20140401 Late CorrespondenceI3 U ,,-F 0 nT t `� a c I� �kT '1_'0
V
RECEIVED FROM W'FP i 1715M
AND MADE A PART OF THf RECO DAT T
COUNCIL MEETING OF 0/ Z/ -
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
IA-
Villa Rosa Homes 30 Feet Away From 28041 Hawthorne
satella�
�-
NO EXPENSIVE BRANCHES a11YB A N K.
1067g&�
%:n 1)5:3� e 30.951 Mdes krr, Nautical Miles Metres L -i Feet Auto:A-
CievLastPoint I 2xrr Tc f.t Clear Map T*Nl*M&,k&r1 FIL-16MVILbeatan Sh"T-:!
A
r
6338 Villa Rosa View of 28041 Hawthorne Building Antenna Structures
m
Antenna Structure View Impacts 6332 Villa Rosa
v
Hempstead, NY Adopts Ordinance Restricting Cell Towers/Antennas Near
Schools, Day Care, Homes and Places of Worship, Limit Set at 1,500 Feet or
Approximately 1/4 Mile
25.09.2010
Important Development: Initiated by a group of concerned Moms,
Hempstead, Long Island, NY unanimously adopts ordinance
restricting the placement of antennas and cell towers within 1,500
feet of schools, day care centers, places of worship and homes unless
there is compelling evidence for'need' and an application for a Special Use
Permit. The 1,500 foot limit is the restriction advocated in the BRAG Antenna
Ranking of Schools Report. The wording also suggests the ordinance would
cover radiation -emitting utility 'smart meters', a raging concern of residents
in Northern CA now.
The town of Hempstead's effort circumvented the Sec. 704 limitation
of the Telecom Act of 1996 by basing the ordinance on quality of life
issues, like home values and neighborhood character, instead of on
health concerns, since that Act prevents restricting towers and antennas
on health or environmental grounds. We hope communities across America
and beyond will adopt similar ordinances restricting radiation -emitting
infrastructure near schools, homes, day care and other places where people
gather like places of worship.
http://www.ci.walnut.ca.us/upload/ItemO7c 111412.pdf
"No access within 39 feet directly in front of the antennas themselves should be allowed
while the base station is in operation...."
Due to their mounting locations, the AT&T antennas would not be accessible to the general public,
other than workers doing maintenance on the lights or pole. To prevent exposures of such persons in
excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 39 feett directly in front of the antennas themselves
should be allowed while the base station is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to
ensure that occupational protection requirements are met. Posting explanatory warning signst at the
antennas and/or on the pole below the antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible from any
angle of approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to meet
FCC -adopted guidelines. Similar measures should already be in place for the other carrier at the site;
the applicable keep -back distance for that carrier has not been determined as part of this study.
* Located at least 340 feet away, based on photographs from Google Maps.
t Distance specified is calculated to the nuhlic exnnsurr. limit
CA PTA Resolution on Cellular Phones and Antennas:
1. WHEREAS the third objective of the National PTA is to "secure adequate laws for the care and protection of
children and youth"; and
2. WHEREAS, the California PTA Convention adopted, on May 6, 1994, a resolution on electromagnetic fields
(EMF), pertaining solely to power frequencies from electrical power transmission lines and electrical appliances
operating at 60 Hertz and resolved to "seek participation in coalitions to study the effects of electromagnetic fields"
and " to educate and inform its districts, councils and units about the potential hazards of EMF and encourage
school districts and schools to develop risk reduction policies and continue to disseminate information on the
subject as it becomes available"; and
3. WHEREAS the number of cell phone users and services has increased dramatically in California, the United
States, and around the world and to. support increasing consumer demand for wireless communications there is a
rapid increase in the number of wireless facility sites, antennas and base station equipment, and.
4. WHEREAS the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been interpreted by the FCC (Federal Communications
Commission) as prohibiting state or local governments from regulating wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regulations,
and
5. WHEREAS there has been legislation in the United Kingdom, the United States Congress and the California
State Legislature which addresses the issues of local authority and health concerns as they apply to wireless
facility siting and cell phone use, and
6. WHEREAS some schools are considering policies to ban outright or limit use of cellular phones and other
wireless mobile devices and are opposing cellular antennas on or near school properties.
7, WHEREAS there is considerable debate in the scientific and medical community regarding the potential effects
on humans of the radiofrequency/microwave energy emitted from wireless devices, cellular phones and antennas
8. WHEREAS, there is a growing body of scientific evidence that radio frequency radiation may be associated with
chronic disease and brain dysfunction in a proportion of children who are exposed, as well as slight increases
proven in childhood cancers, breast cancers and brain tumors;
Therefore, be it
RESOLVED that there is an outstanding need to evaluate radio frequency radiation research and exposure
conditions and that the principle of precaution be followed until this is done as RF exposure conditions at school
may have a negative impact on the health and well being of children and youth, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the California PTA encourages a public health review be conducted of the research literature on
radio frequency radiation and a determination be made of relative risk based on the precautionary principle in
order to give clear and practical guidance to school personnel and parents on preventive and protective strategies
to reduce risk, particularly on children, youth and school personnel, many of whom are of childbearing age; and be
it further
RESOLVED, that the California PTA supports local municipal zoning setback rules of 1000 feet or more from an
operating wireless transmitter and a school or residential area; and be it further
RESOLVED that the California PTA supports encouraging schools to use cable lines for all communications
services on campus and to avoid the endorsement, purchase or use of wireless local area network systems on
campus; and be it further
RESOLVED that the California PTA recommend that teachers and students should limit use of cellular phones or
other mobile devices on school property to emergencies and that cellular phones, pagers and other mobile phones
be turned off and placed out of sight while the individual is on school property; and be it further RESOLVED, that
the California PTA supports legislation that would allow state and local authorities to regulate the placement,
construction and modification of telecommunications towers and antennas, as well as, legislation to ban the use of
commercial cellular phones or other communications devices while operating motor vehicles.
COUNSEL AND COUNCIL:
/i -
Opp 1
f
(02 4 ff
CEIVED FRvne '
D MADE A PART OF T E RE� R�
UNCIL MEETING OF
OFFICE OF THE ITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
LIEAG,LJE
CITIE-1
Counsel and Council. • A Guide For Building A Productive Employment Relationship
The Rules of Professional Conduct define an attorney's
role and responsibilities in representing an organization.
They say, in part, that:
In representing an organization, a member shall conform
his or her representation to the concept that the client
is the organization itself, acting through its highest
authorized officer, employee, body, or constituent
overseeing the particular engagement.3
So, in response to the question, "Who is the client?" this
rule states that for a city attorney, the client is the city —
the municipal corporation as a whole. For purposes of
giving advice, receiving direction, and providing
representation, however, the question remains,
"Who is the city?"
In general terms, the city attorney takes direction from
a majority of the council. He or she cannot take any action
requested by an individual council member contrary to the
desires of the city as expressed by the council majority.
However, given the nature of legislative entities, which
may often be split with a consistent "majority" and
,'minority," the city attorney must provide balanced
Legal advice to both sides.
The Rules of Professional Conduct recognize that a city
may be embodied in various constituent parts. The rule
goes on to state that a city attorney's dual representation
of the entity as well as its directors, officers, or other
constituents in a given matter may only occur with the
city council's consent.
Under rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, an
individual council member or other city official (such as the
city manager) is not the client. There is no attorney-client
confidentiality in these communications. Advice may only
be given to an individual in his or her capacity as an
officer of the city. Such advice is subject to disclosure to
the city council. For example, if a city council member has
a conflict of interest that could result in the invalidation
of the council's decision under state conflict of interest
Laws, the city attorney must advise the council of the
consequences of the conflict if the council member fails
to disclose the conflict and abstain.
Even though the city attorney's client is the city itself,
there are times when the city attorney owes a duty of
defense to an individual employee under the California
Government Tort Claims Act.` If a lawsuit alleges an act or
omission that arose out of the course and scope of public
employment, the entity has consented to dual representation
by operation of law. For the limited purpose of the lawsuit,
the city attorney has a relationship with both the city and
employee. A city may refuse to undertake a joint defense
if a specific conflict of interest would result, but the city
must pay costs of a separate defense attorney.
2004
C. PRESERVING CONFIDENCES —
WHO DECIDES?
In Roberts v. City of Palmdole,5 the California Supreme Court
recognized that an attorney-client privilege exists in the
public arena. Communications between the city attorney
and the city council may be kept confidential. However, it
is important to be clear as to who holds the confidentiality
privilege. Because the city attorney's client is the city —
as embodied by the city council — it follows that the city
council holds the privilege. As the holder of the privilege,
the city council may decide to waive the privilege and
disclose the city attorney's communications to the general
public. This should be a decision made by a majority of
the council expressly stated on the public record. It should
not be the decision of an individual council member.
Another aspect of the attorney-client privilege is that the
city attorney's communications on substantive matters with
staff members cannot be kept confidential from supervisors.
Communications with individual council members on city
business cannot be kept confidential from the full city
council. It is important for each city official to understand
this principle in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Example:
The city attorney learns an employee is not complying
with a statute or regulation that could expose the city to
liability and if speaking with the employee is not feasible
or fails to rectify the situation, the city attorney must
report the matter to the employee's superior and up the
chain of command, if necessary. If the problem continues,
the city attorney must report it to the city manager, and
ultimately, to the city council if the issue is not resolved.
Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct and can be a basis for attorney
discipline by the State Bar.
6 League of California Cities • www.cacities.org
Subject: FW: Diane Smith Comments to April 1 Staff Report
Attachments: Smith 3-28-14 Comments to Staff Report.docx
From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 5:09 PM
To: Ara Mihranian
Subject: Diane Smith Comments to April 1 Staff Report
Please see attached.
v I•
Here are my comments to each issue:
1. Marymount California University — 6 -Month Review of the Expanded Parking Lot Project (Planning Case
No. ZON2003-00317) / 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East [Continued from February 18, 2014] (Mihranian)
Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADOPTED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 1, 2010 UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 2010-42 THEREBY TAKING
THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:
The City is obligated by Code to send Marymount notice to correct that
violation and bring their operation into compliance before they can
provide any new entitlements.
RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE LEGAL OPINION AS TO WHETHER THIS ISSUE
CAN PROCEED IN VIEW OF MARYMOUNT'S VIOLATION OF ITS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REGARDING ENROLLMENT.
1) Requiring the installation of a 6 -foot tall vinyl fence along the eastern and northern perimeter of the East
Parking Lot and a 5 -foot tall vinyl fence along the campus garden that parallels the City -owned San
Ramon Reserve (Marymount partially agrees to this condition);
We would like a 6 -foot block wall, same as the Vista del Mar neighbors but understand the
City Geologist's concern regarding block wall footings. We therefore AGREE to the 6 -foot
vinyl fence which will deter students from hopping over (as people have in the catch basin)
and from shooting paper airplanes and live cigarette butts into the dry field beyond.
2) Requiring a noise study be conducted after installation of the new vinyl fence and when classes are in
session during the fall 2014 term (Marymount agrees to this condition);
AGREE to the noise study.
3) Reducing the permitted hours the parking lot can be used and the types of vehicles that can park in the
parking lot (Marymount partially agrees to this condition);
AGREE that the lights should be turned off when there are no student cars in the lot.
The parking lot was created to take student CARS off of PV Drive East, Crest Road and
Mira Catalina neighborhood. There was never talk of buses, coaches, diesel trucks and
other noisy vehicles — only CARS.
Neighbors' normal entertainment times are daytime until 9 pm. Therefore neighbors'
enjoyment of their property is tremendously affected by this parking lot.
We must give up our normal entertainment because it is distracted by slamming car doors,
security devices going off and student yelling, bouncing basketballs — all sorts of noise
which was considered in the EIR. The city said it would be "mitigated" so we must live
with this.
Neighbors have been subjected to the bright lights and noise every single night from dusk
to 10 pm 7 days a week since the parking lot lights went on June 29, 2013 — other than a
few glorious holiday exceptions when the school was not in session (Thanksgiving,
Christmas). Now Marymount adds a PUBLIC GARDEN which was not considered during
the EIR. No one KNOWS what noises this PUBLIC GARDEN will add or how it changes
the vehicles in the parking lot.
0
4) Requiring shields be placed on the six light fixtures attached to the three eastern most 10 -foot tall
parking lot light standards, limiting the parking lot light bulbs to 1700 lumens per bulb (current lumens),
and requiring the light standards to be turned off at 9:00 pm (Marymount agrees to this condition);
Neighbors request that ALL the overhead light shields be such that they limit overspill of
light EQUAL to the same overspill as Hess Park parking lot lights which lights emit 1,580
lumens per bulb. We are just asking for equal treatment.
5) Requiring additional trash receptacles with lids and "no smoking" and "no littering" signs be installed in
the East Parking Lot (Marymount agrees to this condition);
Neighbors agree to additional trash receptacles with lids and that they be affixed so that
they do not blow over when prevailing winds blow trash into neighbors yards (as is
continually going on to this day). Although Marymount has posted no smoking and no
littering signs there are still students that ignore these signs unless Security is
present. Possibly security cameras (that are regularly maintained) should be installed in
areas where abuse is present not only in the parking lot but also the catch basin which was
recently vandalized with graffiti. Security would be able to turn the lights off after the last
student's car has left the lot. Also, students that are seen on camera, disobeying the rules,
can be disciplined. Cameras can also capture students and others defacing property with
graffiti or other nuisance.
6) Prohibiting outdoor programs and gatherings within the 80 -foot parking lot buffer zone and limiting the
location of the outdoor garden to the footprint of the original parking lot approved by the City Council in
2010 (Marymount agrees to this condition);
Neighbors do not want a PUBLIC GARDEN in the parking lot at all.
A PUBLIC GARDEN was never considered in the EIR.
Neighbors have continually supported the garden promised by Marymount to Dr. Tooley in
September 2013. At some point Marymount changed the California native plant garden to a
PUBLIC GARDEN where members of the public are invited to participate in the planting,
maintaining and harvest. Marymount received money from one or more GRANTS.
It appears the GRANTS required that the public be involved.
A PUBLIC GARDEN has not been considered in the EIR nor by the City.
A PUBLIC GARDEN may involve even more noises than slamming car doors, security devices
going off, kids congregating which were previously considered by the City and that is why the
City created the buffer zone.
It was represented to me, by three ladies at the GROW PROJECT launching, that women and
children from San Pedro charities and handicapped people would be encouraged to come to
the PUBLIC GARDEN and enjoy planting seasonal vegetables and harvesting. These ladies
were very enthusiastic about this project.
This PUBLIC GARDEN is not a "special event" — it is a DAILY GROW PROJECT on the
parking lot. This was never considered or agreed to in the EIR.
A PUBLIC GARDEN involves different noises than a parking lot. The noises might be
clanking of wheelchairs against the galvanized containers, screaming children running around,
tools and shovels clanking against the containers, and other unforeseen noises.
A PUBLIC GARDEN would add to the number of cars that this City Council so carefully
required to absorb the overflow from PVDrive East, Crest Road and Mira Catalina. In fact, in
order to get that many cars into the parking lot the cars had to be parked with their headlights
facing neighbors. Spaces include 47 cars which translates to 94 180 degree headlights shining
into the entertainment area of our back yards! If buses are allowed then those headlights are
might higher and even brighter.
A PUBLIC GARDEN would add more cars and possibly buses and coaches to deliver the
mothers and children and handicapped and others to the garden.
A PUBLIC GARDEN may involve diesel garden vehicles as well — many unforeseen things that
have been experienced before such as in the case of Green Hills Cemetery burials on top of a
two-story mausoleum right next to Lomita resident balconies.
A PUBLIC GARDEN may also require restroom facilities be provided — all items never
considered by city staff, the Planning Commission, nor City Council.
Residents have every reason to not trust Marymount because although Marymount did tell
residents about their one Campus Garden for propagating California native plants in the
buffer zone, Marymount said absolutely nothing about it's PUBLIC GARDEN called
"PROJECT GROW"
Marymount has ACRES AND ACRES of land above and around the new catch basin which
would allow the PUBLIC PROJECT GROW GARDEN to expand and be much closer to
Marymount's maintenance buildings.
Another location would also ease the concern Neighbors have over Marymount's past failure
to promptly repair its leaking pipes in the parking lot area, located adjacent the South Shores
Landslide.
What Marymount employees represented to me on February 6, 2014 and set out in my
February 6 memo, are opposite to what Marymount now represents to this city.
Therefore, residents would like the City Council to obtain clarification of Marymount's future
plans for this GROW PROJECT on its parking lot. The City Council may be helped in
assessing the purpose of the scope and location of this public garden by reviewing
Marymount's representations in it's applications for grant monies for this PUBLIC GARDEN.
7) Clarifying the wording for the Building Geologic Setback condition (Marymount agrees to this
condition);
YES
8) Allowing graduation ceremonies with amplified sound to occur in the East Parking Lot until an athletic
field is constructed on site (Marymount agrees to this condition);
YES
9) Conducting an additional review six months from April 1, 2014 to review the effectiveness of the added
conditions of approval (Marymount agrees to this condition).
YES
I M,
CfTY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: APRIL 1, 2014
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
Letter from Jim Gordon; Emails from: Don M. Davis;
Gregory Lash; Jim Gordon
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, March 31, 2014**.
W:WGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140401 additions revisions to agenda.doc
James B. Gordon
3538 Bendigo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-6202
City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Monday March 31, 2014
Subject: Proposed Draft Resolution No. 2014 -XX, Exhibit "A" — Addendum No. 1,
Exhibit `B" — Conditions of Approval.
Honorable Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members:
Based upon a review of the non-compliance with the terms and Conditions of
Approval of Marymount's current Conditional Use Permit (CUP), any further
consideration or approval of additional entitlements should be suspended per City
Code 17.86.060 (D) until such current violations have been corrected.
Marymount is in current violation with CUP Conditions regarding enrollment
limitations specified under Mitigation Measures TR -4 and TR -7 as required by
Conditions Numbers 3, 4 and 11.
As shown in the accompanying Exhibit, based upon provisions of those Mitigation
Measures, Marymount's current reported weekday enrollment of 886 exceeds the
maximum limit of 793 by 93 students. No weekend students are reported to be
enrolled. Such violations have continued since Fall 2011.
CUP Condition No. 3 incorporates each and every mitigation measure into the
Conditions of Approval.
CUP Condition No. 4 requires that such measures be fully implemented on the
subject property.
CUP Condition No. 11 specifies that "In the event that a Condition of Approval is in
conflict or is inconsistent with any Mitigation Measure for this project, the more
restrictive shall govern."
Therefore, the Director's March 3, 2014 letter informing Marymount that per terms of
Condition 145 that "the student enrollment for the Spring of 2014 term is within the
I I P a g e
scope of the Conditions of Approval.." is in conflict and is inconsistent with the
enrollment limitations specified in the Mitigation Measures TR -4 & TR -7, and should
be withdrawn as these more restrictive limitations "shall govern".
Accordingly, per RPVMC, notice of violation should be given to Marymount to
correct this ongoing enrollment Violation of the CUP and no further entitlements
should be processed until such violation is corrected.
Jim Gordon
AB (Econ) Brown University
MBA (Finance) Harvard Business School
PDGCM (Professional Designation in Government Contract Management) UCLA
nepw nn ammiu un awwa a i cumnu u W um mww u ut prnepwwu o suave" a
Note 1 Appendix 0 on page 3.3.39. Assumptkxrs, studied a maximum weekday student enrollment of 793
Note 2 MWAstion Measure TR -7 states that parking impacts studied assume a maximum of 793 weekday students
Note 3 Mitigation Measure TR -4 specifies traffic Impacts assume a maximum of 793 weekday students
"Weekday' student enrollment is defined as "the courses offered at Marymount Cdkge (that) occur on weekdays between a AM and
10 PM. Classes offered as part of the BA Program would occur during these stated hours.' (PEIR & Appendbc 0, Course Offerings).
CUP General Conditions Nos 3 & 4Incorporate the Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigations as part of the CUP.
CUP General Condition No. 11 specifies that "in the event that a Condition of Apoproval is In conflict or is Inconsistent with any Midgation
Measure for this project, the more restrictive shall govern.'
2 1 P a g e
-10
tewafrlbm 100E as
Ea,aetrra bb rf
Page B of 22
fiarymouat CWMga F6arvY—rrarw hmPad Rvl-t
Find • Wy 142010 a$ fyba WrirgwbMaifHgsa
ORRsaabwrr de
oo. 211116412Exhibit B
Page 7 d 22
firmwun<t:ok.w FOCIIIIIIN E
Embommostail bafrd:
Report
b
MmdCwlpiaae
mdadmm"a
oobu
Om*B.no
bkbb ode tbaearka
191geYanllnasa
we, to Cby of Randb POW venom rl, Of Las Angelo, Md Gflrr
�kkw4
Corplrra
• Pad" of dadisadaa;
-knbmmWmoftkmfndlmL
TR4
TM halo bgw4 gad aolwapadnp hitsnauaw aoaero fa
PdabAny
Cemady raiafonOf
Mwpw dCdbgpdbdrtrra- 'Itawmsna7B3omwWwab
CeAlabd
Dawes wi Sbdrt
pI01011'on4wtM ab dx*g 7g61"10 rdIMIN 3 p i N, SIMIM
OwupawY
DYador 6saiw
OW a awepbd dd mwft d 30 1 1 Q, wd 1 wombed al dmfs.
IIMb
AdM-*, b y wwnul, WIMPOW Cdbp fI I I asaiwt r s
laadnaaa d 260 waebdq abdeets amd 'in to BA Pmpan ad a
APmdnglbepeMna HapanahAbopspasd.daabnidby
PdabAy
Cammey
Appwd
nadams of M rMMI abdwb mks amoral BA Hogan wadday
tnApplaMtbrwiMamalappaaMloCamaa/Dmmbpwdpadr,
abldMta awid h h M Papm► Thmdom, pdr b basnoe of ON
Dadwmt
Par"
MrmgemM
Crrfab a O=Pm . wad awirt dellbe embd b s mrdwao d
byJ*Idot myyaar. Sad apmdisk
Owww T
Db curad
M nd dry dWmb and 160 weabw wmb, babdb a Wad prom
Sbdegb
aWmll,admmbmd260wwbdayd I andelbtoINA Pawn
PtbkWaft
ads maaimm a 793 weobdoy *Mb mbu armd BA Rogran waemay
• Idrdlyabdepin4orurbMupoanbpaatMdealadyaw.0d
Dkaabr
wanle maid b bs M Plopm The Cdege deg yingg b ge Cfy es
No Ldwm m
Cammadq AW" d
rdraiwt Rapat for sob Tan wib m =We* yor lo all Tadlo d
OW NwTra lbW Dorm Hop— w 9amw 6doatlMd P opens no
30OspFmm
CamwwaM
Dwdopow AmW OWed
n'. 6adnrnt
bta M 30daya dbr •lam hes aommeroed.
dTem
ROW
TM pddY MWW ad oameI •fie mwuw wane d
Pdrb"
Camwnfy
AmmelSbdrt
TR4
Pdw b Yorke of any Cabtleab of Ow*mq, le Appkrk del hello
Hlorb Any
Ca—adgr
Appord d
Daauleopw
DI s I vW
Is go Wbdm of in Commdy Drwbpert DkwW and to Pd*
Crliab d
Dembpee t
Patlg
Vkft Ohdor, "wing mrrpmwd a, - je+ b 06- mobw Cdepa
om*mq
Dbedwod
Yraprmm
�.
abbdpaliig', I bybbbabgwkow
Hikvkft
Shbpba
• llpaoatorgadrfor wadamaknMt.atwom7aasd793;
Dbaalor
• Spwatargnabrbralmh011 aisr'beawmB9aand713;
• Op•oatargwrbraWadaaotiwd693wha
POIN poking aalpeiwd dbabplao mry meluk but we sd fmlbd In,
fetb ft
• Raddmd�CMPw�Pw9�K
• byMiatafmdpd4igpAigfw-n*npn"pan*
Cuadrbm
Ullballynolmnaloperliku
Find • Wy 142010 a$ fyba WrirgwbMaifHgsa
ORRsaabwrr de
oo. 211116412Exhibit B
Page 7 d 22
firmwun<t:ok.w FOCIIIIIIN E
Embommostail bafrd:
Report
Rod- teyd42910
3�Page
9-7
D3
atApers mwaftwbaweprwn
Atlbn
vamm"arcem"moe
bbW
Osb
RasrL
191geYanllnasa
�
�kkw4
Corplrra
• Pad" of dadisadaa;
• 0"Mebi boaMa4 ad
• bapbsaiirlar of mal" m an pw ft aloand by mft* d ft Pdw
IIMb
TRa
APmdnglbepeMna HapanahAbopspasd.daabnidby
PdabAy
Cammey
Appwd
tnApplaMtbrwiMamalappaaMloCamaa/Dmmbpwdpadr,
CaaMabd
Dadwmt
Par"
MrmgemM
byJ*Idot myyaar. Sad apmdisk
Owww T
Db curad
Sbdegb
DoomtwpbnyedaarLbrdpwft'madm4clbaa
PtbkWaft
• Idrdlyabdepin4orurbMupoanbpaatMdealadyaw.0d
Dkaabr
Pmpaa
• b ffsMW on m w new blob, an deawd ueawry by fr
C&MNWWDFANWMNokam.
W
TM pddY MWW ad oameI •fie mwuw wane d
Pdrb"
Camwnfy
AmmelSbdrt
MMynwat Cdpe wet awBw w sawbaan d 79f weaadry
Csdtwbd
Em*rM
Daauleopw
DI s I vW
ebdatrpeeedawfrlraairaidlg'75114,111" eidmte 20 paNar'
Oarpmq
Hpmt
awaftidanwpbddMa clupaw4mmi160wwbeld abdMde.
Cfyrro''
�.
wlall, m%mm of 25D weldor Ndrib aaaIl b to a
worm d 793 anabdq eI I I new armt BA Mop an waabby
womb ennBed in to M Pmpam TAmede, plr b barge d any
CaAfabdOwxwq,/dot oma- lrbdbe Imfdbamrimmd
7f2wwbbj ab4ai ad 160 wodwd Mate, beb ft bF sd pam l
Admad trdmm al M wed dew Iaib aadd h to BA Pappan
i,
ads dMwadAeyAdenofiatDentBAPlop aawaabtay
MM
Cuadrbm
ear
TRJI
Omgn, to Appfaat def ni s
Pelor bbane d any Ca.eale d q
br
RbAny
Cmm*
Dewbpmd
vwftdmd
pmpaitlaAe Age coAk" b bObsral be tlaip, b addlkn b
Ca/abal
Pbpabneb
Doe wmw
bporarubrpnidbfilpioaNeaINIOM2old 7P, :
Oanpray
Shm
• Pda rade filo EeAPda ralm Oft Souln - Mm* lo
CRY F:
Can Wm
idenedanbpoddesaadagsOw�epinw4 -- brda/iaed
bRambpwdddea. Arwmrdmmbgeamdrbedaabwfor
wtidw b bm Pda Ead leawe
Rod- teyd42910
3�Page
9-7
D3
atApers mwaftwbaweprwn
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-42 - EXHIBIT "A"
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ZON2003-00317 (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision 'E';
Grading Permit, Variance, and Minor Exception Permit)
GENERAL CONDITI W
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 of lect.
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 thft project. R
required, the applicant shall also pay any fine imposed by the Department of Fish
and Gaff.
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', ler 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 Uitigation 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.
4 1 P a g e
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
tion
acdvlties 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).
Dq
Resolution No. 2010-42
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 39
144) The College may operate throughout the calendar year under the following
general 'Term' schedule: "Fail Term" (August through December), "Winter Term'
(January), 'Spring Term' (February to May) and "Summer Term' (June through
July/August).
The College shall provide all of its - incoming students a driver's training course
regarding local roadway conditions. The total number of students receiving the
required driver's training course shall be included in the enrollment report for
each term as described in Condition No. 146.
145) The following enrollment limitations apply:
A- The maximum total permitted enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs
on campus during the Fall, Winter, and Spring Temps is 793 students (fuli-
time and part-time). Of these 793 students, a maximum of 250 students
shall be enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts degree program (BA Program). For
the Summer Term, if other educational or recreational programs are
concurrently offered during weekdays, the maximum total permitted
enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs must be proportionally reduced
so that the combined enrollment in all such programs (e.g., Traditional
Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs) does not exceed a
total of 600 students (full-time and part-time) and participants.
B. The maximum total permitted enrollment in Non -Traditional Degree
Programs on campus during any Term is 150 students.
C. The maximum total permitted enrollment in any combination of Traditional
Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs offered
concurrently during summer weekdays (June to August) is 600 shxIents
and participants. '
146) The College shall submit to the City an enrollment report for each Term within an
academic year for all Traditional and Non -Traditional Degree Programs and
Summer Educational Programs no later than 30 -days after a term has
commenced. Failure to submit such a report on a timely basis will constitute a
violation punishable by administrative citation per the RPVMC.
NOISE / MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
147) All new mechanical equipment, regardless of its location, shall be housed in
enclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level of 65 dBA CNEL at the project
site's property lines. Mechanical equipment for food service shall incorporate
filtration systems to reduce exhaust odors.
S�Page
D5
Resolution No. 2010-42
Exhibit A
Page 30 of 39
a ltmzimg lim in e*u-
MARYMOUNT
CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY
RECEIVED
FEB IS 7^'.i
0019MIlaff JEW
DEPARTMEW
February 13, 2014
Mr. Joed Rojas
Dhidw of Bnvisotuttesttai Sarvim
City ofRandw Paton Verdes
J0940110Vthnem Blvd.
Rea to Pe►lm Verdes CA 90275.5341
Dew Joel,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Per our "V CUP rex *Maeft and its am UmAnt c obort paaemeters, Marymount Cabs cum
University is st&Wttittg oettifie sticut of Spring 2014 arullme n as fo11mm-
> 749 St xWft are ambled in the Thdi0oned DW es PropmL There are 36 upper
division BA pragow Sudan m tide
➢ 137 Studan�ts are aerolled in Non-Tirpdpotlel Dee Programs in the evanin,
➢ 50 new students participated in driver safety Win&
Respeoftly submitted,
Michael Brophy, PLD.
President
CC., SwW Viae President for Ffimmer and Adminmustion, James Reeves
oeomwiew Campus LakeeMe Campus
30800 Pan VWdw DrW East 3700 Country Club Dr
Rancho Pats vwciw CA 90276 Luoams. CA 95456
310.377.5501 1 889-991-5283
6 1 P a g e
6)
M+symo mt"ItonVeA !u
7�Page
CirvoF f�incHoPaLosVERDEs
March 3, 2014 COMMLM I Y DL VELOPNIEIYT DEPAIZT431T
Dr. Michael Brophy
President
Marymount California Unwwwty
30800 Pell Verdes Drive East
Rancho Pols Verdes, CA 90275
SUBJECT: ANNUAL ENROLLMENT STATISTICS FOR SPRING 2014 TERM
Dear Dr. Brophy,
Tta* you for providing the City with owti&ation of the student enrof a nt for the Spring 2014
term. As you are aware, the Conditions of Approval adopted by the City Council on June 1,
2010 under Resolution No. 2010.42 which approved Revision -E- of Conditional Use Permit No.
9 now applies to the operations of the University.
AroordhV to Condition No. 146 of Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision 'E,' Marymount $hall
submit to the City an enrollmnt report for each Term within an academic year far all Traditional
and Non -Traditions) Degree Progrtr. and Summer EdPrograms no later than 30 -
days affix a term has commenced. Based on the enrollment Information submitted to the City
on February 13. 2014 limos. .,unde►Condillon.hlo. 145,
the.duclnt oQmra+i . l'v� ihrb oftee hal tClitlpns dAilpravr8l
a� aoi'it below:
• 749 students ars enrolled In the 'had Bond' degree program for Spring 2014 (793
maximum students allowed)
• 36 students are enrolled in the Bachelor -of Arts degree program for Spring 2014 (250
ma)dmwn students allowed out of the total 793 ma*num student enrollment)
• 137 students are enrolled in the'nonVadtiioral' degree program fru Spring 2014 (150
maximum students allowed)
In addition to the above, Condition No. 144 stales that Marymount shall provide all of Its
Incoming students a driver`a training course regarding local roadway conditions. The total
number of students receiving the required driver training course ahall be inckided in the
ersollment report for each term es described in Condition No. 148. Based on the enrobnent
iniormaf on provided by Marymount, there were 50 students who participated In the driver safety
program for the Spring 2014 term.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ara Mltiranian at (310) 544-
5226 or via e -moll at arem®rpv.com.
Y2CWv9kWrn2ent
All
ctor
C. Address File r
Marymount California University Enrollment Rio
30940 Kowm n Bao / Rvicm NiDsWRms, CA 90275.5391
In AIPM 6 CODE ENMIMENT OIV83 M (310) bit -5228 / Bt1DF21 & SAFET! O(VOM (311) 266-7800 / ULPI FAX (310) 544-52W
E+IAL PLN1 MWRPVMM/ VMWALOSVEROES.COMMV
7
17.86.040 Enforcement.
It shall be the duty of the director or an authorized agent of the director to enforce the
provisions of this title. This duty shall include taking such legal action as may be necessary to
assure compliance.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 75 (part), 1975)
17.86.050 Disqualification for violation.
A. The city shall not accept for processing or grant:
1 • Any application for a development, use or other permit or entitlement on any lot or
parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this Code exists; or
2. A view restoration or a view preservation application or an application for a city tree
review permit submitted by the owner of a lot or parcel on which the director has
verified that a violation of this Code exists.
An application may be accepted or granted by the city if the subject lot or parcel is
brought into compliance with this Municipal Code, either by removing the violation or by
submitting an application to legalize the violation and a permit or approval is granted
pursuant to Section 17.86.050(B) of this chapter.
B. Notwithstanding an existing violation of this Code, the planning commission may authorize a
permit or approval under this Code if it finds:
t The permit or approval must be granted by virtue of applicable law or in order to
permit the applicant a reasonable economic use of the property, in which case the
permit or approval shall be conditioned upon elimination of the existing code
violations; or
2. The use or activity for which the permit or approval is sought will substantially
contribute to the reduction or elimination of the existing code violations and
immediate, total elimination of those violations is infeasible or would constitute an
unreasonable burden upon the applicant.
C• A determination of violation pursuant to subsection A of this section and a permit or approval
granted pursuant to subsection B of this Section 17.86.050 may be appealed by any
interested person pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this
title.
(Ord. 356 § 7, 2000: Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
17.86.060 Suspension or revocation of permits.
The officer or body taking final action granting any permit pursuant to the provision of this
title may, after following the same procedures utilized for approving such a permit, revoke or
suspend the permit if.,
A. The permit was issued erroneously; or
B. The permit was issued on the basis of incorrect or fraudulent information supplied by
the applicant; or
C. The permit was issued contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Code; or
D. The permit is being or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions
of such permit.
No permit shall be revoked prior to providing a ten calendar day written notice to the
holder of the permit and an opportunity to be heard before the officer or body considering
revocation or suspension of the permit. Any decision to revoke or not to revoke a permit,
other than a decision by the city council, may be appealed by any interested party pursuant
to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title.
tOrd. 320 6 7 (part). 1997: Ord. 175 .� 19, 1983)
From: Davis, Donald M. <DDavis@bwslaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 1:07 PM
To: CC; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carla Morreale
Cc: Michael Brophy; Jim Reeves (JReeves@marymountcalifornia.edu)
(J Reeves@marymountcalifornia.edu)
Subject: Marymount California University - Comment Letter on Proposed CUP Amendments
(4/1/14 hearing)
Attachments: DMD - LTR TO MAYOR DUHOVIC AND COUNCIL RPV.pdf
Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members:
Marymount California University is appreciative of the Council's action to continue this item from the original hearing
date, so that Marymount representatives could have additional time to review City staff's recommendations and to
meet with staff and some of the affected neighbors to explore options for addressing the operational concerns
raised. In the interim period, we have had productive meetings and communications with staff and our neighbors, and
as a result, Marymount is in general agreement with all but a few of the proposed modifications to its CUP as set forth in
the staff report for tonight's hearing. Our remaining comments are set forth in the attached letter.
Regards,
Donald M. Davis j Partner
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 1 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953
d - 213.236.2702 t - 213.236.0600 1 f - 213.236.2700
dclavis@bwslaw,com vCa d bwslaw corn
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.
0 i.
444 South Flower Street - Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90071-2953
voice 213.236.0600 - fax 2 13.236.2700
6ufl, h.F., Wii.l./'JVti h S01",ii`VSE°N, ILt' www.bwslaw.com
Direct No.: 213.236.2702
Our File No.: 04693-0005
ddavis@bwslaw.com
April 1, 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
Re: Marymount California University: Continued 6 -Month Review of Expanded
Parking Lot Project (Planning Case ZON2003-00317)
Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members:
Marymount California University (Marymount) wishes to thank the City Council for
continuing this item from the original hearing date, so that Marymount representatives could
have additional time to review City staff's recommendations and to meet with staff and some of
the affected neighbors to explore options for addressing the operational concerns raised. As a
result of the subsequent productive meetings and communications with staff and neighbors,
Marymount is in general agreement with all but a few of the proposed modifications to its CUP.
Marymount's requested revisions are summarized below and further explained on the following
pages.
Condition No. 173 (Fencing): The entire length of the vinyl fence proposed to be built
parallel to the City's San Ramon Reserve property should be at a height of 5 -feet to allow
Marymount students, staff, and visitors to enjoy the stunning views from this area of the campus
while still providing more than adequate screening for down slope properties.
Condition No. 160 (Vehicle Type & Day Prohibitions): The proposed restriction on
week day parking of vehicles such as trucks and buses in the East Parking Lot is not necessary
and may result in such vehicles parking on the street if other lots are full. The proposed
permanent closure of the East Parking Lot on weekends and holidays could similarly undermine
the Council's intent to provide additional parking spaces on campus if occasional weekend
activities cannot be accommodated in other campus parking areas.
Condition Nos. 128, 131, 152, 173, 180 (Compliance Date): The installation
compliance date (particularly for the fencing and landscaping) should be extended from May 1,
2014 to June 15, 2014, to ensure adequate time to complete the improvements.
Condition No. 136 (Special Event): Marymount requests that one other event (the
Gala) be permitted on the Eastern Parking Lot under the University's annual Special Use Permit
until the new Athletic Field is completed.
LA #4644-3136-7450 v1 / 1
Los Angeles - Inland Empire - Oakland - Orange County - Palm Desert - Silicon Valley - Ventura County
BLAKE.., WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, tLP
Marymount California University
Continued Public Hearing — East Parking Lot Review
April 1, 2014
Page 2
Discussion
Condition No. 173 (Fencing): City staff and Marymount are in agreement as to the
installation of a vinyl fence along the eastern portion of the campus as depicted on the
submitted landscape plan. The sole open issue is the height of the fence immediately adjacent
to the Eastern Parking Lot. Marymount proposed five -feet and staff is recommending six -feet.
Staff contends that this additional foot of fencing will better screen views of vehicles and parking
lot lighting. Marymount is of the opinion, based on site inspections and the photographs
attached as Exhibit C to the staff report, that a five foot fence height adequately addresses
these concerns with respect to the handful of the homes that have upslope views of this part of
the campus. A six foot fence height, however, would significantly impact the protected views of
the harbor, Pacific Ocean, and Catalina Island from various vantage points in the Parking Lot as
the average American is less than six feet in height.' Accordingly, Marymount requests that the
reference to a "6 -foot" tall vinyl fence in the first sentence of this condition be revised to a "5 -
foot" tall vinyl fence.
Condition No. 160 (Vehicle & Day Prohibition): After Marymount has spent hundreds
of thousands of dollars to add additional parking capacity to its campus, staff is now proposing
essentially a ban on certain large vehicles from the East Parking Lot and to close the Lot
altogether on weekends and federal holidays (which would amount to 114 days or 31% of the
year). The staff report presents no evidence whatsoever that significant numbers of trucks or
buses regularly park in the Lot, or that even if they did, the applicable legal standard to ban a
currently permitted use ("compelling public necessity" 2) is present (which it is not). (Although
the staff recommendation is worded so that such vehicles could be permitted under a Special
Use Permit, Marymount does not believe that the occasional presence of these types of
vehicles has been associated with special events, but rather, they are an irregular occurrence
associated with normal campus operations. As such, the staff recommendation should be
considered tantamount to a general ban on such vehicles.)
Based on the record, it appears that this condition is being recommended to satisfy a
single property owner with little consideration given to other neighboring property owners. The
City Council required the construction of the Eastern Parking Lot primarily to reduce off -campus,
street parking demands. As the first full academic year of the new Lot's operation comes to a
close, it is clear that the Lot has been successful in reducing such street parking. Nevertheless,
parking demand remains high during peak periods. Because it is the most remote parking area,
the Eastern Parking Lot is often the only location where parking is available during peak hours.
If this Lot were closed to large vehicles, then the result would likely be that some of these
vehicles will be forced to park on the street — the very result the Council has sought to avoid.
And even if any such vehicle does find another campus lot to park in, the overall result would
' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Average_height around_ the_ world.
2 See Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.AppA!6'1281, 1295.
LA #4844-3136-7450 v1 (3D
RIM-, WILHAMS &')ORENSEN, LIP
Marymount California University
Continued Public Hearing — East Parking Lot Review
April 1, 2014
Page 3
simply be that the vehicle has been moved into the view of other properties, particularly those to
the north that look down into existing campus parking lots or the street and whose numbers far
exceed the few homes on San Ramon with upslope views of the subject Eastern Parking Lot.
In a similar vein, staff provides no justification for its recommendation to close the
Eastern Parking Lot on weekends and holidays. Marymount is currently voluntarily closing the
Lot on such days, and there have been no recent complaints about large vehicle parking.
However, Marymount wants to preserve the flexibility to use the Eastern Parking Lot if needed
for a special event or programming such as an Easter or Christmas service, or even a
community event. Accordingly, Marymount requests that the last two sentences of the
proposed amended Condition No. 160 be deleted as follows:
ti - - 2 wi-
Condition Nos. 128, 131, 152, 173, 180 (Compliance Date): Marymount requests that
the installation completion date in these revised conditions (particularly for the fencing and
landscaping improvements) be extended from May 1, 2014 to June 15. 2014, to ensure that
Marymount has adequate time to finish all of the required improvements once final exams and
graduation ceremonies have been completed.
Condition No. 136 (Special Event): Marymount requests that one other special event
(the Gala) be permitted on the Eastern Parking Lot under the University's annual Special Use
Permit in addition to graduation ceremonies until the new Athletic Field is completed. As this
event location would be further away from residential properties than the current Gala location,
which is on the plaza next to the pool, and would remain subject to the conditions imposed
under the Special Use Permit, any potential impacts from such location can be addressed
through the Special Use Permit process.
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 and one tent
event with amplified sound; provided, however, graduation ceremonies and one tent
LA #4844-3136-7450 A 0
B.)RKE, WILLIAMS E ::;C:I:ENSHN. €11"
Marymount California University
Continued Public Hearing — East Parking Lot Review
April 1, 2014
Page 4
event with amplified sound may be held on the East Parking Lot and existing tennis
courts until the construction of an athletic field on this site has been completed.
Marymount appreciates your consideration of these comments on the proposed CUP
amendments, and reiterates its thanks for allowing us the opportunity to resolve many of the
campus operational issues regarding the new East Parking Lot raised by our neighbors in a
mutually agreeable manner.
Sincerely,
RKE, WI(L��LIAMS ENSEN, LLP
0^�1 aJ�� W�"=
DONALD M. DAVIS
DMD:ir
cc: (Via e-mail only)
Dr. Michael Brophy, President, Marymount California University
Jim Reeves, Vice President, Marymount California University
Joel Rojas, RPV Community Development Director
Ara Mihranian, RPV Deputy Community Development Director
Carol Lynch, RPV City Attorney
LA #4844-313r.-7450 v1 0
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Tuesday, April 01, 2014 2:37 PM
To:
Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka
Cc:
Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas
Subject:
FW: Case # ZON3002-00317 MCU 6 Month Review of Expanded East Parking Lot
Operations / 01April14 City Councl Meeting / Public Comments
Late correspondence.
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
MW
CTY0F LA4O UCHO NOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
`W 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 individuai or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intend<:.d recipient, please notify the sender immediately, Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Gregory Lash [mailto:glash@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 2:31 PM
To: Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetich; Brian Campbell; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Case # ZON3002-00317 MCU 6 Month Review of Expanded East Parking Lot Operations / 01April14 City Councl
Meeting / Public Comments
Councilmember's :
I cannot attend this Meeting. 1 was prepared to speak when this item was originally scheduled, but MCU insisted
on a delay. MCU relied on some "Case Law" in their request, most notably "Goat Hill Tavern v City of Costa
Mesa". A Court of Appeals held that Goat Hill was not given sufficient notice and was denied a Permit
Renewal. Fair enough, "sufficient" notice should be given to an Owner. However, that is where the similarity
between Goat Hill and MCU ends. Further reading shows that Costa Mesa was trying to close down Goat Hill by
denying a Permit. RPV is most certainly not trying to close MCU, nor deny any Permits. The Court also
weighed Letters from Supporters and Opponents of Goat Hill. No one is clamoring for more noise, trash,
lighting, or brush fires in RPV. Further, the Goat Hill Court had to consider whether surrounding businesses
were contributing to the impacts on nearby residences. There are no other entities near MCU that contribute to
their impacts. One wonders how that Court would rule if our situation here were before them. More to the point
of my letter, how would a Court rule on a College that appears in perpetual violation of their CUPs? The threat of
legal action by MCU looms large over many of the Expansion Hearings, & I sometime fantasize about the reverse
being true.
That said, I've just read Jim Gordon's excellent Letter on Exceeded Enrollment Caps, sent to the Council last
week. If the School is in violation as it appears they are, there should be no further consideration by the
Council. These high Enrollment numbers would render Parking CUPs in violation as well. With the addition of
the Grow Garden, (and Athletic Field), further Parking demands will follow. The number of students still parking
on PVE have lessened, but still average 8-10 per day by my count. An Enrollment Cap of 793 was the basis for
everything in the FEIR. This renders current Mitigation Measures insufficient.
Being in violation should preclude any future entitlements, but it has not thus far. Perhaps this is where the
threat of legal action is felt. I think it is a problem in that Community Development is Judge, Jury, and
Executioner during this expansion. I don't envy the position they are in. If they were to find MCU violative, they
themselves would be in violation for allowing the process to continue. I don't see anyone acting on this issue
other than the Council. I would ask the City Council to at least discuss this, and take some action if at all
possible.
Sincerely,
Gregory Lash
San Ramon Drive
RPV
D 2
From: bubba32@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 4:01 PM
To: CC
Cc: Joel Rojas; aram@cox.net
Subject: Re: Proposed late correspondence to the City
Attachments: Assumptions AppendixD page 3.3-39 001 (2) jpg; Definition of Weekday Course
Offerings page two 001 (2) jpg; Condition 141 etc 001 (2) jpg
Honorable Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members
I just dropped off my copies of documents for tonight's meeting that argue for an
enrollment violation finding and consequences thereto. I gave them to Carla who will
provide them to you.
On my way out I stopped by to deliver a copy to Ara. Good thing, because he is adamant
that Condition 141 allows a combining of two synthetic Categories of enrollment,
"Traditional Degree" and "Non -Traditional degree" enrollments. The "twist" here is that it
classifies the "Non -Traditional" students based upon whether the applicable classes are
primarily offered during "weekdays" (in which case the students would be classified as
part of the Traditional Degree Program enrollment) or "nights/weekends" (in which case
they would be classified as part of the "Non -Traditional Degree Program" enrollment).
But, those specific categories were never studied by the EIR. Or defined as to how
they impacted total enrollment limits as specified and studied in the EIR. They were never
even defined elsewhere in the EIR. Such un -published definitions were generated "off-
line", unconnected to the overall enrollment limits and were therefore left to later
interpretation which has happened here. As shown in the (attached) "definitions of
"Weekday Classes", such definition encompasses but does not specifically define any
additional "evening" category. No such "evening" sub -set was ever studied, and the
fact that Classes during "weekdays" start at 8:00 AM and continue through to 10:00 PM
supports that assertion.
The EIR studied only two enrollment categories "weekday" and "weekend". It never
studied the various sub -categories that comprise "Traditional Degree", "Non -Traditional
Degree" or "ESL" or others that are shown in Conditions No.s 141 & 145. So the entire
subject of Condition 141 & 145 is not comprehensible as an independent enrollment
category that was studied for Traffic and Parking impacts (TR -4 & TR -7).
Fortunately, such language as provided in Condition No. 141 does not, of itself, support
the concept that both categories can be combined as allowing a composite allowable total
of 943 "weekday" students. Such 943 enrollment "limitation" was never intended (publicly)
or even shown as such in the EIR because the EIR specifically only studied two
o
�
categories of enrollments - "weekday" (793 max) and "weekend" (150 max). That is a fact.
Because the 2010 EIR never studied 943 weekday or 943 weekend enrollments that is the
reason why those Traffic and Parking Mitigation Measures TR -4 & TR -7 clearly state the
studied impacts of those independent maximums of 793 and 150 Marymount enrollment
numbers, respectively.
What Ara has agreed with me is that these definitions, Conditions and Mitigation
Measures are "inconsistent". That is important because Condition No. 11 specifies that
in such case where a "Condition" (141 or 145 or both) is inconsistent or conflicts with a
Mitigation Measure, "the more restrictive shall apply."
The Mitigation Measures are more restrictive because they state a lower maximum
limitation that was actually studied, not some fancied, after the fact concept that Staff is
currently alleging. (793 vs. 943) The EIR never studied 943, so I fail to understand the
logic now that claims 943 is what was "intended" because it is nowhere justified by actual
reviews for Traffic and Parking impacts. Only what was in fact studied and written in the
CUP, should be the correct number, and not some later "intended" or new "interpretation"
never before revealed to the City Council or public.
What Ara and Staff (and Marymount) want us to believe is that they "intended" for both
Traditional and Non -Traditional enrollment categories (as opposed to "aggregate
"weekday" enrollments) to be combined and allow a total of 943. That was never studied
as part of the 2010 EIR. They "intended" that "evening" was a separate and additional
enrollment category that could be added above the studied EIR limits. It is not! Even if
intended, it was never defined, revealed or studied.
Conversely, using Ara's logic (against that interpretation) it can easily be seen that the 793
Mitigation Measure was more logically intended as a composite limitation that included a
mix of Traditional and Non -Traditional enrollments within that 793, not being additive! If,
conversely, the intent of the 2010 EIR was to allow 943 "weekday" students and 943
"weekend" students, those numbers would have had to have been studied and
incorporated into the respective Traffic and Parking Mitigation Measures and
corresponding Assumptions. They were not. They are not what is shown in the
assumptions used in the EIR (attachment)..
The 2010 EIR and CUP were advertised repeatedly as having a 793 enrollment cap.
Nowhere in that document has any 943 enrollment been studied. Please see the
attachment on assumptions (example, TR -7 Parking).
The EIR contains no definitions that describe the potential for allowing a combined total of
943 "weekday" enrollments. If that was the intent then the documents would support that
claim. They do not!
To claim now that such was the intended purpose of Conditions 141 and 145 allows a new
maximum weekday enrollment limitation is unsupported by the facts. Such interpretation
0
gives the appearance of a "bait and switch" or public deception that is not supported by
the CUP Conditions No.s 3,4 & 11. The CUP clearly and specifically anticipated there
might be contradictions and inconsistencies and provided a resolution for such
occurrence. These written CUP provisions are there for a reason, to resolve any such
contradictions or inconsistencies in favor of the "more restrictive" not the highest possible!
Condition No. 11 addresses the primacy of Mitigation Measures TR -4 & TR -7 in this
situation - i.e. the number actually studied, a 793 "weekday" maximum, not a 943
"weekday" or even a 943 "weekend" maximum.
If the 2010 EIR had in fact "intended" that Conditions No.s 141 & 145 be "interpreted" as
allowing upwards of 943 students, it can reasonably be construed that such higher
number would in fact have been studied for Traffic and Parking impacts and included in
the respective Mitigation Measures.. They were not! Why?
Because they were not studied then, and should not now be construed now as what was
intended for public consumption. The record shows that Marymount has significantly
exceeded those EIR Mitigation limitations as provided by the CUP.
"171
D 3
bb`� Environmental Impact Report Appendix D
As indicated in Table 3.3-39, the existing peak parking ratio at Marymount College is 0.57
parked vehicles/student during weekday conditions and 0.12 parked vehicles/student during
Saturday conditions. It is noted the parking ratio identified above assumes all on -street parking
associated with Marymount College is included, and therefore, forecast demand using these
ratios assume all Marymount College -related on -street parking activity is relocated on -campus.
The parking ratios presented above reflect parking activity for junior college (AA Program)
students and require an adjustment when accounting for university (BA Program) students'
parking behavior. ITE provides weekday parking rates for University and Junior College land
uses, with a higher rate for University students. To account for higher forecast parking demand
by University (BA Program) students, a multiplier is derived that will be utilized in the parking
demand calculations.
The derivation of the multiplier to account for higher weekday parking demand by -students in
the BA Program is shown in Table 3,340, Universky to Junior College Weekday Peak Hour
Parkins► Rate Multiplier.
Table 3.3-40
University to Junior College Weekday Peak Hour Parking Rate Multiplier
P""
Weeldly
ITE UnMw* Parking Rate (BA Program)
0.30 vehideststudent population
ITE Jurior College Parldng Rate(AA Pmgraun
0.21 vehideslstudent population
ITE Uni to Junior Cot Peak Hour ParldN Rate Multiplier
1.43 veh/student population
Source: ITE Paddng Generation, 3rd Edition, 2004).
As indicated in Table 3.3-40, the multiplier to account for higher weekday parking demand by
students in the BA Program is derived as 1.43. Since ITE parking rate data is not available for
weekend conditions, this analysis conservatively assumes use of the weekday peak hour
parking multiplier when calculating weekend student parking demand.
FORECAST EXISTING PLUS. PROJECT PARKING DEMAND
Forecast parking demand for forecast existing plus Project weekday and Saturday conditions
has been estimated utilizing the following assumptions:
■ Maximum weekday student enrollment is 793 students (based on the formula allowing
750 full-time students, 20 part-time students, and a marginal difference of 3.0 percent);
■ Up to 250 students are enrolled in the BA Program, remaining balance of student
enrollment would be in the AA Program;
■ Maximum weekend student enrollment is 150 students (based on modified Project
Description) with no weekend students enrolled in the BA Program;
• Students would park at the campus based on the observed vehicle to student peak
parking ratios with application of multipli to account for BA Program student parking
activity where applicable;
���r�iv���nu�+tai n►�}rovz �w�rvra e�fspw�ti+►w v
Student Union: 7 AM to 11 PM;
Athletic Building: 7 AM to 11 PM; and
A x a++Al'T A R +A I- I d M. A
%`tit#4AItV WfI1. 1 r%,V, 1.v 1 1 I.. M.
t
According to the FEIR, the courses offered at Marymount College occur on weekdays between
8 AM and 10 PM, with the majority of the core academic classes scheduled between 9 AM and
K RAA, Classes ,offered as p t of the Omri m Atrirs dA ^.^.^.rirr Ai vrin.m fheSe Ste±aA
hours. In regards to the number of classes offered for the proposed BA Program, the number of
classes correlates to the number of students. New classes would be added to satisfy the
requirements of the new Bachelor's degree programs. As upper division enrollment and classes
increase, there would be a corresponding decrease in lower divisional class offerings. Because
the nrimhpr of stiidpnt *.pats and claaarnnm-, wrnaki remain iinrhanmd fmm the Prniprt
analyzed in the FEIR, and given that the College would be making only incremental adjustments
in faculty, no significant intensification in class offerings is anticipated. In addition, as a result of
the limited Bachelor's degree offerings due to faculty availability limitations and course
sequencing requirements, no significant increase in concurrent class offerings is anticipated.
AthWft Pmgmms
If Marymount becomes accredited by WASC as a limited Bachelor's degree granting institution,
the College would satisfy one requirement (among several others) for membership in the
Natinnal Ascndatinn of intprrolkpniatp Athkptir:x (NAIA) This iS the nrnani7atinn the C:nllpnp
would most likely join, in order for its students to participate in any intercollegiate sports.
If the College were to be accepted for membership in the NAIA, the College has indicated that it
does not, at present, anticipate joining any athletic conference. Under NAIA rules,
membership in a conference requires a minimum number of sports teams and the College has
indicated that at present, it does not anticipate having the requisite number of teams to
participate in a conference based on the historic demand/interest of its student body, and the
overall enrollment of which will not be changing with the proposed BA Program.
StWent Mousing
The proposed BA Program does not propose on -campus student housing.
LAT 77r- Mill :Ki -- 111LIVILL44=0t. SiT M77T1�77UM,
No change to the existing student events and extra -curricular activities, as desenbeci in the f=inal
EIR, is proposed.
The College does not propose modifying the parking supply (463 spaces), as analyzed in the
FEIR.
5 � I
Permit or a Special Use Permit is obtained, whichever is applicable based on the
request.
The sub -leasing of the campus for commercial purposes that are unaffiliated with
the College is prohibited.
140) The College's "Traditional Degree Programs" are the academic programs
(Associates and Bachelors degrees) that offer classes primarily during the day on
weekdays (Monday to Friday). The College's "Non -Traditional Degree
Programs" are the academic programs (Associates, Bachelors, and Masters
degrees) that offer classes, including post -secondary academic classes, primarily
during weekday evenings and on weekends (Saturday and Sunday), so as to
generally avoid overlap with the class schedules of the Traditional Degree
Programs. The Traditional and Non -Traditional Degree Programs are referred
collectively as the "Degree Programs."
141) The College may also provide lifelong learning programs ("Continuing Education
Programs") such as English as a second language (ESL). For the purposes of
this Conditional Use Permit, all students in such Continuing Education Programs
will be included as part of the total full-time and part-time permitted student
enrollment for both the Traditional and Non -Traditional Degree Programs. The
determination as to which enrollment category such students are counted
towards will be based on whether the applicable classes are primarily offered
during the weekdays (in which case the students would be classified as part of
the Traditional Degree Program enrollment) or nightstweekends (in which case
they would be classified as part of the Non -Traditional Degree Program
enrollment).
142) As used in this Conditional Use Permit, a "student' means either a "full-time
student," who is a person enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts or Associates of Arts
Degree Program or a Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 12
hours of course work during the applicable Terns (as defined below), or a "part-
time student," who is a person enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts or Associates of Arts
Degree Program or Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 3
hours, but up to 11 hours, of course work during the applicable Term.
143) The campus facilities may also be used for "Summer Educational Programs."
Summer Educational Programs are educational programs for persons generally
14 years or older such as college -credit classes for local high school students,
Upward Bound, and intemational students taking ESL classes along with other
educational classes and recreational activities. Persons enrolled in Summer
Educational Programs are referred to in this CUP as "participants' for the
purpose of establishing enrollment limitations.
Resolution No. 2010-42
Exhibit A
Page 29 of 39
CITY OF
FROM: CITY CLERK
Y
�� st��
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DATE: MARCH 31, 2014
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached .are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, April 1, 2014 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Materials
F Emails from Janet Gunter (3)
Emails from: Stephen E. Katz; Jim Gordon (2); Gregory Lash
2 Email exchanges between: John Freeman and Associate
Planner Kim (2); John Freeman, Director Rojas and Associate
Planner Kim; John Freeman, Kim Nguyen and Associate
Planner Kim; John Freeman and Director McLean
Emails from: Joan Davidson (3); Rudy and Maggie Kerkhof;
John Freeman; Eddie Yeh
3 Emails from: Eva Cicoria; Andrea Vona
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
W:WGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140401 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
From:
Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:09 AM
To:
jcynthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; jacob.haik@lacity.org;
planning@lacity.org
Cc:
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
david.pettit@nrdc.org; det310@juno.com; overbic12002@yahoo.com; gcome16
@gmail.com; CC; Kit Fox
Subject:
Sound familiar to any of you? The City of LA's latest blunder, Ponte Vista approval
ignoring the Rancho & Seismic dangers!
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023218573 mudslidewarningsxml.html
Classic illustration of ignorance and disregard for public safety that has now been mirrored by the latest approvals of
Ponte Vista's Housing project!!! DECADES OF WARNINGS yet complete ambivalence and reckless behavior
demonstrated by the City of LA!! No worries... it is only a few more thousand people's lives at stake.
Janet Gunter
Risk of slide `unforeseen'? Warnings go back decades I Local News I The Seattle Times Page 1 of 5
Winner of Nine Pulitzer
Local News
Originally published lilarch 24, 2014 at 9:47 PM I Page modified March 25, 2014 at 5157 PM
Risk of slide `unforeseen'? Warnings go back d(
TIMES WATCHDOG: While a Snohomish County official said the area hit by the mudsli
considered very safe," I he hillside's history of slides dates back more than 6o years. One
he was shocked when I omebuilding was permitted after a big 2oo6 slide.
By Ken Armstrong,e Carter and Mike Baker
Seattle Times staff re orters
Since the 1950s, geological re
the hill that buckled during tt
in Snohomish County have inclu
pessimistic analyses and the occ,
prediction. But no language seen
prescient than what appears in a
report filed with the U.S. Army C
Engineers, warning of "the poter
large catastrophic failure."
That report was written by Dan
and his wife, Lynne Rodgers M
0
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023218573 mudslidewamingsxml.html
"was
)ert says
irts on
weekend
onal dire
more
of
for a
f. Miller
. When
3/26/2014
Risk of slide `unforeseen'? Warnings go back decades I Local News I The Seattle Times Page 2 of 5
she saw the news o tl.e mudslide Saturday, she knew right away where the land had
Her husband knew, t o.
"We've known it woul I happen at some point," he told The Seattle Times on Monda`
didn't know when."
way.
"We just
Daniel Miller, a geom
rphologist, also documented the hill's landslide conditions in z
report
written in 1997 for the
Washington Department of Ecology and the Tulalip Tribes. H
knows
the hill's history, havi
ig collected reports and memos from the 1950s,196os,198os a
id 199os.
He has a half-dozen n
ianila folders stuffed with maps, slides, models and drawings, a
1 telling
the story of an unstab
e hillside that has defied efforts to shore it up.
and
That's why he could t believe what he saw in 20o6, when he returned to the hill wii hin weeks
of a landslide that cra hed into and plugged the North Fork of the Stillaguamish Rive , creating
a new channel that th eatened homes on a street called Steelhead Drive. Instead of SE eing
homes being vacated, he saw carpenters building new ones.
"Frankly, I was shock d that the county permitted any building across from the river, " he said.
"We've known that it' been failing," he said of the hill. "It's not unknown that this ha and
exists."
Miller has done analy es for the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Forest S rvice, and
was hired by King Co my in the 19gos to map out its geologically hazardous areas.
"Considered very *fe"
His perspective stand in contrast to what John Pennington, head of Snohomish Coi
Department of Emergency Management, said at a news conference Monday. "It was
very safe," Penningto said. "This was a completely unforeseen slide. This came out
nowhere."
The 20o6 slide took
ace in winter, on Jan. 25. Three days later, as the new channel
ut the
land, "residents andency
staff reported the eerie sound of trees constantly snappi
as the
river pushed them over,"
wrote the Stillaguamish Tribe's Natural Resource DepartmE
nt on its
website. But the sour
of construction competed with the sound of snapping trees.
"They didn't even sto
pounding nails," said Tracy Drury, an environmental engineer
and
applied geomorpholo
ist who assessed the area with Miller soon after the landslide. `
We were
surprised."
At least five homes w
re built in 20o6 on Steelhead Drive, according to Snohomish C
unty
records. The houses
ere granted "flood hazard permits" that required them to be jac
ked up I
to 2 feet above "base I
lood elevation," according to county building -permit records. A
aother
home was built in the
neighborhood in 2009.
Snohomish County E
ecutive John Lovick and Public Works Director Steve Thomser
said
Monday night they were
not aware of the 1999 report. "A slide of this magnitude is VE
ry difficult
to predict," Thomsen
3aid. "There was no indication, no indication at all."
Irvin Wood and his w
fe, Judith, of Bothell, owned the last home permitted in the sli
a zone, a
double -wide mobile
me they bought and moved onto a forested lot last year.
The Woods used the I
roperty as a weekend getaway, sometimes bringing their grandhet
But
they were not there o
Saturday when the mudslide wiped out the mobile home and
away neighbors who E
re now missing and presumed dead.
C5)
http://seattletimes. com/html/localnews/2023218573_mudslidewamingsxml.html
3/26/2014
Risk of slide `unforeseen'? Warnings go back decades I Local News I The Seattle Times
Wood, who has owne other property in the area for decades, said "nobody was
anybody" about the p obability of a massive landslide. But he said it was "an un
expectation" for peop e to think the government could prevent such disasters.
"That's like saying thl river is going to flood," Wood said. "If the hillsides were going to slough
away, they were going to slough away. That's kind of what happens around here."
Named for
The hill that collapse last weekend is referred to by geologists with different names, nclud
Hazel Landslide and teelhead Haven Landslide, a reference to the hillside's constan
movement. Some resi Jents, according to a 1967 Seattle Times story, referred to it sirr. ply as
"Slide Hill."
After two landslides the hill — one in 1949, another in 1951— two state agencies, t e
Department of Game irid the Department of Fisheries, commissioned a report from eattle
engineering firm Will am D. Shannon and Associates.
The 1949 slide was ne arly 1,000 feet long and took out about 2,600 feet of the river bink,
according to the Shan aon report. The scarp — the face of the cliff where the slide bro e away —
was 70 feet tall in pla es. There were no injuries and no reports of structural damage.
In 1951, debris from the denuded slide area formed a mudflow that partially damme the river.
Shannon noted that t e two creeks in the area are known as "Slide Creek" and "Mud low
Creek."
The Shannon report
as not commissioned out of safety concerns but over complains
that
sediment from the slii
le was clogging the river and degrading the salmon fishery.
Shannon concluded
at a main cause of the slides is the river eroding the "toe" of a previous
slide, which supports
he millions of tons of dirt behind it, like someone with their b
k against
a bulging door. Event
ally, the toe would fail and gravity would pull the mountain do
again.
Asked if there was a v
ay to control the slides, Shannon wrote that one possibility wol
Id be
permanently diverting
the river.
He also suggested bui ding berms and reinforcing the slide area. However, he noted diat
a
professor he had hiref
to look at the issue from a geological standpoint, Howard Cooi
ribs of the
University of Washington,
concluded that any fix would likely be temporary and that
Lhe slide
area could be expecte
to expand.
"It is almost impossib
a from a practical standpoint to stabilize this slide in its presen
L position.
The slope will continu
a to slide and the area will increase," Coombs concluded in an z
ddendum
to the Shannon repot.
"Drainage ditches, dikes, walls, etc., would give at best only to
mporary
relief. The structures
ould need constant repair and replacement."
State records show th t "no actual embankment control measures were done until th
fall of
196o. At that time mc
re than a thousand feet of berm was constructed at the upstreai
a end of
the slide," using rockr,
and other material.
The berm was "largely
destroyed" by high water in the Stillaguamish the following ye
r, state
records show.
In 1962, the state inst lled a "revetment" — a sort of rock barrier — to try to protect a d
support the riverbanH But oozing mud "overtopped" the barrier two years later. In 167 the
barrier was buried wh en a massive slide hit, damaging dozens of homes.
0
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023218573 mudslidewamingsxml.html
Page 3 of 5
3/26/2014
Risk of slide `unforeseen'? Warnings go back decades ( Local News I The Seattle Times Page 4 of 5
In 1969, a geo ogistth the state Department of Natural Resources, Gerald Thor
submitted a memora dum after visiting the site of the slide. He explained that "a
photographs taken as ar back as 1932 show the river has cut at this clay bank for
years."
Thorsen noted that a 50400t section of the scarp wall had caved, resulting in a dang rous,
several -hundred -foot mudflow of the same sort — albeit small in comparison — that i escuers
are facing today.
"Travel across the sli a surface is extremely treacherous," Thorsen wrote, "because oi hidden
`pockets' of saturated aterial that will not support a man's weight."
An investigation donE in the 198os said the landslide activity had expanded from 10 z cres in
1942 to 35 acres in 19 7o.
Saturday's monster sl de left a scarp of nearly 60o feet, about nine times taller than t e 1949
slide and four times t ller than the one in 1967.
The 2006 slide disru ed risk -mitigation projects already in the works. Officials plan ed to
move the river's flow, 30 feet to the south, providing more buffer at the base of the h llside. The
landslide, however, iii oved the river 730 feet.
In the summer of 2oc 6, crews went on to install a 1,300400t "crib wall" of boom logs — some
more than 3 feet in di meter — anchored with 9,000 -pound concrete blocks every 50feet. The
wall was designed to 4rotect fish by preventing sediment from washing into the river
It was no match for tY
"We always thought f
Stevenson, environmi
happen."
Drury, the environme
about whether to buy
serious proposals.
"I think we did the be
property and move," l
Stevenson said count
the homes were in flo
Lucky to be alive
Ron and Gail Thomp;
2003, said their daug
When the 2006 muds
of Engineers officials
week's mudslide.
was a possibility that a catastrophic event could come,"
manager of the Stillaguamish Tribe. "We were hoping 1
i1 engineer, and Stevenson said there were discussions over
t the property owners in the area, but those talks never devi
that we could under the constraints that nobody wanted to
ury said.
officials who approved development seemed more focused on
d areas than on the risk of a landslide.
moved into a one -bedroom cabin on five acres on Steelhead
r, Jennifer Johnson, of Arlington.
hit the area, the Thompsons made soup and tater tots for
a TV news crew, Johnson said.
"I had conversations th the Army Corps of Engineers the last time this happened.
showed me a map an4 said Mom and Dad's house would be safe," she said Monday.
"When we moved thein in there, I never in a million years, never in a billion years, tl
about (a mudslide) ... Pad was like, `We're going to be fine,' and I just believed him."
Johnson's parents an 85 -year-old grandmother left their house eight minutes
hit on Saturday morn ng for a trip to Costco, Johnson said. The couple lost eve:
including Ron's new ohn Deere tractor and Gail's Volkswagen.
(D
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023218573 mudslidewamingsxml.html
Pat
vouldn't
years
ped into
their
in
Corps
the slide
3/26/2014
Risk of slide `unforeseen'? Warnings go back decades I Local News I The Seattle Times
Johnson said.
Johnson said she woi
"They are in mournir,
Reporters Sara Jean
Armstrong: karmstr
there.... I hurt for my parents, but that's where they
let her parents live on the water again.
they're in shock," she said. "They're heartbroken for their
sen, Jim Brunner and Brian M. Rosenthal contributed. Ken
@seattletimes.com or 2o6-464-3730 0; Mike Carter:
or 2o6 -464-37o6 V;.
of unlimited access to seattletimes.com for $i. Subscril
Cts
to be,
pe today!
Page 5 of 5
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023218573 mudslidewamingsxml.html 3/26/2014
Kit Fox
From:
Paul <paul_h_rosenberg@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 26,2014 10:12 AM
To:
Janet Gunter, jcynthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; jacob.haik@lacity.org;
planning@lacity.org
Cc:
Anthony Patchett; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
david.pettit@nrdc.org; det310@juno.com; pat nave; gcornel6@gmail.com; CC; Kit Fox
Subject:
RE: Sound familiar to any of you? The City of LA's latest blunder; Ponte Vista approval
ignoring the Rancho & Seismic dangers!
Yeah, a friend of mine who now works in Seattle has been tweeting about this. Repeated forewarnings
ignored. The classic Condi Rice response: "No one could have predicted..." Except, they did, of course.
Paul Rosenberg
@PaulHRosenberg
Columnist
Al Jazeera English
http://www.aliazeera.com/indepth/`opinion/profile/paul-rosenberg.html
Senior Editor
Random Lengths News
http://www.randomlengthsnews.com
To: jcynthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; jacob.haik@lacity.org; planning@lacity.org
Subject: Sound familiar to any of you? The City of LA's latest blunder; Ponte Vista approval ignoring the
Rancho & Seismic dangers!
From: arriane5@aol.com
CC: MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org; david.pettit@nrdc.org;
det310@juno.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; gcornel6@gmail.com; cc@rpv.com; kitf@rpv.com
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:09:28 -0400
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023218573 mudslidewarningsxml.html
Classic illustration of ignorance and disregard for public safety that has now been mirrored by the latest approvals of
Ponte Vista's Housing project!!! DECADES OF WARNINGS yet complete ambivalence and reckless behavior
demonstrated by the City of LA!! No worries... it is only a few more thousand people's lives at stake.
Janet Gunter
From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 9:46 PM
To: igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; hanslaetz@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu;
carl.southwell@gmail.com; bonbon90731@gmail.com; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov;
helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; CC; jhwinkler@me.com; radlsmith@cox.net;
leneebilski@hotmail.com
Subject: Fwd: FOIA
fyi
-----Original Message -----
From: Marcie Miller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net>
To: Lushbaugh, David@DOC <David.Lush baugh@conservation. ca.gov>
Cc: Elise. Swanson <Elise.Swanson@mai1.house.gov>; lisa.pinto <lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov>; gary.lee.moore
<gary. lee. moore@lacity.org>; MrEnvirlaw <MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net>; noelweiss@ca.rr.com Weiss
<noelweiss@ca.rr.com>; Janet. Gunter <Arriane5@aol.com>; det310 <det310@juno.com>; Connie <connie@rutter.us>;
jody.james <jody.james@sbcglobal.net>; paul_h_rosenberg <paul_h_rosenberg@hotmail.com>; Dan Weikel
<Daniel.Weikel@latimes.com>
Sent: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 9:33 pm
Subject: Re: FOIA
Dear Mr. Lushbaugh,
I apologize for the previous, unfinished response. My computer had hardwire problems
and sent off that draft and then crashed. Hello from the other side.
Thank you for your prompt response to my FOIA request for a copy of the State of
California Department of Conservation "Unpublished report for Petrolane."
I am outraged to learn that the Chief Geologist for the City of Los Angeles would:
1. Use City of Los Angeles resources to perform a "reanalysis" for a private corporation,
Petrolane LPG
2. Steal this document to, I assume, cover up his indiscretion
3. Hide this document from public scrutiny
In your professional opinion, is this behavior acceptable? Is it OK that "a copy of that
report was held by then Los Angeles City Chief Geologist Joseph Cobarrubias. " Do we
know whether Mr. Joseph Cobarrubias is still a City of Los Angeles employee?
Do we know if an inquiry was ever held into this unethical behavior? Do we
know whether any copies were distributed to any other public or private
party? Would the California Attorney General, Los Angeles City Attorney, or
Los Angeles Ethics Department investigate this matter?
I have copied the Congressional Offices of Janice Hahn and Henry Waxman, current
Director of The Port of LA and ex -Chief Engineer for the City of Los Angeles, as well as
attorneys, and community advocates.
Thank you,
Marcie Miller
On Mar 27, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Marcie Miller <marciesmillera-sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: "Lushbaugh, David@DOC' <David. Lushbaugh(Dconservation.ca.gov>
To: °marciesmiller(a)sbcglobal.net"<marciesmiller(a.,sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: FOIA
Dear Ms. Miller,
The references in your information request are somewhat unclear. We do not have an FER-1-13. The
report date you indicate (as well as ftp link) seem to refer to our .Fault Evaluation .Report .FER-43.
Our Fault Evaluation Report FER-43 is available on-line as a PDF
(ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dm.g/pubs/fer/43/052678.pdf) which should open automatically (after some
download time) on your computer. I: have also attached the same file to this email.
If you. are specifically seeking a copy of the first reference in that report, which refers to the Petrolane
LPG storage facility, we do not have a copy of that report. The list of references indicates that (in 1978) a
copy of that report was held by then Laos Angeles City Chief Geologist Joseph Cobarrubias. We do not
know where a copy of that report night be currently available. Please contact me if you have any further
questions.
Thank you,
David Lushbaughlaunc:h
CGS Library
From:
Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:
Thursday, March 27, 2014 11:27 PM
To:
elise.swanson@mail.house.gov; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jenny.chavez@lacity.org;
alison.becker@lacity.org; ana.dragin@lacity.org; ryan.ferguson@lacity.org;
dennis.gleason@lacity.org; gabriela.medina@lacity.org; lisa.pinto@mai l.house.gov;
maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov; michael_davies@feinstein.senate.gov;
jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; nikitennant@asm.ca.gov; jcynthiaperry@aol.com;
rob.wilcox@lacity.org; dan.tillema@csb.gov, don.holmstrom@csb.gov; CC;
Rafael. Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; Beth. Rosenberg@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov
Cc:
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
hanslaetz@gmail.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu;
carl.southwell@gmail.com; connie@rutter.us; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;
igornla@cox.net; det310@juno.com; fmillarfoe@gmail.com; jodyjames@sbcglobal.net;
jhwinkler@me.com; leneebilski@hotmail.com; radlsmith@cox.net;
STsumura@elsegundo.org
Subject:
Rebuttal to Mr. Conrow/Rancho/Plains All American Pipeline on request for
Congressional Field Hearings to include Rancho LPG
That Gunter woman and her "lies"!?!
I think that with this kind of confidence, Mr. Conrow and Rancho officials should more than welcome any and all scrutiny in
order to put all of these "nasty" rumors to rest and give the community at large the assurance that they are safe and
secure.
Warnings about the safety of this facility preceded me by decades. I am only keeping the warnings alive and pushing for
guarantees of safety that the poor folks that have experienced disasters, such as the recent devastating slide in
Washington, the explosions in West, Tx, Florida, San Bruno, the Gulf etc. etc., were deprived of. It is more than clear
that the EPA and all other aqencies with iurisdiction of these tvpe of hazardous facilities have failed miserably in
adequately protecting people or these deadly occurrences would not have taken place.
No degree of "spin" by Mr. Conrow or Rancho/Plains executives can alter the simple fact that butane and propane
gasses are highly, highly explosive and are stored in massive quantity in 40+ year old tanks that are built to a seismic
sub -standard of 5.5-6.0 and sitting in the earthquake rupture zone in which "one" of the intersecting "active" faults (the
Palos Verdes Fault) has a magnitude of 7.2-7.3! The LPG pipeline that runs to Valero/Tesoro to and from Rancho is also
antiquated and runs through Wilmington. Had the rupture of that oil pipeline in Wilmington been the Rancho LPG pipeline
instead .... the results would have been far more devastating. Moreover, the Rancho Rail Car accidents... the collision on
March 8, 2012 between the big rig and the Propane/Butane rail car that happened as the Taper Ave. Elementary School
let out children within a mere 1250 ft. of the site, or the derailment on Memorial Day in 2005 near Channel & Gaffey St.
miraculously escaped rupture and catastrophe. Either one of those incidents could have decimated the area. So, are we
simply to continue subscribing to pure luck as our guardian?
The original placement of this facility (within 1,000 ft. of an existing neighborhood) was improper from the start and the
outrage of its presence has only become more offensive with its increased danger over time. So, let's all be wise, prudent
and cautious in approaching this hazardous facility. Begin the process of a serious and comprehensive review of the
safety of this facility by someone who approaches the irrefutable character of Professor Bob Bea (UC Berkeley & US
expert in forensic risk analysis). "If "Mr. Conrow and the"chemical professor" Mr. Crowl (who never visited the site and is
strictly a chemical professor with no education in seismic engineering or civil engineering)... is correct in their
assessment, then the safety of the facility will be proven. Correct? Then, everyone is happy! That crazy Gunter woman
will go away, and the sun will return to everyone's lives again! (including the Gunter woman's!)
Most sincerely,
Janet Gunter
From: Ronald Conrow [ma i[to:Ronald. Con row0plainsmidstream.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:48 PM
To: elise.swanson0mail. house.gov
Cc: iacob.haikOlacity.org; ienny.chavez a lacity.org; Alison. Becker@lacity.org; ana.draginCa.)lacity.orq;
ryan.fergusonOlaciiy.org; dennis.gleason0lacity.org; gabriela.medina( lacil)�.org; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
maurice lyles@boxer.senate.gov; michael davies0feinstein.senate.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov;
niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacitv.org; dan.tillema0csb.gov; 'Hon. Rudy Svorinich, Jr.';
William Zankich; don.holmstromOcsb.gov; cc0rpv.com
Subject: FW: Congressionwoman Hahn request for Field Hearings on pipeline rupture. We need a PUSH FOR INCLUSION
OF RANCHO!!
Good morning Elise,
Below is a copy of a Janet Gunter e-mail sent to you and a host of other elected official representatives as well as several regulatory
agency officials. As usual, Ms. Gunter attempts to link any event or disaster in the world to the Rancho facility in an attempt to rally
lawmakers, regulators, and community members to take action against the facility. The following are a few examples over the years:
1) the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion although Rancho does not produce, store, or transfer methane gas, 2) Chevron refinery
process heater fire, even Rancho does not handle crude oil nor do we have process heaters at the facility, 3) Explosion of rail cars
transporting Bakken crude oil despite the fact the facility does not handle this crude oil in any manner and our LPG is transported
only in DOT -112 pressurized railcars designed specially to transport LPG, ammonia, etc. and 4) the Tesoro Anacortes refinery
hydrogen plant explosion despite the fact Rancho does not handle hydrogen. The San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United (SPPHU)
website, hazardsbesone.com is replete with similar examples.
Specifically concerning the recent Wilmington oil pipeline leak, 1) Rancho does not handle crude oil in any manner, 2) Rancho does
not own any type pipeline in/out of the facility, and 3) the original Petrolane (Rancho) facility had 2 -LPG pipelines to/from the facility
to Berth 120 in the Port of LA, but were taken out of service in 2008. Subsequently, in 2011 both LPG pipelines were properly
abandoned/removed as well complete demolition of the Berth 120 facilities in conjunction with the Port of LA's expansion of the
Yang Ming container storage yard. Therefore, the effort by Ms. Gunter to link Rancho to the Wilmington oil pipeline leak is
misguided.
With regards to the storage and pipeline transfer of LPG at Rancho, in March 2012 the Office of California State Fire Marshall's
(OSFM) Pipeline Safety Division conducted a thorough 4 -day inspection of the associated DOT pipelines, vessels, and tanks on the
property at the Rancho facility. Rancho is pleased to inform you that there were no safety issues or violations found by the
OSFM. A copy of the letter dated February 3, 2014 from the OSFM Tonya Hoover to State Senator Ted Lieu is attached. Also,
attached is a copy of the letter dated December 26, 2013 from Director Mark Ghilarducci of CalOES to State Senator Ted Lieu stating
the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) stating inspections by local, state, and federal regulators show the Rancho facility
to be adhering to these applicable regulations and standards for storing hazardous materials has been met.
Ms. Gunter's statement that "both regulators and residents alike have been seriously deprived of understanding exactly just what that
risk exposure might be. It is time to know", is to say the least untrue! The governing regulation for "worst-case" scenarios related to
offsite consequences is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 40CFR68. This regulation as part of the Clean Air Act passed by
Congress in 1990 requires facilities/industries with more than threshold amounts of regulated substances (RS) that are categorized as
toxics and/or flammables to submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for all covered processes. Rancho is just one of approximately
12,800 facilities (per EPA website) in the USA covered by this regulation. Using standards and methodologies mandated by the EPA,
Rancho LPG's RMP "worst-case" model assumes a complete release of one tank of refrigerated butane with an ensuing vapor cloud
explosion radius of 0.5 miles at a 1.0 psi overpressure to endpoint based upon EPA criteria mandated in 40CFR68. Concerning the
validity of Rancho's RMP "worst case" scenario Mary Wesling of EPA Region 9 stated in an e-mail to me dated August 24, 2012, "We
have already reviewed your analysis submitted in your RMP for compliance with 40CFR68. It meets the letter of the law". A copy of
this e-mail correspondence is available upon request.
Moreover, the EPA hired a third party expert consultant Professor Daniel Crowl to evaluate several documents and provide his expert
analysis of the risks associated with the Rancho facility. In his attached letter to Mary Wesling of the EPA dated April 11, 2011,
Professor Crowl explains the advantage of storing butane in low pressure refrigerated tanks as well as the importance of several safety
features at the facility, including the impoundment basin. It should be noted that Professor Crowl has written 6 -books on explosions,
chemical process safety, etc., is past president/member of the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), and serves as an expert
consultant for the United States Chemical Safety Board (CSB). It is my understanding that Ms. Gunter received this document via FOIA
from the EPA. Instead of being appreciative of the EPA's additional commitment by having an independent third party expert review
the Rancho facility, Ms. Gunter sent a letter to the EPA excoriating Professor Crowl's credentials and intimating the agency was failing
to live up to its mission. A copy of this letter is available upon request.
Further validation can be found in the Los Angeles Planning Departments Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed
Ponte Vista which is approximately 0.65 miles from the Rancho facility. Page IV.H-36 states, "Based upon the worst-case RMP scenario
and with more likely releases having a much smaller radius impact than 0.5 miles, there would be no impact to the Project
Site". Subsequently, the Final Draft Environmental Report.(FEIR) for Ponte Vista states on page III.A-19, "The LAFD is charged with
reviewing and approving the RMP document, completing inspections, and enforcing compliance. Given this, it was properly concluded
that the RMP represents the most informed and reliable assessment of the potential product release scenarios at Rancho LPG and thus,
provide the best basis for an analysis of the facility's potential impact to the project site".
The "worst case" scenario as contained in our RMP on file at the LAFD/CUPA office in downtown Los Angeles for public review. While
it is not our intention to marginalize any offsite impacts, the "worst case" scenario for the Rancho LPG facility per EPA regulation does
not result in a cataclysmic event and has less potential for damage than the worst-case scenarios of other facilities in the immediate
vicinity. I would be pleased to accompany any lawmaker or their representative, agency regulator, or elected San Pedro Neighborhood
Council Board Member to the LAFD/CUPA office to review Rancho's RMP. However, any of the aforementioned parties can contact
me and I would be more than happy to meet them at the facility for a tour and to review the RMP maintained onsite.
Having been personally engaged in the Rancho issue since 2009, 1 am confident that Ms. Gunter is aware of most if not all of the
information discussed. Therefore, her claim of being "seriously deprived" concerning the risks associated with Rancho is false. Given
Rancho is her current "cause celeb"... no existing regulation, law, or fact is going to change her mind. That being said, I remain
committed to providing regulatory and legal documentation and facts to lawmakers which will clearly refute baseless activist claims
and rhetoric. Most importantly, rest assured that our ILWU 26 workforce is committed to continue operating the facility in the safest
manner possible to ensure their own safety and that of the community.
Please feel free to contact me anytime should you require additional information about the Rancho LPG Facility located at 2110 North
Gaffey Street in San Pedro, CA.
Best Regards,
" ,,O*W.#
West District Manager
Plains LPG Services, LP
19430 Beech Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263
Office: 661-368-7917
Cell: 661-319-9978
ronald.conrow@plainsmidstream.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Janet Gunter <arriane5gaol.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:35 PM
Subject: Congressionwoman Hahn request for Field Hearings on pipeline rupture. We need a
PUSH FOR INCLUSION OF RANCHO!!
To: elise.swansongmail.house.gov, lisa.pinto a,mail.house.gov,
maurice lyles(a boxer. senate.gov, michael davies feinstein.senate. gov,
3
jennifer.zivkovic2sen.ca.gov, niki.tennantgasm.ca.gov, jacob.haikklacit�org,
jc ny thiaperrygaol.com, rob.wilcox ,lacity.org
Cc: ccna`rpv.com, MrEnvirlawgsbcglobal.net, noelweiss&a.rr.com,
amartinez(a,earthjustice.org, r b251gberkeley.edu, 1pryor&usc.edu, carl.southwellggmail.com,
david.pettit ,nrdc.org, rong_gong. lin o latimes.com, jdonng4p.org, dan.tillemagcsb. ov,
don.holmstrom ,csb.gov, Beth.Rosenber; ggesb.gov, Rafael.Moure-Erasogcsb. ov,
Mark. GriffonQcsb.gov, wesling mary@epamail.epa.gov, helmlinger.andrewkepa.gov,
blumenfel d. j aredgepa. gov
Dear Elise,and all other Official's Representatives,
It only makes sense that this field hearing is broadened to include the acknowledged
and extreme risk exposure from the very controversial Rancho LPG LLC facility. This is
a valuable and appreciated request, but falls short of delivering any real assurance of
safety to local residents and their families unless it includes the massive butane and
propane operation that has threatened the local population for decades. It is a fervent
hope that our legislators will work together now with Congresswoman Hahn in capturing
this opportunity to deliver a more comprehensive analysis of citizens risk exposure and
the potential liabilities associated with it.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20140324/rep-janice-hahn-calls-for-
congressional-hearinq-in-wake-of-wilmington-oil-spill
Thank you for your time. Please advise your respective public official of this
request. Each public official's constituents deserve to be adequately protected and
informed of any serious risks that they are facing and actions that can be taken to
minimize their danger. Everyone deserves to live in as safe an environment as
possible. It is up to government to provide that opportunity and to clearly advise the
innocent of any potential jeopardy they may be in. So far, both legislators and residents
alike have been seriously deprived of understanding exactly just what that risk exposure
might be. It is time to know.
Sincerely,
Janet Gunter
Member: San Pedro Homeowners United, INC, San Pedro & Peninsula Homeowners
Coalition, Citizens for Responsible & Equal Environmental Protection
D
From: Steve Katz <stevekatz74@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:47 PM
To: CC; CityManager
Subject: Marymount Univ.
Is anyone in the RPV city government monitoring the
status of the Marymount negotiations?
Approximately one/third of the proposed build-
ing silhouette has fallen on the ground and has been lying
there for at least a month. This presents even more of an
eyesore. Does the City not require that it be maintained in
an intact condition? It's hard to believe that there exists no
mechanism for enforcement! Please
respond. Thank you.
Stephen E. Katz
3553 Seaglen Drive.
From: bubba32@cox.net
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41 AM
To: CC
Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Marymount Enrollment Compliance Violation status and proposed Draft Resolution No.
2014 -XX
Attachments: Letter to City Council March 31, 2014.doc
Honorable Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members.
For your immediate consideration of the pending Revised Conditions of Approval (Draft
Resolution No. 2014-xx) I am submitting my letter (as an attachment) describing the non-
compliance status of Marymount with their enrollment limitations as specified in their
current Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Your review and action based upon this new information is appreciated.
Jim Gordon
James B. Gordon
3538 Bendigo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-6202
City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Monday March 31, 2014
Subject: Proposed Draft Resolution No. 2014 -XX, Exhibit "A" — Addendum No.l,
Exhibit `B" — Conditions of Approval.
Honorable Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members:
Based upon a review of the non-compliance with the terms and Conditions of
Approval of Marymount's current Conditional Use Permit (CUP), any further
consideration or approval of additional entitlements should be suspended per City
Code 17.86.050 until such current violations have been corrected.
Marymount is in current violation with CUP Conditions regarding enrollment
limitations specified under Mitigation Measures TR -4 and TR -7 as required by
Conditions Numbers 3, 4 and 11.
As shown in the accompanying Exhibit, based upon provisions of those Mitigation
Measures, Marymount's current reported weekday enrollment of 886 exceeds the
specified maximum limit of 793 by 93 students. No weekend students are reported to
be enrolled. Such violations have continued since Fall 2011.
CUP Condition No. 3 incorporates each and every mitigation measure into the
Conditions of Approval.
CUP Condition No. 4 requires that such measures be fully implemented on the
subject property.
CUP Condition No. 11 specifies that "In the event that a Condition of Approval is in
conflict or is inconsistent with any Mitigation Measure for this project, the more
restrictive shall govern."
Therefore, the Director's March 3, 2014 letter informing Marymount that per terms of
I I P a g e
Condition 145 that "the student enrollment for the Spring of 2014 term is within the
scope of the Conditions of Approval.." is in conflict and is inconsistent with the
enrollment limitations specified in the Mitigation Measures TR -4 & TR -7, and should
be withdrawn as these more restrictive limitations "shall govern".
Accordingly, per RPVMC, notice of violation should be given to Marymount to
correct this ongoing enrollment Violation of the CUP and no further entitlements
should be processed until such violation is corrected.
Jim Gordon
AB (Econ) Brown University
MBA (Finance) Harvard Business School
PDGCM (Professional Designation in Government Contract Management) UCLA
MMmount has consistently exceeded approved EIR "Weekday" maximum enrollment limits since Fait 2011
Mitigation Measures TR -4 (traffic) & Tit -7 (Parking) limit weekday enrollments to a maximum of 793 students
Reporting Period Weekday Student Enrollment Reported Maximurn Weekday (see Notes below)
Traditional
Non -Traditional
aA Students
Actual
CUP/EIR
Stu -c -H
Excess
Included (7)
Reported
Limits
In EIR?
Not studied
s
}
H4,,A,
* Reported Enrollments understates actual enrollments by the number of
Note 1 Appendix D on page 3.3-39; Assumptions, studied a maximum weekday
Note 2 Mitigation Measure TW7 states that parking impactsstudied assume a t
Note 3 Mitigation Measure TR -4 specifies traffic impacts assume,e maximum o+
"Weekday" student enrollment Is defined as "the courses offered at Marymount
10 PM, Classes offered as part of the 11A Program would occur during these stat
CUP General Conditions Nox 3 & 4 incorporate the Mitigation Monitoring progra
CUP General Condition No. 11 specifies that "In the event that a Condition of Apt
Measure for this project, the more restrictive shall govern,"
21 Pa g e
-05
::1=:331=W11
ted IlA students
enrollment of 793
r of 793 weekday students
:kday students
that) occur on weekdays between 8 AM and
." (FEIR & Appendix D, Course offerings).
tions as part of the CUP.
In conflict or is inconsistent with any Mitigation
Resolution No. 2
Exhibit
B
Paye 6 of 22
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental impact Report
Final • May 18, 2010 6.6 MMPMn Menbf wW RWMn{Pmoam
Resolution N ll 7 of
Exhibit 8
OR Pape 7 oT 22
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report
MWd�tlomMassure
Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
I
YerMcallon of Cdnmplasce
InItals
Data
ttertxtb
..
latilastorhe
A9aroy
dil
with to City of Rancho Palos Verdes, City of Los Angeles, and Caltrans
regarding Implementation of this rrd
TR4
The traffic impacts and corresponding mitigation measures assume the
Prior to Any
Community
Veffma0on of
Marim aunt Collage student enrollment at a maximum of 793 weekday students
Certificate of
Development
Student
TR 6
(based on the formula Mowing 750 full -tions students, 20 pa 41me students,
Occupancy
Director
Enrollment
and a marginal d0erence of 3.0 percent), and 150 weekend students.
Certificate of
Development
Parking
Additiona0y, it Is assumed, Marymount College student enrolment as a
Occupancy
DlecMr and
Management
maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled N the BA Program and a
Pubic Wools
Stafties
maximum of 793 weekday students minus current BA Program weekday
Director
Program
students enrolled in the AA Program. Therefore, prior fo knuace of any
CaNBcaos of Occupancy, student enrolment shelf be kndted to a maximum of
TR -7
793 weekday students and 150 weekend students, including full- and parttime
Prior to Any
Community
Annual Student
students, and nhaxkmum of 250 weekday students enrolled M the BA Program
Certificate of
Development
Enrolnsnt
and a maximum of 793 weekday students minus current BA Program weekday
Occupancy
Director and
Report
students enrolled in the AA Program. The College slued submit to the City an
No Later Than
Community
Approval of
•
Enrollment Report for each Tem within an acAmIc year for all Traditional
30 Days From
Development
Annual Student
\
and Non -Traditional Degree Programs and Summar Educational Programs no
Commencement
Director
Enrollment
later than 30days after a term has commenced,
of Term
Report
Capacftv
students enrolled in the AA Program. Therefore, prior to issuance of any
.Parldno
TR -5
Prior to Issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shell institute,
Pdor to Any
Conmri ty
Approval of
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Public
Certificate of
Development
Parking
Works Director, parking management strategies to reduce weekday College-
Occupancy
Director and
Management
related parking demand by the following values:
Public Warks
Strategies
• 11 percent or greater for student enrolment between 744 and 793;
Director
Cumulative(Forecast
• 6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;
TR -8
• 0 percent or greater for student enrolment of 693 or less.
Prior to Any
Community
Verirkation of
Potentld parking management strategies may Include, but are not limited to,
Certificate of
Development
Proportionate
the following:
Occupancy
Director and
Share
• Provision of "carpool only' parking spaces;
City Engineer
Contribution
• Implementdlon of parking priol g for campus parking permits;
• Utilization of remote in •
Final • May 18, 2010 6.6 MMPMn Menbf wW RWMn{Pmoam
Resolution N ll 7 of
Exhibit 8
OR Pape 7 oT 22
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report
MWd�tlomMassure
mama"
1110"Itcring
Action
Indleaft
Vermics"ofComplance
eaWs
Do
Remarks
latilastorhe
A9aroy
compliance
• Provision of increased shuttle ser4m;
• Offering financial Incenfives; and
■ Implementation of restrictions on parking slowed by residents of is Paioa
Verdes flodh Facility.
TR 6
A Parking Management Strategy PmM shell be prepared and submled by
Prior fo Any
Community
Approval of
the Applicant for review and approval by the Community Development Director,
Certificate of
Development
Parking
by JuIy t■ of everyyear. Sall Program shay:
Occupancy
DlecMr and
Management
• Document the prkxyear's achlevad parking demand reduction;
Pubic Wools
Stafties
• identify strategies for use In the upcoming academic school year; and
Director
Program
• Be modified on an as needed basis, as doomed necessary by the
Community I Director.
TR -7
The parkkg Impacts and corresponding mitigation measures asarme the
Prior to Any
Community
Annual Student
Marymaunt Collage student enrollment as a madrmm of 793 weekday
Certificate of
Development
Enrolnsnt
students @seed on the formula allowing 750 fuHme students, 20 part-time
Occupancy
Director and
Report
students, and a marginal dgkrence of 30 percent) and 160 weekend students.
City Engineer
•
Additionaly, 4 Is assumed, Msymount College student enrolment as a
maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the BA Program and a
maximum of 793 weekday shdents minus current BA Program weekday
students enrolled in the AA Program. Therefore, prior to issuance of any
Certificate of Occupancy, student enrokent shy be brited to a maximum of
793 weekday students and 150 weekend students, Including k& and pat -lime
students, and maximum of 260 weekday students enrolled in is BA Program
and a maximum of 793 weekday students minus current BA Program weekday
students enrolled in the AA Pr
Cumulative(Forecast
Year 201 2)
TR -8
Prior fo issuance of any Certlicete of Occupancy, the Applicant shall make a
Prior to Any
Community
Verirkation of
proportionate share contribution to implement the following, In adddion lo
Certificate of
Development
Proportionate
Improvements specified! in Mitigation Measures TR -2 and TR -3:
Occupancy
Director and
Share
• Palos Verdes Drive EasW*s Verdes Drive South — Modify the
City Engineer
Contribution
Intersection to provide a twaslage gap acceptance design for southbound
let-Nmbg vehoes. A raised median refuge area shak be contrwW for
vehicles to tum eft nom Palos Verdes DM East to cross wasmound
Final • May 18, 2010
3�Pae
6.7
Mitigation Mentoring and RepatlnifPnpwn
From: bubba32@cox.net
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 8:15 AM
To: CC
Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Fwd: Marymount Enrollment Compliance Violation status and proposed Draft
Resolution No. 2014 -XX
Attachments: Letter to City Council March 31, 2014.doc
Honorable Mayor Duhovic and Members of the City Council
I have attached an amended letter which upgrades the Historical enrollment Exhibit to be
illustrative of the Mitigation Measures' weekday vs. weekend enrollment categories.
Under those Measures, there are only two enrollment categories - weekday and weekend,
which (respectively) impose 793 and 150 maximum limits.
Marymount has not reported any weekend enrollments and thus those actual enrollments
reported - represent only weekday attendance. Currently the 886 enrollment shown is well
above the 793 maximum limitation allowed per these Mitigation Measures and as
described in the letter.
Jim Gordon
> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 6:40:47 -0700
> From: <bubba32@cox.net>
> To: CC@rpv.com
> Subject: Marymount Enrollment Compliance Violation status and proposed Draft
Resolution No. 2014 -XX
> Cc: joelr@rpv.com, aram@rpv.com
> Honorable Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members.
> For your immediate consideration of the pending Revised Conditions of Approval (Draft
Resolution No. 2014-xx) I am submitting my letter (as an attachment) describing the non-
compliance status of Marymount with their enrollment limitations as specified in their
current Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
> Your review and action based upon this new information is appreciated.
> Jim Gordon
o �.
James B. Gordon
3538 Bendigo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-6202
City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Monday March 31, 2014
Subject: Proposed Draft Resolution No. 2014 -XX, Exhibit "A" — Addendum No. 1,
Exhibit `B" — Conditions of Approval.
Honorable Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members:
Based upon a review of the non-compliance with the terms and Conditions of
Approval of Marymount's current Conditional Use Permit (CUP), any further
consideration or approval of additional entitlements should be suspended per City
Code 17.86.050 until such current violations have been corrected.
Marymount is in current violation with CUP Conditions regarding enrollment
limitations specified under Mitigation Measures TR -4 and TR -7 as required by
Conditions Numbers 3, 4 and 11.
As shown in the accompanying Exhibit, based upon provisions of those Mitigation
Measures, Marymount's current reported weekday enrollment of 886 exceeds the
specified maximum limit of 793 by 93 students. No weekend students are reported to
be enrolled. Such violations have continued since Fall 2011.
CUP Condition No. 3 incorporates each and every mitigation measure into the
Conditions of Approval.
CUP Condition No. 4 requires that such measures be fully implemented on the
subject property.
CUP Condition No. 11 specifies that "In the event that a Condition of Approval is in
conflict or is inconsistent with any Mitigation Measure for this project, the more
restrictive shall govern."
Therefore, the Director's March 3, 2014 letter informing Marymount that per terms of
Condition 145 that "the student enrollment for the Spring of 2014 term is within the
11 Page
scope of the Conditions of Approval.." is in conflict and is inconsistent with the
enrollment limitations specified in the Mitigation Measures TR -4 & TR -7, and should
be withdrawn as these more restrictive limitations "shall govern".
Accordingly, per RPVMC, notice of violation should be given to Marymount to
correct this ongoing enrollment Violation of the CUP and no further entitlements
should be processed until such violation is corrected.
Jim Gordon
AB (Econ) Brown University
MBA (Finance) Harvard Business School
PDGCM (Professional Designation in Government Contract Management) UCLA
Marymount has consistently exceeded approved EIR "Weekday" maximum enrollment limits since Fall 2011
Mitigation Measures TR -4 (Traffic) & TR -7 (Parking) limit weekday enrollments to a maximum of 793 students
and a maximum of 150 Weekend students
eporthg Peirl8d Ma.wnount to ant �nra meetbrte'
Weekday TR4 Excess Weelrend TR -+i Excess OA in
Reported Maximum above Reported Maximum above Weekday
Maximum Maximum
s�ac-.�,.,..r.zx ir�.aa sir m.w a..vro• <�anatt�.��x se,,x^�sx:xw�?; sm�*ars+,* , ss;� ,. :aer•ak xa¢5:i»N#RCa'. re^x �r�::e.�s..a��a'.
* Reported Enrollments understates actual errollme
Note 1 Appendix D on page,3 3.39, Assumptions; studled+s
Note 2 Mitigation Measure TR -7 states that parking impat
Note 3 Mitigation Measure TR -4 specifies traffic impacts a
"Weekday" student enrollment is defined as "the courses til
10 PM. (lasses offered as part of the BA Program would of
CUP General Conditions No.s 3 & 4 Incorporate the iMitigati,
CUP General Condition No 11 specifies that "in the event tr
Measure for this project, the more restrictive shall govern.
21 Pa g e
0
" iFEtR &'
Resolution No. 2010.42
LA14 Exhibit B
Page 6 of 22
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental impact Report
.VerwAtion
MW*Nft
kAAgency
Apron
or comp9arrse
Mitigation Measure
.
IAfNstorre
Agency
Indleaft
Compibmx
kM*
Dare Ramrks
I dlcal"
Dnp
with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, City of Los Angeles, and Caltrans
• Provision of in reaaod shuttleservices;
regarding Iementarionoflf9ami6
• Ofterbg financial Incentives; ant
TRd
The W& impacts and wneapond'mg mitigation measures assume the
Pte tomy
Community
Vedficakri of
Marymount Collage student enrollment at a ma4 art of 793 weekday students
Certffioate of
Development
swdad
Verdes North Fac'
(based on the formula allowing 750 fu6dims students, 20 part-time students,
Occupancy
Director
Enrollment
TRS
A Patting ManaparrreM Strategy Program shall be prepared and submitted by
Prior to Arty
and a marginal difference of 3.0 percent), and 160 weekend students,
Approval of
the Applicant for review and approval by the Community Development Director,
Addlllonally, it Is assumed, Marymount College student enrolment as a
Development
Pakbg
maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled N the BA Program and a
Occupancy
Director and
Management
maximum of 793 weekday students minus current BA Program weekday
• Documentthe prior-yeaes achieved paling demmd mducdons;
Public Works
Str Is$
students enrolled in the AA Program, Therefore, prior to issuance of any
• Identify strategics for use in the upcoming academic school year, and
Director
Program
Certlficale of Occupancy, student eaofimerd shat be Irtdted to a madmum of
• Be modified on an as needed basis, as deemed necessry by the
793 weekday students and 150 weekend students, including full- and pad -time
Community Development Director.
students, and mexkrxrm of 250 weekday students enraged M the BA Program
TR.?
The parking Impacts and carespondkrg mitigation measures assume Me
Prior to Any
and a maximum of 793 weekday students minus current BA Program weekday
Annual Student
Marymount Collage student enroknenl as a madmum of 793 weekday
students enrolled in the AA Program, The Collage shelf submit to the City an
No Later Than
Communtty
Approval of
Enrolment Report for each Term within an academic year for all Tredflbnal
30 Days From
Developmert
Annual Student
`
and NorTraditional Degree Programs and Summar Educational Programs no
Commencement
Director
Enrollment
law than 304ays after a term has commenced.
Of Term
Additiona0y, 6 is assumed, Maymoa College student anrdfouM as a
Report
ParldnoCaDscity
maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the BA Program and a
TR -5
Polar to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall institute,
Prior to Any
Community
Approval of
marJmum of 793 weekday students minus anent BA Program weekday
to the sndstaction of the Community Development Dkactor and the Public
Cedfl ab of
Development
Parking
students enrolled in the AA Program. Therefore, prior to issuance of any
Works Director, parking management stralegies to reduce weekday College-
Occupancy
Director and
Mangemeni
Certificate of Occupancy, student enrollment shag be Imlted to a mama m of
related patting demand by the following values:
Public Works
Strategies
793 weekday students and 150 weekend students, Including tuF and pal4me
• 11 percent or greOr for student enrollment between 744 and 793;
Director
students, and max mum of 260 weekday students enrolled In the BA Program
• 6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;
and a madmum of 793 weekday students minus ascent BA Program weekday
• 0pawl orgreater for student emolhrrentof693orlea.
students enmkd In the=.
Potential paddng management strategies may Include, but are not limited to,
Cun=YJ
orecastYear201
the following:
TR -8
Prior to issuance or any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shefi make a
Prior to Any
Community
Verifica6omn of
• Provision of'carpool only" parking spaces;
propa0onate share conbthution to implement the following, h addition to
Cerfifxale of
Devebtonsm
Proportionate
• Implementation of peg pricing for campus perking pemtts;
Improvements specified in Mitigation Measures TR -2 and TR -3:
Occupancy
Director and
Share
• Utilization ofremoie
• Palos Verdes Drive EastlPabs Verdes Drive South — Modify gra
CityEngleer
Final • May 18, 2010 8.6 114111aflon Menbriftrd Repa6nflProllsm
3�Pae
Resolution No. 2010-42
Exhibit 8
Page 7 of 22
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report
Final • May 18, 2010 6.7 kktlfisAfon MoMOodmm{rmd RaPONnEPrePanr
cU
Apron
VerftsdonofCompRrrce
Initials
Data
Remarks
AWigatbn tAasmst
Agency
I dlcal"
Dnp
• Provision of in reaaod shuttleservices;
• Ofterbg financial Incentives; ant
• Implemanisdon of reaMc Ions on parking allowed by resklents of the Palos
Verdes North Fac'
TRS
A Patting ManaparrreM Strategy Program shall be prepared and submitted by
Prior to Arty
Community
Approval of
the Applicant for review and approval by the Community Development Director,
Certificate of
Development
Pakbg
by Jury 1s ofeveryyear. Said Progrem shall:
Occupancy
Director and
Management
• Documentthe prior-yeaes achieved paling demmd mducdons;
Public Works
Str Is$
• Identify strategics for use in the upcoming academic school year, and
Director
Program
• Be modified on an as needed basis, as deemed necessry by the
Community Development Director.
TR.?
The parking Impacts and carespondkrg mitigation measures assume Me
Prior to Any
Community
Annual Student
Marymount Collage student enroknenl as a madmum of 793 weekday
Dedicate of
Development
Enrollment
students (band on the formula slowing 750 fulWme students. 20 pat-ime
Occupancy
Director and
Report
students, and a marginal difference of 3.0 percent) and 160 weekend sbdenle.
City Engineer
Additiona0y, 6 is assumed, Maymoa College student anrdfouM as a
maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the BA Program and a
marJmum of 793 weekday students minus anent BA Program weekday
students enrolled in the AA Program. Therefore, prior to issuance of any
Certificate of Occupancy, student enrollment shag be Imlted to a mama m of
793 weekday students and 150 weekend students, Including tuF and pal4me
students, and max mum of 260 weekday students enrolled In the BA Program
and a madmum of 793 weekday students minus ascent BA Program weekday
students enmkd In the=.
Cun=YJ
orecastYear201
TR -8
Prior to issuance or any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shefi make a
Prior to Any
Community
Verifica6omn of
propa0onate share conbthution to implement the following, h addition to
Cerfifxale of
Devebtonsm
Proportionate
Improvements specified in Mitigation Measures TR -2 and TR -3:
Occupancy
Director and
Share
• Palos Verdes Drive EastlPabs Verdes Drive South — Modify gra
CityEngleer
Contribution
intersection to provide a two4tage gap acceptance design for southbound
left-tumi g vehicles. A raised motion rehpe area shall be wmtrucbl for
vehicles to tum bit from Pats Verdes Drt a East to cross westbound
Final • May 18, 2010 6.7 kktlfisAfon MoMOodmm{rmd RaPONnEPrePanr
cU
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:16 PM
To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka
Cc: Carolynn Petru; Joel Rojas
Subject: FW: Case ZON2003-00317 6 Month Review of Parking Lot Operations / Public
Comments
Marymount late correspondence.
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
CffY OF
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?
rhis e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho halos 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 intenders recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Gregory Lash [mailto:glash@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:13 PM
To: Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetich; Brian Campbell; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Case ZON2003-00317 6 Month Review of Parking Lot Operations / Public Comments
Honorable Councilmember's and City Staff:
I support the Staffs Recommendations 1 thru 9. They have clearly compromised with MCU since their original
recommendations from the 18February Council Hearing and these should be adopted. I am not happy about the
"Grow Garden" and it's location, however - it seems there are better locations on the campus for this
use. Marymount chose to not build all of the approved East Parking Lot, and are now using the unfinished area
for this Garden. We don't know how the previous City Council would have felt about a Public Garden in this
area, but we do know they envisioned and approved only Parking.
The Fencing is urgently needed, and should be done soon. It is surprising that the College has not already done
this, for their own benefit. We have already had a case, whether knowingly or unknowingly, of a student
wandering onto the Tooley property (2742 SRD). The campus is surrounded by homes, so anything MCU does
impacts someone. This "Grow Garden" is particularly sensitive however, as backyards in this area of San
Ramon Drive are along the Canyon Reserve. Due to views of the Canyon and Ocean, their boundaries are
0
unobtrusive - privacy was not an issue until student and the public began to populate the area. This area is also
sensitive due to the well known Fire and Geologic dangers.
I urge the Council to take another look at this issue. If MCU is technically violative of a CUP, they violate the
notion and the spirit of having CUPs to lessen impacts on surrounding Residents.
Sincerely,
Gregory Lash
San Ramon Drive
RPV
D
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late Correspondence.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
(310) 544-5228
So Kim
Monday, March 31, 2014 7:55 AM
Carla Morreale
Teresa Takaoka
FW: Proposed cell phone structure on 7-11 building
7-11 cell tower 5.JPG; New structure jpeg; 7-11 cell tower 6.JPG; 7-11 cell tower 10jpg
From: So Kim
Sent: Friday, March 28, 201410:17 AM
To:'John Freeman'
Cc: Joel Rojas; Dennis Mclean (dennism@rpv.com)
Subject: FW: Proposed cell phone structure on 7-11 building
Hi Mr. Freeman,
Attached are the photos submitted by the Kerkhofs and the email is attached below.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.palosverdes.com/rp
(310) 544-5228
From: John Freeman [mailto:irfree@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 8:18 AM
To: So Kim; Joel Rojas
Cc: Dennis Mclean
Subject: Staff report email
Ms. Kim,
Beginning of page 2-12 of the April 1, 2014 city council staff report is an email from Mr. and Mrs. Kerkhof
(Monday, March 24, 2014 9:28 PM).
Unfortunately I can't clearly see their pictures due to the poor image quality issues I have previously identified.
Would you please forward to me that email to me with the 4 attachments?
Thank you,
John Freeman
v a.
From: Maggie Kerkhof[mailto:maggiekerkhof@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 9:28 PM
To: CC; Joel Rojas; So Kim
Subject: Proposed cell phone structure on 7-11 building
Dear Councilmen and Councilwoman,
My name is Rudy Kerkhof and I live at 6332 Villa Rosa Drive, RPV. My house/property is next to/east
of the 7-11 building at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. My home is also in a direct line and level with the roof
of this building.
I am writing to address the proposed structure to enclose Sprint cellular phone antennas which is to
be built on the east end of the roof of the 7-11 building.
I am opposed to the building of the structure because it will significantly adversely affect my property
and it's value for two reasons.
1. The structure will block a significant portion of the ocean view from my home and
backyard.
2. The location of the cell towers, which emit radio frequency (RF) waves (at the same height
as my backyard and 34' from my property line), present a potential health hazard to me, my
family, and any future buyers of my property and must be disclosed to any future buyer.
The planning commission was provided with a 2007 photograph by city staff with a drawn in good -
faith estimate of the size of the structure, but which was totally inaccurate. After seeing the mock-up,
1 left two messages with city hall personnel but never received a call back. I later learned that one of
the parties was not in the office when I called. At no time was I contacted regarding taking current
photos of the proposed structure. Attached you will see some recent pictures accurately showing the
amount of impairment (I tried to approximate the size of the structure by comparing where the
mockup blocks part of the 7-11 trees and the building parapet).
The RF waves emitted by the antenna are focused on the horizon and are shaped like a disc, very
wide (approx. 120 degrees, hence 3 antenna cover a full circle or 360 degrees) and thin horizontally,
not many waves emitted up or down. The strength of the waves also greatly diminish with distance
from the antenna (one chart showed a significant drop after 30 yards or so). What these
"conservative" websites do say though is that there is a danger to persons (and they point out roofers,
HVAC workers, etc.) who might be working on the same roof as these antenna are mounted and say
their time there should be limited to no more than six minutes or take other measures (wear protective
equipment, turn off the antenna, etc.) The roofline of the 7-11 building is roughly even with my
backyard and at a distance of 34' from my property line. This in essence, puts anyone in my
backyard in the same position as a worker on the roof of the 7-11 building.
Whether you or I believe these cell towers cause cancer at this distance doesn't matter. There are
some, and I believe many, potential buyers would pass on buying our house with cell antennas
located this close to and at the same height as our backyard.
am sure there are city guidelines and just plain common sense says there should be an attempt to
balance commercial and private rights when deciding these issues but I believe an emphasis should
be on protecting RPV residents.
I believe this can still be accomplished. Sprint can still gain greater coverage by seeking alternatives
on this property. What I would propose is that the existing parapet be extended forward approx. 6' or
so encompassing the older cell antenna and have the newer antenna placed therein. Sprint's needs
are met and there is no additional impairment of me or our neighbors views and the distance these
cell antenna are located is increased from 34' to a safer 104' from our property lines. To me this is at
least a win for them at least no major loss to me or my neighbors.
When people drive by this building no one notices these roof top structures, but we see them on a
daily basis and their significance is great. Especially the loss of view and property value. What
people do notice is that the building is dated and run down. I understand you can't require someone
to update or maintain their commercial building but this approach at the cost of resident's views and
home values is not the answer.
I thank you all for your time and consideration of this matter.
Rudy & Maggie Kerkhof
6332 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
mag
�giekerkhogmail. com
(310) 377-8392 cell (310) 567-6241
1 �
tie
'►� r� � ter n " � � ' if,N, ,� r� � � �� � "' ,� r 1
wo,Idi
",, " r+► sib �,
-;Olt 1*
ol
owo
rr
r a.
itI r T ..
+• 4
e At
01
w� ,�� Vii• � � � .f�^ %' ���
r"
#L
r
-�, fig'. y,}•��.,llyV
f
wr
S v +[ .k
:.t v
yam. •
lowk► — -
�1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late Correspondence.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
(310) 544-5228
So Kim
Monday, March 31, 2014 7:56 AM
Carla Morreale
Teresa Takaoka
FW: New mockup at 7-11 Sprint location
From: So Kim
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 7:41 AM
To: 'John Freeman'
Cc: Joel Rojas
Subject: RE: New mockup at 7-11 Sprint location
Hi Mr. Freeman,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
In comparing the two mock-ups, it appears that the strings that represents the ridgeline needs to be tightened up. I
contacted Sprint and requested that this be done over the weekend, before the meeting on Tuesday.
I will provide you with any updates.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
(310) 544-5228
From: John Freeman [mailto:irfree@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 201410:20 AM
To: So Kim; Joel Rojas
Cc: CC
Subject: New mockup at 7-11 Sprint location
Hello So Kim:
noticed yesterday that you had the Sprint mockup placed on top of the 7 -Eleven roof again. I
assume that is for additional public viewing before the city council meeting next week.
Unfortunately, the mockup that is there today does NOT look the same as the original mockup from
February 2014 (see attached pictures). Note on the picture I took in February the roof peak is
outlined with multiple orange flags. It looks like about 5 along each diagonal string lines (total 20+?)
and then another string with flags along the peak to show the real height (5'8" tall) for the antenna
structure — to resemble this sketch you provided in the staff report.
The current mockup from today, appears to be just a box on top of the roof. I can only faintly see any
lines outlining the peak or height of the structure. I count only one orange flag across each
diagonal. It is not at all obvious or similar to the earlier mockup that the Planning Commission saw.
Would you please fix this as soon as possible? I don't want city council members or other interested
parties to view this current inconsistent mockup from neighboring areas or homes and reach an
incorrect conclusion. We should have the same mockup viewing experience today as in February.
Please let me know when this will be corrected. There is only a few days left before the city council
meeting.
Thank you,
John Freeman
0
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late Correspondence.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
(310) 544-5228
So Kim
Monday, March 31, 2014 7:57 AM
Carla Morreale
Teresa Takaoka
FW: New mockup at 7-11 Sprint location
image002 jpg; Mockup 711 Bldg 02162014-1 jpg; Mockup 711 Bldg 03272014-1 jpg
-----Original Message -----
From: Joel Rojas
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:10 PM
To: So Kim
Subject: FW: New mockup at 7-11 Sprint location
In their hurry to install a mock up before April 1, they may not been able to replicate what they installed before. I don't
know if there is a way for yiu to tell how's it's different. Please talk to sprint. If this is the best that they can do for now,
they should at least certify that it is correct. If they cant certify it is correct, then we need to alert the cc of these facts
and note that if appealed, the appeal hearing will not occur until a complete certified mock is installed
From: John Freeman [jrfree@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:19 AM
To: So Kim; Joel Rojas
Cc: CC
Subject: New mockup at 7-11 Sprint location
Hello So Kim:
I noticed yesterday that you had the Sprint mockup placed on top of the 7 -Eleven roof again. I assume that is for
additional public viewing before the city council meeting next week.
Unfortunately, the mockup that is there today does NOT look the same as the original mockup from February 2014 (see
attached pictures). Note on the picture I took in February the roof peak is outlined with multiple orange flags. It looks
like about 5 along each diagonal string lines (total 20+?) and then another string with flags along the peak to show the
real height (5'8" tall) for the antenna structure — to resemble this sketch you provided in the staff report.
[cid:image002.jpg@01CF49A6.16DDFF00]
The current mockup from today, appears to be just a box on top of the roof. I can only faintly see any lines outlining the
peak or height of the structure. I count only one orange flag across each diagonal. It is not at all obvious or similar to the
earlier mockup that the Planning Commission saw.
Would you please fix this as soon as possible? I don't want city council members or other interested parties to view this
current inconsistent mockup from neighboring areas or homes and reach an incorrect conclusion. We should have the
same mockup viewing experience today as in February.
Please let me know when this will be corrected. There is only a few days left before the city council meeting.
Thank you,
John Freeman
0
Cbu
`v
1 `
alk Adkk
dl► i s _
y i _ i
AL 4k
,r' •_ �4 w t a
a ~ dw _..
i4ft
�a r.
.4LX-. -
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late Correspondence.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
(310) 544-5228
So Kim
Monday, March 31, 2014 7:57 AM
Carla Morreale
Teresa Takaoka
FW: New mockup at 7-11 Sprint location
image002jpg; Mockup 711 Bldg 02162014-1 jpg; Mockup 711 Bldg 03272014-1 jpg
-----Original Message -----
From: So Kim
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 7:39 AM
To: Kim Nguyen (knguyen@core.us.com)
Cc: Joel Rojas
Subject: FW: New mockup at 7-11 Sprint location
Hi Kim,
Please review the email below.
In looking at the pictures, it appears that the depiction of the ridge needs to be tightened up. Is this something that can
be done asap, before Monday?
Sincerely,
So Kim
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5228 / sok@rpv.com
From: John Freeman Urfree@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 201410:19 AM
To: So Kim; Joel Rojas
Cc: CC
Subject: New mockup at 7-11 Sprint location
Hello So Kim:
01 a
I noticed yesterday that you had the Sprint mockup placed on top of the 7-Eleven roof again. I assume that is for
additional public viewing before the city council meeting next week.
Unfortunately, the mockup that is there today does NOT look the same as the original mockup from February 2014 (see
attached pictures). Note on the picture I took in February the roof peak is outlined with multiple orange flags. It looks
like about 5 along each diagonal string lines (total 20+?) and then another string with flags along the peak to show the
real height (5'8" tall) for the antenna structure —to resemble this sketch you provided in the staff report.
[cid:image002.jpg@01CF49A6.16DDFFOOj
The current mockup from today, appears to be just a box on top of the roof. I can only faintly see any lines outlining the
peak or height of the structure. I count only one orange flag across each diagonal. It is not at all obvious or similar to the
earlier mockup that the Planning Commission saw.
Would you please fix this as soon as possible? I don't want city council members or other interested parties to view this
current inconsistent mockup from neighboring areas or homes and reach an incorrect conclusion. We should have the
same mockup viewing experience today as in February.
Please let me know when this will be corrected. There is only a few days left before the city council meeting.
Thank you,
John Freeman
D
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late Correspondence.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www. alosverdes.com r v
(310) 544-5228
So Kim
Monday, March 31, 2014 7:58 AM
Carla Morreale
Teresa Takaoka
FW: Staff report scanning & PDF production
From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 201411:10 AM
To: Dennis Mclean
Cc: Joel Rojas; So Kim
Subject: RE: Staff report scanning & PDF production
Hi Dennis,
Thanks for looking into this. Besides maintaining the quality of the staff reports along with submittals
by public and applicants, I believe there's another important issue here.
That is, maintaining a good accurate archive of document storage and history of City Council and
Planning Commission (and other) meetings. RPV has developed an excellent online repository of
council and other reports. Thank you and everyone for that. It saves staff and the public time and
money when residents can research prior public documents without bothering staff.
But what happens when the essence of (for example) the April 1, 2014 staff report is lost or obscured
because of the impossible -to -view images a year or two years from now and someone wants to
review it? (Note on that second link below from 2/25/2014 page 33, the included color images from
Sprint look great!)
Of course I realize that there is always a balancing act between becoming a high quality professional
publisher all day (at taxpayer expense) vs. getting the public documents published on time. So I
appreciate the dilemma.
Thanks for your consideration.
John
0
a.
From: Dennis Mclean [mailto:DennisM@rpv.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 10:45 AM
To: John Freeman
Cc: Joel Rojas; So Kim
Subject: RE: Staff report scanning & PDF production
Hi John
Thanks for your email and your genuine interest towards improving our presentation of information to the public. I
would like to take a few days and talk with a couple staff members, make sure I understand what you reported in your
email and the review the process we used before replying. I was copied on the email sent you by So Kim with the four
photos submitted by the Kerkhofs.
Thanks,
Dennis McLean
Director of Finance and Information Technology
0..
Finance and Information Technology
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
dennism .ray.com - (310) 544-5212 p — (310) 544-5291 f
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This t' 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 narned. Unauthorized diSsernination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
You received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. (hank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: John Freeman [mailtojrfree@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 7:17 PM
To: Dennis Mclean
Cc: Joel Rojas; So Kim
Subject: Staff report scanning & PDF production
Hello Dennis,
I know we have discussed this before, but I want to ask again. Isn't there a way to preserve the
image quality of digital image attachments included in Staff Reports?
D2
For example, look at this current staff report:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2014 Agendas/MeetingDate-2014-04-
01/RPVCCA CC SR 2014 04 01 02 Appeal of CUP Revision 28041 Hawthorne.pdf
Starting on page 10 and continuing throughout the large staff report are many color -digital -pictures
which were attached to correspondence or provided by a company. Unfortunately as you know and
can see, these picture are almost unusable as presently included in the staff report. Even the images
provided by Sprint (page 122 and following) are un -viewable.
I know it doesn't have to be that way because compare it to the previous February 25, 2014 Planning
Commission Staff Report, photos by Sprint:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/AGENDAS -
Current Agendas/PlanningCommission/2014/2014 02 25 Planning Commission Agenda/Agenda-Item-
1
eq nda/A eg nda-Item-
1 RPVPC SR 2014 02 25 28041-Hawthorne.pdf
Look at pages 33 and following for beautiful original color representations. So I know it can be done.
Is this just a staff training or education matter? I am planning on emailing some additional
documentation for council consideration and review. I don't want my pictures washed out in some
grainy black -and -white scans if it can be prevented.
Any help or advice to me and to the RPV staff on techniques is appreciated.
Thank you!
John
0
From: Joan Davidson <j135cooper@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 201412:13 PM
To: cc
Subject: significant impacts along Villa Rosa re: Sprint antennas
Dear Council Members, Please take the opportunity to visit 6332 and 6338 Villa Rosa this
weekend to see first hand the visual impacts and property values issues at these homes.
The chimney structure for the Sprint antennas will be a part of the backyard properties if built as
designed. Appreciate your consideration, thank you, Joan
a a
From: Joan Davidson <j135cooper@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 12:59 PM
To: cc
Subject: close proximity of homes along Villa Rosa to the 28041 Hawthorne Building
Attachments: villa rosa pic 28041 Hawthorne closejpg; 28041 hawthorne built onto hillside 1 jpg;
28041 hawthorne onto hillside 2 jpg
Dear Council Members, I am attaching some photos that I hope shows you how close the homes
along Villa Rosa are to the Spring antenna structure that will not only significantly impact their
view, but property value.
I don't think that anyone would appreciate, from a real estate prospective, having a white
chimney along their property line. In addition, real estate agents have to disclose these
antennas and potential for emissions. That, according to real estate sources, can diminish a
home value.
I am attaching:
1- aerial to show how close the 28041 Hawthorne Bldg is to the homes on Villa Rosa
2 -and 3- Two photos showing how 28041 Hawthorne Bldg is built into the hillside making
the homes even closer to the roof line of the building below
4- photo taken at 6338 Villa Rosa showing the close proximity of the home to the antenna
structure below.
wl
41%
• CA • Los Angles Co. - Rancho Palos Verdes - Montemalaga
-71
.01
.ddIL
.4
PF%
ncW FW= Wrdw
From: Joan Davidson <j135cooper@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 1:02 PM
To: cc
Subject: 6338 Villa Rosa
Attachments: 6338 villa rosa 1.1PG
Dear Council, Sorry the last photo of 6338 Villa Rosa did not attach. Here it is -thanks Joan
Davidson
AO!
Aip,
FROM.: KERKHOF FRX NO. : 310 377 8392 Mar. 24 2014 07:21AM P1
To: Carla Morrealle — City Clerk of Rancho Palos Verdes
From: Rudy and Maggie Kerkhof
Date: Mar. 30, 2014
Fax: 310-544-5291
Re: Petition to stop the proposed cell phone antenna
structure at the east end of the 7-11 building
Please see the attached petition to stop the proposed
addition of a cellular phone antenna structure on the east
end of the roof of the 7-11 property at 28041 Hawthorne
Blvd. Could you please include it in the councilmen's
paperwork for the April 1 st council meeting.
Please contact me at 310-377-8392 (Home) or 310-567-
6241 (Cell) at any time if you have any questions.
Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
and Maggie Kerkhof
FROM : KERKHOF
FAX N0. : 310 377 8392 Mar. 24 2014 07:22AM P2
Proposed cell phone antenna structure at the
east end of the 7-11 building.
We, the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, petition the city to stop the
proposed addition of a cellular phone antenna structure on the east end
of the roof of the 7-11 property at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. We believe
the relocating of these antennas closer to our residences will increase
our exposure to radio frequency '(RF) waves and the building of this
new structure will block some of our ocean views and have a significant
adverse impact on our properties decrease their values.
Name Address Cell/Email
Vz/ &C q#/?L
26,503, 4f e p/L (3�U
f !
�
�W l jIoS.
Pr
31 D
•,�(
�`�'� i IV��'1y"'T �,� l/1
�^
Gi �
V ; �"'� i�..�.�1�
M,a....•
3� q-
f !
�
�W l jIoS.
Pr
`� R.�� a tyf Qye rlc b�'J U rt.'94 q,r. 31.,-3 `l 2 -
10.C,tit.n.c��
From: John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 9:26 PM
To: CC
Cc: Joel Rojas; So Kim
Subject: City Council Appeal hearing, April 1, 2014, 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7 -Eleven Building)
Attachments: City Council Appeal 7 -Eleven Sprint CUP.pdf
Mayor Duhovic and City Council members:
Thank you for considering the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding the Sprint
CUP for antennas at the 7 -Eleven building.
Please see the attached pdf document containing my comments and pictures for this agenda item.
Thank you,
John Freeman
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
o a.
March 28, 2014
To: Mayor Duhovic and City Council members
Subject: 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7 -Eleven Building) ZON2013-00111)
Appeal hearing, April 1, 2014
Mayor Duhovic and City Council members:
Thank you for considering the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding
the CUP for antennas at the 7 -Eleven building. There are many factors and reasons
why this matter deserves a full and complete hearing. It is unfortunate that it didn't
happen at and before the Planning Commission meeting of February 25, 2014.
I urge you to affirm the appeal so that the City Council and the public can review all the
facts and all the alternatives. I would like to highlight just a few of the inconsistencies
and problems (and alternative solutions).
Simply put, there are just too many unanswered questions to let the previous Planning
Commission decision stand without more answers.
Let this matter get a complete and full appeal consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
See my comments and questions on the following pages.
Thank you.
John Freeman
Rancho Palos Verdes
John Freeman Page 1 of 13 March 28, 2014
Cv
Oversimplification error:
The Planning Department staff report presented an overly simplified summary and
information to the Planning Commissioners regarding the "significant adverse effect" of
the CUP on adjacent properties. As a result, the Planning Commissioners approved the
project without considering the full consequences and alternatives.
Structural issues:
"On November 25t", the applicant [Sprint] notified Staff that they need additional time to
erect the required temporary silhouette as they ran into structural issues while
attempting to construct it on the roof..."
Was the roof then re -inspected and certified by Building and Safety prior to the Planning
Commission meeting? No mention. However look at picture on the next page with the
exposed roof. Does that look safe? Secure?
Shouldn't the Planning Commission have assurance one way or the other that the
building itself is safe or will be safe with the proposed change?
Site Visits:
None of the Planning Commissioners indicated they actually visited any of the residents
that have significant adverse view blockage effects, especially the home of Mr. & Mrs.
Kerkhof, 6332 Villa Rosa.
In fact the staff report states "Staff believes that the proposed encasement would impair
a minimal amount of ocean view".
That fatal error by staff probably contributed to the lack of on-site visits by the Planning
Commissioners, and the project's ultimate erroneous approval.
Aren't (or shouldn't) Planning Commissioners be required to actually visit the applicant
and adjacent properties that they are reviewing?
John Freeman Page 2 of 13 March 28, 2014
0
Instead, Commissioners were just shown this Staff Report depiction from 2007. If this
old picture is the only visual representation provided, then it is no wonder the Planning
Commissioners erroneously concluded there was no significant adverse effect.
Does that small red or small orange box show the reality of the adverse effect?
Now consider the actual silhouette mockup recently taken by Mr. Kerkhof looking west
towards their ocean "view".
Would you want to live at 6332 Villa Rosa Dr. looking at (not through) this box?
John Freeman Page 3 of 13 March 28, 2014
o,t
No Community outreach or neighborhood buy -in:
The February 25, 2014 Planning Commission minutes state: "He [Commissioner
Tetreault] asked staff if they have discussed with the applicant [Sprint], or requested any
alternatives to this proposal. Associate Planner Kim answered that the proposed
project before the Commission is a result of the City requesting aesthetic upgrades to
the building which staff has been working with Sprint on for over a year..."
If staff has been working on this for over a year, why didn't they reach out or visit the
known affected neighborhood residents? This is a known controversial corner and
building located in a residentially zoned area.
Mr. Kerkhof, resident on Villa Rosa Drive, submitted several alternative proposals
(March 24, 2014 email, page 2-12 of Staff Report). Why weren't their opinions solicited
sometime during the last year?
Modification vs. New CUP:
Staff considered this application as a modification of an existing CUP. Replacing one
antenna with a similar newer technology antenna might have satisfied that approach.
In this case, however, Sprint (or the Planning Dept.) added a new 5' 8" tall,
approximately 78 square feet (perhaps 10 feet wide x 7.8 feet deep) structure as part of
the antenna tower structure on top of the 7 -Eleven building, even including a
"decorative" tile roof! That "substantially change[d] the physical dimensions of such
tower or base station."
The scope of this new structure triggers a more comprehensive "new structure" analysis
and CUP application, not a modification. This should have resulted in more vigorous
investigation of alternative approaches and alternative locations for the enhanced cell
phone reception tower/base station.
John Freeman Page 4 of 13 March 28, 2014
06-
Least Intrusive?
A wireless carrier's application must "show that the manner in which it proposes to fill
the significant gap in services is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought
to serve."
By adding a new 3x4x5.75 foot structure to the base station, the Planning Commission
should have considered whether that structure itself was required to create the least
intrusive means to accomplish the goals, since Sprint proposed to "substantially change
the physical dimensions of such tower or base station."
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Section 6409
"...a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities
request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not
substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station."
In this case, the applicant and staff substantially changed the physical dimensions.
[Local Regulation of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities, Carol W. Lynch, City
Attorney, Report to the City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, February 19, 2013]
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citvcouncil/agendas/2013 Agendas/MeetingDate-2013-02-
19/RPVCCA CC SR 2013 02 19 03 City Process Permitting Wireless Telecommunications. Pd
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citvcouncil/agendas/2013 Agendas/MeetingDate-2013-02-19M/ireless-
Regulations.0
httg://www.town.billerica.ma.us/documentcenter/view/1082
John Freeman Page 5 of 13 March 28, 2014
(00
Alternate designs:
Sprint proposed removing 6 antennas and replacing them with 3. Where is the
alternative design consideration of just placing those three new antennas (4 feet tall) on
the roof or ridgeline of 7 -Eleven? Why is it needed to construct a 5 foot 8 inch tall
"decorative" encasement box when the antenna is just a 4 foot tall pole?
Is a 78 square foot box a better solution than 3 pole antennas? Shouldn't the Planning
Commissioners and the nearby residents have alternative design options presented as
well so they can make rational informed choice and decision? Get residents feedback?
It seems like the original box -top "enclosure" solution is worse than the problem!
Why wasn't a 3 -antenna roof or other options at least presented to the nearby
residents and Planning Commissioners as an alternative for consideration?
Alternate Roof Location:
One alternative that should have been presented to the Planning Commission and the
neighbors: Place the 3 new -technology AT&T antennas along the back bottom eve of
the roof. At that location the antennas would be less visible from Hawthorne Blvd., and
probably less visible from nearby residents.
Shouldn't that alternative at least be presented? It might even qualify as the "least
intrusive" of all designs (see previous page).
Again this was an error by the Planning Department Staff which must be corrected by
allowing the appeal and/or re -hearing of the matter.
John Freeman Page 6 of 13 March 28, 2014
91)
Alternate locations:
Why weren't several obvious alternate locations considered for this new project?
90% (or perhaps all) of the benefit for these new antennas are for the residents of Palos
Verdes Estates, not RPV. Why aren't several of these locations considered?
Note below from the 2/25/2014 Staff Report, most all of that "white" hexagon shaped
poor reception area is in Palos Verdes Estates, not Rancho Palos Verdes.
John Freeman Page 7 of 13 March 28, 2014
0
Now with the antennas on the 7 -Eleven building, Sprint expects this coverage:
(On rIO V All �TWUAWT. N ® 5nEF?:.
PVE gets all the benefit, while RPV gets all the problems!
John Freeman Page 8 of 13 March 28, 2014
D
Alternate antenna sites
Here are several nearby alternative sites that I have found. I believe any of them would
provide Sprint with even better cell phone coverage and signal strength coverage than
the 7 -Eleven location. Why weren't they presented in the staff report?
NW Corner of 7 -Eleven building. Utilize the black pole in right-of-way
Note the elevation of the utility pole is significantly higher than even the 7 -Eleven roof
and building. The top could be perfect for three small cell phone antennas. It is way
above nearby homes and probably has little view blockage (but that must be carefully
evaluated).
John Freeman Page 9 of 13 March 28, 2014
lob
Co -locate with existing tower at 6233 Monera (RPV) / 2245 Via Cerritos (PVE).
The FCC encourages co -location and this structure appears to be under-utilized.
There's plenty of available space on it.
It is located on the border between PVE and RPV.
It has great coverage of the entire LA basin.
John Freeman Page 10 of 13 March 28, 2014
Other Right-of-way options:
Here is a streamlined mono -pole often used for cell phone antennas. This one is at
Hawthorne Blvd. and San Nicolas.
a.
Elevation of the pole and cell phone antennas does not create significant adverse view
impact, and seems to be accepted by the public.
John Freeman Page 11 of 13 March 28, 2014
/a
Additional right-of-way utility poles higher in elevation that 7 -Eleven with better cell
phone coverage than the 7 -Eleven roof would provide.
There are several other locations such as this on upper Monero Drive near and above
7 -Eleven that should be considered by the Planning Commissioners.
John Freeman Page 12 of 13 March 28, 2014
l3
Significant Adverse Effect:
Why wasn't a before and after analysis conducted of possible adverse home effects and
values on Villa Rosa and other nearby homes that are obviously effected? Would you
pay the same amount for 6332 Villa Rosa Dr. home with that 5 foot 8 inch tall
"decorative" box in your rear facing yard, obstructing your view?
Research and realistic identification of possible adverse effects should be part of the
Staff Report, regardless of whether a nearby resident is personally aware of all the
government process complexities. We can't blame residents for not knowing
everything. We have to be good neighbors and reach out to help each other.
Summary:
Our City and our residents have an obligation to protect the "quality of life" regarding
structures that intrude on the property or air space of our residents. There is a big
difference in sitting in your covered patio looking in your back yard and seeing a green
hedge, blue sky, and ocean vs. looking out and seeing a huge box peering over your
hedge.
No one would ever design a neighborhood so that when you sat in your back yard, you
would see a neighbor's 5' 8" tall box at eye level out the back yard. If anyone would ask
for approval of a 5' 8" tall structure on top of their home, it would get a lot much scrutiny
that this did.
Would you like to look at that box sitting at eye level on your hedge in your back yard?
John Freeman Page 13 of 13 March 28, 2014
From: Eddie Yeh <edyehoo@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 201410:27 AM
To: CC
Cc: So Kim
Subject: FW: Staff Report for Sprint PCS (28041 Hawthorne Blvd) Zone 2013-00111
Attachments: IMG_3692.JPG; letter to City-signed.pdf
Dear Sir:
My name is Eddie Yeh. I live behind 7/11 building for past 17 years as my primary residence. My house has
about 100 ft length adjacent to 7/11 building and is the closest property among all others.
Proposed antennas will be 20 to 30 ft away from my master bed room and living room. Since City approve this
plan on 2/26/2014, I have been trying to convince myself it is OK to look at that antennas for years to come. It
is not an easy task. It is determined not bulky and massive in the last meeting which may be true from other
view angle but not from my backyard or living room. It gives people funny feeling when an industrial structure
is easily identified from living room and backyard. This definitely affects my property value for minimum 3%
to 5%.
I urge the City to find some other solution for antennas. If it really have to be on roof top of 28041 Hawthorne
Blvd, please place it not within our view frame from backyard or minimum 150 feet away from our living
area.
Eddie
Homeowner of 6338 Villa Rosa Dr., RPV, CA 90275
From: So Kim [mailto:SoK@rpv.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 8:02 AM
To: Maggie Kerkhof; 'j135cooper@yahoo.com'; Eddie Yeh; John Freeman; bconmast@msn.com; jcinpv@cox.net
Cc: Joel Rojas
Subject: Staff Report for Sprint PCS (28041 Hawthorne Blvd)
Morning,
The Staff Report for the April 15t City Council meeting related to Sprint PCS is now available on-
line. http:l/www.palosverdes.com/``rpvZcitycouncil/`agendas/2014 A endas Meetin Date -2014-04-
01 RPVCCA CC SR 2014 04 01 02 Appeal of CUP Revision 28041 Hawthorne. df
Sincerely,
So Kim
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
(310) 5445228
To: Community Development Department of City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, RPV, CA 90275
From: Yuhung Edward Yeh and Nancy Shiue
Owner of 6338 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Subject: Zone 2013-00111
Dear Sir:
We are owners of 6338 Villa Rosa Dr., RPV, CA 90275 which is directly behind property of 28041
Hawthorne Blvd. We have been stayed in this place since July of 1998 as our principal residence. Below
is an illustration of proposed antenna relative to our house.
Cooling
facility
(noise)
My House: 6338
Villa Rosa
Rough location of
proposed antenna
C
U
When the first time we heard about owner of 28041 wants to put cell phone antenna on roof back in
2004, we are kind of glad about it due to poor cell phone reception in general on the hill. At that time,
those antennas are kind of below ridge line of structure and painted clay color which make them
merged into roof structure well. Also, they are below our view frame from back yard and don't bother
us all that much. We need to be within 5 feet of our property line to see those antennas. The only thing
that is bothering us is noise from some sort of cooling fan located somewhere near red circle and is
about 15 to 20 feet away from our house. It doesn't usually up and running. But, it is very annoying
when it is up and running especially in summer night. Not being a noise expert, we don't know its noise
level in terms of DB but it is about the same level as human conversation 5 to 10 feet away from us.
Roughly two years ago, owner of 28041 Hawthorne proposed another antenna structure which we
believed will merge into structure well as last time. So, we did not pay too much attention to it.
However, it is different this time. It doesn't merge into roof structure well at all. A picture is taken from
our living room. Well, we need to say that this picture is zoomed in many times so it doesn't look all
that bad from our living room. For your reference, this antenna is about 175 ft away from my house. So,
we don't really like it but it is acceptable to us.
Right after the second sets of antenna were done about late 2013, we receive the 3`d set of antenna
proposal notice. This time, it is about 50 feet away from my living area or 25 feet away from my
property line. See picture taken from my living room below.
D
My concerns are in two folds.
1) Esthetically, it really affects our view toward ocean. It gives people funny feeling when you have
very industrial structure right next to our property. This definitely affects my property value for
minimum 3% to 5%.
2) With all of these new antennas, cooling requirement will increase. This will definitely increase
noise level from cooling fan that we heard from past years.
We urge owner of 28041 Hawthorne Blvd to relocate antennas to other location of properties which is
at least not within our view frame or minimum 150 feet away from our living area. Besides, antenna
structure should merge into roof structure well and is not easily identified. We also want owner of
28041 Hawthorne Blvd to investigate noise generated from cooling facility. If possible, replace those
motors with some other low noise level motors.
Sincerely yours,
Owner of 6338 Villa Rosa Drive
Y�"q uiww� Yeh 2/9/2014
Yuhung Edward Yeh Date
Nan y SGi o 2/9/2014
Nancy Shiue Date
G)
MIMI -
F
.. i•�. m 'cam. r� V
wG �• r. Ate. �•_ A' - �_.:� .� _ 106
talk
41 i
J I 1CF
a•.4.
From:
cicoriae@aol.com
Sent:
Monday, March 31, 2014 2:51 PM
To:
Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Joel Rojas; CC
Subject:
Inspiration Pt and archery lanes
Ara,
I understand the City's concerns and rationale for removing from the NCCP part of the 40 acre parcel that is referred to as
the Archery Range Property as described in the Staff Report re same. I don't understand, however, why the City doesn't
do a lot line adjustment and leave part of that parcel in the NCCP--the part that the City shouldn't be grading and
dumping on anyway --that is, the archery lanes and, most importantly, the part of Inspiration Pt that is identified
as being located within that parcel.
It seems to me that Portuguese Bend Club should have no problem releasing any rights they have over part of Inspiration
Pt, at the least, and perhaps the archery lanes as well, if they care about preservation of the coastline in perpetuity from
future development. Has anybody asked? (That's not a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know.)
I believe we should all be in agreement on this: Do what you need to do to save the roadway--yes--but, to the extent
possible, preserve from development in perpetuity this exceptionally scenic coastal property. As we've seen before,
simply zoning a parcel for conservation, open space, agriculture, or anything else, is a temporary condition.
Eva
o J
From: Andrea Vona <avona@pvplc.org>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:37 PM
To: CC
Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
Subject: comment letter re Archery lands
Attachments: ArcheryLands_2014.pdf
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
Please find the attached comment letter regarding the proposed removal of the archery range property from the Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve.
Sincerely,
Andrea
Andrea Vona
Executive Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road, #207
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc.org
310-541-7613 X204
310-541-7623 (fax)
310-930-0583 (cell)
Preserving land and restoring habitat far the education and enjoyment of all.
join our mailing list
Join us 91
PRESERVING LAND AND RESTORING HABITAT FOR THE EDUCATION AND ENJOYMENT OF ALL
March 31, 2014
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: Archery Range Property
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council members,
As manager of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (the "Preserve"), we find it incumbent to
comment on the proposed withdrawal of the archery range property from the Preserve. While
we understand that withdrawal of this property is the result of circumstances unique to this
property, we would like to emphasize that we consider such withdrawals generally not
appropriate.
In this instance, we recognize that we do not hold a conversation easement over the property
and the City has a prior commitment to the Portuguese Bend Club community which allows for
grading. Grading of the land is not consistent with the Preserve and would make any current
or future preservation and restoration of the habitat on the property impractical.
On reflection, it is clear to us that we should not have initially consented to enrollment of the
property into the Preserve. In the future, prior to management, the Land Conservancy will
accept only lands for which conservation easements are in place at the time they come into the
Preserve. The due diligence involved with the placement and recordation of a conservation
easement also serves to identify potential issues related to the management of the property and
to insure that the property is suitable for inclusion in the Preserve. Such due diligence serves
the interest of all parties.
Sincerely,
Bill Swank, President Board of Directors Andrea Vona, Executive Director
cc: Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development
916 SILVER SPUR ROAD # 207. ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7613 WWW.PVPLC.ORG
0