Get documents about "SAMPLE LETTER 3 The following is a sample letter supplied by a San Pedro resident to be used as a guideline to write your own letter to LAUSD Feel free to use as much
Document Sample
SAMPLE LETTER #3
The following is a sample letter supplied by a San Pedro resident to be used as a
guideline to write your own letter to LAUSD. Feel free to use as much, or as little, of the
original letter as you wish but definitely do alter the letter.
The letter may be sent by fax, email (write “South Region High School No. 15″ in the
subject line) or post.
Please remember to carbon copy your letter to the people who represent your
neighborhood. We recommend the following people be cc’d:
Councilwoman Janice Hahn
Council District 15
638 South Beacon Street, Suite 552
San Pedro, CA 90731
Tel: 310-732-4515
FAX: 310-732-4500
Dr. Richard Vladovic
Los Angeles Unified School District
Board of Education
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: 213-241-6385 / 213-241-6389
FAX: 213-241-8953
Email: Richard.vladovic@lausd.net
Mayor of Los Angeles
Antonio R. Villaraigosa
200 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Tel: 213-978-0600
FAX: 213-978-0750
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
1436 West 25th Street #223
San Pedro, CA 90732-4415
Tel: 310-290-0049
Email: info@coastalsanpedro.org
Palisades Residents Association
PO Box 5281
San Pedro, CA 90733-5281
Email: PRA@sanpedropalisades.org
The deadline for comments is May 5, 2008.
YOUR ADDRESS
San Pedro, CA 90731
TODAYS DATE
Ms. Hoan Tang, CEQA Project Manager/Consultant
Los Angeles Unified School District
Office of Environmental Health and Safety
1055 West Seventh Street, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Fax: 213-893-7412
Email: ceqa-comments@laschools.org
RE: Project 56.40092, South Region High School No. 15 Initial Study Comments
Dear Ms. Tang:
This document provides comments to the Initial Study prepared for Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD) Project Number: 56.40092, more commonly known as:
South Region High School No. 15 (SRHS 15).
The first set of comments deal with what we believe is a serious omission of the Initial
Study and one that will have, at least, Potentially Significant Impact on a particular
environmental issue. It is believed that there should have been a nineteenth set of
environmental issues included in the Initial Study.
The Point Fermin Outdoor Education Center is an LAUSD facility that has been in
operation for many years. The Center had a Final Environmental Impact Report issued in
March 2006 for a redevelopment project that has been slated for completion as early as
Summer 2009.
If, and when, the redevelopment of the Center is completed, documents found indicate
that the facility will allow an additional 1291 schools within LAUSD and an additional
14,0002 students will be allowed to utilize the programs and facilities at the Outdoor
Education Center.
The Initial Study is concerned with eighteen “Environmental Factors Potentially
Affected.” These are listed as “4A” through “4R”. It is strongly suggested that a
nineteenth Environmental Factor Potentially Affected be included as “4S”.
1
http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/page?_pageid=33,152667&_dad=ptl&_schema=PTL_EP
2
http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/page?_pageid=33,152667&_dad=ptl&_schema=PTL_EP
2
The addition of Environmental Factor Potentially Affected “4S” should have dealt with
issues related to the placement of a new school campus directly next to the Point Fermin
Outdoor Education Center. There are several issues in dealing with how any new campus
might impact the environment, programs, and facilities of the Point Fermin Outdoor
Education Center that must be studied.
Here are some examples of what should have been included in the Initial Study and must
be studied for the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
4S. Potential Environmental Impacts to the Point Fermin Outdoor Education
Center.
Would the project:
a. Subject the programs and attendees to significant additional noise factors that may
cause harm to the processes being conducted?
b. Subject the programs and attendees to significant additional outdoor lighting
issues, especially near the recreational facilities at any new campus?
c. Cause increased traffic and transportation issues that could not be mitigated to a
Less Than Significant finding.
d. Cause a detrimental set of environmental factors within the area of the Point
Fermin Outdoor Education Center?
e. Cause specific programs and/or instructional services to be cut back or eliminated,
due to the extreme proximity of any new school campus?
f. Cause the current construction and parking lot plans to require changing due to
the fact that a new campus may overlap the area of the existing or redeveloped
facility?
There are potentially other factors that could and should be included, in this area
of study.
There is no other Outdoor Education Center directly next to any existing school campus
within the Los Angeles Unified School District. The concern exists that the programs,
attendees, and facilities, including actual out of doors environments, within the Point
Fermin Outdoor Education Center would suffer greatly, if any new school campus is built
along at least one boundary of the Center.
In Section 2.2 of the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, one of the six objectives for
building a new school campus is to:
Relieve classroom overcrowding and restore pre-2002 classroom
size norms at existing schools within the South Region Planning
Area, specifically at San Pedro High School.
According to a member of the LAUSD Board of Education, any new campus will not
relieve overcrowding of individual classrooms and may, in fact, allow for more students
3
attending not only San Pedro High School, but also any new high school campus in San
Pedro. Any new campus may relieve overcrowding of the overall campus and
infrastructure facilities of San Pedro High School, but the additional infrastructure needs
of any new campus would require additional funding to maintain. For these reasons, it is
believed that the objective stated in this comment is moot and unattainable during the
foreseeable future.
Statements in Section 2.4 of the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study state that the
campus would include 45 classrooms and have a capacity of 1,215 students. According to
Mr. Rod Hamilton of the Facilities Division and Dr. Richard Vladovic, Board Member of
LAUSD, the campus, if initially built would have “30 classrooms” and “810 students” as
the initial student capacity. Nowhere in documents being commented on are any
statements of “30 Classrooms” or “810 students.”
Statements by officials should match written documentation for any new campus LAUSD
seeks to build and having the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study differing from
statements made by officials and elected individuals cause conflicts in interpreting the
facts and determining the validity and authority of studies, statements, findings, and
guidelines within the greater LAUSD system.
Chapter 4, Initial Study Checklist, Section 4.2, Terminology Used In This Analysis
includes the following terminology:
A significant unavoidable impact would cause a substantial
adverse effect on the environment and no feasible mitigation
measures would be available to reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Any cursory inspection of the intersection of Alma Street and Main Street, the existing
ingress and egress access to both Angel’s Gate Continuation High School and the Point
Fermin Outdoor Education Center would reveal to even the least knowledgeable
individual that the above terminology should have been stated in Section 4P,
Transportation/Traffic. Further comments concerning any potential new use of the Alma
Street/Main Street intersection will be included in these sets of comments.
It is also believed that the terminology stated above should have been included in Section
4C, Air Quality, for some of the stated questions.
Since the area being studied at its current “preferred site”, it is considered that there may
be more than just two particular areas that should have been rated using the terminology
stated above.
The site being studied contains many historical structures and sites important to many
veterans of World War II and students of military history.
4
The demolition and/or restriction to visit these sites and structures may prove significant
for the next several years during the time many of these veterans and students of military
history still wish to visit these sites and structures. As the numbers of veterans of World
War II continue to decline, it is believed that keeping important structures, sites, and
facilities left standing and available for viewing, historical reasons, and educational
reasons, continues to be important for the next several years.
For these and other reasons, it is strongly suggested that with the study towards the
publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a considerable amount of time and
education be accomplished prior to determining what these structures, sites, and historical
facilities, continue to exist.
This next set of comments will deal with more specific issues, within the Initial Study
and consider items that may need much more study or a redetermination of the potential
impact each item may have, to the overall environment.
Section 4A. Aesthetics. Subsection d. Would the project create a new source of
substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views of the area?
This item was rated as “Less Than Significant Impact.” We disagree with the rating and
suggest that it become “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.”
Glare from produced lighting sources is considered in this item. What is not considered,
however, is the reflective glare windows at a new campus might have on residents and
others in the visual range of affected window. In the mornings, reflective glare from
unmitigated windows may place a great amount of sunlight on residences and people in
the area, especially when the reflection from windows on campus are positioned such that
they have the greatest angle to the sun’s reflection.
Conversely, in the afternoon and early evening hours, reflective light from unmitigated
window on the campus may offer bright to brilliant light, temporarily, to affected
structures and people on the opposite side of the campus. For these reasons, it is
suggested that the rating be elevated to the next higher level and mitigation studies be
conducted as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report’s studies.
Further study in this area is required because of lighting glare, reflective glare and views
restrictions that will be placed upon the Point Fermin Outdoor Education Center, which
have been left out of this Initial Study.
Section 4C. Air Quality may become an area where it successful mitigation cannot be
obtained.
Even though the site sits in a more windblown area than San Pedro High School stands,
both areas fall under MATES III consideration for poor air quality. The Multiple Air
Toxics Exposure Study III issues the MATES III Carcinogenic Risk
5
Management Map. The map illustrates that the area of study for the new campus would
have a factor of between 800 and 1200, while San Pedro High School’s campus has the
majority of its site rated at between 600 and 800.
Since it appears that air quality may actually be worse at the proposes campus’ site than
at the main high school site, a rating of a “significant unavoidable impact” should have
been used in the Initial Study and must be more carefully and more completely studied
during the processes involved in creating the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Section 4D. Biological Resources, Subsection e. Would the project interfere
substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The Initial Study suggests that “No Impact” would be found.
Many persons living and visiting the area on the site, near the site, or in neighborhood
areas on the outside of the proposed campus’ site have reported that there are at least two
foxes living in the greater area. Dramatically changing the environment is which these
foxes appear to be using, suggests that the rating level of “No Impact” is too low.
If and when the Point Fermin Outdoor Education Center has completed its redevelopment
program, there will be more native plants introduced into the area of the Center and it
could be assumed that wildlife may wish to explore or include them into the redeveloped
site.
Also attendees of the Outdoor Education Center may have a more unique opportunity to
view the foxes and other wildlife if the area near the Center is not congested with a new
school campus and all of its structures, amenities, and infrastructure.
Further study must be included at a higher rating level, in studies for the Draft
Environmental Impact Report. For these reasons, it is suggested that the rating of “No
Impact” be changed to Potential Significant Impact, due to the wildlife in the area and the
chances to view the wildlife by attendees of the Point Fermin Outdoor Education Center.
Section 4E. Cultural Resources.
This section lists three out of four of its items having a Potential Significant Impact.
Members of the Gabrielino group of Native Americans have visited sites within the larger
area of land owned by LAUSD and Los Angeles Department of Recreation. There may
be sites of great relevance for these people, in the area being considered for the new
campus.
Also, the Initial Study notes the archaeological and paleontological resources found on
and near the proposed campus’ site.
6
In Subsection d., Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? This item was given a rating of “Less Than Significant
Impact”.
With the Gabrielino peoples and perhaps others who lived in the area long before it was
used as a military installation, there very well could be human remains buried within the
study area of the proposed campus.
Although no knowledge may exist of burial sites currently, it is believed that there could
and would be a higher degree of significance, especially with the Native American
population placed on the study site.
For these reasons, it is suggested that this items rating be elevated to “Less Than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Section 4G. Hazards/Hazardous Materials.
While it was verbally noted by Mr. John Anderson, the speaker at the March 13 Scoping
Meeting for this Initial Study, that CEQA personnel are continually reminded that the
preferred site for the new campus is on land formerly used as a U.S. Army installation, it
is believed that the potential for release of hazards and hazardous materials during testing
processes and possible construction action is far greater than would probably be found on
land formerly used in other purposes.
Constant and repeated verbal and written reminders of the possible impact on human,
animals, plants, and other items, because of inadvertent releases of hazards or hazardous
materials, must be foremost in all plans, procedures and consequences of all phases of
study, and/or possible construction on the preferred site.
It should also be noted that any intentional or unintentional ground shaking or earth
movement during testing phases could also cause the release of hazards and/or hazardous
materials which may be released on other portions of the greater Upper Reservation area,
which could pose a temporary or permanent increased risks to the environment.
Section 4G. Hazards/Hazardous Materials. Subsection r. Would the project be
located on a site that is within 2,000 feet of a significant disposal of hazardous waste?
The Upper Reservation of the former military installation named Fort MacArthur may, in
fact, contain significant levels of hazards and hazardous materials.
Since it appears many of the current structures on the preferred site of the proposed
campus, as well as structures in areas within 2,000 feet of the preferred site, it is probably
unknown at this time, what potential environmental impacts may be found and/or
exposed during testing, possible construction, and use of preferred site, due to its long
history as a U.S. Army installation.
7
Adjacent to the proposed site are former military installations such as tunnels, battery
sites, abandoned ammunition storage structures, and other structures and emplacements
that may still contain hazards and/or hazardous materials.
The use of the preferred site, and its adjacent areas, as part of a U.S. Army installation
whose history goes back to the period at or near the time of World War I, and also its
dramatically increased use during World War II, makes it extremely critically important
to ensure that any and all hazards and/or hazardous materials which could be exposed and
cause environmental impacts, unforeseen at this time, be tested for and removed, from a
larger area than just the preferred site.
Section 4G. Subsection r. has been given a “No Impact” rating for the Initial Study of the
proposed project.
It is strongly suggested that the rating be elevated to Potentially Significant Impact, and
that any and all studies of the preferred site, as well as adjacent sites, be conducted in a
manner which elevates the potential environmental impacts to a significant level.
Constructing a new campus on a former military installation, which was placed into
service as long ago as World War I, may cause serious and possible disastrous impacts to
the environment of the campus and the surrounding area.
For these and other reasons, which may come forward in the future, it is strongly
suggested that an alternative to placing the proposed campus on the preferred site be
strongly considered.
Section 4I. Land Use and Planning, Subsection b., Would the project conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and
environmental impact?
This subsection was rated as Potential Significant Impact because the project may
conflict with the San Pedro Coastal Program Specific Plan could also be inconsistent with
several different existing land uses.
It is believed that the proposed campus on the preferred site would more than
significantly be inconsistent with existing plans and future plans that will be implemented
for the Point Fermin Outdoor Education Center.
For these and other reasons that may become apparent during the study processes, the
rating of Potentially Significant Impact should be raised to Potentially Unavoidable
Impact that could not be mitigated to a level of Less Than Significant. All studies and
considerations should be made using the level of Potentially Unavoidable Impact that
could not be mitigated to a level of Less Than Significant.
8
Section 4K. Noise.
This section contains five sub sections, with four of the five sub sections having a rating
of Potentially Significant Impact.
The preferred site of the proposed campus lies in an area near the Pacific Ocean and is on
the top of a canyon area that leads towards the ocean.
Many existing residences and the Point Fermin Outdoor Education Center are exposed to
noises that can be considerably increased due to the proximity to the canyon, hills on
either side of the canyon, and wind-driven noises from a nearby elementary school and
traffic along Paseo del Mar.
There are residences directly across the canyon from the preferred site and noises travel
easily across the canyon in both directions.
The preferred site of the proposed campus is near the top of a hill that has a steep angle,
just southwest of the preferred site.
In questioning at the Scoping Meeting to the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, it
was revealed by a CEQA representative, that standard noise testing will be accomplished
during the study phase of the proposed project.
Many local residents noted that noises travel differently across the canyon, which is near
the ocean and some of these residents questioned whether all studies concerning noise
will be accomplished.
Standing near the intersection of Emily Street and 36th Street, while children are having
recess periods at White Point Elementary School, noises from those children can clearly
be heard, many block from the actual campus.
Paseo Del Mar is the roadway that runs just above the Pacific Ocean, on top of cliffs.
Motorcycles pass along that roadway in greater numbers that are normally seen on
roadways near high school campuses. The road is a favorite for many motorcycle
enthusiasts, many of whom stop at Walker Café in the Point Fermin area. A large
percentage of these motorcycles are Harley Davidsons. These large engine vehicles
produce louder noises than many other brands of motorcycles, like BMW’s for instance.
For these and other reasons which may come forward in the future, it is strongly
suggested that the preferred site for the proposed school be changed to an area with fewer
impacts on noise to the environment and because any new campus on the preferred site
would have great impact on the local residents and attendees of the Point Fermin Outdoor
Education Center.
9
Section 4L. Pedestrian Safety, Subsection b., Would the project create unsafe routes to
schools for students walking from local neighborhoods.
The primary ingress and egress route for the proposed campus, on the preferred site, is an
existing gate and roadway that intersects with Alma Street, south of the intersection of
Alma Street and 30th Street. Pedestrians, who would most probably use this particular
route to their homes or vehicles parked in the nearby neighborhood, would have to cross
on-campus roadways to get through the gate and access point to any new campus
constructed using the Alma Street access point.
Furthermore, pedestrians would be required to walk along the side of Alma Street, which
would, as illustrated, carry any and all vehicle traffic to the proposed campus. Pedestrians
would also be required to either cross at the intersection of Alma Street and 30th Street,
which would be the closest public roadway intersection, to the proposed campus.
Pedestrians would also be required to make their way along, or cross 30th Street, at some
point while excessive vehicular traffic is utilizing 30th Street for school traffic.
Pedestrians may also be required to cross streets at the intersection of 30th Street and
Gaffey Street, which is currently an unsignalized intersection at the bottom of two steep
inclines which make up that portion of Gaffey Street.
Pedestrians would also be required to walk along a segment of Alma Street, towards the
ocean, that has a narrow strip of land between the roadbed and the fence along the
preferred site of the proposed campus. There also appears to be no concrete or other form
of walkway on the eastern side of Alma Street, in the general area. Along the west side of
Alma Street, in the general area, there is less space for pedestrians and pedestrians would
be required to cross Alma Street at some point, to get to the west side of Alma Street.
The use of Alma Street and any and all accesses proposed to be used by any campus at
the preferred site would create a Potentially Unavoidable Impact that could not be
mitigated to a level of Less Than Significant, as far as pedestrians are considered.
Furthermore, the use of Alma Street by pedestrians, in groups or numbers greater than a
handful, would create a very dangerous environment to those pedestrians as well as
drivers and passengers using Alma Street between 25th Street and 37th Street.
Simply put, Alma Street must not be used for access to and from the proposed campus,
especially for pedestrians.
Placing a pedestrian only gate on the southwest side of the campus, along 36th Street
would require them to walk along an on-campus road that may have vehicles passing at
any hour of the day. It is recommended that no pedestrian only gate be placed along the
36th Street side of the proposed campus’ site.
The complete lack of safe pedestrian passageways, during a time when Los Angeles
Unified School District representatives strongly urge, particularly students, to walk to and
10
from school, makes the preferred site of the proposed campus unworthy of having a new
campus built there.
Section 4M. Population and Housing.
In order to possibly create a safer and better ingress and egress point to a new campus at
the preferred site, it has been suggested that at least one home along 30th Street, near the
currently illustrated site of the parking lot of the proposed, be taken.
At least one home, lived in by an unknown number of family members would have to be
condemned and purchased by the Los Angeles Unified School District, using its right of
eminent domain. This would create a pathway which intersects 30th Street at some point,
so that an ingress and egress point could be constructed for use by the proposed campus
and the Point Fermin Outdoor Education Center.
While there may be little in the way of significant impacts to the general public, as far as
population and housing go, for any family to lose their home due to the necessities
required to build the proposed campus on the preferred site, would be astronomically
high.
For these reason, further study must be done on this section of the Initial Study, so that
environmental impacts to possibly affected families could be conducted.
If a house or two houses are taken using eminent domain, it also means that two other
homes would become corner properties, to the intersection of 30th Street and a new access
road.
Further studies concerning this issue and the population living along both sides of 30th
street, and their housing issues, must also be done.
Section 4N. Public Services, Subsection a., Fire Protection.
Alma Street is currently shown by illustration, as the primary route in and out of the
proposed campus’ site. Placing any new campus where large emergency vehicles have to
utilize Alma Street, is dangerous, unsafe, and hazardous, if placing a large facility near
that area. All but one alternative for access to or from the proposed campus would require
large emergency vehicles to navigate on narrow, steep, and possibly crowded roadways.
Emergency vehicles attempting to get to the preferred site from any roadway within the
Angel’s Gate area, currently owned by the Los Angeles Department of Parks are
Recreation, would encounter either the Point Fermin Outdoor Education Center, with
many children outside, or the Point Fermin Marine Mammal Recovery Center.
Ingress and egress by emergency vehicles to any new campus built on the preferred site
would create a situation that would be unlike any other campus in the Los Angeles
Unified School District. The Elementary school at the intersection of Lookout Mountain
11
and Wonderland Avenue has better access for emergency vehicles than the preferred site
for the proposed campus has.
For these and other reasons that may appear in other sets of comments or future studies,
the preferred site for South Region High School No. 15 should be changed or an
alternative site be selected for the new campus.
Section 4P. Transportation/Traffic.
On the outset it must be stated that a great number of individuals who regularly use Alma
Street and drivers who use Alma Street between 25th Street and 37th Street, understand
that it is impossible to construct another senior high school that uses Alma Street, in the
area of the proposed campus.
Alma Street is bisected by San Pedro High School and building a second high school
campus, southwest of San Pedro High School, along Alma Street would create too many
problems for what is concluded as being a residential street. Alma Street is not an arterial
route, a numbered highway, or has a wide enough roadbed to support a second senior
high school along it.
It would be dangerous, unsafe, and hazardous to utilize Alma Street for any part of
ingress and egress to any proposed campus on the preferred site and no amount of
mitigation along Alma Street could possible create a situation where it could be
considered Significant and Unavoidable Impact such that no mitigation could be
accomplished to achieve a level of Less Than Significant With Mitigation.
Many individuals and groups within the San Pedro area have experienced poor work, bad
advice, and inconsideration by the employees and managers of the Los Angeles
Department of Transportation (LADOT). Having the Los Angeles Unified School
District use any information, studies, findings, and assistance by LADOT would bring
skepticism for findings of traffic and transportation studies produced by the Los Angeles
Unified School District.
Alternatives to using Alma Street for access to and from the proposed campus are not
realistic. Barlow Saxton Road is too steep, too narrow, and doesn’t go to the preferred
site due to its placement east of the Point Fermin Outdoor Education Center.
The other roadways currently being used for access to the Angel’s Gate Cultural Center
and nearby recreational facilities, the Korean Bell, the Fort MacArthur Military Museum,
and Hostel, are also ineligible for use by the proposed campus.
Opening either of the existing gates along 36th Street, near Leavenworth Road would
create a hazardous situation. If those access points were considered, then placing drivers
on roadways that are on the campus of the proposed school and students as pedestrians
walking along or crossing on-campus roadways would be unsafe and dangerous as well.
12
The hugely unpopular option of taking at least one home along 30th Street, using the
school district’s right of eminent domain, and the further need to place a signal at the
intersection of 30th Street and Gaffey Street, would also cause great controversy, while
still in the study phases of the project.
Others will make further comments as to issues relating to transportation and traffic, we
are sure.
As the most significantly controversial subject in the Initial Study, issues of
transportation and traffic affect the preferred site to the extent that no plans to build South
Region High School No. 15 at the preferred site should be seriously considered, beyond
the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Section 4R. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
These comments reflect considerations that there are issues that are so significant that
they should have been rated Significant and Unavoidable, even with mitigation, such that
levels of Less Than Significant may not occur.
Furthermore, this Notice of Preparation and Initial Study does not indicate whether
environmental impact reports were conducted on prior considerations concerning
building a new campus on or near the preferred site, back in 1974.
It has been acknowledged that this Notice of Preparation and Initial Study is extremely
similar to Notices of Preparation and Initial Studies for many proposed campuses in the
Los Angeles School District.
The absence of any environmental impact study information as it relates to what
environmental impacts might affect the program, attendees, and facilities of the Point
Fermin Outdoor Education Center, by having a new campus directly next to it, demands
correction in the Initial Study and not as it becomes part of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
The Initial Study is found to have some significant flaws, ratings that appear to be at
levels too low for their potential impact, and missing a key environmental impact factor.
For these reasons, it is strongly recommended that the Initial Study be circulated again,
after the issues mentioned above have been taken care of.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME HERE
cc: Councilwoman Janice Hahn
13
Dr. Richard Vladevic, LAUSD
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Palisades Residents Association of San Pedro
14
Related docs
