The URL can be used to link to this page

20200804 Late CorrespondenceFrom: Alix Politanoff <alixpolitanoff@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 7:03 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Public Comment for Item D on Consent Calendar To the Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council I am Alix Politanoff, the Project Coordinator of the non-profit organization Behavioral Health Services, Inc. We have been working with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School district the past year where we have helped with the formation of anti-vape/tobacco clubs at PV Peninsula High School, Ridgecrest, Miraleste and PVIS. Thank you for your consideration of signing a letter in support of SB 793. We support any restrictions which reduce opportunities for youth to pick up smoking behaviors whether that’s through banning flavored tobacco products or prohibiting the nonconsensual exposure of secondhand smoke in outdoor areas. In regards to secondhand smoke, there is no safe level of secondhand smoke ex posure and over 170 studies found that smoke-free policies do not have an economic impact on businesses. Currently in LA County, there are 29 cities that have passed smoke-free outdoor dining policies, including Redondo Beach and Palos Verdes Estates more recently. Benefits of smoke-free outdoor area policies include protecting nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke, lowering smoking rates among youth and young adults, and diminishing the social acceptability and social advantage for smoking. Thank you again and BHS will continue to work in RPV with the youth this year on tobacco prevention education and advocacy. Alix Politanoff TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK AUGUST 4, 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. G 3 Description of Material Updated draft letters Email exchange between Director of Parks and Recreation Linder and Milt Owens Respectfu l ly submitted, l:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200804 additions revisions to agenda .docx MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: CC: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAC;ERS OFFICE Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Megan Barnes, City Manager's Office Ara Mihranian, Karina Bafiales, City Manager's Office August 4, 2020 Draft Letters for 8-4-2020 City Council Meeting Item G As noted the staff report for Item G (consideration and possible action to oppose various planning and zoning bills in order to maintain local control), due to time constraints, Staff was unable to include draft letters in time for the release of tonight's agenda on July 28. Enclosed are draft letters of opposition to all of the bills listed in the resolution: • AB 831 • AB 953 • AB 1279 • AB 2323 • AB 2405 • AB 3153 • AB 3269 • SB 288 • SB 899 • AB 725 • AB 1851 • AB 2168 • AB 2345 • AB 2988 • AB 3107 • SB 995 • SB 1085 • SB 1120 • SB 1138 G. August 4, 2020 The Honorable Timothy Grayson California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 4164 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 831 Dear Assemblymember Grayson: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 831, which would make clarifications to existing housing law requiring streamlined approval of mixed-use development developments in jurisdictions that have not met their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets. The City opposed the law that implemented those requirements, SB 35, in 2017. Rancho Palos Verdes opposes legislation that pre-empts local discretionary land use authority and compromises critical project level environmental review and public input. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 831 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc : AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 661h Assembly District Ben Allen, Senator, 261h State Senate 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 August 4, 2020 The Honorable Philip Ting California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 6026 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 953 Dear Assemblymember Ting: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 953, which would address chaptering errors in a set of bills related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that took effect this year (AB 68, AB 881 and SB 13). These bills significantly limit the ability of local governments to regulate ADUs, taking away local control and imposing a "one size fits all" approach to zoning on California cities. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 953 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc: AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate 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 August4,2020 The Honorable Richard Bloom California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 2003 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 1279 Dear Assemblymember Bloom : Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 1279, which would require jurisdictions that are deemed "high opportunity areas" to allow multifamily housing projects in greater height and density than existing zoning and planning documents otherwise would allow. Housing affordability and homelessness are among the most critical issues facing California cities. Affordably priced homes are out of reach for many people and housing is not being built fast enough to meet the current or projected needs of people living in the state. Cities lay the groundwork for housing production by planning and zoning new projects in their communities based on extensive public input and engagement, state housing laws, and the needs of the building industry. While addressing the housing affordability crisis facing California cities is critical, AB 1279 takes the wrong approach by mandating that jurisdictions with "high opportunity areas" ministerially approve multifamily housing projects with heights up to 55 feet and density of up to 120 units without environmental review or consistency with locally adopted zoning standards and state certified housing plans. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes requests the following amendments in order to address our concerns and remove our opposition: • Clearly define "high opportunity areas" in statute. As presently drafted, it is very difficult to determine which jurisdictions contain "high opportunity areas". • Establish fixed timelines for when "high opportunity area" maps will be updated. • Allow environmental review of proposed housing projects except under limited circumstances. • Establish a clear off ramp for jurisdictions to develop their own community lead housing production plan that is consistent with the goals and objectives of AB 1279 but are tied to the 6th Cycle of RHNA and the housing element process. Thank you for considering the above amendments. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 1279. Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc : AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate 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 August 4 , 2020 The Honorable Laura Friedman California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 2137 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 2323 Dear Assemblymember Friedman : Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 2323, which would expand the application of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions for housing and other specified projects by permitting community plans to serve as the basis for exemption of residential , mixed-use and employment center projects near transit and eliminating the exclusion of sites within the boundaries of a state conservancy from existing exemptions for affordable agricultural housing, affordable urban housing , and urban infill housing . The City opposes leg islation that limits or shortens the review of development projects by local jurisdictions via the CEQA process , especially with regard to residential and mixed-use projects. Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc : AI Muratsuchi , Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate 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 August 4, 2020 The Honorable Autumn Burke California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 5150 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 2405 Dear Assemblymember Burke: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes wholeheartedly agrees that all Californians should have access to safe, decent, and affordable housing, and supports efforts to serve our neighbors who are experiencing homelessness. We must respectfully oppose AB 2405, however, because we are concerned this legislation could be used as a basis for imposing residential development projects on cities without local review. We agree that affordable housing is critically needed to alleviate the homelessness crisis, but we oppose legislation that could weaken local control. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 2405 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc: AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 661h Assembly District Ben Allen, Senator, 261h State Senate 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 Bafiales, Deputy City Manager August 4, 2020 The Honorable Robert Rivas California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm . 5158 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 3153 Dear Assemblymember Rivas : Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 3153, which would require cities to ease vehicle parking requirements for residential developers in exchange for additional bicycle or car-sharing parking spaces. The City opposes legislation that weakens local control over development standards, especially for dense, multi-family housing projects . We also question the assumption that giving developers incentives for transit-oriented projects will actually reduce the number of cars on the road, since transit ridership has decreased . For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 3153 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc: AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66 1h Assembly District Ben Allen, Senator, 261h State Senate 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 Baiiales, Deputy City Manager August4, 2020 The Honorable David Chiu California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 4112 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 3269 Dear Assemblymember Chiu: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 3269, which would create the Office of the Housing and Homelessness Inspector General to provide greater accountability and enforcement for state and local actions to address homelessness, require local governments to develop actionable plans to reduce homelessness by 90 percent, and create a public right of action for the Inspector General to compel compliance with the newly adopted plans. Most concerning, AB 3269 fails to provide any additional funding to local governments to fund the required actions. California has seen an alarming spike in homelessness over the past decade, with a significant increase in the number of unsheltered people in our communities. Cities and counties statewide are at the forefront of responding to this crisis, providing shelter beds and behavioral health services, partnering with creative nonprofits and churches, and working across silos to find creative and innovative ways to guide homeless youth, families, seniors and veterans into shelter and care. AB 3269 would build off local efforts and require the Homelessness Coordinating and Financing Council to conduct a statewide gaps and needs analysis to determine existing resources to address homelessness. This information is greatly needed if homelessness is going to be meaningfully reduced. AB 3269 would also require a county and all of the cities within the county to develop an actionable plan to reduce homelessness by 90 percent by December 31, 2028. The City does not object to the development of an actionable plan. However, the major concern is that there is no state funding to cover the costs of developing the plan. Additionally, there are no new resources for cities to fund the facilities and services needed to attempt to reduce homelessness by 90 percent in just seven short years. According to a League of California Cities analysis, California cities are facing a nearly $7 billion revenue shortfall over the next two years due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This shortfall grows by billions of dollars as modified stay-at-home orders extend into the summer months and beyond. Cities have also been incurring significant increases in unbudgeted expenses responding to the crisis. CO VI D-19 has crippled local budgets, forcing cuts in city services and city employees, which will dampen local economic recovery. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 3269 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc : AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 661h Assembly District Ben Allen, Senator, 261h State Senate 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 Bafiales, Deputy City Manager August 4, 2020 The Honorable Scott Wiener California State Senate State Capitol, Rm. 5100 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to 58 288 Dear Senator Wiener: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 288, which would expand the list of projects exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements to include new rapid transit bus and rail service on public highways and rail rights of way, regardless of whether they are currently used for public transit, among other exempted infrastructure projects. We oppose legislation that limits or shortens the review of development projects by both local governments and their constituents, who will be impacted by these projects. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 288 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc: 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 August4,2020 The Honorable Scott Wiener California State Senate State Capitol, Rm. 5100 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 899 Dear Senator Wiener: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 899, which would require local jurisdictions to approve, by right, specified housing developments on land owned by a religious institution or nonprofit college regardless of the existing locally adopted zoning standards. Cities are required by law to adopt a general plan that contains nine elements. The most comprehensive and prescriptive of these elements is the housing element. These documents are a community's blueprint for future development that have been created through an extensive community lead planning process that can take years to complete. SB 899 would disregard a city's general plan and state certified housing element and allow a religious institution or a nonprofit college to build housing on land they own even if the height and density conflicts with locally adopted planning and zoning standards. Land use regulation is a constitutionally granted local government function of cities and counties . Authorizing a religious institution or a nonprofit college to regulate density, height and parking requirements within the constraints of SB 899 transfers this essential local government function to a nonelected, private entity that is not accountable to voters. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 899 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc : 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 Bafiales, Deputy City Manager August 4, 2020 The Honorable Buffy Wicks California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm . 5160 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 725 Dear Assemblymember Wicks: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 725. The Planning and Zoning Law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an inventory of land suitable for residential development to be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need determined pursuant to specified law. AB 725 requires that 25% of future Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) growth be shifted by the cities into stable neighborhoods that are currently home to four to 100 housing units per acre. The bill would require that at least 25% of a metropolitan jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for above moderate-income housing be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least four units of housing, but no more than 35 units per acre of housing. A better approach would be to require communities to analyze the demand profile for above moderate housing or identify more options for infill development, but even that deflects attention from more pressing housing issues. Instead, the state should target RHNA allocations to encourage increased housing near high quality transit and job centers and providing incentives (including more per capita subventions) for communities with housing to mitigate the real impacts of servicing residential development. Instead, this one-size-fits-all approach appears to be arbitrarily determined without research to identify how communities throughout California will be affected by this change. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 725 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc: 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 August4,2020 The Honorable Buffy Wicks California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 5160 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 1851 Dear Assemblymember Wicks: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 1851, which would prohibit a local agency from requiring the replacement of religious-use parking spaces that a developer of a religious institution affiliated housing development project proposes to eliminate as part of that housing development project. The bill would prohibit the number of religious-use parking spaces requested to be eliminated from exceeding 50% of the number that are available at the time the request is made. The bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of religious-use parking spaces as a condition of approval of a religious institution affiliated housing development project. The bill would require a local agency to allow the number of religious-use parking spaces that will be available after completion of a religious institution affiliated housing development project to count toward the number of parking spaces otherwise required for approval. While housing and religious institutions can be complementary uses, religious institutions are often in or adjacent to residential zones, and often their parking spills out into the neighborhood. Prohibiting agencies from assessing the impacts to adjacent uses and communities takes away local control and disallows the citizens who are most impacted by development the ability to ensure that projects are compatible with adjoining neighbors and uses. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes legislation that impacts local control of development. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 1851 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc: AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate 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 Bariales, Deputy City Manager August 4, 2020 The Honorable Kevin McCarty California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 2136 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 2168 Dear Assemblymember McCarty: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 2168, which would require applications to install electric vehicle {EV) charging stations to be deemed complete within five business days by municipal jurisdictions. This measure also requires such applications to be deemed approved within 15 business days after the application was submitted if the municipality has not issued a permit and if the building official has not made findings that the proposed installation could have adverse impacts. Existing law, via Assembly Bill1236 (Chiu, 2015), requires all cities and counties to adopt an ordinance by September 30, 2017 creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for EV charging stations. Municipalities also have to adopt a checklist for applicants that satisfies the information required to be deemed complete, and therefore eligible for expedited review. Specifically, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes the following provisions in AB 2168: • Requires an application to install an electric vehicle charging station to be deemed complete if, 5 business days after the application was submitted, the building official of the city, county, or city and county has not deemed the application complete, as specified, and if the building official has not issued a one-written correction notice, as specified. • Requires an application to install an electric vehicle charging station to be deemed approved if 15 business days after the application was deemed complete certain conditions are met. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 2168 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc : AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate 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 Bariales, Deputy City Manager August4, 2020 The Honorable Lorena Gonzalez Cal ifornia State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 2114 Sacramento , CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 2345 Dear Assemblymember Gonzalez : Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 2345. This bill would require that the annual report include specified information regarding density bonuses granted in accordance with specified law. This bill, instead, would authorize an applicant to receive 3 incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30% of the total units for lower income households , at least 12% of the total units for very low income households, or at least 30% for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development. The bill would also authorize an applicant to receive 4 and 5 incentives or concessions , as applicable , for projects in which greater percentages of the total units are for lower income households , very low income households , or for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development, as specified. The bill would also authorize an applicant to receive 6 incentives or concessions for projects in which 100% of the total units are for lower income households , as specified . The expansion of density bonuses and concessions outlined in this bill is not commensurate with the amount of affordable housing required and amounts to a gift to developers . In addition , this bill, as do so many of those currently being proposed, takes away local control and discretion, forcing jurisdictions into a "one size fits all" development model. Cities should be allowed to maintain control to the maximum extent possible over development patterns within their jurisdictions. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 2345 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc : AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate 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 Bafiales, Deputy City Manager August 4, 2020 The Honorable Kansen Chu California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 3126 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 2988 Dear Assemblymember Chu: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 2988, which would make supportive housing a use by right in zones where emergency shelters are permitted as well as in zones that permit multifamily housing or mixed use. The bill also increased the limit on the number of units in a supportive housing development able to develop in such an area from a maximum of 50 to no more than 120 units. Allowing such large supportive housing developments to be built by right is highly problematic as it removes the discretion of the City to review such development, thus running the risk that developments will be sited in areas by right that are inappropriate for residential use or that will conflict with existing uses. Cities take great care in developing their general plans and Housing Elements to ensure that the needs of the existing community as well as those of future residents are considered in development. The State mandating development by right negates the work that has gone into developing plans that ensure that the City can control factors such that they lead to positive rather than negative change. One-size-fits-all mandated by right development takes control away from the jurisdiction that is affected by the development and places it in the hands of those who have no stake in the totality of development in the City. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 2988 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc : 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 Baiiales, Deputy City Manager August4,2020 The Honorable Richard Bloom California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 2003 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 3107 Dear Assemblymember Bloom : Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 3107. This bill, notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of a City's or County's General Plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or regulation, would require that a housing development be an authorized use on a site designated in any element of the general plan for commercial use if certain conditions apply. Among these conditions, the bill would require that the housing development be subject to a recorded deed restriction requiring that at least 20% of the units have an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for lower income households, as those terms are defined, and located on a site that satisfies specified criteria. While the bill on its face is an incentive to cities to complete any rezoning required in their Housing Element, nonetheless, the criteria for development should that rezoning not be completed in a timely manner would result in buildings that do not conform to the area, and in some cases, could be far taller and more dense than anything in the immediate area. This bill is another attempt to undermine local control and the plans set out in existing General Plans and Housing Elements. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 3107 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc: AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66 1h Assembly District Ben Allen, Senator, 261h State Senate 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 August 4, 2020 The Honorable T ani Atkins California State Senate State Capitol, Rm. 205 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 995 Dear Senator Atkins : Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 995, which would require a lead agency to prepare a master EIR for a general plan, plan amendment, plan element, or specified plan for housing projects where the state has provided funding for the preparation of the master EIR. SB 995 undermines the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to incentivize "environmental leadership projects" which are actually, large luxury housing and office towers. SB 995 fails to create a single unit of affordable housing. It silences working- class and poor areas far more than it does the neighborhoods who can afford to fight back. It appears to have been written before the pandemic hit, failing even to reference telecommuting, which is where we are heading in the post-COVID-19 era. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 995 . Sincerely , John Cruikshank Mayor cc : 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 August4,2020 The Honorable Nancy Skinner California State Senate State Capitol, Rm. 5094 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 1085 Dear Senator Skinner: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 1085, which requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development in the city or county, with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units; or for the donation of land within the development if the developer agrees to, among other things, construct a specified percentage of units for very low income, low-income, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents, including lower income students. SB 1085 allows developers to construct "density bonus" apartment buildings with an oversupply of costly, luxury units -while starving the production of low-income units. Senate Bill 1 085 cuts public review, yet lowers the requirement for affordable housing to just 12% of the resulting units. SB 1085 would increase traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions by lowering parking requirements for housing projects that provide moderate-income units. Current law requires a developer to provide one (1) onsite parking space per bedroom for moderate-income housing units with 1 to 3-bedrooms and 2.5 onsite parking spaces for moderate-income housing units with 4 or more bedrooms. SB 1085 would lower this requirement to just .5 spaces per bedroom. As a result, SB-1 085 would increase the number of residents and vehicles in neighborhoods and the residents would have to park their vehicles on the street due to insufficient off-street parking spaces. Due to more cars on the road plus more circulation of those cars, as residents search for vacant on-street parking spaces, traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions would rise. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 1085 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc : 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 August4,2020 The Honorable Toni Atkins California State Senate State Capitol, Rm. 205 Sacramento , CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 1120 Dear Senator Atkins: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 1120, which would require a proposed housing development containing two residential units to be considered ministerially and would be without discretionary review or hearing, within a single-family residential zone, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements. SB 1120 lets cities apply local ADU laws, to double its envisioned four units to eight luxury units per single-family lot, further spurring speculation and destabilizing homeownership in California. At the same time, the bill requires just one parking space per home in most communities. Specifically, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes the following provisions in SB 1120: • Requires a housing development containing two units to be considered ministerially in single family zones if the development meets certain conditions . • Requires a city or county to ministerially approve or deny a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets specified requirements , in addition to the requirements for eligible parcels that apply to both duplexes and urban lot splits. • Prohibits a local agency from imposing regulations that require dedications of rights-of-way or the construction of reasonable offsite and onsite improvements for parcels created through an urban lot split. • Prohibits the development of ADUs on parcels that use both the urban lot split and duplex provisions of the bill, and it applies the limitations on parking requirements from ADU law to both duplexes and urban lot splits under the bill. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 1120 . Sincerely, John Cruikshank Mayor cc: Ben Allen , Senator, 261h State Senate District AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 661h 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 August 4 , 2020 The Honorable Scott Wiener California State Senate State Capitol, Rm. 5100 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to 58 1138 Dear Senator Wiener: Via Email The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 1138, which would revise the requirements of the housing element, in connection with identifying zones or zoning designations that allow residential use, including mixed use, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The bill would delete language regarding emergency shelter standards structured in relation to residential and commerc ial developments and instead require that emergency shelters only be subject to specified written , objective standards. If a local government applies written, objective standards pursuant to these provisions, the bill would require the local government to attach and analyze the standards in its housing element. SB 1138 requires that a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that HCD has found to be in substantial compliance with State law within 120 days of the statutory deadline, completes the rezoning no later than one year (instead of three years under current law) from the statutory deadline for the adoption of the housing element. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes legislation that makes the Housing Element Update process more cumbersome and costly . The City also continues to advocate for local control of land use decisions. For these reasons , the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 1138 . Sincerely , John Cruikshank Mayor cc : Ben Allen, Senator, 261h 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: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 8:04 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Tree Cutting Late carr -----Original Message----- From: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 4:59 PM To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Cc: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Tree Cutting Hi Teri, This communication (initial inquiry and our response) is related to the agenda items at tomorrow night's Council meeting. Please include as late correspondence. THANKS, CORY -----Original Message----- From: Cory Linder Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 4:49 PM To: 'lscalpal@gmail.com' <lscalpal@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Tree Cutting Mr. Owens: Thank you Dr. Owens for reaching out to us and sharing your concerns. The City has not embarked on the removal of acacia without consideration of several of the concerns listed in your email. The removal of acacia was first proposed by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) as an effort to reduce fuel load and at the same time removing a non-native highly invasive species from the Preserve. The City was quick to accept this great offer. Please also know that acacia are being removed, not simply cut down . Branches, seed pods and wood are removed to the extent practical in an effort to minimize potential fire fuel as well as prevent regrowth. Acacia are "cut flush" with the ground, leaving root systems in place (to avoid soil erosion and creating hillside instability), and the stumps are treated with herbicide (again to help prevent regrowth). I hope this helps alleviate many of your concerns, but I would be happy to set up a conference call or videoconference with members of my staff and representatives from the PVPLC if you would like to discuss your concerns further. The PVPLC is always looking for funds and opportunities to reintroduce native habitat to the Nature Preserve, and perhaps you can speak with them about possible opportunities to introduce some native trees in appropriate areas. l Additionally, as your email is somewhat related to the Fuel Modification staff report for tomorrow night's City Council meeting, I am copying the City Clerk's Office on this email and am asking them to include it (and your original email) in late correspondence for the City Council to see and consider. Thank you again for reaching out to us and sharing your concerns. Respectfully, CORY CORY A. LINDER, Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Recreation and Parks 310-544-5260 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. -----Original Message----- From: Milt Owens <1scalpal@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:07AM To: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov> Subject: Tree Cutting I wish to object to the current felling of acacia trees. I believe that the short term gains are speculative and the long term losses quite certain. Let me tell you why. The acacia burn well when lit but fires have not occurred where the trees grow in many years otherwise the trees would not be there. Moreover the branches, pods, leaves and dead wood are mostly left in the area and are even more flammable than the living trees. There are long term costs in carbon dioxide capture, soil erosion, hillside stability, and loss of habitat for birds and small animals. The area above Shari Hastings adjacent to a natural spring has recently been razed and although it may be coincidence we have recently had daylight visits from both racoons and coyote which have never occurred before. So in my view it is unlikely that fire hazard has been reduced and very likely that there has been a long term negative environmental impact. Save the trees and save the cost of cutting. Milt Owens MD FACS 310-279-6458 Sent from my iPhone Milt Owens MD 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RAN CHO PALOS VERD ES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK August3,2020 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, August 4, 2020 City Council meeting: Item No. D G 2 3 Description of Material Email from Sunshine Email exchange between City Manager Mihranian and Virginia Heinrich Email from Sunshine Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Lozano and Sunshine Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Lozano and Sunshine Respectfully submitted, L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE \2020 Cover Sheets\20200803 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx From: Sent: To: Subject: Late carr Teresa Takaoka Friday, July 31, 2020 3:57PM CityCierk FW: August 4, 2020 CC Item D From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 3:55 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: August 4, 2020 CC Item D Dear Mr. Mayor an Council Members, Do you people truly support more legislated behavior modification? Where is Staff's analysis of "doing nothing"? Where is Staff's analysis on the projected increase in local law enforcement costs and other "Mommy State" consequences? Criminalization of another currently free enterprise is not going to make our City a better place to live. When I went to RHHS, some of my classmates were doing heroin, on campus. After I left for college, my Mother sent me a PV News clipping about the huge scandal... Peninsula students were smoking marijuana. Why isn't there a sunset clause or some sort of review of City codes, like our anti-nudity law and no walking or riding off-trail, to know whether or not they are actually accomplishing the desired behavior modification compared with the cost of processing citations? If bars were losing customers because they permitted smoking, they would have declared no smoking zones all on their own. When I ran for the office of POTUS, two of my "promises" were ... I would not sign any proposed Bill which did not start with a statement of its behavior modification objective and ... I would not sign any proposed Bill which did not repeal at least two dysfunctional or obsolete "laws". I look forward to more Council discussions on Consent Calendar Items so that Staff starts to provide more comprehensive Staff Recommendations . ... S 310-377-8761 1 D. From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Friday, July 31, 2020 7:53 AM CityCierk Subject: Attachments: FW: Concern from a citizen 20200804 -StaffRpt Bills.pdf Late carr From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 7:59 PM To: 'John' <jhhvh@aol.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Concern from a citizen Ms. Heinrich, The City Council is in receipt of your email expressing concerns regarding pending legislative bills on housing density. The concerns you shared with the City Council in the post from Ms. Davidson in the City of Palos Verdes Estates are Rancho Palos Verdes' concerns as well. In fact, most of the South Bay cities share those sentiments too. Your City Council will be considered adopting a resolution expressing its opposition to the proposed housing bills (planning and zoning legislation) and submitting position letters at its upcoming August 4 meeting. I attached the City Council staff report on this agenda item. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns . Ara Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager CITY 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 1 G. r;/1 Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belongmg lo the City oi Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected fr ·om disclosur·e. The information is rnlended only tor use ot the individual or entity named. Unauthm·ized drssemmatron, distr·ibution, or copying rs strictly prohrbited. If \'ClU r-er:erved this email irr error, or arf not an ir1tended reCiprent, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistar1Ce and cooper·ation. From: John <jhhvh@aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:08PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: Concern from a citizen Good evening, city council members: I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, and receive regular posts from Nextdoor Pt. Vicente . On the site tonight there was a plea from a resident of Palos Verdes Estates that we all contact our state representatives to prevent the passage of some bills by the California legislature that would directly impact housing density in evety city in the state. One of the bill specifically overrides any zoning authority of any city. This is vety worrisome to me, and I wonder if you as a governmental body have done anything to stop these bills? I have only included pari of the message below, but it seems imporlant that as an entity, our city take a position on this matter of housing density and communicate it directly to our California legislative representatives as well as the governor. Thanks you for your attention, and I would appreciate knowing where the city stands on this. Virginia Heinrich7300 Via Marie CelesteRPVjhhvh@aol.lcom Say NO TO HIGH DENSITY HOUSING BILLS ON THE PENINSULA AND TORRANCE. Please Call our Reps ASAP: Assemblyman AI Muratsuchi: 310-375-0691 State Senator Ben Allen: (310) 318-6994 "Never let a good crisis go to waste" is an old political saying. IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC VOTES ARE TAKING PLACE. Our state legislature, both Democrats and Republicans are voting on critical bills for high density housing in our suburbs within the next days! Gone will be all local city zoning. Replaced with the wording of these bills. If you like this photo then take no action. IF YOU DON'T WANT 25 FT TALL DUPLEXES OR HIGH RISES ALONG THROUGH FARES IN OUR COMMUNITIES THEN CALL NOW! SAY NO ON SB 902, AB 725 AND THESE PROBLEMATIC BILLS: Senate: SB 1102, SB 995, SB 1085, Assembly Bills:AB 1279, 2345, 3040, 3107. Posted in General to 15 neighborhoods ~hank 10 ~~1 0 Comments • • - 11 2 Joan Davidson Montemalaga ~ All of these High Density bills will wipe out local zoning laws and the authority of ALL CITY COUNCILS TO STOP IT. SB 902 This bill, which passed the state Senate by a 33-3 vote June 22, would allow cities to grant by-right zoning approval for up to ten units in transit-and job-rich areas. The bill is now headed to the Assembly for review. AB 725 This bill, which passed the state Assembly by a 48-22 vote Jan. 30, would require that at least 25% of a jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for "moderate income" and "above moderate income" housing be allowed in neighborhoods whose current zoning permits at least two units, but no more than 35 units, of housing per acre. 7 hr ago 3 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/04/2020 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar AGENDA TITLE : Consideration and possible action to oppose various planning and zoning bills in order to maintain local control. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Adopt Resolution No . 2020-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED PLANNING AND ZONING LEGISLATION THAT USURPS LOCAL CONTROL AND IMPOSES UNFUNDED MANDATES, AND EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR ACTIONS TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN LOCAL DEMOCRACY, AUTHORITY AND CONTROL; and , (2) Authorize the Mayor to sign position letters on these bills. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Megan Barnes, Senior Administrative Ap~lyst 1'!1}3> REVIEWED BY: Karina Banales, Deputy C ity Manager - APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, C ity Manager -~ ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Draft Resolution No. 2020-__ (page A-1) B. Matrix of Legislative Bills on Housing and Zoning (page B-1) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On July 27, the California Legislature reconvened from summer recess later than originally scheduled to reduce the risk of COVID-19 exposure to legislative staff. The decision to delay returning to session tightened the window for the Legislature to act on hundreds of pieces of legislation before the August 31 , 2020 deadline . 1 City Staff recognizes the City Council's strong position on maintaining local control particularly as it pertains to planning and zoning, and advocating against legislation that imposes "one size fits all" zoning on California 's diverse communities . Moreover, most of these bills being considered by the Legislature are unfunded mandates imposed on local jurisdictions . A summary of latest round of planning and zoning bills in the Legislature and recommended positions is included in this report as Attachment B. Due to time constraints , at this time , Staff is unable to present individual draft position letters to the City Council for consideration this evening. Staff therefore recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution memorializing its oppos ition on the bills (Attachment A), and authorize the Mayor to sign position letters as they become available. Staff intends to provide the City Council, as late correspondence, as many position letters as possible in advance of the August 4 meeting. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation , the following alternative actions are available for the City Council 's consideration: 1. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letters as they become available . 2. Take other action as deemed appropriate by the City Council. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED PLANNING AND ZONING LEGISLATION THAT USURPS LOCAL CONTROL AND IMPOSES UNFUNDED MANDATES, AND EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR ACTIONS TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN LOCAL DEMOCRACY, AUTHORITY AND CONTROL WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California, has proposed a number of bills addressing a range of planning and zoning issues that are typically addressed by local jurisdictions through its general plan and zoning code; and WHEREAS, the majority of these planning and zoning bills usurp the authority of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves the land use policies and practices that best suit their cities and residents and instead impose mandates that do not take into account the needs and differences of jurisdictions throughout the State, as well as imposing unfunded mandates on jurisdictions for actions that are not in their best interests; and WHEREAS, for example, the ability of jurisdictions to determine for themselves which projects require review beyond a ministerial approval, what parking requirements are appropriate for various locales within their jurisdiction, what plans and programs are suitable and practical for each community rather than having these decisions imposed upon cities without regard to the circumstances of each individual city is a matter of great importance to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes feels strongly that our local government is best able to assess the needs of our community and objects to the proliferation of State legislation that deprives us of that ability. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY: Section 1. Registers its strong opposition to the following pieces of State legislation that usurp local control as it relates to planning and zoning, and impose unfunded mandates: • AB 831 (Grayson) -Planning and zoning: housing: development application modifications. • AB 953 (Ting)-Land use: accessory dwelling units. • AB 1279 (Bloom) -Housing Developments. High Resource Areas. • AB 2323 (Friedman) -California Environmental Quality Act Exemptions. • AB 2405 (Burke)-Right to safe, decent, and affordable housing. A-1 • AB 3153 (Rivas, Robert) Parking and zoning: bicycle and car-share parking credits. • AB 3269 (Chui) State and local agencies: homelessness plan. • SB 288 (Wiener) California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions. • SB 899 (Weiner) Planning and zoning: housing development: higher education institutions and religious institutions . • AB 725 (Wicks) General Plans: housing element: moderate-income and above moderate income housing: suburban and metropolitan jurisdictions. • AB 1851 (Wicks) Religious institution affiliated housing development projects: parking requirements. • AB 2168 (McCarty) Planning and zoning: electric vehicle charging stations: permit application: approval. • AB 2345 (Gonzalez) Planning and zoning: density bonuses: annual report: affordable housing. • AB 2988 (Chu) Planning and zoning: supportive housing: number of units: emergency shelter zones. • AB 3107 (Bloom) Planning and zoning: General Plan: housing development. • SB 902 (Weiner) Planning and zoning: housing development zoning. • SB 995 (Atkins) Environmental Quality: Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011: housing projects. • SB 1085 (Skinner) Density Bonus Law: qualifications for incentives or concessions: student housing for lower income students: moderate-income persons and families: local government constraints. • SB 1120 (Atkins) Subdivisions: tentative maps. • SB 1138 (Weiner) Housing Element emergency shelters: rezoning of sites; and, Section 2. Registers its equally strong opposition to the current practice of the State legislature of proposing and passing multitudes of bills that directly impact and interfere with the ability of cities to control their own destiny through use of the zoning authority that has been granted to them. Section 3 . Declares that, should the State continue to pass legislation that attacks local municipal authority, control and revenue, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will support actions such as a ballot measure that would limit the State ability to control local activities and strengthen local democracy and authority. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution . A-2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 4th day of August, 2020 . Attest: Emily Colborn, City Clerk State of California County of Los Angeles City of Rancho Palos Verdes John Cruikshank, Mayor ) ss I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2020-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 4, 2020. Emily Colborn, City Clerk A-3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Housing and Zoning State Assemly and Senate Bills Bill Senator [s) Bllliille Bill Description RPV Status AB 725 Wicks General plans: housing element: moderate-inco me and above moderate-Under current law, there are programs providing assistance for, among other things, emergency housing, multifamily hous·l ng , Monitoring & income housing: suburban and metropolitan jurisdictions. farmworker housing, homeownership for very low and low-income households, and down payment assistance for first-time recom mending homebuyers.This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would create a pilot program to provide opposition as it inhibit s downpayment assistance to persons who are purchasing their rental residence pursuant to a rent-to-own contract local control AB 831 Grayson Planning and zoning: housing: development application modifications , The Planning and Zoning Law, until January 1, 2026, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a Monitoring multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including, among other things, that the development is located on a site that satisfies specified location, urbanization, and zoning requirements. Current law requires a lo cal government that determines that a deve lo pment submitted pursuant to these provisions is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards to provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with and an explanation of the reasons , as specified . This bill would require the development and the site on which it is located to satisfy the specified location, urbanizatio n, and zoning requirements AB 953 :!JDg Land use: accessory dwelling units . Current law requires a local agency to ministerially appr ove or deny a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling Monitoring unit or junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. This bill would deem a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit approved if the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 davs. AB 1279 ~ Planning and zoning: housing development: high-opportunity areas . The Planning and Zoning Law allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a Monitoring & specified streamlined, ministerial approval process not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies certain recommending objective planning standards, including that the development is (1) located in a locality determined by the Department of Housing opposition unless and Community Development to have not met its share of the regional housing needs for the reporting period, and (2) subject to amended a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of below-market rate housing, as provided . This bill would require the department to designate areas in this state as high-opportunity areas, as provided , by January 1, 2022, in accordance with specified requirements and to update those designations within 6 months of the adoption of new Opportunity Maps by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. ~ Wicks Religious institution affiliated housing development projects: parking Would prohibit a local agency from requiring the replacement of religious-use parking spaces that a developer of a religious institution Monitor'mg & requirements. ~ffiliated housing development project proposes to eliminate as part of that housing development project. The bUI would prohibit the recommending number of religious-use parking spaces requested to be eliminated from exceeding SO% of the number that are available at the time the opposition as it inhibits request is made. The bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of religious-use local control parking spaces as a condition of approval of a religious institution affiliated housing development project, AB 2168 McCarty Planning and zoning: electric vehicle charging stations: permit application: Would require an application to install an electric vehicle chargi ng station to be deemed complete if, 5 business days after the application Momtoring & approval . was submitted, the build ing off1cial of the city, county, or city and county has not deemed the application complete, as specified, and if the recommending bui ld ing official has not issued a one-written correction notice, as specified The bill would require an application to install an electric vehicle opposition as it inh ibits charging station to be deemed approved if 15 business days after the application was deemed complete certain conditions are met, local control In first including that the building official of the city, county, or city and county has not approved the application, as specified, and the building reading in originating official has not made find ings that the proposed installation could have an ad ve rse impact, as described above, and required the applicant to house apply for a use permit. AB 2323 Friedman California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions CEQA exempts from its requirements certain residential, employment center, and mixed-use development projects meeting specified Monitoring criteria, including that the project is undertaken and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified This bill would require that the project is undertaken and IS consistent w1th either a specific plan prepared pursuant to specific provisions of law or a community plan, as defined, in order to be exempt. Because a lead agency would be reQuired to determine the applicability of this exemption, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Page 1 of 4 B-1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Housing and Zoning State Assemly and Senate Bills Bill Senator (s) Bill Title Bill Description RPV Status AB 2345 Gonzalez Planning and zoning: density bonuses : annual report: affordable housing. The Planning and Zoning Law requires the planning agency of a city or county to provide by Aprill of each year an annual report to, among Monitoring & other entities, the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes, among other spec'rfied information, the number of recomm en ding net new units of housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy, thus far in the opposition as it inhib'rts housing element cycle, as provided ~ This bill would require that the annual report include specified information regarding density bonuses local control granted in accordance with specified law, as described AB 2405 Burke Right to safe, decent, and affordable housing. Would declare that it is the policy of the state that every individual has the right to safe, decent, and affordable housing, and would require Monitoring the policy to consider homeless ness prevention, emergency accommodations, and permanent housing, as specified The bill would, among other things, require all relevant state agencies and departments, including, but not limited to, the Department of Housing and Community Development, the State Department of Social Services, and the Office of Emergency Services, and local jurisdictions to consider that state policy when revising, adopting, or establishing policies, regulations, and grant criteria when those policies, regulations, and criteria are pertinent to advancing the guidelines listed as core components of Housing First. AB 2988 Chu Planning and zoning: supportive housing: number of units: emergency Under the Planning and Zoning law, supportive housing, as defined, is a use by right i n zones where multifamily and mixed uses are Monitoring shelter zones permitted if the developer provides the planning agency with a plan for providing supportive services and the proposed housmg development meets specified criteria, including that the housing development consist of 50 units or fewer if it is located in an unincorporated area of a county or city that has a population of fewer than 200,000 and a population of persons experiencing homelessness of 1,500 or fewer. This bill would, additionally, make supportive hous '~ng a use by right in zones where emergency shelters are permitted. The bill would revise the above-described limit on the number of units in a housing development to 120 or fewer if it is located within a region served by a contimuum of care, as defined, and the most recently published total homeless point-in-time count for the region is 1,500 or fewer AB 3107 Bloom Planning and zoning: commercial zoning: housing development The Planning and Zoning law authorizes the legislative body of any county or city, pursuant to specified proc edures , to adopt ordinances Monitoring & that. among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, resi dences, open space, and recommending other purposes, This bill, notwithstanding any inconsis tent provision of a city's or county's general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or opposition as it inhibits regulation, would require that a housing development be an authorized use on a site designated i n any local agency's zoning code for local control commercial uses '1 f certain condif1ons apply Among these conditions, the b1ll would require that the housing development be subject to a recorded deed restriction requiring that at least 20% of the units have an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for lower income households, as those terms are defined, and located on a site that satisf1es specified criteria. AB 3153 Rivas R Parking and zoning: bicycle and car-share parking credits ~ Would require a local agency, as defined, to allow an applicant for a housing development project to reduce the number of motor vehicle Monitoring parking spaces that they would otherwise be required to provide based on the number of long-term b1cycle parking spaces and car-sharing spaces provided subject to certain limitations, as specified , The bill would provide that a parking reduction allowed pursuant to these provisions does not reduce or increase the number of incentives or concessions to which the applicant is otherwise entitled under a specified provision of the Density Bonus law. AB 3269 Chui State and local agencies : homeless ness plan. Would, upon appropriation by the legislature or upon receiving technical assistance offered by the federal Department of Housing and Monitoring & Urban Development (HUD), if available, require the coordinating council to conduct, or contract with an entity to conduct, a statewide needs recommending and gaps analysis to, among other things, identify state programs that provide housing or services to persons experiencing homeiessness opposition unless and create a financial model that will assess certain 'mves tment need s for the purpose of moving persons experiencing homelessness into amended permanent housing . Page 2 of 4 B-2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Housing and Zoning State Assemly and Senate Bills Bill Senator (s) Blllntle Bill De~crlptlon RPV Status SB 288 Wiener California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions: tra nsportation·related CEQA includes exemptions from its environmental review requirements for numerous categories of projects, including, among others, Monitoring projects. projects for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rail or highway rights-of -way already in use and projects for the institut ion or i ncrease of passenger or commuter service on high-occupancy vehicle lanes already in use , as specified. This bill would further exempt from the requirements of CEQA certain projects, including projects for the institution or increase of new bus rapid transit, bus, or light rail services on public rail or highway rights-of-way, as specified, whether or not the right-of-way is in use for public mass transit, as specified , and projects for the designation and conversion of general purpose lanes, high-occupancy toll lanes, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, or highway shoulders, as specified. The bill would additionally exempt projects that improve customer informat'1on and wayfinding for transit riders, bicyclists , or pedestrians, and projects for pedestrian and bicycle facilities , 58899 Wiener Planning and zoning: housing development: higher education institutions The Planning and Zoning law reQuires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its phys ica l development, Monitoring & and religious institutions and the development of certain lands outside its boundar'1es, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law recommending allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, min'lsterial approval opposition process not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards This bill would require that a housing development project be a use by right upon the request of an independent institution of higher education or religious institution that partners with a qualified developer on any land owned in fee simple by the applicant on or before January 1, 2020, if the development satisfies specifted criteria. SB 902 ~ Planning and zoning: housing development: density. Would authorize a local government to pass an ordinance, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, to zone any RPV opposition letter parcel for up to 10 units of resident'lal density per parcel, at a height specified by the local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is Sent 7/7/2020 located in a transit-rich area , a jobs-rich area, or an urban infill site, as those terms are defined, In this regard, the bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development, in consultation with the Office of Planning and Research, to determine jobs-rich areas and publis h a map of those areas every 5 years, commencing January 1, 2022 , based on specified criteria SB 995 Atkins Environmental quality: Jobs and Economic Improvement Through CEQA requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment Monitoring Environmental Leadership Act of 2011: housing projects~ if rev1sions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment CEQA authorizes the preparation of a master EIR and authorizes the use of the master EIR to limit the environmental review of subsequent projects that are described in the master EIR, as specified. This bill would require a lead agency to prepare a master EIR for a general plan, plan amendment, plan element, or specified plan for housing projects where the state has provided funding for the preparation of the master EIR~ SB 1085 ~ Density Bonus law: qualifications for incentives or concessions : student Current law requires the amount of a density bonus and the number of incent'1ves or concessions a qualifying developer receives to be Monitoring & housing for lower income students : moderate-income persons and pursuant to a certain formula based on the total number of units in the housing development, excluding the units added by a density bonus recommending families: local government constraints. awarded pursuant to the Density Bonus Law or any local law granting a greater density bonus , This bill would require a unit designated to opposition as it inhibits satisfy the inclusionary zoning requirements of a city or co unty to be included in the total number of units on which a density bonus and the local control number of incentives or concessions are based SB 1120 Atkins Subdivisions: tentative maps Would require a proposed housing development contain'mg 2 residential units to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or Monitoring & hearing, within a single-family residential zone, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, including, but not limited recommending to, that the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, o pposition as it inhib'1ts ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the proposed local control SBCCOG hous i ng development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls. except as provided, and sent opposition letter on that the development is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site 6/8/2020 that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or histor'1c property or district Page 3 of 4 B-3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Housing and Zoning State Assemly and Senate Bills Bill Senator (s) Bill Title Bill Description RPV Status 58 1138 Wiener Housing element: emergency shelters: rezoning of sites . The Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the Monitoring & physical development of the county or city that includes a housing element Current law requires that the housing element identify adequate recommending sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and to make adequate provision for opposition as it inhibits the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of a community This bill would revise the requirements of the housing element, local control as described above, in connection with identifying zones or zoning designations that allow residential use, including mixed use, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit If an emergency shelter zoning designation where residential use is a permitted use is unfeasible, the bill would permit a local government to designate zones for emergency shelters in a nonresidential zone if the local government demonstrates that the zone is connected to amenities and services, as specified, that serve homeless people Page 4 of 4 B-4 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Friday, July 31, 2020 5:59 PM CC; CityCierk Megan Barnes; j1000@cox.net Question. August 4, 2020 CC Agenda Item G Dear Mr Mayor and City Council, Although I wholeheartedly support this Recommendation, I have to question its effectiveness. Did we pay for Megan's Staff Time to "originate" this whole thing or did it come from some source which has provided it to every municipality and County in the State of California? ... S 310-377-8761 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Friday, July 31,2020 1:47PM CityCierk FW: Emergency preparedness is complicated. RPV CC August 4, 2020 Comments on Items 2 and 3 From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 1:44PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Cc: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Jesse Villalpando <jvillalpando@rpvca.gov>; James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov>; Rudy Monroy <rmonroy@rpvca.gov>; corinne.gerrard@gmail.com; bzzask@gmail.com; imac <imac@rpvca.gov>; EPC <EPC@rpvca.gov>; professorohlaker@gmail.com; gordon.leon@gmail.com Subject: Emergency preparedness is complicated. RPV CC August 4, 2020 Comments on Items 2 and 3 Hello Mr . Mayor, Council Members and Interested parties, We , the People, are having a real hard time with being neighbors to the PV Nature Preserve. Phone calls and correspondence to several parties are not producing any assistance with emergency preparedness, Firefighter access and fire fuel abatement. Following is an email chain about implementing the Trails Network Plan which provides for some emergency preparedness, Firefighter access and fire fuel abatement. Agenda Item 2 reports that your Action item 4 , outreach to the La County Fire Department, is at 0 percent completion with a target date of 12/31/2020 . Agenda Item 3 reports that the City has no intention of doing anything about the fire hazard I reported at your May 5, 2020 Council Meeting. I am happy to report that SoCal Edison has done some of the work which they said they would do. The nice thing about them is that they take care of their infrastructure no matter where it has moved to. But then, they don't have to quibble about spending public funds on property which is occupied by private parties . They simply ask for "permission" and don't expect to send anyone an invoice. 1 See the map on page A-1 in the Item 3 Staff Report. The area that I am concerned about is labeled 32 (lower right corner) which is not the same as 14 Cherry Hill Lane which is given the Fuel Mod Zone #32 on the table on Page B-1. This problem (acacias, eucalyptus and dead wood) is clearly on City property, south of the PV Drive South Right of Way and no amount of new surveys is going to say it is not. I am hoping that the Council has some way of getting the City Manager (Ara Mihranian) to identify specific persons, not just titles, of the persons who have been assigned specific tasks so that We, the People, can communicate with the person who is supposed to know the answers to our questions. I am thinking that that should appear in the "memorialization" of Council's stated "action items". In this case, who is the person who is the City's contact with the Fire Department who can establish the Fire Department's "conceptually ideal" equipment access and evacuation routes into and across the City's property in the greater Portuguese Bend area? The Preserve Trails Plan is for shit in this regard. The Trails Network Plan Update Consultant is a ghost. I have volunteered to write the "narratives" for the Trails Network Plan and I have offered to help IT correct the existing trails shown in our GIS data base. The PBCA Board keeps reaching out. Physical conditions are deteriorating. Lives and property are at risk. Another Fiscal Year has begun and alii am seeing is more deferred maintenance. We can't blame that on the State of California's Legislature. Best regards SUNSHINE RPV 310-377-8761 Subject: Re: Three Sisters-Filiorum Reserve Trail Connection. IT and future Study Session Item? Date: 7/30/2020 6:03:34 PM Pacific Standard Time From: sunshinerpv@aol.com 2 To: Katiel@rpvca.gov Sent from the Internet (Details) Hello Katie, You wrote: "The trail will be constructed in accordance with the City Council approved Preserve Public Use Master Plan." This means absolutely nothing to me, the trail user public, Civil Engineers, nor the City's infrastructure maintenance personnel. I have no preference about the two proposed routes. The Preserve Trails Plan is a trail use rules enforcement guide. It has nothing to do with preserving and enhancing the Peninsula's trails network. That is what PVPLC's proposal does not address. Have you any experience with being a home builder's Project Manager? One way to look at it is ... Your job is to get Daddy, Mommy and the children to agree on what they are willing to pay for, in writing. A good one does not rip them off by saying after the fact. .. That is not what I thought you said you wanted. The TRAILS DEVELOPMENT I MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012 is simply a reference tool to create an agreement among the public (Mommy), the environmentalists (PVPLC, Wildlife Agencies), (the children) and the Staff charged with maintaining a viable and cost-effective circulation network (Daddy). Until such an agreement is reached and documented as specific trail TYPE's in specific places, there is no point to anyone paying anyone for more site visits by undisclosed persons trampling on Jim York's property. The first step has been taken by the CCD on this Category II trail, A9. The private property owner has been approached and is willing to consider offering to dedicate to the City a "to be defined" trail use easement on his property. Just like with the Section Five, J2 Bronco trail, the City has not defined the difference between preserving an existing "conceptual" trail and "enhancing" the circulation network. My impression of the next step in this case would be for you to bring the City's Emergency Preparedness Coordinator (Jesse Villalpando), the City's Wildfire Management Coordinator (James O'Neill) and a Fire Department Planner into a discussion on what TYPE's of trails, from where to where, would best serve their interests in protecting and serving the residents who are adjacent to the Three Sisters, Filiorum and Portuguese Bend Nature Reserves. Those recommendations need to be shared with Cory Linder (Contract Officer) and the Consultant who is updating the Trails Network Plan "narratives". When it comes to planning and maintenance, the City-owned Reserves do fall under the RPV Trails Network Plan (Category I and Ill). 3 At this stage, the point-to-point narratives in the 1993 Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) still speak to the trail users' objectives . Redesign the specific trail route as the developer/City pleases as long as the connections , Standards and Use "factors" are met. It all comes down to the fact that Staff should follow the CTP's Amendment Procedures or you should notice and agendize a Council discussion about changing the goals in the Trails Network Plan. Please let me know if you are not in a position to organize a consultation with the Fire Department. They appear to be on the side of those who would prefer that the whole Hill burned down so that the "habitat" can get a fresh start . You invited me to reach out to you, directly. I have to ask ... Whose side are you on? ... S Subject: Re : Three Sisters-Filiorum Reserve Trail Connection . IT and future Study Session Item? Date 7/30/2020 1:34:33 PM Pacific Standard Time From : KatieL@rpvca .gov To : trai ls@rpvca .gov , sunshinerpv@aol.com Cc : CoryL@rpvca .gov , esassoon@rpvca .gov , krukavina@rpvca .gov , jvillalpando@rpvca .gov , CC@rpvca .gov , CityCierk@rpvca .gov , lbuchwald@rpvca .gov , theyorkproperties@qmail.com , amohan@pvplc .org , AraM@rpvca .gov , corinne .gerrard@gmail .com , gardner4@earthlink .net , smhvaleri@cox .net , andre@ruggerimarble .com , professorohlaker@gmail .com , gordon.leon@gmail.com , jdavies@kuboaa .com Sent from the Internet (Details) Hello Sunshine, Thank you for your email and thoughts on the trail. The City Council has already approved this trail and approximate location as part of the City Council approved Preserve Trails Plan. We agree with you absolutely that we should accept an easement over property on which a sustainable trail can be built , and that is our intent. The trail will be constructed in accordance with the City Council approved Preserve Public Use Master Plan , which acknowledges that passive recreational uses and the amenities that support them, such as trails, must be built to minimize impacts to protected habitat. So the City is working with our Preserve Habitat Manger, PVPLC, a very qualified trail engineer, and the Wildlife Agencies to construct this trail. The two routes shared to solic it public input are conceptual , and are going to be flagged and analyzed more closely during a site visit over the next two weeks . 4 Please feel free to reach out to me directly. With your knowledge of our trail system, I'd love your thoughts on whether you favor one trail route over the other. Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager Recreation, Parks, and Open Space City of Rancho Palos Verdes 31 0-544-5267 Subject: Trail use liability . Re: Three Sisters-Filiorum Reserve Trail Connection . IT and future Study Session Item? Date: 7/26/2020 2 :18:05 PM Pacific Standard Time From: sunshinerpv@aol.com To: theyorkproperties@gmail.com , KatieL@rpvca .go v Cc: tralls@rpvca .gov , CoryL@rpvca .gov , esassoon@rpvca .gov , krukavina@rpvca .gov , jvillalpando@rpvca .gov , cc@rpvca.gov , CityCierk@rpvca .gov , lbuchwald@rpvca .gov , amohan@pvplc .org , AraM@rpvca.gov , corinne.qerrard@qmail.com , gardner4@earthtink.net , smhva leri@cox.net , andre@rugger imarble.com , professorohlaker@gmail .com , gordon .leon @gmail.com , jdavies@kuboaa .com , rblack@coxcastle .com , gsweberconsulting@gmail .com , cmoneil@aol .com , pvpasofino@yahoo.com , david .lukac.us@gmail.com Sent from the Internet (Details) Hello Jim and Katie, While we are waiting to find out which TYPE of trail is desired by those who need/want one, is agreeable by the "Wildlife Agencies" from a habitat taking point of view and is sustainable from a construction/maintenance cost point of view, the liability issues need to be clarified. Attached is a California Code which our Judicial System has "watered down". This one applies to private property. I have been told that there is a similar Code which applies to Municipalities. I have also been told that it increases the City's liability if they physically enhance an existing "social trail". 5 Also attached is an old news clipping about when the CA Supreme Court ruled to reduce personal injury suits. 1863 is the correct date. Too bad it has been "swept under the rug" again in that when sued, it costs private parties less to settle than to pursue a defense. The City of RPV has "deep pockets". Asking the public to "vote" between two terribly incomplete proposals at a very "untransparent" "Forum" has become the City's Standard Operating Procedure. This "SOP" is not limited to relations with the PVP Land Conservancy. Proposed agreements with other development Applicants as well as Staff Initiated projects are being Recommended without an in depth "risk management" discussion at the City Council level. The fact that Katie does not have the answers to my questions at her fingertips is most disconcerting. The fact that Staff has chosen to ignore Council's concern about making this easement a Condition of Jim's Entitlements is outrageous. PVPLC's objective with this proposal appears to be to suck up a lot of public funds in the way of Staff Time and to make the supposedly "streamlined" development review process as expensive as possible for private parties. PVPLC has every right to pursue their mission to create "pure habitat". Without the Council's clear and public discussion of the consequences of each action, the public is being duped into diminishing our City's infrastructure goals one little bit at a time. I have sent similar questions to several Planners and Public Works Analysts plus Matt Waters in relation to several specific projects. I have asked Cory Linder about the Trails Network Plan update "narratives". ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK signs at your property lines and PUBLIC TRAIL ENDS IN 300 FEET signs in the Preserve may be sufficient if the City/PVPLC really has no intention of constructing an at least TYPE 5 trail connection from Barkentine Canyon to Altamira Canyon. The PV Loop Trail "ideal route" in the Trails Network Plan goes across the Plumtree Property. What Staff does not disclose is hurting all of us. Please don't sign anything until you know exactly what you will be giving away. We are all in this together or, are we? ... S 310-377-8761 PVPLC's proposed new trail connection 6 Subject: RE: Three Sisters-Filiorum Reserve Trail Connection. IT and future Study Session Item? Date: 7/26/2020 7:50:30 AM Pacific Standard Time From: Katiel@rpvca.gov To: sunshinerpv@aol.com , trails@rpvca.gov Cc: Coryl@rpvca.gov , esassoon@rpvca .gov , krukavina@rpvca .gov , ivillalpando@rpvca .gov , CC@rpvca.gov , CityCierk@rpvca .gov , lbuchwald@rpvca.gov, theyorkproperties@gmai l.com , amohan@pvplc.org , AraM@rpvca.gov , corinne.gerrard@gmail .com , gardner4@earthlink.net , sm hvaleri@cox .net , andre@ruggerimarble.com , professorohlaker@gmail.com , gordon.leon@qmall.com , jdavies@kuboaa .com Sent from the Internet (Details) Hello Sunshine, Thank you for your email. I am looking into your questions and comments, and will have more information by Thursday. Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager Recreation and Parks Department Subject: Citizen participation. Fwd: Three Sisters-Filiorum Reserve Trail Connection . IT and future Study Session Item? Date: 7/23/2020 4:42:12 PM Pacific Standard Time From: sunshinerpv@aol.com To: imac@rpvca.gov , pc@rpvca.gov , fac@rpvca.gov , tsc@rpvca.gov , epc@rpvca.gov Sent from the Internet (Details) Hello neighbors, 7 Thought you all should see this, too. What is the point of serving the City in a voluntary position when Staff gets to choose what you can and cannot comment on and what shows up on your Agenda is packaged as a "done deal"? Please let me know, as a private citizen, whether or not you would like to join a discussion about how we citizens might get to participate in the "big picture" data gathering earlier in the process between concepts and poured concrete. Sunshine 31 0-377-8761 Subject: Re: Three Sisters-Filiorum Reserve Trail Connection . IT and future Study Session Item? Date: 7/23/2020 4:07:37 PM Pacific Standard Time From: sunshinerpv@aol.com To: katiel@rpvca .gov, tra ils@rpvca .gov Cc: corvl@rpvca .gov , esassoon@rpvca .gov, krukav ina@rpvca .gov , jvillalpando@rpvca.gov , cc@rpvca .gov , cityclerk@rpvca.gov , lbuchwald@rpvca .gov , theyorkproperties@qmail.com , amohan@pvplc .erq , aram@rpvca.gov , cor i nne .gerrard@qmail .com , gardner4@earthlink .net , smhvaleri@cox .net , andre@ruqgerimarble.com , professorohlake r@qmail.com , gordon .leon@gmail .com , jdavies@kuboaa .com Sent from the Internet (Details) Hello Katie, Oh boy do I have thoughts and questions. Before I can comment on the two lines on an undated aerial photo, I need to know what process you intend to follow and to what expected City Council action. The process to facilitate an addition to the RPV Trails Network Plan (TNP) is spelled out in the Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) Section's Introduction under Amendment Procedures: page i-4 . This Applicant should not be put in a position to have to dedicate a trail easement as long as there is a chance that an appropriate trail cannot be graded in the reasonably near future. Now that most of the City's "existing/conceptual" trails have become Category I or Category Ill, (i.e . trails on City property) and since the City no longer has a Rec.& Parks Committee, it makes more 8 sense that the Citizen Advisory Committee which reviews such proposed amendments would be the I MAC. One of the issues which came up during the I MAC's recent annual review is that the projects which get onto their priority list need to be more thoroughly described. In this case, it appears that the appropriate action would be for someone to draft a "narrative" in the format which the Consultant is supposed to be using for the TNP update. I would be happy to do that as soon as someone provides me with the criteria which this trail is proposed to accomplish. Is this proposed trail connection intended to be an implementation of the point-to-point trails A8 and A9 or a whole new trail connection between the Top of The Hill Loop Trail and the Palos Verdes Loop Trail? There was a discussion at the City Council level about the appropriateness of making a voluntary offer of a trail easement one of the Conditions in the private development entitlements. I am very concerned that it is in Staff's hands to produce the easement location exhibit while the Council has not yet been presented with the engineered trail design which accommodates the agreed upon trail use objective. Council should never again be asked to accept an easement dedication/liability where a sustainable trail cannot be cost effectively constructed and maintained. See the attached Position Statement and TRAIL DEVELOPMENT I MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012. (Council reviewed.) The "tread lightly" philosophy should be paramount for any work, particularly in a nature preserve. Engineering comes first after all parties have agreed upon the obje ct ive . (Trail TYPE.) Provide me with the trail TYPE which the PVPLC is proposing and I will draft the rest of the "narrative". That is what you need to solicit public comments on. Once it has been established that such a trail is both desirable and physically/fiscally feasible, a choice between to two proposed routes may be relevant. Has the Fire Department and our Emergency Preparedness Coordinator been asked to comment on how this trail connection might add to their objectives? Is there any way to know when the lack of this information might begin to delay the Applicant's construction permit completions? I am ever so disappointed that this virtual forum was not recorded and archived on the City's web site. I look forward to answers as opposed to just an acknowledgement that this correspondence was 9 received . Please "reply all" since everyone has a roll to play in the future of our community .... S 310-377-8761 Subject: Three Sisters-Filiorum Reserve Connection Date: 7/21/2020 12:35:40 PM Pacific Standard Time From : ll stserv@c iv icplus .com To : sunshine rpv@aol .com Sent from the Internet (Details) Good Afternoon, At the City's July 15, 2020 Preserve Public Forum , the City and Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy solicited public opinion on the conceptual route of a trail that would connect the Three Sisters Reserve and Filiorum Reserve . The City will continue soliciting feedback over the next two weeks . If you have thoughts or questions on this future trail, please contact Open Space Manager/Senior Administrative Analyst Katie Lozano at tra il s@rpvca.gov or 310-544-5267 . Click here to view the two conceptual routes under consideration . Thank you for your feedback. ************************************************* This message is been sent by the City of Ra ncho Pa los Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category you are signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is an unmonitored email address . You can make changes to your subscription by visiting http ://www .rpv ca.gov/lis t.as px . You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Palos Verdes Nature Preserve on www.rpvca.gov . To unsubscribe, click the following link: Unsubscribe 10