20171219 Late Correspondence1
From:Kit Fox
Sent:Tuesday, December 19, 2017 6:57 PM
To:CityClerk
Subject:Fw: Consent Calendar Item E - Possibly Item H?
From the discussion below, this seems to be about Item H, not Item E.
Kit
From: Jeremiah George <jerngeorge@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 6:41 PM
To: CC; Kit Fox
Cc: David Quadhamer; Andrea Vona; Tony Baker; Endangered Habitats News; David Berman; David A. Sundstrom;
Jeff.Brandt@wildlife.ca.gov; Christine_Medak@fws.gov; Eric Porter; Jess Morton; William Ailor; eric_porter@fws.gov
Subject: Consent Calendar Item E
Honorable Council- apologies for any typos etc.
Consent Calendar Item E was brought to my attention this morning so I apologize for the late
comments.
A great deal of concern exists in the community and within the larger Southern California
Conservation Community regarding the final form of the yet unapproved working draft NCCP. With
the recent removing/realigning of the archery range and the Active Recreation Area formerly
known as Gateway Park and talk of adding the Malaga canyon acquisition to the draft NCCP
coupled with the fact that a revised draft NCCP has not been made available to the general
public or expert community has many concerns that the update to the Portuguese Bend
Feasibility Study is driving the final NCCP process and not the science of conservation
planning! I was involved with the original NCCP working group in the early to mid 1990s. Many
compromises were made in the original draft plan including those to facilitate future needed
infrastructure and landslide stabilization work, however the end product was a relatively
decent reserve design that saved viable populations of most of the target species . This draft
plan has been the goodfaith working document that all parties have basically maintained until
relatively recently. At this time RPV has no approved NCCP therefore no incidental take
permits or other needed regulatory concessions if they would like to proceed with this
project. We have yet to see updates to the new draft NCCP the conservation community would
like to see this prior to it undergoing revisions driven by the needs or perceived needs of
any work needed to stabilize/ slow/ mitigate the PB Slide. It has also been so many years
since the original draft and its proposed 4 alternatives that a number of species not
addressed in the original NCCP should be added at this time prior to a final draft
circulation. This whole process needs to be made much more open. Myself and many others have
grave concerns about the direction this all appears to be taking. Compromises exist that would
likely please all interested parties and stake holders, but at this time many concerned
parties feel excluded from the process.
I ask the Council to reject this Consent Calendar or in lieu of rejection a large day long
stake holders meeting (including agency representation - USFWS, CFWS, Army Corp etc) and
workshop be hosted were all issues are vetted in the open and some large open consensus can
emerge regarding the ultimate planned reserve design, the needs of any future landslide
stabilization and other pending or foreseeable infrastructure needs for the area.
Best, Jeremiah N. George PhD
Conservation Chair South Coast CNPS
RPV Property Owner
Redondo Beach Resident
H
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DECEMBER 18, 2017
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, December 19, 2017 City Council meeting:
Item No.
E
G
H
6
Description of Material
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Fox and
Sunshine
Email from Noel Park
Email from Eva Cicoria; Email exchange between Public Works
Director Sassoon and Eva Cicoria; Email exchange between City
Manager Willmore and Noel Park
Email from Sunshine
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20171219 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear SUNSHINE:
Kit Fox
Thursday, December 14, 2017 11:42 AM
SUNSHINE; CC; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Elias Sassoon
farmer _g_ivl9131864@yahoo.com; avona@pvplc.org
RE: Dec. 19,2017 Council Consent Item E
Thank you for your email. For your information, the Committee is developing a list of community wants and needs for
the Civic Center Master Plan project. As reference materials to assist in this endeavor, the Committee has been
provided with all of the previous surveys and studies prepared for this site, including those from the 2004 task force's
efforts.
It was the Committee's desire to keep the mission statement and work plan tasks general in nature so as not to appear
to pre-judge or pre-determine thE outcome of the master planning process.
Your email will be provided to the City Council as Late Correspondence at next week's meeting.
Sincerely,
Kit Fo::Ki AICP
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Ma11a5e1:'s Office
City of Rancho Palos V ercles
30940 liawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos V ercles, CA 90275
T: (310) 544-5226
F: (310) 544-5291
E: kitf@rpvca.aov
t..•R.,<.m
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 11:27 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>;
Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: farmer_g_iv19131864@yahoo.com; avona@pvplc.org
Subject: Dec. 19,2017 Council Consent Item E
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
RE: Proposed FY17-18 Civic Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) Work Plan
1 E.
The draft Mission Statement for the Civic Center Advisory Committee continues to state that. ..
All appropriate needs of the City and the Community will be considered in the design
solution. . .. without establishing who will decide which "needs" are "appropriate" and when such a
list will be deemed "complete". This is an unclear and open-ended "Mission Statement".
I strongly suggest that the generation of the "appropriate needs" list be relocated to the List of
Work Plan Tasks as Item B number 1 with the clarification that the Committee will receive this
list of "appropriate needs" from the City Manager unless the City Council would prefer to discuss it,
first. The Committee will get to propose "wants" and additional "needs" under Item B number 4.
Following is the list of "wants" which the Staff, Task Force and the Consultant came up with in
2004. Staff and the Consultant never did come up with the requested breakdown of the parking
requirements. Without a specific "appropriate needs" list to start with, the Civic Center Advisory
Committee will never be able to come up with a final Plan to recommend.
At this point I must express my deep disappointment that no one was willing to
preserve the opportunity for the "want" of a Living History Museum dry farming
educational activity. Although some of the "stakeholders" in 2004 are no longer
interested in "partnering" with the City of RPV, Project Good Sense -No
Farming -No Food, still is. The installation of irrigation pipes in the designated
area can still be modified. Apparently some Council direction is required before
the Civic Center Advisory Committee can consider this opportunity.
2
3
I
I
f
i
I
l
1
i
I
I
i
,i
I
i
' I
I
.. i ..
0 .. ..
..
<>
: 'I ..
Do notice that the above Plan calls it "subterranean" parking even though the details indicate "semi-
subterranean" with the maintenance yard open at the southwest ground level and the turf roof dog
park level with Hawthorne Blvd.
The parking notes total something over 700 parking spaces.
2004 P · t v· t p k" om 1cen e ar t " I" t d P k" M t . wans 1s an ar mg a nx
STAKEHOLDERS: ACTIVITY FACILITIES: PARKING:
Interviewed bv RRM Consultants ADA DAYS EVES EVENTS
RPV Administration: City Hall (remodeled)
Council Chambers
Maintenance Yard
Corporate Picnics, village
green, sand games
PVIC
"Livinq History Museum"
NCCP
Trail head facilities
Band shell with lawn seating
Wedding Gazebo, catering
kitchen
Casual eatery, games
equipment rentals
Active recreation (organized
sports) ball field
Coastwalk, Inc. Multipurpose California
Coastal Trail
Palos Verdes Art Center: Art Gallery
Art Class studios
Sculpture Garden
Restaurant
Salvation Army Access to Tennis courts
YMCA Multipurpose Gym with
indoor pool
ZAP (Zenith Aquatic Outdoor Olympic size pool
Proqram)
Wading pool, fountain, slide
PVP School District Administrative offices
Project Good Sense Shed row, machine shop,
classroom
4
"Flat" five acre farming area
Peninsula Dog Parks, Off-leash dog park
Inc.
Palos Verdes Loop Trail Non-motorized access to
Project civic center facilities
Connection between upper
and lower park
So Bay Astronomical Planetarium
Society
5
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Friday, December 15, 2017 12:19 PM
cc
12/19 Council meeting, consent calendar Item No. G
This is an excellent project. It will remove some ugly blight and usefully spruce up a main entrance to our City.
"First impressions are lasting impressions.". Congratulations to everyone involved.
I hope that you will approve it and proceed forthwith.
Noel Park
6715 El Rodeo Road
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
562-413-5147
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
cicoriae@aol.com
Thursday, December 14, 2017 5:53 AM
cc
avona@pvplc.org; ginnymayc@gmail.com; swensonsathome@aol.com;
barbailor@gmail.com; Noel Park
added costs to the landslide feasibilitiy study
Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Allegria, Cruikshank and Dyda,
I see on the consent calendar for the December 19 City Council meeting an item to add to the cost of
the Landslide Feasibility Study. Please deny consent.
I haven't seen the Landslide Feasibility Study. I'd like to see it before you throw more money at it.
suspect others in our community would like to see it, too. Slipping this in as a consent calendar item
during the holidays, though, assures that few residents will be aware of the item, let alone take the
time to understand what it portends.
The Portuguese Bend Reserve is not a vacant lot that you can just go in and bulldoze and it has not
been for over a decade. It is a nature preserve. That was the City's commitment in approving the
Natural Communities Conservation Plan in 2004.
The fact that you are being asked to authorize the Daniel B Stevens firm to "integrate information and
details regarding planned landslide stabilization activities into the draft NCCP", rather than developing
a plan for landslide stabilization activities that takes into account the already-City Council-
approved NCCP, suggests the City is looking to renege on its commitment of more than a decade
ago.
Just a few months ago, Councilman Dyda promised that any landslide abatement activity would
"preserve the Preserve." My letter to City Council of July 22, 2017 referencing Councilman Dyda's
promise in Landslide Abatement Subcommittee meetings to "preserve the Preserve" appears below.
Preserving the Preserve would require developing a plan for landslide stabilization that takes into
account the NCCP, the Conservation Easement over the Portuguese Bend Reserve, and the City's
commitment to donors, taxpayers and volunteers that this land will be protected from development;
protected for its conservation values. The current proposal does none of that.
Donors and taxpayers who provided funds toward the acquisition of the lands enrolled in the NCCP
relied on the City's commitment to the NCCP in the form it was approved in 2004. Donors and
volunteers who have continued to support the protection, preservation, and restoration of the NCCP
lands since the acquisition have relied on the City's commitment as well. My husband and I have
contributed thousands of volunteer hours and tens of thousands of dollars in reliance on the City's
commitment.
Disappointment hardly begins to describe my reaction to this agenda item.
The Staff Report and Change Order indicate that the landslide stabilization activities to be proposed
by the Stevens firm will destroy life in the Preserve, both directly by ripping out vast swaths of plants
in pristine, densely vegetated canyons, and indirectly by eliminating cover for wildlife and eliminating
the water that sustains that wildlife. This is to be p:oposed in one of the most visible and cherisheH ,
parts of the PV Nature Preserve on land that was bought for preservation and is held in the public
trust.
The public deserves an opportunity to weigh in on this before money is spent on it.
The public deserves to understand where the money is going to come from to pay for the proposed
Preserve-destroying landslide stabilization attempts.
The public deserves to understand what the risks are of the proposed landslide stabilization attempts.
Will the firm doing the work indemnify the City if the heavy construction activity itself triggers landslide
activity?
Will the firm guarantee that the landslide stabilization attempts they propose will be effective?
Without guarantees and indemnities, they have nothing to lose. Our community has a lot to lose.
Please honor my City's commitment to preservation of the Preserve and deny authorization for the
added expenditure, ask for immediate release of the Landslide Feasibility Study, and move forward
with the NCCP in its current form.
Eva Cicoria
-----Original Message-----
From: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
To: cc <cc@rpvca.gov>
Cc: avona <avona@pvplc.org>; ginnymayc <ginnymayc@gmail.com>; noelparkone <noelparkone@gmail.com>; AraM
<AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Sat, Jul 22, 2017 7:51 am
Subject: landslide abatement impacts
Councilmember Dyda, Mayor ProTem Duhovic, Mayor Campbell, and Councilmembers Brooks and
Misetich,
I'm writing to you regarding the recent Landslide Subcommittee meetings, last Tuesday's City Council
meeting regarding the same, and related issues. Will you be directing City staff to engage a firm to
work with the engineering consultants to proactively assess environmental impacts of various options
that the engineers are inclined to propose?
I attended 3 of the 4 subcommittee meetings that involved community input. I support efforts to
examine possible means to slow the land flow or landslide in Portuguese Bend. However, at one of
the subcommittee meetings when the public was asked for proposals, I proposed that an assessment
of the anticipated environmental impacts (positive and negative) of any suggested project be made
early on and made publicly available, so that the public (and City Council) might be able to weigh
against the benefits of the project not only the financial but the environmental costs (aesthetics,
habitat, recreatio11, etc.) when digesting the proposed RFP. My proposal got as many votes as the
other top vote getter at that particular meeting, yet I neither saw in the Staff Report nor heard at the
City Council meeting of July 18 mention of an environmental assessment being done in tandem with
the landslide-fix feasibility study.
While it is early in the process for developing an RFP and therefore we don't know yet what will be
proposed by consultants, some ideas have been floated, including horizontal drains across the
Preserve and drains down the canyons, and I think it prudent for all to keep an eye on the City's
commitment to the Preserve. I applaud Councilmember Dyda's acknowledgement at the City Council
meeting of the investment we have made in the Preserve. I also applaud Noel Park, Councilman
2
Dyda, and others for expressing the desire to "preserve the Preserve". Yet I have a hard time
reconciling the types of infrastructure projects that are being discussed with the notion that we want to
preserve the Preserve.
I noticed the photo, below, of an infrastructure project that the Cotton Shires firm did:
It should go without saying that this sort of infrastructure project would be a non-starter in the Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve. I wonder where is your line in the sand regarding the degree of destruction
of the Preserve that you are willing to tolerate in order to reduce PV Drive South maintenance costs?
Noel Park mentioned to you that CEQA requires that environmental impacts from a project be
avoided to the extent possible, minimized if unavoidable, and mitigated in any event. In other words,
we should not approach a project with a plan to mitigate or fix it later, but rather try to avoid the
impacts. That is imperative in a nature preserve. Restoration after the damage is done is a long and
costly endeavor. And sometimes unsuccessful, particularly when you want to minimize water
entering the area. Take a look sometime at the current state of the City's project to restore the habitat
destruction a contractor did at Toyon Trail in Portuguese Bend Reserve. Very few native plants
installed by volunteers have survived. Instead of lush native vegetation, there are a bunch of
unsightly Groasis dew-collecting boxes left behind.
As I said, mention has been made of horizontal drains and drains down the canyons. Are you aware
of the beautiful, lush habitat in these canyons, which provides homes for wildlife, including protected
species, and enhances the public's recreational enjoyment of the Preserve?
The Preserve is not a vacant lot; it's not a developable lot. Any project must be designed in the most
sensitive way possible. Yet, unless this message is conveyed forcefully to the consultants, it is
doubtful that will be an influencing factor in what is ultimately proposed. And if it is not, and instead
the typical infrastructure-building approach of demolish, build, and disregard environmental impacts
or just "fix it later" is adopted, I anticipate that there will be tremendous community push back.
Hence, my question whether you will direct City staff to engage a firm to work with the engineering
consultants to proactively assess environmental impacts of various options that the engineers are
inclined to propose in order that the public and you all understand those impacts--those costs--and
are able to weigh that information in making decisions regarding landslide abatement projects. The
assessment should apply to both the land and ocean environments potentially impacted by the
projects.
Another question I have is whether the engineering consultants will be tasked with asserting the
degree of success they anticipate in what they propose (including various options) and the degree of
certainty behind their assertions. The stories told in the historical documents, and the debris left
3
behind in the Preserve after past project failures, suggest that understanding the likelihood of success
of any proposed project would be prudent.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Eva Cicoria
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
From: Elias Sassoon
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 18, 2017 2:11 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 1:14 PM
To: cicoriae@aol.com
Cc: avona@pvplc.org; swensonsathome@aol.com; barbailor@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap
<gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc@gmail.com; afranz@pacbell.net
Subject: RE: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Good Afternoon Eva,
To clarify, the change order is simply to ensure the Feasibility Study and the 2004 Council-approved draft NCCP are in line with
one another.
Pis let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
Thanks:
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 5:30 PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: avona@pvplc.org; swensonsathome@aol.com; barbailor@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap
<gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc@gmail.com; afranz@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Thank you for your reply. Note the wording that I quoted from the Staff Report stating that the City seeks to
I "integrate information and details regarding planned landslide stabilization activities into the draft NCCP"
1 H.
The Staff Report does not say that the consultants want to be certain that the feasibility study takes into account the already-City
Council-approved NCCP.
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
To: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
Cc: avona <avona@pvplc.org>; comswensonsathome <comswensonsathome@aol.com>; barbailor <barbailor@gmail.com>;
CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc <ginnymayc@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 15, 2017 3:31 pm
Subject: RE: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Ms. Cicoria,
The City is in receipt of your email to the City Council expressing concerns regarding the change order to the Daniel B. Stephens
contract that is on the December 19th Council agenda. The change order is mainly intended to cover additional costs incurred
by the consultant to review the DRAFT Feasibility Study to the Draft NCCP document. Much of the additional work is to ensure
that the feasibility study is consistent with the NCCP, as you expressed as a concern.
The Council Sub-Committee is still reviewing the DRAFT Feasibility Study but we hope to have the DRAFT document out on our
website for public review before the holiday break.
While the holidays are upon us and I understand your concerns about working on important items leading into the holidays,
the December 19th City Council agenda is still a busy working meeting. The City Council agendas are completely full though the
first quarter of 2018. We never received any kind of direction or interest from the City Council in making the December 19
meeting brief and relatively ministerial. There are a lot of vital projects that the City is working on. Finally, this type of item is
typically treated as a consent item. It is not being treated any differently from other similar issues. As you know, any member
of the public or Council member can easily pull an item off the consent calendar.
Pis let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
From: cicoriae@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 5:53 AM
Subject: added costs to the landslide feasibilitiy study
To: CC
Cc: avona@pvplc.org, ginnymayc@gmail.com, swensonsathome@aol.com, barbailor@gmail.com, Noel Park
Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Allegria, Cruikshank and Dyda,
I see on the consent calendar for the December 19 City Council meeting an item to add to the cost of the Landslide
Feasibility Study. Please deny consent.
2
I haven't seen the Landslide Feasibility Study. I'd like to see it before you throw more money at it. I suspect others
in our community would like to see it, too. Slipping this in as a consent calendar item during the holidays, though,
assures that few residents will be aware of the item, let alone take the time to understand what it portends.
The Portuguese Bend Reserve is not a vacant lot that you can just go in and bulldoze and it has not been for over a
decade. It is a nature preserve. That was the City's commitment in approving the Natural Communities
Conservation Plan in 2004.
The fact that you are being asked to authorize the Daniel B Stevens firm to "integrate information and details
regarding planned landslide stabilization activities into the draft NCCP", rather than developing a plan for landslide
stabilization activities that takes into account the already-City Council-approved NCCP, suggests the City is
looking to renege on its commitment of more than a decade ago.
Just a few months ago, Councilman Dyda promised that any landslide abatement activity would "preserve the
Preserve." My letter to City Council of July 22, 2017 referencing Councilman Dyda's promise in Landslide
Abatement Subcommittee meetings to "preserve the Preserve" appears below. Preserving the Preserve would
require developing a plan for landslide stabilization that takes into account the NCCP, the Conservation Easement
over the Portuguese Bend Reserve, and the City's commitment to donors, taxpayers and volunteers that this land
will be protected from development; protected for its conservation values. The current proposal does none of that.
Donors and taxpayers who provided funds toward the acquisition of the lands enrolled in the NCCP relied on the
City's commitment to the NCCP in the form it was approved in 2004. Donors and volunteers who have continued to
support the protection, preservation, and restoration of the NCCP lands since the acquisition have relied on the
City's commitment as well. My husband and I have contributed thousands of volunteer hours and tens of thousands
of dollars in reliance on the City's commitment.
Disappointment hardly begins to describe my reaction to this agenda item.
The Staff Report and Change Order indicate that the landslide stabilization activities to be proposed by the Stevens
firm will destroy life in the Preserve, both directly by ripping out vast swaths of plants in pristine, densely vegetated
canyons, and indirectly by eliminating cover for wildlife and eliminating the water that sustains that wildlife. This is to
be proposed in one of the most visible and cherished parts of the PV Nature Preserve on land that was bought for
preservation and is held in the public trust.
The public deserves an opportunity to weigh in on this before money is spent on it.
The public deserves to understand where the money is going to come from to pay for the proposed Preserve-
destroying landslide stabilization attempts.
The public deserves to understand what the risks are of the proposed landslide stabilization attempts. Will the firm
doing the work indemnify the City if the heavy construction activity itself triggers landslide activity?
Will the firm guarantee that the landslide stabilization attempts they propose will be effective? Without guarantees
and indemnities, they have nothing to lose. Our community has a lot to lose.
Please honor my City's commitment to preservation of the Preserve and deny authorization for the added
expenditure, ask for immediate release of the Landslide Feasibility Study, and move forward with the NCCP in its
current form.
Eva Cicoria
-----Original Message-----
From: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
To: cc <cc@rpvca.gov>
Cc: avona <avona@pvplc.org>; ginnymayc <ginnymayc@gmail.com>; noelparkone <noelparkone@gmail.com>;
AraM <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Sat, Jul 22, 2017 7:51 am
3
Subject: landslide abatement impacts
Councilmember Dyda, Mayor ProTem Duhovic, Mayor Campbell, and Councilmembers Brooks and Misetich,
I'm writing to you regarding the recent Landslide Subcommittee meetings, last Tuesday's City Council meeting
regarding the same, and related issues. Will you be directing City staff to engage a firm to work with the engineering
consultants to proactively assess environmental impacts of various options that the engineers are inclined to
propose?
I attended 3 of the 4 subcommittee meetings that involved community input. I support efforts to examine possible
means to slow the land flow or landslide in Portuguese Bend. However, at one of the subcommittee meetings when
the public was asked for proposals, I proposed that an assessment of the anticipated environmental impacts
(positive and negative) of any suggested project be made early on and made publicly available, so that the public
(and City Council) might be able to weigh against the benefits of the project not only the financial but the
environmental costs (aesthetics, habitat, recreation, etc.) when digesting the proposed RFP. My proposal got as
many votes as the other top vote getter at that particular meeting, yet I neither saw in the Staff Report nor heard at
the City Council meeting of July 18 mention of an environmental assessment being done in tandem with the
landslide-fix feasibility study.
While it is early in the process for developing an RFP and therefore we don't know yet what will be proposed by
consultants, some ideas have been floated, including horizontal drains across the Preserve and drains down the
canyons, and I think it prudent for all to keep an eye on the City's commitment to the Preserve. I applaud
Councilmember Dyda's acknowledgement at the City Council meeting of the investment we have made in the
Preserve. I also applaud Noel Park, Councilman Dyda, and others for expressing the desire to "preserve the
Preserve". Yet I have a hard time reconciling the types of infrastructure projects that are being discussed with the
notion that we want to preserve the Preserve.
I noticed the photo, below, of an infrastructure project that the Cotton Shires firm did:
It should go without saying that this sort of infrastructure project would be a non-starter in the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve. I wonder where is your line in the sand regarding the degree of destruction of the Preserve that you are
willing to tolerate in order to reduce PV Drive South maintenance costs?
Noel Park mentioned to you that CEQA requires that environmental impacts from a project be avoided to the extent
possible, minimized if unavoidable, and mitigated in any event. In other words, we should not approach a project
with a plan to mitigate or fix it later, but rather try to avoid the impacts. That is imperative in a nature
preserve. Restoration after the damage is done is a long and costly endeavor. And sometimes unsuccessful,
particularly when you want to minimize water entering the area. Take a look sometime at the current state of the
City's project to restore the habitat destruction a contractor did at Toyon Trail in Portuguese Bend Reserve. Very few
native plants installed by volunteers have survived. Instead of lush native vegetation, there are a bunch of unsightly
Groasis dew-collecting boxes left behind.
As I said, mention has been made of horizontal drains and drains down the canyons. Are you aware of the beautiful,
lush habitat in these canyons, which provides homes for wildlife, including protected species, and enhances the
public's recreational enjoyment of the Preserve?
The Preserve is not a vacant lot; it's not a developable lot. Any project must be designed in the most sensitive way
possible. Yet, unless this message is conveyed forcefully to the consultants, it is doubtful that will be an influencing
factor in what is ultimately proposed. And if it is not, and instead the typical infrastructure-building approach of
demolish, build, and disregard environmental impacts or just "fix it later" is adopted, I anticipate that there will be
tremendous community push back .
Hence, my question whether you will direct City staff to engage a firm to work with the engineering consultants to
proactively assess environmental impacts of various options that the engineers are inclined to propose in order that
the public and you all understand those impacts--those costs--and are able to weigh that information in making
decisions regarding landslide abatement projects. The assessment should apply to both the land and ocean
environments potentially impacted by the projects.
Another question I have is whether the engineering consultants will be tasked with asserting the degree of success
they anticipate in what they propose (including various options) and the degree of certainty behind their
assertions. The stories told in the historical documents, and the debris left behind in the Preserve after past project
failures, suggest that understanding the likelihood of success of any proposed project would be prudent.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Eva Cicoria
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Emily Colborn
Monday, December 18, 2017 11:39 AM
CityClerk
FW: 12/19 Council meeting, consent calendar Item H
Late Correspondence -Item H
Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544·5208
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Doug Willmore
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 2:05 PM
To: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: 12/19 Council meeting, consent calendar Item H
Thanks a lot, Noel. Good feedback.
From: Noel Park [mailto:noelparkone@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 1:03 PM
To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: 12/19 Council meeting, consent calendar Item H
Thank you for your courteous response. I am relieved and encouraged to hear it. If the intent is, as you say, to make
the draft proposal consistent with what is allowed in the NCCP, that is all to the good. I am relieved to hear it. If this
point had been made in the staff report, much of this drama could have been minimized.
As to the rest, you probably know that I have attended every public meeting held so far involving this proposed
project. I hope that you will agree that I try to be as positive as possible in my interactions with the City. If this
agenda item, and the accompanying, extremely brief, staff report, cause such a strong reaction from citizens such as
myself and Eva Cicoria, I would think that you would ask yourself about the state of the communications process.
This proposed project is very sensitive in the community. I think that you will seldom see a more motivated group of
stakeholders. The more that you can do to communicate the commitment you have outlined to protect the habit and
values of the Nature Preserve, the better it will be for all of us.
Thanks again for your courtesy.
Noel Park
On Dec 15, 2017 12:35 PM, "Doug Willmore" <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> wrote:
1 H. Noel,
Thanks, as always, for your thoughts.
A couple of items I would like to offer for you to consider.
(1) Nothing is being done unilaterally. In fact, any proposed changed to the NCCP has to be approved by all parties. As near
as I can tell, most minor changes that our consultants made as a result of their comparison were to their feasibility study, i.e.:.L
to make their draft proposal consistent with what is allowed in the NCCP. Don't you think everyone would want their proposal
to be acceptable within the bounds of the NCCP?
(2) Given the large number of community meetings and request for public input in this process, I don't understand how the
City could be accused of taking an attitude of "It's our property and we will do what we want with it." I'm sorry, but I just
don't see it. The NCCP has to be agreed upon by all parties. And the draft feasibility study will come to the Council agenda on
1/16 for Council consideration and public input. We hope to be able to post the draft on our website before the holiday
break.
(3) The engineers listened to all of the public input, and then took all of the historical and data, and went away for a few
months to work. The draft product of that work will be posted on our website and will be on a public agenda for discussion
and consideration. Allowing engineers to do some work to come up with a draft after much community involvement
shouldn't be classified as not partnering with the community, in my opinion.
I want to assure you that I have heard nothing but strong commitment from my boss -the City Council -regarding preserving
the preserve. Our staff continues to work with that direction. The process we set up to involve the community was not for
show. It was because the Council cares deeply about the preserve property and wanted to ensure that the community was
able to give their input to the engineers before they developed their feasibility study for the PB Landslide.
Doug
From: Noel Park [mailto:noelparkone@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 12:09 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 12/19 Council meeting, consent calendar Item H
Eva Cicoria has shared with me her email to you concerning the above. A careful reading of the agenda item and the
staff report makes it clear why they would cause such concern. I share her concerns and totally support her.
The spectre of the City and it's consultants unilaterally promulgating changes in the draft NCCP is extremely
troubling. Visions of extensive construction and loss of habit spring to mind.
It is good to remember that, while the City may hold title to the property, the vast majority of the money used to
purchase it came from other public agencies and the fundraising efforts of the PVPLC. Therefore, an attitude of "It's
2
our property and we will do what we want with it" is totally inappropriate. As I have commented so many times, you
have a moral obligation to take any project forward in total partnership with these stakeholders. From my vantage
point, I do not see this happening in any effective way so far.
As Ms. Cicoria so correctly points out, this is not a vacant lot awaiting the construction equipment. It is a highly
sensitive wildlife and native plant habitat, specifically established for their protection. This protection and restoration
has largely come about through the sweat equity and financial support of your constituents.
Any project needs to be a shining example of your legal obligation to avoid, minimize and mitigate any impacts to
this precious resource. If it costs more to do it right, it's a small price to pay.
As elected officials, you are obviously in a unique position to influence what happens here. Again, it is your duty,
and moral obligation, to assure that any project is designed and executed in the most sensitive possible way, and in
total partnership with all of these highly invested stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Noel Park
6715 El Rodeo Road
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
562-413-5147
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
Octavio Silva
Monday, December 18, 2017 3:32 PM
CityClerk
FW : RE: Dec. 19, 2017 RPV City Council Agenda Item 6
Please see late correspondence below.
Thanks
Octavio
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 3:29 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Dec. 19, 2017 RPV City Council Agenda Item 6
6. Consideration and possible action to adopt the City's Emissions Reduction Action Plan (ERAP) to
improve the City's sustainability by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. (Silva) (15 mins.)
Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members,
"Sustainability" is not a legitimate goal and spending money on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not
a fiscally conservative use of taxpayer dollars. Just the time it has taken Staff to produce and modify the
RPV draft ERAP is not a zero-sum game.
I strongly urge you to move and approve Staff's alternative Number 2.
ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the
City Council 's consideration: 1. Identify additional goals , policies and strategies or modify those proposed, and direct
Staff to update the ERAP accordingly for adoption at a future meeting. 2 . Direct Staff to take no action at this time .
While you are at it, what would it take to direct Staff to run a search of the draft General Plan Update and
delete all of the occurrences of the terms "sustainability" and "Sustainable Development"? Then, you might
notice that the ERAP does not comply with the current General Plan.
1 lo.
We need to get ICLEl's influence out of our land use issues.
Thank you for your attention to this important "local control" matter.
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
Subject:
Date:
From:
Reply To:
Fwd: It is bigger than just RPV Council Agenda Item 4
11/2/2017 2:44:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
S unshincRPV (filaol. com
To:
CC:
ericdalegria@gmail.com, john@johncruikshank.us, emenhiser@aol.com, yital ichforrpv@gmail.com, kjg_hnsonrpv@gm£i.l.com, ls.£!lyforcouncil2012.@gmai I. com
jduhovic@hotmail.com, cprotem73@£Qx.net
Subject:
Date:
From:
Reply To:
To:
It is bigger than just Agenda Item 4
11/2/2017 I :32:08 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
SunshincRPY@aol.com
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council and interested parties
RE: 11/08/2017 City Council Agenda Item
cc@mv.com
4. Consideration and possible action to adopt the City's Emissions Reduction Action Plan (ERAP) to
improve the City's sustainability by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. (Silva) (10 mins.)
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2017-_, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING THE CITY'S EMISSIONS REDUCTION
ACTION PLAN THAT SERVES AS A GUIDE TO IMPROVE THE CITY'S SUSTAINABILITY BY
IMPLEMENTING MEASURES TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OVER THE NEXT 20
YEARS.
2
Here is a quote from one of your constituents. Following that, is an explanation of how the RPV Staff came
to get authorization to join the "socialist" side. The Staff Report implies that this is not costing We the People
any money. I beg to differ. Please do not adopt this plan out of ignorance.
Here , here, Sunshine ! I've been noticing for several years that there is a grand political realignment from Left-Right to Socialist-
Libertarian . I believe that the country is in the midst of a shift as momentous as that prior to and after the American Civil War.
The utter disintegration of the "news" into propaganda is part of that shift.
Subject:
Date:
From:
Reply To:
To:
CC:
Hello Sunshine ,
FW: Following the money
5/29/2013 10:29:02 AM. Pacific Daylight Time
LezaM @ rpv .com
Su nshineRPV @ao l.com
Joel R@rpv .com
If you scroll down to your original message , you will see my response in red. Please let me know that you received
this email, and I apologize again for the seemingly long delay in a response .
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
Subject:
Date:
From:
Reply To:
To:
CC:
March 6, 2013
Following the money
3/6/2013 10:02:15 AM. Pacific Standard Time
SunshineRPV@ao l.com
denni sm@ RPV .c om
cc @ rov.com , clehr@ rpv.com
MEMO from Sunshine
TO: Dennis McLean, RPV Director of Finance
RE: International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and/or the ICLEI sub group, Local
Governments for Sustainability, USA.
3
Will you simply answer these three questions in a timely fashion or do I need to submit a formal Public Information
Act request?
When did RPV join this or these entities?
In May of 2007 , the City Counci l adopted a reso lution endorsing the U .S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement,
which urged the enactment of policies and programs to meet or exceed the target of reducing global warming
pollution levels to 7% below 1990 levels (Kyoto Protocol) by 2012. As part of the City 's effort to accomplish this
goal, the City joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). The City works closely
with the South Bay Environmental Services Center (SBESC) to accomplish reductions in greenhouse gas emissions ,
promote sustainable development and create plans that embody the City's efforts.
How much money has the City of RPV paid this or these entities for dues , boilerplate documents, services etc?
There was no fiscal impact as a result of partnering/joining ICLEI and working in partnership with the SBESC. On
occasion, City Staff time is used to help gather information for the SBESC staff to prepare studies and/or conduct
research. City Staff works closely with SBESC staff to help facilitate meetings surrounding ICLEI topics or projects.
How many times has the City of RPV availed itself of ICLEI sponsored grants to facilitate "workshops" and other
public meetings?
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes works directly with the SBESC , who helps the City meet and implement the ICLEI
pledge. Essentially, the SBESC is the "head hunter" for opportunities available to the City. When feasible , the City
participates in the grant opportunities presented by the SBESC. These opportunities come through ICLEI
memberships , SCE , Cal Water, AQMD , etc. City staff is often attending "workshops ," training symposiums , round
table discussions to implement the three main goals oflCLEI: 1) cleaner vehicles , 2) Energy Efficiency , and 3)
Renewable Energy. Unfortunately, I do not know an ex act number, but the most recent grant funding that I can think
of came from AQMD (I be lieve) for two (2) new City fleet vehicles on the AQMD list. I believe the two new city
vehicles will be paid in full from AQMD money, with no money coming from the City's General Fund.
4