20120117 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JANUARY 17,2012
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight;s meeting:
Item No.
2
4
6
Description of Material
Emails from:Mike and Mary Kelley;John Colich;Matt and Colleen
Stanovich;Nick Pyzow;Lenee Bilski
Copy of Powerpoint Presentation
Email from Martin Dodell
Respectfully submitted,
~~LCarlaorreale
**PLEASE NOTE:Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday,January 16,2012**.
W:\AGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agenda920120117 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
TerijCarla-
Please include
item.
Thanks.
-Greg.
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Tuesday,January 17,2012 7:59 AM
'Teri Takaoka';'Carla Morreale'
FW:New Zealand Christmas Trees
this email as late correspondence to the City Council regarding the Trump
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228'
-----Original Message-----
From:Lili Amini [mailto:lamini@trumpnational.comJ
Sent:Monday,January 16,2012 7:35 PM
To:Greg Pfost
Subject:Fwd:New Zealand Christmas Trees
Another letter Greg.Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:Mike Kelley <mike@ipsailor.org>
Date:January 16,2012 7:07:06 PM PST
To:Lili Amini <lamini@trumpnational.com>
Subject:New Zealand Christmas Trees
Lili Amini,
My wife and I wish to show our support for Trump National Golf Club,Los Angeles,in
their efforts to beautify the golf course driving range.We have been residents of
property adjacent to Trump National for nearly three years now,and appreciate all that
the property has contributed to the surrounding area.We both think that the trees would
be a nice enhancement to the property,with the caveat that they do not grow so high as to
negatively impact owners of property in line with them.This is something that I am sure
the business has taken into consideration and would not anticipate any problems.
Sincerely,
Mike and Mary Kelley
3200 La Rotonda Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.Liberty is a
well armed lamb contesting the vote."Benjamin Franklin
1 0<•
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teri/Carla-
Can you please
Thanks.
-Greg.
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Tuesday,January 17,2012 8:19 AM
'Teri Takaoka';'Carla Morreale'
FW:Trump Revision ZZ
distribute this email as late correspondence regarding the Trump item?
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:candsons@aol.com [mailto:candsons@aol.coml
Sent:Tuesday,January 17,2012 7:22 AM
To:gregp@rpv.com
Cc:anthony.misetich@rpv.com;brian.campbell@rpv.com;susan.brooks@rpv.com;
jerry.duhovic@rpv.com;jim.knight@rpv.com
Subject:Trump Revision ZZ
January 17,2012
Gregory Pfost
VIA EMAILONLY:gregp@rpv.com
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Revision "zz"
Dear Mr.Pfost,
I am aware of the opposition to Revision "zz"as submitted,allowing for a row of New
Zealand Christmas Trees to be planted along the western edge of the driving range.The
purpose of this letter is to make you aware that the words of the vocal few you've heard
from in opposition and contrary to their belief,do not speak for the entire community.
My wife and I have resided at 4115 Maritime Road within the Portuguese Bend Club for the
last 5 years.Our home sits immediately west of Mr.Trump's property and we along with
our neighbors have benefitted immensely from the fine job Mr.Trump has done with the golf
course and dining facilities along with the miles of trails which we and other city
residents enjoy.
The voices of those who speak out in opposition are all too quick to forget that the
Zuckermans left a project in ruin for someone else to rescue.If they had the fortitude
to carry on with their plan,I along with my neighbors could be looking at a neighboring
housing development versus the landscaped buffer that was created.This buffer has
without a doubt enhanced the value of our properties along the west property line because
it has taken away any uncertainty of what might have been allowed in the future.The
opposition to allow for a row of trees,limited in height,is perplexing in light of all
the ways we have benefitted as neighbors.I for one welcome the idea of seeing a line of
trees from my home versus being able to see the traffic on PV Drive South.I also
understand from a golfer's perspective that the trees would serve as a nice backdrop to
the driving range so you can better track the ball in flight.Therefore I support the
1
request for these trees which are limited in height and number.
Sincerely,
John Colich
4115 Maritime Road,RPV
Cc:
Anthony M.Misetich -Mayor.
Brian Campbell,Mayor Pro Tern
Susan Brooks -Councilmember
Jim Knight-Councilmember
Jerry Duhovic -Councilmember
2
From:colleenmatty@cox.net
Sent:Tuesday,January 17,2012 12:26 PM
To:CC@rpv.com
Subject:Trumps trees
To Whom It May Concern:
We are STRONGLY opposed to the Revision ZZ on the driving range at Trump's
golf course.These are a few of our reasons:
1.Blocking of the communities view of the ocean.
2.Three times,Mr.Trump has been denied this request,but yet,he is still trying to
get what he wants,regardless of the impact and his "thumbing his nose"at
authority.For example,there are about 20 ficus trees planted in the ground,on the
ocean side of the driving range.For three years he has been told to take them out
and/or get rid of them and he has refused to comply.
3.We walk the pUblic trails four to five days a week.Most of the days,the course is
virtually empty,maybe we might see two to five groups playing.Speaking to the
marshalls,they have told us that they average 68 golfers a day.We guarantee that
there are more people that walk the trails that would be impacted by the trees.
Please take these reasons to not grant the permanent planting of the New Zealand
Christmas trees on the west end to the driving range.
Thank you for your consideration.
Matt &Colleen Stanovich
3949 Admirable Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
P.S.Someone that lives in our Seaview neighborhood made a very good
suggestion regarding the trees during events hosted by Trump's golf course:put
boxed trees that are not permanent on the driving range,and them remove them
when the event is over.
FREE Animations for your email -by IncrediMail!Click
1/17/2012
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Tuesday,January 17,20122:27 PM
'Teri Takaoka';'Carla Morreale'
FW:Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles
image005.gif;image006.gif;image001.jpg
imageOOS.gif (2 KB)mage006.gif (2 KB)imageOO1.jpg (6
KB)
Teri or Carla-
Here is another late correspondence for tonight's Trump item.
Thanks.
-Greg.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:Lili Amini [mailto:lamini@trumpnational.coml
Sent:Tuesday,January 17,2012 1:22 PM
To:Greg Pfost
Subject:FW:Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles
Another letter of support
LiE Amini
General Manager
Trump National Golf Club,Los Angeles
One Ocean Trails Drive I Rancho Palos Verdes,CA I 90275
p.310.303.3256 I f.310.265.5522
www.trumpgolf.com <http://www.trumpgolf.com/>I www.trumpnationallosangeles.com
untitled2
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Trump-National-Golf-Club-Los-Angeles/16201141
7190258>untitled <http://twitter.com/#!/TrumpGolfLA>
TrumpLA pics 101 450
From:Nick Pyzow [mailto:nickpyzow@hotmail.coml
Sent:Tuesday,January 17,2012 12:17 PM
To:Joey Lewis;Lili Amini
Subject:RE:Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles:
1
To Our Most Respected Guests
Please support and approve Trump National's plan to beautify this public land while
improving the enjoyment of its facilities,with the planting of New Zealand Christmas
trees.While golf is not for everyone,that is precisely why the planting of trees makes
perfect sense.To the golfer,it provides beauty,backdrop,privacy and oxygen to the
driving range.To the non-golfer who has little or no interest in golf,it provides a
welcome "fence"that is not man-made or destructive to the environment or unsightly in
appearance,and hides the ugliness that can often be found in the swing of the practicing
amateur.:-)
As one who enjoys playing golf at Trump National,and appreciates creative solutions when
adhering to upgrades,and improving publicly used lands and facilities,I encourage you to
approve this endeavor,for the enjoyment of all who get the chance to visit this beautiful
property.
Truly,
-Nick
This e-mail message,and any attachments to it,are for the sole use of the intended
recipients,and may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized
review,use,disclosure or distribution of this email message or its attachments is
prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient,please contact the sender by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.Please note that any views or
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the company.Finally,while the company uses virus protection,the
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses.The
company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
2
From:L.Bilski [ldb91 O@intergate.com]
Sent:Tuesday,January 17,20124:30 PM
To:CC@rpv.com
Cc:gregp@rpv.com;carlam@rpv.com;Juno Idb910
Subject:CC Agenda:Trump Revision ZZ
Importance:High
Jan.17,2012
Dear Mayor Misetich and Councilmembers,
Please DENY the Request for Revision ZZ.
New Zealand Christmas Trees are NOT on the Driving Range Plant Palette.
There are 2 approved landscape plant palettes for this project,a separate one for the Driving
Range that does not include NZ Christmas Trees.Staff does not mention this fact,but speculates
on pg.2-15 about a"'Golf Course Plant Palette',which does not list the New Zealand Christmas
Tree as an approved species."
For Safety purposes the MND requires that the golfers on the Driving Range be supervised by
Trump staff as to which areas (A,B,C)are for what,and which clubs to use and when depending
on lessons on the Driving Range areas.thiS IS NOT BEING DONE.Staff may be present,but is
doing other tasks,not supervising the golfers.If this safety issue is not being followed,how can
we expect any conditions on maintenance will be followed???Although I appreciate staffs
attempt to impose strict trimming/maintenance conditions,I doubt that they will be followed.Is
the purpose of the hedge request safety?to stop errant balls?
This project within the Coastal Zone is subject to the Coastal Commission approval.Our RPV
Coastal Specific Plan describes views to include developed land,which this is.Our Coastal
Specific plan also states that nothing should encroach into a 2 degree downarch from the viewing
area (street,trails and homes here)to the ocean.(Coastal Specific Plan pg.C-11,12 Fig.28)This
is not mentioned in the Staff Report.This is stricter than the View Ordinance which the staff
report cites.RPV code states that where there are 2 restrictions,the stricter shall apply.
This is a PUBLIC Course and Driving Range,not a Private one to be secluded by a hedge.Most
courses are adjacent to a residential neighborhood and houses are visible,not screened off.
There are 2 tracts in The Project,the D.R.is #50666 which is separate from the Golf Course
and was approved following extensive scrutiny &promises of improved views across the
property than if houses had been built as originally planned and approved.
Both the Driving Range MND and the original ERA for the entire project refer to not allowing
view-obstructing foliage.This was one of the selling points for the Driving Range by the Trump
organization to gain approval for Revision "W"which is mentioned in the staff report.
Staff Report states that Revision "W"is
"a revised VTTM 50666 that includes the development of a driving range instead of Lot #40,
with improved views,is now the valid development entitlement."
Although the View Ordinance Guidelines with the words "significant"was in existence when
Revision W was presented and conditions were imposed,they did not include this word
1/17/2012
"significant"on purpose."No affect"and "no higher than the southerly berm"was carefully chosen wording to
provide for the "improved views"dited above and in the future to protect those views across the Driving Range if
it were approved.This was one of the selling points of the Trump organization which is mentioned in the staff
report.
9.8 ft.is hardly different from the 10+ft.ficus hedge we saw on the property in 2007.It affects views and should
be denied.
Staff has made a subjective decision as to view impairment,taking it on themselves to say that's OK even though i1
is contrary to the original agreement made for approval of the Driving Range,Revision "W".
Please deny the request for NZ Christmas Trees on the Driving Range area.
Thank you for all you do for RPVI
L.Bilski
This message was sent using IMP,the Internet Messaging Program.
1/17/2012
Redevelopment Agency Dissolution
Supreme Court Action
~and
Next Steps
January 17,2012
~
Supreme Court Action
\S
~Action on December 29th
~Largely upheld AS X1 26 (Dissolution Law)
~Struck down AS X1 27 (Voluntary Alternative
Redevelopment Program)
~Redevelopment Agency dissolved effective
February 1st
~City Council elected to become successor
Agency on September 6th
Recap of RPV RDA Today
C2J
~Agency was receiving about $1.2 million of
tax increment annually
~20%Set-Aside for affordable housing
~17 %passed-thru to the Fire District
~Remainder used to repay debt to County
~No current or planned projects funded with
tax increment
~Tax increment is not General Fund
revenue
cs
Recap of RPV RDA Today
(cont.).
~Agency debt to County is about $6 million
~Agency debt to City is about $18.6 million
(including $11.9 million accrued interest)
~Previously estimated that a portion of tax
increment would become available as early as
Dec 2013 to begin repayment of debt to City
~Future repayment of the debt to the City has
never been included in the City Budget or Five-
Year Model
~Agency's debt to City is not included in the
General Fund Reserve
Agency Assets Today
G
»$946K Cash
•$614K in Housing Set-Aside ($519K was
available for AMCAL loan and unused)
•$281 K in Portuguese Bend Capital Projects
($65K owed for PVDS grading project and
$6K owed for audit)
•$6K in Abalone Cove Capital Projects
•$44K in Debt Service (previously transferred
to cover County admin fees)
Agency Assets Today (cont.)
~
~AMCAL Note Receivable of $6.6 million
(including $0.3 million accrued interest)
~$126K Note Receivable from sale of
Ravenspurcondo
~Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and
adjacent land
~6 parcels on Cherry Hill
Issues .
~Will the $18 million debt to the City be
repaid?
~Loss of Agency's affordable housing
funding source,but not the City's8affordablehousingobligations?
~Will Abalone Cove Shoreline Park be
transferred to the City?
~How is Agency's MOU with the County
affected by Agency dissolution?
Tonight's Agenda
~Both City and Agency declare that no debt
to or from Agency has been forgiven
during 2010 &2011 (required by AB936
effective Jan 1st)
@ ~Agency adopt Amended EOPS (identifies
payments owed through Jun 2012)
Next Steps
~No VARP -No payment due January 15th
~February -City may elect to retain
housing assets (not cash)and functions of
dissolved Agency
(3 ~February-City (as successor Agency)
may adopt EOPS
~Mayor appoints 2 members to Oversight
Board (purpose to conduct dissolution
business)
The Future
~
~Oversight Board is formed to conduct the
business of dissolution
~County distributes funds to Successor
Agency to pay enforceable obligations
~The Agency's debt to the County will not
become a debt of the City
~City receives about 60/0 of tax increment
and liquidated assets
Page 1 0[2
From:Martin Dodell [mdodell@verizon.net]
Sent:Tuesday,January 17,201211:49AM
To:CC@rpv.com
Subject:In Support of PVNET
5751 CapeswoodDrive
Rancho PalosVerdes,CA 90275
310-375-5038;310-619-4526(Cell)
mdodell@verizon.net
January 17,2012
Via E-Mail
Honorable MayorAnthony Misetich and Council Members
City of Rancho PalosVerdes
Subject:Support forPVNET
Sirs,
I write to offer myunqualified support for PVNET and especially for Mr.Ted Vegvari.
As an activevolunteer in the community and former trustee of the Peninsula Seniors,I havebeen able to interact with
the staff members of PVNET and always found them tobe outstanding in their willingness to help when asked.
I currently operatethe weekly lecture program for Peninsula Seniors at which some of you havespoken.Whenever I
have any technologyissues,either with equipment or in need of some assistance,the staff has beenmore than willing
to meet my needs.Their seemingly adopted function is to support the larger RPV communityin any way they can and
have done so continuously over these past 16 years.Your agenda item this evening seems to callthat commitment
into question and has prompted this letter.
1/17/2012
Page 2 of2
I was troubled toreadin the executive summary that..."The Mayor advised staff that questions have been asked and
statements made bysome residents of the City ..."which seems to imply some concealed criticism.lam all for competitive
bidding for doing the public's work but this sort offinger-pointing is not appropriate.
I hope you willaccept my enthusiastic support for PVNET as do many others in RPV and willconsider the positive role they play
in our daily lives.
Thank you for yourconsideration and for the work you do for all of us.
Sincerely,
Martin Dodell
310-375-5038 (home)
31 0-619-4526 (cell)
1/17/2012
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JANUARY 16,2012
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments tothe agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday,January 17,2012 City Council meeting:
Item No.
C
F
2
3
6
Respectfully submitted,
Description of Material
Corrected Ordinance
Email from Dr.Maureen Sassoon
Emails from:Bill Finer;Gerard B.Mitchell;Michael Cohn;
Phil and Mary Sabol;Lucianna Molinari;Dr.Gakenheimer
Letter from White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP
Emails from Ken De Long;Herb Stark and Betty Reidman;
Letter from Dale Allen
W:\AGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendaS20120117 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
ORDINANCE NO.530
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PROHIBITING OVERNIGHT CAMPING WITHIN THE PALOS VERDES
NATURE PRESERVE AND THE ABANDONMENT OF ANIMALS ON
CITY PROPERTY,AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes owns roughly 1,400 acres of open
space known as the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (the "Preserve"),which fulfills a
variety of purposes that are important to the surrounding community,including (but not
limited to)protection of sensitive natural habitat;providing opportunities for passive
recreational use;preservation of natural watershed areas and drainage courses;and
mainten~nce of open space buffers between and within developed areas;and,
WHEREAS,overnight camping within the Preserve is inconsistent with the
foregoing purposes of the Preserve for a number of reasons,including (but not limited
to)lack of adequate and appropriate sanitary facilities and shelters;adverse impacts
upon sensitive plant and animal communities;increased risk of wildfire due to human
activity;and limited emergency access to the Preserve;and,
WHEREAS,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has experienced,and continues to
experience,problems in several of its parks with the control of colonies of feral domestic
animals and the abandonment of unwanted animals;and,
WHEREAS,it is in the best interest of the safety,health and general welfare of
both animals and the public,that the abandonment of unwanted animals on City
property is prohibited.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:Chapter 16 of Title 12 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
is hereby amended by adding new Section 12.16.140 thereto to read as follows:
12.16.140 Overnight Camping within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Prohibited.
No person shall camp within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.For the purposes of
this section,"camp"shall mean to remain on site overnight,whether entirely out of
doors or utilizing an enclosed or semi-enclosed temporary accommodation,including
but not limited to,a tent,tarp,canopy,trailer,recreational vehicle,passenger car or
truck.
Section 2:Chapter 16 of Title 12 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
is hereby amended by adding new Section 12.16.150 thereto to read as follows:
c.
12.16.150 Abandonment of Animals Prohibited.
No person shall willfully abandon any animal on any City-owned property.For the
purposes of this section,"willfully abandon"shall not include the release or rehabilitation
and release of native California wildlife by persons or agencies so authorized pursuant
to State law or regulations of the California Department of Fish and Game.
Section 3:The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance,and
shall cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
)
)
)
ss
I,CARLA MORREALE,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five;that the
foregoing Ordinance No.530 passed first reading on December 20,2011,was duly and
regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on
January 17,2012,and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY CLERK
M:\Municipal Facilities\Overnight Camping &Animal Dumping\20120117_MiscRevRPVMC1216_DraftOrd.doc
Ordinance No.530
Page 2 of 2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
dr.maureen sassoon [msassoon@cox.net]
Monday,January 16,20122:09 PM
Joel Rojas
'Julie Peterson';'Carolyn Lehr';CC@rpv.com;'Carol W.Lynch'
RE:FW:garage sales
3:00 pm is great -I'll check in at your office a few minutes before hand ..
thanks
maureen
----Joel Rojas <joelr@rpv.com>wrote:
>Dr.Sassoon
>
>The City Manager,City Attorney and I are available to meet with you
>tomorrow afternoon at 3pm.Please let me know if that time works for you.
>Our code enforcement staff has been involved in pursuing the code
>violations t~at you mention.I can provide you with an update on those
>Efforts when we meet.
>
>Joel Rojas
>
f1
>-----Original Message-----
>From:Dr.M.Sassoon [mailto:msassoon@cox.net]
>Sent:Sunday,January 15,2012 10:11 PM
>To:Joel Rojas
>Cc:'Carolyn Lehr'i 'Carol W.Lynch'i 'Julie Peterson'i CC@rpv.com
>Subject:Re:FW:garage sales
>
>Joel -
> I have not been here to read this email in detail.But I see an area
>of concern in your wording that I recall mentioning to you in my last email.
>You have it worded as not more that 2 per calendar year and the State
>of California (which the city may not be less stringent than)states
>not more than 2 in 12-months.These statements are not equal.
> 2 in 12 months means that the 3rd one cannot be before 12 months
>from the 1st one.Two in a calendar year can mean that one could have
>one the last two Saturdays in December and the first two Saturdays in
>January and therefore have them 4 weekends in a row.Also -please
>don't put me or you fellow co-workers on the spot by saying this is an
>isolated incident (those were not your exact words but that was the
>impression you gave).You have had other complaints from other
>residents in other areas of this City -it might be more fair (honest)
>to say that this has been the most problematic area in the City.Also
>please note that you are not enforcing the "do not post signs on city
>posts"ordinance very well if at all ..and at this particular
>residence the car with tags that are several years out of date is not
>covered and the trash cans are still in the front of the house.If you
>would like for me to bring pictures to the CC meeting of the trash cans and the tags
that could be
>arranged.Trust me I do not want to show up at the CC meeting and
>point these items out to the council as I cannot see how that would
>make you look like you're doing your job very well.Again only from
>memory - I recall you mentioned that we had a problem with 7 sales - I
>believe it was actually 9 weekends in a row with and average of 2
>sales per weekend that would equate to about 18 garage sales then and
> a few more after Julie talked with her.This Tuesday 1-17-12I can
>make time to meet with you and the City manager or you and someone
>else (I refuse to meet with you alone as I do not trust that you will
>do what you say or what we might agree to,hence I want a witness to our meeting).
>Cheers
>Maureen
>
>
>On 1/13/2012 4:37 PM,Joel Rojas wrote:
> >Maureen
> >
> >An item to initiate a code amendment to restrict the number of
> >garage
>sales
> >has been placed on the City Council's upcoming January 17th agenda.
>Attached
> >is Staff Report for this item.As you will see,attached to the
> >staff report is the information you have previously submitted to the
> >City including the exchange of emails on this issue.
> >
> >In reviewing the emails,you will see that several offers were made
> >by me
>in
> >December on behalf of the City Manager to meet with you to discuss
> >your concerns.In addition,the City Manager herself emailed you on
> >December
>7th
> >stating that she would be happy to meet with you.You identified
> >December 20th as a possible meeting date and I responded that the
> >City Manager was not available on that date (she was out of town)
> >but that I could meet
>with
> >you.You stated that you wanted to meet with the City Manager and so
> >I followed up by asking you for your availability during the first
> >week in January so I could set up said meeting.You never responded
> >with any
>dates.
> >
> >Regardless,this is all water under the bridge since we understand
> >your concern and the item is now before the City Council.
> >
> >Please let me know if you have any questions in advance of the City
>Council
> >meeting.
> >
> >Joel
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From:Dr.M.Sassoon [mailto:msassoon@cox.net]
> >Sent:Thursday,January 05,2012 4:04 PM
> >To:Joel Rojas
> >Cc:'Carolyn Lehr';'Carol W.Lynch';'Greg Pfost';'Julie
> >Peterson';CC@rpv.com
> >Subject:Re:FW:garage sales
> >
> >Hi Joel -
> >I am certainly glad to hear that you will be taking this item to the
> >CC later this month ..I'll watch from the TV in my home.You might
> >want to re-read the BOE document as I recall it states 2 garage
> >sales in a 12-month time period (which is NOT necessarily equal to 2
> >in a calendar year),but can be more than 2 in a 2-year time period.However we did
> >ask for only one per year,which is 2 in a 2-year time period.And I
> >thank you for sharing this with the LMT Station as my calls were
> >blown off.Being this is not a civil matter it seems that a deputy
> >and/or code enforcement should respond.That's why an ordinance and
> >a permit would be helpful to you and to the deputies.If you receive
> >a call or an email or if the station is called re garage sales at
> >least 1.)You can look to see if they have a permit and how many
> >sales at that address or by that person have been conducted in the
> >past 12 months and/or 2.)The responding deputy could ask for a
> >permit and if the resident doesn't have one the deputy could shut
> >them down and report it to you.You might also find out your (and/or the City's)
responsibility for knowing of a
> >State BOE violation and not doing something to stop it.Residents and
2
> >homeowners should not have to police one another-such things can
> >lead to bad feelings and arguments and fights (none of which usually
> >have good outcomes).As you have experienced first hand,after you
> >(or Julie)met with this individual the sales did not stop -so why
> >would she stop for a neighbor?She also continues to leave her dog's
> >fecal matter on the neighbor's lawn after Julie has asked to to
> >clean up after the dog and they still have their trash cans in front
> >of the house and the brush is still not cut back,which is a fire
> >hazard as the female resident smokes while seated on the front
> >porch,and the non-op/stored car is not covered.These other items
> >are not so much neighborhood concerns (except for the fire hazard)as they tell you
that you are not being respected.
> >You have a similar garage sale problem on a nearby street called
> >Mazur and I believe that Julie can tell you of a few more areas if
> >she hasn't already brought them to your attention.Reading the
> >illegally posted signs on a Friday or Saturday could identify other
> >garage sale sites -just think a permit at $25 each could actually
> >make the City a $100-$200 on a weekend and upwards of $5000 -$10,000 a year.
> >
> >Re meeting with the City Manager -please show me the email where
> >she agreed to a meeting date last year,as I don't recall receiving
> >one.I offered at least one specific date which she turned down
> >with no counter date until the week of January 2,2012.By then the
> >group felt that we were being blown off again and that is was best
> >to share the situation with the CC at the 1-3-12 meeting.While I
> >would still entertain a meeting with her I don't see the point now,
> >unless I can be of help in writing the ordinance.I wanted to have
> >the same discussion as I had at the CC Meeting in her office (alone)
> >as I was concerned that you would likely be embarrassed as you are
> >the code expert who didn't bother to look deeper into this matter.
> >The other unfortunate outcome of this situation is that BOE now
> >knows of the multiple garage sales at this address and they are
> >investigating it,which could mean that she may receive a fine;that
> >was not our intent.I apologize if you were embarrassed by the
> >information presented to the CC as that was not my intent,either.
> >So,I'll leave having a meeting with you all up to you all.If I may
> >be of any help I would be delighted to help you.In the meantime we
> >will monitor the garage sale ordinance discussions at the CC meetings and monitor the
garage sales on our street.
> >Thank you for your time and sincerity -both are much appreciated.
> >Maureen
> >
> >
> >On 1/5/2012 9:00 AM,Joel Rojas wrote:
>»Maureen
>»
>»We will be taking an item to the City Council at their upcoming
>»January
> >17th
>»meeting to initiate a code amendment that regulates the number of
>»garage sales in residential neighborhoods.The staff report on the
>»item will be available on the City's website
>»(www.palosverdes.com/rpv)on the Friday before the meeting.
>»
>»As you pointed out to the City Council the other night,according
>»to the State Board of Equalization,if an individual has more than
>»2 garage
>sales
>»in a two-year period they need a sellers permit from the State
>»Board of Equalization.I intend to follow up with the City Attorney
>»as to what
> >legal
>»authority,if any,the City has to enforce this requirement either
>through
>»the Sheriff or other code enforcement means.It may be that our
>»role is simply to report said situation to the Board of Equalization.
>»
3
> »Lastly,as noted in my last email,you have not identified a time
> »to meet with the City Manager and/or I as you have requested.
> »Please clarify
> >whether
> »this means that you no longer wish to meet with the City Manager
> »and/or myself to discuss your issue.When you spoke to the City
> »Council the
>other
> »night you gave the impression that the City Manager has been
> »unwilling to meet with you.This certainly has not been the case as
> »the City Manager
> >and
> » I have repeatedly been trying to coordinate such a meeting since
> »late
>last
> »year.If you believe a meeting is no longer necessary,that's fine
> »as we don't need to meet to pursue the code amendment you are requesting.
>»
> »Joel
>»
>»
> »-----Orig~nal Message-----
> »From:Dr.M.Sassoon [mailto:msassoon@cox.net]
> »Sent:Thursday,January 05,2012 8:22 AM
> »To:Joel Rojas
>»Cc:'Carolyn Lehr'
> »Subject:Re:FW:garage sales
>»
> »Joel -
> »Sorry -but I actually saw this email after the CC meeting as I
> »came directly from work.I really doubt if you need my help at this
> »point and you likely don't want it now.
> »There is more to be learned about the person of concern and when/if
> »we prove our opinion,which is based upon observations,I'll let you know.
> »In the meantime we hope to see
> »an ordinance go before the CC (fashioned after the State code)
> »sometime in the near future.We also expect that the LMT Station
> »will be informed that this is not a civil matter and they need to
> »terminate any garage sales at that address or conducted by that
> »resident until the end of this year.This is another reason why the
> »permits are important -they will help the deputies investigate complaints faster and
easier.
> »All the best.
> »Maureen
>»
>»
> »On 1/3/2012 1:58 PM,Joel Rojas wrote:
>»>Maureen
>»>
>»>I have obtained copies of the material you submitted to the City
>»>Clerk
> »when
>»>you addressed the city council on September 6th.Please let us
>»>know a
> >time
>»>when you're available to meet with the City Manager to discuss the
> >matter.
>»>Joel Rojas
>»>
>»>
>»>
>»>-----Original Message-----
>»>From:Dr.M.Sassoon [mailto:msassoon@cox.net]
>»>Sent:Friday,December 23,2011 4:19 PM
>»>To:Joel Rojas
>»>Subject:Re:FW:garage sales
>»>
4
Joel -
Another reason why I would rather have a meeting -we have spent
hours going round in circles because you don't have information
that I gave
>»»
>»»
>»»
>»»
>»»
>»»
>»»
>to
>»>10-4
>»>
>»>On 12/23/2011 1:44 PM,Joel Rojas wrote:
>»»Maureen
>»»Sounds good.I'll check with the City Clerk.Merry Christmas.
>»»Joel
>»»
>»»
>»»-----Original Message-----
>»»From:Dr.M.Sassoon [mailto:msassoon@cox.net]
>»»Sent:Friday,December 23,2011 1:33 PM
>»»To:Joel Rojas
Cc:'Julie Peterson'i 'Carolyn Lehr'i CC@rpv.comi 'Carol W.Lynch'
Subject:Re:FW:garage sales
>»»the City Clerk.Information I understood would become part of a
>»»permanent record on this matter.We learned of two more ways in
>»»which to deal with this situation.Being that it is almost
>»»Christmas and we are all busy with church and family plans,as
>»»you will soon be,we'll need to wait till the New Year to set a meeting.
>»»Merry Christmas-
>»»Maureen
>»»
>»»On 12/23/2011 11:45 AM,Joel Rojas wrote:
>»»>Dr.Sasson
>»»>
>»»>Just to clarify,I was seeking a meeting with you in response to
>»»>your request for the City to pursue an ordinance limiting the
>»»>frequency of
>»»garage
>»»>sales as it will fallon my department to draft such an
>»»>ordinance and
>I
>»»have
>»»>not seen the signed petition nor the draft ordinance that you
> >reference.
>»»>Thus,please provide me with the information that you reference.
>»»>
>»»>Again,the City Manager and I have made it very clear that the
>»»>City
>»»Manager
>»»>would be happy to meet with you to discuss your issue.
>»»>Unfortunately,
>a
>»»time
>»»>that meets both your schedules has not found.Please don't
>»»>construe
> >this
>»»to
>»»>mean that your offer to meet has not being accepted.Please let
>»»>us
> >know
>»>a
>»»>couple of times and dates that you are available to meet with
>»»>the City Manager during the week of January 2nd.
>»»>
>»»>Sincerely,
>»»>
>»»>Joel Rojas
>»»>
>»»>
>»»>
5
>»»>
>»»>-----Original Message-----
>»»>From:Dr.M.Sassoon [mailto:msassoon@cox.net]
>»»>Sent:Friday,December 23,2011 8:18 AM
>»»>To:Joel Rojas
>»»>Cc:'Julie Peterson';'Carolyn Lehr';CC@rpv.com;'Carol W.Lynch'
>»»>Subject:Re:FW:garage sales
>»»>
>»»>
>»»>Joel -
>»»>Thank you for the over view of an ordinance.You stated my point
>»»>very well -the CC needs to discuss this and I have already
>»»>brought it to their attention along with a signed petition and
>»»>photos.We also understand the other residents in the City will
>»»>be affected as that's how an ordinance works;this is why one
>»»>was drafted from two similar socioeconomic cities in the South
>»»>Bay.Is there something in the
>draft
>»»>that we provided that bothers you or goes against another City code?
> >Why
>»»>can't you approach the CC with our draft?Why do you need a
>»»>meeting
> >with
>»»>me in order to initiate an "initiation"hearing?Apparently the
>»»>information that has been presented to you has not brought forth
>»»>specific questions from you and it has not caused a response
>»»>from you (or the City Manager or CC)to initiate the ordinance.
>»»>
>»»>I'm not sure what information you were given,but I have not
>»»>changed
>my
>»»>mind,I still want to meet with the City Manager.Unfortunately,
>»»>even
> >if
>»»>the City Manager were available this morning I am not as this
>»»>response to my request has come too late for me to change my
>»»>schedule for
>today.
>»»>Yesterday an appointment was scheduled for me to meet with an
>»»>attorney this morning at 10 am.
>»»>
>»»>Being that the City Manager has still not accepted my request
>»»>for a meeting,several of us are thinking of coming to the CC
>»»>meeting and using our 3 minutes/person to ask the CC to consider
>»»>such an ordinance and to ask why the current codes are not being enforced.
>Unfortunately
>»»>this will likely cause more hard feelings between the neighbors
>»»>and
>the
>»»>residents of that one home,a situation I personally was trying
>»»>to avoid.So to be very clear - I still would like to meet with
>»»>the City Manager,however this is the last time I will ask for such a meeting.
>»»>Regards,
>»»>Maureen
>»»>
>»»>On 12/22/2011 12:00 PM,Joel Rojas wrote:
>»»»Dr.Sasson
>»»»
>»»»I'm happy to hear you have changed your mind and have decided
>»»»to meet
>»»with
>»»»Staff to discuss this issue.I think a meeting will be helpful
>»»»for
>you
>»>to
>»»»explain your concerns and for Staff to explain to you the
>»»»process for adopting a new City ordinance to address your
6
>»»»concerns.While I
>»»understand
>»»»your frustration with the current situation in your
>»»»neighborhood,
>»please
>»»»understand that adopting a new ordinance to regulate garage
>»»»sales is
>»not
>»»>an
>»»»easy and quick process given the state legal requirements.
>»»»Basically,
>»>the
>»»»City Council must first weight the pros and cons of the
>»»»proposed
>»»ordinance
>»»»through an "initiation"hearing as the new rules would apply
>»»»not just
>»to
>»»»your neighborhood but to all the City's residents.If
>»»»initiated,the
>»»draft
>»»»ordinance must then be reviewed by the City's Planning
>»»»Commission at
>a
>»»»public hearing and the Commission's recommendation forwarded to
>»»»the
>»City
>»»»Council for them to make a final decision.
>»»»
>»»»I see that you are available to meet tomorrow,Friday December 23rd.
>»»While
>»»»the City Manager is not available to meet tomorrow,I am
>»»»available to
>»»meet
>»»»with you tomorrow.I note that in a previous email you took my
>»»»offer
> >to
>»»>meet
>»»»with you to discuss your issue in lieu of the City Manager as a
>denial
>»>of
>»»»your request to meet with the City Manager.This certainly was
>»»»not
>the
>»»>case
>»»»as my offer to meet with you was based solely on the fact that
>»»»my
>»»>department
>»»»would be responsible for drafting and enforcing the ordinance
>»»»that
>you
>»»»propose.As noted in previous emails from the City Manager,she
>»»»would
>»be
>»»»happy to meet with you to discuss your issue if that is what
>»»»you
>»desire.
>»»»Please let me know how you would like to proceed.
>»»»
>»»»Sincerely,
>»»»
>»»»
>»»»Joel Rojas
>»»»Community Development Director
>»»»
>»»»-----Original Message-----
>»»»From:Dr.M.Sassoon [mailto:msassoon@cox.netl
7
>»»»Sent:Sunday,December 18,2011 2:13 PM
>»»»To:Joel Rojas
>»»»Cc:'Julie Peterson';'Carolyn Lehr';CC@rpv.com;'Carol W.Lynch'
>»»»Subject:Re:FW:garage sales
>»»»
>»»»
>»»»Joel -
>»»»
>»»»Here is yet another set of pictures of Ms.Perry's retail sales
>»business
>»»»in action (I think the time stamp is an hour fast as I took the
>»»»sign photo when I was on my way to work shortly after 8:30 am).
>»»»Is this neighborhood zoned for retail businesses?Is she paying
>»»»State and
>City
>»»»sales taxes?Does she have a resale license?Is she paying
>»»»Federal income tax?Is she on disability receiving money from
>»»»the State that prohibits her from having another income?Does
>»»»she owe money to a bankruptcy court?We have other questions
>»»»that if answered as we
>think
>»»»they will be,will be news worthy.We are in the process of
>»»»getting these questions answered -this is part of what I
>»»»wanted to discuss
>in
>»a
>»»»private conversation with the City Manager so as to help avoid
>»»»embarrassment to the City.
>»»»
>»»»Some of the other property owners think that while we are
> >investigating
>»»»these items it would still be in our best interest to have me
>»»»meet
> >with
>»»»the City Manager to discuss these items and to pursue this ordinance.
>»»»Our other option is to have about 10-20 residents of Shorewood
>»»»and Basswood show up to a City Council meeting and get our 3
>»»»minutes each
>»in
>»»»telling you that we want such an ordinance and asking why the
>»»»City hasn't cited Ms.Perry for the posting of signs on City sign posts.
>»»»Another will ask why the non-op (not currently registered)car
>»»»is not covered,another will ask about the overgrowth of the
>»»»ivy and trees creating a fire hazard and someone else will ask
>»»»about the
>enforcement
>»»»of the trash cans.At the moment,we don't see this method of
>»»»communication as a productive use of anyone's time,but it is
>»»»being discussed.The upside of this problem is that our
>»»»neighborhood is becoming closer and more concerned about who is
>»»»running our City government.
>»»»
>»»»Unfortunately,I do not have any day-time free until Friday
>»»»December
>»23,
>»»»2011.I will save time that day to meet with the City Manager
>»»»if she will make time for me.
>»»»
>»»»I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon.
>»»»Cordially,
>»»»Maureen
>»»»
>»»»
>»»»
>»
>»
> >
8
>
>
>dr.maureen sassoon,ms,mph,cih,cac,ceas ask me about Blessings of
>the Heart
>
>
9
----------------------------------------
From:
Sent:
To:
William A.Finer [waf@wafinerlaw.com]
Thursday,January 12,201212:39 PM
gregp@rpv.com
Greg:I am opposed to Trumps new proposal of Revision "ZZ",a request to permit a row of New Zealand
Christmas Trees ("Metrosideros Excelsa")to form a hedge row along the western edge of the Driving Range.
The hedge row is proposed to be 9.7 feet high at its northern end,gradually decreasing in height to 6.0 feet
high at its southern end.I believe it will adversely impact the views of the neighbors,contrary to the intent of
the governing conditions imposed by the City.
Happy New year and thanks for your help with various matters in the past.I have been fortunate to have the
help of you and many members of staff with the projects I have been involved with over the years past.
Bill Finer
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This e-mail transmission,and any documents,files or previous e-mail
messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged.If you are not the
intended recipient,or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified
that any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this
transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.If you have received this transmission in error,please immediately
notify the sender.Please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in
any manner.Thank you,
W.A.Finer,APLC.
1
r---------------------------------------------.-.-..,
January 9,2012
Lili Amini
Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles
One Ocean Trails Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Dem'.Lili,
I'm writing in regards to the potential addition of the tree line at the back ofthe practice
range ..I would be in t~lVor of this addition.While the golfing benefits are obvious,it
seems it would be an aesthetically pleasing addition as welL
'I'he Trump facility,with its combination ofwodd class golf andpubHc parks makes it a
southern California destination point and!am strongly in faV01'(lf anything that enhances
the beauty o£'this facility,our localcconomy,ahd thus our community.
Good luck with the endeavor and I'm lQoking fotWard to seeing the new tteeJine if you
win approval and if successfully completed.
Sincerely,
Gerard B.Mitchell
Sales Manager
East West Electronics,Inc.
Torrance,CA.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Thursday,January 12,20122:35 PM
'Carla Morreale'
'Teri Takaoka'
FW:Opposition to Trump national Golf Club proposed Revision ZZ
Carla and/or Teri-
Can you please include this email as late correspondence to the Council for the Trump
Revision ZZ item?
Thanks.
-Greg.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorn~Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:Michael Cohn [mailto:michaelhcohn@cox.netl
Sent:Thursday,January 12,2012 1:57 PM
To:gregp@rpv.com
Subject:Opposition to Trump national Golf Club proposed Revision ZZ
Dear Greg,
I have been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes since 1982 and wish to respectfully share my
thoughts on Trump's proposed Revision ZZ.
It seems that every few months the Trump Organization comes up with a new proposal to
obstruct the views of residents bordering the golf course.It appears to me that the
City's regulations on the matter are very clear,namely that the proposal contravenes the
permit for the driving range,and yet the subject re-appears time and again in slightly
different clothing.I must say that I have a lot of sympathy for the local residents who
have been fighting this now for years.
I realize that the City needs to work with the Trump Organization and that the Golf Club
is an asset for our community.However,all parties need to understand that our community
is maintained for the benefit of our residents and that it is vital to protect their
rights.Having an ocean view is for many residents one of the most important reasons why
they live in Rancho Palos Verdes,and taking away that view so that golfers do not have to
see neighboring homes seems completely contrary to the way the process should work.
Thank you for considering my point of view.
Sincerely,
Michael Cohn
48 Santa Catalina Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
1
d.
----Original Message-----
From:Lili Amini [mailto:lamini@trumpnational.coml
Sent:Saturday,January 14,2012 7:53 PM
To:Greg Pfost
Subject:Fwd:Trump Tree Project
Hello Greg
Please see below for another letter of support.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:"prpulse@aol.com"<prpulse@aol.com>
Date:January 14,2012 10:35:08 AM PST
To:Lili Amini <lamini@trumpnational.com>
Subject:Trump Tree Project
Ms.Amini,
We support the Trump Project to add trees at the end of the driving
range.
On the personal side there are several reasons why we are inclined
to support Trump projects.
We have witnessed the benefits of added value to homes,in the area,
because of the proximithy of the golf course and other amenities.
Local Trump management has been very generous regarding local
charities,organizations and other philanthropic works.In addition,the
facility has provided a significant number of jobs,to local residents.
Thank you for what you have done for the community.
Appreciatively,
Phil and Mary Sabol
This e-mail message,and any attachments to it,are for the sole use of the
intended recipients,and may contain confidential and privileged
information.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution of
this email message or its attachments is prohibited.If you are not the
intended recipient,please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of the company.Finally,while the company uses
virus protection,the recipient should check this email and any attachments
for the presence of viruses.The company accepts no liability for any damage
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Monday,January 16,20129:03 AM
'Teri Takaoka';'Carla Morreale'
FW:Oppose to Revision ZZ
Hi TerijCarla-
This is late correspondence for tomorrow night's meeting.
Thanks.
-Greg.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228,
-----Original Message-----
From:Lucianna [mailto:lucianna@cox.netJ
Sent:Monday,January 16,2012 9:00 AM
To:gregp@rpv.com
Subject:Oppose to Revision zz
Lucianna Molinari
49 Seawall Road
RPV CA 90275
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Monday,January 16,2012 2:54 PM
'Teri Takaoka';'Carla Morreale'
FW:Opposition to Trump Revision ZZ
Opposition Letter against Trump Revision ZZ.pdf
Opposition Letter
against Trum ...
Teri/Carla-
Can you please include this email and the attachment as late correspondence to the Council
regarding the Trump item?
Thanks.
-Greg.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:David Gakenheimer [mailto:dgakenheimer@gmail.comJ
Sent:Monday,January 16,2012 1:29 PM
To:Greg Pfost
Subject:opposition to Trump Revision ZZ
Hi Greg,
Attached is a letter sign by the Board of Tract 16540 (PBC East)in opposition to the
proposed hedge of New Zealand Christmas trees along the western edge of the Trump Driving
range.
Please give this to the City Council prior to the hearing tomorrow night.
Thanks,
David
Dr.David C.Gakenheimer
dgakenheimer@gmail.com <mailto:dgakenheimer@gmail.com>
310-913-3703
1
•
Portuguese Bend Club East
4100 Palos Verdes Drive South
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
January lO,2012
Attn:Gregory Pfost
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Raneho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re;Revision "ZZ"to the Trump National Golf Course Project
OearGreg:
The Board of Directol'$ofthe Community AssQ¢iatiou for Tract lQ540is firmly opposed to the
Trump reqtlest for one row ofN'ewZealand Christmas Trees along the western edge of the
driving range bordering ourtract because:
1.They exceed the height limit for vegetation agreed upon in the original plan for the
driving range and they have a negative impact on the ocean and golfcourse views of
some ofthe homes in Tract 16540 (:Leeds,ZeIt,and others to varying degrees).
2.The use of New Zealand ChristInas Trees violates the original approved plan for the
driving range where only native drought:tolerant plants were to be used around the
driving range.New Zealand Christmas Trees are not native to Southern California.
3.The trees will require periodic cutting to maintain the proposed height limits.The Tract
16540 homeowners whose views are impacted will be constantly fighting with the Trump
Organization to get the trees cut.
4.The proposed hedge oftrees serves a minimal purpose.The driving range and practice
greens behind the driving range have been in operation for a number of years without
the hedge.To our knowledge this has not negatively affected the golfers who use these
facilities.lnstead,the hedge is being proposed by the absentee owner (Donald Trump)
whose life is not affected one bit by the view of our homes at the back ofthe driving
range.The cost to our homeowners to satisfy his whim is the loss of ocean view which
they have had forever and is supposed to be protected in Rancho Palos Verdes by our
View Ordnance.
Ro ert Vol si t
Thus the full Board of Directors of the Community Association fur Tract 16540 requests that the
City Council deny this request for a row of New Zealand Christmas Trees the w('~c;tern edge
ofthe Trump driving range.
~
To the Audit Committee
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Rancho Palos Verdes,California
We have a!1dited the financial statements of the governmental activities,the business-type activity of
each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for
the year ended June 30,2011.Professional standards require that we provide you with information
about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing
Standards,as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit.We
have communicated such information in our engagement letter dated June 3,2011.Professional
standards require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.
Significant Audit Findings:
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies.The
significant accounting policies used by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are described in Note I to the
financial statements.The City implemented Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement
Number 54,"Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions",for the year ended
June 30,2011. No other accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was
not changed during the year ended June 30,2011.We noted no transactions entered into by the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.
All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are
based on management's knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions
about future events.Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their
significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them
may differ significantly from those expected.
-1 -
2875 :Michelle Drive,Suite 300,Irvine,CA 92606·Tel:714.978.1300·Fax:714.978.7893
C?tJices located in Orange and San Die<~o Counties 3.
Significant Audit Findings (Continued):
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices (Continued)
The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were:
a.The estimated useful lives of capital assets for depreciation purposes,which are
based on industry standards.
b.The estimated accrued benefits liability and annual required contribution made with
respect to the public defined benefit plan with CaIPERS,which are based on an
actuarial valuation.
We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these estimates in determining that they
were reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to
financial statement users.The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements are reported
in Note 7 regarding the contribution made for employees for the public defined benefit plan with
CalPERS and Note 9 regarding the recent changes in legislation affecting California Redevelopment
Agencies.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing
our audit.
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during
the audit,other than those that are trivial,and communicate them to the appropriate level of
management.Management has corrected all such misstatements.In addition,none of the
misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material,
either individually or in the aggregate,to each opinion unit's financial statements taken as a whole.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter,professional standards define a disagreement with management as a
financial accounting,reporting,or auditing matter,whether or not resolved to our satisfaction,that
could be significant to the financial statements or the auditors'report.We are pleased to report that no
such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
Management Representations
We have requested and received certain representations from management that are included in the
management representation letter dated December 21,2011.
-2-
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants
In some cases,management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and
accounting matters,similar to obtaining a "second opinion"on certain situations.If a consultation
involves application of an accounting principle to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes's financial
statements or a determination of the type of auditor's opinion that may be expressed on those
statements,our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine
that the consultant has all the relevant facts.To our knowledge,there were no such consultations with
other accountants.
Other Information in Documents Containing Auditing Financial Statements
With respect to the supplementary information accompanying the financial statements,we made
certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form,content,and methods of preparing the
information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America,the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period,and
the information is appropriat~and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements.We
compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to
prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters,including the application of accounting principles and
auditing standards,with management each year prior to retention as the City of Rancho Palos Verdes's
auditors.However,these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship
and our responses were not a condition to our retention.
This information is intended solely for the use of the Audit Committee,the City Council and
management of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and is not intended to be,and should not be,used by
anyone other than these specified parties.
December 21,2011
Irvine,California
- 3 -
---------------------------------------------------
From:Ken Delong [ken.delong@verizon.net]
Sent:Friday,January 13,2012 3:25 PM
To:'Carolyn lehr'
Cc:cc@rpv.com
Subject:PV Net Insurance
PV Net Insurance Coverage
PV Net has not followed the instructions in the agreement and RPV is still exposed on a
contingent liability basis exposed to a principal and agent basis for:
1)Owned automobiles operated by PV Net ownership or sub-contractors.
Adequate proof of insurance has not been delivered.
For insurance liability and other purposes as well,RPV MUST know whether or not persons
directed to work on RpV IT or any other systems are employees of PV Net or subcontractors
hired by PV Net.Subcontractors hired by PV Net are NOT covered by PV Net insurance
including giving RPV notice in the event of the cancellation of any insurance.Federal!California
law and statutes requires payment of various payroll taxes for employees and they are clear on
the legal definition of an employee vs.a subcontractor.
Therefore:
1)Are persons directed by PV Net to work on RPV IT systems PV Net employees?
2)Does PV Net employ subcontractors!consultants and what are their duties?
3)Are they adequately insured per agreement and has the City been named as an additional
insured under their Workers Compensation and Liability policies?
These questions are necessary as PV Net does not report any employee expense to the IRS
although PV Net does report payments to Consultants.IF RPV does have employees then PV
Net is apparently not collecting nor forwarding various payroll taxes nor filing accurate IRS
reports.IF PV Net has no employees and has employed subcontractors or consultants then
RPV has uncovered liabilities.
In may seem like we are making a mountain out of a molehill,but when you (we)don't know the
complete story of the duties and working relationships,we are entitled to ask a lot of questions
and protect our contingent exposures.Just let something of a serious accident happen,and
everyone will be asking questions of everyone while looking for someone to pickup the $$$bills
Ken Delong
1/13/2012
From:Herb Stark [herbertstark@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,January 16,2012 8:16 AM
To:cityclerk@rpv.com
Subject:RPV City Council Meeting January 17,2012 Agenda Item 6
Overview -ProfessionallTechnical Services Agreement for Services Regarding
the Information Technology System -Palos Verdes on the Net (McLean)
We would like to speak in favor of retaining PVNET as the City's IT contractor.
We have been volunteers at PVNET for close to 15 years.During that time PVNET has
helped bring our community into the digital world by providing essential educational
services that has enhanced the quality of life of a large segment of the residents,of all
ages,of the City.
Hundreds of our Senior Citizens have been,for the first time,introduced to the
computer age through PVNET's free Basic Computer Classes.Many of these
residents,as a result of the class,are now able to communicate with their children
around the country and the world.
PVNET's Excel and Word classes have assisted our residents in obtaining the computer
skills necessary for employment in the 21 st century.
PVNET's Intern programs have not only enhanced the skills of our high school and
college students but has reduced the cost of IT services to the City.Many of these
young adults have gone onto highly paid jobs in the digital community as a result of the
internship at PVNET.
The loss of PVNET would significantly negatively impact a large segment of the non-
profit organizations on the Peninsula.For years,PVNET has been hosting and
maintaining a large number of their web sites at no cost the organizations.In addition
PVNET offers free to both no-profit and community organizations a free calendar and
bulletin board.
Finally,PVNET has been providing to the residents of our City,at cost,classes on
popular programs such as photo shop elements.
PVNET is not just an IT City service but an integral part of the quality of life that makes
up the community.
The damage that would be done as a result of the loss of PVNET would be
insurmountable just to placate a small group of individuals that have a hidden agenda.
If the City is considering making a change,they need to make a comparison of apples
to apples and compare ALL of the services and support that PVNET provides to the City
not just pick and choose items that make PVNET look more expensive.
Herb Stark
32306 Phantom Dr.
31 0-541-6646
Betty Riedman
3668 Cliffsite Dr.
310-541-8470
1/16/2012
p~
VerJ.e6
Penin:;u!a
J..lor6e mens
A$&oc-iation
{Formatted:No underline
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 902275
Re:RPV City Council Meeting January 17,2012 Agenda Item 6
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
The purpose of this letter is to support of keeping PVNET as the City's IT contractor.We have
been involved with and benefited from PVNET services for many years.The Palos Verdes
Peninsula Horsemens Association have as an organization and as individuals directly benefited
from the many services that PVNET has provided to the community.For example,the GIS
development of the equestrian trails located throughout the Peninsula serves everyone in the
City,including Disaster Planning professionals and first responders.
Many of us would not be computer literate if it were not for the many services that PVNET
provides to the community.PVNET has offered free and very low cost classes in Basic
Computer skills,Email,Word,Excel,Digital Cameras,Photoshop,Dreamweaver and other
programs that many residents use in their everyday lives.
(j)
The intern programs that PVNET has offered to high school and college students have greatly
reduced the costs to organizations which PVNET has served through educational programs
which require community service projects to be performed,most of which are dedicated to
support the City of RPV at no cost.These intern programs have helped many students enhance
their skills as well as choose a meaningful career.
PVNET has been hosting and maintaining web sites for all local non-profit organizations at no
cost.PVNET also provides a free calendar,and bulletin board as well as a method of providing
free email blasts to members for all of these organizations.
PVNET has been and continues to be an important link between the community and the City.
The loss ofPVNET would be a great loss to the community and to the City.
Please retain PVNET as the City's IT provider and keep all their community services intact..
Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemens Association
Dale Allen President