeless who frequent the area. The city argues that even if it is required to prove Goat Hill Tavern is a public nuisance or there exists a compelling public necessity to terminate its operation, the evidence below supports such a finding. We need not address this claim because it is not properly before us. The city has not yet attempted to obtain a nuisance determination. *1532 The judgment is affirmed. Sills, P. J., and Crosby, J., concurred. A petition for a rehearing was denied June 16, 1992, and appellant's petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 13, 1992. Panelli, J., and Baxter, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Cal.App.4.Dist. Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 END OF DOCUMENT © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. ® .Page 10 From: Sent: To: Subject: BJGleghorn@aol.com Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:48 AM cc Goal #5 Mayor Duhovic, Mayor pro tern Knight, Councillwoman Brooks, and Councilmen Misectich and Campbell: Thank you for pursuing Goal # 5, Government Efficiencies, Fiscal Control and Transparency that Dennis Mclean is recommending. We fully support taking this action. Thank you for your consideration. Barbara and George Gleghorn EXHIBIT "A" Accounting Manager Senior Accountant Accountant Senior Accowit Technician Account Technician Account Clerk Senior.Information Technician Deputy City Clerk Principal Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Assistant Planner Plaiining Technician Building Inspector II Building Inspector I Permit 1ecimician Senior Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer Maintenance Superintendent Senior Engineer Associate Engineer Assistant Engineer Engineering Technician Traffic Engineering Technician Lead Worker Maintenance Worker Permit Clerk Open Space & Trails Manager Recreation Program Supervisor Recreation Services Manager Senior Administrative Analyst Administrative Analyst II Administrative Analyst II (Records Management) Administrative Analyst Executive Staff Assistant Administrative Staff Assistant Staff Assistant II Staff Assistant I CD 5 EXHIBIT "B" RESOLUTION NO. 2013-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REVISING THE SALARY AND HOURLY SCHEDULE FOR THE COMPETITIVE, MANAGEMENT AND PART-TIME POSITIONS, BY ADDING THE CITY MANAGER POSITION TO AFOREMENTIONED SCHEDULE, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2011-82. WHEREAS, on October 4, 2011 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2011-082 revising salary and hourly ranges for all competitive, management and part-time employee job classifications; and, WHEREAS, California Code of Regulations, Title 2, § 570.5 requires the City to adopt a publicly available pay schedule that identifies the position title and pay rate for every employee position. NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: / Section 1: The salary and hourly ranges for City job classifications are adopted as outlined in the attached Exhibit "A", and are effective December 3, 2013. Section 2: Resolution No. 2011-82 is hereby rescinded and replaced by this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rc1 day of December 2013. Attest: ~. ~~ City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2013-79 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting there6l held on December 3, 2013. ~d;:J;~ CifyClerk ""= Salary and Hourly Schedule for the Competitive, Management and Part-Time Positions M12mbll §1l1ix Annu1I SlllD! 1:12Ydx &lllD! gQIIQM. TQ TQe BQTTQM TQ TQP BQTTQM IQ TQP COMPETITIVE POSITIONS Finance & Information Technology: Accounting Manager 7,163 -9,303 85,960 -111,642 41.33 -53.67 Senior Accountant 6,073 -7,688 72,881 -94,662 35.04 -45.51 Accountant 5,521 -7,171 66,255 -86,052 31.85 -41.37 Senior Account Technician 4,787 -6,218 57,439 -74,620 27.61 -35.88 Account Technician 4,274 -5,552 51,285 -66,625 24.66 -32.03 Account Clerk 3,776 -4,902 45,307 -58,823 21.78 -28.28 Senior Information Technician 6,547 -8,501 78,567 -102,014 37.77 -49.05 City Clark: Deputy City Clerk 4,985 -6,476 59,815 -77,708 28.76 -37.36 Community Development: Principal Planner 7,329 -9,517 87,943 -114,207 42.28 -54.91 Senior Planner 6,543 -8,498 78,514 -101,975 37.75 -49.03 Associate Planner 5,842 -7,588 70,104 -91,051 33.70 -43.77 Assistant Planner 5,141 6,677 61,693 80,128 29.66 38.52 Planning Technician 3,678 -4,774 44,130 -57,289 21.22 -27.54 Building Inspector II 5,552 -7,211 66,625 -86,528 32.03 -41.60 Building Inspector I 4,958 -6,437 59,497 -77,245 28.60 -37.14 Permit Technician 4,227 -5,488 50,729 -65,858 24.39 -31.66 Senior Code Enforcement Officer 5,516 -7,163 66,189 -85,960 31.82 -41.33 Code Enforcement Officer 4,925 -6,396 59,101 -76,755 28.41 -36.90 Public Works: Maintenance Superintendent 6,685 -8,682 80,220 -104,183 38.57 -50.09 Senior Engineer 7,633 -9,912 91,593 -118,942 44.04 -57.18 Associate Engineer 6,815 -8,849 81,781 -106,193 39.32 -51.05 Assistant Engineer 6,133 -7,965 73,595 -95,574 35.38 -45.95 Engineering Technician 4,675 -6,071 56,099 -72,854 26.97 -35.03 Traffic Engineering Technician 4,675 -6,071 56,099 -72,854 26.97 -35.03 Lead Worker 4,085 -5,306 49,024 -63,676 23.57 -30.61 Maintenance Worker 3,127 -4,615 37,518 -55,385 18.04 -26.63 Permit Clerk 3,704 -4,810 44,448 -57,725 21.37 -27.75 Open Space & Trails Manager 6,543 -8,498 78,514 -101,975 37.75 -49.03 Parks & Recreation: Recreation Program Supervisor 5,247 -6,814 62,962 -81,768 30.27 -39.31 Recreation Services Manager 6,148 -7,982 73,780 -95,786, 35.47 -46.05 Support: Senior Administrative Analyst 6,330 -8,220 75,962 -98,642 36.52 -47.42 Administrative Analyst II 4,686 --7,341 58,638 -88,089 28.19 -42.35 Administrative Analyst II (Records Management) 4,686 -7,341 58,638 -88,089 28.19 -42.35 Administrative Analyst 4,686 -6,346 58,638 -76,147 28.19 -36.61 Executive Staff Assistant 4,979 -6,468 59,749 -77,615 28.73 -37.31 Administrative Staff Assistant 4,220 -5,479 50,637 -65,753 24.34 -31.61 Staff Assistant II 3,674 -4,772 44,091 -57,262 21.20 -27.53 Staff Assistant I 3,232 -4,199 38,788 -50,386 18.65 -24.22 MANAGEMENT POSITIONS City Manager • 16,672 -16,672 200,063 -200,063 Deputy City Manager 8,598 -14,608 103,178 -175,292 Director of Community Development 8,598 -14,608 103,178 -175,292 Director of Finance & Information Technology 8,598 -14,608 103,178 -175,292 Director of Public Works 8,598 -14,608 103,178 -175,292 Director of Parks & Recreation 8,598 -14,608 103,178 -175,292 Deputy Director of Community Development 7,548 -12,780 90,575 -153,365 Deputy Director of Finance & Information Technolog 7,548 12,780 90,575 153,365 Deputy Director of Public Works 7,548 -12,780 90,575 -153,365 Human Resources Manager 7,548 -12,780 90,575 -153,365 Building Official 7,067 -11,966 84,809 -143,593 City Clerk 7,067 -11,966 84,809 -143,593 Assistant to the City Manager 7,090 -9,207 85,077 -110,479 * The City Manager pay is set by contract adopted by the City Council Resolution No. 2013-79 Exhibit A As of December 3, 2013 Page 1 of2 Salary and Hourly Schedule for the Competitive, Management and Part-Time Positions PART-TIME POSITIONS Administrative/Public Works/Cable lntem Television Producer Park Ranger Permit Clerk Recreation Leader Recreation Leader II Recreation Specialist Staff Assistant I Staff Assistant II Resolution No. 2013-79 Exhibit A Page2of2 Hourly Rates BOTTOM TO TOP 11.36 -27.37 15.15 30.30 15.72 20.41 19.93 25.89 10.07 13.07 11.44 14.85 15.72 20.41 17.54 22.78 19.93 25.89 ® As of December 3, 2013 EXHIBIT "C" RESOLUTION NO. 2011-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ACKNOWLEDGING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION AS AN EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION AND MAJORITY REPRESENTATIVE IN A BARGAINING UNIT OF NON- MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES AND DESIGNATING THE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER AS THE CITY'S PRINCIPAL MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE, AND DESIGNATING THE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER AND THE CITY'S LABOR COUNSEL AS THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVES TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, the Myers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), Government Code §§ 3500 -3511 and regulations of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), 8 Cal. Code Reg.§§ 31001 -32997, collectively grant public employees of a city the right to form and to be represented by employee organizations of their choosing for purposes of employer-employee relations with their employer and a process to seek recognition by their employer; and WHEREAS, the Rancho Palos Verdes Employees Association (Association) filed a petition with the City, dated October 4, 2011, seeking acknowledgment as a recognized employee organization and certification as majority representative in a unit of non-management employees of the City; and WHEREAS, City staff has confirmed that the petition contains the information necessary for certification as a majority representative, including identifying information for the Association and its representative, confirmation that the Association has as its primary purpose the representation of employees in their employment relations with the City, a description of the proposed appropriate bargaining unit comprised of non-management employees along with a list of job classifications, and proof of employee support for the Association by a majority of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 : The Rancho Palos Verdes Employees Association is acknowledged as a recognized employee organization for purposes of employer- employee relations under the MMBA. Section 2: Non-management, full-time employees in the classifications on the list attached to the October 4, 2011 petition, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A," are determined to be an appropriate bargaining unit. ® Section 3: The Association is recognized and certified as the majority or exclusive representative, as those terms are interchangeably used under the MMBA, in the appropriate unit established in Section 2, above. Section 4: The Human Resources Manager in cooperation and consultation with the City's labor counsel, as designated by the City Attorney, is authorized and directed to implement this resolution in conformance with the MMBA and to serve as the City's principal management representative in all matters of employer-employee relations. The Human Resources Manager and the City's labor counsel, with any additional representatives they may designate, shall serve as the City's representatives to meet and confer with the Association, as required by the MMBA. Section 5: This Resolution will take effect immediately. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th da ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2011-85 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on October 18, 2011. 1396526 ~~- City Clerk Resolution No. 2011-85 Page 2of2 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK FEBRUARY 17, 2014 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached· are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, February 18, 2014 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Materials 2 Emails from: Roni Tomlin; Sharon Vanwagner; Diane Smith Respectfully submitted, M~ Carla Morreale W:IAGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140218 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc From: Ara Mihranian Sent: To: Monday, February 17, 2014 8:24 AM Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: FW: Marymount parking lot and "garden" Late correspondence on Marymount. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development CITY OF ~HO FALOS VERoEs 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv J; Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e· mail message cont<iins information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidenti<il and/or pmtected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify tile sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Roni Tomlin [mailto:ramos09@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 4:38 PM To: Ara Mihranian Subject: Marymount parking lot and "garden" Mr. Mihranian, Diane Smith suggested I forward this to you to support your recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Reeves, I received a copy of the letter you sent to Diane Smith, and in it you state that you are working with homeowners adjacent to the garden project, I have never been contacted about this from you, and I have signed the recent petition with concerns about the area. If you are indeed " working with the neighbors immediately adjacent to the garden in an effort to address any concerns they might have" ... I would certainly think we would have been contacted by you. My home is 2736 San Ramon, RIGHT NEXT to the area also! I do have very real and specific concerns, yes the lighting is one, but the C) continued smoking next to the field, with such a high fire danger is utmost on my list. The trash of course is terrible, and Yes, there are major concerns about the public encouraged to come to an area, RIGHT up next to our properties, you can literally see in my kitchen window from the "garden". Please let me know how you are "working" with "me" to address these concerns, as I have never heard from you. I would appreciate a follow up on this. Sincerely, Roni Tomlin Randee Hinchliffe 2736 San Ramon Dr. On Feb 11, 2014, at 11 :56 AM, Diane Smith wrote: f yi -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reeves [mailto:JReeves@marymountcalifornia.edu] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:15 PM To: Diane Smith Cc: 'Ara Mihranian'; eduardos@rpv.com; 'Joel Rojas' Subject: Follow-up on Thursday's Visit Hello Diane, Thank you for your efforts to identify matters in need of attention at the University's new parking area. We have looked at the irrigation leak on the east side of the lot and are making arrangements to effect a repair. With respect to other issues you have identified, I think you would agree that we've made progress with student smoking on the east side of the parking lot as well as the litter. We will continue to carefully monitor these areas to ensure that they remain clean, safe and do not unreasonably impact our neighbors. As noted in previous emails, the University is closing this parking area over weekends and during holiday breaks when parking is not needed in this lot. Also, we continue to consider strategies to mitigate the concerns raised by the pole lights in the parking lot and anticipate providing City staff with recommendations for addressing this matter soon. With respect the garden area, we are working with the neighbors immediately adjacent to the garden in an effort to address any concerns they might have. We are certainly respectful of their desire to maintain the peaceful and private use of their property. While the University and I have appreciated your feedback about the concerns raised by you and our neighbors about campus operations, I must insist that you contact me directly with any future request to visit the campus. Upon request, I will advise you of an appropriate time when your visit can be accommodated. I appreciate your observance of our request in this matter and would encourage you to communicate with me by email with concerns as they arise. Sincerely, Jim Reeves From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ara Mihranian Monday, February 17, 2014 8:25 AM Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Joel Rojas FW: Marymount California University -February 18, 2014 City Council Meeting Late correspondence on the Marymount agenda item. Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development (~ITY OF RANcHO FALos VERDES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv Jl Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e··rnail rnessa9e contains information belongin9 to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confldE~ntial and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, (li!:>tribution, or c:opyin9 is stri<-tly prohibited. If you received this ernail 111 ennr, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Vanwagner [mailto:mailvw@cox.net] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 4:43 PM To: Ara Mihranian Subject: Fw: Marymount California University -February 18, 2014 City Council Meeting Each day between five and fifteen student vehicles are parked on Palos Verdes Drive East directly in front of the signs which state "No Marymount College Parking On Street". Since the signs alone obviously aren't effective, the College must take additional steps to prevent student parking on the street. Sharon Van Wagner From: rpvlistserver@rpv.com Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 8:22 AM To: sharvan@cox.net Subject: Marymount California University -February 18, 2014 City Council Meeting MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY AVAILABILITY OF THE FEBRUARY 18th CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT-6 MONTH REVIEW OF THE EXPANDED PARKING LOT PROJECT Pursuant to Council Adopted Condition of Approval No. 18, the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, February 18, 2014, at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, will conduct a review of the operation of the recently constructed expanded parking lot project's compliance with, and the adequacy of, the conditions of approval imposed by the City Council since it has been 6 months since the Final Certificate of Compliance was issued for the parking lot. The Council's review of the parking lot will include, but is not limited to, the operation (including hours), circulation, lighting, noise, landscaping, and other concerns raised by the public. The City Council may add, delete or modify the Conditions of Approval pertinent to the expanded parking lot based on evidence presented at the hearing that demonstrates that such changes are necessary and appropriate to address impacts resulting from operation of the parking lot. Click here to view the February 18th City Council Staff Report. Inquiries or public comments should be directed to Ara Mihranian, Deputy Community Development Director at 310-544-5228 or via email at aram@rpv.com 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 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 501c3 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. mailto:information@palosverdes. com 0 From: Sent: To: Ara Mihranian Monday, February 17, 2014 1:33 PM Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Petition to City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes -Marymount East Parking Lot for Feb. 18 2014 meeting Attachments: Marymount East Parking Lot -Petition 1 of 2jpg; Marymount East Parking Lot -Petition 2 of 2jpg Marymount late correspondence. Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development ()rrY OF HO ~OS \/ERoEs 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv Jl Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e··mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 1:03 PM To: Ara Mihranian; Eduardo Schonborn; Joel Rojas Cc: 'Gregory Lash' Subject: Petition to City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes -Marymount East Parking Lot for Feb. 18 2014 meeting Dear Ara, Eduardo and Joel, Attached is a copy of the above referenced Petition which includes additional signatures from Vista de Mar residents, as well as additional San Ramon for late presentation to the City Council for tomorrow's meeting. I will hand-deliver the original to City Hall tomorrow morning. Sincerely, Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 547-3856 cJ. PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES We immediately-impacted residents of San Ramon Drive, Tarapaca Drive and Vista del Mar understand that Marymount University's East Parking Lot is presently undergoing the City's 6-month review and the cut-off date for resident comments is 5:30 p.rn. on February 10, 2014. We residents have had ample time to exist with Marymount's East Parking Lot, however, residents have not had·time to determine the impact ofMarymount's surprising *new PROJECT GROW COMMUNITY GARDENr-the opening of which commenced February 6, 2014 between the parking lot and San Ramon Homes. Residents request the City Council order reasonable modifications to ease the nuisances caused by Marymount and its parking lot as follows: 1) LIGHTS OBJECTION -presently on from dusk to 10 PM every single night of the year a) OVERHEAD LIGHTS: the parking lot lights are far too bright The light overspills into resident properties and spoils enjoyment of their evenings. Lights can be seen as far away as' San Pedro. MODIFICATION: The lights should therefore be no brighter than those lights our own City Council Meeting parking lot lights at Hesse Park and no brighter than the parking lot lights at our own Peninsula High School. No lights on the weekend since there is low weekend attendance and its use is therefore not necessary. b) There are 47 vehicle spaces pointing 94 bright headlights on two separate levels, shining directly into private residents' backyard viewing areas, creating a "disco ball" effect as vehicles arrive and depart. The EIR did not consider vehicle headlights shining directly into neighbor properties and therefore the City Council was unaware of such nuisance when making their decision on the lot. MODIFICATION: Vehicles should be pointed at Marymount and not at residents' properties. A wall should be erected to curt.ail this overspill of light. The parking lot lights should be turned off after the last car has left the lot. This shnuld be moniwred by Security Officers. The east parking lot does not need to he open on weekends because of low weekend attendance.* 2) NOISE OBJECTION -presently gates are open all the time The parking lot noise includes but is not limited to honking horns, revving engines; security devices going off; radios blaring; doors slamming; student noisy social groups. MODIFICATION -Gates should he automated for students with parking passes only. Marymount should insist students adltere to code of conduct rules or f oifeit their parking wt passes. The east parking lot should be regularly closed on weekends because of low weekend student attendance. 3) FIRE HAZARD OBJECTION -smoking, 'drinking and trash a) SMOKING -Although Marymount has a code of conduct which includes no smoking, residents have accumulated evidence in photos and actual items of breach of such conduct, including cigarette butts flicked into the dry, open field; intentional shooting paper airplanes and other combustible trash into the dry open field increasing fire ha.iard when ~orubined with flicked cigarette butts. MOD/FICA TION -Same as Noise Objection modification above including maintaining ample trash receptacles. b) DRINKING -The code of conduct also includes no drinking, however, residents have accumulated evidence in photos and actual items of such breach including beer cans, bottles and alcohol bottles. MODIFICATION -Same as Noise and Smoking Objections modification above. 4) WATER HAZARD OBJECTION-leaking pipes Marymount was notified in mid-November 2013 and again in February, 2014 to repair leaking pipe area at the south east comer of the new parking lot, however, Marymount failed to do so. MODIFICATION -Marymount must repair leaking and clogged waterways within fifteen ( 15) days of notice thereof or the City will make such necessary repair and bill Marymount for such repairs. -----.............. -........... ... (9 I </tJ;<,7S - d->13 a-vr srn-r>i~ pt Atz (<,r v 1o~7C:: ~ rsv 0 sk= j)EL /(/;ff-RPV io :>.7S _____.._,..--"---"--~~~_.....:;_J_-1<.....::!!tf~'--"'-~ .......... kr-'-4. s~~2>~~;'---~ R -f v 9 o 2 r; 5 2 7 a'/ J/'fxJC&ttft>/U ;2.//~y ~/'vr:'/9 }' t:F;)· ,?)-·· (j)