20200707 Late CorrespondenceFrom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr for web
From: Elias Sassoon
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 7, 2020 8:16 PM
Nathan Zweiz ig; Enyssa Momoli
Fw : A step in a direction . Re: July 7, 2020 Agenda Item J (Consent Agenda), Traffic
sig nal at PV Drive East and PV Dr ive South
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 5 :34 :36 PM
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: Cit y Cierk; CityMan ager; CC
Subject: RE: A step in a direction. Re: July 7, 2020 Agenda Item J (Consent Agenda), Traffic sign al at PV Drive East and PV
Drive South
Hello again Sunshine:
Thanks for your kind words. Your email will be included in the late correspondence regarding item 3.
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
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, 'llisitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working
on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in
advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are
limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 4:21PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca .gov>
Cc: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov >; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca .gov>; CC <CC@rpvca :gov>
Subject: A step in a direction . Re: July 7, 2020 Agenda Item J (Consent Agenda), Traffic signa l at PV Drive East and PV
Drive South
Hello Elias,
Please accept my most profound apologies. The tentative Agenda title I sa w included both
intersections . I saw Agenda Item I and fired off my questions to Charles.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for hearing me . So, what can you suggest as a way to get the
Community Development Department and the Rec.& Parks Department to avail themselves of the
engineering talent in the Public Works Department? You don't design point-to-point trails nor
maintain existing trails on Preserve/parkland without some Work Order. Would some direction from
City Council put you in charge of implementing the current Trails Network Plan more clearly than what
is in the General Plan and the existing TNP?
Between 1990 and 2000, almost all of the existing trails were left unobstructed and many were
"enhanced". It is the level of maintenance which has gone missing. How can we get it back?
Council keeps asking and is not getting any straight answers beyond little ones like ... Yes, there will
be equestrian level buttons in this case. What about restoring the trail connection across San Ramon
Canyon to Friendship Park and the City of Los Angeles? ... S
PS: Thank you for the trail in the PV Drive West Center Median that connects with the trail in PV
Estates .
In a message dated 7/7/2 020 11 :5 8:54 AM Pacific Standard Time , esassoon@rpvca.gov writes:
Good morning Sunshine :
Thanks for reaching out to us. Your email will be included in the late correspondence regarding this
agenda item .
Please note that as it is mentioned in the Staff Report regarding this item (Consent agenda, item J),
the equestrian -accessible push buttons will be installed with this traffic signal light to accommodate
horse riders at this intersection.
2
Please let me kno w if you have any questions.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Publ ic Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Pa los Verdes , CA 90275
Te l: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544 -5292
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of
COVID -19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing
guidelines . Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need
to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person
at a time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed . For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website .
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 1:16 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov >; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: July 7, 2020 Agenda Item? Fwd: Traffic signal at PV Drive East and PV Drive South
Hello Teri,
3
Please submit this as late correspondence . But, for which Agenda Item? Tentative future
Agenda Items come up in a lot of places and what will be included under the Item Title is not
clear until the Agenda Report is published. What I am looking for is a direction from the
Council for Staff to Agendize a discussion and decision about to what extent Staff
should allocate their time and attention to the Goal of preserving and enhancing the
two "regional" trail connections which "conceptually" traverse the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
These would be the California Coastal Trail and the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. Each have
established "criteria" primarily about the continuity of the route and the signage . Although this
is mentioned in the Trails Network Plan, Staff does not appear to be aware of it. Altogether
too frequently, by the time I find out about a "project" which presents an opportunity , the
"schematics" are done and revising the design is "not in the budget".
The signalization of the intersection at PV Drive South and PV Drive East somehow jumped
from something the City was looking into all the way to completed construction drawings. This
City has no Commission which reviews the Scope of Work on a Staff or PVPLC initiated
"project" from a "find the unforeseen consequences" and "be sure to consider the extra
benefits" point of view .
Staff has been pursuing a d irection which eliminates farming, animal husbandry and oft-road
circulation. I would not have a problem with that if this was something we voters had
chosen by voting for City Council Candidates with that as a clearly stated objective. I would
not have a problem with that if Staff presented our Council , Planning Commissioners and
Citizen Advisory Committee Members with choices between the consequences and the
benefits.
So Teri , how do I go about getting the discussion about whether or not equestrian level
crossing demand buttons will ever be "appropriate" at PV Drive South and PV Drive East or
PV Drive South/West and Terranea Way onto the City Council's Agenda in a t imely
fashion?
I have the new "participation instructions" but I don't know how to make them effective Please
email me the zoom password so that I can w atch on my PC should I chose to .
Thank you for being there .... S 310-377-8761
4
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: charlese@rpvca.gov
Sent: 7/5/2020 12:07:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Traffic signal at PV Drive East and PV Drive South
Hello Charles,
I saw mention of this potential work on the Council's Tentative Agenda for July 7,
2020. Because that is discussed during Study Sessions, I brought up a potential
omission in the parts list. Now, I see that only the intersection of Vallon and
Hawthorne is on the Agenda.
What sort of time have we before you put together the parts list for the PVDE/PVDS
intersection signal?
According to the updated Circulation Element of the RPV General Plan, the City
should provide equestrian level crossing demand buttons. This may be an opportunity
to retrofit them at the Terranea Way I PV Drive West intersection which Ara has
described as an ... Oops, we forgot.
Given the delay in the Trails Network Plan update process and the general Staff level
attitude about not implementing the Trails Network Plan, I am hoping that this question
will inspire a Council level discussion that leads to a conscientious decision about
whether or not this City intends to pursue our part of the California Legislature's "ideal"
California Coastal Trail.
It is this sort of thoughtfulness which is supposed to be in the Budget. In which Fiscal
Year is this intersection signalization design and specifications? In which is the
construction? The CIP is such a moving target, as it should be. I just have a hard
time finding out what is, and is not, in the Scope of Work.
I look forward to your reply given that it will influence my participation in the July 7,
2020 Council Meeting.
Best regards,
5
Sunshine
310-377-8761
6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 7, 2020
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
F Email exchange between City Manager Mihranian and: Bill James
J Email exchange between Director of Public Works Sassoon and:
Sunshine
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200707 additions revisions to agenda.docx
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 7, 2020 4:22 PM
Enyssa Momoli
FW: A step in a direction. Re: July 7, 2020 Agenda Item J (Consent Agenda), Traffic
signal at PV Drive East and PV Drive South
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 4:21PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: A step in a direction. Re: July 7, 2020 Agenda Item J (Consent Agenda), Traffic signal at PV Drive East and PV
Drive South
Hello Elias,
Please accept my most profound apologies. The tentative Agenda title I saw included both
intersections. I saw Agenda Item I and fired off my questions to Charles.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for hearing me. So, what can you suggest as a way to get the
Community Development Department and the Rec.& Parks Department to avail themselves of the
engineering talent in the Public Works Department? You don't design point-to-point trails nor
maintain existing trails on Preserve/parkland without some Work Order. Would some direction from
City Council put you in charge of implementing the current Trails Network Plan more clearly than what
is in the General Plan and the existing TNP?
Between 1990 and 2000, almost all of the existing trails were left unobstructed and many were
"enhanced". It is the level of maintenance which has gone missing. How can we get it back?
Council keeps asking and is not getting any straight answers beyond little ones like ... Yes, there will
be equestrian level buttons in this case. What about restoring the trail connection across San Ramon
Canyon to Friendship Park and the City of Los Angeles? ... S
1
PS: Thank you for the trai l in the PV Drive West Center Median that connects with the tra il in PV
Estates.
In a message dated 7/7/2020 11:58:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, esassoon@rpvca.gov writes:
Good morning Sunsh in e:
Thanks for reaching out to us . Your ema il will be included in the late correspondence regarding th is
agenda item.
P lease note that as it is mentioned in the Staff Report regard in g th is item (Consent agenda, it em J),
the equestrian -access ibl e push buttons will be in sta ll ed with this traffic signa l light to accommodate
horse riders at this intersection .
P lease let me know if you have any questions .
Regards,
E li as K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Pa los Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax : 310-544 -5292
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours . To help prevent the spread of
COVID -19 , visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing
guidelines . Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely . If you need
2
to visit City Hall , please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person
at a time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed . For a list of
department phone numbers , visit the Staff Directory on the City website .
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 1:16 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov >; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov >
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca .gov >
Subject: July 7, 2020 Agenda Item? Fwd: Traffic signal at PV Drive East and PV Drive South
Hello Teri,
Please submit this as late correspondence . But, for which Agenda Item? Tentative future
Agenda Items come up in a lot of places and what will be included under the Item Title is not
clear until the Agenda Report is published. What I am looking for is a direction from the
Council for Staff to Agendize a discussion and decision about to what extent Staff
should allocate their time and attention to the Goal of preserving and enhancing the
two "regional" trail connections which "conceptually" traverse the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
These would be the California Coastal Trail and the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. Each have
established "criteria" primarily about the continuity of the route and the signage. Although this
is mentioned in the Trails Network Plan, Staff does not appear to be aware of it. Altogether
too frequently, by the time I find out about a "project" which presents an opportunity, the
"schematics" are done and revising the design is "not in the budget".
The signalization of the intersection at PV Drive South and PV Drive East somehow jumped
from something the City was looking into all the way to completed construction drawings. This
City has no Commission which reviews the Scope of Work on a Staff or PVPLC initiated
"project" from a "find the unforeseen consequences" and "be sure to consider the extra
benefits" point of view.
Staff has been pursuing a direction which eliminates farming, animal husbandry and off-road
circulation. I would not have a problem with that if this was something we voters had
chosen by voting for City Council Candidates with that as a clearly stated objective. I would
not have a problem with that if Staff presented our Council, Planning Commissioners and
Citizen Advisory Committee Members with choices between the consequences and the
benefits.
3
So Teri , how do I go about getting the discussion about whether or not equestrian level
crossing demand buttons will ever be "appropriate" at PV Drive South and PV Drive East or
PV Drive South/West and Terranea Way onto the City Counci l's Agenda in a timely
fashion?
I have the new "participation instructions" but I don't know how to make them effective Please
email me the zoom password so that I can watch on my PC should I chose to.
Thank you for being there .... S 310-377-8761
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: charlese@rpvca.gov
Sent: 7/5/2020 12:07:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Traffic signal at PV Drive East and PV Drive South
Hello Charles,
I saw mention of this potential work on the Council's Tentative Agenda for July 7,
2020. Because that is discussed during Study Sessions, I brought up a potential
omission in the parts list. Now, I see that only the intersection of Vallon and
Hawthorne is on the Agenda.
What sort of time have we before you put together the parts list for the PVDE/PVDS
intersection signal?
According to the updated Circulation Element of the RPV General Plan, the City
should provide equestrian level crossing demand buttons. This may be an opportunity
to retrofit them at the Terranea Way I PV Drive West intersection which Ara has
described as an ... Oops, we forgot.
Given the delay in the Trails Network Plan update process and the general Staff level
attitude about not implementing the Trails Network Plan, I am hoping that this question
will inspire a Council level discussion that leads to a conscientious decision about
whether or not this City intends to pursue our part of the California Legislature's "ideal"
California Coastal Trail.
4
It is this sort of thoughtfulness which is supposed to be in the Budget. In which Fiscal
Year is this intersection s ign al ization design and specific ations? In which is the
construction? The CIP is such a moving target, as it shou ld be. I just have a hard
time finding out what is, and is not, in the Scope of Work.
I look forward to your reply given that it will influence my participation in the July 7,
2020 Counci l Meeting.
Best regards,
Sunsh in e
310-377-8761
5
-
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesd ay, July 7, 2020 7:41 AM
Enyssa Momoli
FW: Jul y 7, 2020 Consent Ca lendar, item 'F'
20200707 _W ien er_ OpposeSB902_draft_revised.pdf
From: Ara Mihran ian <Ara M@rpvca.go v >
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 6:00 PM
To: Willi am James <wi lli am.james@rpvca.go v >; CC <CC@rpvca.go v >
Cc: MeganB@rpvca .gov; KarinaB@rpvca .gov
Subject: RE: Ju ly 7, 2020 Consent Ca le ndar, item 'F'
Good evening Bill,
I hope you and Kathy had a relaxing Fourth of July weekend.
Thank you for bringing these points to the City Council's attention.
Based on your suggestions, the draft opposition has been revised and provided to the City Council as
late correspondence.
Attached is the revised letter.
Best,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
C ITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544 -5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca .gov
www.rpvca.gov
Jl Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, wh1ch may be privileged, confidentia l and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is Intended only for use of the individual or entity named . Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copy1ng is stnctly prohibited. If
you received this email1n error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender Immediately . Thank you fo 1· your assistance and coope1·at1on.
From: William James <william.james@rpvca.gov >
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 9:55AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov >; MeganB@rpvca.gov; KarinaB@rpvca .gov
Subject: July 7, 2020 Consent Calendar, item 'F'
Dear City Council Members,
I support Staff's recommendation authorizing the Mayor to
sign a letter to Senator Scott Weiner and others opposing
SB 902. I would like to suggest, however, that our letter
could be much stronger.
1. The first two paragraphs of the proposed letter 'thank'
Senator Weiner for listening to concerns stated by cities
such as Rancho Palos Verdes in the past. The second and
third paragraphs identify two ,specific concerns with the
present measure. In my opinion, these points capture
neither the nature nor the strength of what our City's
opposition should be.
This is Senator Weiner's third attempt in three years to
urbanize neighborhoods that neither need nor want to
have their characters changed. In reality, the only reason
he has taken some provisions out of his prior attempts is to
improve his chance of getting his legislation passed. As
one writer put it, previous opposition from homeowner
groups and local officials:
" ... didn't change Weiner's mind set about single-
family zoning. He still believes it is an abomination
to build substantial homes on decent-sized lots. For
2
sure, anything like that contrasts starkly with
Weiner's home turf in San Francisco's Castro
District, where cheek-by-jowl wooden walkup
apartment buildings of varying heights fill the
cityscape. "ill
That mindset directly contradicts both the underlying
philosophy of our own General Plan and the beliefs of a
great majority of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. I,
for one, am opposed both to the senator's efforts to end R-
1 single family zoning and to what would be an abrupt and
unwelcome departure from the development of
California urban planning law over the past
century. Efforts to force cities like Rancho Palos Verdes to
allow more multi-family housing in order to do a stated
"fair share" in responding to a housing shortage, or more
specifically to an affordable housing shortage, fail to take
into account real differences between California cities and
a multitude of other needs and factors -such as the
geological concerns which affect the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes. The whole point of zoning laws is to allow
individual cities to properly address those needs. Rancho
Palos Verdes is not like San Francisco.
Rather than thanking Senator Weiner, we might say that
we "agree with" the removal of the provisions listed in the
draft letter but still strongly believe that the diversity
created by a state the size of the State of California
justifies a concomitant diversity in its almost 500
municipalities.
2. In addition, and completely apart from any
philosophical consideration of real property development
3
and population expansion, is the fact that efforts such as
SB 902 to force density on California cities comes at a
uniquely unfortunate time. We don't know what the
impacts of the current COVID-19 pandemic will be in two
months, much less in two years. What we do know is that
the virus has hit high density areas the hardest all across
the United States. Several of the largest states by
population, including California, are responsible for the
current U.S. swell in confirmed cases. Counties with the
greatest population density, including Los Angeles County,
have been, and continue to be, the hardest hit.rn
Regardless of one's views concerning a housing shortage,
or more specifically, an affordable housing shortage, now is
not the time to try to solve such problems by forcing cities
to become accept more population density. In addition to
the changes suggested above, I would insert the following
sentence as the penultimate paragraph to Staff's proposed
letter:
"Finally, in light of the serious current coronavirus
pandemic, we do not believe that this is the time for
legislation designed to increase population density
in California cities. Investigation and analysis
should go into the potential health risks -to
everybody-of any such proposed legislation."
Thank you for your consideration of my views.
Bill lames
ill Thomas Ellis, Opinion columnist, California Focus .
4
ill Los Angeles County has the highest number of confirmed cases in the
United States. "More than 55,000 new coronavirus infections were reported
across the United States on Thursday, according to a New York Times
database, as the country set a new daily case record for the sixth time in
nine days. The alarming new milestone came as some of the country's most
populous states reported major surges, and as public health officials
scrambled to limit the damage. At least eight states reported single-day
case records on Thursday [including California]."
5
July 7, 2020
The Honorable Scott Wiener
California State Senate
State Capitol, Rm. 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 902
Dear Senator Wiener:
Via Email
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 902, the latest incarnation of legislation
attempting to impose dense, multi-unit housing on our communities. Though we agree
with the removal of provisions that would allow by-right construction of duplexes,
triplexes and fourplexes in single-family zones, we remain concerned that this bill will
negatively impact cities that do not elect to use the zoning tool it creates. If a
neighboring city were to rezone a parcel for a project of up to 10 units along the city
border, our residents would be impacted, but would be unable to voice their concerns
via the CEQA review process. Like SB 50, this bill fails to take into account real
differences between California cities and a multitude of other needs and factors -such
as geological and fire hazard concerns affecting our City.
Additionally, SB 902 leaves "jobs-rich areas" to be determined by the Department of
Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research. More
specificity is needed to meaningfully understand where these projects could be built.
Finally, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we do not believe this is the time for
legislation designed to increase population density. Investigation and analysis is needed
into the potential health risks-to everybody-of any such proposed legislation,
including potential impacts on community transmission.
For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 902.
Sincerely,
John Cruikshank
Mayor
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 6, 2020
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 7, 2020 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
Public Comment Email from Sunshine
F. Revised SB 902 letter; Email from Bill James
J Email from Sunshine (see Public Comment)
2. Attachment 3(Finance Advisory Committee)
Respectfully submitted,
G.
L\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200706 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Teri,
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Monday, July 6, 2020 1:16PM
Teresa Takaoka ; CityCierk
cc
July 7, 2020 Agenda Item ? Fwd: Traffic signal at PV Drive East and PV Drive South
Please submit this as late correspondence . But, for which Agenda Item? Tentative future Agenda
Items come up in a lot of places and what will be included under the Item Title is not clear until the
Agenda Report is published . What I am looking for is a direction from the Council for Staff to
Agendize a discussion and decision about to what extent Staff should allocate their time and
attention to the Goal of preserving and enhancing the two "regional" trail connections which
"conceptually" traverse the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
These would be the California Coastal Trail and the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. Each have established
"criteria" primarily about the continuity of the route and the signage . Although this is mentioned in the
Trails Network Plan, Staff does not appear to be aware of it. Altogether too frequently, by the time I
find out about a "project" which presents an opportunity, the "schematics" are done and revising the
design is "not in the budget".
The signalization of the intersection at PV Drive South and PV Drive East somehow jumped from
something the City was looking into all the way to completed construction drawings . This City has no
Commission which reviews the Scope of Work on a Staff or PVPLC initiated "project" from a "find the
unforeseen consequences" and "be sure to consider the extra benefits" point of view.
Staff has been pursuing a direction which eliminates farming, animal husbandry and off-road
circulation. I would not have a problem with that if this was something we voters had chosen by
voting for City Council Candidates with that as a clearly stated objective. I would not have a problem
with that if Staff presented our Council, Planning Commissioners and Citizen Advisory Committee
Members with choices between the consequences and the benefits.
So Teri , how do I go about getting the discussion about whether or not equestrian level crossing
demand buttons will ever be "appropriate" at PV Drive South and PV Drive East or PV Drive
South/West and Terranea Way onto the City Council's Agenda in a timely fashion?
I have the new "participation instructions" but I don't know how to make them effective Please email
me the zoom password so that I can watch on my PC should I chose to .
Thank you for being there .... S 310 -377 -8761
From : sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: charlese@rpvca.gov
Sent: 7/5/2020 12 :07 :25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Traffic signal at PV Drive East and PV Drive South
Hello Charles,
I saw mention of this potential work on the Council's Tentative Agenda for July 7,
2020. Because that is discussed during Study Sessions, I brought up a potential omission in
the parts list. Now , I see that only the intersection of Vall on and Hawthorne is on the Agenda.
What sort of time have we before you put together the parts list for the PVDE/PVDS
intersection signal?
According to the updated Circulation Element of the RPV General Plan, the City should
provide equestrian level crossing demand buttons. This may be an opportunity to retrofit them
at the Terranea Way I PV Drive West intersection which Ara has described as an ... Oops, we
forgot.
Given the delay in the Trails Network Plan update process and the general Staff level attitude
about not implementing the Trails Network Plan, I am hoping that this question will inspire a
Council level discussion that leads to a conscientious decision about whether or not this City
intends to pursue our part of the California Legislature's "ideal" California Coastal Trail.
It is this sort of thoughtfulness which is supposed to be in the Budget. In which Fiscal Year is
this intersection signalization design and specifications? In which is the construction? The
CIP is such a moving target , as it should be . I just have a hard time finding out what is, and is
not, in the Scope of Work.
I look forward to your reply given that it will influence my participation in the July 7, 2020
Council Meeting.
Best regards,
Sunshine
31 0-377-8761
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Megan Barnes
Monday, July 6, 2020 4:20 PM
CityCierk
Revised SB 902 letter
20200707 _Wiener_ OpposeSB902_draft_revised.docx
Please see the attached revised SB 902 letter to be included as late correspondence for Item F.
Thank you,
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5226
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
1
July 7, 2020
The Honorable Scott Wiener
California State Senate
State Capitol, Rm. 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 902
Dear Senator Wiener:
Via Email
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 902, the latest incarnation of legislation
attempting to impose dense, multi-unit housing on our communities. Though we agree
with the removal of provisions that would allow by-right construction of duplexes,
triplexes and fourplexes in single-family zones, we remain concerned that this bill will
negatively impact cities that do not elect to use the zoning tool it creates. If a
neighboring city were to rezone a parcel for a project of up to 1 0 units along the city
border, our residents would be impacted, but would be unable to voice their concerns
via the CEQA review process. Like SB 50, this bill fails to take into account real
differences between California cities and a multitude of other needs and factors -such
as geological and fire hazard concerns affecting our City.
Additionally, SB 902 leaves "jobs-rich areas" to be determined by the Department of
Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research. More
specificity is needed to meaningfully understand where these projects could be built.
Finally, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we do not believe this is the time for
legislation designed to increase population density. Investigation and analysis is needed
into the potential health risks-to everybody-of any such proposed legislation,
including potential impacts on community transmission.
For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 902.
Sincerely,
John Cruikshank
Mayor
cc: Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Gurry, Chair, Local Government Committee
Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District
AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Ara Mihranian, City Manager
Karina Banales, Deputy City Manager
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 6, 2020 9:57AM
Enyssa Momoli
FW: July 7, 2020 Consent Calendar, item 'F'
From: William James <wil liam .james@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 9:55AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov >; MeganB@rpvca.gov; KarinaB@rpvca .gov
Subject: July 7, 2020 Consent Calendar, item 'F'
Dear City Council Members,
I support Staff's recommendation authorizing the Mayor to
sign a letter to Senator Scott Weiner and others opposing
SB 902. I would like to suggest, however, that our letter
could be much stronger.
1. The first two paragraphs of the proposed letter 'thank'
Senator Weiner for listening to concerns stated by cities
such as Rancho Palos Verdes in the past. The second and
third paragraphs identify two specific concerns with the
present measure. In my opinion, these points capture
neither the nature nor the strength of what our City's
opposition should be.
This is Senator Weiner's third attempt in three years to
urbanize neighborhoods that neither need nor want to
have their characters changed. In reality, the only reason
he has taken some provisions out of his prior attempts is to
improve his chance of getting his legislation passed. As
one writer put it, previous opposition from homeowner
groups and local officials:
F.
" ... didn't change Weiner's mindset about single-
family zoning. He still believes it is an abomination
to build substantial homes on decent-sized lots. For
sure, anything like that contrasts starkly with
Weiner's home turf in San Francisco's Castro
District, where cheek-by-jowl wooden walkup
apartment buildings of varying heights fill the
cityscape. "ill
That mindset directly contradicts both the underlying
philosophy of our own General Plan and the beliefs of a
great majority of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. I,
for one, am opposed both to the senator's efforts to end R-
1 single family zoning and to what would be an abrupt and
unwelcome departure from the development of
California urban planning law over the past
century. Efforts to force cities like Rancho Palos Verdes to
allow more multi-family housing in order to do a stated
"fair share" in responding to a housing shortage, or more
specifically to an affordable housing shortage, fail to take
into account real differences between California cities and
a multitude of other needs and factors -such as the
geological concerns which affect the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes. The whole point of zoning laws is to allow
individual cities to properly address those needs. Rancho
Palos Verdes is not like San Francisco.
Rather than thanking Senator Weiner, we might say that
we "agree with" the removal of the provisions listed in the
draft letter but still strongly believe that the diversity
created by a state the size of the State of California
justifies a concomitant diversity in its almost 500
municipalities.
2
2. In addition, and completely apart from any
philosophical consideration of real property development
and population expansion, is the fact that efforts such as
SB 902 to force density on California cities comes at a
uniquely unfortunate time. We don't know what the
impacts of the current COVID-19 pandemic will be in two
months, much less in two years. What we do know is that
the virus has hit high density areas the hardest all across
the United States. Several of the largest states by
population, including California, are responsible for the
current U.S. swell in confirmed cases. Counties with the
greatest population density, including Los Angeles County,
have been, and continue to be, the hardest hit.rn
Regardless of one's views concerning a housing shortage,
or more specifically, an affordable housing shortage, now is
not the time to try to solve such problems by forcing cities
to become accept more population density. In addition to
the changes suggested above, I would insert the following
sentence as the penultimate paragraph to Staff's proposed
letter:
"Finally, in light of the serious current coronavirus
pandemic, we do not believe that this is the time for
legislation designed to increase population density
in California cities. Investigation and analysis
should go into the potential health risks -to
everybody-of any such proposed legislation."
Thank you for your consideration of my views.
Bill lames
3
ill Thomas Ellis, Opinion columnist, California Focus .
ill Los Angeles County has the highest number of confirmed cases in the
United States. "More than 55,000 new coronavirus infections were reported
across the United States on Thursday, according to a New York Times
database, as the country set a new daily case record for the sixth time in
nine days. The alarming new milestone came as some of the country's most
populous states reported major surges, and as public health officials
scrambled to limit the damage. At least eight states reported single-day
case records on Thursday [including California]."
4
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
July 2020 Biannual Status Report to Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Overview
~ The attachment includes Finance Advisory Committee's (FAC) Mission Statement
and Specific Assignments.
~ FAC has seven members appointed by City Council with diverse backgrounds
primarily in business, finance and economics. (members: Brown, Johnson, Lewis,
MacAllister, Sea/, Sti//o & Vlaco)
~ FAC serves as a sounding board for the Finance Department's staff and provides
citizen input to the City Council and Staff regarding financial matters of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
~ The Committee reviews short and long-term financial information of the City and
other financial issues as assigned by the City Council.
Activities and Accomplishments
~ FAG's primary emphasis is to provide citizen input to the City Council and Staff
regarding financial matters of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
~ FAC received, reviewed, dialogued and provided input on the following financial
information from the Finance Director from January-June 2020:
•!• Each FAC meeting, received current Treasury activities and investment
report, which includes the yield on the investment portfolio.
•!• On January 16, 2020: FAC received the 2019 City Council Goals related
to finance presentation and provided feedback. The feedback received
from the FAC was communicated to the City Council during the City
Council Goal Workshop.
• Goal No. 12 Abalone Cove Sewer Subsidy
• Referred to Goal #8 in 2019. Continue the goal and create a
program for 5 years of modest rate increases and closer
equality between the 150 parcels and the rest of the citywide
parcels.
• Goal No. 31 Civic Center
• Referred to Goal #20 in 2019. Add options to include the
cost to remodel current City Hall; evaluate cost with/without
public safety option; explore revenue options including self-
funding; requires more public outreach; and item must go
back to the residents for a vote.
• Goal No. 73 Fiscal Sustainability TOT Trends
• Committee awaits further direction from City Council. Goal is
completed -research presentations received & dialogued in
September and November 2019.
1-2
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
July 2020 Biannual Status Report to Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
• Goal No. 70 Fee Study
• Referred to Goal #38 in 2019. Continue the goal. Staff will
provide requested information to FACto complete dialogue
and make recommendation in the Fall of 2020.
• Goal No. 39 Portuguese Bend Landslide Feasibility Plan
• Plan progress not at point for FAC review. Goal is continued
and is not required to be completed by June 2020.
• Goal No. 71 Pension Policy
• Referred to Goal# 40 in 2019. Support goal and require
detailed information to progress Goal.
•!• On February 13, 2020: FAC received presentation of the City's
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) prepared annually,
including the audit report. Staff reported that the results of the audit
received an unmodified opinion (clean audit) from the City's auditors,
White Nelson Diehl LLP.
•!• March 2020: FAC meeting cancelled and rescheduled to April 6, 2020
due to the COVID-19 pandemic closures that started in mid-March.
•!• On April 6, 2020: FAC received presentation of the City's budget
calendar, mid-year review for FY2019-20, FY2020-21 Budget
Assumptions, and the 5-Year Financial Model. FAC provided feedback
that Staff included in the preliminary budget hearings.
•!• On May 11, 2020: FAC received presentation on revised estimates for the
FY2019-20 year-end and Staff presented the FY2020-21 Preliminary
Budget based on the financial impacts of COVID-19 pandemic. FAC
approved the FY2020-21 Finance Advisory Committee Work Plan. The
Work Plan will be presented to the City Council on July 7, 2020.
~ FAC Takeaways:
Opportunities
•!• Fee & TOT increase elasticity
•!• Pension Policy & Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL) funding mechanisms
•!• Redevelopment Obligation Retirement
•!• COVID-19 CIP discounts
•!• Resident engagement
Challenges
•!• COVID-19 budget implications-TOT, sales tax, property tax, emergency
operation center
•!• CALPERS-UAL & COVID-19 investment results
Observations
2-2
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
July 2020 Biannual Status Report to Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
•!• Budget balance risks: deferral of infrastructure/CIP, personnel /contracts,
repairs/maintenance
•!• Vulnerability of CIP & Public Safety given single funding source
•!• Disproportionate subsidy allocations-sewer, streetlights, etc.
Open Items
•!• Confirm FAC shared understanding of CaiPERS & City historical pension
plan/model
•!• Explore new revenue sources to cover exponentially rising expense curve
•!• Reduce/eliminate General Fund subsidies of special interest sub-
divisions/agencies
•!• Operating expense leveraging options through collaboration/shared
service with PVP City (e.g.: Public Works, Community Development,
Recreation and Parks, etc.)
~ In the next 6 months, FAC's FY 2020-21 Work Plan includes:
•!• Receive presentation on FAC's requested information regarding the City's
Fee Study and make recommendations.
•!• Receive presentation of the City's annual employee pension plan actuarial
valuation reports.
•!• Receive presentation on a proposed Pension Policy and make
recommendations on the policy.
•!• Receive presentation on the FY 2020-21 first quarter review.
•!• Receive presentation on the 5-year Model
•!• Receive presentation on the City Council's reserve policy and make
recommendation to the City Council.
•!• Receive presentation of the City's year-end unaudited actuals FY 2019-
20.
3-2