20171003 Late CorrespondenceOctober 3, 2017
The Honorable Edmund G Brown, Jr.
Governor, State of California
State Capitol, pt Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
VIA FACSIMILE: (916) 558 -3160
SUBJECT: SB 649 (Hueso). Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (as
enrolled) REQUEST FOR VETO
Dear Governor Brown:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully requests your veto of SB 649 (Hueso),
which seeks to eliminate public input, eliminate reasonable local environmental and
design review, mandate the forced leasing of publicly owned infrastructure, and
eliminate the ability for local governments to negotiate fair leases or any public benefit
for the installation of "small cell" wireless equipment on taxpayer-funded property.
While local agency opposition to SB 649 is not new, the bases for such opposition have
been misconstrued and misrepresented by the proponents since the inception of this
bill. Foremost, the City understands the federally -preempted status of Radio Frequency
(RF) emissions and we are not -and never have -opposed SB 649 on preempted
grounds of RF emissions. Rather, our opposition stems from valid considerations of
public safety, aesthetics, resource conservation, public transparency, and protecting our
citizens' rights to provide meaningful feedback on critical land -use decisions that have a
real impact upon private properties and the public lands adjacent to them.
I. SB 649 Has Proceeded Through The Legislature Under Color Of Gross
Factual & Legal Misrepresentations.
The wireless industry has grossly misrepresented the actual environmental impacts of
SB 649, and those misrepresentations are entrenched in the bill itself. For example :
A. "Small Cells" are Not Small: The plain language of SB 649 gives the wireless
industry the ability to install extremely large equipment, 6 cubic feet worth of
antennas and 21 cubic feet worth of equipment (about the size of a twin bed) on
"vertical infrastructure" like street lights, traffic signals, and stop signs without
requiring the industry to show that it is unable to deliver smaller equipment to
protect public safety and aesthetic interests. Further, the bill allows the industry
to place up to 35 cubic feet (about the size of a commercial refrigerator) of
01203.0015/413046.2
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
October 3, 2017
Page 2
equipment on the ground for each provider on every pole. But the ultimate size
of a facility will be unknown as there are exclusions for at least eight "ancillary"
pieces of equipment that have no size or quantity limitations. All in all, this
equipment would be approximately the same size as commercial refrigeration
and freezer units, and with all the attendant noise of such a large facility. The
truth regarding small cells is that under SB 649 there is no true limit to the final
size of a "small" cell, not even 41 cubic feet (which, itself, is by no means
"small"). Thus, as proven by the bill's express language, the industry's claim
about SB 649 cell dimensions being the size of a "pizza box" are utterly
disingenuous.
B. Existing Federal Laws Can Easily Double the Size of These "Small" Cells
Beyond What is Stated in SB 649-A Hidden Truth Cleverly Concealed by
SB 649 Proponents: Proponents of SB 649 are only telling part of the story.
Even assuming that cells under SB 649 are "small" (which they aren't), existing
Federal law already allows "by-right" additions to small cells without any local
oversight. Section 6409 of the Federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012 ("Section 6409) provides that state and local authorities cannot deny
and must approve requests for wireless facility modifications. Under Section
6409, carriers are already entitled (without local oversight) to "by-right" add-ons
that include: (i) up to 10% or 10 feet in height increase, (ii) installation of up-to
four equipment cabinets, (iii) additional appurtenances protruding up-to 6 feet!
The Federal extension rights are even larger for facilities that are not in the public
rig ht-of-way.
In short, SB 649 tells only part of the story as to how large these "small" cells
actually will be. The full story includes Section 6409, which gives carriers broad
"by-right" authority to vastly increase the dimensions of these facilities.
C. The Vast Majority Of Coastal Zones Are NOT Protected: As a destination
beach city, Rancho Palos Verdes is proud and protective of its coastlines. It has
been touted that coastal views will be protected from SB 649's "by-right" cellular
installations. Not so, and this is one of the trickier misrepresentations in SB 649.
SB 649 only exempts "coastal zones subject to the jurisdiction of the California
Coastal Commission." (See proposed Sec. 65964.2(g)(2)(C)(iii), emph. added.)
Unspoken is the fact that about 87% of California's coastal zones are under the
jurisdiction of Local Coastal Programs, and not the direct jurisdiction of the
Coastal Commission. This means that, without furlher clarification, 87% of
California's beach areas and coastal view-sheds could still be riddled with cellular
poles and facilities without any oversight by the California Coastal Commission,
local government review, or public input.
As a renowned coastal, scenic destination, Rancho Palos Verdes also agrees
with the Teamsters' Union in its opposition to SB 649 with respect to maintaining
01203.0015/413046.2
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
October 3, 2017
Page 3
unspoiled coastal and historic vistas. The Teamsters correctly observe that
preserving the scenic value of California's coastal and historic areas-particularly
in the Los Angeles region-is key to preserving local film locations and thus
maintaining California's film industry in the state.
D. Many Local Historic Districts Remain Vulnerable To By-Right SB 649
Facilities. SB 649 exempts facilities "listed in the National Park Service
Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the
California Register of Historical Resources." (See proposed Sec.
65964.2(g)(2)(C)(iii).) Basically, this exemption only applies to historical areas
that are listed under state or federal law. Locally-designated historic zones, such
as those designated under a general plan, would not be protected.
E. Wireless Industry Rhetoric About 5G is a Red Herring. The term "small cell"
is not defined in this bill by any technology standard, but instead by the size of
the equipment. As long as the facility delivers "licensed and/or unlicensed
spectrum" and falls within the loose size standards in the bill, it is a "small cell".
In other words, these wireless sites could be used for 4G technology that is
already being deployed today, or to deliver Wi-Fi signals only, or for even more
basic radio signals. The standards for 5G are still being developed and the
technology is still years away from being deployed. Despite the industry's most
consistent talking point, this bill never even mentions 5G (nor any service) much
less imposes any requirement, duty, or incentive to the industry to accelerate the
deployment of this new (and as yet non-existent) technology.
F. SB 649 Is NOT Designed to Provide Equal Technological Access. To be
clear, SB 649 is driven by the wireless industry purely for profit. As observed by
several California unions opposed to the bill, SB 649 could exacerbate inequality
when it comes to technological access. The bill gives telecommunications
companies the right to determine where they locate small cell technologies.
Providers could, and likely will, prioritize high-demand neighborhoods supporting
expensive data plans, while low-income communities will be left further behind.
II. Carriers Have Already Proven That They Cannot be Trusted to Respect
Aesthetic Values. Silencing the Public and Removing Local Oversight Will
Only Make Matters Worse.
By eliminating our local discretion and mandating a ministerial process, SB 649
effectively eliminates the ability for our residents and businesses to have fair input over
the character of their own communities. Most troubling is the shift of authority from the
community and our elected officials to for-profit wireless corporations only concerned
with their profit margins. Our elected officials play a critical role in balancing the values
of our community with the need to close the existing/widening digital divide and ensure
that the many benefits from state-of-the-art wireless technology are available to all. Our
01203.0015/413046.2
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
October 3, 2017
Page 4
lo ca l residents and businesses expect our City to be equ ipp ed to respond when they
have leg itim ate concerns, espec ia lly as they relate to the loc at ion and design of these
in sta ll at ion s near or ad j acent to their property.
In 2015, the C ity of Rancho Palos Verdes undertook a comprehensive initiative to
develop a new wireless telecommunications permitting process for sma ll ce ll s and other
in sta ll at ion s in the C ity's public rights-of-way, particularly in residential neighborhoods.
This initi ative, which was undertaken as a result of in creasing c iti zen concerns about the
proliferation of ce ll s ites in the C ity's public rights-of-way, involved the participation of
C ity leaders, residents and telecommunications service providers. Th is cu lmin ated in
the adopt ion of the City's Wire less Te lecommun icat ion s Faci liti es Ord in ance in March
2016. Pr ior to the adopt ion of the City's Wireless Te lecommun icat ions Fac iliti es
Ord in ance, the wire less indu stry in sta ll ed an atroc ious array of facilities with abso lute ly
no concern for aesthet ic imp acts.
This is What Happens When There's No Local Oversight of Wireless Installations:
Right in front of a home:
-·~' !' '
Residential area :
01203.0015/413046.2
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
October 3, 2017
Page 5
Public park entrance: This is an ocean view?
The above photos show actual sites in Rancho Palos Verdes that were installed without
the benefit of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance.
Ill. SB 649-A Final Word on Gifting Public Lands To a For-Profit Industry.
In an unprecedented move, SB 649 would deprive local governments of control over
their own property; property that was funded by the public. SB 649 forces our City to
give access to public property funded by the taxpayers so that for-profit wireless
corporations can install their equipment to sell their private services . By eliminating fair
market rate leases for use of taxpayer-funded property (including city halls, parks,
county libraries, and "vertical infrastructure"), this bill effectively gives corporations
discounted access to public facilities with no requirement to pass their cost-savings onto
their customers . SB 649 creates billions of dollars of value for wireless industry
shareholders by eliminating fair market rate leases-all at the taxpayers' expense .
Furthermore, rents from the use of public property, which every other for-profit busines s
pays, help pay for our essential public services, such as police, fire, libraries, and parks.
SB 649 sets a dangerous precedent for other private industries to seek similar treatment
to benefit their shareholders over taxpayer-funded infrastructure, further eroding the
ability to fund vital local services. In short, SB 649 is an unfunded mandate gifting
millions, if not billions, of taxpayer funds and public resources to one powerful for-profit
industry.
01203.0015/413046.2
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
October 3, 2017
Page 6
For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully requests your veto of
SB 649.
Sincerely,
Brian Campbell
Mayor
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Senator Ben Allen, 2ffh District
Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, 66 1h District
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities
01203.0015/413046.2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RA.NCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
OCTOBER 3, 2017
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
Public Comments Email from Gary Randall
1 Revised River Watch Agreement
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, October 2, 2017**.
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20171003 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>
Tuesday, October 03, 2017 3:20 PM
cc
CityClerk; CityManager
Public Comments tonight
CC Meeting 10_3_17.pdf
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I am planning to speak tonight during the public comments portion of the meeting. I have two topics I would like to address:
1. Palos Verdes Artificial Reef Project
2. Filming this week at RPV Beach
Attached are my notes for tonight. There is no way I can cover all of the points in just 3 minutes, so I will have to skip many of
them. But, I wanted you to see my notes.
Since I would like to speak on two completely unrelated topics, would it be possible to have two (2) three minute sections of
time? (6 minutes total). If this is not possible, or unfair to other speakers, I understand, but then I likely will only talk about
the reef project, as it is the most time critical with a very important meeting scheduled by NOAA on October 11. I would then
speak on the film permit issues at a future council meeting.
I realize it is late and that you may not see this email before the meeting tonight. If you do see this email, I would appreciate
knowing how much time I have to cover the topics before "the clock starts," and I will adjust my speaking as needed.
Thank you very much for your consideration
Gary Randall
.20 year Ladera Linda resident
40+ year RPV resident
1
• Background
In year 2000, Montrose Chemical and other defendants settled a lawsuit for their part in
dumping DDT, PCBs, and other chemicals from the 1940's thru the early 1970s.
$140M settlement
About half the money when to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control
The other half went into a fund, managed by 6 trustees, including National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and California State Lands Commission, known as the
Montrose Settlement Restoration Program.
These funds were earmarked to be used for projects to restore habitat and species
endangered by the dumping of the DDT and other chemicals.
A number of projects already completed, some very successful
For example, bald eagle and peregrine falcon habitat on offshore islands has been
successfully restored
Another example is the removal and relocation of sea urchins that were wiping out kelp
forests off of Palos Verdes. This started in 2013 and has also been very successful.
• Remind council and public about this specific project
One of the last projects is a proposal to construct a series of reefs just off the coast ofRPV,
in front of Trump National Golf Course.
This is not intended to reduce beach erosion or slow the Portuguese Bend landslide.
NOAA claims this is to "restore rocky reef habitat that was buried by sedimentation from
nearby landslides, thereby providing essential fish habitat and substrate for kelp, other
marine algae, and marine invertebrates."
Note in this statement the reefs were not damaged necessarily by DDT and other chemicals,
but by landslides.
NOAA held a public meeting in 2012 with a very general overview of the project
Very little specific detail was provided at that time.
RPV City Council at that time wrote a letter supporting the urchin removal project, and
supporting the general concept of the reef project subject to further details and scientific
evidence supporting its success.
Interestingly, Heal the Bay opposed the project back in 2012, siting a variety of
environmental concerns.
There was little, if any, public discussion about the project from 2012 until earlier this year.
• Recent developments
In February 2017, NOAA published a 191 page Environmental Assessment report for this
project, where some more specific details of the project were revealed.
The proposed project budget is around $6.SM
It involves taking over 70,000 tons (that's 140 million pounds) of quarry rock from
Catalina and dumping it off of barges onto the ocean floor just 600 yards offshore of
Trump National
The site covers an area of roughly 600 yards wide by 1.2 miles long
It is intended to create 40 acres of artificial rocky reef habitat in an area that is
predominantly sandy bottom.
Note that this area is within the Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund Site, where DDT is
currently trapped under layers of sediment.
NOAA held a poorly advertised, very poorly run public meeting in early March at the
interpretive center. No presentation, no question and answer time, no formal introduction
of MSRP attendees.
Comment period for this EA report was thru March 22, in preparation for a decision to
proceed with the project that was supposed to occur at the April meeting of California State
Lands Commission .
Many letters of opposition to this project were written by local residents, surfers, and ocean
enthusiasts, siting a variety of significant concerns.
Trump National wrote a letter opposing the project.
Environmental groups, such as Heal the Bay, wrote letters opposing the project.
After reviewing more details of the actual project, this City Council also wrote a letter
opposing this project, and I want to thank and commend this Council for doing that.
When the agenda for the CSLC's April meeting came out, this item was mysteriously
missmg.
I called the CSLC and was told that indeed the item had been pulled from the agenda, and
they could not give me any information as to when this would be placed on a future agenda.
No updates have been provided since March.
• Latest News
Out of the blue, last week NOAA announced that there will be a public meeting on October
11 at 6:00 p.m. at Malaga Cove Library.
Quoting directly from their flyer, this meeting is for the public to "receive an update on the
project and an overview of the Trustees responses to the public comments received."
They go on to note that the public comment period closed on March 22, 201 7. This implies
that they will no longer receive comments, only provide response to previous comments.
I am not sure about the council, but I wrote two letters and never received any response
from the trustees.
I have sent correspondence to lead agencies NOAA and CSLC yesterday asking for their
responses before next week's meeting, but have not received any reply as of this hour.
My point in all this is to strongly encourage members of this council, staff, the audience,
and those listening on RPVTV to attend the October 11th meeting at Malaga Cove
Library at 6:00 p.m.
We need to learn as much as we can about this project and see if NOAA and the CSLC have
adequately addressed the significant concerns that have been raised.
I have also learned that there will be an important debate between the 6 candidates for City
Council that same evening, and will be disappointed to miss it. I am hopeful a video of the
debate will be uploaded to the RPV website so I can view it later in the week.
• Refer to Page 3 of City Manager's report for details
• All of RPV beach, a public beach, will be completely closed to the public for 3 days for
filming, which started today
• Does the City have the authority to do this? On what grounds? If there is not an inherent
safety issue at the beach (aside from filming activity), then under what legal authority does
RPV have the capacity to close the beach?
• Do the residents ofRPV really support this? We have our hands full trying to minimize
social media effects of drawing more visitors in, do we really need or want our beautiful
beaches, cliffs, and other public areas further advertised via Hollywood?
• How much net income does the city receive for this? Does the city really need that income
to support other essential services?
• I am hopeful this Council might consider asking staff to prepare a brief report outlining
film permit activity, net income from such activities, perhaps addressing some of the
questions I pose above, and then review policies for issuing permits.
• Adding this as a future agenda-ized item will allow residents to express their viewpoints
and, in their view, whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
• Council could then take action or no-action as appropriate
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Nathan,
Emily Colborn
Tuesday, October 03, 2017 3:08 PM
Nathan Zweizig
Teresa Takaoka
FW: Proposed Consent Decree -Cal. River Watch v. RPV
2224_001.pdf
The attached is a revised River Watch agreement for tonight's meeting. Please include it as late correspondence.
Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5208
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Christine M. Carson [mailto:ccarson@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 2:02 PM
To: Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>; Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>; Elena Gerli <egerli@awattorneys.com>
Cc: Glen E. Tucker <gtucker@awattorneys.com>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Consent Decree -Cal. River Watch v. RPV
Our case just got assigned to a new judge, so the case number changed, changing the front page of the proposed consent
decree. It's not a substantive change, and I will explain it at the meeting tonight.
Glen re-signed a version that has the correct judge on the last page and in the footer. I will explain that tonight at the
meeting. If RPV must sign the old version because it's attached to the agenda, then we can always submit a new/corrected
first page containing the new judge and case number, with a concurrently submitted proposed order that contains the correct
judge's name and case number, but it would be good to have a correct version containing the new judge and number, if
possible. So, I will bring the new version. The new one is attached
From: Christine M. Carson [mailto:ccarson@awattorneys.com]
/.
1
c.z5 ~ '
fJ;J ~ '
c:G fJ;J ' ~CL (/)~ 7 fJ;J ,,
~~:. ~' -f.
1
2
3
4
5
[Exempt From Filing Fee
Government Code § 6103]
6 Attorn_eys for Defendant, City of Rancho
Palos Verdes
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, an
IRC Section 501 ( c )(3 ), non-profit,
public benefit Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
Assigned to Hon. Judge John A.
Kronstadt
Ctrm. lOB
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
(Environmental -Clean Water Act 33
D.S.C. § 1251 et seq.)
Trial Date: None
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2017, California River Watch ("Plaintiff' or "CR W")
filed a Complaint in this Court asserting it is an Internal Revenue Code section 501 ( c )3
nonprofit, public benefit corporation organized under the laws of the State of
California, dedicated to protecting, enhancing, and helping to restore the surface waters
and ground waters of California, including rivers, creeks, streams, wetlands, vernal
pools, aquifers and associated environs, biota, flora and fauna, and to educating the
public concerning environmental issues associated with these environs;
01203. 0029/405370.3 -1-Case No. 2: l 7-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1 WHEREAS, the Complaint alleges City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("Defendant" or
2 "the City"), organized under the laws of the State of California, owns and operates a
3 collection system for the purpose of collecting and conveying for treatment wastewater
4 from residential, commercial, and industrial sources, subject to various federal and state
5 regulatory requirements under the federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C.
6 § § 1251 et seq. ("Clean Water Act" or "CW A");
7 WHEREAS, on October 7, 2016, CRW served the City, the United States
8 Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), EPA Region IX, the Executive Director of
9 the State Water Resources Control Board ("State Board") and the Executive Director of
10 the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board") with a 60-
11 day Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit ("Notice Letter" or "Notice") alleging
12 various violations of the CWA relating to the collection system;
13 WHEREAS, the City denies all of CR W's allegations that it is liable for any
14 claims that were, or could have been, asserted against the City based upon the Notice
15 Letter;
16 WHEREAS, the Parties have expended effort and resources in investigating and
17 evaluating allegations and claims set forth in the Notice Letter, including the exchange
18 of information regarding the collection system, as well as engaging in a negotiation and
19 technical dialogue regarding settlement;
20 WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to resolve and settle all disputes, obligations,
21 and purported or actual claims or causes of action, which may exist by and between
22 CR Wand the City, including without limitation any disputes, obligations, claims and/or
23 causes of action that were or could have been asserted in or pursuant to the Notice
24 Letter and have tentatively reached a settlement; .
25 WHEREAS, on August 1, 201 7, CR W filed a Complaint against the City in the
26 United States District Court, Central District of California, Eastern Division (Civil Case
27 No. 5:17-cv-01534) entitled, California River Watch v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
28 ("Complaint");
0 l 203.0029/4053 70,3 -2-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx) ---------------------[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1 WHEREAS, the Defendant denies all allegations set forth in the Complaint, and
2 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4, has either filed an Answer or
3 motion under Rule 12 or will do so by November 5, 2107 or such other date as
4 permitted by Court Rules or the Court;
5 WHEREAS, CR Wand the City (collectively referred to herein as the "Parties")
6 have agreed that it is in the Parties' mutual interest to enter into a Consent Decree
7 setting forth terms and conditions appropriate to resolving the allegations set forth in
8 the Complaint without further proceedings; and
9 WHEREAS, all actions taken by the City pursuant to this Consent Decree shall
10 be made in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local rules and regulations.
11 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN THE
12 SETTLING PARTIES AND ORDERED AND DECREED BY THE COURT AS
13 FOLLOWS:
14 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
15 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question), and 33 U.S.C. §1365(a) (CWA citizen suit
16 jurisdiction).
17 2. Venue is appropriate in the Central District Court pursuant to 33 U.S.C.
18 § 1365( c )( 1 ), because the alleged violations purportedly occurred within this District.
19 Venue is also proper because the City is located, and the alleged events or omissions
20 giving rise to CRW's claims allegedly occurred in the this District. 28 U.S.C.
21 §1391(b)(l),(2).
22 3. The Complaint is styled as a Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties
23 and Declaratory Relief (Environmental-Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. §1251, et seq.).
24 4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for five years for purposes
25 of interpreting, modifying or enforcing the terms of this Consent Decree, or as long
26 thereafter as is necessary for the Court to resolve any motion to enforce this Consent
27 Decree.
28
01203.0029/4053 70.3 -3-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLA.x) -----·---.... ---[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1 I. OBJECTIVES
2 5. It is the express purpose of the Parties entering into this Consent Decree to
3 further the objectives set forth in the CW A and to resolve those issues alleged by CRW
4 in its Complaint. In light of these objectives and as set forth fully below, the City and
5 CW A agree to comply with the provisions of this Consent Decree.
6 II. COMMITMENTS OF THE CITY
7 A. ACTIONS BY THE CITY
8 6. The City shall perform the below-specified acts. The City reserves the right,
9 in its sole discretion, to determine: (i) which persons shall perform any acts described
10 herein, including contractors; and (ii) the scope and technical details of, and the manner
11 to implement, such acts; and to the extent the Regional Water Quality Control Board is
12 required to review and approve, work may be subject to review and approval by the
13 Regional Water Quality Control Board (or such other regulatory agency as may, from
14 time to time, exercise jurisdiction with respect to environmental matters under the
15 Permit).
16 B. CONDITION ASSESSMENT
1 7 7. Prior to the service of the Notice, the City and County had been conducting a
18 condition assessment. Thus, the City has conducted a Sewer Collection System
19 Investigation and Repair, a Condition Assessment and full Condition Assessment
20 within the last 10 years according to the Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program
21 ("P ACP") system. The final repairs are being completed and documented. The County
22 and City have been performing surface water condition assessments as part of their
23 Condition Assessments, but they are not labeled in record-keeping as "surface water
24 condition assessments." Upon receipt from the County of Los Angeles, the City will
25 produce the remaining portion of its condition assessment reports, and records
26 sufficient to document the remaining repairs pursuant to the condition assessment and
27 full condition assessment have been performed according to the County's schedule. To
28 the extent there are any sewer lines in the sewer collection system located sufficiently
01203.0029/405370.3 -4-Case No. 2: l 7-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx.)
[PROPOSED'] CONSENT DECREE
1 proximate to a surface water that, if defective, could allow exfiltration to that surface
2 water, City will also produce records sufficient to show a surface water condition
3 assessment was done.
4 7 .a. Definitions
5 i. Condition Assessment: A report that comprises inspection, rating, and
6 evaluation of the existing condition of a sewer collection system. Inspection is based
7 upon closed circuit television ("CCTV") inspections for sewer lines; manhole
8 inspections for structural defects; and inspections of pipe connections at the manhole.
9 After CCTV inspection occurs, pipe conditions are assigned a grade such as the
10 Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program ("P ACP") rating system, developed by
·11 the National Association of Sewer Service Companies.
12 ii. A Full Condition Assessment: A Condition Assessment of all sewer lines
13 in the sewer collection system.
14 iii. Surface Water Condition Assessment: A Condition Assessment of sewer
15 lines in the sewer collection system located sufficiently proximate to a surface water
16 that if defective, could allow exfiltration to that surface water. Whether a line is
1 7 "sufficiently proximate" will depend upon a number of factors including age,
18 composition and P ACP rating of the sewer line in question, the nature of the defect, soil
19 types, and groundwater patterns.
20 iv. Surface Significantly Defective: A sewer pipe is considered to be
21 Significantly Defective if its condition receives a grade of 4 or 5 based on the P ACP
22 rating system. The P ACP assigns grades based on the significance of the defect, extent
23 of damage, percentage of flow capacity restriction, and/or the amount of pipe wall loss
24 due to deterioration. Grades are assigned as follows:
25
26
27
28
5 -Most significant defect
4 -Significant defect
3 -Moderate defect
2 -Minor to moderate defect
0 l 203 .0029/4053 703 -5-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~es: ...l" 12 ~ffi ,. -'o,, 13
::i:: ~; (/') ..
µJ " 14 ~~:~ 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 -Minor defect.
7.b. Documents to be Provided
i. If there are any sewer lines in the City's sewer collection system in the vicinity
of Abalone Cove park and trail within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes maintained by
the City ("Abalone Cove") sufficiently proximate to surface water and determined by
the City to pose a risk of exfiltration to that surface water which have not been repaired
or replaced, within two (2) years after this consent decree, the City shall repair or
replace all sewer lines in such City sewer collection system sufficiently proximate to a
surface water and determined to pose a risk of exfiltration to that surface water which
have been closed circuit television inspected ("CCTV") within the past ten (10) years
and were rated as Significantly Defective or given a comparable assessment.
ii. Within six ( 6) months of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree, the City
shall provide CR W with documentary evidence that it or the County has appropriately
scheduled activities to monitor and manage such defective pipe(s), or has repaired or
has scheduled the repair of all sewer lines found to be Significantly Defective.
iii. Within six (6) months of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree, the City
shall provide CR W with documentary evidence that it has been making efforts to
identify deficiencies associated with moderate defects in the City's sewer collection
system in the vicinity of Abalone Cove and is monitoring its system, repaired or
scheduled the repair or replacement of sewer pipe segments containing defects with a
rating of 3 based on the P ACP rating system, if such defect resulted in a sanitary sewer
overflow ("SSO"), or, if in the City's discretion, such defects are in close proximity to
Significantly Defective segments that are in the process of being repaired or replaced;
sewer pipe segments which contain defects with a rating of 3 that are not repaired or
replaced within five (5) years after completion of the Surface Water Condition
Assessment are to be re-CCTV'd every ten (10) years to ascertain the condition of the
sewer line segment. If the City determines that the grade-3 sewer pipe segment has
deteriorated and needs to be repaired or replaced, the City shall perform regular
01203.0029/405370.3 -6-Case No. 2: 17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
~~:
1.£.) p:: .
~ 1.£.) ' :to-:·
(j)~ .: ~ ,.J ') ~~:,
1 maintenance, or schedule repairs or replacement within two (2) years after the last
2 CCTV cycle.
3 iv. The City shall continue to cooperate in the County's performance of a
4 Condition Assessment of all sewer at least every ten ( 10) years, as is already required.
5 c. SSO REPORTING AND RESPONSE
6 8. The City contracts with the County for its SSO Reporting and Response. The
7 City shall ask the County to modify its Backup and SSO Response Plan to include in its
8 reports submitted to the California Integrated Water Quality System ("CIWQS") the
9 following items:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a. The method or calculations used for estimating total spill volume, spill
volume that reached surface waters, and spill volume recovered;
b. For Category I and II Spills, a listing of nearby residences or business
owners who have been contacted to attempt to establish the SSO start
time, duration, and flow rate, if such start time, duration, and flow rate
have not been otherwise reasonably ascertained, such as from a caller who
provides information that brackets a given time that the SSO began; and,
c. Taking of photographs of the manhole flow at the SSO site using either
the San Diego or Central Coast Method array (if applicable to the SSO),
or other photographic evidence that may aid in establishing the spill
volume.
9. The City shall implement and place in its Sewage System Overflow Response
Plan ("SSORP") the following:
a. A plan to reduce the potential for human health risks and adverse
environmental impacts that are associated with an SSO event that include
the following:
Ol203.0029/405370J
l. In any area within the City in which the County or City cannot
confirm that all of the infectious materials, if any, from a SSO have
been removed or mitigated, the City (for City maintained areas
-7-Case No. 2: 17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
~~~~~·~~~~~~------------"---------~==--[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~~'.'.
12 i:.tJ ~ .
~µ.l'
13 1-(0'
::t •· \/)~; ~ ' 14
~~' 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Abalone Cove system]) shall post appropriate public notification
signs and place barricades to keep vehicle and pedestrians away from
contact with spilled sewage until it has been deemed cleaned as
described below. For example, signs will be posted at creeks and
streams, if any, that have been contaminated as a result of an SSO
and at visible access locations until the risk of exposure has subsided
to acceptable background levels. Warning signs should be checked
every day to ensure that they are still in place. Major spills warrant
broader public notice. For major spills within the City, the City, if it
is a City maintained area, shall contact local media when significant
areas may have been contaminated by sewage and may pose a danger
to public health.
11. The signs and other public notices will not be removed until City, the
Health Department or Sanitation District has determined there is no
further risk to public health and the environment.
10. The water quality sampling procedures shall include:
a. Samples should be collected as soon as safely possible after the discovery
of the SSO event as follows:
0 l 203.0029/4053 70.3
t. Pursuant to the Statewide WDR, Section D subsection 7, the City or
its designee shall sample to determine the nature and extent of any
SSO whenever there is an SSO discharged to a surface where it poses
a risk to public health and where it is required by the WDR, Section
D, subsection 7.
11. If the SSO poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health or the environment that cannot be fully mitigated by the City's
current SOPs, the City shall consult a qualified biologist, health care
specialist or equivalent professional to mitigate the effects of the
SSO on the environment.
-8-Case No. 2: 17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~ :i: ;.J. 12 ~~ ~.~" 13 ffi er:·
(/)~;: 14 ~ '
~S$:, 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11. The City shall, on its website, create a link from the website to the CIWQS
home page including a county or city phone number at which members of the public
can report to the City or County a sanitary sewer overflow observed in the City. On an
annual basis for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date of this Consent
Decree the City shall provide CRW with the results of its weekly fecal testing and
ocean testing already being performed.
D. LATERAL INSPECTION/REPAIR PROGRAM
12. The City shall develop for public notice, and place on its website within six
( 6) months "recommended best practices for maintaining your laterals" for the benefit
of property owners who are responsible for their own laterals. It will remind private
property owners of their responsibility for their laterals. Such recommended best
practices shall include reasonable measures for property owners to maintain, repair and
inspect their own laterals. The recommendations will include recommended inspections
upon any of the following occurring:
a. Transfer of ownership of the property if no inspection/replacement of the
sewer lateral occurred within ten (10) years prior to the transfer;
b. The occurrence of two (2) or more SSOs caused by the private sewer
lateral within two (2) years;
c. A change of the use of the structure served (a) from residential to non-:
residential use, (b) to a non-residential use that will result in a higher flow
than the current non-residential use, or ( c) to non-residential uses where
the structure served has been vacant or unoccupied for more than three (3)
years;
d. Upon replacement or repair of any part of the sewer lateral;
e. Upon issuance of a building permit with a valuation of $50,000.00 or
more.
012010029/405370.3 -9-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~~; 12 ~r.G, ~'
13 l"""'ei·· ~ :
Cl)~ z ~ . 14 ~~· ~ ~: 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. CHEMICAL ROOT CONTROL
13. The City does not presently use chemical root control. The City shall post on
its website "best practices when using chemical root control" for the benefit of private
property owners responsible for their own laterals. The City shall ask County agents
using chemical root control within the City's MS4 system to use chemicals approved by
the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for any chemical root control as
recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and ask that all
application comply with the recommendations of the manufacturer of the chemical and
as required by Cal-OSHA. Within one ( 1) year after this Consent Decree, the City shall
develop its posting on its website "recommended best practices when using chemical
root control" for the benefit of private property owners responsible for the maintenance
and repair of their own laterals. It will include recommended methods for the
application of root control agents that lessen the incident of these agents escaping the
collection system and keeping the public informed. If the City implements its own
chemical root control within the next five (5) years, it will also use these protocols, to
the extent they do not conflict with any Sanitation District Ordinance, Cal-OSHA rule,
product manufacturer instruction or Los Angeles County, California or federal law by
which City is bound. These protocols will also be included in these recommended best
practices when using chemical root control for the benefit of property owners who are
responsible for their laterals:
a. Blocking the line upstream and down-stream of the area of application;
b. Flushing out the line after application and removing the residue before
reopening the line;
c. Random sampling of the line after flushing to insure the protocols
eliminate >90% of root control agents; and/or using root control agents
that have a half-life of fifteen (15) days or less and the breakdown
products are non-toxic to aquatic plants or animals;
0 [203.0029/405370.3 -10-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~~< 12 ~~ ~~,,
to-I 13 ljO·
fij~': 14 ~~<,, 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d. Developing and implementing best management practices to preclude the
escape of the root control agent from the sewer line;
e. City will recommend property owners maintain records that include
identifying the P ACP rating in the section being treated; a map identifying
locations where treatment occurs; the chemical(s) used including the
MSDS sheets; and the amounts applied. If the City begins chemical root
control, it will also perform such record keeping;
f. Not applying any root control agent to any sewer line that has a known
P ACP rating of 4 or 5 unless the property owner applying chemical root
control can ensure that none of the root control agent will escape the
sewer line through any line defect; and
g. Not knowingly applying any root control agent in any location where
groundwater can be contaminated via infiltration or exfiltration.
14. If the City begins using chemical root control, the City shall post on its
website a map showing where a root control agent may be used throughout the sewer
system and provide a contact number for the City to respond to questions.
15. If the City begins using chemical root control, it will similarly update its City
sewer system management plan ("SSMP") to include these protocols.
F. FEES AND COSTS
16. Within ten ( 10) calendar days after the Effective Date of this Consent Decree
and approval by the Court, the City shall mail CR W the sum of fifty-thousand dollars
($50,000). Payment shall be made to CR Win the form of a single check (or two checks
which combined total $50,000) payable to "California River Watch" and mailed to the
Law Office of Jack Silver, 708 Gravenstein Highway North,# 407, Sebastopol, CA
'
95472. Said payment shall constitute full and complete satisfaction of all costs of
litigation and attorneys' fees incurred by CR W that have or could have been claimed in
connection with this matter up to and including the Effective Date of the Consent
Decree, and for CR W's expert and attorneys' fees and costs for monitoring and
01203,0029/4053703 -11-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx) _, __ ~ __ ,, ___ _
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
~~;
~ffi:;
~Q:'
(/)~'· l.IJ :,·
~~;,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
enforcing the City's compliance with the ongoing obligations under this Consent
Decree up to and including the Termination Date.
III. COMMITMENTS OF PLAINTIFF
17. Within three days of the final signature of this Consent Decree by the Parties,
CRW shall file a Notice of Tentative Settlement and Notice of 45-Day Review Period
in the United States District Court for the Central District of California ("District
Court").
18. Plaintiff shall submit this [Proposed] Consent Decree to EPA and the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") within three days of obtaining Parties' attorneys
signatures approving as to form (with client signatures to follow), or at the latest three
(3) days afterthe final signatures of the Parties, consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 135.5. The
agency review period expires forty-five ( 45) days after receipt by both agencies, as
evidenced by the certified return receipts, copies of which shall be provided to
Defendant if requested. In the event that EPA or DOJ object to entry of this [Proposed]
Consent Decree, the Parties agree to meet and confer to attempt to resolve the issue( s)
raised by EPA or DOJ.
19. Plaintiff shall file this Consent Decree with the District Court within three (3)
days of the Effective Date. CRW is responsible for notifying Defendant of the District
Court's entry of the Order dismissing these claims with prejudice. Such notification can
be satisfied by the Central District of California's Case Management/Electronic Case
Filing ("CM/ECF") notification to the Parties that the Order was executed and entered
by the District Court.
23 IV. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION DATE
24 20. The term "Effective Date," as used in this Consent Decree, shall mean the
25 date on which the Parties receive notice that the Court approved the fully executed
26 Consent Decree.
27
28
01203.0029/4053 70.3 -12-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
~~<
~~;
~ '~ ~"· ,_.Cl'' l:~: (,/') /
~ .t
i-4~; <C :,
1 21. The "Termination Date" of this Consent Decree is the date that all of the
2 requirements under Section II are completed by the City or five (5) years from the date
3 of full execution and court approval of this Consent Decree, whichever is earlier.
4 V. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for five (5) years for the
purposes of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of this Consent
Decree, and adjudicating all disputes among the parties that may arise under the
provisions of this Consent Decree. The Court shall have the power to enforce this
Consent Decree with all available legal and equitable remedies.
23. Any disputes between CR W and the City concerning any alleged breach of
this Consent Decree shall be subject to the following dispute resolution procedures.
Failure to satisfy the payment condition in Section II is a substantial breach of this
Consent Decree and relieves CR W of its obligations under this Consent Decree:
a. Good Faith Negotiations. CRW and the City shall make good faith efforts
to resolve informally any alleged breach of the Consent Decree. If
informal efforts to resolve the alleged breach are unsuccessful, that Party
shall provide written notice of the alleged breach and that Party's intent to
initiate the dispute resolution procedure of this Section. The notice shall
include a recitation of all facts and circumstances giving rise to the
dispute, including the particular provisions of the Consent Decree alleged
to have been breached.
b. Mediation. If the dispute is not resolved by the Parties within thirty (30)
days after such notice is given, such dispute shall be submitted to
mediation before a mutually agreeable neutral mediator. The Parties shall
each bear their own costs and attorney's fees incurred in connection with
such mediation.
c. Waiver. By agreeing to these dispute resolution provisions, the Parties
understand that they are waiving certain important rights and protections
0 [203.0029/405370.3 -13-Case No. 2: 17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
~(l.· ::J :;
~~ ~~' $0 '.
(/)~' lJ;.l . ,..J .. <~
1 that otherwise may have been available to each of them if a dispute
2 between them were determined by judicial action including, without
3 limitation, the right to a jury trial, and certain rights of appeal. Other than
4 the remedies contained within this Consent Decree including dispute
5 resolution and specific performance of the terms of this Consent Decree,
6 there are no other remedies. The Parties specifically agree that there is no
7 basis within this Consent Decree or within the contemplation of the
8 Parties to support a claim for consequential damages due to any form of
9 breach.
10 VI. MUTUAL RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND COVENANT NOT TO SUE
11 24. Release. It is the intent of the Parties that the execution of this Consent
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Decree constitutes a full and complete satisfaction of all rights, claims and demands by
CR W against the City with respect to any and all allegations and claims made in the
Notice Letter under the Clean Water Act. CRW on behalf ofitself and any and all of its
agents, representatives, successors, members, and assigns, except as otherwise provided
for herein does hereby absolutely, fully and forever release, relieve, remise and
discharge the City and its past and present employees, officers, directors, attorneys, and
the predecessors, successors, and assigns of any of them, from all causes of actions,
claims, damages (including punitive damages), demands, debts, actions, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and liabilities of every kind or nature whatsoever, arising exclusively out
of the specific claims asserted in the Notice Letter under the Clean Water Act
concerning the operation of the sewage collection system. The release provided for
herein shall be valid and effective whether the claims, causes of action, or liability
hereby released (i) were known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, (ii) were based
in contract, tort, statute, or otherwise, or (iii) arise at law or in equity. The release shall
survive the termination of this Consent Decree, whether by satisfaction of the terms and
27 conditions hereof or operation of law.
28
() 1203.0029/4053703 -14-Case No. 2: 17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1 25. Covenant Not to Sue. For the period beginning on the Effective Date and
2 ending after five (5) years, CRW agrees that neither CRW, its officers, executive staff,
3 members of its governing board nor any organization under the control of CR W, its
4 officers, executive staff, or members of its governing board, will file any lawsuit
5 against the City seeking relief for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. CRW
6 further agrees that, beginning on the Effective Date and ending after five (5) years,
7 CR W will not support other lawsuits by providing financial assistance, personnel time
8 or other affirmative actions against the City that may be proposed by other groups or
9 individuals who would rely upon the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act to
10 challenge the City's compliance with the Clean Water Act. This Not to Sue provision
11 shall survive the termination of this Consent Decree. This Not to Sue provision shall
12 not effect either Party's right to enforce this Consent Decree.
13 VII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
14 26. No Admission. The Consent Decree is the direct result of a compromise of
15 disputed allegations and claims. As such, this Consent Decree shall not, for any
16 purpose, be considered as an admission ofliability by the City, nor shall the payment of
17 any sum of money in consideration for the execution of this Consent Decree constitute
18 or be construed as an admission of any liability by the City, which expressly denies any
19 such liability or wrongdoing.
20 27. Delays in Schedule Implementation. In the event implementation by the City
21 of the remedial measures set forth Section II of this Consent Decree does not occur by
22 the agreed to dates, despite the timely good faith efforts of the City to acquire any
23 necessary approvals and/or permits, or due to factors unforeseen at the time this
24 Consent Decree was entered into, the City agrees to notify CR W in writing as soon as
25 practicable after the anticipated defay becomes apparent, and in any case except in a
26 case of force majeure described below, not less than twenty (20) days prior to any
27 deadline set forth in Section II, and shall describe the reasons for the anticipated delay.
28
01203.0029/405370.3 -15-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~~·:
12 µ."j ~ ~ µ."j • """'o···· 13
::i:: ~ ••• Cf) ,.
!J;l .•. 14 ~· .. <~" 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28. Force Majeure. The City shall not be deemed in default or breach of this
Consent Decree by reason of any event which constitutes a force majeure. For purposes
of this Consent Decree, a force majeure is defined as any event arising from causes
beyond the reasonable control of the City or its contractors that delay or prevents
performance. This includes, without limitation, acts of God, acts of war, acts of
terrorism, fire, explosion, extraordinary weather events, restraint by court order or
public authority, or other causes beyond the City's reasonable control. Neither
increased costs nor economic hardship shall constitute a force majeure.
29. Notices. All notices, consents, approvals, requests, demands and other
communications (collectively, "Notice") which the parties· are required or desire to
serve upon or deliver to the other Party shall be in writing and shall be given by
nationally-recognized overnight courier, by certified United States mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, addressed as set forth below, or by facsimile or electronic
mail addressed as set forth below:
Ifto CRW:
If to the City:
0 l203.0029/405370J
Jack Silver, Esq.
Law Office of Jack Silver
708 Gravenstein Highway North, #407
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel: (707) 528-8175
Email: lhm28843@~sbcglobal.net
Doug Willmore, City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 9027 5
David Aleshire, City Attorney
Glen E. Tucker, Esq.
Aleshire & Wynder
18881 Von Karman Ave.# 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
-16-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1 The foregoing addresses may be changed by Notice given in accordance with this
2 Section. Any Notice sent by mail shall be deemed received two (2) days after the date
3 of mailing. Any Notice sent by electronic mail shall be deemed received upon
4 electronic transmission thereof provided sender does not receive electronic notice of
5 non-delivery. Any Notice sent by overnight courier service shall be deemed received on
6 the day of actual delivery as shown by the confirmation of delivery by the messenger or
7 courier service. If the date of receipt of any Notice to be given hereunder falls on a
8 weekend or legal holiday, then such date of receipt shall automatically be deemed
9 extended to the next business day immediately following such weekend or holiday for
10 purposes of calculating time periods commencing upon the date of service.
11 30. Attorneys' Fees .. Other than the payment to CRWunder Section II (E) each
12 Party shall bear its own past and future attorneys' fees and costs relating to the subject
13 matter of this Consent Decree.
14 31. Parties' AcknowledgmentofTerms. This Consent Decree has been carefully
15 and fully read and reviewed by CRW, the City, and their respective counsel, if any,
16 who hereby represent that the contents of this Consent Decree are understood, and
17 agree that this Consent Decree is binding on each party or its respective predecessors,
18 successors, and assigns and as described above.
19 32. Interpretation and Applicable Law. This Consent Decree shall be construed
20 and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the United States and the State of
21 California without regard to principles of conflicts oflaw. This Consent Decree shall be
22 interpreted and construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning and not strictly for
23 or against any Party, and without regard to which Party drafted the Consent Decree. All
24 of the promises, representations, and warranties contained in this Consent Decree
25 survive the execution of this Consent Decree.
26 33. No Assignments. Each Party to this Consent Decree represents and warrants
27 that it has not assigned, transferred, hypothecated, or sold to any third person or entity,
28 any of the rights or obligations released by or entered into under this Consent Decree.
01203.0029/405370.3 -17-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
~~.
~~· ~· lo-I ~Cl Cl)~ ~~;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
34. Countemarts. This Consent Decree may be executed in multiple counterparts
by the attorneys and Parties, each of which shall evidence one and the same agreement.
35. Headings. The headings used in this Consent Decree are for convenience of
reference and shall not be used to define any provision.
36. Entire Consent Decree in Writing. This Consent Decree constitutes the entire
agreement between the Parties hereto with respect to the subject matter set forth herein
and supersedes all previous or contemporaneous negotiations, commitments (oral or
written), and writings with respect to the subject matter set forth herein.
3 7. Modification or Amendment. This Consent Decree or any of its provisions
may be modified or amended only by written agreement executed by all Parties to this
Consent Decree.
38. Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this
Consent Decree shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other
provision. If, in any action before any court or other tribunal or competent jurisdiction,
any term, restriction, covenant, or promise is held to be unenforceable for any reason,
then such term, restriction, covenant, or promise shall be deemed modified to the extent
necessary to make it enforceable by such court or other tribunal and, if it cannot be so
modified, that this Consent Decree shall be deemed amended to delete here from such
provision or portion adjudicated to be invalid or unenforceable, and the remainder of
this Consent Decree shall be deemed to be in full force and effect as so modified. Any
such modification or amendment in any event shall apply only with respect to the
operation of this Consent Decree in the particular jurisdiction in which such
adjudication is made.
39. Representations and Warranties. This Consent Decree is given voluntarily,
free of undue influence, coercion, duress, menace, or fraud of any kind. No Party, nor
any officer, agent, employee, representative, or attorney of or for any Party, has made
any statement or representation to any other Party regarding any fact relied upon in
28 entering this Consent Decree, and no Party is relying upon any statement,
01203.0029/405370.3 -18-Case No. 2: 17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
(PROPOSED] CONSENf DECREE
1 representation, or promise of any other Party, nor of any officer, agent, employee,
2 representative, or attorney of or for any Party, in executing this Consent Decree or in
3 making the settlement provided herein, except as expressly stated in this Consent
4 Decree.
5 40. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Consent Decree is not intended to confer
6 any rights or obligations on any third party or parties, and no third party or parties shall
7 have any right of action under this Consent Decree for any cause whatsoever. Subject
8 only to the express restrictions contained in this Consent Decree, all of the rights, duties
9 and obligations contained in this Consent Decree shall inure to the benefit of and be
10 binding upon the Parties, and their successors and assigns.
11 41. Authority. Each of the persons signing this Consent Decree on behalf of an
12 entity represents and warrants that he or she has actual authority and capacity to execute
13 the Consent Decree on behalf of the entity and to bind it to all of the terms of this
14 Consent Decree.
15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Consent Decree as
16 of the date first set forth below.
17
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
01203.0029/4053 70.3
ATTORNEYS FOR CALIFORNIA
RIVER WATCH
DAVID WEINSOFF,
JACK SILVER
-19-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLA.x)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~~r; 12 ~IZ.
~ ,. ~'
630:'' 13 ,•·
~~~ 14
<:S:: 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SO STIPULATED:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
01203.0029/405370.3 ._ ..... _ ___.. ............... -...... ,__,,., ___ ...... ~,,,. ........ -,, _____ ,, __ _
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES
Brian Campbell , Mayor
CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH
Larry Hanson, Board President for
California River Watch
Hon. John A. Kronstadt,
Judge, U.S. District Court
-20-Case No. 2:17-cv-05718-JAK (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
OCTOBER 2, 2017
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, October 3, 2017 City Council meeting:
Item No.
D
3
4
Description of Material
Email from April Sandell
Email from April Sandell; Email exchange between Community
Development Director Mihranian and April Sandell
Email from Noel Park
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20171003 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Emily Colborn
Friday, September 29, 2017 12:31 PM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: October 3, 2014 RPV city council meeting consent calendar agenda item regarding
opposition to California Senate Passed SB.649 -An Unconstitutional Bill That Forcibly
Exposes Neighborhoods to Constant, Hazardous 4G/5G Microwave Radiation I Business Wi
Late Correspondence below.
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 8:30 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov>; johnmmavar@gmail.com; Diana Nave <diananave@gmail.com>; diananave@gmail.cox;
Jeanne Lacombe <chateau4us@att.net>; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com>; Edward Mendoza
<eddie41oans@att.net>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov>
Subject: October 3, 2014 RPV city council meeting consent calendar agenda item regarding opposition to California Senate
Passed SB.649 -An Unconstitutional Bill That Forcibly Exposes Neighborhoods to Constant, Hazardous 4G/SG Microwave
Radiation I Business Wire
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am strongly opposed to the City's purchase of Western Ave. street lights near Rolling Hills Riveria HOA area given the potential
duel use housing of said poles. The subject article is but one of many articles written by various groups warning against the health
dangers and or potential health dangers related to the SB 649 legislation.
On a separate Oct. 3, 2017 agenda item regarding RPV's interest to regulate the personal use, cultivation and retail sales of Cannabis
in RPV as this relates to the June 26 2017 RPV staff comment's submitted to LA City Planning regarding Los Angeles's Commercial
Cannabis potential eligible locations at Garden Village Shopping Center as well as 28000 ( Seaport Condo's area) around Fitness
Drive. (Noting further, one near Trudie and Western as well.) The eligibility of the two particular properties mentioned above is somewhat
questionable to me and I ask your careful consideration as you otherwise move forward in your interest to preserve the health and
safety of those RPV residents living West of the Eastview portion of the city.
Please accept this correspondence as timely submitted.
Regards,
April L. Sandell
Begin forwarded message:
From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Subject: California Senate Passed SB.649 -An Unconstitutional Bill That Forcibly
Exposes Neighborhoods to Constant, Hazardous 4G/5G Microwave Radiation I
Business Wire
Date: September 28, 2017 at 7:12:02 PM PDT
To: April <Hvybags@cox.net>
1
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170602005869/en/Califomia-Senate-Passed-SB.649-
%E2%80%94-Unconstitutional-Bill
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 02, 2017 8:45 AM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: City Council agenda item re; existing ordinance changes having to do w/ marijuana
cultivation, sales and use in RPV
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:44 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: City Council agenda item re; existing ordinance changes having to do w/ marijuana cultivation, sales and use in
RPV
Hi Ara,
Last evening I read the Nov. 2016 Code ordinance 590U setting forth the use ,cultivation and user fees etc. I did
NOT see the retail sales activities addressed in back then. So, the agenda item seems needed for sure!
Can the council also consider the adult social responsibilities of allowing and regulating marijuana use in private
homes as the city has previously considered private use of alcohol on their property? The time is now rather than
bring back the issue under(# 1. Unintended Consequences. Hopefully, you know I'm just kidding.
I really do appreciate your time. April
On Oct 1, 2017, at 8:01 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi April,
On October 3rct, the city council will consider initiating code amendment proceedings to prohibit commercial
marijuana activities throughout the city.
Assuming it, or some iteration, will be initiated, the Commission will consider the staff-prepared draft code
amendment language on October 10th.
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 9:06 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Edward Mendoza <eddie41oans@att.net>; RLeva@sbcGlobal.net
Subject: City Council agenda item re; existing ordinance changes having to do w/ marijuana cultivation, sales
and use in RPV
Hi Ara,
Just saw you tonight (Friday) on channel 35 reporting to the PC members that the
"Subject" will be before the PC on October 10th. However, I did not catch entire report
leading up to your report. So, if you would be so kind to let me know whether or not the
City Council agenda item on October 3rd remains on the City Council Oct 3rd agenda or
not.
1 3 .
Thank you in advance for any response.
April
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Emily Colborn
Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:15 AM
CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: Council Meeting of 10/3/17, Agenda Item 4
Late correspondence
Emily Colborn
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Date: September 27, 2017 at 3:04:33 PM PDT
To: CC <cc@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Council Meeting of 10/3/17, Agenda Item 4
As I commented the last time this issue was on your agenda, I totally support the purchase of the
streetlights.
I devoutly hope that this will lead to taking forward the very forward looking proposal to convert them
to LED bulbs.
Not only would that save a substantial amount of energy, but the reduction of side spill and glare
would substantially improve our night time views.
Thank you for your consideration of this valuable project.
Noel Park
6715 El Rodeo Road
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
562-413-5147
1