The URL can be used to link to this page

20160719 Late CorrespondenceJune 30, 2016 Peninsula Verd e Residents Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 , lle/J10/•r(1/ _<~l/.f.. Re: Follow up to Conununity Outreach Meeting Dear Neighbor, REc cE1vEo FRoM~ oe rnade-tt-e LYl !zrffl< AND MADE A PART OF THE F}jj.cP;jo AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 7 /c:J ~'?-z OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK <Fa/Jtrc_ 1Jr//{f)f~ We would like to first thank you for taking the time to meet with us on June 11, 2016 to discuss the Inspiration Slope project and allowing us the opportunity to address those concerns presented. We believe with ongoing communication we should be able to maintain a relationship of respect and harmony. \'<le will remain available to field phone calls or answer emails going forward. It is our recommendation you might consider appointing a point of contact for the Peninsula Verde Homeowners to filter such communication to Green Hills so we are efficient in responding. If there is a consensus agreeing to this suggestion, please send the name and contact information via email to Tom Frew -tfrew@ghmp.com. For the purpose of distributing this specific le t ter it has been emailed to Bernadette Sabath with a request to share it with all of you. Before addressing the action plan previously promised, we want to bring to your attention the install ation of lawn crypts taking place at the Soli theast corner (street level) of the mausoleum building. We anticipate approximately 7-10 business days to complete this task. We continue receiving delivery of lawn crypts, slower than we would like, and will begin setting them in the ground behind the building once we have accumulated enough inventory. In addition, we are in th e process of building the retainihg wall at the street level per the RPV permit issued. This will be an 8 week process. Once complete, the dirt pile will be backfilled as described during your visit. We will then be left with the final steps of installing irrigation and sod. We are receiving mixed reaction to the proposal of building a wall at the property line. We received a signed petition by several residents a few months back indicating a wall should be constructed. \'<le then addressed you on June 11 '" and it was confirmed the wall was desirable. At that time, we mentioned the city of RPV had shared many of you were not in favor of such a project leaving Green Hills confused by these mixed messages . Today, more communication from the city te ll s us the wall is not something you want and instead having more vegetation planted is appealing. It is imperative for us to have clear, concise direction to ensure we are meeting your wishes. At this time we will await any action on a wall, or alternative, until othe1wise directed. Below is a list of the concerns, item by item, you shared and what plan of action we are implementing. Hopefully you will agree we are making every effort to resolve each issue and have confidence we will better manage them in the future. 27501 SOUTH WESTERN AV ENUE * RANCHO PALOS VERDES* CALIFORN IA *90275 * (310 ) 831-0311 « No f'f ~ f-Acs~ Co-t t0 t -ir ~ 1. We will begin having a 211<l security officer patrol the entire property line of Green Hills beginning July 81h. The additional security will be in place on Friday, Saturday and Sunday's and clear instruction will be provided on how to manage patrons not abiding by the rules of GHMP. Emphasis will entail the property line between GHMP and Peninsula Verde. Needless to say, some visitors will challenge this authority and it will be the security company's discretion whether or not to involve the sheriff department. Security will notify management of any situation above their ability. 2. The portable toilet located near the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is now enclosed with wood fencing to provide privacy to those neighbors nearby. 3. A sign prohibiting alcohol and loud noise is being made and will be placed at the Infonnation Booth so vehicles entering the park will have a clear view. 4 . We will begin a maintenance program during the month of July to trim trees and vegetation that has grown over the fence and intruding on personal property. Since each homeowner has unique preferences, the best way for us to plan the maintenance is for you to provide us clear instruction with specifics to how high you want trees kept, etc. To schedule maintenance along your property, please email Nick Resich -nresich@ghmp.com. It should be noted we will require written permission by the homeowner to enter private property when necessary. 5. The following Green Hills rules will be the responsibility of security and GHMP employees to enforce from dusk to dawn. A. No Alcohol Consumption or Drug Usage -Zero Tolerance B. No use of cooking equipment to include propane stove tops and barbeques C. No amplified music/ sound to include vehicle radios or portable devices D. No sporting activities Green Hills will have cards listing these rules and have them available for security and employees when approaching guests that are in violation. 6. Mortuaries have been notified Green Hills does not allow amplified music at any time, with exception to the military playing of Taps. They have been instructed musicians are restricted to 30 minutes maximum of play time and must always face the center of the park with their backs to the property line. Again, thank you foi· the opportunity to hear your voice and work towards a positive working relationship. Included in this letter is contact information for each team member for future reference. Wishing you a happy and safe 41h of July! Tom Frew Controller p. 310-521-4412 e. tfrew@ghmp.com Nick Resich p. 310-521 -4301 e. nresich@ghmp.com Jennifer Frew Commwiity Relations/Events p. 310-521-4418 e. jfrew@ghmp.com Chris Wendel Sales Manager p. 310-521-4327 e. cwendel@ghmp.com Steve Espolt p. 310-521-4401 e. sespolt@ghmp.com REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION REVIEW PURSUANT TO RPV MUNICIPAL CODE §17.78.050 & §17.90.010 TO: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES -CITY CLERK FROM: NOEL WEISS (COUNSEL FOR SHARON LOVEYS) DATED: JULY 18, 2016 The City Manager's grant of permission to Green Hills Memorial Park to store vaults on the roof-top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum was communicated in a letter dated June 28, 2016, to Green Hills Memorial Park, a copy of which is attached to this Request for Interpretation Review. The allowance to Green Hills of the right to use the roof-top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum to store 600 vaults has created an ambiguity and uncertainty with respect to (i) the scope and meaning of the Green Hills Master Plan (i.e. whether such use is authorized under the terms of the Conditional Use Permit initially granted in February, 1991, as modified by the Planning Commission in April, 2007, and then further modified by the City Council in November, 2015), and (ii) whether such roof-top (storage) use of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is even contemplated or permitted under the Cemetery Zoning Law of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (as set out in Chapter 17.28 (§§ 17.28.010-17.28.040)). Background Facts: 1. Under the Master Plan in favor of Green Hills Memorial Park approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in February, 1991, and as later amended first by the Planning Commission in April, 2007, and later by the City Council in November, 2015 1, no 1 The November, 2015 City Council action did not deal specifically with any issues attendant to the development of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. Rather, the City Council's focus in overruling the views of its prior City Attorney and the Planning Commission was solely directed to the contentions set out in Green Hills' appeal of what Green Hills contended was an adverse Planning Commission determination that it was necessary for Green Hills to apply for and procure (i) an (after the fact) variance from the development standard incorporated into the City's Zoning Code requiring the building enve lop e of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum to be set back 40' from the (southern) property line of the adjacent Vista Verde condominium complex; and (ii) to procure an (after the fact) conditional use permit allowing for the interment of human remains on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (a use never specifically contemplated by the Plann.i~g Commission.or staff in April, 2007, when the Green Hills M j\}er Plan an? Cond1t10nal Use Permit were amended). iRECEIVED FROM ael Uk 1$$ AND MADE A PART OF Hts ~EuORD AT THE 1 lcoUNC IL MEET IN G OF 7/tq l (a OFF ICE OF THE CITY CLERK ~ :s-I CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK conditional use right or permission was given to Green Hills allowing anv use of the roof- top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoluem for any purpose beyond that of serving as a roof atop the mausoleum structure. 2. Green Hills has never formally applied for an amendment to its Master Plan specifically allowing for such use (i.e. as either vault storage or as allowing for the interment of human remains on the roof-top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum); nor has Green Hills applied for a special permit allowing for such use. 3. Instead, beginning in or about January, 2016, and continuing through June 28, 2016, Doug Willmore, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager, and representatives of Green Hills Memorial Park engaged in a series of oral and written discussions premised on the unsubstantiated and undocumented notion that the current Green Hills Master Plan "contemplates the possibility of roof-top burials" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (while omitting any reference to the allowance or permitting of "roof-top vault storage"). Background Law: § l 7.28.030(A) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code states that a conditional use permit is required for the following uses relevant to this Request for Interpretation Review: (i) Burial Park for earth interments, (ii) Mausoleums for vault or crypt interments, or (iii) Columbarium for cinerary interments 2. While the terms "Burial Park'' and "Mausoleum" are not defined in the City's zoning code, California state law provides the following definitions pertinent to the requested Interpretation Review of Mr. Willmore's unratified, unauthorized action in purporting to grant Green Hills land use entitlement rights which have never been formally applied for, and for which no formal approval by the Director of Planning, the Planning Commission, or the City Council has been procured: 1. "A burial park means a tract of land for the burial of human remains in the ground, used or intended to be used, and dedicated for cemetery purposes". (§7003(1)(1) of the Health & Safety Code) (Emphasis Added). 2 Thus, only the following three identifiable categories of allowable "interments" are created under the City's zoning law: (1) Earth interments; (2) Vault (or crypt) interments; and (3) Cinerary interments. No category is created or stated which is identified as "roof- top interments, or "roof-top burials"; nor is there any referenced category created under the RPV City Cemetery Zoning Code for "ground burials" or "above-ground burials"; or any formal legal category which otherwise makes use of the term "burials" when describing the type of uses permitted under the provisions of the City's Cemetery Zone. 2 2. "A mausoleum means a structure or building (or the entombment of human remains in crvpts or vaults in a place used, or intended to be used, and dedicated for cemetery purposes". (H&S Code §7005) (Emphasis Added). 3. "Entombment means the process of placing human remains in a crypt or vault". (H&S Code §7012) (Emphasis Added) 4. "Crypt or vault means a space in a mausoleum of sufficient size, used or intended to be used, to entomb uncremated human remains". (H&S Code §7015). (Emphasis Added) 5. "Interment means the disposition of human remains by entombment or burial in a cemetery .... " (H&S Code §7009). 6. "Burial mean the process of placing human remains in a grave". (H&S Code §7013 (Emphasis Added). 7. "Grave means a space of earth in a burial park, used, or intended to be used, for the disposition of human remains." (H&S Code §7014)(Emphasis Added). As such, State Law does not explicitly make provision for the interment of human remains on the roof-top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. In fact, it can be contended that state law contemplates that "graves" and "burials" solely involve the placement of human remains in the earth (below-ground (or below grade)); while Mausoleum use contemplates the placement of human remains inside a building or structure built for that purpose. Nothing in state law appears to contemplate or envision use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue for "burials" (as defined under California state law). The City's Zoning Code does not specifically define the terms "interment", "earth interment", or "below-grade interment" (the latter term being used in§ 17.28.040(A) of the City's Municipal Code (which establishes set-back standards as it draws a distinction between the set-back distances for "structures" on the one hand, and "below-grade interments" on the other)). Nor does the City's Zoning Code make any definitional reference to the terms "burials", "ground burials", "roof-top burials", or "interments". Equating (by mere implication) the term "burials" with "interments" absent any clear, specific definitional structure identified within the City's Cemetery Zoning Code creates needless ambiguity and confusion; and in the absence of the needed clarification called for by this Interpretation Review Request, avoidable confusion will exist in how the provisions of the Green Hills Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit are to be applied and enforced; all of which can lead to controversy, litigation, uncertainty, and a lack of predictability; and all of which is needlessly prejudicial to the City, Green Hills, RPV citizens, and the Vista Verde Condominium owners. 3 The City's Cemetery Zoning Code (and specifically§ 17.28.030(A-G)) does not identify any specific category allowing or permitting the creation or maintenance of "roof- top interment sites"3 as a lawfully permitted "conditional use." Instead, RPV Municipal 3 The City's current practice in using the word "burials" as a substitute for the term "interments" is a misnomer and is confusing and ambiguous. This is because the term "burial" is defined under state law but not under the RPV Cemetery Zoning Code. As so defined under state law, "burial" does not equal "interment". Therefore, it cannot reasonably be said that the "burial" of human remains automatically or logically contemplates the "interment" of human remains on the roof of a structure. For Green Hills or the City Manager to state or imply to the contrary creates confusion, ambiguity, and lack of clarity; all of which are supportive of this Interpretation Review Request. The City's Zoning Code speaks only in terms of "earth interments" and "below-grade interments"; neither of which are consonant with the notion of"roof interment". A clarification is thus needed as to whether, under the City's Cemetery Zoning Code, it is lawful to inter human remains on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (versus inter human remains inside the "four walls" of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum). The placement of "fill", "sod", "soil", or "grass" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum also embraces clear and obvious limitations and issues attendant to the broader public health, welfare, and safety. With the exception of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum, nowhere else in California has a mausoleum roof been used as a venue for the interment of human remains. The requested Interpretation Review also impacts other aspects of the Green Hills Master Plan such as (i) the total number of authorized "interments" to be allowed under the Master Plan (i.e. are "roof-top interments, even if authorized, included in the total number of "interments" allowed under Green Hills Master Plan); (ii) where "fill" is to be stored and the limitations on where "fill" generated from earth interments is to be stored, and (iii) where, within the geographical boundaries of the Green Hills Master Plan are vaults, crypts, and other material items permitted to be stored. There is a portion of the state Health & Safety Code which imposes strict requirements on how a Mausoleum is to be built (i.e. Health & Safety Code §§9600-9603; and §§9625- 964 7). No reference exists in those statutes to the use of a structure's roof for the interment of human remains. Until this Interpretation Review Request has been acted upon, the City's Planners, the City Planning Commission, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Council should cease and desist from using the term "roof-top burials" or "ground burials" when referring to the Green Hills Master Plan. This includes the (misleading (by omission)) use of the term "rooftop burials" in Mr. Willmore's letter of June 28, 2016, particularly when the focus of the letter is supposed to be limited to Green Hills' use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue to store 600 vaults. Accordingly, the Map of the Green Hills Master Plan prepared and maintained by the City's Planning Department (where it is contemplated that the interment of human remains is to occur on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum) should be revised to remove all references to "ground burials" as confusing, ambiguous, and inconsistent with both state law and the City's Cemetery Zoning Code. Instead, (i) the words "earth 4 Code§ 17.28.030(H) gives the "Director" discretion to permit "such other uses as the Director deems to be similar and not more intensive" (with such determination being exercised following the submission of a formal application). This lack of definitional clarity with regard to the if, when, and under what conditions "roof-top interments" or "roof-top vault storage" are to be allowed under the City's Cemetery Zoning Code has resulted in an ambiguity which necessitates that the provisions ofRPV Municipal Code§ 17.78.050 (Interpretation Procedure for Approved Applications) be invoked to further define, clarify, and enumerate the conditions incorporated into the current Conditional Use Permit possessed by Green Hills under its Master Plan, and whether the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum to either (i) store vaults, or (ii) inter human remains engenders and raises new issues never contemplated by the City when it initially approved the Green Hills Master Plan in February, 1991, or amended it in April, 2007 (Planning Commission), or when the City Council acted in November, 2015, to "clarify" certain matters attendant to the Green Hills Master Plan (as per Green Hills' appeal to the City Council) and thus formally amend the same with regard to the matters incorporated in Green Hills' appeal (and without benefit interment" (where appropriate) should be substituted to identify those geographic areas on the map where human remains are placed in the earth (or in the ground; i.e. below (earth) grade); and (ii) the words "roof-top interments" should be used to identify those structures where (assuming it is otherwise lawful) human remains are to be interred on the roofs of one or more of the Mausoleums identified on the Map. This aligns with the precise issues raised by this Interpretation Review Request; namely: (1) Whether "roof-top interments" are permissible under the RPV Cemetery Code, (2) Whether the Green Hills Master Plan contemplates the use of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue where "roof-top interments" are to occur; (3) (If so), whether Green Hills has applied for and procured a conditional use permit allowing for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for the interment of human remains; (4) (If not), whether Green Hills is required to procure a conditional use permit allowing for the same after a formal hearing, consistent with the City's Zoning Code; (5) Whether Green Hills is required to apply for and procure a conditional use permit to store vaults on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum in advance of its being permitted to do so; and ( 6) Whether the City Manager on his own initiative possesses the right, power, and authority to authorize the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue on which to store vaults (be it with or without any formal contractual indemnity) absent Green Hills having first applied for and procured either (i) a temporary permit, or (ii) a conditional use permit, or both, allowing for such specific use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum beyond that of being simply used as a roof. 5 of Green Hills ever having made formal application to amend its Conditional Use Permit or procure a variance from the set-back requirements referenced in the development standards incorporated into the City's Cemetery Zoning Code). This formal Request for Interpretation Review is also appropriate under Chapter 17.90 of the City's Municipal Code (Interpretation Procedure) concerning whether the City's current zoning code even allows roof-top use of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for purposes of either vault storage or the (roof-top) interment of human remains. Questions Presented: 1. Is anv use of all or any portion of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for either vault storage or for the interment of human remains currently permitted under the (Green Hills) Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit? If so, how and pursuant to what provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is such use (vault storage or interment of human remains) permitted?; 2. If not, should Green Hills be required to apply for and procure a conditional use permit (after Hearing and Notice) amending its Master Plan to allow for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a storage venue for unused burial vaults?; 3. If not, whether Green Hills should be required to apply for and procure a conditional use permit (after Hearing and Notice) amending its Master Plan to allow for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a space within the Green Hills Memorial Cemetery for the permanent interment of human remains?; 4. If not, whether Green Hills should be required to apply for and procure a special (temporary) use permit allowing for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for any other purpose other than solely as a roof?; 5. Whether Doug Willmore, acting in his capacity as City Manager, is possessed of the right, power, or authority to unilaterally grant special permission to Green Hills allowing for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for any purpose other than as a roof, in the absence of Green Hills having made formal advance written application to the City to amend the Green Hills Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit? 6 CITY OF June 28, 2016 Mr. John Resich Chairman of the Board Green Hills Memorial Park 27501 S. Western Avenue Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RANCHO PALOS VERDES OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Re: Inspiration Slope Rooftop Burials; Waiver of Claims Dear Mr. Resich: This letter memorializes the agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) and Green Hills Memorial Park (Green Hills) regarding the placement of concrete vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (the Mausoleum) by Green Hills. The representatives of the parties reached an oral understanding to permit placement of concrete vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum provided that Green Hills agrees that the placement of the vaults does not provide Green Hills with: (i) any entitlement to conduct rooftop burials on the Mausoleum; or (ii) any claims for damages concerning the placement of the vaults should the City deny Green Hills' application for rooftop burials on the Mausoleum. This letter agreement confirms the oral understandings. 1. Factual Background Green Hills operates a memorial park and cemetery located in the City. Green Hills' operation and development of the memorial park is governed by the 2007 Master Plan, including all later amendments (the Master Plan), and by City Council Resolution No. 2015-12, revising and amending conditions of approval for Green Hills' Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and amending the Master Plan (the Resolution). The Master Plan contemplates the construction of the Mausoleum in Area 2 of the memorial park, and further contemplates the possibility of rooftop burials thereon. The CUP's conditions of approval were revised and updated due to a recent controversy surrounding rooftop burials at another of Green Hill's mausoleums, the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11. The rooftop burials in the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum are visible from the condominium building just north of the structure, and have generated complaints and litigation. The City has expended significant public resources to resolve the issues surrounding the rooftop burials, and will expend significant further resources in the foreseeable future to resolve the litigation. 30940 HAWTllOl<NE 13M1 I l~ANCllO IJAIOS VFRllFS. CA 9027Ei-53Sl1 I (310) 544-5207 I Fi\X (310) 544-5291 / WWWRl0 VCAc:1ClV .• PRINTED ON l~ECYCLED l"f\PEf\ Mr. John Resich June 28, 2016 Page2 Green Hills acknowledges that the Resolution amended Green Hills' CUP, which now provides for an administrative substantial compliance review so that, except for improvements consistent with the Master Plan or those subject to the Planning Commission, all improvements must be reviewed by the Director to determine if they substantially comply with the Master Plan (Condition 1.k.). Condition 1.k. specifically provides that review of an application for rooftop burials can be performed by the Director. The Director can, at his or her discretion, refer a matter directly to the Planning Commission. Condition 2 provides that the following matters are directly reviewable by the Planning Commission: (i) the construction or modification of a mausoleum or other significant building, (ii) any significant change to the grading, (iii) any development of a future phase of Green Hills where the Master Plan has not designated a development plan or uses, or (iv) any amendment to the Master Plan. Thus, while rooftop burials at Inspiration Slope are contemplated in the Master Plan, Condition l .k. of the CUP now provides that Green Hills may not perform such burials prior to obtaining administrative approval from the Director or the Planning Commission, pursuant to the Resolution. In anticipation of possible rooftop burials, Green Hills has purchased and with the oral understanding memorialized herein, installed concrete vaults on the roof of the Mausoleum. Green Hills intends to cover the vaults with dirt and ground cover, per Condition 22 of the CUP. However, Green Hills has not to date filed an application to conduct rooftop burials at the Mausoleum per Condition l.k of the CUP. Unless and until Green Hills obtains permission from the Director or the Planning Commission, Condition l.k provides that Green Hills may not perform rooftop burials at the Mausoleum. Green Hills does not have a readily available storage space for the vaults which have been ordered and has requested that it be allowed to (i) install the vaults on the roof top, and (ii) bury and backfill them. The City Manager has agreed that Green Hills may store the empty concrete burial vaults on the roof of the Mausoleum, and that such vaults shall be buried and the entirety of the roof shall be backfilled with dirt and ground cover, provided that Green Hills waives any claims for damages against the City related to the placement of the vaults should rooftop burials not be approved for the rooftop at the Mausoleum. Accordingly, if Green Hills submits an application to perform rooftop burials at the Mausoleum, and should the application be approved by the City, the concrete vaults may be utilized for that purpose. However, in the event that the City decides to deny any application by Green Hills to perform rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, Green Hills agrees not to utilize the buried concrete vaults for rooftop burials unless and until it complies with applicable laws and releases the City from any liability or damages to Green Hills related to the placement of the vaults arising from such decision, and assumes all risks therefore, as provided below. Based on the above, and on the City's police power expressly granted to it by state law, Green Hills agrees that the provisions of this Agreement are reasonable and do not impose an undue burden on Green Hills, and that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the agreed-to conditions of approval in the Resolution. Mr. John Resich June 28, 2016 Page 3 2. Waiver of Claims Against the City. Green Hills acknowledges that any future application for rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is within the City's police power expressly granted to it by state law to grant or deny and is consistent with Condition 41.a. of the CUP. Further, the City shall not be liable to Green Hills for any loss or damages related to the placement of the vaults whatsoever arising out of the City's denial of any such application for rooftop burials at Inspiration Slope. Green Hills waives all rights to future claims for damages arising out of the City's rejection of Green Hills' application for rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, but reserves the right to legally challenge the validity of any such denial except as may be otherwise provided herein. Green Hills further acknowledges that the denial of such an application does not constitute a compensable interest that would give rise to a takings or other monetary claim. 3. Police Power. Green Hills acknowledges that the City __ has the authority to grant or deny discretionary applications for uses within the City in part based on concerns of public health, safety, and welfare. Green Hills agrees that the City retains its authority to determine the appropriateness of rooftop burials at the Mausoleum at a future date. Nothing in this Agreement, shall limit the City's authority to exercise its police powers or governmental authority, or take other appropriate actions to address issues of public health, safety, and welfare. Green Hills acknowledges that no rights arise under this Agreement as to the City's police power, including but not limited to, the approval or denial of any required permits. Further, this Agreement does not constitute a development agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65864, and thus the Mausoleum remains subject to all applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, and codes. 4. Indemnity. Green Hills, as a material part of the consideration to the City, shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold the City, its officers, directors, agents, representatives, City Council members and employees (collectively, "City"), harmless from and against all liens and encumbrances of any nature whatsoever which may arise from this Agreement or in the exercise of Green Hills' rights hereunder, and from any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees), losses or damages arising from City's agreement to allow the placement of the concrete vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, or any act or failure to act of Green Hills or Green Hills's agents, employees, construction workers, or invitees (collectively, "Green Hills"), except those arising out of the sole willful misconduct of the City. 5. Waiver of Civil Code Section 1542. By releasing and forever discharging claims both known and unknown as provided herein, Green Hills expressly waives any and all rights under California Civil Code Section 1542 in connection with any Claim or Liability against the City. Civil Code Section 1542 provides: Mr. John Resich June 28, 2016 Page4 A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HA VE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. Green Hills waives and relinquishes any and all rights and benefits which it may have under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code and any similar code provision or protection. Green Hills represents that it has performed a full and complete investigation of the facts pertaining to this Agreement. Nevertheless, Green Hills acknowledges and is aware that it may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different than those which it now knows or believes to be true with respect to potential claims, allegations, events and facts set forth herein, but it is Green Hill's intention hereby to fully and finally settle and release any and all matters, disputes, and differences, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which may exist, as against the City, and in furtherance of this intention, the release herein given shall be and remain in effect as a full and complete general release notwithstanding discovery or existence of any such additional or different facts. 6. Integration; Amendment. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and cannot be modified, terminated, or rescinded, in whole or in part, except by an instrument in writing signed by all parties hereto. Green Hills acknowledges that it was permitted to commence installation of the concrete vaults based on an oral understanding consistent with the terms hereof and which is memorialized in this letter agreement. Green Hills agrees that it cannot use the fact that it was allowed to install the vaults pursuant to this agreement against the City or the validity of the City's actions in any manner in any subsequent legal proceeding. 7. Interpretation and Enforcement; Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim, or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted and maintained in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or in any other appropriate court with jurisdiction in such county, and the parties agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such comi. 8. Prevailing Party Attorney Fees. In the event that either party shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The venue for any litigation shall be Los Angeles County. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding, the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the unce1tainty Mr. John Resich June 28, 2016 Page 5 to exist or against the drafting party. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. 9. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a comi of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given effect to the fullest extent reasonably possible. Please carefully review the terms of this letter agreement and, if you find them acceptable, execute the enclosed copy. This agreement may be executed in counterparts and by fax signature. By signing below, Parties represent and warranty that they have authority to bind the Parties to this Agreement. Please return the executed letter agreement by fax and by enclosing an executed original in the envelope provided. Cc: City Council City Clerk Sincerely, f(Af ~ Doug Willmore City Manager I HA VE RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL OF THIS LETTER AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND AGREE TO THEM. I HA VE THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF AND BIND GREEN HILLS. -ut:JLQ,Jt-VIJl,lV,.l,ltJRIAL PARK ..--Y-----Dated: June 28, 2016 Chairman of the Board CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JULY 19, 2016 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. 2 7 8 Respectfully submitted, Description of Material Email exchange between Staff, Public Works Director Throne, Assistant City Attorney Burrows and Kathy Edgerton Letter from Jim Maclellan and Gwen Butterfield-Maclellan Email from Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch ~~de_ Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page{s) were submitted through Monday, July 18, 2016**. W :\AGENDA\2016 Additions Revisions to agendas\20160719 additions revisions to agenda .doc From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Michael Throne Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, July 19, 2016 9:25 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: RPV Special Event Permit Fee Schedule Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 9:24 AM To: Carla Morreale <CarlaM@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Cc: Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>; Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: RPV Special Event Permit Fee Schedule Late correspondence from the deputy city attorney related to the public hearing on the special event permit fee documentation the city could accept from local HOAs to enable them to receive the 50% fee waiver. From: Christina M. Burrows [mailto:cburrows@awattorneys.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 9:10 AM To: Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov> Cc: Michael Throne <MichaelT@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: RPV Special Event Permit Fee Schedule Hi Lauren, Based on the resident's below description of how HOAs are organized, the City could accept the following documentation: • A copy of the CC&Rs and recent meeting minutes demonstrating the HOA is not defunct • Annual information returns with the IRS demonstrating tax-exempt status as HOA (as the resident mentions below, Form 900s, Form 990-EZ, Form 990-N, etc.) • A copy of the HOA's most recent Form Sl-100 (from within the past 2 years) • A copy of the HOA's articles of incorporation or association approved by the Secretary of State, or the state ID number (upon receipt of this documentation, staff could quickly search the Secretary of State website to verify the current status) In addition, if you'd like you could include catch-all language such as "or any other acceptable documentation demonstrating the applicant's status as an active Homeowner's Association in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes." Christina From: Lauren Ramezani [mailto:LaurenR@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 9:59 AM To: Christina M. Burrows Cc: Michael Throne Subject: FW: RPV Special Event Permit Fee Schedule Christina, 1 J. The email below is regarding the PH item on 7 /19/2016 regarding approval of a special permit fee and a draft application form. Staff report link: http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=S&event id=721&meta id=28307 The CC instructed PW to allow a 50% waiver to RPV HOAs. The draft application form and Exhibits A and C mention HOAs receive a fee waiver however, requires a 501c 3 documentation. Apparently that documentation form is not inclusive or appropriate for many HOA designations. Our goal is to be inclusive rather than exclusive. We don't want to exclude an HOA by inadvertently omitting a way of verifying their HOA status. So if there are several/other different documentation forms that could prove an applicant is an "HOA", we are open to it and would like to add them to the draft application. And fee schedule. Please advise as to what forms of documentations staff should/could accept as verification of an applicant's HOA status. {i.e. Board minutes, IRS annual filings, ... }. Michael can mention and add that at the meeting when the item comes up. Please let me know if you have any questions. Tx Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works t. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5245 Laurenr@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks***** From: Michael Throne Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 3:23 PM To: Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> Cc: Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov>; Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>; Carla Morreale <CarlaM@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: RPV Special Event Permit Fee Schedule Dear M/M Edgerton: Thank you your message and helpful information. Public Works will be sharing this with the City Council as the intent is to make available to all of our RPV HO As the reduced fee. Regards, Michael Throne On Jul 15, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Throne, Ms. Jules and Ms. Ramezani, Thank you very much for addressing the City's need for controlling events that are held in public rights-of-way and City properties. The Del Cerro Homeowners Association appreciates your recommendation to allow RPV HO As to obtain a waiver of 50% of the $300 permit application fee, as the HOA has totally volunteer membership, is managed by a volunteer board, and operates on a shoestring budget. We do have one concern in that the fee waiver recommendation requires that an HOA provide documentation that it operates as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. However, we are aware of numerous RPV HOAs that are not tax-exempt under section 501(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, but rather operate with tax exemptions under other provisions of the tax code. In addition, other HOAs that 2 are formed by developers and that own and maintain streets and common areas and enforce CC&Rs are generally not tax-exempt. For example, Del Cerro HOA has voluntary membership, is open to all owners and residents of Del Cerro properties, and its purpose is to promote the common good of the Del Cerro community. As such, it is considered a social welfare organization and is exempt under section 501(c)(4) -rather than a charitable, religious, scientific, or educational organization that would apply for exemption under section 501(c)(3). Numerous other HOAs that we have worked with and that have similar purposes also claim exemption under that section of the tax code. HOAs that claim tax exemption under section 501(c)(4) traditionally have been "self-declarers," meaning that the IRS has not required them to formally apply for exemption and obtain a letter of determination of tax-exempt status from the IRS, but rather has allowed them to operate as tax-exempt organizations as long as they file annual information returns with the IRS. The California Franchise Tax Board has taken a similar approach. Other HOAs that are formed primarily for social and recreational purposes may be tax-exempt under section 501 ( c )(7). While I am not as familiar with HOAs that are formed by developers and that own and maintain streets and common areas and enforce CC&Rs, it is my understanding that such HOAs may qualify tax exemption under section 501(c)(4). However, more often, such HOAs are not considered tax-exempt, but may, on an annual basis when filing their business tax return, elect to receive certain tax benefits that permit them to exclude their exempt function income from their gross income under section 528 of the Code. The IRS requires all organizations that claim exemption under any section 501(c) subsection to file an annual inf01mation return (Form 990, Form 990-EZ, Form 990-N (for small organizations), etc.). The Franchise Tax Board also has a similar requirement to file an annual information return (Form 199 or FTB 199N for small exempt organizations). To establish a permit process that would cover most of the existing HOAs, a more flexible approach for the City to obtain proof that an HOA is a valid nonprofit organization may be more appropriate, rather than restricting the requirement to tax-exempt status. (Not all nonprofits are tax-exempt.) If the HOA is tax-exempt, it might be appropriate for the City to allow an organization to submit its most recent federal or state annual information return. Another option might be to allow submittal of the organization's most recent Statement oflnformation (Form SI-100), a form nonprofit corporations file every two years with the California Secretary of State to maintain active corporate status. There are also equivalent forms that common interest developments and unincorporated associations must file periodically with the Secretary of State. Another option might be to allow submittal of copies of articles of incorporation or articles of association (for unincorporated entities) approved by the California Secretary of State. The City could use the corporation (or unincorporated entity) identification number assigned by the Secretary of State and stamped on the document to verify the current status of the organization (active/in good standing or suspended) by accessing the listing of nonprofit corporations (or equivalent listings for other organizational structures) on the California Secretary of State's website (www.sos.ca.gov). The above options are likely to cover all or most of the HO As within the City, and will facilitate access by RPV HOAs to the reduced special permit fee, while providing the City an appropriate level of control to assure that the benefit is not abused. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into the establishment of this important process. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me 3 to discuss the matter. Kathy Edgerton Del Cerro HOA 310-544-7390 4 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Jim <jimmaclellan714@aol.com> Tuesday, July 19, 2016 5:08 PM cc City Council Regular Business Item 7 July 19,2016 Letter to RPV Council 07192016.docx Please find attached letter in support of staff recommendations for Item 7 on tonight's regular agenda. Jim Maclellan and Gwen Butterfield-Maclellan 1 7 Date: July 19, 2016 To: Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Ken Dyda and all City Councilmembers RE: City Council Regular Business Item 7: Report on Citywide Helicopter Noise Issues and Letter to the FAA As residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, we wish to strongly support the staff recommendation related to the subject of helicopter noise and flight paths above and along our coastal neighborhoods. Specifically, staff recommends that the City support the call for the FAA to rescind its recently established route. This route was implemented on June 22, 2016 by the FAA without any public notice to our City and its residents. The FAA voluntary route is only 750' feet offshore and would cause more helicopter noise reaching coastal residential and otherwise quiet areas. The FAA's new South Bay shoreline route goes from Manhattan Beach to the LA Harbor breakwater. We wish to suggest that our City reaches out to other cities along the shoreline to encourage them to join the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in support of the flight path proposed by the Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition. We applaud the staff recommendation to write letters to the FAA and our Congressional Representative. Thanks, Jim Maclellan and Gwen Butterfield -Maclellan P.O. Box 4085 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:52 PM Nathan Zweizig FW: Elkmont Canyon Attachments: PDF Signed Elkmont Canyon Dahlerbruch letter.pdf; Final PDF Elkmont pictures.pdf; Foliage removal .rtf; canyon easements.pdf; ATTOOOOl.txt Late correspondence -----Original Message----- From: Merin Mayl Dahlerbruch [mailto:merinlmd@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:34 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Elkmont Canyon Hello, Council: It is our understanding that the Request to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement on tonight's agenda will be continued to the next meeting. However, we were told that we are able to speak since it was already calendared and we will likely be away in August for the next meeting. We look forward to seeing you tonight and hope that you will have an opportunity to review the attached documents. Thank you, Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch B II 1 Amy Seeraty Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-872-8487 merinlmd@gmail.com City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd , RPV, CA 90275-5391 July 8, 2016 RE : Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council : We have lived in our home since August 1996. When we purchased our home , we were informed that we owned our property down almost to the bottom of the canyon . We had no reason for concern about development because there was no access allowed in as explained on the city tract maps . The person two doors down from us owned all the way across the canyon and our neighbor next door owned all the way across as well. To give a little additional history : In July 2005 , we were given a paper at our doorstep and I believe also by Fedex months earlier where a person by the name of Yasin Shahzad , RE. Broker (CA , DRE , Lic#01243299) was trying to sell us property that was behind our house. Along with that paper , I have uncovered a paper in my notes documenting that I called the city and spoke with Dave who stated "These lots are not legal lots at this point as far as the city understands but could change if someone provides evidence they were created . The whole parcel was sold in March 2005 but Oust) because someone sold it does not mean legal lots or illegal either . (They) can 't build on storm drain easements." He further went on to state that the "way it would benefit me (would be that it) adds to my lot size because able to build more on pad and could build a larger house." (Single story .) About three years ago , the owner of El kmont Canyon hired a survey company. They traipsed across my hillside and put up stakes on my property as well as the property next door (the one that clearly owns across the canyon) and marked all the way down the canyon . Just because they put up stakes does not mean they own what is marked! They chopped down plants and it dislodged hillside on our property . We called the police and the city of RPV at :. that time. A few days later I went to the city and made sure that the city had proper records of our lot and property description based on our escrow papers . When I went to the city last week, those papers were still in our file . We formally oppose the "Request to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easemenr on Elkmont Canyon (Case No ZON2014-00229). This access should not be granted for many reasons : • The recent Traffic Survey on file states that traffic hasn 't increased up Hawthorne since the 2003 study . This is completely ludicrous . Community members have seen increased traffic over the years with add it ional home developments , Terranea , Trump International Golf Course , etc . Many owners ha ve also observed an increase on Hawthorne of accidents and sirens . We need to see an updated traffic survey with current numbers reflecting acc iden t rates , speed distribution , traffic statistics , etc . • Access would create a hazard for cars/trucks entering and lea ving Hawthorne . As des igned , it is a very busy street and entering traffic will cause addit ional accidents . Cars leaving from the canyon would be forced to drive up hill on Hawthorne Blvd . and then make au-turn at Blackhorse to head back down towards Torrance and th is would change traffic patterns and create a potential for add itional accidents. • The easements for fire , water, sewage , etc. were placed in the El kmon t Canyon for a reason . They were explicit and intentional. Chang ing or el iminating them will comp ro mise the integrity of the land and create danger to all of our properties . • V\lhen the developers of the surrounding subd ivis ions bu ilt homes , don 't you think they would have built in the canyon if it was safe and all owable ? • The prohib ition of access was explicit and intentional. Allowing a road goes against the use of what was intended for protection of the canyon and homes bordering the canyon . • Elkmont Canyon is designated as a ~Natural Hazard Zone" as noted on the site plans . • Any activity in Elkmont Canyon is no isy . Sound re verberates and echoes creating noise concerns and disruption of the habitat. • Any additional activity (including building equipment) in the canyon would disrupt the land and slopes . The soil is not compact , nor stable . • Adding ponds , vineyards , roads , homes, or doing any type of grad i ng is very concerning cons idering the instab ility of the soi l on the slopes . • Landsli des have been documented in both RHE and RPV city records on properties nearby and of similar topography . • There is a document from RH E in the Elkmont Canyon fi le that requests for RPV to notify the City of RHE because of its adjacent nature . The City of RHE does own property in the 500 ' radius . V\lhy has the City of RHE not been kept abreast of developments over the past years as requested? • V\lhy have res idents not been kept informed over the last few months and years? • Vehicle activity in Elkmont Canyon will disrupt the eco logical en vironment. There are hawks , owls , raccoons , possum , birds , lizards , butterfl ies , snakes , insects , etc. that live in the canyon . Are there endangered or protected species in the canyon that need to be considered? • Elkmont Canyon is a natural fire hazard (as noted by the city clearing the area before the annual fire season). Placing a building in the canyon with foliage will increase the potential for fire and endanger the surround ing communi ti es . 2 • Removing additional foliage from the area will create landslides . • It is well documented that in 1961 , access off Hawthorne Boulevard had been relinquished in conjunction with other plots of land creating efficient traffic patterns for the city . • Property Lines were des ignated when the developments were built ... and now somehow years later they ha ve changed on city documents without consent of current homes owners . It is obvious that it was a 1962 or later illegal subd ivision . • The proposed development is not in keeping with neighborhood compatibility . There are no buildings that come close to the size of the proposal in height or square footage. • The size and weight of trucks is restricted on Hawthorne Blvd for a reason . The heavy construction equipment required for a development the size of the proposal is alarming. With a proposal of a 4-car garage along with a sizeable house with a guesthouse , the proposed road would have a considerable amount of travel. • Wny is the community just now learning that new development discussions in Elkmont Canyon have been going on for 1 O years? This same issue was dealt with years ago and was reconfirmed that there was not going to be any development in the canyon. • Wny had issues been brought to city council for approval before the planning commission could get involved? • There are documented questions about compliance . Integrity of the city is in question . This land is not to be accessed from Hawthorne Boulevard and to have development. • Many other properties were listed on the land maps with the proh ibition of access easement. Granting access to the canyon property sets a precedence that would allow other property owners who are excluded to petition the city to have their prohibitions removed . • Access from Hawthorne into Elkmont Canyon was relinquished in 1961 . All homes purchased since then were purchased knowing that noth ing would be built in the back yards of homes that liine the canyon , both in RPV and RHE. This created value for buying a home in that location . Therefore , if anything is built in the canyon , it would negati vely affect the value of those homes , qual ity of life, and the comps for the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods . • The current owner of Elkmont Canyon bought property knowing he/she didn 't have access to Hawthorne by virtue of the written and recorded easements . There is no reason after all these years it should change . They shouldn 't have bought the property if they were concerned about access . • Proposed development in Elkmont Canyon is not compatible with our neighborhoods. In years past , another home proposed a 2"d story and it was denied to ensure compatibility of the neighborhood . At that time it was confirmed that a precedent should not be set. In addition , the size of the proposed home is not consistent with the dynamics of the neighborhood . • Wnen the homes were built along the canyon , the ground was not reinforced . Dirt was literally pushed over the edge of the propert ies when they were leveled . Build ing now on the slopes , developing access roads , or even planting vineyards 3 will compromise the hillside and negatively affect the foundations of the homes surrounding . • Multiple property owners along the Elkmont Drive side have vo iced concern over the ir property lines . The Elkmont Canyon owner has staked property that many Elkmont Dri ve owners along the ridge believe they own . The surveyors took out plants that belonged to owners on the ridge . The survey is only as good as the property is if it was legally obta ined and registered . Their entire survey is up for dispute. • Open space . Isn't the city required to have enough open space? VVhat type of precedence will th is set for other canyon propert ies with similar easement restrictions i n our city when their owners dec ide to request removal of prohibitions of access? • Putting a fire trail in on either side will not work with the unstable hillsides . Many owners will attest to the fact that when they step on their hillsides , the ground collapses underneath them. The Elkmont Canyon owner must be aware of this because the surveyors were having a very difficult timing maintaining their footing and they caused much of the hillsides to collapse when they attempted the ir stak ing . • Many of the hills ide properties have runoff that dra ins directly into the canyon . Property owners will need to conti nue to dra in into the canyon . Having a road , let alone a home , in a flood plain and disturbing the current flow of drainage is not sens ible or safe . • Property owners along the hi ll side should not have to incur tak ing of the ir resources su ch as financial, emotional , and t ime to fig ht this "request to vacate a proh ibition of access easement" whe n th is canyon has clearly been restricted from development based on deeds , proh ibitions , easements , written and documented maps , etc . • How was a conditional certificate ever issued when the prohib ition of access was clearly written ? This Conditional Certificate should not be valid or legal. We are sending attachments that have pictures of our property in a separate document. With the potential impact to over 186 notified properties, legal challenges to the city of RPV that are certain to follow from many residents , ramification of setting a precedence when others petition for these types of removals , and serious concern of land instability and potential of fire and flood to bordering properties , this request to remove the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon must be denied . 4 Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 merinlmd@gmail.com Pictures: Surveyors hacked up plants And hillside not stable and drains into canyon Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 merinlmd@gmail.com This article on the FEMA website, that discusses the dangers of building a home in a canyon and the increased risk of wildﬁres pertains to Elkmont Canyon. There is a very valid reason why the canyon is regularly rolled and kept clear to protect from ﬁre in the bottom of the canyon. "- Canyons. A wildﬁre at the bottom of a vegetated canyon can lead to extremely hazardous conditions upslope. A canyon acts like a chimney, collecting hot gases and directing superheated convection and radiant heat upslope. Canyons funnel winds (see Figure 3) that can fan a ﬁre and lead to extreme ﬁre behavior (rapid spread of the wildﬁre and ignition of an entire area). An entire canyon can pre-heat from rising hot air and gases and explode in ﬂames, creating a ﬁrestorm.” Canyon view and back of our property to bottom tree. Taken from neighbor's house From: Merin Dahl <merinlmd@gmail.com> Subject: Thank you and meeting Date: July 11, 2016 at 12:54:16 PM PDT To: mpina@acwm.lacounty.gov Cc: Amy Seeraty <amys@rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian <aram@rpvca.gov>, gyap@rpvca.gov Bcc: merikinc@gmail.com Hello, Ms. Pina: Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today on the telephone. I appreciate you explaining to me about what was asked of Mr. Perara in regards to Elkmont Canyon. Looking at the aerial map, property lines are questionable. I have been extremely afraid to leave my house as Perara has been removing lots of live trees and with our property lines in question, we are afraid all of our back foliage will be wrongly removed. As you are aware, the ground is not stable and we are additionally concerned about slippage of our slope when the rains come if additional foliage is removed. I think I will sleep better tonight knowing that Perara was only told to take out dead brush and thin trees and never given the directive to remove trees down to stumps. And a few weeks ago as far as your office was concerned, he did not need to continue with additional clearance. Thank you for agreeing to meet with me after taking a look at the canyon on your own. Informing me of what is considered dangerous will be a tremendous help. I am hoping that the city will take note of this desecration to our properties, the hillsides, the canyon, and consider all of the animals that have been displaced. Mr Perara has conducted the removal for no reason but to clear the canyon for possible development...none of which has been approved due to the Prohibition of Access Easement that has been in place since 1961. Thank you again for taking time out of your day to give us the facts so that we and the City of RPV can be better informed. I look forward to meeting you in person. Sincerely, Merin Dahlerbruch 310-872-8487 ' '\ .... / ,' . / / · ... ,, ,. I 7 !Ji'"'"'K wJv PAGE 13 SCALE 111 = 60 1 SHEET OF 4 'SHEETS TERRITORY.OF THE 1 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ' ' i ; IN UNINCORPORATED BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT "H" , THE RANCHO LOS PALOS VERDES, ALLOTTED TO JOTHAM PARTITION OF BIXBY BY DECREE OF PARTITION IN ACTION "BIXBY ET AL. VS. BENT ET AL". AS SHOWN ON MAP FILED IN CASE N! 2373 IN THE DI STRICT COURT OF THE 17TH. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND ENTERED IN BOOK 4 PAGE 57 OF JUDGE MEN TS IN tHE SUPER- IOR COURT OF SAID COUNTY, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. . SURVEYED BY ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION The bearing (N 12°15't4• E) of the CMler> Line. of Si/11~r Spur Road 0$ shown on Map of Traci Nt 2135/ . as reco!'ded Jn Book 598 Pages J2 to 38 1itdvsi11e of Maf'S, Record.!l of Lo.s llngele.s C'oonkf was faken as fhe bosis of bfl.ctring .!lhown on !his map. ALL 2 11 IRON PIPES. SHOWN HEREON AS SET ARE 611 BELOW SURFACE OF GROUND We hereb11 cef'fd'y fhaf wl'aro fhe owners of or. are infe~~~fed m fhfl lands includ'd wilhin lhe .sPbdiv181'on shown on lh1s map wifhm lh€' co!oMd 6ordl'f' fines, and we consenl lo I/NJ pt""pctPaf/on and Ncor>dafio'! of 3a1'cl map and .svbdt'vision, and he?eb>: dedicate lo lhe pvb/Jc IJse all fhe .sfreefs, hi9hwoys, and ofher p11b/1c ways shown an said n-:ap. and ol!D. qrant lo tile Copnty of V;s Angeks . rne eaft!m~nls for .ft'11:Je;ry sew~, storm drain anti r:lntti'Jage, pl{r,oose~ so a',e11g11ated on SQ/ . map onct (11/ uses int:ia'enr thereto, 1nc!vd11'19 rhe nqht lo maM co11necr1ms iherewilh ftr:m any_ ad;~ii11hq prc,;4r/1es. · WE FUl211-\cR. ci::R11FY T'RAT I i:l<CEPT A~ SHOWN ON A COPY OF' THIS MAP ON FILE. IN ii-IE OFFlc.E. OF 'THI: COUNTY l<OA'D C.OMM1<£.SIONEIZ. WS. KNOW OF NO EA~EME.NT OR <;T~UCTURS E'XISTING WITHIN TuE. E:ASE • ME.NTS HEli!ee.'/ OFFEREO For<. DEmlO.TION 10 iHE Pue.uc., OTHER. TrlAN PUBWC.L.'/ OWt>iED WATS!2 L\~ES , 5eWE2S OR. STOl<.M Di2AINS ; Tl-IAT WE. Wll.l. G~NT NO RIGHT or< lNTEiaeSf W\TIHN THE P.iOLlNDA!l.lcS OF SAID EMSMENTS OFFEl2e[) TO THE Pueiuc ' E.1'~PT Wl-IEl2E. 5UOl IZIGHT OR. \NiE12EiiT 15 el(pgs<;SL~ MADS SU~ECT TO THE. SAID EASEME~TS. AS A DEDICATION TO PUBLIC USE WHILE ALL OF SILVER SPUR ROAD AND HAWTl-IORNE BOULEVARD WITl-llN AND ADJACENT. TO Tl-HS SUBDIVI- SION REMAIN PUBLIC 1-flGHWAYS FOR SUCl-l TIME ONLY, WE HEREBY ABANDON ALL EASEMENTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SAID SILVER SPUR ROAD AND HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD SO TIIAT OWNERS OF LOTS 1,2, 71, 23 T027 INCLUSIVE AND 52. T0-58 INCLUSIVE ABUTTING THESE HIGHWAYS DURING SUCH TIME WILL l-IA'llE NO RIGHTS O.F ACCESS WHATEVER IN THE HIGl-/WAYS AS SUCH El<CEPI IHE GENERAL EASEMENT OF TRAVEL WHICH BELONGS TO THE WHOLE PUBLIC. l F ANY CHANGE 0)" ALIGN- MENT OR WIDTH OF SUCl-1 HIGHWAYS RESULTS tN Tl-IE VACATION OF AN'I' PA RT THEREOF WrrtUIJ .Al.JD AO.M.CENT TO THIS 9LJl!>DIVl'9101J, SUCH VA- CA'TION TE.RMINATES THE ABOVE DEDICATION AS \OT\-\E PART VACATED. co. ELKMONT LAND ow~e:.R A PA.RTNE.RSl-l\P BY PERKINS RE~LTV CO. ~.?~:~¢i10N . PA.RINER ::;~;f . ¥~· ./: Li.;;;'·'/ ~ r; ;... .. t·· • . . . ~ .. : ·'-· ... 1 ·• " .. " ~- " .. ., .,. ~ . . . ..... ....... : ' I ' . • •, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EASE/v!E.NT HOL..DER 13 Y DEED RECORDED IN 1300K, 0·853 PAGE 784 0Pr/C/4L REC0£0S. : HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THAT THIS MAP, CONSISTING OF _ 4 SHEETS, CORRECT!.¥ REPRESENTS A TRUE Al''D COMPLETE SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION_ JU!,.Y _l.!i!!:j8 ___ ; THAT THE MONUMENTS OF THE CHARACTER AND LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN PLACE OR Will BE IN PLACE WITHIN·Tw.,.nl}h'.v,.. MONTHS FROM THE RECORDING DATE OF THIS MAP; THI'.' c.\ID MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE ~l!RVEY TO BE READILY RETRACED AND THAT TIE NOTES TO :,LL CENTERLINE MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON AS SET BY ME \\<'ILL BE 01\1 1=11 F IN THE OFFICE OF THE_CO_UNTY ENGINEER WITHIN Twenr,Yli>vr MONTHS FROM RECORDING DATE SHOWN HEREOt,I. THE. !=RE<;ENf OWNE:RS OF J>.N ~ASt::MENT Ar:. Gi<:ANTED TO THE. M~CAIZH\Y COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 13Y DEED !2ECOIWE:D \N P.>OOK 5'ZS70 PAGe 20 OFFICIAL RECOl<!DS, AND A'? GIZ.ANTEO TO l20L.1.lN<=iWOOD HOME.; COMPANY, A CO·PA\2.TNEl<.S\.\IP, P.:J'I DEED RECO!ZDfD IN eoo~ 54.'2.0I PAGE. ~'2 OFFICIAL RE. COJ2D$1 HAVE BEEN OMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11587· ( b) OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT IN AS MUCH AS IT IS IMP~ACTI· CAI. TO DETERMlt.JE. TKE OWNERS\4\P THE((EQF. ) Ill IU TRACT NO. 2 4 719 HT IS OfW[RED THAT THE' •AP 0, TRACT 1110. ---~-:JJ::i. ___ I! K!Rta~· APPROVED· THAT TH£ BOND IN THE AMOUNT _OF t-4-lJ,5.,'!!., ____ .......... FILED WITH THlS BOARD TO INsy.;i: P~ filEHT. OF TAXES AND Sr'ECIAL AS- SESSMENTS COLLEC. '-'' A~ TAXES BE APPROVED· THr ALL STREETS, HIGHl':'_I ~~ ~ND OTHER PU:JU:' WAYS AN:J. E~SE~ENTS SHOWN ON SA Iv . ·' >\NC. OFFERED FOR uEDICAT,Ofl er: AN[) THE SA~E ARE '". :•' KCEPTED ON BEliALF OF THE PUeuc Th~f f/:e o/fer .J .. i:.tedt'caf1°'7 for a6ir"O'o,,17'7en'I' a c:,. :;, · rt9hfs of Jncir1e.< s and e9ress be eJCcenfed ~ •. :. b -~ ;·r of fhe cwb/, .: . r-' r .d r _1~HC::' tr· .... iiFtTHATT'-IE l:u:. .-~-1;1'": .. .lr'_;:_.~~i..\S' ADOP1_:J F. ·o.-;;.(f) OF S:Jp~:L:r:.,,;. ; r M[<•, .~G ;;· ~ rr . • " HELD .. ' '/,,;.~~Z-·., . ./<'./ ./~_;~ ... _ . ··:;·. I hereb'f cerfr'fy .that, I have examined· fh..,; maf' thot. 't .r · .. ~ra · Jl · th' · • 1 ~QnrQrm.s • _n11a y ro e 1en1at1ve map and ail approved olhil f :e~~or; th~t all provisions o{ c.ppliccL!c '~rare law and loc~j ~~b~ th o/~toh~ ordrna~ces hav:e been compiied with; and that I am sotlified a t ,. map 1s techntcal-ly corred. ocned. "'fPr; / /s /96/ JOHN A. i:IE co~ll1,'~ By~·,~ Dop.lp '' . ~--.. · .. ' ..... /JO: SCALE \ 1'=6011 er Lu > -J -Cl) . tJ ' ~ 5! !fl. ;;., . 0 & ~ z: I \ I \j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I _, SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS IN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 40' / ..,o. SURVEYED SY ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION N. 8'0°03' e7 w. .f 'LY J./17e of Ji-oct ;VE 2!ZG9 M.t!. fJOG-8//3 690.35' 71 1.143 Ac. N 830 8"22."f. . 1/5.97' 731.0/' - ?2!.5W' "" · -64;58' · OO.O~~~osr -' · 64.0S' ·· =----=--. _fs'w LINE. 01' A VA1<.IAl3i\.5 WIDT'll EASEM ~ :2 N e1•z9 1 5~ ~O~IN ?W~POSES RiOEr< NOi, oia.si~o-ii5 201.§2'- S'\.Y L.itJE OF A 'JA~1 Le WIDTH EASl'Ml:NT r=orz.~ NBS•o:;'27"W.J48.o ,~ SLOPE: PO POSES P 12. 0.R. !54201·;.:lz j __../ 70 69 UJ 0 ::_ o-::.. lri "' ,._ ;"" 2 j I I 68 6?.' u.i ' bi"! ? c(J _,... ION 0 't' z 67 w g,~ oil) in «> ~~ z: 64' ~ I- I.LI I.LI :c (/) I.LI w (/) (J) ITI ITI (J) :c ITI ITI -f N ----- - SEE ~ !'I) ~ ~ . >-U\ u..: 6'_ -~ ti{ 66 G•5'47'J6" ' ~ c:. ~ 731.01 1 :;,. I\) ~ ~tu "° ~ ~~ ~~- ~ ~-l::i 72 78 Fd '2" I. P. per trad Nt 21269 M .B. 60 E>. e.;,;, '~ ~~f :-.;. (\, ~ ' 6</. ~- 65 <. ~~ en ~~ GI - NW ~ .t; ~..: 76 "' ' 77 ~~ -~ Ill SHEET 4 5111 andS.W2.Y Lin~s ofirCld 1'1 2 21'269 \'11.B. 606-8/i~ " Ulr>o"!.' -~0 I\ Qilu 11 \ 8' "<:::: ~ .1:."' S' ~~~~ Al""' :SS U'I~ ~ ~}6 ~~ ~70 'i ::::::! ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~U\ ~OJ ~' o~ 'C\),, ~ rd. 2 l.P.1',er 'Jh;cl #£ 'Zl'Z r;9'H.8.C70i$·8j}:J ~# }. / doo / s\. ... : f'r- // . ' . L ~ ~ L)\ I SCALE GCj oil~ . r;.ri.'1"-:· ~~~, £0·~0L:;~~ • i: si'·p~ , ,0 ,,;i..~· . _q~ '" ~ ~ 'i "•"so414·JJ~rl'· · ri!·.,."'~I/: ~ k.o "' ' . • ... • • iP ,.. !I ' • ~-.... ~' : . ,..:i -I1 ,. _.·• (fl n II... tu. . . . ~ ?;1'!J> ~ i !" ~lj ~?'--< • "' (>"' _r;:!_:--i .J.--_;,_,, ~~-~~ . ~~~-7~~ ~~ : iJI"' z: ..,. ,o 00... . . 1'; ~ <ft !:? '11 • 6'-t~ 01~~ ~:r;~ -.I OD "',., . ~1) !!l~~ · nl .. i" ~g -4~ ~~~ ~~o ~- 1 ";:so' !'J ~ •·.., . b o.i~ : Cl> j! ~ ~::o ,,. G) 0 2 0 l'TJ ,;:.;: ~ G) '11 I ·1 _,.... "'I r;1 p "": i ~t1.; l"'1 -· ! ~ (J.t ' () ti>~ '. ' . ' . f'i1 . . .,, ,,. ' m • ~ ;1 ~~ > :~ ( i .~) n 'c n \.' -·~· . 0 .--0 : -; :---. :J ITI .:: 0 : ' '-o· "J 0 -I ;;J ' 0.!I'.. r [:! l'T1 :< g j f 1 ~ ).J -·:'. r o a ! ~~ ,:J )> : l '"':b.. ......... -: c : :. ~-'-.:1.......C"-; : : l -...i '~ :">J··" ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~ b z c 2 -2 0 0 ::0 -0 0 ::0 (/) l>! ~ ~ ~ (T1 ~ 0 ~ --i ~ rn "'oe: :::0 :::0 ~ =i ~o ~ :0 ~ -< ~o G) ,, ~ -I ~ ·~ :c .... ~ ('11 (") Bo -~ c ~z ~ --i ~ -< ~o ,, 5 U> )> z G> rn r rrt U> 1o-t.';)l) . (Ji -~~:· ~ l\) ~ f'... /T l _........,....._._I >'-... ........... \ ~ ~· ~ ~ r< · .. _\ ·(.:.>:.;,. . .. ~ ··. ... .. , ...... \ ( ' (/):c ,,,.., I. .• m cJ m ~ .. "1 t.... -I ~ (>I·~ 01fb -n ~ ~ ·~ ~I~ V) .... l&.I l&.I x C/) ·• l&.I l&.I Cf) IN z / \ !. · ..•. ,, \ ~~g PA. "'E 7~ : ;. ., - .......... '-.;.!' ·,~· !: ...,. .• P .. S/o:-0,'.b.... ' 1 lien.T ... '•if"·-, --• SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES "~· . ,, i •. :! -Ii) r---~ N. ao13• 14"E. 176.67' 0 (/) SURVEYED BY ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION \0 !'!) 'lo I 0\ 'to ~ ~ l)j C) \/..,. 0 ~ ~ " 0 U> =" w a (,) C/) .. 228. 99' /S/. '70 {; 1: ' . j __J CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JULY 18, 2016 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, July 19, 2016 City Council meeting: Item No. J 2 7 SS2A SS2B Carla Morreale Description of Material Email exchange between City Manager Willmore and Sharon Yarber Email exchange between Public Works Director Throne and Kathy Edgerton Email from Wayne Widner; Email exchange between Staff and Richard Root Email exchange between City Manager Willmore, Councilman Duhovic, and Sunshine Email from Gary Randall W :\AGENDA\2016 Additions Revisions to agendas\20160719 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sharon, Doug Willmore Thursday, July 14, 2016 9:26 AM sharon yarber; CC Dave Aleshire; So Kim; Ara Mihranian RE: Green Hills I apologize for any apparent inconsistency in the staff report. That is my fault. The letter agreement says " .... approval provides for review of rooftop burials by the Director, or directs the referral to the Planning Commission ..... " (Second page, paragraph number 1), just as it is written in condition lk of the adopted Conditions of Approval. The revised Conditions of Approval that the Council approved in November 2015 give the Director the ability to approve rooftop burials. However, as you correctly note, our Staff Report (First page, paragraph 2, line 4) states that " ... until first obtaining approval through a public hearing process". The reason why we say this is because the Director already made a determination that the rooftop burials specifically on Inspiration Slope would be subject to a public hearing. While referral to the Planning Commission is not required by the Conditions of Approval, it is a determination we have already made and informed Green Hills of. Doug From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:48 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com> Subject: Green Hills Dear Mayor Dyda and Members of the Council: The staff report for the upcoming Green Hills waiver letter matter states both that Green Hills would only be allowed to bury deceased persons in the rooftop vaults after a public hearing, then goes on to say that per Condition lk (also referenced in the letter agreement) permission to bury in such vaults must be obtained from either the Director administratively or by the Planning Commission. So which is it? Can OH bury with just Director approval and no public hearing? In that case the staff report is misleading, and such position is totally inconsistent with what the public was told were the terms of the oral agreement reached between the City Manager and Green Hills. Or does OH have to at least obtain approval from the PC after a duly noticed public hearing has been conducted? The agenda materials are inconsistent and that inconsistency should be clarified and eliminated by next Tuesday. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter that is of great concern to the residents. Sharon Yarber 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Michael Throne Friday, July 15, 2016 3:23 PM Al and Kathy Edgerton Subject: Nicole Jules; Lauren Ramezani; Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Re: RPV Special Event Permit Fee Schedule Dear M/M Edgerton: Thank you your message and helpful information. Public Works will be sharing this with the City Council as the intent is to make available to all of our RPV HOAs the reduced fee. Regards, Michael Throne On Jul 15, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Throne, Ms. Jules and Ms. Ramezani, Thank you very much for addressing the City's need for controlling events that are held in public rights-of-way and City properties. The Del Cerro Homeowners Association appreciates your recommendation to allow RPV HOAs to obtain a waiver of 50% of the $300 permit application fee, as the HOA has totally volunteer membership, is managed by a volunteer board, and operates on a shoestring budget. We do have one concern in that the fee waiver recommendation requires that an HOA provide documentation that it operates as a 50l(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. However, we are aware of numerous RPV HOAs that are not tax-exempt under section 501(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, but rather operate with tax exemptions under other provisions of the tax code. In addition, other HOAs that are formed by developers and that own and maintain streets and common areas and enforce CC&Rs are generally not tax-exempt. For example, Del Cerro HOA has voluntary membership, is open to all owners and residents of Del Cerro properties, and its purpose is to promote the common good of the Del Cerro community. As such, it is considered a social welfare organization and is exempt under section 501 ( c )( 4) -rather than a charitable, religious, scientific, or educational organization that would apply for exemption under section 501(c)(3). Numerous other HOAs that we have worked with and that have similar purposes also claim exemption under that section of the tax code. HO As that claim tax exemption under section 501(c)(4) traditionally have been "self-declarers," meaning that the IRS has not required them to formally apply for exemption and obtain a letter of determination of tax-exempt status from the IRS, but rather has allowed them to operate as tax-exempt organizations as long as they file annual information returns with the IRS. The California Franchise Tax Board has taken a similar approach. Other HOAs that are formed primarily for social and recreational purposes may be tax-exempt under section 50l(c)(7). While I am not as familiar with HOAs that are formed by developers and that own and maintain streets and common areas and enforce CC&Rs, it is my understanding that such HOAs may qualify tax exemption under section 50l(c)(4). However, more often, such HOAs are not 1 considered tax-exempt, but may, on an annual basis when filing their business tax return, elect to receive certain tax benefits that permit them to exclude their exempt function income from their gross income under section 528 of the Code. The IRS requires all organizations that claim exemption under any section 501 ( c) subsection to file an annual information return (Form 990, Form 990-EZ, Form 990-N (for small organizations), etc.). The Franchise Tax Board also has a similar requirement to file an annual information return (Form 199 or FTB 199N for small exempt organizations). To establish a permit process that would cover most of the existing HO As, a more flexible approach for the City to obtain proof that an HOA is a valid nonprofit organization may be more appropriate, rather than restricting the requirement to tax-exempt status. (Not all nonprofits are tax-exempt.) If the HOA is tax-exempt, it might be appropriate for the City to allow an organization to submit its most recent federal or state annual information return. Another option might be to allow submittal of the organization's most recent Statement of Information (Form SI-100), a form nonprofit corporations file every two years with the California Secretary of State to maintain active corporate status. There are also equivalent forms that common interest developments and unincorporated associations must file periodically with the Secretary of State. Another option might be to allow submittal of copies of articles of incorporation or articles of association (for unincorporated entities) approved by the California Secretary of State. The City could use the corporation (or unincorporated entity) identification number assigned by the Secretary of State and stamped on the document to verify the current status of the organization (active/in good standing or suspended) by accessing the listing of nonprofit corporations (or equivalent listings for other organizational structures) on the California Secretary of State's website (www.sos.ca.gov). The above options are likely to cover all or most of the HO As within the City, and will facilitate access by RPV HOAs to the reduced special permit fee, while providing the City an appropriate level of control to assure that the benefit is not abused. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into the establishment of this important process. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me to discuss the matter. Kathy Edgerton Del Cerro HOA 310-544-73 90 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Wayne <wwidner@cox.net> Thursday, July 14, 2016 9:16 AM cc Shoreline Helicopter Noise First, I commend you for taking up this issue the FAA will not address it without pressure. The 11 new" half step by the FAA will not reduce helicopter noise, 750 feet is a fraction of the distance needed. There are two things (maybe three) that have to be used to determine total distance from the helicopter to the shore, one is horizontal distance the other is altitude. Both of these have to be considered in order to reach any effective reduction in noise. The third item that I hesitate to mention is total noise output. Some helicopters are louder than others. It would seem reasonable to have all aircraft, especially those that fly low over populate areas, meet a maximum noise output level. This could be a ground test or an airborne test. Why is it that aircraft get a pass on vehicle noise when all other transportation has limits. The cliff areas along the coast are particularly hard hit by traffic for two reasons. One is it is a favored path for all types of aircraft, hence there is heavy traffic. Some of this, admittedly is related to coastal security (Police, Sheriff, Coast Guard, Customs, Military (Air Force and Army I believe). This second is that the FAA altitude requirements do not apply over one inch of ocean water. I have seen, and have pictures of, helicopters flying at or below cliff level 11 over the water". I could go on for a while but let me make two points. One the FAA is much better at delaying and diverting than they have been at action (ask Janice Hahn). They will not do anything of substance on their own. Two, this is not an insurmountable problem if you try to solve one aspect at a time. The problem is bundling all that situations into one package and trying to solve the Gordian Knot. Leave out the News helicopters for now. Deal with private and commercial only. If you allow them to the FAA will say they will address all aspects in a study that will take years knowing that one size (solution) does not fit all. Wayne Widner 310-514-8154 1 Subject: Attachments: From: So Kim FW: AGENDA ITEM ON SHORELINE HELICOPTER ROUTE Mtg RPV.pdf; Mtg RPV.ppsx Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 11:02 AM To: Carla Morreale <CarlaM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fw: AGENDA ITEM ON SHORELINE HELICOPTER ROUTE Hi Carla, Attached is late correspondence to the helicopter item. Both are the same files, one in PowerPoint and the other in PDF. Please use one or the other, whichever is better for you. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 I so . com From: RRoot94227@E_ol.com <RRoot9422.z@aol.com> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 09:46 AM To: So Kim Subject: Re: AGENDA ITEM ON SHORELINE HELICOPTER ROUTE So - I'm sorry. I did get your email, but I did not see it until just now. Attached is a copy of the presentation as a pdf file and a PowerPoint show. Please open them and let me know if they work. Thanks, Richard In a message dated 7 /15/2016 8:50:09 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, SoK@rpvca.gov writes: Hi Mr. Root, Would you mind emailing the file again? I sent you an email the day after we met because the file inadvertently got deleted. If I can get it by Tuesday noon, I will forward it to the Council as late correspondence. Otherwise, I will forward it to them as part of our weekly report to them. So Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device --------Original message-------- From: _f.{Root21.:f.n@_9Q.L£9El Date: 7/15/16 8:42 AM (GMT-08:00) To: So Kim <~9...K@rnyca.ggy> Subject: AGENDA ITEM ON SHORELINE HELICOPTER ROUTE Hi So - 1 7. Did you send the slide presentation to the Council? Will it show up as added item on the published agenda? Or, do I need to do anything? Thanks, Richard 2 DEFICIENCIES ASSOCIATED WITH FAA’S NEW SHORELINE HELICOPTER ROUTE Prepared by Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) LAHelicopterNoise.org July 9, 2016 HELICOPTERS ARE A BLIGHT ON THE COASTLINE Red dots along the coastline represent helicopters flying under 1,000 feet This was before the FAA’s new helicopter route was implemented NEW FAA HELICOPTER ROUTE CHART WITH SHORELINE ROUTES HELICOPTER ROUTES DEPICTED ALONG COASTLINE ARE INTENDED TO BE FLOWN 750’ OFFSHORE…. •The FAA wording indicates helicopters are supposed to fly at 750’ offshore •Does not encourage any pilots to fly farther offshore than 750’, even when possible •Does not state –Fly at least 750’ offshore or –Fly farther offshore, whenever possible, for noise abatement “HELICOPTER ROUTES DEPICTED ALONG COASTLINE ARE INTENDED TO BE FLOWN 750’ OFFSHORE….” MAIN NEW ROUTE PROBLEMS •Parameters of new route are insufficient to reduce noise –It will likely increase noise •FAA’s lack of “due process” was inexcusable NEW ROUTE DEFICIENCIES •750’ is much too close to shore •There is no recommended altitude –Shoreline PV cliffs are about 175’ –Under existing rules helicopter pilots can fly as low as they want –Helicopters will be too close to homes on cliffs •Pilots cannot accurately determine if they are 750’ offshore •Pilots are likely to fly offset to the right of route to avoid oncoming traffic –Northbound helicopters are likely to fly closer than 750’ •Route is voluntary –Scenic tours are likely to ignore route and fly closer than 750’ –Pilots who have flown farther than 750’ offshore in the past will likely stop doing so and conform to the new route where the FAA now says they are supposed to fly –Route will result in more helicopters flying closer to shore COMPARISONS – OTHER DISTANCES OFFSHORE •Existing FAA offshore route for noise abatement in New York is mandatory and –One mile offshore –Requires helicopters to fly at 2500’ •LAAHNC formal petition to FAA for offshore route in LA County is still pending and it would require: –One-half mile offshore for helicopters carrying passengers for hire (including tour operators) –One mile offshore for others (including Robinson test flights) HISTORICAL HELICOPTER FLIGHT TRACKS IN RELATION TO DISTANCE OFFSHORE PINK LINE IS ¼ MILE OFFSHORE AND PURPLE LINE IS ¾ MILE OFFSHORE 750’ OFFSHORE (.14 MILE) WILL BRING MANY HELICOPTERS CLOSER TO SHORE FAA’S LACK OF DUE PROCESS •Offshore route was implemented on June 22 without any advance public notice •No consultation with impacted cities, counties, or the general public •No opportunity for stakeholder input •No transparency •FAA supporting documentation never published –Rationale for new route –Environmental impact review –Safety analysis •These were not careless mistakes –They appear to have been conscious decisions LARGEST SOURCES OF IMPACTS IN RPV •Robinson Helicopter Company •Helicopter Tour Operators •Emergency responders (Police, Sheriff, Coast Guard, and medical transport helicopters) also have impacts, but they are performing vital public services ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY FACTS •Robinson Helicopter Co. has grown to become the largest manufacturer of civil helicopters in the world •They are the largest single source of RPV shoreline flights •Each new helicopter is test flown numerous times •They conduct thousands of flights every year •They are not required by FAA to fly close to shore •Their FAA-approved flight test area is up to 2 miles offshore from Manhattan Beach to Long Beach –Instead, they fly close to the shoreline •Robinson has a 50 year lease at Torrance Airport (Expires in 2053) •No noise testing or EIR was ever done in connection with their lease (contrary to CEQA) TYPICAL ROBINSON TEST FLIGHT ROUTE Note, in lower left corner, distance scale (showing 2 miles) and time of day (showing 7:04 AM) General Aviation ® Altitude: 1,886 ft ~[Jj ~ iil llilTJI 0 -------0 ~ POWIR£0 BY Go 1 .iglc 0 mi Redondo • • :r Bea eh .. • • • it Torra Veterans • Park 'I\' C'nrs()I) S\ -w~-1~'1"' __ Q, --~ General Aviation Origin: TOA Destination: TOA Altitude: 1,804 ft ~[Jj ~ Wilson Park ~ -4. • DelAmo ~ 'I>"' Park "~ Ci:arson E 22'JfdS~ E 2131!1 St "°"\'~' Cttst111et \. Pal os Verdes ...._ "'<t1!. I Es tates "<l. l..- Weather Observation Time Temperature Pressure (inHg ) Relative Humidity We Oe\V Point Visibility (miles) 06:~ ~~ . . "'/""""' <\&_ .l , Lomit a H art>or cav Rolling Hills '"""'·T .. , CD ••-.coasl"-..Y CD Wimington ~ E P3tit!C Coa&tfH\l;y §' I ~¥:31 Esta tes \ • ~ \ H arbor {! .J iif \._@ · '\ "'I --... ,\ -v Wilmington •Waterfront Park 2 \\\\ Del c;~~~ • Rolling Hills Nonnwest "(@'• ' San Pe«o Ranch o \. Palos Verd es \ ' Jt'./' \ o$' '------~ ~27 San Pedro <\ '-..._ <SI I %. W 1,91h"$.t <:.1. ~ '-. E'll"°'"I '-, 'vl,' 25th St '-. I '--......._ I "-..... • I '-...,;>ngels ... / Gat~ « I Drake ParK • / I ~ I Lo ng Beach "-J>ts, lijOeq._,, • H all)' Bndges Memori al Park I I I I Map data ©201 3 Google-Ter Ap< 16 2()1 3 07:04:14 (g>~<!)····----~·················································· FAA FLIGHT TRACKS UNDER 2500’ ON JULY 11, 2008 (NOTE – FAA RADAR LIMITED IN THIS AREA – NOT ALL FLIGHTS ARE DEPICTED) 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 ROBINSON HELICO PTER PRODUCTION N o . of H e li copters Prod u ced By Year 893 823 OCTOBER 20 10 INCREASED PRODUCT ION SPACE BY 25 % 517 433 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 If Robinson’s business picks up and they resume manufacturing at full capacity, the number of helicopter fights on the Palos Verdes peninsula coastline could easily double and possibly triple. NOISE/PRIVACY/SAFETY IMPACTS ON HOMES (Slide shows RPV shoreline homes with market values estimated by Zillow) NOISE IMPACTS ON NATURE PRESERVES Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy Natural Open Space Preserves on the Palos Verdes Peninsula D D • D Palo s Verdes Nature Preserve in Rancho Palos Ve r des Future Pa los Verdes N ature Preserve, manage d by Tru mp National Go lf Course Preserves in Ro ll ing H ills Estates Preserves and Ma naged La nd in Sa n Pe dro • ~ Grttr11nfo lfftwort .<; (!'61 ,_ '). 't S? < Glo<>da• LosAnoetes: PALOS VERDES PENIN SULA Long n ':'~ Huotongton Beach SanBerrurd•no • R111e1$1de• ....... .,, ;:.an~Ana \fr1111,,'?. vi,_,~ D, Vist a del N o r te Trails Linde n H . Chand ler Preserve George F C a nyon N ature Preserve Fuel D epot ~ Not O pen t o t hf!: Public Except by Arra~ment v-- //<i, ~ ~' w191hS1 W hite Point W 2 5th Sr N atur e Preserve HELICOPTER TOUR OPERATOR FACTS •Over 30 helicopter tour operators fly in LA County •Operate from 12 airports, including Torrance, Long Beach, Hawthorne, and Compton •Use over 85 helicopters •FAA requires tour helicopters to be equipped with flotation systems to fly over water or fly close enough to shore so they can reach land if they lose power •They don’t use flotation devices –They would lose their excuse for flying close to shore •The public nuisance far outweighs any public benefit HELICOPTER TOUR OPERATOR – WEBSITE ADVERTISEMENT HELICOPTER OPERATOR WEBSITE SHOWING TOUR ROUTES “One of the highlights of this breathtaking coastal tour is flying over the palatial homes of Palos Verdes Estates, Trump national golf Course, and along the beautiful Palos Verdes peninsula.” HELICOPTER OPERATOR WEBSITE TOUR DESCRIPTION CURRENT FAA REGULATIONS •Single engine helicopters carrying passengers for hire without flotation systems are required to fly close enough to reach land in the event of engine failure •All other helicopters can fly farther offshore, including: –Helicopters not carrying passengers for hire –Test flights –Twin engine helicopters –Helicopters with flotation systems SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS •Pilots argue they need to fly close to shore for the safety of the pilot and passengers –If they lose power they want to be able to glide to shore for an emergency landing •Flying close to shore jeopardizes safety of people on shore –Pilot error can cause loss of control –Mechanical problems can cause loss of control –Emergency landings by aircraft have resulted in deaths on U.S. shorelines •For safety, the FAA should require helicopters that fly on the coastline to have flotation systems so they can land in the ocean – no exceptions HELICOPTER GLIDE DISTANCES •LAAHNC has documented that helicopters can glide 4 feet laterally for every 1 foot of altitude •A helicopter flying at 1,500 feet can glide without power for over a mile •Neither the pilots nor the FAA has refuted these facts •Helicopters can fly much farther than 750’ offshore and still be within glide distance to shore LAAHNC RECOMMENDATIONS •Single engine helicopters that carry passengers for hire on the coastline should be required to have flotation systems –If so, they should fly at least one mile offshore –If not, they should still be required to fly at least one- half mile offshore (with exceptions for weather, unique conditions, and transition to/from airports) •Helicopters not currently required to fly close to shore should be required to fly one mile offshore LAAHNC SUGGESTED ACTIONS Impacted stakeholders (cities, counties, and the general public) should write to the FAA and their federal elected officials calling for the FAA to at least: •Rescind the new routes recommending that helicopters fly 750’ offshore – restore the status quo ante •Document and publish its rationale for any changes •Document and publish its assessment of the impact of any changes on noise and safety •Consult impacted cities and counties prior to deciding on any changes •Hold public hearings and allow for public input before deciding to implement any new or revised routes Questions? From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: July 14, 2016 MEMO from SUNSHINE SunshineRPV@aol.com Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:25 PM CC; Doug Willmore; Cory Linder rcraig90275@yahoo.com; herbertstark@cox.net; ed.pilolla@pvnews.com The "Bubbles" statue. July 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Item SS2.A TO: RPV City Council, RPV Staff and interested parties RE: The "Bubbles" statue. July 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Item SS2.A There is more to it than what appears. A location on public land has not been determined in relation to all the other things which are being proposed. And, in the 1980's, the cost estimate to make a foundation to hold up the statue was one million dollars. Lower Point Vicente Park already has a whale statue which is more in keeping with PVIC and the Coastal Zone. I agree with the public input which proposed including her at Upper Point Vicente Park along with a lot of other Civic Center improvements. The "less is more" approach to our future parkland improvements does not make room for Bubbles or a whole bunch of other previously identified recreational and cultural facilities. The list has not been updated. Ask Staff to update the list and re-contact the potential partners. Property owners in RPV are interested in more than "native habitat" Subjcct:Rc: About "Bubbles" Date: 6/24/2016 7 55 06 P.M. P~cific Daylight Time From: DWillmore@rpvca.gov To: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sunshine, I work on what the city council tells me to work on. To date, no one has told me to work on it. Doug Sent from my iPad I. Subjcct:Rc: About "Bubbles" Date: 6/24/2016 7:52:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: SusanB@rpvca.gov To: SunshineRPV@aol.com CC:ed.pilolla((ilpvnews.con1 CC@rpvca.gov, DWillmore@rpvca.gov Hi Sunshine. 1 Not so. I made it a future agenda item at the June 21 st meeting. Susan Brooks Councilwoman Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 541-2971 Subject: Date: From: To: Re: About "Bubbles" 6/24/2016 6:09:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time JerryD@rpvca.gov SunshineRPV@aol.com I agree. Hope all is well. Regards, Jerry Jerry V. Duhovic Councilman -City of Rancho Palos Verdes jerry.du hovic@rpvca.gov City Hall:(310)544-5207 June 20, 2016 Subject: Date: From: To: CC: About "Bubbles" 6/24/2016 6 0341 PM. Pacific Daylight Time SunshineRPV@aol.com ed.pilolla@pvnews.com cc(fllrpv.com, dwillmore@rpvca.gov To the Editor: It was disappointing to read that re-erecting the statue of Bubbles the whale is no longer being pursued by RPV Staff. "She" and the two dolphins were rescued by Staff when the abandoned marquee was starting to get vandalized. "She" was on Staff's list of desired park improvements when RPV had an Open Space Planning and Rec & Parks Task Force. The Task Force's "work product" of 2004 included a home for Bubbles at the desired, Upper Point Vicente Civic, Cultural and Recreation Center. Even if "she" is not a gray whale, I agree that "she" is beautiful and deserves a place in our public space. SUNSHINE RPVandRHE 310-377-8761 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net> Friday, July 15, 2016 1:13 PM cc CityManager Council protocol study session input Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: Thank you for including the topic of council protocol as a study session topic in the upcoming council meeting. Although I will not be able to attend the meeting, I wanted to be sure that you received my comments strongly supporting Councilwoman Brooks letter on this topic. The recent example of Ed Hummel's employer being contacted, and Ed's integrity as a law enforcement officer brought into question, with the result being a complaint filed against Ed, by a member of the City Council (whether intentional or unintentional) is not to be taken lightly. Ed did not act improperly, as I am 100% sure the internal investigation within his department will conclude, and yet his record will permanently be blemished with this complaint. And all this for a resident who was looking out for the interests, safety, and concern for all residents and users of the Ladera Linda Soccer fields when the city indicated they did not have jurisdiction over this PVPUSD owned property. Residents of our city, no matter what their profession (or lack thereof), should not be intimidated or otherwise discouraged by the City Council or any City Staff from exercising their rights to research publicly available information and ask questions. I strongly support a thorough review of current council protocol, revising that protocol if necessary to address this recent problem, and including language that allows the council to take binding disciplinary action against one of its members or city staff who violate the protocol. Thank you. Gary Randall Ladera Linda Resident RPV resident for 43 years 1