Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20150602 Late Correspondence
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CAROLYNN PETRU, DEPUTY CITY MANAGE@ DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SUPPORT MEASURE M, A LOCAL SCHOOL PARCEL TAX MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT REVIEWED: C.l;\ROL YN LEHR, CITY MANAGER~ Staff Coordinator: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst@ RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District's request for support of Measure M. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2011-, authorizing the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to endorse and support Measure M, a parcel tax measure for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Board of Education voted on July 28, 2011 to place Measure Mon the November 8, 2011 election ballot. Measure M, if passed would replace and extend two existing school parcel tax measures. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) is seeking the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' support and official endorsement. The ballot statement reads as follows: Without increasing existing taxes and to protect the quality of education and promote student achievement shall Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District · extend the existing school parcel taxes to fund advanced programs in math, science and technology, keep classroom technology up-to-date, attract and retain highly qualified teachers, and maintain manageable class sizes, with an exemption for seniors, a cost of living adjustment for inflation, with all money staying in our community to benefit local schools? Request from PVPUSD For City Support of Measure M September 20, 2011 Page2 district to continue to provide advanced academic programs; attract and retain qualified teachers and employees; maintain up-to-date classroom technology, textbooks, and instruction materials; maintain manageable class sizes; and allow for funding for art, music, language.and physical education programs. Measure M will protect over $7 million a year in critical, local education spending. PVPUSD materials state that Peninsula schools have lost over $25 million in State support over a four-year period. While PVPUSD concedes that Measure M will not eliminate all its budget issues, Measure M will reduce the negative impact considerably by saving the equivalent of over ninety teachers, counselors, nurses and support staff. Two-thirds of Peninsula voters supported school parcel taxes Measure Pin 2003 (renewed in 2007) and Measure Vin 2009. These parcel taxes provide a reliable stream of local funding for the district. If passed, Measure M would replace those two parcel taxes with one parcel tax. Measure M will not increase the tax rate and the tax burden will remain at $37 4 per parcel per year, (the same as the combined parcel levies of Measure P and V) with an annual adjustment tied to the Consumer Price Index. Unlike Measures P and V, which will expire in 2013, Measure M has no sunset provision. In 2005, over two-thirds of local voters approved Measures R & S, local school bond measures for PVPUSD infrastructure improvements. Funds from Measures R and S cannot be spent on teachers or programs. Measure M requires two-thirds support to pass. All registered votes who reside within the boundaries of the PVPUSD are eligible to vote. Similar to previous Measures, PVPUSD will establish an independent Citizen's Oversight Committee to ensure that Measure M funds are spent appropriately and in accordance wit the intent of the measure. Funds cannot be spent on administrator salaries or be taken by the State . The Measure also provides an optional exemption for seniors. The PVPUSD Fact Sheet opines that property values and a high quality of community life are closely linked to good schools . FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact resulting from approving the PVPUSD's request for support of Measure M. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2011 - Palos Verdes Peninsula Unifies School District Measure M Fact Sheet Palos Verdes Peninsula Unifies School District Measure M Frequently Asked Questions Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Resolution No . 5-2011/12 7-2 ... :.· .. · ...... ; ...... ·, .. ,., .. . Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Measure M Fact Sheet Measure Mis on the November ballot. Election Day is November 8, 2011 On July 28, 2011, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Board of Education voted to place Measure Mon the November 8, 2011 Election Ballot. The ballot statement reads as follows: Without increasing existing taxes and to protect the quality of education and promote student achievement shall Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District extend the existing school parcel taxes to fond advanced programs in math, science and technology, keep classroom technology up-to- date, attract and retain highly qualified teachers, and maintain manageable class sizes, with an exemption for seniors, a cost of living acijustment for inflation, with all money staying in our community to benefit local schools? What You Need to Know About Measure M: Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District schools have experienced sharp declines in state funding which may get worse with the current budget crisis. As the state has reduced support over the past few years for public schools, Palos Verdes Peninsula voters have approved previous parcel tax measures in the past to address these concerns. This stable source of funding along with the generous support of the Peninsula Education Foundation, PTAs, and Booster Clubs has helped achieve excellence in our neighborhood schools despite unpredictable and inadequate state funding. Due solely to state cutbacks in education funding, the District has lost $25 million in funding over a four-year period and is today still facing over $8 million in additional cuts. Passage of Measure M will address these funding problems. Measure M will preserve: • Maintain advanced programs in math, science and technology • Keep school facilities and grounds clean and well-maintained • Retain qualified and experienced teachers and minimize layoffs • Keep classroom technology, textbooks and materials up-to-date • Preserve programs that help students get into the best colleges and prepare for successful careers • Minimize increases in class sizes Funds can only be used for programs approved by the voters. An independent Citizens' Oversight Committee will oversee the expenditures and ensure funds are spent as promised. Measure Mfunds must be spent locally to benefit Palos Verdes Peninsula children. No funds from the parcel tax can be used for administrative salaries. All money raised by Measure M stays in our community. Good schools are the foundation of a quality community. Good schools protect property values and contribute to our high quality of life. Maintenance of our exemplary school programs is an investment in our community. Ballots arrive the week of October 10, 2011. Election Day is November 8, 2011. The last day to register to vote in this election is October 24, 2011. If you have questions and/or feedback about the district budget and/or programs, please contact Walker Williams, Superintendent, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District at: supt@pvpusd .k12.ca. us. 7-5 How can I be sure Measure M funds will be spent properly? An independent Citizens' Oversight Committee will oversee the Measure M expenditures and ensure they are spent as voters intended. By law, Measure M funds can only be spent as described in the measure. Funds cannot be spent on administrator salaries or be taken away by the State. Is there an exemption available for seniors? Yes. To ensure the cost of Measure Mis not a burden to those living on a fixed income, seniors age 65 and older can apply to be exempt from the cost of Measure M. How much will Measure'M cost? Measure M will not increase the tax rate and will continue to cost $374 per parcel per year. It will provide for an annual adjustment for inflation capped at the CPI. Don't we already have a parcel tax? Since 2003, over two-thirds of local voters have supported Measure P (2003 and renewed in 2007) and Measure V (2009) -school parcel taxes that provide stable local funding for PVPUSD. Measure M will combine these two taxes in to one simple, uniform tax. Will Eastview or other out-of-district families pay for Measure M? By state law, only voters who live within the school district boundaries can pay for Measure M. However, by allowing out-of- district students to attend PVPUSD schools, our school district receives additional state funding. A large percentage of state funding is based on per pupil attendance, and these additional students help to increase our funding each year. What about Measures R & S? In 2005, over two-thirds oflocal voters approved Measures R & S , local school bond measures to support facility upgrades at schools within our district. Measures R & S funds can only support facility projects as specified in the measure. By law, Measures R & S funds cannot be spent on teachers or programs. Who will vote on Measure M? All registered voters who live within the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District are eligible to vote on Measure M. To pass, Measure M must receive at least 66. 7% support from those who vote on Measure M on or before November 8, 2011. What important dates do I need t o r emember? • Election Day is November 8, 2011. • The last day to register to vote in this election is October 24, 2011. • The last day to request an Absentee Ballot is November 1, 2011. Who do I contact about District budget issues? If you have questions and/or feedback about the district budget and /or programs, please contact Walker Williams, Superintendent, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District at: supt@pvpusd.k12.ca.us. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District 375 Via Ahnar, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 7-7 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT JUNE 30, 2013 Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP Certified Public Accountants Governing Board Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Palos Verdes Estates, California VALUE THE DIFFERENCE In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (the District) for the year ended June 30, 2013, we considered its internal control structure in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control structure. However, during our audit we noted matters that are opportunities for strengthening internal controls and operating efficiency. The following items represent conditions noted by our audit that we consider important enough to bring to your attention. This letter does not affect our report dated December 5, 2013, on the financial statements of Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District. INTERNAL CONTROLS Clearing Account Observation The monies received from the sites do not consistently include the site or department originating receipts. Therefore, the District personnel responsible for reconciling revenue transactions have no way of knowing whether or not they have received all monies for all receipts for each site or department. Recommendation The District should strengthen controls over the use of receipts by issuing triplicate, pre-numbered receipt books to all sites and departments where cash and other monies are collected. This will allow for the monitoring of the numerical sequence of receipts forwarded from the sites and department to ensure there are no gaps in the receipts forwarded and no gaps between the last receipt in the previous deposit sent and the first receipt in the current deposit received. Parcel Tax Observation The ballot text for Measure M states that, among other activities allowable, parcel tax collections must be used for the purpose ofretaining qualified and experienced teachers and school employees. As a result of tests performed, the auditor noted three individuals, who are not teachers, have a portion of their salaries charged to this program. 80 8270 Aspen Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Tel: 909.466.4410 Fax: 909.466.4431 www.vtdcpa.com FRESNO • LAGUNA HILLS • PALO ALTO • PLEASANTON • RANCHO CUCAMONGA • RIVERSIDE • SACRAMENTO Governing Board Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District In addition, the Governing Board has proposed allocations to the expenditure budget in which for 2012-2013 fiscal year, 90 percent of the budget must be allocated to retain qualified and experienced teachers and school employees, 5 percent must be used to fund advanced programs in math, science, and technology, and the remaining 5 percent must be used to keep classroom technology updated. However, after a review of expenditure detail, the auditor noted that 97 percent of parcel tax collections were actually allocated to the retention of qualified teachers and employees. Recommendation As there exists a need for program oversight and administration as it relates to the Citizen's Oversight Committee for Measure M, it is recommended that the Governing Board annually approve an expenditure budget for Measure M that accounts for these activities. In addition, we recommend a more frequent review of actual expenditures to ensure the allocation methodology as approved by the Governing Board for Measure M expenditures is adhered to. ASSOCIATED STUDENT BODY (ASB) Ridgecrest Intermediate School Observations During our review of associated student body procedures, the following issues were noted: 1. It appears that the site does not provide adequate controls over receipts. Receipts are not used to account for monies collected and therefore, there is no reconciliation between issued receipts and bank deposits. 2. The auditor noted the site had fundraisers held for charity, but could not verify that all the proceeds raised were given to the charity because a separate account was not established to account for the monies collected or the disbursement made to the charity. 3. All 13 disbursements reviewed did not have pre-approval. Recommendations 1. Pre-numbered receipts should be issued for all monies collected by teacher, advisors, and the site bookkeeper which would include a specific description of the source of the funds. A carbon copy of the receipts issued by the teachers and advisors should be forwarded with the cash to the bookkeeper as documentation that all monies collected have been turned in. The receipts issued to teachers and advisors from the bookkeeper should be totaled and reconciled to the current bank deposit. 2. The site should review the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) ASB manual regarding donations for charities. One suggestion is to open a trust account within the ASB specifically for the donations, then write a check to the organization and close the account when the fundraiser is over. 3. In order to ensure proper internal controls over the ASB disbursements, the site should ensure that all disbursement transactions are pre-approved by authorized administrative personnel and the student council. This would allow the reviewing administrator and the student council to determine if the proposed activities are appropriate and to determine if sufficient funding is available to finance the activities or the purchases. The site may consider using a purchase requisition form to obtain the three required signatures prior to the disbursement being made. 81 -0 < m -0 x c -0 Vl N m 0 0 z 0 -0 \D 0 ):> I ·N --I ;o 0 ~ c n ~ ;o m I m Vl -I ):> x Measure M Parcel Tax • ''Every penny of your existing taxes goes directly to supporting classroom instruction." • Smart Voter Guide • "Funds cannot be used for administrative salaries." • PVPUSD FACT SHEET 2011 PVPUSD FACT SHEET How can I be ,s,ure Measure M fund~ will be s~:nt pn:tperly? ,.,\n lr1de~ndent Citizens? Oversight Co1n1nittee will oversee the Measure ,..I e~penditures and ensure they are spent as vt"Jters intended. B v la'"' 1: Measure M. funds J' can only be spent as described in the mea,ure. [9] Fund.s cannot be spent on administrawr salaries or be taken away by the State. • • • @ :it * 11 11 11 -0 -0 11 OJ OJ c ., ., :::s !:!. !:!. 0.. OJ OJ ro -----0 0.. -< -< < 0--n -n c c -0 -< :::s :::s -0 0.. 0.. c OJ ro m (/) ., 0.. 0.. n 0 ro 0-0---< -< --i ,, OJ -0 -0 -· x OJ m ::J ., 11 OJ n ro ::J -,...... n OJ -· x OJ -(/) 2009-2010 Al BI G I D I B I F I G I H I I I J I K I L I M I K I 0 I p I 0 7S PALOS VERDES l'E!liTh"SLL.~ t;~'IFIED SCHOOL DlSIRICT 79 YEAR: 2009-2010 Sl.;"PPORT SERVICES so IDIBTIUCT OFFICES 81 Sl'ES PERS SS MC HJW SllI W!C ARPI GASB PEBSRL aml 82 PQSITI~ Fl:E SALARY S25~ 9.709"~ 0.2Q'Jb lA5911 . .»'l' U9'!b JJS§; SO'!> 3.311,. llES TOTAL 83 84 Off'ICEOF~':ESS SERVICES 85 " ~Sepe;, ........ ' T s1 T 79.S9sT T 7.mT 4,9351 1,.1541 9()11 :!39 l l.512 I I 3sis I 2pss I I 99W/ 86 Secn=y Sl I 52,720 5).19 J,lfill 7641 6.210 158 1,()02 I 26< 1,746 71,252 87 @ -...~ l 5(f l 35,201 l ..J_ s.m1 2.l82J SWJ 3,iYl& l 105 J -1 l rnJ 1.165 J l 46;156 SS ~T~Gled;: 89 o..cime 90 l~tt-:&:~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7.700 91 O!her" I I I 3SfJOO 92 IT-I I I I I I I I I 5,301 93 1""""'""'-IledncQbl< Pm I I I I I I I I fl:Jf)OO 94 ~c~ 95 96 ,v.1.'.-il..Ul:~.1L=eUZ i.JL.t"L'.l). .:S(..!k't.l:U..""!J::...."UJ.L..''JLl: l I T I T T I T T I -1 I .5£.J.l!JJIO 97 98 llEPRO SER''ICES 99 o..:x.l"-'"· 1 2.00 T 105.2ll2 T I ro.(147 T Mlol u:n T ro.ror T 396 I l,966 l T 5171 3.4.n I I lSi.273 100 o..:x.!Hourlv 101 o..:x.l o-tm.e 102 1Surm1E &: Bocks 13266 10> Otbcr "--""· °""""" 104 Xotm. l22.S75 105 ~ 106 kp:o~ (287,860)' 107 . !OS TOTAL HEl'RO SERVICES (l3,4S2)1 109 llO COMMUNIITSERVICES lll --...'Udell 112 ~lit- 113 Other-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lfJOO 114 ~ ill l16 l17 118 l'ISCAL SEl!VICES 119 "~afn...1~ .64 J4,4)"°'2 1m 4Jil6 i.owT 3.367 T 2Z3T r,.usT 1 JnT 2A65T T 95.219 120 ~Di=."""<>ffucds.M= .45 14.93i 3.392 2.,i66 501 3,.54.2 io; I 664 I I 175 I us; I 46.!i45 121 ~ 1.00 49-916 4.846 3J)!;5 rn 249 150 I !ml I 250 I 1M3 I 61.1131 122 SoniarAccam< Ck<k 5.00 249.SSS 24.259 15.491 3.623 Jl;Zl& 750 I 4-747 I I 1.249 I S27'.l I 339.4Sl> 123 lmmnodlde~a.m 2009-2010 • #DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT= 51% = $99,097 = Partial funding Parcel Tax • @ EXECUTIVE ASSIST ANT = 50% = $46,456 = Funded by Parcel Tax • # Director of Fiscal Services = 64% = $95, 219 = Partial Funded by Parcel Tax ,-------~~~~~~~ 2010-2011 uu ,a .nl.~ T~S.:."'l< ... :a:...l.,JU..'li.:.:>.,,...~ ~JO-,.&.Jli."~·~----....-.a.<J'~-.S"'I...>.& 8! YEAR: 2019-ZiJll SUPPORT SERVICES 82 DISTRICT-OFFICFS &3 STRS PERS SS MC HIW sm WlC ARP G.\SB PEJISRL OTH 84 l'OSITJON FI'E SALARY !1.25% Ui.200% <iltl'l< IAS'!< ~72% L!l9'3 3.75% -~ 2.!t:lll% llK"i TOTAL 85 86 OFFICE OF BUSINESS SERVIC~ J>i 11 lkP"';y Suporin!mdolli .51 7&,361 7.~3 4,&5S 1,136 4:58 %4 l,M\9 392 2,210 97,46! 88 So..-.:t:!.-y .86 5(4784 5.1&0 3,i49 736 5.'.WJ Y.6 9t~ 2:54 l,432 68,635 89 @I<!;'"'"""·"~ .SO 34:,~ 3.493 2113 4'J] !t,{)35 2$7 651 171 '166 47.429 90 ~ TypifilClod: 91 O.·atime 91 SllDillros&.Boob <i.000 93 Othsro......n.ruw .:=.,.., 4(1,000 94 Xor= 5.536 95 Imuz=~w:tihr Pl!id 75.000 96 ~G""'l <n 98 TOTAL OFFICE O.F 1>£PIJTY SUPERIIITES.OE?fl' .348,!il!il 99 JOO REPRO SERVICES 101 Cloricol llr-"'r 2.00 11)3,241 Hl,225 6.21.5 1.,453 10,352 722 1,905 501 2.gz} 134,44! 102 Clori<:al Hoarly 103 Clorical 0..-<rim< 104 SlllXlliics&.Boob 12.500 106 Othsr~t.:ix- lffi X.Orox t3l,!Q3 1()7 tlquipll>C<ll 108 ~Se~s (284.954) JOO l Ji} T-OTALREJ"KOSERVJCES 16.'lt Ill 112 COMML1'TI'Y SERVICES 113 ,.,. __ AJQ,il 114 Suwliai &. Boob 115 Orhrr~~-l,000 116 tlquipmoot ll:i 118 TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 1.- ll9 120 FL'SC\L Si!RVICES 121 If °'""'ll:lrofFiscai s... .... .64 76.555 7.800 4.746 l,llO 3.,317 551 l..G.5 383 2.159 98.0SS l?'l ,,, ""'"""'*-n;__.,._ ..-:i;;_. ... 1 ~" .<< nu.-:c 't~'O: ·'l 't'l~ <;.A.O ,,,...., '1'71 71~: .... "''" "101..'il:fl 2010-2011 • #DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT= 51% = $97,461 = Partial Funding • @EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT= 50% = $47,429 = Funded by Parcel Tax • #DIRECTOR FISCAL SERVICES= 64% = $98,085 = Partial Funding • # = Partial Parcel Tax; • @ = Funded by Parcel Tax i ~i~ i~ l r ~ I a ~i·:£ ~~ .-! "' ~i~ I i "'' \il c. -+-+-+-1-1·-l-+-~-ll-l-""-i-l--+-l-+-l-+-....+--t-----_,__ -+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+--+'-'l_.t-=-'i+=i --i-i--------1---f-+-1--l--+--+--!-!->-~-·+-•-•--+-+--+--;.-- -~ ii ~ L-H h --+i ~--+-+-+-1---+-+·-__ f-...... _ -· _ --· ---'-· ______ ji ____ ·-11-t-t-it-··-!_ ii! i J u~ N 0 1-l 1-l I N 0 1-l N 2011-2012 • #DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT=. 51 = $98,583 = Partial Funding • @EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT= .SO= $48,726 = Funded by Parcel Tax • # DIRECTOR OF FISCAL SERVICES = 1.00 = $155,756 = Partial Funding • #= Partial Parcel Tax; • @ =Funded by Parcel Tax 2012-2013 ~ -f ·-1~-~g:z.o_~,l-························-··············t············l···············+············t············-~·-··········f·········i·············J·········+-•---·····f~~iiii~~?ncts---:.:.:+··················· &3 : : l l sras: Pm: ssl MCi R!Wi sm: W/Ci AXP! GAS5i P!'.KSRL! OTH! E4 jPOmroN ' Fn: i s..-u.AKY I &.15¥.i 11.417'•1 u~~! u;.;, I i.n'!>j 2.l-4,.: us,.1 s•~i ua.>~! Bl!:!\1 iOT'Af: 85 1 I l ~ : 1 t i i i t I I t f i 86 iOHICEOl' !roSill'ESS Sll"\>'ICTS -l l • -::-r---i I I I : ; I : ! -~ .!I_ ... t.=----~·-·m·······································f···)~--l·····-~'-~-............. } ...... S:9-S:S.i ..... ~~!.f ... J._li~+--··!:~Zj ... 1.~.f-···--~·.l!J.9 .. f············1'----~-} ....... !,~t---·······f·········1_<g,:f!°- ss , Js..,,...;.,. , .u . ~1.m , 5.sw 3.199, 1.;s , 1.a:is ; ni , 1.:w1 ! m , gi1 , , il>.37\l ~ .. :~1~=~~~----· ----··············------· ··-·····-·t· .... :l~---!-----*-':1!~. -·-·--···-··f-----,:9.7:1. ----~·-!?!{ .... -~1 ...... ~~~-1 ..... ~.1-----~-3_[.. ........ 1------~7::!-l ........... _l~ I··· ····-····-t ............ .:'.?:~l-90 ; lln~'I)?:UtCim:k -1 ; -: i i f i ~ il ~ __ t~~~:!".."-.~~-------------------·--~--L~ .. +----~-_______ j _____ ~~ ----~!~_L.1.:~-~-----~-~-~;~1c.t---~cs~+--··j----~~---=·-=l?._~6-t_·------+-------~~ i~·~ -----lo~ ~ ----i---+--; r ~ ; .; .. -~ ~ 1 93 I T fs-• .1: Hook< i • • • • i ! · · ; :C : 4.0C>:I ~~--t • • r--i--! l r---t i • ----,---Joo.o:xi I q;,::~~ i I J: ::::::;::::::::..:::+. l i---L I L~1 r ~ 97 I l ,~Gram ! ' ' i ' ' ' i 9s 1 : ! l ! • 1 ! r-i -.--! ---·r 99 iTOT.U:-OFl'IC!: OY W'i;TI' sn>!:il1'-Tn."D'ENT i ! l ,. -' i : ~" 951 100 ; i 1 ! I ! I ! i ! ; I i 101 !ll:PKOSzKVlCfi !---,-i ! i t 1G1 : 1~x....i.r 200 i l0U40 ' l2,.Q50. 6.543. l,53il 1-0.4:14 I 1.695' i 2.46:l: ! 5ZS: l.~2 ! : 142.103 i: __ ~--~;;~-----------·-----------------=t-----~------··---i-------~---··----~----==t. __ :_t_ _______ ~ ______ i _______ j _____ __l _______ ~----·-----1------~-------------- 105 ; l"'=nliw&Bocia ± • l i • i i 1 i : ~ i t ; 07,0C>:I ~=: 1~~&p..w ----~-~ -~r r --~-r---r -, -i ·• -r -··1 -: --~--~-1 ~~- 107 : ix.rm: t • l i ~ I I i l I I I ! 1000.-0 l~i. • ••• ··t l • '------+--· ,. . ; ; ---. IOS • ;~ , 1 I ! I ; . ! i ! ; 1@1 i ix.pros.n"~ I j i i ! -I ;----! -,----; -,-i I : (313.C>:?) 1101 1 l ! ! ! ! l I : i I 111 ---~ !roTALRZPltOSZKVI~----------i~--3·---~--i t ------r i------i -------!-------: ~ r.I.lti'il 112 : I · [ l ! I I ! I i I : I I ! : i u 1e:oii:i.rnMiY-mY1crs----------------------·--r----·-t-----·----~-------1---··----1-··-----r-··----t-··-----r-··---:--·----t--··--1-------4----------T·------1------------- ~ ~ ··1L-~-{~t~:.~~~-~-~-~~-~-----~-~-~-~-~-~---~~-~~-~~-~-~-~--~· -~-~-~-~----.t-~-~-~-~-~-~~~-~-~ -~-~-~-~-~-~-1~-~-~---~~-~-~-t-~~-~-~-~-~t-~---~~~-~-t~-~-~-~-~-~-t-----~~-~-~+~-~---~~-~~-i~-~-~---~~---t-~-~-~---~~-~-1~-~-~~-----~-~-~-~-l~~-~-~-~-~-~-i·~~-~-~-~-~~-~--~-~-~-~ i ~ ··f--l~F-~'---·········--·-----·-············---·-··-·--·1······--l--···········t··········l .. ·············t·--········I·····--.. +··--·······1··········+·--·······f·········+·······t··············+··-········i···········---······ ll91T-ITOTALCOM.Y!ThiIYSER"X.fS i ! i ! ! ! ~ 1201 ! I ! : i f ! ! 1211 1nsrn.SEKVICES • ......... f i ~ l ' > 1221 : 1 ID&!a<;;aco£Fiw;ols..m,,,.. i 1.00 -i 110,;;JJ i ! 13.m ! 1,480 ! 1,7'!!> ! :i.m I l.9'13 2,&I& ~ l..!134 l:!O.Ii\l 1231 i l~~ otl'Sa!S<n-ns ! .u l 60.-r ; 1.$8 I .;,ml 96<5; :i,911 i i.on l.l~7 333 1.-068 ll!>..327 ~-~~-~~~-- 2012-2013 • # DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT= .51 = $102,410 = Partial Funding • @EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT= .50 = $48,871 = Funded by Parcel Tax • # DIRECTOR OF FISCAL SERVICES = 1.00 = $156,270 = Partial Funding • # = Partial Parcel Tax; • @ = Funded by Parcel Tax ~~~~-~~~-- PVPUSD Auditor: Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. to Board December 2013 ·-~-------M~ • "The ballot text for Measure M states that, among other activities allowable, parcel tax collections must be used for the purpose of retaining qualified and experienced teachers and school employees. • As a result of tests performed, the auditor noted three individuals, who are not teachers, have a portion of their salaries charged to this program." 2013-2014 :nr21 ! ; i ! i i I I i ~ T!~~i:i~k;;~-----····· ---·--····--·········---+-·--· .. ·+-·······-···-+·--···-----+-·····--·l·-··--··-·l··-··-··--·--l·---···-·-··+······-.. ····t······--·---f--·········+-·-.---·---·-i·-.. ·-·····-·········--···---------· ~ __ ~:~~~~-~-------------------------L!:~-~---!~:.?~~l---~~:~_L ________ ---------t-----1.:~:.S_L __ !=::.1!~.!------?!_L __ --3.:~!lJ _________ i ______ ::i_~.l------------------1?::~~ 287 • · -· ~ .4.Witmt : . .1$ i 11,004 ' I 1.:m 6&2 1 l8:l I ! .oo I 6 i m ' i 5$ l H.411~ 288 ~<>tk Mmiaim-.r ! LOO lill,696 I 7.'J7'5 4,321 l,OH i >.m l 35 i l.76~ i I 148 I 90.-4SO 289 Noo1ri!tk ~ .. r. ~ LOO l :n.m I z..m 1,562 1 365 i 3.,349 I 13 : 638 i I 126 : 34.m 200 w-rmToclulol<>g.~t LOO f 6Un 7.1}20 U04 mi 841 I 31, l,5B r ! ID7, ~m 291 • tr~<>i.;ar-;\ido _i_o.5<1 n.m ! 2.0JU r.101 259 I z..m I ~; +n: ...,J__~ :M.001 292 ia.ri::..i~~-~~T--~! I l~~~-~., -1---· 'j ~ ; -----~~-~~ 29~ # ;iOtb.cw~.s~~ _ . ___ ~~~---=-t-3~~~ ~-'~I . ~-~ !4: l.463 ; •• ~1.JU.; . M9; ~J . -! ,.. 39,*2 ~ -; ~~~~-----------------------+---------------+-------+--------1---------1-··------f--------+--------t--------+--------1---------t----------------"ii.i&O 297 # Otb..d)p~~ l i ! I l i I : 6&,-49& 298LmiJ: ; i I ~ I ! , • • +-24~ ~99 ;±:'-~1i••1 !i ~~--------------~-=~---+==------=-----t--------t=-+---~----f---=-==l--==----r==--~-~=f-=--=---+--------~------~--~=--===-==-------~:~~=' 3021 ~.~ .... u..s;_... • --·-~· · • H-f~~--r---·-1 ... I --·-T----~----t-~-~l ----~ --· ·-··• J031 ~ s_..-:00x : l.OO ! 66,ns l I 7.m +.llllS I 961) i S54 33 ! 1.677 ! ! m ' Sl.7S7 304 Bu.. T~-SIS i LOO j :24,gj:JJ-----T--2:&# ---·-1.541r··---~-r------4iT _____ fff _____ fil9_i :ii:.t~ 30:5 -Onrtimli i i I ! I I I ' i 306 !5:Ji.n /j: Boob j l j L---_J ________ J ________ J ________ j_ _______ j ________ ~L _______ J _________ ~----·-----------------------------------·----------------------------,-----·-1-------------------1 --i l 1 ! : , ! ; ;307 liw£ . ! ' -~ • • I 1" __;....,......._, ~..;,~-~-. ~~-~~~-~--300 · -~~-i . I! I I: 309 1>ts1Stoti•t~s~ .............................. L. ............................. J ... _ ........... -L ........... _ .. .t ............ __ _1 _______ ....... L ........ __ l _____ . ___ J . 112.17' 3101 l i ! l I l i I l ecbo._. -MU.ussm ! •• i . J ., i. , ., + _ ... L ~ ·--+ , · 1 ~ . -t-. ... } . -1~ ·-f• ~ ----.. -• I --~~~!~---------------------------1--~~--i----1~:;~~ ---------~---~~t---E:~~?.t-----2;~-f---!!..Z!Li------~-t----4!.!.?+--------1------~3-t----------------~~ ••••-• •••••• •• • u•--"" "') ~ • • L-.. -•• •• •..Y. • •• ..I • •l ' ~~ i I I l I I l i I Il.!21! p:iql...,_ i I ! ! I ! ' 3161 b'O!ttlT~Eqmp-111Mmni.....,. i l I i ! l I I 4U,.U1 3171 l I l l I ! l l i 31811iO'i'ALT.ECRNoL-OGYSE.E\'"lcn ! i r-----r 1 : Ul"7J :nn I ' 2013-2014 • #OTHER CLASSIFIED SALARIES= $39,362 #SUPPLIES/BOOKS= $164,9053 # = Partially funded Parcel Tax • #SUPPLIES/BOOKS = $209,880 • #OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES= $68,498 #OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES= $53,820 • # 3 STAFF POSITIONS= $270,122 Question? • Are the Deputy Superintendent, Executive Assistant, Director of Fiscal Services, and the Administration Technology Office and its' Staff Salaries an appropriate use of PVPUSD PARCEL TAX FUNDS? Is that what Measure M promised Voters? http ://pvpusd. k12.ca. us/index. ph p/ district/ departments/business_services/ budget_information/ CITY OF RA.NCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JUNE 2, 2015 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 c Memorandum from Senior Administrative Analyst Fox G Email from Mickey Rodich Respectfully submitted, @z,~CJH /I_ ~~'""/ / /ZtJtA.£1 t>l{__, Carla Morreale **PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, June 1, 2015**. W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150602 additions revisions to agenda.doc MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS KIT FOX, AICP, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST JUNE 2, 2015 LATE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE RANCHO LPG BUTANE STORAGE FACILITY IN LOS ANGELES, THE 5883 CREST ROAD CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IN ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, AND THE PALOS VERDES RESERVOIR UPGRADES PROJECT IN ROLLING HILLS ESTATES (BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT-AGENDA ITEM 'C') Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro) Attached is another e-mail related to the parent company of the Rancho LPG butane storage facility, which was received after tonight's Staff report was completed. 5883 Crest Road Condominium Project, Rolling Hills Estates At last night's meeting, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission conducted another public hearing to review a slightly-revised version of the proposed 4-unit detached condominium project at 5883 Crest Road, located at the northeast corner with Highridge Road (see attached Staff report). In December 2014, the Planning Commission had expressed a number of serious concerns with the proposed project, including the size, number and design of the proposed homes; the proposed site grading; and the justification for the requested General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Zone Text Amendment. The Planning Commission acknowledged the modifications that had been recently made to the project, and appeared to be supportive of the requested land use and zoning changes from commercial to residential. However, the majority of the commissioners also supported directing the applicant to explore further revisions to the project, with (possibly) fewer units in a single, townhouse-style building (similar to the adjacent Seaview Villas neighborhood). After an initial Planning Commission motion to continue the matter to allow for further redesign, the applicant indicated that she preferred for the commissioners to reject the project as currently proposed, and to forward that recommendation to the Rolling Hills Estates City Council for its consideration. The Planning Commission is expected to adopt a resolution recommending denial of the proposed project to the City Council on July 6, 2015. The City Council is then expected to consider this recommendation sometime later this summer. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. Late Correspondence for Border Issues Status Report June 2, 2015 Page 2 Palos Verdes Reservoir Upgrades Project, Rolling Hills Estates On June 1, 2015, Staff received the attached response to our April 101h comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The responses noted (among other things) that there is an existing back-up generator at the reservoir that will be retained as a part of the proposed upgrades. In addition, MWD's responses clarified that the maximum capacity of the upgraded reservoir will be reduced from 1, 108 acre-feet to 7 40 acre-feet, which should reduce the threat of potential inundation for downstream properties in Rancho Palos Verdes. The MWD Board of Directors is expected to certify the final MND for this project at its upcoming meeting on June 9, 2015. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. Attachments: Additional e-mail related to Rancho LPG (dated 5/23/15) (page 3) RHE Planning Commission Staff report (dated 6/1/15) (page 9) MWD Response to Comments (dated 5/29/15) (page 20) M:\Border lssues\Staff Reports\20150602_ CC _LateCorrespondence.docx 2 From: To: Cc: Marcie Miller Janet Gunter AfJ.2iJJi;hfilt; noelweiss@~a.1-r.com; arnartinezifliem:tb~_g; t,;Q.J'.l.Oie/.mrutt~~; igornla@cox.net; jhwinklrmOJrne.com; lon11acalt1oun\dlme.com; darlenezayalneyCihaol.com; sarahnvaldez;Glgmail.com; oedrolaurjeCmyaboo.corn; det310@juoo.com; jody.jarnes@sbcolobal.net; bonboo9073l<illgmail.corn; filc.oe\a)miraclegirlproductions.org; f)(feeoey@aol.com; M.£.@i QQOJJ.ilJitJ;)filQhn\\'illangnews.corn; oick.green(iillangnews.com; paul h roseoberg<ruhotrnail.corn; jdirnon77@yahoo.com; rxesident<mcentralsanoedro.wi; rreq55@hotmail.com; prnwarreo@cox.net; burliog102.~ilaol.corn; rnjke!isk(il)aol.corn; readsmd@aol.cQm; dwgkaw@hotmajl.com; jwil!iamgibson(a)q;i.rr,com; cjcorjae(a!aol.rn1n; alsattler@igc.org; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcgloba!,net; rnandrn8602@att,net; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; Lara,LarrameodjCmmajl,house.gov; lisa.pinto@rnail.house.goy; rgb251@berkeley,edu; lpryor;olusc.edu; carl.soutl1wel!@gmail.com; abaker@sco.ca.ggv; alan.gordgn@treasurer.ca.gov; david.wulf@hg.dhs.gov; rob.wilcox@lacity.grg; matthew.rodriguez@calepa.ca.ggv; carlos.delaguerra(mlacity.org; ~ne seroka(o!portla.org Subject: Re: More on the history of Rancho LPG"s operators .. "Plains" ... rnore insight into a hard reality Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:12:15 PM Date: bttp://www_._indc.p~dc.ot.cominc.wsL2015/may /2 l /whos- watching-n1an-whos-\vatching-pipeline/ This is the moment to demand city council and mayoral action to reassess the privileges granted to Plains to ski1i best safety pipeline practices and their Rancho LPG, LLC. facility. Marcie On May 20, 2015, at 9:52 PM, Janet Gunter <arriane51g!aol.com> wrote: Improperly sited facility storing 25+ Million Gallons of highly explosive gas ... sitting on an earthquake fault of 7.3 potential in tanks built over 40 years ago to a seismic standard of 5.5 .... with a 3.1 mile radius of blast impact from a single "one" of two 12.5 million gallon butane tanks on "USGS" designated "landslide" area .... located within 1,000 ft. of homes, schools and shops ..... and "operated" by this cast of characters? Really? And, what is anyone doing about it? EPA has no protective regulations in place whatsoever to guard the public's safety .... the City of LA has said that their "hands are tied" ..... and Rancho/Plains says they are "legal". Is there any justification for this insanity and recklessness? The answer is "no". Deadly and unacceptable consequences lie in wait while everyone simply twiddles their thumbs awaiting the disaster. See story: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/20/plains-all-american-has-history-of-oil- spills.htrnl Janet Gunter 3 ;_!_; independent.com ht1p://www.independent.com/news/2015/may/21 /whos-wa tchi ng -man-whos-watching-p ip e lin e/ Huge Oversight Gap on Refugio Pipeline fly Nick \Vulsh ( Crn itact l Paul Wellman South of Refugio State beach the day after the oil spill (May 20, 2015) How Did 2,500 Barrels of Oil Escape Without Notice? Originally published 3:20 p.m., May 21, 2015 Updated 1 :25 p.m., May 22, 2015 One of the big surprises to emerge out of the most dramatic oil spill to hit the South Coast this century is that the pipeline owned by Plains All American Pipeline is the only one in all of Santa Barbara County not to have an automatic shut-off valve. Not coincidentally, it happens to be the only pipeline over which the county Energy Division has no safety and inspection oversight authority. "We 're flying blind," said county Energy Division czar Kevin Drude. That's because more than 20 years ago, All American Pipeline (Plains hadn 't bought it yet) took Santa Barbara County to court to restrict the county's legal authority to inspect X-rays of the pipeline welds. It won. The consequences of that victory appear to be bearing bitter fruit. Because the county was denied the regulatory authority to require that Plains equip its pipeline with an automatic shut-down valve in case of a rupture, The Santa Barbara Independent has discovered, the Plains pipeline is the only pipeline in the county without this key safety feature. Instead, the Plains pipeline must be shut down manually in case of such emergencies. Photo Gallery 4 Refugio Coast Oil Spill Enlarge pt10tos I View thumbnails According to Drude, the equipment the county requires -known as SCADA-of other pipeline operators is so sensitive it can detect the loss of 20 barrels of oil over a 20-hour period. By contrast, the Plains pipeline leaked about 2,500 barrels worth of oil in a matter of a few hours before the company's crew manually shut it down. SCADA stands for supervisory control and data acquisition. It's a very expensive, high-tech, computerized feature that continuously monitors the temperature, velocity, and pressure conditions inside a crude-oil pipeline. If there are changes above and beyond normal expectations, the SCADA is programmed to issue an automatic warning. If the problem persists or exceeds certain safety thresholds, it's programmed to shut the pipeline down automatically. Moreover, such systems are programmed to resist operator efforts to restart the pipeline until proper protocols have been followed. Exactly how and why the All American Pipeline -by far the biggest in the county -was built without this critical safety feature remains uncertain. The few people still on the scene who were involved back then have, at best, hazy recollections. What is clear is the vehemence with which All American Pipeline fought any intrusion of county oversight. This isn't to say the Plains pipeline has operated free of regulatory oversight. Since its inception in 1987, the pipeline has been subject to federal inspections. The feds farmed this function -via contract -out to the California Office of the State Fire Marshal, but in 2013, The Santa Barbara Independent has learned, the Fire Marshal's office informed the Department of Transportation it would not renew its contract. Increasingly, the Fire Marshal's office reported that it had been finding it difficult to retain or recruit experienced pipeline inspectors. Because the Fire Marshal's office regarded its federal inspection work ancillary to its primary mission, it turned this duty back to the federal Department of Transportation, which in turn, gave it over to a relatively new and obscure federal agency called the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration -better known as PHMSA (pronounced "pimsa"), which then had to resume its function of inspecting all of California's oil and gas pipelines. Photo Gallery Refugio Coast Oil Spill Cleanup Enlarge photos I View thumbnails Organizations like Pipeline Safety Trust -which bird-dogs pipeline companies from an environmental safety vantage point -have expressed concern that PHMSA is too underfunded and understaffed to absorb so monumental a new burden. (In the last few months, Congress authorized the agency to hire 100 new pipeline inspectors. How many have been hired since then remains unclear.) In addition, Pipeline Safety Trust -which publishes a blog called The Smart Pig, the name of a key pipeline safety inspection process -reported there have been 175 "incidents" involving Plains All American pipelines throughout the United States -11 in California -in the past 10 years. No deaths were caused and no injuries were reported from these incidents, but nearly $24 million in property damage was inflicted. Reports vary as to the fines collected by PHMSA, but they range from $185,000-$284,000. "In terms of the fines they impose, it's really a lot less than they are authorized," said Samya Lutz with the Pipeline Safety Trust. She added that the number of investigations launched by the federal pipeline safety agency was quite low in relation to the number of 5 incidents. An incident is defined as any occurrence leading to loss of life, an injury requiring hospitalization, or property damage in excess of $50,000. If more than five barrels are spilled -or five gallons escapes the property lines -that, too, constitutes an incident. While there are recent reports of a half-gallon leak on the Plains pipeline by Refugio, that's too small to be deemed an "incident." Of the 11 Plains incidents that occurred in California, it remains unclear if any involved the Refugio pipeline. Paul Wellman Cleanup at Refugio State beach the day after the oil spill (May 20, 2015) In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered Plains to pay $41 million in remediation costs associated with 10 pipeline spills occurring in Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma between 2004-2007 that wound up putting 6,510 barrels of crude -273,420 gallons -into nearby waterways. The culprit in most of these instances was typically corroded pipeline pipes. More comically, perhaps, last year this time, a Plains pipeline ruptured by a pump station in an industrial neighborhood in Los Angeles, causing crude to spray 40 feet into the air and shower the roof of the strip club next door. Neither the strippers nor customers were injured, but two people working at a medical store nearby got so sick from the fumes they had themselves hospitalized. In that instance, 450 barrels escaped. Among the many tools used in the cleanup effort were absorbent diapers. Even more incriminating is information provided by Plains All American in its most recent Securities and Exchange Commission report. That report itemizes $82 million in environmental liabilities. The EPA dinged the company $6 million for a 120-barrel spill in Bay Springs, Mississippi, in February 2013. The Canadian government assessed the company $15 million in cleanup costs for two spills in June 2013. And this February, a Canadian National Energy Board audit levied a $76 million penalty on the company for slipshod environmental safety practices. Paul Wellman Greg Armstrong, CEO of Plains All American Pipeline, answers questions at a press conference following the May 19 oil spill. (May 20, 2015) To put this into perverse context, Plains All American CEO Greg L. Armstrong, who received $5.5 million in total compensation last year -is guaranteed an $87 million golden parachute severance package whether he's terminated with or without cause. The huge irony here is that at the time of its inception in 1987, the Plains All American Pipeline now unleashing ~ torrents of criticism was considered by environmentalists to be a major breakthrough in environmental sanity. A massive amount of oil development was slated to occur in the Santa Barbara Channel in the mid-1980s as Santa Barbara was regarded by the oil industry to be one of the most petrochemically bountiful places to drill in the United States. All along the Gaviota Coast, big oil companies, like Chevron and Exxon, were proposing massive industrial sites to store and process oil drilled from state and federal waters off the coast. Paul Wellman Waves off Refugio Beach churn and move the oil spill along the coastline (May 19, 2015) In response, the South Coast environmental community insisted that any processing that took place had to be consolidated into as few spots as possible to minimize the industrialization of the coast. It was a hard fight. The oil companies resisted. In addition, the environmentalists pushed for the creation of a pipeline that all the oil 6 companies could and should use . In the days before Plains All American Pipeline, the oil companies moved their cargo via large tanker ships that would park along the coast. Not only did tankers emit unacceptable volumes of ~ air pollution, but the prospect of an oil spill from an offshore tanker posed immense containment challenges. Again , the oil companies resisted. It was not in their DNA to share equipment with competitors. In that context, the development of the Plains All American pipeline was an enormous breakthrough. If one accepted the inevitability of a spill, better from a pipeline where it could be contained, the thinking went, than in the open seas. Little wonder that it was a former administrative assistant to then-county supervisor Bill Wallace -the most effective and determined foe, at least among elected officials, the oil industry has ever faced in Santa Barbara -who spearheaded the pipeline project to completion. John Stahl, Wallace's "just do it" political consigliere , jumped ship from the county to work for Plains All American Pipeline. And he got the project approved . Paul Wellman An estimated 21,000 gallon oil spill just North of Refugio State Beach coating 4 miles of the shoreline and a sheen 50-100 yards wide (May 19, 2015) .. But when county energy planners, such as former county Energy Division czar Rob Almy, insisted the county have access to safety inspection records for the pipeline welds , Plains All American balked -big time. The pipeline , the company argued , was an interstate project. As such it insisted , only the federal government had the legal authority to conduct inspections and hold the project's feet to the regulatory fire. The matter went to court and essentially the county lost. As part of a settlement agreement, the county would be given authority to inspect and regulate the soil and vegetation on the ground above the pipeline, but anything underneath was the federal government's responsibility. How and why Plains All American was approved without an automatic shutoff valve remains unclear at this time . A media consultant for the company told The Independent that the information was ~, not immediately available. For Drude this reality came as a shock. "I just found out ," he said. "We had no regulatory authority." When asked if such equipment was required of other operators in the county, Drude stated, "Absolutely." Photo Gallery Plains All American Gaviota Oil Spill Day 3 Enlarge ph otos I Vi ew thumb na il s In addition to automatic shutoff valves, most Santa Barbara pipelines are equipped to automatically issue alarms if the pressure level changes beyond certain industry norms. To the extent such were in place and functioning also remains unclear. Drude noted that his department meets on a monthly basis with the operators of other oil pipelines to discuss safety concerns and address them. When the California Fire Marshal had oversight over Plains All American , the company's representatives were not regular attendees at such meetings. Since the federal agency known as PHMSA took over, they have not shown up either. "They don't come to our meetings." Drude is not one to throw stones at other regulators. "Everybody could have been doing their jobs the best their jobs could be done," he said. "The pipe itself could have just given way. It happens. We just don't know." That's one of the 7 reasons, he said, he'd really like to see what the hole in the pipeline looks like. As always in such matters, the $64 billion question is what Plains All American knew and when did they know it. In other words, when did the company know -or should have known -there was a leak, and how long did it take for the company to act? In either case, Plains All American will be on the hook for millions in damages. But if it can be shown the company acted negligently or with disregard for safety procedures, the penalties could be staggering. Dispatched to the scene were representatives from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, specializing in the prosecution of environmental crimes. One was seen walking along the beach with oil on his hands this Wednesday, as were representatives with the California Attorney General's Office, who specialize in environmental prosecutions. Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce Dudley was also on hand accompanied by her chief investigator Dave Saunders. Although the track record of the Santa Barbara prosecutor's office has been anemic to nonexistent when it's come to environmental crime for decades, Saunders has some experience in this regard from his days with the Ventura County District Attorney's Office. Photo Gallery Refugio Oil Spill Aerial and On Site Visit Enlarge photos I View thumbnails Aerial and onsite photos of the Plains All American Pipeline oil spill At this point, many key details of what happened remain unknown. But the morning the spill happened, County Fire Department investigator Chris Olmstead was already close by. He just happened to be conducting an oil spill containment drill with representatives of another oil company, which owns a facility two miles north of Plains All American's. Olmstead received a dispatch that Engine 18, which operates out of Gaviota, was on its way in response to complaints about intense oily odors. Olmstead headed south, and by the time he and Engine 18 connected near the Refugio Beach, it was obvious a serious spill was underway. It was Olmstead who would track the leak back to "a gushing stream of sludge." He would track it across the freeway and over a wire fence and finally to its source. When Olstead got there, two representatives from Plains All American -who'd been with him earlier -were already there. What time that was, Olmstead said, he didn't record. To date, county authorities say Plains has been exceptionally cooperative. Link: County and Goleta Declare State of Emergency After Refugio Oil Spill Copyright ©2015 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here. 8 Staff Repor City of Rolling Hills Estates DATE: JUNE 1, 2015 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DAVID WAHBA, PLANNING DIRECTOR KELLEY THOM, CBGB, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO: 25-14; APPLICANT: MS. JUDY CHAI LOCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD OVERVIEW The following is a request to approve: * .) r.~· , .... , JUN -1 2015 ITEM NO. ~A 1. A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential; 2. A Zone Change from Commercial Limited (CL) to Residential Planned Development (RPO); 3. A Zone Text Amendment for development standards for lot size in the RPD Zone; 4. A Tentative Parcel Map for a one-lot subdivision; 5. A Grading Application; 6. A Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Planned Development; 7. A Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for the construction of four single-family patio homes; and 8. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Revised Application Filed: Application Deemed Complete: Public Notices Mailed: Public Notices Posted: Public Notices Published: 5/14/2015 5/19/2015 5/20/2015 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 * Note that the present request no longer includes a Minor Deviation for lot coverage. This item was continued from the last Commission meeting of May 4th at the applicant's request. A new Public Hearing Notice was also re-sent to all properties within a 500' radius, as the project has now been revised. The previous Public Hearing notice advertised for the May 4th meeting was a request of the applicant to have the Commission vote on the previously-reviewed project on December 1, 2014, with no changes. As of this writing, staff has not received any public input or comments. On December 1, 2014, a Public Hearing for the project was held before the Planning Commission. After lengthy discussion, the Commission continued the project to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the Commission's concerns regarding compliance with Neighborhood Compatibility issues, including density, home size, building massing, lot coverage, parking, and a potential driveway hazard, as noted in the staff report and minutes (attached). In response to the Commission's concerns, the applicant has made a number of revisions to minimize the appearance of the proposed development, including reducing the lot coverage to eliminate the Minor Deviation, reducing the home sizes and building depth, reducing the second floor roof areas and second floor mass at corners, increasing the building setbacks along Crest Road, and reducing and/or eliminating the private yard walls to create more open space. The applicant has also increased the number of guest parking spaces from four to six. The revised project has been re-silhouetted, to reflect the reduction in home sizes. Prior to the meeting, the Commission should visit the project site to better understand the project's revisions. The applicant will be providing a Powerpoint presentation to outline the current project changes. Although the project applicant has made numerous revisions to the project (as further summarized below), it still incorporates four free-standing two-story, Spanish/Monterey-style patio homes, in essentially the same layout and design as originally presented to the Commission in December 2014. Staff has had several meetings with the applicant over the past several months to consider the construction of one single building located to the rear corner of the site with three to four units, that would be of an attached product, similar to the design of the townhomes located adjacent to the site at Sea View Drive South. Staff also entertained discussions with eliminating the corner house (or making it single story), to further reduce the project's mass when viewed from the corner of Highridge and Crest Roads. Neither of these alternatives were received favorable by the applicant, hence the revised proposal that essentially reduces each homes' square footage by about 450 sq.ft. Below, please refer to the chart that fully summarizes the project's revisions. Per the Commission's request, below are the revised project home sizes in comparison with the Seaview and Peppertree neighborhoods. Please refer to the Neighborhood Statistics (attached): • 5883 Crest Rd. home size: 2,431 sq. ft. (Subject Application) • Seaview townhomes size ranges: 1,794 sq. ft. to 2,123 sq. ft. Average: 1,938 sq. ft. • Peppertree home size ranges: 2,359 sq. ft. to 2,546 sq. ft. Average: 2,459 sq. ft. 2 10 The following chart provides the project's revisions: 12.1.14 5.14.15 Net Change (Revisions) Lot Coverage 7,400 sq. ft. 6,628 sq. ft. -772 sq. ft. decrease Floor Area 2,880 SQ. ft. 2,431 SQ. ft. -449 sq. ft. decrease Site Ratio 51.5% 43.4% -8.1 % decrease Home Depth 42 ft 37 ft - 5 ft. decrease 2nd Fir. Roof Area 1, 764 sq. ft. 1,410 sq. ft. -354 sq. ft. decrease 2°ct Fir Mass at Corners Omitted lanai roof ( 12 ft. by 12 ft.) Private Yards in Street 2,560 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. -1,060 sq. ft. decrease Setbacks Ground Plane Mass at Corner Home 1,096 SQ. ft. 600 sq. ft. -496 sq. ft. decrease HighridQe Landscape Buffer 2,606 SQ. ft. 3,622 sq. ft. 1,016 sq. ft. increase Crest Rd Landscape Buffer 1,000 SQ. ft. 1,880 SQ. ft. 880 sq. ft. increase Crest Rd Setback Unit 3: 20 ft 30 ft 10 ft. increase Unit4: 20 ft 25 ft. 5 ft. increase Landscape Area 49.6% 52% 2.4% increase California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for this project last year (attached). Staff is of the opinion that the project revisions do not require the IS/MND to be re-circulated, as the project revisions are essentially minimal and would not result in any new potential impacts that would require additional study for mitigation. Ultimately, the document will need to be revised to reflect the revised project description and accompanying numbers, should the Commission wish to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. Neighborhood Compatibility Please note that the Neighborhood Compatibility criteria was previously addressed in the IS/MND and December 1st staff report and found to be in compliance. Given that the revisions would reduce the lot coverage to eliminate the Minor Deviation, reduce the home sizes and building mass, and increase the amount of open space and landscaped areas, it would appear that the revised proposal is more compatible with the neighborhood than the previous proposal. 3 1 1 Should the Commission wish to direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending City Council approval of the project, staff will provide revised Neighborhood Compatibly criteria in the Resolution to reflect the project's revisions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Open the Public Hearing; 2. Take Public Testimony; 3. Discuss the Issues; 4. Close the Public Hearing; and 5. Direct staff to take one of the following actions: a) Prepare a Resolution recommending City Council approval of the revised project for the next Planning Commission meeting of July 6, 2015; OR b) Continue this application to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to address further revisions as may be directed by the Planning Commission. EXHIBITS Attached 1. Minutes and Staff Reports dated December 1, 2014 and May 4, 1015 2. Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated October 9, 2014 3. Project Summary, Bryant Palmer Soto, Inc., dated May 14, 2015 4. Neighborhood Statistics for the Seaview and Peppertree Developments Separate 1. Architectural Drawings, dated May 14, 2015 Pa25-14 pm3(final) 4 12 AGENDft, MAY -6 2015 Staff Rep or, nEMNo._~6- city of Rolling Hills Estates DATE: MAY 4, 2015 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DAVID WAHBA, PLANNING DIRECTOR NIKI WETZEL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO: 25-14; APPLICANT: MS. JUDY CHAI LOCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD OVERVIEW The following is a request to approve: 1. A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential; 2. A Zone Change from Commercial Limited (CL) to Residential Planned Development (RPD); 3. A Zone Text Amendment for development standards for lot size in the RPD Zone; 4. A Tentative Parcel Map for a one-lot subdivision; 5. A Grading Application; 6. A Minor Deviation for lot coverage; 7. A Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Planned Development; 8. A Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for the construction of four single-family patio homes; and 9. A Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Application Filed: Application Deemed Complete: Public Notices Mailed: Public Notices Posted: Public Notices Published: *For this hearing only. 3/21/14 10/7/14 4/22/15* 4/22/15* 4/23/15* Subsequent to noticing, the applicant requested a continuance of this item (see Attachment 1) to the June 1, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Open the Public Hearing: 2. Take No Public Testimony; and 3. Continue the Public Hearing to June 1, 2015. EXHIBITS Attached 1. Email from Ms. Judy Chai Pa25-14 pm2 2 14 MINUTES EXCERPT REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4, 2015 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 25-14; APPLICANT: MS. JUDY CHAI; LOCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD. A REQUEST FOR A GRADING APPLICATION, ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT, MINOR DEVIATION, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND A NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY PATIO HOMES ON A .51-ACRE PARCEL. NO CHANGES TO THE PLANS AS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON 12/1/14 ARE PROPOSED, AND THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANS AS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED. Planning Director Wahba explained that the applicant has requested a continuance to the next meeting of June 1, 2015, to revise the plans. COMMISSIONER CONWAY moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ, TO CONTINUE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 25-14 to June 1, 2015. There being no objection, CHAIR SCOTT so ordered. Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt May4, 2015 1 15 Architecture Civil Engineering Planning Interiors Bryant• Palmer• Soto, Inc. Neil Stanton Palmer ARCHITECTS I Jack K. Bryant ENGINEERS 2601 Airport Drive, Suite 310, Torrance, CA 90505-6142 Telephone: (310) 326-9111 Fax: (310) 325-0271 May 14, 2015 Re: 5883 Crest Road, Rolling Hills Estates MASS & BULK REVISION SUMMARY 5/14/15 1. Reduced Lot Coverage From 7400 s.f. to 6628 s.f. 2. Reduced Floor Area From 2880 s.f. to 2431 s.f. 3. Reduced Flow Area I Site Ratio From 51.5% to 43.4% 4. Reduced Home Depth From 42 ft. to 37 ft. 5. Reduced 2nd Floor Roof Area From 1764 s.f. to 1410 s.f. 6. Reduced 2nd Floor Mass at Corners Omitted corner lanai roof (12 ft. by 12 ft.) From 42 ft. to 30 ft. per home at Crest Road 28% From 42 to 25 ft. per home at Highridge Road 40% 7. Reduced Private Yards in Street Setbacks From 2560 s.f. to 1500 s.f. 8. Reduced Ground Plane Mass at Corner Home From 1096 s.f. to 600 s.f. 9. Increased Highridge Landscape Buffer From 2606 s.f. to 3622 s.f. 10. Increased Crest Road Landscape Buffer From 1000 s.f. to 1880 s.f. 11. Increased Crest Road Setback From 20 ft. to 30 ft. at Home #3 From 20 ft. to 25 ft. at Home #4 12. Increased Landscape Area From 49.6% to 52.0% •\· 1 .. 10% 16% 16% 12% 20% 34% 41% 45% \ . r. , . \ 139% i' j. '. 188% ! (,l I I 1.'-. "" . 137% 5% 16 NEIGHBORHOOD STATISTICS: Pepper Tree ' 1··----------------__ T__________ Major 1 J I Remodel J Proposed __ At:f\J_# ____ ,_ Street _ AC!C!~~l!)~_: -'-L<:>t~_i2'.~-=--!-':i<:>rt1~§g~~t~J-'(~a_r 1---§g'.f_~·- -~;~~~-~;~;-~---i ; -••••--•-:~-:~~:f H::t~ , -~~~~~-~:r::t ___ J~4~ -_ j ----_ -t= __________ _ -;~-~~-~l1~;~_-----1f·_ ~ .---------[~~~~:~l~::-t~-r~~~-~b-~-:~::J-----:-j~~~---_ :j-------~----~-== :-~=:~- 7585014054 6 --------IPep-perTree-Lni common area I 2359 I I i!=f85614655--, 7 1F>epper l'reeTnTco-mrr1on area ! 2359 --,____ ----------- i;~;~~:~;~ ~ IP9Pp€iTree Ln \cOmmon areal 2482 i 7585014049 10 1:=~~=~ t~== E~ I ~6~~~~:~:: i ;~~~ I I 7585014058 11 I Pepper Tree Ln I common area ! 2482 f t····· ·---··-·· -r---· --· ········ ·· ··········; ·· 7585014059 12 j Pepper }"ree Ln i common area! 2359 -I 7585014060 __ , 13 jPE!Pl?E!LTreE:J Ln : common area I . 2546 -f,--- 7585014031 .i 14 JPepperTreE!Ln ~_gOf')1111_()na!ea[__ 2482 , 75~5014032_ L 15 )PE!PPE!rTree ~n tcornrrioncire(:l l 2546 _ 1 75850140~4 I _ 16 IF>.E!PPE!ET~E!E! '-:_n[c;()rt1_rn()r1<:l£E!§I ~ __ 2482 , !58501~03_~ _j___ 17 ______ I PE:JppE;!r Tree Ln \-c_o_rnrn()f1C1rE!ci I-2546 _ 1 : _______ j__ _ ______ _ ~;~;~l:~~~ + ~~ -1~=~~~~-t~== [~+~~~~6~--~~=:-1-;!~; ----, ------+- 758561~fo38J -20 j~_eppE!r.J:rE!E!~~f)J~c~~rno6-are(l r -2546 ---_, __ -- 7585014039 I 21 l?_eppE!r Tree '-:_nj c_O_r1'1fl1()f)_§lr:_eci j _____ 25'!? 7585014040 J 22 i Pepper Tree Ln 1 common area ! 2482 7585014041 i 23 -________ -__ [~~PPE!TI.r:E!E!~_ri[ __ ~~rfif!l:~ci_cir~~-J-__ ?_3~~--_ + 7585014042 i 24 ! Pepper Tree Ln I common area j 2546 7585014043 ' 25 ! Pepper Tree Ln i common area l 2546 7585014044 26 ·Pepper Tree Ln ' common area 2359 7585014045 : 27 ;Peppe)r-Tree Ln ; common area 2359 t·· . - -. ··---·---------->-·-·-.. --~ . ----.. --------------- 7585014046 ; 28 : Pepper Tree Ln · common area : 2482 7585014047 29 !F>epperTreeTri; common area · 2359 .. ·1-···----·----------------·I· 7585014061 ----!' 30 ___ if=>epper_IreElhn 2546 7585014062 31 ___ [PE!Prer Treeln 2359 7585014063 ! 32 i Pepper Tree Ln 2482 ' . ···--f·······- 1 7585014064 33 JPepperTree L.n 2482 7585014065 34 i Pepp~r Tree Ln common area 2359 Total: 33 n/a 81,134 A:verage Sq. Ft.: n/a + ___ ~~4~9 n/a ---1 (2,359-2,546) ' \- Ranges of Sq. Ft.: --·····--· ·--L __ _ 17 NEIGHBORHOOD STATISTICS: SEAVIEW VILLAS -----! ··········· 1 ----------r------·--· ----1 t Major--·--· ------ 1 i I : Remodel i Proposed AP~_# -_i[ -~tr~~t - [ .• ·s-eAa .. v.~1.e~w~t}SDsr_:N J,·. __ c_oLm()m!_o~ni;z:a~r=e--·a--·--j\ l:iOi:t11 .. ~7--9~49 '.~!: __ I' ___ '(_~<:'t_;,· --~q'. Ft. ?574003_0_57 _ _ JO __ _ T5?~9o_~g?? ... l 11 :~8-~§\/ie~_9-f~::r~~tiiil'?n~fe~:1:::J~~{::···· l :_---.:.· t::: -·---- ;;;:6~;~-~~--~--12 ~=:~:::§~~J~~~~~~=~::1-----·---~~~g-··-[ ;;;:6~;~;; i ~~=:~:::g~ ~ l~~~~-~~:~:: l ~~~~ -······ -- ;;;:66;~~~ · I 18 :~~:0i~~§-~~--+:~~~~~~-~f~t \-~~~~ ~!fr~~ii}{jl _ tl~~~ihlii~~i~¥ai! ..... ~: ---·-------·+·-·-:-_:_-______________ .... , 7574003027 I 23 Seav1ew Dr N : common area : 1884 -----"" -------t· . --------------------------·------.. ------------------· '"'' i··· 7574003050 ! 24 'Seaview Dr N i common area 1 1868 !--·--· -----------------··-····-··--······ .. j 7574003028 25 Seaview Dr N ' common area ! 1858 ------·-·--,__ -------·---i··· 7574003049 26 7574003029 27 Seaview Dr N common area :seaview Dr N ! common area i 7574003048 28 7574003030 29 I ' Seaview Dr N · common area : ----!• ! j ·- ; Seaview Dr N 7574003047 30 7574003031 31 -]Seaview Dr N 7574003046 32 rseaview Dr N 7574003032-[ ·-·---·-··33---lseayi~w[)r-~ 7574003045 34 ___ (E;~a\'i~:wor_f\J ___ _ 7574003033 : 35 :seaview Dr N common area 7574()()3()44-r 36 -· rseaview Dr N 7t)i4663b~4-_-[ 37 -rseaview Dr N _ : csirl1rl1_o_ri_~r~a 7574003043 I 38 !Seaview Dr N 7574003035 T 39 · · lseaview Dr N 7574003042 40 [seavi_ew br N 7574003036 41 !Seaview Dr N common area 7574003041 42 1seaview Dr N common area 7574003037 43 iseaview Dr N ' common area 7574003038 , 45 'Seaview Dr N common area 7574003039 I 47 common area 7-574tY03040--·--t--49 --· --· ----·--·--· -- ---·--·--·-·--·-· ·--... ··-· ······-·--·+--··--···-··--------.. ·--. 7574003058 L 10 7574003089 i 11 -···-··· -.. --··-····+····. ···---··-·-757400305~ j 12 75!~0030~0 j 14 ;-~+:~g;~~~~t ~~ ---i~::~r::gr~ 7574003687 1 17 Lseavie'A' br·s 7574003062 18 Seaview Dr S ;;;~~g~~~fT .. --~;--1~::01~~-g~~ ~~~~~~ :~:: 7574b-()3o85--l ---21 common a .. r.e.-a .. ·+------·----- 18 NEIGHBORHOOD STATISTICS: SEAVIEW VILLAS · ·-~-· ··· -· ··· · · ---·---·--· --·-· ··--· ----·---------· -----:---·-----··--·-··-···--· ·-···-· ----·---·---·--1·----·-·-----·----·-····--·-··· -· · ·-· ··-r-· -------·-------·--· Major Remodel Proposed APN # Street . Address: Lot Size: , Home Sq.Ft: Year Sq. Ft_ 757 4003064 22 Tseaview Ors. -common area - --1868 --' ?5_t~903Q~~--~------?_:3__ . ]§€la_yi€J~_Pt$_,._(;<?rr1rY1..0.~a~E?~-, -·· 2123· ~-r _ 7574003065 ' 24 !Seaview Dr S : common area i 1868 , ;~~!·~~~~~~·~----.t··---·-···-~-·~i-._ •.•.•.. __ .1·-~=:0:~~ .g~.·~·---.1 ~~ffi~~~~;~:·r-•~•-•-:ti~t~=-.-.-••~r __ • 7574003082 I 27 'Seaview Dr S -. common area 1884 : ·--· j 75-74663667 r--2if --isEi-,iview-br s Gommonarea · ·· ···-· 1·866---~ · + · ·--···-·-·· ---- ;;; 4ggj~~&J-1t r~=!~:: ~~ r~~~~~ri =~?: r _~~f--1=~ ----r----_:_ 757 4003079 ; ....... ~3 _ j_S_eaview Dr S -r com_iTI_o_rl_ area-r-_?1_2} ____ j__ _ ----~ _ __ _ _ __ 7574003078 '. 35 _J?_€l~Yi_€J~I?!$ common area ' 1884 : 7574663077-"·· 39 iseaview Dr s --common-area -1858 -, __ 7574663676 41 iseaview-or s common area 2044 , ·-·-·--------------------..... -···--1-·---------------··- 7574003075 i 43 iSeaview Dr S common area 2044 --------------·--· - i --·---------·--··--.. . -·-···. ·---··------__ _ 7574003074 I 45 common area 2044 7574003073 47 common area 2044 7574003072 49 common area 1858 7574003071 , 51 Seaview Dr S common area 1884 , 7574003070 53 Seaview Dr S common area , 2123 -· r 7574003069 55 Seaview Dr S • common area 2123 7574003068 57 ,Seaview Dr S common area 1884 Total: L Average Sq. Ft.: Ranges of Sq: Ft.: f. ·---------------------------------------.. ----· 68 1 n/a 131,785 l nla . 1,938 , n/a -· (1,794-2,123)[ · P:3.28.07thom/pa---lotsizes.excel 19 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Office of the General Manager May 29, 2015 Kit Fox City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275--5391 Dear Mr. Fox: Responses to Comments on the Palos Verdes Reservoir Via Federal Express 0 l U pgradcs Project Mi ti gated Negative Declaration (SCH #201503107 4) The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) received your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palos Verdes Reservoir Upgrades Project (Project). Metropolitan' s responses to yom comments are enclosed. Metropolitan's Board of Directors will be acting on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Project at its regularly scheduled public meeting on Tuesday, June 9, 2014, at 12:00 p.m. Metropolitan's headquarters are located at 700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 900 l 2. This notification is in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 15073( e ), which states: "The lead agency shall notify in writing any public agency which comments on a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration of any public hearing to be held for the project for which the document was prepared." Thank you for participating in the public review process for this project. If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact Ms. Malinda Stalvey at (213) 217-5545 or rr1wclh29,,<,:Qrn. Deborah Drezner Interim Team Manager, Environmental Planning Team MKS/mks (EPT No. 20150531 ESG) Enclosure 700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 •Mailing Address: P.O. Box 54153, Los Angeles, California, 90054·0153 •Telephone: l22Q17-6000 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Califo:·nia ' " ; //, , " ~bmment llette~ I " l ~ * CITY OF ·10 April 2015 Malinda Stalvey Environmental Planning Tearn Metropolitan Water District PO Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 f<J\NCHO l)/\LOS VEl~DES CITY M/\l'iACIE:R'f) OFFICE AL)MINISTl<J\f IC.!~l SUBJECT: Comments In Response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palos Verdes Reservoir Upgrad1~s1 Project Dear Ms. Stalvey: proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-mentioned project. We 5.1 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the I have reviewed the MND, and offer the following comments: 1. The Project Description in the Initial Study (pp. 1-16) raises several questions: 2. a. b. c. d. What are the two (2) MWD member agencies that will be reconnected to the reservoir after the upgrades are complete? What will be the new maximum capacity of the reservoir after the upgrades are complete? Is a back-up generator or other emergency power supply for the reservoir proposed as a part of the upgrade project? If not, why not? It is our understanding that the Chandler Quarry in Rolling Hills Estates no longer accepts construction and demolition material. If this is the 1~ase, what will be the destination for this material? The discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 50 .. 53) concludes that impacts related to the exposure of people and structures to risk of loss, injury or death due to flooding resulting from a failure of the reservoir will be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are recommended. However, the inundation map for the Palos Verdes Reservoir prepared by MWD in the 1970s (see enclosure) clearly shows that portions of Green Hills Memorial Park and the Rolling Hills Riviem neighborhood in Rancho Palos Verdes could be flooded to depths of up to ten feet (10') in the event of a catastrophic failure of the reservoir. We understand that part of the purpose of the proposed project is to upgrade the 30B401-H .. ..vr111. }!~Nt: ni:vu. / l-.?/\rcii<) H<\a.i~, vum~:~, ( :1\ ~1o:;F;·ri'.1rn; 1:~m) ~·A{l·~ .. i20111 /\x i'.11UJ ~")44 <">?HI/ \;\f"V'\!WhP\<\.A l;t >11 PR:'H!::) (}l'! l~h:rnu.J !-1\PH< Palos Verdes Reservoir Upgrades Project Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 5,2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Malinda Stalvey 10 April 2015 Page 2 reservoir to current safety standards. Nevertheless, the City of Rancho Palos 5.6 Verdes respectfully requests the inclusion of the following mitigation measures as cont. 3. a part of the MND: a. b. MWD shall prepare an updated inundation map for the Palos Verdes Reservoir, based upon its expected maximum capacity after the completion of upgrades. A copy of this map shall be provided lo the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and first responders (l.e., Los Angeles County Sheriff and Los Angeles County Fire) for emergency preparation, planning and response purposes. MWD shall develop, in conjunction with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and first responders, a system for emergency public notification of downstream residents in the event that an imminent failure of th•~ reservoir is observed, either as a result of routine inspection or an unusual event (e.g., earthquake, etc.). The discussion of Transportationrrraffic in the Initial Study (pp. 67-71) concludes that construction traffic entering and exiting the project site could have a significant impact upon the safety of recreational trail users along Palos Verdes Drive North and Palos Verdes Drive East, and recommends the use of flagmen and guards as a mitigation measure. The City concurs with this assessment, but would also point out that the segments of Palos Verdes Drive North and Palos Verdes Drive East adjacent to the reservoir are a part of a major commuter route for Palos Verdes Peninsula residents. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully suggests that the use of flagging operations should be expanded to include motorists as well, particularly during peak morning and evening commute hours. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this important project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544- 5226 or via e-mail at l<itf@rpvca.gov. Sincerely, "'2/ ///ly,u / Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analyst cc: Mayor Jim Knight and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Doug Willmore, City Manager Carolynn Petru, Deputy City Manager Tracy Bonano. Emergency Smrvices Coordinator Nicole Jules, Deputy Director of Public Works M:\13ordar lssues\Palos Vardas Reservolrl20150410_MNDComments.docx Palos Verdes Reservoir Upgrades Project Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.7 5.8 5.9 May2015 Pag~~ The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Response to the April 10, 2015, Comment Letter from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Response to Comment 5-1 These introductory comments are noted. Response to Comment 5-2 The Palos Verdes Reservoir provides operational tlexibility and emergency storage for Metropolitan's Central Pool distribution system. Metropolitan's two member agencies downstream of the Palos Verdes Reservoir are West Basin Municipal Water District and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Currently, these member agencies' demands are being met through the reservoir's bypass pipeline. Response to Comment 5-3 The new maximum capacity of the reservoir after the upgrades are complete will be 740 acre-feet. Response to Comment 5·4 There is an existing emergency generator at the Palos Verdes Reservoir facility; therefore, an additional generator is not part of the proposed project. Response to Comment 5-5 The proposed location for the construction and demolition material is Carson, California. This location is within the parameters used in the analyses included in the MND. Response to Comment 5-6 The commenter's summary of the findings of the MND regarding impacts relating to the exposure of people or structures to inundation risk is correct. Please see Response 5-7 for more information on inundation risk mapping for the reservoir. Response to Comment 5-7 As noted in Response 5-6, the MND determined that impacts on people and structures related to inundation as a result of dam failure are less than significant. Therel(lre, under CEQA, there is no requirement for actions to be considered mitigation measures as requested by the City. Regardless, Metropolitan intends to prepare an updated inundation map for the Palos Verdes Reservoir subsequent to approval of the proposed project by the Division of Safety of Dams. Metropolitan will provide a copy of the map to the State Office of Emergency Services, as required by law. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes and first responders may submit a written request to Metropolitan for a copy of the inundation map. The written request should include a brief explanation of purpose of the request, and name and address of responsible party to receive the map. Response to Comment 5-8 As noted in Response 5-6, the MND determined that impacts on people and structures related to inundation as a result of dam failure arc less than significant. In the event that an imminent failure of the dam is considered likely based on observations made either during a routine inspection or after an unusual event, Metropolitan would contact the California Emergency Management Agency, the Los Angeles County Emergency Operations Center, and the Los Angeles Police Department Palos Verdes Reservoir Upgrades Project Final Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2015 P~7 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Response Center. It is recommended that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes contact the California Emergency Management Agency and the Los Angeles County Emergency Operation Center for guidance in developing a system for emergency public notification of downstream residents. Response to Comment 5"9 The commenter concurs with the assessment that impacts to recreational users would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The commenter also requests that use of flagging operations be expanded to include motorists, particularly during peak morning and evening commute hours. As noted on page 70 of the MND, Metropolitan's standard specifications require that contractors prepare and impleme.ml: a construction traffic management plan. This plan would be required to address temporary traffic control along public roadways, as per the requirements and procedures described in the Caltrans Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones. Where local requirements and procedures meet or exceed those in the Caltrans Manual, these may be utilized instead. Included in the plan, as appropriate, would be provision for the use of flagmen at intersections to assist trucks entering/exiting the work limits as well as appropriate advance warning signage, to alert motorists, cyclists, equestrian users or pedestrians to the potential for cross construction vehicle traffic from work limits, in accordance with Caltrans standards. Palos Verdes Reservoir Upgrades Project Final Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2015 Pag~~ From: Sent: To: Subject: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Tuesday, June 02, 2015 1:35 PM Kathryn Downs; CC Fwd: Storm Drain User Fee Rate Engineer Proposal Report To City Council In reading your report to the City Council for tonight's meeting, I feel that the excerpts you took from our Report, imply that the WQFP Committee as a whole agreed to and recommended a continuation of the Storm Drain User Fee beyond 2016. That is not true. We as a Committee agreed that the User Fee Tax, as approved by the voters, is an appropriate funding source. By a majority vote the Committee decided it was the City Council's responsibility to "initiate planning for appropriate funding of the City's storm drain and water quality issues beyond June 30,2016". The Committee, by a vote of 3 to 2 approved the .1 % maximum allowable rate increase. The Committee also agreed that we should not be involved in a political situation by recommending a new Storm Drain User Fee with the election to be held in November. The original ordinance that created the Oversight Committee in 2007 states "establishing an oversight committee of City residents to monitor the annual Storm Drain User Fee expenditures". It says nothing about recommending a new Storm Drain User Fee election. I feel that the City Council should also receive a copy of the minutes from our last meeting on May 21,2016 because they may be interested in comments that were made. 1 G. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JUNE 1, 2015 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, June 2, 2015 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 2 Email from Debbie Harris 4 Emails from: Bob Nelson; Dave Emenhiser Respectfully-submitted, ~fttl_ (!lit J g<'?&il0c_f(___ Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150601 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc From: Sent: To: Subject: Debbie Harris <debbieharris@verizon.net> Saturday, May 30, 2015 8:08 AM cc Safety concerns-patrols and cameras Thank you for serving on the RPV City Council and for your service to our community. I read the release about the attempted kidnapping in the news -very disturbing. Of course, this is every parent's worst nightmare. I work as a pediatric nurse and am a local Girl Scout leader--we all want to keep the kids safe in our community, as do you. I understand that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is currently reviewing the budget for the upcoming fiscal year 15-16 and there is discussion of inclusion of two additional patrol cars, additional Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR) and a camera at La Rotunda and PVDS. As a resident of RPV, I am in favor of these proposals. Thank you for leading the way to improve safety in our community. Regards, Debbie Harris From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Nelsongang < nelsongang@aol.com> Saturday, May 30, 2015 5:27 PM Joel Rojas; PC cc Frm Nelson: ? Attendance at 6/2 & 6/16 Council Mtngs: FYI Members of RPV's Planning Commission and Director Joel Rojas copy: City Council Our PC will not have a meeting until Tuesday 6/23. In the meantime our City Council will vote on two major items that we have discussed I voted. We will not have had Minutes on one of them and therefore, I would urge each of my fellow commissioners, should you choose, to try and appear before our Council to voice your thoughts. Items are: Council June 2nd: Regular Business: Item 4: "Draft 2015 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan" (CIP). The request staff has for Council is what changes would they like to see in these over the next 5 years? We discussed various CIP items for 2 hours at our May 26 meeting. We went around the table with each Commissioner stating those items they had questions on (to see if more than one Commissioner had questions on any single item) and then took answers, by Commissioner, by question. I have our list by Commissioner and some fast notes on answers. There were additional questions about items not formally in the CIP and I have that list. We never got to the concept of CIP 'needs' vs 'wants' due to time. In the end, our first motion, simply moving staff's recommendation for 100% consistency with the General Plan, failed 3-3. Commissioner Emenhiser, I believe seconded by Commissioner Leon, moved a second motion finding consistency but urging the Council to explore alternatives to the item entitled "Fiber Optic Cabling -Abalone Cove Sewer Lift Stations, Shoreline Park and Ladera Linda." ($1.6 million in FY 17-18) This passed 6-0, I believe. Across our Commission, comments questioned this optic fiber expense vs alternatives such as leasing the existing Cox line. (And humorously, at the Mayor's Breakfast, another Chair suggested as an alternative 'carrier pigeon!') One question to staff of what is the current procedure for stopping an Abalone Cove sewage spill at 1 AM Sunday morning and, we found, is overly complex and somewhat questionable in actually happening so obviously needs changing. Also widely questioned was the rationale for extending optic communication to Ladera Linda vs using phone. And, a Commissioner pointed out, as an answer to expense on this item, nowhere in the General Plan does it call for city 'fiscal responsibility.' Hopefully, you all have your notes from our meeting and I urge you to attend June 2, although CIP is the last agenda item. Council June 16th: Western Avenue Vision Plan Design Guidelines. Our April 28th amended (and therefore not approved) Minutes have 10 pages of each Commissioner and member of the public's comments. In the end we could not endorse any of the proposed plans (A, B or C) and Commissioner Emenhiser, seconded by Commissioner Leon, proposed a new 4 part alternative, "D", which was approved 4-3 with Commissioners Gerstner, James and Vice Chair Tomblin dissenting. I am prepared to answer Council questions but I suspect they are getting tired of Nelson and hearing face to face individually from you on your thoughts on Western Avenue would be a much better impression than myself or our Minutes! This is being sent out since our Commission will not have a meeting until these are dust on the trail of Council business and I believe each Commissioner's thoughts on each would be of great value to our Council in its deliberations. Thanks for taking time to read this, have a great week! Bob Nelson PC Member and 2015 Chair 31 0-544-4632 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: emenhiser@aol.com Monday, June 01, 2015 12:18 PM cc dwillmore@rpvca.com; Joel Rojas; Michael Throne CIP Feedback -Fiber Optic Cable Mr. Mayor and Member of the City Council: I guess its my fault that the Planning Commission had a bit of trouble approving the CIP last Tuesday night. And quickly, here's why: 1. There's an item titled "Fiber Optic Cabling: Abalone Cover Sewer Lift Station/Shoreline Park/Ladera Linda" with an estimated cost of $1.6 million, designed to run a fiber optic cable from City Hall to Abalone Cover and Ladera Linda to provide "improved connectivity". 2. Having come from the Telecom industry, I can tell you that there are many less expensive ways of maintaining connectivity at these sites, FAR less. 3. This is not the first time I've raised this issue. Last year I spoke against it at the PC Meeting and had a private follow up conversation with the Public Works staff member who presented the CIP that evening. Last year I went along with the CIP approval knowing that my opposition was beyond the purview of our charge and based on the reassurances from staff that it was "just an estimate" and that this item would be getting a more conscientious review later. 4. A year later this item is still in the CIP, many members in Public Works Dept have turned over, and the hit to the City's budget is now 3 years out, not 4. 5. To the credit of the Director of Public Works, he made a very complete presentation on this item and answered all the questions asked by the commission on this and other issues (a welcome change from the past). While the CIP was unanimously approved by the PC, it was only after a 3-3 tie on my motion that the Ladera Linda portion of the project not be included in CIP (the 3 no votes were based on the perspective that the financial implications of the CIP were beyond the purview of the PC). Caulk this minor dustup to the presence of a couple former FAC Chairs and the presence of a former Telecom executive. Ultimately, I also believe that part of our charge is to be good stewards of the public purse and, whether possible, protect the Council from later embarrassment. Thank you for the opportunity to share my minority viewpoint. Dave Emenhiser Commissioner 1