Loading...
20141007 Late CorrespondenceFrom: Kit Fox To: Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: 10-14-14 State Lands Commission Meeting, Rancho LPG Agenda Item Date: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 5:03:32 PM Late Correspondsnce on Item D. Kit Sent using OWA for Whone From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com> Sent: Monday, October 6, 2014 9:45:34 AM To: det310@juno.com; connie@rutter.us; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; konnica@ca.rr.com; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net; jhwinkler@me.com; burlingl02@aol.com; fbmjet@aol.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; pmwarren@cox.net; igornla@cox.net; billharris2275@gmail.com; radlsmith@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com, katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; deartoni@yahoo.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcgloba1.net; bonbon90731@gmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; geichfamily@yahoo.com; burlingl02@aol.com; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; Kit Fox; hanslaetz@gmail.com; joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; marciesmiller@sbcgloba1.net; jnm4ej@yahoo.com; billgallegos@cbecal.org; james@randomlengthsnews.com; ksmith@klct.com; gregg.p@whisinc.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; darzavalney@aol.com Cc: noelweiss0498@gmail.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; amartinez@earthjustice.org; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlprod uctions.org; fxfeeney@aol.com Subject: Fwd: 10-14-14 State Lands Commission Meeting, Rancho LPG Agenda Item This is a very important meeting .... and I'm hoping that we can get a good group of folks to show up. The issue for State Lands is the use of the Gaffey St. area rail line that transports this highly explosive commodity across port property. That property is held in "trust" for the benefit of the people of the state of California. (under State Lands guardianship) While the LPG company "was" a previous tenant of the Port of LA, they are no longer. That means that since approximately 2005, the City of LA has been approving a monthly roll over, revocable permit to Amerigas/Rancho LPG (a private company with no ties to the port) that allows them to move the hazardous butane and propane rail cars. The Rancho LPG facility does not have insurance for commensurate potential damage. Using the EPA formula for worst case blast radius for flammables, the radius of impact from one of Rancho's two 12.5 million gallon butane tanks is 3.1 miles. Once the cargo is on the rail, they have no legal obligation to have insurance. Attached see the rail accident of March 8, 2012 that miraculously escaped tank rupture. This happened upon the very rail spur whose permit is approved by the Port of LA, as the children (1200 ft. away) were being released from Taper Ave. Elementary. The blast radius from a single 30,000 gallon butane gas rail car is .42 mile. We know that there are always multiple rail cars. Essentially, what Rancho LPG is currently able to do regarding this rail use, is to "privatize the profits of their operation while they socialize their extreme risks". The question becomes how/why is the City, the Port and State Lands accommodating a "private" business operation on the backs of the public. The Port receives a sum of approximately $1300/mo. from the roll over permit. This is an outrageous breach of the "public trust". LA City Councilman Joe Buscaino, LA Mayor Eric Garcetti and many others have all claimed that there is no way that they can affect change in this "grandfathered" operation. Here is a time where they most certainly can! Everyone should contact them prior to this meeting to push them to act responsibly in this matter! Otherwise, they will continue to ignore the issue as they have been doing. We anticipate that the Rancho/Plains All American lobbying effort will threaten legal action against the City and "caution" the City and State about how the close of rail use would dramatically increase a "more hazardous" condition by shifting this explosive gas to truck transport. However, that threat may or may not ever be realized since trucks cannot accommodate the volume of the rail car, and this is a much more costly option. In reality, this company (which is insolvent and in debt to the parent company of over $50 million already) would be facing a major decision as to the feasibility of the business under such a reduced condition. Besides, the State, Port and City can only look at those areas under their control .... and this is one. So, this should be the first step in a serious attempt to resolve the risk exposure and save the harbor area from harm. At this point, we would be addressing only the explosive opportunity for disaster from the rail. In light of the recent rail disasters from crude oil (a commodity that is normally "non -explosive") that have been causing death and destruction to Canada and the US, this highly explosive gas transport of LPG should be causing great concern. I will be driving to this meeting and can accommodate 6 people in my van. Please let me know if you want to attend, and if you need transportation. Best to you all, Janet (310)251-7075 From: Kim Lunetta Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 5:36 PM To: noelweiss(cbca.rr.com Subject: 10-14-14 Commission Meeting Agenda To view this email as a web page, go here. El The next meeting of the California State Lands Commission will take place Tuesday, October 14, 2014, at 1 pm in Santa Monica. Please click on the following link to view notice and agenda: http://www.slc.ca.gov/Meeting_Summaries/10-14-14/Agenda.htm This email was sent by: California State Lands Commission 100 Howe Ave, Suite 100 South Sacramento, CA, 95825-8202, Update Profile Unsubscribe This email was sent to: noelweiss@)ca.rr.com This email was sent by: California State Lands Commission 100 Howe Ave, Suite 100 South Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 CFFY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 7, 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 2 Emails from: Mayor Duhovic; Joe Anderson Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, October 6, 2014**. W:WGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20141007 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Jerry Duhovic <councilmanduhovic@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 7:44 AM To: CC Subject: FW: photos 32039 Sea Ridge Cir, Anderson's Attachments: front yard outhouse removed 100614 jpg; new location of outhouse 100614jpg; side yard covered 100614 jpg FYI From: fineartpaintings@outlook.com To: jerry.duhovic@rpv.com Subject: photos 32039 Sea Ridge Cir. Anderson's Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 00:42:10 -0700 Dear Mayor Dehovic: I have attached three photos from the front yard. Your suggestions worked really well. The outhouse is no longer visible. The side yard is covered so you cannot see down the alley. The front looks so much better. The men has started cleaning up the hillside, and should have it finished tomorrow. I requested that the landscaper come in and now complete his work. Thank you very much for your help Joe Anderson a N 1 A ■ � r I From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi Carla — Late correspondence for Item 2. 7i�Ti1!�I CP Carolynn Petru Tuesday, October 07, 2014 3:18 PM Carla Morreale Teresa Takaoka FW: energy commission approves more efficient buildings for California future News Release - Energy Commission Approves More Efficient Buildings for Calif whole house fan.pdf From: Fineart paintings [mailto:fineartpaintings@outlook.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 2:18 PM To: Joel Rojas; Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Carolynn Petru; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Carolynn Petru Subject: energy commission approves more efficient buildings for California future The attached article from California Energy commission applies to new construction. As of January 1, 2014 whole house fans are required. I put in the first retrofit fans on the block. I am paying a price for being first. Hopefully, the rest of the neighbors will also put in whole house fan. Conservation is part is something we should all do. Thank you Joe Anderson News Release - Energy Commission Approves More Efficient Buildings for California's Future dane -* relea. -:�> 221z_[glUL_Q_a >> 2012-05-31 energy commission approves more efficient buildings nr O.G4�0V ENE RGYCOMMISSION For Immediate Release: May 31, 2012 Media Contact: Adam Gottlieb - 916-654-4989 News Release Energy Approves o Buildings •California's Better Windows, Whole House Fans, Solar -Ready Roofs Considered SACRAMENTO - In a move to reduce energy costs, save consumers money, and increase comfort, the California Energy Commission today unanimously approved energy efficiency standards for new homes and commercial buildings. "Improving the energy efficiency of buildings in which we will live and work will save Californians energy for decades," said Energy Commissioner Karen Douglas. "These Standards will help save consumers money on their utility bills, keep them comfortable in their homes, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through better, more efficient buildings." The Energy Commission's 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent more efficient than previous standards for residential construction and 30 percent better for nonresidential construction. The Standards, which take effect on January 1, 2014, offer builders better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. Some improved measures in the Standards include: Residential: r Solar -ready roofs to allow homeowners to add solar photovoltaic panels at a future date More efficient windows to allow increased sunlight, while decreasing heat gain Insulated hot water pipes, to save water and energy and reduce the time it takes to deliver hot water >> Whole house fans to cool homes and attics with evening air reducing the need for air conditioning load Air conditioner installation verification to insure efficient operation Nonresidential: High performance windows, sensors and controls that allow buildings to use "daylighting" Efficient process equipment in supermarkets, computer data centers, commercial kitchens, laboratories, and parking garages http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2012_releases/2012-05-31_ energy _commission_approves_more_efficient_buildings_nr.htm][9/21/2014 1:05:59 PM] News Release - Energy Commission Approves More Efficient Buildings for California's Future :> Advanced lighting controls to synchronize light levels with daylight and building occupancy, and provide demand response capability •% Solar -ready roofs to allow businesses to add solar photovoltaic panels at a future date ­» Cool roof technologies On average, the Standards will increase the cost of constructing a new home by $2,290 but will return more than $6,200 in energy savings over 30 years. Based on a 30 -year mortgage, the standards will add approximately $11 per month for the average home, but save consumers $27 on monthly heating, cooling, and lighting bills. Within the first year of implementation, the Standards are projected to add up to 3,500 new building industry jobs as well as save million gallons of water per year. After 30 years of implementing the Standards, California will save nearly 14,000 megawatt hours or enough electricity to power 1.7 million homes and avoid the need to construct six new power plants. Two energy policy goals are driving the design of the current standards: The Loading Order, which directs that growing demand must be met first with cost-effective energy efficiency and next with renewable generation; and "Zero Net Energy" (ZNE) goals for new homes by 2020 and commercial buildings by 2030. The ZNE goal means that new buildings must use a combination of improved efficiency and distributed renewable generation to meet 100 percent of their annual energy need. By working closely with the building industry and other stakeholders, the Energy Commission developed standards that recognized the challenges facing builders and provided the industry flexibility and options for meeting the standards. Supporters include: California Building Industry Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; Pacific Gas & Electric; Southern California Edison; San Diego Gas & Electric; Southern California Gas, American Council for an Energy -Efficient Economy (ACEEE); Alliance to Save Energy; Building Code Assistance Project; and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. Since 1978, the California Energy Commission has saved Californians $66 billion in electricity and natural gas costs through energy efficient building and appliance standards. What others are saying: "With the residential construction industry still struggling to emerge from the worst economic downturn in 60 years, the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) supports the Energy Commission's 2013 building energy efficiency standards to balance the state's objectives of achieving greater levels of energy efficiency with the need for housing affordability," said Layne Marceau, Northern California Division President for Shea Homes and Chairman of the CBIA Governmental Affairs Committee. "Because of the Energy Commission's latest standards, new homes and buildings in California will use approximately 25 percent less energy for decades to come due to energy efficient windows, insulation, and better designed hot water heating systems. These standards are wildly cost effective and will ensure every new building constructed in the state is an energy efficient one. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) supports the adoption of these standards as they represent the first step towards California reaching its statewide goal of achieving Zero Net Energy homes by 2020," said Noah Horowitz, Senior Scientist at the NRDC. "PG&E is a strong supporter of codes and standards as a vital tool in helping California achieve its clean energy goals. The California Energy Commission's work on building standards is integral to California's long-standing leadership in energy efficiency. The building standards adopted today, which represent a balancing of many interests, are a cost-effective way to help customers save money on their energy bills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Steve Malnight, Vice President of Customer Energy Solutions for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. More information is available here: ltttf .!� /wWW eilergy.ca.govltitle24/2013slandards/ru makinal http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2012_releases/2012-05-31 energy_commission_approves_more efficient_buildings_nr.htmi[9/21/2014 1:05:59 PM] News Release - Energy Commission Approves More Efficient Buildings for California's Future Copyright © 1994-2012 California Energy Commission, All Rights Reserved State of California, Jerry Brown, Governor Last Modified: 05/31/12 http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2012_releases/2012-05-31_energy_commission_approves_more_efficient_buildings_nr.html[9/21/2014 1:05:59 PM] CITY OF rt t RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2014 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attachedarerevisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, October 7, 2014 City Council meeting: D G 2 Respectfully submitted, te/r' Carla Morreale Description of Materials Update regarding State Lands Commission Agenda Signed copy of Amendment No. 1 to the PV Shores Agreement Letter from Kathleen Anderson; Emails from: Randy Ellen Ross; Dora Zhang; Rob Kautz - W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20141007 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc MEMORANDUM ILARANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KIT FOX, AICP, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2014 SUBJECT: LATE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE RANCHO LPG BUTANE STORAGE FACILITY (BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT — AGENDA ITEM `D') Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro) Shortly after the completion of tonight's Border Issues Status Report, Staff received notice from the State Lands Commission (SLC) that the Rancho LPG rail spur permit issue will appear on the SLC agenda of October 14, 2014. The SLC meeting will begin at 1:00 PM in the East Wing of the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, located at 1855 Main St., Santa Monica, CA 90401. The SLC meeting agenda and Staff reports may be reviewed on-line at http://www,slc.ca.gov/Meeting_ Summaries/10-14-14/Agenda.htm. The Rancho LPG matter is Item No. 109 on the Regular Calendar (Section VI). Staff plans to attend the SLC meeting and report back to the City Council in the October 15th Weekly Administrative Report. MABorder Issues\Staff Reports\20141007_CC_LateCorrespondence.docx J 0 AMENDMENT NO. I RIGHT OF ACCESS AGREEMENT Between: City of Rancho Palos Verdes & Palos Verdes Shores Mobile Estates, Ltd. This Amendment No, 1 ("Amendment") to Right of Access Agreement is made and entered into as of October , 2014, by and between the Palos Verdes Shores Mobile Estates, Ltd., a California limited partnership ("Grantor") and City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a California municipal corporation ("City"), RECITALS: A. City and Grantor entered into that certain Right of Access Agreement dated April 16, 2013 (the "Agreement"). All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings specified in the Agreement. B. The License Work has been completed. C. City and Grantor have inspected the Property and all drainage structures located within or immediately adjacent to the Property, and evaluated the extent of any damage caused by the City Parties in connection with the Agreement. D. City and Grantor desire to amend the Agreement regarding the obligation of City to repair and restore property damaged by the City Parties in connection with the Agreement. - NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Grantor do hereby agree as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Settlement of City liability for Grantor's Property: The Parties agree that a lump sum payment to Grantor in the amount of $75,000 shall fully compensate Grantor for construction related damages, wear and tear, and all other claims arising from Section 1.4 of the Agreement, relating to damage to the Property and all drainage structures located within or immediately adjacent to the Property. Upon such payment City shall have no further obligation to repair and restore the Property, including but not limited to the asphalt surface and substructure of the private streets, landscaping, curbing, and any concrete drainage structures located within or immediately adjacent to the Property. 3. City Liability for Utilities: City hereby agrees to repair, or cause the repair, of R6876-0001\17540864.doo U any damage to the utilities on or under the Property caused by the City Parties in the exercise of rights granted by the Agreement, for which a claim is delivered to City prior to September 15, 2015. Except as set forth in this paragraph 3, City shall have no further obligation to repair and restore the utilities on Grantor's property. 4. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Agreement (including but not limited to Section 1.4) and this Amendment, the provisions of this Amendment shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and the City have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first written above. GRANTOR: 'PALOS VERDES SHORES MOBILE HOME ESTATES, LTD., a California Limited Partnership By: Vedder Community Management LLC, its General Partner By: Phillip J. Vedder Its Managing Member Address for notices: \/\filliarn C. Schweinfurth Director of Operations Vedder Community Management LLC 28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 220 Agoura Hills, CA 91301(818) 735-6200 (818) 735-6205 fax With a copy to: Community Manager Palos Verdes Shores Mobile Estates 2275 W. 25h Street San Pedro, California 90732 (310) 547-4403 (310) 547-4405 fax (Signatures Continue On The Next Page] 86876-000111 764086v2.doc K a [Signatures Continued From The Previous Page] CITY: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES By: Name: Title: Mayor Address for notices: 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Attention: Ron Dragoo, Senior Engineer Telephone No.: (310) 544-5252 Facsimile No.: (310) 544-5292 [With a copy to:] Carol W. Lynch, Esq. Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone No.: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile No,: (213) 626-0078 City Clerk R687"001 \1 764086v2.doc K M From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Late correspondence for item#2. Joel Rojas Friday, October 03, 2014 12:14 PM Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Paul Christman; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> FW: Anderson update post ordinance kath letter 10022014.docx From: Kath Anderson [mailto:verybarikath@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 10:44 AM To: Joel Rojas Subject: Anderson update post ordinance Dear Mr. Rojas Please review my letter of 10/2/14. 1 hope this will help provide insightful information about our current project.We have not been able to properly voice our concerns and explain the preexisting problems to the city council. As you know many of those issues have been resolved within this last year. We essentially had been held hostage by our former contractor from 2009-2013 whom we dismissed in October 2013 (after the ordinance had been passed). Our neighbors have never had a full realization of the scope of the issues that my family has been dealing with, and have never asked. They only had asked when we would be finished. We would respond per what we were told by the contractor's foreman- that it would be three to four months. We were clearly being taken advantage of and the timing of the project was misrepresented. My family has greatly suffered during the last five years and we are finally in control of the project and getting it done with an end in near sight. I look forward to reading your report and recommendations to the council as your thoughts carry a lot of weight. o� - 10/02/2014 Dear Council Members, Mayor Duhovic, City Manager and City Attorney Joel Rojas, Community Development Director, Paul Christman Inspector The urgency ordinance was passed last year with the intention to help incentivize the completion and finalization of outstanding permits on the rebuild and earthquake retrofit of our home at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle. It was also stated that this ordinance was not "just for the Andersons" but for all citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes. I stood before the council and pleaded that certain conditions can and do exist that can result in delays in getting construction finished within a predetermined normal time frame, and that extenuating circumstances must be considered and remedies be put in place to help relieve homeowners if such an ordinance were to pass. The council chose to consider the ordinance a month later. When the council met the following month, last minute emails and correspondence from Randy Ross had been submitted which had been reviewed by council, but not by the Andersons. We did not have the opportunity to review or absorb her objections to permits being issued while existing permits were still effective, or her objection to the language of the revised ordinance. We had not been aware of the mass campaign of complaints that the neighbors were constantly sending to the Mayor, RPV staff, and the members of the city council. Councilman Jim Knight was correct in thinking that by not allowing new and very necessary permits to be issued while the existing permits were valid would compel construction to take longer. The domino effect is that the council made a decision to pass an ordinance that created havoc, turmoil and distress without having all of the facts. I wanted to speak again after the council members were having their discussion, but was not given the opportunity. We have become victims of an ordinance that was passed that did not consider a full realization as to what the ordinance would in reality do to us. I had typed out a 9 page letter that tells only part of the story of what we have lived through for the past 5 years. I decided that I would just give you a briefer version of the conditions that existed from 2009 to the passing of the ordinance in October 2013, and what has been accomplished in the last year. We hired a contractor that had been recommended by our architect. This contractor was in charge of the house from 2009 -October 2013. The initial construction was to build an art studio. Caissons were dug in order to support and anchor the structure and to be earthquake safe. Steel beams were used in the caissons and to support the integrity of the unique roof. We had problems with the initial subcontractor about how slow the digging was going. He was dismissed and another sub was brought in to dig and install the caissons. We had an AC/heat subcontractor that also had to be dismissed. I will be happy to provide details in another venue. The foreman of the contractor informed us that there were issues with the initial building from 1982. We had a structural engineer go over the plans, and followed his recommendation to earthquake retrofit- adding sheer walls and in some places, steel beams for support. The project continued as walls were demolished and replaced with material (sheer walls or steel) to help strengthen the house. The master bedroom needed sheer walls also. We decided at that time, while walls were open, to slightly enlarge the ocean side of the room as the original plan was a bit awkward. Plans were submitted, approved, engineering approved and work proceeded. Caissons were dug and steel beams were put in place for support. The library is adjacent to the master bedroom. That whole room was demolished while we were away on vacation. We had instructed the contractor that if the conditions of the walls were as in poor shape as the walls that had already replaced, it would be easier and faster to just take down the stone and wood wall and rebuild it stronger. We ended up replacing the entire south wall with glass which actually was faster than replacing the stone face. All along the way, the contractor was pulling permits as allowed. The pace of the work was very slow. Each room of the house ended up needing major work. When work was being done in the interior courtyard to improve drainage, we were told that the foundation under the gym was not there or up to code. This was serious. Again, another round of structural engineering was designed, planning approval and building permits obtained- as they should have been, and that part of the house was now being torn down. We then had more discovery of steel reinforcement beams that had been placed 14 years before and found that they were not properly attached or welded. This now meant that the entire master bath and the upstairs had to be reworked- this was purely for SAFETY. About this time, my next door neighbor asked me when we were going to finish. Seeing that the rate of rebuild was very slow, I told her honestly that "I didn't know ". What seemed like a simple tear down and rebuild was going very slowly. The city started to slow the work in response to the neighbors' complaints about construction. Nobody talked to us about the problems that we were facing or that major issues needed to be resolved. Mayor Susan Brooks came up to visit in spring of 2013. 1 told her that anything that had needed to be torn down was down. There wasn't any more building to destroy. We were anxious about getting the house put back together. It wasn't simply a matter of encouraging us to finish. We were rebuilding to correct defects. We wanted the construction to go as quickly as possible as we were being displaced in the home as rooms were being destroyed and very slowly rebuilt. The east side of the house had a problem with water that was pouring into a trench from the Glantz' property. The trench was dug when we corrected a sewer pipe that was found by camera scope to be sloping upwards under my kitchen, instead of correctly sloping downwards. The side pipes were exposed so that the slope of the pipe could be corrected. The pipe did not leak. This correction eliminated the annual visit from a rotor service. Our pool was not leaking, and we had exposed water pipes that clearly showed that they did not leak. The Glantzes denied on many occasions that the water was not their water- that it had to be our water. We were compelled to keep the trench open until a solution could be found. Last year, the Glantzes pulled out their palm trees that were causing our wall to lean, and replanted other foliage. When they stopped irrigating for several months due to their landscaping redo, the trench was dry for the first time. Now, as of today, water still continues to seep under our privacy wall, and the wall of the Glantzes. Their permit states that the water needs to be controlled. We have insulated heated pipes that are not supposed to get wet. I have no control over how someone else waters their plants. I am unable to set cement in order to place my mechanical so that we could wrap up the east side of the house. After the ordinance passed last year, we no longer were able to work with the contractor. We had lost confidence in his ability to finish the job, and we no longer trusted his foreman. We spoke with other contractor friends of ours, and they helped us to get a new carpenter. We already had tile, granite, plumbing, solar, electrical, radiant heat, drywall and painting subs that were doing well on the job. My family and I spent weeks sorting through the garage so we would even know what had been brought on site. This was a "clean house" attack on separating construction materials from the plumbing and electrical that was everywhere. I had just months to get to rough inspection and then to finish. The general contractor had used up too much time and had not gotten to finish fast enough- especially since the rules had now changed 4/5 into the project. This timing is uniquely unfair to us as I was only able to get from rough to drywall inspection before the permit for the rebuild expired. We were now stuck with an unfinished portion of the house and no way to obtain a final as we were not allowed to work on the rebuild. We were finally allowed to work on the exterior of the house for the benefit of the neighborhood. We were allowed 90 days, minus the 10 days for discussion. We had the tile/stone subs working to complete the exterior of the front of the house and west side as per Inspector Paul's direction. We had to stop all work that could have been done by the other subs, i.e. electrical, plumbing, lathe, and finish on the drywall, and importantly getting the floor installed. The floor needed to go in first before the cabinets could be placed- which is before the counter tops, sink and then finally the finish plumbing. By the time we were allowed back into the interior, the permit was going to expire, and we had no hope of getting to a final inspection in time. Mayor Brooks asked me at the time of the discussion with council about the ordinance if I agreed that it was a good idea — the ordinance to limit permits and extensions on projects taking four years or more. At the time I agreed as she stated that we would not be affected as we had a permit until Feb 2015. 1 also warned that there are conditions that must be taken into consideration to allow a homeowner to finish their work. The "one size fits rule" does not work in our circumstance. In effect, we were totally impacted and are unable to finish the house under the ordinances conditions. Here's why: 1. The rules changed during a critical time of rebuild on the master bath, gym, and upper bedroom and bathroom. It was impossible to get from where the rebuild was in October 2013 to finish February 2014. We had needed 3 months just to get to rough inspection in January 2013. Prior to the ordinance, contractors could pull permits as needed so that inspections and code could be tracked. If the city requires a permit, time should be allowed to have the work performed. This unique house was trapped by a rule change during reconstruction. Our former contractor had continued to pull permits to allow work on fixing the house could be legally done as required. He was critically slow in rebuilding. 2. We had received planning approval for solar prior to the ordinance change. We had not pulled a permit as there was too much work to do on the house, and I did not want the clock to start on the replacement of solar. We originally had solar on the roofs. The house heat and cooling is connected through heat pumps that circulate water through the solar panels and the pool. The ordinance in effect stopped us from being able to install solar which is integral to the heating and cooling of the house. 3. The pool is 35 years old and needs to be resurfaced. This requires a permit from the city. We also need the pool for the radiant heating system. Again, we are forced to" fail to finish" due to the ordinance. We have not been able to close out a mechanical permit because I need solar and pool resurfacing permits in order to close that permit out. The Catch 22 scenario is fully realized at our house. 4. We would like to obtain a permit for 220 electrical so that the electric cars can be quickly charged. I am requesting that my house reconstruction be allowed amnesty or a variance from the ordinance that was placed last year, and that no further ordinances be passed that would be punitive to our family. In the past 11 months, since we have been in charge of the work, we have taken the house from disaster to 90% finish. The exterior is neat and flowery. We were able to fill in the trenches in the front of the house so that for the first time in years, I am able to park several cars in my driveway. The neighbors were complaining about the site having constant construction and extra cars on the street. We have only subs that need to be working on the project, and most of them have small cars. Gone are the days of the huge construction vehicles. Most of the noise of cutting stone and tile was in direct relationship to finishing most of the tile and stone work on the sides of the house. I have trenches on both sides of the house that still need completion. The east side is the side with the chronic water problem from the Glantz' property. The civil engineers designed additional drainage on our property side to handle their water. Once that is completed, I will be able to finish that side of the house, pour cement and set my mechanical in place. The boiler then can be installed so that the radiant heating will be able to pass the final inspection. Once the cement is poured, the final line of tile will be installed. The neighbor's water has been the MAIN holdup on finish on the east side of the house. We have lost an entire YEAR of being able to replace our solar and resurface the pool. It is imperative that each council member, the mayor, city manager and city attorney come up a see the house for yourself before you have in-depth discussion as to what needs to happen or not. This home is unique and a work of art; it is not the standard stucco box with a tile roof. The materials are mostly stone, copper and glass. The infrastructure has totally been redone, and the home is earthquake retrofitted. Most, if not all of the neighbors' complaints are now moot. The noise that Phyllis and Bill Glantz complained about was in response to that side of the house finally being finished, with workers having to work around an open trench due to their water problem which then became our problem. The scaffolding was up to allow the tile to be installed that was visible from their property. We only recently were able to mostly finish the rest of the wall, and will finish the border row once the new drainage is in place. The scaffolding is down, and only minimal cosmetic tiling needs to be done after the trenches are complete, including the drainage. The slope no longer has any pipes that were of issue to the Pacifica resident. We desperately need a permit for the pool resurfacing, and I am requesting that a pool resurfacing permit be immediately allowed. We had obtained planning approval for the solar arrays, but did not pull the permit. We were interested in completing work within permitted time. We also need a permit for the solar so that the radiant heating system and the heat pumps can work. We have been working very hard, smart and diligently to complete a project that was still in a mess last year. The ordinance interfered with progress, and we lost 11 months of valuable time being told NO. This ordinance may be useful for projects just getting started, but for us, it just dragged out the agony that much longer. Our incentive to finish is to live in our house without construction. We do not need to be punished. The city ordinance of 2013 obstructed our attempts to get the project finished. Please call me at your earliest convenience. We look forward to meeting each of you. Sincerely, Kathleen Anderson Verybarikath@hotmail.com 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 From: Ross, Randy <randy.ross@blross.com> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 8:10 AM To: Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell; Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: October 7, 2014 City Council Meeting - Sea Ridge Circle Construction Proposal Dear Mayor Duhovic and Members of the City Council, I have reviewed the proposal that will be presented at the meeting on October 7, 2014 to address the ongoing construction by the Andersons at 23039 Sea Ridge Circle. My husband and I will be unable to attend the meeting because of family commitments, but I would like to express my support for the proposal. I think it is reasonable, well thought out and long overdue. The Andersons have done a good job of cleaning up the front of their home. It looks very nice. However, the back and the sides of the home are still unsightly and the noise and debris continue to disrupt life for some of the neighbors. While the Andersons again may claim to be almost done, the same refrain we have heard for years, I believe the proposed ordinances are essential. Thank you very much for your concern and for addressing the needs of the community. Very truly yours, Randy Ellen Ross 32026 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho Palos Verdes a o From: Dora Zhang <dorahyl@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 8:42 AM To: Ross, Randy Cc: Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell; Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Re: October 7, 2014 City Council Meeting - Sea Ridge Circle Construction Proposal Dear Mayor and City Councils, Please do not approve permit for their pool. Mrs Anderson asked me which day is better for them to do pool if they get the permit. She told me the noise level will be very "extreme" when the big machine taking out the old surface of the pool. I am almost terrified, it means the noise and dust level will be way worser than what we are suffering now. Please do not issue the permit for their pool. Our tolerance limit is up! We need our peaceful life back. Dora Zhang > On 6 Oct, 2014, at 8:10 am, Ross, Randy <randy.ross@blross.com> wrote: > > Dear Mayor Duhovic and Members of the City Council, > I have reviewed the proposal that will be presented at the meeting on October 7, 2014 to address the ongoing construction by the Andersons at 23039 Sea Ridge Circle. > My husband and I will be unable to attend the meeting because of family commitments, but I would like to express my support for the proposal. I think it is reasonable, well thought out and long overdue. > The Andersons have done a good job of cleaning up the front of their home. It looks very nice. However, the back and the sides of the home are still unsightly and the noise and debris continue to disrupt life for some of the neighbors. While the Andersons again may claim to be almost done, the same refrain we have heard for years, I believe the proposed ordinances are essential. > > Thank you very much for your concern and for addressing the needs of the community. > Very truly yours, > Randy Ellen Ross > 32026 Sea Ridge Circle > Rancho Palos Verdes From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 2:20 PM To: Carla Morreale Cc: Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: October 7, 2014 City Council Meeting - Sea Ridge Circle Construction Proposal From: Rob Kautz [mailto:rfkautz@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 20141:38 PM To: Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Danise Holloway; Ross, Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Paul Christman Subject: Re: October 7, 2014 City Council Meeting - Sea Ridge Circle Construction Proposal Dear Councilman Campbell, I wanted to thank you for your time last evening and make the connection for you that I and my wife, Danise Holloway, were the people who spoke to you about this situation on the shuttle last night at the PV Pastoral. And to all the members of the council, I wanted to echo Randy Ross's appreciation for the extensive efforts to create a fair set of rules for the community while addressing the specifics on Sea Ridge Circle. Your work to make Rancho Palos Verdes as good as it can be is an honorable mission! My only reservation is that four years is a very long time to wait before beginning to impose sanctions. My wife and I will be out of town traveling during this week's meeting and will not be able to attend in person. I am not copying the entire neighborhood list as my reservation applies to future situations more than the current one. Thinking about our conversation with Councilman Campbell, it occurred to us that the way the ordinance is setting up, the city would be unable to prevent an extreme where neighborhood children did not know what a bucolic residential street life is like for almost all of their young lives, with construction on and off from when they are 3 until they are 13 1/2. And that is just for one resident's legal construction activity. (This math is that one resident can be in construction for four and a quarter years before serious penalties are imposed; then, after 18 months, they could be in construction for another 4 and a quarter years. I am just thinking about a family with children aged 3 when this starts.) While four-plus years of construction may be extremely rare, the rules might as well set the limits to eliminate the extreme behavior. I believe this is the reason the other ordinances that we researched have shorter time periods for smaller projects and a maximum time period at one location of three years for any continuous set of permits. I acknowledge that if the rules get too complex, this could impose additional responsibilities on our planning agencies that may have some cost, but I don't think validating four years as an acceptable performance is the right standard. For me, I believe going forward the maximum time for continuous construction in one location should be three years. After all, the ordinance already has exceptions for emergencies, etc. And the current situation is already a special case which is beyond any norm. Thank you again for all the work you do to help us live the good life in Rancho Palos Verdes! Best regards, Rob Kautz On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Ross, Randy <randy.rossgblross.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Duhovic and Members of the City Council, I have reviewed the proposal that will be presented at the meeting on October 7, 2014 to address the ongoing construction by the Andersons at 23039 Sea Ridge Circle. My husband and I will be unable to attend the meeting because of family commitments, but I would like to express my support for the proposal. I think it is reasonable, well thought out and long overdue. The Andersons have done a good job of cleaning up the front of their home. It looks very nice. However, the back and the sides of the home are still unsightly and the noise and debris continue to disrupt life for some of the neighbors. While the Andersons again may claim to be almost done, the same refrain we have heard for years, I believe the proposed ordinances are essential. Thank you very much for your concern and for addressing the needs of the community. Very truly yours, Randy Ellen Ross 32026 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho Palos Verdes Rob Kautz 310-418-8016