20161004 Late CorrespondenceComments, October 4, 2016 Regular Meeting of the City Council, Agenda Item 3
Rob Kautz, RPV Resident and Board Member of the PVP Land Conservancy
My name is Rob Kautz and I am a Board Member of the Land Conservancy
speaking as an RPV resident. Thank you for the opportunity to address the City
Council this evening.
For reasons mentioned by other speakers tonight, I do not support the
appointment of a City Council member to the Board of the Land Conservancy;
however, I strongly support the desire to improve the coordination of land
management efforts.
When I moved to RPV in 2011, I asked around for ways that I might
contribute to the community, and many people mentioned volunteering with the
PVP Land Conservancy. I was impressed by the pride that RPV residents had in the
fact that these lands have been set aside in perpetuity as open space. A common
refrain from long time residents was their gratitude for the Preserve being formed
before the entire peninsula was paved over and their memories of the open space
were lost forever. I have served with the Conservancy since then, and found it to be
one of the most passionate and dedicated non-profit groups in my experience.
I would like to offer one simple suggestion that I think can help to solidify
relations between supporters of the Preserve and the new City Council and staff. I
noted that the staff report for this item mentions that the 2004 City Council -adopted
Natural Communities Conservation Plan is still a draft and that the conservation
easement over the Preserve is still a future easement.
I realize that these documents involve multi -lateral negotiations with state
and federal agencies, so delays were expected back in 2004. However, these
documents have been relied on for authorization of all development projects in RPV
for more than a decade, and the documents have been negotiated down to the level
of typos. I think it would be an excellent show of good faith to supporters of the
Preserve for City Council to bring the leadership necessary to complete these
documents.
One last point that I think is very important. The passionate residents I
mentioned earlier have told me flat out that I am wrong when I tell them these facts
and they would be troubled to know the truth that some of the documents securing
the open space in the Preserve are incomplete. On the other hand, I have been told
by those in the know that the reliance of the last ten years makes this a purely
administrative step now, easily and understandably deferred due to the complexity
involved. I believe that this action will be symbolic after a decade of deferrals and
can be strategic for City Council's relationship to the Preserve. City Council will have
more credibility regarding managing the Preserve both with me and with many in
the community at large when you provide the leadership necessary to finish this
homework left over from 2004.
Thank you again for listening.
RECEIVED FROM obi
A4ADE APART OF THE RECORD AT THE
4FET!NG OF, 10
`."ii;l:: to THE CITY CLERK
;ABL,a ALL, CITY CLERK
51t QO'c-
Comments
October 4, 2016 Regular Meeting of the City Council
Agenda Item 3
Bill Ailor, Founder of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy.
This item proposes that a sitting member of the City Council becomes a
member of the PVPLC's Board of Directors. I thought a bit of history
would add some context and background to this discussion.
In the 1980s, land use was a very contentious issue.
• Large blocs of remaining open space were being developed,
• Residents saw the peninsula losing a character that had brought
many of them to this area,
• Environmental groups were suing landowners to limit
development,
• Landowners were sending out flyers to the community urging
support for their development plans,
• Developers bought ad space in newspapers hoping to affect their
coverage of development issues, and
• Members of city councils were under pressure from the public
and landowners to support or oppose development projects.
When the conservancy was formed in 1988, we were under pressure
from the environmental community to join their lawsuits against
developers; to join the fight against development; to support or oppose
the election of candidates based on their stance on development issues.
But our board felt we had a different role to play. We wanted to be able
to work with elected officials, landowners, and developers to present a
new vision for the disposition of open space areas—we wanted to
preserve open space by acquiring it through voluntary transactions
with landowners. We wanted to be able to sit in the room and negotiat
with all sides to acquire land.
r
To do this, we wanted to stay out of politics. We wanted to assure>
.� � L r1J
LU
landowners and the public that our actions were not driven by political�-
"=
LU Q
concerns of a particular candidate for elected office or by a holder of
G
0.,L "'
such an office. We wanted to assure donors that donated funds would
LCL. �
" 0 T
not be used to benefit particular candidates.
Z,
0LU '
But recognizing that people who have held political office have great
U_<
� o r
knowledge and understanding of the community, we have invitedUJ
former elected officials to be on our board of directors. These haven...x.
, Z
included former mayors and council members from three of the four
peninsula cities. These include: Nell Mirels, Ken Servis, and Hugh Muller
from Rolling Hills Estates; Ginny Leeuwenburgh and Don Crocker from
Rolling Hills; and Rancho Palos Verdes councilman and subsequent
member of the State Assembly Steve Kuykendall. Former RPV
councilman and mayor Doug Stern knew of this position and resigned
when he ran for and was elected to the City Council.
The board's position has always been that we would have no one on the
board who was an elected official from an entity that controlled the use
of open space property. Also, our position has always been that our
organization won't support or oppose any candidate for elected office.
We recognize that we need to work with all elected officials, and don't
want that relationship tainted by election politics.
In summary, when we were formed, we saw a benefit to the community
for the conservancy to be and to appear to be independent of politics
and political candidates. And we still do.
t`
� ati
a *-
t1
=CL
Av.e
,a
as
� �r • � f
E c y —c nA4 �fdlk(A-
Ito►.. iP v_'; Mrs r ,ti : ,, . } ' Tt. RPCORC AT THE
Orr
CARLA Mi. kALE, CITY CL
4 1 %!W'
N84N.4 SIMMA
ft—mn. V_
Railcar Chemical
Release
Vulnerability Study
Martin County Fire Rescue
May 2015
RECEts ED r,,, -r)1/1 V JY1 1i
AND MA ?E A PA,i' f OF Thi P'7 CORD AT THE PSW cOOl
COUNCIL MEETING 0!=__A
OFFICE OF THE viT" CLERK
CAR! A VIORREALE, CITY CLERK
a� RES��
Plume "Chemical Cloud" Map
Uses EPA Software programs to predict chemical movement;
Based on chemical properties, toxicity, weather conditions, and
release rate;
Population impacted according to 2010 Census Data;
Does not identify critical facilities;
Does not identify potential business or roadway population;
Scenario:
Train crash with a single chemical car release;
Prevailing weather: temperature 85°F, winds SE at 11 mph, 50%
cloud cover, 50% humidity;
Release Point: 4" hole ;
Max distance modeling limited to 6 miles.
P�XN COV
��RF
RESGJ�
Risk Assessment
Due to proposed increased railcar traffic and public concern
about AAF impacts to Martin County;
Fire Rescue Department assessed increased risk and gaps in
capabilities;
Displays of a rail car crash at a crossing and potential release
of chemical;
Utilizes three intersections, but can occur anywhere on
railroad.
-,1N COGS
��9E RESCJ�
•
�g1Pi CO
���E
RESG��
,i
Yellow Zone
Orange Zone
Red Zone
notable
irreversible or
experience
discomfort,
other serious,
life -
irritation or
long-lasting
threatening
sensory effects,
adverse health
adverse
but effects are
effects or an
health effects
not disabling and
impaired ability
or death
are reversible
to escape
�g1Pi CO
���E
RESG��
SE
Liquefied Propane Gas Railcar Explosion
SE Monterey Road and SE Dixie Highway
0
~^N C
A
Sm K Jt Blum
3
N
m /
SE Lake Si
6
9
F Church 5:
E Florida Sl
? y o n
SE Lentta St r 4' k" w 0
D
zs St <
v SE Tressler Cr l• i
Fern Hill Cemetery
�F
SE �r
r
d, Pkwy
SF San Jose t t
SE Teton St
Sw SE Cortez St "
SE Seville ST _
714,
asumillage
61arn county
High School
ME; ___ 122'5 Gccgb
��,
1
C h 'tl ,A "
W sham Field Arrpo
J
r_ The Fresh Market Container:
ra Bla<e 1-mrary
DOT 112334OW
Railcar
SEXin9swo0 te:•:,.>
19,522 gallons
Red Zone:
People: 167
Homes: 62
Orange Zone:
People: 596
Homes: 277
Yellow Zone:
r, People: 815
Homes: 330
THREAT ZONE:
Red: 466 yards
Orange: 658
� Pac`oc
< yards
Yellow: 1,025
yards
3 G
Eith StP
'oy
m
E Bth St y
? y o n
a
SE 9th St
E Hail St
n
SE 10th S.
w S JD Park.
Elementary
SE Andrews St
E 131n "A
E 13!h St
F !arhS!
F.
3 E 1571, Cl
61arn county
High School
ME; ___ 122'5 Gccgb
��,
1
C h 'tl ,A "
W sham Field Arrpo
J
r_ The Fresh Market Container:
ra Bla<e 1-mrary
DOT 112334OW
Railcar
SEXin9swo0 te:•:,.>
19,522 gallons
Red Zone:
People: 167
Homes: 62
Orange Zone:
People: 596
Homes: 277
Yellow Zone:
r, People: 815
Homes: 330
THREAT ZONE:
Red: 466 yards
Orange: 658
� Pac`oc
< yards
Yellow: 1,025
yards
Liquefied Propane Gas Railcar Explosion
SE Cove Road and SE Dixie Highway
cn
P �
Container:
i�
c
w
w I'r _a+e s.Cove
fae .n'I g MarinadoSE
1 5X`
Not'e a,,��a
DOT 112J 340 W
-11166
So Aga
SE��v
Miles
Railcar
5�
Grant Country c3
r�
i Salerno
19,522 gallons
/
rn-ltary School `a
yi.
StriimpEr� 1ir111
b Raw gar
� • e
_ �� , : G
°v
Red Zone:
Port salert.o
_
>_
t
J
People: 396
Homes: 164
-
Orange Zone:
^� r
JL
People: 521
9
Homes: 243
v ry Y
r
Sr
' e'`
Yellow Zone:
Lee .°.4e�d r 1-'
E
People: 1,493
5 �
Homes: 658
o
THREAT ZONE:
T
Red: 466 yards
sea
_
Orange: 658
sFF
yards
Gs
Yellow: 1,025
yards
y�
Map data 9,2015 Gacglo
a Liquefied Propane Gas Railcar Explosion
SE Bridge Road and SE Dixie Highway
SESoPob�\ct Sip\S�, a�5�
Std tlo".11 SE\545.
N 5'
,E 5�\'ake9` 'L� p�ueSt�Gt
5� et
Hobe Sound w Ecm-114
Mobile Home Park
S�PS�eGA%
M11aScooters
Urrvels_-!ce le
te1'e`�
L 4E wfihyje
SE�`�51eV 5E
M
.,lapd=tar 71 C^`y,_
g �4e m
d
Vm
V
SE 01- 121
Hobe sound
Bible College
SIL
it
Container:
DOT 112334OW
Railcar
19,522 gallons
Red Zone:
People: 336
Homes: 136
Orange Zone:
People: 660
Homes: 284
Yellow Zone:
People: 677
Homes: 351
THREAT ZONE:
Red: 466 yards
Orange: 658
yards
Yellow: 1,025
yards
I DESMOG
CLEARING THE PR POLLUTION THAT CLOUDS CLIMATE SCIENCE
a Home
a Research Database FRECEIVEDM: .¢ series ART OF TME RECO DAT THEa About Desmoe TII�C� OF1. 11a Media Resources OF THE CITY OLERK
a CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
(/oil -rail -following -bomb -trains)
Ruling by Little -Known Federal Agency Paves Way for
Communities to Say No to Oil -by -Rail NE=M/i
SERIES
Justin Mikulka (/user/1 5659) i September 28, 2016
.
11
"The community of Benicia, [California,] in the crosshairs of history, made one of those decisions that will make a difference for
the country. They stood up and said the safety of our communities matters."
That wa unty Supervisor Don Savlor talkine to The Sacramento Bee
(http://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.ph�?
u=www.desmogblog.cpm%2F2016%2F09%2F28%2Fruling-little-known-
fed era l-agency-paves-way-communities-sav_no-oil-trains&title=Ruling by
�a✓I� f 6v,)a- °-Aem a'"
But that vote would have bee
E)
over what happens within its
V
"pre-emption," in which railroads are not subject to any local or state authorities or laws because local and state laws are "pre-
empted" by federal law.
In 2013 the STB ruled in favor of Norfolk Southern Railway Company, saying once again that
ii-....-. ii,.1.,..- 1 -*1., ,4
protected the rail company from lawsuits filed in the state of Virginia.
The basic idea of pre-emption is that for interstate commerce to work, the federal government needs to be the sole regulator
of railroads.
As we have reported previously on DeSmog (//WWW.desmogr)log.com/2015/1 u/u'l /pre-emption-now-and-
Why-rail-companies-are-above-laW), pre-emption can effectively place rail companies above local law. This has led
to developments such as the case of Grafton, Massachusetts, where the construction of the largest propane transloading
facility in the state occurred without the need for local approval, construction permits, or even environmental review.
Regarding the Grafton facility, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting (http://necir.orz/2015/09/28/rail-
loopholes/) wrote that, "Residents were dumbfounded: The location was in the middle of a residential neighborhood, less
than 2,000 feet from an elementary school and atop the town's water supply."
This above -the -law approach has served rail companies well. And until the recent STB decision, it also appeared to protect oil
companies who were moving oil by rail.
But this
ta9dd25b228525803400bduec3mpen DOW ment) about Benicia appears to deliver a real blow to oil companies
when it comes to oil -by -rail transfer facilities. Since the companies who receive the oil from the rail cars aren't railroads, the STB
ruled that they are not protected by federal pre-emption. In the decision the STB refers to Valero as a "a noncarrier" which is
why the STB ruled they are not able to claim pre-emption.
This allowed Benicia to say no to an oil -by -rail facility in their community. And it has also changed the discussion about this
industry as a whole.
San Luis Obispo County, California, has now delayed further the decision about a new oil -by -rail facility in order to consider the
latest STB ruling.
Ethan Buckner was one of the organizers for environmental advocacy group Stand (http://www.stand.earth/about),
which was working to stop the Benicia facility.
'This is a victory for the right of communities to say no to refineries' dangerous oil train projects. The federal government has
said once and for all that there is nothing in federal law that prevents cities from denying these oil companies' dangerous rail
projects," Buckner said. "The oil industry keeps telling communities they have no right to say no to oil trains, but this ruling
once and for all refutes this."
Jackie Prange was one of the lawyers working on the Benicia case for the Natural Resources Defense Council
(http://www.sfgate.com/sea rch/?
action=search&channel=bayarea&inlineLink=1 &searchindex=gsa&query=%2522Natural+Rest
(http://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.
u=www.desmoblog.com%2F2016%2F09%2F28%2Fru Iing-little-knOwn.
fed era l-agency-paves-way-communities-sav_no-oil-trains&title=Ruling
"we're pleased with the
will be looking to."
s
v
Albanv is the largest oil-[
!ntly had cause for celebration. On September 16, the state's Department of Environmental
the two companies operating oil -by -rail facilities at the Port of Albany would now be required to
before the agency would renew the companies' permits.
Chris Amato is a lawyer for Earthjustice who has been working on this issue for years. He believes the STB decision supports
what Earthjustice has been saying all along about Global Companies, which owns one of Albany's oil -by -rail facilities.
"The decision by the Surface Transportation Board confirms what we have been saying since 2014: that Global's claim that
state regulation of their operations is pre-empted by federal railroad law is simply wrong," Amato explained to DeSmog.
"Global can no longer attempt to shield their operations from scrutiny under their flawed legal theory."
Opponents of the Albany oil -by -rail operations have been asking the state to step in for years, but the state has also hidden
behind the issue of federal pre-emption. In 2014 the Albany Times Union reported
(http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/State-won-t-ban-tankers-5838114.php) that "Gov.
Andrew Cuomo has been deflecting calls for the state to block the trains, saying rail transportation is controlled by the federal
government, not the state."
It would appear that the STB ruling negates New York's current position and offers an option for the state to have authority
over oil -by -rail facilities in Albany.
While the amount of oil moving by rail is roughly half (http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?
n=PET&s=ESM EPCO RAIL ZAMN-ZAM N M8BL&f=M) of what it was two years ago, that is mostly due to the
current low price of oil. And it hasn't stopped oil companies' continued efforts to build out more oil -by -rail infrastructure.
Meanwhile, oil trains continue to derail and explode, as happened in Mosier. Oregon
(//www.desmogbiog.com/2016/06/05/luck-rides-rails-another-near-miss-bakken-bomb-train), in
June, and opposition to the oil -by -rail industry continues to grow.
This STB decision appears to be a game -changer in the oil -by -rail story. With it, perhaps now more politicians will agree that
"the safety of our communities matter" — much more so than oil company profits.
Main image credit. -Justin Mikulka
(htt Republish
P://Ii (http://license.icopyright.net:80/rights/republishServiceGroup.act?
cen tag=3.14813?icx id=11017)
se. i
Uorint/1101?) sI_I€s(Rim, (Is"bscri e-riewsl tter)
et:8 PREVIOUS (/2016/09/27/climate-
0/rscience-denialist-myron-ebell-
ght named -trump -adviser)
s/ta
�R^}l 'a�j71ate ScienceDenlalist_Myron_ Ebell Named As
�w4imn A is c flop of QiA tc r'limnta
(http://www.facebook,
u=Www.desmogblog.
federal -agency -paves -
NEXT > (/2016/09/28/new-report-
top-senators-details-financial-ties-
between-fossil-fuel-industry-and-
clean-power-plan-opponents)
D- t by Tnn Con ft hotnilc Mi ,iol Ti—
CITY OF
vy
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ACTING CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2016
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
2 Email exchanges between: Deputy City Manager Yap and
Jeanne Lacombe; Deputy City Manager Yap and Pete
Lacombe; Senior Administrative Analyst Fox and April
Sandell; Email from April Sandell
3 Email exchange between Deputy City Manager Yap and
Sunshine; Emails from Kurt Loheit; Diane Smith
Respectfully submitted,
Ter sa Takaoka
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, October 3, 2016**.
WALATE CORRESPONDENCE\2016 Cover Sheets\20161004 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 6:19 PM
To: Jeanne Lacombe; CC
Subject: RE: City Council Meeting October 4, 2016 regarding item #2
Thanl< you for your email regarding the Border Issues Report. It will be provided to the City Council as "Late
Correspondence" for tomorrow night's meeting.
Sincerely,
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544--5203
(310)544-5291
From: Jeanne Lacombe [mailto:rpvjeanne@gmail.comj
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 7:35 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting October 4, 2016 regarding item #2
Dear Mayor Dyda, Mayor Pro -Tem Campbell, Councilman Duhovic, Councilwoman Brooks and Councilman
Misetich
The Border Issue Report has been a great source of information for many years, especially for those who live
within close proximity to neighboring cities. I would like to thank Kit Fox for all his time in preparing these
well done reports and attending countless area meetings on various subjects. However, I believe now is the
time to remove this as a regular agenda item to improve efficiency of staff time. Issues such as the Western
Avenue improvement project can easily be handled under regular agenda items and many other issues have
been resolved.
One of the unresolved issues that has been consistently on the border issues report is the Rancho tanks in San
Pedro. This issue has resulted in a tremendous amount of emails, documents and legal correspondence that gets
included in the border issues report from activists who live and work outside of RPV. Sometimes this is over
100 pages of documentation! The City Council has made every effort to raise awareness, investigate, and find
ways to improve public safety. Unfortunately I do not see any actions the City of RPV can take in regards to the
Rancho tanks. Any action must be initiated by the City of Los Angeles where the tanks are located and when
that occurs, the City of RPV can take a supporting role.
Thank you,
Jeanne Lacombe, RPV resident (not representing any group or association)
2052 Galerita Drive
310-833-0444
9
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 6:23 PM
To: Lacombe; CC
Subject: RE: Three Topics -Border Issue Report, Neighborhood Watch, EDCO
Dear Mr. Lacombe,
Thank you for your email regarding various topics both on tomorrow night's agenda and also not on the agenda. It will
be provided to the City Council as "Late Correspondence" for the meeting tomorrow night.
Sincerely,
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5203
(310) 544-5291
From: Lacombe [mailto:chateau4us@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 7:11 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Three Topics -Border Issue Report, Neighborhood Watch, EDCO
Dear RPV City Council Members and Staff,
I would like to add my voice to three current topics.
My name is Pete Lacombe. I live at 2052 Galerita Drive in the Eastview (Rolling Hills Riviera) area of
RPV.
In the interest of the most efficient use of tax payer resources, I am writing to advocate for the
removal of the border issues report from normal staff reporting. While issues such as Ponte
Vista (and anything relating to Western Avenue) are very important to residents in our community, I
believe excellent staff members like Kit Fox can be more effectively employed in other endeavors.
Speaking for myself, the only issue of importance regarding border issues is the Rancho Tanks. I
understand that this issue will fade in RPV if the border report is eliminated.
Anybody with common sense would conclude that 25 million gallons of butane gas + an environment
of international terrorism + a densely populated area = a potential nightmare. I believe the City of
RPV has done all it can over the past 5 years to draw attention to this issue. I thank the City Council,
in particular Jerry Duhovic, Brian Campbell, and Susan Brooks for their support in bringing legitimacy
to the concerns of many people who are horrified that an elementary school with hundreds of
students is located within the "official" blast radius of that facility. And thanks to the City Staff, in
particular Kit Fox, for their support over the last few years. But the City has no regulatory power over
this facility and should no longer apply taxpayer money (staff time) to this topic.
While on the topic of taxpayer money - the City is hiring a new staff member to formalize a
neighborhood watch -like position in the City. The whole idea of this position isn't government job
creation - it is to reduce the cost of policing (number of sheriff deputies and overtime) thereby
reducing the cost to taxpayers. If the city had a wider net in the hiring process, they might have
interviewed a phenomenal candidate who who have provided metrics by which to gauge the
effectiveness of the position and who would have voluntarily resigned had those metrics not been
met. I bet whoever gets hired won't have that attitude. If over the next year there is no reduction in
crime or policing cost to the city I will be advocating for the elimination of that position on City Staff.
The last topic is EDCO. While I have no problem with the increase in fees, I do have a problem with a
5 year "automatic" deal to raise fees in the future. No doubt fees will be raised based on fuzzy criteria
that only sound justifiable. I can assume that every year EDCO will find reason to apply near the
maximum 4%/8% per the agreement and find ways to justify it. I admit not knowing the details, but it
seems more logical to have EDCO come to the City for approval if/when a fee increase is required.
Thank you City Council members for all the time you spend for the benefit of our City. RPV residents
are very fortunate to have such amazing, capable volunteers such as yourselves acting in our
interests.
Pete Lacombe
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 7:48 AM
To: April Sandell; CC
Cc: Jgualeni@sbcglobal.net Gualeni; Elizabeth.Hoffman@csulb.edu; wmspinelli48
@gmail.com
Subject: RE: October 4, 2016 city council meeting /Agenda item (2) and other comments
Hi April:
Thank you for your e-mail. It will be included with "Late Correspondence" on Item 2 on tonight's agenda.
it Fc,, AICD
CitrJ of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 54.4-5226
kitf0Wvca.gov
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 6:56 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov>; Jgualeni@sbcglobal.net Gualeni <Jgualeni@sbcglobal.net>; Elizabeth.Hoffman@csulb.edu;
wmspinelli48@gmail.com
Subject: October 4, 2016 city council meeting /Agenda item (2) and other comments
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As you are aware the Rolling Hills Riveria HOA initiated the Borders Issue report as a regular item in order to
inform citizens on matters of land use and related developments along the various city borders, including
Western Ave.
Agenda item (2) includes the "San Pedro Community Plans Update" attachment essentially reporting
that RPV/Western Ave./San Pedro concerns are not over and done with.
Needless to say, this particular update includes ideas on how to enhance the appearance of the Western Ave.
"wall" on my property and others. The potential property line adjustments are vaguely being brought by and
through land re -use and economic redevelopment interests in which the City of RPV is a stakeholder.
(As you may or may not be aware, at the time the Northwest Neighborhood Council was originally established
my personal efforts to gain RPV stakeholders a vote at table failed. Since then, RPV stakeholders are allowed
public comment nothing more.)
I urge your vote in favor of maintaining the Border Issues Report as a regular agenda item.
I also want to mention a few other border issues below:
* butane transporting and storage (council's position ??)
* navy land on Gaffey ( RPV interest to acquire portions to dedicate as open space ???)
1 2—
* traffic study update on Highland project ???)
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
April L.Sandell/ RPV
310 548-3961
From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 5:14 AM
To: Ara Mihranian
Cc: CC; wmspinelli48@gmail.com; Elizabeth.Hoffman@csulb.edu; Richard Wagoner;
RLeva@sbcglobal.net; Jgualeni@sbcglobal.net Gualeni
Subject: Fwd: Hi Julie...... just a quick follow up on SB 876 Right to Rest pending bill........
Ara,
My message is a follow up showing you my earlier contact with Code Enforcement Julie Peterson on
September 20, 2016 regarding the "ownership at Coco's lot". At this point, the "WRG Associates" has
apparently dissolved..... so I don't know anything more about that.
Just wanted to clarify my earlier message to you yesterday. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thanks again. April
P.S.Hope you don't mind, I have included some Rolling Hills Riveria HOA directors as well as a couple other
HOA members. I believe it is important to include these folks given the most recent Rolling Stones newsletter
does not mention the transient problem at Coco' s nor Haggens market, or other on going issues having to do
with Western Ave. `enhancement' plans/Bord— er ssses/L.A. PLUM October hearing re: Western Ave.
Enhancement planning as it relates to the earlier 2015 Western Avenue Vision Plan etc.
Begin forwarded message:
From: April Sandell <hvybags(a)cox.net>
Subject: Hi Julie....... just a quick follow up on SB 876 Right to Rest pending
bill........
Date: September 20, 2016 at 11:52:51 AM PDT
To: juliep rpvca.gov
Senator Liu's office just told me the bill is no longer active. However, another similar or same
bill could be proposed NEXT year by another legislator. i.e. Liu is termed out this year.
April
Oh, also forgot to mention WRG Associates in Rowlett, Texas may have knowledge of
ownership @ Coco's lot.
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 6:18 PM
To: SunshineRPV@aol.com; CC; Cory Linder
Subject: RE: Lose the RPV NCCP
Dear Sunshine,
Thank you for your email. It will also be provided to the City Council as "Late Correspondence" for tomorrow night's
meeting.
Sincerely,
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5203
(310) 544-5291
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 5:58 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWilImore@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Lose the RPV NCCP
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council, RPV City Manager and Interested parties
RE: October 4, 2016 City Council Agenda Item 3. PVPLC
How about considering a decrease in the City's involvement with the PVPLC? They have a contract. PVPLC
needs to live up to that before they start leaning on the NCCP or start asking for more favors.
3
From:
Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
Tuesday, October 04, 2016 8:53 AM
To:
Lorna Cloke
Subject:
FW: Comments for the agenda item
From: Katie Lozano
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 8:49 AM
To: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Comments for the agenda item
Please find correspondence below regarding agenda item tonight. Thanks.
From: Loheit, Kurt W [mailto:kurtw.l�ahii?boein; cam]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 8:33 AM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieLa rpvca. 7ov>
Subject: Comments for the agenda item
As I am on travel and unable to attend I would like to comment on the Agenda Item scheduled for the Oct. 4 Council
Meeting regarding more City involvement with the PVPLC. My comments are as an individual, and do not reflect a
position of any organization I may be associated with or serve in any official capacity.
I fully support the City in their desire to become more engaged with the PVPLC as it applies to the management of public
open space. In your capacity as the lead to manage public land resources, the public expectation is for the City to utilize
all available avenues to properly assure all management goals and expectations are met.
Any public land manager may benefit from the use of additional resources such as non-profit organizations to assist in
managing public land. It is the public agencies responsibility to assure that any external resource or organization
employed does so in accordance with the management policies, procedures and plans so that the public can see and
provide feedback on the public agencies performance in execution of the people's business. This is fundamental a
Government role.
What is key to the employment of external resources is how any agreement between the City and any non -City
organization is prepared, and what roles, responsibilities and authorities are contained within the agreement. This is
critical for public transparency, and will be the primary tool in how the public holds it management agency accountable.
It is for these reasons that I support the City desire to increase communication with PVPLC.
One opportunity where improved communication can play a vital role for the public is the management agreement
between the City and PVPLC. As a guiding tool by which the City implements management of public land, it is essential
for the public to understand what the content of the agreement states, how it is implemented, and the role of public
participation (both in support and accountability). It is difficult to find this document and once found somewhat unclear
in how it is used. Although there are permissive elements described (the "what"), there is no clear description of the
"how". The "how" is important, as this is the key for public review of public land management performance. The current
arrangement makes it a challenge for anyone to comment on how well the agreement is being implemented, and more
importantly where positive changes may be suggested and implemented as necessary. This is a good example where
communication can be improved and is important, as public funds are expended as part of the agreement.
�5
As another example, the status of the NCCP is unclear. The lack of clarity increases the fuzzy nature for the public of
management roles, responsibilities and authorities for both the City and PVPLC. The draft NCCP is over a decade old and
there is no indication of when or if it will ever be agreed too. As an individual, this concerns me that by the time it may
be ready for approval it may need additional revision simply due to the time frame it has been in development. The last
version available is over S years old.
These are two examples of unclear information that can benefit from improved communication. They are important
issues, as any management plan development must include these as part of the management philosophy.
I support the City as they move towards a more positive role in management leadership for public land. I also support
the City desire to increase the communication between the City and PVPLC (or any non -City organization) that has been
engaged in a land management role on behalf of the public. It represents an inclusive, open and transparent philosophy
expected of any public agency.
Thank you for your time on this agenda item. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me.
Kurt Loheit
1 Clipper Road
Rancho Palos Verdes
From: Diane Smith <radlsmith@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 3:24 PM
To: CC
Cc: Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap; Ara Mihranian; Cory Linder; cicoriae@aol.com
Subject: City Council Meeting Oct. 4 Agenda Item
Dear Mayor Dyda and City Council Members,
A City Preserve Subcommittee is a good idea. A minimum of two Council members (or their designees), a PVPLC Board
member, the PVPLC Executive Director and one staff member sound good. The Subcommittee can give regular updates
to the other Council members at a public meeting where the public could be informed. Regularly scheduled
Subcommittee meetings would have a greater ability to discuss Preserve policy and scheduling, to keep the Council and
residents more accurately informed of plans and actions regarding the Preserve.
PVPLC has not adequately kept the residents informed of their intentions for preserve land next to the
residents. Although PVPLC provides monthly updates to City staff and PVPLC's Board of Directors purportedly reach out
to Council members to facilitate better communication, both have failed to include residents that were immediately
affected.
Between the drought and social media bringing masses of people into the preserves, PVPLC has been unable to maintain
the Preserves. Ocean Trails Preserve with its torn down signs has been plagued with graffiti, off -leash dogs and trash for
well over a year. Even though Ocean Trails was neglected, PVPLC went ahead with more plans. They started tearing
down mature trees in springtime — displacing nesting birds and other wildlife in Upper Point Vicente. No one contacted
nearby Villa Capri homeowners next to Upper Point Vicente when the PVPLC had plenty of time to call the Zoo and news
reporter Gayle Anderson -- but not the immediately -affected residents? PVPLC did not contact the immediately -
affected residents regarding their Lower Point Vicente plans to bring in more and more people without being able to
care for Ocean Trails. In the Portugese Bend reserve, PVPLC volunteers personally took water to nurture mature
stressed trees and then PVPLC, who stated they did not cut down mature trees, went out and cut down three poor
mature hand -cared -for trees — with no notice to the volunteer caregivers whatsoever!
Where is PVPLC's respect for residents most affected by PVPLC's actions?
A City Preserve Subcommittee would be a step in the right direction to open communications with residents most
affected.
Diane Smith
(As an individual and not as a representative of any organization or association)
2704 San Ramon Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
e�
From:
Diane Smith <radlsmith@cox.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 04, 2016 3:39 PM
To:
CC
Cc:
Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap; Kit Fox
Subject:
City Council Meeting Agenda Item 2
Dear Mayor Dyda and City Council Members,
I believe it is important to the City to maintain vigilance over Border Issues and provide support when necessary.
Sincerely,
Diane Smith
2704 San Ramon Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
3
CITYOF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ACTING CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2016
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, October 4, 2016 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
2 Emails from: Jeanne Lacombe; Pete Lacombe
3 Emails from: Jim Knight; Ann Shaw; Email exchange
between Deputy City Manager Yap and Eva Cicoria
Respectfully submitted,
LIW. eeO4244-�
Ter -56 Takaoka
WALATE CORRESPONDENCE\2016 Cover Sheets\20161004 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From: Jeanne Lacombe <rpvjeanne@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 7:35 PM
To: CC
Subject: City Council Meeting October 4, 2016 regarding item #2
Dear Mayor Dyda, Mayor Pro -Tem Campbell, Councilman Duhovic, Councilwoman Brooks and Councilman
Misetich
The Border Issue Report has been a great source of information for many years, especially for those who live
within close proximity to neighboring cities. I would like to thank Kit Fox for all his time in preparing these
well done reports and attending countless area meetings on various subjects. However, I believe now is the
time to remove this as a regular agenda item to improve efficiency of staff time. Issues such as the Western
Avenue improvement project can easily be handled under regular agenda items and many other issues have
been resolved.
One of the unresolved issues that has been consistently on the border issues report is the Rancho tanks in San
Pedro. This issue has resulted in a tremendous amount of emails, documents and legal correspondence that gets
included in the border issues report from activists who live and work outside of RPV. Sometimes this is over
100 pages of documentation! The City Council has made every effort to raise awareness, investigate, and find
ways to improve public safety. Unfortunately I do not see any actions the City of RPV can take in regards to the
Rancho tanks. Any action must be initiated by the City of Los Angeles where the tanks are located and when
that occurs, the City of RPV can take a supporting role.
Thank you,
Jeanne Lacombe, RPV resident (not representing any group or association)
2052 Galerita Drive
310-833-0444
From: Lacombe <chateau4us@att.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 7:11 PM
To: CC
Subject: Three Topics -Border Issue Report, Neighborhood Watch, EDCO
Dear RPV City Council Members and Staff,
I would like to add my voice to three current topics.
My name is Pete Lacombe. I live at 2052 Galerita Drive in the Eastview (Rolling Hills Riviera) area of RPV.
In the interest of the most efficient use of tax payer resources, I am writing to advocate for the removal of
the border issues report from normal staff reporting. While issues such as Ponte Vista (and anything
relating to Western Avenue) are very important to residents in our community, I believe excellent staff
members like Kit Fox can be more effectively employed in other endeavors.
Speaking for myself, the only issue of importance regarding border issues is the Rancho Tanks. I
understand that this issue will fade in RPV if the border report is eliminated.
Anybody with common sense would conclude that 25 million gallons of butane gas + an environment of
international terrorism + a densely populated area = a potential nightmare. I believe the City of RPV has
done all it can over the past 5 years to draw attention to this issue. I thank the City Council, in particular
Jerry Duhovic, Brian Campbell, and Susan Brooks for their support in bringing legitimacy to the concerns of
many people who are horrified that an elementary school with hundreds of students is located within the
"official" blast radius of that facility. And thanks to the City Staff, in particular Kit Fox, for their support over
the last few years. But the City has no regulatory power over this facility and should no longer apply
taxpayer money (staff time) to this topic.
While on the topic of taxpayer money - the City is hiring a new staff member to formalize a neighborhood
watch -like position in the City. The whole idea of this position isn't government job creation - it is to reduce
the cost of policing (number of sheriff deputies and overtime) thereby reducing the cost to taxpayers. If the
city had a wider net in the hiring process, they might have interviewed a phenomenal candidate who who
have provided metrics by which to gauge the effectiveness of the position and who would have voluntarily
resigned had those metrics not been met. I bet whoever gets hired won't have that attitude. If over the next
year there is no reduction in crime or policing cost to the city I will be advocating for the elimination of that
position on City Staff.
The last topic is EDCO. While I have no problem with the increase in fees, I do have a problem with a 5
year "automatic" deal to raise fees in the future. No doubt fees will be raised based on fuzzy criteria that
only sound justifiable. I can assume that every year EDCO will find reason to apply near the maximum
4%/8% per the agreement and find ways to justify it. I admit not knowing the details, but it seems more
logical to have EDCO come to the City for approval if/when a fee increase is required.
Thank you City Council members for all the time you spend for the benefit of our City. RPV residents are
very fortunate to have such amazing, capable volunteers such as yourselves acting in our interests.
Pete Lacombe
From: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmai1.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 12:33 PM
To: cc
Subject: Oct. 4 agenda item
Sept. 29, 2016
TO: The City Council
FROM: Jim Knight
RE: Agenda item for the Oct 4 Council meeting -improving communication
between the City and the PVPLC.
Dear Council members,
I wholeheartedly agree that that a good line of communication between the City
and the PVPLC is a good idea. Not only will the Council be better informed
when it comes to administrative or financial decisions, but you can better
communicate the goals and operations of preserving our open spaces to your
constituents.
The staff report has some good suggestions as to how to go about instituting a
better line of communication. I think the City Preserve Subcommittee is the best
choice and should at a minimum include two Council members, a PVPLC Board
member, the PVPLC Executive Director and one staff member. The
Subcommittee can give regular updates to the other Council members at a public
meeting where the public could share in the information. I think a regularly
scheduled Subcommittee would have a greater ability to have open, direct and
frank discussions on Preserve policy. It will keep the Council and the public
more accurately informed of plans and actions regarding the Preserve than the
other alternatives suggested in the staff report.
I do not think that a Council member should be part of the PVPLC Board. The
staff report clearly shows there is not only a formal contractual agreement
between the City and the PVPLC but, in complying with that management
agreement, there are ongoing public funding decisions being made by the Council
with regard to that agreement. I couldn't imagine this official dual decision
making role would be appropriate with any other management agreement that
City has with any other organization or contractor, public or private. Council
should also be aware that by insisting on being on the PVPLC Board a
troublesome message would be sent to other non-profit organizations of the
community.
In addition, you would be beholden to the duties of a Board member which
include: attending all Board meetings and annual retreat; serve on at least one
committee each year; make significant personal time commitments and financial
contributions; personally contribute to and recruit for special fund-raising
projects; serve at planned events; serve as ambassador for the PVPLC to the
community, business sector, the media and public officials; safeguard
organizational values including an annual disclosure form identifying any
relationships, positions or circumstances in which the Council member believes
might contribute to a conflict of interest. (see comment above as well as check
with the FPPC). I don't think the Council asking for a waiver from these Board
member conditions would be appropriate nor fair to other PVPLC Board
members.
I applaud the Council trying to make a better line of communication between the
City and the PVPLC. It will not only help the City make better decisions but will
help the public understand the decisions being made in managing one of the
most wonderful assets of our city.
Thank you for your ongoing dedication to our City,
Jim Knight
2
From: Ann Shaw <anndshaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 3:04 PM
To: CC
Subject: Agenda item 3 under regular business
As a long time supporter of both RPV and the PVP Land Conservancy this item raises some questions. I've read
the staff report carefully several times trying to discern what the exact problem is that makes the Council want
to have a member on the Conservancy's Board. These words in particular "to further the mission of excellent
Preserve management, unified mission, and enhanced communications between the two bodies. The need for
effective management of the Preserve has become increasingly apparent over the past several years as use has
increased substantially, thereby impacting the resources. With need for increased management also comes the
need to maximize resources and efficiency." This does not specify the Council's concern. What is the
problem?
The Conservancy's letter outlines the current interface between your two staffs which seems to work and has
been in place for a number of years. The conservancy letter also has several alternative suggestions which all
seem to involve more meetings. I can't imagine that any Council Member desires to attend more meetings.
I recommend that the Council articulate their exact concerns and then address these directly. If there is no
problem than I recommend that you adopt Alternative #1 of the staff report.
Ann Shaw
I
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 6:30 PM
To: cicoriae@aol.com; Katie Lozano; Cory Linder; Doug Willmore; CC
Subject: RE: Staff Report
Dear Ms. Cicoria,
Thank you for your email, which has been included in late correspondence. The City is extremely grateful for all that you
and the other volunteers do for the Preserve.
Sincerely,
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5203
(31.0) 544-5291
From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 2:29 PM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; CC
<CC@ rpvca.gov>
Subject: Staff Report
Katie, Cory and Doug,
Just returned from another few hours out in the Preserve, volunteering for PVPLC (over 500 hours to date in 2016 alone)
in a collaborative effort to educate City staff and law enforcement personnel with a view to improving and protecting the
City's property.
Then, found this in the recent Staff Report to City Council: "The City Council may direct Staff to research alternative land
management options."
Certainly doesn't seem to be coming from a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. Sounds like a threat. Sounds
unbelievably ungrateful for all that PVPLC and its volunteers have done for RPV.
Eva Cicoria