Loading...
20140415 Late CorrespondenceCITY COUNCIL POLICY (Proposed) NUMBER: DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 4/15/2014 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS TO REVIEW ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS Z01_gwa The purpose of this policy is to protect confidential communications between the City and its attorneys, while making such records available for review by a City Council Member in the performance of his or her duties. A. Requests to Review Attorney -Client Privileged Confidential Communications. 1. A Member of the City Council may make a request to the City or to the City Attorney's Office to review written confidential communications that are within the scope of the City's attorney-client privilege, in connection with the performance of his or her duties as a Council Member. 2. Such request is not a Public Records Act request, and the Council Member shall maintain as confidential the confidential communications and the information contained therein, and shall not disclose them to unauthorized persons, as defined below 3. In the interest of fiscal responsibility and staff efficiency, a request to review such records shall reasonably describe an identifiable record or records either by topic or timeframe or both. The City Attorney and City Staff shall keep a record of the time that is spent in responding to requests from Council Members for confidential communications. , FeseuF,Ges, eF (2) sensitive legal matters, may be FefeFFed by the Gity MaRageF GF the 4. If a Council Member requests a copy of a confidential communication inferrnatier�, paper documents may be provided in paper form for review by the City Council Member at City Hall during the City's normal business hours. Electronic records shall be provided electronically for review by the Council Member on a City - owned computer at City Hall during the City's normal business hours. Alternatively, if the City Council Member cannot review documents during the City's normal business hours, the City Council Member may schedule a date and time to meet with the City Attorney to review the documents. No photograph, copy (electronic, paper or CEIVED FROM D MADE A PART OF �;�r RF OR A ,UNCIL MEETING OF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK otherwise) shall be provided or permitted, unless authorized by the City Council. If the Council Member asserts that he or she cannot comply with this Paragraph 4, the Council Member shall request authorization from the City Council to deviate from the provisions of this Paragraph. B. Process To Request a Waiver of Confidentiality . ..F07111717= 11777-ICT-Mi 1.' • L LL'L !' 1L_ 11_ • 1' 11�..I �.L. ►. L •1 ! •/ mt AM• LI- _•L -l! -.1 =,*- 147411W• • • • U777mirl •L •'L • L' •L L L . . • • • • • mi • • • • '• r • • • • • • • • • _1 1Lz .1 •1 •. • 1.•1 •LL ,1. 1 • 1 •1L 1 specificCouncil Member's request as the Ctly CouncH deems appropriate under—Lh � and • LI - 1. Ma 4—D. Definitions 1. "Agent of the City" means Council Members, City staff, City consultants, or other City representatives or officers, excluding the City Attorney. 2. "City Attorney" means the person appointed by the City Council as the City Attorney and other attorneys working within the same law firm as the City Attorney, and special legal counsel retained by the City Attorney or by the City Council. 3. For purposes of this policy, "confidential communication," as defined in confidence by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in lawyer in the course of that relationship." FeF purposes of this peliGy, "derawmeRt6 that . 4. "Unauthorized person" means: a. With respect to confidential information communicated during a closed session, any person, other than a Council Member (subject to (c) below), not in attendance at the closed session; or d. Unauthorized person does not include the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, and Department Heads and other City officers or employees or City consultants when such persons have a need to know the information contained in the confidential communication in order to discharge the duties of their positions for the benefit of the City. BACKGROUND The City Council as a body is the holder of the attorney-client privilege for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes regarding all attorney-client privileged communications, including communications exchanged with the City Council, individual Council Members, and with respect to attorney-client privileged legal opinions or communications that the City Attorney exchanges with the City Manager, or other City officers and employees. While the City Council, actina as a legislative bo& may choose to waive the attornev- -3- lient arivilecre as to certain communications. individual members _o-flh- A City Council Member, in connection with the performance of his or her duties as a Council Member, may need to review the legal advice provided to the City by the City Attorney, including legal advice upon which the City Council was not copied. At the same time, the City Council, mindful of the need to protect from inadvertent disclosure attorney-client privileged communications, has adopted this policy to balance facilitating the duties of Council Members while protecting from inadvertent disclosure attorney- client privileged communications. This policy also preserves the ability of the City Attorney to provide advice to the City on legal matters where other provisions of federal or state law limit access of information or documents to specified City officials or employees. As examples, state or federal law may limit dissemination of information and documents in order to comply with the requirements of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, the California Family Rights Act, the Penal Code, and/or the right of privacy guaranteed under California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; to preserve the due process rights of City employees on disciplinary matters and third parties on adjudicatory matters that will come before the City Council; and to protect discovery of the mental processes of individual Council members in evaluating legislative proposals that will be presented for action to the City Council. With these concerns in mind, this policy requires prior review by the City Attorney of document requests and limits the distribution of copies of attorney-client privileged communications, while still providing access to such records to City Council Members. la n3�tr i4 .�RANCHO PALOS TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: APRIL 15, 2014 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material SS2 b Email from Carol Mueller G Email exchange between Director Throne and Bob Nelson Email from Madeline Ryan 3 Email from City Attorney Lynch 5 Emails from: Sunshine; Jessica Leeds; Lenee Bilski; Edward Stevens Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, April 14, 2014**. MAGENDAT014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140415 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Carol Mueller <cmuell@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:28 PM To: CC Subject: OPEN Greetings all Council Members, I am happy to see a proposal for open negotiations with our city union people. I hope everyone will support OPEN. Transparency and openness if always the best policy. Thank you in advance for your anticipated support for the betterment of RPV. Carol Mueller, 39 year RPV resident � 99 a b. From: Michael Throne Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 4:52 PM To: Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> Cc: Carolynn Petru; Ron Dragoo; Carla Morreale; CC Subject: RE: From Nelson: 4/15/14 Consent Calendar Item G: Sanitation Sewers Attachments: CC Reso 95-33.pdf Dear Mr, Nelson: I was forwarded your comments to Mayor Duhovic. After reading them, I would like to provide the following responses. The numbering reflects your numbering below. 1) Public Works has met with maintenance district personnel related to roles and responsibilities of maintenance and operations. It is clear from the state regulations regarding what work the maintenance district is required to do does not involve increasing sewer main sizes due to inadequate capacity caused by discretionary infill development approved by the City. Sewer mains that are too small in diameter pose a significant risk of overflowing into the streets and storm drain system, which presents a significant health/environmental risk and regulatory compliance concern that the City must bare. To summarize, we asked and they said "No." 2) As there have been questions regarding a maintenance "contract" between the City and the Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (a function of the LA County Department of Public Works), I have attached a copy of City Council Resolution 95-33 that assigns the operations and maintenance responsibility of our sewer mains to the maintenance district. Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Div. 6, Part 3, Chapter 4, Article 3, Section 4885 (referenced in the Resolution) the sewer maintenance district board is responsible to make and enforce all rules and regulations necessary for "...the cleaning, repair, reconstruction, renewal, replacement, operation, and maintenance of lateral and collecting sewers in it." This resolution and the state codes that were used to form the maintenance district is the basis of the "contract" between the City and the maintenance district. 3) A. A representative of District 5 of the Sanitation Districts of LA County will be making a presentation Tuesday night on the subject of the services provided and the associated costs of those services. i would like to invite you to attend. Public Works has broached the subject of a maintenance status presentation to the sewer maintenance district and this will be something your Public Works department will be pursuing with them after they have completed the full cleaning/inspection cycle as you note. B. We too are looking forward to receiving their report and encouraging the maintenance district to share their overall results, impressions and action plan for the future with the RPV community. Thank you for your comments and your interest in the management and operations of our collection system. Regards, Michael Throne, PE Director of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 310 544-5252 C. From: Dennis Mclean Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:02 AM To: Michael Throne; Ron Dragoo Cc: Kathryn Downs; Carolynn Petru Subject: FW: From Nelson: 4/15/14 Consent Calendar Item G: Sanitation Sewers a From: Nelsongang [mailto:nelsongang@aol.com) Sent: Sunday, April 13, 201410:20 PM To: CC Subject: From Nelson: 4/15/14 Consent Calendar Item G: Sanitation Sewers Written as a private citizen, not as a member of our PC. Mayor Duhovic, Mayor Pro -Tem Knight, members Misetich, Campbell and Brooks: Tuesday night you will consider on the Consent Calendar: G. Award Professional Services Agreement -- Sanitary Sewer Design Services (Dra_goo) Recommendation: 1) Award a contract for professional services to Harris and Associates, in an amount not to exceed $192,220; and, 2) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with Harris and Associates. -71 pages. Couple of thoughts: 1. Remember Sanitation District #5 is going for Prop 218 to raise rates. Attached is the pamphlet all property owners received in March. Thought: do we want to hit RPVers with additional sewer taxes / expenses on top of this? On my 2013 Prop taxes I paid $102 to'CNTY SAN DIST #5' and $47.50 to'CONSOLIDATED SEWER' and, being retired on fixed income, not interested in add'I taxes, be they county or RPV. Seems we are already paying the county to maintain our sanitary sewers, why add more? Option: tell the county to do the job Public Works wants done. They do this all the time and don't need $200K of consultant design effort. Worse they can say is no. 2. Do we have a County sewer maintenance contract that is signed, current and can be presented to you Tuesday? I'm reasonably certain either it's been found or RPV signed a new one but ... Attached is the JPIA LossCAP item 21 saying we can't find it. Thought: no signed contract = no statement of work = no leverage with County to get things done or money paid for any reason. You have to have a signed contract that Public Works can show you. Personally I think the body of such a contract is found in the last pages of our 2009 Sewer System Maintenance Plan, though the copy there is not signed. If not, this action tonight could open Pandora's box for millions in duplicative (RPV and County) maintenance effort. 3. You might delay this. a. Have Sanitation District #5 give you a presentation of what the County of Los Angeles, Public Works Dept, Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District does for RPV including the statistics you'd find in their audits and Sewer Maintenance Plans. I believe Councilwoman Brooks serves on their Board and could probably arrange this. b. Their last CCTV report on RPV Sanitation sewers is due this coming June. Then we will have the picture of all sanitation sewers except Abalone Cove (which is RPV responsibility). So far they've CCTV'd 95 miles and done repairs as they go along. Their reports to our Public Works (remember handed out sample pages at our IMP meeting this spring) provide manhole to manhole details. As always, thank you for this time and the call is yours. Perdsonally, I don't want to see money wasted in duplication of effort, the worse the County can say is'no.' Bob Nelson 3 From: Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:00 PM To: CC Subject: CC Meeting April 15, 2014 - Item 1 Dear Sirs: I can support Staff's recommendation to remove the Archery Range 40 acres from the PVPLC, but I cannot support any additional acreage be transferred to the PVPLC. Therefore, please do not support Staff's recommendation of reconfiguring Gateway Park. The public should be able to comment on the benefits or losses associated with the transfer that Staff recommends. Please, let's have this discussion in a properly noticed future CC meeting. Thank you. Madeline Ryan 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East "May the Trails be with you..." Madeline E� From: Carol W. Lynch <CLynch@rwglaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:59 PM To: CC Subject: FW: City's attorney client privilege Attachments: Council MemberRightToIndependentPersonalLegalAdvice2014-04-14.docx Mayor and Council Members: Lowell Wedemeyer has proposed a revision to the proposed policy that is on the agenda this evening. A little while ago, he sent an email to me asking that I send his proposal to the City Council as late correspondence along with his email to me. In a few minutes, I will be forwarding to the City Council his email to me. To briefly summarize, he and I agree about some issues and disagree about others. Carol From: Lowell R. Wedemeyer [mailto:lowell@transtalk.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 4:42 PM To: Carol W. Lynch Subject: City's attorney client privilege Carol Lynch, Esq: am appending a proposed new Section C to the pending proposed Policy concerning Council Members' requests to review attorney-client privileged communications of the City. I would be pleased to discuss this with you if you wish at your convenience. Lowell R. Wedemeyer Click here to report this email as spam. NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 0 3. C. Right of Council Member to Independent Legal Advice. 1. A Council Member is entitled to consult with personal legal counsel for advice concerning the Member's rights and duties as a Council Member, independently from the "City Attorney". Where a "confidential communication" of the City is material to the Member's rights or duties as a Member, then the Council Member may disclose such "confidential communication" in confidence to such Member's independent legal counsel if such counsel first certifies in writing to the following: 1.1 Such independent personal counsel (including any members of such counsel's law firm) does not have any disqualifying conflict of interest versus the City. Independent, personal representation of such Council Member shall not be considered a conflicting interest for this limited purpose, unless the Council Member is making or intends to make a personal claim adverse to the City to which such "confidential communication" of the City is directly relevant. 1.2 Such independent personal counsel will preserve the confidentiality of the "confidential communication" of the City. 2. The City Attorney and such Council Member's independent legal counsel shall cooperate reasonably and promptly with each other, including both the disclosure of relevant "confidential communications" of the City and the preservation of confidentiality. 3. Disclosure to personal legal counsel of a Council Member shall not be a waiver of the City's confidentiality or privileges, and the Council Member and the City shall have a common interest with respect to preservation of confidentiality. 4. This Section C is adopted to protect and preserve the constitutional rights of Council Members under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under California Constitution Article 1, §§ 1, 8, 9, and 10. Protection of these rights of individual Council Members is essential to the rights of members of the public to Petition the Government For Redress of Grievances under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California. 5. Nothing in this Section C shall be interpreted to authorize an individual Council Member, or such Member's independent, personal legal counsel, to disclose a "confidential communication" of the City to any unauthorized person without either (i) prior consent of a majority of the Council, or (ii) a prior order of a court having jurisdiction of the issue. 0 From: Carol W. Lynch <CLynch@rwgiaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:00 PM To: CC Subject: FW: City's attorney client privilege Here is the email that I received from Lowell that accompanies the document that I just transmitted to the City Council. From: Lowell R. Wedemeyer [mailto:lowell@transtalk.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:28 PM To: Carol W. Lynch Subject: RE: City's attorney client privilege Carol: Please transmit the section C draft and this email to the Council. The draft serves to highlight issues for public discussion. There is too little time before this evening's meeting for a further exchange or to draft revisions on this issue. I think we now have focused a very fundamental issue of constitutional law and public policy of extreme importance to council members, both present and future. This issue is not limited to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. As always, I am discussing public policy solely as an individual citizen and not as a representative of anyone else. I am not criticizing you, nor any Council Member, nor any member of Staff, nor any other person and nothing I say should be so interpreted. References to "City Attorney" and "Council Member" are references to the offices, not to individuals who happen to occupy the offices. To be clear, I now oppose the proposed ordinance. I particularly oppose the definition of "unauthorized person" which now is being interpreted to restrict individual council members from meaningful confidential consultation as of right with personal, independent legal counsel under the attorney-client privilege between the council member and that member's personal counsel. It has been said repeatedly that the City Attorney represents the City as an entity, through the City Council as a governing body, but the City Attorney does not represent individual council members. Therefore, individual council members have a genuine need for independent personal legal advice. This surely is true where individual council members are subject to personal fines, penalties, injunctions, public censure, and even criminal prosecution for violations of City ordinances or state laws such as the Government Code. Personal legal counsel cannot give meaningful advice if such counsel cannot learn what the problem really is. Surely, individual council 0 members should not be restricted to seeking advice only from a City Attorney that might potentially prosecute sanctions against them, and who does not advise with respect to their individual, personal interests. Council members suffer fines and other penalties as individuals, not as members of the governmental body. Your first stated concern is waiver of the City's privilege by confidential disclosure to the Council Member's personal, independent counsel. I respectfully differ. That does not happen under the "common interest" doctrine (referenced in the legislative comment to Evidence Code Sec. 952 and discussed in numerous judicial opinions). The Council Member is in a dual role as public servant and as individual person so the "common interest" is inherent in the dual role. An individual council member can consult confidentiality under the attorney-client privilege between council member and that member's personal legal counsel. I think the better view is that such still -privileged consultation by a member of the governing body does not result in a public disclosure of the sort that results in waiver of the City's privilege. The language I propose formally acknowledges this issue and makes it less likely, not more likely, that the privilege will be waived when a council member consults independent legal counsel. It is true, but only in a limited sense, that "council members do give up some rights they have as private citizens." Braude v City of Los Angeles, 226 Cal. App. 3d 83 and Carsten v. Psychology Examining Committee, 27 Cal. 3d 793, simply held that an individual member of a government body does not have legal standing to sue that body to overturn a decision of the majority of that body. Christal v. Police Commission (1939) 33 Cal. App. 2d 564, states "There is nothing startling in the conception that a public servant's right to retain his office or employment should depend upon his willingness to forego his constitutional rights and privileged to the extent that the exercise of such rights and privileges may be inconsistent with the performance of the duties of his office or employment." (emphasis added) Where has the City of Rancho Palos Verdes made a showing that it is "inconsistent with the performance of the duties of his (or her) office or employment" for an individual council member to resort to confidential, personal legal advice on matter touching upon the City's attorney-client privilege? Indeed, such confidential, personal advice is as likely as not to aid the individual member's compliance with the law. The usual rule is that a governmental body must show a "compelling interest" to restrict First Amendment constitutional rights. Blanket restrictions on First Amendment rights, such as the ordinance proposed here, thus tend to be constitutionally invalid due to excessively broad restraint upon free speech. 10] I do not believe that individual council members give up a constitutional right to meaningful, confidential advice from personal legal counsel concerning the performance of their duties. That is a right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution where a person is faced with potential criminal penalties. Advice cannot be meaningful if the advising attorney is deprived of critical facts. I am not aware of any judicial opinion that says council members make a blanket surrender of all personal constitutional rights when they take the oath of office. If there is such a judicial opinion then I would appreciate a citation to it. Under the stated theory of the proposed ordinance, a City Attorney can unilaterally restrict the constitutional rights of individual council members simply by opining that particular matter is privileged. If individual council members (most of whom are not lawyers) cannot obtain confidential, personal, legal advice independently of the office of City Attorney, then the proposed ordinance confers upon the position of City Attorney astonishing power to unilaterally restrict the constitutional rights to individual council members, to chill their exercise of constitutional liberties, and to deny them meaningful, personal legal advice. Of course, a City Attorney surely must give the initial opinion that matter is privileged, and then to avoid waiver confidentiality must be preserved pending any form of review. However, individual council members still need a prompt, meaningful remedy to preserve their constitutional rights against erroneous or other improper use of attorney client privilege by the City Attorney -- no matter what natural person occupies the office of City Attorney. How can an individual council member obtain meaningful advice concerning the propriety of a City Attorney's opinion that certain matter is privileged if the council member's legal counsel cannot even learn confidentially what the allegedly privileged matter is? In that case, the non -lawyer client (the council member) will know the facts, but the lawyer (the council member's attorney) will not know. How can that result in meaningful advice about the propriety of the City Attorney's opinion? The law books have numerous cases where attorney-client privilege has been employed erroneously or excessively or has been deliberately abused. Reasonable lawyers can differ on the scope, and even the applicability, of attorney client privilege. Even justices of the appellate courts differ in published opinions. While a member of the council majority might obtain relief by a council vote, there is no mechanism to protect the constitutional rights of minority members of the council faced with an indifferent, or even hostile, majority. Moreover, the Ralph M. Brown Act operates to severely restrict a minority council member's speech that might otherwise be employed to develop a majority vote. The minority council member cannot speak to a majority of the council outside an agendized, publicly -noticed meeting -- and likely will not even be able to get the matter on a prompt agenda. 05 Respectfully, the proposed ordinance in its present form is not good public policy. It appears to be interpreted to prohibit individual council members from obtaining prompt, confidential, legal advice from properly -vetted, personal legal counsel, independently of the office of City Attorney. Lowell R Wedemeyer From: Carol W. Lynch [mailto:CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:09 PM To: 'Lowell R. Wedemeyer' Subject: RE: City's attorney client privilege Hello Lowell: Thank you for sharing your proposal with me prior to the meeting tomorrow night. I have two basic concerns with your proposal. The first and most important concern is that this process will cause waivers of the City's attorney-client privileged communications by the disclosure of that communication from an individual Council Member to the Council Member's attorney without prior authorization by the City Council. That is why I would propose as an alternative that a Council Member could request, on a case by case basis, prior to disclosing any attorney client privileged communications to another attorney, that the City Council must authorize the hiring by the City of independent counsel. By taking this approach, the City's attorney client privilege is unquestionably preserved and is not waived by the disclosure to the other attorney. Also, as we have discussed, given the decisions by the California courts in the Braude and Carsten cases, I think paragraph 4 of your policy should be deleted, because individual council members do give up some of the rights that they have as private citizens when they become members of a city council. In addition to these significant legal concerns, which preclude me from supporting the amendment as written, I suggest that in Paragraph 1, it be stated that both the Council Member seeking the advice and his or her attorney must certify in writing to paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, and that in paragraph 1.2 it is stated that the City Council Member and his or her independent personal counsel will preserve the confidentiality of the "confidential communication" of the City. Again, thank you so much for sharing this in advance. Tonight, I can transmit this version to the Council or another version if you are inclined to make any of the revisions that I have suggested above. Regards, Carol From: Lowell R. Wedemeyer [mailto:lowellCaltranstalk.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 4:42 PM V To: Carol W. Lynch Subject: City's attorney client privilege Carol Lynch, Esq: I am appending a proposed new Section C to the pending proposed Policy concerning Council Members' requests to review attorney-client privileged communications of the City. would be pleased to discuss this with you if you wish at your convenience. Lowell R. Wedemeyer Click here to report this email as spam. NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient -of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 07 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Late correspondence. Ara Mihranian Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:49 AM Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Carolynn Petru; Joel Rojas FW: Save our Coast 4/15/14 Council Meeting Agenda Item 5. Coastal Specific Plan, Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv M 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. -----Original Message ----- From: Joel Rojas Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 7:33 PM To: Ara Mihranian Subject: FW: Save our Coast 4/15/14 Council Meeting Agenda Item 5. Coastal Specific Plan. From: Councilwoman Susan Brooks [subrooks08@gmail.coml Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 5:57 AM To: Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru Subject: Fwd: Save our Coast 4/15/14 Council Meeting Agenda Item 5. Coastal Specific Plan. This correspondence should be added to the public record. Susan Brooks Councilwoman, Rancho Palos Verdes [http://losserenos.org/images/40thlogo.jpg] (Sent from my Wad) Begin forwarded message: From: SunshineRPV@aol.com<mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com> Date: April 11, 2014 at 4:23:57 PM EDT To: jduhovic@hotmail.com<mailto:jduhovic@hotmail.com>, jim_knight@juno.com<mailto:jim_knight@juno.com>, b.camp@cox.net<mailto:b.camp @cox. net>, m izie @cox.net<mailto:mizie@cox. net>, subrooks08@gmail.com<mailto:subrooks08@gmaii.com> Subject: Save our Coast 4/15/14 Council Meeting Agenda Item 5. Coastal Specific Plan. MEMO FROM: SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council and interested parties RE: April 15, 2014 Council Meeting Agenda Item 5. Coastal Specific Plan. I asked Ara... "Why all the exclusions?" His answer was that the criteria in the "view corridors" are more restrictive than the proposed "viewing station" criteria. Now that I have read the Staff Report, I am starting to wonder if this is true. Why has Staff gone to so much trouble to make it clear that this proposed CITY COUNCIL POLICY applies only to the Coastal Specific Plan Corridors Element, for development projects not located within a defined view corridor (specific view corridor, defined visual corridor, specific visual corridor, identified visual corridors, CSP visual corridor), only measured from the midpoint of a property's roadway frontage and only for applying the 2 -decree down -arc used for the building height zones? I smell a rat. California's Coastal Act of 1976 is one of those "unfunded mandates". However, the people of Rancho Palos Verdes took the plan very seriously. The statement that... the implementation of establishing the viewing station for development projects will be borne by the developer... is really petty. All of the RPV Coastal Zone is "on us". Assessment of the potential impacts of any and all deferred maintenance and proposed development is the responsibility of the City. Staff should be paying attention, not writing avoidance clauses. The policy which establishes the locations of a "viewing station" should be specific for all across our Coastal "Districts". Anything "more restrictive" still stands. Your next action will be the Budget. How much should be spent each year on keeping foliage trimmed back so that it does not intrude above the 2 -degree down arc? Staff cannot give you a "hard number" if they have no criteria. It is like reading any legal document. Take out the extra phrases and you have a clear agreement. How about this as a CITY COUNCIL POLICY? For purposes of preserving and enhancing the public's view of the ocean over the RPV Coastal Zone, the term "viewing station" shall be established at an elevation of 3 -feet above the painted white line in the roadway on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive West. N From: jessica <jessboop@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 201412:38 PM To: CC Subject: Agenda Item No. 5, CC meeting April 15, 2014 Dear Council, Please take into consideration that when writing the wording for this that PV Drive South, PV Drive West, and other main arteries undulate. As with some of the developments, the conditions used were for a straight on view which only protects one area of the drive, and obliterates the view for others who are at an angle over the project. I personally think this requires further investigation and would appreciate if this were tabled until the "public" had an opportunity to come together to make sure this wording isn't opening up a "can of worms" so to speak; maybe even a roundtable discussion! Please think this through; it affects too many situations to lightly pass this as done!!! Thank you, Jessica Leeds t7 5 From: Sent: To: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:57 PM CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; PlanningCommission; Paul Tetreault Subject: CC agenda item (4-15) Identifying a Viewing Station Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council members and City Staff, Thank you, Council, for bringing this item forth. Thank you, Staff, for your efforts. I was away on a cruise all last week, so not meeting with Staff was not due to lack of interest. Actually I phoned fellow residents and Ara M. while in San Diego last Thursday to discuss in detail the staffs suggestions for wording. There needs to be a clear definition of the height of the "viewing station" as noted in the RPV Coastal Specific Plan (CSP). I have read the staff report and have the following request and comments - Please delete the phrase "at the midpoint of the project's property line paralleling the roadway" from the proposed definition and for the benefit of the public and private property owners keep the wording for the height of 3 feet or 36 inches above the fog line of Palso Verdes Drives West and South for these reasons: • The "midpoint" language would be inconsistent with the Coastal Specific Plan which identifies all along "the Drive" as a viewing station. see pg. C-11. • There are public views from various angles of a property, not just the midpoint • vehicles moving along The Drive have a continuous view, not limited from a specific "point" of land; likewise for pedestrians (see CSP pg. C-9 references in #1., 2., 3. to "direction of movement" ) • According to the CSP, The Drive provides a continuous view for the public, not a limited view from one specific point of a property - see CSP pg. C-9: "viewed along the public corridor of Palos Verdes Drive" • some properties may have an elevation higher or lower at the midpoint than on either side of the midpoint of a property, and if required to measure from that midpoint there could be a problem for either the public or for the property owner • there are some private properties that are partially within a specific "visual corridor" ( shown on fig. 26 pg. C-10) and partially outside of a specific corridor. There was one such application where the staff explained that the proposed structure was outside of the specific corridor, so the 2degree down -arc method was used to analyze the view impact for public and nearby neighbors from where the structure was proposed, not necessarily the "midpoint" of the property. This is instance of when "the midpoint" specification in the definition would create a problem. • according to the General Plan as well as the Coastal Specific Plan, it is strong public policy of the City to protect and preserve existing significant visual aspects, and enhance views and vistas ( G.P. pg. 190- 192) for the public Council, please vote eliminating the specific "midpoint language that staff has suggested. Otherwise, continue this item for further public input on the suggested policy wording. Thank you all for your efforts for RPV! Lenee Bilski 0 From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 20141:05 PM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: CC Subject: FW: Views along The Drive Hi Ara, Please include the following message from former Planning Commissioner Tetreault in the late correspondence for the City Council "viewing station " item on the agenda. Sorry for this last minute email. As you know, I have been away. COUNCIL: please note the sentences in bold type below from resident Paul Tetreault. Lenee Bilski From: Paul Tetreault To: cc@rpv.com; Jim.Knight@rpv.com; councilmanduhovic@hotmail.com; Susan.Brooks@rpv.com; brian.campbell@cox.net; anthony.misetich@rpv.com CC: JoelR@rpv.com Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:52:57 -0800 Subject: FW: #2 of 2 to CC FW: CC 3/04 Agenda item No. 3 Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council: On your agenda tonight is the issue of whether to appeal the Planning Commission's approval, with conditions, of the grading permit and site plan review with regard to the property at 3344 PV Dr. West. I urge you to appeal the PC's approval to review, de novo, the application to approve construction of a single family home on that site. I am aware of the many communications that you have received with regard to this item and will not repeat what was said. What is clear is that there have been a few homes built on the ocean side of PV Drive that without question block views of the ocean and horizon previously enjoyed by pedestrians and motorists. It is also clear that our General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan prohibit view obstructions in certain view corridors and state a strong policy of preserving such views outside the corridors but elsewhere along PV Drive. The Planning Commission and City Council may exercise its discretion outside the established view corridors, such as with regard to 3344 PV Dr. West, when analyzing view impacts. But with a history going back to the formation of our city of treating ocean views as a public asset to be protected, we need clear guidance from the City Council as to when to say "no" to property owners who want to build massive homes along P.V. Drive that take away that public asset, without requiring them to show that a different design or less ambitious project can preserve ocean views. N Each of you pledged during your campaigns for City Council to preserve the unique quality of life that we enjoy on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Every effort needs to be made to ensure that our view protections embodied in our General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan and Development Code are observed and enforced. Certainly, exceptions need to be made on a case-by-case basis in the interest of fairness. But as the record currently stands with regard to the application for 3344 PV Dr. West, the findings needed to ignore our General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan and allow this home to be built without a showing of necessity seriously brings into doubt our resolve as a city to protect this public asset. The City Council needs to review this matter and clearly establish the City's direction going forward with regard to view preservation along PV Drive. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Paul Tetreault RPV Resident c9 From: erstevens@cox.net Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 20141:42 PM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; PlanningCommission; paul@agajanianlaw.com Subject: RE: CC agenda item (4-15) Identifying a Viewing Station Dear City Council, I totally agree with Lenee with her reasoning that- Please delete the phrase "at the midpoint of the project's property line paralleling the roadway" in regards to identifying a Viewing Station. Sincerely Edward Stevens 1 �� From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 20141:47 PM To: Carla Morreale Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Ara Mihranian Subject: FW: Why we need the broader scope of the definition of a "viewing station". From: erstevens@cox.net [mailto:erstevens@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 20141:34 PM To: jduhovic@hotmail.com; jim_knight@juno.com; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; mizie@cox.net; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net> Cc: Ara Mihranian; PlanningCommission; paul@agajanianlaw.com Subject: RE: Why we need the broader scope of the definition of a "viewing station". Dear City Council, I totally agree with Sunshine's email to you. I think it is time for the City to take a stand & to protect & restore the Open Coastal View Corridor for future generation to enjoy. We lost the battle at 3344 PV DR W., I agree a homeowner is entitled to build on his property, but I do not think it is fair for him to rob us of our Viewing rights, while he enjoys an unobstructed view.. The City has no mechanism to follow up on all the overgrown vegetation that was written into the original construction agreements to protect the open view. Example owners put up open wrought iron fences & then let the trees & shrubs take over, the trees are not to be taller than 16' feet & are being allowed to grow out of control not just along the coast but all over the City robbing people of their views. The city must take a stand with the help of staff to protect our beautiful area. l would love to take everyone for a ride along the 71/2 miles & point out where we have not followed up to protect the views. Sincerely Edward Stevens From: SunshineRPV(�baol.com [mailto:SunshineRPVCc�aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:12 PM To: jduhovicC5)hotmail.com; jim knightajuno.com; subrooksMagmail.com; mizie(abcox.net; b.campcd-)cox.net Subject: Why we need the broader scope of the definition of a "viewing station". Dear Jerry, Jim, Susan, Anthony and Brian, While Staff is concentrating on presenting you with specific little decisions, they are avoiding informing you about the cumulative impacts. On Item I, I beg any and all of you to move and approve the definition of a "viewing station" to be: 0 ,j For purposes of preserving and enhancing the public's view of the ocean over the RPV Coastal Zone, the term "viewing station" shall be established at an elevation of 3 -feet above the painted white line in the roadway on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive West. Then, when something like Item J comes before you, maybe, Staff will be prepared to explain how their recommendation complies with the goal of preserving and enhancing our portion of the California coast. This policy is not mandatory for every project. It is simply an "attitude adjustment". The following is an example of Staff's current attitude. "Not my yob, mon." Please use this opportunity to do something about that. ... S Subject: RE: Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Restroom and Parking Lot Improvements Project Date: 4/14/2014 10:59:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: SiamakM@02v.com Reply To: To: SunshineRPV@aol.com CC: MichaelT@,,rpv.com, CoryL c@rpv.com, Carolynn@r v.com, JoelR a,rpv.com, AraM@n2v.com Hello Sunshine. Please see below my responses (and Ara's) to your comments. From: SunshineRPV@aol.com rmailto:SunshineRPV n,aol.com] Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 10:47 AM To: Siamak Motahari Cc: Cory Linder; Ara Mihranian; Carolynn Petru Subject: Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Restroom and Parking Lot Improvements Project RE: Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Restroom and Parking Lot Improvements Project — Location Map. Hi Siamak, Please make a Power Point slide of page 34 of your Staff Report and make it available to the person who pushes the buttons on the lap top and projector at City Council meetings. Page 34 is a good example of a lot of my Coastal Specific Plan concerns which go beyond this specific project. Rather than having the April 14, 2013, City Council Item J bounced from the Consent Calendar, I am considering bringing up my concerns under "items not on the agenda" or Consent Calendar Item I. The scope of this project is ADA improvements of the restrooms, parking lot and installation of new driveway entrance and exit gates. The purpose of the map attached to the Staff Report is show the project site boundaries and distinguish this project site from Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Improvements (a separate project which was recently awarded). I will be stopping by City Hall on Monday afternoon to have a look at the Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Restroom and Parking Lot Improvements Project plans and specifications. Please be prepared to direct me to the person who established the "Project Boundaries". I will not be here this afternoon (leaving at 11 a.m. for the rest of the day); however PW front counter can provide the plans for your review. if you can come tomorrow (Tuesday), .1 will be here to review the plans with you and answer your questions. rI V Just in case it was you, here are my questions: 1. The "Project Boundaries" clearly avoid taking advantage of this opportunity to address the RPV Coastal Specific Plan's directive to "protect and enhance" the public's view of the ocean, why? Plans show a neer 4 -feet high split -rail fence around the equipment with landscaping to screen the above ground mechanical equipment. The height, type and placement of the split -rail fence is intended to reservable the existing perimeter split -railing fencing and to minimize an obstruction of the ocean and Portuguese point views from vehicles and pedestrians. As a future project, the trees/vegetation at Annie's stand will be addressed through a separate project to further improve the views from PMIS. 2. The "Project Boundaries" clearly avoid taking advantage of this opportunity to address the RPV Trails Network Plan and the meeting of all three corridors of the California Coastal Trail, why? The scope of this project is specifically the ADA restrooms and barking tot improvements. SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 PS: Asa stand alone document, your page 34 is very unprofessional. No RPV logo. No date. No compass rose. No scale bar. See nay notes above. We will add these features to the location map. D 3 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: APRIL 14, 2014 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached -are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, April 15, 2014 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Materials G Email from Public Works Director Throne; Email from Bob Nelson Email from Sunshine 2 Emails from: Lewis A. Enstedt; Dan and Vicki Pinkham 5 Email exchange between Staff, Len6e Bilski and Sunshine Respectfully submitted, li&10�t Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140415 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc From: Michael Throne Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 3:56 PM To: CC Cc: Carolynn Petru; Carla Morreale; Ron Dragoo Subject: Late Correspondence Related to Consent Item G Sanitary System Design Attachments: CC Reso 95-33.pdf Dear Mayor Duhovic and members of the City Council: On your consent agenda for tomorrow night is an item from your Public Works department related to an award of a professional services agreement with Harris & Associates for the design of several capacity -related sewer system improvements identified in the City's Sewer System Master Plan. As it is noted in the staff report, the City is responsible to make improvements to sewer mains if those sewer mains are found to have inadequate capacity to properly convey sewage. Harris will be examining in detail five segments identified in the Sewer System Master Plan and making recommendations as to whether it is necessary to up-size or otherwise modify these sewer mains. While it is the City's responsibility to address capacity issues related to the sanitary sewer system, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works is responsible for maintenance of the system. The nature of the arrangement with the County is discussed below. As there have been questions regarding a maintenance "contract" between the City and the Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (a function of the LA County Department of Public Works), I have attached a copy of City Council Resolution 95-33 that assigns the operations and maintenance responsibility of our sewer mains to the maintenance district. Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Div. 6, Part 3, Chapter 4, Article 3, Section 4885 (referenced in the Resolution) the sewer maintenance district board is responsible to make and enforce all rules and regulations necessary for "...the cleaning, repair, reconstruction, renewal, replacement, operation, and maintenance of lateral and collecting sewers in it." This resolution and the state codes that were used to form the maintenance district is the basis of the "contract" between the City and the maintenance district. As with all agreements, it is up to the City to be an active participant in its enforcement. Your Public Works folks have met with representatives of the maintenance district regarding sewer operations and maintenance, as well as methods for the City and District to work more collaboratively in the future regarding activities the maintenance district performs, outcomes from inspections, and future work planned to replace aging pipes. I will be going into further detail on the sewer responsibility -issue as part of the infrastructure report card agenda item scheduled for April 29. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Michael Throne, PE Director of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd o C. Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 310 544-5252 RESOLUTION NO. 95-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONTINUOUS CONSENT AND JURISDICTION TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FOR THE INCLUSION OF PORTIONS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES WITHIN A COUNTY SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT WHEREAS, portions of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are already included in a County sewer maintenance district; and WHEREAS, additional sewers have been or are scheduled to be constructed within the City; and WHEREAS, currently the City does not have the forces nor the equipment necessary to maintain sanitary sewers; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and convenience that all areas served by sanitary sewers in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes be included in a County sewer maintenance district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as follows: SECTION L. That the public.interest and convenience require all territory served by sanitary sewers within the boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to be included in a County sewer maintenance district formed for the purpose of maintaining local sanitary sewers pursuant to Chapter 4, part 3, Division 5 of the Health and Safety Code, as amended, or Chapter 26, Part 3, Division 7 of the Streets and Highways code, as amended, of the State of California, 9ECTION 2. That pursuant to the authority vested to it by Section 4895 of said Health and Safety, or Section 5837 of legislative body of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby consents to the inclusion of any City territory within a County sewer maintenance district as soon as said City territory is serviced by sewers, and to the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction by the Board of Supervisors of said County of Los Angeles over all proceedings necessary thereto for the purpose of consummating the same pursuanttoapplicable laws. SECTION 3. That said consent and jurisdiction granted to the Board of Supervisors as set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution shall not be construed to request, require or permit the immediate inclusion of all territory within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes A a County sewer maintenance district, but only to request or permit the immediate inclusion of areas that are now served by sewers. Additional areas may be included in a sewer maintenance district as sewer service is extended to such areas by annexation proceedings from time to time without securing further consent and grant of jurisdiction from this council. D3 SECTION A. That the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the City Council, to request that additional areas in the City be annexed to a County sewer maintenance district as service is extended to such areas. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution, and shall deliver three (3) certified copies thereof to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 1995. /S/ SEE B BYRD Mayor Attest: S J0 PURCELL City Clerk State of California } County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes } I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 95-33 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 18, 1995. Deputy City Clerk �{Z ()�'�12 Resol . 95-33 M-�$1d.-SCJ 'J:. G . Q3 /\130,8 From: Nelsongang <nelsongang@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 10:20 PM To: CC Subject: From Nelson: 4/15/14 Consent Calendar Item G: Sanitation Sewers Attachments: SanDist5Prop218.pdf, JPIA_LossCAP.pdf, 130901SanitRptSummaries.pdf Written as a private citizen, not as a member of our PC. Mayor Duhovic, Mayor Pro -Tem Knight, members Misetich, Campbell and Brooks: Tuesday night you will consider on the Consent Calendar: G. Award Professional Services Agreement — Sanitary Sewer Design Services (Dragoo) Recommendation: 1) Award a contract for professional services to Harris and Associates, in an amount not to exceed $192,220; and, 2) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with Harris and Associates. 71 pages. Couple of thoughts: 1. Remember Sanitation District #5 is going for Prop 218 to raise rates. Attached is the pamphlet all property owners received in March. Thought: do we want to hit RPVers with additional sewer taxes / expenses on top of this? On my 2013 Prop taxes I paid $102 to'CNTY SAN DIST #5' and $47.50 to'CONSOLIDATED SEWER' and, being retired on fixed income, not interested in add1 taxes, be they county or RPV. Seems we are already paying the county to maintain our sanitary sewers, why add more? Option: tell the county to do the job Public Works wants done. They do this all the time and don't need $200K of consultant design effort. Worse they can say is no. 2. Do we have a County sewer maintenance contract that is signed, current and can be presented to you Tuesday? I'm reasonably certain either it's been found or RPV signed a new one but ... Attached is the JPIA LossCAP item 21 saying we can't find it. Thought: no signed contract = no statement of work = no leverage with County to get things done or money paid for any reason. You have to have a signed contract that Public Works can show you. Personally I think the body of such a contract is found in the last pages of our 2009 Sewer System Maintenance Plan, though the copy there is not signed. If not, this action tonight could open Pandora's box for millions in duplicative (RPV and County) maintenance effort. 3. You might delay this. a. Have Sanitation District #5 give you a presentation of what the County of Los Angeles, Public Works Dept, Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District does for RPV including the statistics you'd find in their audits and Sewer Maintenance Plans. I believe Councilwoman Brooks serves on their Board and could probably arrange this. b. Their last CCTV report on RPV Sanitation sewers is due this coming June. Then we will have the picture of all sanitation sewers except Abalone Cove (which is RPV responsibility). So far they've CCTV'd 95 miles and done repairs as they go along. Their reports to our Public Works (remember I handed out sample pages at our IMP meeting this spring) provide manhole to manhole details. C-7. As always, thank you for this time and the call is yours. Perdsonally, I don't want to see money wasted in duplication of effort, the worse the County can say is 'no.' Bob Nelson From Bob Nelson (as a private citizen, not a member of our PC) City Council: 4/15/14: Consent Calendar Item: March 2014 Sanitation District #5 Prop 218 Upcoming Vote Pamphlet 0 armt Otitce pub%'ic eaO "'F, ASSESSOR'S IM 737301WO Nehon. Robeft A� and 54n*a M, Trs Wm Tnm " 12 Owww4iow CA Ad-, Nv� V td, CA W,7,S-W 97—Wir =I- -a• All SAMITATWH OUTRICIr NO. 5 P 0, BOX *We WWr'rtf.K, CA 9W74W 0 armt Otitce pub%'ic eaO "'F, ASSESSOR'S IM 737301WO Nehon. Robeft A� and 54n*a M, Trs Wm Tnm " 12 Owww4iow CA Ad-, Nv� V td, CA W,7,S-W 97—Wir =I- -a• All F6 11 1, RE Th ming Wastewater Into Resoul Ms ... 1tNYkV-jKrt:k ... Why the Proposed Increase Now has risen steadily due to increasing regulatory requirements imposed by the state and federal governments. Additionally. inflation, while relatively loiw, has caused the cost of chemicals and otherimaterials iggessarx for trel.. :>:&,:a«:tm to rAse.Tkjs su. © cU ail ben fain& we opted to keep aa m rates t inimum and to ; se reserves In lieu of significantly raising rates. Unfortunately reserves caj*t list f1b, j jjjivn- . licreasei.are jow jecessirv... Tkis will also Morapie TIFITRUng-t7s, Mr . I which lowers the annual cost to :x, payer. From: Bob Nelson (as a private citizen, not a member of our PC) City Council Meeting 4/15/14: Consent Calendar Item : JPIA Query of RPV (LossCAP item 21; 2009 updated 2013) re LA County Sewer maintenance contract: staff unable to find THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY September 23, 2009 LossCAP Program RISK MANAGEMENT EVALUATION Rancho Palos Verdes Contracts, Agreements, Insurance & Risk Transfer 21.6bserved: The agency delegates maintenance of the agency -owned sewer system to Los Angeles County via contract; however, agency staff are unable to locate the contract for evaluation purposes. 09-21 Action Item: Locate the contract for sewer maintenance to determine the agency exposure, and evaluate the contract to ensure that appropriate risk transfer language is present. Resources: Contractual Risk Transfer for California Public Agencies manual. CALIFORNIA JPIA, Fourth Edition, 2005. Rancho Palos Verdes 8/15/2013 LossCAP Action Plan (status of Action Plan Items) Contact Name: Carolynn Petru Risk Manager: Melaina Francis RME Date: 9/22/2009 LossCAP Date: 12/8/2010 09-21 Follow the member specific action item referenced in the risk management evaluation. Eric Mausser 8/1/2011 In Progress 4/27/2011 RPV SANITATION SEWERS: CONDITION Public Reports from County of Los Angeles: Department of Public Works SUMMARY: REPORTS TO RPV PUBLIC WORKS THROUGH JUNE, 2013 "Should be included in your agency's Sewer System Management Plan as a reference in Chapt. 8.0 System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan." 1. MAINTENANCE REPORTS (Covers Capacity, Blockage/ Flow Restrictions, Infiltration) EST. TOTAL RPV: Pipe Length CCTV'd Pipe Condition 1. Minor /Excellent 2. Min to Mod/Good 3. Moderate/Fair 4. Significant/Poor 5. Most Significant/ Immediate Attention FEET MILES PERCENT 735,699 139 100% 501,463 95 68% 118,265 % of Completed 197,381 37 39% 131,057 25 26% 78,212 15 16% 88,648 17 18% 6,165 1 1% REPORT DATE 6/5/13 1/5/12 8/5/09 2/9/09 Remaining 266,727 31,410 126,735 76,591 233,928 118,265 162 75,032 3,922 34,034 27,710 22,560 46,753 45,430 1,147 21,737 9,898 64,043 1,977 7,131 15,497 4,955 414 275 521 * LACDPW June 5, 2013 report lists RPV total CCTV'd as 502,131 feet, some 688 feet more than adding individual reports. EXPLANATION OF RATINGS: Sewer pipe considered at capacity when flow is 50% or greater of pipe diameter. Causes include line blockage, sag in the line, groundwater infiltration. Classifications of 3, 4 and 5 "have been incorporated into our enhanced maitenance cleaning schedule with corrective action taken as noted on the Quick Maintenance Rating Report Priority List (Enclosure 2)" 2. STRUCTURAL REPORTS (Estimated Time To Failure)* EST. TOTAL RPV: 735,699 139 100% 6/5/13 1/5/12 8/5/09 2/9/09 Remaining Pipe Length CCTV'd 501,463 95 68% 266,727 31,410 126,735 76,591 233,928 Pipe Condition % of Completed 1. Minor /Excellent 332,484 63 66% 175,243 20,489 96,175 40,577 2. Min to Mod/Good 51,820 10 10% 24,258 3,406 17,848 6,308 3. Moderate/Fair 68,715 13 14% 40,550 2,494 4,523 21,148 4. Significant/Poor 20,948 4 4% 9,318 3,803 2,853 4,974 5. Most Significant/ 27,496 5 5% 17,358 1,218 5,336 3,584 Immediate Attention Total CCTV'd: 1/5/12 Rpt: 31,410 126,470 76,591 Total CCTV'd: 6/5/13 Rpt: 266,727 31,410 127,043 76,591 * "ESTIMATED TIME TO FAILURE" DEFINITIONS: 1. Minor/Excellent: Unlikely in foreseeable future 2. Min to Mod/Good 20 years or more 3. Moderate/Fair 10 to 20 years 4. Significant/Poor 5 to 10 years 5. Most Significant/ Has failed within 5 years 3. FUTURE PROJECT: (from 6/5/13 letter) "The Sewer Condition Assessment Program will be performing future closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection of the remaining sewer lines within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes according to the following schedule." Schedule Report # CTTV Feet % of Total Status 2011-2012 YOTV1112C 233,928 31.8 In progress, to be available NLT 6/5/14. From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:49 AM To: CC Cc: Carolynn Petru; Cory Linder Subject: April 15, 2014 Council Agenda Item I, rearrange public use of City property MEMO FROM: SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties RE: April 15, 2014 Council Agenda Item I, rearrange public use of City property This sort of thing should not appear on the Council's Consent Calendar. Adequate public notice is not provided. There are three different issues touched upon in this Staff Recommendation. I strongly urge the Council to direct Staff to present their positions on each one, separately. I support removing the "Archery Range Area" from the NCCP and the PVPLC management contract. I support not adding the Malaga Canyon acreage to the NCCP and PVPLC management contract at this time. I do not support changing the boundaries of "Gateway Park" at this time. If you can make the "Archery Range Area" recommendation a stand alone Resolution, please do. Despite how Staff is running with it, remember that Council has not yet approved a change in the RPV General Plan's definitions of "active" v. "passive" recreation. From: Lewis Enstedt <lewisenstedt@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 5:10 PM To: CC Subject: For Your Consideration Dear Council, I urge you read and consider the following article as you contemplate passage of the EIR for Portuguese Bend. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/how-politics-buries-science-landslide-mapping-n73256 Thank You, Lewis A. Enstedt How Politics Buries Science in Landslide Mapping The six geologists were just starting their work, climbing the mountains of Western North Carolina to map the debris left behind by landslides over millions of years, when the political footing gave way beneath them. Opposition had been building from real estate agents, from home builders planning subdivisions, and then from politicians. When all that energy was released, the science was crushed flat. The new Republican leadership in the legislature cut off all funding for the state's landslide mapping project in 2011, and the five geologists were laid off. They had mapped just four of 19 counties. Only one geologist kept a state job, but he is not allowed to do any landslide mapping. Another is helping a mining company search for gold. Two are in private practice. The fifth is checking the work of road paving crews. And the sixth moved to Virginia, mapping landslides until the temporary funding for that project ran out. Against the backdrop of the March 22 mudslide in Washington state, which killed 33 people and left 12 still missing as of Monday, geologists say the story of the team in North Carolina illustrates how America has never put forth a serious effort to learn from the earth's past. Geology experts say science is often a casualty of land politics, as the nation fails to protect others who are unaware they are at risk from deadly landslides. Signs of an insufficient effort to save lives: • The federal government hasn't made a national map of areas with landslides hazards in 32 years. That last map was made in 1982 — years before computerized mapping tools became commonplace. • That 1982 map is so poorly defined — the official in charge of the federal landslide hazard program calls it a "cartoon" — that officials discourage the public from zooming in too closely to look at the map, lest they get bad information. • The entire federal budget for landslide research is $3.5 million a year — far less than the property value lost on a single day when 17 mansions slid down a hill in 2005 in Laguna Beach, Calif. (For comparison, $3.5 million is about the same amount Medicare spends per month buying_penis pumps for men with erectile dysfunction.) • States have been left to pick up the slack, but budgets for landslide mapping have been severely cut in Nevada, Colorado, Georgia, and others, including the politically tinged cuts in North Carolina that cost those five geologists their state jobs. News/ESRI This 1982 map of landslide hazard areas is the most recent national map, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The mapping company Esri and NBC News digitized this map, finding that at least 84 million people live within the broad areas identified then as having a moderate or high incidence of or susceptibility to landslides. Click here to view an enlarged version of the cross- referenced map. The scientific effort to inform the public about landslide risks often runs head-on into powerful economic interests. "People come up here from Florida to retire in the mountains, and they look out at the million - dollar views, but people are not looking at the ground under their feet," said former North Carolina state Rep. Ray Rapp, a Democrat who sponsored the landslide mapping and was voted out of office after it was scrapped. "The geologists were perceived as threats. If you're selling land that is unstable and liable to slide, what does that do to your sale price?" How Washington Mudslide Catastrophe Could Have Been Prevented What is lacking, scientists say, is not just money, but consensus. Though the science is solid, geologists say, they aren't sure people want to know the answers. "There are two sides," said Lynn Highland, a geographer and coordinator of the National Landslide Information Center at the USGS office in Denver. Highland says there are "people who think, we need to do this, it's a public safety issue. And then people who say, I have my private property, I have a right to do what I want with it. States and counties are left in a lurch between doing the right thing for public safety, and encouraging growth." History is the best guide to the future. Geologists say that any effort to reduce the risks from landslides must start with an inventory, a detailed map showing where landslides have happened. Even with good maps, there's no guarantee that the public will get the word about landslide hazards, or that state and local governments will take action to discourage or prevent building in dangerous areas. Washington is one of the most responsible states at mapping its landslide risks, according to the USGS, and geologists have shown dangers around the Oso area for decades. A 2004 flood- management ood- mana eg ment plan even talked of buying up all the homes in the area to "remove the risk to human life and structures." Instead, the county took action to stabilize the base of an unstable slope — a temporary fix overwhelmed by the huge landslide last month. Aerial photos show the community of Oso, Wash., before and after the March 22 landslide. Debby Rule bought a home on Steelhead Drive in Oso in 2007. She said she and her husband had no idea there was danger above. "We were not informed of a landslide risk," she told NBC News. "We were told about the Hazel Slide in'06, and that the Corps of Engineers had got it fixed. But we had no idea it could reach us. Why did they even authorize people to build homes there?" Rule and her husband moved away last year, just before he died of cancer. When asked how many of her former neighbors are among the 33 people found so far in the debris, she finds it easier to count the living. "One ... two ... three. I know of three that are alive — out of the eight houses that I knew." The 1982 national landslide risk map was not created to find safe places to build houses. It was made by the U.S. Geological Survey to show areas to avoid when building nuclear power plants and other large engineering works. "Nuclear power was the driving force," said Highland, the USGS official. But America is hardly building nuclear power plants these days. That 1982 map — made well before the advent of computerized geographical information systems, known as GIS — is not detailed enough to show all landslide -prone areas. The mapmakers warned that "individual landslides could not be shown on a map of this scale." And in fact it does not show any hazard in the Oso area, which was well documented in state studies. "It was never intended as a map to be used for specific areas of the country," said Peter Lyttle, program coordinator for landslide mitigation at USGS headquarters in Reston, Va. "It's a cartoon graphic to show which areas are prone to landslides: the Appalachians, the West Coast, the Mountain West." While drawing conclusions from such a crude representation is problematic, NBC News and the computer mapping firm Esri plugged in Census data to see how population has changed in the areas identified on the map since it was drawn. Adding together all the landslide -prone areas on the map, Esri found that the total 2000 population living in such zones was 77.2 million. By 2010, the population in those same boundaries had increased by 7 percent to 82.7 million. And by 2013, the population rose another 1.6 percent to 84.0 million – or 26 percent of the current U.S. population. Esri's projections show that these areas are expected to add another 3.2 percent by 2018, pushing the population to 86.7 million. The areas also include about 13 million housing units built after the 1982 map was published, Esri calculated. Congress gave the U.S. Geological Survey a mandate a decade ago to set a national policy to mitigate landslide risks. The USGS estimated that the cost would be $25 million a year, and the National Academy of Sciences offered a higher estimate, $50 million. Instead, Congress allocated only $2.5 million, which has slowly increased to $3.5 million, Lyttle said. "The plan and the reality are two different things," Highland said. "Congress tells us we need to have a national strategy, but they don't give us the money to do it." The agency has focused on discrete, modest projects: developing a warning system in areas where major landslides have reduced stabilizing vegetation, setting levels in the Seattle area for warnings after major rainfall that could undermine slopes. Several states have good landslide maps, Highland said, and she is coordinating a pilot program to get states to cooperate on standards and definitions. Washington, Oregon, and California are among the states with the most complete inventories of landslide hazards, and she named Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia as other states with particularly good efforts. Most worrisome, she said, was the North Carolina experience. In September 2004, Western North Carolina was hit by rains from Hurricane Frances, then two weeks later by Hurricane Ivan. Saturated ground in the mountains crumbled, as the Peek's Creek landslide killed five people and destroyed 15 homes. It cost about $1.3 million to clean up, and $3.2 million to buy out damaged property. The legislature approved a program to map landslide risks in 19 western counties. State geologist Rick Wooten put a team together, using lidar, the newest technology to help detect changes in the ground with lasers. In one county, the team found more than 2,000 landslides triggered by a storm in the 1940s. "I know we were making a good scientific product," Wooten said. "We had peer review. We had the right skill set of people working on it." One member of that team, a young geologist named Jennifer Bauer, went to work making a map in her home county in the mountains. "I grew up in Macon County," she said. "Even growing up here, I was not aware that landslides happen in North Carolina." via AP, file Fletcher / Asheville Citizen -Times The landside-damaged home of Kurt Biedler and Tammy Jones in Maggie Valley, N.C. on Feb. 6, 2010. Firefighters had to remove a layer of debris from the basement to free Jones and the family dogs. More than 40 people were evacuated. The work was slow, taking about one year per county, at a cost of about $500,000. In comparison, a landslide in Maggie Valley, N.C., in 2010 cost about $1.4 million to clean up. "The cost of the mapping to complete an entire county is less than or equivalent to the average home in the county," Bauer said. "If we can save one home from getting destroyed, it pays for the mapping for the entire county." But the geologists often encountered anxiety as they worked. Real estate agents feared that they would be held responsible legally if they failed to disclose a hazard area to a buyer. Builders were concerned that land values would fall. "A lot of what we were hearing was a lot of misperceptions," Bauer said. "The map didn't say you couldn't build here. It says here's information you can use, where you really need to pay attention." Brooks / Aslan Creative Jennifer Bauer, a member of the North Carolina landslide mapping team that lost its funding in 2011, said the geologists did what they could to calm public fears of regulation. "A lot of what we were hearing was a lot of misperceptions," Bauer said. "The map didn't say you couldn't build here. It says here's information you can use, where you really need to pay attention." In the state capital, the program became a target. The legislator who had proposed the mapping, Ray Rapp, also had proposed legislation to regulate development in areas with a slope of at least 40 percent. Three times the legislature soundly rejected his steep -slope law, which was opposed vigorously by the home builders and Realtors associations. One influential Republican, state Rep. Mitch Gillespie of Marion, had taped a bull's-eye target on his office window, positioned so dead center was right over the nearby offices of the state Department of Natural Resources. He told reporters that the mapping cuts were part of a general budget reduction, but he added that the mapping was unnecessary and was being done to bolster efforts to reduce development and curtail the rights of landowners. After Republicans took control of the Legislature in 2011 for the first time since 1870, lawmakers killed the maps and laid off the five geologists. A Republican state senator, Don East, told the Associated Press that the cuts "will get government off the backs of business and industry." Rep. Rapp was defeated in 2012 after redistricting changed his district to a more Republican population. He said Realtors, who had backed his previous campaigns, also withdrew their support. Rep. Gillespie, who opposed the mapping, was re-elected, but left the legislature. Now he has an office in the building he once had a bull's-eye on, as assistant secretary for the environment at the Department of Natural Resources. He did not return calls from NBC News. The North Carolina Association of Realtors also did not respond to requests from NBC News for comment. The association's members had discussed publicly their fears that they might be held accountable for disclosing to property owners landslide risks shown on the map. (California has such a requirement, but most states do not.) At the North Carolina Home Builders Association, the general counsel and executive vice president, Michael Carpenter, said he didn't believe the group has a policy now on the mapping, which he said is a dead issue in the legislature. "Generally speaking, I'm sure there are areas in which there ought to be protection," he said, but he questioned the science. "How useful is the mapping? How accurate is it? I don't know enough about the science to say." Fuemmeler / Appalachian Landslide Consultants After North Carolina laid off its mapping team in 2011, geologist Jennifer Bauer and geologist Stephen Fuemmeler went into business for themselves, advising landowners on their risks. "People still want to know this information. The scientists knew what was going on, but the public didn't." Bauer, one of the geologists on the state team, went into business with another team member in Asheville, advising homeowners on their landslide risks. "People still want to know this information," she said. "The scientists knew what was going on, but the public didn't." Mapping team leader Wooten kept his state job, but he said he got the message that the legislature doesn't want anyone on the payroll mapping landslides. "We're not a regulatory agency," Wooten said. "We weren't promoting or fighting against regulations on mountainside development. Our job was just to make the maps, so people could make informed decisions about where to build. "Politically and socially, it's a hard thing to do," Wooten said. "I hope we can get to a point where there will be science education, where people will understand nuance, public education, relative risk. But I'm not sure I'll live long enough." Donna Mendell of NBC News contributed research for this article. First published April 7th 2014, 10:00 am TO: eduardosg pv.com Planning@rpv.com Jerr. duhovicgrpv. com Susan.brookskrpv.com Brian. campbell nrpv. corn Jim.knightgKpv.com Anthony. mi seti chgrpv. com FROM: Dan and Vicki Pinkham #1 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA April 7, 2014 Subject: Comments on Case No. ZON2009-00409 (Code Amendment & EIR) IMPACT ANALYSIS A bit of history—Portuguese Bend Gate House, AKA "Villa Palos Verdes" Our home, #1 Narcissa Drive, commonly know as "The Portuguese Bend community Gate House", is historically, architecturally, and socially significant to this community and to California. The Gate House was designed after a 16" century Italian Chapel, and was one of the original Frank Vanderlip homes built in 1924 by the well-known architect, Gordon Kaufman. This Gate House, is the first home located on one of the two access roads to the proposed Zone 2 future development. The Narcissa Drive entrance road is located only INCHES from our front door and living room. Originally the Vanderlips's designed the Narcissa road ONLY to be the entrance for several 100 - acre private estates. After the financial collapse in 1929, it became necessary to sub divide the lots into smaller parcels, causing a need to widen the road. Now with more � a. growth, our concern is that the entrance may again be too small to accommodate the future oversized construction traffic. Impact of existing building Since the existing construction for the Monk's property, we have already experienced very negative impacts due to the size and amount of heavy equipment trying to navigate the narrow entrance road. You may know already that a cement truck, working on one of the Monk's lots, demolished the original Vanderlip entrance cement wall; causing valuable historical damage. Our pillars, walls, and landscaping are constantly being hit by traffic trying to navigate the narrow width of the road. (see attached photos) .The EIR may have studied the projected number of construction trucks that could possibly enter Narcissa Drive over a 10 year period, however, it only takes only ONE oversized truck to hit a bicyclist, on coming car, a pedestrian, or our house to create a tragedy and an expensive law suit against the city in the future. Mitigation suggested to the city As one of the original "Vanderlip homes", our home is NOT part of the Portuguese Bend Community Association. We are in no way protected or represented by the PBCA. We purchased our home in huge disrepair. Since then we have spent years improving our home and the entrance to the community association, not to mention, creating a beautiful city landmark. In reality, there is a VERY 0 significant impact on our home and health. There was a building moratorium when we purchased our home; it was impossible to believe that future home development would occur in an ANCIENT LANDSLIDE. We feel that the city of RPV should seriously consider some form of mitigation, compensation and or insurance for the significant and potential impact that this development will most certainly cause our family. Fortunately, there does seem to be a mitigation solution for our dilemma. Years ago, we submitted several Myron Hunt /Gordon Kaufman entrance designs to the PBCA. These concepts were for a reconfigured Narcissa entrance that both the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and Portuguese Bend Community would laud as an asset to this one of a kind Southern California iconic community. Each set of plans was carefully designed with the utmost concern for the community, it's safety, historical importance and it's esthetics. Each design moved the Narcissa entrance road approx 36 feet from the existing road. Our designs have been disregarded because we are "not members of the association and the city permits would be too expensive." It has been suggested that the city could possibly work jointly with the association and us in efforts to move and improve the entrance road. Perhaps the city could wave the fees that would be necessary to make these engineering adjustments to the entrance. We would be more than happy to contribute to this effort in any necessary way. We could easily gather other professionals that would be more than happy to contribute their expertise. This could easily be 0 accomplished with the city's assistance and the PBCA's understanding and approval. Please let it also be known that, in our 11/19/2012, DEIR comments, we have brought it to the city's attention that in a fire emergency, the earth moving fire equipment trucks are too large to enter the Narcissa and Peppertree roads. Let it be know, also that we have provided evidence About the destabilization and erosion of our property in Altamira Canyon. D -Y U �r --- - _ -- l— _'_ •r' AIMOF �; or ano, " N.^ 0 d i III AL t WK I ,a% �1 4. I ■ rl� I ft .44 11 r jr I r 4L d .4 r 00 From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:31 AM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: leneebilski@hotmail.com; Carolynn Petru; CC; EZStevens@cox.net; paul@agajanianlaw.com Subject: Viewing Station defined to preserve and enhance... Hi Ara, Why all the exclusions? In the effort to preserve and enhance the public's view of the ocean, three feet above every inch of the fog line on the seaward side of PV Drive South and PV Drive West should be considered as a starting point for discussing view blockage mitigation measures in relation to all proposed work in RPV's Coastal Zone. How else is anyone to know what is given up in the negotiations? ...S In a message dated 4/9/2014 11:30:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, leneebilski@hotmail.com writes: What do you think of this language?? Seems pretty wordy. Could it be misinterpreted? Lenee p.s.Nanine and I are fine so far - traveling on the Crown Princess. From: AraM@rpv.com To: leneebilski@hotmail.com Subject: RE: Viewing Station defined FW: CC Agenda 3/04: Coastal Specific Plan Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:05:55 +0000 Hi Lenee, Sorry for bothering you while out of town, but the following is Staff's proposed policy language: For development projects within the City's designated Coastal District that are not located within a defined view corridor, the viewing station, for purposes of applying the 2 -degree down arc used for the building "height zones," shall be established at the midpoint of the project's property line paralleling the roadway at 3 -feet above the fog line (white line/bike lane line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South. Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development 5 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. From: Lenee Bilski[mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 4:01 PM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Viewing Station defined FW: CC Agenda 3/04: Coastal Specific Plan Hi Ara, I am happy to help with the CSP definition for "viewing station". I am away all this week, but here is the info I provided to the City Council regarding defining "viewing station". THe RPV Coastal Specific Plan refers in the Traffic section to PVDrives as main circulation arterials. Then the streets are also cited in the Corridors element section. (Sorry I'm not home to give the exact reference pages). Since the height from a passenger vehicle is lower that that of a person on the trail, it is logical to use the " 3ft. above the fog line" definition to benefit both those in vehicles and those on foot. I hope this helps. I don't believe a meeting is necessary as Sunshine, Ed Stevens and Commissioner T6treault all agree on this logical definition. Of course, there may be certain circumstances that will require individual consideration, as with all proposed projects. I will forward one other message to CC regarding just this issue. Write if you have questions as I do have internet access. Thanks for you efforts. Best regards, Lenee From: leneebilskiO-hotmail. com To: ccCcD-rpv.com CC: IezamCa.rpv.com; joelr .rpv.com Subject: CC Agenda 3/04: Coastal Specific Plan Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:59:22 -0800 Dear Mayor Duhovic and Councilmembers, We need a policy decision from you regarding the Corridors Element of the RPV Coastal Specific Plan clarifying the specific location of "viewing station" for measurement purposes. • The Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) does not define a specific location of "viewng station" • different criteria have been applied to various coastal zone projects and the Coastal Specific Plan has not been applied consistently since 1993 • each project approved by the City that has projected into the zone above the 2 -degree down arc from horizontal has been measured from different heights: one at 5ft., one at 3 ft. and another at 57, • the Coastal Act states the Coastal Zone is from the seaward side of the seaward road • one project proposed in the Coastal Zone was analyzed as viewed by traffic traveling northbound on Palos Verdes Dr. West which is at a higher elevation than the southbound lanes, and inland, not on the seaward side of the seaward road • Palos Verdes Drives West and South are named as view corridors in the CSP and are primarily used by passenger vehicles • The CSP refers to large quantities of traffic on Palos Verdes Drive generated by the "view" that this arterial provides to the public • the traffic on Palos Verdes Drive South and West is primarily passenger vehicles not pedestrians • the visual corridors Figure 26 is actually depicting "vista corridors" as each one is directed toward a specific focal point ( Santa Catalina Island , Lighthouse, etc.) • the City has been using the term "view corridors" for those "vista corridors" • the General Plan shows vistas and views to be preserved and enhanced (Fig. 41) • three (3) feet above the fog line (white line/bike lane line) is the most consistent place from which to measure the "viewing station" Please do not simply "receive and file" the Coastal Specific Plan Agenda item. Either define specifically the viewing station and amend the CSP or define it and give a directive to staff use that specific definition. The City and the public deserve immediate action on this issue. Thank you for your service to RPV! Sincerely, Lenee Bilski