20210302 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 2, 2021
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
3 Emails from: Sunshine; Don Bell; Jim Hevener
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, March 1, 2021**.
Re:;§i:mitted,
Emily Colborn
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2021\2021 Coversheets\20210302 additions revisions to agenda .docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Monday, March 1, 2021 4:30 PM
CC; CityCierk
PC
Subject: RPV City Council March 2, 2021, Agenda Item 3, Ladera Linda Appeal consideration
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
Matt Waters and I go way back. Following is what I would have sent to him if I thought he could do
anything about the situations. It is simply more of what you won't find in Agenda Reports. The
decisions are up to you .... S
It has been three months. What has happened since Dec 1, 2020?
Hi Matt,
Council came up with some pretty interesting discussions, decisions and directions. My email to you,
which you submitted as late correspondence even though I had copied cc@rpvca.gov , does not
appear to have had any influence on your Staff Presentations.
Although Item H, the PV Preserve is my bigger concern. Moving forward with Items 4 and 5, Ladera
Linda, is on the Council's March 2, 2021 Agenda. Your answers back in November dodged my
questions. Octavio's Agenda Report does not give you, the Design Consultant's Client
Spokesperson, the opportunity to explain how this Council Approved Work Product has come to be
worth appealing.
Do you know why? By that I mean ... If the CUP is reversed and if you are a party to a "do-over",
have you learned how it should have been done? You shepherded a Citizen Task Force's
Subcommittee through the complete design process for the proposed Athletic, Cultural and Civic
Center including how to fund the construction. It took only two years. You have been "shepherding"
the Ladera Linda Project for what, five years? Debacle.
1 3
Do you see what went missing? A Citizen Task Force Subcommittee should have been in place from
the beginning. Obviously, this is not your decision to make. I'll get back to you for an update on your
conversation with Michael McGee. It is the City Council or a Citizen Task Force Subcommittee who
really needs to know the specifics of the directions he has been given in relation to "Gateway Park"
and the "conservation easements". They might want to modify them before the work goes too far.
Are you a Grandfather yet? ... S
Subject: RE: City Council, December 1, 2020 Items H, 4 and 5. Trailheads
Date: 11/30/2020 2:15:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: MattW@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: CC@rpvca.gov, CityCierk@rpvca.gov, CoryL@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Sunshine,
Thank you for your email and I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Your email and this
response will be included as late correspondence.
Re Item H: The creation of legal descriptions is required as part of the NCCP/HCP agreement. Staff
will discuss the issues you've raised with Michael McGee.
Re Item 4: Yes, this is a contract extension for Johnson Favaro to continue work on the Ladera Linda
Park Master Plan.
Re Item 5: The proposed Prop 68 grant is for Ladera Linda Park, not the Forrestal reserve. The
resolution is a required placeholder to ensure the City has access to these per capita funds; the
detailed application is not due until Dec. 31, 2021.
2
Take Care,
Matt
City Council, December 1, 2020 Items H, 4 and 5. Trailheads
Subject: City Council, December 1, 2020 Items H, 4 and 5. Trailheads
Date: 11/25/2020 5:12:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: mattw@rpvca.gov
Cc: cc@rpvca.gov, cityclerk@rpvca.gov, mickeyrodich@gmail.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Matt,
You have three separate Items on the Council's December 1 Agenda which avoid rather than
contribute toward a "holistic" solution to the need for engineered visitor support infrastructure.
None of the three Agenda Reports include the "downside of doing nothing".
All three of the Agenda Reports mention opportunities for Staff "interpretations" with no "milestone"
opportunities for Council/the public to discuss course corrections.
So, is our government now giving up our rights or our privileges?
Item H appears to be a simple surveying chore. Given the fact that a Title Report should have been
acquired with each, individual Preserve parcel purchase, what is the push to get them now? One
year to complete? The individual grants which each required conservation easements had recording
deadlines which have long passed. Are the "Conservation Easements" which are to be recorded
3
within 90 days after the Wildlife Agency Permits are received by the City the same, similar or not yet
even drafted?
Of particular concern is the size/specific location of the "Gateway Park property" and the differences
between the conservation easement conditions on that land as opposed to the conservation
easement conditions on the rest of the former Hon Property. How can this be modified to better
support public amenities?
Item 4 appears to be a contract time extension.
Item 5 appears to be the preparation of a grant application which could be used anywhere in the City.
This brings up the opportunity to design multi-use trailheads to increase "diversity". As far as I can
tell, Ladera Linda Park is still a separate facility from the Forrestal Reserve Trailhead. How detailed
do these Site Plans have to be for the December 31, 2020 Application Deadline?
You know that I know all about this stuff. Why don't you contact me when you first get tasked with an
Action Item. I am happy to help avoid errors, omissions and missed opportunities.
Have a wonderful and "no virus spreading" Thanksgiving .... S
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late correspondence.
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www. rpvca .gov
Ara Mihranian
Tuesday, March 2, 2021 4:13 PM
CityCierk
FW: Agenda Item 3
RPVCC03021tem3.pdf
111 Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 3:10PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: Agenda Item 3
Dear City Manger,
Thank you for following the vote tonight to Appeal the Planning Committee Decision.
Looking toward to the April 6 meeting, I hope you can read and study the information in the following PDF for the
current meeting format makes a presentation like this challenging. Is this the building our city needs in a neighborhood
park?
Respectfully,
Don Bell
Ladera Linda resident 3
1
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR MEETING *AMENDED AGENDA
MARCH 2, 2021
Agenda Regular Business Item 3
To Honorable Rancho Palos Verdes City. Council Members:
I bring a new point of reference addressing the Johnson Favaro Design for the
Ladera Linda Park Building that the Planning Committee approved.
There has never been an Architect or Staff presentation to the City Council,
Planning Commission or Public that gave fully dimensioned drawings or any
comprehensible point of reference concerning the actual size of the building or
its campus area.
Please review the attached four page study that offers dimensions of a building
that we all understand. Please excuse my rough notes on the drawings for I
only was able to clearly understand the reality of the approved design this
afternoon. Actually, only through the action of our City Manager, has the project
been fortuitously delayed to go to the Planning Committee. And the process
yielding a 7-0 vote to proceed came without any requirement for drawings with
overall dimensions or flagged silhouette to give the public ability to clearly see or
understand the size of the building.
Note that I had a very hard time finding a drawing that gave actual dimensions
of the City Hall Administration Building.
There is a lot for you to learn:
I would like to stress several points when you compare the John Favaro design
to City Hall.
The building is immense -it is longer at 251 ' than the 171 . 7' West wall of
City Hall,
it is wider at 53.25' than City Hall North Wing of 32.66',
and possibly higher at 16-6-1 /2' than the existing two story
City Hall Campus Administration building.
The structure might become the largest single public building in the city!
With the proposed amphitheater, the total campus length will be close to
or exceed the 300' length of a football field.
Neighborhood homeowners have never rejected the concept of updating
or replacing the existing school buildings. We simply wish to have a
facility that retains compatibility with the site, is sized to be an Eastside
neighborhood resource and not a Los Angeles County event center, and
limits the draw of traffic to allow local residents to continue with life
undisturbed by rental or Social Media popularity.
I am in support of an Appeal of the Planning Committee decision for I believe
they were not provided with proper reference to what the design actually would
be.
I am also in support of a City Council decision to reject the Johnson Favaro
design due to incompatibility with the city or neighborhood due to excessive
size. How did the prior council decision to reject the Fisher design to develop
something smaller yield the Johnson Favaro plans?
Don Bell
Ladera Linda
,.._ :} N ~ 7 i :.; ~ 1;2 /j ~ v / { / 1 v
J -I 4
[---J! ~! J-!
' r~
I •·••
L7
A
0
l/7
"'\/
r
-r--
0
0
i!' '/?
H \/1 ... . ~g r "
I
li
rl, Jl il <f 2 ~ ·') J-·' J5 -a-: N 1. ~ (() :7 I-' + i \}[·,-1 -· j v~ _j -
I
!"' -
• ~~ ~!
!
(0 (} () _::!------tV
~
0
.J \.J
"( ....... ~ ~
_______ , __ ---
"I . ,
.. ::1
--r I ~
I r-.:--1 ' \ ,, I· _·· ... J. ' .. -~
~ • ·t.f ____. t ·. '(
I. --~
, t . . I , 'i • :: • ~.j
' -~--.• ·•I
I · 1•1 ·•·
I -, j "'-"-----i
I ••' '
lr . ..._1 -...
~ r •
1
) .
'-
'LI ' . '''l '-•_ I
I p ~ l i§
-\ ~~
•/! 1/
I
f
l
J 0
t A
'"_, __ J ~'
J
! /.';·
\ l 0 o.i ..: I
·.r -
' •
i.
)I ~
(. v
rd.
-·
I
-~~
\
(\'
j
tJ
\i
./
_)
t:
f! , ....
:1
\1
If'
-
---r ..
___..!.--'"""
V!
/})
i2
c'-J
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 2, 2021 4:27PM
CityCierk
FW: Ladera Linda Item 3 -Planning Commission Appeal
From: James Hevener <jhevener@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 4:02 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Item 3-Planning Commission Appeal
Members of City Council
As you all know, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing consisting of multiple hours of public comments and
deliberations at two separate meetings concerning the CUP for the proposed Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
Project.
The result of that hearing was the unanimous {7-0) approval of the CUP.
While the Council may appeal and conduct a de novo hearing, I hope every City Council Member watches the detailed
comments by each of the Planning Commissioners, who are leading citizens of our City tasked with looking out for the
interests of all of our residents.
Here is the Video Tape.
The Comments are at 1:58:45 -2:29:00
https://rpv.granicus.com/player/clip/3862?view id=S&redirect=true
The fact that the approval was unanimous is of particular note.
While each Commissioner had a slightly different take on the Project, a II of them agreed that ( 1) the current conditions
are unacceptable; and (2) that the Park and Community Center are resources of the entire surrounding Community
and not just the adjacent neighborhood; and (3) traffic along PV Drive is a very serious issue as is parking for the
Preserve, which the City must address, but the Park and Community Center are not a major contributing factor.
In considering whether to appeal, Council should keep the following in mind:
(A) Compromises already have been made. Residents with children have always supported (and still support) a
more robust Community Center with additional programming and amenities. Indeed in the early City-sponsored
survey, there was substantial support for a gymnasium, swimming pool, and an expanded nature center, and
there also has been continued support for a tennis court and additional black-top and perhaps a third paddle
tennis court. While adjacent residents oppose these expansions, if Council considers any potential reduction in
size or scope Council must also consider a potential expansion. To the extent many people support the current
Project it is not because they got everything they wanted and instead only because they believe the plan is a
reasonable compromise.
1 3.
(B) Council Did Not Approve the Operational Hours. The CUP should be modified to include more streamlined
operational conditions consistent with Hesse Park.
In August 2019, when Council approved the Project -Council adopted a motion as follows "to review the hours
of operations for various community sites within the City, for consistency, at a future council meeting, and to
include the review of the proposed hours of operation at the site and Ladera Linda park parking following that
review.
At a minimum the hours should mirror Hesse Park and I have recommended a better approach would
be to replace conditions 42-45 a single hours of use condition like this:
"The Ladera Linda Park Community Center hours of operation for public use shall generally be 8 a.m.
to 5 p.m. with the exception of classes, rentals, meetings and other after-hour uses approved by the
City, with all use and clean-up completed by midnight or as otherwise approved by the City or as
provided in a rental agreement executed by the City."
(C) Project already has been modified to reduce glass walls to 50% and CUP includes specific security measures
such as rolling type shades to further secure key areas.
(D) Issues such as bathroom design can be addressed during final construction drawing process.
Thank you,
Jim Hevener
2
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DATE: MARCH 1, 2021
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through
Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, March 2, 2021 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
1 Email from Christa Nuber (Vista Verde Owners Association)
2 Email from Patrick and Maureen Ford
3 Email from Daniel Cloud
7 Email from Sunshine
Council SBCCOG Board Meeting Highlights
Oral Reports
Re~mitted,
Emily Colborn
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2021\2021 Coversheets\20210302 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Amy Seeraty
Monday, March 1, 2021 9:37AM
CityCierk
Ken Rukavina; Octavia Silva
Subject: FW: Community Concerns about Green Hills Memorial Park Conditional Use Permit, No.
55
Please see the late correspondence below. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you .
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca .gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(31 0) 544-5231
To limit public contact and help prevent the spread of COVID-19, City Hall is temporarily closed to the public,
but services are available by telephone, email, online and limited curbside service. Some employees are working
on rotation and may be working remotely. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For
a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Christa Nuber [mailto:csnuber@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 5:35 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Community Concerns about Green Hills Memorial Park Conditional Use Permit, No . 55
Dear Ms. Seeraty,
RE: ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 55 FOR THE GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL
PARK (Case No. PLCU2021 -0001)
I am writing to you on behalf of the HOA Community of 25 Condo Units known as Vista Verde Owners Association
(WOA), which is directly adjacent to Green Hills Memorial Park. Our address is 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North, Lomita,
CA 90717 . Our WOA community shares a boundary wall with Green Hills Memorial Park at the north-west corner of their
property known as Pacific Garden and Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and Rooftop.
As you may know, there was a previous lawsuit involving some WOA homeowners and Green Hills regarding their
construction of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and Rooftop, and its direct proximity to the WOA property line and
swimming pool, with the mausoleum obstructing any view from the pool. That lawsuit has now been closed and all court
costs have been paid. However, the disruption caused by activities on the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum Rooftop continue to
be a problem . The topography of Green Hills creates an "amphitheater effect" whereby any sounds that occur at Green
Hills are amplified for the neighbors. Those sounds travel even more acutely from the rooftop into the homes of residents
at WOA. Any activities on that rooftop are disruptive, so it is important to make rooftop visitors mindful of this . However,
the volume levels and activities of visitors on the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and Rooftop continue to be too loud, and to
cause disruption to the residents at WOA. The activities there typically involve large groups of people having large
picnics and parties on the rooftop for several hours at a time, drinking alcoholic beverages, pitching beach umbrellas,
parking coolers against the fence, playing loud radios or other amplified music, allowing children to run all around
screaming and playing (over other graves), with dogs barking, etc. --all with complete disregard for the signs posted
nearby that say "please be quiet out of respect for the neighbors." /. 1
Our WOA residents are disrupted by these rooftop activities on a regular basis and have to make phone calls to the
Green Hills Security Office to request their help in managing the noise levels. Clearly, the signs posted on the rooftop
need to be more prominently placed or more signs need to be posted, and probably in Spanish as well as English. Also, it
would be helpful if the Green Hills staff could be more proactive about asking rooftop visitors to be mindful of not
disturbing the neighbors since sounds carry so acutely from the rooftop. Perhaps some printed materials could be
provided to clients at the time they purchase rooftop plots to explain that this location comes with some additional rules?
SUGGESTION: Could Green Hills establish a rule whereby visitors with loved ones buried in rooftop plots can leave
flowers/decorations and spend quiet reflection with their loved one there, but any group parties or picnics must take place
not on the rooftop, but in another designated area for picnics and parties that are further distant from the boundary
walls/neighbors? Is there a designated picnic/party area elsewhere at GH that visitors can go to for their gatherings and
celebrations? That would really solve a lot of problems and seems like a relatively simple solution. If clearly
communicated to visitors, I imagine most people would be understanding of the need for this rule.
As it stands, despite the fact that we have written similar letters to you in the past, there has been no improvement in the
volume levels or disruptive activities on that rooftop. In fact, several new homeowners have recently moved into our
building and are asking, Why there is so much activity on that rooftop and is there something that can be done to reduce
the disruption?
So, on behalf of the WOA community, I am respectfully requesting that you and the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes
work more closely with the Green Hills staff to ensure they take more actionable measures moving forward to be better
neighbors to us, and to all residents who live along their boundary lines. Green Hills really must take a more active role in
coming up with a picnic/party area in the interior/center of their property, and in distributing materials that clearly outline
more stringent rules of respect. They need to ensure their visitors follow tighter guidelines that would be more mindful of
the neighbors who are on the other side of their fence.
PLEASE NOTE: I myself was not part of the lawsuit with Green Hills, as I moved to WOA after that time. I would, thus, be
happy to represent WOA at any future neighborhood meetings where they plan to discuss ways to mitigate disruption to
neighbors on their boundaries. I believe such a committee was discussed in the past, but no one from our WOA
community has yet been invited to attend.
Respectfully submitted,
Christa S. Nuber
HOA Board Secretary
Vista Verde Owners Association (WOA)
csnuber@yahoo.com
(310) 684-1779
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ara Mihranian
Monday, March 1, 2021 9:30AM
Patrick Ford; CC
Jaehee Yoon; CityCierk
RE : Tree House/Party Deck Moratorium
Good morning Patrick and Maureen,
The City is in receipt of your email.
As a friendly reminder, we continue to encourage members of the public who intend to speak at the
Council meeting to participate virtually if able.
I know you have attended past meetings and wanted to remind you of this option and will ask the City
Clerk's office to email you the instructions for your consideration.
Best,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
C ITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www .rpvca.gov
Jl Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation .
From: Patrick Ford <pford9@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 20214:20 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
1 ().
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Tree House/Party Deck Moratorium
We strongly support extending the moratorium on the above topic to allow staff adequate time to research
and prepare code amendment proceedings to amend Title 17 (Zoning) in the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code with respect to the important issues of safety, view impairment, privacy concerns, public peace, and
unregulated construction of accessory structures on extreme slopes.
Thank you for your time and service to our beautiful city.
Sincerely,
Patrick & Maureen Ford
30659 Ganado Dr.
RPV,Ca.90275
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, February 25, 2021 12 :53 PM
Ken Rukavina; CityCierk
Octavia Silva
Re: Ladera Linda Project
Thank you Ken, we will addas late correspondence to make dure CC sees it.
Teri
From: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 202112:50 PM
To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW : Ladera Linda Project
Hi City Clerk,
This was addressed to the CC too, but didn't see CC in the emaii"To:" line so not sure if this made it to them.
Ken
Ken Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
To limit public contact and help prevent the spread of COVID -19, City Hall is temporarily closed to the public,
but services are available by telephone, email, online and limited curbside service. Some employees are working
on rotation and may be working remotely. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed . For
a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Dann Cloud <dcloud@cloudminturn.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 202110:50 AM
To: Planning <Pianning@rpvca.gov>; Lisa Garrett <LisaG@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
To All Planning Commission & City Council Members:
Thank you for Tuesday night's meeting and review of the research the planning commission & city council
have conducted. Since this was my first involvement in this project I appreciated the thorough analysis.
Although I signed up to be a speaker Tuesday night I was not called upon. I assume that was because I had left a
message earlier in the day which was played.
1 3.
One of the take a ways from the meeting was that none of the pro upgrade participants will be directly affected
by this project.
I assume they would not come here on a weekend which is when the major challenges do & will continue to
occur.
Also, as was mentioned in the meeting, the data that is being used is from 2019 and before. Obviously a lot has
changed since then & I personally don't believe we will ever return to the way it used to be. So we need to
make decisions based on current data.
One thought is to postpone the project. This would allow time to see if the traffic & crime statistics will be
lower after things get back to the new normal
Since Ladera Linda residence are a minority our voice is small. But since we are the only ones that will be
adversely affected I feel we should be heard.
As I mentioned in my recorded statement I invite any & all of the planning commission & city council members
to visit the Forrestal I PV Drive South intersection on Saturday or Sunday after 11 AM to personally view what
we are talking about.
I would be willing to meet with any member at the intersection to discuss our concerns.
Thanks,
CJ)ann
Daniel J. Cloud, ChFC, CLU
Chartered Financial Consultant
Registered Investment Advisor (RIA)
DCloud@Cloudminturn.com
Direct: (31 0) 543-1492
Mobile: (31 0) 490-0735
Cloud, Minturn & Associates, LLC (CMA)
Risk Management Advisors
Human Resource Administrators
Registered Investment Advisors (RIA)
Serving A Select Clientele With Personalized Service Since 1986
Telephone (310) 316-3662 Facsimile (310) 755-6080 FAX
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail is privileged and confidential. Any use, copying or dissemination of
any portion of this e-mail by or to anyone other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to sender and delete it from your system immediately.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Saturday, February 27, 2021 1:39 PM
CC; CityCierk
PC; imac
March 2, 2021 City Council Agenda Item 7 Housing Advisory Task Force
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
This Agenda Item is an opportunity for the City Council to "do something" in the direction of using our
local talent.
Following, I have applied Ken Dyda's trick for understanding "legalese". It helps with Staff Reports,
too . My concern is how Staff "memorializes" Council's "directions" and "interprets" the follow-through.
This from the February 2, 2021 draft Minutes:
Councilmember Cruikshank suggested creating a housing committee for assistance in
determining whether ADUs count toward RHNA requirements. Mayor Pro Tern Bradley
advised that a Ad hoc Committee may be a solution with direction from the Planning
Commission instead .
This from tonight's Agenda Report:
Housing Ad Hoc Committee On February 2, 2021, the City Council directed Staff to bring back a
future agenda item to consider establishing a Housing Ad-Hoc Committee. The purpose of the
committee would be to facilitate and make recommendations to help the City zone for housing and
economic development with mixed use or more specifically, provide the City Council "Nith
recommendations pertaining to development standards for mixed use zones, land use balance,
guidelines for evaluation of specific types of rezones, and updates to the RHNA available sites
inventory . Staff is of the opinion that a separate committee from the Planning Commission or a
Planning Commission subcommittee is not warranted at this time, as Staff will be working closely
with the Planning Commission, through the 3 public hearing process, on the review of the proposed
Housing Element update. In addition, the Planning Commission would be considering any General
Plan consistency requirements and certifying any associated environmental revie·N for the proposed
1 7
update. Lastly, a citizen advisory panel or citizen members joining a Planning Commission ad hoc
committee would be Brown Act bodies, requiring notice public meetings, which would slow the
Housing Element update process . ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the
following alternative actions are available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Direct Staff to modify
the scope of the project and renegotiate the services needed, returning with a modified proposal. 2.
Direct Staff to issue a new Request for Proposals. 3. Provide direction to Staff to develop Housing
Ad Hoc Committee.
I have two questions which I hope can be answered, tonight:
1) Why do Citizen Advisory Committees have to be Brown Act bodies? That is what seriously limits
timely and thorough interaction with the public.
2) Where is the compelling argument in support of spending $238,749.48 on an unfunded mandate
as opposed to facilitating citizen research and discussion about how your constituents would prefer to
react to the plethora of Government Agency threats to our local housing development preferences?
Once again, this Agenda Report does not include an analysis of the "downside of doing nothing".
And, it does not present a "holistic solution" to the problem.
I must point out that part of the problem is that these unfunded mandates are creating a whole new
career path for specialty Consultants. The more complicated and onerous at a local level the
mandates become, the more in demand the consultants become. The more the City spends on Staff
Time and Consultants instead of infrastructure maintenance, the less fiscal and physical integrity the
City has.
Alternative 4. Direct Staff to invite the Committee Applicants who did not get selected, to take on the
task of figuring out which parts of the Housing Element in our General Plan actually have to be
updated and open up a dialogue with the public to draft the update so that it considers the impacts on
our long-term infrastructure needs and preferences.
Just to make it very clear, you might want to direct Staff to "memorialize" this in the SMART Goal
format and add the sequential steps into your upcoming finalization of your Council Goals/Council
Strategic Action Plan.
2
I really wish you would do the same thing to take on the task of figuring out which parts of the Trails
Network actually have to be updated and open up a dialogue with the public to draft the update so
that it considers the impacts on our long-term infrastructure needs and preferences. Staff and various
Consultants have been "working on" this task for twenty years and I still have not been able to find
out what Staff has told the Consultant needs to be updated. In the meantime, our Public Works
Department doesn't know to what criteria they are to be maintaining which trails.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the future of our community. Please let us contribute.
Best regards,
SUNSHINE
RPV
310-377-8761
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
LC
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, March 1, 2021 9:02AM
CityCierk
FW: SBCCOG Board mtg highlights to share with your colleagues
2.25.Board Meeting Highlights.docx
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 1, 20219:01 AM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: SBCCOG Board mtg highlights to share with your colleagues
Good morning Teri,
Can you please provide this to the City Council as late correspondence on Council communication
from Councilman Cruikshank.
Thank you,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
C I1YOF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
.il Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
1
C a-1-'t Cov~ c.1 I
Or-.\ ~fo-r't-S
From: Jacki Bacharach <jacki@southbaycities.org >
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 8:33AM
To: Jacki Bacharach <jacki@southbaycities.org >
Cc: Colleen Farrell <colleen@southbaycities .org >
Subject: SBCCOG Board mtg highlights to share with your colleagues
TO: SBCCOG Board members and City Managers:
Attached are highlights from the SBCCOG Board meeting last Thursday for you to use as talking points either orally
report at your Council meeting or to provide as a written report to your colleagues about what we are doing at the
SBCCOG.
I would appreciate knowing if and how you are using them, if they are helpful, and if you are getting any feedback from
your colleagues.
Also, please let me know if you have any questions.
Jacki
Jacki Bacharach, Executive Director
310-293-2612
sa
_.._ = -SOUtH U.Y (mf$
COL • Of CO't'l i "t '' 11
jacki@southbaycities.org
SBCCOG media: www .southbaycities .org
Facebook -Twitter
South Bay Environmental Services Center
www.sbesc.com
Facebook -Twitter -Linked In
2
SBCCOG Board Meeting Highlights
News to Share with Your Colleagues & Constituents
February 25, 2021
PRESENTATIONS:
I. Local Travel Network (L TN) Project Update -The South Bay Cities Council of
Governments (SBCCOG) is in the final stages of a two-year project, funded by Caltrans. Its
goal is to create a network of safe streets for South Bay residents to support the personal
use of slow-speed vehicles for short trips . Slow speed vehicles include neighborhood
electric vehicles (NEVs), bicycles, electric bikes, scooters, wheelchairs, etc., that travel
under 25 mph . The project includes creation of a map of possible routes and destinations for
the network. Research by the SBCCOG found that 70% of South Bay trips are less than
three miles. Slow speed electric vehicles are an efficient way to make such trips, while
producing zero greenhouse gas emissions. The engagement element of the project was
challenging due to COVID-19. However, SBCCOG has produced a story map highlighting
the project, along with a survey. SBCCOG would like cities to link to the story map and
survey at https://arcg .is/PHL9CO .
II . C (Green) Line Extension Project Scoping-The Metro C (Green) Line extension is from
the Redondo Beach Marine Station to the Torrance Regional Transit Center (RTC), which is
under construction in on Crenshaw Blvd. near Mariposa. The anticipated completion is
approximately 2030-2033. Metro is soliciting public comment through March 15, 2021 on
their alternatives analysis. SBCCOG will be sending comments before the deadline.
Both the L TN and CLine presentations can be found at www.southbaycities.org .
PROGRAMS & REPORTS:
Ill. Comment Letter to LA World Airports re: Draft EIR-The SBCCOG approved a
comment letter addressing our concerns which include: 1) prioritizing regionalization of air
traffic to other existing regional airports and supporting the development of facilities in those
areas; 2) evaluating the long-term travel-related behavioral changes accelerated by the
COVID-19 pandemic; 3) more thoroughly evaluating impacts to motorists traveling to LAWA
from the South Bay; 4) eliminating temporary access to Terminal 9 from Sepulveda Blvd.
IV. South Bay Fiber Network -The South Bay Fiber Network (SBFN) has been recently cited
as an innovative project and example that all cities across the state in state hearings and on
panels by Public Utilities Commissioner Martha Guzman-Aceves and 661h District
Assemblymember AI Muratsuchi. American City and County just awarded the project
one of its six 2020 Crown Community Awards for the United States!
V. Service Planning Area (SPA) 8 Update -Dr. Seira Kurian, representative from the LA
County Department of Public Health, highlighted the following:
• 1, 770,505 total doses have been administered in LA County
o 513,586 were second doses which continue to be a priority while the supply
is limited.
• As of 2/19/21, 15.6% of LA County (age 16+) have received one dose
• 6% of LA County (age 16+) is fully vaccinated
Vaccine access disparities continue for racial/ethnic minorities; efforts are being made to
increase access to those communities .
For more information, visit covd 19.1acounty.gov.
VI. FY 21-22 MeasureR and M Multi-Year Sub-Regional Programs Metro Budget Request
The SBCCOG Board approved the FY21-22 MeasureR and M Metro Budget Requests
which recommends Metro Board approval of more than $35 million in new Measure R and M
funding for six existing projects and two new projects.
VII. Legislative Positions of the SBCCOG
Support: AB 14, AB 34, SB4, SB 54, SB 83, SB 15
Oppose: SB 9
VIII. Mid-Year Budget-The SBCCOG approved the mid-year budget. Annual dues for fiscal
year 21-22 will remain the same as last year.
REMINDERS:
IX. 21st Annual General Assembly, March 18, 2021 (Free Virtual Event) -This year's theme
is Intersections: Finding Tomorrow's Solutions for Today's Issues. The event will offer a
virtual exhibit hall, as well as opportunities for networking. Registrants can also win prizes
(including golf for four at Terranea Resort and a $50 gift certificate for Nelson's restaurant)
by earning points prior to and during the event. The General Assembly is designed for
elected officials, city staff, city commissioners, community and business leaders and the
general public.
Register today at https://sbccog.swoogo.com/home . Please share information about the
event on Facebook and Twitter using #sbccogGeneraiAssembly.
X . OPPORTUNITIES TO SERVE:
Metro Service Council -Three seats are available on the Metro Service Council for a
three-year-term. The deadline to express interest is March 25, 2021. The council oversees
the Metro transit services in the South Bay and each member adopts a line to ride once a
month and report on. The council looks for diverse interests and geography in its members.
SCAG Policy Committee -One position is available for one of three SCAG policy
committees (Transportation; Energy & Environment; Community, Economic & Human
Development).
Those interested should in these opportunities, should contact Jacki Bacharach, SBCCOG
Executive Director, at jacki@southbaycities .org .