20180717 Late CorrespondencePurpose of Presentatioq
July 17 2018
Prepared by Steve Williams
1. Present Traffic estimates for 3 times of the day based personal observations
Morning rushour
Evening rushhour
Mid Day traffic.
2. Request Traffic and Roadway department to verify presented results
3. Formal Submittal of Traffic Calming review — has it ever been submitted?
4. No solutions are suggested by this presenter.
AGENDA ITEM:
RECEIVED FROM:
AND MADE PART OF THE RECORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF: -i jr-11 i
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK '
PV South Traffic Estimates
July 17 2018
Prepared by Steve Williams
typical
car
Distance
time
Estimated
spacing
at 40 MPH
between cars
# of cars
Hours
(ft)
(ft) ,5ec
(sec)
AM
Rush hour traffic
0.75
100
58.67
1.7-
1584
PM
Rush hour traffic
0.75
100
58.67
1.70
1584
Mid day
traffic
6
500
58.67
8.52
2534
PV South Traffic Calming estimates
July 17 2018
Prepared by Steve Williams
1. Travel Speed (40 pts. max.) Posted speed limit 40mph (estimate — 50mph = 20 points)
Extent that the 85th percentile speed exceeds speed limit; 2 points assigned for every 1 mph over speed limit.
2. ADT Volumes (30 pts. max.) Rush Hour # of cars = 1584 ( 30 points)
Streets with average daily traffic over 1,500 vehicles per day or peak hour traffic over 150 vehicles per hour will be
assigned 5 points with every additional 200 vehicles per day or 50 vehicles per hour. 3. Crashes (10 pts. max.)
3. Number of Collisions: Data not available ( 0 points)
Crashes (10 pts. max.)1 point for every correctable collision reported based on the past 5 years of data.
4. School Proximity (5 pts. max.) No school in vicinity
5. Sidewalks or Pathways (5 pts. max.) Partial pathways
No sidewalk or pedestrian pathway exists along at least one side of the street = 5 points.
A sidewalk or pedestrian pathway exists on at least one side of the street = 0 points.
6. Pedestrian Crossings (10 pts. max.) No defined crossing
School crosswalk (yellow crosswalk) is located on a street in the A01= 5 points.
Major crosswalk is located on a street in the A01= 10 points.
Total Score: Comments: Points 60 ( 51 point threshold)
(0 points)
( 0 points)
(10 points)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
'"00 Oceangate, Suite 1000 - p
ng Beach, CA 90802-4302
io62) 590-5071
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council EL --
RE:
: 5�
July 17, 2018
OM:
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard �-tc t
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RT OF THE RECORD AT THE
TING OF: 60 I 1 It$
HE CITY CLERK
(provided by electronic mail }
RE: Intersection Reconfiguration at Costa De La Islas and PV Drive South
Coastal Commission Staff Comments for RPV City Council Meeting 7/17/18
To the Honorable RPV City Council and Public Works Director Elias Sassoon:
Coastal Commission staff have reviewed the staff report and exhibits associated with Item 5 on the
Regular Business section of the agenda for the City Council hearing of July 17, 2018 and are providing
the following comments.
The Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) A -5 -RPV -93-005 for a
development identified as Ocean Trails in 1993. In 1999 the Coastal Commission approved Tract 50667
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666. Vesting Tentative Tract 50666 was revised to authorize 23
residential lots through Amendment 21 to CDP A -5 -RPV -93-005 in 2014. All of these actions were
limited to the privately owned development now identified as Trump National Golf Club, and the
approved roadway within that development identified as Costa De La Islas, which will be dedicated to
the City and open to the public upon completion of construction. The Coastal Commission's CDP
approval and subsequent amendments did not extend to the public right-of-way along PV Drive South.
In previous actions, the Commission has generally found that changes to the public right-of-way which
do not result in changes to vehicle capacity or public access to the coast, and do not adversely affect
biological resources, are exempt from coastal development permit requirements. The alternatives
identified in the staff report for the intersection reconfiguration project at Costa De La Islas and PV
Drive South appear to be located primarily within the public right-of-way along PV Drive South, and do
not appear to change vehicle capacity or public access to the coast, or adversely affect biological
resources, with the possible exception of two components: the potential exclusive right -turn lane and the
potential westbound acceleration (merge) lane.
According to the staff report, those components would require relocation and reconstruction of portions
of the California Coastal Trail and the public sidewalk. It also appears the transitions to the right turn
lane and from the acceleration lane onto PV Drive could increase conflicts with cyclists in the existing
bicycle lane on PV Drive South - and would require more complicated transitions to the Ocean Vista
Bikeway and the soft footed pedestrian path which the Coastal Commission's approved CDP requires
the property owner to construct atop the property adjacent to the public right-of-way.
Page 1 of 2
Intersection Reconfiguration at Costa De La Islas and PV Drive South
Coastal Commission Staff Comments for RPV City Council Meeting 7/17/18
Page 2 of 2
Thus, Coastal Commission staff suggests that the City Council approve an alternative which does not
result in a new exclusive right -turn lane and westbound acceleration (merge) lane. If the City Council
elects to approve an alternative with those components, the approved findings must identify the
provision which renders the project exempt from coastal development requirements, pursuant to the
City's Local Coastal Program (certified by the Coastal Commission in 1983).
Please note that these comments are preliminary in nature and are based on exhibits rather than final
plans. Additional comments may be provided should the project change. Please contact me at 562-590-
5071 or zach.rehm@coastal.ca.gov with any questions.
Sincerely,
ZFL n
Zach Rehm
Senior Transportation Program Analyst
Cc: Elias Sassoon, RPV Public Works Director
Ara Mihranian, RPV Community Development Director
i
r, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
TREE LANDSCAE I .
aka Southern California Gardens
St. lAc. # C27/D49-91 , ONDA ITEM. S
RECEIVED FROM,
I e a Lt ed
AND MADE PART OP THE REC RD AT THE
COUNCIL ME"1
IT
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLARK
REVIEW OF MATURE CORAL TREE PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH
Specimen: Approximately 60 plus year oldCoral Tree with heaIthyand mature root base
Lora tion Palos Verdes Dune South between Schooner/Yacht Harbor Dr. and Trump National Dr.,
south side of the street
(Proposes. Possible changes 10 surrounding area wheretbecccora.l tree is located would cause grave
if not irreparable damage to this beautiful tree
Changes; Removing and relocating 4 ft. trail closer to the 'Portuguese Bend Club, with additional
changes to the Palos Verdes Drive South road., moving the road inward towards the Portuguese Bend
Club, takes away approximately three quarters of the coral trete and root system.
Conclusion: The Coral Tree would not survive possible changes to surrounding area. There would riot
be enough room for the tree and roots.
Recommendation: Leave the tree as is with a drip system for watering.
Arturo Davila
ISA Certified Arborist ##WE -9263A
939 W 223rd Stmer 0 Toruan. cc, Californi2 90502 * Tela (310) 212-6028 0 Fax (310) 212-6134
44
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA --
TREE &LANDSCAPE, INC.
dka Southern California Gardens
St. Lic. # C27/D49-919326
939 %K' 223j -,d Street • Torrance, California 90502 • Tel: (310) 212-6028 • Fax (310) 212-6134
t
SOUTHERN C
TREE, & LANDSCAPE, INC.
aker Southern California Gardens
St. Lic. # C27/D49-919326
939W- 223rd Street a Torrance, California 90502 9 Tel: (310) 212-6028 0 Fax (310) 212-6134
` z
From:
Teresa Takaoka
To:
Nathan Zweizia
Subject:
FW: Union assault
Date:
Wednesday, July 18, 2018 9:49:49 AM
Late corr
From: DHH [mailto:dhhaack@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:19 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Union assault
To the Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
Good evening. I'm hoping my communication is not too late for consideration leading up to
this evening's City Council Meeting and decisions which may be on the table. Since October
19, 2017 when Unite Here launched it's vicious attack on Terranea, I have been struggling
with how to address the vile, repugnant, personal attacks and lies by Unite Here Local 11
against my wife, my family and my wife's business, Terranea Resort -- which the Union
continuously incorrectly refers to as "The Terranea". I guess they don't consider accuracy to
be a strong asset.
I want to make it clear that the disgusting, disturbing, slanderous pornographic video posted
on YouTube on Thanksgiving Day 2017 -- viewed by my wife and our son that Thursday
morning -- by a Unite Here supporter depicting my wife and a staff member in a deeply
troubling cartoon complete with a music soundtrack condoned by Unite Here, was and is
nothing less than despicable and deeply troubled all of us a family. The refusal by YouTube
and it's parent company, Google to remove this libelous garbage speaks volumes about the
non-existent morals of these putrid companies.
I sincerely hope the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will take these detestable actions by
the, in my opinion, contemptible union into consideration as the union will, no doubt, be
presenting an excessively vocal presence to promote their, in my opinion, deranged agenda
demanding their clearly self-serving measure be placed on the November ballot.
Please be certain that, in my opinion, Unite Here Local 11 has nothing more than their
personal gain in mind. They have NO interest in helping workers. Their so-called "demands"
were implemented long ago and they refuse to admit that the union's cause is useless. In my
opinion, their interests lie solely in lining their pockets with workers' dues an enriching their
own coffers. There is nothing good to be gained by the employees of Terranea or the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes if these thugs (my humble opinion) are allowed to infest the businesses
of this community.
Sincerely,
Doug Haack
NOTE: The views and comments expressed in this email are my personal opinion and based
on my experience with the topics I've addressed.
From: Teresa Takaoka
To: Nathan Zweizia
Subject: FW: Proposed New Intersection on PVDS New Tract 50666 —Phase II of Trump National Golf Club Housing
Development
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 9:58:48 AM
Late corr
From: Jrrcarlton@aol.com [mailto:jrrcarlton@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 4:56 PM
To: Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov; Traffic <Traffic@rpvca.gov>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov>; So
Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Proposed New Intersection on PVDS New Tract 50666 —Phase II of Trump National Golf
Club Housing Development
Please see below regarding my original opposition in November 2017 and additional comments
above. Please add to the record.
Dear Traffic Committee Members,
I urge a continued study of the public safety issues created by selecting Alternative 1. In addition to
my previously stated concerns, it is my understanding that there is only a T -intersection and no
vested interest in the original map to breach the median as being proposed in Alternative 1.
Therefore, the city should not approve such a deviation from the original plan without further
comprehensive study.
I therefore urge you to continue this hearing and have the developer address these and other issues
and come up with a solution that improves the traffic situation for everyone in the neighborhood.
Thank you.
On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Jrrcarlton(@aol.com <irrcarlton(@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Traffic Committee Members,
First of all, thank you for your contributions to our city to ensure that RPV citizens and
visitors alike are provided the safest environment in which to travel through our city.
On that note, we would like to add our voices to that of the many RPV citizens who are
concerned about the safety of the proposed new intersection on PVDS between
Schooner and Conqueror. As with all of the neighbors with whom we have discussed
this matter, we are vehemently opposed to this proposed intersection and have no
doubt that it will negatively impact the safety and enjoyment of the adjacent
neighborhoods of Seaview and PBC, as well as all travelers along that route. We
believe there are many valid points that have been already been made in the
objections to this intersection with which we wholeheartedly agree, especially on
these points:
1) ADVERSE EFFECT ON SEAVIEW: Seaview has only two points of entrance/exit,
both of which will be severely impacted by the addition of a third intersection
between the two and within yards of Schooner, an intersection from where we
must accelerate out quickly in either direction due to limited visibility. the
speed of the cross traffic and the absence of a merge lane like at Conqueror.
This is especially true of eastbound travel, as we must navigate westbound
cars, even bicycles, that are moving at a fast rate of speed, as well as those
headed eastbound. Making a left turn from Schooner is already challenging
enough; adding an intersection within yards of that will create a serious
scenario which will undoubtedly result in accidents that would not occur
without this intersection. For example, we already must accelerate out onto
PVDS in order to not impede oncoming traffic, and now we may be suddenly
confronted with a car exiting this proposed intersection from a complete stop.
I can only imagine how many rear end collisions will occur if this intersection is
allowed. Even worse, what if there is a bicyclist or hiker nearby and a chain
reaction occurs? The only solution to avoiding such a situation is for Seaview
residents to only exit at Conqueror which at least has a merge lane. However,
this will negatively impact those neighbors as traffic will increase between the
two cross streets. And we will still be faced with the difficulty of navigating
extra traffic coming out of this new intersection.
2) SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC: An approval granted so many years ago
should not be grandfathered in without careful consideration of the many
changes that have taken place since that initial study. Besides the normal
increases in traffic patterns along our coast, there are two significant changes
that have dramatically increased traffic on PVDS in just the last five years that
deserve more careful review and consideration: Terranea and social media
impact. These significant factors in increased traffic and safety concerns were
not a consideration when the original approval was granted.
a. TERRANEA: The volume of traffic associated with Terranea has
increased dramatically, especially since the upturn in the economy.
When Terranea was being approved, we were assured that the bulk of
the increased traffic, especially that of suppliers and employees, would
be encouraged to use Hawthorne. Obviously, that was not
enforceable nor practical to the many employees, guests and suppliers
who would be coming from the 110 freeway. We have seen a
significant increase of large delivery trucks at all hours. Moreover, I
have counted up to 100 cars streaming westbound from Western, the
majority of which must be Terranea employees reporting to their first
shift. Sometimes the cars are lined up down Western to Morse/19th
Street, waiting to turn right on 25th street. After they turn right and
past the signal at Anchovy, this becomes a steady stream of dozens of
cars with no break to allow us to exit our neighborhood in a timely
manner, regardless of which street we use.
b. SOCIAL MEDIA'S IMPACT: The impact of social media's spotlight on our
beautiful area cannot be discounted. It has even made the news as
increased rescues have occurred along the coast as adventurous
sightseers discover our area through social media. Consequently, from
our vantage point of living directly on PVDS for over 21 years, we have
observed a huge increase in car, motorcycle, bicycle and foot traffic
from Trump to Terranea. Of course, we have always had sightseeing
and residential traffic; however, this has demonstratively increased
with the explosion of social media's influence on recreational options.
People from all over are increasing posting photos and hashtags
identify our area as a desirable destination for a variety of adventures.
Most of these tourists are unfamiliar with our area as is; adding yet
another intersection to a busy PVDS will only cause more problems
than solutions.
3) FURTHER STUDY IS NECESSARY: To completely reconfigure PVDS for a private
development of a mere 12 homes at the expense of the quality of life and
safety of the RPV citizens in the 300+ homes nearby, as well as that of all
travelers along this treasured drive, should not be allowed without further
consideration of the adverse impact on our community. Any consideration of
this proposal should be postponed until complete and detailed studies are
conducted of current and forecasted traffic patterns of all manner, including
hikers and bicyclists, to ensure the safety of our roads and neighborhoods.
4) EXISTING SOLUTION: Otherwise, the solution is simple and already in
existence. Trump Drive should be used for all developments within this
property.
Regards,
Jill and Steve Carlton
4265 Palos Verdes Drive South
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 17, 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
G Update to Agenda Report
Email exchanges between Public Works Director Sassoon, Senior
Administrative Analyst Ramezani, and SUNSHINE
4 Email exchange between City Attorney Wynder and George Yin
(Kaufman Legal Group); Email exchange between Deputy City
Manager Yap and Ken DeLong
5 Email exchange between Public Works Director Sassoon and Zach
Rehm (CA Coastal Commission); Email exchange between Public
Works Director Sassoon and Lenee Bilski; Emails from: Jeff
Dorsett; Lenee Bilski; Mickey Rodich; Joanne and Andy Stasio
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, July 16, 2018**.
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Co orn
WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180717 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:47 AM
To: CityClerk
Cc: Gabriella Yap; Deborah Cullen; Doug Willmore
Subject: Agenda item G, Construction Award to United Irrigation Inc for Sidewalk Repair
Please note that the subject item is for the award of the construction contract, and the "agreement for professional services
with Sunbeam Consulting for inspection services" has been taken out.
Staff will be utilizing Sunbeam Consultant for inspection services under their existing contract.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:02 PM
To: 'SUNSHINE'; CC
Cc: Lauren Ramezani;jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com;
beachjake@sbcglobal.net; CityClerk
Subject: RE: Try again. Re: July 17, 2018 RPV Council Agenda Item I. The Sunnyside debacle continues
Hi Sunshine
Thanks for your email.
I defer to the earlier response. There is really NO need to change the verbiage.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
L IR
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:16 PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>; jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com;
beachjake@sbcglobal.net; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Try again. Re: July 17, 2018 RPV Council Agenda Item I. The Sunnyside debacle continues
Dear Lauren and Elias,
Seriously, how hard can it be to choose a more appropriate name for this easement and do a search and
replace? Actually, none of the ones in the TNP Easement Inventory have names. That is why I asked
about the "naming protocol". Why not identify it in the conventional way?
Without the word "trail" in the title, how hard can it be to insert three words like...... use and maintain
the ... ???... solely as open space with public trail improvements. ?
I T— -
With these changes, I would be happy to urge the City Council to approve. Will you have said documents
ready for Council to reference them in a motion?.
Having to have to get a new legal description of the easement is just another in the long list of errors and
omissions related to this property. After 1991, many of the E&O's simply made matters worse. If this is to
be the only easement burdening the property at 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road then, I withdraw my question
about what deed restrictions the County is adding to the ones placed when the City and County vacated
the building pad portion of the property.
Have you any suggestions on how to organize a debriefing of the Sunnyside Debacle? Although most of
the City Employees who were involved are long gone, almost all of the private citizens are available with
documents and stories to share. We have got to figure out how to get projects back on the right path.
See you tonight. ...S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 7/17/2018 10:35:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, esassoongrpvca.gov writes:
Good morning Sunshine,
We checked your concerns with the City Attorney's office and the response was that:
Regarding your concern about the language "...solely as open space": The document has to be read as a
whole .... not just one provision read out of context. The Recital G and Section 2 both indicate that the City is
covenanting to use the grant funds for the improvement of the "trail". And also the covenant agreement
says: "City covenants and agrees to use and maintain the Sunnyside Ridge Trail Easement solely as open
space....", which again mentions the "trail".
Regarding the Legal description: The City's easement on the property underlying the Sunnyside Ridge Trail
Easement was partially vacated with a portion reserved in 1998. This course of events resulted in the City
requiring a new legal description for clarity. The City obtained the services of a professional surveyor (Robert
C. Olson, PLS No. 5490 of Psomas) to write a new legal description specifically for the Sunnyside Ridge Trail
Easement (see attached). Thus, the legal description here has been properly confirmed.
I trust that your concerns have been addressed. PIs let me know if you have any further question.
Regards,
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: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.Rov>
Cc: Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; jeanlongacre@aol.com;
pvpasofino@vahoo.com; amcdougalll@vahoo.com; beachjake@sbcglobal.net
Subject: July 17, 2018 RPV Council Agenda Item I. The Sunnyside debacle continues
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
RE: Debriefing the Sunnyside Debacle
I have been corresponding with Lauren Ramezani about this for years which makes me really
annoyed that I have to bring it up as Late Correspondence. This is not the Sunnyside Ridge Trail
Easement. It should not be immortalized as such in an LA County Recording.
The other problem is this statement that it is to be used solely as "open space". I can see a time in
the not too distant future when this language could be used to preclude public access for trail
purposes. That would make this whole project the ultimate debacle.
Sunnyside Ridge Trail Easement Use Covenant
3. USE. City covenants and agrees to use and maintain the Sunnyside Ridge Trail Easement solely
as open space for the period specified in Section 4 below.
I want to see these two things fixed, specifically, in the City Council's Resolution. The underlying
property that is being burdened by this additional deed restriction is ... That portion of the Narbonne
ROW... It is also known as 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road. In the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan
(CTP), the Sunnyside Ridge Trail is SECTION FIVE, F8. This project is is CTP A28, the Sunnyside
Segment of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail "ideal route" and is known to trail users as a portion of the
Sol Vista Trail. What is the protocol for identifying easements, anyway?
In the interest in not repeating mistakes, Is there any plan to hold a debriefing on all the things that
went wrong with what should have been a simple rerouting of an existing trail? I have kept a diary
which I would be happy to share. I even have an email from Joel Rojas objecting to my calling a lot
of missed opportunities "Staff screw -ups". We now have several projects "in the works" which are
getting close to deserving the label, "debacle". Please don't let that happen.
Subject: Sunnyside Ridge Trail Segment Grant Closeout
Date: 7/11/2018 9:19:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: LaurenR(a)rpvca.gov
To: ckmeisterheim(a_gmail.com, al.0605 yahoo.com, Amcdougall1 ayahoo.com, robert.lamanadslextreme.com,
CMOneil(a)-aol.com, ckotowski(a)sbcglobal.net, halwinton4jesus3@gmail.com, 0000@cox.net, leanlongacre _aol.com,
Bojay@dslextreme.com, Idegirolamo(cme.com, Irne .sbcglobal.net, PVpasofino@yahoo.com, patpoddatoori(a)yahoo.com,
briggsrod(aD-gmail.com, pvpra.president(d)-gmail.com, sharigraner aol.com, momofyago gmail.com, beach jake sbcglobal.net,
sunshinerpv(a)aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Good morning,
This is a courtesy notification. As you are aware the City received a grant for $300,000 from
Los Angeles County, to be used towards the Sunnyside Ridge Trail Segment Improvement
project. To -date we received 90% of the total grant funds ($270,000). Public Works is
planning to close out this grant and request the remaining $30,000. Additionally, as a
condition of the receipt of the grant funds, the County requires that the City maintain the
trail and place a deed restriction (aka use covenant and restriction running with the land) on
this trail/City easement.
This item is being presented to the City Council on 7/17/2018. The link to the staff report is
here: http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=1261&meta id=5767
9
Once again, Public Works thanks you for your patience and cooperation during the trail
project's construction period.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Thanks
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst- Public Works
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Exhibit "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Sunnyside Ridge Trail Easement
That portion of Narbonne Avenue, 100 feet wide, as shown on neap of Tract No. 20429,
in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, recorded
in Book 574, Pages 32 and 32 of Maps, in the office of the Registrar-Recorder/County
Clerk of said County, described as follows:
Beginning at the southwesterly corner of Lot 21 of said Tract 20429, said corner lying on
a curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 550.00 feet, and to which corner, a radial
line bears South 77° 03' 24" Bast; thence along the westerly line of said Lot 21, Northerly
20.07 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 2° 05' 31" to the tangent westerly
line of said Lot 21; thence along said tangent line and its northerly prolongation, North
10° 51'05" East, a distance of 418.10 :feet to the curved southerly line of Palos Verdes
Drive East, 90 feet wide, as shown on said reap, said curve being concave northerly,
having a radius of 201..81 feet and to which intersection a radial line bears South 17° 41'
46" West; thence along said southerly right of way line of Palos Verdes [give East, the
following three (3) courses:
1. Westerly 0.10 feet along said curved southerly line, through a central angel of 0°
01' 44"; thence
2. North 72° 16' 30" West, a distance of 0.29 feet to the beginning; of a curve,
concave northerly and having a radius of 592.46 feet; thence
3. Westerly 101.89 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 9° 51' 12" to the
northerly prolongation of the easterly line of Lot 20 of said Tract No, 20429;
Thence South 10°51'05" West, a distance of 290.36 feet along said prolongation and
easterly line; thence leaving said easterly line, South 78° 08' 55" East, a distance of 90.00
feet; thence South 10° 51' 05" West, a distance of 148.60 feet to the beginning of a curve,
concave westerly, having a radius of 540.00 feet and being concentric with the
hereinabove described_ curve in the westerly line of said Lot 21, having a radius of 540.00
feet; thence southerly 18.46 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 1" 57' 31" to
Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
the westerly prolongation of the center line of Sunnyside Road, 50 feet wide, as shown. on
said. map; thence along said center line, South. 69° 54' 05" East, a distance of 10.00 feet to
the Point of Beginning.
Containing 29,219 square feet
This Legal Description is delineated on accompanying "EXI-11BI`I' B" and is made a part
hereof for reference purposes.
This Legal Description has been prepared by me or under my direction.
Page 2 of 3
Robert C. Olson, PLS 5490
SCALE: 1"=60'
EXHIBIT "BY) 71
SUNNYSIDIE RIDGE TRAIL EASEMENT
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
"T R -,\ C -r N0.
<
�o
cr
L
Lu
LLJ
o ' 30
'30P
NARBONNEE
-co
ca
125'
cn I
:54D.00'
'�' 1"57'31
L= 18.46 '
S69'54'05"Eo!
0,
10.08'
S 10'51'05" W 148.60'
7-
N 10*51'05"
E
L L
cr
L
Lu
LLJ
0
ca
125'
25,
R=550.00'
A=2*05'31 "
L=20-07'
F 0 B
SW'LY CORNER
LOT 21
A = 0*01'44"
R = 201.81'
L = 0.10'
2 D 4 2 9
N 10`51'05" E
@ /-R-O.W. LINE
S 10*51'05" W
V E"N u
O.W. LINE
�JL x,-574 F- S. 31-3 2
PROPERTY LINE
��\ \ INDICATES SUNNYSIDE
RIDGE TRAIL EASEMENT
Rorted - 6/145/2018 1:07:37 PM :: Saved — 6/115/2018 7:06;03 PV. IDE 1.PAIL.dwg :: rolsor.
SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS
In
418.10'
DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
N 72*16"30" E
0.29'
S_17°47 '46"W
(RAD)' - -,
.36
3'5'
V,
4,5,
'5'
rt Lij
418.10'
1.txt
Lot Report Fri Jun 15 10:31:22
2018
Lot File: V:\1NAZ0201\CARLSON\V-PROP-ESMT-TRAZL.lot
CRD File: V:\1NAZ0201\CARLSON\V-PROP-ESMT-TRAIL.crd
Lot: 1 Block: 1, Type: LOT
PNT# Bearing Distance Northing Easting
1 4569.728 4917.148
Radius: 550.00 Length: 20.07 Chord: 20.08 Delta: 2105`31"
Chord BRG: N 11053'50°" E Rad -In: N 77003'24" W Rad -Out: N 79008'55"
W
Radius Pt: 2 4692.920,4381.122 Tangent: 1.0.04 Dir: Left
Tangent -In: N 12056'36" E Tangent -Out: N 10051'05" E Tangential -Out
3 4589.376 4921.288
N 10051'05" E 418.10
4 5000.003 5000.001
Radius: 201.81 Length: 0.10 Chord: 0.10 Delta: 0001'44"
Chord BRG: N 72017'22" W Rad -In: N 17041'46" E Rad -Out: N 17043'30"
E
Radius Pt: 5 5192.264,5061.345 Tangent: 0.05 Dir: Right
Tangent -In: N 72018'14" W Tangent -Out: N 72016'30" W Non Tangential -In
Tangential -Out
6 5000.034 4999.904
N 72016'30" W 0.29
7 5000.122 4999.628
Radius: 592.46 Length: 101.89 Chord: 101.76 Delta: 9051'12"
Chord BRG: N 67020'54" W Rad -In: N 17043'30" E Rad -Out: N 27034'42"
E
Radius Pt: 8 5564.457,5180.001 Tangent: 51.07 Dir: Right
Tangent -In: N 72016'30" W Tangent -Out: N 62025'18" W Tangential -In
Non
Tangential -Out
9 5039.313 4905.715
S 10051'05" W 290.36
10 4754.145 4851.051
S 79008'55" E 90.00
11 4737.202 4939.442
S 10051'05" W 148.60
12 4591.259 4911.466
Radius: 540.00 Length: 18.46 Chord: 18.46 Delta: 1057'31"
Chord BRG: S 11049'51" W Rad -In: N 79008'55" W Rad -Out: N 77011'24"
W
Radius Pt: 2 4692.920,4381.122 Tangent: 9.23 Dir: Right
Tangent -In: S 10051'05" W Tangent -Out: S 12048'36" W Tangential -In
Non
Tangential -Out
13 4573.192 4907.682
S 69054'05" E 10.08
1 4569.728 4917.148
Closure Error Distance> 0.0000
Total Distance> 1.097.96
Area: 29522 Sq. Feet, 0.6777 Acres
Block 1 Total Area: 29522 Sq. Feet, 0.6777 Acres
Page 1
NAP -Lot Report.txt
Lot Report Fri Jun lS 10:38:17
2018
Lot Pile: V:\1NAZ0201\[ARLS8N\V-PR0P-ESMT-TRAIL.Iot
CRD File: V:\1N0Z0201\[4RLS0N\V-PROP-ESMT-TRAIL,crd
Lot: NAP , Block: 1^ Type: LOT
PNT# Bearing Distance Northing EaGting
1 4560.728 4917,148
Radius: 550,00 Length: 20,08 Chord: 20.08 Delta: 2005'31^
Chord BRG: N 11053'50" E Rad -In: N 77003'24" W Rad -04t: N 79008'55" W
Radius Pt: 2 4692.920,4381,122 Tangent: 10,04 Dip: Left
Tangent -In: N 12056'36" E Tangent -Out: N 10051'05" E Tangential -Out
3 4589.376 4921.288
N 18051'05" E 10.26
14 4599,452 4923,219
N 69054'05" W 10.13
15 4602.934 4913.704
5,10^51'05" W 11.89
12 4591,259 4911.466
Radius: 540,00 Length: 18.46 Chord: 18.46 Delta: 1057'3I"
Chord BRG: S 11049'51" W Red -ZD: N 79008'55" W Rad -Out: N 77011'24" W
Radius Pt: 2 4692,920/4381.122 Tangent: 9.23 Dir: Right
Tangent -In: S 10051'05" W Tangent -Out: S 12048'36" W Tangential -In Non
Tangential -Out
13 4573.192 4907.682
S 69054'85" E 10.08
1 4569.728 4917.148
Closure Error Diatance> 0.0000
Total Dis±ence> 80,90
Area: 303 Sq. Feet, 0.0070 Acres
Block 1 Total Area: 303 Sq. Feet, 9,8070 Acres
Page 1
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:03 PM
To: 'SUNSHINE'; CC
Cc: Lauren Ramezani; jean longacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com;
beachjake@sbcglobal.net; CityClerk; Ara Mihranian; Irving Anaya
Subject: RE: For emphasis. Re: July 17, 2018 RPV Council Agenda Item I. The Sunnyside debacle
continues
Hi Sunshine:
Our records does NOT support your notion.
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
AA
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:33 PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>; jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com;
beachjake@sbcglobal.net; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Irving Anaya
<ianaya@rpvca.gov>
Subject: For emphasis. Re: July 17, 2018 RPV Council Agenda Item I. The Sunnyside debacle continues
Everybody,
I repeat. The name Sunnyside Ridge Trail is already used/documented for a different trail in
RPV. ... S 310-377-8761
1
s,
From: William Wynder [mailio:wwynde_rneys cam]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:33 PM
To: 'George M. Yin' <gyin kau rrrarrle algroup.com>; CC <CC@rPV_�Lg�?y>; Susan Brooks <S.usgn6 r vca ,av>; Jerry Duhovic
<J.errv,Duhovic@_ vc egov>; Eric Alegria <Eric�Ale ria rpvca.Eov>; John Cruikshank <Jphn.Cruikshan rpvca.Roy>; Ken Dyda
<I< nW vda@rp�Lg.gay>
Cc: Emily Colborn<ecolborn@rpvca.&ov>;'swelch@nmgovlaw.com' <swelch nm ovlaw.com>; Doug Willmore
<DWIII_m_ore@r vc�2.,gv>; Elena Gerli <gperli @ qwattoorneys_com>; Christopher Neumeyer <cneume er awattorne s.com>
Subject: RE: FOR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION --Letter re Item 4 on Tonight's City Council Agenda
With apologies, attached is Ordinance No. 591 referenced in our letter to you.
From: William Wynder
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:29 PM
To: 'George M. Yin'; cc a rp_vca_c _ov; susan.brooks o r vca. ovierrv.duhovic@rpvca.gov; eric.ale ria air vca. ov;
ah l gr iksha_n,k_@rpyca.._gay; k r�.e .yda_@rpvcae pv
Ce: Emily Colborn; 'swelch@nmgovlaw.com'; 'Doug Willmore'; Elena Gerli; Christopher Neumeyer
Subject: RE: FOR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION --Letter re Item 4 on Tonight's City Council Agenda
Importance: High
Counsel -- Please see the City's response to your letter of today's date. Your letter and this letter will be added to the
administrative record regarding Agenda Item No. 4 tonight. In fairness, we have also copied your letter and our response on
Attorney Sean Welch.
William W. Wynder I Equity Partner
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 12361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475, EI Segundo, CA 90245-4916
Tel: (310) 527-6660 ) Dir: (310) 527-6667 1 Fax: (310) 532-7395 1 Cell: (714) 313-7366 1 wwvnder@awattorneys.com )
awattorneys.com
,is W,n2as al)(11 ung :,k��s tr£�r3�r_tt��z` >�,•;y it rn;ry U �rtzai 3 ,gig- , ed ar �i c€k�i>r� coo idendal hater= at ol,. If you a,e not the ;Wended t:,. pient; or believe �hat you lmly havc
ra=c ei ed Cris.ccrr;,niunk ation ll error' adviz,"�, Ole, sender via email and canna€I yoc, rc� esied.
From: George M. Yin [mailtg�g, in�(ci�kaufmarile�c algrQ icom]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:47 PM
To: cca)rpvca.gov; susan.brooks@rpvca.gov; jer[y,duhovic@rpvca.gov; eric.alecJna@rpvca, ov; °oI hn.cruikshankC rpvca.gov;
ken .dvda cbrpvca, ov; William Wynder
Cc: Emily Colborn
Subject: FOR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION --Letter re Item 4 on Tonight's City Council Agenda
Importance: High
Dear Honorable Councilmember:
Please find attached a letter for your immediate attention regarding Item 4 on tonight's City Council Agenda regarding the
"Hospitality Working Conditions" Initiative.
George M. Yin
Attorney
Kaufman Legal Group
A Professional Corporation
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4050
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5864
q I
Tel: 213.452.6565
Dir: 213.452.6576
Fax: 213.452.6575
Email: gyin@kaufmanlegalgroup.com
The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be attorney-client privileged
information and intended only for the addressee. Cho not read, copy, or disseminate this email communication unless you are
the addressee. The information contained in this message is the property of Kaufman Legal Group and its unauthorized use,
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination, is strictly prohibited. if you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and destroy all copies of this communication. Thank you.
Circular 230 Notice: To comply with IRS requirements, please be advised that unless otherwise expressly stated by the sender,
any tax advice contained in this e-mail message and its attachments is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used
by the recipient (1) to avoid any penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or 2) to support the promotion or marketing or to
recommend any federal tax transaction or matter. Taxpayers should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular
circumstances from an independent tax advisor with respect to any federal tax transaction or matter.
William W. Wynder
wwynder@awattorneys.com
T i' (310) 527-6667
ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES I RIVERSIDE J CENTRAL VALLEY
July 17, 2018
SENT VIA E -MAI ire a)kauf�aanle a.l rou .c:r�rra
Stephen J. Kaufman, Esq.
George M. 'Yin, Esq.
Kaufman Legal Group, APC
777 South Figueroa Street,
Suite 4050
Los Angeles, California 90017
Subject: Hos itality Initiative Agenda Item No. 4
Counsel:
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
EI Segundo, CA 90245
P (31 0) 527-6660
F (310) 532-7395
AWA -r i'ORNEYS.COM
At 1:02 p.m. today, our office opened your e-mail and attached letter. Having carefully
reviewed the same we write to respectfully disagree with your analysis and conclusions. We also
write to caution your client that any attempt to compel the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to
take the action demanded in your letter will be frivolous as a matter of law.
Tonight, the City Clerk will request that the City Council certify, as sufficient, your
client's petition to add a new chapter to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, entitled "Ata
Initiative Measure to Adopt for Employees of Large Hotels, Golf Courses, and Amusement
Parks New Regulations, Protections, and Procedures Concerning Wages, Hours, Work, Transit,
Panic Buttons, Responses to Threatening Conduct, and Records" ("ballot measure").
As you acknowledged from the staff report, State law provides that the City Council shall
either "adopt the ordinance" or "submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters."
(Election Code § 9215.) If the City Council, in its sound discretion, elects to not adopt the
ordinance, state law (as recently arnended)l provides two options for the election date when the
voters may consider your client's ballot measure.
As provided for in Election Code §§ 1405 and 9215, the ballot measure may either go to
the voters at the "at the jurisdiction's next regular election occurring not less than 88 days after
the date of the order of election" (being November 5, 2019), or may go to the voters at a special
election "held not less than 88 days nor more than 103 days after the order of the election"
E While not necessarily germane to your letter, even if the relevant elections codes had not been amended, your
client would still not have been entitled as a matter of law to a special election on November 6, 2018, in so far as
your client did not secure 15% of the electorate's signatures nor did they expressly ask for a special election in their
original petition, which were requirements under the prior iteration of the elections codes to qualify for a mandatory
special election which may have been held on November 6, 2018 consolidated with the County.
01203.0001/490311.2
George M. Yin, Esq.
July 17, 2018
Page 2
(being either October 16, 2018 or October 23, 2018). (Emphasis added.) Respectfully, your
letter fails to address the statutory requirement that if the ballot measure is sent to the voters at a
"regular election" that regular election must be the jurisdiction's next regular election.
Likewise, your letter fails to address the statutory requirement that if the ballot measure is
sent to the voters at a "special election" that special election must be held within 88 to 103 days
from the order of the election. These express statutory limitations compel the options presented
to the City Council in the Agenda Report for Item No. 4 on tonight's (July 17, 2018) agenda.
As you must know, the Legislature, through Assembly Bill 765, amended state statutes
which govern procedures concerning eligible election dates for a ballot measure qualified for a
vote pursuant to a certified initiative petition. Current state law provides that if your clients
petition, once certified, is not adopted by the City Council, then the ordinance that is the subject
of the petition shall be (pursuant to Election Code § 1405) sent to the voters either:
1. "at the jurisdiction's next regular election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of
the order of election"; or
2. "if the governing body calls a special election ... the election shall be held not less than
88 days nor more than 103 days after the order of the election."
A regular election is defined as "an election, the specific time for the holding of which is
prescribed by law." (Election Code § 348.) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes traditionally held
its regular local election every November of odd -numbered years. Ordinance No. 591, adopted
2 Election Code § 9215 ("Petition signatures equal to 10 percent of vote; adoption of ordinance; submission to
voters") reads in full: "If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city,
according to the last report of registration by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to
Section 2187, effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published, or, in a city with 1,000 or less
registered voters, by 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of the city, whichever is the lesser number, the legislative
body shall do one of the following: (a) Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the
certification of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented. (b) Submit the ordinance, without
alteration, to the voters pursuant to Section 1405. (c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting
at which the certification of the petition is presented. When the report is presented to the legislative body, the
legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an election pursuant to subdivision (b)."
Election Code § 1405 ("County, municipal or district initiatives") reads in full: "(a) Except as provided in
subdivision (b), the election for a county initiative that qualifies pursuant to Section 9118 shall be held at the next
statewide election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election. The election for a municipal
or district initiative that qualifies pursuant to Section 9215 or 9310 shall be held at the jurisdiction's next regular
election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election. (b) The governing body of a county,
city, or district may call a special election for the purpose of submitting an initiative measure to the voters before the
date on which the initiative measure would appear on the ballot pursuant to subdivision (a). If the governing body
calls a special election pursuant to this subdivision, the election shall be held not less than 88 days nor more than
103 days after the order of the election."
01203.0001/490311.2
George M. Yin, Esq.
July 17, 2018
Page 3
November 15, 2016, changed the City's regular election date to November of even -numbered
years starting in November, 2020. However, before 2020, the City's next regular election is
scheduled to be held on November 5, 2019.
Ordinance No. 591, adopted November 15, 2016, provides, in relevant part as follows
(copy of the fully adopted ordinance is attached for your review and consideration):
"SECTION 1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes general municipal election
scheduled to be held in November 2021 shall be rescheduled and instead shall be
consolidated and held concurrently with the general statewide election in
November of 2020 and the City's general municipal election schedule shall
thereafter be held in November in each even numbered year to coincide with
regular statewide general elections. Accordingly, commencing with the general
municipal election in November 2020, the general municipal elections for the City
shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in each
even -numbered year. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes general municipal
elections for years 2017 and 2019 shall take place as currently scheduled on the
first Tuesday after the first Monday of November 2017 and 2019 respectively."
(Emphasis added.) Accordingly, Tuesday, November 5, 2019 is the City's next regular election
date.3 Tuesday, October 16, 2018 or Tuesday, October 28, 2018 are the only available special
election dates for a ballot measure certified on July 17, 2018.
The window of time set forth for a special election (which is 88 to 103 days from the
"order of the election" which would be July 17, 2018) is from October 13 to October 28, 2018.
Election Code § 1100 provides that elections must be held on a Tuesday (but not on state
holidays, or the day before or after a state holiday).
A virtually identical issue was analyzed by the California Attorney General in 2002. The
question was asked whether a city could place a ballot measure before its voters at a Statewide
Direct Primary Election (i.e., a statewide election date akin to the upcoming November 6, 2018
statewide election date) when that city's regular election date did not coincide with the Statewide
Direct Primary Election date. The Attorney General opined:
Where the general municipal election for a general law city has been set by
ordinance for the date of the statewide general election in November of even
numbered years, an initiative measure to repeal a city tax may be submitted to the
voters on the date of the statewide direct primary election in March only if the
3 While there is a Statewide General Election scheduled for November 6, 2018, that date is not set
as a regular election date for the City itself.
01203.0001/490311.2
George M. Yin, Esq.
July 17, 2018
Page 4
measure statutorily qualifies to be submitted at a special election which coincides
with the March primary election. (85 Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. 151, p. 1 (2002))
The Attorney General concluded that notwithstanding there being a statewide election
being held in March, "the `next regular election' for the city would be the November statewide
general election in the next even numbered year," and therefore the statewide election being in
March did not qualify as that city's "next regular election." (Id., p. 3.) This left only the option
of holding an election on the ballot measure at the statewide election being held in March if "the
measure statutorily qualifies to be submitted at a special election which coincides with the March
primary election." (Id., p. 5.)
Your client's pending ballot measure is the same as that analyzed by the Attorney
General. The Statewide General Election scheduled for November 6, 2018, is not the City's
"next regular election," as that would be November 5, 2019. Therefore, the present ballot
measure can only be placed on the November 6, 2018 ballot if the measure statutorily qualified
to be submitted at a special election which coincides with that November 6, 2018 date. And the
present ballot measure does not, for the reasons noted above, so coincide according to Election
Code § 1405.
Finally, we find it disingenuous for you to suggest that the City Council "defer action .. .
[and] prior to August 10, 2018, order a special election to coincide with the November 6, 2018
Statewide General Election ...." We remind you of your e-mail to the City Clerk, dated June
14, 2018, in which you categorically stated and then demanded:
"[a]ccording to Elections Code 9211, 91144, 9115(f), and 9215, the certified
results must be presented to the City Council at the next regular meeting of the
City Council. According to the City's posted schedule, the next regular meeting
of the City Council is on Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. Therefore, the
certification of the Initiative must be placed on the agenda for the June 19
meeting. Please amend the posted agenda to reflect this addition to the meeting."
(Emphasis added & in original .)5
Respectfully, your client cannot have it both ways — demand immediate action in one
instance when it suits your interests (which, incidentally, would have resulted in an even earlier
window to hold a special election); only to now demand a delay when, as circumstances dictate,
that suits your interest.
4 Elections Code § 9114 "[i]f the petition is found sufficient, the elections official shall certify the
results of the examination to the board of supervisors at the next regular meeting of the board."
5 We also note that the lawsuit your client has filed also demanded that certification of the ballot
measure be place on the July 17, 2018 City Council agenda.
01203.0001/490311.2
George M. Yin, Esq.
July 17, 2018
Page 5
Very truly yours,
William W. Wynder
ofALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
Copies: (v/e-mail only)
Ms. Emily Colborn,
City Clerk & Elections Official
Honorable Mayor & Councilmember,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Mr. Doug Willmore,
City Manager
Elena Gerli, Esq.,
Assistant City Attorney
Chris Neumeyer, Esq.,
Special Counsel
Scan P. Welch, Esq.,
Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP
01203.0001/490311.2
ORDINANCE NO. 591
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.28 OF THE RANCHO PALOS
VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, REQUIRING THAT THE GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
BE HELD ON THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY OF
NOVEMBER IN EACH EVEN -NUMBERED YEAR BEGINNING 2020.
WHEREAS, many studies have shown that voter participation in local elections
dramatically improves when local elections are held on the same day as statewide
elections; and
WHEREAS, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, voter turnout in local elections
which are now held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd
numbered years is dramatically reduced from voter turnout in statewide general
elections held in June or November of even numbered years; and
WHEREAS, the California State Legislature has enacted SB 415 which takes
effect in 2018 and mandates changing local election dates to statewide general election
dates in communities where voter turnout for local elections is at least 25% less than
voter turnout in statewide elections; and
WHEREAS, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the difference in voter turnout
for the November local election held in odd numbered years is significantly lower than
the turnout for statewide general elections held in even numbered years exceeding the
25% deviation set forth on SB 415; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of Elections Code 1301(b)(1), cities are
authorized to change the date of their general municipal elections to coincide with the
day of the statewide general election; and
WHEREAS, in order to pro -actively encourage and promote greater voter turnout
in local elections the City of Rancho Palos Verdes wishes to take the lead among
California cities by voluntarily moving its general municipal election date to the
statewide election date; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that its goals of encouraging
maximum voter turnout and community participation in the democratic electoral process
will be promoted by changing the general municipal election date of the City from the
first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in each odd -numbered year to the first
Tuesday after the first Monday of November in even numbered years, to coincide with
the statewide general election as set forth in California Elections Code §1000 ; and
WHEREAS, if approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, this
change will not have the effect of reducing or extending any term of office by more than
twelve months.
09999.0003/319437.1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes general municipal election
scheduled to be held in November 2021 shall be rescheduled and instead shall be
consolidated and held concurrently with the general statewide election in November of
2020 and the City's general municipal election schedule shall thereafter be held in
November in each even numbered year to coincide with regular statewide general
elections. Accordingly, commencing with the general municipal election in November
2020, the general municipal elections for the City shall be held on the first Tuesday after
the first Monday of November in each even -numbered year. The City of Rancho Palos
Verdes general municipal elections for years 2017 and 2019 shall take place as
currently scheduled on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November 2017 and
2019 respectively.
SECTION 2. Chapter 2.28 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 2.28 - ELECTION DATE
Sections:
2.28.010 - Election date designated.
The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even -numbered
year is established as the date for the general municipal election in the city.
2.28.020 - Shortening of terms during transition elections.
The effect of this chapter shall be to shorten the terms of office for those
members of the City Council elected in 2017 and 2019 as follows:.
1) The City Councilmember terms of office that begin in 2017 and that
would have expired in November 2021 under the city's previous election
schedule, shall instead expire no later than the fourth Tuesday after the
general municipal election in November of 2020, and
2) The City Councilmember terms of office that begin in 2019 that would
have expired in November of 2023 under the city's previous election
schedule, shall instead expire no later than the fourth Tuesday after the
November general municipal election in 2022.
The effect of this change of election date during the transition shall not shorten
any City Councilmember's term of office by more than 12 months in accord with
California law.
2.28.030 - Terms of office.
The terms of office for those members of the City Council elected in 2020 and
2022 and thereafter shall be four years.
09999.0003/319437.1 Ordinance No. 591
Page 2 of 4
2.28.040 - Consolidation.
An election held pursuant to this chapter is intended to occur on the same date
as the regular statewide general election held in November of even -numbered
years and shall be consolidated with that election. The provisions contained in
the Elections Code pertaining to the conduct of elections shall apply."
SECTION 3. Certification.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance by the
City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and shall cause a summary of this
Ordinance to be published in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.
SECTION 4. Transmittal to Board of Supervisors.
The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Ordinance to the Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, together with the request that said
Board approve this Ordinance and provide the City with notice of such approval.
SECTION 5. Notice to Registered Voters.
Within thirty (30) days after approval of this Ordinance by the Board of
Supervisors of Los Angeles County, the City Clerk shall cause a notice to be mailed to
all registered voters in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes informing them of the change in
the general municipal election date and council members terms affected by this
Ordinance, which notice shall be in accord with the requirements specified in Elections
Code 10403.5(e).
SECTION 6. Effective Date; Operative Date.
This Ordinance relates to an election and shall therefore become effective
immediately after introduction, reading and adoption by the City Council in accord with
California Elections Code Sections 9235(a) and Government Code Section 36937. This
Ordinance shall become operative pursuant to Elections Code section 1301(b)ll) upon
approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and will be implemented at
the statewide general election held in November of 2020.
SECTION 7. Severability.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause of phrase in
this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections or portions of this chapter or part
thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
09999.0003/319437.1 Ordinance No. 591
Page 3 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November, 2016.
ATTEST:
'g City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Teresa Takaoka, Acting City Clerk of the
California, do hereby certify that the whole number c
said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. 591
1, 2016, was duly and regularly adopted by the City
meeting thereof held on November 15, 2016, and
adopted by the following roll call vote:
•
City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
if members of the City Council of
passed first reading on November
Council of said City at a regular
that the same was passed and
AYES: Brooks, Campbell, Misetich and Mayor Dyda
NOES: None
ABSENT: Duhovic
ABSTAIN: None
AGfin�1
g City Clerk
09999.0003/319437.1 Ordinance No. 591
Page 4 of 4
CITYOF LMiRANCHO PALOS VERDES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That at all times herein mentioned, she was and now is the Acting City Clerk of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes;
That on November 17, 2016, she caused to be posted the following document entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 591, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.28 OF THE RANCHO PALOS
VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, REQUIRING THAT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTIONS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES BE HELD ON THE
FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY OF NOVEMBER IN EACH EVEN -
NUMBERED YEAR BEGINNING 2020, a copy of which is attached hereto, in the
following locations:
City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes
Hesse Park
29301 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes
Ladera Linda Community Center
32201 Forrestal Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is a true and correct affidavit of posting.
Ac'Ac4ng City Clerk
KAUFMAN LEGAL GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
July 17, 2018
Direct: (213) 452-6550
VIA E-MAIL
William W. Wynder Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Aleshire & Wynder City Hall
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475 City of Rancho Palos Verdes
El Segundo, CA 90245 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
E-mail: wwynder@awattorneys.com Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: July 17, 2018 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item No. 4
Dear Honorable Mayor Brooks, Members of the City Council, and City Attorney Wynder:
As you know, this office represents the proponents of the hospitality industry working conditions
initiative ("Initiative") ordinance that has been agendized for consideration at tonight's meeting
of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council. In response to the City Attorney's Agenda Report for
Item No. 4 on tonight's agenda, we are writing to clarify that should the Council choose to
submit the Initiative to the voters, it must place the Initiative on the ballot for the November 6,
2018 Statewide General Election, rather than the November 2019 ballot.
As is stated in Elections Code section 9215, following Council action to certify the sufficiency of
the proposed Initiative, the City Council must take one of the following actions: (1) adopt the
ordinance, unaltered; (2) submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters at a special
election pursuant Elections Code section 9215 and 1405(b); or (3) submit the ordinance, without
alteration, "at the jurisdiction's next regular election occurring not less than 88 days after the
date of the order of election," pursuant to Elections Code section 9215 and 1405(a).
With regard to the third alternative listed above, the statewide general election occurring on
November 6, 2018 is the "next regular election" occurring in Rancho Palos Verdes. The term
"regular election" is defined in Elections Code section 348 as "an election, the specific time for
the holding of which is prescribed by law." And, Elections Code section 1001(a) provides that
elections held in November of each even -numbered year are "statewide elections" and the date of
that election is a "statewide election date." Finally, the term "statewide election" is defined in
Elections Code section 357, as "an election held throughout the state." (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the statewide general election on November 6, 2018 is the date of the City's "next regular
election" under state law. Accordingly, if the City Council wishes to immediately place the
initiative on the ballot at the "next regular election occurring not less than 88 days after the order
of the election," that election date is November 6, 2018, not November 5, 2019.
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4050 Lott Angeles, CA 90017 main 213.4x-2.6565 fax 213.452.6575 i«,v,%v:liuufiti:inleg.tlgroup.com
00258411.DOCx °"'""
July 17, 2018
Page 2
Alternatively, should the Council choose to defer action at tonight's meeting to consider these
issues, the City Council may, prior to August 10, 2018, order a special election to coincide with
the November 6, 2018 Statewide General Election, which would have the same effect.
Should the City Council choose to place the Initiative on the November 2019 ballot and deny the
voters of Rancho Palos Verdes the opportunity to vote on this Initiative in November 2018, the
proponents may have no choice but to seek legal relief compelling such action.
We thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Stephen J. °Kaufman
George M. Yin
SJK:VCC
cc: Emily Colbom, City Clerk
00254,01 I DOCX
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:26 AM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 6:36 PM
To: 'Ken DeLong' <ken.delong@verizon.net>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: 'William Patton' <billpatton2l@icloud.com>
Subject: RE: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative
Your reading of the report is correct. The City Council has received your emails, which will be included as part of late
correspondence. While the Council cannot opine on the matter at this point, you have brought up excellent points for their
consideration.
Thank you for taking the time to write in.
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5203 (office)
(310) 544-5291 (fax)
From: Ken DeLong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:37 PM
To: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc:'William Patton' <billpatton2l@icloud.com>
Subject: RE: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative
Gabriella, thank you for your response and I have read the staff report J Kosmont report several times. My reading is that the
City has no options relative to amending the proposed Ordinance and the Council can only approve the Ordinance as written or
have the residents vote on the Ordinance as written. If I have misread the reports please so advise.
PVP Watch urges that the Council set an election time (the sooner the better) for voters to either approval or rejection of the
Ordinance. Without regurgitating the Kosmont report, it is clear that the proposed union ordinance is detrimental to everyone
involved including RPV residents who will have to tolerate the unknown costs of the union proposed ordinance. Not yet
addressed will be the union costs that Terranea employees will be forced to pay. Many others will be detrimentally impacted
by the union power grab. In that the union proposal is detrimental to everyone in RPV, we would hope that once an election
date is set that Council will take an ACTIVE role in opposing the union ordinance.
Ken DeLong
From: Gabriella Yap [mailto:gyap@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:56 PM
To: Ken DeLong; CC
Cc: Bill Patton
Subject: RE: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative
Thank you for your email. This item is scheduled for the July 17 agenda, and the staff report, which may answer some of your
questions, can be found here:
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=1261&meta id=57695
Please take a look and if you still have questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5203 Office
From: Ken DeLong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 4:39 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Bill Patton <bpatton@gores.com>; Ken DeLong <ken.delong@verizon.net>
Subject: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative
To: RPV City Council
Hospitality Initiative — General Election - November 2018
The two "Hospitality" documents posted on the PVP Watch website are attached for the Council's easy reference.
The proposed "Hospitality Initiative" is an attempted travesty by union organizers seeking support from RPV taxpayers for a
scheme apparently rejected Terranea employees. If a majority of Terranea desired representation by UNITE HERE Local 11 they
could have done so without this Initiative process.
We believe the preponderance of RPV residents will recognize this for what it is... a scam. Regardless, considerable expense
that might be better used other wise, will be spent defeating the UNITE HERE Local 11 scam.
Does California law have any stipulations concerning whether or not a valid resident of RPV MUST collect resident signatures
for an Initiative Petition? Observed on the Initiative submission documents that neither person Jan Ellen Gardner nor Bianco
Sandoval had provided their complete addresses. Is City, State & Zip adequate identification? Must these persons be an RPV
resident? For how long? Was the Initiative properly processed by RPV City Hall?
The Initiative requires the City Council to adopt implementation regulations (below) and requirements for Employers. How will
the Council do this? What resources will be required? What will be the costs be? The City is not in the business of managing
private resources. The Council might reject the Initiative on this issue alone.
Who can amend the Initiative / Ordinance going forward? Can a Council Majority with a 3 vote majority do so or will it take a
different process?
We find no process for collecting union dues from Terranea or Trump employees. Will a modification of the new RPV
Ordinance 5.40. be required for establishing union dues, setting rates and collection thereof. Will this process be added to the
City Manager's existing duties? What will be the Council's involvement?
The Enforcement section 5.40.090; what liabilities will RPV incur for managing the Terranea / Trump Union relationship? Will
the City be protected from any / all future damage claims by any of the parties? How will the City be protected from any
potential liabilities?
Following are some excerpts from the Initiative documents.
Initiative Summary Document
All provisions apply to the Employers' subcontractors. The measure provides remedies and fines for violations and mandatory
attorneys' fees for prevailing party Employees. The measure authorizes the City Council to adopt implementing regulations, and
to adopt additional requlrements far Employers, but not to restrict those enacted by the measure.
Notice of Intent to Circulate Initiative Document.
5.40.080 - Waiver.
The provisions of this Chapter may not be waived by agreement between an individual hospitality employee and a large
hospitality employer. All of the provisions of Section 5.40.030 or Section 5. 40.040, or any part thereof, may be waived in a bona
fide collective bargaining agreement but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous
terms. Unilateral implementation of terms and conditions of employment by either party to a collective bargaining relationship
shall not constitute, or be permitted, as a waiver of all or any part of the provisions of this Chapter.
5.40.090—Enforcement.
A hospitality employee or representative of hospitality employees claiming violation of this Chapter may bring an action in the
Superior Court and shall be entitled to all remedies available under the law or in equity appropriate to remedy any such
violation, including but not limited to injunctive relief or other equitable relief, including reinstatement, and compensatory
damages and other relief provided in this subsection. In addition to any other remedy to which a hospitality employee is entitled
under this Chapter, a large hospitality employer that violates Section 5. 40.030 shall be liable to each affected hospitality
employee for statutory damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($ 50) for each day on which a violation occurred; and a large
hospitality employer that violates Section 5. 40.040 shall be liable to each affected hospitality employee for statutory damages
in the amount of fifty dollars ($ 50) for each day on which a violation occurred. In the event of a willful violation of Section 5.
40.070, the amount of damages attributable to lost income due to the violation shall be trebled. If a hospitality employee is the
prevailing party in any legal action taken pursuant to this Chapter, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs as
part of the costs recoverable.
In conclusion, the proposed "Hospitality" ordinance provides no benefit to RPV residents / taxpayers and is detrimental to RPV
"Hospitality" businesses and their employees as well. We urge the RPV Council place the "Initiative" ordinance matter on hold
while RPV's legal options are determined. During deliberations on this very important matter, do not ignore that the union's
claims are untruthful as Terranea employees have long had "panic" buttons and non -tipped salaries already exceed union
proposed rates. If RPV were to approve "portal to portal" costs for the "Hospitality" firms in RPV might not RPV employees
seek the same benefits? With a few limited exceptions, it is unheard to pay for employee transportation costs.
Ken DeLong
RPV Resident
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:25 PM
To: 'Rehm, Zach@Coastal'; Ara Mihranian
Cc: CC; CityClerk
Subject: RE: Intersection Reconfiguration at Costa De La Islas and PV Drive South - Coastal Commission
Staff Comments for RPV City Council Meeting 7/17/18
Attachments: Intersection Reconfiguration at Costa De La Islas and PV Drive South - C .... pdf
Hi Zach
I would like to take this opportunity and thank you for your email.
This is to inform you that the only component of the alternatives which would affect the Coastal Trail is the construction of the
"Right Turn Lane". Please note that if this component is selected, the City would require the trail to be reconstructed within
the same general locations, approximately 6' seaward of the existing trail, and at the same trail width.
Again thanks for your email and I will keep you informed of the selected alternative.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
From: Rehm, Zach@Coastal[mailto:Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:16 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Intersection Reconfiguration at Costa De La Islas and PV Drive South - Coastal Commission Staff Comments for RPV
City Council Meeting 7/17/18
Ara and Elias,
Attached is a comment letter for tonight's City Council meeting. I apologize for the late notice, but Coastal Commission staff
were just made aware that components of some project alternatives would require relocation of the California Coastal Trail
and public sidewalks, and may interfere with cyclist and pedestrian access. The letter explains why Coastal Commission staff
believe the potential exclusive right -turn lane and the potential westbound acceleration (merge) lane may not be exempt from
coastal development requirements — and suggests that the City Council approve an alternative which does not include those
components.
Again, sorry for the late comments and feel free to call me to discuss.
Zach Rehm
Senior Transportation Program Analyst
California Coastal Commission
200 Oceangate, 101" Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562)590-5071
J) CAI';0'qNI;%
COASTAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 'mom
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 p
(562) 590-5071
July 17, 2018
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
{provided by electronic mail}
RE: Intersection Reconfiguration at Costa De La Islas and PV Drive South
Coastal Commission Staff Comments for RPV City Council Meeting 7/17/18
To the Honorable RPV City Council and Public Works Director Elias Sassoon:
Coastal Commission staff have reviewed the staff report and exhibits associated with Item 5 on the
Regular Business section of the agenda for the City Council hearing of July 17, 2018 and are providing
the following comments.
The Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) A -5 -RPV -93-005 for a
development identified as Ocean Trails in 1993. In 1999 the Coastal Commission approved Tract 50667
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666. Vesting Tentative Tract 50666 was revised to authorize 23
residential lots through Amendment 21 to CDP A -5 -RPV -93-005 in 2014. All of these actions were
limited to the privately owned development now identified as Trump National Golf Club, and the
approved roadway within that development identified as Costa De La Islas, which will be dedicated to
the City and open to the public upon completion of construction. The Coastal Commission's CDP
approval and subsequent amendments did not extend to the public right-of-way along PV Drive South.
In previous actions, the Commission has generally found that changes to the public right-of-way which
do not result in changes to vehicle capacity or public access to the coast, and do not adversely affect
biological resources, are exempt from coastal development permit requirements. The alternatives
identified in the staff report for the intersection reconfiguration project at Costa De La Islas and PV
Drive South appear to be located primarily within the public right-of-way along PV Drive South, and do
not appear to change vehicle capacity or public access to the coast, or adversely affect biological
resources, with the possible exception of two components: the potential exclusive right -turn lane and the
potential westbound acceleration (merge) lane.
According to the staff report, those components would require relocation and reconstruction of portions
of the California Coastal Trail and the public sidewalk. It also appears the transitions to the right turn
lane and from the acceleration lane onto PV Drive could increase conflicts with cyclists in the existing
bicycle lane on PV Drive South - and would require more complicated transitions to the Ocean Vista
Bikeway and the soft footed pedestrian path which the Coastal Commission's approved CDP requires
the property owner to construct atop the property adjacent to the public right-of-way.
Page 1 of 2
Intersection Reconfiguration at Costa De La Islas and PV Drive South
Coastal Commission Staff Comments for RPV City Council Meeting 7/17/18
Page 2 of 2
Thus, Coastal Commission staff suggests that the City Council approve an alternative which does not
result in a new exclusive right -turn lane and westbound acceleration (merge) lane. If the City Council
elects to approve an alternative with those components, the approved findings must identify the
provision which renders the project exempt from coastal development requirements, pursuant to the
City's Local Coastal Program (certified by the Coastal Commission in 1983).
Please note that these comments are preliminary in nature and are based on exhibits rather than final
plans. Additional comments may be provided should the project change. Please contact me at 562-590-
5071 or zach.rehm@coastal.ca.gov with any questions.
Sincerely,
FW�
Zach Rehm
Senior Transportation Program Analyst
Cc: Elias Sassoon, RPV Public Works Director
Ara Mihranian, RPV Community Development Director
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:25 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: FW: street layout for proposed entry to Tract #50666, Item # 5
Attachments: 2018-06-19 Rt-Turn+Merge Lane.pdf; 2018-06-19 No Rt-Turn+Merge Lane.pdf; 2018-06-19
With Rt -Turn -No Acc lane.pdf
Late correspondence regarding agenda item 5!
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310--544-5292
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:10 AM
To: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: street layout for proposed entry to Tract #50666
You are most welcome. I also gave him a set of print of these drawings this afternoon.
Thanks again:
Elias
Sent from my Verizon, Sanxsung Galaxy sniartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Date: 7/16/18 9:44 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon(c�r�,rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: street layout for proposed entry to Tract #50666
Thank you. I will share them with Uday Patil.
0
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:32 PM
To:'Lenee Bilski'
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: street layout for proposed entry to Tract #50666
Is
Here are electronic copies. PIs note:
-First map is Alternative 1 as reflected on the Staff Report
-Second map is the Alternative 4 on the Staff Report; and
-Third map is Alternative 5 as reflected on Staff Report
These are detailed engineering design drawings.
Thanks, I hope this helps. PIs let me know if you have any further questions.
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
From: Lenee Bilski[mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:23 PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: street layout for proposed entry to Tract #50666
Mr. Sassoon,
I received these attached layouts but these scanned copies of drawn plans are too blurry to be of any
use. I expected digital maps as that is what I received in the past from the City. So Kim says that everything is
digitized now.
I don't understand why the street layouts were not included in the Staff Report as staff knows that many residents
are interested in the technical details of the proposal.
What is included are cartoon -like illustrations. Anyway I forwarded the email with attachments to the resident who
was out of town last week.
The obsolete Street Layout is included in the current Staff Report -
attachment D-62 which is on page 75 of 126 pages of the July 17, 20018 report.
Thank you.
Lenee Bilski
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 9:13 AM
To:'Lenee Bilski'
Subject: RE: street layout for proposed entry to Tract #50666
Good Morning Ms. Bilski:
Attached, please find the information. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
AA
From: Lenee Bilski[mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 6:10 PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Subject: street layout for proposed entry to Tract #50666
Thank you for calling back.
Please send the current street plans since the improved bike land project was cancelled.
Lenee Bilski
310-377-2645
3
120-
a E
\\ "-____
\
( \ EX CUB c
OJ O 12 TRAVEL qry-
0! -P.
RjW
CONST. CL
DED
PEDES RED 4 41LFT_FCOT _ — — t p p.
_ wN TRAIL ED S'Ly R0�N' /
_ _
'A (gym
i�
w42
nq
PAS SED 6' WIDEWW
Du Sam+ SEE SECTION q -A
PRDPoSFo r saR RALOS ERM ME (50UM)
FWtED PEUESIRW! 1PNl Wl 1D SCVf
E m acwN
(3J E%SfIWC GIBS IS SE WFMDVEO
w
WILY ROW
—_DRIVE ___— ----
SOUTH _ _
WAS
EXIST. 12' TRAVEL LANE+35' SHOULDER SOUTH
il' LER TURN UNE
DRIVE
E%. CURB ......
4'
ED PROPOSED 10' HARD
TRAIL. SURFACE BIKE PATN
a
r
SCALE.- 1 =30"
GRA—C SCALE
ALTERNAT/VE /
P =� _
_ Os
120 RE%UGE ANO C
--
`�_ 7p REMAIN '---__
12'TRAVEL (ANE CONST..
...PROP. CURB
^-ALDER _ , ::I-rtct;URDED
PEDE14N TRAIL 007EDR __ —
RE
A'ORTUGUESE _ —LUW _ —�\ ¢ 1
kCEMNiNC ON $DUTN 26'
10 PoRlUCUESE gENO COSTA DE LA ISt
Bm
RW RW
47' S0'
21' 26 26' 2A
16' 10' *10.5' 15S. -.-
i TREE
4.D' 2
14.6' 1�' i �12'
T
T---
bSECTION A 4' Spic � .1 p
lCO2D REJ[SIRW7 iRUt
(1)
.M. CURB 10 IN
(1) E%4'ixi0 CURB 10 B[ AEW2p
WILY ROW
DRIVE_____________________
SOUTH
-,/ -
O
_
DRIVE
-----------------------------
E%IST IT TRAVEL LANE+3.5' SHOULDER SOUTH
11' LEFT TURN
Cl�.
o.
E%.
8' SHOULDER - _....
7' BUFFER
L
_�
I
PROPOSED 4'
SOFOTE
T -FOD
PROPOSED 10' HARD
AS
PEDESTRAN TRAIL SURFACE BIKE PATH
SCALE- / "=30'
GIA111C —VE
ALTERNAT/VE //
N'LY ROW
A C/Lf— _ DRIVE SOUTH-------------
_
—� —
� � \ -- _— _ EXIST. DIN
CURB
TRAVELE g �- COusr cL -
O PROP. GURB
• _ DRIVE 5T 72' TRAVEL E+35' SHOULDER SOUTH
-_` -
800 TgafR l'l i, - e _-- --_
L TURN LANE
RE
4-D CL) R EX. CURB
5
m£. _ PEDESTRIAM SO ��EOOTED 'S•� _ _ 7' BUFFER
PORTUO�ESF — — '' L
PROPOSED 4•
25' 21• SOFT -FOOTED PROPOSED 10' NARO
COSTA DE LA ISLAS PEDESTRIAN TRAIL. SURFACE BIKE
PATH
i�
In 4' WIDENING ON SOUTH SIDE
Liu
R/W
TREEt0'•• 12' $I
14 ,6' 13'+�II 7�Y5' 12' `.5'
ti a•IZ --�z _i11d^ f II „f7 f� _ _III
1RpP050 1 WDF1iRG
ou B0UD1 SDE SECTION A -A
IEEOR05ED .' SOEl PAL OS VEROfS ORIVE (SOUTH)
OM PEDEEtquN 1FNL Wi 1p SCLLE
(1)
EX.—B—..
(3) EX61. -- BE NE.—
DINE ON TINT CW BE NE— 10 INORUSE THE ffPARAiroN E—EN T KEESTRAN TM AND TK —W iRfE.
•• pINENBDN RNi CAN BE —ED 10 -NUE 11 ..NIIG EN[POACxNE. — IK RMtwAY, 1xU5 INCRUBING M
SEPAW— BETWEEN - KDES wi —AND M E-1. TREE.
r
SCALE.- 7'=30'
ENAPNIC —1E
AL TERNAT1VE ///
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:03 AM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: 50666 Opposition
Late corr
From: Jeffrey Dorsett [mailto:jedorsett@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:22 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 50666 Opposition
Dear Mayor Brooks and City Councilpersons:
Thank you Mayor Brooks for revealing that fear of costly legal exposure is why you oppose 500 or so residents'
otherwise reasonable ask that access to the 12 homes be rerouted.
The day before the city council decides on the new lateral is, however, late to learn the basis for your opposition. It
has been uniquely unpleasant as a concerned and affected Seaview resident to deal with city managers beneath you
that refused to honestly deal with the instant issue.
I learned, Mayor Brooks, about your coming clean in Uday Patil's letter of today. I am impressed by Mr. Patil's letter
and I agree with its every tenet. Including that, as a worst case, the city shall not add local insult to injury by
permitting breach of the public median.
Similar to Mayor Brooks late disclosure, today Elias Sassoon provided, but only to one local resident, for the first
time legible maps of 3 out the 5 alternative new Trump laterals his committee proposes. The staff report does not
contain even these. This disclosure is insufficient. This insufficiency is good cause for continuing tomorrow's
meeting.
The news cycle reflects that the Trump organization may have unique monetary power to litigate. That said, with
bipartisan resistance to Trump's conduct in Helsinki, Trump might get held to answer. On the other hand the city
could face greater liability for personal injury where it had notice of an unreasonably dangerous condition --and then
exacerbated it! The city's cursory traffic study is an indicia of willful blindness to the danger.
The best course is to stall for time and issue a continuance for the good cause herein discussed.
9
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:26 AM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: July 17 Council Agenda item # 5 VTTM 50666 Request for continuance
From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:46 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks
<PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>
Subject: July 17 Council Agenda item # 5 VTTM 50666 Request for continuance
July 16, 2018
Dear Mayor Brooks and City Council members,
I have read the Staff Report for the Trump Vested Tentative Tract Map item #5.
1 noticed that the Staff Report omits the word "Tentative" in the Agenda Description and also in the Attached
Supporting Documents (page 1). Is this an attempt to mislead the public to think that it's a "done deal"M This is a
Tentative Tract Map, not a Final Tract Map, and it should be noticed as such.
Please do not give away the public's ROW for a developer's convenience. There are app. 400 residents who will be
impacted by this plan to access just 12 homesites from PVDr.So. I would hope that the Council would listen to the
residents. As you know, I and the nearby residents would prefer another alternative entry be considered (besides
what the Public Works presents) which would be safe and not require altering the public's Right Of Way - that
alternative is access from Trump Nat'I.Drive. Adding a new intersection to PVDr.So., a major arterial, will not
reduce accidents.
I am disturbed that the Report and Traffic Impact Study lacks attention to the impact on the intersections nearby
and pedestrians and cyclists.
Have you looked at the Collision Data chart for the 3 intersections? It's under F on D-60 of the Traffic Study (staff
report page 73 of 126) 21 collisions with 23 injured along this section of our arterial between 2014 and 20171
If the Council is not willing to acknowledge the safety issue and support the residents by Identifying a different
preferred street design and by directing the Applicant to make the appropriate changes to the project plans, then a
compromise plan is the answer.
My second choice, a compromise, is a modified Alternative # 2 without the right turn lane, and with improvements
to the intersection at Schooner/Yacht Harbor Dr. providing a new turn/ merge lane, improved line of sight
there and possible improvements at Conqueror Dr. also. I would support this
The report states that the Applicant has not expressed an opposition to the other Alternatives discussed in this
report (page 7) so this should be an acceptable and safe design for all. Such a design would also protect the mature
Coral Tree from a sure death if a right turn lane were to be constructed next to it.
5
As for the Forrestal intersection, I have talked to our Public Works engineers about forming a roundabout (traffic
circle) for Forrestal/Trump Dr. to address the left turn problem there which might also work for Schooner to
eliminate dangerous left turns at these intersections as well as to slow down the traffic.
Is there a plan for parking vehicles of those wishing to use the public trails on this Tract? What about a headlight
analysis that was requested long ago?
The drawn street plans need to be made available to you and to the public. The only one in the current report on pg.
75 of 126 (D-62) is obsolete because the
proposed bike lane project has been cancelled.
Considering what is missing and what needs to be reconsidered,
I request a Continuation of this item so that all these issues can be addressed by staff and presented at a future CC
meeting.
Thank you for your service to RPV!
Ever vigilant,
Lenee Bilski
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:30 AM
To: Emily Colborn
Subject: FW: Entrance to Trump 12 Lot Subdivision On PVDS -2, Item 5
Late correspondence!
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
From: Mickey Rodich [mailto:mickeyrodich@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:18 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>; Don Latterman <lattermand@gmail.com>; Jack Fleming
<jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Kelly Jones <kjones3298@msn.com>; Mariana Stewart <marianastewart@icloud.com>; Sara
Platte <saraplatte@mac.com>; Tim Stewart <chesterdraws@proton maiLcom>; Don Bell <DBe1190275@aol.com>; Gary Randall
<grapecon@cox.net>; Herb Stark <Stearman@palosverdes.com>; Jessica Vlaco <vlaco5@cox.net> <vlaco5@cox.net>; Marty
Foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Entrance to Trump 12 Lot Subdivision On PVDS -2
LLHOA Park Committee Comments On Trump 12 Lot Subdivision
Driveway Entrance:
On the July 17th City Council agenda is the much discussed 12 home subdivision project by Trump
adjacent to PVDS. While many issues are presented by the proposed access along PVDS, a greater issue
compounding this matter is the lack of an overall traffic management plan for the PVDS/Forrestal
intersection. If the driveway entrance is moved to Trump Way, the projected additional 180 vehicle trips
per day will create additional problems for people making a left turn from Forrestal toward San Pedro.
Just the other day there was another traffic accident at PVDS/Forrestal intersection. Do we have to
wait until someone is killed before our City takes corrective action?
It is clear to many that the solution for this much discussed intersection is a traffic light. Some oppose
a traffic light on the premise that the changing signal would be distracting at night to nearby residents.
Knowledgeable people believe that these problems can be solved with hands on engineering.
The LLHOA and its ParkCommittee is in favor of the entrance driveway being located on PVDS as
originally planned, for our safety.
5-,
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Late correspondence for Item 5.
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
Elias Sassoon
Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:11 PM
CityClerk
Teresa Takaoka; Nathan Zweizig
FW: Tract Map #50666 - Street Configuration for New Proposed Intersection - Preferred
Alternative
1) PV Dr So Entry Not Safe jpg; 2) Safe and PREFERRED alternative by all surrounding
residents!jpg; 3) Safe alternative driveway on Trump Nat'l Drive jpg; 4) PV Dr. So turn to Trump
Nat'l Drjpg; 5) PREFERRED ALTERNATIVEjpg
Follow up
Completed
From: Joanne Stasio [mailto:jstasio@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:13 PM
To: Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; John
Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Tract Map #50666 - Street Configuration for New Proposed Intersection - Preferred Alternative
Dear City Council Members and Public Works Representatives,
We are not in favor of establishing a driveway/intersection on Palos Verdes Drive South onto Costa
de Las Islas.
We feel strongly that a SAFER/SMARTER alternative is providing access to the new home
development VIA TRUMP DRIVE.
Please see the photos attached — preferred alternatives.
Thank you for your consideration of our alternative access preference. Safety should be the first
consideration.
Sincerely,
Joanne and Andy Stasio
3915 Exultant Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Residents of Seaview Neighborhood Since 1993
♦
Palos
Vey'd
es-Drive
i
Prosed New - , props �• • `�.;
T -Intersection '-�Sj�0ot, 12
Trump ` ►1
• National -
v
_T
(
PW
aJ4e,m.
1�
�... *fi«�
PW
aJ4e,m.
1�
t -
� wytiN .. •� _ - - nY
'r'
AM
lk,
NM
r
CITYOF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 16, 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, July 17, 2018 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
Email from SUNSHINE
4 Emails from: Terri Haack; Mayor Brooks; Bob Nelson; Email
exchange between Deputy City Manager Yap and Ken DeLong
5 Emails from: Vanessa Munoz (Willdan Engineering); Mike and
Louise Shipman; Edward Stevens; Daniel DeBorba; Jim Zupke;
Donald Bell; Elizabeth Sax; Gerard Taccini and Deborah Huff; John
Bacon; Anthony and Karen Kordich; James Guerin; SUNSHINE;
Email exchange between Public Works Director Sassoon and Uday
Patil
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Colborn
WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180717 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From: Lauren Ramezani
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:28 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: FW: July 17, 2018 RPV Council Agenda Item I. The Sunnyside debacle continues
Please see late correspondence regarding Item I.
Thanks
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst- Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5245
Laurenr@rpvca.gov
http://www.rpvca.gov
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; jeanlongacre@aol.com;
pvpasofino@yahoo.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; beachjake@sbcglobal.net
Subject: July 17, 2018 RPV Council Agenda Item I. The Sunnyside debacle continues
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
RE: Debriefing the Sunnyside Debacle
I have been corresponding with Lauren Ramezani about this for years which makes me really annoyed that I
have to bring it up as Late Correspondence. This is not the Sunnyside Ridge Trail Easement. It should not
be immortalized as such in an LA County Recording.
The other problem is this statement that it is to be used solely as "open space". I can see a time in the not
too distant future when this language could be used to preclude public access for trail purposes. That
would make this whole project the ultimate debacle.
Sunnyside Ridge Trail Easement Use Covenant
3. USE. City covenants and agrees to use and maintain the Sunnyside Ridge Trail Easement solely as
open space for the period specified in Section 4 below.
I �E
I want to see these two things fixed, specifically, in the City Council's Resolution. The underlying property
that is being burdened by this additional deed restriction is ... That portion of the Narbonne ROW... It is
also known as 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road. In the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP), the Sunnyside
Ridge Trail is SECTION FIVE, F8. This project is is CTP A28, the Sunnyside Segment of the Palos Verdes
Loop Trail "ideal route" and is known to trail users as a portion of the Sol Vista Trail. What is the protocol
for identifying easements, anyway?
In the interest in not repeating mistakes, Is there any plan to hold a debriefing on all the things that went
wrong with what should have been a simple rerouting of an existing trail? I have kept a diary which I would
be happy to share. I even have an email from Joel Rojas objecting to my calling a lot of missed
opportunities "Staff screw -ups". We now have several projects "in the works" which are getting close to
deserving the label, "debacle". Please don't let that happen.
Subject: Sunnyside Ridge Trail Segment Grant Closeout
Date: 7/11/2018 9:19:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: LaurenR(a)rpvca.gov
To: ckmeisterheim(a)gmail.com, aIg9605 yahoo.com, Amcdougall1(a-yahoo.com, robert.laman(a)dslextreme.com, CMOneila-aol.com,
ckotowski(a)sbcglobal.net, halwinton46esus3 .gmail.com,11000 ancox.net, jeanlon acre aol.com, Bojay(o dslextreme.com,
jdegirolamo __me.com, Irne sbcglobal.net, PVpasofinoP-yahoo.com, patpoddatoori(a)yahoo.com, briggsrod gmail.com,
pvpra.president(a)gmail.com, sharigraner aol.com, momofyago(a).gmail.com, beach iake(a)sbcgloba1.net, sunshinerpv(a)aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Good morning,
This is a courtesy notification. As you are aware the City received a grant for $300,000 from Los
Angeles County, to be used towards the Sunnyside Ridge Trail Segment Improvement project. Io-
date we received 90% of the total grant funds ($270,000). Public Works is planning to closeout
this grant and request the remaining $30,000. Additionally, as a condition of the receipt of the
grant funds, the County requires that the City maintain the trail and place a deed restriction (aka
use covenant and restriction running with the land) on this trail/City easement.
This item is being presented to the City Council on 7/17/2018. The link to the staff report is
here: htta://rDv.Rranicus.com/MetaViewer.r)hr)?view id=5&event id=1261&meta id=57679
Once again, Public Works thanks you for your patience and cooperation during the trail project's
construction period.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Thanks
Lauren Ramezoni
Sr. Administrative Analyst- Public Works
From: Haack, Terri <thaack@destinationhotels.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 6:27 PM
To: Doug Willmore; CC
Subject: Fwd: National League of Cities cancelation
Attachments: Colleague Letter 7.9.18.pdf
No action needed/just wanted you. to know.
Another cancellation due to UniteHere harassment to our group guests.
Terri I laack
President
Terranea
M11
RE SORT
July 9, 2018
To my Terranea friends and colleagues,
I hope you were able to spend some time with family and friends last week in celebration of America's
independence. I believe we are blessed by the many freedoms that have been won for us all.
Unfortunately, I also am writing to share some disappointing news. The National League of Cities just
canceled this week's events at Terranea because of UNITE HERE Local 11's continued harassment to the
conference organizers and participants. This news saddens me because I know the impact this may have
on many of you as you depend on large events and a predictable flow of guests to provide for your
families. When the union pushes our guests and events away, I know many of you pay the price— and I
think that's unfair.
As I've said many times before, I promise to continue fighting for you and to keep you updated on
developments with the union. The union ignored our invitation earlier this year to let you have a vote,
and it seems content simply to attack our guests. Our entire team is working hard to replace what the
union tries to take away.
In the meantime, thank you for all you do. There is nothing that makes me happier than when I see
someone's passion in helping a guest in a special way or taking the extra effort to make something just
right. I continually get notes from guests in praise and appreciation, and I am so proud of what you are
accomplishing for yourself, your family and your future.
In defense of you and your family,
Terri A. Haack
President
100 '['erranea WA iv, 1<)n(:ho I'<it(.?� Ve cies, C'A 90?75 Resort 310.265,2800 T'ta 370.265.2835 WWW,'r1'RR NEA.C.ob4
R E S 0 R'T
9 de julio de 2018
A mis amigos y colegas de Terranea:
Espero que hayan tenido la oportunidad de pasar tiempo con sus familias y amigos la semana pasada,
para celebrar el Dia de Independencia de los Estados Unidos. Creo que somos muy afortunados de
poder disfrutar las libertades que otras personas han logrado obtener para todos nosotros.
Lamentablemente, tambien les escribo para comunicarles noticias decepcionantes. La Liga Nacional de
Ciudades (National League of Cities) acaba de cancelar sus eventos de esta semana en Terranea debido
al acoso continuo que han sufrido —de parte de UNITE HERE Local 11— los organizadores y
participantes de esta conferencia. Estas noticias me entristecen porque se bien el impacto que esto
puede tener para muchos de ustedes, ya que dependen de eventos grandes y de una cantidad previsible
de huespedes para poder mantener a sus familias. Cuando el sindicato ahuyenta a nuestros huespedes y
eventos, se que muchos de ustedes pagan el precio... y considero que eso es algo injusto.
Como he dicho muchas veces antes: les prometo continuer luchando por ustedes y mantenerlos al tanto
de las noticias con respecto al sindicato. EI sindicato ignor6 nuestra invitaci6n a principios de este ano
para darles a ustedes la oportunidad de gozar de una elecci6n, y parece que se sienten contentos al
simplemente atacar a nuestros huespedes. Todo nuestro equipo este trabajando con gran empeno para
rehacer to que el sindicato trata de quitarnos.
Mientras tanto, gracias por todo to que hacen. Nada me hace mis feliz que ver a alguno de ustedes
ayudando a nuestros huespedes con pasi6n y de manera especial, o haciendo un esfuerzo adicional para
que las cosas queden perfectamente bien. Recibo con frecuencia notas de nuestros huespedes
expresando su aprecio y agradecimiento, y me siento muy orgullosa de to que han logrado para ustedes
mismos, para sus familias y para su futuro.
En defensa de ustedes y sus familias,
Terri A. Haack
Presidenta
100'C•erraitiea W�iv, l<<).itci-io I'<ii(:)s Verdes, CA 00275 Resorf MO.265.2800 Fax310.265.2835 www.`ri:atltANf.A,COM
From: Haack, Terri <thaack@destinationhotosxnm>
Sent Wednesday, July ll2018729AK4
To: Doug VViUmone;[[
Subject Fwd: [ance|otion Notification National League of Cities
Attachments: TerreneoLetter 7-S-l8.docx
No action ust FYI
(}n0d oonoiug and as ufollow up to the letter l sent to the 7000nea employees to you. last eveuing),
this iSthe cancel lation note -from the National. League of Cities and their reason.fior cancellation. Every room
canceled io}pac[o '[{)T revenue to the City of RPV and our employees ability to provide for thoirfanzilies.
Respectfully,
'I`czzi T{maok
President
July 5, 2018
Mr. Mark Adams
Director of Sales
Terranea Resort
100 Terranea Way
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Mr. Adams:
On behalf of the organizers of the 2018 Resilient Cities Summit — National League
of Cities (NLC), Urban Land Institute (ULI) and U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
— I am writing to inform you of the decision to withdraw the 2018 Resilient Cities
Summit scheduled to be held at the Terranea Resort over the dates of July 14, 2018
to July 18, 2018.
The primary factor in the decision to withdraw this meeting from the Terranea
Resort is the significant pressure that was applied to each of the three partner
organizations by UNITE HERE Local 11. UNITE HERE Local 11 representatives called
multiple staff from all three organizations numerous times and encouraged them to
contact conference organizers and ask them to withdraw the meeting. UNITE HERE
representatives also called members of NLC's leadership, the conference facilitator
and past conference participants asking them to encourage conference organizers
to pull business from the Terranea Resort.
It is believed that Unite Here has the potential of disrupting our conference and
being a significant distraction to conference participants, especially those who hold
elected office. While our organizations do not take sides in disputes such as these,
we believe a change in venue is the best course of action to ensure that we can
provide a successful event for all participants.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Janice Pauline
Director, Conferences and Meetings, National League of Cities
2018 OFFICERS
President
Mark Stodola
Mayor
Little Rock, Arkansas
first Vice President
Karen Freeman -Wilson
Mayor
Gary, Indiana
Se,ccnd Vice President
Joe 13uscaino
Council membor
Los Angeles, California
?narne:c iatn Fast President
Matt Zone
Councilrnembor
Cleveland, Ohio
chdof Executive officer/
Executive (: Doctor
Clarence E. Anthony
!Deputy Executive Director
Antoinette A. Sarnuel
NLC.org 660 North Capitol St. NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20001 ph; (202) 626-3000
From: Susan Brooks
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 8:08 AM
To: Haack, Terri
Cc: Doug Willmore; CC
Subject: Re: Cancelation Notification National League of Cities
These people are Thugs! There's no place in any work environment for such skulduggery.
PS. Council, no response please. Just venting.
Regards,
Susan
Susan Brooks
Mayor 2018
Rancho Palos Verdes
(Home) 310/ 541-2971
(City Hall) 310/544-5207
http://rpvca.gov
The views or opinions expressed in this email are intended to be interpreted as the individual work product of
the author. They do not necessarily reflect an official position of the City Council, staff or other entities.
Sent from my iPhone
0 1
_i
On Jul 11, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Haack, Terri <thaackgdestinationhotels.com> wrote:
No action needed/just FYI
Good morning and as a follow up to the letter I sent to the Terranea employees (forwarded to you
last evening), this is the cancellation note from the National League of Cities and their reason for
cancellation. Every room canceled impacts TOT revenue to the City of RPV and our employees
ability to provide for their families.
Respectfully,
Terri Haack
President
Terranea
<Terranea Letter 7-5-18.docx>
From: Emily Colborn
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 10:18 AM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Whoops re My Email: CC Mtng 7/17/18: Item #4: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative:
Late Correspondence
f� vgo�
e t n
Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
n
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5208
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail,
From: Nelsongang [mailto:nelsongang@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 10:27 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Whoops re My Email: CC Mtng 7/17/18: Item #4: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative:
Council:
Whoops! Just had a phone call: My previous email said 1 favored '5 Option c,' pushing the election out to 2019 - I AM NOT
IN FAVOR OF DOING THAT AND, OBVIOUSLY, mis-read your Agenda. I apologize.
CONSIDERING WHAT TERRANEA DOES FOR YOUR CITY AND CITIZENS, 1 WOULD FAVOR '(4) OPTION B' - SCHEDULE
AN OCTOBER SPECIAL ELECTION. Terranea deserves an answer asap. Another year of union harassment is not what I
believe our citizens want. Any election cost pales next to what Terranea provides. We owe expediency to Terranea, our
citizens and the union.
Bob Nelson
Same caveat as below re views, opinions etc.
-----Original Message -----
From: Nelsongang <nelsongang.Co) l.com>
To: cc <cc r vycca,aov>
Sent: Sat, Jul 14, 2018 9:59 am
Subject: CC Mtng 7/17/18: Item #4: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative:
Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro -Tem Duhovic, Members Alegria, Cruikshank and Dyda
Sharon Yarber's comments are apropos. Personally I favor Staff Recommendation '(5) Option C' - let our voters decide
at our upcoming November election - unchanged initiative.
To vote earlier is an expense our city does not need at this time; to go later simply continues union harassment of convention
organizers, guests, our public and Terranea workers for another year. We deserve the decision of our voters asap.
Remember:
1. Terranea employees in non -tip jobs already are paid $15.00 an hour or more;
2. 'Panic buttons' have been part of applicable employee uniforms since June 12, 2009, when Terranea opened;
3. Providing transportation from home to Terranea is asinine on the surface! Name me one local employer doing that!
4.Terranea is recognized for its top value as a place to work, as is its parent Destination Resorts throughout the organization.
i
5. Terranea has played a vital part in our city attaining many objectives that, without Terranea, would not be possible.
Think about what you have approved that would not have been even thinkable without Terranea.
6. What the union really wants, and is unsaid, is union dues! As always, the underlying reason for all this.
7. Are you ready to enforce this ordinance, as I believe you will have to? You don't need that task! Really, you don't need it
on top of all the other enforcement actions you have (ref: Closed Session calendars)!
Bob Nelson
The view(s), opinions) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the view(s), opinion(s), official
positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or any of its employees, agents,
contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City'). It should be interpreted solely as the view(s), opinions) and/or work
product of the individual author and should not be relied upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City.
From: Emily Colborn
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:48 PM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative
Late Correspondence
ij �,
Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
'g
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: Ken DeLong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:37 PM
To: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc:'William Patton' <billpatton21@icloud.com>
Subject: RE: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative
Gabriella, thank you for your response and I have read the staff report / Kosmont report several times. My reading is that the
City has no options relative to amending the proposed Ordinance and the Council can only approve the Ordinance as written or
have the residents vote on the Ordinance as written. If I have misread the reports please so advise.
PVP Watch urges that the Council set an election time (the sooner the better) for voters to either approval or rejection of the
Ordinance. Without regurgitating the Kosmont report, it is clear that the proposed union ordinance is detrimental to everyone
involved including RPV residents who will have to tolerate the unknown costs of the union proposed ordinance. Not yet
addressed will be the union costs that Terranea employees will be forced to pay. Many others will be detrimentally impacted
by the union power grab. In that the union proposal is detrimental to everyone in RPV, we would hope that once an election
date is set that Council will take an ACTIVE role in opposing the union ordinance.
Ken DeLong
From: Gabriella Yap [mai1to:gyap00rpvca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:56 PM
To: Ken DeLong; CC
Cc: Bill Patton
Subject: RE: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative
Dear Ken,
Thank you for your email. This item is scheduled for the July 17 agenda, and the staff report, which may answer some of your
questions, can be found here:
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=1261&meta id=57695
Please take a look and if you still have questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
y
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5203 Office
From: Ken DeLong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 4:39 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Bili Patton <bpatton@gores.com>; Ken DeLong <ken.delong@verizon.net>
Subject: RPV "Hospitality" Initiative
To: RPV City Council
Hospitality Initiative — General Election - November 2018
The two "Hospitality" documents posted on the PVP Watch website are attached for the Council's easy reference.
The proposed "Hospitality Initiative" is an attempted travesty by union organizers seeking support from RPV taxpayers for a
scheme apparently rejected Terranea employees. If a majority of Terranea desired representation by UNITE HERE Local 11 they
could have done so without this Initiative process.
We believe the preponderance of RPV residents will recognize this for what it is... a scam. Regardless, considerable expense
that might be better used other wise, will be spent defeating the UNITE HERE Local 11 scam.
Does California law have any stipulations concerning whether or not a valid resident of RPV MUST collect resident signatures
for an Initiative Petition? Observed on the Initiative submission documents that neither person Jan Ellen Gardner nor Bianco
Sandoval had provided their complete addresses. Is City, State & Zip adequate identification? Must these persons be an RPV
resident? For how long? Was the Initiative properly processed by RPV City Hall?
The Initiative requires the City Council to adopt iplementationlregulations (below) and requirements for Employers. How will
the Council do this? What resources will be required? What will be the costs be? The City is not in the business of managing
private resources. The Council might reject the Initiative on this issue alone.
Who can amend the Initiative / Ordinance going forward? Can a Council Majority with a 3 vote majority do so or will it take a
different process?
We find no process for collecting union dues from Terranea or Trump employees. Will a modification of the new RPV
Ordinance 5.40. be required for establishing union dues, setting rates and collection thereof. Will this process be added to the
City Manager's existing duties? What will be the Council's involvement?
The Enforcement section 5.40.090; what liabilities will RPV incur for managing the Terranea / Trump Union relationship? Will
the City be protected from any / all future damage claims by any of the parties? How will the City be protected from any
potential liabilities?
Following are some excerpts from the Initiative documents.
iative Summary Document
All provisions apply to the Employers' subcontractors. The measure provides remedies and fines for violations and mandatory
attorneys' fees for prevailing party Employees. The measure authorizes the City Council to adopt implementing regulations, and
to adopt additional requirements for Employers, but not to restrict those enacted by the measure.
Notice of Intent to Circulate Initiative Document.
5.40.080 - Waiver.
The provisions of this Chapter may not be waived by agreement between an individual hospitality employee and a large
hospitality employer. All of the provisions of Section 5.40.030 or Section 5. 40.040, or any part thereof, may be waived in a bona
fide collective bargaining agreement but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous
terms. Unilateral implementation of terms and conditions of employment by either party to a collective bargaining relationship
shall not constitute, or be permitted, as a waiver of all or any part of the provisions of this Chapter.
5.40.090—Enforcement.
A hospitality employee or representative of hospitality employees claiming violation of this Chapter may bring an action in the
Superior Court and shall be entitled to all remedies available under the law or in equity appropriate to remedy any such
violation, including but not limited to injunctive relief or other equitable relief, including reinstatement, and compensatory
damages and other relief provided in this subsection. In addition to any other remedy to which a hospitality employee is entitled
under this Chapter, a large hospitality employer that violates Section 5. 40.030 shall be liable to each affected hospitality
employee for statutory damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($ 50) for each day on which a violation occurred; and a large
hospitality employer that violates Section 5. 40.040 shall be liable to each affected hospitality employee for statutory damages
in the amount of fifty dollars ($ 50) for each day on which a violation occurred. In the event of a willful violation of Section 5.
40.070, the amount of damages attributable to lost income due to the violation shall be trebled. If a hospitality employee is the
prevailing party in any legal action taken pursuant to this Chapter, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs as
part of the costs recoverable.
In conclusion, the proposed "Hospitality" ordinance provides no benefit to RPV residents / taxpayers and is detrimental to RPV
"Hospitality" businesses and their employees as well. We urge the RPV Council place the "Initiative" ordinance matter on hold
while RPV's legal options are determined. During deliberations on this very important matter, do not ignore that the union's
claims are untruthful as Terranea employees have long had "panic" buttons and non -tipped salaries already exceed union
proposed rates. If RPV were to approve "portal to portal" costs for the "Hospitality" firms in RPV might not RPV employees
seek the same benefits? With a few limited exceptions, it is unheard to pay for employee transportation costs.
Ken DeLong
RPV Resident
RECEIVED
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITION FEB 2 i 201'e-1--
(Cal.
018 j(Cal. Elect. Code § 9202)
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION fCITY FFICE
Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate
the petition within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the purpose of adopting an initiative that
will enact provisions to improve protect worker safety and improve working conditions at large
hospitality employers in the City.
A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in said petition is as
follows (up to 500 words):
This is an initiative that enacts provisions to protect the personal safety and improve working
conditions of employees of large hospitality employers in the City, which include privately -
owned and run hotels, golf courses, and amusement parks with 50 or more employees.
Hospitality employees who work by themselves in guest rooms, restrooms, or in isolated
locations are vulnerable to crimes and other threatening behavior, including sexual assault. This
initiative enables hospitality employees to protect their safety by, among other measures,
requiring that large hospitality employers provide workers with panic buttons which they may
use to report threatening conduct or other emergencies. Many instances of sexual assault go
unreported to the police. The initiative also includes provisions that support employees' ability
to report criminal and threatening behavior to the proper authorities.
The initiative includes provisions to ensure large hospitality employers, which employ large
numbers of low-wage workers, pay compensation that is sufficient for workers to meet their
basic needs and those of their families. The measure requires large hospitality employers to pay
fifteen dollars an hour beginning January 1, 2019 and specified wage levels in subsequent years.
Wage increases for low-wage workers strengthen the City's economy by improving the ability of
workers to purchase products and services from local merchants. Minimum wage increases also
reduce worker turnover, meaning workers will have more tenure with the same employer, which
creates incentives for both employers and workers to increase training and worker productivity.
Hospitality employees are also frequently assigned overly burdensome room cleaning quotas and
unexpected overtime, which undermines the public interest in ensuring that room cleaners can
perform their work in a manner that adequately protects public health and interferes with
workers' ability to meet family and personal obligations. The initiative assures that room
cleaners receive fair compensation when their workload assignments exceed proscribed limits
and prohibits hospitality employers from assigning employees overtime work when their shifts
exceed 10 hours in a day, except in emergency situations, without obtaining workers' informed
consent.
Finally, the City is experiencing a.shortage of available parking for residents, visitors, and
employees. Large hospitality employers are major contributors to the parking shortage because
they both attract visitors, many of whom require parking, and have employees who commute into
the City and occupy available parking spaces during the time that they are working. Hospitality
industry employees are frequently required to park in residential areas or at remote offsite
locations, causing inconvenience for residents and employees alike. Employees' use of
individual vehicles to commute also increases congestion in the City and adversely affects the
environment. In order to help alleviate these problems, this initiative requires large hospitality
employers to support their employees in using alternative means of transportation, such as
vanpools, rideshares, and public buses.
NAME OF PROPONENT
PROPONENT'S ADDRESS
DA E
NAME OF PROPONENT
11 CA
YKVYVIVL+IV 1'.7 AlliJKL� ��
L-7 It
DATE �I I
RECEIVED
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FEB 2 7 2018
BECEIVED
:CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDEy
The People of the Rancho Palos Verdes do hereby ordain: FEB 2 7 2018
Section 1. A new Chapter 5.40, entitled "Hospitality Working Conditions,"In*ed GI
of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, as follows:
5.40.010 - Definitions.
"Additional -bed rooms" means a room with additional beds such as cots or rollaways.
"Amusement park" means any grounds or enclosure wherein concessions and adult rides
of a permanent nature and having a fixed location are situated.
"Checkout" means a room where the guests are ending their stay.
"Emergency" means an immediate threat to public safety or of substantial risk of property loss or
destruction.
"Food server" means a person whose principal duties are to serve or deliver food or beverages to
guests, regardless of who employs the person.
"Golf course" means any large, landscaped area having a series of holes spaced considerably
apart designed for the playing of the game of golf. For the purpose of this Chapter, a golf course
does not include a driving range, a miniature golf course, or a property whose principal owner or
operator is a government entity.
"Guest" means a patron of a hotel, golf course, or amusement park, as defined herein, including
without limitation, registered guests and visitors invited by registered guests.
"Guest room" means a room made available by a hotel for transient occupancy.
"Hotel" means a facility that is designated or used for lodging and other related services
for the public, and containing 50 or more guest rooms, or suites of rooms (adjoining
rooms do not constitute a suite of rooms). "Hotel" also includes any contracted, leased
or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the facility's purpose, or
providing services at the facility.
"Large hospitality employer" means a person who owns, controls, and/or operates a
hotel, golf course, or amusement park in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and employs
or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of 50 or more
employees at such hotel, golf course, or amusement park, directly or through an agent
or any other person, including through the services of a temporary service or staffing
agency or similar entity. The term "large hospitality employer" also includes any
contracted, leased or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with such
hotel's, golf course's, or amusement park's purpose, or a person, other than a
hospitality employee, who provides services at such hotel, golf course, or amusement
park in conjunction with the hotel's, golf course's, or amusement park's purpose.
"Hospitality employee" means any individual who (1) is employed by a large hospitality
employer; and (2) was hired to or did work an average 5 hours/week for 4 weeks at one or more
hotels, golf courses, or amusement parks.
"Panic button" means an emergency electronic contact device carried by a hospitality employee
which allows him or her in the event of an ongoing crime, threat, or other emergency to alert a
security guard responsible for providing immediate on -scene assistance.
"Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability
partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture,
agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign.
"Ridesharing service" means a dynamic, on -demand, fee-based service that supports real-time
ridesharing or carpooling through short-term arrangements enabled by GPS, wireless service, or
other technologies.
"Room cleaner" means a person whose principal duties are to clean and put in order residential
guest rooms in a hotel, regardless of who employs the person.
"Transit Pass" means any pass, token, fare card, voucher or similar item entitling a person to
transportation on public transit within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 132(f)(5)(A), as the federal
law may be amended from time to time, including but not limited to, travel by bus, light rail or
train.
"Vanpool" means a "commuter highway vehicle" within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. §
132(f)(5)(B), as the federal law may be amended from time to time, which currently means any
highway vehicle:
(A) the seating capacity of which is at least 6 adults (not including the driver), and
(B) at least 80% of the mileage use of which can reasonably be expected to be (i) for the
purpose of transporting employees in connection with travel between their residences
and their place of employment; and (ii) on trips during which the number of
employees transported for such purposes is at least 1/2 of the seating capacity of such
vehicle (not including the driver).
"Workday" means a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 a.m. and ending at 11:59 p.m.
5.40.020 - Measures to protect hospitality employees from threatening behavior.
A. Purpose. Hospitality employees who work by themselves in guest rooms, restrooms, or
in isolated locations are vulnerable to crimes and other threatening behavior, including sexual
assault. This Section enables hospitality employees to protect their safety by, among other
measures, requiring that large hospitality employers provide workers with panic buttons which
they may use to report threatening conduct or other emergencies. Many instances of sexual
assault go unreported to the police. This Section also includes provisions that support
employees' ability to report criminal and threatening behavior to the proper authorities.
B. A large hospitality employer shall provide to each hospitality employee who works as a
room cleaner, food server, or any other hospitality employee who so requests, at no cost to the
hospitality employee, a panic button.
2
(1) If a hospitality employee encounters a situation necessitating his or her use of the
panic button as described above, the hospitality employee may cease working and remove
him/herself from the situation to await the arrival of the security guard responsible for providing
immediate assistance. No hospitality employee may be disciplined for ceasing work under these
circumstances.
(2) No hospitality employee may be disciplined for use of a panic button absent clear
and convincing evidence the hospitality employee knowingly and intentionally made a false
claim of emergency.
C. A hospitality employee who brings to the attention of a large hospitality employer the
occurrence of violence or threatening behavior, including but not limited to indecent exposure,
solicitation, assault, or coercive sexual conduct by a guest or other person shall be afforded the
following rights.
(1) The large hospitality employer shall immediately allow the affected hospitality
employee sufficient paid time to contact the police and provide a police statement and to consult
with a counselor or advisor of the hospitality employee's choosing; the large hospitality
employer will permit, but may never require, the complaining hospitality employee to report an
incident involving alleged criminal conduct to the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction; and
(2) The large hospitality employer shall cooperate with any investigation into the
incident undertaken by the law enforcement agency and/or any attorney for the complaining
hospitality employee.
D. Each large hospitality employer shall place a sign on the back of the entrance door of
each public restroom and, where applicable, on the back of each entrance door of a guest room,
written in a font size of no less than 18 points, that includes the heading "The Law Protects
Hospitality Employees From Threatening Behavior," a citation to this Chapter of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code, and notice of the fact that the large hospitality employer is
providing panic buttons to employees.
5.40.030 — Large Hospitality Employer Minimum Wage
A. On and after January 1, 2019, large hospitality employers shall pay a wage of no less than
Fifteen Dollars per hour, which shall increase by One Dollar per hour on each January 1
thereafter through January 1, 2022.
B. On January 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, the minimum wage will increase annually to
reflect increases in the cost of living. The cost of living increase shall be the greater of (1) two
percent (2%) or (2) the percentage increase as of September 30, 2022, and as of September 30 in
any subsequent year for further annual adjustments, over the level as of September 30 of the
preceding year of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI -
W) for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area (Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange County, CA), which
is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor or the successor index
or federal agency. The City Manager shall publish a bulletin by November 1 of each year
announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect the following January 1. Such bulletin will
be made available to all Employers and to any other person who has filed with the City Manager
3
a request to receive such notice, but lack of notice shall not excuse noncompliance with this
Section. The City Manager shall prescribe a poster advising Employees of their rights under this
article and distribute it to all Employers. An Employer shall post the notice in a prominent place
where it will be seen by Employees. An Employer shall provide written notification of the rate
adjustments to each of its Employees and make the necessary payroll adjustments by January 1
following the publication of the bulletin.
5.40.040 — Humane workload.
A. Purpose. Hospitality employees who clean guest rooms are frequently assigned overly
burdensome room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime, which undermines the public
interest in ensuring that room cleaners can perform their work in a manner that adequately
protects public health and interferes with their ability to meet family and personal obligations.
This provision assures that workers receive fair compensation when their workload assignments
exceed proscribed limits and prohibits hospitality employers from assigning employees overtime
work when their shifts exceed 10 hours in a day, except in emergency situations, without
obtaining workers' informed consent.
B. A large hospitality employer that owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel shall not require
a room cleaner to clean rooms amounting to more than 4,000 square feet of floorspace, or more
than the maximum floor space otherwise specified in this Section, in any one, eight-hour
workday unless the large hospitality employer pays the room cleaner twice his or her regular rate
of pay for all hours worked by the room cleaner during the workday. If a room cleaner works
fewer than eight hours in a workday, the maximum floor space shall be reduced on a prorated
basis. When a room cleaner during a workday is assigned to clean any combination of seven or
more checkout rooms or additional -bed rooms, the maximum floorspace to be cleaned shall be
reduced by 500 square feet for each such checkout or additional -bed room over six. The
limitations contained herein apply to any combination of spaces, including guest rooms and
suites, meeting rooms or hospitality rooms, and apply regardless of the furniture, equipment or
amenities in any rooms.
C. A large hospitality employer shall not suffer or permit a hospitality employee to work
more than 10 hours in any workday unless the hospitality employee consents. Consents must be
written and signed by the hospitality employee or communicated electronically through an
account or number particular to the hospitality employee. No consent is valid unless the large
hospitality employer has advised the hospitality employee in writing not more than 30 days
preceding the consent that the hospitality employee may decline to work more than 10 hours in
any workday and that the hospitality employer will not subject the hospitality employee to any
adverse action for declining. An assignment in excess of 10 hours in a workday due to an
emergency shall not violate this Section.
5.40.050 — Support for Alternative Transportation
As to each hospitality employee, a large hospitality employer shall take one of the following
actions:
4
(1) Offer to the hospitality employee each month a transit pass for the public transit
system requested by the hospitality employee or credit toward vanpool or ridesharing service
charges at least equal in value to the purchase price of the monthly transit pass, which shall at a
minimum be equal to the cost of a non -discounted adult Los Angeles Metro Pass enabling use at
no additional charge of all Metro services and which may be used by the hospitality employee
for the purpose of commuting to and from work for the large hospitality employer.
(2) Offer the hospitality employee transportation from the hospitality employee's
residence to and from the large hospitality employer's worksite at no cost to the hospitality
employee in a vanpool or bus, or similar multi -passenger vehicle operated by or for the large
hospitality employer.
5.40.060 Preservation of records.
A. Each large hospitality employer shall maintain for at least three (3) years:
(1) for each hospitality employee, a record of his or her name, hours worked, pay rate,
and proof of offer to provide a transit pass, credit toward vanpool or ridesharing service, or direct
transportation consistent with Section 5.40.050; and
(2) a record of the written consents it received from hospitality employees to work more
than ten hours during a shift consistent with Section 5.40.040(C).
B. Each large hospitality employer that owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel shall
additionally maintain for at least three (3) years for each room cleaner a record of his or her
name, pay rates received, and the rooms (or at the large hospitality employer's option, total
amount of square footage) each room cleaner has cleaned on each workday.
C. The large hospitality employer shall make the records specified in Subsections A and B
of this Section available to employees of the large hospitality employer or their representatives
for inspection and copying except the hospitality employees' names (and any addresses and
social security numbers) shall be redacted unless the requester is a hospitality employee
requesting records concerning herself. Failure of the large hospitality employer to provide a copy
of such records will result in a penalty of at least one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day up to one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day, the amount to be set by the court.
5.40.070 - No retaliation.
No person shall discharge, reduce in compensation, increase workload, impose fees or charges,
change duties or otherwise take adverse action against any hospitality employee for opposing
any practice proscribed by this Chapter, for participating in proceedings related to this Chapter,
for seeking to enforce his or her rights under this article by any lawful means, or for otherwise
asserting rights under this Chapter. A person terminating or taking any other adverse action
against any hospitality employee who has engaged in any of the foregoing activities within one
year preceding the termination or other adverse action shall provide to the hospitality employee
at or before the time of the termination or other adverse action a detailed written statement of the
reason or reasons for the termination or other adverse action including all the facts substantiating
the reason or reasons and all facts known to the person that contradict the substantiating facts.
5.40.080 — Waiver.
The provisions of this Chapter may not be waived by agreement between an individual
hospitality employee and a large hospitality employer. All of the provisions of Section 5.40.030
or Section 5.40.040, or any part thereof, may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining
agreement but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and
unambiguous terms. Unilateral implementation of terms and conditions of employment by either
party to a collective bargaining relationship shall not constitute, or be permitted, as a waiver of
all or any part of the provisions of this Chapter.
5.40.090 —Enforcement.
A. A hospitality employee or representative of hospitality employees claiming violation of
this Chapter may bring an action in the Superior Court and shall be entitled to all remedies
available under the law or in equity appropriate to remedy any such violation, including but not
limited to injunctive relief or other equitable relief, including reinstatement, and compensatory
damages and other relief provided in this subsection. In addition to any other remedy to which a
hospitality employee is entitled under this Chapter, a large hospitality employer that violates
Section 5.40.030 shall be liable to each affected hospitality employee for statutory damages in
the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each day on which a violation occurred; and a large
hospitality employer that violates Section 5.40.040 shall be liable to each affected hospitality
employee for statutory damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each day on which a
violation occurred. In the event of a willful violation of Section 5.40.070, the amount of
damages attributable to lost income due to the violation shall be trebled. If a hospitality
employee is the prevailing party in any legal action taken pursuant to this Chapter, the court shall
award reasonable attorney's fees and costs as part of the costs recoverable.
B. Each hospitality employer shall give written notification to each current hospitality
employee, and to each new hospitality employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this
Chapter. The notification shall be in each language spoken by more than ten (10) hospitality
employees.
C. A large hospitality employer that contracts with another person, including, without
limitation, another large hospitality employer, a temporary staffing agency, employee leasing
agency or professional employer organization, to obtain the services of hospitality employees
shall share all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for violations of this Chapter by that
person for hospitality employees performing work pursuant to the contract. For the purposes of
this subsection, the term "person" shall not include: (1) A bona fide nonprofit, community-based
organization that provides services to workers; (2) A bona fide labor organization or
apprenticeship program or hiring hall operated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.
5.40.100 — Severability.
If any provision or application of this Chapter is declared illegal, invalid or inoperative, in whole
or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions thereof
6
shall remain in full force or effect. The courts are hereby authorized to reform the provisions of
this Chapter in order to preserve its maximum permissible effect.
5.40.110 — No Preemption of Higher Standards.
This Chapter does not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior standards or the
expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes. This Chapter shall not be construed to limit a discharged hospitality
employee's right to bring a common law cause of action for wrongful termination.
5.40.120 -- Regulations.
The City shall have authority to adopt rules and regulations consistent with and necessary for the
implementation of this Chapter. Such rules and regulations shall have the force and effect of
law, and may be relied upon by large hospitality employers, hospitality employees and other
parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this Chapter.
Section 2. Conflicting Measures.
Consistent with California Elections Code § 9221, should another ordinance containing
provisions that conflict with this ordinance be adopted by voters at the same election as this
ordinance is adopted, the terms of the ordinance that receives the higher number of affirmative
votes shall control.
Section 3. Effective Date.
The proposed ordinance that is the subject of this initiative, once approved by the voters at
the November 6, 2018 election, or such other election as authorized by law, shall be deemed
adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the City Council, and shall go into effect 10
days after that date.
7
February' l , 2018
Emily Colborn
City Clerk
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Ms. Colborn:
RECEIVED
�ITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE
FEB 2 7 2018
RE: Request for Official Ballot Title and Summary/Statement of Proponent
I, 0 gf-"-�4 �,_ a- I 0 t/ff'am a proponent of the initiative measure that is attached to this
letter. Pursuant to Elections Code section 9203, I request that officials of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, including the City Attorney, proceed with the process of preparing an Official
Ballot Title and Summary with respect to the aforementioned initiative measure.
I designate the attorneys of the Kaufinan Legal Group and the staff of UNITE HERE Local 11 to
be my representatives for all purposes and communications related to this effort.
Correspondences to me with regard to initiative process may be sent to:
George M. Yin
Kaufman Legal Group
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
T:213-452-6565
E-mail: gyin@kaufinanlegalgroup.com
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Per Elections Coded 9608)
I, S14W49 � .DU VCU, acknowledge that it is a misdemeanor understate law (Section
18650 of the Elections Code) to knowingly or willfully allow the signatures on an initiative
petition to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the proposed measure for the
ballot. I certify that I will not knowingly or willfully allow the signatures for this initiative to be
used for any purpose other than qualification of the measure for the ballot.
Name _
Address
City, State, Zip L,g o-2?S
Tel:
E-niau.
Dated this -2 /�" day of February, 2018
February 9-7, 2018
Emily Colborn
City Clerk
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Ms. Colborn:
REGENED
aITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE,
FEB 27 2018
RE: Request for Official Ballot Title and Summary/Statement of Proponent
I, J0,A& 06, &E it ey; am a proponent of the initiative measure that is attached to this
letter. Pursuant to Elections Code section 9203, I request that officials of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, including the City Attorney, proceed with the process of preparing an Official
Ballot Title and Summary with respect to the aforementioned initiative measure.
I designate the attorneys of the Kaufman Legal Group and the staff of UNITE HERE Local 11 to
be my representatives for all purposes and communications related to this effort.
Correspondences to me with regard to initiative process may be sent to:
George M. Yin
Kaufman Legal Group
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
T: 213-452-6565
E-mail: gyin@kaufrnanlegalgroup.com
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Per Elections Code § 9608)
I, '-�A E fe-A G",,,r, acknowledge that it is a misdemeanor under state law (Section
18650 of the Elections Code) to knowingly or willfully allow the signatures on an initiative
petition to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the proposed measure for the
ballot. I certify that I will not knowingly or willfully allow the signatures for this initiative to be
used for any purpose other than qualification of the measure for the ballot.
Name
Address
City, State, Zip g027
Tel:
E-mail:
Dated this 22 day of February, 2018
AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TO ADOPT FOR EMPLOYEES OF LARGE
HOTELS, GOLF COURSES, AND AMUSEMENT PARKS NEW
REGULATIONS, PROTECTIONS, AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING
WAGES, HOURS, WORK, TRANSIT, PANIC BUTTONS, RESPONSES TO
THREATENING CONDUCT, AND RECORDS
SUMMARY
The citizen measure adds Chapter 5.40, Hospitality Working Conditions, to the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code, and applies to "large hospitality employers," being owners or
operators of a hotel (50+ rooms), golf course, or amusement park, with 50+ hospitality employees
("Employers"), as follows. A "hospitality employee" is any individual employed by a large
hospitality employer who works an average of 5 hours per week for 4 or more weeks
("Employee").
WAGES, HOURS, WORK AND TRANSIT. Enacts a wage floor of $15/hour beginning January
1, 2019, increasing by $1 per year until 2022. Thereafter, the annual increase will be the greater of
2% or CPI -W. City to publish an annual schedule of rates which is to be provided to Employees.
Limits Employees' daily work hours absent informed written consent (except in an emergency);
and limits the daily square footage room cleaners may clean, or requires double pay if they clean
more. Employees must be advised that refusing consent will not have adverse employment
consequences. Employers must provide Employees with a non -discounted Los Angeles Metro
pass, or the equivalent credit for vanpool or ridesharing services; or, provide a vanpool to and from
an Employee's residence.
PANIC BUTTONS AND RESPONSES TO THREATENING CONDUCT. Requires
Employers to provide Employees with no -cost panic buttons for emergencies or when facing
threatening behavior. Employees cannot be disciplined for stopping work to leave a dangerous
situation, or for the use of a panic button (absent evidence of intentional false claims). Employees
must be given paid time sufficient to contact the authorities and to seek counseling. Employers
must cooperate with any investigation and a complaining Employee's representative.
RECORDS. Requires maintenance of detailed records for three years demonstrating compliance
with the provisions relating to workload, pay, and transit assistance, as well as written records of
written consents to exceed the daily hour limit. Hotel Employers must also maintain such records
relating to room cleaners. Records must be available to Employees or representatives, and
Employers are subject to specific daily penalties for a failure to comply.
APPLICATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND NOTICES. The measure prohibits retaliation by
Employers; if an Employee is terminated within one year of any action described by the measure,
the Employer must factually substantiate the termination. The measure's provisions can only be
waived expressly in a collective bargaining agreement. Requires Employers to provide notice to
all Employees of these provisions. The City must create a poster articulating Employee rights
under the ordinance to be posted in a prominent location at places of employment. All provisions
apply to the Employers' subcontractors. The measure provides remedies and fines for violations,
and mandatory attorneys' fees for prevailing party Employees. The measure authorizes the City
Council to adopt implementing regulations, and to adopt additional requirements for Employers,
but not to restrict those enacted by the measure.
01203.0002/455132.8
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 10:24 AM
To: CC; CityClerk
Subject: Tract Map 50666 , Proposed Costa De La Islas and PVDS intersection
•
I received this email from Ms. Vanessa Munoz, P. E. who is the City Traffic Engineer. She has been involved regarding this
project for almost a year and worked with Staff and the TSC for the alternatives as related to this project. This will be included
as part of the public record and will be included as late correspondence for this item.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
From: Vanessa Munoz [mailto:vmunoz willdan.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 9:52 AM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon r vca. ov>
Subject: Trump National Golf Club Project - Staff Report - Meeting 07/17/18
Good Morning Elias,
I have reviewed the staff report prepared for the Trump National Golf Club Project for the July 17, 2017 council meeting
concur with the conclusions and overall information provided in the staff report.
If you need to discuss any item in the staff report in more detail please let me know.
Thanks,
Vanessa Nunez, B, T, PTO
Director of Engineering
Wilkin Engineering
Cormrelionsive. Innovative. Trusted,
13191 Crossroads Parkway North Ste 405
4idustry CA 91746 !
C r,,62 :147-6844
F. 562.695-2120
Subject: FW: Street configuration for Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 and our preferred alternative
Attachments: 1) PV Dr So Entry Not Safe jpg; 2) Safe and PREFERRED alternative by all surrounding
residents! jpg; 3) Safe alternative driveway on Trump Nat'l Drive jpg; 4) PV Dr. So turn to Trump
Nat'l Dr jpg
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 12:48 PM
To: 'Mike and Louise' <MandLinRPV@msn.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net>; 'Ali Derek' <aliderek@gmail.com>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; Jabe and
Mona <iabekahnke@cox.net>; Uday Patil <globus@pacbell.net>; Mary Casaburi <micasaburi@gmail.com>;
colleenmatty@cox.net; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; VonHagen, Peter <WA6hxm@gmail.com>; SunshineRPV@aol.com;
Stevens, Ed and Barbara <EZStevens@cox.net>; Elizabeth Sax <saxhousel@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Street configuration for Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 and our preferred alternative
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed intersection on Palos Verdes Drive South associated with the
development of Tract 50666.
Your comments will be included as part of the public record and included as late correspondence for this item.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
AA
From: Mike and Louise [mailto:MandLinRPV@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 11:49 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net>; 'Ali Derek' <aliderek@gmail.com>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; Jabe and
Mona <iabekahnke@cox.net>; Uday Patil <globus@pacbell.net>; Mary Casaburi <micasaburi@gmail.com>;
colleenmatty@cox.net; VonHagen, Peter <WA6hxm@gmail.com>; SunshineRPV@aol.com; Stevens, Ed and Barbara
<EZStevens@cox.net>; Elizabeth Sax <saxhousel@gmail.com>
Subject: Street configuration for Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 and our preferred alternative
Requesting a review and consideration of the surrounding neighbor's PREFERRED (location) ALTERNATIVE
From: Mike and Louise Shipman
3948 Admirable Drive,
s
RPV, CA 90275
To: RPV City Council ccCQrpv.com
RPV Public Works pubiicworks ct r�vca.ctov
Re: Street configuration for the new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South, associated with Vesting
Tract Map No. 50666 for the Trump National Golf Club Project but with surrounding neighbors PREFERRED alternative
Dear City Council members and Public Works Representatives,
Thank you for sending the reminder and for considering this important matter regarding the Trump 'driveway' Tract
#50666.
It is an opinion held by many that establishment of a 'driveway/intersection' on PV Dr. So. onto Costa De La Islas
"is an accident waiting to happen" (there are many informative and well thought out letters outlining this
concern). Not only would it be very sad if something tragic were to happen as a result of our City's final decision in
the golf club's favor (and for their convenience), but it could also result in great amounts of City dollars being spent
in litigation... litigation that would not bode well for our city considering all the valid warnings presented in advance
of any final decision by the City.
We were disappointed that the City Council will discuss on its agenda a (TC's/Public Works) "preferred alternative",
as we were hoping that the Traffic Committee had considered (due to all the citizens' concerns) that the PV Dr.
So. location to be unsafe and unwise. Indeed the TC's "preferred alternative" location was NOT what was preferred
by the surrounding neighbors.
Please consider our 'safer alternative' photos and respectfully deny the applicant's request. It would make so much
more sense for them to start fresh AND to do it in conjunction with the other future housing development on Tract
#50667 ... their entryways/driveways being right next door to each other on Trump Nat'l Drive ... and both
are currently and safely used for events and large equipment!
Thank you for your consideration in this very important matter.
Mike and Louise Shipman
3948 Admirable Dr.
RPV, CA 90275
----------------------------------
[Closing excerpt (below) from L. Bilski to the City/Public Works/Coastal Commission - July 9, 2018 :
"The residents want another alternative entry considered (besides what the Public Works presents) which would be
safe and not require altering the public's Right Of Way which is access from Trump Drive. Yes, a new design would
have to be submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval. The applicant has had plenty of time to redo the
design since the public has been expressing concerns and objections to this design for over ten (10) years.
Please do not give away the public's ROW for a developer's convenience . Please listen to the residents
and Deny the request and vote No on the options proposed by the applicant using our public ROW to try to make
entry from PV Dr. So. "safe".
Please assert your authority as elected officials of the residents of RPV.
Thank you for your service".
Lenee Bilski]
[We're including our earlier letter to the Traffic Safety Committee attached below:]
Re: TSC Item #2 on Aug. 28 agenda
Dear Traffic Committee Members,
Thank you for postponing any decisions Street configuration for the new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes
Drive South, associated with Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 for the Trump National Golf Club Project. That gave us a bit more
time to check out and verify our original supposition that there is indeed a feasible and viable alternative/solution
for the 'Driveway' location to the 12 home development and therefore no need for the T Intersection on P.V. Dr.
So.
Attached is our previous letter to you and three more pictures (including the original) to try to simply illustrate
this. After viewing the site we truly believe that the existing driveway gradient (currently used for Trump Event spill-
over parking) is minimal and to be a safe access to the 12 lots in question. The gradient street/drives to the large
homes directly north and across P.V. Dr. South from this location are much steeper by comparison.
The T Intersection proposed on P.V. Dr. So. would be very problematic and unsafe for all travelers on that very busy
thoroughfare (as we outlined in our first email below) as well as for all Seaview Residents and all Abalone Cove
residents. And of course that location is very problematic considering the location of the established bike paths and
the Coastal Commission approved sensitive access trails making it unsafe for those users!!!
It would seem, in all good conscience, that the avoidance of any possible and likely future accidents or, heaven
forbid, fatalities would be of primary consideration for any approvals and would surely outweigh any perceived
'inconveniences' due to Event parking (or whatever) at that Trump National Drive location.
Furthermore, it was mentioned at the first meeting that there will be another 22 or so home development (in the
near future) that will be accessed by the existing driveway just a few feet south of the Event parking drive we're
referring to as the good alternative. It would make complete sense to develop both at the same time, one would
think.
Thank you again for your consideration in this critical matter,
Mike and Louise
Admirable Dr. RPV
-------------------
-------------------
TSC Item #2 on Aug. 28 agenda to:
Trafficgrpvca.gov cityc1erk@1pvca.gov
August 28, 2017
Dear Traffic Safety Committee Members,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address this critical issue.
As frequent trail users, we can't imagine that there is a safe way to add an intersection directly to and from PV Dr.
So. at that location. The safer alternative would be that the enter/exit point be established on Trump Nat'l Dr. (see
attachment).
The approval referred to by the applicant is over 20 years old! A lot has happened since then:
• Substantial growth in local population and number of residences
• A now vibrant Golden Cove which is a destination in itself
• Terranea, which we all love, now attracts world wide tourism and along with it, drivers who are unfamiliar
with PV Drive South. As you may know there is a natural tendency to increase speed after driving through
the slide area.
• And let's especially not forget the safety aspect of our popular bike paths and trails!!!
We can't pretend that this progress didn't occur....
Sincerely,
Mike and Louise Shipman
3948 Admirable Drive, RPV
.41
PVT W
Palos
popVerde
An" 4qft
-40 ILL
P Np c
T -Intersection
Trump -a
National 1 _�. r `Y y..-•..
3s�- ,ems �C �,K,r• tT
jr.y t V• r 7 �FjT`+�! - "�- jL y ►tea:.
_ OU'
y ' • �+ '+ y - - _ 7r�i� i�� 4. 'moi ' ��� ,...�,
y
A
FAFA',
It
From: Emily Colborn
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 2:46 PM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Street configuration for Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 and our preferred alternative
Late correspondence
15lgi
WWR
Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
R�
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: Edward Stevens [mailto:erstevens@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 1:21 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>; Engineering <Engineering@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon
<esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: 'Erika Barber' <nbarber3 10@cox. net>; 'Ali Derek' <aliderek@gmail.com>; Tenee Bilski' <leneebilski@hotmail.com>;'Jabe
and Mona' <jabekahnke@cox.net>; 'Uday Patil' <globus@pacbell.net>; 'Mary Casaburi' <mjcasaburi@gmail.com>;
colleenmatty@cox.net; 'VonHagen, Peter' <WA6hxm@gmail.com>; Sunshine RPV@aol.com; 'Elizabeth Sax'
<saxhousel@gmail.com>;'Mike and Louise' <MandLinRPV@msn.com>
Subject: RE: Street configuration for Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 and our preferred alternative
Dear City Council members and Public Works Representatives,
I totally agree with Mr. Mike & Mrs. Louise Shipman that this is a very unsafe move if the City goes ahead &
approves this Street configuration in our neighborhood.
Please let's stop this before we have more accidents & possible loss of life.
Sincerely
Edward Stevens
32418 Conqueror Dr.
From: Mike and Louise [mailto:MandLinRPV@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 11:49 AM
To: cc@rpv.com; publicworks@rpvca.gov
Cc: Erika Barber; 'Ali Derek'; Lenee Bilski; Jabe and Mona; Uday Patil; Mary Casaburi; colleenmatty@cox.net; VonHagen, Peter;
SunshineRPV@aol.com; Stevens, Ed and Barbara; Elizabeth Sax
Subject: Street configuration for Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 and our preferred alternative
Requesting a review and consideration of the surrounding neighbor's PREFERRED (location) ALTERNATIVE
From: Mike and Louise Shipman
3948 Admirable Drive,
RPV, CA 90275
To: RPV City Council cc(cDrpv.com
FZPV Public Works pubiicworks(c rvca.gov
1 5
Re: Street configuration for the new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South, associated with Vesting
Tract Map No. 50666 for the Trump National Golf Club Project but with surrounding neighbors PREFERRED alternative
Dear City Council members and Public Works Representatives,
Thank you for sending the reminder and for considering this important matter regarding the Trump 'driveway' Tract
#50666.
It is an opinion held by many that establishment of a 'driveway/intersection' on PV Dr. So. onto Costa De La Islas
"is an accident waiting to happen" (there are many informative and well thought out letters outlining this
concern). Not only would it be very sad if something tragic were to happen as a result of our City's final decision in
the golf club's favor (and for their convenience), but it could also result in great amounts of City dollars being spent
in litigation... litigation that would not bode well for our city considering all the valid warnings presented in advance
of any final decision by the City.
We were disappointed that the City Council will discuss on its agenda a (TC's/Public Works) "preferred alternative",
as we were hoping that the Traffic Committee had considered (due to all the citizens' concerns) that the PV Dr.
So. location to be unsafe and unwise. Indeed the TC's "preferred alternative" location was NOT what was preferred
by the surrounding neighbors.
Please consider our'safer alternative' photos and respectfully deny the applicant's request. It would make so much
more sense for them to start fresh AND to do it in conjunction with the other future housing development on Tract
#50667 ... their entryways/driveways being right next door to each other on Trump Nat'l Drive ... and both
are currently and safely used for events and large equipment!
Thank you for your consideration in this very important matter.
Mike and Louise Shipman
3948 Admirable Dr.
RPV, CA 90275
----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
[Closing excerpt (below) from L. Bilski to the City/Public Works/Coastal Commission - July 9, 2018
"The residents want another alternative entry considered (besides what the Public Works presents) which would be
safe and not require altering the public's Right Of Way which is access from Trump Drive. Yes, a new design would
have to be submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval. The applicant has had plenty of time to redo the
design since the public has been expressing concerns and objections to this design for over ten (10) years.
Please do not give away the public's ROW for a developer's convenience . Please listen to the residents
and Deny the request and vote No on the options proposed by the applicant using our public ROW to try to make
entry from PV Dr. So. "safe".
Please assert your authority as elected officials of the residents of RPV.
Thank you for your service".
Lenee Bilski]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[We're including our earlier letter to the Traffic Safety Committee attached below:]
Re: TSC Item #2 on Aug. 28 agenda
Dear Traffic Committee Members,
Thank you for postponing any decisions Street configuration for the new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes
Drive South, associated with Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 for the Trump National Golf Club Project. That gave us a bit more
time to check out and verify our original supposition that there is indeed a feasible and viable alternative/solution
for the 'Driveway' location to the 12 home development and therefore no need for the T Intersection on P.V. Dr.
So.
Attached is our previous letter to you and three more pictures (including the original) to try to simply illustrate
this. After viewing the site we truly believe that the existing driveway gradient (currently used for Trump Event spill-
over parking) is minimal and to be a safe access to the 12 lots in question. The gradient street/drives to the large
homes directly north and across P.V. Dr. South from this location are much steeper by comparison.
The T Intersection proposed on P.V. Dr. So. would be very problematic and unsafe for all travelers on that very busy
thoroughfare (as we outlined in our first email below) as well as for all Seaview Residents and all Abalone Cove
residents. And of course that location is very problematic considering the location of the established bike paths and
the Coastal Commission aooroved sensitive access trails making it unsafe for those users!!!
It would seem, in all good conscience, that the avoidance of any possible and likely future accidents or, heaven
forbid, fatalities would be of primary consideration for any approvals and would surely outweigh any perceived
'inconveniences' due to Event parking (or whatever) at that Trump National Drive location.
Furthermore, it was mentioned at the first meeting that there will be another 22 or so home development (in the
near future) that will be accessed by the existing driveway just a few feet south of the Event parking drive we're
referring to as the good alternative. It would make complete sense to develop both at the same time, one would
think.
Thank you again for your consideration in this critical matter,
Mike and Louise
Admirable Dr. RPV
-------------------
-------------------
TSC Item #2 on Aug. 28 agenda to:
Trafficna,rpvca.gov cityclerk@rpvca.gov
August 28, 2017
Dear Traffic Safety Committee Members,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address this critical issue.
As frequent trail users, we can't imagine that there is a safe way to add an intersection directly to and from PV Dr.
So. at that location. The safer alternative would be that the enter/exit point be established on Trump Nat'l Dr. (see
attachment).
The approval referred to by the applicant is over 20 years old! A lot has happened since then:
• Substantial growth in local population and number of residences
• A now vibrant Golden Cove which is a destination in itself
Terranea, which we all love, now attracts world wide tourism and along with it, drivers who are unfamiliar
with PV Drive South. As you may know there is a natural tendency to increase speed after driving through
the slide area.
And let's especially not forget the safety aspect of our popular bike paths and trails!!!
We can't pretend that this progress didn't occur
Sincerely,
Mike and Louise Shipman
3948 Admirable Drive, RPV
4
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 12:50 PM
To: 'D DeBorba' <deborba7 gmzdl.com>
Cc: CC <CC a rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@.rpvca.p�y>
Subject: RE: DeBorba Residence Against Proposed Trump Driveway
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed intersection on Palos Verdes Drive South associated with the
development of Tract 50666.
Your comments will be included as part of the public record and included as late correspondence for this item.
Regards,
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
6"
AA
From: D DeBorba [maiita:deborba7 ;mailxomj
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 4:50 PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon rpvca.gov>
Subject: DeBorba Residence Against Proposed Trump Driveway
We would like to again state our opposition to the proposed Trump Driveway which, if constructed, would be
DIRECTLY ACROSS our residence at 4047 Palos Verdes Drive South. With remarkably increased traffic along PV
drive, this proposal would only add to the existing traffic congestion. Also, I would like to request a Headlight
Analysis as the increased traffic, particularly from this driveway, would be a constant distraction into our living room.
We have been here since 1984 and frankly cannot imagine this driveway be anywhere safe much less functional. In all
fairness, for the good of our neighborhood, this idea should be terminated.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Daniel DeBorba
4047 Palos Verdes Dr South
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275
310-544-0392
From: Emily Colborn
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 10:24 AM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: Fwd: Trump Track 50666
Late Correspondence
Emily Colborn
Sent from my Whone
Begin forwarded message:
From: James Zupke Insurance <jrzupkeinsasbcglobal.net>
Date: July 13, 2018 at 5:16:44 PM PDT
To:
<DWillmore(c�r�,rpvcaca.gov>, <publicworksgrpvca.gov>, <CCgrpvca.gov>, <sok(&rpvca.gov>, <e
sassoonkrpvca. -ov>, <nbarber310ncox.net>
Subject: Trump Track 50666
Reply -To: James Zupke Insurance <jrzupkeinsgsbcalobal.net>
As a 41+ years resident in the Sea View Track on Palos Verdes Drive South, I am strongly opposed to
having this proposed street intersect (entrance/exit) with Palos Verdes Drive South.
I have 47+ years experience working in the insurance industry, some of which involved 'Risk
Management" and over 31 years working with law enforcement, some of which deals with Traffic
Control. As a result, I can see and verify potentially very serious safety problems with this plan. The
proposed intersection would set between two blind curves on PVDS, which are very dark at night. The
vehicle traffic speed there is consistently 50-70 MPH, and drivers will not be aware or able to see
vehicles entering or exiting from this intersection.
I remind the City of Rancho Palos Verdes of the past and current liability claims and very high law suit
settlements, against a number of California cities,.as a result of such municipalities approval and
development of hazardous highways -streets -roadways that resulted in serious traffic accidents.
California is the most litigious state in the USA with over 160,000 licensed attorneys. They are always
looking for the Deep Pockets and certainly the city of RPV is one of them. Just watch their ads on TV.
The logical placement of this street intersection would be on Trump Drive, similar to those on La
Rotundra and Terannia. Neither of those tracks have intersection with PVDS. It is clear that the
developer does wish to spend the extra cost to change the configuration of their plan. Thus, the fine
City of Rancho Palos Verdes must make the decision to either deny
this proposal for the safety of its citizens or approve the plane so that the developer can save a few
bucks. Whats it going to be?
Jim Zupke
4315 Exultant Drive, RPV, CA 90275
310-377-2621
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 9:50 AM
To: 'Donald Bell' <dwbMv @ ail.com>; CC <CC rdavca.go_v>; Traffic <iraffic c r vca.gov_>
Subject: RE: July 17, 2018 Meeting Regular Business Item 5
Im
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed intersection on Palos Verdes Drive South associated with the
development of Tract 50666.
Your comments will be included as part of the public record and included as late correspondence for this item.
Regards,
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
From: Donald Bell [mailto:dwbrpv@F,,mail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 9:48 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca. ov>; Traffic <Traffic a@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Donald Bell <dwbrpv cYgmail.com>
Subject: July 17, 2018 Meeting Regular Business Item 5
Dear Members of City Council, Traffic Committee, and Staff,
With respect to Item 5 on the City Council Agenda Regular Business for July 17, 2018, I strongly recommend that any decision be
postponed.
No decision can be made regarding this single proposed intersection onto Palos Verdes Drive South until an extensive and
comprehensive traffic study is made of Palos Verdes Drive South from the border with San Pedro to the East to the beginning of the
landslide to the West.
When the tract map was created in 1993, the traffic on Palos Verdes Drive South was vastly different than we now
experience. Through traffic has increased, several key intersections have been developed causing more dangerous cross traffic, and
PVDS itself has had a number of intersection reconfigurations constructed as well as extensive median and adjacent infrastructure
additions. Palos Verdes Drive South is no longer the road it was when the tract map showing a simple intersection was designed and
approved.
Just attempting to pick the "least " dangerous single intersection design on July 17, 2018 can severely impact the other problem
intersections along this stretch of PVDS. I encourage every Council, Staff and Committee member to come to this stretch of road
between 7:30 AM and 8:00 AM any weekday morning once school is in session and make both right and left turns at each and every
i
intersection. By my count, there are already seven locations (excluding Sunset Point Park) where residents are facing a game of
chicken to reach their destination. You should experience for yourself what is happening. You may join us in blessing the light at
Anchovy and 25th in San Pedro for allowing you to make the turns in the morning. During afternoons, the returning traffic at times is
often even tougher to enter for there is no element to create a traffic break.
I believe the overriding objective of all parties should be to now create a safe traffic pattern along the entire stretch of roadway. There
should not be a decision on the proposed intersection solely based on facilitating a plan that only increases the traffic load.
This area of Rancho Palos Verdes is remote and isolated from every basic necessity of life including schools, work, shopping, and
safety providers. Many commuters are now passing through this area as we residents are trying to live our lives. We wish for
decisions based on broad vision to enhance our safety.
I am not a traffic expert. I, like our residents, want only safe ability to drive to and from our homes. What we need are not traffic
speed changes or calming revisions but simply gaps in the traffic flow that will allow us to safely enter the pattern. We plead that a
practical solution be determined rather than vote on a sterile set of options based on engineering tables and concepts. If that means
concentrating traffic at fewer intersections, frontage roads, coordinated traffic signals or other controls those costs are less impactful
than our injury or death.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald Bell
3571 Vigilance Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:48 AM
To: 'Elizabeth Sax'; CC; PublicWorks
Cc: Erika Barber; Ali Derek; Lenee Bilski; Jabe and Mona; Uday Patil; Mary Casaburi;
colleenmatty@cox.net; VonHagen, Peter; SunshineRPV@aol.com; Stevens, Ed and Barbara
Subject: RE: Street configuration for Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 and our preferred alternative
Hi:
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed intersection on Palos Verdes Drive South associated with the
development of Tract 50666.
Your comments will be included as part of the public record and included as late correspondence for this item.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
From: Elizabeth Sax [mailto:saxhousel@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 9:51 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net>; Ali Derek <aliderek@gmail.com>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; Jabe and
Mona <jabekahnke@cox.net>; Uday Patil <globus@pacbell.net>; Mary Casaburi <mjcasaburi@gmail.com>;
colleenmatty@cox.net; VonHagen, Peter <WA6hxm@gmail.com>; SunshineRPV@aol.com; Stevens, Ed and Barbara
<EZStevens@cox.net>; Elizabeth Sax <saxhousel@gmail.com>
Subject: Street configuration for Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 and our preferred alternative
From: Elizabeth Sax
4022 Admirable Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes
To: RPV City Council
RPV Public Works
5.
RE: Street Configuration for the new intersection at Costa De La Islas and
Palos Verdes Drive South.
First and foremost, I agree totally with Mike and Louise Shipman and Ms.
Bilski.
Having grown up here in Palos Verdes and being a long time resident, it is
very apparent how the traffic and development has transformed Rancho Palos
Verdes from a quiet city into a busy hub for visitors that enjoy golf, resort
living, hiking and cycling. I am all for sharing the beauty of Palos Verdes,
but for the local residents, pedestrians, hikers, and cyclists, I make a plea to
move the street to a safer place along the entrance to Trump National Golf
Course.
There are plenty of summer days and nights when the traffic is heavy and
eager beach goers are speeding in the warmth of the summer sun, with music
blasting making concentration challenging enough. Add the certain times of
the year when the sun is rising and setting at just the right angle, blinding
drivers and making turns into Costa De Las Islas dangerous and the makings
of a tragedy if you have people turning and slowing off that main busy street.
PV South can be a very dangerous stretch of pavement. When the cars aren't
slowing due to heavy traffic and the street is near empty, one would think it is
completely safe, but there are times it is anything but. I have heard many a
daredevil speeding at dangerous speeds from my bedroom windows that open
to PV South. Then add the fog in the winter months and slowing on this busy
stretch which has become a main thoroughfare on days you can't see in front
of your car 10 feet, and you have a 10 care pile up in the making with
potential injuries and fatalities.
There is so much more activity on this stretch of street now than when the
tract map was originally approved. For the safety of all involved, pedestrians,
cyclists, hikers, dog walkers, motorists and truckers I strongly hope you will
reconsider the risk you take should you move forward with an affirmative
decision to allow the applicant to build as originally approved on tract 50666.
2
Please consider the viable alternative that is off of Trump National Drive,
where the entrance is not only safer but what would be nicer for the homes in
the Trump community.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Sax
3
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:49 AM
To: 'Gerard Taccini'; John Cruikshank; Ken Dyda; Eric Alegria; Susan Brooks; CC
Cc: Traffic; 'nicole@rpvca.gov; So Kim; Ron Dragoo; aram@rpv.gov; Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov
Subject: RE: Trump Tract #50666 -proposed new entrance road to 12 homes and trailhead
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed intersection on Palos Verdes Drive South associated with the
development of Tract 50666.
Your comments will be included as part of the public record and included as late correspondence for this item.
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292.
From: Gerard Taccini [mailto:gtaccini@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 8:50 PM
To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>;
Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Traffic <Traffic@rpvca.gov>; 'nicole@rpvca.gov; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon
<esassoon@rpvca.gov>; aram@rpv.gov; Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov
Subject: Trump Tract #50666 -proposed new entrance road to 12 homes and trailhead
Dear council members;
As residence of Seaview for over 20 years we find it unacceptable and unsafe to install an entrance off PV Dr South for 12
homes at the Trump driving range. The obvious and consistently overlooked and overridden solution in all discussions I have
witnessed is to have the entrance to this proposed housing track to be off Trump Drive. As an avid bike rider I am frequently
required to dodge inattentive cars, as I did today, when the misjudge oncoming bicycles. This proposed entrance will provide
another opportunity for an accident.
Please reconsider your motives and make the right decision for all the neighbors and hundreds of bike riders, not just 12
homes.
Sincerely,
1 �
Gerard Taccini and Deborah Huff
4245 Palos Verdes Dr. South
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:51 AM
To: CC; 'j.bacon@cox.net'
Cc: Kit Fox
Subject: RE: opposition of Intersection to impact PV South
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed intersection on Palos Verdes Drive South associated with the
development of Tract 50666.
Your comments will be included as part of the public record and included as late correspondence for this item.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
From: The Bacon family <i.bacon @cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 2:20:36 PM
To: CC; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Ken Dyda
Subject: opposition of Intersection to impact PV South
Dear RPV City Govt.
My name is John Bacon. I am a (most) life long resident of RPV. I have been here since 1962 and love this city as long as it's
been contained to being a semi -rural residential area just out of the busy and overpopulated Los Angeles. Unfortunately,
populations have grown and we've seen a huge influx of new residents and visitors to this city. The space and roadways have
recently been overcrowded by the traffic of Terranea and nearby residential area near Golden Cove. Not only this, but the
Land "conservancy" has also created our open space into a tourist trap which has created even more traffic to Del Cerro Park
and all along PV South... RPV spent millions of dollars to remove lanes on PV South to accommodate the bicyclist which have
also overcrowded our roads on weekends. We need to stop making mistakes...
The proposed intersection to 50666 is a big mistake!
With the influx, our previously uncrowded roadways (PV S,N,&E,) have become so crowded that we have had multiple issues
with traffic and excessive speeding. For example, crossing the road from North to South has become a risky process. Whether
from the Golden Cove Plaza, to Portuguese Bend, then from Seaview Neighborhood it's like Russian Roulette taking a left
turn. Even when there is a merging lane, the overcrowded roads are unsafe! Not only the overcrowding of our city, but
people drive excessively fast along our main drives which adds to the safety factor. Frankly I'm amazed that there are not daily
road fatality scores posted on our sheriff station report!
Again, I oppose the new "intersection" between Concourer Road and Schooner Road into the tract 50666. First of all, it's not
logical. Maybe when this was first discussed 20 years (or so,) ago, it may have been, But when you have an established road
that goes into the area (Ocean trails, AKA Trump National Drive...) WHY? Why would you add another intersection on a (actual)
thoroughfare when it is as easy and even more prudent to send a (road like what they did from the Rotunda Drive entrance)
from that already established street to the new neighborhood? It really doesn't make practical sense to do this. Also, the tie
up PVDS to established residents with construction for months doesn't make any sense either. Why cause all this animosity
among residents that are impacted so they can build 12 houses??? Really??? Lets consider more productive ideas that will
impact our city in a positive way...
Because of all the "influx" it almost makes sense to add stop signs or traffic lights. I don't what this, nobody wants it! But we
are getting to that point. When we —do— (and we will) start having daily fatalities of collisions of cars with cars, pedestrians,
and bicyclists, we will. I am not sure if this has been considered in our city, but various communities have adopted the use of
traffic circles to lower speeds and ease congestion of intersections. The intersection of Schooner and PVS has always been a
problem with high speed traffic and issues with ability to make a left turn in that intersection. I see the same problem at
Forrestal and PVS. I don't see a need to add street lights or stop signs if the city were to consider that type of approach...
Thank you for your consideration in cancelling this project. Make use of the taxpayers dollars to make our streets more
safe. Please cancel any consideration of the proposed intersection. Have private enterprise build their new street to
accommodate the 12 houses!
John Bacon
424-488-4050
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
2
From: ANTHONY KORDICH [mailto:anthony.kordich@mac.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 12:19 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda
<Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Street configuration for Vesting Tract Map No. 50666
Dear RPV City Council,
My wife and I oppose the establishment of a 'driveway/intersection' on PV Drive South onto Costa De La Islas.
As residents of Seaview my wife and I feel placing a new intersection directly on PV Drive South would be
extremely dangerous given the existing traffic flow. Additionally the intersection would present additional dangers of
another intersection with turning/passing traffic related to cyclists and runners who frequent the area.
We do support the proposal voiced by numerous Seaview residents using the existing Trump National entrance and urge
the council to oppose a driveway on PV Drive South.
Respectfully,
Anthony and Karen Kordich
5
410
Mp
k -
.. - m" � - - _ ` .- - y tip. �, . V � _� _, --�---•-� .
� y
� � l
» lAil
40
r a /
From:
James Guerin
Sent:
Friday, July 13, 2018 11:17 AM
To:
Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Eric Alegria; John Cruikshank; Ken Dyda
Cc:
Elias Sassoon; Doug Willmore
Subject:
PVDS and Costa de la Islas
Dear Mayor Brooks, City Council Members, City Manager and Director of Public Works,
Unfortunately I will be unable to attend the July 17th City Council meeting. Following are the recommendations of
the RPV Traffic Safety Committee regarding Costa de la Islas and PVDS.
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) has done its due diligence concerning the new intersection at PVDS and Costa de
la Islas (CDLI). i.e.. Tract Number 50666.
The TSC hosted three meetings concerning the above issue. We listened to many residents, Public Works staff,
Trump Engineering Consultants and 100 plus emails. I personally spent many hours monitoring the traffic
movements on PVDS. I took numerous photographs and also walked the entire length of CDLI. After studying the
initial new street my concern was with the ability of emergency vehicle and large truck access. Specifically the
turning radius of these large vehicles being able to successfully make right or left turns into CDLI in one movement.
The Trump Engineers redesigned the street to make this possible.
In reviewing the Traffic Study the estimate for vehicular movements to enter or exit PVDS and CDLI is approximately
114 traffic movements per 24 hours. The decision of the TSC in choosing Design #1 was to eliminate large vehicles
from making U or Y Turns at Conquerer and Schooner. Plus the possibility of a large truck making a U -Turn could
jack-knife causing the complete shut down of PVDS.
The TSC, after much consideration, agreed that access to and from PVDS to CDLI via the center median is necessary
for vehicular traffic. Specifically for both ingress and egress in both directions to be executed safely. We all know
that time is of the essence for an emergency responder being Fire, Medical and/or Sheriff.
Respectfully yours,
James Guerin
Traffic Safety Committee Chairman
5
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 12:45 PM
To: 'SUNSHINE'; PublicWorks; So Kim
Cc: CC; Doug Willmore; Cory Linder; Irving Anaya; Trails
Subject: RE: Proposed intersection at PV Drive South to Tract No. 50666
Hi:
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed intersection on Palos Verdes Drive South associated with the
development of Tract 50666.
Your comments will be included as part of the public record and included as correspondence for this item.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 10:54 AM
To: PublicWorks ; Elias Sassoon; So Kim
Cc: CC; Doug Willmore ; Cory Linder; Irving Anaya ; Trails
Subject: Proposed intersection at PV Drive South to Tract No. 50666
Hello So and Elias,
I am opposed to the addition of another intersection on the arterial highway, PV Drive South. You have
received a lot of intelligent Public Comments during the past several months. The proposed "driveway"
should be declared "unsafe" based on traffic safety principles. The details of the proposed changes to the
public ROW make it even more onerous to the community in general.
5
Will this whole project ever come before the City Council? Based on the Council's decision about the
"driveway", there are still a lot of details which need to be addressed. The "conceptual" level of these
entitlement requests are not specific enough to move on to construction permits. Drainage, the Trails
Network Plan update, the California Coastal Trail amenities, signage and habitat restrictions have not yet
been satisfactorily coordinated. I see a lot of interdepartmental discussion on what is the ideal situation,
before, the Developer gets another chance to weigh in.
I look forward to seeing an Agenda Report which recommends diverting the access to these 12 houses
onto Trump National Drive. Then, we can get back to negotiating a beautiful and balanced addition to our
Coastal Zone.
SUNSHINE. 310-377-8761
On the July 17, 2018 City Council Meeting at Hesse Park (7:OOPM), the City Council will be briefed regarding street
configuration for the new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South, associated with Vesting Tract Map
No. 50666 for the Trump National Golf Club Project, and will consider possible action to identify the preferred alternative. You
can email your concerns to Public Works at publicworks(o-),rpvca.gov
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 12:21 PM
To: 'Qday Patil' <Rlobus@pacbell.net>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.goy>
Cc: Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net>; Ali Derek <aliderek@gmail.com>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; Jabe and
Mona <iabel<ahnke@cox.net>; colleenmatty@cox.net; VonHagen, Peter <WA6hxm@gmail.COm>; SunshineRPV@aol.com;
Jeffrey Dorsett <iedorsett@gmail.com>; Mike and Louise <mandlinrpv@msn.com>; Doug.Willmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Proposed new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South
Good Afternoon Mr. Patil:
Thanks for your email. My responses are reflected below next to each question. Please let me know if you have
any further question;
• The original design combined the proposed intersection project with the then -proposed bike lane
project, which got cancelled. I understand the developer revised the design drawings for this change. Why
does the staff report include only the old drawings and not the revised drawings?
Response: The Staff Report does NOT include the old drawings.
• 1 believe the staff report is currently incomplete because it refers to five alternates and does not
provide corresponding drawings showing the concepts. How are the residents to do their due -diligence?
Response: A concept drawing is shown for each alternative.
• When we called you about this, you said you were just planning to present those at the hearing. Why
only at the hearing, at the last minute?
Response: I did not speak with you. I talked to Ms. Bilski and I have forwarded her a copy of the design
drawings. On the next question you have acknowledged the receipt of these detailed engineering
drawings. These drawings are also are on our website.
• You then agreed to send us "scanned" copies of the drawings, and we received those on Friday, July
14. These scanned drawings are made from a paper copy, and are illegible. The scanned copies you sent
are attached to this email. We would appreciate the original digital copies that are legible.
Response: We will be more than happy to provide you copies of the drawings and go over them with you.
Please let me know when you would like to come by.
• You also sent drawings for only three of the five alternatives considered. Are there drawings for all five
alternates?
Response: No, the detailed engineering drawings are NOT prepared for all 5 alternatives.
• Did the developer submit any new report or documentation related to these drawings? If so, we would
appreciate getting a copy of that report as well.
Response: The detailed engineering drawings which I forwarded to Ms. Bilski (and she subsequently
forwarded them to you) are the drawings which we have received from the Applicant. No new
report/document has been submitted by the Applicant.
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: Uday Patil [mailto:globus@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 11:22 AM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net>; Ali Derek <aliderek@gmail.com>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; Jabe and
Mona <iabekahnke@cox.net>; colleenmatty@cox.net; VonHagen, Peter <WA6hxm@gmail.COm>; SunshineRPV@aol.com;
Jeffrey Dorsett <iedorsett@gmail.COm>; Mike and Louise <mandlinrpv@msn.com>; Doug.Willmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: Re: Proposed new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South
Dear Mr. Sassoon:
I reviewed the staff report for the above referenced Agenda Item 5 for the upcoming City Council meeting
and further correspondence from you with residents of the Seaview community where I live. I have the
following questions in this regard:
• The original design combined the proposed intersection project with the then -proposed bike lane
project, which got cancelled. I understand the developer revised the design drawings for this change.
Why does the staff report include only the old drawings and not the revised drawings?
• I believe the staff report is currently incomplete because it refers to five alternates and does not
provide corresponding drawings showing the concepts. How are the residents to do their due -diligence?
• When we called you about this, you said you were just planning to present those at the hearing.
Why only at the hearing, at the last minute?
• You then agreed to send us "scanned" copies of the drawings, and we received those on Friday,
July 14. These scanned drawings are made from a paper copy, and are illegible. The scanned copies
you sent are attached to this email. We would appreciate the original digital copies that are legible.
• You also sent drawings for only three of the five alternatives considered. Are there drawings for all
five alternates?
• Did the developer submit any new report or documentation related to these drawings? If so, we
would appreciate getting a copy of that report as well.
I believe due to the lack of adequate documentation with the staff report, the hearing on this topic should
be continued.
Sincerely,
Uday Patil
......... ......... ........ .........__ .
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon(d-)rpvca.gov>
To: 'Uday Patil' <globus(a)pacbell.net>; CC <CC(a rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks(c)_rpvca.gov>
Cc: Erika Barber <nbarber310(a-)_cox.net>; Ali Derek <aliderek(,) mail.com>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilskiQhotmail.com>; Jabe and
Mona <iabekahnke @(,.cox.net>; Mary Casaburi <mjcasaburi(@,gmail.com>; "colleen mattyCdcox.net" <colleenmatty(@_cox.net>;
"VonHagen, Peter" <WA6hxm(@,gmail.com>; "SunshineRPV(D_aol.com" <SunshineRPV(c aol.com>; "Stevens, Ed and Barbara"
<EZStevens(a).cox.net>; Jeffrey Dorsett <iedorsett(a�gmail.com>; Mike and Louise <mandlinrpv(a),msn.com>; Elizabeth Sax
<saxhouse1(a gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 10:14 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South
Hi
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed intersection on Palos Verdes Drive South associated with the development
of Tract 50666.
Your comments will be included as part of the public record and included as late correspondence for this item.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
(_ ty o1`._Ra,ncli o_Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
From: Uday Patil [mai Ito: globus cr,pacbel1.netl
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 10:04 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@a rpvca.gov>
Cc: Erika Barber <nbarber3 I O@cox.net>; Ali Derek <aliderek@gmail.com>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski c@hotmail.com>; Jabe
and Mona <jabekahnke cr,cox.net>; Mary Casaburi <imicasaburi @gmail.com>; colleenmatt,} @cox.net; VonHagen, Peter
<WA6hxm cr,gmail.com>; SunshineRPV@aol.com; Stevens, Ed and Barbara <EZStevens a,cox.net>; Jeffrey Dorsett
<jedorsett@gmail.com>, Mike and Louise <mandlinrpv@a msn.com>; Elizabeth Sax <saxhousel@gmail.com>
Subject: Proposed new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South
From: Uday Patil — 4011 PVDS, RPV
To: RPV City Council
RPV Public Works
Subject: Proposed new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South. Agenda Item 5; Meeting on
July 17, 2018
Dear Mayor Brooks and City Council Members:
The very idea of this intersection has caused a lot of turmoil in our neighborhood. Talk to anyone at Seaview and they
will tell you the existing intersection at Schooner is unsafe. It's on a curve without the turn or merge lanes and
you have to depend on a little luck to make it through. This is why most of us avoid using that intersection as
much as possible, which adds to the traffic at Conqueror. This shows up in the accident statistics at these
intersections.
None of us are traffic engineers but we live here and drive here everyday. And you don't have to be a doctor to know
if something is wrong with your body. Please take a test drive yourself and make your own assessment. Go south on
Schooner and try and make a left or right turn on PVDS.
Adding one more intersection 500 feet away will not help this situation. It will only make it worse and it will
make the accident statistics worse. You don't just add a new intersection to make it convenient for every 10 people,
especially next to a hazardous intersection. This is why we have service roads and feeder roads.
The developer and the City staff have concluded that this new intersection is safe. But that is without considering the
new intersection's impact on the existing intersection at Schooner. Their assessment looks only at the new
intersection and not what lies beyond.
The vested tentative map shows a T -intersection at this location based on a 1997 traffic report. That 1997 report is
reportedly "lost" and not available from the developer, the City, and the original consultant that prepared it. While the
developer's consultant has prepared an "updated" traffic impact report, the new report does not even refer to the 1997
report. And without the original report, we cannot check the basis of approval of the T -intersection, and the
validity of the traffic data and projections used that led to the approval. I believe the onus of finding the report is
on the developer and the City for the staff's assessment to be complete. This is a big reason to continue this hearing
and ask the developer and the City staff to get the report and present all the facts.
As so many residents have pointed out, there is a perfectly safe and obvious alternative readily available: it is the
existing access road from Trump National Drive to the new proposed homes. You can drive any normal car along
this road today even though the road is not paved.
The developer has previously discarded this alternative without any further study saying it is not feasible, and the staff
report has also joined that opinion. As a practicing civil engineer, I believe the developer's reasons for discarding
this alternative are baseless. The developer claims that they will lose a lot if they use this existing road, but the
road goes around the two lots there. And I am sure there are even better options with relatively minor adjustments.
We should ask the developer to prepare a report with a detailed evaluation of this alternate.
Even if the T -intersection allowed in the 1997 map is considered legitimate based on a review of the currently "lost"
report, that map does not allow breaching into the median as proposed in various alternatives considered and
preferred by staff. Per the 1997 map, the developer is only entitled to Alternative lI; he has no right to breach into
the median and take out the median for several hundred feet. Their rights end at their property line.
The staff report cites increased U-turns at Schooner and Conqueror as a primary disadvantage if the T -intersection is
built per Alternative 11. There is an easy solution to that problem: provide merge lanes and/or turn lanes at
Schooner and it helps everyone in the neighborhood, AND facilitates the U-turns for the new households as
well. Larger vehicles can use the Seaview service road to make the turn easier, as they do even today. Please note that
the existing intersections currently serve almost 400 households, and not just 12 households as for the new proposed
intersection. The people living here currently have been dealing with the hazards associated with the lack of merge
lanes and turn lanes at Schooner, which is what Alternative I is trying to provide for just 12 new households by
breaching into the median. It does not make sense to use the public land to give a Cadillac solution to
the 12 new households, and let the other 400 households suffer the inadequacies of the adjacent
intersections.
So let's make this a win-win solution for everyone in the neighborhood: Provide Alternative II with
improvements at the Schooner intersection (and Conqueror, if needed) with new merge lanes and/or
turn lanes.
I therefore urge you to continue this hearing and have the developer address these and other issues and come up with
a solution that improves the traffic situation for everyone in the neighborhood.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Uday Patil
4011 P.V. Drive South
RPV, CA 90275