20161101 Late CorrespondenceSilhouette Cert for 2013 lnspir ...
I
1 I 1 {])
1--' "~ .
I\., ~ ' P/o/J ? ~ t
~
RECEIVED
. MAR 0 6 2013
SILHOUETTE CERTIFICATION FOR~~OMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
THIS . CERTIFICATION FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY A
LICENSrn/REGISTERED ENGftJEER OR ARCHIT.5,,CT. THIS FORM MU~iT BEAR
AN ORIGINAL WET STAMP AND SIGNATURE IN ORDER TO BE VAL.ID. HllS
FORM MUST ALSO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SITE PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES THE
L CATION OF THE SILHOUETTE POSTS, THE EXISTING GRJ.DE OR
SUPPORTING STRUCTURE ELEVATION CALL-OUTS AT THE BASE OF THE
POSTS, AND THE ELEVATION CALL-OUTS FOR THE TOP OF THE POSTS. ANY
MISSING INFORMATION WILL RENDER THE SUBJECT APPL.ICATION
"INCOMPLETE" FOR PROCESSING .
! ha vu mcusurcd the location and height (including the color demarcal on) of the
2.?.'50_4!.iJ.f>T~_f/vr;:-...L-on (cl<ito) _[.~Q.;_-;_~1 'Z ~~--~---and I hnve lou11Cl
.~~~~~:,;_..._.....·-
t\K1t the projocl silhouette <:1ccuratcly dopicts~tho location and height (includi11~1 H10 r.olor
<J ornarcation) of the proposed ~truc:lu·re presented on the architectural plans rrcpurefJ
(date} _e~Li>.~?·~-~---tor the proposed project currently being con:;idcred t;y
ll1 e C11y o f nancho P;:ilm:; Vordos (Planning Case No .
W·\f nrr.\~\Plt •n \apps\Sll.1 IOUETIE CHITEH:IA..<ioc.
:t...r ~. J' '
O/tl.
_____ _).
RECEIVED FROM ...Sna2'-l> L .p.&\/fe
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEE.TING OF_ll.fJ. .. J1""'(e..___
O~E OF THE CITY CA:.f _B!<.
CARLA i-l1o'~~ITY-.CLER ~
x
~(; ...
·;· . : '
/>::~
'· I
" I i'.i/!
(:,. J
Bldg Height Certs.pdf 1 I 3
A
B.
c.
Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department .
BUILDING LOCATION CERTIFICATION
To be filled out by licensed Land Surveyor or registered Civil Engineer.
IT MUST BEAR AN ORIGINAL WET STAMP AND SIGNATURE TO BE VALID.
ELEVATION CERTIFICATION
I have surveyed the foundation forms located at (Address) ______ ~~-------· __
_________________ on Date ~
and found the top form elevation to be----..,,...-"'~"---------------
1 have review ed the plans on site bearin9Jh~al stamp of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes prepared by ~ and dated and
found th~..f1o·~t1on. will be accordance with the approved plans.
"""§.lgnature LS/RCE Date -------
BUILDING LOCATION CERTIFICATION ~
I have measured the location or perimeter walls and/or other pertinent reature.s-loca~
(Addre ss) on Date ~-. .
I have reviewed the plans on site beari~pp~p of the City or Rancho Palos
Verdes prepared by __________ . and dated and
find that tl1 i; . ..struct~a ted in accordance with the setbacks shown on the approved plans.
-·-5~ LS/RCE Date -------
BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION Tot> oF R/tztlf'C:r !'VII,., /Ito,.,~ '.>'LY ( [l'I -:,, o£ oF Bui1.-v11 ./4 j t;,711(.(l.
I have measured/Surveyed the elevatl.on of the ~ldgG-of tne structureat' ( ~r:i; A-r7"1otr:e> ?c.tv;V :r,., S/11,/11/'tPH ~, .. ~. ttlA/~()L(:v,.,-1 .
(Address) 'l7.5tJI l.vf61'G-t(N ,4Vc. on Date ._9~--'/_-_;_a:;._,_Jt~. _,_ _____ _
and found the elevation of the highest ridge to be __ 3,_,,z.;;...::;2-'-. ;:;...S_.....,.....,,, __ ·"'-_~_"::'_ .. _______ _
~1.'.1 t~ ~:~.~~~~.:~,~.: .. ~ e rd es
li\',i BUILDING LOCATION CERTIFICATION
ft:::·1
Jtt. •i!1 ,,,. ... 1
·11
r
I I •
~t :.~·i · , . ....,.._ ... ..,... .......... ---· ---··-·· ·~ .. ·~-.. ·:· ... ·•-; {!~· .. i":~\'.::~·~~:·:t'.J ;:·:-.. ::: .... ~:··. ·:·:::r··-.-· ··· · ~ ·.· •· ·.'' · ··~ .... ,:·""..--.·•·: .,. ·~,-~~'.";~1 ~;, ·~~;~1.~::~n:-~r1 !'"' · .,,. .... ~ •, .... ~~.. .. "')'.····""·'"•/ ... >1 :"'.~'.'';,1:\'1 ":'•!",",''nt..• '?':" ''.'"'.~,··:~:1'•'\ .. , ... ) . ...._,.,..,,1 ............ ¥1'"1.'· ..... , ..... ~~,f'\.~
Bldg Height Certs.pdf 2 I 3
1 -I 2----======= ---
Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Developmen 1 Department
BUILDING LOCATION CERTIFICATION
To be filled out by li ce nsed Land Surveyor or reg istered Civil Eng ineer.
IT MUST BEAR AN ORIGINAL WET STAMP AND SIGNATURE TO BE VALID.
A. ELEVATION CERT IFICATION
I have surve yed th e foundation forms located at (Address) ___..
on Date ~
-a-nd_fo_u_n _d -th_e_t_o_p_fo_r_m_e_l-ev_a_11_·0-n-to-be____ ~
I have reviewed the plans on site bearing the a va l~f the City of Rancho Pa los
Verd es prepared by and da ted and
M1 evatio n will be accordance with the approved plans.
----------LS/RCE Date -------
B. BUILD ING LOCATION CERTIF ICAT ION
I hav e measured the locat ion of perimeter walls and/or other pertin ent features loca
(Address) ___________ _
I have reviewed the plans on site bearing the annrnu...Hrra mp of th e City of Rancho Palos
V erdes prepa red by and dated and
find t~ e 1s located in acco rdance with th e se tb acks sho wn on the approved plans.
~ture ---------LS/RCE Date -------
x
c. BUILD IN G HEIGHT CERTIF ICATION o<" PA;C.Ai'C-r (c,(AI{ i<!t.""'6 fMr,,, 0 ,-€tf $1Dt; Bvtt-0 w6 €~1 ( J /).er
, TC>P . (f..~ Jl/T'r/Jlfft:f:> Pt..~ I have measured/Surveyed the e levat ion of the ~of the structure at
rµsp 1a".,.'"'' ~~<>1~ iw11v~D1..~ ..... ..,, -
(Address) 275o l wesT£(!N AVu on Da te _._C/-'--'-Z_-=I..>"""'__.. _______ _
i:;i;1
a nd found the elevat ion of th e highest ~to be __ 3..,,2...,2.._.""'.5,.._' __________ _
. I have reviewed the plans on site bearin g the approva l stamp of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes prepared by fVle(. L(.~J:.Y an d dated -8 -201 and
g and Safetylfo rms\PC and Perm it Forms\Building Location Certification .doc
Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Developm ent Department
".J Y2 ~·
~
~---~
N
"-1
Bldg Height Certs.pdf 2 I 3
, I l l CAYO I OV I Q11'¥VV \llV t-'n,.1 11v ~'' ...,, .. ..., ..,.., ... ,,,,tJ "'..., -,...,..,-•-· -·-·•·,.--· ···--·-J -
and
g and Safety\forms\PC and Perm it Form s\B uilding Loca tion Certification.doc
8
Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Developm1~en!!,.t ~"""'"""'----~
To be filled out by li ce nsed Land Surve yor or registered Civi l Engineer.
IT MUST BEAR AN ORIGINAL WET STAMP AND SIGNATURE TO BE VALID.
A. ELEVATION CERT IFICATION
I have surve yed the foundation forms lo cated at (Address ) ___________ ~__,_,.,
_________________ on Date ______ ~-~..::;c.. ____ _
and found the top form elevation to be -------~-~""----------
1 have reviewed the plans on site bearing the a ~of th e City of Rancho Palos
Verdes prepared by -----..,==-....::::;.._ ______ and dated --------and
oe evatio n will be accorda nce with the approved plans .
----------LS /R CE Date -------
B. BUILDING LOCAT ION CERTIFICATION
I have me as ured the location of perimeter walls and/or other pertinent feature~s'-'"",U"•U
(Addres s ) on Date --"'"'.:::::--....:::;'--------
I have reviewed the plans on site bearing th e a prov s amp of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes prepared by and dated and
. I have reviewed the plans on sit e bea ring the approval stamp of the City of Rancho Pa lo s
4 -B ~ 201 3 and
-"'-"'_...e>_.<r-'=5""8'---Date B -2 7-IS
x
__J
Non~SFR Silhouette Certificati ... 1 I 3
NON-SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SILHOUETIE CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA
If a non-single-family-residential development project requires a Conditional Use Permit
application, the property owner/applicant will be required to construct a certified
silhouette that depicts the proposed project some time prior to the public hearing on the
application. In order to minimize costs involved in constructing a silhouette, it is advised
that the silhouette not be constructed until directed to do so by the case planner. It is
important to note that a non-single-family-residential development project that requires a
silhouette will not be deemed "complete" for processing without the submittal of a
signed statement by the property owner that they agree to construct the required
silhouette and obtain certification of the silhouette by a licensed land surveyor or a
licensed engineer.
The silhouette shall be constructed exactly as these guidelines describe unless
the applicant can demonstrate to the Director that strict adherence to these
guidelines will adversely impact the operation of the existing non-residential use
and/or public safety. The Director has the authority to allow deviations from
these criteria, so long as the intent of providing the silhouette to assist, Staff, the
general public and decision makers is reasonably satisfied.
----.,.=----.......,---16 fo\'.ltmark'*r~
painted on all polu
1. The temporary silhouette shall, at a minimum, consist of wood posts (or other
sturdy and rigid material -2" x 4"s are typical) at all corners of the structure(s)
and/or main building masses and at either end of all proposed ridgelines, with a
taut rope (of%" diameter), marked by triangular flagging or ribbons connecting
the posts (see above diagram). If ribbons are used, the ribbons should be bright
NON-SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA
PAGE2
colored at a minimum width of 3-inches and should be affixed to string at 12-inch
increments.
2. The top one foot of the posts shall be painted red or orange to better demarcate
the height of the proposed structure in photo analyses. If the project proposes to
exceed the "by-right" height limit of the underlying zoning designation for the
property, a similar mark shall be placed using a different, but equally visible, color
on the posts at the "by-right" height limit, as measured pursuant to the City's
code. Please consult with your case planner reqardinq the applicable method for
x
Non-SFR Si l houette Certificati ... 2 I 3
NON -SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDEN TIAL SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION CRI TE RIA
PAGE2
colored at a minimum width of 3-inches and should be affixed to string at 12-inch
increments.
2. The top one foot of the posts shall be pa i nted red or or ange to better demarcate
the height of the proposed structure in photo analyses. If the project proposes to
exceed the "by-right" height limit of the underlying zoning designation for the
property, a similar mark shall be placed using a different, but equally visible, color
on the posts at the "by -righ t" height limit , as measured pursuant to the City 's
code . Please consult with your case planner regarding the applicable method for
determining the "by -right" height limit for your project.
3. The applicant shall, at the time of submittal of an app li cation to the Ci ty, sign a
wa iver (see proj ect app li cat ion) which abso lves the City of any liabi lity associated
with construction of, or damage by, the temporary si lhouette . The applicant
shall not construct the temporary si lhouette until instructed to do so by the
case planner and the waiver form is su bmitted to the City. Th e applicant
shall notify the cas e planner wh en th e si lhouette is in place.
4 . Once the project si lhouette is const ructed , a licensed enginee r or architect sha ll
certify that the si lhouette accurately depicts the location and height (including the
color demarcation on the si lhou ette posts) of the pro posed development. (see
attached certification form).
5. The Sil houette Certification Form s hall be accompanied by a site plan that
ident ifies the location of th e silhouette posts, the existing grade elevation call -
outs for the base of the posts (if posts touch exist ing grade), and th e elevation
call-outs for the top of the posts . If the si lhouette is con structed entirely above an
exist ing structure so that the posts supporting the silhouette do not touch existing
grade, then the site plan must include the existing grade elevation closest to the
existing structure and the supporting silhouette posts .
6. City Staff will conduct a site inspection to review the ad equacy of the si lhouette 's
depiction of th e proposed project. Adequacy wi ll be based on an accurate
depiction of the proposed project's envelope , accurate de lineation of ridge li nes ,
and the proper flagging .
7. The silhouette must rema i n in p lace and be mai nta ined i n good cond ition
t h roughout the requ ire d 15-day p ublic notice period for t he Cond it ional Use
Pe r mit, the dec is ion proc es s and, if necessary, any appea l per io ds . The
frame may not be remo ved until the City's appeal process has been exhausted
and a fina l decision has been rendered . The applicant must remove the frame
withi n seven (7 ) days after a fina l dec ision has been rende red and the
City's appeal process has been exhausted.
SEE NEXT PAGE FOR SILHOUETTE CERTIFICATION FORM
x
Non-SFR Silhouette Certificati ... 2 I 3
c.;1w ·s appeal process nas Deen exnaustea.
SEE NEXT PAGE FOR SILHOUETTE CERTIFICATION FORM
SILHOUETTE CERTIFICATION FORM
THIS CERTIFICATION FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY A LICENSED LAND
SURVEYOR OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. THIS FORM MUST BEAR AN ORIGINAL
WET STAMP AND SIGNATURE IN ORDER TO BE VALID. THIS FORM MUST ALSO
BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SITE PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES THE LOCATION OF THE
SILHOUETTE POSTS, THE EXISTING GRADE OR SUPPORTING STRUCTURE
ELEVATION CALL-OUTS AT THE BASE OF THE POSTS, AND THE ELEVATION
CALL-OUTS FOR THE TOP OF THE POSTS. ANY MISSING INFORMATION WILL
RENDER THE SUBJECT APPLICATION "INCOMPLETE" FOR PROCESSING.
I have measured the lo cation and height (including the color demarcation) of the
silhouette posts located at the project site (address) ___________ _
---------on (date) ---------and I ha ve found
that the project si lhou ette accurate ly depicts the lo cation and height (including the color
demarcation) of the proposed structure presented on the architectura l plans prepared
by (name of architectural firm) on
(date) for the proposed project currently be in g considered by
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Planning Case No. -------~
Signature ________________________ _
LS/RCE
Date
Revised: June 16, 2011
W:\Forms\Plnglapps\SILHOUETTE CRITERIA.doc
x
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
ACTING CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting
Item No.
B
4
Description of Material
Email exchange between Acting City Clerk Takaoka and Eva
Cicoria
Email from Thomas Olson
Respectfully submitted,
cj,1U,/ -jt4,4ll~V-2A.J
/ .'
T er ·a-· Takaoka
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, October 31, 2016**.
W:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2016 Cover Sheets\20161101 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:12 PM
cicoriae@aol.com; CC
Subject: RE: Oct 10 meeting minutes--actually Oct 4
Hello Ms. Cicoria -
Thank you for your recent emails and for bringing attention to the incorrect date for the minutes listed on the agenda. My
sincerest apologies for any inconvenience or confusion this may have caused you. We have made appropriate corrections
on!ine and have revised the hard copy agendas.
As for the summary of comments made by speakers, we prepare action minutes which are not intended to be verbatim
minutes. With action minutes, we do the best to capture the speaker's main point and general intent. Staff reviews my
minutes prior to submitting them to Council for approval as well.
The most accurate record of your comments is captured in the video of the meeting which is available online using Granicus. In
Granicus, you can easily view the video by public comment, or item, enabling you to quickly reach the portion of the meeting
you are interested in.
Thank you.
Teri Takaoka
From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 2:28 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Oct 10 meeting minutes--actually Oct 4
Just caught another error ... I referred to the meeting of Oct 10, but the meeting was actually Oct 4. The Nov 1 Agenda item
that I looked at referred to the meeting as having occurred on Oct 10, so I assumed that was correct. Nope. You got the date
right on the actual meeting minutes, but the reference on the Agenda is incorrect and so is mine, below.
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
To: cc <cc@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Mon, Oct 31, 2016 2:12 pm
Subject: Oct 10 meeting minutes
For the Acting City Clerk:
Hi there,
You might want to watch the City Council meeting video again from the meeting of October 10, in order to double check
where the minutes are accurate and where they are not.
The reference to what I said regarding the PVPLC matter does not convey the gist of my comments. The gist of what I said was
that it would be entirely inappropriate for a member of the RPV City Council to serve on the PVPLC Board. Many of the public
comments that evening were to that effect, yet the minutes fail to reflect that.
I also noticed that there was no mention in the minutes of Noel Park commenting on the bond measure item, yet I recall him
commenting on that item.
Few people go back to review the City Council meeting minutes to verify their accuracy. That's all the more reason for staff to
be very careful to get them right initially.
Thank you for your attention to this,
Eva Cicoria
1
Subject: FW: Park Place video for RPV City Council meeting November 1, 2016
From: Michael Throne
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Park Place video for RPV City Council meeting November 1, 2016
Late correspondence related to Agenda Item 4
From: pvpprof [mailto:pvpprof@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:13 PM
To: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>; Anthony
Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>;
Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Nicole
Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Michael Throne <MichaelT@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Park Place video for RPV City Council meeting November 1, 2016
Park Place horrible traffic safety & parking.MOVL_
Hello Nicole,
You had asked for videos. This is one that I tried to sent to you and the City Council a while ago, but I believe that
there was technical glitch as I did not receive confirmation.
I don't know that you or the Council received this video and/or has seen it. This is one to add be shown tonight.
This video is quite representative in that you and the City Council members can see: vehicles blocking (my & all
neighbor's) driveways, huge traffic (11 vehicles in just over 2 minutes), double parking at red-curb, congestion and
safety and accident liability significant concerns.
The message that I had tried to send is as follows. I'll resend and hope that you and the Council receive.
"Dear esteemed City Council Members,
I am writing to share a video of just one of hundreds and hundreds of dangerous and adverse impacting events -all
very much alike. This video is but one that that I and my neighbors see repeated essentially every minute of every
daylight and some evening hour of every day during the year. The same adverse driving and safety and parking
incidents all occur on Park Place -the street immediately north of Del Cerro Park.
In this video you'll see a white van parked for some time literally blocking ingress and egress to and from my
driveway. I decided to video this for you as but one example of what I and my neighbors must confront every day. I
did so as I needed to approach the van to 'ask' (very cautiously) the driver to move so that I could leave my
home. You will see this white van move forward as I approach the end of my driveway.
The van moves enough to allow me to drive out from my home to the street, and I do this some minutes later when I
turn off the video. This said, however, you will see that the van does not clear the area -for as it moves from
blocking my driveway, to 'park at the red curb'. This creates further problems for more and more vehicles entering
1 q,
onto Park Place and trying to turn around. However, as the van is illegally 'red curb' parked, the vehicles trying to
turn around cannot do so in one continuous 'loop' -they must start to turn, back-up, and then finish the turn-around -
creating more time and safety hazards. Additionally, as you can see after the van moves, there then is a continuous
flow of, by my count, 11 vehicles entering, trying to turn around and then drive east on Park Place toward
Crenshaw. The time of this video action is approximately 2 (two) minute or so. At this rate, the volume of vehicles
would be at a rate of 1,000s and 1,000s of vehicles per day.
Park Place is a 1 block long cul-de-sac street. And I'll wonder for each Council member if any of you, or for that
manner anyone, can imagine, let alone feel, what it would be like living on a one block cul-d-sac intended to
minimize traffic flow? Should any citizen in RPV be subjected to this kind of adverse situation on a 1 block long
cul-de-sac?
As you can all very likely understand, this is very stressing and substantive evidence of loss of personal and property
rights with accompanying increasing fear of personal safety. I have been assaulted (w Sheriff reports) a number of
times, and I am very afraid of approaching anyone parked blocking my driveway, double-parked inhibiting ingress or
egress, or in any other way. My -and my entire family's -quality oflife is dismal at my/our dream home on Park
Place. And I dearly hope that I and others don't need to suffer more serious injury or death before the City of RPV
takes immediate and corrective measures to eliminate.
Park Place is a very disturbing location now. There are l,OOOs of adverse 'incidents' demonstrating threats to safety
including assault, huge traffic flow jams and intense competition for parking including confrontations between out of
town 'visitors' with local RPV residents.
We at Park Place have been beset with continuing and persistent dangerous and adverse impact re:
1. significant averse safety w aggressive and maligning behaviors & assaults,
2. huge traffic flow (minimum greater thanl ,000 vehicles per day) and
3. aggressive and competing parking and other adverse/threatening behaviors.
Unfortunately, I have health challenges too and am handicapped. Nonetheless, someone must speak for us, and I will
trying to attend the City Council meeting tomorrow night, September 6, 2016. And I hope to have the opportunity in a
very short period of speaking time to inform the Council of what seemingly is not being described in the recent staff
report scheduled. This is a very dangerous and always present and occurring 'situation' that must be addressed
immediately with significant solutions.
As this is but one video, I ask Nicole Jules to post the 10s and 10s and 10s of pictures and video that I have provided
the City as evidence and examples of our plight at Park Place just over the past months.
Will the City please ask Ms. Jules to do this for you all to see a 'visual history'?
If there is some or any difficulty in seeing or receiving the video that was to be 'attached' I 'forwarded' with this e-
mail, please let me know by reply e-mail as soon as possible. And I will then do whatever is necessary to drive to the
City Hall and share this video with Staff in whatever way works so that they can share with you.
Best regards,
Thomas Olson
Park Place HOA and neighbors
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
ACTING CITY CLERK
OCTOBER 31, 2016
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, November 1, 2016 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
B Emails from Eva Cicoria
E Email from Sunshine
K Email from Sunshine
2 Email from Herb Stark
4 Email from Sunshine
Respectfully submitted,
W:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2016 Cover Sheets\20161101 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
For the Acting City Clerk:
Hi there,
cicoriae@aol.com
Monday, October 31, 2016 2:12 PM
cc
Oct 10 meeting minutes
You might want to watch the City Council meeting video again from the meeting of October 10, in order to double check
where the minutes are accurate and where they are not.
The reference to what I said regarding the PVPLC matter does not convey the gist of my comments. The gist of what I said was
that it would be entirely inappropriate for a member of the RPV City Council to serve on the PVPLC Board. Many of the public
comments that evening were to that effect, yet the minutes fail to reflect that.
I also noticed that there was no mention in the minutes of Noel Park commenting on the bond measure item, yet I recall him
commenting on that item.
Few people go back to review the City Council meeting minutes to verify their accuracy. That's all the more reason for staff to
be very careful to get them right initially.
Thank you for your attention to this,
Eva Cicoria
1 B.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
cicoriae@aol.com
Monday, October 31, 2016 2:28 PM
cc
Re: Oct 10 meeting minutes--actually Oct 4
Just caught another error ... I referred to the meeting of Oct 10, but the meeting was actually Oct 4. The Nov 1 Agenda item
that I looked at referred to the meeting as having occurred on Oct 10, so I assumed that was correct. Nope. You got the date
right on the actual meeting minutes, but the reference on the Agenda is incorrect and so is mine, below.
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
To: cc <cc@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Mon, Oct 31, 2016 2:12 pm
Subject: Oct 10 meeting minutes
For the Acting City Clerk:
Hi there,
You might want to watch the City Council meeting video again from the meeting of October 10, in order to double check
where the minutes are accurate and where they are not.
The reference to what I said regarding the PVPLC matter does not convey the gist of my comments. The gist of what I said was
that it would be entirely inappropriate for a member of the RPV City Council to serve on the PVPLC Board. Many of the public
comments that evening were to that effect, yet the minutes fail to reflect that.
I also noticed that there was no mention in the minutes of Noel Park commenting on the bond measure item, yet I recall him
commenting on that item.
Few people go back to review the City Council meeting minutes to verify their accuracy. That's all the more reason for staff to
be very careful to get them right initially.
Thank you for your attention to this,
Eva Cicoria
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
MEMO from SUNSHINE
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Thursday, October 27, 2016 3:36 PM
CC; Doug Willmore
More than Ladera Linda
TO: RPV City Council, City Manager and interested parties
RE: Park improvements. City Council Agenda November 1, 2016 Items E, Kand 4
"Less is more". It all comes down to a lack of coordinated infrastructure maintenance. It has now been several
years ago that our previous staff members decided to stop maintaining the utility connections to Ladera Linda.
Now the big decision is which of our park sites and trails should be improved as regional recreation facilities
and which should be maintained/recovered/improved as low-profile, local facilities, when.
Items E, K and 4 indicate a similar lack of concern for the RPV General Plan, RPV Coastal Specific Plan, RPV
Parks Master Plan and RPV Trails Network Plan. "Unforeseen consequences" appears to be the new "normal".
Or, is it a lack of 20/20 hindsight?
Item E has nothing to do with The Burma Road Trail access. Item K is not about another gray whale exhibit.
Item 4 is a search for a fix on the PVP Land Conservancy's pitiful manipulation of the RPV Public Use Master
Plan (PUMP).
I have been bringing it up for decades. The new roster of Department Directors is still running isolated
fiefdoms. There are isolated workshops. Decisions have been made. Proposals have been written. The City
Council gets to make isolated decisions. Nobody is informing you about the cumulative parking and public
access impacts. What a sad state of affairs.
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
REGULAR BUSINESS: item 2
Herb Stark < herbertstark@cox.net>
Sunday, October 30, 2016 9:52 AM
CC; CityClerk
November 1 City Council Meeting
I would like to speak in favor of option 1, where there is no change in the current seated Councilmen's term of
office, but instead make the changes by reducing the terms of office in the next voting cycles by 12 months
bring them inline with the statewide general election cycle. In this way both the residents and the candidates
know what they are voting for.
The voters did not give the council the right to extend term of their own office.
Candidates were elected for a specific time in office; to have the council unilaterally change their own term of
office is not consistent with our democratic form of government. It is more like what you would find in a
banana republic.
Herb Stark
Rancho Palos Verdes
310-541-6646
1