Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20121107 Late Correspondence
l~ i ·1 ·1;I Y<f~%~/~~20//VI{~.f-;{iFi::i51 ~/).))/iJ---"':r ~d-~II ----++;I--Jwt J,rm...2.~~0t~D~~~~ .'\-rL"'J~~~-~~/lJ~J"'~Q:I )('f\)~~wt4 J -;F-tA-2CJ/)_., i'j DAILYBREEZE.COM SATURDAY,JULY 9,2011, UPDATES AND BREAKING NEWS FRO.M TH;E SOUTH BAY ONt'I'NE Court clears way for.RPV homes PORTUGUESE BEND: Development battle has .spanned·30 years. ,By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer Construction on controver- .sial new homes within an eclec- tic Rancno Palos Verdes '.enclave can continue unabated .following a judge's ruling in ;the city's favor Friday. r 'The city,has done an ade7 ;quate job in its analysis of the "potential'environmental ;,imRacts of16 new residem:es in ,ii'landshde zone witfiin gated "Portuguese Bend,Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John S.,sides -wlll likely see big Wiley ruled.changes in coming years.Three The decision rejected a peti~new hom~s a,re already under,' 'tion forfurthel'environmentiil constructIOn. J:.~vl~yt from Lewi~Enis~t,a At the hearing,Wiley said homeowner who ~s cl'ltlCaI of that in approving'a contested the new constructIOn.cursory environmental review Though still subject to apReal,iilT5Wing dey.~).QQ@~nt of 15 the ruling brings to an end what 1ID.§,'the ci'fji1Iaa''C!Onefffbest'' could1be one of the last chapters to comply with a 2008 appel- in a closely watched battle over ,late court ruling that forced development that's spanned Rancho Palos Verdes to end a more ~han 30 years.long-running municipal mora- It means that idyllic Poitu-torium on construction in part guese Bend -an equestrian of Portuguese Bend, 'community of modest hOJ.11es In that ruling,which ,at the' that seems to pr~serve a tIme time was met with shock frombeforeMcManslOnsdotted,' Palos Verdes Peninsula hill-RULING A15 ' Work continues on one of 16 homes in .Rancho Palos ,i Verdes'. Portuguese Bend . Construction has been .allowed on the parcels as part of the "Monks ruling"the city lost earlier. Stephen Carr Staff Photographer '1 ,:the war of constru?tion,a.fact Atthetimethem:o-trackenvi-day's hearing,had argued that described a "torrent",running more extensive study of the 16 ':/ that WIley emphaSized Fl'lday.ronmental reVIew was ,his clients'properties were through the canyon "forcing -Monks lots Burton was grati- ''The Comt of Appeal approved,City Attorney'Carol "profoundly different"than the'loose boulders,rippi~g chunks''fied that the CIty was domg a'i1ill ' rever.sed tri~l ~OUl:t and said:liX!lI11:nwarned tha~tIle citY'other 311ots,in part be,cause of of backya!"ds from the down-lZrivi~9n!.iienf~m~act ReQ9 It 'Buy It orbmld It.City,the facts w<?L"....~~l¥.[~~uea n..9...illiff~r the 2008 appellate rulmg.stream neighbors.",fQr tlie"]rothe!:.,Y£!E.~~}fJ,Qts. of your case don't justify your.~~i'llg.T'!iats15ecause many ,But Enstedfs attorne~r-The brief described a sce-"""t'tnat's an actIOn tEat the city ban,'"Wiley recounted.reSIdents of POltuguese Bend tm Burto!!insisted tnat'all47 nario that had been debated in would not hllve tal{en it if were In response to the ruling the oppose development of vacant lots should be required to incor-the Monks case,Wiley said.not for the firm and courageous ,city in 2009 approved a si~ple lots -aM because the Monks p~r~te the same measures to "We've been through that.actions taken by Dr.Enstedt,"'; environmental docutnent that pla~ntiffs'attorney wall moni-~11ltlgate th~'environmental Thei'~was a trial about that.and the members of a gl'OUp . allowed applications for devel-tormg the process like a hawk Impact of theIr d~vel9pment -'Fha;s ?ettled..legallY.-.m:1 ea.k:called the Portugu~se BeI~d ~1I..' opment on the 16 lots.At the'"It's been a feature of this measur~s that WIll ,b.~defined·.m&.:lYl!e:z::saId.,.ance for Safety,Bm ton smd.To same time,the city reqUired a .local po\itical controversy that as"part of ~n'ongomg more -Califor?la raw"~e srod,d.oes tl~at extent,we feel th,~commu- much more extensive environ-there have been lawyers aplenty stlIn~ent re;new o~the 31 lots .~ot reqUIre addItional reVIew rtlty has ~een served. mental reVl'ew of potentI'al The record is clear that the ·that IS due In commg weeks.m part because there's already'He SaId he,wou1 d c~nsult........"The M ks 1 't'''''b h ext''"Enstedt to determme If andevelopmentofanother3TCItyCouncIlhas'felt betwixt '.,on p.am IllS een suc e~slve reVIew..a eal woUta-De'flrea.--·-"·~ vacant lots in the same area of and betWeen"Wiley noted shouldn t get a:free rrde any After the heanng,Burton srod J1.g~~":-"<1·~~{'d'.' ,.','more than the other 31 property he was "obviously disappointed."\"hjJ:l-uomey yr:Cll .Sal mPort~l~ese Bend.,He c.alled s~~ut ~111!jr,,th~owners shoilld,"Burton said.''We felt very strongly and an emaIl th.at the CIty IS "v~ryWlthI~mo?t,hs,Enstedt attorney .repres 7,ntmg,~His 'client 'was particularly'passionately about out posi-pleas~d WIth the.Supenor filed SUIt,argumg that all 47 Monks~lamtlffs,one half of worried about the effects of tion.We felt.it was reasonable"~ou~s c~reful analysIs and rul- lv1L[.hould be sub.iect'to the tEat .due ,".'.r.\IDQ,ff.Q!l ne~r:§x."Affii'iiiifa."]l1n-Burton said.'mg m thIS case.".~ame level of sc~tm¥.MIller,.who appeared at FrJ'~~e sara.In a orief;'lurton Though his client wanted meHssa.pamer@daHybreczc.com RULING Rancho Palos Verdes officials, the 2nd Dist.rict'Court of Appeal .sided with the owners oIT616ts,w~tnecrtYs aevefop- '.ment restrictions -prompted . .by safety concerns about a reac- ,.tivated,slow-moving nearby landslide ~were an unconstitu- tional''taking''of their property. The appellate court told the city to allow'development or purchase the 16 10ts....YLhiCh are known as the ''MonksJots''for, 'tl1en~ameOf(meof1fie lawsuit's plaintiffs who has since died. i.The ruling also'warned offi- cials not to put roadblocks in ·...··fR,OM PAGE A3' "~I ..',!' :DAIL YBREEZE.COM FRIDAy,1ULY 8,2011 IRPV developer deserves no pity Tuesday's headline C'Legal rulings could open "up RPV")was an understatement;it should haveIread"Legal rulings destroy the community of i POltuguese Bend."For the p?-st 14<years I have I witnessed the relentless developer-funded legal proceedings to overthrow the building morato- rium.Despite all the money spent on geology surveys,there sti1l exists a valid question about the stability of the an9ient landslide.' YOUI'sympathetic portrait of Joe Tabor as a victim of the process could notoe fiirt11ei-from the tnlth,Here you have a contl'.§:c;!Q£....(gJ:lrrently 'b.gll~l!l!~...~,Qy.~rsiz~cLh ..~.§.that are not'in ,keep,ing with the neighborhood's character)who is I twice removed from ''victim''status. I,Tabor is a ,develop-er:wh,o ,rnB:de_a..J1!m}Y(;U!ly.~,~- ,_lJl.ent,that paid off in'spades when the city lost in''/" I court.To paint him as an unsuspecting victim of,'I the political process is downright false.':I ",-'Tom"HoffmiJn ' . (........PortUg""B"d DAIL YBREEZE.COM MONDAY,JULV 11,2011 ._--- Don't ignore RPV,landslide risk 'Regarding "Legal :J;Ulings could open up RPV" (TuesdaY):''There are real and significant ~eoiOgi J<ill.£Q!!~liWS about the stability of the anc ent,' landslide upon which the'cotnrtlUnity in Portu-:' gueSe Bend is located.None of the legal rulings " deal with the fact that geatechniCalinvestiga-II tions over the yearsindi(iate the landslide is just barely stable and some of those studies 'are ,overly optimistic.Landslides occurring in'~, developedcOlnmuni'tY,ev'en\'{hen they D:love at a slow pace,pl'od4ce major'p~rsonal and finan- cial disasters.Just ask any onhe residents aithe 140 or sO'homes severely damaged or destroyed by thePo\h1guese Bend and Abalone'Cove land· ,slides.While the procedures imposed by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes on potential home'build- ers are onerous ,and expensive and could be . modified,they are based,on a real concem.Tbe r&~~se ,Bend and Abalone 'Cove lan~lid¢s, ,which both reactivated parts of the ancient laIidSlide,"'offercogent examples.Despite various atte'ii1Pts to halt them,1iQ.th continueio'moye." peo/aterii1g wells in AbalcirieCove hiwe , " reduc:edlartdslidemovement to a creep (a'milli· meter per year)except during very rainyyear~; dewatering wells imtl other remediation mea- sures for POltUgueSe Ben&hiLve:failed;Ciir- 'O.1:!!..!1gx,the_landslidejsmoVlng at iricheS:'i01eet''Ii Eer,,Year.'Landowriersshotild'notignore;the " 'rea ltyof the situation.A bettei:approachwould be to join,with existing homeowners in insisting, a comprehensive environmental impact report to 'assess th,e stability of the ancient landslide ..It ' is betteHoknow thepoteritial threat now, rather than discover it later the hard way. ,-'Robert 'Douglas,Rancho Palos Verdes ' I DAIL YBREEZE;cbM .TOE~I)AVi'.~QLY.~I.~i)1f: :IRerrairulin85 .could·Dp;·II··d;lIi,;;~llli'.::,,1)..•..II ......................•.....••....•.........•...·..··.·...••........{r:!,Iig··\:7}··\~ ·:rcOUIRTSf[)e~pisfbn is due ·on .construction on his Cinnamon Lane prop',one of the other homes under cQnstmetion..:".~":.::.~/,~""'':'':.,..,..;--:-..~\.:;:i:,~~W~~!J!t ,..;....'~;I;~i'f!'·;\W~\\~~:Fi~~t~r~~1;:,:.,....'.">'.....•..''.'erty In March.Tabor who lauded the city planners and'.;..lIQ.:...•.•:PI1l/J!iVaul~~·'."'~i·(·;i4··i··i\~I!)I\\l N!lln,;""';:I:\iv:~~,jlIW·'I'?Siili~·~'.chal1e.Ilg~:~.9;:.~ort;~guese Bend.It was a long walt;but Tabor called his InSp.eoto~she'sWorkedW,ith,saiCl.heiSgc>t...'.,:.J rtiL".-,"r'ntlit~q'''.·Misi:(\iii;·;\V"..:i.··E!.i.l\t~~··,~;:.;. ,.'f.'("Ali':'·~i.;!~"~ home development this .week.lawye.rs"bl'illrant:"..,\ten plenty of fdendlywaves ft9m passing·.'.' '.......~n what could turn out to be a landmark ·equestrlans.But Ws clear contention In dyMellsaa Pamer 'Staff Writer .declslon,atto~rieys Stuart :M:i1l~rand Scott .~ortuguese B,endisfarfrom qver. "J"...•'.'.•••."••.....'....Wellman convinced the 2nd 'Distrlct Court .Shortly after.the citY In 2009 approved "EleV~nyelU'aago,wllen.Joe Tabor,of Appen'I tluitRanciho Palos Verdes'devel-.environmental documantsallowing.the '.' bought a l-.aor~19t,with.Bweeplng ocean opment restrictions -orafted because of ownel's olthe 16 lots tobs nli'p I il for . views.in gated,.1dy11la Portuguese Bend,he uncertalrtgeolO'F;lcal stability In an arantin perm ts,ortu~ese en'res ent ..'.S ,.. enVIsioned a beautltul h9me for his fam~IY.top of an Ii.rtclentlandsllde -were a Iltak.Enstedt sued the-citY.Heil.llegedthe.clty's ,':,' The ne~by stabl~would help his lon4er-lng,"The city was tol4 to buy thelofs1i'i5ii1 enVlronmentalreView ....deslgned to c()m~.,.,". gartner groW up ayoung equestrian ..,.part tIlePlalntlffs 'or allow development to go ply with the court mUng -'Was Inade-.'.,.......'~• ofthe,eclectlo,horse-friendly community of forward,'.quate.',: 'ab~ut-l50 hOn;tes in RanohQ Palos Verdes..Nearly three years after that decision .'Ajudge Is expected to nile·~mthat petl··..;yre bQught this thl~lUng.of I11Ydaugh-was handed·down,work Is proceeding on tlon WedneSday,.marldn g aturning point ';..:.:.',:.,.I ~'~,o:.".u.'i~;I,:.ii::;f'.:';:':~.,':i~~\:Tt{..'~,·~:k/;.i· .t~r.,..siij4..rabo~,stancJjO$last week}n the.three new homes.Some ne!g1ibOl's are not'In this 10ng'1'Unrlin~lega},saga,.. .";":":,:',,:.:.,''',..:'';~;".":,'l')..,.'f..~,*~~;'1/··:;t,:I~~;,;> wo.o.den ftl\m e qt his.t\1t11~e'home,."Now ..nappy about that,.Atentntiye mllngls/3ued·ll!Stweekshows..'Tw"""I .,.,,.:'I ...:.,"'d"';''d':.....d'",'..·....:.C:t·:t"f·.:·8he's16."·:··..·.':....:.'...It"h'h"b II I the judge in thecase:unsympathetlc,to.·.·.q.,aw.s~ts-Qn~a~t.'J!1~n~9ry'Q,..e,~a .~:".o.v~r<e~~,qpm~'t:;\~!';..,.,'II wi··...."'1 .:.i':'...'.:b'~·1 .~ou fig tyour fig t·We e ev~(1 n this"E t dt '..:·In.scenlc.,edudl.edPortIJ9/.fflse.8enaqre rea.cllln9,,,'t,,,r.n'ng,·..:·t.~'.,.. ..l"Q.0 t.l$an ep 0,Ii n~yel\r court utt e We thought it WlIS safe.,,,They said It ns e ,'.."',I .'".,',,'..".'.'.'..'•.;".....,...'.,.'".v••;....:'~1 n ·~,over,.W4~ther his land ~·.and that of the wasn't maybe because of publlo.ressure,''ThIs land use cMe:is a classic example .pqlnt•.lV1ep..nw"II~/·const~~ctlcm"~s.be9U1~all ,f~r~~.I1~.W.!IQh1~~rJi <: '..owners.ot150tber.10,ts.fIiPortugueseBena We pr~ved It was;"said Tabor ~EI Se.g.of the Ins versus t~e Outs.The plaintiffs ::mar,~fn9,~6ebr.Jn~ofa blg·cllange for,the gate~.c~~'r~fi.~Y~::':~~¥:~1 t -CQuid be developed,Tabor :finally pegan .undo contractor Who Is overseeIng workon ' .BAnLE A9 ...p,.illll~nzelill Shit/Artist· ".•"•.'...,'"•'.,:.":'.',,:~"."•.,.••r ••• I.." IJ.lftLE··:··!h"Ifits~cks;ltwillbegreat'or·'I Wor~.on Taoqr's MOQ':i;~!lPt:l'4mQleq~:he£l.vr eqrijp'·, .'..".'....'..'. t e.city,.City Attorney Carol square-foot,five-bedroom.Span·'1 ;;me~tp~e~.~bil.'sUence,greeIt i ·F,~9~:.~AGE.~1.LyriC~said of the tC;!ntative ~l~.'ish-style home -in anelghbo~,)htllB,~~6~dWi~~t'rame.sa#~\ :-;'.....;..ing.We really need to.just .hood of many ranch·style 1::~Q.$S/:~~i~iIling:n~w·'1:lomes~':'Inj.l\~dwantto ~eep·,the :reacghh ~osure,and these 16 folks .homes -Is a symbol of th/:l.t 1'"a;O(lomlpg"and:at:lell$t:one,Qtl1ersOu~"wrote'.JijB\Aiigeles I ou.t to be able to develop"chapge..'.., .....,.. Supprlor .Co~rt Judge John I'.their lots ....in aCcordance with...The website of the'Portu.green hlIlls now a mass of dlz:t;;Wiley~.......:.'.i the city's criteria and the home!-.guese Bend Community Assocla"'holes,.11ills;fences,signs,bull· '..Wiley dismissed .Eilstedt's·.owners association's criterla;".'tion,which 'represents h\)Ii1~.dozer~,and.other heavy equip··', claims .....that..enVironmental ;I ·Of course,'there is still the .owners ·behlnd the gates,prQ-:ment,.'.".revtew~as inadeql1 ate ,noting,~SSlbill*t0f an appee,!on EnBt-, ,vides some Inslgh~Ipto the 10cll1 I..It didn't help to ~e.any..', *at :tlie".eiU'lier lawsuit·_;t's be f..:attitude....'.:,remaining hos~lIty when aoon-. ,krtOWD.IIiIMOl1kS,fOrthe name ,Aria Murer;Tabor's attorl1~y,"/lO nce upon a titne,the .ra'u~·strnctlon'truck knocked over a . of a lot owner .who ,has .since :hasjustrecently asked forappel.cous cry of peacooks 01'the'walhtthe gated entrance toth~ ·died _had produt!ed reams Of,latuevlew of a decision in the muted clip olop of hQrs'es'.community.'...'. stu(ly and expert testimony."I .Monks case -In.a quest for hooves.on the road were the .Assoclatio~.President Tim .. "There may well be more per-..i additional monetary damages.only soundS that broke the Kelly couldn.t be.reached .f9r . sOil hours per acre spe~t.on,f'What does all thl(legal.ese·'.quiet in Portuguese Bend...comment,and qtlier..s residents . these 16 lots than on any other ~dd up.to?M9s1:likely:big ,"But times are changing In'reached by .the D~ily Breeze ·environmental review any-,:phange coming to proud Portu-,\this community'of about 150'\were reluctant to speak. ,Where,"Wiley wrote....,guese Bend,·RAncho Palos Ver-homes nestled:ln the hills of the ..At Issue is an area where the :Now1the city is finally seeIDg .I deal most fierc~lyindependent.California's Palos Verdes Penln~land'has been moVing for more' ·its way.out.of ,R costly.legal.i c.ommunity.'....' .":'I sula.·...These days;the inces-..than 50 years,'.... ·thit:ket..'..~I Landslide rea'ctl~ated In 1957 .tl1e ancient Partu~ guese Bend landSIIde was reacq~ vated folloWlng·w:o~k on Clilln-! shaw Boulevar4.In.the,hills'1 above.In the mld·1970s,the nearby Abalone .Cove laildsllde I began to move as'well,. . \ The .city enaCteda.develop·!ment moratorium in .1978 fijr i about 1.200 .agreS in the'lIii\Cf.,~ slide area.overthe years,van·.\lq\,ls.~~eptlons)Ve~mad~J()r I\"iij:lp~ov..e1l1ep.t$~lld·tlp'gr9.(1e~.:.ito!::eldstill~P:~1J:Ies7<P.l,lt;!i9~eYl.!.resldencesonvacantlots.were ' allowed;·:...'...'...i \ ..Thedifferent':tfe~tmerit was ' seen as unfaJrbythose who 'I owneq.sUbdivided,'undevel- oped land,... ,-Melissa Pamer,',' \, "DAILYBREEZE.COM FRIDAY,JULY 8,2011 \' .. ! S~ephen Carr, Staff Photographer Joe Tabor's home, above,is one of three under construction In Rancho Palos Verdes after Tabor;leff,and .15 other property , ,,owne~s successfully:I sued the city over Its! bUilding restrictions., A lawsuit calling the • new building code ' too weak will be ,decided this week, The trial court judge in ject to ,the more thorough EIR -:"RANCHO PALOS VERDES Monks indicated in May that he process.•Po t ' i is unlikely to grant ~rther dam-Judge Wiley is set to hear r uguese ,~ges,and that th~City h~d done arguments on his tentative rul·Ben'd rule.ng nowItsdutybypassmgordmances...' '!allowing the Monks plaintiffs to mg a.gamst Enstedt on Wednes-, develop their land day""set for today IiEdRichards,the city's attor-Enstedt ,s attorney,Martm :J ,ney in the case,told the judge Burton,said he was reluctant to,',A court ~ulm?that could ji :that the city should only be obli.talk about the case before the Imp'ac~reSidential develop-,;1 1 gated to allow the development hearing,He said Enstedt had..ment m Rancho Palos Verdes ij ,to play out,- a process that ''hist?rically''not spoken to the''~~!:~e~0=t~s3:endwas ,I ','may be momtored by the court media about the lawsuit ' A L An I SY',,,'j,fut M ks'I I '.."b '' 'os ge es upenor ' !as ure on p a ntlus egm Meanwhile residents of POl'-Co rt 'd'twi'dId :1"construction ,',u JU ge ce e aye a :, I "Uo I ' I k d 'h tuguese Bend and city offici~s ,,hearing at which he Is set to }j~~wong,as,oes t e .,, '",, " i city have to be held captive to av:alt th~lr future.,It s,clear th~t ,announce hIS lulmg,Orlgmally :, I this lawsuit?...We need the thmgs WI~1 soon be ~Ifferent m ;scheduled for Wedn,esday and ,,1 I ,court to identify what issues it the ,bUCOlic commurnty.,:then postpon~d ~ntil TIlUrs-1:1 I believes are tb be litigated in a JIm York,a real estate Il1ves-I d~y,the h7armg IS now set for ;iItrialinthisc'ase,because I don't tor whO purchased the Long ,!thIS mormng." ,'j think there are any,"Richards Point land that eventually I ,The lawsuit,Wll,1 determme : said,according to the court tran-became the $480 million Terra-~hether the ~Ity h~s,taken the !: script.'nea Resort is hoping to create a nght course m s~lIttmg into Los An I S .Crt'" . 'two parts an enVIronmental (g~es upenor ou ,SIte for weddmgs on hIS per-I "ffut h "Judge Stuart Rice agreed Miller .'reVIew 0 ure orne con-'J:'d h hId fil'd sonal property adjacent Portu-struction in an area on top of jIsaleasareayeanB d ' ,' , 'I'I appeal on the,issue,'gues~,en .'"an anc,tent la?,dshde where , I Meanwhile,it's,the'city's He s tangled repeatedly with ,geolo~c stabIlity has been actions in compliance with the homeowners Who worry about 'que~tlOned for decades, Monks appellate ruling that pro·t~e impact of parties on their SiXteen lots that w~re Part vokep the lawsuit filed by Enst-quiet community,but York has'ofa s~parate lon~-running' edt.'managed to avoid any lawsuits ,lawswt th,at ~he \ll~lost -the ,In 2009,the city,approved a with Rancho Palos Verdes.The'Monks sUlt"m wInch ,home-,, Such a study could have,cost;, I 'twO'-track,pl'oceS$,for weighing city 'recently ordered an addl-\,~wners sue~for the nght to a lot owner up to'$1 million"PI'"I development applications from tional noise study as part of ~velop theIr prop~rtr -were ,according to court testimony';roperty va Ue at Issue I owners of vacant lots in Zone 2 v k;I't'~h'""gIVen a cursory reVIew by the 'I ""M'll hid "'~or s app Ica Ion lor IS event ('ty .I'.h,The resolution spawned'the IeI',t e ea attorney of For,owners of the 16 lots from d"d h d CI m comp Jance WIt a court I ''th"ki "'gar en an orc ar l''th 1 'An h 'Monks''lawsuit,which went ,'"e case,IS.n.ow ~ee n~more the Monks case"there was a . ,ru mg m at awsUlt.ot er between the trial and appellate I'than $3 mllllon m ~dd,~~lonal .nio~e ~ursory,enviro~mental Part of a partnershIp that 31 undevel.oped lot,S are cur-it ,courts several,times,before damage,S for the d,~clme m the reYlew.,' . '"owns an ,undeveloped Zone 2"rently gettin~a much more ,.',"',',','",properties'yalue smce 2002,as I,'FortheremainlI1g31.undevel-,,lot on Cmnamon Lane,York,,thorough reVIew,I bemg 1eclded I~the property:wen a.;,for '~nreasonable state-loped-lots,the council ordered a said the delays for the Monks A Port~~ese Bend home- :owners ,favo,r,m ~008,The I men.ts he s~ld have been ma,de I mU9h,broader ,environmental plaintiffs were "tragic,"He'coil-'owner,cn~cal of development I '1.ppellate dec,lslon sm,~the fact i Iby CIty offiCials about the safety \iIllpact report,or EIR,that demned'the Enstedt suit as "self-sued tbe CIty to,get those 16 ' that g~ologlc,stabJ!Jty was ;of the property,, .I :"ould''exami~e'a variety of ish,"saying it was holding up ,M~nks lots s~bJect to th.e more~ncertallJ:'Y!U!not an adequate 'j '!hose statements!MIller Issues as reqUIred under state inevitable development of POl'-s~nngen~enVlr?nmental analY7lea~on to limIt development.,,said,amoupted to a stIgma that law.Tha~report is set to be tu ese ~IS,,TIle JU,dge m t~e case ,Smce then,the Monks plaln-I could affect the value of'the ,delivered to the city by a consult-,~Be~d... ,j mdlcated m a pre1Jmlnary " tIffs an~~he city agreed to a I land., 'lant within the next month.' n ~y o~~mon,It s,u~t a mat·ruling last month that he's~4.25 mJ!1Jon settle,ment for the I"~We've,gqt thr~e,houses !~J;lstedt,argued that the,tel'of tIme,York Said.I;'unlikely to side with the home'- 'temporary taking.du~to lost I under way and nothmg has Monks lots should also be sub-mellssa.pamer'illilalfybreeze com ,owner. use,of the properties frop12002 :,caved in,nothing has fallen into i ' ,~. to the end of'the Gase.'"I the ocean,No ,little girls have I , i been killed,"Miller said,in refer- :ence to council members'state-I ments about possible danger to ,c,..+".,.o hl"\TT\O n~"tln~nt~. I Then,in~1993 a city geol6iist produced a report proposing division of the 1,200'acres into I eight-zo~es.'''Zone 2"included ,; / 130'acres divided into 111 resi., dentiaJ.Iots,64t of which already' Ihad homes.The geologist said· 'some'of ~he remaining vacant !lots could be safely developed. Over the next decade,the city tried to figure out what to allow.' in Zone 2.'I i 'In,2002,the City Councll ~ ,passed a resolutiort stating that, Zone'2 pl'operty ,owners could ga.in approval for new homes ,o'n:ly if they ,could prove a cer. ,tains,taridardofstability - a 1.5, '''fa¢torOf safety/a'geotechnical term meaning the forces of sta- bility are at least 50 percent: greater than the forces causing instability -for the whole Zone: [" I \!: !: I I r '.-~'. o 1000 FEET FIGURE 2 Pacific 5 v (T .... -~.. '-,.........,,.. \ '\1 ~,: "'-!t~~."':'4_',;._:.:......, "'.\ \.'1 \':1\':'i1,-:~p;. ~..~"- "_._-.':...;.~... ........... '-. " ... " ..._< ......- -........ ..... ,t/4 " "'t5:1 ,I \ j \ 1/.'. / ong Point From:Anthony M.Misetich [mailto:mizie@cox,net] Sent:Wednesday,November 07,2012 1:51 PM To:Dennis Mclean Cc:Carolyn Lehr Subject:RE:10/12 &staff Breakfast Another item that will be brought up tonight by Ken Dyda will be item 2 on the employee health insurance item regarding"the city paying for deductibles for the health insurance".He's very concerned about this.I think that this really refers to the HSA being available to pay deductibles when visiting the doctor isn't it?Dennis I think that you should be prepared to explain the use of HSA monies and the benefits of having the HSA program.I think that it is a valuable program that my former company had for the employees,but you might be able to articulate the value of the HSA program a lot better than I can. Thanks, Anthony .\ From:Anthony M.Misetich [mailto:mizie@cox,net] Sent:Wednesday,November 07,2012 10:09 AM To:Dennis Mclean (DennisM@rpv.com) Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com Subject:10/12 &staff Breakfast Dennis, What expense is this for $1,591.93.A resident was asking what this is for? RECEIVED FROM .COFIP~AT THE AND MADE A PART OF T~E7t OW /~ COUNCIL MEETING OF.1lli~I!..-U"':;"'-----l OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLERK .1, Provided as an attachment to Pension Subcommittee Report to City Council September 6,2011 '.B.Disability Retirement Allowance Ifa member has an injury or iJ1nas that prevenrs the member &om performing the CUStomary dudes ofhis or her regular position.the member .may be eligible for a disability retirement.If a member's disability is the result ofa job-related i1Iness or injury.and the member is a smoo" local or State saf~State peace officer/firefighter.State induatriaI.or State patrOl member.the member may be entitled to an indumial disability mdrement.Lac:al misc:clIancous members also may be eligible ifcheir employer conl:raca with CaIP£RS co provide for an industrial disability l'IldRlJDent• .A.member who is panted a disabiliq retiremcRt rcaiva the pater ofthe service rctire~ ment allowance (ifeligible)or an allowance based Oft a specified.formu1aa~fliable to that member.A member who is puted an industrial disabnity rctimncmt aU6.w3nc:e receives the greater orhis or her service mitemCllt aUowaace (ifeIipblc)or a specified percentage ofthe member's "final compensation"(usually 50%.but 60%for some members),plus an annuity purdwed with his or her accum.td additional.contriburlons. "CaUfamia law clearly establiShes ,that public employee retirement benefits are a form of deferred compensation and part of the employment contract;N C.~Pun:hase GfServic:e.08dit If they meet eligibility requirements.ave members are entitled to purclwe additional retirement service cmdlt,which inaasa their rcrlmnent aUowanc:e.Additionally,where elisible.members can pwchase service aedit fOr prior public service.mUitary service and certain other types ofservice.The member's c:est to pW'd1ase additional urvice erecUt is set by statUte and is based.on actUarial assumptions and methodologies dewmined by the Board ofAdministratian ("Board'. D.Deatil and Survivor Benefits CalPiRS provides benefits to the beneficiaries ofactive and mired members upon the member'S death.Benefits and eligible recipients vary based on whether the member was still working at the time of death or was retired,and by the member's employer.occ:upation and the sp«cific:provisions in the conttaCt between CalPERS and the employer.Additionally.a member may opt to have his or her reaRment allowance reduced in order to increase the benefits that will become payable to the member's beneficiaries after the member's death. RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF TH COUNCIL MEETING OF'..j.JUL.:.I.J~:fU!:.::::t OFFICE OF THE CITY CL RK CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLERK Vested Rights of CalPERS Members I 5 1-50 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER DENNIS McLEAN,DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NOVEMBER 2,2011 WEEKLY ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN RELEASES 12-POINT PENSION REFORM PLAN. Last week,Governor Jerry Brown released his 12-Point Pension Reform Plan,which targets key issues affecting pensions in state and local governments.Iffully implemented, these reforms would reduce government contribution to pension"costs,increase retirement age eligibility,and prohibit the purchase of "air time",among other things.The majority of Brown's reforms would apply to new hires,but not current workers.In order to implement Governor Brown's plan,key points would require two-thirds approval by the state legislature and statewide voter approval. For more details,please refer to the League of California's summary of Governor Brown's Twelve Point Pension Reform Plan that is attached.Staff will continue to monitor the Governor's 12-Point Plan as it evolves. Excerpt from Governor Brown's 12-Point Pension Reform Plan Provided via Weekly Report November 2,2011 10.Prohibit Purchases of Service Credit:All Employees Many pension systems allow employees to buy "airtime,"additional retirement service credit for time not actually worked.When an employee buys airtime,the public employer assumes the full risk of delivering retirement income based on those years of purchased service credit.Pensions are intended to provide retirement stability for time actually worked.Employers,and ultimately taxpayers,should not bear the burden of guaranteeing the additional employee investment risk that comes with airtime purchases.My plan will proht"bit them. 11.Increase Pension Board Independence and Expertise In the past,the lack of independence and financial sophistication on public retirement boards has contributed to unatfordable pension benefit increases.Retirement boards need members with real independence and sophistication to ensure that retirement funds deliver promised retirement bene:fits over the long haul without exposing taxpayers to large unfunded liabilities. t ••..1 As a starting point,my plan will add two independent,public memberS With financial expertise to the CalPERS Board."Independence"means that neither the board member nor anyone in the board member's family,who is a CalPERS member,is eligible to receive a pension :from the CalPERS system,is a member of an organization that represents employees eligible to or who receive a pension from the CalPERS system,or has any material financial interest in an entity that contracts with CalPERS.My plan also will replace the State Personnel Board representative on the CalPERS board with the Director ofthe California Department of Finance. True independence and expertise may require more.And while my plan starts with changes to the CalPERS board,government entities that control other public retirement boards should make similar changes to those boards to achieve greater independence and greater sophistication. 12.Reduce Retiree Health Care Costs:State Employees The state and the nation have seen the costs of health care skyrocket.The state's retiree health care premium costs have increased by more than 60 percent in the last five years and will almost double over ten years.This approach has to change. My plan will reduce the taxpayer burden for health care premium costs by requiring more state service to become eligible for health care benefits at retirement.New state employees will be required to work for 15 'years to become eligible for the state to pay a portion of their retiree health care premiums.They will be required to work for 25 years to become eligible for the maximum state contribution to those premiums.My plan also will change the anomaly of retirees paying less for health care premiums than current employees. Contrary to current practice,rules requiring all retirees to look to Medicare to the fullest extent possible when they become eligible will be fully enforced. Local governments should make similar changes. 4 10/27/2011 Document titled "Pension Spiking,Typical Types of Spiking"prepared by Human Resources Manager Provided by City Manager to City Council via email August 21,2012 Additional Service Credit Military Service time:Until the early 2000~s the only additional service credits and employee could purchase was time spent in the "Mi1itary"~which could only be done through a contract amendment.PERS law allows the employee to purchase typically up to four years ofmilitary service time.The employee must pay for both the employee and employer costs as calculated by PERS.This amendment is in the cities current "Pooled" contract with PERS and will also be in the new contract.PERS has recalculated the cost ofthis benefit and significantly increased the cost to purchase this time by the employees. Additional Service Time:In the early 2000's legislation was passed to allow any employees to buy additional service credit ofup to five (5)year.Beca1,lse this was law and not a contract amendment,cities could not prohibit its employees from taking advantage ofthis provision.The employee must pay for both the employee and employer costs as calculated by PERS.This item has been commonly referred to as "Air Time" because it did not require any related service to any governmental agency.Unfortunately, the'cpsts,which were suppose to be covered entirely by the employee..where not covered bY the amount of contributions made by the employee and in 2011,fSRS changed how it calculated these costs.The new calculations for cost to purchase,.~benefit have been raised significantly.The elimination ofthis benefit is on almost everyone's ''pension reform"list. Summary This is not an all inclusive list of areas that PERS and auditors have discovered over the past 20 years,but these items have been the typical areas where pension spiking have been found and what has been done to eliminate them. (8/21/12) ~ ~ PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF REFORM PROVISIONS These preliminary comments of CalPERS staff are based on its current understanding of AS 340 as set forth in Conference Report.These comments are not intended to address all issues that could arise if the bill becomes law. .. Brief Summary .IMPACTS IMPACTS.CURRENT FUTURE MEMBERS MEMBERS Equal Sharing of Normal Cost •For new employees,it would generally require the employees and the employer to each contribute 50%of the total annual normal cost of pension benefits. •For current employees of contracting agencies and schools,the employer and employee organization could mutually agree to any cost sharing agreement for pension benefits between January 1,2013 and December 31,2017.Beginning on January 1,2018 the employer could X X unilaterally require employees to pay 50%of the total annual normal cost up to an 8%contribution rate for miscellaneous employees and an 11 or 12 percent contribution rate for safety employees. •For state employees,contribution rates increase by a fixed percentage at specific dates beginning July 1,2013.Rates increase and vary by bargaining unit and classification. •Emolovers mav not pay any of the reauired employee contribution. CloseLRS Would prohibit new members from participating in the LRS.However,new statewide constitutional and X legislative statutory officers would still be eliaible for oOOonal membership in CaIPERS. Equal Health Benefits or Health Benefit Vesting for Non-Represented and Represented Employees X XWouldeliminatetheabilityofanemployertoprovidebetterhealthbenefitsorhealthbenefitvestingto non-represented emDloyees than it does for represented emolovees. Prohibit Purchases of Airtime Would eliminate the ability of any pUblic employee to purchase nonqualified service or "airtime,"unless X X an official aODlication was received by the syStem prior to January 1,2013... Prohibit Retroactive Pension Increases , Would prohibit public employers from granting to both current and future employees retroactive pension X X benefit enhancements that aDPly to service performed prior to the enhancement. Prohibit Pension Holiday Would require the combined employer and employee contributions,in any fiscal year,to cover that X X vear's normal cost. Calculate Benefits Based on Regular,Recurring Pay to Stop Spiking:New Employees Would require that compensation for all new employees be defined as the normal rate of regular,X recurring pay.excluding special bonuses,unplanned overtime,payouts for unused vacation or sick oo"'Cm CD 0 x"'0<0CD_.CD 3 0--0CD...0"0-_ ~S.O OlD>3 "N:EooCDD> ......CD=O"'2S:m'<;:0 ;:000 .g"'COro~=3:5"D>-< 00c::: 3 3D>-<g, ~ 0' 3 "'C ~(ii"o' ::J CIl Page 12 August 31,2012 Excerpt from League of California Cities Comparison Provided via Weekly Report September 12,2012 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 1400 K Street,Suite 400.Sacramento,California 95814 Phone:916.658.8200 Fax:916.658.8240 www.cacitles.org Comparing League Policy and the Conference Committee Report on Public Employee Pensions (Con"'rence Report) AS 340 (Furutani)was amended Aug.28,2012 and is intended to implement comprehensive pension reform through the enactment of the California Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA)as well as other statutory changes. This proposal applies to all pUblic employers and pension plans on or after Jan.1,2013 with the exception of the University of California,as well as charter cities and charter counti~that do not participate in the California Public Employees'Retirement System (CaIPERS>.or the 37'Act System including the cities of Los Angeles,San Francisco, Fresno,San Diego,and San Jose.The proposal also excludes J~DfJ retirement plan approved by the voters of any entity before Jan.1,2013. Questions have been raised about whether the pension reform proposal applies to current or new employees.The short answer is that most of the provisions in the package apply to new employees while some of the provisions apply to current employees.Please see the attached Addendum A for that inform~tion. The follOWing is a comparison of League policy that was adopted by the League board of directors in July 2011.The Conference Report addresses the Issues listed in the chart below. Pension Proposal Eliminate pension holidays *Draft 8/30/2012 2:15 p.m.1 Does League Polley and Conference Report Align? if Ves 19 Excerptfrom League of California Cities Comparison Provided via Weekly Report September 12,2012 7522.72 (b)(1)and (2),(c){1);GC.Sect.7522.74 (b){1) and (2),(c){1)] Only pensions benefits earned or accrued after the earliest date of the commission of the felony are SUbject to forfeiture.Benefits earned or accrued prior to this date are not SUbject to forfeiture [GC sec.7522.72(c);GC sec. 7522.74(c)] These provisions apply to employees hired both before and after January 1,2013.[GC.Sect.7522.72 (a);GC. Sect.7522.74 (a)] To the extent permitted by federal and state law prohibit payment of pension benefits to a public employee convicted of a felony related to fraudulently enhancing ,. those benefits."I!I' Both the Conference report and League policy address felonies that arise In connection with fraUdulently obtaining pension benefits.The report goes beyond this by including felonies committed in obtaining disability retirement or "other benefits".The report further goes beyond the League policy and addresses felonies that arise out of or in the performance of one's official duties,felonies in the pursuit of office or appointment,or felonies committed against children by employees who come In contact with the child as art of their official duties. 8.ELIMINATE AIRTIME Prohibits a public retirement system from allowing the purchase of unqualified service credit.[GC.Sect. 7522.46(a}] Supports eliminating the purchase of "air time"(purchase of time not served Requires that any retirement enhancements to formulas or benefits must occur prospectively and not retroactively. [GC.Sect.7522.44] ,.-'f~lt *Draft 8/30/2012 2:15 p.m.8 26 Excerpt from League of California Cities Comparison Provided via Weekly Report September 12,2012 Addendum A Which proposals apply to current and new employees? The new benefit plan required by this proposal applies to public employees who are "new members.II A New member includes: 1)An individual who has never been a member of any pUblic retirement system prior to Jan.1,2013. 2)An individual who moved between retirement systems with more than a 6-month break in service. 3)An individual who moved between public employers within a retirement system after more than a 6-month break in service. Provides that individuals who are employed by any public employer before Jan.1,2013 and who become employed by another reciprocal public employer after the reforms proposed ih S8 340 take effect will be offered the retirement plan ,9iven to employees by the subsequent employer before S8 340 takes effect....- *Draft 8/30/2012 2:15 p.m.10 28 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAVOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK NOVEMBER 7,2012 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. D K 2 3 5 Description of Material Email from Sunshine Memorandum from Staff regarding Pick Up Resolution for Employee Contributions to Pension Plan including Resolution No. 2003-73;Email exchange between Mayor Pro Tem Campbell and Bob Nelson Revised Resolution Email from Kathy Snell Email from Sunshine Respectfully submitted, &k~/&- Carla Morreale **PLEASE NOTE:Materials attached after the color page(s)were submitted through Tuesday,November 6,2012**. W:\AGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agenda9.201211 07 additions revisions to agenda.doc From:SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent:Wednesday,November 07,201211:16 AM To:CC Cc:Ara Mihranian;Siamak Motahari Subject:Tonight.Item D.The California Coastal Trail Attachments:2007 blockages -0358.pdf MEMO from SUNSHINE TO:RPV City Council RE:November 7 City Council Meeting Agenda Item D..Rejection of Bids Received for Rancho Palos Verdes California Coastal Trail Project (Supports 2012 City Council Goal No.1 0 -City Trail System Enhancement)(Motahari) Recommendation:1)Reject all bids received for the subject project on September 18,2012;and,2)Direct Staff to:a)Modify the scope of work without impacting the essential elements of the project,with the goal of decreasing construction cost;and, b)Upon preparation of the new bid documents,present revised plans,specifications and construction cost estimate for the City Council's review,at which point the Council may consider rebidding the project and/or a possible increase in the City's fund contribution for this project. Of all the items which have shown up on your Consent Calendar,this has got to be the most absurd. Yes,please reject the bids.Item 1).Under Item 2).please direct Staff to come up with a dollar amount in next year's budget for them to actually negotiate/engineer the CA Legislature,CA Coastal Conservancy and CA Coastal Commission's objective of three separate corridors for pedestrians,equestrians and bicyclists in or near RPV's Coastal Zone. Did you know that the Oceanfront Estates CUP created the first whole mile of the ideal California Coastal Trail (CCT)in the State of California?It is good to learn from past mistakes.It is even better to repeat past success. Did you know that The Strand in Hermosa Beach is paved and is posted with the CCT insignia?Why is our staff proposing to rip up existing asphalt and replace it with DG? Attached is a scribbled on map (2007)from californiacoastaltrailinfo.org.The missing links (blockage)in the City of RPV are not new news.One would like to think that someone in the City's employ is capable of designing,specifying,cost estimating and writing bid documents which comply with the grant's restrictions and the CA Legislature's objectives. The plan for the proposed work is not a part of the Staff Report.Seems to me I received a verbal description of the locations of the work in the grant application.I objected,then,because it did not pursue the ideal pedestrian corridor which was then and still is feasible.(As are the equestrian and bicycle corridors.) In the interest of "transparency",is there any way to find out how much "professional" staff time and subcontracted/paid for hours it has cost the City to win this grant and put it out to bid only to have to go back to square one? 11/7/2012 D . The Staff Report does not state a new project construction completion deadline.Is throwing more money at it going to get it done right and in a timely fashion? FYI.RE:blockages #1.Vacant lots on Marguerite Drive.(One owner.) June 21,2011 Hello Patrick, I forwarded your email to a friend who would really like to have this access back so that she can,once again,walk from her home in Palos Verdes Estates to her duties as a Docent at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center.Watch for an email fromEmmy.emilyreeves@cox.net . See my comments following in red.I still have not found where I filed the letter to the property owner's Attorney.It is in this black box,somewhere.No reply received.I did turn up some correspondence with the City of RPV.Should I send it to you and/or Andrew?...S Subject: Date: From: To: Public Path Overlooking Christmas Tree Cove 6/21/2011 2:19:26 P.M.Pacific DaylightTime pdonegan@coastal.ca.gov Qunshinerpv@aol.com Sunshine, Good afternoon,my name is Patrick Donegan and I work with Andrew Willis in the Enforcement Division for the California Coastal Commission.I was researching the once well established public path across the coastal bluff overlooking Christmas Tree Cove and had a few questions for you.Because I was not able to access the bluff due to the subject fences,I was not able to determine if there was a path down to the ocean starting on top of the now fenced off coastal bluff. If there was one,it fell into the ocean along with a substantial portion of the south side of Christmas Tree Cove shortly after the Lunda Pointe perimeter fence was installed.I know there is a coastal access path further along Paseo Del Mar,but was inquiring if you had any knowledge of a coastal access path starting on top of the bluff and ending down by the water.Similarly,if you could think of any other historical public uses of that pUblic trail I would greatly appreciate it.I am starting to put together Prescriptive Rights Study and want to ensure I do not leave anything out. Apparently the Lunada Pointe subdivision was approved by LA County before the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated.The Burrell family of developers had enough clout to get away with having lots to the mean high tide line even though other bluff land owners were stopped during grading.There is probably a script along the lines of Chinatown that would explain why the Zukerman family of developers lost their condos project (we now have Oceanfront Estates)and Marguerite Drive not only does not have a bluff top trail,it doesn't have a roadside pathway. Thank you for your help.Sunshine.310-377-8761 Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Patrick Donegan California Coastal Commission South Coast Enforcement #2.Palos Verdes Bay Club.Staff negotiated an easement for the McCarrell Canyon storm drain improvements They neglected to ask for an easement across the bluff top for the CCT.All that is needed is a restricted to park hours gate in their easterly chain link fence at Seacove Drive. #3.Portuguese Bend landslide western scarp.This "social trail"has been signed as closed.It is shown on the proposed and approved Abalone Cove Reserve trail map as four black dots which are not on the map's Legend.Restoring and maintaining this trail corridor will require both brains and money. 11/7/2012 #4.Lower archery range road to Yacht Harbor Drive.This one is simply a matter of Staff noticing an opportunity.Eric Johnson will be back.The RDA land ownership will be resolved.Once there is parking at Gateway Park,I still think that this would be a good place for an off-road bicycle fun zone. PS:I sure wish City Council would adopt some "trails criteria"so that interested parties could suggest and Staff could describe to contractors which TYPE of trail we have in mind for every little piece of the CCT. 11/712012 ,. I t'.....'""\,.....~. ;;:'1 '1 1.\V ~:r,'~=---r~':'-:-::::~··4_..1'..1 I ...1r'?'l () -/'.-~.~-~ I t~J l(i,.l. ),VN'>'.JlvH ~~·\·........···v··,,··-'·· 6UOHlas l)UI'IO:>SCiliilSuV sOl ......-~.~ "".......'..'. ......-..."y..,... CITY OF MEMORANDUM TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CAROLYNN PETRU,DEPUTY CITY MANAGER<® DENNIS McLEAN,DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND INFORMATION ~ TECHNOLOGY ~ DATE:NOVEMBER 7,2012 SUBJECT:LATE CORRESPONDENCE -REGARDING PICK UP RESOLUTION FOR EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS TO PENSION PLAN REVIEWED BY:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER In response to the attached email that was forwarded to the City Council and is included in Late Correspondence,Staff provides the following additional information regarding November 7,2012 Agenda Item K,Pick Up Resolution for Employee Contributions to Pension Plan. In the early 2000's,California lawmakers enacted legislation under the California Government Code permitting eligible members of the California Public Employee Retirement System (CaIPERS)to purchase additional service credit ("air time")of up to five (5)years.Because this was law (and not a contract amendment),neither the City of Rancho Palos Verdes nor any other CalPERS-participating employer could prohibit its eligible employees from taking advantage of this provision. Under the governing laws,an employee who purchases air time must pay for both the employee and employer costs of that air time.The cost is calculated upon purchase by CalPERS based on actuarial projections. The laws further permit employees to pay for the purchased service credit with payroll deductions.Accordingly,CalPERS sent the City a resolution form that provided for the pre-tax treatment of any such payroll deductions taken by City employees.On August 19, 2003,the City Council adopted that resolution as Resolution No.2003-73 (attached), authorizing pre-tax payroll deductions for service-credit purchases in accordance with Internal Revenue Code section 414(h)(2).The Resolution was cost neutral to the City.In other words,whether employees'payroll deductions for service-credit purchases are pre- tax or post-tax has no impact on the City's costs. LATE CORRESPONDENCE -REGARDING PICK UP RESOLUTION FOR EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS TO PENSION PLAN November 7,2012 Page 2 of 2 At that time,aside from these payroll deductions for service-credit purchases,no other amounts were deducted from employees'pay for contribution to CaIPERS.Beginning in 2008,however,all CalPERS-covered employees of the City were required to make "employee contributions"to CalPERS with deductions from their City pay. Resolution No.2003-73 was not amended to expressly treat these employee contributions as "pre-tax,"a required formality under the tax laws.Nevertheless,the CJty and CalPERS have accounted for all employee contributions made by City employees as pre-tax.Further, CalPERS does not have a means to classify employee contributions as post-tax. A recent file review by CalPERS during a system conversion brought to light the fact that the City needs a clean-up resolution to include an express statement that employee contributions are pre-tax.As noted,this reflects established practice -City employees' contributions have been made on a pre-tax basis. By making their pension contribution on a pre-tax basis,employees are only deferring taxes until they retire.City employees will pay tax on their pension benefit as it is received. This tax deferral is much like the one enjoyed by anyone in the private sector who contributes to their retirement. In sum,City employees are already authorized to purchase service credit on a pre-tax basis and have had this right since the early 2000's.Under AB 340,the new pension reform law,employees will no longer be permitted to purchase air time after December 31, 2012.Until then,eligible employees will have the same right in place since the early 2000's to purchase air time on a pre-tax basis.The proposed Resolution presented for the City Council has no impact whatsoever on that pre-existing right or provide any additional motivation to purchase service credits priorto December 31,2012.Rather,the Resolution merely formalizes the City and CalPERS established practice of treating employee contributions as pre-tax. RESOLUTION NO.2003-73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE PRE-TAX PAYROLL DEDUCTION PLAN FOR SERVICE CREDIT PURCHASES (CONTRIBUTION CODE 14). WHEREAS,the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees'Retirement System (CaIPERS)at the April 1996 meeting approved a pre-tax payroll deduction plan for service credit purchases under Internal Revenue Code (lRC)section 414(h)(2);and WHEREAS,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has the authority to imp1ement the provisions of IRC section 414(h)(2)and has determined that even though implementation is not required by law,the tax benefit offered by this section should be provided to those employees who are members of CaIPERS;and WHEREAS,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes elects to participate in the pre-tax payroll deduction plan for all employees in the following CalPERS coverage groups:70001 (Misc. Employees).,. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1.That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will implement the provisions of IRC section 414 (h)(2)by making employee contributions for service credit purchases pursuant to the California State Government Code on behalf of its employees who are members of CalPERS and who have made a binding irrevocable election to participate in the pre-tax payroll deduction plan."Employee contributions"shall mean those contributions reported to CalPERS which are deducted from the salary of employees and are credited to individual employee accounts for service credit purchase,thereby .reSUlting in tax deferral of employee contributions. 2.That the contributions made by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to CaIPERS, although designated as employee contributions,are being paid by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in lieu of contributions by the employees who are members of CaIPERS. 3.That the employees shall not have the option of choosing to receive the contributed amounts directly instead of having them paid by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to CaIPERS. 4.That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall pay to CalPERS that contributions designated as employee contributions from the same source of funds as used in paying salary,thereby resulting in tax deferral of employee contributions. 5.That the effective date for commencement of the pre-tax payroll deduction plan cannot be any earlier than July 1,1996,or the date the completed resolution is received and approved in CaIPERS,whichever is later. 6.That the governing body of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall participate in and adhere to requirements and restrictions of the pre-tax payroll deduction plan by reporting pre-tax payroll deductions when authorized by CalPERS for those employees of the above stated Coverage Group(s)who have elected to participate in this plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the governing bOdY~f.of Ran ho Palos Verdes this 19th day of August 2003. LJ---- Mayor Attest: l J2u4 u1£City Clerk State of Galifornia County of Los Angeles City of Rancho Palos Verdes) ) )ss I,JO PURCELL,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby certify that the above Resolution No.2003-73 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 19,2003. Resolution No.2003-73 Page 2 of2 Page 1 0[2 Dennis Mclean From:Nelsongang [nelsongang@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday,November 06,201212:44 PM To:brian.campbell@cox.net;cprotem73@verizon.net;ken.delong@verizon.net;kristamjohnson@cox.net;CC Subject:Re:Item K -Consent Agenda:RPV employees buying more "Air Time"tax-free on tomorrow's agenda Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Brian,and those addressed: Speaking as a private citizen and not a PC,my question is why are we doing this 7 weeks before its illegal?Why? To me the numerous employees we have that are not part of Calpers,have no benefits,yet sit alongside Calpers folks,are where you,as our representatives,could provide significantly more worthwhile benefits.These non-Calpers employees also work for us. 'Air time'-again,if it's going to be illegal,why do it now? Do you think our residents really want this done? In any case -if you read this on the 6th -thank you for voting! Bob Nelson 310-544-4632 -----Original Message----- From:Brian Campbell <brian.campbell@cox.net> To:cprotem73 <cprotem73@verizon.ne1>;'Ken Delong'<ken.delong@verizon.net>;'Nelsongang'<Nelsongang@aol.com>; kristamjohnson <kristamjohnson @cox.net> Sent:Tue,Nov 6,2012 10:54 am SUbject:RPV employees buying more "Air Time"tax-free on tomorrow's agenda. Can you guys/gals look at Item K on the Consent Calendar for tomorrow night?Here's why: This appears to be a semi-cover (because they obfuscate the underlying reason for this agenda item)for city employees to scramble and buy their "Air Time"tax-free without the public or city council being really aware of what their real purpose is.They will purchase more "Air Time"if its tax-free than if it's not.See page K-2 of the staff report Section 1 (2);"Service Credit"is what we call "Air Time" There is a big scramble in CA for public employees to take advantage of buying "Air Time"between now and the end of the year. I have never been made aware that buying "Air Time"was even possible here in RPV.Big omission on staff's part given the amount of analysis and debate all of the last year leading up the 2nd Tier pension vote last fall and its effect on RPV's unfunded pension obligation.It's a big surprise to me and I think will be a really big surprise to residents. Public employee buying of "Air Time"towards increasing their pensions is illegal after Dec 31 st 2012.This is one of the pension abuses that even Sacramento couldn't live with and enacted as part of their "Pension Reform"a couple of months ago. Kat Downs,our active CPA on staff,claims on the last line of page K-1 that ''This action is a matter of housekeeping and does not affect in any way the City's pension obligation or employer contributions." 11/6/2012 o This may be true,but only if CalPers exceeds (forever)the assumed rate of 7.50%annual rate of return.Any [J) Page 2 of2 investment professional will confirm that this is an impossible number to achieve long-term and is the main reason that Calpers is hundreds of billions of dollars underwater.Hence,Sacramento eliminating it. o If a lower rate of return is achieved then the unfunded pension obligation of RPV goes up.The RPV taxpayers assume all of the risk and the employees none of it. So,some (there are lots more)logical questions are: o Its legal right now,so why not allow the employees to purchase as many years of "Air Time"as they can tax-free? How does that affect RPV residents? o Fact:Any purchase of additional artificial pension time increases our local pension obligations.So long as Calpers "beats the market"and achieves at least a return of 7.50%for the next 30 years,then the results are what Kat Down claims above in her staff report.If Calpers fails to achieve those returns then RPV residents'pick up the additional cost to pay for these guaranteed pensions. •Question;Should RPV residents assume all of the investment risk if Calpers fails to achieve the 7.50% long-term investment returns of these additional millions of dollars of artificially increased pension obligations? Please let me know what you think,or you see something I'm missing. Thanks, Brian 11/6/2012 RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS,SERIES 2012 (EPISCOPAL COMMUNITIES &SERVICES)IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $85,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFINANCING THE ACQUISITION,CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES FOR EPISCOPAL COMMUNITIES &SERVICES AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO WHEREAS,Episcopal Communities &Services for Seniors,dba Episcopal Communities &Services,a nonprofit public benefit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of California (the "Corporation"),has requested that the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the "Authority")issue bonds in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $85,000,000 (the "Bonds"), the proceeds of which will be used to (a)refinance indebtedness used to finance the cost of the acquisition,construction and equipping of a continuing care retirement community in Rancho Palos Verdes known as "The Canterbury,"located generally at 5801 Crestridge Road,Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275 (the "Facilities"),to be owned and operated by the Corporation (the "Project"),(b)fund a debt service reserve fund,if deemed necessary or advisable by the Authority or the Corporation,and (c)pay certain costs of issuing the Bonds;and WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 147(f)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"),the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City")because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City;and WHEREAS,the Council of the City (the "Council")is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the applicable elected representatives required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f)of the Code;and WHEREAS,the Authority has requested that the Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the purposes of refinancing the Project in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f)of the Code and the requirements of Section 9 of the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Power Agreement,dated as of June 1,1988 (the "Agreement")among the Authority and certain local agencies, including the City;and WHEREAS,there has been published,at least 14 days before the date hereof,in a newspaper of general circulation within the City,a notice that a public hearing regarding the Bonds would be held on the date hereof;and WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 147(f)of the Code,the Council,following notice duly given,has held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds,in which interested persons were provided an opportunity to present arguments both for and against the issuance of the Bonds;and WHEREAS,the Council now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority,and the approval is intended to constitute the approval required by Section 147(f)of the Code and Section 9 of the Agreement; (i) d.. City Council Resolution No.__ Approving CSCDA Issuance of Revenue Bonds Episcopal Communities &Services Page 2 NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as follows: Section 1.The Council accepts the above recitals as true and correct. Section 2.The Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the purposes of refinancing the Project.It is the purpose and intent of the Council that this Resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority,for the purposes of (a)Section 147(f)of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Facilities are located,in accordance with said Section 147(f)and (b)Section 9 of the Agreement. Section 3.The City Clerk of the City shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution and a copy of the affidavit of publication of the hearing notice to: S.Louise Rankin Jones Day 555 California Street,26th Floor San Francisco,California 94104-1500 Section 4.This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED,this 7th day of November,2012. Mayor ATIEST: City Clerk City Council Resolution No.__ Approving CSCDA Issuance of Revenue Bonds Episcopal Communities &Services Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I,,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted b~the Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes at a regular meeting held on the _t day of ,2012. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BY:----------- City Attorney 1505662v2 From:ksnell0001 @aol.com Sent:Tuesday,November 06,20129:54 PM To:Anthony Misetich;Brian Campbell;Susan Brooks;Jerry Duhovic;Jim Knight Cc:CityManager;CityClerk;Eduardo Schonborn;joel@rpv.com;Kit Fox Subject:Comments on Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Attachments:lot_splits_-_potential.pdf;RPV_RDA_Landslide_Area_Zone_Map[1].pdf Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Lot Splits not Subdivisions should be considered as an alternative to the EIR ordinance revisions. Allowing lot splits of up to 4 lots per parcel would significantly reduce the single family residences potential as an alternative.The maximum new homes after "lot splits"not "subdivisions"of the 15- undeveloped or underdeveloped lots will allow a maximum of 13 additional lots not 46.Allowing LOT SPLITS will have little additional impact on the environment.Sewer capacity was planned and laterals were installed for future lot splits. Allowing "lot splits"under this Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions will save tremendous hours of staff time in the City,save legal costs and provide equity to small parcel owners who have been paying ACLAD assessments for their property based on the potential for future development but have not been able to split their property since about 1985 when the then City Council disallowed lot splits until "...the slide was controlled ..."Later another City Council allowed a lot split of 99 Vanderlip Drive on a hardship case in November of 1989.Vanderlip Drive has a greater factor of safety than other areas in Zone 2. RDA pre-planning for sewer capacity for future lot splits in Zone 2 was factored into the overall design of the sewer that was eventually installed.The sewer laterals were also installed for the future lot splits. Continuing to impede an owners land use rights can most certainly guarantee continued litigation against the City for years to come. 4.11.1 Setting a.Project Area Setting. Part of the $10,000,000.00 Horan Settlement money was used to fund the Abalone Cove Sewer System. The City provided no funding.L.A.County Sewer District refused to take over the maintenance of the sewer grinder pumps and pressure system so the City had to as the City's RDA wanted grinder pumps. The Abalone Cove Sewer System was designed to serve individual lots in Zone 5,Zone 3 (capacity based on future lot splits)and Zone 2,including capacity for 18 total dwellings allowing for potential lot splits for 8,10,20 and 98 Vanderlip Drive.Reference Abalone Cove Sewer EIR that provided sewer laterals for future lot splits on Vanderlip Drive and sewer laterals for all vacant lots in Zone 2 and Zone 3.MUltiple sewer laterals for future lot splits were installed on Vanderlip Drive parcels with the understanding that the property owners would be given back their right to lot splits for accepting the grinder pump sewer system,giving sewer easements and not protesting the sewer district. The additional capacity for the "potential"lot splits on Cinnamon,Narcissa and Sweetbay were not included in the sewer capacity plan.7 Plumtree,7572-009-024,was only considered for one existing home on 32,230 sf.The additional sf is in Zone 1. Parcel owners on Vanderlip Drive provided sewer easements and have paid much larger "benefit assessments"to ACLAD with the understanding that they would be able to split their parcels and build once the sewers were installed. The previous City Council members were going to open up building and allow lot splits in Zone 2 once the sewers were installed.Reference RDA EIR's and Dr.Perry Elig's Memorandum of May 26,1993 "Suggested Guidelines for Permitting Development in the Moratorium Area ESTABLISHMENT OF MORATORIUM ZONES.The City's Community Redevelopment Agency received millions of dollars with the intension of opening building in Zone 2 as outlined in the RDA's EIR. 6.3 SUBDIVISION OF LARGER LOTS ALTERNATIVE 11/7/2012 3 6.3.1 Alternative Description This alternative would include subdivision of the 47 subject undeveloped or underdeveloped lots in the project area that are divisible to the minimum lot sizes allowed under their respective zoning designations.Of the 47 lots considered,16 lots are potentially divisible according to the existing RS-1 and RS-2 zone stands.Based on preliminary analysis,this alternative assumes that these 16 divisible lots can be divided into 62 lots (net increase of 46 lots).Thus,under this alternative the potential number of new residences in the project area would be approximately 93 compared to the 47 residences considered by the proposed project (46 +47). The above calculations on potential number of lots that can be divided are erroneous thus leading to an Impact Analysis that incorrectly shows a far greater impact.With building code restrictions,set back requirements,easements,slopes,canyons and access limitations,the 15 divisible lots in Zone 2 can be divided into 37 lots with a net potential increase of 27.The EIR needs to be corrected. Reference the attached chart from the EIR showing corrected potential lot splits allowing for set-backs,canyons,slopes, easements and roads.. 7572-010-027 is now developed and there is no room for an additional lot split. 7572-009-024 at 9 Plumtree with 74,815 sf has been removed from the chart as the additional sf attached to the original lot is in Zone 1.The sewer capacity was calculated for the existing home with a lot size of 32,230 sf.The additional property is in Zone 1 and should not be considered as an additional 2 dwellings after lot splits in this EIR as the additional property is not in Zone 2.Reference Dr.Elig's zone map,copy attached. 7572-012-016 The riding stable was never considered as a parcel that would subdivide under the RDA's plan to develop nor does the owner wish to change the use. 6.3 SUBDIVISION OF LARGER LOTS ALTERNATIVE Based on the correction of potential additional lots from 62 to 37 with a net increase changing from 46 to 27 for the potential subdivision list due to canyons,slopes,setbacks,access and road easements,this entire section must evaluate impact on the actual lot split potential to properly showing the environmental impacts.it is unjust to grossly inflate the potential number of subdivided lots when not accounting for the topography,set backs,and roads.The EIR is incomplete and inadequate. Please allow lot splits in the Moratorium Ordinance Revisions for Zone 2. Thank you for your consideration. Kathy Snell 8 Vanderlip Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca 90275 3107078876 11/7/2012 From: Sent: To: Cc: SunshineRPV@aol.com Wednesday,November 07,20123:05 PM Ara Mihranian CC SUbject:More.Re:Yes and thanks.Re:November 7th CC Meeting Item 5 Attachments:2012 position statem -0360.pdf;2012 Trails DM crite -0362.pdf;Here is why -0359.pdf Does any of this make any more sense?Congress is going to remain dysfunctional. Is that a good excuse for RPV to postpone implementing our Trails Network Plan?...S In a message dated 11/7/20122:36:30 P.M.Pacific Standard Time,AraM@rpv.com writes: © Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/mv ~Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent:Wednesday,November 07,2012 11:18 AM To:Ara Mihranian Subject:Yes and thanks.Re:November 7th CC Meeting 11/7/2012 In a message dated 11/7/20129:11 :08 A.M.Pacific Standard Time,AraM@rpv.com writes: Hi Sunshine, Attached is the exhibit I believe you are requesting is available on the powerpoint at tonight's Council meeting. Please confirm this is correct. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. 11/7/2012 .WSTF July 4,2012 Page 1 of 2 WlftllX ftA'1'IS 'lUlL rDUlDA!lDR 150 A Gum Lane •Auburn,California 95603.(530)823·7282 •FAX (530)823-7901 Add _on Yean to Toa,Life,E-Mail:wstf@foothill.net •http://www.foothill.net/teVl$ .or.'LUe I.T••r Year,. ald ••Boue....ALLY "ID"~... .. ., SPOIIISO~S FO~THE '~MOUS TEVIS CUP 100 tollLES 1,)116 DAY RID2 ON TIn KUTo'Ue seIlllle WUUItIl STI\rES PONT IX'IlESS NATIONAl.HCO!ATlON TRAil. Position Statement July 4,2012 Direct questions to the above or Bill Pieper cell (530)570-4401 wfpader@wildblue.net There are three "E'''s in the "tread lightly"truism for developing sustainable trails through "to be improved"private property,rights of way (ROW)and nature preserves.Of particular importance is the order in which the "E"'s are introduced. Historically,the conversion of "social"trails into well maintained "public"trails has been poorly implemented.This need not be so.In the long run,it is less expensive to do it right at the onset of an opportunity. First is Engineering.The first step in any design is an agreement of the objectives. Start points (Point A)and destinations (Point B)must be established.The long term criteria for the trail corridor must be established to be uniform between each Point A and B.It is not feasible,nor appropriate l that every trail be ADA compliant. Second is Education.Like Driver Education,every new trail user needs to be taught trail use etiquette.It is a matter of safety.Simple things like those going down hill should yield to those coming up appear to have been forgotten. Third is Enforcement.Most of the time,"peer pressure"is effective and free.As with paved roadways,trail user conflicts will occur whenever someone behaves rudely,Le.unsafely or not in the best interest of the community at large.Every legal regulation effort to control human behavior such as banning a certain type of use, will result in the expense of additional education (proliferation of signage),some sort of penalty on the offender and the expense of expediting the punishment. Given the rather universally agreed upon opinion that off-road circulation is,a desired public amenity,every agency should start with funding the Engineering up front.It is even more cost effective when the engineering is designed in conjunction with some other "public work". FollOWing is a suggestion of a trail development/maintenance criteria which if universally adopted by everybody from the Sj9cretary of Agriculture (National Forests)and the Secretary of the Interior (National Parks Service)on down,would save us all a lot of grief and money in the effort to have public access to trails. When you can state exactly what you want,you have a chance of getting it. Share it,adopt it by resolution or policy,use it,make it your "matrix"for the future. WSTF July 4,2012 Page 2 of 2 This is a concise model from which trail management authorities can choose and assign to a master plan application,a minimal,ultimate objective and avoid repeated environmental impact studies,reports etc.prior to when funding becomes available for actual Engineering,improvement or repair of a traiL . TRAIL DEVELOPMENT'MAINTENANCE CRITERIA·of Julv 4,2012 "TYPE"is numbered from easiest to most challenging. TYPE GRADE PRISM"TREAD·" Averaae Maximum Distance+Vertical Horizontal Minimum Width 1 3%5%30'12'8'5' 2 5%10%100'15'12'8' 3 5%15%100'15' 10'8' 4 10%15%++100'12'8'6' 5 10%18%++100'12'6'4' 6 10%20%++.100'12'5'3' 7 15%20%++100'12'4'2' These IIguldellnes"are based on the assumption that all "unpaved pathways" are "multi-use trails"unless posted otherwise.The "TYPE"is assigned to promote the creation of pathways and the ongoing accommodation of various trail use needs from one destination to another.+++For instance: TYPE 1 -Wheelchairs.(ADA compliant.) TYPE 2 -Large emergency vehicles.(Fire Department compliant.) TYPE 3 -Circulation by .a large volume of various users and small emergency vehicles.(Reduce user conflicts.) TYPE 4 -Recreation by a large volume of various users. TYPE 5 -Recreation by a lesser volume of various users. TYPE 6 -Challenging or isolated recreation by a sparse volume. TYPE 7 -Habitat access recreation by a sparse volume. Note:Unimproved roadsides and all roadsides in residential Equestrian Zones should be maintained with at least a TYPE 6 "Prism".Any hardscape (such as a driveway)that crosses a trail tread should have an anti-skid surface.Vertical obstructions (such as curbs and water bars)should be no more than six inches high. Access to ADA compliant alternate routes should be provided . ."A criterion is a standard upon which a jUdgment or decision may be based. **A trail "prism"is the area to be kept clear around the trail tread.Nothing higher than six (6)inches should obstruct the prism for more than two (2)linear feet along the traiL The trail tread need not be centered in the prism partiCUlarly for "line of sight",big old tree,and/or "safety triangle"considerations. ***The trail tread is to be unobstructed and essentially level from side to side with water drainage considerations. +There should be a level distance of at least eight (8)feet or a level turnout before and after any instance where the trail tread reach~s the maximum grade for the maximum distance. ++Grade can be steeper for short distances but from destination to destination, it must meet the average for the trail TYPE.(User expectation signage.) +++A "destination"is a trailhead,vista point and/or a place where the trail TYPE can change without leaving someone stuck and having to backtrack, unintentionally.Identify them with GPS waypoints. Environmental Considerations F rom the high mountain divide at Watson's Monument to Hodgson's Cabin is an area that the United States Congress has set aside as wilderness and has desig- nated it the Granite Chief Wilder- ness Area. This special area,established by the California Wilderness Act of Sep- tember 1984,is managed to offer soli- tude in a pristine and natural setting. Protection of this ecologically sensi- tive area is of prime importance to all who participate in the annual WSTF Tevis Cup Ride. Permission to cross the Granite Chief Wilderness Area is granted through a permit from the U.S.For- est Service.In return,they receive im- portant usage data upon which to base management decisions regard- ing use of the area. This cooperative arrangement between the Western States Trail Foundation and the U.S.Forest Ser- vice insures that the world-famous ~Tevis event will continue to qualify as an acceptable activity ~in the Granite Chief Wilderness Area for future years. Some general rules of conduct for riders'and support crews • should be kept in mind at all times when using the Granite Chief Wilderness Area.They include: Leave no trace of your visit. That is,do not leave behind any lit- ter or refuse whatsoever.It is every rider's responsibility to keep the trail as clean as it was found.Disturb nothing. Stay on the trail.Let other rid- ers pass at wide spots on the trail if at all possible.In this way,you will be minimizing your impact on the fragile ecosystem of the area. Be as quiet as possible.Noise also destroys the serenity of the area and should be kept to an absolute minimum. No smoking.Absolutely no fires are permitted in the Granite Chief Wilderness Area. We are privileged to be the stew- ards of this magnificent trail and its heritage.By following these simple guidelines,we can all do our part to preserve and honor this special place on the Western States Trail for future generations. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK NOVEMBER 6,2012 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Tuesday afternoon for the Wednesday,November 7,2012 City Council meeting. Item No. 3 5 Respectfully submitted, Description of Material Letter from Jack Downhill Email from Sunshine;Email exchange between Troy Braswell and Councilwoman Brooks M~~ Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendas\20121107 additions revisions to agenda through Tuesday afternoon.doc Subject:Zone 2 EIR. To:RPV,Director of Community Development. 1·~.7J 1 J-(.,i tL The Zone 2 EIR document dated Nov.2012 currently under review contains data and analyis which while mathmaticaly correct,are grossly misleading when examined more closely by including the topography of the parcel in question and accessability of possible building sites. The original Subdivision including those parcels identified as Monks,Undeveloped and Currently Occupied would produce Zero additional,the one exception being the eleven acre parcel currently in use as a Stable and Riding School.The numbers of parcels it would produce would be fewer than the number projected when utilities,streets,sewers and drainage,not to mention marketability,are included.Hence,the number of additional lots that might ever result from subdividing the Riding School property would be significantly lower than the 22 estimated in the EIR.The possibility of this ever being proposed is believed to be unlikely. The number of additional building sites which would be likely from the properties north of Narcissa Dr. fronting on Vanderlip Dr.and Narcissa ,applying the above considerations and the fact of current Zoning of these parcels: 98 Vanderlip Dr.1 Monks and possibly 1 additional Downhill property Hastings property Snell property 1 currently and 1 currently and 1 currently and 3 additional ladditional 2 additional Total number of additions which would merit consideration would be 7 as opposed to 14 suggested in the EIR. Signed: RECEIVED Jack Downhill, l Note:My ownership of this property commenced on Oct.9,1968 with the purchase of a 25%interest followed by the purchase of the entire property in 1972.The zoning of the property at 1 unit per acre has existed over that entire time and various taxes and annual fees have been consistently elevated reflecting that zoning and the entitlements there with. NOV 06Z01Z COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 3 From:SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent:Friday,November 02,2012 12:38 PM To:CC Subject:November 7,2012 Council Meeting Item 5. MEMO from Sunshine TO:RPV City Council RE:November 7,2012 Council Meeting Item 5.Policy Direction Related to the Update of the City's Trails Network Plan -(Supports 2012 City Council Goal -Trail System Enhancement)(Mihranian) Recommendation:Provide Staff with policy direction on 4 of the 11 recommendations made by the Open Space Planning Recreation and Parks Task Force related to the forthcoming update of the City's Trails Network Plan. There is one very important decision to be made here. Maintenance of existing City facilities are different from Staff's responsibilities to "encourage"what is described in the City's various "Plans". To put it bluntly,this Staff Recommendation is a load of crap.I know that Ara Mihranian has spent many hours on it as has Greg Pfost with the RPV General Plan update.The problem is that all they are recommending is word processing.Staff has ignored both of these documents (and many others)for literally decades.I am not seeing anything which is going to change that "in house"attitude. The City Council approves a little change in the wording here and there and my question remains..."So,what?" I am looking for a way to get Staff to actually implement the RPV General Plan,RPV Coastal Specific Plan,RPV Parks Master Plan,RPV Roadways Master Plan and the RPV Trails Network Plan.If the City Council can't do that... Really.Consider this one example.Category I Trails.The definition in RPV General Plan Amendment 22 and the Introduction of the Conceptual Trails Plan is ... Category I:Existing,dedicated trails which meet trail standards. Who do you suppose came up with the notion that said such trails should not be in the City's budget to be maintained at least as status quo?Would it be the Public Works Dept.?Nope,because nobody tells them when the City acquires title to Category I trails.And,the Community Development Dept.does not enforce new trails acquisitions,improvements/maintenance when a CUP says they should. I really won't mind if you approve this Staff Recommendation.At least you will have made it clear that it doesn't matter which Council approved policies Staff manipulates. I have offered to update the TNP for free based on your policy decisions.$7,220.00 is a very reasonable price to pay given that accepting the PVP Library District's easement offer (which the City Attorney has written)will cost $4,500.00 ...17 pages later.Never mind. Care to take a walk and talk over the weekend?"Infrastructure maintenance"is the name of the game ....S 310-377-8761 11/2/2012 From: Sent: To: Cc: SUbject: Attachments: Troy [troy@eworld-media.com] Monday,November 05,20127:48 PM Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com> CC;Carolyn Lehr Re:Trail patrol,more than enforcement. caSCA Trails Patrol.doc COSCA Trails Patrol.doc (50 KB ... Thanks Susan but I don't deserve any credit.I just did what anyone would do.However,the first aid and CRP training from my certification as a Sierra Club outing leader was helpful.I hope the patrol will be trained to respond to this type of emergency. I sent Barb Ailor,the lead for developing our patrol,a trail patrol manual developed by COSCA.The Conejo Open Space is located in and around Thousand Oaks California (map)and is managed by the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA).Currently the agency owns or manages over 12,800 acres of open space and maintains more than 145 miles of trails. Their trail patrol was formed in 1989 so they have extensive experience with multi-use patrols.I know we're still considering the options but the COSCA format looks well developed (manual attached). Sincerely, Troy On 11/5/2012 7:02 PM,Councilwoman Susan Brooks wrote: >Troy, > >Thank you for your prompt response and keen insight.You just may have saved her life. This is a great way to prioritize our trail needs.Staff will be coming back with our request soon. >Blessings, >Susan Brooks > >Sent from my iPad > >On Nov 5,2012,at 6:50 PM,Troy <troy@eworld-media.com>wrote: > »I want to share an experience that supports the need for a volunteer trail patrol.Last Sunday I was riding on Kelvin Canyon trail in Filiorum when I noticed a man standing some distance away on Rattlesnake trail.I saw what looked like a black dog lying at his feet. Over the years,I've come across lots of dogs suffering on hot days because their owners failed to bring water.My riding friends and I have shared our water with poor dehydrated dogs dozens of times. » »As I rode up to help it soon became apparent that it was not a dog but a woman on the ground.Her husband was talking to a 911 dispatcher but he was unsure how to direct responders.The trail has yet to have signs posted.Fortunately,another hiker offered to meet responders at the top of the trail on Crenshaw Boulevard. » »Since the couple had been hiking uphill and the temperature was near ninety degrees,I suspected she had heat exhaustion.Other than calling for help,it was clear her husband did not know what to do.His wife was awake and coherent but still lying in the hot sun.I placed a wet handkerchief on her head,and sprayed water on her legs and torso,and shaded her while we waited for help.A little conversation helped keep her calm as well. » »We were relieved when paramedics finally arrived and began treatment.As I suspected, the diagnosis was heat exhaustion.They said she should be all right but needed to be 5" transported to a hospital.Unfortunately,because of the ruggedness of the trail,that required a helicopter. » »This experience made it crystal clear that a volunteer patrol could do more than help enforcement.All the silly bickering over who gets to use what trails seems unimportant when someone really needs help.I want to be the first to volunteer ..... » »Sincerely, »Troy Braswell » > 5.TRAIL PATROL 5.1 Purpose The Trail Patrol,which was COSCA's first official volunteer program,was created in 1989 for the following purposes:(a)to extend the efforts of COSCA Rangers through the use of trained and uniformed patrols of volunteer hikers,mountain bikers and equestrians,(b)to provide opportunities for local involvement in open space management,and (c)to enhance the safety and enjoyment of visitors to the COSCA open space system. 5.2 Volunteer Activities Trail Patrol members provide the following types of assistance: •Interpretive information to park users regarding natural resources. •Information to park users (written or verbal)regarding open space policies,such as no off-leash dogs or no smoking. •Identify needs for medical,fire protection or law enforcement services. •Observe and report trail maintenance needs,physical hazards on trails,or potentially hazardous behavior by trail users. •Assist trail users who require first aid or other forms of help. It is not intended,nor is it feasible,for volunteer patrol members to perform law enforcement functions. 5.3 General Organization and Operation Patrol members consist of uniformed hikers,mountain bikers,and equestrians patrolling in assigned areas,singly or in pairs,primarily on weekends and holidays.One or more teams may be used on any given day,and Patrol members may be placed in heavily used areas or areas with special needs.Patrol members are not considered employees of the City,CRPD, or COSCA. The Trail Patrol Coordinator (Coordinator),who is a member of the Conejo Open Space Trails Advisory Committee (COSTAC)or an active open space volunteer,works closely with the Supervising Park Ranger or his/her designee.The Trail Patrol Coordinator coordinates all patrol activities,organizes and conducts training for volunteers,and conducts field evaluations of new volunteers.Many volunteers are recruited from hiking,mountain biking and equestrian organizations,and it is the responsibility of the Trail Patrol Coordinator to maintain communication with such organizations for the purpose of recruiting and scheduling volunteers.The Coordinator will also direct initial patrol recruit training,follow-up with new volunteers,and provide guidance to Trail Patrol members regarding patrol routes,patrol hours,reporting locations,procedures,and radio identification. The Supervising Park Ranger or designee and Coordinator work together to provide necessary patrol equipment for volunteers and assign patrol routes and tasks on an as- needed basis. 1 CD Trail Patrol COSCA Volunteer Corps Manual Revised March 2009 5.4 Volunteer Requirements To become a Trail Patrol member and remain in good standing,the following requirements must be met: •Possess current Red Cross or American Heart Association First Aid and CPR certification. •Minimum eighteen years of age. •Commit to patrol a minimum of four hours per month. •Complete a CaSCA Volunteer Corps Application (see Appendix A). •Successfully complete the Trail Patrol training program (as described in Section 5.5)and field evaluation. •Sign a CaSCA Volunteer Agreement,Waiver and Release form (see Appendix B). •Be willing to be assigned to special patrols (specific areas,events,etc.) •Must own or have regular access to a horse or mountain bike,if part of either the equestrian or mountain bike patrol group. •Be in adequate physical condition to endure an all-day hike or ride.an occasion,lifting, bending,walking or climbing may also be necessary. •Willing to work outdoors in all types of weather and terrain. •Willing to work weekends and selected holidays. •Willing to work in crowded areas,near moving vehicles,or in secluded areas. •Wear the proper uniform and carry the appropriate equipment while on patrol. •Submit Trail Patrol reports to the Coordinator via the volunteer section of the Conejo apen Space Foundation website (www.cosf.org)or by fax,in a timely manner. •Maintain own patrol equipment. •Provide own transportation. •Ride only on designated roads and trails. •Practice open space ethics as an example to visitors. 5.5 Volunteer Orientation and Training Training is an important and integral part of the Trail Patrol program.It will be completed as part of the induction of candidates into the program,and on an as-needed basis to disseminate new information and improve and expand patrol capabilities.The intent of this training is provide the Trail Patrol volunteer with an overview of CaSCA and the land it manages,open space regulations and policies,patrol procedures and routes,operation of radios,special situation training for wilderness fires/park closures/medical emergencies,law enforcement requirements,and personal safety.The development of the training program requires close work between the Trail Patrol Coordinator and the CaSCA Supervising Park Ranger to ensure all topics are covered in accordance with current open space rules and management procedures. Initial training consists of a classroom session conducted by CaSCA staff and/or volunteer instructors.Following this formal orientation session and completion of related requirements, each candidate must complete a field evaluation performed by the Coordinator and the Supervising Park Ranger or designee to evaluate the following: 2 Trail Patrol COSCA Volunteer Corps Manual Revised March 2009 •Candidate's ability to communicate with and assist the public effectively. •Soundness of candidate's equipment. •Candidate's knowledge of COSCA trail system and rules. •Candidate's ability to control a mountain bike or horse,if a member of the mountain bike or equestrian patrol. Upon successful completion of the field evaluation,the candidate will be required to complete the COSCA Volunteer Agreement,Waiver and Release form.Additional formal classes may be offered,such as First Aid/CPR,historical and cultural aspects of the open space system, and search and rescue. 5.6 Equipment Needs Volunteers should carry certain equipment and supplies to ensure they are prepared for a variety of situations.These include: Equipment Provided by COSCA: •Portable 2-way radio;personal cell phones may be used in lieu of radios. •First aid kits. •Open space trail maps and brochures. •Communication card with phone numbers for emergency support and radio codes. •Patrol log forms and/or interactive log form on www.cosf.org. Equipment Provided by Volunteer •Fanny pack or saddlebag large enough to carry first aid kits and brochures. Supplies for replenishment are provided by COSCA.It is the responsibility of each volunteer to contact the Coordinator or Supervising Park Ranger to replenish his/her supplies as needed. 5.7 Trail Patrol Procedures Below is a summary of Trail Patrol procedures from "sign-in"until "sign-out".Patrol members will be expected to adhere to these procedures and will learn the procedures in the training program. Hours of Operation Trail Patrol generally operates on weekends and holidays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM during Standard Time,and 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM during Daylight Savings Time.Weekday patrols are permitted and encouraged. Check-In COSCA radios are provided for pick-up by Trail Patrol volunteers at locations designated by 3 Trail Patrol COSCA Volunteer Corps Manual Revised March 2009 the Supervising Park Ranger.Whenever possible,Trail Patrol members will utilize the CaSCA radios.To commence a patrol,the member will call the on-duty Ranger specifying "in service",and giving his/her name and patrol area.In the event that a CaSCA radio is not available,a cell phone may be used for check-in purposes.The member will be provided with the on-duty Ranger's cell phone number. Check-in with the on-duty Ranger when leaving an area to go to another area and when finishing a patrol by stating "out of service",volunteer name and name of area last patrolled. Public Relations The Trail Patrol volunteer is a valuable component of the visitors'park experience and shall always maintain a well-groomed appearance.He/she will treat all members of the public with courtesy and respect,and will be patient,tactful,knowledgeable and helpful.He/she will also provide information regarding open space rules and regulations,local attractions,activities and current road and trail conditions.In addition,the Trail Patrol volunteer will be knowledgeable about local services such as stores,gas stations and medical facilities. He/she is trained in standard First Aid and CPR and will alert a CaSCA Ranger or 911 in an emergency situation. Reporting System Trail Patrol volunteers,as part of their assignments,will inspect open space areas for trail conditions,needed improvements for safety,cleanliness,broken facilities and vandalism. Such observations will be noted and reported in the Trail Patrol log each day.This log will also help keep track of visitors met during the patrol shift,problems encountered,travel time between points,and inspections results.Safety hazards should be reported immediately to the caSCA ranger on duty.Reports must be filed in a timely manner.Reports can be submitted online via www.cosf.org.Reports submitted online are automatically sent to the Supervising Park Ranger and to the Coordinator.Reports may also be faxed or sent via email or U.S.mail to the Coordinator.The Coordinator will forward reports to the Supervising Park Ranger on a monthly basis. Enforcement of Rules Volunteers must have a working knowledge of caSCA rules and regulations.When violations occur,the following policies should be adhered to: • • • In cases where a violation occurs and the offender is present,the Trail Patrol volunteer should identify himself/herself and offer information to the violator.The violator should be urged to comply with the applicable rules and regulations.Volunteers must always be friendly and tactful.Volunteers have no enforcement authority. Some violations,as specified by the Supervising Park Ranger,may require the volunteer to summon a Ranger or other appropriate authority. When an emergency situation arises where life or property is in danger,911 and a CaSCA Ranger must be called immediately.These emergency situations in the open space may include,but are not limited to,motor vehicle accidents,suspicious persons, search and rescue operations,shots fired,wildland fires,and medical emergencies. 4 Trail Patrol COSCA Volunteer Corps Manual Revised March 2009 Rules of Conduct The specific rules of conduct for all volunteer Trail Patrol members are as follows: •Volunteers shall not accept any compensation,gift,payment of expenses or any other item of monetary value,which may create the appearance of private gain. •Volunteers shall seek guidance and support from Ranger staff as needed to complete assignments.They shall be willing to adjust their procedures when suggestions and guidelines are given. •Volunteers shall contact the Trail Patrol Coordinator with suggestions,comments or problems.If unable to contact the Coordinator,the volunteer should contact a CaSCA Ranger. •Volunteers will patrol on mountain bike,on horseback,or on foot in a safe manner. •Volunteers will follow instructions given by a CaSCA employee. •Volunteers with be courteous,respectful,and tactful when interacting with others. •Volunteers will not work while in possession of or under the influence of any intoxicating substance. •Volunteers shall not use offensive language. •Volunteers shall observe precautions for personal safety,posted rules,signs and safety instructions. •Volunteers shall not abuse access to information,facilities,equipment or materials. •Volunteers are not required to pre-schedule their patrols. Uniforms Trail Patrol members shall have proper uniforms and equipment (also see Section 5.6),as follows: Horse Patrol v'CaSCA Trail Patrol shirt with name badge v'Blue denim trousers v'Hat (helmet preferred) v'Boots v'Seasoned trail horse Mountain Bike Patrol v'CaSCA Trail Patrol shirt with name badge v'Helmet (cover optional) v'Mountain bike v'Water bottle Hiking Patrol v'CaSCA Trail Patrol shirt with name badge v'Khaki shorts/trousers v'Appropriate hiking boots v'Water bottle 5 (j) Trail Patrol COSCA Volunteer Corps Manual Revised March 2009 6 (j) Trail Patrol COSCA Volunteer Corps Manual Revised March 2009