Loading...
20180605 Late Correspondence19 ���.. INTERNATIONAL CEMETERY, CREMATION AND FUNERAL ASSOCIATION January 19, 2017 City Manager Douglas Willmore DWillinore a,rpvca.goy Director Ara Mihranian AraM cc,,rpvca.gov Re: Green Hills Memoria Park- Appeal of Approved Permit Dear City Manager Willmore and Director Mihranian: 107 Carpenter Drive Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20164 Telephone: 703.391.8400 Toll free: 1.800.645.7700 Fax: 703.391.8416 www.iccfa.com hq@iccfa.com On behalf of the International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association (ICCFA), I respectfully submit for the Commission's consideration the following comments regarding the appeal of the application by Green Hills Memorial Park, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. The ICCFA is the only national trade association that represents all segments of the death care industry including funeral homes, nonprofits, for-profit, religious and municipal cemeteries, crematories, and related third -party retailers. Founded in 1887, ICCFA's activities include tracking federal and state legislation affecting the death care industry and promoting education through its publications, and by holding seminars, conferences, annual conventions and trade shows. ICCFA also takes an active role in advancing the public interest on funeral and cemetery industry issues. ICCFA promotes consumer choice, the prearrangement of funeral and burial decisions, and open competition among providers of death care services. We currently serve over 9,000 members, including nearly 500 member properties in the State of California. We understand the Commission is concerned that an increased number of burial spaces at Green Hills will cause a problematic increase in traffic throughout the residential neighborhood where the cemetery is located. Although this concern is understandable, it is not supported by the facts. Cemetery visitors exponentially decrease in direct proportion to the passage of time following cemetery on the day of the interment. Thereafter, the number declines substantially over the following year. Our members report that within months of each burial the number of visitors to the particular grave in question declines to almost zero. Far from an exponential increase in visitor traffic based on a growing number of interments, just the opposite occurs. AGENDA ITEM: Albka iCrmmrn►7Fc RECEIVED ROIM: L.Ovt S AND MADE PART OFT E R C RYP THE COUNCIL MEETING OF: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK MEMBERSHIP THAT MATTERS City Manager Willmore and Director Mihranian January 19, 2017 Page Two It may be helpful to offer a case study that we believe is typical in counting cemetery visitor traffic. For example, Calverton National Cemetery located in New York is the third largest national cemetery operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As of 2009, the VA reported that Calverton had 212,000 total intenrients. Since then, the number of interments has increased by 5,000 to 6,000 each year. Today there exist approximately 242,000 burials at Calverton. Annual weekday and weekend/holiday visitors for Calverton total approximately 155,700 people. For statistical purposes, if we divide that total into 52 weeks per year, there are an average of 2,994 visitors per week. Not to split hairs, let's round that up to 3,000 visitors weekly. To obtain a per grave weekly visitor frequency, divide the average number of weekly visitors (3,000) into the number of graves (242,000). The resulting number is 0.01239 visitor per grave per week. Using this calculation as a yardstick, this means that a 500 -grave cemetery will experience an average of six visitors per week. Likewise, a 1,000 -grave cemetery would experience an average weekly visitor total of twelve. And based on ICCFA's member experience in the long-term, the majority of weekly visitors are present for an interment service and decline in number during the months that follow. Finally, it should be noted that while the largest number of visitors at any one time will appear for a burial, the number of burial services has little bearing on the number grave spaces the cemetery has available for sale. We believe that the case study discussed above, coupled with our members' experience across the country, demonstrate that neighborhoods adjoining Green Hills are unlikely to be inconvenienced by a rise in visitor traffic due to an expansion of the number of burial spaces in the cemetery. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions about our comments. Thank vou. Robert M. Fells Executive Director and General Counsel To: Members of the RPV City Council From: David Emenhiser, 6620 Channelview Ct — Member of the Sea Bluff HOA Board Date: June 51h, 2018 RE: Please Reject Redesign of 11 and 21 Nantasket Dr (Or Select Alternative 1) The homes on Beach View are members of our HOA and the proposed redesign will block the ocean views of at least one of our members (6619). My home is not affected, but for 10 years the HOA has stood opposition to this project, and the numerous and creeping variances and redesigns of this overall project, which seeks to shoehorn 4 two story homes on to a thin lot consisting of 1.4 acres. Please reject or select Alternative 1 and send this proposal back to staff so that the project will be redesigned. The Concerns: 1. The staff report fails to adequately communicate the numerous variances and exemptions that have already been awarded to this project (i.e. lot setbacks, height, etc.) 2. Have no doubt this redesign will block ocean views. The sliver of a view in the proposed design will only open up what looks like a 3 foot wide corridor, hardly any concession to a homeowner that will lose their ocean view. 3. This entire project sits right on top of the Flower Field trail, and only slightly off the sidewalk that RPV residents and guests of Terranea use to experience the natural beauty of Long Point. 4. The proposed grading permit will need to double the amount of cut and fill. 5. The neighbors on Beach View have not been consulted, they may have been "informed", but not consulted, nor have they approved the redesign. Please send this project back to the staff and have the owner/contractor make more changes to protect ocean vies of our neighbors and those who are visiting our community. AGENDA ITEM: a RECEIVED FROM: ,u,G . AND MADE PARTOF THE RECORDATTHE COUNCIL MEETING OF: !e l S h It OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AGENDA ITEM: l RECEIVED FROM; AND MADE PART OF THE R5C R(} D TTHE COUNCIL MEETING OF: _ l8' _ OFFICE OF THII CITY CLFt:2K -ft �� �' �; } rr;� � a, gip' _� �ll aY" � ^��' y'i �� 'Y i -� Tom., �� .. r- ✓� i � yC, r r i� `',Fn r- /-' !���� �� 614 �} y «� 1 � � n t 4 �� N \^� �-�Y �� \_ Y _ i� r VVV��� f r� :�S � =L6' ��i _ ,,,a M ��O, 64 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JUNE 5, 2018 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 1 Correction to Staff Report page 6 2 Email exchange between Director of Community Development Mihranian and Anu Sood ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, June 4, 2018**. Respectfully submitted, Emily Co orn WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180605 additions revisions to agenda.doc General Fund Expenditures Overall expenditures are estimated to increase by $272,200 or 1 % to the year-end estimates or decrease by ($17,900) compared to revised budget 5.2% Gernpared to the revised budget. and to the year estimate net of transfers out. Listed below is a summary of the expenditure assumptions Personnel Costs Salaries – a budgeted increase of 12.3% or $968,300 over year-end estimates are primarily due to: a. Full-time positions in various departments that were budgeted for the full annual cost in FY7-18 that went unfilled resulting in savings of approximately $737,300 which accounts for a majority of the increase to the year-end estimate b. Per current labor contract, a scheduled cost -of -living allowance (COLA) increase of 2.5% or $126,000 and an average merit increase of 2.5% or $122,000 for RPVEA Association and Management/Confidential c. Position reclassification — Public Works Department i. Reclass the Maintenance Supervisor position to a Permit Technician position, savings of $10,000 ii. Reclass the Administrative Assistant position to a Staff Assistant position, savings of $7,000 2. Benefits – a budgeted increase of 11.9% or $310,100 due to: a. Full-time positions in various departments that were budgeted for the full annual cost in FY17-18 that went unfilled resulting in savings of approximately $79,300 b. CalPERS Normal Costs - increase of $28,200 i. Tier 1 – 10.609%, an increase of 0.5% ii. Tier 2 – 7.634%, an increase of 0.4% iii. Tier 3 – 6.842%, an increase of 0.3% c. CalPERS Unfunded Liabilities – increase of $164,600 i. Tier 1 – 25.219%, an increase of 12.6% ii. Tier 2 – 0.044%, an increase of 0.02% iii. Tier 3 – 0.056%, an increase of 0.3% d. Health, dental and vision benefits – an increase of 5% or $38,000 Non -Personnel Costs 3. Public Safety – increase of 3% or $200,200 due to: a. Sheriff's Contract – increase of $183,000 i. 2.57% increase in the cost of a Deputy Sheriff Service Unit ii. 3.67% cost for Bonus I Deputy units from the FY17-18 rates. From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 1:07 PM To: CityClerk Cc: Nathan Zweizig; Ara Mihranian Subject: FW: NOTICE RE Nantasket Drive Development - Allen Wix/Wix Design (Ireland Property) Please see the attached as additional late correspondence. Thank you. Amy Seeraty Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Anu [mailto:anu@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 9:37 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Neeraj Chaudhary <neeraj@epconsultants.net>; Supriya Sood <supriyasood@hotmail.com>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@ rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: NOTICE RE Nantasket Drive Development - Allen Wix/Wix Design (Ireland Property) Thank you for your prompt reply Mr. Mihranian. Do the residents here have any recourse if parking and traffic problems will be created by this development? All day and night Nantasket is full of cars on both sides and you will see a marked increase in accidents. Kids running around and people walking their dogs all over the street during all daylight hours. Every exit from the new driveways will be a blind intersection. Again, this problem was not there in 2010 because Terranea was not fully staffed up to the point that their employees were parking in our subdivision. The combination of Mr. Ireland's proposed development on Nantasket and an increasingly more busy Terranea will cause a precarious situation. If this project goes ahead without mitigating the parking squeeze, you will see Nantasket to be the most congested residential street in the history of Rancho Palos Verdes. Please guide me as to what recourse I have in the relevant municipal codes to BLOCK this project as is. On 6/5/2018 8:49 AM, Ara Mihranian wrote: Mr. Sood, The City is in receipt of your email expressing concerns with the project. Your email will be provided to the City Council this evening as part of late correspondence. I would like to point out to you that the project, a subdivision creating four lots (Vesting Parcel Map), was approved in 2010. The item before the City Council this evening is to amend certain conditions related to Lot Nos. 1 and 2, and for the Council to review the modifications to the proposed residence for 1 J - Lot No. 1 per the Council -adopted Conditions of Approval. The merits of the subdivision and the residences are not on the agenda this evening. In fact, the project -related grading is scheduled to begin in a few weeks. Tonight's Council Agenda and related Staff Report contains information you are requesting and can be viewed on the City's website at the following link: In 2010, the Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance to CEQA. Let me know if you have any further questions. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram rpvca.gov www. rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? 'T'his c-ni it o ,r it-Nr,r b ionq rig to the City of Rancho ,r,alus Verdes, which may be privil& ed, confideni:ia, and/or prate cited frorn t:�i3>ciu>€:r>c,, thre inf«rrn:�ti<an i. ;rrfr:;rr<te, orrly for r.rs<= of fhe:, irsdividui I or entity r;arned. Unauthorized r istrihution, or copying is stilly hrohribieird. If you roceiver this; wyr ii in error, or are not an intended re::ipiont, please notify the sender irnmeciately. Tharl< you for your assistance and crxrnprationr From: Anu <anu@cox.net> Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 10:55 AM To: build ingsafety buildinsafety p�v�ca. v>a Cc: Neeraj Chaudhary cneergL@epconsultants.net>; Supriya Sood <su�ri�asoocl hotmail.com> Subject: NOTICE RE Nantasket Drive Development - Allen Wix/Wix Design (Ireland Property) TO: AMY SEERATY, RPV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Amy, We are in receipt of the May 17, 2018 notice from your department for the referenced City Council meeting on June 5. Please note we received the notice last Friday, June 1. 1 am opposed to the proposed development as is and request the City Council DENY the applicants request. First and foremost there will be an unmitigated parking problem caused by adding residences now on Nantasket. As it is the street is full of cars and with driveways and new residents the parking will spill further down Sea Cove Drive where I live and to Vanderlip Park. While this may not have been considered fully in 2010 when the lot was subdivided in Resolution No. 2010-87, since the burgeoning growth of Terranea visitors, there are a lot of cars from Terranea - sometimes employees (whom I personally know), sometimes customers who want to evade the parking fees. As a result Nantasket and Sea Cove have been significantly impacted - on some weekends there is almost no parking, and this has an adverse effect of Vanderlip Park visitors etc., especially since there is no parking time limit or parking zone permit system. I have not heard of any plans for Mr. Ireland to add any type of parking structure or lot for the additional traffic. Secondly I have a beautiful unobstructed view of the Terranea golf course 9th hole from my property (next to Vanderlip Park at 6520 Sea Cove Drive). The development will impair that view. That view did not exist in 2010 but now does (see attached photo). In addition this is my summer sunset view which will be significantly impaired. I know you have a view ordinance and have seen on-line applications for view impairment due to foliage, but nothing regarding proposed structures. Third, the proposed development will increase the burden on the local power grid. As it is we have significant power outages at least once per year, due to aging and failing utility equipment. The 4 homes will be a significant draw on this already weak electric supply. Finally, please provide me with CEQA documents regarding your proceeding on this matter. Has a negative declaration been filed and published? I don't recall seeing any such documents or notice in 2010 or thereafter. As such the project may not be in compliance with CEQA. If you feel any or all of these issues are already addressed or can be addressed, please route this email to anyone that may be interested. I look forward to hearing from you and the City Council with respect to my concerns. At what time to you expect this item to be considered by the City Council tomorrow evening? Anu Sood Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-803-7280 Anu Sood Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-803-7280 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JUNE 4, 2018 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, June 5, 2018 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material Mayor's Email from Bob Nelson Announcements E Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Fox and SUNSHINE; Email from April Sandell F Email from Kristen Camuglia Emails from SUNSHINE N Email from April Sandell O Updated signature page MOU second amendment 1 Emails from: SUNSHINE; Jean Longacre Respectfully submitted, Emily Co orn WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180605 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday -doe From: Nelsongang <nelsongang@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 8:48 AM To: CC Subject: June 5th Recognition of Commissioner Dave Tomblin Mayor Brooks, MayOr Pro -Tem Duhovic, Council Members, At your June 5th meeting I see our city will recognize now -retired Planning Commissioner Dave Tomblin for his many years helping develop RPV's future land use environment. As a Planning Commissioner I would usually address you with words supporting Dave and what he brought to your Commission and his city. However, that would be in the 3 minute Open Mike period and those comments cannot address agenda items, which Dave's recognition is. Therefore, what I would say is ... in my case Dave was a mentor - always making sure I understood what was the root issue on our items and encouraging me to ask all the questions I felt necessary to reach my decision. Also, Dave brought to us the importance of doing our own independent'due diligence' on items. Time and time again Dave would refresh our understanding of an item by bringing forward a nugget of what he'd found with his due diligence, many times bringing forward his historical recollections of our item. And, almost always, these gave each of us pause for thought, often leading to our own folow-on questions of the subject. Dave always had the respect of his fellow Commissioners, not only for his years of service but for what he brought to our discussions. And, again, he taught us by his example the 'due diligence' expected of all of us. So now Dave goes forward to his future challenges. As one, I will sorely miss Dave twirling his pencil and saying 'Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions on this ...' and his fellow Commissioners all turning to listen! Thank you for providing this recognition. Dave deserves hearing your'Thank you for a job well done.' And you might also thank Dave's wife Ann for her patience and understanding of Dave's Planning Commissioner role these many years. Quite a team! Bob Nelson RA\IV I , 0tJok)wc MESS From: Kit Fox Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 8:52 AM To: SUNSHINE; CC Cc: Elias Sassoon; Ara Mihranian; Cory Linder; Trails; Irving Anaya; Bill Gerstner <wgg@squareoneinc.com>; Gordon Leon <Gordon.Leon@gmail.com>; Natalie Chan; Amy Seeraty Subject: RE: About "Border Issues". June 5, 2018 Council Consent Calendar Item E. Water Company Project Attachments: Letter to RHE_CalWater Project MND 08JAN2018.pdf Dear SUNSHINE: Thank you for your email. As we have discussed many times in the past, interjurisdictional trail issues are not "border issues" as defined in City Council Policy No. 34. However, as I have also advised you in the past, the City has been monitoring the CalWater pipeline project—now known as the "Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project" -----as a "border issue" for many years. Regular updates on this project have been provided in the Border Issues Status Report (most recently on December 5, 2017) and in the Weekly Administrative Report (most recently on January 17, 2018, January 31, 2018, February 7, 2018, February 28, 2018, March 21, 2018, March 28, 2018, April 11, 2018, May 2, 2018 an May, 23, 2018). As discussed in the June 51:" Staff report, the City's Public Works and Community Development departments were both involved in the review of the CEQA documentation for this project. Senior Civil Engineer Natalie Chan and Senior Planner Amy Seeraty prepared comments (attached) that were submitted to the City of Rolling Hills Estates in January 2018. These comments specifically included a request to keep trails adjacent to the construction area along Crenshaw Blvd. open and accessible during construction, including in the vicinity of the intersection with Indian Peak Rd. The City's Public Works Department will also be involved in the review and approval of construction and traffic control plans for work that will occur within the City's portion of the public right-of-way of Crenshaw Blvd. For the record, I would also point out to you that the intersection of Crenshaw Blvd. and Silver Spur Rd, is located wholly within Rolling Hills Estates. Suggestions regarding unrelated improvements to this intersection should be directed to Rolling Hills Estates. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AiICP Senior Administyative Anahist City Mana(3 er'sOf�Vfice y Ciitj of Rancho 1. rtilos eydes 30940Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 (.510) 544-5226 F; (.510) 544-5291 E kitf@rpvca.gov I'3 .s From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:54 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>; Irving Anaya <ianaya@rpvca.gov>; Bill Gerstner <wgg@squareoneinc.com> <wgg@squareoneinc.com>; Gordon Leon <Gordon.Leon @gmail.com> <Gordon.Leon @gmail.com> Subject: About "Border Issues". June 5, 2018 Council Consent Calendar Item E. Water Company Project MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, Staff and Interested parties RE: June 5, 2018 Council Consent Calendar Item E. Water Company Project I am still very concerned about how trail issues at jurisdiction crossings are not considered "Border Issues". In this case, the Border Issue Report is not addressing the trail issue. I quote: CalWater is currently conducting engineering and technical studies to identify the environmental impacts of the proposed project, as required pursuant to CEQA. Public Works Staff is aware of this proposal and will be working with CalWater on those portions of the project that are located within our jurisdiction. I have not been able to identify the Public Works person who is coordinating with Cal Water. And, I have not received any confirmation that the Community Development Department has informed the Public Works Department that the trail on the north side of Crenshaw, between Silver Spur and Indian Peak is in fact in RPV even though the draft Trails Network Plan (TNP) Update does not yet show it as such. I can't imagine how CalWater can install a big pipe under the paved portion of Crenshaw without touching the roadside. At the very least, RPV should demand some sort of assurance that the roadside trail will be restored to its current condition. Heaven forbid it should occur to someone that this is an opportunity to combine projects and improve the trail prism. The CalWater Project will also impact the intersection of Crenshaw and Indian Peak. Somehow, I have come across some proposal to so some work on Indian Peak. That is in the Conceptual Trails Plan portion of the TNP as SECTION TWO, trail B1. The CalWater Project will also impact the intersection of Crenshaw and Silver Spur. Heaven forbid it should occur to someone that this is an opportunity to combine projects and improve the non - motorized crossings of both Silver Spur and Crenshaw. CTP SECTION TWO trail F4 continues around the commercial area as The Lunchbreak Trail. On the southeast side of Crenshaw, the Top of The Hill Loop Trail and Spoke #1 of the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network continue on into Rolling Hills and Westfield, respectively. While I am into border issues and combined project opportunities, I have not received any comment back on the notion of looking into combining the RHE and RPV parklands on the north side of Silver Spur as a possible skateboard park. If there is anything that the City Council can do to get Staff to be more proactive about pursuing opportunities which support our General Plan, I would like to know about it. As would a lot of people. We will support you. CITY OF January 8, 2018 Jeannie Naughton City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 I VAI C O PALOS VERDES SUBJECT: Comments in Response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project (PA -29-16) Dear Ms. Naughton: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-mentioned project. We have reviewed the MND, and offer the following comments: The Initial Study raises several questions: a. I.C. — Will the new pump station blend with the surrounding mountainscape as much as possible? Will landscape be used to create a nature landscape around the structure? It appears that some landscaping will be proposed for the perimeter of the project site. Also, will the proposed retaining walls be painted an earth -tone color and/or also landscaped so as to better blend into the surrounding hillsides? b. III.B. — Will the air quality be permanently impacted for the RPV residents that reside just above the proposed pump station? C. XII.A.&C. — Will the noise level be permanently increased for the RPV residents that reside just above the proposed pump station? 2. Have the various schools, churches and businesses located within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and adjacent to the project site been notified of the MND and the proposed project, including but not limited to: Palos Verdes Montessori Academy, St. John Fisher School, and the Palos Verdes Art Center? 3. The discussion of Operational Noise impacts in Attachment B (pp. B-98-101) concludes that the long-term operation of the project would have a minimal effect on the noise environment in proximity to the project site. 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard/Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv a. Please provide the pre -construction ambient noise level for comparison. b. Has additional noise mitigation been considered to further reduce noise impacts? c. Will noise levels be monitored regularly to avoid nuisance to nearby residents? d. Will the generator be contained within a noise -attenuation housing? 4. The discussion of Land use and Planning in the Initial Study (pg. B-82) states that: Construction impacts from the Project would be short-term and would occur underground within public street rights-of-way, public utility easements, bridle trails, a public elementary school property, part of the Los Angeles County SCBG property, and other public and private property. Staff realizes that that the active construction period would be short term, with the permanent operation acting passively underground. However, as Section F.3.c of Attachment A states that, ...equipment and materials may also be staged along the pipeline alignment where adequate space exists..., the City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully requests that a mitigation measure be added to the MND or a condition be included in the permit itself to address potential impacts to the adjacent trails, which states.- a. tates: a. All public trails adjacent to the Project area within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall remain open and any construction fencing shall not block or impede the public's access of the public trail easements adjacent to the Project. Additionally, no construction materials or equipment shall be stored within the adjacent trail easements. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this important project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5289 or via e-mail at nataliec@rpvca.gov. Sincerely, 1_ X1 t6 9;Aw,_,r� Natalie Chan, PE, Qso Senior Civil Engineer End: Trail map M. Mayor Susan Brooks and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Doug Willmore, City Manager Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager Tracy Bonano, Emergency Services Coordinator Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works P:\5 Public WorksTalWater Peninsula Water Reliability Project\MND City of Rancho paps Verdes Enter Map Title 1,169.1 0 584.57 1,169.1 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes II I The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_Lalifornia_V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. WKIM IE'] s wo L'i1�1®c�:1mm.0— 11 MmmMRS mm Legend Street Centerlines (2015) .... Private Public Conceptual Trails Plan ❑ City Boundary Parcel Palos Verdes Reservoir Adjacent Cities ❑ Palos Verdes Estates ❑ Rolling Hills Estates Rolling Hills Other Ocean Notes Trails adjacent to project area. From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 7:58 AM To: Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: City Council Agenda/consent calendar Item N regarding ALPR camaras and a separate comment on Border Issues (E) From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov> Subject: City Council Agenda/consent calendar Item N regarding ALPR camaras and a separate comment on Border Issues (E) Dear Mayor and City Council Members, (N) As reported, the subject lacks important relevant aspects of information collection, sales, sharing among agencies and others, as well as, timely disposal of the personal data. As you are aware, California is but one state among others implementing surveillance tools and the city council can and should say something about these things prior to approving the expenditure on June 5th. I understand that license plates are publicly displayed thus not a privacy issue. However, there is more to consider in the broader scope of use of personal information related to vehicle license plate numbers. Not to mention regional plans in the same regard. Although staff has informed me that many residents actively urge the surveillance tool. I do not. I respectfully urge that you do not approve this item on June 5th. (E) Although it's very nice RPV may support Los Angeles's child protection regarding cannabis signage, it would be nicer had the city restricted cultivation and use and delivery for RPV residents personal use. It seems the obvious reason the city allows such activity is the related permit costs and fees. Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments for the record. Sincerely, April L. Sandell 0 From: Camuglia, Kristen (CCI -California) <Kristen.Camuglia@cox.com> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 4:31 PM To: Susan Brooks Cc: Jerry Duhovic; Eric Alegria; John Cruikshank; Ken Dyda; CC; Gabriella Yap; Doug Willmore; Collins, Megan (CCI -California); Duva, Jodi (CCI -California); CityClerk Subject: Public Comment Submitted by Cox Communications for June 5, 2018 Agenda — Consent Item Attachments: 6.1.18 Letter to RPV RE SBCCOG Regional Broadband Network.pdf Dear Mayor Brooks, In advance of next Tuesday's city council meeting, Cox Communications respectfully submits the attached letter into public comment under Item F on the Consent Calendar: Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in support of the proposed request for proposals (RFP) for the South Bay Cities Council of Governments' (SBCCOG) regional broadband project. Cox welcomes your feedback and looks forward to an opportunity to share with you an update on our $10 billion network upgrade which will benefit every one of our customers within your city. Sincerely, Kristen Carnuglia Government Affairs Manager I Cox Communications 27121 Towne Centre Drive, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 949-563-8278 desk 1949-842-5547 cell Kristen, www.cox.com June 1, 2018 Susan Brooks, Mayor City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: June 5, 2018 Agenda — Consent Item F Dear Mayor Brooks, On your June 5, 2018 agenda, your council is being asked to take a position to support a yet - to -be -released Request for Proposals (RFP) to establish a broadband network that would connect your city hall with other city halls within the South Bay region. The stated goal of this endeavor, which is being organized by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), is to lower costs to your city by purchasing data collectively at wholesale prices, rather than the current practice of your city purchasing data individually at retail rates. According to your staff report, for your city's participation in SBCCOG's data services cost- sharing program, the estimated cost "could be up to about $100,000 in non-recurring costs (NRC) and up to about $3,100 in monthly recurring costs (MRC), depending upon data speed (1 Gbps vs. 10 Gbps) and which cost-sharing option is eventually selected." Cox Communications is not your city's current data service provider, but to offer some perspective, Cox could provide 1 Gbps on dedicated fiber for several hundred dollars less per month than what is quoted in your staff report with zero additional non-recurring cost to build -in since Cox already has lit fiber at your city hall. When you consider the numerous features that come included with our business service, including 24/7 monitoring for cyber -security threats, the value difference becomes even greater. In addition, as has been the case for over a decade, through Cox Business your city hall and all businesses within your city already have access to up to 10 Gbps. Since this project is being suggested as a "good government initiative" that will lower costs to your city, as a community partner, Cox feels it imperative to share this information with your council to provide perspective on the rates and services that are available to you today. Cox reminds you that the RFP has not yet been issued and neither the public nor the impacted business community has been engaged in this process to date. Cox encourages your council to consider this fact, as well as the potential cost impact of this project to your city, and to decline to support this item at this time. Cox would welcome an opportunity to share with you how our network is already enabling smart homes, smart cities, and smart regions around the country and how our $10 billion network upgrade, which is currently underway, will soon bring access to residential gigabit speeds to every home in your city. In service to your community, Kristen Camuglia Manager, Government Affairs Cox Communications Cc: Jerry Duhovic, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Eric Alegria, Councilmember, City of Rancho Palos Verdes John Cruikshank, Councilmember, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Ken Dyda, Councilmember, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Doug Willmore, City Manager, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Megan Collins, Director of Government Affairs, Cox Communications Jodi Duva, Vice -President, Cox Business Deborah Glenny, Government Account Representative, Cox Business From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 7:59 AM To: Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: RPV Council Meeting, June 5, 2018. Consent Calendar Item I. PV Dr. West From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2018 12:18 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; EZStevens@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com Subject: RPV Council Meeting, June 5, 2018. Consent Calendar Item I. PV Dr. West MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties RE: Consent Calendar Item I. PV Dr. West and the General Plan Consideration and possible action to award a construction contract for the Palos Verdes Drive West Median Beautification (PVDW Beautification), award a construction services agreement to United Irrigation, Inc. DBA United GLI for $394,545, award a professional services agreement to DCA Civil Engineering Group for $31,920, and authorize a project contingency of $42,646.50 for both contracts. (Flannigan) This is another case of when the RPV Council and citizenry could truly have benefited from having an Infrastructure and Activities Commission. This project has not received any citizen review. Based on the information in the Agenda Report, either this project does not include all of PV Drive West (border with PVE to the intersection with Crestmont and Terranea Way) or, Staff has neglected to include two trails which are in the Conceptual Trails Plan. Trails Al and A4 are both on the Palos Verdes Loop Trail "ideal route" and are on the equestrian corridor for the California Coastal Trail. This is what I mean by having a "half baked" project on your Consent Calendar. This produces a terrible decision for the Council. Change Orders are expensive. So is going through a re- bid process. Once again, an apology from the City Manager is not going to fund getting this done right. A noticed Public Hearing before a Commission would have caught this omission before the design went out for bid. Now it is up to the City Council to understand the situation well enough to make an informed decision. Is the Coastal Conservancy aware that their grant to "complete" the California Coastal Trail in RPV did not accomplish the stated objective? Has any conversation happened to connect this center median trail with the one in Palos Verdes Estates? I don't see a height limitation on the foliage as all that specific, either. At least preserving the coastal view does get mentioned. There has got to be a way to get Staff to become proactive about pursuing the goals in the General Plan. So sorry to spring this on you as late correspondence. A call for bids for "beautification" just didn't catch my eye. From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 7:58 AM To: Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Beyond Re: RPV Council Meeting, June 5, 2018. Consent Calendar Item I. PV Dr. West From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2018 1:49 PM To: Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov> Cc: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov> Subject: Beyond Re: RPV Council Meeting, June 5, 2018. Consent Calendar Item I. PV Dr. West Hi Ron, What, who, when established this "Project Budget"? Other than the PV Drive East affairs, Crestridge Road, Indian Peak Road, fire fuel abatement by goats, East Crest Road and the CalWater Project to name a few, what has Public Works in mind for using the City's PROF/ TECH Budget? ...S 310-377-8761 In a message dated 6/3/2018 8:51:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, RonD(c)rpvca.gov writes: Hi Sunshine, trail work in the median is not planned with this improvement. Trail improvements in this area were considered, however, the project budget will not support the cost of trail improvements in the median and the mid block crossings that would be required to safely allow pedestrians to cross this arterial to access a median trail. Best regards, Ron Dragoo, PE Principal/City Engineer On Jun 2, 2018, at 12:59 PM, SUNSHINE <sunshinerp@aol.com> wrote: Consideration and possible action to award a construction contract for the Palos Verdes DrivE Median Beautification (PVDW Beautification), award a construction services agreement to Irrigation, Inc. DBA United GLI for $394,545, award a professional services agreement to DC, Engineering Group for $31,920, and authorize a project contingency of $42,646.50 for both cor (Flannigan) Hi Ron, I scrolled through the Agenda Report and did not find a plan drawing nor a description in the text which describes how much of the PV Drive West center median is to be worked on. In SECTION ONE of the Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP), trails Al and A4 (see the map) impact the PV Drive West center median. Are improvements to these trails included in this Scope of Work? ...S 310-377-8761 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 7:58 AM To: Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: The Budget for infrastructure improvements. Agenda Items I and 1. From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2018 3:00 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; lowell@transtalk.com; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Subject: The Budget for infrastructure improvements. Agenda Items I and 1. MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, Director of Finance and interested parties RE: Budgeting for Infrastructure improvements. June 5, 2018 Agenda Items The Process is not working. Consent Calendar Item I is an example and Public Hearing Item 1 is an opportunity to discuss remedies for the glitch. Amendment 22 of the General Plan was written and Adopted to encourage Staff to look for ways to add trail enhancements in with other projects and applications. That needs to happen at the very beginning of the exercise to define a Scope of Work. This is when Staff should call in the trail user communities for their design expertise. A budget request needs to encompass the combined objectives. In the case of Item I, neither of these proactive "best business practices" were initiated. When a recommendation to accept a bid appears on the Council's Consent Calendar, it is much too late to start discussing what should have been done. See the following Q and A with Ron Dragoo. I got the same answer when I asked Ron why the design of the trail restoration was not included in the San Ramone Canyon Project. How are the funds in the PROF/ TECH Budget Expenditure Category accessed? Many "trail enhancement" opportunities are too small to show up in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). We no longer have a Trails Manager to oversee the complicated aspects of these General Plan and City Council Goals. 1 Staff will incorporate any additional direction from the City Council at this meeting into the budget report for adoption at the June 19, 2018, City Council meeting. What can be done in this "budget cycle" to make sure that similar opportunities are not lost due to a lack of funding and a lack of interdepartmental coordination? Subject: Re: RPV Council Meeting, June 5, 2018. Consent Calendar Item I. PV Dr. West Date: 6/3/2018 8:51:46 AM Pacific Standard Time From: RonD(@rpvca.gov To: sunshinerpvaaol.com Cc: esassoon(c-rpvca.gov, RonD cDrpvca.gov Sent from the Internet (Details) Hi Sunshine, trail work in the median is not planned with this improvement. Trail improvements in this area were considered, however, the project budget will not support the cost of trail improvements in the median and the mid block crossings that would be required to safely allow pedestrians to cross this arterial to access a median trail. Best regards, Ron Dragoo, PE Principal/City Engineer On Jun 2, 2018, at 12:59 PM, SUNSHINE <sunshinerpaol.com> wrote: Consideration and possible action to award a construction contract for the Palos Verdes Drive West Median Beautification (PVDW Beautification), award a construction services agreement to United Irrigation, Inc. DBA United GLI for $394,545, award a professional services agreement to DCA Civil Engineering Group for $31,920, and authorize a project contingency of $42,646.50 for both contracts. (Flannigan) Hi Ron, I scrolled through the Agenda Report and did not find a plan drawing nor a description in the text which describes how much of the PV Drive West center median is to be worked on. In SECTION ONE of the Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP), trails Al and A4 (see the map) impact the PV Drive West center median. Are improvements to these trails included in this Scope of Work? ...S 310-377-8761 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 7:58 AM To: Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: City Council Agenda/consent calendar Item N regarding ALPR camaras and a separate comment on Border Issues (E) From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; Emily Colborn <ecol born@ rpvca.gov> Subject: City Council Agenda/consent calendar Item N regarding ALPR camaras and a separate comment on Border Issues (E) Dear Mayor and City Council Members, (N) As reported, the subject lacks important relevant aspects of information collection, sales, sharing among agencies and others, as well as, timely disposal of the personal data. As you are aware, California is but one state among others implementing surveillance tools and the city council can and should say something about these things prior to approving the expenditure on June 5th. I understand that license plates are publicly displayed thus not a privacy issue. However, there is more to consider in the broader scope of use of personal information related to vehicle license plate numbers. Not to mention regional plans in the same regard. Although staff has informed me that many residents actively urge the surveillance tool. I do not. I respectfully urge that you do not approve this item on June 5th. (E) Although it's very nice RPV may support Los Angeles's child protection regarding cannabis signage, it would be nicer had the city restricted cultivation and use and delivery for RPV residents personal use. It seems the obvious reason the city allows such activity is the related permit costs and fees. Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments for the record. Sincerely, April L. Sandell Effective the first :full pay period in July 2019, the City shall grant an across -the board salary COLA increase for all represented employees based upon the percentage increase in the Consumer .Price Index (CPI -U) in the I..,os Angeles-I_,ong Beach -Anaheim geographic area for the twelve (12) month period ending March 2018 with a minimum 'floor increase of one percent (1%) and ceiling cap on the increase of two and a half percent (2.5%). Employees' salaries shall increase correspondingly within their individual salary ranges to reflect the COLA. The salary ranges shall increase by the COLA amount. Effective the first full pay period in July 2019, the City shall grant an across-the-board salary BOLA increase based upon the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI -U) in the Los Angeles -Long Beach-Anaheirn geographic area :for the twelve (12) month period ending March 2019 with a minimum floor increase of one percent (1%) and ceiling cap on. the increase of two and a half percent (2.5%). Employees' salaries shall increase correspondingly within their individual. salary ranges to reflect the COLA. The salary ranges shall increase by the CO:f.,A anrount. IT IS SO AGREED: City of Rancho Palos Verdes b Doug Wilhnore City Manager ._............ Colin J. `I` inner — Chips' Negotiator Gabriella Yap --- Deruty City . ........... Deborah Cullen -- Director of finance Mary Brad e Human 12esources Managermm Rancho Palos Verdes Employee Association 40 0a Matt Waters — President A/r - Y _� I Kit Fox -- VVe President 1114 _J 4-e- 4-1-- ire Robert Nemeth -- Secretary _J44�/t 0AA1�A_," � ........................................ Natalie Chan Board Member art Board ............._...._._ . .w_ _____.........__..._....-------- Bee _... Becky Mart Board .Member From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 7:58 AM To: Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: The Budget for infrastructure improvements. Agenda Items I and 1. From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2018 3:00 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; lowell@transtalk.com; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Subject: The Budget for infrastructure improvements. Agenda Items I and 1. MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, Director of Finance and interested parties RE: Budgeting for Infrastructure improvements. June 5, 2018 Agenda Items The Process is not working. Consent Calendar Item I is an example and Public Hearing Item 1 is an opportunity to discuss remedies for the glitch. Amendment 22 of the General Plan was written and Adopted to encourage Staff to look for ways to add trail enhancements in with other projects and applications. That needs to happen at the very beginning of the exercise to define a Scope of Work. This is when Staff should call in the trail user communities for their design expertise. A budget request needs to encompass the combined objectives. In the case of Item I, neither of these proactive "best business practices" were initiated. When a recommendation to accept a bid appears on the Council's Consent Calendar, it is much too late to start discussing what should have been done. See the following Q and A with Ron Dragoo. I got the same answer when I asked Ron why the design of the trail restoration was not included in the San Ramone Canyon Project. How are the funds in the PROF/ TECH Budget Expenditure Category accessed? Many "trail enhancement" opportunities are too small to show up in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). We no longer have a Trails Manager to oversee the complicated aspects of these General Plan and City Council Goals. i Staff will incorporate any additional direction from the City Council at this meeting into the budget report for adoption at the June 19, 2018, City Council meeting. What can be done in this "budget cycle" to make sure that similar opportunities are not lo' due to a lack of funding and a lack of interdepartmental coordination? i Subject: Re: RPV Council Meeting, June 5, 2018. Consent Calendar Item I. PV Dr. West Date: 6/3/2018 8:51:46 AM Pacific Standard Time From: RonD .rpvca.gov To: sunshinerpv(&-aol.com Cc: esassoon(a)rpvca.gov, RonD(a)rpvca.gov Sent from the Internet (Details) Hi Sunshine, trail work in the median is not planned with this improvement. Trail improvements in this area were considered, however, the project budget will not support the cost of trail improvements in the median and the mid block crossings that would be required to safely allow pedestrians to cross this arterial to access a median trail. Best regards, Ron Dragoo, PE Principal/City Engineer On Jun 2, 2018, at 12:59 PM, SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv a,aol.com> wrote: Consideration and possible action to award a construction contract for the Palos Verdes Drive West Median Beautification (PVDW Beautification), award a construction services agreement to United Irrigation, Inc. DBA United GLI for $394,545, award a professional services agreement to DCA Civil Engineering Group for $31,920, and authorize a project contingency of $42,646.50 for both contracts. (Flannigan) Hi Ron, I scrolled through the Agenda Report and did not find a plan drawing nor a description in the text which describes how much of the PV Drive West center median is to be worked on. In SECTION ONE of the 2 Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP), trails Al and A4 (see the map) impact the PV Drive West center median. Are improvements to these trails included in this Scope of Work? ... S 310-377-8761 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 11:35 AM To: Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Budget Agenda Item 1 - Portuguese Bend Landslide Study From: jeanlongacre@aol.com [mailto:jeanlongacre@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 11:13 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Budget Agenda Item 1 - Portuguese Bend Landslide Study Dear City Council, In hiring a consultant and applying for a Federal Grant to control he Portuguese Bend Landslide, please include recreational and emergency trail circulation wherever possible in the grading plans. Thank you Jean Longacre 6 Martingale Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-0105