20190618 Late Correspondence10/7/18, 1 0:29 AM
List of Recorded Plat Maps by ... 1 I 1 X
Document Number Date
19980539225 4/2/98
19980539226 4/2/98
199805392 27 4/2/98
. 1998053:922.$ <1/2/98
19980539229 4/2/98
19980539230 4/2/98
19980539231 4/2/98
20070S14!l0 S 4 ,. 'Ol
20070814806 4/5/07
20070814807 4/5/07
20080338732 2/27/0S
20080338733 2/27/08
20080338734 2/1.7{08
20080338'/35 2/2'7/08
2C~817i0808 9/1.3/08
200817 10809 9/23/0S
20081710810 9/23/08
10081710 811 9/23/08
20081710812 9/23/08
20081710813 9/.23/06
20081110814 9/23/08
20081710815 9/23/08
20081710816 9/B/08
20081710817 9/23/08
20081710818 9/23/08
20100830528 6/17/10
20100830529 6/H/10
Z01.00830530 D/17/10
2.010 08 30531 6/17/lO
20100830532 6/17/10
201008305 33 6/17/10
20 11 05 95214 4/25/11
20120996619 7/5/12
2.0120996520 7/5/12
20120996621 7/5/12
2/27/ll
3 /14
20151033~99 &/21/15
2015103~00 8/21/15
20151 031401 8/21/15
20151033402 8/21/l~
20lS1033401 8/21/lS
20151033404 S/21/15
20151033405 8/21/15
20160l57449 3/31/16
20160357450 3/3 1/16
2016035745 1 3/31/16
20160682216 6/14/lG
__.,.20160682217
20160682218 ~' il'i
20160682219 6/14/16
1bout:blank
:ntle and ~ails
X Pac:l fl ca Milusoleum North Court : Amend tvlap 1: Wall Crypts: renumber, re~ubdlv de
x Garden of Jlefle{;tions Mausol eum : variou s CrypU., trernaln N1ches
X Inspirati on Slope : (3 maps: narrow land r~ct<l n3le~ Map 1: add l awn p lots, family estates
X lni;plration Slope : Amend Map 2 of 3: add lawn plots, fa mil•,• estates
X Jnspiration Slope : Amend Map 3 of · :add lawn plot5, fa mily estates
x Valley of PeacE>, No. 4 section, add lawn Cr'vpt s
Park V:le w Mau.so4eum
ming Ltght \i'al l e·y Lawn Crypt s
Valley of Peace Map 6
V;~nev of Peoce Map 7
X Cloi~t et Mausoleum : add Terrace 2 and 3 Niches
X Pen il'l5ttln Garden Add ition: add Fam il y fstt<~tes
X faitn & Hope l awn: Prosser Monument & St Mitht'lel Sta tue ~ add cyrpts, niches
X Harbor Vle\v S.ecti on : add Gazebo
X Garden of Reflection , Amend M.ap #7: add variot!S t •(pe s of tawn Burials
X Garden of Ref lection, Amelld Map 118: add Family Estates
X Garden of R~fl ection, Amend Map 119: add Lawn Cyrpts, Family Estntc, Pr ivate Ga rden
X Garden of Reflectlon, Amer d Map fllO: add Lawn Cyrpts, family Estate, Private Garden
x Garden of Ref lection, Amend Map ti11 : add Lawn Crypts, Fam!l y Estates .. Garden :!.
X Garden ot .Reflection, Arnend Map #12: add vatiou!. types of Lawn Buna ls
X Garde rl of Re fl ectfon; Amend Map :1113 : add Fa mily Estates, Se mi-P rivate Gar dens
X Garden of Reflection, Amend Map 1115: add Family Estate s
x Gard~n ()r Re fle ction, Amend Map 1116: add Um Lots, Crypts, Family Aoom
X Ocean View Section : Bay View Te rra ce: Columbarium Amend Map #1: add Niches
X Vista de l Monte Section : Har·Sha lom: new Lawn plots
X TrMqu illity Terra ce Private Gardens : 3rd Addition : add Niches
X Oawn & Cypress 4 Mausoleums: add tawn Crypts & Family Room
X Pacific Garden lawn Crypts (new) (1st recorded 8 oot 'easement' from norttl b01'der)
X North Pacifica Mausoleum Addition: New Bld g with CrVpb and Nil::he s.
X Valley Of Peaa~, Patrlot Garden : Add l awn Crypts, Nkh.es
x Parxview Terrace Mausoleum: Amend Map 112 : add Niches, Urn Benches
x lnSQ 4r Jtion VIew : ad d !.awn cry pt . amity • tatcss
X St. Peters Church Yard : new LaWt') Cyfpts and Urns
X Arrcyo Vlsta Phase 1: new Lawn Cry pts ,Fam ily l:statfl~
x Ch(lp ellliew Mausoleum jnew}: Lawn Crypt~. Fa!!Jllv Estates, Niches
X PKifk Ten'3"tt! Ma usole-um : (nf!w) Phase 1 : ~Q:Qf t.op la.wn s;rxpJi, Interior crypts niche$
)( Pacific Tt~rrac:e Garden ~ase 2 (Mau:!ioleum) (new): Ro o_!-top l ~n !!!P
x Emera ld Gardens (!lew): etail Lawn Plots , Crypts
X Davm, Cypress 3.4. Cyp re ss, Sanct of Cross, Hope & Fa ith : <:Jdd Co lumbarium & Benc hes
X Garden of Ref lection ; 2od Amend Map #10 : add Um Benches
X Tranquillity rerrace: Prlw1t:e Gardens: 4th Add ition & Amend Map: Nfches (#7450 d ifferent) ;
X JnspiTatron Slope Amend: Add Mausoleum (new) j
.X Garden of Reflect ion 2nd Amend Map 12 : add Urn 'Berlches
X Garde n of Ref1ect ion 2nd Am«:!nd Map 2: add Urn Benches
X Garden of Reflect ions lakeside Garden : Urn Plo t s and Benches
X Tranquillity Terrace: Private Ga rd ens: 4th Addltion & Amend Map: Niches {#3402 different) :
X Gard.en of Reflectlon.s: Ar~end Maps 2,5,6.7,9,10;12: add Urn 8enc;hes
X lnsplratlon Siope Mausot~um: 1st Amend: add Lawn Crypts North and East
X tnsplrat n Slope Mausoleum: 2nd Amend : add Lawn Cl"f.pts o n Roof Toe
X lnsplratloo Slope Mausoleum: 3rd Amend: ildd Lawn Qypts Southwest
X Inspiration Slope Mausoleum: Amend: add North and West Wall Niches
Page 1 of 1
PHL-Pacific Harbor Line
Pacific Harbor Line , Inc . provides rail transportation , maintenance and dispatc hing services to the Ports of Long
Beach and Los Angeles, which togeth er fo rm th e largest container port in the United States . In addition to
switching over 40,000 un it s of car load freig ht annua ll y, PH L provides rai l switching services for nine on-dock
intermodai terminals and provides dispatc hing services for about 140 in termoda l or uni t trains per day. PHL
connects with BNSF and UP.
Depicted below is a screen -shot from the Pacific Harbor Line website of the point where the rail cars carrying
propane from the Plains/Rancho facility south into the Port are placed on the track headed North out of the Port.
Note this southerly track (shown by Yellow Arrows) is not depicted on the PHL map as track which PHL is
authorized to even use ... Yet it is being used .... without any compensat ion being received by the Port .... How
is it that the Port permits this knowing that it is receiving zero in rent while PHL and Plains/Rancho are profiting
off the unauthorized use of public assets (the rail line is a tidelands trust asset owned by the State which the Port
has been authorized to manage and operate by the California State Legislature). This represents an indirect and
unlawful subsidy of PHL's and Plains/Rancho's operations by the State of California ... an unlawful expenditure of
public trust assets, a misuse of public trust assets, and thus constitutes an unlawful expenditure of pubic assets
(tidelands trust assets) and a gift of public funds to PHL and to Plains/Rancho ....
..,
Railroad Stats Interactive Map
..,
Sites & Buildings
Another screen -shot of the point where the rail line from the Plains/Rancho Facility (heading south) intersects
with the approved PHL rail line set out in the PHL/Port Operating Agreement (December 1, 1997) ..
1
The Yellow Arrow is the rail segment which starts at the Plains/Rancho facility, heads south to Westmont from
the Plains/Rancho facility (Segment 2}, then crosses Westmont (Segment 3} and from Westmont goes through
the Port (Segment 4). . . . q
The Green Line is the rail line which is covered by the December 1, 1997 Operating Agreement .... The rail line
which the Port has officially approved be used by PHL (Pacific Harbor Line} .... It heads north from the Port out of
the Port
The Blue Arrow ••··~~ shows the point where the rail line head i ng south intersects with the rail line
heading north ....
2
~
Railroad Stats Interactive Map ' Sites & Buildings
Close-up of the point where the rail cars coming from the Plains/Rancho facility (heading south) "switch" to the
rail line heading north toward the switching station where the rail cars then are put on the rail line heading from
the Port to the Plains Shafter, California facility ...
The yellow arrow depicts the rail-line heading south from the Plains/Rancho facility .. I >
The brown arrow 1 is the rail line segment which heads north from the Port to the switching station ...
It would appear therefore that the rail cars carrying propane from the Plains/Rancho facility heading south can
turn-around at this point and head north on the authorized Green rail line depicted on the screen-shot.
The use of the Plains/Rancho "southerly" rail line is not authorized by any agreement with the Port . PHL and
Plains/Rancho are thus using a segment of the (public trust) rail line without any authorization or compensation
being paid ... In short, Port Assets (tidelands trust assets) are being permitted to be used without the payment of
any compensation whatsoever except the $1287 per month being paid for the use of the rail segment across
Westmont Drive ... Depicted below ... Which is not the subject ofthe PHL/Port Operating Agreement, but a
separate month -to-month "lease" (or permit) .... (See Yellow Arrow on Google Map reprinted below c:::::>)
Blue Arrow shows the rail line (Segment 2) heading south leading to the Westmont Drive rail spur (for which no
formal authorization use has been granted by the Port .. and for which no revenue (rent) is being charged PHL.
Whether PHL is charging Plains/Rancho is unknown .. but it is presumed ... So the Port is subsidizing the PHL
operation in that PHL receives revenues for the use of the track, but pays zero dollars to the Port ... {See Blue
Arrow on Google Map). . . ~~~~~~-·
3
I".,
,
Railroad Stats Interactive Map
4
,
Sites & Buildings
~
Railroad Stats Interactive Map
,
Sites & Buildings
Segment 2 of the rail line (a public trust asset owned by the Port) heading south from the Plains/Rancho facility
toward Westmont Drive.
This segment operates over County-owned land and crosses the county-owned Flood Control Channel. The
driveway entering the Plains/Rancho facility is shown by the Cyan arrow ...
Rail Segment 2 shown by .... arrows) Rent received from either PHL or Plains/Rancho by the Port for the use
of Segment 2? $0 ... (Zero Dollars).
Segment 3 (rail spur) over Westmont Drive shown by yellow arrow. ¢::J $1287 per month rent paid by
Plains/Rancho to the Port for the use of Segment 3.
5
. ~ Railroad Stats Interactive Map
~
Sites & Buildings
Segment 1 of the rail line used by PHL to transport propane from the Plains/Rancho facility through the Port to
the switching station where the rail car then is put on rail tracks to Plains' facility in Shafter, California . See white
arrows). . . ¢=::::1 Segment 2 portion of rail spur shown by ... arrow.
6
Screen shot of close-up of Segment 1. ..... White Arrows show rail line (unknown) if rail is owned by
Plains/Rancho or the Port. . . . . ~
' Railroad Stats
·' "
_J
1\
Interactive Map
7
,
Sites & Buildings
Map of PHL Tidelands Trust rail lines owned by the people (tidelands trust asset) and leased to PHL (Pacific
Harbor Line) through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
"' Railroad Stats Interactive Map
.,
Sites & Buildings
8
~
Railroad Stats Interactive Map
~
Sites & Buildings
----~~ -Plains/Rancho Facility
••··~~ -Rail Segments 1-4 over which Propane from Plains/Rancho facility is carried into the
Port via Rail by PHL. .... without any formal authorization or permit ... and without
PHL or Plains/Rancho paying any rent ... except for Segment 3 (the rail spur traversing
Westmont Drive)
This is the point where the rail cars carrying propane south from the Plains/Rancho
facility meet up with the track heading north out of the Port and are directed North
through the Port ..... (See screen -shot of Google Map depicted above) ....
9
From: Nad Gv [mailto:nvgeorg@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 4:45 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Sharon Loveys <sharon.loveys@yahoo.com>; Debbie Landes <dlbodesi@fastmail.com>
Subject: city council meeting - Items not on Agenda
Dear So Kim,
Could you please add this comment as a comment for Items not on Agenda, as I really cannot make it to
the tonight's meeting?
Thank you so much!
Nadia Georgieva
Dear City Council
I would like to bring to your attention an event that happened last Sunday on the top of the Pacific
terrace mausoleum. We had two separate groups, which were partying there, and this is just the
beginning of the summer. We would see much more of these in the following months. There was
a temporary shade / canopy raised up on the top for the day. There was music, noise, etc. Well,
this is better than funeral, no doubt, but the noise and the canopy in front of our windows is not
fun.
All this happened because of the GH misleading to the planning commission and misconduct by
some people (which were fired). This means that GH would use any opportunity to game the
system in their favor. Right now Green Hills is selling plots in Alta Vista when use rights are
under litigation. This is evident by the fact that dirt is being moved and the Alta Vista plot map
has been recorded. This shows how Green Hills acts. They do it maybe because the City says that
the Master Plan is only a reference document?!
Yet, the City still has yearly hearing to determine whether Green Hills is in compliance with the
Master Plan. Isn’t the City engaging in a contradiction here? Why are co mpliance hearings even
necessary if the Master Plan is a reference document and not mandatory? Isn’t the contradiction
and inconsistency obvious?
The conditional use permit is not a reference document which is to be followed as and when
Green Hills feels appropriate. The Master Plan is part of the conditional use permit. It is not
accurate to say that a conditional use permit is a reference document only. It is a mandatory list of
conditions which qualify Green Hills’ right to make use of its land to inter human remains. Green
Hills does not have an absolute “by right” entitlement to develop. Green Hills has a qualified,
conditional right to develop.
Seems like we are too small to be bothered with, but anyone matters, even the small ones! And, if
the practice of allowing GH to do what they want continues, you would see more unhappy
people… I’m sure you don’t want that to happen.
Thank you for your time,
Nadia,
Vista Verde
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JUNE 17, 2019
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, June 18, 2019 City Council meeting:
Item No.
F
L
2
3
4
Description of Material
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Barnes and
Janet Gunter
Email exchange between Deputy City Manager Yap, Public Works
Director Sassoon and April Sandell
Revised Resolution; Email from Jim York; Email exchange between
Community Development Director Mihranian and Sunshine
Email from Cris Sarabia
Corrections of minor grammatical errors (Red lined Agenda Report)
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20190618 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
From: Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 11:21 AM
To: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Francisco.Carrillo@mail.house.gov
Subject: Re: Letter to Navy on Fuel Depot & Rancho LPG
Thank you, Megan.
Congratulations on your new job!
Because of the urgency of the high explosive risk, in not only San Pedro but the entire Harbor area (including RPV), it is our
hope that the RPV City Council will adopt a more active role in preventing, what we all believe to be, an inevitable disaster. It is
simply a question of time. Antiquated infrastructure (now 46 yrs. old), earthquake vulnerability and terrorism potential all play a
very significant part in escalating the potential of catastrophe.
I have spoken to physicists and risk experts that have all told me that the greater force of the blast wave stemming from a
rupture of those LPG tanks will be aimed directly west at the Palos Verdes hill. This has to do with the configuration of the large
tanks that back up to a hill behind them on their east side.
So, it IS possible to avert or to at least "minimize" this devastation if we employ logic and a little muscle. In doing so, we could
radically reduce resulting death and destruction. I keep hoping.
It is unfathomable that the US Navy would seek to re-engage in the storage of additional hazardous storage at a site that they
are fully aware is over-inundated with high risk.
Best to you,
Janet G
-----Original Message-----
From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>
To: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Fri, Jun 14, 2019 2:40 pm
Subject: RE: Letter to Navy on Fuel Depot
Hi Janet,
I am the new staff liaison for Border Issues. Thank you for reaching out, your email will be included in Late
Correspondence for Tuesday's City Council meeting.
Typically, the biannual Border Issues Status Report includes issues with significant developments or upcoming
actions. The potential reactivation of Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro is in Tuesday's report because of the
draft EA and pending action by the Navy. In light of the release of the analysis, a few weeks ago, Mayor Duhovic
requested a report on what actions the City has taken with regard to both DFSP and Rancho LPG. Due to the timing
of the Mayor's request, staff determined Rancho LPG could be folded into the upcoming Border Issues Status
Report, so that is why it was included this time.
Thank you,
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5226
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
1 f
From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 10:57 AM
To: Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria
<Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; susan.brooks@rpvca.govken.dyda
Cc: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Letter to Navy on Fuel Depot
Hello-
Sent to Kit Fox not knowing that he had retired. Please see below relative to your next meeting agenda.
Many thanks,
Janet Gunter
-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
To: kitf <kitf@rpv.com>
Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2019 12:36 pm
Subject: Fwd: Letter to Navy on Fuel Depot
Hello Kit-
I noticed that the issues of the Navy Fuel Depot recommissioning and Plains All American Pipeline/ Rancho LPG LLC are on your agenda
for next week. I would like to provide some further information for the Council members review prior to that meeting. We urge your City
Council to make this issue a regular issue on your agenda due to its importance to the safety of your Rancho Palos Verdes residents.
I have attached a few letters from groups in opposition to the Navy Fuel Depot which have pointed out different aspects that are extremely
relevant to the issue, including the Rancho LPG site.
Attached please also find a few other items and links to assist in understanding these issues and the high risk situation that we are currently
in. I'm sure that your newer Council Members have not been privy to some of these items.
I wish to underscore that I have been told by a number of professionals now that the greatest force of any LPG blast from the Rancho
facility will be endured by the east side of the RPV hill. And, it is important to remember that we are talking at minimum about the force of
12.5 million gallons ofbutane gas. Lately, we have witnessed homes being completely blown up by less than 10 gallons ofthat same gas in
homes used as meth labs. So, it is difficult to even imagine the force of a blast wave from such an extraordinary volume of butane or propane
gas.
I am providing the link here to Congresswoman Barragan's testimony at a Homeland Security Hearing in Washington last February. The
recent arrest of the FBI foiled terrorism event in Long Beach revealed a list of intended targets that included the Ports of Long Beach and LA.
(on the precipice of which sits the Fuel Depot, Rancho LPG and Phillips refinery). Those same ports were also identified on the list of the
911 terrorists.
You don't need to create a dropbox account...just scroll to "no thanks continue to
view" https:/ /www .dropbox.com/s/8d2bbi I dckmyq0s/Chemical%20Faci lities%20H earing%20Video.mp4 ?dl=O&fbclid=I w AR2a Y mODOU
veR2eN8WPluTvAsLsVX03wFzUbSPH7ZQophG I tcOQYKg tTJQ
Meanwhile, Congressman Ted Lieu .... whose district Rancho and the Navy Fuel Depot are in .... .is "AWOL" on both issues. We have tried
for years now to engage him in the issue .... but he will not engage. He "talks' but does not "walk"! He has done this to his Torrance
constituents as well regarding their Torrance refinery concerns.
The identical "twin" to the Rancho LPG facility in Elk Grove, CA, Suburban LPG (built in the same year with the same size tanks and
basic layout) was also a failed terrorism target in 1999. Please see link below to Dec. 1999 article from the LA Times and pay special
attention to the Lawrence Livermore analysis revealing the potential blast radius and mortality rate stemming from the rupture of one of their
two (like Rancho) 12.5 million gallon LPG tanks had the attack been successful. While the Plains/Rancho LPG folks and their lobbyist (and
RPV resident) Rudy Svorinich, have continued to radically "minimize" blast radius from their site ... the Livermore analysis is a completely
"unbiased" source identifying the truth of blast radius potential from such a tank.
https://wwwJatimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-dec-08-mn-41630-
story.html?fbclid=l w AR2ByUbnnh6ayvkQRK wqag WbtObNmibJcJ 8atplV cA T6P-DNLrn V07ZmqS U
Also, in case you haven't seen this old ABC news clip of Garcetti answering my question
:https://www.facebook.com/3045199330 I 0526/videos/64 7889645340218/
Garcetti is not telling the truth in this clip. First ofall .... Petrolane/Amerigas/Rancho LPG "never" complied with all regulations ... they are
NOT in full compliance with regulations ... they never were! The Petrolane LPG facility was granted an "emergency exemption" in 1973 to
regulations when developed due to the Nixon Whitehouse energy policies engaged in promoting LPG as America's new "energy source of the
2
future". A policy that was misguided and failed within a very short time. The two massive LPG tanks were built "without permits" in 1973
to a "purported" seismic substandard of 5.5 ... while sitting on USGS designated "landslide" and "liquefaction" areas and directly within the
earthquake rupture zone of the active Palos Verdes Fault with a potential for magnitude 7.3 quake.
AND, while Garcetti states that it would take Millions or Billions to relocate the facility .... not true. The private facility (with no tenancy at
the port any longer) continues to use "public trust lands" under the authority and control of the Port and City of LA (and theCA State Lands
Commission) .... those uses being "permitted" by the City. A revocation of their rail use (on a monthly revocable roll over permit) and
pipeline use to off site refineries (running under public trust lands) in Wilmington, would immediately render that facility inoperable. Zero
cost. Remember .... a refinery has stringent regulations on LPG tanks "on refinery grounds". However, there are "zero" federal regulations on
such above ground tanks located at "storage facilities". Both Tesoro/Marathon and Valero ... are moving the "excess" of their MOST
hazardous commodity (butane) to those antiquated tanks, sitting in a location that could not be more seismically dangerous, in 46 yr old tanks
that are entirely unregulated and sitting within 1,000-1,500 ft. ofhomes, schools, shopping centers, and busy traffic corridors. The respective
refineries must be made to be responsible for storing their own butane gas on their own premises. When that happens ... the purpose for the
Rancho LPG facility will "disappear". It will not be able to function.
Here again, is the short video created a few years ago to illustrate the dangerous situation that is the Rancho LPG facility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBGt XKNpRk&feature=share&fbclid=IwAROvGDS dMcE!Cm15Rux!BheEyLFIH-
V oQErLrTv AdPTMJ06MtSgDxtv4Gs
Meanwhile, City of LA elected officials have all "approved" those 700 High Park homes currently being built in the shadow of those tanks
.... despite full acknowledgment of the extraordinary risk! It is appalling that they would be so reckless with human lives.
I hope that you will share these issues with your City Council members. We may well have an open door here to eliminate this pulsating
threat before it eliminates us. This is a guaranteed disaster given more time. This estimation comes from the most reliable source, the
premiere expert on risk in America, Professor Bob Bea. Due to the adjacent surrounding multitude of ignition sources, including the Phillips
refinery, the succession of marine oil terminals at the ports and the maze of chemical and fuel pipelines, Prof. Bea sees the potential for a
"cascading failure event" of overwhelming scope. All ofthis can be averted .. .ifwe decide to take serious action BEFORE it's too late.
We urge the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to engage in this effort to prevent the "inevitable".
Best to you,
Janet G
3
June11,2019
Commanding Officer, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach
Attn: Teresa Bresler
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
Code EV25. TB
937 North Harbor Drive
Building 1, 3rd Floor (Environmental)
San Diego, California 92132
nwssbpao({i:Jnavv.mil
Mr. Gregg Smith
gregg.smith@navy.mil
Dear Ms. Bresler and Mr. Smith,
Thank you for extending the opportunity to. ·
Our Neighborhood Council is elected pursu~1~f~$p ~tt'bs Angeles city charter.
Our area has 20,000 residents in s,goo househo. · .............. Our Council area includes
all of San Pedro described in your·< gpqped Alterha~'l(.~ 1.
Over the 18 years since we were cet{i(i:d~~~b~~~·~e~lt:With many issues,
especially those that imP.?9.t.J~e neigJii?pr'. · ·~:~ape'id~venue tracts and Ponte
Vista tract now being t:>.~ilt{~~.~~t~.m time 1t&·.. e, some of our Board members have
also been DFSP aqvisory bo~'fcl~member~ •. Among our ongoing concerns are the
safety of the butC!t;t~'?and LPGl§torage an·~~qistribution centers on North Gaffey
and the impacts c:W~(eifFic g .. ~t)~(f3!1~;?.l<?Q9, ~affey as it is one of only two
emergency evacuatlo~,f~~tes. In Alternative 1, the huge proposed commercial
area lie~gry .. t;>P~~·?n eatttiq~ake fault and liquefaction zone alongside one of only
two er;n~rgency'e)d from:~a,r Pedro. It is immediately adjacent to a major
refiq71)i: a controve .)LPG'•aqd butane storage/distribution facility, the Taper
Aveh'\J~residential ar~~f,the new 660-700 unit Ponte Vista tract, the Bobby Sox
ball fiela~~;the police pf~tol range, the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly and
Gnatcatch~~\p~eserv~$';housing for previously homeless veterans and their
families, stl.ia~nth99:~hig for Marymount College, Mary Star High School, and the
Rolling Hills Prep"?na Renaissance Schools. As a community we are all too
familiar with catastrophic events at fueling facilities, including the Sansinena
explosion at Berth 49, the GATX tanks on 22nd Street, the Westways fire, and
the two Olympic Chemical chlorine gas leaks at the loading rack on Mormon
Island.
The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council does not support the Defense
Fuel Support Point due to many of our comments not being addressed. Based on
the information we have received; we are adamantly opposed to Alternative 1.
Some of our objections also apply to Alternative 2. Additionally, we believe that
additional alternatives should be studied, all of which are less environmentally
impactful.
We submitted comments to the Navy regarding the scope of the EA many of
which have still not been addressed, particularly as it regards the vagueness of
the definition of the proposed project. A copy of those comments is attached to
this submittal.
We believe that the Navy has incorrectly defined its project. While it is described
as a commercial lease of either more than 300 acres (Aiternqt(ye 1) or 8 acres
(Alternative 2), with certain carve-outs for service to Navy.~plp~, the real purpose
of the project is to establish an additional fueling site fo~~~~y ships. The
commercial lease concept is just the mechanism for qf)tafnll]g"a funding source
for upgrades to the fueling pier and pipelines. · ~'·~~[>~,
As we understand it, the Navy is hoping that Sl.~Wt-llmercial propo~~~·vvill refurbish
the Navy refueling facilities to obtain com111~[~ial use of.:both the pier1~~0d land for
commercial purposes. ' ·J·[.~1 .. ;~~ ·······.
If the Navy defines the project as the lease, th~(;~:j; deficient. Of particular
concern is the "other products an<::f .. prppe::;ses [that}m~y be added to the site,
based on the needs of the commefti~lles~~~·~' !here:t~,no description of what
the future commercial use would inclt;:jde ang'tP~teJore, 'fib assessment of the
environmental impacts of,J!l.~.traffic, ait,~rpissions~;i~fiizard to adjacent homes,
schools and youth recr,$a~i6t1';:areas of!$'tJcfl'use can be made.
,.,~<~~·:\~::) ,·~ '</,
--H:;:.·>>'· '¢~;{2~·: ~
Chief among ourco~cerns re ... · .~ing Altef:rl,~tive 1 are the following:
1. There appear to r, is;•~;~,~~;Gcifri~utations. For example, the EA
anticipates;~t.:tnJct< trip' y but computes air emissions on the basis of 30
trucktr:ipsc:a day.''If:pi~ iss ·.·.· 'ficant because VOC and NOx emissions
me~~yrements alrec'l(:Jy •. excef ... , •• allowable minimums. Another evaluation that is
incOrtJ~Jete is traffic. li;~'i(el A and 8 traffic along Gaffey is one thing; traffic at Five
Points 1cipg,at Channel~~~d Gaffey, particularly during rush hours, is much worse
and those\arewhere tr:~cks will have to go. An overturned fuel truck there will be
catastrophicpaf'ticularly if they ignite.
2. The propert>ik·~lternative 1 is in earthquake rupture and liquefaction zones.
Fault investigations are required by the City of Los Angeles for any project
located in this area. Incredibly, the Summary of Potential Impacts does not
mention this even though the EA acknowledges that the Palos Verdes fault runs
directly under several of the closed in-place UST's and the ASTs in the northwest
corner of the terminal and that the some of the pipeline is the liquefaction zone.
An analysis needs to be done of the potential impact of the Palos Verdes and
Cabrillo earthquake faults on the pipelines, tanks, and any other planned uses.
Due to the age of the facilities, it is unclear if these earthquake consequences
were considered when they were built, and the pipelines are old. More is known
now about the faults and their potential for creating future problems in the area.
There are two other hazardous facilities adjacent to the DFSP, Rancho Holdings
and Phillips Refinery. The cumulative impact of a rupture on these three facilities
should be considered. This is compounded by the fact that San Pedro is at the
tip of a peninsula the facility is between the only two emergency exits from our
community, Gaffey and Western. An incident at any of these sites could
effectively cut San Pedro off from Los Angeles.
3. Little, if anything is said in the EA about the potential or cqrsequences of
catastrophic events, whether from natural causes or assocja!ed with events at
the nearby refineries. We note that the entire Port Corq~J~~;is considered a
target of opportunity for hostile or negligent actors, wr~Jnenr(3.(:l.runk or
disgruntled employee, a saboteur or a terrorist. Al"ly''such evedt:gas the potential
to destroy not only the nearby homes and schoQl~~ but also the la,t~~st Port
complex in the nation and cripple the US economy. Although the 'p'Oi]:js already
a potential target, adding more fuel tanks aJ'l~·:·associat€)d delivery sy'stE3ms would
certainly increase that risk. ;,;~'~,·::.' > 1z >> • ·
4. The fact that the property would,be under the. '~~~ision of a private, non-
governmental management only a:~pJjfie§ the darig~rs. and potential problems.
::~t~,\" <<~.~~<l\: ··¢ ;; .,·:<·:\,,
5. Tanker trucks are the least safe<W~Y t~ . ~§~~.rt .. t1~~~fdous materials.
Pipelines, such as curren~Y;}~xist, ana~r~Ap'J'Oposed;i.h\our Alternative 3, are the
safest way. Furtherm9~e,;inct~psed trUg~:.traffic will result in decreased air
quality, increased n,oiS'e, and ihcreased 1tr~ffic.
-~>~ ·. \{;;~L.:o:~.
While these are th~'pomm~f1ltYts.n}~JC:.>f:.9~·~·cerns, the main defect in the EA is the
failure to consider the j:>ot~nflal envlronm'ental impacts of the commercial leases,
especiall~.\~it"l¢eo§.~cti0n~!J·2 tells us that the commercial development areas
woul~becommitta~l~ withb')1~ months and admits that additional environmental
anaty~l~ would be re"qHired. ·~lQning a lease for the entire area would be viewed
as <iR~P,~ commitmentJq the sabsequent commercial use without the appropriate
enviror1rnewtal analysis~.;.
Both NEP~,:~Q<:l.~E;~~1;equire the use of the commercial area to be
environmentally;~§sessed before the lease is awarded and before the EA is
approved. This should be done as early as possible; proponents are not allowed
to stage their projects in a way that makes the approval of one aspect influence
the consideration of the later portions. We note that one participant in the
meetings where this response was discussed, remarked that the Navy's proposal
was "China Shipping on steroids", which is a reference to the litigation over a
nearby project in the Port of Los Angeles where the Court of Appeals held that a
lease included a prior commitment. The holding resulted in significant delays
with settlement and attorney fee costs in excess of $50 Million, payable to the
project challengers.
Additional Alternatives Should be Studied
The EA analyzed three alternatives, two of which meet the Navy's objectives plus
the mandatory "no project" alternative. Although both project alternatives suffer
from similar analytic defects, Alternative 2 meets the Navy's objectives with fewer
environmental impacts and is preferable to Alternative 1. Although Alternative 2
also contains a commercial lease area with unassessed impacts, the
environmental setting is quite different. Not only is the area m,uch smaller, it lies
wholly in an industrial area and is much closer to the suppli~rs of the F76 and
JP5 fuels that the Navy seeks to supply to the refueling pi~~; those commodities
can go directly from nearby refineries to the ships ratt).er:tha·~.go to San Pedro
and then to Long Beach through very old pipelines, ~ .~ ·· <,.,.,
We suggest that the EA should study at leas~.tt'L e additional ai:~~~~Yxes, each
of which would have even fewer negative .environmentql impacts. ''!~~·:
''j'f:!'-/-.;_:-::,'/;
';;'_-.•.. •.·.~~.~.;.·.···., <g~~:>< -~--->< -_:---" --.s~2~~!/ "· --~~~~~~:\\ii~-} ''~-; Proposed Alternative 3
Connect the Navy fuel pier directl~*1t~· pip~lines fr~Wt~t~rea refiners. Most likely, all
the local refineries are already intetsun·ne~~~~.Jothe N~\I:Y lines. There should be
no need for additional backland stor~g~ orpi~ei!Q~§"',Tnis might require the Navy
to improve the pier from,its, .. gyvn fund$i\:~yt<tpls altern~tive has far less impacts
than either Alternative}·~·;or'Aif.ernative:21<i~trnis is especially true when compared
with fueling from th.e.·.Sal1 Pedio\Aiternatiye 1 site.
Utilize exi~tiog:~()mm~fbl~l~refueling site~ in the local harbor complex. There are
a nurr1qer·of ship'fy~ling tert:qinals in the Los Angeles/Long Beach harbors which
the,('JaVy could use.'~hile th~j~avy has mentioned security as one of its
concem§. all marine 6ilterminals have both safety and security as part of their
state al>tirpved operati~g plans. We realize the Navy rejected considering this as
an alternatiy~tor stu~fpreviously, in Section 2.4.4 of the draft EA. However, it
did so in a way,tp~J;~mphasizes the desire to reactivate the DFSP facility and
maintain an unt:t.erutilized asset. This causes us to wonder why the Navy
deactivated the site in the first place. It also appears that the Navy has already
decided to approve Alternative 1. Certainly, Section 1.4 of the EA does not
emphasize the "underutilized asset" project goal in the way the rejection of the
alternative indicates that it may be the true goal of the project proponent.
Proposed Alternative 5
The Navy should explore other possible ways of refueling such as delivery by
barge, as is currently provided by several delivery firms in the Port complex, or
by use of off-shore refueling booms such as those adjacent to the Chevron
refinery at El Segundo. This would meet the project goal of providing refueling
sites in addition to San Diego and may actually be more secure since it is not
dependent on fixed facilities that could become terrorist targets.
In choosing an alternative to be approved, the Navy must select the alternative
that meets project goals and has the least impact. While clearly the proposed
three additional alternatives are the least impactful, between Alternatives 1 and
2, Alternative 2 is substantially less impactful than Alternative 1.
Responding to this EA has been somewhat challenging in,p~Jt'because the
method proposed by the Navy to fund this DOD improv~~~nt is unusual.
Improvements such as those proposed are usually mag:f~'ttlt~!J~h the traditional
Congressional budget process. By circumventing)hi$'/the N~vl;;,pas effectively
proposed a tax, a burden, on our local community!through constr\Jc;tion of a
federal facility without the usual federal oversight; and by reversingGan~cent
decision to deactivate the premises. ' i,' 'iGG;,J ,
6'.:, ''\
In conclusion, the NWSPNC does not suppo ~,.d~f~~~e Fuel Supply Point.
From information we have as of now wetate strongly opposed to
Alternative 1. We believe that alt~:rnatives should be studied
before any decision is made on ''>';·,,.
Thank you for your
Sincerely
Ray RegaladO :\>:0
President · · ·':;':,J·;:,,,
CC:;;>Jbe Buscaino, N~oette Ted Lieu, Eric Garcetti
Attach~~~t:~;,tJWSPN,J~l!coping comment letter dated November 2018.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest. Attention: Code EV25 TB
via email to nwssbpao@navy.mil
May 14,2019
Re: Environmental Assessment for Renewed Fueling Operations at Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for opportunity to comment on the Navy proposal to renew and expand fueling operations at
Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro (DFSP) by leasing the facility to a commercial operation.
We are strongly opposed to Alternative 1 which would allow a commercial lessee to potentially expand fueling
storage and operations at the Main Terminal of the DFSP, which is bounded by Western Avenue and Gaffey
Street on the western and eastern property lines, and by residential neighborhoods, schools and roadways to
the north, west and south. Storing large quantities of highly flammable fuel so close to homes, schools, and
primary thoroughfares risks major casualties to the public in the event of a fire or explosion, whether caused by
accident, earthquake, or terrorism.
We are deeply concerned about the open-ended nature of what would be allowed under Alternative 1. The
Executive Summary for the Draft Environmental Assessment states on page ES-2:
Alternative 1 would include limited or full use of the Main Terminal as deemed appropriate by the lessee to meet
their and the Navy's fueling capacity and capability needs. This could include the rehabilitation of existing
infrastructure as selected by the lessee as well as potential construction of new infrastructure on previously
disturbed land by the lessee. New infrastructure could include fueling-related infrastructure, including but not
limited to any combination of aboveground storage tanks; office, industrial, warehouse or storage buildings;
outdoor storage areas; and parking areas. (emphasis added)
Unacceptable High Risk Location for Proposed Increased Fuel Operations
The DFSP Main Terminal was initially constructed during World War II in a setting that was far different from
what it is today. Any proposal for new usage of the facility must prioritize a PURPOSE AND NEED to assure the
safety of the residential communities now surrounding the site.
We believe that locating and expanding future fuel operations at the Main Terminal would be reckless and
irresponsible given the confluence of several high risk factors occuring at the site. The site is surrounded by
multiple nearby earthquake fault lines. The Palos Verdes Fault Line runs directly through the Main Terminal site
itself. Much of the soil at both sites is subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. These risks are
compounded by unknown additional seismic risks which may have been created by prior land disturbances
including grading, excavation, and recontouring and by the remnant piping and storage tanks underground. This
collection of high risk factors weighs strongly against reactivating and expanding any fuel facility on the site.
There are too many unreasonable risks and dangers to the densely populated surrounding neighborhoods and
communities to justify resumption of high fuel capacity and storage operations at the Main Terminal.
Risks associated with Alternative 1 to people in neighboring areas are exacerbated by the fact that the Main
Terminal site borders both Western Avenue and Gaffey Street, which are the primary, and in some cases the
only, avenues for ingress/egress to and from the neighboring communities in case of an emergency.
As nearby neighbors, we have always been concerned about the three Above Ground Storage Tanks (ASTs) near
the corner of Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North. One existing tank is less than 100 feet from
Western Avenue. An incident such as a fire at one of these tanks would endanger nearby residents; children
and families at the ballpark; as well as anyone traveling by car, bus, bike or foot along those roads. In the case
of a fire at one of the tanks, emergency response and evacuation would become a logistics nightmare since
these roadways are the primary, if not only, means of ingress/egress. We were greatly relieved when those
tanks were emptied a few years ago. We are dismayed that the Navy is considering not only to refill them with
fuel, but to allow a commercial lessee to potentially add many more such tanks to the Main Terminal site.
As nearby neighbors, we are not reassured by an unformulated mitigation plan for an as yet to be defined
expansion of the use of the facility. There is no magic assurance that adverse effects of any accidents, any
earthquakes, or any terrorist attacks could be completely avoided or mitigated.
Protection of Natural Habitat Areas
We appreciate that the Navy has prioritized the protection of habitat areas for the endangered Palos Verdes
Blue Butterfly and other Endangered Species that occur on the site. However we are concerned that
"temporary" impacts from construction and reconfiguration as well as future operations adjacent to the
protected habitat areas might be the negative tipping point for the butterfly, whose status at the site has
become precarious.
Likewise, we are concerned that the resumption of enlarged full scale operations at the site may have negative
impacts on the quality of remaining habitat areas. Noise, heavy equipment use, lighting, and the disturbances of
active operations will certainly be apparent to wildlife currently using the area, and would be a substantial
change from the currently degraded but otherwise mostly undisturbed setting. It is not known how such new
disturbances might affect wildlife that currently depend on the natural areas of the site.
Resumption of Fuel Activities at this location is Not Necessary
The Navy has not cited any need for increased operations at the Main Terminal for the purposes of national
defense in the Environmental Assessment (EA). In fact, the site was declared surplus by the Navy only a few
years ago because the Navy now has more modern facilities with a higher capacity elsewhere.
Surely, one of the primary obligations of the Navy is to protect the health and safety of the local citizenry. This
NEED should be included in the PURPOSE and NEED for any proposal of future use of this property.
2
Insufficient Public Notice and Dialogue
Although the Navy apparently sent an unspecified number of postcards to some residents, and published
notifications in some local papers, we suspect that the majority of residents in the community are not aware of
the scope and significant detrimental changes proposed.
We would have liked to attend the Open House offered by the Navy but were unable to do so. We are aware of
several other concerned residents who were also unable to attend because they were out of town at the time.
A proposed change with as much potential to impact neighboring communities as this one should have a much
more intensive effort at communication with neighboring communities, followed by a much longer comment
period and multiple opportunities for "Open House" or other dialogue.
We did not see any news article referencing the magnitude and impacts of this proposed change. Public notices
in newspapers may technically suffice to meet legal requirements, but we personally only know one individual
who regularly peruses such notices. It is quite likely that most of our neighbors remain unaware of this
proposal. We expect that there would be a great deal of alarm and outrage if the project proceeds without
what the public perceives as a fair and open opportunity for input.
Suggested Use
The EA notes that the City of Los Angeles would hope to rezone the site as Open Space should the Navy cease
operations on the Main Terminal site. That would also be our preference.
We also note that solar panels are one of the potential uses cited in the EA that might be allowable on the Main
Terminal site. Such a use, if designed so as not to impact wildlife, might be a more benign and still financially
viable option for the Navy to consider on the site.
We are strongly opposed to Alternative 1 because of the open-ended risks cited above. Our preference for the
future use of the Main Terminal site would be the completion of remediation of past contamination and then
the conversion of the site to open space for habitat preservation, with some portion of the site available for
public recreation. Should the Navy be adamantly opposed to that optimal scenario, then a solar installation
might be the next best option. Some combination of habitat restoration, recreational use and solar installation
might also be considered as an alternative.
Sincerely,
Alfred and Barbara Sattler
3
May 20, 2019
Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Southwest
Attention: Code EV25. TB
937 No. Harbor Drive
YL
Building 1, 3rd Floor (Environmental) San Diego, CA 92132
RE: RENEWED FUELING OPERATIONS AT DEFENSE FUEL DEPOT I SAN PEDRO,
CA
To Whom It May Concern,
We are writing on behalf of 350 South Bay Los Angeles, a local 350.org-affiliated group
representing thousands of members across the South Bay and Los Angeles Harbor
regions of Los Angeles County. We write to vigorously oppose any plans by the United
States Navy to renew fueling operations at the Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro
(DFSP).
As a first matter, 350 South Bay Los Angeles only recently became aware of a proposal
by the United States Navy to renew and potentially expand fueling operations at
DFSP by leasing the facility to a commercial operation. We understand there was
some limited public notice provided to local residents but this was clearly ineffective
and inadequate.
So, preliminarily, we urge the Navy to keep the time period for public comment open
for an minimum of 60 additional days and to make further and meaningful efforts to
seek out public input, including hosting public workshops, publicizing the proposal in
local newspapers, and reaching out to local schools, churches and organizations of
all types (environmental, social, political, charitable) to provide written information
and presentations about the proposal.
350 South Bay Los Angeles' leadership team has not had adequate time to do
research and review necessary to provide a full response to the draft EA. Our
group does have membership in San Pedro and nearby communities and we offer
these as preliminary comments and reserve the right to make additional comments
should the period be extended.
1
First, we find it is incredible that the EA states, without adequate explanation, that
there will not be any significant impact in any way from the proposed project, under
either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. These conclusions, alone, demonstrate the
perfunctory nature of the EA and the lack of understanding of the community in
which the facility is located, including significant changes taking place right next
door presently. Moreover, while the EA shows some concerns over the endangered
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, it shows almost none of the residents of frontline
communities which already live and work in the Harbor area.
Had public input been actively solicited, the Navy would have soon learned that the
local public would be opposed to resumption of operations at the DFSP. This
facility was built many decades ago when the area was far different than what is
present today. Decades ago, San Pedro was a sleepy fishing town with operating
canneries. Today, the Port of Los Angeles is one of the largest and busiest ports in
the world and a main economic generator for the entire region. Immediately
surrounding DFSP is a growing residential area with single and multi-family units
(including a low-income housing project along Western Avenue), churches, schools,
and shopping. The former Naval housing area located just steps away is in the
process of being developed and will bring 600-plus more new homes to the area.
Unfortunately, the growth in this community has not seen the needed corresponding
growth in public transportation such as light rail in the area. The Main Terminal of
the DFSP is bounded by Western Avenue and Gaffey Street which are two main
roads which provide ingress and egress to the communities of San Pedro and Palos
Verdes. Residents must rely on these roadways which are already congested.
Increasing truck traffic for construction or to transport fuel to and from this facility
would only make this condition worse and add emissions to the already poor air
quality. As important, the community faces the very real threat of isolation and lack
of access by first responders in the event of a natural disaster or other catastrophe.
In light of all of this, there is no justification for the storage of large quantities of
highly flammable fuel when it creates a real risk of major casualties in the
community in the event of earthquake, accident, fire, explosion or a terrorist attack.
This is especially of concern as to the three Above Ground Storage Tanks (ASTs)
near the corner of Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North. One tank is less
than 100 feet from Western Avenue and across the street from a housing
development.
Additionally, there is already too high of a concentration of dangerous and/or
polluting facilities for residents and business who are located within these Los
Angeles Harbor communities. The area is home to a number of refineries (including
Phillips 66 which is nestled between Anaheim and Gaffey Streets), the Rancho LPG
storage tanks which house butane and propane (also along Gaffey Street), and has
significant freeway, rail and truck traffic. The Aliso Canyon well failure serves as
further warning of the dangers of having large fuel storage in a residential
community.
2
While the City of Los Angeles and State of California are enacting broad and bold
plans to transition away from fossil fuels and move toward clean and safe energy
alternatives, it is truly disturbing that the Navy believes it is acceptable to come
back into an already disadvantaged community and add more danger and burden to
its residents. Notably, the Navy does not offer any compelling reason to renew and
expand fuel operations at this location. In fact, given the potential of this facility
becoming a terrorist target, would indicate that expanding this facility would be
against national security interests.
Given the makeup of the nearby communities of San Pedro, Wilmington, Harbor
City and Rancho Palos Verdes, it would be absolutely unacceptable to allow this
property to be leased out commercially and expanded.
Rather than bring flammable fuel storage back into these communities, the Navy
should remediate all past contamination and turn over this land to the City or
County of Los Angeles for better and more sustainable use such as open space,
habitat restoration, rain water recapture (under Measure W) or solar installations.
Respectfully,
Sherry Lear and Damien Luzzo, Co-organizers
350 South Bay Los Angeles
3
May 15, 2019
SAN PEDRO PENINSIJLA HOMEOWNERS IJNITED, INt
PO Box 6455 -San Pedro, CA 90734
Email: sphomeunited@gmail.com
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
Attn: Code EV25, TB
937 N. Harbor Drive, Bldg. 1, 3rd Floor (Environmental)
San Diego, CA 92132
RE: COMMENTS ON EA FOR RECOMMISSIONING OF SAN PEDRO NAVAL FUEL
DEPOT
To Whom It May Concern,
This is a much different world than when the fuel depot was introduced into our neighborhood
back in the 40's. Without going into the obvious details ofthat remark, simply put, we are much
more vulnerable because of the decisions of others, friend or foe. The "need" does not
necessarily justify the "means".
For example, why was the refinery (currently Phillips 66) allowed to "add" butane storage tanks
(LPG) so close to the Navy Fuel Depot when they are known to be the most explosive
commodity on a refinery grounds? Likewise, why was the LPG storage facility (now
Plains/Rancho LPG) allowed to be built in the late 1960's-early 1970's on "landslide" and
"liquefaction" areas and adjacent to the necessary Navy jet fuel pipeline servicing your marine
terminal? We should also mention that all of this is located in a USGS designated "earthquake
rupture zone", and next to busy traffic corridors readily accessible to anyone wishing to wreak
havoc.
San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United's residences are in the tract of homes directly south of,
and most adjacent to, the DFSP site. Frankly, we were relieved when in 2016 when the Navy
announced its closure, thereby eliminating "one" of these several hazardous facilities
surrounding our homes. We should add to this list of risks mentioned the Port of Los Angeles,
which houses and transports many extremely hazardous materials. All of these facilities are
considered and identified as potential terrorist targets. But, no matter the cause, whether it be
natural, accidental or intentional, any incident at "one" could readily impact the others resulting
in unimaginable devastation while we and our homes sit directly in the middle of them.
SPPHU and the US Department of the Navy have historically had a meaningful relationship.
Our members have served on the BRAC, we have planted hundreds of trees along the Fuel
Depot's Gaffey Street property line and maintained them for 10 years giving the DFSP the
appearance of a more neighborhood friendly operation. Suddenly the partnership of that venture
ended with the Navy citing security reasons which goes a long way when it comes to proving our
point of how vulnerable we are due to the close proximity of all the previously mentioned
hazardous facilities!
The Navy's co-op proposals and its potential for "new infrastructure" including "above ground
storage tanks" is reckless and invites further potential for disaster. You might as well also post
signs at each end ofNo. Gaffey Street stating, "Pass at your own risk", and rename the street:
"Devastation Alley". You are deceiving the public by not being specific about; a) how many
new tanks there could be, b) where they would be located and, c) exactly "what" is considered
"areas historically used for operations" in that 300+ acre site. Any proposed actions would have
potentially significant impacts on the human, natural and cultural environment.
However, if this process has been contaminated and is, in fact, nothing more than an exercise of
futility on our citizenry with the result that the Navy intends to reopen the DFSP, no matter the
consequences to our community, the "no action alternative" would be the obvious least worse
choice for the community.
Selections #1 and #2 involve commercial leases which opens the door for potential fraud,
political intervention and security risk that will result in an increased risk for disaster as
previously described in the first two paragraphs.
There should be another option for the community to choose from!
Explore other options for the Navy's stated fueling needs. Remain closed and give back to this
community for our many years of support for the Navy by continuing and increasing your
current path of environmental good works at the site.
Sincerely,
~/I{~
Chuck Hart
President
NOTE: The comment period should be extended. At the May 13, 2019 meeting of the North
West San Pedro Neighborhood Council, I asked how many board members had received an
environmental Assessment Notice and had the opportunity to respond. No one raised their
hand. The DFSP is in their area. This is of great concern to their constituents and the
NWSPNC should have an opportunity to address them and consider a response!
cc. Public Officials
NWNC
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
20 May 2019
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
Attention: Code EV25.TB
937 N. Harbor Drive
Building 1, 3rd Floor (Environmental)
San Diego, CA 92132
The following comments are provided regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment
(EA) for Renewed Fueling Operations at Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro (DFSP):
The EA does not adequately describe how the proposed action effectively
addresses 10 U.S. Code 5062. The Navy can be "organized, trained and equipped
for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea" equally through
alternative means other than re-activation of the Above Ground. There is no
compelling rationale provided in the EA to even establish a need for the DFSP.
Without this rationale, the entire project is called into question.
o To establish a clear need, the EA should provide alternatives to the
proposed action such as utilizing fuel sources at alternative Navy locations
along the west coast such as at it's main operating locations in San Diego
and elsewhere.
o In addition to the above alternative it should assess the alternative of fuel
servicing at sea which would provide the additional benefit of training sea-
based fuel servicing.
Re: "Purpose and Need": "The need for the Proposed Action is to ensure the
fullest possible use and maintenance of the Navy's assets ... .in support of 10
U.S.C. section 5062".
o Nowhere in 10 USC 5062 does it require the Navy to ensure the fullest
possible use and maintenance of the Navy's assets, or to even require any
specific assets such as DFSP, San Pedro. Rather, 5062 calls for "prompt
and sustained combat ... ". The EA does not address how use ofthe DFSP
asset is the best alternative for the Navy. Again, fueling by alternative
means may in fact provide more benefit for Navy "organizing, training
and equipping" in support of it's mission.
o It is especially questionable given the recent recommitment to the closure
of DFSP including this news article from 21 Mar 2017:
https://www.dla.mil/Energy/ About/News/ Article/1124865/dfsp-san-pedro-
closes-fuel-tanks/
Alternatives Considered
o The EA does not document the assessment of the all of the listed
alternatives considered. For example, it does not address the alternative
"Conversion of Site to Full Recreational or Open Space Use".
o The EA does not consider other alternatives such as "Sale of Site to State,
Local Agencies or to Commercial Organizations". Other alternatives
might still allow the Navy to meet it's 10 USC 5062 mission while
providing additional finances to the federal government through the sale of
the property, as well as benefit to the State and to the environment.
Alternatives 1 and 2:
o Both alternatives are not adequately described and thus can not be fully
assessed. The EA states that "New infrastructure could include ... ", and
provides and example, but does not set any bounds to what it "could
include". The alternative also states that the alternative will be "as
deemed appropriate by the lessee" which creates an unclear situation as to
what the alternative includes.
o Since the lessee appears free to determine the extent of new infrastructure, it is
also troubling that the "Navy would retain overall responsibility for all aspects of
environmental compliance." Recommend that a clearer relationship be
established between the Navy and the Lessee. Given the current plan, the lessee
appears to have much to gain through development of infrastructure, use for
commercial and DoD purposes, while the Navy is bearing the full risk of any
environmental non-compliance.
o Since there is no definition regarding the potential new infrastructure there is also
no way to determine the potential added supply or demand for use of fuel at the
DFSP site. Recommend that a clearer scope be decided upon regarding the scope
of the infrastructure, supply and demand.
o Rancho LPG Tanks: although Appendix C references public comments regarding
the Rancho LPG Tanks, the EA does not assess the potential added demand for
use of the Rancho LPG Tanks. Given that more commercial and DoD demand
will be occurring based on DFSP usage, it is foreseeable that more off-gassing to
the LPG tanks will be required, and thus increase the usage of those tanks and the
risk to the local community. Recommend that the EA provide an assessment of
the increase demand to be generated by the DFSP, and also that based on that
demand, how much additional propane and butane will be transferred to these
tanks.
Paragraph 3.3.2.3 Geology, subparagraph regarding geologic hazards identifies
both earthquake and liquefaction hazards that are significant to the DFSP as well
as many of the existing surrounding commercial refinery and supporting facilities
such as the Rancho LPG tanks. The EA does not adequately address the combined
effects of these potential facilities under various risk scenarios.
Paragraph 4: Cumulative Impacts
o This paragraph does not identify or take into account the risk posed by the
Rancho LPG tanks nearby the DFSP. Recommend adding this to the risk
analysis. Also note the Chemical Facilities Hearing at the link provided
below which refers to the potential risk posed by the LPG tanks which are·
currently being reassessed by the federal government. These are existing
risks to the surrounding community, and would also apply to both the
Navy and Lessee of the DFSP. Also, by expanding the amount of fuel in
the nearby area, this risk is compounded should the DFSP re-establish
operations. Recommend coordination with the agencies involved in
assessing the risks regarding these LPG tanks prior to further action
regarding the DFSP. Also recommend coordination with these agencies
regarding similar risks that may be inherent in re-establishing and possible
expansion of the DFSP itself.
https ://www. drop box. com/ s/8d2bbi 1 dckmyqOs/Chemical %20F acilities%2
0Hearing%20Video.mp4 ?dl=O
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Caney Arnold
Harbor City, CA 90710
May 10, 2019
Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Southwest
Attention: Code EV25. TB
937 No. Harbor Drive
Janet Scfiaaj-(]unter
PO Box 642-San Pedro, CA 90733
(310) 251-7075-Email: arriane5@aol.com
Building 1, 3rd Floor (Environmental) San Diego, CA 92132
RE: RENEWED FUELING OPERATIONS AT DEFENSE FUEL DEPOT I SAN PEDRO, CA
To Whom It May Concern,
There is extreme disappointment that the US Navy would even consider recommissioning this
site for further hazardous storage and transport of the most volatile and explosive commodities.
This particular site, on No. Gaffey Street, has extraordinarily vulnerable geologic seismic
conditions that include the fact that it is located within an "Earthquake Rupture Zone" (a highly
vulnerable area where multiple earthquake faults converge) with surrounding land identified by
USGS as "Landslide and Liquefaction Areas". This location is the "only" ERZ in the Los
Angeles Harbor region. There are only three in the entire City of Los Angeles which were
identified by Dr. Lucy Jones in her recent study of the seismic vulnerabilities of LA
commissioned by Mayor Garcetti. (Map of ERZ from LA Planning & USGS Hazards Map
attached)
Just weeks ago, there was a foiled terrorism attempt in Long Beach. That "would be terrorist"
identified a number of his targets which included the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The
911 terrorists also had a map of future targets that included both of these ports ranked #4 and #5
on their list. The concentration of highly explosive sites in the specific region of the Naval Fuel
Depot make that particular area a stunning target of opportunity for terrorism. Just across the
street from the fuel depot is the Phillips 66 refinery with the abutting Plains All American
Pipeline operated "Rancho LPG" storage facility. Phillips and Rancho are both located within
the same Earthquake Rupture Zone as the Naval Fuel Depot, as well as on geologically
designated "landslide" and "liquefaction" areas. The 46 yr. old antiquated tanks at Rancho
contain over 25 Million gallons of highly explosive butane gas in two massive 12.5 million
gallon refrigerated tanks with each one having an over 3 mile blast radius (using the EPA
formula for "flammables"). Phillips refinery has another two-5 million gallon tanks of butane
gas just north ofRancho with each one ofthem having a 2 mile blast radius. Within 1,000 to
1,500 ft. of the Rancho tanks lie pre-existing neighborhoods, schools, and now shopping centers.
There are an additional 700 new homes currently being constructed within 1 mile of these sites
despite the full knowledge of existing high risk to population by public officials.
Not only would a terrorist or large earthquake have the potential to destroy local communities
and kill thousands of people, but the close proximity to the ports provides the ripe opportunity to
devastate the "economic engine of the state" our industrial ports!
In December of 1999, the exact twin to the Plains/Rancho LPG facility was the object of another
"failed terrorism event" in Elk Grove, CA. Built in the same year as the Rancho facility (1973)
the facility contained the same exact tankage and volume of Liquefied Petroleum Gas products.
The LA Times article (Dec. 8, 1999) by Mark Gladstone reported the following in his final
paragraph; "The affidavit noted that a study conducted for investigators by Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory "concluded, in part, that a succes.\ful attack on either of the
larger ... tanks would likely result in afirestorm that could reach asfar out as 14 kilometers
[about 10 miles/from the site and could cause a fatality rate as high as 50% up to five miles
away."
Professor Bob Bea, the premiere authority on "Risk" in the United States and abroad, has offered
his opinion on the facilities in this region as being one of the most ripe opportunities for a
catastrophe of overwhelming proportions due to the potential of a cascading failure event upon
the multitude of adjacent ignition sources (including pipelines) and their proximity to the
succession of marine oil terminals at the ports. Certainly, you would think that the US
Department of Navy would be not only "sensitive" but "extremely concerned" about this
estimation. Great effort should be employed into "diffusing this ticking bomb" rather than
"fortifying" it!
The Department of the Navy asserts the import of the recommissioning of this fuel depot based
upon the need of its use to service their oceangoing vessels to protect all Americans. I would
refute that assertion based on the danger that surrounds this existing situation. It is unfathomable
that such high risks are being posed to surrounding dense populations of Americans with
complete disregard by government. Unless this unsafe situation is addressed soon, the likelihood
of catastrophe is guaranteed. It is just a matter of time. Turning a continued blind eye to this
travesty under the auspices of need to "protect Americans" is a purposeful lie, and an injustice to
the honor that our Navy embraces.
The Navy would better serve its commitment to the United States by understanding the gravity
of this situation and exerting its authority toward de-centralizing the concentration of explosives
in the interest of protecting these US Harbors and the Americans who live, work, study and play
around them.
Sincerely,
Janet Schaaf-Gunter
From: April Sandell <hvybag s@cox.net>
Sent: Saturda y/ June 15/ 2019 6:22AM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@ r pvca .gov>
Cc: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov >; CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Re: CC meeting agenda item Tuesday Ire: placement of 5 ALPR cameras on Western Ave.
Hi Elias ,
Thank you. I assume the 5 locations represent PHASE 1 of a two PHASE plan. If so , can you now
show me the proposed camera locations in the Phase two?
I did contact the HOA and apparently the HOA put the subject opportunity Grant on the the back
burner and further mentioned two separate camera surveillance programs. Can you explain the
difference between the two programs?
Thank you again.
Apri l
On Jun 14 , 2019 , at 2:20 PM , Elias Sassoon <esas soon@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi April :
Attached/ pis find a map wh ich sho w s the locations.
Pis let me know if you ha v e any further question .
Regards/
Elias K. Sassoon/ Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes/ CA 90275
Tel : 310 -544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Friday/ June 141 2019 2:16PM
To: 'April Sandell' <hvybags@cox.net>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Char les Eder <CharlesE@rpvca .gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: RE: CC meeting agenda item Tuesday Ire: placement of 5 ALPR cameras on W es tern Ave. L.
Hello April,
Elias can call you to let you know where the sites are or show you on a map if you would like to come into City
Hall . In regards to your second question, I'm not aware of any agreement or partnership with your HOA . They
may have been interested in the HOA Security Grant Program, but it would be best to ask them directly if they
are pursuing this .
Thank you .
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
{310) 544-5203 (office)
(310) 544-5291 (fax)
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net ]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 1:25PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov >; CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: CC meeting agenda item Tuesday Ire: placement of 5 ALPR cameras on Western Ave .
Dear Mr. Sassoon,
I am a resident in RPV. First of all , I did not see a diagram or mention of the exact
locations of the proposed installations of said cameras within the repm1. Will you please
share the proposed sites?
Secondly , I am aware of previous efforts in the same regard proposing to engage the
Rolling Hills Rivera HOA board directors as a partner with the city toward meeting the
same goal. (le installation of surveillance cameras ). My question is: At this time , or
anytime subsequent to this time intend to engage in any sort of agreement/partnership or
the like with the RHRHOA?
Thank you for your time , attention and response. Hopefully , I will receive your response
by the end of the day.
April Sandell
28026 Pontevedra Dr./Western Ave.
To: Teresa Takaoka
Subject: RE: revised ordinancy -minor typos Item 2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 3:05 PM
To: Enyssa Momoli <EnyssaM@rpvca.gov>; Nathan Zweizig <NathanZ@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: revised ordinancy-minor typos Item 2
Hello-
Please include this as late correspondence for item 2-there were a couple minor typos.
Thank you
Teri
1
2.
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR-
APPROVED LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION
PERMIT ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THE
APPRORIATE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO THE
PLANNING DIVISION TO CONSIDER THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE,
GARAGE, AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITH
MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITION NOS. 2 AND 7 OF THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON THE PROPERTY AT
6001 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH.
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2018, Jim York ("Appellant"), the owner of 6001
Palos Verdes Drive South, commonly referred to as the Point View property ("Property"),
submitted a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (LME) (Case No. PLME2018-0004)
requesting approval to submit planning applications for the proposed construction of a
two-story single-family residence, garage and accessory dwelling unit on the Property;
and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2018, after reviewing the application package, City
Staff deemed the application incomplete for processing based on the City's Geologist's
review of the Appellant's geotechnical report. On January 9, 2019, the City's Geologist
granted an in-concept approval of the proposed project and the application was deemed
complete for further processing on February 7, 2019. Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining
Act, the project's action deadline was April 8, 2019; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, the Director of Community Development (Director)
issued a Notice of Decision and corresponding Staff Report, conditionally approving the
LME permit. Immediately after issuing the Notice of Decision, the Applicant requested
that Condition No. 7 of the project Conditions of Approval be further clarified with respect
to the future subdivision of the Property and trail easement dedication; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, the Director issued a Revised Notice of Decision and
updated Staff Report clarifying requirements established under the Conditions of
Approval and Staff Report, as it relates to the trail easement dedication and subdivision
requirements to the future subdivision of the non-Landslide Moratorium Area of the
Property; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2019, a timely appeal of the Director's LME permit
approval was filed by the Appellant requesting the City Council provide additional
clarification to the Conditions of Approval; and
WHEREAS, Appellant's appeal raised the following issues with the Director's
decision: 1) Amend Condition No. 2 to provide clarification that the condition only
applies to third party challenges to City Approvals and does not, as could be concluded
from the broad language currently used, require the applicant to indemnify the City if the
Applicant is the Challenger; 2) Amend Condition No. 7 to provide clarification related to
the future subdivision of the subject property (?a) and trail dedication (?c); 3) Objection
to the land dedication called for by the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan/
Habitat Conservation Plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2019, a 15-day public notice of the public hearing
regarding the appeal was provided to all property owners within a 500' radius of the
Property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and
Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt
under the Class 3 categorical exemption (Section 15303); and,
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2019, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,
at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as
set forth herein.
Section 2: The City Council upholds the Director-approved Landslide
Moratorium Exception Permit with modifications to Condition No. 2 and 7 of the
Conditions of Approval, as idt~mtifieg in ~?.thibit A arid Exhibit B, and in connection
therewith makes the following findings based on the all evidence and testimony provide
in the staff report and at the public hearing.
Section 3: This approval allows the Applicant to submit the appropriate
development applications to the Planning Division to consider the construction of a new
two-story single family residence, garage, and accessory dwelling on the property located
at 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South.
Section 4: The merits of the Appellant's appeal are warranted as described
below.
A. Appeal Reason No. 1: Amend Condition No. 2 to provide clarification that the
condition only applies to third party challenges to City Approvals and does not, as
could be concluded from the broad language currently used, require the applicant
to indemnify the City if the Applicant is the Challenger.
Condition No. 2 of the Director-approved Conditions of Approval is a standard
Resolution No. 2019-24
Page 2 of 13
Condition of Approval that is placed on all City-approved planning entitlements
which generally requires an Applicant to provide indemnification to the City and
its representatives from any and all claims and other actions and proceedings
that challenge the action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City for or
concerning the project.
The Appellant is requesting that Condition No. 2 be amended to provide
clarification that the Condition only applies to third party challenges to City
Approvals and not to require the Appellant to indemnify the City if the Appellant is
the challenger. In response to the appeal, Staff, in collaboration with the City
Attorney, has worked with the Appellant on a revision to the condition language
that addresses the Appellant's request for additional clarification. As a result, the
Appellant has reviewed and accepted the following Staff-recommended amended
language to Condition No. 2 (new language is shown in bold/underline text):
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the
City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands,
lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and
alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to
arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively
"Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers,
employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof,
by persons other than the Applicant, that challenge, attack, or seek to
modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval
issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions
approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project.
B. Appeal Reason No. 2: Amend Condition No. 7 to provide clarification related to
the future subdivision of the subject property (?a).
The Director-approved Condition of Approval No. 7 requires the Appellant to
comply with all Exception Category "T" provisions as set forth in RPVMC §
17.20.040(T). These provisions include the recording of a covenant on the subject
property, prior to development, in a form approved by the City Attorney, running
with the land and enforceable by the City, which addresses the following:
a. Prohibiting future subdivision of said property,
b. Acknowledging that the City makes no representation as to the suitability of the
land for development and assuming risk, and
c. Providing for trial dedication.
With regards to Condition No. 7(a), the Appellant is requesting that the Condition
be amended to indicate that the restriction on a future subdivision of the subject
property applies to only the portion of the property that is within the City's
Resolution No. 2019-24
Page 3 of 13
Landslide Moratorium Area (LMA) and not the area of the property that is outside
of theLMA.
On April 9, 2019, Staff issued a revised Staff Report and Notice of Decision,
which eliminated requirements for the processing of subdivision proposals on the
non-LMA portion of the property. Staff's revisions were based on the Appellant's
request to address his concerns with Condition No. 7(a) and made in part to
clarify that the subdivision prohibition applies to property located with the LMA,
which was provided during the October 16, 2018 City Council meeting, in which
the City Council considered a Code Amendment to Exception Category 'T' (Case
No. PLC2018-0001 ). It was Staff's opinion that the revisions to the Staff Report
and the Notice of Decision, along with the clarification provided at the October
16, 2018 City Council meeting collectively addressed the Appellant's concerns.
In response to the appeal, Staff has worked with the Appellant on a revision to
the condition language that addresses the Appellant's request for additional
clarification related to Condition No. 7. As a result, the Appellant has reviewed
and accepted the following Staff-recommended amended language to Condition
No. 7 (new language is shown in bold/underline text and deleted language is
shown in strikethrough):
7. The Applicant shall be required to comply with all Exception Category 'T'
provisions as set forth In RPVMC § 15.20.040 (T) (Exceptions), including
but not limited to the recording of a covenant on the subject property, prior
to development, in a form approved by the City Attorney running with the
land and enforceable by City:
a. Prohibiting future subdivision of the area easterly of the Moratorium Line
approved March 9, 2011, as shown on the attached Site Plan of said
property,
b. Acknowledging that the City makes no representation as to the suitability of
the land for development and assuming risk, and
c. Providing for trail dedication (portion connecting the Three Sisters Reserve
and the Filiorum Reserve).
Section 6: The merits of the Appellant's appeal are not warranted as described below.
A. Appeal Reason No. 2: Amend Condition No. 7 to provide clarification related to the
trail dedication (7c).
The Appellant is requesting clarification related to the required trail dedication,
including delineation of the trial location on a map or exhibit and the designation
of the trail as the "Jack's Hat" trail. The Appellant is requesting this clarification to
ensure that future trail alignment does not impact developable building area of
Resolution No. 2019-:M
Page 4 of 13
the project site.
As part of Staff's revision to the April sth Staff Report and Notice of Decision,
Staff included clarifying language under Condition No. ?(c), which describes the
location of the trail as the portion connecting the Three Sisters Reserve and the
Filiorum Reserve. Staff is the opinion that further clarification to Condition No.
?(c) is not warranted aside from what was previously amended on April 8, 2019.
More specifically, the ·City Council directed, during their January 19, 2016 City
Council meeting on the adoption of Exception Category 'T', that such trail
alignment and designation would be vetted through a public input process prior to
the submittal of a development application. Furthermore, the current Exception
Category 'T' language includes provisions which ensures that the trail alignment
be made by agreement between the City and the Appellant and that it not impact
developable building area of the project site (emphasis added). Staff believes
that the codified language under Exception Category "T" clearly states that the
alignment of the trail will not impact the developable building area of the project
site. In other words, it would not be reasonable to require a trail through the
middle of the property. Thus, Staff does not believe any further modifications to
Condition No. ?(c) is warranted or that the general location should be delineated
at this time without coordinating in the field with the various interested parties.
That said, Staff is prepared to begin the trail alignment determination and
easement dedication process pending the determination of this LME appeal and
submittal of development applications associated with the property. This would
involve coordination with the Appellant/Applicant and other interested parties
including the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) to ensure the
identified trail connection is physically feasible.
B. Appeal Reason No. 3: Objection to the land dedication called for by the City's
Natural Communities Conservation Plan/ Habitat Conservation Plan.
The Director-approved April 9, 2019 Staff Report regarding the LME permit
includes a section that discusses the City's Natural Communities Conservation
Plan/ Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) and its applicability to the
requested LME permit application. The report informs the Appellant that in the
event that the Applicant submits development applications associated with the
development contemplated by the LME permit, a Condition of Approval will be
included in the Planning Division approvals requiring the landowner to dedicate
40-acres with a 300' wide wildlife corridor to the City's Preserve prior to the any
grading or building permits being issued by the City.
The Appellant requests that the City Council direct the Director of Community
Development to cease calling for the 40-acre dedication for 'any project' on the
project site. The appeal of the LME permit on this case is premature because the
Conditions of Approval for the LME do not include a requirement for the land
dedication. The dedication is not required for the LME permit and has not been
imposed as part of the approval of the LME permit. The dedication will only be
required if and when the Appellant submits applications for other development
Resolution No. 2019-24
Page 5 of 13
approvals required for the actual development of the project contemplated by the
LME and those applications are approved. The City is not requiring the
dedication at this time and staff included reference to the dedication requirement
in the conditions for the LME only as a means of giving notice the dedication
requirement was not being waived by its not being included in the condition for
the LME. If and when the dedication requirement is actually imposed as a
condition of approval of Planning Division, the Appellant then may appeal the
condition if he desires to do so.
Section 7: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste
and Substances Statement), the approval of the Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit
will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the project has been
found to be Categorically Exempt (Section 15303(e)).
Section 8: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption
of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in
the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
Section 9: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and/or Section 21167 of the California Public Resources Code.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2019.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2019-24, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2019.
Resolution No. 2019-24
Page 6 of 13
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2019-24
Page 7 of 13
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT
PLANNING CASE NO. PLME2018-0004
(6001 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH)
General Conditions
1. The Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in
writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval
listed below. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days
following the date of this approval or prior to development application submittal to
the Planning Division shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, by persons other than the Applicant, that challenge,
attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or
approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved
by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project.
3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning or building regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or
City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other
requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
4. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040 of the RPVMC, the Director of Community
Development is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and
any of the Conditions of Approval if such modifications will achieve substantially
the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and
conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and
require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may
require new and separate environmental review and public notification.
5. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures
contained in Section 17.86.060 of the RPVMC or administrative citations as
described in Section 1.16 of the RPVMC.
6. If the Applicant has not submitted development applications to the Planning
Division for the approved Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit within 180 days
Resolution No. 2019-24
Page 8 of 13
of the final effective date of this Notice of Decision, said approval shall expire and
be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is
filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director.
7. The Applicant shall be required to comply with all Exception Category 'T' provisions
as set forth in RPVMC § 15.20.040 (T) (Exceptions), including but not limited to
the recording of a covenant on the subject property, prior to development, in a form
approved by the City Attorney running with the land and enforceable by City:
d. Prohibiting future subdivision of said property of the area easterly of the
Moratorium Line approved March 9, 2011, as shown in the attached Site Plan.
e. Acknowledging that the City makes no representation as to the suitability of the
land for development and assuming risk, and
f. Providing for trail dedication (portion of connecting the Three Sisters Reserve
and the Filiorum Reserve).
RPVMC §15.20.050 Landslide Mitigation Measures
8. If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the Director of Public Works, all such
deficiencies shall be corrected by the Applicant.
9. If the project involves additional plumbing fixtures, or additions of habitable space
which exceed 200 square feet, or could be used as a new bedroom, bathroom,
laundry room or kitchen, and if the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer
system, septic systems shall be replaced with approved holding tank systems in
which to dispose of on-site waste water. The capacity of the required holding tank
system shall be subject to the review and approval of the city's building official. For
the purposes of this subsection, the addition of a sink to an existing bathroom,
kitchen or laundry room shall not be construed to be an additional plumbing fixture.
For those projects which involve additions of less than 200 square feet in total area
and which are not to be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or
kitchen, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant specifically agreeing
that the addition of the habitable space will not be used for those purposes. Such
covenant shall be submitted to the director for recordation prior to the issuance of
a building permit. For lots or parcels which are to be served by a sanitary sewer
system on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section (July
6, 2000), additional plumbing fixtures may be permitted and the requirement for a
holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is to be connected to
the sanitary sewer system. If a sanitary sewer system is approved and/or under
construction but is not yet operational at the time that a project requiring a landslide
moratorium exception permit is approved, the requirement for a holding tank may
be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is required to be connected to the sanitary
sewer system pursuant to RPVMC § 15.20.110 (Required Connection to
Operational Sanitary Sewer System), or by an agreement or condition of project
approval.
Resolution No. 2019-24
Page 9 of 13
10. PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, roof runoff from
all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets
or an approved drainage course as deemed acceptable by the City's Engineer.
11. PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, if required by
the City's Geologist, the Applicant shall submit a soils report, and/or a geotechnical
report, for the review and approval of the City Geotechnical Engineer.
12. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the Applicant shall
submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to support and participate in existing
or future sewer and/or storm drain assessment districts and any other geological
and geotechnical hazard abatement measures required by the City. Such covenant
shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
13. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the applicant shall
submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to an irrevocable offer to dedicate to
the City a sewer and storm drain easement on the subject property, as well as any
other easement required by the city to mitigate landslide conditions. Such covenant
shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
14. PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, the Applicant
shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to construct the project strictly in
accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further projects on
the subject site without first filing an application with the Director pursuant to the
terms of RPVMC §15.20.
15. All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system
approved the Director of Public Works. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted
only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden.
16. If the lot or parcel is served by a sanitary sewer system, the sewer lateral that
serves the Applicant's property shall be inspected to verify that there are no
cracks, breaks or leaks and, if such deficiencies are present, the sewer lateral
shall be repaired or reconstructed to eliminate them, prior to the issuance of any
building or grading permit for the project that is being approved pursuant to the
issuance of this Landslide Moratorium Exception permit.
17. The property owner shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of
their sanitary sewer system including their sanitary sewage lateral, any sanitary
sewage lifting systems and the electricity required to power the system, and all
underground pipes associated with their sanitary sewage system under and
adjacent to their development, and the associated fixtures within the property.
18. All other necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to this Code or any
other applicable statute, law or ordinance shall be obtained.
Resolution No. 2019-24
Page 10 of 13
Resolution No. 2019-24
Page 11 of 13
EXHIBIT '8'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT
PLANNING CASE NO. PLME2018-0004
(6001 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH)
Resolution No. 2019-24
Page 12 of 13
'
.~
'', ,')
~//
'. ,."'
,,[
'
Resolution No. 2019-24
Page 13 of 13
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Wednesday, June 12, 2019 10:53 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli
FW: LME Permit Appeal Response to Staff Report (PLME2018-0004)
LME Permit Appeal Response to Staff Report. pdf; A TT00001.txt
From: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 10:45 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavia Silva
<OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; David Mayer <David.Mayer@wildlife.ca.gov>; marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov
Cc: Scott B. Birkey <sbirkey@coxcastle.com>; Andrew Sabey <asabey@coxcastle.com>; Gary Weber
<gsweberconsulting@gmail.com>
Subject: LME Permit Appeal Response to Staff Report (PLME2018-0004)
Please see the attached comments relating to the June 18, 2019 City Council Meeting Public Hearing Item 2
1 d.
-----------· ---·----·-
In response to the staff report dis tributed on June 11, 2019 we have some
additional comments
There are 2 unresolved issues
CONDITION 7C-TRAIL EASEMENT
This should be easy. There are 2 historical major trails across the northern
part of our property above the northern fence line. (See Exhibit 1 from the
city 's trail map at the abalone cove shoreline park). These trails connect the
western and eastern portions of the Portuguese Bend nature preserve.
These trails are currently fenced off.
While Exception ~~r' requires a trail dedication, we are prepared to grant
easements for 2 trails across our property (See Exhibit 2) provided that the
trails continue to be located NORTH OF THE EXISTING FENCE LINE.
LAND DEDICATION·-NCCP/HCP
At the March 29, 2018 City Council Meeting where the current draft of the
NCCP/HCP was approved , the community Development Director, Ara
Mihranian and Mayor, Susan Brooks stated several times that we could "Opt
Out" of the NCCP/HCP. This is obviously not true since the city's staff report
states "as a condition of approval for any development project approved for
the project site, the landowner is required to dedicate a minimum of 40
acres ... and a non-agricultural 300' wide functional wildlife corridor ... ". There
has never been any scientific evidence provided why this corridor is
necessary . We are only requesting approval of a single family residence and
second unit on the edge of our gravel parking lot. (See Exh ibit 3). This
arbitrary 40-acre demand is unconscionable and is an illega l and
unconstitutional "taking/{ of our property.
The staff report indicates that in August 2004 11 the Point View Property was
identified as a NCCP/HCCP participating party" We have never agreed to
dedicate 40 acres. The report also indicates that 11 the event garden is located
in what was identified in the in the 2004 city council accepted NCCP/HCP as
the wildlife corridor". The NCCP/HCP is still a DRAFT approved 3/29/18.
Further, in 2004 our 94 acre property was basically vacant land.
Subsequently, we obtained permits and approval for 25.5 acres of agriculture
and the event garden for which we were charged a $97,800 habitat mitigation
fee.
The staff report says it 11 informs 11 us that we will be required, after incurring
substantial time and expenses, if we submit development applications, to
dedicate 40 acres. If the city, the wildlife agencies and the Land Conservancy
want our property, it must be purchased at fair market value based on its
highest and best use.
James York, Managing Member
York Point View Properties, LLC
EXHIBIT 2
J ACit'S HAT mAll. » i .·/
,, .· No•-"tr" ~5T c t:~ , . .;_. --,_,f
'',·. ill j.-.i/IJII ·~ . \
··.\.
(~. 1. •
. I
.I
I
\.
'_..:., ... ..,_,_ Nt4•h'-5~W
~ ,-"!""-.. 18l.OO':_
I
' ' f.
·I '\ ... :
~ . \ 'I
'~> ·;/
'; ·1\
, \'. '' ,· ,,
'? 1:\ ..
' \
\
\ '· ,.
' ·' ,.~.--H2.:1'11'l)5'W
( ---11l•t®'
.. ,
' ~~:·\'. \. ,,.1 A ;
Iii \ .. ~/.
#' ., .........
. ,$' \ ..
·'#' \
.JACK"S HAT TI<A1t,. »>/: i . .. . . ·~:,,.. i
, "-,~~1~~4..f"t ::i7~.oo·
.··' ~·""y.r·t~· .,
·~ , .,_ I
·. ·.· J
·; J
I
·J·. > .
. ;./
1.r~•
ct.r.a.=s
ffi<CE POsTs F:\IERY \!' ON
"<< N01f11~N FENCE UNE
I
I
I
I
I
1<-« LANDSUbE MORATOimJM BoUNOARY (3/912011)
I
I
'./'
' !'ENG< POSTS EVERY <j' ~N Fl.
' CLF ~
< < < NCm~N fENCE LINE
~
POINT VIEW -LME APPEAL
(PMLE2018 -0004)
NORTHERN FENCE LINE/JACK'S HAT TRAIL
~
\ ...
~
0 "'·
\
\
~ ~ .. "'-ot
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Emily, Teri and Nathan,
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Saturday, June 15, 2019 1:20 PM
CityCierk
June 18 Council Agenda Item. Fwd: lmplementingthe RPV General Plan
Original General Plan figure 22 111.jpg
Please be sure that Council gets all this as Late Correspondence in relation to the June 18, 2019 City
Council Agenda Item 2. Have you a way to let them know that Ara's comments and my replies which are
specific to York's Appeal are near the middle? TNX. SUNSHINE
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: aram@rpvca.gov
Cc: cc@rpvca.gov, pc@rpvca.gov
Sent: 6/14/2019 2:30:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: lmplementingthe RPV General Plan
Hi Ara,
Thank you for the response to my email to our City Manager from the Community Development
Department's point of view. Should I expect something similar from Public Works, Rec.& Parks,
Finance and Information Technology? Each has a responsibility in implementing the General Plan.
See my interlinear comments inserted in red. But first, do you know what a PERT Chart is? It is a
clear record of what it takes to get from where we are now to where we want to be. The General
Plan is all about preserving and enhancing the City's infrastructure and amenities. Staff's job is to
keep us moving in that direction as cost effectively as possible. Certain things have to be done
before others can be. If you don't design the bridge before you lay the tracks, you get a train wreck.
I keep getting survey phone calls asking me if I think RPV is "headed in the right direction". I
always answer "NOT" because each department seems to be working in a different one. Dividing
the recommendations to City Council (same with the Planning Commission), into little pieces
without showing them how the pieces fit into the PERT Chart or the progress along the way to the
bigger goal is taking our City in an undisclosed direction.
So, using preserving and enhancing the Bronco Connection as the specific objective in a
PERT Chart, which Analyst is directed and funded to tell all of our departments when to do
what? Read on and then tell me something I don't already know.
... S 310-377-8761
Subject: RE : Transparency is ... v.s. Waiting is ...
Date : 6/13/2019 7:05:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
From : AraM@rpvca .gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc : CC@rpvca.gov , DWillmore@rpvca .gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Sunshine,
Staff is working with its consu lt ant, Alta Planning and Design, to update the Trails Network Plan
(TNP). Duh . Who is implementing the existing TNP in the meantime?
As part of this process , the Conceptua l Trails Plan and Conceptual Bikeway Plan will be folded into
the updated TNP (consistent with former Genera l Plan Amendment No . 22). Duh . The City Council
directed that to happen in 1990. Who is implementing the existing TNP in the meantime?
A draft of the TNP will be presented to the pub li c at a workshop later this summer before being
presented to the Plann in g Commiss ion and City Council. Duh. The City Council directed a change
in formatting in 2012. That simply adds more precise CRITERIA to the Bronco Connection
design. Who is implementing the existing TNP in the meantime?
This will allow the public multiple opportunit ies to review the updated TNP. Duh. An update is not a
change. All the public needs to do is look for typo's, word processing errors and graphics
errors. Who is implementing the existing TNP in the meantime?
In regards to budgeting for the construction of future trails, this is cont in gent on whether the City
has lega l trai l access rights first. Duh. That is why the trail criteria needs to be established so that
the legal access can be negotiated for a viable and desirable trail location. Who is implementing
the existing TNP in the meantime?
2
And if so , to fund the construction of a new trail, it should be to complete an entire trail
segment. Duh. That is why the trail connection's "ideal route" needs to be established between a
designated Point A and Point B. Across private properties like the Bronco Connection, each
developer (and PVPLC) gets to propose how they would prefer the trail be routed . The cost of the
trail construction is negligible when added to a new construction grading contract. Who is
implementing the existing TNP in the meantime?
To that end, at this time, the F2 Bronco Trail easements associated with the City-approved
residential project at 10 Chaparral Lane are not in place to begin budgeting for the construction of a
trail. Duh. And thank goodness the Application has been withdrawn. The negotiated easement
does not contribute toward completing the entire trail segment. Who is implementing the existing
TNP in the meantime?
As for 8 Chaparral Lane, I realize the property is delinquent on its property taxes , but to my
knowledge, the City hasn't been notified with the opportunity to purchase the lot. If it comes to that,
Staff will present an item to the City Council for its consideration especially because of the trail
connection opportunity . Duh. This lot has been tax delinquent before and the City has considered
purchasing it, before. Without an engineered "ideal route", there is no basis upon which to know if
taking on this property ownership will augment preserving the trail connection . The City purchased
the "East Crest Park" lot under similar pretenses and it is clearly of no use to anybody except busy
work for trash collectors . Who is implementing the existing TNP in the meantime?
As for the appeal on the June 18 1h City Council agenda pertaining to the Director-approved
Landslide Moratorium Exception (LME) permit for Jim York, as it relates to the trail easement
acquisition it is a condition based on Exception Category "T". See? You are changing the focus
even though you are not changing the bigger topic. If the City wants to add a trail to the CTP
"narratives", you need to "vet" the concept. In order to do that you need to draft the new
"narrative". Route: GPS Point A and GPS Point B. Status: Category
II. Criteria: TYPE??? Use: ??? Access: How can people get to Point A and Point B? Since
the City no longer has a Rec .& Parks Citizen Advisory Committee , who are you going to ask
whether or not this is compliant with the RPV General Plan? See the difference? The Bronco
connection predates the City's incorporation . This "concept" is new. Who is implementing the
existing TNP in the meantime?
Jim is requesting that the condition specifically state where the trail will be located . Staff does not
want to do address the specific trail location in the condition, but rather identify the location in the
field with the participation of the interested parties as described in Exception "T" and then prepare
an easement accordingly. This is intended to avoid what occurred with the Sunnyside Ridge Trail
that was planned and identified in an office rather than in the field. Staff intends to begin working
with Jim to identify the trail location. The City has no "nexus" to make this a condition of Mr. York's
Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit. Staff is supposed to know what is best for the City and
then encourage private property owners to cooperate . Since t he City does not yet know what the
City wants in the way of a trail connection across this property other than Trail A9, I recommend
deleting Condition 7c altogether. By the way, I am an interested party . Mr . York is not going
anywhere. Make preserving and enhancing the trail connections in the "Jack's Hat sub -area" a new
3
PERT Chart . Some "interested parties" may fit in. Who is implementing the existing TNP in the
meantime?
While you are at it , check the TNP's inventory of existing trail easements. Even with unlimited
construction funding, the City is already legally liable for too many trail easements on which a valid
trail will never be built. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a trail similar to and extending the McBride
Trail in the City's 30 foot wide easement along the south side of the Island View Community? Have
I made my point? This is bigger than a Community Development task.
I look forward to hearing from Debra Cullen, Elias Sassoon and Cory Linder. We are all in this
together . As far as I can tell, Mr . Willmore doesn't exist.
By now, you must know that staying up into the wee hours researching the facts and writing this
sort of comprehensive response is my idea of fun , Cut the obfuscation and get the City Attorney to
review/bless Carol Lynch's boilerplate IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF TRAIL EASEMENT. Willing
donors are out here . Brian Campbell is now a PV Library Trustee . Talk about an opportunity.
I repeat. Using preserving and enhancing the Bronco Connection as the
specific objective in a PERT Chart, which Analyst is directed and funded to tell
all of our departments when to do what?
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
310-544-5228 (telephone)
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 7:53PM
To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov >
4
Cc: CC <CC~rpVCC?~QQ~>
Subject: Transparency is ... v.s. Waiting is ...
Dear Mr. Willmore,
The City Council has adopted the updated General Plan. Staff has been tasked with updating the
Trails Network Plan in calendar year 2019. What I am not seeing is any action on Staff's part to
implement what used to be Amendment 22 of the General Plan. It was "wordsmithed" only a little
bit. The Trails Network Plan simply needs to have its "augmentations" incorporated so that Staff
has only one guiding document to turn to in order to preserve and enhance this City's portion of the
Peninsula's off-road circulation corridors.
The following was written for the public's education. I am turning to you to educate your people and
manage the City's Budget so that this "forward thinking" Goal is being addressed on a day to day
basis, starting NOW. Who is funded to design an ideal trail for F2 point A to Point 8 before
Staff recommends the purchase of 8 Chaparral?
The proposed York Properties easement and the FY 2019-20 Budget are on the City Council's
June 18, 2019 Tentative Agenda. I have not received any update on converting the TNP
subdivision of the City into the Public Works preferred subdivision. Tick tock.
Most sincerely,
SUNSHINE
6 Limetree Lane, RPV
310-377-8761
The Bronco Connection is an example of the dysfunctional, updated, RPV General Plan.
An opportunity for the City of RPV to preserve and enhance this portion of the Peninsula Wheel
Trails Network has arrived, again. 8 Chaparral is back on the Property Tax Default List. Should
RPV buy it? The problem is that nobody on the City's current Staff is familiar with the whole
5
process required to make an informed recommendation. To make matters worse, the newly
updated General Plan has obfuscated rather than clarified the means to accomplishing this goal.
IT SHALL BE A GOAL OF THE CITY TO PROVIDE RESIDENTS WITH A SAFE AND EFFICIENT
SYSTEM OF ROADS, TRAILS AND PATHS.
This is a vague statement. It is not an actionable directive nor is it a measurable "goal". The
definition of a SMART goal has been provided to Staff by Mayor Duhovic. Staff avoided putting it in
the public record. Because it applies to all walks of life, I suggest that each of us drop Jerry a short
note asking him to send back the description of each of the five elements which make a goal much
more likely to be met. (Je_oy_DtJ.hovic.@rpvc.§.llQY)
Following is the progression of how things are supposed to happen. They are based on having a
Staff who budgets for and is otherwise prepared to take advantage of opportunities to combine trail
improvements with other projects.
When the City of RPV incorporated, there were lots of off-road circulation corridors i.e. trails and
pathways all over and around The Hill. In PVE, RH, RHE, Miraleste and Westfield, most of these
trail connections were legally preserved on easements of some sort which permitted equestrian
use. This was not the case in what became RPV. Something over 100 miles of what are now
called "social trails" (negative connotation) were maintained by recreationists and farmers happily
enjoying the open spaces. RPV's Founding Fathers recognized the regional significance of this
amenity and included a lot of general directions about how to preserve and enhance this network in
their original General Plan which they adopted in 1975.
The Bronco Connection between RH and RHE is shown on figure 22 as "conceptual"
because even though heavily used, it was not dedicated for "public use".
It did not take long for it to be noticed that RPV's Staff was negotiating trail easements in
conjunction with new developments which did not produce functional and desirable trail
connections. A Trails Network Plan (TNP) was written and Adopted in 1984. This document
provides more specific directions about how to design trails for continuity, erosion control, reducing
user conflicts, informational signage etc. It also included inventories of city acquired easements
and other "linkages" where Staff needed to initiate trail designs.
Bronco Drive to RHE is #2 on the priority list.
6
Staff complained that it was too difficult for them to figure out where the existing/conceptual trails
actually were. Public Works didn't know which ones needed to be maintained. Planning didn't
know which properties they were on. Rec.& Parks didn't know how to coordinate them. A
Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) was written and adopted in 1990. This document establishes which
Department is responsible for what in relation to the ownership of the underlying property and
provides a "narrative" for each trail segment about how it fits into the bigger network. The
introduction clearly states that this is to replace the less detailed "conceptual" Sections of the
TNP. Instead, it has been treated as a stand-alone document and the TNP was "vanished" from
"corporate memory".
The Bronco Connection was formalized as RPV's portion of Spoke #2 of the Peninsula
Wheel Network and the individual narratives can be found in SECTION FIVE as trail segment
opportunities F1, F2, F3, F9 and F10.
Armed with this level of detail, for a while, RPV's Planning Department got a grip on the concept of
acquiring irrevocable offers to dedicate trail easements. As the Bronco Area became subdivided,
some individual lot developers agreed to hold corridors unobstructed until the best route became
established. This is a case of point-to-point trail design. On a large parcel, this allows the
Developer to design the ideal route of the trail connection in relation to the other improvements he
is proposing. What we now have is a hodge-poge of opportunities and no one to step up and tell
the Public Works Department to put one of their Engineers to work on applying the trail CRITERIA
which the City Council adopted in 2012. The social trail is still there but, for how long?
Both trails F1 and F2 were impacted by the development proposal for 10 Chaparral. Staff
went back to negotiating an easement which did not contribute to preserving the trail
connection. This Application has been withdrawn.
Something like twenty years ago, everybody stopped reading the RPV General Plan. Up until then,
it had been augmented by the Coastal Specific Plan, Parks Master Plan and the Trails Network
Plan. The General Plan has now been updated to put the Natural Communities Conservation Plan
(NCCP) in charge of everything. The PVP Land Conservancy has purchased the remaining large
parcel in the Bronco Area. That eliminates all hope of ever using trail F1 to make the connection.
8 Chaparral is back on the Property Tax Default List. 14 Bronco has changed ownership. (Both
are undeveloped lots.) If only someone in the Public Works Department would read the current
narrative for F2 prior to the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget and any other Department's
recommendation to pursue something involving land use in this area.
Care to see the progression of more and more detailed maps which Staff can't seem to relate
to? ... S 310-377-8761
7
-ct1
::J a
Q)
(.) c
0 > (.) ~ -Q.-
~-, I:. ~'"'-.... _
1;,~, \.~ ~--' l /. . . ' ·-··-··-.. ,
i
i
I
i L-·-·-··-·1._ .. _. .. ,
From:
Sent:
To:
James O'Neill
Friday, June 14, 2019 2:57 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: June 18th Agenda Item on fire
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
Correspondence received on agenda item for Tuesday, June 18th···
From: Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 12:56 PM
To: James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>; Ara
Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>
Subject: June 18th Agenda Item on fire
To RPV Staff,
We appreciate the addition of our funding request for fuel load reduction within the Preserve, to
your agenda item for the June 18th City County meeting.
In the document, you state that "Wildfire Prevention efforts were previously referred to as Fuel
Modification (or Fuel Mod)." Is this no longer the case? The term "fuel modification" is an
established term and could cause confusion for the city of RPV to use the term with a different
meaning. For example, in the Final Draft of the Natural Communities Conservation
Plan(NCCP), Section 9.2.3 we are still using that term and the County of Los Angeles Fire
Department uses the term throughout their educational materials. Can you please clarify how
you plan to use the term fuel modification?
We also found that the attached map was misleading in that it claims that all of the preserve is
identified as fuel mod. The only portions of the preserve that are considered fuel modification
are within certain distances of structures. We recommend that figure 5-l, which is used in the
NCCP document to show fuel modification zones, be used. It is clear and shows the areas that
were agreed upon in the development of the Preserve.
Lastly, with any projects done within the preserve, the protection and enhancement of biological
resources should be taken into account, per the NCCP guidelines.
I would be pleased to discuss anything that poses a question for you.
Cris Sarabia
Conservation Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
csarabia@pvplc.org
310-541-7613 x207
1
"Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of
all."
2
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 06/18/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to adopt resolutions pertaining to the City’s November 5,
2019, general municipal election
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2019, FOR THE
ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES AND
FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TO ADOPT
FOR EMPLOYEES OF LARGE HOTELS, GOLF COURSES, AND AMUSEMENT PARKS
NEW REGULATIONS , PROTECTIONS, AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING WAGES,
HOURS, WORK, TRANSIT, PANIC BUTTONS, RESPONSES TO THREATENING
CONDUCT, AND RECORDS;
(2) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019, WITH THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 10403 OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE;
(3) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR
CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE STATEMENTS TO
BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 5, 2019;
(4) Authorize one or two councilmembers to, if desired, write a pro/con argument concerning
the ballot measure and adopt Resolution No. 2019-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, SETTING
PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE
TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 5, 2019; and
(5) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL
ARGUMENTS FOR A VOTER-SPONSORED MEASURE SUBMITTED AT A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City Clerk has budgeted $350,000 in the Fiscal Year 2019-2020
budget to conduct this election.
Amount Budgeted: $350,000
Additional Appropriation: NA
Account Number(s): 101-400-1311-5101
PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SERVICE FOR ELECTIONS
ORIGINATED BY: Emily Colborn, City Clerk
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
1 4
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Resolution calling election and ordering submission of initiative measure to voters at
general municipal election on November 5, 2019 (page A-1)
B. Resolution requesting election services from the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors (page B-1)
C. Resolution setting regulations for Candidate’s Statements (page C-1)
D. Resolution setting priorities for writing and filing argument(s) and directing the City
Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis (page D-1)
E. Resolution authorizing Rebuttal Arguments (page E-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The California Elections Code requires that certain resolutions be adopted preparatory to
holding the November 5, 2019, General Municipal Election. The City will hold an election for the
purpose of electing three (3) Members of the City Council for the full term of three years and
submitting to the Rancho Palos Verdes voters a proposed City Ordinance (via a voter initiative
petition) relating to hotel workplace requirements and restrictions.
The draft resolutions presented for Council’s consideration this evening set the date and time of
the November 5, 2019, election for three seats on the City Council and place the proposed City
Ordinance (initiative petition) relating to hotel workplace requirements and restrictions on the
ballot (Attachment A); request consolidation of the City’s election with the County of Los
Angeles to provide election services to the City (Attachment B); outline the Council's policy with
regard to Candidate Statements and reimbursement to the City for the expense of printing those
statements (currently estimated at $600 per candidate) (Attachment C); establish priorities for
filing a written argument regarding the proposed City Ordinance (initiative petition) and direct the
City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis (Attachment D), and provide for the filing of
rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at municipal elections (Attachment E).
California Elections Code Section 1301, even-numbered year elections
Beginning in year 2020, elections for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will be changed from
November in odd-numbered years to November in even-numbered years to coincide with
statewide election dates. As a result in the change in election date, the City Council Member
terms of office that begin in 2019 will expire in November of 2022, causing a three -year term
instead of the traditional four-year term.
Submittal of Ordinance to the Voters, as presented
The City Clerk’s Office received an initiative petition on May 2, 2018, to adopt for employees of
large hotels, golf courses, and amusement parks new regulations, protections, and procedures
concerning wages, hours, work, transit, panic buttons, responses to threatening conduct, and
records. Said petition was officially filed on May 7, 2018, after a prima facie review was
conducted pursuant to the provisions of California Elections Code § 9210(b). Said petition was
then forwarded to the Los Angeles County Register-Recorder for signature verification.
The City Clerk/Election Official, subsequent to review of the findings by the Los Angeles County
Register-Recorder, found the petition to be sufficient and certified the results (Resolution No.
2018-047) to the City Council per Elections Code § 9215. At the July 7, 2018, City Council
meeting, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-49, ordering the submission of the initiative
2
petition to the voters at the City’s next general municipal election scheduled by law on Tuesday,
November 5, 2019.
Pursuant to California Elections Code Section § 9282(a), the persons filing an initiative petition
may file a written argument in favor of the Ordinance, and the legislative body may submi t an
argument against the Ordinance. If desired, the City Council may take action and authorize one
or two Council Members to write a con argument concerning the ballot measure. Rebuttal
arguments are optional under state law and are allowed at the discretion of the City Council. If
the City Council does not desire to authorize rebuttal arguments, then Council should not
approve the resolution attached as Attachment E.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2019, FOR THE
ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES
AND FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TO
ADOPT FOR EMPLOYEES OF LARGE HOTELS, GOLF COURSES, AND
AMUSEMENT PARKS NEW REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING
WAGES, HOURS, WORK, TRANSIT, PANIC BUTTONS, RESPONSES TO
THREATENING CONDUCT, AND RECORDS
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law ci ties in the
State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on Tuesday, November 5,
2019, for the election of Municipal Officers;
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-47,
accepting the certification of sufficiency for an initiative petition; and
WHEREAS, pursuant Elections Code § 9215, the initiative petition received was
duly signed and is a certified initiative petition containing the signatures of not less than
ten percent (10%) of the registered voters of the City according to the last report of
registration by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to
Elections Code § 2187, which initiative petition proposes a City Ordinance that would
add Chapter 5.40, Hospitality Working Conditions, to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code, and applies to “large hospitality employers,” being owners or operators
of a hotel (50+ rooms), golf course, or amusement park, with 50+ hospitality employees
(“Employers”).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of
California relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, on Tuesday, November 5, 2019, a General
Municipal Election for the purpose of electing three (3) Members of the City Council for
the full term of three years.
SECTION 2. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order
submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the following question:
A-1
Shall the measure, known as the HOSPITALITY
WORKING CONDITIONS ORDINANCE, placed
on the ballot by initiative petition, applicable to
large hotels, golf courses and amusement
parks, and which enacts a wage floor of
$15/hour (CPI adjustments), limits daily work
hours, limits daily square footage of rooms
cleaned, requires panic-buttons for employees,
requires maintenance of detailed compliance
records, prohibits employer retaliation against
employees, requires employee notices, and
imposes fines and attorneys’ fees for violation,
be adopted?
YES
NO
SECTION 3. That the full text of the proposed initiative Ordinance to be
submitted to the voters is set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
SECTION 4. That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority
(50%+1) of the votes.
SECTION 5. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and
content as required by law, and that the election shall be held and conducted in the
manner prescribed by law.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to
coordinate with the County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to procure
and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies,
equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully
conduct the election.
SECTION 7. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o’clock a.m. of
the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight
o’clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed , pursuant to Election Code
Section 10242, except as provided in Section 14401 of the Elections Code of the State
of California.
SECTION 9. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall
be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 10. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given
and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional
notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 11. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
A-2
Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
SECTION 12. The City Council authorizes the City Clerk to administer said
election and all reasonable and actual election expenses shall be paid by the City upon
presentation of a properly submitted bill.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2019.
/s/ Jerry V. Duhovic
Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Emily Colborn
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2019- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2019.
__________________________
City Clerk
A-3
I:: (., I:: v
.A TY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE
The People of the Rancho Palos Verdes do hereby ordain:
Section 1. A new Chapter 5.40, entitled "Hospitality Working Conditions,"i
of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, as follows:
5.40.010 -Definitions.
FEB 2 'l 2018
"Additional-bed rooms" means a room with additional beds such as cots or rollaways.
"Amusement park" means any grounds or enclosure wherein concessions and adult rides
of a permanent nature and having a fixed location are situated.
"Checkout" means a room where the guests are ending their stay.
"Emergency" means an immediate threat to public safety or of substantial risk of property loss or
destruction.
"Food server" means a person whose principal duties are to serve or deliver food or beverages to
guests, regardless of who employs the person.
"Golf course" means any large, landscaped area having a series of holes spaced considerably
apart designed for the playing of the game of golf. For the purpose of this Chapter, a golf course
does not include a driving range, a miniature golf course, or a property whose principal owner or
operator is a government entity.
"Guest" means a patron of a hotel, golf course, or amusement park, as defined herein, including
without limitation, registered guests and visitors invited by registered guests.
"Guest room" means a room made available by a hotel for transient occupancy.
"Hotel" means a facility that is designated or used for lodging and other related services
for the public, and containing 50 or more guest rooms, or suites of rooms (adjoining
rooms do not constitute a suite of rooms). "Hotel" also includes any contracted, leased
or sublet premises connected to or oper ated in conjunction with the facility's purpose , or
providing services at the facility.
"Large hospitality employer'' means a person who owns, controls, and/or operates a
hotel, golf cour~e, or amusement park in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and employs
or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of 50 or more
employees at such hotel, golf course, or amusement park, directly or through an agent
or any other person, including through the services of a temporary service or staffing
agency or similar entity. The term "large hospitality employer" also includes any
contracted, leased or sublet prem ises connected to or operated in conjunction with such
hotel 's, golf course's, o r amusement park's purpose, or a person, other than a
hospitality employee, who provides services at such hotel , golf course, or amusement
park in conjunction with the hotel's, golf course's, or amusement park's purpose .
"Hospitality employee" means any individual who (1) is employed b y a large hospitality
employer; and (2) was hired to or did work an average 5 hours/week for 4 weeks at one or more
hotels, golf courses, or amusement parks.
If'
EXHIBIT A
A-4
"Panic button" means an emergency electronic contact device carried by a hospitality employee
which allows him or her in the event of an ongoing crime, threat, or other emergency to alert a
security guard responsible for providing immediate on-scene assistance.
"Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability
partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture,
agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign .
"Ridesharing service" means a dynamic, on -demand, fee-based service that supports real-time
ridesharing or carpooling through short-term arrangements enabled by GPS , wireless service, or
other technologies.
"Room cleaner" means a person whose principal duties are to clean and put in order residential
guest rooms in a hotel, regardless of who employs the person.
"Transit Pass" means any pass, token, fare card, voucher or similar item entitling a person to
transportation on public transit within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 132(f)(5)(A), as the federal
law may be amended from time to time, including but not limited to , travel by bus, light rail or
train.
"Vanpool" means a "commuter highway vehicle" within the meaning of 26 U .S.C. §
132(f)(5)(B), as the federal law may be amended from time to time, which currently means any
highway vehicle:
(A) the seating capacity of which is at least 6 adults (not including the driver), and
(B) at least 80% of the mileage use o f which can reasonably be expected to be (i) for the
purpose of transporting employees in connection with travel between their residences
and their place of employment; and (ii) on trips during which the number of
employees transported for such p urposes is at least 1/2 of the seating capacity of such
vehicle (not including the driver).
"Workday" means a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 a.m. and ending at 11 :59 p .m .
5.40.020 -Measures to protect hospitality employees from threatening behavior.
A. Purpose . Hospitality employees who work by themselves in guest rooms, restrooms, or
in isolated locations are vulnerable to crimes and other threatening behavior, including sexual
assault. This Section enables hospitality employees to protect their safety by, among other
measures, requiring that large hospitality employers provide workers with panic buttons which
they may use to report threatening conduct or other emergencies. Many instances of sexual
assault go unreported to the police. This Section also includes provisions that support
employees' ability to report criminal and threatening behavior to the proper authorities.
B . A large hospitality employer shall provide to each hospitality employee who works as a
room cleaner, food server, or any other hosp itality employee who so requests, at no cost to the
hospitality employee, a panic button.
2
EXHIBIT A
A-5
(1) If a hospitality employee encounters a situation necessitating his or her use of the
panic button as described above, the hospitality employee may cease working and remove
him/herself from the situation to await the arrival of the security guard responsible for providing
immediate assistance . No hospitality employee may be disciplined for ceasing work under the se
circumstances .
(2) No hospitality employee may be discip lined for use of a panic button absent clear
and convincing evidence the hospitality emp loyee knowingly and intentionally made a false
claim of emergency.
C. A hospitality employee who brings. to the attention of a large hospitality employer the
occurrence of violence or threatening behavior, including but not limited to indecent exposure,
solicitation, assault, or coercive sexual conduct by a guest or other person shall be afforded the
following rights.
(1) The large hospitality employer shall immediately allow the affected hospitality
employee sufficient paid time to contact the police and provide a police statement and to consult
with a counselor or advisor of the hospitality employee's choosing; the large hospitality
employer will permit, but may never require, the complaining hospitality employee to report an
incident involving alleged criminal conduct to the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction ; and
(2) The large hospitality employer shall cooperate with any investigation into the
incident undertaken by the law enforcement agency and /or any attorney for the complaining
hospitality employee .
D. Each large hospitality employer sh all p lace a sign on the back of the entrance door of
each public restroom and, where app licable, on the back of each entrance door of a guest room ,
written in a font size of no less than 18 points, that includes the heading "The Law Protects
Hospitality Employees From Threatening Behavior," a citation to this Chapter of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code, and notice of the fact that the large hospitality employer is
providing panic buttons to employees .
5.40.030-Large H ospitality E mployer M inimum W age
A. On and after January 1, 2019, large hospitality employers shall pay a wage of no less than
Fifteen Dollars per hour, which shall increase by One Dollar per hour on each January 1
thereafter through January 1, 2022 .
B . On January 1, 2023 , and annually thereafter, the minimum wage will increase annually to
reflect increases in the cost of living . The cost ofliving increase shall be the greater of (1) two
percent (2 %) or (2) the percentage increase as of September 30, 2022 , and as of September 30 in
any subsequent year for further annual adjustments, over the level as of September 30 of the
preceding year of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-
W) for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area (Los Ange les-Riverside-Orange County, CA), which
is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U .S . Department of Labor or the successor index
or federal agency. The C ity Manager shall publish a bulletin by November 1 of each year
announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect the following January 1. Such bulletin will
be made available to all Employers and to any other person who has filed with the City Manager
3
EXHIBIT A
A-6
a request to receive such notice, but lack of notice shall not excuse noncompliance with this
Section . The City Manager shall prescribe a poster advising Employees of their rights under this
article and distribute it to all Employers. An Employer shall post the notice in a prominent place
where it will be seen by Emp loyees . An Employer shall provide written notification of the rate
adjustments to each of its Employees and make the necessary payroll adjustments by January I
following the publication of the bulletin.
5.40.04 0 - H uman e w orkload.
A. Purpose. Hospitality employees who clean guest rooms are frequently assigned overly
burdensome room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime, which undermines the public
interest in ensuring that room cleaners can perfonn their work in a manner that adequately
protects public health and interferes with their ability to meet family and personal obligations .
This provision assures that workers receive fair compensation when their workload assignments
exceed proscribed limits and prohibits hospitality employers from assigning employees overtime
work when their shifts exceed 10 hours in a day, except in emergency situations , without
obtaining workers' informed consent.
B. A large hospitality employer that owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel shall not require
a room cleaner to clean rooms amounting to more than 4 ,000 square feet of floorspace, or more
than the maximum floor space otherwise specified in this Section, in any one, eight-hour
workday unless the large hospitality employer pays the room cleaner twice his or her regular rate
of pay for all hours worked by the room cleaner during the workday . If a room cleaner works
fewer than eight hours in a workday, the maximum floor space shall be reduced on a prorated
basis . When a room cleaner during a workday is assigned to clean any combination of seven or
more checkout rooms or additional-bed rooms, the maximum floorspace to be cleaned shall be
reduced by 500 square feet for each such checkout or additional-bed room over six . The
limitations contained herein apply to any combination of spaces, including guest rooms and
suites , meeting rooms or hospitality rooms , and apply regardless of the furniture , equipment or
amenities in any rooms .
C. A large hospitality employer shall not suffer or permit a hospitality employee to work
more than 10 hours in any workday unless t he hospitality employee consents. Consents must be
written and signed by the hospitality employee or communicated electronically through an
account or number particular to the hospitality employee . No consent is valid unless the large
hospitality employer has advised the hospitality employee in writing not more than 30 days
preceding the consent that the hospitality employee may decline to work more than 10 hours in
any workday and that the hospitality emp loyer will not subject the hospitality employee to any
adverse action for declining. An assignment in excess of 10 hours in a workday due to an
emergency shall not violate this Section.
5.4 0 .0 5 0 - Sup p ort for A lte rnative Tran sportati o n
As to each hospitality employee, a large hospitality employer shall take one of the following
actions:
4
EXHIBIT A
A-7
(1) Offer to the hospitality employee each month a transit pass for the public transit
system requested by the hospitality employee or credit toward vanpool or ridesharing service
charges at least equal in value to the purchase price of the monthly transit pass, which shall at a
minimum be equal to the cost of a non-discounted adult Los Angeles Metro Pass enabling u s e at
no additional charge of all Metro services and which may be used by the hospitality employee
for the purpose of commuting to and from work for the large hospitality employer.
(2) Offer the hospitality employee transportation from the hospitality employee's
residence to and from the large hospitality employer's worksite at no cost to the hospitality
employee in a vanpool or bus, or similar multi-passenger vehicle operated by or for the large
hospitality employer.
5.40.060 Preservation of records.
A. Each large hospitality employer shall maintain for at least three (3) years:
(1) for each hospitality employee, a record of his or her name, hours worked, pay rate,
and proof of offer to provide a transit pass, credit toward vanpool or ridesharing service, or direct
transportation consistent with Section 5.40.050; and
(2) a record of the written consents it received from hospitality employees to work more
than ten hours during a shift consistent with Section 5.40.040(C).
B. Each large hospitality employer that owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel shall
additionally maintain for at least three (3) years for each room cleaner a record of his or her
name, pay rates received, and the rooms (or at the large hospitality employer's option, total
amount of square footage) each room cleaner has cleaned on each workday.
C . The large hospitality employer shall make the records specified in Subsections A and B
of this Section available to employees of the large hospitality employer or their representativ e s
for inspection and copying except the hospitality employees ' names (and any addresses and
social security numbers) shall be redacted unless the requester is a hospitality employee
requesting records concerning herself. Failure of the large hospitality employ er to provide a copy
of such records will result in a penalty of at least one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day up to one
thousand dollars ($1 ,000.00) per day, the amount to be set b y the court.
5.40.070 -No retaliation.
No person shall discharge, reduce in compensation, increase workload, impose fees or charges,
change duties or otherwise take adverse action against any hospitality employee for opposing
any practice proscribed by this Chapter, for participating in proceedings related to this Chapter,
for seeking to enforce his or her rights under this article b y any lawful means, or for otherwise
asserting rights under this Chapter. A person terminating or taking any other adverse action
against any hospitality employee who has engaged in any of the foregoing activities within one
year preceding the termination or other adverse action shall provide to the hospitality employee
at or before the time of the termination or other adverse action a detailed written statement of the
reason or reasons for the termination or other adverse action including all the facts substantiating
the reason or reasons and all facts known to the person that contradict the substantiating facts.
5
EXHIBIT A
A-8
5.40.080 -Waiver.
The provisions of this Chapter may not be waived by agreement between an individual
hospitality employee and a large hospitality employer. All of the provisions of Section 5 .40.030
or Section 5.40.040, or any part thereof, may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining
agreement but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and
unambiguous terms . Unilateral implementat ion of terms and conditions of employment by either
party to a collective bargaining relationship shall not constitute, or be permitted , as a waiver of
all or any part of the provisions of this Chapter.
5.40.090 -Enforcement.
A. A hospitality employee or representative of hospitality employees claiming violation of
this Chapter may bring an action in the Superior Court and shall be entitled to all remedies
available under the law or in equity appropriate to remedy any such violation , including but not
limited to injunctive relief or other equitable relief, including reinstatement, and compensatory
damages and other relief provided in this subsection. In addition to any other remedy to which a
hospitality employee is entitled under this Chapter, a large hospitality employer that violates
Section 5.40.030 shall be liable to each affected hospitality employee for statutory damages in
the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each day on which a violation occurred; and a large
hospitality employer that violates Section 5.40 .040 shall be liable to each affected hospitality
employee for statutory damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each day on which a
violation occurred . In the event of a willful violation of Section 5.40.070, the amount of
damages attributable to lost income due to the violation shall be trebled. If a hospitality
employee is the prevailing party in any legal action taken pursuant to this Chapter, the court shall
award reasonable attorney's fees and costs as part of the costs recoverable.
B . Each hospitality employer shall give written notification to each current hospitality
employee, and to each new hospitality employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this
Chapter. The notification shall be in each language spoken by more than ten (10) hospitality
employees .
C. A large hospitality employer that contracts with another person, including, without
limitation, another large hospitality employer, a temporary staffing agency, employee leasing
agency or professional employer organization, to obtain the services of hospitality employees
shall share all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for violations of this Chapter by that
person for hospitality employees performing work pursuant to the contract. For the purposes of
this subsection, the term "person" shall not include : (1) A bona fide nonprofit, community-based
organization that provides services to workers; (2) A bona fide labor organization or
apprenticeship program or hiring hall operated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.
5.40.100 -Severability.
If any provision or application of this Chapter is declared illegal, invalid or inoperative, in whole
or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions thereof
6
EXHIBIT A
A-9
shall remain in full force or effect. The courts are hereby authorized to reform the provisions of
this Chapter in order to preserve its maximum permissible effect.
5.40.110 -No Preemption of Higher Standards.
This Chapter does not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior standards or the
expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes . This Chapter shall not be construed to limit a discharged hospitality
employee's right to bring a common law cause of action for wrongful termination.
5.40.120 -Regulations.
The City shall have authority to adopt rules and regulations consistent with and necessary for the
implementation of this Chapter. Such rules and regulations shall have the force and effect of
law , and may be relied upon by large hospitality employers, hospitality employ ees and other
parties to determine their rights and respons ibilities under this Chapter.
Section 2. Conflicting Measures.
Consistent with California Elections Code § 9221 , should another ordinance containing
provisions that conflict w ith this ordinance be adopted by voters at the same election as thi s
ordinance is adopted, the terms of the ordinance that receives the higher number of affinnative
votes shall control.
Section 3. Effective Date.
The proposed ordinance that is the subject of this initiative, once approved by the voters at
the Nov ember 6, 2018 election, or such other election as authorized by law, shall be deemed
adopted upon the date that the vote is declar ed by the City Council, and shall go into effect 10
day s after that date .
7
EXHIBIT A
A-10
Resolution No. 2019-XX
Consolidation with County
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019, WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 10403 OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE § 10403.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes called a
General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2019, for the purpose
of the election of three (3) Members of the City Council of said City for the full term of
three years; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is submitting to the Rancho Palos Verdes voters a
proposed City Ordinance relating to hotel workplace requirements and restrictions; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated
with the Los Angeles County General Election to be held on the same date and that
within the city the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be
the same, and that the county election department of the County of Los Angeles
canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all
respects as if there were only one election.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the
California Elections Code § 10403, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los
Angeles is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of the Rancho
Palos Verdes General Municipal Election with the County of Los Angeles General
Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2019, for the purpose of the election of three (3)
Members of the City Council of said City for the full term of three years.
SECTION 2. That a measure is to appear on the ballot as follows:
Shall the measure, known as the HOSPITALITY
WORKING CONDITIONS ORDINANCE, placed
on the ballot by initiative petition, applicable to
large hotels, golf courses and amusement
parks, and which enacts a wage floor of
$15/hour (CPI adjustments), limits daily work
hours, limits daily square footage of rooms
cleaned, requires panic-buttons for employees,
requires maintenance of detailed compliance
YES
NO
B-1
Resolution No. 2019-XX
Consolidation with County
Page 2 of 3
records, prohibits employer retaliation against
employees, requires employee notices, and
imposes fines and attorneys’ fees for violation,
be adopted?
SECTION 3. That the full text of the proposed initiative Ordinance to be
submitted to the voters is set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
SECTION 4. That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a
majority (50%+1) of the votes.
SECTION 5. That the county election department is authorized to canvass
the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects
as if there were only one election, and only one form of ball ot shall be used. The
election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 6. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue
instructions to the Los Angeles County election department to take any and all steps
necessary for the holding of the consolidated election for the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
SECTION 7. That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes recognizes that
additional costs will be incurred by the County of Los Angeles by reason of this
consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County of Los Angeles for any such costs.
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy
of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the county election department of
the County of Los Angeles.
SECTION 9. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption
of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2019.
/s/ Jerry V. Duhovic
Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Emily Colborn
City Clerk
B-2
Resolution No. 2019-XX
Consolidation with County
Page 3 of 3
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2019- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2019.
__________________________
City Clerk
B-3
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR
ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO
THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2019.
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code § 13307, of the
State of California provides that the governing body of any local agency shall adopt
regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election,
including costs of the candidate statements;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS. PThat pursuant to Section 13307 of the
Elections Code § 13307 of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to
be voted for at an Election to b e held in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on November
5, 2019, may prepare a candidate statement on an appropriate form provided by the
City Clerk. The statement may include the name, age, and occupation of the candidate
and a brief description of no more than two hundred (200) words of the candidate’s
education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. The
statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity
in partisan political organizations. The statement shall be filed in typewritten form , in the
manner required by law, and with in the office of the City Clerk at the time the
candidate’s nomination papers are filed. The statement may be withdrawn, but not
changed or altered, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of
the next working day after the close of the nomination period.
SECTION 2: FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLICY.
a. Pursuant to the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “Voting Rights
Act”), the City is required to translate candidates’ statements into the following
languages: Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish.
b. Pursuant to state law, the City Clerk shall, at the request of the any
candidate, provide a Spanish translation and printing of the candidate’s statement in the
English version of the voter information guide, at the expense of the candidate.
c. The County will mail separate voter information guides and candidate
statements in Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish to only those voters who
are on the county voter file as having requested a voter information guide in a particular
language. The County will make the voter information guides and candidate statements
in the required languages available at all polling places, on the County’s website, and in
the Election Official’s office.
SECTION 3: CANDIDATES’ STATEMENTS AVAILABILITY. Pursuant to
California Elections Code Section § 13313, the City Clerk shall have all candidate
statements made available for public examination in the City Clerk’s office for a period
C-1
of ten (10) calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of
those documents.
SECTION 4: PAYMENT.
a. The Each candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the
candidate’s statement into English, and Spanish, if requested by the candidate, in the
English version of the voter information guide.
b. The Each candidate shall not be required to pay for the cost of printing a
separate translated voter information guide, including the candidates’ statements, in
Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, or Spanish.
c. Pursuant to Elections Code § 13307, the The City Clerk shall estimate the
total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidates statements filed,
pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code , including costs incurred as a result of
complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. The City requires each
candidate filing a statement to pay in advance to the City his or her estimated pro rata
share as a condition of having his or her statement included in the voter information
guide. In the event the estimated payment is required, the Such estimate is just only an
approximation of the actual cost that varies from one election to another election and
may be significantly more or less than the estimate, depending on the actual number of
candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the City Clerk is not bound by the estimate
and may, on a pro rata basis, bill the each candidate for additional actual expense or
refund any excess paid depending on the final actual cost. In the event of
underpayment, the City Clerk may require the each candidate to pay the balance of the
cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the City Clerk shall prorate the excess
amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid within thirty (30)
days of the election.
SECTION 5: MISCELLANEOUS.
a. All translations shall be provided by professionally-certified translators.
b. The statement of each candidate shall be printed in uniform type, style
and spacing.
c. The City Clerk shall comply with all recommendations and standards set
forth by the California Secretary of State regarding occupational designations and other
matters relating to elections.
SECTION 6: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS. No candidate will be permitted to include
additional materials in the voter information guide.
SECTION 7: That tThe City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate’s
representative a copy of this resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued.
SECTION 8: All previous resolutions establishing Council policy on payment for
candidates’ statements are hereby repealed.
C-2
SECTION 9: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2019.
/s/ Jerry V. Duhovic
Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Emily Colborn
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2019- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2019.
__________________________
City Clerk
C-3
Resolution No. 2019-
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN
ARGUMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED AT
THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2019.
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, California, on Tuesday, November 5, 2019, at which there will be
submitted to the voters a ballot measure to consider adopting a proposed City
Ordinance that would add Chapter 5.40, Hospitality Working Conditions, to the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9282(a) the persons
filing an initiative petition may file a written argument in favor of the Ordinanc e, and the
legislative body may submit an argument against the Ordinance. An argument shall
not exceed 300 words in length.
SECTION 2. That the City Council authorizes the following member(s) of its
body: ________________, ________________, to file, if desired, a written argument
not exceeding 300 words regarding the initiative measure as specified above,
accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, in
accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the California Elections Code.
SECTION 3. All arguments may be changed or withdrawn until Tuesday, July 2,
2019, by 5:30 P.M., after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be
submitted to the City Clerk.
SECTION 4. The arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the
printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf
of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of
at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument. The arguments
shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to be Filed by Author(s) of Argument as
provided for in California Elections Code Section 9600.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk/Elections Official is directed to follow the format
for ballot arguments provided in Ssub-sections (d), (e), and (f) of Section 9282 of the
California Elections Code.
D-1
Resolution No. 2019-
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 6. That if more than one argument for or against the measure is
submitted to the City Clerk/Elections Official within the time prescribed, she shall give
preference and priority first, to “arguments for/against” submitted by member(s) of the
City Council and “arguments in favor of” submitted by bona fide sponsors or proponents
of the measure, as authorized by this Resolution, and second, to individual voters , bona
fide associations, or a combination thereof, in the order se t forth in California Elections
Code Section § 9287.
SECTION 7. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the
initiative measure to the City Attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of
the City Attorney are affected. In accordance with California Elections Code Section §
9280, the City Attorney is hereby directed as follows:
a. Prepare an impartial analysis of the initiative measure showing the effect of
the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure.
b. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure was
placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or
by the governing body of the city. If the measure affects the organization or
salaries of the office of the City Attorney, the City Council may direct the City
Clerk to prepare the impartial analysis.
c. The analysis shall be printed preceding the arguments for and against the
measure. The analysis shall not exceed 500 words in length.
d. If the entire text of the measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter
information guide, there shall be printed immediately below the impartial
analysis, in no less than 10-point bold type, a legend substantially as follows:
“The above statement is an impartial analy sis of Ordinance or Measure
[TBD]. If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure, please call the City
Clerk/Elections Official’s office at (310) 544-5217 and a copy will be mailed at
no cost to you.”
e. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk/Elect ions
Official for the filing of primary arguments, Tuesday, July 2, 2019, by 5:30
P.M.
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk/Elections Official shall cause the City Attorney’s
Impartial Analysis, and duly selected arguments, to be printed and distributed to voters
in accordance with State law regarding same.
SECTION 9. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
D-2
Resolution No. 2019-
Page 3 of 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2019.
/s/ Jerry V. Duhovic
Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Emily Colborn
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify th at the
above Resolution No. 2019- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2019.
__________________________
City Clerk
D-3
Resolution No. 2019-XX
Authorize Rebuttal Arguments
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL
ARGUMENTS FOR A VOTER-SPONSORED MEASURE SUBMITTED AT A
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019.
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, California, on Tuesday, November 5, 2019, at which there will be
submitted to the voters a ballot measure to consider adopting a proposed City
Ordinance that would add Chapter 5.40, Hospitality Working Conditions, to the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 9282 of the California Elections Code § 9282 provides for
written arguments to be filed in favor of or against city measures not to exceed 300
words in length; and
WHEREAS, Section 9285 of the California Elections Code § 9285 authorizes the
City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal
arguments for city measures submitted at municipal elections;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 9285(a)(1) of the California Elections
Code § 9285(a)(1), when the City Clerk/Elections Official has selected an argument in
favor and an argument against a measure to be printed in the voter information guide,
the City Clerk/Elections Official shall send a copy of the argument in favor of the
measure to the authors of the argument against the measure and a copy of an
argument against the measure to the authors of the argument in favor of the measure.
SECTION 2. That pursuant to Section 9285(a)(2) of the California Elections
Code § 9285(a)(2), the author or a majority of the authors of an argument relating to a
city measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing
another person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument.
SECTION 3. That pursuant to Section 9285(a)(3) of the California Elections
Code § 9285(a)(3), a rebuttal argument shall not exceed 250 words.
SECTION 4. That pursuant to Section 9285(a)(4) of the California Elections
Code § 9285(a)(4), aA rebuttal argument relating to a city measure shall be filed with
the City Clerk/Elections Official no later than 10 days after the final filing date for primary
arguments, setting the deadline for rebuttals as Friday, July 12, 2019, by 4:30 P.M.
The rebuttal argument shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to be Filed by
Author(s) of Argument as provided for in California Elections Code Section § 9600.
E-1
Resolution No. 2019-
Page 2 of 2
SECTION 5. That pursuant to Section 9285(a)(5) of the California Elections
Code § 9285(a)(5), a rebuttal argument relating to a city measure shall not be signed by
more than five persons, shall be printed in the same manner as a direct argument, and
shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.
SECTION 6. That all previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal
arguments for city measures are hereby repealed.
SECTION 7. That the provisions of Sections 1-5 of this Resolution shall apply
only to the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2019, and
shall then be repealed.
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2019.
/s/ Jerry V. Duhovic
Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Emily Colborn
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify th at the
above Resolution No. 2019- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2019.
__________________________
City Clerk
E-2